# What's Will All The Religion Hatred?



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 8, 2011)

I mean if you don't believe in a religion fine, just leave that persons religion alone. What's the point of being a douche and shooting down there belief? What do you have to gain? All your doing is causing negativity in the forums so don't go posting bad things in other threads that have to do with something that has nothing to do with you. I'm a Christian and I don't go around saying your wrong for not believing in what I believe in so why tell me I'm wrong? If your so sure your right about what you believe if you believe in buddha, Jesus, muhammed, the sphaghetti monster it doesn't matter don't tell other people there wrong when nobody knows what happens after death or if life completely ends when you die. So I'm not sure if all you guys are gonna agree with me but I'm calling a truce between all religions and asking for peace and no more negative posts. So shall we commence peace?


----------



## forgetfulpenguin (Aug 8, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So shall we commence peace?


Fuck no this is an internet forum!


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 8, 2011)

im sorry but religion has had its fair share of unchallenged respect over the years and has desrved non of it .
as the evidence mounts up daily against religion , you should prepare yourself for ridicule , disrespect and a shit load of questioning .


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 8, 2011)

^^^ ha I know, everyone is gonna call me dumb and stuff but hopefully some people hear me out and stop hating people based on religion.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 8, 2011)

This douchebag cant even answer the questions I posed to em on his own gay thread!

He claims to be the best debator, yet he waits for someone else to answer then he says the samething, but in idiot terms.





ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> im sorry but religion has had its fair share of unchallenged respect over the years and has desrved non of it .
> as the evidence mounts up daily against religion , you should prepare yourself for ridicule , disrespect and a shit load of questioning .


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 8, 2011)

what evidence? You interpret it the way you want to. 

You still havnt answered why there is religious practice and ceremonial burial evidences with australopethicus africanus ? Dont go and wiki it, lets see how smart you really are pussy! 





ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> im sorry but religion has had its fair share of unchallenged respect over the years and has desrved non of it .
> as the evidence mounts up daily against religion , you should prepare yourself for ridicule , disrespect and a shit load of questioning .


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 8, 2011)

Ive been trying this for some time already bro, the smart ones do understand, the douchebags like sativahi, well as you can see, there isnt much to be said about him.


.



Hepheastus420 said:


> ^^^ ha I know, everyone is gonna call me dumb and stuff but hopefully some people hear me out and stop hating people based on religion.


----------



## kevin (Aug 8, 2011)

you didn't need to start your post with an apology.



ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> im sorry but religion has had its fair share of unchallenged respect over the years and has desrved non of it .
> as the evidence mounts up daily against religion , you should prepare yourself for ridicule , disrespect and a shit load of questioning .


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 8, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> what evidence? You interpret it the way you want to.
> 
> You still havnt answered why there is religious practice and ceremonial burial evidences with australopethicus africanus ? Dont go and wiki it, lets see how smart you really are pussy!


what is it you would like me to acknowledge ? that from the begging of human life, humans have tryed to explain the unexplained with higher beings or gods ? yes of course they have , its an easy option when you dont have the scientific knowledge or know how to prove anything else .


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 8, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> This douchebag cant even answer the questions I posed to em on his own gay thread!
> 
> He claims to be the best debator, yet he waits for someone else to answer then he says the samething, but in idiot terms.



why the name calling ? and hostility ? your very angry .


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 8, 2011)

What a dumbass. I forgot to get the app that tells you the mood of other posters.

I will be right back!


I also dont see why you complain bout anger, if you are the douche bag going on your fantasy rants on your other thred.. You fucking vagina!





ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> why the name calling ? and hostility ? your very angry .


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 8, 2011)

Equally So, Whats the Point of being a Religious Douche. Religion only gives NUT CASES their own excuse to do evil things. I would rather be agnostic talking shyt on religion than be religious Damning all others who do not fallow my god.


Hepheastus420 said:


> I mean if you don't believe in a religion fine, just leave that persons religion alone. What's the point of being a douche and shooting down there belief? What do you have to gain? All your doing is causing negativity in the forums so don't go posting bad things in other threads that have to do with something that has nothing to do with you. I'm a Christian and I don't go around saying your wrong for not believing in what I believe in so why tell me I'm wrong? If your so sure your right about what you believe if you believe in buddha, Jesus, muhammed, the sphaghetti monster it doesn't matter don't tell other people there wrong when nobody knows what happens after death or if life completely ends when you die. So I'm not sure if all you guys are gonna agree with me but I'm calling a truce between all religions and asking for peace and no more negative posts. So shall we commence peace?


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 8, 2011)

yeah lets leave it to my thread then please , i dont mind you getting angry and calling me names in my thread, its a bit wrong to jump in on someone elses thread and be abusive about something in another thread .


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 8, 2011)

who is damning others?





RawBudzski said:


> Equally So, Whats the Point of being a Religious Douche. Religion only gives NUT CASES their own excuse to do evil things. I would rather be agnostic talking shyt on religion than be religious Damning all others who do not fallow my god.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 8, 2011)

Ah, I see. Playing the victim card already..

To start, who was the second poster on here complaining about religion on thread to make peace with you all hatred driven atheists.




ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> yeah lets leave it to my thread then please , i dont mind you getting angry and calling me names in my thread, its a bit wrong to jump in on someone elses thread and be abusive about something in another thread .


----------



## Prefontaine (Aug 8, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I mean if you don't believe in a religion fine, just leave that persons religion alone. What's the point of being a douche and shooting down there belief? What do you have to gain? All your doing is causing negativity in the forums so don't go posting bad things in other threads that have to do with something that has nothing to do with you. I'm a Christian and I don't go around saying your wrong for not believing in what I believe in so why tell me I'm wrong? If your so sure your right about what you believe if you believe in buddha, Jesus, muhammed, the sphaghetti monster it doesn't matter don't tell other people there wrong when nobody knows what happens after death or if life completely ends when you die. So I'm not sure if all you guys are gonna agree with me but I'm calling a truce between all religions and asking for peace and no more negative posts. So shall we commence peace?


Since It was the church in that labeled the natural medicines of europe as evil magic, and forced western medicine to evolve segregated from the knowledge of our ancestors, and it was religion that was the key tool to maintaining authority over the masses (serfs etc..), and many of us really heard that we were going to hell or "I'll pray for you" one to many times, I think there is a little to much animosity towards christianity specifically, and any organized religion for that matter, 

And Budhism isnt necessarily a religion, Its a philosophy that has so many rituals and customs intertwined with it that it gets defined as a religion, however Budhism is the religion of choice for Atheists.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 8, 2011)

The MAJORITY bad shyt that happens on this planet, Besides Natural Disasters.. most of the Horrible shyt is caused by someones beliefs in thinking that Someone elses beliefs are wrong or perverse. WARS, Mass murders, Cults, all that is not needed. 


olylifter420 said:


> who is damning others?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 8, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> Equally So, Whats the Point of being a Religious Douche. Religion only gives NUT CASES their own excuse to do evil things. I would rather be agnostic talking shyt on religion than be religious Damning all others who do not fallow my god.


Can you give some examples of these religions that cause chaos in the world? The biggest religion in the world is christianity and it's wrong for them to kill. I do agree that man causes alot of destruction but it isn't religion that did that just man. also people who damn people to a bad place after life have no right in doing that, they have no idea what's gonna happen after death so it's impossible for them to tell you where your gonna go. Honestly your only looking at the negative sides of religion.


----------



## VILEPLUME (Aug 8, 2011)




----------



## racerboy71 (Aug 8, 2011)

the thing that kills me is the op wants to have a peace between the christians and the non christians, but he goes and starts threads about the warrants of one or the other...
prove my god doesn't exist. ... what's all the relion-hatred.. etc, etc, etc.. it seems like the op needs to sit down and talk to the op about ending his own war with himself.. he / she is the one with the problem and is the only one that keeps starting these pointless threads that he / she knows are simply going to end in a large troll fest as he / she knows that no one is going to agree with him / her on his / her views on god or religion.
stop calling attention to yourself and your god, and guess what?? all of the so called hatred will end there.. keep starting threads asking people to prove your so called god, or asking them about their hatred, and guess what my brother or sister?? you're only going to get more hatred.. how can you not see that you're calling this upon yourself?? i think that you're at least that smart even though you believe in santa claus, err, god that is, but are just eating up this attention that you're getting yourself..


----------



## wiseguy316 (Aug 8, 2011)

All I need is peace in my heart. If I am good with my actions, no one else is worthy to judge me.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 8, 2011)

Heph you wont gain much support with Oly taking your side. Hes not the brightest in his arguments. & you wanna know some of the religions that cause mayhem, lets start with christianity and Olys sworn enemy islam..


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 8, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Can you give some examples of these religions that cause chaos in the world? The biggest religion in the world is christianity and it's wrong for them to kill. I do agree that man causes alot of destruction but it isn't religion that did that just man. also people who damn people to a bad place after life have no right in doing that, they have no idea what's gonna happen after death so it's impossible for them to tell you where your gonna go. Honestly your only looking at the negative sides of religion.


islam- 9/11 and a ton of other shit around the world
christianity- witch trials, inquisition, giving MILLIONS misinformation about sex, spreading misinformation about science and hindering its progress for a longass time, and still does.
judaism- seinfeld

its relatively easy for a leader, political or religious, to twist a religion in a way so that one group hates another group. then it builds and builds until theres a war or genocide. yes, war and genocide do happen for other reasons than religion, but religion is a HUGE motivating force. it is very hard for a religious person to go against their god. if theyre told and truly believe that god sees that other group as evil, they have a tendency to act on it.

people that damn others to 'hell' do it because their religion says they can. they whole heartedly believe that other person is going, so they feel the need to say something and in a way, try to convert them(atheists do it too, its human nature). they know exactly what is going to happen after death. the people that truly believe will go to heaven, and the sinners(everyone else) will go to hell. they know this because their holy book tells them, and it IS the truth.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 8, 2011)

just because christianity says not to kill, doesnt mean they cant emphasize the scripture that tells people it is okay. 

example off the top of my head: lets say in one passage it says god told a guy to kill a lion, as part of a story. it says the lion is evil for whatever reason. in the present, a preacher can make the connection between that lion, and another group that is referred to as lions in some way. they can build on this with other passages, and before you know it, those people hate that other group. then some event happens that sparks the wildfire of violence.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 9, 2011)

racerboy71 said:


> the thing that kills me is the op wants to have a peace between the christians and the non christians, but he goes and starts threads about the warrants of one or the other...
> prove my god doesn't exist. ... what's all the relion-hatred.. etc,
> stop calling attention to yourself and your god, and guess what?? all of the so called hatred will end there.. keep starting threads asking people to prove your so called god, or asking them about their hatred, and guess what my brother or sister?? you're only going to get more hatred.. how can you not see that you're calling this upon yourself?? i think that you're at least that smart even though you believe in santa claus, err, god that is, but are just eating up this attention that you're getting yourself..


Bro I never asked anyone to prove that my god doesn't exist, so I don't know where you got that from. Also my threads are only pointless to people that do not agree with my religion, but to the people that have the same belief as me thy can answer my question because it not pointless to them. And if you find my thread pointless don't post here. And I realized that I'm not gonna worry about the negative answers I attract so let's make peace.


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 9, 2011)

your threads are pointless to people who are from your religion as well trust me.


Hepheastus420 said:


> Bro I never asked anyone to prove that my god doesn't exist, so I don't know where you got that from. Also my threads are only pointless to people that do not agree with my religion, but to the people that have the same belief as me thy can answer my question because it not pointless to them. And if you find my thread pointless don't post here. And I realized that I'm not gonna worry about the negative answers I attract so let's make peace.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 9, 2011)

Where can you find the quote where I said those individuals are sworn enemies?

You like to start shit about things that are not true.

Do you have an issue with me? Are you attarcted to cock? Seems you are!

You got that internet tough guy syndrome going, letting all this get to your head...

Do you think what you say will change what people beliwve in just cause you said it?





RawBudzski said:


> Heph you wont gain much support with Oly taking your side. Hes not the brightest in his arguments. & you wanna know some of the religions that cause mayhem, lets start with christianity and Olys sworn enemy islam..


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 9, 2011)

The inquisition was enforced by the catholic church, not Christianity.





Luger187 said:


> islam- 9/11 and a ton of other shit around the world
> christianity- witch trials, inquisition, giving MILLIONS misinformation about sex, spreading misinformation about science and hindering its progress for a longass time, and still does.
> judaism- seinfeld
> 
> ...


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 9, 2011)

does that really make you feel better about the situation?


olylifter420 said:


> The inquisition was enforced by the catholic church, not Christianity.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 9, 2011)

What makes his thread pointless? Just because you dont agree with it

If you want to talk about pointless, the thread you made "best thread ever" is fucking pointless and is a matter of personal preference, not some grand stoner idea you got while smoking! 





RawBudzski said:


> your threads are pointless to people who are from your religion as well trust me.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 9, 2011)

What does it matter to you? Do you like cock?

You follow me around too much,

In the words of iron mike tyson, " ill fuck you till you love me son!"





RawBudzski said:


> does that really make you feel better about the situation?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 9, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> your threads are pointless to people who are from your religion as well trust me.


Alright bro if this thread is so pointless don't post here, it's that easy. Are you too stupid that you don't know that you don't have to contribute to a thread you believe is pointless?


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 9, 2011)

^^^^ i think his god tells him otherwise


----------



## RawBudzski (Aug 9, 2011)

what, No one "liked" the 1st post so you thought you would double up? let me assist you. * nice edit.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 9, 2011)

no, i double tapped... its become a habit already




RawBudzski said:


> what, No one "liked" the 1st post so you thought you would double up? let me assist you. * nice edit.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 23, 2011)

Hey I'm bumping this thread sothat everyone can agree to let the other threads die so that we can appologize to each other and you know not make fun of each others beliefs. So sorry if I ever called you anything.


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 24, 2011)

dont give in to the trolls bro.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 24, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> dont give in to the trolls bro.


Nah I'm not giving in, I'm just saying that alot of these people are chill and stuff in other sections of RIU and some are just giving insight on there beliefs without arguing so I'm apologizing to them if I contributed to all the arguing. But after all this I still believe in god just like I'm sure atheist still disbelieve god.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 24, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> What does it matter to you? Do you like cock?
> 
> You follow me around too much,
> 
> In the words of iron mike tyson, " ill fuck you till you love me son!"


 
I love IRON MIKE! hahaha!


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 28, 2011)

this pretty much explains it

[video=youtube;P4dSiHqpULk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Aug 28, 2011)

this old annoying douche again? 

[video=youtube;f68VXKMZT1Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68VXKMZT1Q[/video]





Luger187 said:


> this pretty much explains it
> 
> [video=youtube;P4dSiHqpULk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 28, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> this old annoying douche again?
> 
> [video=youtube;f68VXKMZT1Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68VXKMZT1Q[/video]


the OP wants everyone to join hands and get along, for the sole reason of not bashing religion. its not going to happen. i was pointing out the reasons why.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 29, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> the OP wants everyone to join hands and get along, for the sole reason of not bashing religion. its not going to happen. i was pointing out the reasons why.


No bro you have it all wrong. I heard from both sides (believers - non-believers) that the world would be better if we can make an agreement. So to complete that agreement I believe that (most) atheists should stop thinking they are smarter or better than anyone else just because they don't believe in a religion, and that believers should stop damning people to hell and stop holding back science (which apparently they still do). Go ahead and keep bashing us cuz it's actually kinda funny, but when you make enemies on RIU that's when arguing or bashing should stop. IMO.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Aug 29, 2011)

cant we just round up all the religious folk and burn them like witches ? then everyone left can leave the past behind them and get along with eachother ? call it genocide if you like but i prefer the word cleansing lol


----------



## Apathy One x (Aug 29, 2011)

god is not religion, religion is man made, thus flawed. wars, all of them, are fought for greedy reasons. An excuse to please the masses would usualy be needed, religion was and is a very good one. Science can not prove there is a god, but it can not prove there is not one either. The more science looks into the matter the more it looks like there had to have been a master mind behind creation and life. Science discovers more questions than answers each day. In the future I believe that religion as we know it will cease to be and be replaced by spirituality. Energy does not cease to be it just changes form


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 29, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> No bro you have it all wrong. I heard from both sides (believers - non-believers) that the world would be better if we can make an agreement. So to complete that agreement I believe that (most) atheists should stop thinking they are smarter or better than anyone else just because they don't believe in a religion, and that believers should stop damning people to hell and stop holding back science (which apparently they still do). Go ahead and keep bashing us cuz it's actually kinda funny, but when you make enemies on RIU that's when arguing or bashing should stop. IMO.


i will continue to bash religion because it does not deserve my respect. religion will not stop holding back science because thats one of the reasons it exists. if religion didnt get in the way of science, and people actually knew science, then i believe people wouldnt believe in religion. for the most part at least.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 30, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i will continue to bash religion because it does not deserve my respect. religion will not stop holding back science because thats one of the reasons it exists. if religion didnt get in the way of science, and people actually knew science, then i believe people wouldnt believe in religion. for the most part at least.


I am curious (not fighting) can you explain to me how religions hold back science today? Isn't science based on facts so how is a bunch of religious people gonna hold science back?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 30, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I am curious (not fighting) can you explain to me how religions hold back science today? Isn't science based on facts so how is a bunch of religious people gonna hold science back?


That's a great question. 

Stem cells are a perfect example. Religious people believe that life begins at the moment of conception, so when doctors go in and harvest these cells in order to physically grow any organ a candidate might need that their body will not reject because of infection or the wrong blood type or whatever, these religious people feel it's a sin against God. There are enough of these people to get our government to hold back funding for scientific research that could potentially save millions of lives and stop an immeasurable amount of human suffering, but belief in an unprovable, immeasurable, imaginary fucking being is holding us back. Forgive me but that's just insane.

I could sit here and come up with dozens more examples.

Organized religion and the lack of critical thought has always been the greatest barrier to scientific advancements.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 30, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That's a great question.
> 
> Stem cells are a perfect example. Religious people believe that life begins at the moment of conception, so when doctors go in and harvest these cells in order to physically grow any organ a candidate might need that their body will not reject because of infection or the wrong blood type or whatever, these religious people feel it's a sin against God. There are enough of these people to get our government to hold back funding for scientific research that could potentially save millions of lives and stop an immeasurable amount of human suffering, but belief in an unprovable, immeasurable, imaginary fucking being is holding us back. Forgive me but that's just insane.
> 
> ...


Hmm nice example that's messed up and I believe that religious people should keep there beliefs to themselves and not make it other people's business. Not to be a douche but can you give another example (once again just out of curiosity)?


----------



## beardo (Aug 31, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> this pretty much explains it
> 
> [video=youtube;P4dSiHqpULk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk[/video]


This makes me want to smash peoples heads in with a rock


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 31, 2011)

beardo said:


> This makes me want to smash peoples heads in with a rock


Facing the cold, harsh truth can have that effect on people.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 31, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hmm nice example that's messed up and I believe that religious people should keep there beliefs to themselves and not make it other people's business. Not to be a douche but can you give another example (once again just out of curiosity)?


Religions are successfully hindering the advancement of valid scientific theories that contradict dogmatic accounts of human origins. Religions make it OK for people to say "that's reality? Well, I don't agree with that..." when it should be "that's reality? Well.. that makes me a little uncomfortable, but.. can't really argue with that..". Religions provide routes of division among our population. "Divide and conquer". A well known military tactic throughout history, equally as effective against a population ignorant of science. 

Science is our weapon against deceit. Deceit is EVERYWHERE. It's our weapon against enemies we carelessly pass onto our children and the next generations. There is no better way, no systematic way of testing reality, than science.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 31, 2011)

beardo said:


> This makes me want to smash peoples heads in with a rock


 got anything under the hood more substantial than anger?

i would love to hear some sort of rebuttal to his points...

personally its one of my fav youtube vidz


----------



## beardo (Aug 31, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Facing the cold, harsh truth can have that effect on people.


I mean that maybe God wants this kind od blasphemy silenced or that if the man in the video is right that their would be no reason not to smash him and reduce compitition he's trying to say there's no God so then who would know if I smashed him with a rock and took his things?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Aug 31, 2011)

beardo said:


> I mean that maybe God wants this kind od blasphemy silenced or that if the man in the video is right that their would be no reason not to smash him and reduce compitition he's trying to say there's no God so then who would know if I smashed him with a rock and took his things?


 [video=youtube;1jmYDMbx8fc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jmYDMbx8fc&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 31, 2011)

beardo said:


> I mean that maybe God wants this kind od blasphemy silenced or that if the man in the video is right that their would be no reason not to smash him and reduce compitition he's trying to say there's no God so then who would know if I smashed him with a rock and took his things?


How can you not see this ^^^, right here, is why non believers rally so hard against these beliefs. 

Your imaginary friend takes priority over other human beings.

That's disgusting, frankly.


----------



## undertheice (Aug 31, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Your imaginary friend takes priority over other human beings.
> That's disgusting, frankly.


any number of things take priority over other human beings. greed, envy and political differences, to name only a few. that a bunch of folks consider the order of the universe to stand ahead of human life is probably among the least of our worries.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 31, 2011)

beardo said:


> I mean that maybe God wants this kind od blasphemy silenced or that if the man in the video is right that their would be no reason not to smash him and reduce compitition he's trying to say there's no God so then who would know if I smashed him with a rock and took his things?


Ah yes, if god wants this man silenced it makes sense that rather then do it himself directly or through natural means, he would inspire you to do it for him, and the method he would chose is for you to pervert his message of love into an expression of hate. I can see you have thought this through. Interesting you suggest that without the idea of god it is okay to smash the heads of people who believe different from you. I guess if the principal isn't watching it's okay to be a bully. How quickly and with barely the slightest push you abandon Christ's teachings and revert to a high school mentality where violence is the answer.


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 31, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hmm nice example that's messed up and I believe that religious people should keep there beliefs to themselves and not make it other people's business. Not to be a douche but can you give another example (once again just out of curiosity)?


another big thing that i dont like is people that vote in government representatives primarily on which god he/she believes in. a politician can get up on stage and make claims that god is telling us to do this or that, and what we should believe in. they hold prayer events and say a bunch of bullshit about how this is the time jesus will intervene into our societal problems and fix them. then the people rally behind that guy and he ends up winning.
if it was a christian vs. an atheist, theres almost no chance that the atheist will win because the christian has the vast majority of the religious vote. of course it depends on where you live and what position the politician is running for...

and of course these religious politicians get into office and fuck everything scientific up in order to pander to their base. like stem cell research, as padawan pointed out


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 31, 2011)

undertheice said:


> any number of things take priority over other human beings. greed, envy and political differences, to name only a few. that a bunch of folks consider the order of the universe to stand ahead of human life is probably among the least of our worries.


Hey uti, I haven't seen you around in a while, how have you been?

I agree with your point, but each of the examples you listed are at least quantitative. I also think it's wrong for greed, envy or any political differences to take priority over life. 

Again, what you seem to be saying is "well this, this and this do it too, so what's your point?" "yeah, those are wrong too", I don't think you've expressed a counterpoint to that yet though, so what would you counter that with?

Before you say something like "you rally much more against religious beliefs than you do against human greed, envy or political differences, you're being inconsistent", I feel organized religion is the biggest problem amongst each of the other ones and it helps perpetuate the underlying issue in all of them, ignorance.


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 31, 2011)

[youtube]WPAC_cGVnUg&feature[/youtube]


----------



## mccumcumber (Aug 31, 2011)

Here's why people want to stop others from believing in religion.
Take Unk and Fram from the year 40000 BCE: 
Unk says that a God created everything in the world because there's no other explanation. Fram says Unk's claim makes no sense. Unk beats fram to death with a rock.
Now lets go to the polytheistic religions. Greeks, Early-Mid Romans, and all of the Eastern Dynasties used religion as a means to attack others that didn't share their beliefs. They don't believe in so and so, so lets attack!
If you don't think that the Jews caused any wars, you haven't read the Bible.
When Christianity went main stream (probably b/c of a shroom trip Constantine was on) Rome start killing the fuck out of people in the name of religion.
Then there was the Holy Roman Empire in the dark ages, a lot more wars.
Then there were the Crusades.
Then there was Colonization.
Then there was Imperialism.
Then there was Hilter with his antisemitism.
Now we have the Jihad.
When will all this bullshit stop? When religion stops.
Religion started out with good intention, but turned into something horrible. It's pretty undeniable.


----------



## undertheice (Aug 31, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Again, what you seem to be saying is "well this, this and this do it too, so what's your point?" "yeah, those are wrong too", I don't think you've expressed a counterpoint to that yet though, so what would you counter that with?


the point is that where there is bad, there is also good. greed and its cousin envy spur us to achieve greater things. our differences, political and otherwise, force us to face alternatives to what we are comfortable with. religion should be seen in a like manner. since there is no chance we will ever do away with our need for these mythologies, it would seem an attempt at countering and discouraging religion's negative aspects is the only intelligent route. railing against the myth itself is like wrestling a pig in mud or arguing with an idiot.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 31, 2011)

mccumcumber said:


> Here's why people want to stop others from believing in religion.
> Take Unk and Fram from the year 40000 BCE:
> Unk says that a God created everything in the world because there's no other explanation. Fram says Unk's claim makes no sense. Unk beats fram to death with a rock.
> Now lets go to the polytheistic religions. Greeks, Early-Mid Romans, and all of the Eastern Dynasties used religion as a means to attack others that didn't share their beliefs. They don't believe in so and so, so lets attack!
> ...


Those people are sick, what I'm saying is not every religious person is a hitler. Religion did nothing but these sick people went crazy and killed, it's their fault not religions.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 31, 2011)

You guys have good points but you can't group all religious people and say they all hold science back and cause so much violence and negativity. There are good religious people who's goal is to bring as much peace as they can to earth, they may have flaws so don't hold them up to huge standards but they do try their hardest to be kind. It's not like just because there's a atheists pedophile then all atheists should be punished and become religious to stop him from being a pedophile, I know that most atheists are really cool people, so it wouldn't be fair. So see how it wouldn't be fair to end all religion just because some crazy people abused it?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 31, 2011)

undertheice said:


> since there is no chance we will ever do away with our need for these mythologies, it would seem an attempt at countering and discouraging religion's negative aspects is the only intelligent route.


What evidence do you have that would support this claim?

"no chance" seems too absolute of a term to be used in this context. 

"only" also absolute. 

I disagree with this premise and believe that the only stronghold organized religion has had throughout human history is that people haven't been able to fact check it for themselves. With the advent of the internet, things have already drastically changed direction. 

I think we will see the end of organized religion, at least in western civilizations, within the century. 

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." -Lincoln



Hepheastus420 said:


> You guys have good points but you can't group all religious people and say they all hold science back and cause so much violence and negativity. There are good religious people who's goal is to bring as much peace as they can to earth, they may have flaws so don't hold them up to huge standards but they do try their hardest to be kind. It's not like just because there's a atheists pedophile then all atheists should be punished and become religious to stop him from being a pedophile, I know that most atheists are really cool people, so it wouldn't be fair. So see how it wouldn't be fair to end all religion just because some crazy people abused it?


"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Weinberg


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 31, 2011)

The more science explains the universe, the less there is to be explained by God. God somehow managed to write a magical book to help people understand the world without ever mentioning pertinent things like gravity or thermodynamics. How much will science have to explain before there is nothing left for myths to cover? I do not know, but it does seem to be an event that is likely to occur.


----------



## trichome fiend (Aug 31, 2011)

[youtube]GUeK7jaDyG4[/youtube] [youtube]E7Z4ZDnjHSQ&feature[/youtube] [youtube]pP41CLUh7vU&feature[/youtube]


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 31, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Weinberg[/COLOR]


 I may have interpreted this wrong but it sounds to me like he is saying religion makes good people bad. I disagree, if they kill because of there belief then that person was bad all along. If they follow peace then that person must have been good all along. Religion plays no part in how good or evil a person is. Their religion can judge them but they are who they are and if they foolishly follow a path of hatred then they must not have been good from the beginning. I'm not sure if this came out right I'm pretty stoned but yeah that's my opinion (not that it matters).


----------



## Luger187 (Aug 31, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I may have interpreted this wrong but it sounds to me like he is saying religion makes good people bad. I disagree, if they kill because of there belief then that person was bad all along. If they follow peace then that person must have been good all along. Religion plays no part in how good or evil a person is. Their religion can judge them but they are who they are and if they foolishly follow a path of hatred then they must not have been good from the beginning. I'm not sure if this came out right I'm pretty stoned but yeah that's my opinion (not that it matters).


so you are essentially saying if someone was brainwashed by a cult into committing murder, that person was bad to begin with and probably would have committed the offense otherwise?

what about people in cults? humans can easily be brainwashed into committed violent acts if they think god wants them to. there is plenty of violence in the bible that someone could use to twist the words so people believe certain people are evil or whatever. thats what al qaeda does with islam. they twist certain parts of the religion to fit their agenda. it has happened many times throughout history, and still happens today.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 31, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I may have interpreted this wrong but it sounds to me like he is saying religion makes good people bad. I disagree, if they kill because of there belief then that person was bad all along. If they follow peace then that person must have been good all along. Religion plays no part in how good or evil a person is. Their religion can judge them but they are who they are and if they foolishly follow a path of hatred then they must not have been good from the beginning. I'm not sure if this came out right I'm pretty stoned but yeah that's my opinion (not that it matters).


 No, he's saying that bad people will do bad things but good people will not generally do bad things unless they feel somehow excused or righteous, mostly because their god commands them to. You probably know Xians that discriminate against gays and lesbians because it's in the bible, don't you? Those people aren't necessarily bad but they are doing bad things to other people that never did anything to them.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 31, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I may have interpreted this wrong but it sounds to me like he is saying religion makes good people bad.


No, he's saying for good people to do evil things, it requires religion. 



Hepheastus420 said:


> I disagree, if they kill because of there belief then that person was bad all along.


This is a common logical fallacy, *no true Scotsman*. No matter what the religious person does you can always revert back to this as an excuse. 

In scenario 1 you have a group of Christians. They all go to church together every Sunday. In this scenario, all are "true Christians".

In scenario 2, you have the same group of people doing the exact same things except one of them came home early from work and saw his wife sleeping with another man, in a fit of rage he beat the guy to death and landed in prison for second degree murder. To the remaining church goers, there is no way this man could have ever been a "true Christian" because if he was, there is no way that would have ever happened.

Do you see what happened here? 



Hepheastus420 said:


> Religion plays no part in how good or evil a person is.


But it does affect a persons critical thinking ability, which could, and in a lot of cases does, render that persons judgment invalid. Religion is the staircase to the attic of intolerance. Science is an open hallway with open doors on each side inviting you in.


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The more science explains the universe, the less there is to be explained by God. God somehow managed to write a magical book to help people understand the world without ever mentioning pertinent things like gravity or thermodynamics. How much will science have to explain before there is nothing left for myths to cover? I do not know, but it does seem to be an event that is likely to occur.


Science is Evil- Nerds should be stoned.


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Ah yes, if god wants this man silenced it makes sense that rather then do it himself directly or through natural means, he would inspire you to do it for him, and the method he would chose is for you to pervert his message of love into an expression of hate. I can see you have thought this through. Interesting you suggest that without the idea of god it is okay to smash the heads of people who believe different from you. I guess if the principal isn't watching it's okay to be a bully. How quickly and with barely the slightest push you abandon Christ's teachings and revert to a high school mentality where violence is the answer.


The lord works in mesterious ways, sometime he speaks to people like profits and sometimes he creates tests for people_ I'm not saying it's ok to be a bully, i'm saying we should follow the ten commandments do live in respect of God, without God what reason do we have not to eat eachother? Without God there is nothing to stop those with power from praying on those weaker than them.


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 1, 2011)

I think religious peoples problem is that they want to voice their belief on the matter and then when another person voices theirs they get offended. =)


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> so you are essentially saying if someone was brainwashed by a cult into committing murder, that person was bad to begin with and probably would have committed the offense otherwise?
> 
> what about people in cults? humans can easily be brainwashed into committed violent acts if they think god wants them to. there is plenty of violence in the bible that someone could use to twist the words so people believe certain people are evil or whatever. thats what al qaeda does with islam. they twist certain parts of the religion to fit their agenda. it has happened many times throughout history, and still happens today.


Yes, a good person wouldn't join a cult that endorses murder without having a bad intention. And yes people can twist scriptures and use it in their advantage. That is why I suggest if you want to believe in a religion then don't follow organized religion because you cannot trust them. For example I read the bible on my own, followed it because I wanted to, and I dont need some guy from church telling me his opinions when he is not important to my relationship with my religion. I believe most churches are corrupt (I may be wrong though).


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 1, 2011)

I would appreciate a well thought out response from you beardo about this post if you don't mind.



beardo said:


> The lord works in mesterious ways, sometime he speaks to people like profits and sometimes he creates tests for people


How do you know it's God and not your imagination or a voice inside your head speaking to you? Your subconscious mind framing conscious thoughts? And if you don't know for sure it's God, how can you possibly attempt to manifest these thoughts and make them become reality? I'm not trying to sound harsh, but that is the behavior of a mentally unstable person.



beardo said:


> I'm not saying it's ok to be a bully, i'm saying we should follow the ten commandments


A contradicting effort it would seem.




beardo said:


> without God what reason do we have not to eat eachother?


That is INSANE beardo. You don't fuckin' eat people because you believe God exists? 



beardo said:


> Without God there is nothing to stop those with power from praying on those weaker than them.


So apparently those with power don't prey on those weaker than them in our world, because God exists.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> I think religious peoples problem is that they want to voice their belief on the matter and then when another person voices theirs they get offended. =)


(not fighting) nah it's not that it's just that some of the people that bash on religion don't just bash on religion, they move on to the believer and begin to make fun of him/her. If anyone wants to make fun of religion then go ahead but we will take it offensive if you call us religious nutjobs. You know, like let's take religious nutjob, it won't hurt us if you make fun of religion then call us religious because you re just saying you don't agree with us. But when you add the nutjob then it's a whole other thing you have just called me a nutjob for nothing. I'm not saying you do this, BTW.
Sorry if it sounds like a rant.


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I would appreciate a well thought out response from you beardo about this post if you don't mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1- These are all very real and all proof of the existance of God, my subconsious and the voices in my head are all God and the work of God, the very existance of thoughts is the work of the very God you seek to deny and any voice I hear is the voice of God or the voice of those who work against him.
2-God has the right to bully and if we are following his commandments for the good of man kind then enforcing the 10 commandments is the right thing to do. If we do not enforce the law of God then we are stuck with the laws of man and man is sinful.
3-Why are you so quick to judge and what is sane or insane and by whos standard? Without a sole we are but flesh and we eat animal flesh every day if we evolved from animals why should we be any different? There are many hungry people in this world. If God is not watching and judging your deeds and you're hungry why not eat someone smaller or weaker than you? I don't eat people because of God but yes also because they don't sell them pre packaged at the store and you could probably get introuble if you started eating people but I bet they would taste delicious, and honestly without a sole why would it matter?
4-No i'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying God and acceptance of God helps maintain a somewhat humane human socitey


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> (not fighting) nah it's not that it's just that some of the people that bash on religion don't just bash on religion, they move on to the believer and begin to make fun of him/her. If anyone wants to make fun of religion then go ahead but we will take it offensive if you call us religious nutjobs. You know, like let's take religious nutjob, it won't hurt us if you make fun of religion then call us religious because you re just saying you don't agree with us. But when you add the nutjob then it's a whole other thing you have just called me a nutjob for nothing. I'm not saying you do this, BTW.
> Sorry if it sounds like a rant.


How about when religious folks call the 'non-believers' immoral heathens, or the like? Which is just as frequent a tactic as religious nutjobs wackos looneys weirdo psycho (wow I could go on with the synonyms of crazy xD) etc. etc. =)


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> How about when religious folks call the 'non-believers' immoral heathens, or the like? Which is just as frequent a tactic as religious nutjobs wackos looneys weirdo psycho (wow I could go on with the synonyms of crazy xD) etc. etc. =)


 Well I never said either side is right, I'm sorry for not stating the atheists POV. So what I'm getting at is it's ok to make fun of religion or science (not a good thing just acceptable) but it is not ok to make fun of the believer whether the person believes in a god(s) or science or anything else.


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Well I never said either side is right, I'm sorry for not stating the atheists POV. So what I'm getting at is it's ok to make fun of religion or science (not a good thing just acceptable) but it is not ok to make fun of the believer whether the person believes in a god(s) or science or anything else.


Yes. Absolutely. The beauty (or repugnance depending on how you look at it) of the Freedom of Speech. I personally see it as beautiful that all sides can be examined.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> Yes. Absolutely. The beauty (or repugnance depending on how you look at it) of the Freedom of Speech. I personally see it as beautiful that all sides can be examined.


+ rep for you because our convo is a example of how religious people and atheists can still agree and put aside their beliefs to just get along and avoid arguing.


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> + rep for you because our convo is a example of how religious people and atheists can still agree and put aside their beliefs to just get along and avoid arguing.


I'm not an atheist.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> I'm not an atheist.


Hmm oops sorry, ha. Either way I still stick next to the rep because we had a peaceful convo that did not lead to arguing which is what has been happening lately when it comes to religion. May I ask what you believe in?


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Hmm oops sorry, ha. Either way I still stick next to the rep because we had a peaceful convo that did not lead to arguing which is what has been happening lately when it comes to religion. May I ask what you believe in?


It's rather easy when it's a person from one said with a person who doesn't care either way. 
I don't.


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I would appreciate a well thought out response from you beardo about this post if you don't mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





beardo said:


> 1- These are all very real and all proof of the existance of God, my subconsious and the voices in my head are all God and the work of God, the very existance of thoughts is the work of the very God you seek to deny and any voice I hear is the voice of God or the voice of those who work against him.
> 2-God has the right to bully and if we are following his commandments for the good of man kind then enforcing the 10 commandments is the right thing to do. If we do not enforce the law of God then we are stuck with the laws of man and man is sinful.
> 3-Why are you so quick to judge and what is sane or insane and by whos standard? Without a sole we are but flesh and we eat animal flesh every day if we evolved from animals why should we be any different? There are many hungry people in this world. If God is not watching and judging your deeds and you're hungry why not eat someone smaller or weaker than you? I don't eat people because of God but yes also because they don't sell them pre packaged at the store and you could probably get introuble if you started eating people but I bet they would taste delicious, and honestly without a sole why would it matter?
> 4-No i'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying God and acceptance of God helps maintain a somewhat humane human socitey


Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 1, 2011)

This is just a simple observation, I really couldn't care any less how you write/speak as long as I can understand it, but with my experience, the people who tend to be religious also tend to have inferior spelling and grammar capabilities, they tend to believe in things like ghosts, bigfoot, etc. 

So what does this mean? Why am I pointing it out? 

I think how a person speaks (or writes) is a direct reflection of that persons intellect. Those that are critical thinkers spell correctly, they use the right words at the right time. 

Does anyone else agree with this point or at least notice it?

Moving on...



beardo said:


> 1- These are all very real and all proof of the existance of God


Clearly they're not because you can't even answer the question I asked you. If they were truly words directly from God, you would be able to tell me *HOW* you know they're coming from God and not just inside your own head. 

_"The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive." -Sam Harris_



beardo said:


> my subconsious and the voices in my head are all God and the work of God, the very existance of thoughts is the work of the very God you seek to deny and any voice I hear is the voice of God or the voice of those who work against him.


And why would an omniscient being choose to select good ol' beardo to transmit biblical messages again? 

Another very common characteristic with believers.

You would like to think you're that special, but you're just not. You're an adult, it's time to accept that.



beardo said:


> 2-God has the right to bully


I'm afraid you've shown with this post you're an irrational human being. I'm not engaging with you in the future anymore, you simply choose to deny all the evidence all of us have presented against literally everything you've brought to the table. There isn't a single thing that somebody hasn't given you a well thought out, concise explanation for and yet you still think this way.

"God has the right to bully". The answer will NEVER be given, but I'll ask the question anyway.. And why would an omnibenevolent being "bully" anyone? 



beardo said:


> and if we are following his commandments for the good of man kind then enforcing the 10 commandments is the right thing to do.


Hep, beardo is looooong gone, but I do believe there is still a lot of potential in you, use this as an example of those questions you were asking earlier. Look at a believers thought process ^^. According to the believer, whatever God does is right, no matter what it is. He could murder babies, rape women, steal little girls tricycles... it's all right in the eyes of the fanatic because it's their god whose doing it. Yet one of us follows the _father_ by example and we're sinners condemned to a pit of fire for eternity. Look at this situation closely, does that make any sense to you? Do you believe the god you believe in would design such a system? What do you think this says about these beliefs? How do you think a person like beardo could have reached the point he's at now?

Do you see how a person like this could become dangerous to the rest of society? (now magnify that by 50-100 million other Americans and you see what we're facing, it is an epidemic)



beardo said:


> If we do not enforce the law of God then we are stuck with the laws of man and man is sinful.


I might take that into consideration if it wasn't completely inconsistent.



beardo said:


> 3-Why are you so quick to judge and what is sane or insane and by whos standard?


You hear voices inside your head (just like everyone else) but you attribute them to supernatural beings. This is one of the symptoms of mental instability. I've studied psychology, am by no means anywhere near being a professional in the field, but even an amateur with no training could tell you that. I would seriously suggest you speak to someone professionally about the voices you hear. See what they have to say about it.

..but with the attitude you've developed, what's to stop you from going, then coming back home, lighting up and reflecting upon it and saying "that bitch was just trying to stray me from the path of GOD! She's the one whose crazy!! My Bible will protect me!!"?? 



beardo said:


> Without a sole we are but flesh and we eat animal flesh every day


A completely empty statement with absolutely no meaning. Humans are animals, get over it.



beardo said:


> if we evolved from animals why should we be any different?


Because, some of us, have higher cognitive capabilities than other animals. What the hell are you even saying? 

"if animals evolved from other animals why should we be any different?" - so all animals are exactly the same?? 



beardo said:


> There are many hungry people in this world. If God is not watching and judging your deeds and you're hungry why not eat someone smaller or weaker than you?


Because it's fucking wrong to murder someone and eat them! I find it VERY FUCKING UNUSUAL I would need to explain something so simple to a fully grown adult human being.



beardo said:


> I don't eat people because of God but yes also because they don't sell them pre packaged at the store and you could probably get introuble if you started eating people but I bet they would taste delicious, and honestly without a sole why would it matter?


You don't eat people because you believe in God and they don't package human meat in the supermarket?

Did I just find a new sig?!



beardo said:


> 4-No i'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying God and acceptance of God helps maintain a somewhat humane human socitey


I'd like to know how you rationalize that, what with nearly 100% of the world being religious for the entirety of human history, it would appear we're in a state of emergency. The fanatics will say it's because not enough people believe, but how the fuck much more do you need than 100%?!

I'm sorry, but your test of 'more religion ='s more structure and order' has failed miserably. Today's world is proof of that.
 


Hepheastus420 said:


> Well I never said either side is right, I'm sorry for not stating the atheists POV. So what I'm getting at is it's ok to make fun of religion or science (not a good thing just acceptable) but it is not ok to make fun of the believer whether the person believes in a god(s) or science or anything else.


What would you suggest is a more effective way to communicate the idea that organized religion is dangerous to the believer?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yes, a good person wouldn't join a cult that endorses murder without having a bad intention. And yes people can twist scriptures and use it in their advantage. That is why I suggest if you want to believe in a religion then don't follow organized religion because you cannot trust them. For example I read the bible on my own, followed it because I wanted to, and I dont need some guy from church telling me his opinions when he is not important to my relationship with my religion. I believe most churches are corrupt (I may be wrong though).


people dont join cults because they endorse murder. they join because they really believe it is the path to heaven or whatever. they see it as their religion, just like christians see christianity as their religion. usually the leader of the cult will groom them for a few months or maybe even years. after that, the people believe in it so much that they will be a lot more willing to follow the leader, whatever his path may be. they may believe he is god himself, or he has a direct connection to god. the leader then tells them that god wants them to do this or that. they follow orders because if they dont, hell will be waiting for them.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 1, 2011)

Heard of Warren Jeffs? Look that guy up, he's serving a life sentence in NM right now for shit exactly like you're talking about. 

I saw a documentary on him once, the cult mentality is so strong, he was able to get more than 20 people to follow him for so long, he convinced I think it was 5 or 6 of the men to GIVE HIM THEIR WIVES, slept with all of them, had a bunch of kids who grew up in the cult too, then started molesting them (what he's in prison for right now). He made predictions about the end of the world (what the documentary focused on), then when it didn't happen, the believers BELIEVED IT DID! 

This shit is so goddamn sad to me, stuff like this can happen. How people can just abandon the one thing that will keep them the most safe from scams and cons like Jeffs pulled... critical thought.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> This is just a simple observation, I really couldn't care any less how you write/speak as long as I can understand it, but with my experience, the people who tend to be religious also tend to have inferior spelling and grammar capabilities, they tend to believe in things like ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
> 
> So what does this mean? Why am I pointing it out?
> 
> ...



I have proper grammar and punctuation, and I do not believe in bigfoot or anything like that. So once again don't group all religious people together and insist that they are not as intelligent as you, I'm sure there's alot of religious people out there who believe you are inferior to them, so it wouldn't make sense to judge people as a group when there's too many different levels of intelligence to do that.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I have proper grammar and punctuation, and I do not believe in bigfoot or anything like that. So once again don't group all religious people together and insist that they are not as intelligent as you, I'm sure there's alot of religious people out there who believe you are inferior to them, so it wouldn't make sense to judge people as a group when there's too many different levels of intelligence to do that.



Don't take the defensive. I said it was just an observation. I also said "*the people who tend to be religious*"in an attempt to eliminate confusion. I also didn't say they were inferior to me, or that I was better than them. I said they tend to have inferior spelling and grammar. There are plenty of religious people who I *know*are smarter than I am, I know some of these people personally. Being religious doesn't make you stupid, and I've never said it does. 

Take a look at beardo's posts, then take a look at Heis' or MP's, there is a clear difference in levels of intellect. It's not 'elitest' to point this out. It says something about the person behind the keyboard and the way they think. 

I directed a question to you in my last post specifically, what do you think about that?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Heard of Warren Jeffs? Look that guy up, he's serving a life sentence in NM right now for shit exactly like you're talking about.
> 
> I saw a documentary on him once, the cult mentality is so strong, he was able to get more than 20 people to follow him for so long, he convinced I think it was 5 or 6 of the men to GIVE HIM THEIR WIVES, slept with all of them, had a bunch of kids who grew up in the cult too, then started molesting them (what he's in prison for right now). He made predictions about the end of the world (what the documentary focused on), then when it didn't happen, the believers BELIEVED IT DID!
> 
> This shit is so goddamn sad to me, stuff like this can happen. How people can just abandon the one thing that will keep them the most safe from scams and cons like Jeffs pulled... critical thought.


yeah cults can get CRAZY. i think Jeffs is in a coma because he did a hunger strike in prison haha. hes still trying to control the group from inside. im sure its working too. you cant just flip a switch and stop believing. those people are so fucked in the head lol


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Hep, beardo is looooong gone, but I do believe there is still a lot of potential in you, use this as an example of those questions you were asking earlier. Look at a believers thought process ^^. According to the believer, whatever God does is right, no matter what it is. He could murder babies, rape women, steal little girls tricycles... it's all right in the eyes of the fanatic because it's their god whose doing it. Yet one of us follows the _father_ by example and we're sinners condemned to a pit of fire for eternity. Look at this situation closely, does that make any sense to you? Do you believe the god you believe in would design such a system? What do you think this says about these beliefs? How do you think a person like beardo could have reached the point he's at now?
> 
> Do you see how a person like this could become dangerous to the rest of society? (now magnify that by 50-100 million other Americans and you see what we're facing, it is an epidemic)
> 
> ...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Don't take the defensive. I said it was just an observation. I also said "*the people who tend to be religious*"in an attempt to eliminate confusion. I also didn't say they were inferior to me, or that I was better than them. I said they tend to have inferior spelling and grammar. There are plenty of religious people who I *know*are smarter than I am, I know some of these people personally. Being religious doesn't make you stupid, and I've never said it does.
> 
> Take a look at beardo's posts, then take a look at Heis' or MP's, there is a clear difference in levels of intellect. It's not 'elitest' to point this out. It says something about the person behind the keyboard and the way they think.
> 
> I directed a question to you in my last post specifically, what do you think about that?


 Yeah sorry about that I skimmed through You and beardo's posts, so I didn't see it. But I didn't take it offensive I was just stating that nobody can group religious intellect together simply because it would just be to far fetched. So yeah sorry if I came off as a dick.


----------



## Jack Harer (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I mean if you don't believe in a religion fine, just leave that persons religion alone. What's the point of being a douche and shooting down there belief? What do you have to gain? All your doing is causing negativity in the forums so don't go posting bad things in other threads that have to do with something that has nothing to do with you. I'm a Christian and I don't go around saying your wrong for not believing in what I believe in so why tell me I'm wrong? If your so sure your right about what you believe if you believe in buddha, Jesus, muhammed, the sphaghetti monster it doesn't matter don't tell other people there wrong when nobody knows what happens after death or if life completely ends when you die. So I'm not sure if all you guys are gonna agree with me but I'm calling a truce between all religions and asking for peace and no more negative posts. So shall we commence peace?


You pull this one off, I'm sending you to the Middle East on a first class ticket.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I would not follow a god who thinks it's ok to rape, murder, steal little girls tricycles. The god I believe in (I'm a Christian) gives you free will to agree with him or not, so with that being said if he was evil I would probably sadly hate him because he would be the picture of evil, now if he was good (which he is) he would teach things of peace and love, which is the reason I follow him.



What about the flood?

What about Sodom and Gomorrah? 

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

Or God's test to Abraham?

God's test to Job?

What about the entirety of the Old Testament?

Do you think God was right in these instances?

How could an omniscient being be wrong about anything? 

See what I'm getting at..?
 


Hepheastus420 said:


> I agree that god can do as he wishes but i have the free will to believe he is wrong.


How could God be wrong?


----------



## Justin00 (Sep 1, 2011)

its sad to watch ppl hate other ppl for simply believing such, dare I say, irrelevant stuff. it really makes no since why you would want to ridicule someone else for believing things that happened over 2000 years ago happened differently than you would like to believe it did. are you scared you are wrong? are you just simply a bigot who hates anyone unlike themselves? or are you just trolling a pot forum even tho you don't smoke yourself, IDK but since i started smoking i started seeing the world in a much more passive live and let live way that you obviously have not discovered yet, just a heads up when you do it is an enlightening experience.

I'm baptist...... now that i said that do you think of me differently?

now ask yourself what that says about you... i'm not forcing my beliefs on you im not even telling you what they are im just telling you a word that associates with what i believe happened many 1000's of years ago..... and its causing you these kinds of emotions?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What about the flood?
> 
> What about Sodom and Gomorrah?
> 
> ...


Yeah I get what your saying and honestly I don't know. I don't agree with him and with my morals I would say he is wrong. But his morals may be different so I guess he is right but it doesn't mean I'm gonna go do all those things he has done. He may have had a plan and that is why he did that. But don't let your opinion of me turn to that of your opinion towards beardo (I'm not saying anything bad about you beardo) and begin thinking I am crazed, I am just a human and have no idea if god is right or wrong. But I will have faith in him and his actions because he promises love and peace, and does not command us to sin but demands the opposite. Sorry if my answer did not satisfy your question but your question actually stumped me, ha.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 1, 2011)

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I'd like to address a few things..



Justin00 said:


> its sad to watch ppl hate other ppl for simply believing such, dare I say, irrelevant stuff.


I don't hate anyone for the things they believe, but it seems no matter how many times I say that, it gets brushed under the rug. You guys want to think whatever you want to think. If you think I hate you for the beliefs you hold, you're mistaken, I'm sorry, but that's all there is to it. 

I also can't really understand why you would think religion is irrelevant to our lives. Even someone like me, who has no religion, is influenced by everybody else's on a daily basis. Our society is shaped by religion and it's in every aspect of it, from the colors on our flags to the foods we eat to the clothes we wear. 



Justin00 said:


> it really makes no since why you would want to ridicule someone else for believing things that happened over 2000 years ago happened differently than you would like to believe it did.


What is a more effective way to communicate the idea that organized religion is dangerous to the believer? 

If asking questions about your belief lead you to feel ridiculed, that's nobodies fault but your own. As I've said before, I'm not responsible for believers level of comfort. If anything I say could shake a believers faith and make them feel like they're being attacked, how strong was that persons faith to begin with? How true could these beliefs possibly be if simply questioning them threaten their validity? 




Justin00 said:


> IDK but since i started smoking i started seeing the world in a much more passive live and let live way that you obviously have not discovered yet, just a heads up when you do it is an enlightening experience.


Religion has never had the mentality of "live and let live", ever. You're fooling yourself.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 1, 2011)

God created the universe, galaxy upon galaxy, just so he could have a special relationship with one species of primate on one planet in one solar system. That relationship is qualified with a test, which is; can you believe in me based on nothing but the poorest of evidence. If you can't, he sets you on fire indefinitely. If you can, then he collects money and gives you a strict set of rules to follow, rules which he breaks himself daily.


----------



## undertheice (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I disagree with this premise and believe that the only stronghold organized religion has had throughout human history is that people haven't been able to fact check it for themselves. With the advent of the internet, things have already drastically changed direction.
> 
> I think we will see the end of organized religion, at least in western civilizations, within the century.


a century? i really do think you're deluding yourself. centuries from now there will be people clinging to their mythologies. you seem so convinced that logic can sway the mind of man, ignoring the irrational aspects of the species. things like our notions of romantic love, filial devotion and altruism are all linked to our illogical, emotional selves. there will never be enough "facts" to convince us that everything we "feel" is wrong. in accepting the fallibility of our perceptions, we admit that even our "facts" may be incorrect and therein lies the final loophole for even the most judicious of us.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 1, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I would not follow a god who thinks it's ok to rape, murder, steal little girls tricycles. The god I believe in (I'm a Christian) gives you free will to agree with him or not, so with that being said if he was evil I would probably sadly hate him because he would be the picture of evil, now if he was good (which he is) he would teach things of peace and love, which is the reason I follow him.
> 
> But I must also say that just because beardo believes god can do whatever he wants does not mean beardo agrees with god it just means he believes god has the power to do as he wishes. I agree that god can do as he wishes but i have the free will to believe he is wrong. But I can see if those 50-100 million Americans believed that because god can do it they should do it (murder, rape, thievery) then yes it would be an epidemic.


i saw this yesterday. it has to do with what youre talkin about, so ill post it here
[video=youtube;zXO26pObTZA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA&feature=feedf[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 1, 2011)

undertheice said:


> centuries from now there will be people clinging to their mythologies.


I agree, but I don't think it will be anything like it is today. Not on a global level. If it is, I don't think there will be a "centuries from now" to come.



undertheice said:


> you seem so convinced that logic can sway the mind of man, ignoring the irrational aspects of the species. things like our notions of romantic love, filial devotion and altruism are all linked to our illogical, emotional selves.


I'm not sure what you're getting at..

Why can't we have those in a religionless world? 



undertheice said:


> there will never be enough "facts" to convince us that everything we "feel" is wrong.


The facts ensure our feelings are right and explain why they're right. 



undertheice said:


> in accepting the fallibility of our perceptions, we admit that even our "facts" may be incorrect and therein lies the final loophole for even the most judicious of us.


Our perceptions are fallible, but the scientific method isn't when applied properly. Subjective opinions are meaningless, objective facts can be quantified, regardless of our perceptions of them.


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Don't take the defensive. I said it was just an observation. I also said "*the people who tend to be religious*"in an attempt to eliminate confusion. I also didn't say they were inferior to me, or that I was better than them. I said they tend to have inferior spelling and grammar. There are plenty of religious people who I *know*are smarter than I am, I know some of these people personally. Being religious doesn't make you stupid, and I've never said it does.
> 
> Take a look at beardo's posts, then take a look at Heis' or MP's, there is a clear difference in levels of intellect. It's not 'elitest' to point this out. It says something about the person behind the keyboard and the way they think.
> 
> I directed a question to you in my last post specifically, what do you think about that?


Spelling is not the only measure of intellegence or worth. Athiests and false religious hippocrites are dangerous- Enjoy the hell of your own creation elitist NWO scum


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Spelling is not the only measure of intellegence or worth. Athiests and false religious hippocrites are dangerous- Enjoy the hell of your own creation elitist NWO scum


I think it's been established that your intellectual capacity is evidenced by far more than simple grammar and spelling errors. Pretty much any term or sentence you get right would be an example of a hideous and deep seated aversion or ineptitude toward intellectual thought. The stuff you spell wrong just offers a distraction in the case of aversion, and confirmation in the case of ineptitude.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 1, 2011)

is wiki the new .edu?





Padawanbater2 said:


> What about the flood?
> 
> What about Sodom and Gomorrah?
> 
> ...


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I think it's been established that your intellectual capacity is evidenced by far more than simple grammar and spelling errors. Pretty much any term or sentence you get right would be an example of a hideous and deep seated aversion or ineptitude toward intellectual thought. The stuff you spell wrong just offers a distraction in the case of aversion, and confirmation in the case of ineptitude.


Nerds are evil and should be delt with accordingly- Science is really not progress but a dangerous burdon- Igonerance is bliss-


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Nerds are evil and should be delt with accordingly- Science is really not progress but a dangerous burdon- Igonerance is bliss-


Ah yes, I forgot the alternate explanation; intentional grief. Good catch.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 1, 2011)

i side with beardo here. i dont care if you all call me whatever, but he does make a point. What makes you guys smarter or better then me or beardo just cause we type different then you? just cause we dont pontificate so much like others, does that mean we are stupid?




beardo said:


> Nerds are evil and should be delt with accordingly- Science is really not progress but a dangerous burdon- Igonerance is bliss-


----------



## beardo (Sep 1, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i side with beardo here. i dont care if you all call me whatever, but he does make a point. What makes you guys smarter or better then me or beardo just cause we type different then you? just cause we dont pontificate so much like others, does that mean we are stupid?


Maybe were a higher step on your theory of evolutionary - maybe God has gifted us and we have evolved to use a better form of language.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 1, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i side with beardo here. i dont care if you all call me whatever, but he does make a point. What makes you guys smarter or better then me or beardo just cause we type different then you? just cause we dont pontificate so much like others, does that mean we are stupid?





beardo said:


> Maybe were a higher step on your theory of evolutionary - maybe God has gifted us and we have evolved to use a better form of language.


.........


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Maybe were a higher step on your theory of evolutionary - maybe God has gifted us and we have evolved to use a better form of language.


So inability to use proper grammar is a step up? I wish I could be as self-deluded as you appear to be, it must really be blissful.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 1, 2011)

you should try it sometime, it soothes the soul...





mindphuk said:


> So inability to use proper grammar is a step up? I wish I could be as self-deluded as you appear to be, it must really be blissful.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 1, 2011)

why is this shocking?





Luger187 said:


> .........


----------



## undertheice (Sep 3, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Why can't we have those in a religionless world?


 that's a little like asking why we can't have a flower without all that annoying green foliage getting in the way. it all comes from the same place. while there are chemical and sociological causes for these things, that they manifest themselves in the way they do is as irrational as the god myth itself. 



> Our perceptions are fallible, but the scientific method isn't when applied properly.


i can appreciate your devotion to the rigors of science, but your fanaticism on the matter is a naive conceit. our observation effects that which we observe and our interpretation of the "facts" revealed places human bias into the equation. the scientific method is a human creation and as imperfect as its creators.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> that's a little like asking why we can't have a flower without all that annoying green foliage getting in the way. it all comes from the same place. while there are chemical and sociological causes for these things, that they manifest themselves in the way they do is as irrational as the god myth itself.


So what? I asked you why we couldn't have love, filial devotion or altruism in a religionless world. You seem to be the one making that claim. What do you have to support that? 

Furthermore, I'm not arguing against irrationality in this context, I'm arguing against blind devotion, the consequences of which are astronomical. 

I couldn't care less what people do, irrational or not, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in a way which they don't approve of. Would I like people to think and educate themselves? Of course, but people are free to do what they want, and expecting everyone to do it is unrealistic.



undertheice said:


> i can appreciate your devotion to the rigors of science, but your fanaticism on the matter is a naive conceit. our observation effects that which we observe and our interpretation of the "facts" revealed places human bias into the equation. the scientific method is a human creation and as imperfect as its creators.


The scientific method eliminates human bias, which is one of the major reasons it was designed the way it was. But instead of saying "it's flawed!" and that's that, tell me how it's flawed, give me an example in which the scientific method was applied properly yet human bias or other human factors contributed to incorrect results.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2011)

Isn't it clear that as science provides answers and context, we do see cultures moving away from theological myths? They are still abundant and pervasive, but you don't often see people bury alive a newborn in the foundation of a building to protect it from harm anymore. If you want to argue that the idea of god will still exist then I buy that, but religion as a path to god I believe will eventually move away from mythology and dogma. As science explains more and more, dogma is needed less and less. Even when science does explain things people tend to append god to the explanation, but the idea that god exists behind quantum physics or authored the big bang is much different than the idea that god will burn you forever if you don't follow certain rules.


----------



## undertheice (Sep 3, 2011)

pad, you're just getting silly now. your own "blind devotion" to the infallibility of the scientific method seems to have reached its fever pitch. you want "proof" of science's fallibility? just what proof do you desire? scientific proof? can't you see the bizarre nature of your request? look to our present infatuation with agw (or whatever they're calling it these days) for an example of the flaws in our "science". the truth may very well be staring us in the face, but it is our interpretations of the evidence that is the flaw. repeatability demands interpretation and consensus can only give us the bias of the majority. it isn't that the method fails to give us facts, but how we choose to see these facts and how we act on them that is the fallibility in the system. as hard as you may try, you simply can't divorce the human element from the method which he created.

do you really think we can simply excise one set of feelings from all of humanity? religion exists within the consciousness of man and it plays on his emotions, just as our notions of love do. we have faith in these things, we experience them along with millions of other people, despite there being no basis for their existence.


----------



## undertheice (Sep 3, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> .....the idea that god exists behind quantum physics or authored the big bang is much different than the idea that god will burn you forever if you don't follow certain rules.


is it? the punishment for attempting to thwart the laws of nature are often cataclysmic and seeing the hand of god behind such punishment is no different than believing that some deity consigns us to the fires of hell for transgressing its other rules. it is merely redefining the _agency_ of the god myth's design.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> you want "proof" of science's fallibility? just what proof do you desire? scientific proof?


No, I want you to give me an example of how the scientific method, not human interpretation of it (something completely different), is flawed. You made that claim, what do you have to support it? 



undertheice said:


> can't you see the bizarre nature of your request? look to our present infatuation with agw (or whatever they're calling it these days) for an example of the flaws in our "science". the truth may very well be staring us in the face, but it is our interpretations of the evidence that is the flaw.


How is the science behind agw flawed? The *science*, not the *interpretation of the science*. You seem to be arguing against a point I didn't make. It seems redundant to tell an atheist the truth is out there, people just don't see it, doesn't it? 



undertheice said:


> repeatability demands interpretation and consensus can only give us the bias of the majority. it isn't that the method fails to give us facts, but how we choose to see these facts and how we act on them that is the fallibility in the system.


What we decide to do with the results the scientific method provides us with has no bearing on the validity and effectiveness of the method itself. You are talking about two completely different things.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2011)

Observing the laws of nature and their consequences is not the same as expecting a deity to hear your prayers and take interest in your personal life. If you are stipulating that the person sees it as punishment for breaking rules then I suppose the conclusion would have to be that the person simply changed the agent, but even so we are left with a significant reduction in dogma and mythology. Ideally the person would be aware of the science behind assigning intentional agents to observed patterns, and take that into account. I don't see anything that would prevent this outlook aside from unawareness or delusion. Awareness is what Pad is trying to promote. If your point is that delusion will never be totally eradicated, I don't see how anyone could argue against that, but why should that stifle our passion for spreading understanding? What prevents us from attaining concepts like altruism in the absence of that delusion?


----------



## bud nugbong (Sep 3, 2011)

i died for a little while, and no theres no god. just goes black. live your life for what it is, because its all youll get.


----------



## undertheice (Sep 3, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The *science*, not the *interpretation of the science*.


i don't know how i can make it any plainer, you're beginning to sound like duke over in the politics forum. you can't simply divorce the method from what that method is used for and those that use it. well, maybe you can, but no reasonable person could. it's like saying that sunlight is pure, clean energy that is available freely to everyone, so solar power is free and completely nonpolluting. it ignores the cost and mess made by turning that sunlight into useable energy.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> i don't know how i can make it any plainer, you're beginning to sound like duke over in the politics forum. you can't simply divorce the method from what that method is used for and those that use it. well, maybe you can, but no reasonable person could. it's like saying that sunlight is pure, clean energy that is available freely to everyone, so solar power is free and completely nonpolluting. it ignores the cost and mess made by turning that sunlight into useable energy.


Howbout you answer the questions as asked and quit giving obscure analogies that don't apply to what we're talking about? 

You said the METHOD was flawed. You seem to think that the way someone observes or interprets the results of the method is what makes the objective results flawed. I told you it doesn't matter what you or I believe or accept, the objective results are what are true, this is the strongest aspect of the scientific method. 

You do divorce the relationship between accurate results and the fallibility of human reasoning because the method demands it. You cannot apply the scientific method properly if you don't, therefore, you cannot have accurate science. Even the ancients knew that.


----------



## undertheice (Sep 3, 2011)

you really are hopeless, aren't you pad. how about this? in a perfect world, where humans are completely uninvolved in the process, your precious scientific method is infallible to a point. it can describe the known universe in all its glory and all mistakes will eventually be rectified. now i'm sure you know of a place just like that, don't you. the problem is that the entire point of the scientific method is to explain the universe to humans. so that perfect place seems rather pointless, now doesn't it.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Before people started looking further into science didn't they pretty much know nothing? So why cross out the chances there is a god when we really don't know? 

Also I agree with undertheice (no offense pad) about how you can't just erase religion from humans, Even if you could it would not be fair, because it is like taking out an emotion from the human mind. Would you want love to be erased? Love doesn't really help science, we may find temporary happiness but come on it's not gonna find a cure for anything. So if you apply the same logic to religion you would see that religious people find comfort in religion much like other people find comfort in love but they are both equal when it comes to how it helps science. any opinions on this?


----------



## ganja father (Sep 3, 2011)

ur ok u shld not diss religion


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 3, 2011)

Wut thay shld doo iz diss syince.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Also I agree with undertheice (no offense pad) about how you can't just erase religion from humans,


yes you can with a plain and simple robust education.
it wont have 100% success first generation but you believe me one or two kids worth down the line you'll start getting proper results.

education education education


----------



## Brazko (Sep 3, 2011)

undertheice said:


> you really are hopeless, aren't you pad. how about this? in a perfect world, where humans are completely uninvolved in the process, your precious scientific method is infallible to a point. it can describe the known universe in all its glory and all mistakes will eventually be rectified. now i'm sure you know of a place just like that, don't you. the problem is that the entire point of the scientific method is to explain the universe to humans. so that perfect place seems rather pointless, now doesn't it.


There is a place where the "Scientific Method" is infallible and even non-existent. It's called the Universe. It confirms and analyzes itself without approach to a methodology. 

It's a lost cause, I tried explaining this to Pad before and he was just as irrational then as now. He seems to think that the Scientific Method is some outside existing entity that controls and conveys Objective information unobscured by the process to the observer. Maybe if some of his trusted mentors would point out the fallacy of this held conception, it may filter through the system. 


http://www.scientificmethod.com/bklet/i_13.htm
*How do Scientists Use the Scientific Method - Some of the Procedural Principles and Theories*

*Experimentation* - Testing and experimentation, whether on a blackboard or computer, or in the lab, are usually essential activities in the use of The Scientific Method. Government standards must be observed in experiments involving people, animals, and the environment.
*Replicable* - Results must be reproducible, communicable, and communicated.
*A Skeptical Attitude* - A Skeptical Attitude toward authoritative statements is required in seeking the truth. Data used in your thinking must be _"true"_ insofar as it is possible to determine _"truth."_ It may be useful to determine key terminology. 
*Values and Ethics *- As much as humanly possible, a researcher should strive to be free of prejudice and bias that often creep into human judgment and action. They must give due credit to his team or collaborators. Ethical conduct is expected.
*Infallibility* - No claims should be made that _"The Scientific Method"_ produces infallible solutions. State rather: "On the evidence available today, the balance of probability favors the view that ..." 
*Gather All Evidence* - If bias or inadequate effort causes you to ignore or fail to find contrary evidence, you will not arrive at the _"truth."_
*Mathematics* - Qualitative and quantitative methods of mathematics should be used whenever possible. 
*Society* - There is a growing interest in the concept that science is a social activity. 
*All Stages of The Scientific Method* - Each has various procedural principles and theories peculiar to them. See Steps or Stages 1 to 11.

I know this still doesn't answer the question because its Not the Solutions that are produced by "The Scientific Method" that aren't susceptible to fallacy. Its the omnicompetent externalized coexisting "Scientific Method" that bestows us with information tainted by our susceptible minds that is infallible..


----------



## Brazko (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> yes you can with a plain and simple robust education.
> it wont have 100% success first generation but you believe me one or two kids worth down the line you'll start getting proper results.
> 
> education education education


I agree that education may erase religion to a degree, but I think the innate human component to the concept of God/Higher Being, even with the inclusion of self existing in a Higher Dimension or Form is what I feel Ice is laying reference to.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I agree that education may erase religion to a degree, but I think the innate human component to the concept of God/Higher Being, even with the inclusion of self existing in a Higher Dimension or Form is what I feel Ice is laying reference to.


 imo that is largely a relic from a society that is mostly grwn up with eternal damnation hiding under their bed (sorry a benevolent father loving them from above)

and what i meant by "robust" was leaving school with (much better than standard) tools for spotting the liars and charlatans that will surely try to turn them threw their adult years

get those 2 fixed and i'd say less than 200 years till a mostly sane globe


----------



## Brazko (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> imo that is largely a relic from a society that is mostly grwn up with eternal damnation hiding under their bed (sorry a benevolent father loving them from above)


I'm not sure of what you mean by relic from a society, other than a modern mainstreamed predominantly shared concept of Christainity/Islam. Outside of that I'm clueless to your meaning 




ginjawarrior said:


> and what i meant by "robust" was leaving school with (much better than standard) tools for spotting the liars and charlatans that will surely try to turn them threw their adult years
> 
> get those 2 fixed and i'd say less than 200 years till a mostly sane globe


I agree that could be possible as well... How likely to happen? idk, but possible...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> yes you can with a plain and simple robust education.
> it wont have 100% success first generation but you believe me one or two kids worth down the line you'll start getting proper results.
> 
> education education education


Did you read the rest of that post? I was saying that if you could erase religion you shouldn't because it's just as important of an emotion as love. But yeah education can take away love too right?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I'm not sure of what you mean by relic from a society, other than a modern mainstreamed predominately shared concept of Christainity/Islam. Outside of that I'm clueless to your meaning


 a society that desires atheism at adulthood buthas to unlearn their childhood fairytales.
the more ingrained they are in reality the harder the transition. that causes people to fall at wayside and get sucked in by stuff like "the secret"


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Did you read the rest of that post? I was saying that if you could erase religion you shouldn't because it's just as important of an emotion as love. But yeah education can take away love too right?


 are you seriously trying to say

a. only religous people love?
b. educated people can't love?


----------



## Brazko (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> a society that desires atheism at adulthood buthas to unlearn their childhood fairytales.
> the more ingrained they are in reality the harder the transition. that causes people to fall at wayside and get sucked in by stuff like "the secret"


What about the childhood raised Atheist that starts to believe in Fairytales in their adulthood? 

Why do they fall at the wayside?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Brazko said:


> What about the childhood raised Atheist that starts to believe in Fairytales in their adulthood?
> 
> Why do they fall at the wayside?


peer pressure from the group hysteria?
inadequate tools for discerning bullshit?

the numbers going the other way are not so substantial when you look at the numbers realizing their gods a lie and strt wanting proof.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Before people started looking further into science didn't they pretty much know nothing? So why cross out the chances there is a god when we really don't know?


Uncertainty is actually the position we are promoting at this point. We do not seek to cross out god, just the certainty in god which leads to religion. 



> Also I agree with undertheice (no offense pad) about how you can't just erase religion from humans, Even if you could it would not be fair, because it is like taking out an emotion from the human mind. Would you want love to be erased?


This is a utilitarian argument appealing to final consequences. The problem is that it does nothing to justify mainstream religion of today. If we are simply using religion to develop love and social coherence, we can spend 5 minutes and come up with a religion far more useful than any of today, but you would know this religion to be fake. Following your logic, we would have to adhere to or tolerate this religion even though we know it false, because of the ultimate good it brings.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> are you seriously trying to say
> 
> a. only religous people love?
> b. educated people can't love?


Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said only religious people love nor did I ever say educated people can't love. 
Now if you can actually pay attention to what I'm saying this time you would understand that I'm saying it's not fair to erase religion just because you don't believe in it. What I was saying is that having a religion can bring comfort to some people, so why take that comfort away?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said only religious people love nor did I ever say educated people can't love.
> Now if you can actually pay attention to what I'm saying this time you would understand that I'm saying it's not fair to erase religion just because you don't believe in it. What I was saying is that having a religion can bring comfort to some people, so why take that comfort away?


i want people educated to an extent where they can stand tall on their own

the loss of their comfort blanket is a side effect (albeit a highly desirable one)


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Uncertainty is actually the position we are promoting at this point. We do not seek to cross out god, just the certainty in god which leads to religion.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a utilitarian argument appealing to final consequences. The problem is that it does nothing to justify mainstream religion of today. If we are simply using religion to develop love and social coherence, we can spend 5 minutes and come up with a religion far more useful than any of today, but you would know this religion to be fake. Following your logic, we would have to adhere to this religion even though we know it false, because of the ultimate good it brings.


 I am not trying to justify mainstream religion, I have stated several times that I don't follow mainstream religion and that I just follow the good morals and teachings from the bible. I call myself a Christian because I follow Christ not because I give my money to some guy that preaches and tries to damn people to hell (which I don't). Please read my last post about the comfort to explain what I'm saying. And yes I suppose you could create a new religion that would fit your beliefs and I would not have a problem with that, because if I did have a problem with that I would be a hypocrite due to all the positive things I have said about following religion for the good morals they teach.

Sorry if I didn't understand your post I have like 3 different interpretations of what you mean in my head, ha.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> i want people educated to an extent where they can stand tall on their own
> 
> the loss of their comfort blanket is a side effect (albeit a highly desirable one)


Who's to say religion doesn't educate people in it's self?
And you do not need to get rid of religion for people to stand on their own. To stand on your own is to follow what you believe is right. Now if someone truly believes in a religion because of it's teachings then they are following their own beliefs and standing up for what they believe. And please understand that I don't agree with people blindly following a religion out of fear of a negative after life, which sadly happens alot with today's mainstream religions.


----------



## sso (Sep 3, 2011)

..i dont get how a higher being would require or even want, worship and ritual.

its a bit like a monty python sketch.. watching people go ramalamadingdong in front of a statue with a really serious face.

"oh great and wonderful spirit, please make sure i get that bigscreen tv"

..

actually the idea of god, makes little sense, (and ive met "god" in dreams lol)

some person created all this? 

who created god? if god always existed, then cant everything just always have existed?

if god sprung out of nonexistence like the cow audhumla in the nordic religions (first came a really evil giant that was killed and turned into the universe)

isnt the void, the great nothing, really "god"? but its nothing?

so how can it be anything?

energy, cant be destroyed? yeah? so how can it be created? shouldnt it have always existed? 

then why the need for a creator or god?

looks to me, that life (we and everything living) 

Is the Creator. and it looks like it always existed, or its foundations at least.


----------



## sso (Sep 3, 2011)

lol double post.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2011)

Think about the many factual claims the bible makes that conflict with scientific knowledge. The virgin birth is a claim of biology. Creation of the universe is a claim of cosmology. Parting the red sea is a claim of physics. Is this really a responsible way to educate? You may think that these are trivial claims not meant to be taken literally, and maybe they are. What then does religion really educate us about? Family, morality, community, love of others.... all things we can attain without the need for factually erroneous baggage.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> peer pressure from the group hysteria?
> inadequate tools for discerning bullshit?


lol, really!? Peer pressure from the acclaimed insane drives the sane able bodies to insanity as well!? 

Could you give me some examples of what adequate tools they would need, since we can assume their Atheist parents failed in providing? 




ginjawarrior said:


> the numbers going the other way are not so substantial when you look at the numbers realizing their gods a lie and strt wanting proof.


Well, they aren't substantial at all.. The only numbers I do find substantial is that believers of one religion cross over to another religious belief. And 95% of the world population has some kind of belief in a god or life force.. 

Another personal observation I have noticed, and I emphasize personal, is that most Atheist Fundamentalist are spun from a Religious Fundamentalist background (JW and Catholicism) as an example. Switching from one extreme to the next, whereas it is almost seeded in rebellion towards their upbringing then it is to their resignment of simply not believing in gods. This is not true of the nature of all Atheist, just the deeply seeded Fundamentalist. 

In my opinion that is..


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Brazko said:


> lol, really!? Peer pressure from the acclaimed insane drives the sane able bodies to insanity as well!?


how else did it get started in first place?


> Could you give me some examples of what adequate tools they would need, since we can assume their Atheist parents failed to provide them with?


a desire for evidence?
a good knowledge of human fallibility like conformation bias?

you never save everyone but you can limit the damage






> Well, they aren't substantial at all.. The only numbers I do find substantial is that believers of one religion cross over to another religious belief. And 95% of the world population has some kind of belief in a god or life force..
> 
> Another personal observation I have noticed, and I emphasize personal, is that most Atheist Fundamentalist are spun from a Religious Fundamentalist background (JW and Catholicism) as an example. Switching from one extreme to the next, whereas it is almost seeded in rebellion towards their upbringing then it is to their resignment of simply not believing in gods. This is not true of the nature of all Atheist, just the deeply seeded Fundamentalist.
> 
> In my opinion that is..


look to europe the figures can be missleading.
in the uk alot of people identify with church of england as that was how they were brought up
yet a vast majority of them never go to church and they wouldn't be on a forum like this discussing their daily relationship with god cause they just dont care enough to conjure one up
i know that america is still fairly far from that, and that a vast amount of the rest of the world have no idea of their place in the universe but again educations the key


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Think about the many factual claims the bible makes that conflict with scientific knowledge. The virgin birth is a claim of biology. Creation of the universe is a claim of cosmology. Parting the red sea is a claim of physics. Is this really a responsible way to educate? You may think that these are trivial claims not meant to be taken literally, and maybe they are. What then does religion really educate us about? Family, morality, community, love of others.... all things we can attain without the need for factually erroneous baggage.


Yeah you're right but some people just learn differently than others and educate them selves differently.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah you're right but some people just *learn* differently than others and educate them selves differently.


no they are *taught* differently huge difference


you trying to make the claim some element of choice in there.
at this age?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> no they are *taught* differently huge difference


Yeah those are two different words so good job on noticing that.
And everyone has free will, so it is up to them to decide if they want to be taught a religion or not.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> no they are *taught* differently huge difference
> 
> 
> you trying to make the claim some element of choice in there.
> at this age?


sorry for late edit you said choice


Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah those are two different words so good job on noticing that.
> And everyone has free will, so it is up to them to decide if they want to be taught a religion or not.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> sorry for late edit you said choice


If you don't Believe in religion this should not bother you.
Anyway as the child grows he will learn to decide what to believe and what not to believe. I do admit that this is an influence probably from the parents but our parents influence us on countless things and we disagree with them on countless things, so the child cam disagree with religion and choose to not follow it when he grows.


----------



## Brazko (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> how else did it get started in first place?
> a desire for evidence?
> a good knowledge of human fallibility like conformation bias?
> 
> you never save everyone but you can limit the damage


I can understand the traps to confirmation bias as being a persuasive factor, but for the most part I think it would fall to them being grounded in evidential claims. As it would seem to be inherit in their upbringing. As the nature of all things around them would certainly have been explained through evidential reasoning, and it would be second nature for them to go about the rest of their lives with that kind of mindset.

But to all of a sudden give it up for something that has never been entrenched into their thinking or forced upon them, to now embark on another path because of accumulated experiences. And I'm assuming it was a choice of collective experiences that geared their persuasion, as opposed to having a single experience shatter all that was instilled as a child. As it would've had to been an extraordinary event to do so. 

This is how it could all start. I would think it would be falling to the innate human condition foremost, opposed to falling to peer pressure. And as I said before, it doesn't necessarily mean they will begin to believe in the Abrahamic God, but still move towards a belief in a higher self, state of being, life force etc...




ginjawarrior said:


> look to europe the figures can be missleading.
> in the uk alot of people identify with church of england as that was how they were brought up
> yet a vast majority of them never go to church and they wouldn't be on a forum like this discussing their daily relationship with god cause they just dont care enough to conjure one up
> i know that america is still fairly far from that, and that a vast amount of the rest of the world have no idea of their place in the universe but again educations the key


 
I agree that the numbers would and can be higher across the board, even more so in the U.S. Not going to church is one thing, but not believing in God is taboo and frowned upon. But more people are coming forward with their Atheistic viewpoints as the taboo of it is lifted. And I'm sure that number would take a notable hike if the stigma behind it was removed. A notable hike but still insignificant to the sum total of those that move belief in God/gods to acknowledgment of a spiritual/life force, with no desire to claim Atheism.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 3, 2011)

there is a new movie out called Red State. I think you all would enjoy it, about religious nut jobs. But they have mad weapons.<3


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> If you don't Believe in religion this should not bother you.


child abuse of any kind bothers me


> Anyway as the child grows he will learn to decide what to believe and what not to believe. I do admit that this is an influence probably from the parents but our parents influence us on countless things and we disagree with them on countless things, so the child cam disagree with religion and choose to not follow it when he grows.


https://www.rollitup.org/members/ginjawarrior-163574.htmlyour trying yet again to claim the child has any choice in what he learns.

as an adult i can choose what to learn. i can choose a subject at college or university to learn. hell i originally found this site with intention of learning.

a child does not have the choice of his lessons or tutor he is Taught. that is the case till adulthood. now you chuck in home schooled and closed communities and that persons lesson are very limited

your claim of free will is dishonestly false

one day i hope you wake up and truely realise exactly whats been done to you....


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> child abuse of any kind bothers me
> https://www.rollitup.org/members/ginjawarrior-163574.htmlyour trying yet again to claim the child has any choice in what he learns.
> 
> as an adult i can choose what to learn. i can choose a subject at college or university to learn. hell i originally found this site with intention of learning.
> ...


My parents never taught me religion, I have never been baptized, and I have only been to church like once so nothing has been done to me that I don't agree with. And a religious person can go to college and choose what subjects he/she wants to take.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I agree that the numbers would and can be higher across the board, even more so in the U.S. Not going to church is one thing, but not believing in God is taboo and frowned upon. But more people are coming forward with their Atheistic viewpoints as the taboo of it is lifted. And I'm sure that number would take a notable hike if the stigma behind it was removed. A notable hike but still insignificant to the sum total of those that move belief in God/gods to acknowledgment of a spiritual/life force, with no desire to claim Atheism.


its a case of one generation at a time. 50/60years ago everyone went to church. i know my daughters generation is less religous than mine as is mine from parents.
one day soon there will be whole streets, neighbourhoods towns even. where children can listen to just proper fairytales for bedtime


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

RawBudzski said:


> there is a new movie out called Red State. I think you all would enjoy it, about religious nut jobs. But they have mad weapons.<3


Noooo not just Nutjobs but religious nutjobs.

Get what I'm saying? Anybody can be a nutjob.
I'm pretty sure there's a shit load of athiest nutjobs but you don't call them athiest nutjobs just nutjobs. So why discriminate against religious people?
Sorry to turn into a nutjob on you Budzski.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> its a case of one generation at a time. 50/60years ago everyone went to church. i know my daughters generation is less religous than mine as is mine from parents.
> one day soon there will be whole streets, neighbourhoods towns even. where children can listen to just proper fairytales for bedtime


Or maybe some day people will stop judging others based on their beliefs.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> And a religious person can go to college and choose what subjects he/she wants to take.


 at adulthood yeah? they can choose then right?

doesn't matter how you try to squeese this the child doesn't have that choice


someone somewhere has clearly done a number on you


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Or maybe some day people will stop judging others based on their beliefs.


 ahh yes theres a standard answer to this[video=youtube;P4dSiHqpULk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk[/video]


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> at adulthood yeah? they can choose then right?
> 
> doesn't matter how you try to squeese this the child doesn't have that choice
> 
> ...


 Why does it hurt you so bad to see a kid get splashed with water? Later in life if they choose to not follow a religion then they are just gonna say getting splashed was pointless, but still it caused no harm. And why do you insist that that someone has done a number on me?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> ahh yes theres a standard answer to this[video=youtube;P4dSiHqpULk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk[/video]


Yeah you have your "standard" hopes and I have mine.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Why does it hurt you so bad to see a kid get splashed with water? Later in life if they choose to not follow a religion then they are just gonna say getting splashed was pointless, but still it caused no harm. And why do you insist that that someone has done a number on me?


 is this an admission that your "free will" statement is dishonest?

dance around it all you want but thats what im getting at..


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah you have your "standard" hopes and I have mine.


 there is no hope in that video i think you need to watch it again get the meaning behind it...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Noooo not just Nutjobs but religious nutjobs.
> 
> Get what I'm saying? Anybody can be a nutjob.
> I'm pretty sure there's a shit load of athiest nutjobs but you don't call them athiest nutjobs just nutjobs. So why discriminate against religious people?
> Sorry to turn into a nutjob on you Budzski.


Skepticism rarely inspires nutjobs, although it often inspires atheism. There have been nutjobs who were atheist, but ask yourself, do you think Hitler's problem was that he was too rational? Did the holocaust result from being too attached to critical thinking? Was Stalin's legacy grounded in demanding too much evidence? We label religious nutjobs as such because it is their religion that inspires them.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Why does it hurt you so bad to see a kid get splashed with water? Later in life if they choose to not follow a religion then they are just gonna say getting splashed was pointless, but still it caused no harm. And why do you insist that that someone has done a number on me?


i dont think you realize how much growing up in a religious environment changes people. they cant just decide one day that it was all wrong. it has to be slowly explained to them in a way they understand. and if they dont know anything about how science works, its very hard to explain to people how reality really works. they tend to think their holy books are fact


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Skepticism rarely inspires nutjobs, although it often inspires atheism. There have been nutjobs who were atheist, but ask yourself, do you think Hitler's problem was that he was too rational? Did the holocaust result from being too attached to critical thinking? Was Stalin's legacy grounded in demanding too much evidence? We label religious nutjobs as such because it is their religion that inspires them.


Pulling out the hitler card, huh?
I see ur point but ask yourself if you doubt that there has been a psychopath who chose to be like that due to the thought that there was no point in life when he could have maybe found hope in a religion but was never given the choice because his parents never mentioned religion and just gave him the facts of life?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i dont think you realize how much growing up in a religious environment changes people. they cant just decide one day that it was all wrong. it has to be slowly explained to them in a way they understand. and if they dont know anything about how science works, its very hard to explain to people how reality really works. they tend to think their holy books are fact


 Well of course it would be hard to teach a close minded religious person science simply because they are close minded, but it's not because they are religious.
Any religious person can be just as open minded as an athiest individual.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Ha religious people = nutjobs.
Believers in science = mad scientists.
Seriously religion doesn't cause any more harm than all the suit science can create.
So thank you science for curing diseases, but you suck for killing countless victims.
Thank you religion for the good morals and love, but you suck for damning people to hell and for creating the evil crusades.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Pulling out the hitler card, huh?
> I see ur point but ask yourself if you doubt that there has been a psychopath who chose to be like that due to the thought that there was no point in life when he could have maybe found hope in a religion but was never given the choice because his parents never mentioned religion and just gave him the facts of life?


lol no..

how abouts this one has there every been a case where the "preacher" abuses his power so much that parents will watch their young child take their 'blessing" from him?











again what say you about this freewill bullshit?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Pulling out the hitler card, huh?
> I see ur point but ask yourself if you doubt that there has been a psychopath who chose to be like that due to the thought that there was no point in life when he could have maybe found hope in a religion but was never given the choice because his parents never mentioned religion and just gave him the facts of life?


there is more beauty in the facts of life and the cosmos than there is in ANY religion. 
people do not receive their morals from religion. religious books have what we would consider both 'good' and 'bad'. but how do we know which are good and which are bad? how do the religious know that this passage is meant to be taken this way, and that passage is to be taken another way? they cannot base their decision making standards on the book they are deciding on. they must have these standards beforehand in order to apply them to the book.



Hepheastus420 said:


> Well of course it would be hard to teach a close minded religious person science simply because they are close minded, but it's not because they are religious.
> Any religious person can be just as open minded as an athiest individual.


that is wrong. i dont know what else to say except thanks for the sig lol


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

So what was the point of all this? 
We still believe what we want to believe.
Ehh whatever have fun being worm food.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Pulling out the hitler card, huh?
> I see ur point but ask yourself if you doubt that there has been a psychopath who chose to be like that due to the thought that there was no point in life when he could have maybe found hope in a religion but was never given the choice because his parents never mentioned religion and just gave him the facts of life?


Well comm'on, psychopaths do not chose to be psychopaths, but how many psychopaths have perverted religion to fuel their violence? How many have perverted skepticism? Skepticism is what we are promoting. 



Hepheastus420 said:


> Seriously religion doesn't cause any more harm than all the suit science can create.


It's true, science gave birth to pseudoscience, which does do a great deal of harm. Pseudoscience though requires a misunderstanding of the scientific method and misuse of information.  We do not need to misunderstand or misuse religion to make it harmful.



> So thank you science for curing diseases, but you suck for killing countless victims.


Who are these victims?




> Thank you religion for the good morals and love, but you suck for damning people to hell and for creating the evil crusades.


As we pointed out, one can find love and morality without religion, quite easily in fact. So your statement should read "Thank you religion for providing something we can easily get elsewhere, but you suck for damning people to hell and for creating the evil crusades."


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So what was the point of all this?
> We still believe what we want to believe.
> Ehh whatever have fun being worm food.


 free will children....? dishonesty?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> there is more beauty in the facts of life and the cosmos than there is in ANY religion.
> people do not receive their morals from religion. religious books have what we would consider both 'good' and 'bad'. but how do we know which are good and which are bad? how do the religious know that this passage is meant to be taken this way, and that passage is to be taken another way? they cannot base their decision making standards on the book they are deciding on. they must have these standards beforehand in order to apply them to the book.
> 
> 
> ...


Are you mocking me? I mean that statement holds truth in it unless you believe that athiest are the only ones who can be open minded. If that's the case you are the one that is close minded, oh and what are you athiest? So there are close minded athiest, you guys made it sound like they don't exist.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Are you mocking me? I mean that statement holds truth in it unless you believe that athiest are the only ones who can be open minded. If that's the case you are the one that is close minded, oh and what are you athiest? So there are close minded athiest, you guys made it sound like they don't exist.


 *free will children....? dishonesty? *


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Hey guys you are debating with me for the wrong reasons. 
I am not defending people who misinterpret a religion on purpose to gain power.
I am not defending the people who baptise their children.
I do agree that alot of people misuse religion in a negative fashion.
I do believe their are alot of close minded religious nutjobs.
I do not believe all religious people our nutjobs.
I do not believe science is more bad than good.
I do not believe religion is more bad than good.
I do believe we are getting offtopic and the reason I made this thread was for peace among us tokers.
So with that being said I would like to say that I do not mean to make enemies right here so good debating guys.
Also ginjawarrior no hard feelings, cool?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Well comm'on, psychopaths do not chose to be psychopaths, but how many psychopaths have perverted religion to fuel their violence? How many have perverted skepticism? Skepticism is what we are promoting.
> 
> 
> off the top of my head I could name 4.
> ...


Not much too say on this, but I stick to what I said


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Hey people the post which I quoted Heisenberg has my answers on it since my iPod is being weird so just saying that's not what heisenberg said.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Are you mocking me? I mean that statement holds truth in it unless you believe that athiest are the only ones who can be open minded. If that's the case you are the one that is close minded, oh and what are you athiest? So there are close minded athiest, you guys made it sound like they don't exist.


the vast majority of religious people are close minded. yes, there are close minded atheists, but that has nothing to do with them being atheists. the close minded religious are that way BECAUSE of their religion


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2011)

> off the top of my head I could name 4.


Curious that you didn't name them. 4 people have somehow used the application of self-correcting systematic doubt and accountability as inspiration for violence?



> Well when we go to war and nuke towns then we can blame science for the innocent victims.


You are blaming the application of knowledge on the acquisition of knowledge. If nukes were never used or invented, is science still at fault for developing nuclear theory? Did nothing good come from nuclear development?


Religion has been defended in 3 ways in this thread.

*Religion is true* - We've shown that can't be proven or even supported.

*Religion does good things* - We've shown nothing good religion provides is unique to religion itself, although the potential evil religion holds is very unique and all too easy to unleash.

*Atheism leads to bad things* - As stated, we are promoting skepticism. Atheism is a term vested on us by theists. The same thing we can find wrong with atheistic regimes are the same things we find wrong with religious regimes; dogmatic adherence. Rational thinking, evidential accountability, and enlightened attitudes helped us overcome fascist and communist dogmas. We should let these forces of sophistication eradicate religious dogma as well.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 3, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> the vast majority of religious people are close minded. yes, there are close minded atheists, but that has nothing to do with them being atheists. the close minded religious are that way BECAUSE of their religion


 Well yeah just like athiest are close minded because of what they were taught.

So can you answer my question? Are you mocking me?
Because if you are mocking me because you still believe you are right then you have made a mistake. A religious person can be as open minded as a atheist.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Well yeah just like athiest are close minded because of what they were taught.
> 
> So can you answer my question? Are you mocking me?
> Because if you are mocking me because you still believe you are right then you have made a mistake. A religious person can be as open minded as a atheist.


We are not asking anyone to have an open mind, but an informed mind. We are simply asking people to be educated, careful and consistent in their thinking. Religion requires ignorant, sloppy, and inconsistent thinking to be compatible with the modern atmosphere of knowledge.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Curious that you didn't name them. 4 people have somehow used the application of self-correcting systematic doubt and accountability as inspiration for violence?
> 
> Three of them are preachers that i have met and they take control of there church followers. The other one is hitler.
> 
> ...


I don't believe science has more or less problems than religion.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I don't believe science has more or less problems than religion.


Fair enough. Notice I do not have a problem when you simply state your belief. It is when you try to support it that I find fault.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Well yeah just like athiest are close minded because of what they were taught.
> 
> So can you answer my question? Are you mocking me?
> Because if you are mocking me because you still believe you are right then you have made a mistake. A religious person can be as open minded as a atheist.


what makes atheists close minded? and please tell me what atheists are taught because i didnt know we had schools.
no im not mocking you. you seem to think im mocking you because i said religious people are close minded. true?

the religious believe that their holy book is true. they have no reason to believe that other than the fact they grew up being told its the truth and/or the book itself seems believable to them. they see it as believable because they do not full understand reality and how the universe really works. if they did, 95% of them would probably be atheist or agnostic.

but the problem is, when someone tries to show them how reality really works, they either dismiss it or say thats not how god did it. they constantly make excuses for why they are right, yet never have anything to back it up besides their holy book. at least atheism has science


----------



## robert 14617 (Sep 4, 2011)

i don't see anyone hating on anyone's religion ,i do see them dogging on radical fanatics


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Fair enough. Notice I do not have a problem when you simply state your belief. It is when you try to support it that I find fault.


(just to let you know I respect you so I'm never actually gonna "fight" with you just debate)

Is it wrong for me to support what I believe when so many people are insulting me for my belief? Notice how I never argue against science or other religions so the point of this thread is to ask people to more or less top judging in a negative way.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

It's not even the fact that you guys don't believe in a religion that pisses me off. What pisses me off is that alot of you will never stop judging so damn hard. Alot of you think you are better based on separate beliefs (don't say that's not true. Those of you who think that know who you are), that's bull shit. All I'm asking is for everyone to let evryone believe what they want, fuck is that so hard to ask? Well I guess it is since the majority of you guys just think I'm close minded and a nutjob for following a religion. Besides my religion I'm no different than any of you.


----------



## robert 14617 (Sep 4, 2011)

who has ever told you not to believe in what you feel is right in your heart


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

robert 14617 said:


> who has ever told you not to believe in what you feel is right in your heart


I never said that anyone told me to stop believing in my religion, all I said is I hope someday people will stop judging others based on religion.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> It's not even the fact that you guys don't believe in a religion that pisses me off. What pisses me off is that alot of you will never stop judging so damn hard. Alot of you think you are better based on separate beliefs (don't say that's not true. Those of you who think that know who you are), that's bull shit. All I'm asking is for everyone to let evryone believe what they want, fuck is that so hard to ask? Well I guess it is since the majority of you guys just think I'm close minded and a nutjob for following a religion. Besides my religion I'm no different than any of you.


dude come on...
1. religion needs to be judged, just like every other thing in this world. without judgement, how will we know what is good or bad?
2. people that do not believe in books written by tribesmen after the fact and thousands of years ago, are better than people who do. those who do NEVER have a legitimate explanation on why they do.
3.religion is bullshit that is not needed for someone to survive or be happy. it is only needed by those who already belief. coincidence? i think not...
4.yes it is hard to let anyone believe whatever they want. you wouldnt be happy with everyone believing in a religion that says its okay to murder or rape, would you? every belief should be held up to a set of standards. right now, religion doesnt seem to have any.
plus the big 3 religions affect ALL of our lives on a DAILY basis. they control our governments and our people.
5. how is your religion no different than me?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> what makes atheists close minded? and please tell me what atheists are taught because i didnt know we had schools.
> no im not mocking you. you seem to think im mocking you because i said religious people are close minded. true?
> 
> the religious believe that their holy book is true. they have no reason to believe that other than the fact they grew up being told its the truth and/or the book itself seems believable to them. they see it as believable because they do not full understand reality and how the universe really works. if they did, 95% of them would probably be atheist or agnostic.
> ...


You are trying to prove to me something that doesn't need to be proven to me.
My statement is still true religious people can be as open minded as atheist. Why don't you understand the truth behind that statement? Is it because you are close minded and believe only atheist can be open minded?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> What pisses me off is that alot of you will never stop judging so damn hard.


Hep, it isn't judgment, it's critical analysis. 

Like I've asked you before, if you felt something so influential, like organized religion, was dangerous to modern society, how would you go about enacting effective change? You wouldn't take it sitting down either. 



Hepheastus420 said:


> Alot of you think you are better based on separate beliefs (don't say that's not true. Those of you who think that know who you are)


Who? Who do you think feels this way? Point some fingers, I'd like to know because that is bullshit. 



Hepheastus420 said:


> All I'm asking is for everyone to let evryone believe what they want, fuck is that so hard to ask?


How does someone asking questions about what you might believe disable you from believing it? 



Hepheastus420 said:


> the majority of you guys just think I'm close minded and a nutjob for following a religion.


No, we think religious people use inconsistent standards when analyzing evidence. 

Being 'open minded' is different than being skeptical.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> dude come on...
> 1. religion needs to be judged, just like every other thing in this world. without judgement, how will we know what is good or bad?
> 2. people that do not believe in books written by tribesmen after the fact and thousands of years ago, are better than people who do. those who do NEVER have a legitimate explanation on why they do.
> 3.religion is bullshit that is not needed for someone to survive or be happy. it is only needed by those who already belief. coincidence? i think not...
> ...


1. You don't have to judge so hard. I have said before that its ok to judge religion but it's not ok to judge the believer based on their religion.
2.What is your definition of better? Because I'm positivethere is a religious person who is way smarter than you and makes a way bigger salary. So in their eyes you are inferior to them.
3. I never said religion is the only way for happiness all I said is that religion is not all bad and that it has positive attributes such as love and peace.
4. Once again I'm not stupid I know what is right and what is wrong. You go to the extremes and I you want to do that I can point out all the negative sides of atheism and science.
5. My point is that our beliefs should be judged equally.


Anyway can you please get rid of your sig if it's only intent is to mock me because that's what it seems like to me.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 4, 2011)

Being civil to religion has disastrous consequences. True, most religious moderates do not cause much trouble, but it's their faith that makes the religious extremists/nut jobs possible. The #1 benefit of religion I see theists list is comfort, and I get that. But that comfort comes a very high price, usually paid in human lives. Sam Harris is an atheist who loves the spiritual/transcendent feelings that occur in human beings, but is working toward experiencing them without the need of a supernatural force. I like comfort, too, but maybe theists should find comfort in something that does not harm humanity. Check this vid:

[video=youtube;UTDLNQsO6p4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTDLNQsO6p4[/video]


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> You are trying to prove to me something that doesn't need to be proven to me.
> My statement is still true religious people can be as open minded as atheist. Why don't you understand the truth behind that statement? Is it because you are close minded and believe only atheist can be open minded?


in what religion are the people as open minded as atheists?

your statement that religious people CAN be open minded basically means there could be one guy that is open minded, and you would be right. i guess it depends on what the term 'religious person' means. what defines the lower echelon of a religious person?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Hep, it isn't judgment, it's critical analysis.
> 
> Like I've asked you before, if you felt something so influential, like organized religion, was dangerous to modern society, how would you go about enacting effective change? You wouldn't take it sitting down either.
> 
> ...


 You know what pad I'm kinda tired of trying to be open minded I'm actually gonna start leaning towards being close minded and start thinking everything is that of the devil. Isn't that ironic? You guys try to educate me and it has the opposite effect I am know officially the most close minded I have ever been in my life. I believe that I have clinical depression due to the fact that this thread makes me have emotions (mostly sadness and slight anger). Fuck it I'm wrong sorry for even putting up a fight because you guys are right I'm close minded and a nutjob because I follow a fucking being that has no facts to support it. I'm fucking done I'm no better than hitler when it comes to being open minded that's a pretty depressing thought. Fucking shit I want peace and no judgement but I can't do anything about it. I don't know why I'm arguing with people it's not like I can win my argument is based purely on faith no fucking facts so that means I'm wrong. Well once again fuck it, sorry for venting after quoting your post pad this is not aimed towards you.



I have just made a fool of myself but then again I made a fool of myself the moment a tried to justify religion which is not based on facts.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> 1. You don't have to judge so hard. I have said before that its ok to judge religion but it's not ok to judge the believer based on their religion.
> 2.What is your definition of better? Because I'm positivethere is a religious person who is way smarter than you and makes a way bigger salary. So in their eyes you are inferior to them.
> 3. I never said religion is the only way for happiness all I said is that religion is not all bad and that it has positive attributes such as love and peace.
> 4. Once again I'm not stupid I know what is right and what is wrong. You go to the extremes and I you want to do that I can point out all the negative sides of atheism and science.
> ...


1. they judge me because i am an atheist. why cant i judge them?
2. my definition is 'more advantageous or affective'
3. yes i know you see it that way. but you fail to see the harm it does is FAR greater than any good. it blinds people throughout the world. it has held science back tremendously. it has caused countless innocent deaths. it changes the politics of the world in such a way that we do what is considered holy, and not what is best for society. it has done all of these for millenia, and still does today. all this for a nice fuzzy feeling inside?
4. you know what is right or wrong without needing your religion. do you think its right that millions around the world base their morals on whether god says its right or not? dont you think its wrong? id like to hear some negatives of atheism and science actually.
5. yes i agree. why isnt religion judged equally in our society then? it is put up on a pedestal. a lot of people think it is wrong to attack religion, but not atheism. how many atheists are in our congress? why?

i will not remove my sig because i know you mean what you said. that is what makes it funny


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> 1. they judge me because i am an atheist. why cant i judge them?
> 2. my definition is 'more advantageous or affective'
> 3. yes i know you see it that way. but you fail to see the harm it does is FAR greater than any good. it blinds people throughout the world. it has held science back tremendously. it has caused countless innocent deaths. it changes the politics of the world in such a way that we do what is considered holy, and not what is best for society. it has done all of these for millenia, and still does today. all this for a nice fuzzy feeling inside?
> 4. you know what is right or wrong without needing your religion. do you think its right that millions around the world base their morals on whether god says its right or not? dont you think its wrong? id like to hear some negatives of atheism and science actually.
> ...


Yeah you are right, you are also an asshole for thinking I'm a dumbass for that statement fuck it see you in hell bro, ha.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah you are right, you are also an asshole for thinking I'm a dumbass for that statement fuck it see you in hell bro, ha.


ill be waiting for you


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 4, 2011)

I am glad to see this section is alive & doing well. <3


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> ill be waiting for you


Are you gonna be a mod or something?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

wait... did i just witness a conversion?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Are you gonna be a mod or something?


LOL yes ill be a mod in hell  better not break any rules!!!


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> LOL yes ill be a mod in hell  better not break any rules!!!


So that's it then, huh? I ask you to stop judging so bad and you mock me.


----------



## XRagnorX (Sep 4, 2011)

The darkness hates the light because it shines upon the evil within mens souls, they are forced to see they're own corruption and they would rather deny the truth than face the reality of higher order and personal responsibility. 
They cannot accept that they do wrong, therefore they cannot be forgiven , for they will not repent. They cannot accept forgiveness for they will not confess they're sin. 
Theyre sin is this, "And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil".
So they killed the passover lamb......
"if the world doth hate you, ye know that it hath hated me before you;" -Yahushua Ha *Mashiach*

Well that's all I really need to say isnt it? Hate me, I forgive you =P 
Strike me on the one cheek ( and I'll probably break your jaw) LOL, I'm only human =)


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So that's it then, huh? I ask you to stop judging so bad and you mock me.


lol im not mocking you. you said you would see me in hell, then asked if i was gonna be a mod. so i made a joke saying i was gonna be a mod in hell


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

XRagnorX said:


> The darkness hates the light because it shines upon the evil within mens souls, they are forced to see they're own corruption and they would rather deny the truth than face the reality of higher order and personal responsibility.
> They cannot accept that they do wrong, therefore they cannot be forgiven , for they will not repent. They cannot accept forgiveness for they will not confess they're sin.
> Theyre sin is this, "And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil".
> So they killed the passover lamb......
> ...


yes thats the reason i dont believe. im so ashamed of myself that if i was religious, i would expose that and feel bad. therefore, i dont like religion

/sarcasm


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> lol im not mocking you. you said you would see me in hell, then asked if i was gonna be a mod. so i made a joke saying i was gonna be a mod in hell


I'm talking about the sig.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hey mods can you delete this thread, please.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 4, 2011)

Ehhem.. .What are you gonna give me.?. *winks* I have been soo lonely.. . 


oh wait, wrong section. Can't help you.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I'm talking about the sig.


oh. i think im going to keep it


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Is there a way to delete a thread you created?


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> You know what pad I'm kinda tired of trying to be open minded I'm actually gonna start leaning towards being close minded and start thinking everything is that of the devil. Isn't that ironic? You guys try to educate me and it has the opposite effect I am know officially the most close minded I have ever been in my life. I believe that I have clinical depression due to the fact that this thread makes me have emotions (mostly sadness and slight anger). Fuck it I'm wrong sorry for even putting up a fight because you guys are right I'm close minded and a nutjob because I follow a fucking being that has no facts to support it. I'm fucking done I'm no better than hitler when it comes to being open minded that's a pretty depressing thought. Fucking shit I want peace and no judgement but I can't do anything about it. I don't know why I'm arguing with people it's not like I can win my argument is based purely on faith no fucking facts so that means I'm wrong. Well once again fuck it, sorry for venting after quoting your post pad this is not aimed towards you.
> 
> 
> 
> I have just made a fool of myself but then again I made a fool of myself the moment a tried to justify religion which is not based on facts.


Hep, if this post is sincere it seems you are on the verge of a MAJOR breakthrough in your thinking. It seems that you are starting the grieving process for your old belief system, I (and I think a lot of the atheists here) go through a rough time when we must abandon our cherished erroneous beliefs in light of facts and evidence. You can use this opportunity to let it all go, and start on a new and exciting epistemology based on facts and reason. It's SO much more fulfilling than dogma and faith, trust me, I've been there...


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Hep, if this post is sincere it seems you are on the verge of a MAJOR breakthrough in your thinking. It seems that you are starting the grieving process for your old belief system, I (and I think a lot of the atheists here) feel the same way when we must abandon our cherished erroneous beliefs in light of facts and evidence. You can use this opportunity to let it all go, and start on a new and exciting epistemology based on facts and reason. It's SO much more fulfilling than dogma and faith, trust me, I've been there...


Nah I'm going a different route than you bro. Maybe it was too much off a shock but I'm currently in my room thinking about all my memories and how when I die it's all going to waste so I'm seriously contemplating suicide. It was just too much to find out for me. Peace bro maybe our memories will live on.  oh yeah I have never typed lol so yeah just did that was a life goal just never knew when to use it so I guess I should do it now again, lol.


----------



## robert 14617 (Sep 4, 2011)

way too melodramatic , believe in what you want , find what makes you happy and avoid the tough questions


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

robert 14617 said:


> way too melodramatic , believe in what you want , find what makes you happy and avoid the tough questions


Ha I'm not being mellodramatic I'm just pondering the idea of life, good advice though bro.


----------



## robert 14617 (Sep 4, 2011)

check this video out wile you contemplate 
http://youtu.be/NQu_RRLbVDA


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

robert 14617 said:


> check this video out wile you contemplate
> http://youtu.be/NQu_RRLbVDA


Nothing like some Monty to cheer ya up.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Is it wrong for me to support what I believe when so many people are insulting me for my belief? Notice how I never argue against science or other religions so the point of this thread is to ask people to more or less top judging in a negative way.


It is absolutely not wrong to support your ideas. I do not find fault in that action itself. The fault I find is in the reasoning and ill education you engage in when you try to find support. You most certainly did argue against science, and notice that none of us played the hurt card. It's time you accept that religion deserves judgment. You can believe anyway, but you have to admit your belief is grounded not in reality, but faith. This is something even religion teaches you. The next step is to identify just what faith is, and if it is enough evidence.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

I think its time you start accepting people for who they are and stop being a pontificating ahole and dissecting word per word the defense of someone who believes.

Why is it so hard for you to accept people who believe in God?





Heisenberg said:


> It is absolutely not wrong to support your ideas. I do not find fault in that action itself. The fault I find is in the reasoning and eryill education you engage in when you try to find support. You most certainly did argue against science, and notice that none of us played the hurt card. It's time you accept that religion deserves judgment. You can believe anyway, but you have to admit your belief is grounded not in reality, but faith. This is something even religion teaches you. The next step is to identify just what faith is, and if it is enough evidence.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

XRagnorX said:


> The darkness hates the light because it shines upon the evil within mens souls, they are forced to see they're own corruption and they would rather deny the truth than face the reality of higher order and personal responsibility.
> They cannot accept that they do wrong, therefore they cannot be forgiven , for they will not repent. They cannot accept forgiveness for they will not confess they're sin.
> Theyre sin is this, "And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil".
> So they killed the passover lamb......
> "if the world doth hate you, ye know that it hath hated me before you;" -Yahushua Ha *Mashiach*


Apparently Yahushua Ha Mashiach didn't understand the correct form of "their" to use.. That's unusual.. 

How could someone possibly come to this conclusion unless they were lying to themselves? I don't believe in God because I would rather live a life of sin? Can you take a step back and see how absolutely preposterous that sounds? I don't understand how someone could read that, then think to themselves "shit, that MUST be the reason they don't believe!". 



I can't make it any more clear for you...

We don't believe because there is no evidence. 

And there you have it folks. Mystery solved! 
 


XRagnorX said:


> Well that's all I really need to say isnt it? Hate me, I forgive you =P
> Strike me on the one cheek ( and I'll probably break your jaw) LOL, I'm only human =)


How very Christian of you.. I wouldn't expect anything less.



Hepheastus420 said:


> Hey mods can you delete this thread, please.


No, I'm not going to delete the thread Hep, I'm sorry if it offends your sense of security, but if it bothers you that much, just don't click on it when someone replies, or click the 'unsubscribe' button. 

Like I've told you before, this is the internet, nothing I or anyone else says should make you feel offended. The best way to counter someones post you feel is offensive to your religion is to stand in defense of it and tell us why. 

We don't care what you believe as long as you don't hurt people. The thing about that is that simply by believing, you are hurting people. Carrying these beliefs any further into the future is hurting people. 

I know you don't believe your beliefs hurt people, so let me give you an example... Consider Islam. How do you think that faith would fare if all it had was the fanatics and all the passive believers stopped believing? Do you think the fanatics would have any foundation to stand on, or would they look more like what they actually are, terrorists? 

The problem seems to be that your religion has gotten away with you. It's brought all the inconsistent baggage right along side the good morals. The rest of us simply ask why can't we abandon the bad and keep the good? The answer given is because if we were to do that, it would mean parts of the Bible must be wrong. This is something believers are completely unwilling to accept, the Bible, to them, is infallible. Hence the current problem we face.

Passive belief promotes active fanaticism by leaving the door open to irrationality. As shown in this thread, none of the beliefs believers hold to be true are supported by evidence, they are all faith based. It's hard for a believer to let go of it because of the incredible fear of what it means if you do. When I was first making the transition into atheism, it was scary, it was uncharted territory, but I knew what the facts were and in my mind, as I hope you will someday discover, it eventually leads you to a point where the fear subsides and you understand reality for what it actually is, you understand what you've been told your whole life is a lie, a lie meant to promote comfort and peace but actually promotes ignorance and prejudice. You learn the good from organized religion can be learned, but you must be taught the bad. 

After that comes a sense of anger, anger the rest of the world hasn't seen what you've seen. 

At this point, I'm in a state of acceptance. I know the world won't let go of the superstition in my lifetime. The most we can hope to do is promote education and skepticism. These are the things that lead to rational decisions and valid conclusions.


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

yes, religion is full of good stuff.

but this is a pointless discussion. anyone who does accept the bible as the truth and nothing but the truth, is obviously lacking in cognitive function, therefore incapable of understanding our point.
same goes for any religion really..

we should just be happy they settled on a more or less "peaceful religion" and are moderately content.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I think its time you start accepting people for who they are and stop being a pontificating ahole and dissecting word per word the defense of someone who believes.


I display this behavior because it is the behavior I am seeking in others when I state my beliefs. I wish for critical analysis outside of my own intellect. If someone does not wish to be subjected to this, they should keep their beliefs to themselves and excuse themselves from the table. You criticism of me seems to be nothing other than I am good at debate. I remain civil and never engage in pointless personal attacks, such as calling someone an asshole. If the truth is offensive to someone, I make no apologies for that.



> Why is it so hard for you to accept people who believe in God?


I have stated that my problem is with dogmatic adherence to religions which are predicated on the certainty of god.


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

why i say that?

cause ive been watching these conversations for close to 2 years now and the religious, never bring up any good points.

just mindless scripture quotes and angry bullshit and retorts.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

@sso, plant the seed, that's all you can do. They have to water it themselves. 

I'll be doing this my entire life, regardless of the results.


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

mjeh, many of these people, have really good reasons for holding onto religion like a drowning man a lifesaver..

some of them have experienced things like "the spirit of god coming over you"

which ive had and i was told it was angels giving me power for things to come.

felt like ecstasy..

you cant really convince someone like that, they are wrong, because you have nothing to offer.

nothing to replace it with.

the atheists have nothing to offer, since they dont have any spiritual understanding themselves, nor a real enough understanding of the world, to really make some of their statements..

the greater spiritual truths, need a maturity and certain bravery to face. 

which the religious are simply not ready for. (nor really the atheists either, though a step closer, yet inaway, much further away)

though personally, i do not really care about that, i more care that people are good to one another.

this was more curiousity to see where the religous stand (and the atheists)


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> I display this behavior because it is the behavior I am seeking in others when I state my beliefs.


I am glad you feel that way, but when you use it to belittle someones beliefs, it just makes you out as an asshole.



> I wish for critical analysis outside of my own intellect.


You are taking things a bit to serious on the internet.



> If someone does not wish to be subjected to this, they should keep their beliefs to themselves and excuse themselves from the table.


Can you show me where someone has "forced" their beliefs on you during one of these discussions?



> You criticism of me seems to be nothing other than I am good at debate.


You are tooting your own horn so to speak. That is not the question and i am not "criticizing" you, i am simply stating my position and opinion. It is you who sees this as "criticizing" so you can use to your advantage as you have already, by calling it such.



> I remain civil and never engage in pointless personal attacks, such as calling someone an asshole.



You are very smart, but you continue to see the world through one eye. Everyone is different and as such have different methods at addressing the issue. You feel good with your way because it makes you look like a very intelligent person, which you are.



> If the truth is offensive to someone, I make no apologies for that.


I never said the 'truth' was offensive, only the people who try to preach the 'truth'!




> I have stated that my problem is with dogmatic adherence to religions which are predicated on the certainty of god.


please answer this question, why do you think you are better then me or hep or any other person who believes in God? Please answer?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> you cant really convince someone like that, they are wrong, because you have nothing to offer.


Oh boy! Here's where you and I part ways! 

Nothing to offer? 

I just spent a good 20 minutes searching for the quote, but couldn't find it...

When someone asked Neil DeGrasse Tyson 'what can science offer me?', his response was simple and poetic...

"the Universe"


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> "the Universe"



how so?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I am glad you feel that way, but when you use it to belittle someones beliefs, it just makes you out as an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've addressed all this before, and to you. If you want answers, read my past posts.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I am glad you feel that way, but when you use it to belittle someones beliefs, it just makes you out as an asshole.


Can you give a specific example of Heis 'belittling' someones beliefs?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> how so?


Through science, we acquire knowledge. With the acquisition of knowledge comes understanding.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42191453/ns/today-today_people/t/meet-boy-who-says-he-visited-heaven-saw-jesus/#.TmOwSXNqM00


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

btw, in my experience, there are "angels", prayers do work,

and there is a god.

its just that, its unimportant, in comparison to just having heaven on earth.

god likes a good party and happy people, family.

god is very misunderstood in many places and is really about as important as mickey mouse in daily life´s..

i say that and say this too.

i still believe the bible and the rest are mostly bullshit and hogwash.

rendered unintelligible by countless translations and fallacies of men.

who wrote the bible.

god sometimes talks to people, but people are fallible, 

start a row of people, whisper in the ear of the first one "the sky is blue" and ask him to whisper it on, down the line.

go to the end and listen to the last whisper

and you are probably going to hear something like "lucy in the sky with diamonds"

people´s brain fart and if we didnt hear good, we think the person mustave said something else and make it up (ever hear the song wishmaster? ever seen it with the lyrics people think are in it? fishmaster)

religion is more the devil´s thing,,(who exists, but not in the way you might think and is about as important as the villain in the mickey mouse story(its more of a mental construction of man than a real being)

you are the children of god

and the children of god are god too.

making god , just, yet another person, just older and wiser (actually one of many...(there are gods))


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Oh boy! Here's where you and I part ways!
> 
> Nothing to offer?
> 
> ...


but i allready had it  science is just yet another term for exploring the world and understanding it.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> With the acquisition of knowledge comes understanding.


so if we do not abide by your rules then we incompetent?

also, i believe that is meant to make people who use it look like fools.

what knowledge is right and what knowledge is wrong?

it is personal beliefs and preferences


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I've addressed all this before, and to you. If you want answers, read my past posts.


 is see you are becoming fluent in the tactic of deflection.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> Can you give a specific example of Heis 'belittling' someones beliefs?



i will do as the "roman's" do, you can review the past few pages and you will see. i dont have your time to be looking things up for you... does that sound familiar?


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

the trouble with "intellectuals" is they are often just as dogmatic as the relgious.

often lots of people have to die (from old age) before new theories are accepted.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> so if we do not abide by your rules then we incompetent?


If you don't follow the correct format that's already been well established through CENTURIES of work, CENTURIES man, longer than your Bible has been around, then you are susceptible to error. The scientific method provides us with the best known system to achieve correct results, and attempting to discern reality based on religious texts has proven to give us incorrect conclusions.
 


olylifter420 said:


> what knowledge is right and what knowledge is wrong?


I'd like to see how you answer that question first, before I answer it.



olylifter420 said:


> it is personal beliefs and preferences


No it isn't. Reality is not subject to your personal beliefs or preferences.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> the trouble with "intellectuals" is they are often just as dogmatic as the relgious.
> 
> often lots of people have to die (from old age) before new theories are accepted.


Do you have any examples?


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> If you don't follow the correct format that's already been well established through CENTURIES of work, CENTURIES man, longer than your Bible has been around, then you are susceptible to error. The scientific method provides us with the best known system to achieve correct results, and attempting to discern reality based on religious texts has proven to give us incorrect conclusions.
> 
> thats not exactly true, they have found cities and stuff mentioned in the bible (and other religous texts (and as they say, in all myths there is a grain of truth))


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Do you have any examples?


well, galileo and others if you want far back.

but closer to now, einstein was considered an idiot before a very famous physicist happened upon his theory..

forget names and im too stoned to properly recall it 

but this is rather widely known,

see, make a theory and if it gets accepted, you are on easy street.

plus many people will now make a living around that theory..

which will make them actively fight against any theory disproving it.

which is not bad inofitself, only when they get dogmatic and overlook truth to protect their own status (a very monkey attribute)


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> If you don't follow the correct format that's already been well established through CENTURIES of work, CENTURIES man, longer than your Bible has been around, then you are susceptible to error.


again, you display your ignorance. By the logic of your statement, you are saying that all ph.d's and professors who have contributed plenty to the fields that have helped you make up your own beliefs are fucking retarded.. well said sir, well said.



> The scientific method provides us with the best known system to achieve correct results, and attempting to discern reality based on religious texts has proven to give us incorrect conclusions.


what scientific textbook or textbook for universities were written based on the bible? i forgot the time they made the bible part of the scientific method. that explains why you blame the bible on these incorrect conclusions.



> I'd like to see how you answer that question first, before I answer it.


wow, that is a pussy move. why cant you answer it? is it too much for your small brain to handle? 



> No it isn't. Reality is not subject to your personal beliefs or preferences.


who is talking about reality? this is about knowledge. I really like the way you and heis are deflecting things now...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

i see you all havent seen the link i shared.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> so if we do not abide by your rules then we incompetent?
> 
> also, i believe that is meant to make people who use it look like fools.
> 
> ...


Personal beliefs have nothing to do with the shape of the moon. If everyone on earth believed the moon was square, it would still be round. This is the sort of thinking that suggests incompetence, rather than you breaking our nonexistent rules. The question of what knowledge is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, is what we are trying to explore.



olylifter420 said:


> i will do as the "roman's" do, you can review the past few pages and you will see. i dont have your time to be looking things up for you... does that sound familiar?


The burden of proof falls to you. You claim belittlement, but fail to show it.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> thats not exactly true, they have found cities and stuff mentioned in the bible (and other religous texts (and as they say, in all myths there is a grain of truth))


How does that apply to what I said?



sso said:


> well, galileo and others if you want far back.
> 
> but closer to now, einstein was considered an idiot before a very famous physicist happened upon his theory..
> 
> ...


You don't seem to fully understand the entire process. Peer review, fundamental to the scientific method, would eliminate any scientists with an alternate agenda. The only thing that matters in science is the truth. What isn't true gets weeded out in peer review, which is why it was introduced to the process. 

This is why ID doesn't get through, this is why no bad science or non science gets through the process. Creationists attempt to convince people it's because of some dogmatic agenda science is trying to pass (evolution), but it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention, its not science. If evolution wasn't science or it was false, it would have been figured out LONG AGO, when it was introduced. The fact it still exists today, 150 years later as a valid explanation of the diversity of life is a testament to its validity.

ID has never even had its foot in the door, what does that tell you about it...?


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How does that apply to what I said?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*that you do not know as much as you think.

but i appreciate your thoughts, you certainly have no lack of intelligence, but somewhat lacking in experience.*


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/

[video=youtube;-2cKcIljTEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2cKcIljTEo[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/

[video=youtube;-2cKcIljTEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2cKcIljTEo[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> again, you display your ignorance. By the logic of your statement, you are saying that all ph.d's and professors who have contributed plenty to the fields that have helped you make up your own beliefs are fucking retarded.. well said sir, well said.


I read that three times and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say...



olylifter420 said:


> what scientific textbook or textbook for universities were written based on the bible? i forgot the time they made the bible part of the scientific method. that explains why you blame the bible on these incorrect conclusions.


Same issue with this man.. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say..



olylifter420 said:


> who is talking about reality? this is about knowledge. I really like the way you and heis are deflecting things now...


 How do you know what is true and what is false? I use science, science has ways to quantify what is true and what isn't. 

What do you have?


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> How does that apply to what I said?
> 
> 
> well, if they found some of what the bible said to be true, then its not all false.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/
> 
> [video=youtube;-2cKcIljTEo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2cKcIljTEo[/video]


Seriously man, don't even pretend like you understand what that kid is talking about. You read the title of the video, thought "HOLY SHIT!" and came and posted it here thinking it supported what you're talking about. 

I see right through that shit, just so you know.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> Personal beliefs have nothing to do with the shape of the moon.


you really need to look past the things that best suit your defense. it really makes you look foolish. 

just in case you and pad do not understand what i am saying when i say "personal preference" is that it depends on what you want to study or learn, not on what shape the dumb moon is or whatever else pad said about that. Are you going to learn things you wish to learn or something someone is going to force you to learn? No, it is your own preference or interest in a certain subject of field of study.



> The question of what knowledge is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, is what we are trying to explore.


which is your own personal preference or interest. jeez, how many more times do i have to say that so you all can understand? you learns about things that help you with your discussion because you chose to learn about your defense, correct?



> The burden of proof falls to you. You claim belittlement, but fail to show it.


there is no burden on me, you all do the same, why cant i? Oh, i get, cause i believe in God.


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

padawanbater, i do think you have too much faith in science..

almost to the point of being relgious.

sometimes these conversations are like that,, the religion of science vs all others (same as with any religion)



..

its not that i find fault with science.

i find fault with man´s arrogance in assuming he has all the answers allready or even close to it.

i personally feel we are barely a step or 2 above the monkeys.

i think compared to the future and not that far ahead, we are neanderthals.

and it would be ridiculous for us to claim any supremacy in knowledge or absolute certainty about our methods and findings.

i still think we need that doubt about everything, to be able to fully learn at the pace we can.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> well, if they found some of what the bible said to be true, then its not all false.


So does that mean that because London is an actual city in the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter is true too?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> Seriously man, don't even pretend like you understand what that kid is talking about. You read the title of the video, thought "HOLY SHIT!" and came and posted it here thinking it supported what you're talking about. I see right through that shit, just so you know.



what are you trying to prove? how much of a big shit you really are? come back to your reality and see it for what it is. 

Show me the "proof" where i said i now what he is talking about? Please show me, or the burden falls on you.

Also, i had already seen that video along ass time ago. You are truly the thing you talk so bad about


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

.. this could all be a bubble in the mind of god, heck this could even be the matrix!  :laugh:

and it does not matter.

not really. 

im still enjoying a good party, a good spliff and a good fuck.

i love to sleep in a comfy bed and have a ridiculous conversation about everything.

sun is shining and birds are singing.

gods not here, but you are.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> I read that three times and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say...


how convenient, deflection.



> Same issue with this man.. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say..


ignorance



> How do you know what is true and what is false? I use science, science has ways to quantify what is true and what isn't.


i see, deflection


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> and it would be ridiculous for us to claim any supremacy in knowledge or absolute certainty about our methods and findings.
> 
> i still think we need that doubt about everything, to be able to fully learn at the pace we can.


 
I've never claimed absolute certainty about the scientific method. I've claimed it's the best method we have to discern reality. Do you disagree with that? If you do, what method is better and why?


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> what are you trying to prove? how much of a big shit you really are? come back to your reality and see it for what it is.
> 
> Show me the "proof" where i said i now what he is talking about? Please show me, or the burden falls on you.
> 
> Also, i had already seen that video along ass time ago. You are truly the thing you talk so bad about


*he´s saying scientists are so smart that you should just shutup and listen *


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> So does that mean that because London is an actual city in the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter is true too?



i had to read that over and over, but it still means nothing or shows nothing


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> So does that mean that because London is an actual city in the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter is true too?


now you are being somewhat foolish.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> you really need to look past the things that best suit your defense. it really makes you look foolish.
> 
> just in case you and pad do not understand what i am saying when i say "personal preference" is that it depends on what you want to study or learn, not on what shape the dumb moon is or whatever else pad said about that. Are you going to learn things you wish to learn or something someone is going to force you to learn? No, it is your own preference or interest in a certain subject of field of study.
> 
> ...


The concept of burden of proof is well established and has nothing to do with your belief in God. Do you not know this, or are you just employing a cheap trick? Do you find pad and I not supporting our assertions? My critical analysis of your belief have nothing to do with belittlement. That is just another example of playing the hurt card. Again, if it hurts you to have others examine your beliefs and point out errors, don't express them in a forum meant for discussion and debate. Several people here have pointed out errors in my thinking, yet I didn't get mad and claim belittlement.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> he´s saying scientists are so smart that you should just shutup and listen



whoa, what did i do to you?


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I've never claimed absolute certainty about the scientific method. I've claimed it's the best method we have to discern reality. Do you disagree with that? If you do, what method is better and why?


no, i do not agree with that, i personally use the same methods, more or less..

im just saying, humans are still fallible, dont believe everything you read.

even though something makes good sense, its not necesseraly the truth or the whole of it.

lol, damn tired, many typos 

it makes sense, to keep your options open regarding truth. and especially concerning the truth of others and truth you dont understand yet.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> now you are being somewhat foolish.


He was pointing out the implications of your assertion that if the bible mentions true historical cities, then it is not false. I agree, the idea that the bible is factual is foolish.


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> whoa, what did i do to you?


lol, i was being humorous.

and i was not telling you to shutup 

i was making conclusions about his video statements and what he inferred.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> That is just another example of playing the hurt card.


you are worse then the "birthers!"



> Again, if it hurts you to have others examine your beliefs and point out errors, don't express them in a forum meant for discussion and debate.


i have addressed this already in the past, if you missed it i am sorry for that, if you want you go and do your own research and you will find your answer.



> Several people here have pointed out errors in my thinking, yet I didn't get mad and claim belittlement.


cause you want to seem like some guru or some type of monk


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> now you are being somewhat foolish.


You said that if things in the Bible are true, it must be true (or something to that regard), what I said seemed to apply. If something in Harry Potter is true too, does that make the story true? 

The cities were around when the Bible was written, and they still exist today. That supports the idea that the Bible is true again... how?

To me, that just means the people who wrote the Bible knew of these cities.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> the best method we have to discern reality.



your method is to ignore things and use things that best suit your defense


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> He was pointing out the implications of your assertion that if the bible mentions true historical cities, then it is not false. I agree, the idea that the bible is factual is foolish.


true, but certain places that are mentioned in the bible (as well as the indian texts bhagasomething lol)

have been reported to be found.

making at least some things in the bible, true.

as it is really a collection of myths. (many of which were stolen from older stories and the names changed, similar to what people claim the catholic church did, so did the hebrews)

it does not necesarily infer that all the miracles and whatnot are true.

after all, fakirs of india fly with the help of special seats, but still many people have stories of them actually flying..

but, it does infer that there is some truth in the bible.

and not on par with harry potter 

but sorry gents, im invited to dinner  i´ll see you guy´s later 

have a good one and dont take this too seriously.

serious people dont live as long and if they do, they are nowhere near as happy :laugh: (oh ive seen and been both sides)


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> no, i do not agree with that, i personally use the same methods, more or less..


I'm sorry, I'm still unclear what you mean, you do not agree that the scientific method is the best system to acquire knowledge, and you think there is something better, or you do?



sso said:


> im just saying, humans are still fallible, dont believe everything you read.


What, in your experience of viewing my posts, would make you think I would believe anything simply because I read it?

I got to where I am now by fact checking EVERYTHING. Then checking them again.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> you are worse then the "birthers!"


How so?



> i have addressed this already in the past, if you missed it i am sorry for that, if you want you go and do your own research and you will find your answer.


This was advice. I did not expect you to address it.



> cause you want to seem like some guru or some type of monk


So when others point out my errors in my thinking and I accept those errors, that is somehow wrong? What behavior should I display? Should I cry hurt and stomp my feet in defense of errors? You are engaging in desperate attempts to poison the well and discredit me via ad hominem attacks. After months of reading about these things and why they are invalid in a debate, you still practice them.


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You said that if things in the Bible are true, it must be true (or something to that regard), what I said seemed to apply. If something in Harry Potter is true too, does that make the story true?
> 
> The cities were around when the Bible was written, and they still exist today. That supports the idea that the Bible is true again... how?
> 
> To me, that just means the people who wrote the Bible knew of these cities.



no, you are thinking im christian, im not, im not of any faith but my own.

and i have complete faith that i exist, probably  lol

ive said many time that, the bible is hogwash, bullshit, for the most part.

it has some truth in it, and some lovely philosophy

but mostly its total and utter crap, fit as a amusing curio or toiletpaper if you run out.

(since the truth in it and useful things are rather scarce and easily remembered after a single read)

ok see you guys later


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> true, but certain places that are mentioned in the bible (as well as the indian texts bhagasomething lol)
> 
> have been reported to be found.
> 
> ...


The bible is not completely false, just as H potter is not completely false, this does nothing to prove either isn't fiction. That would be the heart of what Pad was trying to say.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> what I said seemed to apply


so you are now some leading authority in the field?



> If something in Harry Potter is true too, does that make the story true?


dude, this is truly an example of the hurt card. How can you say that? Then since planet of the apes took place in san Francisco, then all of ceaser's friends should be in the forest just outside of SF right?



> To me, that just means the people who wrote the Bible knew of these cities.


again, i forgot you were a leading authority


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> How so?


i dont need to show you something you already know



> This was advice. I did not expect you to address it.


advice? really? 



> After months of reading about these things and why they are invalid in a debate, you still practice them.


why is that you cannot see what i am trying to show you all?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> so you are now some leading authority in the field?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is it possible for you to so completely miss the points of these posts? Why don't you try to read these comments in a careful manner than acknowledges the context. Where did anyone say they were an authority, and how does pointing out cities in the bible even suggest authority? In fact, Pad simply asked the question of how cities in the bible indicates merit. Where did Pad indicate that he has been hurt? You seem to just be regurgitating words devoid of concept. It's almost as if you have flash cards with goto defenses written on them, and you pick one at random when you need a retort. It's rather disconnected and essentially meaningless.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

in your eyes i will always be wrong bro, no matter what. You hold things against me and you find me to be incompetent as you say, which i do not mind and im glad you see me that way. In your eyes, you will always be right and those who disagree with you will always be wrong.

You all have not learned and you all have been on here longer then i have, there will never be an agreement or an even ground where you all can "explore" the uncertain things. i already know that and just trying to help you all come back to reality.




Heisenberg said:


> How is it possible for you to so completely miss the points of these posts? Why don't you try to read these comments in a careful manner than acknowledges the context. Where did anyone say they were an authority, and how does pointing out cities in the bible even suggest authority? In fact, Pad simply asked the question of how cities in the bible indicates merit. Where did Pad indicate that he has been hurt? You seem to just be regurgitating words devoid of concept.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> in your eyes i will always be wrong bro, no matter what. You hold things against me and you find me to be incompetent as you say, which i do not mind and im glad you see me that way. In your eyes, you will always be right and those who disagree with you will always be wrong.


As I pointed out just a few posts ago, I have been shown to be wrong on subjects, and I change my stance accordingly. This is something that is demanded by skepticism. Evidence must be followed wherever it leads, even if it is in a direction that conflicts with solidified ideas. This is simply another ad hominem attack. My personal attitude has nothing to do with the reasoning I have laid out quite clearly and painstakingly in this thread and others. In addition, although I may point out faults I see in your conduct, I do not need to depend on those faults for dogmatic religion to be invalid. These are simply attempts to get you to adhere to certain standards of civilized debate, in which tricks and cheap tactics do not cut it, nor does sloppy reading or failure to consider the concepts of others posts. I am not trying to change you, but to explain to you that if you do not want to live up to these standards then you have no place in debating these subjects. If you do not wish to have your beliefs and the paths that lead you to them examined, then don't bring them to the table.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

I find it interesting it's always the believer who says there will never be a compromise...


----------



## stumps (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I mean if you don't believe in a religion fine, just leave that persons religion alone. What's the point of being a douche and shooting down there belief? What do you have to gain? All your doing is causing negativity in the forums so don't go posting bad things in other threads that have to do with something that has nothing to do with you. I'm a Christian and I don't go around saying your wrong for not believing in what I believe in so why tell me I'm wrong? If your so sure your right about what you believe if you believe in buddha, Jesus, muhammed, the sphaghetti monster it doesn't matter don't tell other people there wrong when nobody knows what happens after death or if life completely ends when you die. So I'm not sure if all you guys are gonna agree with me but I'm calling a truce between all religions and asking for peace and no more negative posts. So shall we commence peace?


 Not a chance if people want to spew that crap . They can hear me spew back how stupid they are.


----------



## stumps (Sep 4, 2011)

The bible was put together by Rome. To control the masses.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> These are simply attempts to get you to adhere to certain standards of civilized debate,



now who is the one forcing stuff on people?


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

i do to. I find easy to see that the non believers love to bash on believers beliefs even though the non believers say they will not. just shows the hypocrisy. 




Padawanbater2 said:


> I find it interesting it's always the believer who says there will never be a compromise...


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

> It's almost as if you have flash cards with goto defenses written on them, and you pick one at random when you need a retort. It's rather disconnected and essentially meaningless.



yes, im sorry for not being perfect as you are sir. shame on me, or is that the hurt card as well? Funny how you always love to assume things about people you have no clued about. i mean if those are your tactics, then use them. i will stick to being me.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> now who is the one forcing stuff on people?


so civilized debate is out of the question?



olylifter420 said:


> i do to. I find easy to see that the non believers love to bash on believers beliefs even though the non believers say they will not. just shows the hypocrisy.


how is exposing the beliefs for what they are bashing them?


----------



## robert 14617 (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> yes, im sorry for not being perfect as you are sir. shame on me, or is that the hurt card as well? Funny how you always love to assume things about people you have no clued about. i mean if those are your tactics, then use them. i will stick to being me.


 no tactics on this end the only diff is only the believers care about pushing beliefs on others (salvation )


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> now who is the one forcing stuff on people?


I am not forcing rules, I am demanding quality. Do you really not see this, or are you just cherry picking phrases which you perceive will give you the appearance of merit?



olylifter420 said:


> yes, im sorry for not being perfect as you are sir. shame on me, or is that the hurt card as well? Funny how you always love to assume things about people you have no clued about. i mean if those are your tactics, then use them. i will stick to being me.


This is not a hurt card, this is sarcasm, which is equally poor at conveying a point. I did not mean that you literally have flash cards, of course, but your resulting posts are indistinguishable from someone who would use random cards with random ill-considered talking points. Your points are inconsistent, disconnected, and poorly thought out all while you engage in invalid debate tactics in an attempt to discredit opposition. If you feel you are not getting your message across, try being more comprehensible. If you don't want your words to appear schizophrenic, do a better job at choosing them. You continuously misconstrue others posts and consistently confuse others with your posts; this suggests a theme on your part and has nothing to do with me being an asshole.

The topic of this thread indicates inquiry about the dissension between religion and non-believers. My actions have only been to examine that topic, and to point out unacceptable tricks of debate. You are the one that has lead the conversation down a path which demonstrates our conflicts, but does nothing to illuminate the reasons behind them.


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 4, 2011)

i understand that, but when people want to accuse you of doing the same thing while you have never really cared about doing such a thing makes the accuser look like a douche and a bigot, but they fail to see it because in their mind my beliefs are stupid and theirs are based on science, so they have a right to bash my beliefs just cause they want to feel good about themselves, like they did something good today..





robert 14617 said:


> no tactics on this end the only diff is only the believers care about pushing beliefs on others (salvation )


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Sep 4, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i understand that, but when people want to accuse you of doing the same thing while you have never really cared about doing such a thing makes the accuser look like a douche and a bigot, but they fail to see it because in their mind my beliefs are stupid and theirs are based on science, so they have a right to bash my beliefs just cause they want to feel good about themselves, like they did something good today..


It seems like you just refuse to accept what we're saying to you, and instead hear what you want.

-you don't understand that having the beliefs you have, even while you may not adhere directly to a church, ARE DANGEROUS

-you don't understand what 'bigot' means

-your beliefs are inconsistent with reality and contribute nothing to society we couldn't already attain by other, more reasonable means

-I think you were conditioned to believe these things are true and simply can't fathom a world where they're not

-we've pointed out to you in more than three different threads I can think of off the top of my head the errors we're susceptible to as human beings, and you STILL fail to acknowledge you're falling for ALL OF THEM 

-you are so connected with defending your dogma you refuse to accept the contradictions you're faced with when objectively observing reality

-you can't enter the debate without stooping to a child's level of intellect, calling people names and arguing points they didn't make

-you fail to see how acknowledging these problems would actually earn you some respect and make you a better person

-you fail to see that we are only trying to help you understand that going through life with a skeptical mindset will benefit you, whether you're religious or not

-you refuse to accept a compromise because you can't accept the possibility you could be wrong


Until you start acting your age, you're right up there alongside beardo. People with this attitude towards learning and trying to educate themselves don't deserve my help.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2011)

I feel I have stated my opinions and backed them up. Nothing new is being added to the topic, so in my mind, thread closed.


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The bible is not completely false, just as H potter is not completely false, this does nothing to prove either isn't fiction. That would be the heart of what Pad was trying to say.


the difference being, 

harry potter is just a story that uses england of today as a baseline.

while cities being found that were in the bible, suggests that the actual stories in the bible, to some extent, are true.

which is supported by the fact, that many of these stories are found around the world (such as the great flood f.e)

but was noah really an immortal, like in the older stories,or was he just a normal dude (well, he lived what, 600 years, in the bible? (and if he was immortal, he´d be around today, and who knows )

?

lol.

i wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the incredible tales, ive seen some shit.

but i also wouldnt be that quick to take primitive´s man´s descriptions of something beyond his understanding as fact either..

nor would i even be so bold as to suggest i have matured beyond that primitivity.. 

i simply can not be certain.


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 4, 2011)

Somebody attack me god damn it! I go into Religion/Politics section knowing full well I'll be attacked! But god damn it, I get attacked heavy for like two posts, then the breaks are pushed on hard and it goes into a respectable debate for a few posts, and it ends with a plus rep! WTF is the shit?!?!


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

well, i think all sides, myself included, have behaved bit badly :laugh:



but anyway in discussing ancient literature, one simply can not be certain.

if the bible were to be true, then you´d also have to take the koran at face value, since its believers consider it the next chapter.

and also the witnessesses of jehova, they got a new bible and a dude that claimed to be the newest messenger, came in 1800 something 

cant really say any of that stuff affects me, all i care about is just being a good man and enjoying myself.

besides, most of that stuff, in those old texts, is written in metaphors and such..

understood at the time, but the meaning of a metaphor can change drastically in less than a century and a word the same.

to even begin to understand the bible, you´d need to do a shitload of reading and learning a few dead languages.

and actually, once you´ve done all that, well, its actually not that interesting and most of the good stuff can be found elsewhere lol (i didnt actually learn dead languages, i just read enough books by guys that did, to see it was pointless and i would have needed a shitload of money and connection to dig into the really old stuff.. lol, but what i found elsewhere, wasnt really that interesting anyway and as i said, to be found elsewhere in easier form (very similar to many writings from the east..and elsewhere)


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> Somebody attack me god damn it! I go into Religion/Politics section knowing full well I'll be attacked! But god damn it, I get attacked heavy for like two posts, then the breaks are pushed on hard and it goes into a respectable debate for a few posts, and it ends with a plus rep! WTF is the shit?!?!


huh, i couldnt like your post. no likey button.

so im just gonna say you are a narrowminded idiotic bigot, just on general principle and just to be certain (why i dont know )


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> huh, i couldnt like your post. no likey button.
> 
> so im just gonna say you are a narrowminded idiotic bigot, just on general principle and just to be certain (why i dont know )


'Like'.  Thanks. I needed that.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> Somebody attack me god damn it! I go into Religion/Politics section knowing full well I'll be attacked! But god damn it, I get attacked heavy for like two posts, then the breaks are pushed on hard and it goes into a respectable debate for a few posts, and it ends with a plus rep! WTF is the shit?!?!


only assholes keep crypts


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 4, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> only assholes keep crypts


 crypts? LOL


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> 'Like'.  Thanks. I needed that.


finally the like button appeared and no problem any time, feel free to blast me with similar sentiments about my unsoundness of mind and general insanity or something 

i might be generous later and call you a cocktard or sumtin


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

whats the meaning of that latin phrase btw, crypty? indomitable man forget what sed and sum means  8


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 4, 2011)

sso said:


> whats the meaning of that latin phrase btw, crypty? indomitable man forget what sed and sum means  8


Google it and read the sample text below the third link you deranged fool!


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> crypts? LOL


you are the crypt keeper, therefore you are an asshole 



sso said:


> whats the meaning of that latin phrase btw, crypty? indomitable man forget what sed and sum means  8


what?


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 4, 2011)

Is it because I hold the Crypt?


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> Is it because I hold the Crypt?


yes! hand over the crypt! you crypt hog


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 4, 2011)

No.  ....


----------



## sso (Sep 4, 2011)

The Cryptkeeper said:


> Google it and read the sample text below the third link you deranged fool!


ah, braveheart  oh and dont forget that im lazy too 

catch ya later ya duckfooted dried up has been of a puppet  (well, the duckfoot part is a lie and a slander, i do lie  hmm, now im gonna go check if there are any new cryptkeeper movies i havent seen


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 4, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> It is absolutely not wrong to support your ideas. I do not find fault in that action itself. The fault I find is in the reasoning and ill education you engage in when you try to find support. You most certainly did argue against science, and notice that none of us played the hurt card. It's time you accept that religion deserves judgment. You can believe anyway, but you have to admit your belief is grounded not in reality, but faith. This is something even religion teaches you. The next step is to identify just what faith is, and if it is enough evidence.


I admit that my religion does not have enough facts to argue for it especially when I have to prove it against science. I admit that I have no proof which is why I said before that my argent is completely based on faith. And I never insulted science I love science I just also believe in god.


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 4, 2011)

So if it's all a matter of faith, one of if not the most personal thing in humans life, why discuss it in an impersonal format.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 4, 2011)

Do you believe you can control my mind berry.. . Tell me I can Eat Your Pudding.. I am going to Eat it Anyway.


----------



## Luger187 (Sep 4, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I admit that my religion does not have enough facts to argue for it especially when I have to prove it against science. I admit that I have no proof which is why I said before that my argent is completely based on faith. And I never insulted science I love science I just also believe in god.


so you are lucky to have been born where you were, and learned about the christian god? what if you so happened to be born in pakistan? you would have faith in the muslim god right now. but then according to the bible, you wouldnt go to heaven. so should god just fuck all those people in the world not lucky enough to be born into a christian family?


----------



## The Cryptkeeper (Sep 4, 2011)

[video=youtube;jDtYI4TzsUY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDtYI4TzsUY[/video]


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 21, 2012)

Sorry for bumping.. I just thought this thread was funny.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Jun 21, 2012)

"whats the point of being a douche and shooting down a belief? What do you have to gain?"

Oh how you've changed Hep lol.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 21, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Sorry for bumping.. I just thought this thread was funny.










...kidding, man


----------



## Doer (Jun 21, 2012)

If you want know about the deep seat of hatred for Western Religion, you have to understand that it is steeped in the rejection of the horrors of Rome.
http://paintingpictures.xanga.com/673261263/item


I see it all, and in the name of the ruin 
it has brought in the Church and 
in the world,
in the name of the truth it has denied, 
the temple 
it has defiled, 
*the God it has blasphemed, 
*the 
souls it has destroyed; 
in the name of the millions it has deluded, 

the millions it has slaughtered, 
the millions it has damned; 

with holy confessors, with noble reformers, 
with innumerable martyrs, 
with the saints of ages,
*I denounce it as "the 
masterpiece of Satan", 
as the body and soul and essence of 
antichrist." 
*- 1880s, Dr. H. Grattan Guinness


----------



## trichome fiend (Jun 21, 2012)

[youtube]DAuFJKQh83Y[/youtube]


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 21, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> "whats the point of being a douche and shooting down a belief? What do you have to gain?"
> 
> Oh how you've changed Hep lol.


Actually, I asked that same question yesterday in another thread. Asking that question reminded me of this thread.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 21, 2012)

And now lets let this thread die.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jun 22, 2012)

bump bump bump bump


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 22, 2012)

At the end of the day lets leave it at people that believe in god dont need scientific evidence, we have proof, and even when it seems like god isnt there, we still have faith. Atheists need to respect that. Respect faith. If you dont have any thats fine but leave other people alone. And there is plenty of credible evidence that bigfoot exists.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> At the end of the day lets leave it at people that believe in god dont need scientific evidence, we have proof, and even when it seems like god isnt there, we still have faith. Atheists need to respect that. Respect faith. If you dont have any thats fine but leave other people alone. And there is plenty of credible evidence that bigfoot exists.


I'm sorry, Kaendar, but if only you'd omitted the last sentence. ~wipes tear from eye~ I so wish you could have met Finshaggy. cn


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> At the end of the day lets leave it at people that believe in god dont need scientific evidence, we have proof, and even when it seems like god isnt there, we still have faith. Atheists need to respect that. Respect faith. If you dont have any thats fine but leave other people alone. And there is plenty of credible evidence that bigfoot exists.


What is respectable about faith?


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> At the end of the day lets leave it at people that believe in god dont need scientific evidence, we have proof, and even when it seems like god isnt there, we still have faith. Atheists need to respect that. Respect faith. If you dont have any thats fine but leave other people alone. And there is plenty of credible evidence that bigfoot exists.


Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha&#8217;s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.


The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god&#8217;s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god&#8217;s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.


The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god&#8217;s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I'm sorry, Kaendar, but if only you'd omitted the last sentence. ~wipes tear from eye~ I so wish you could have met Finshaggy. cn


Im dead serious. I believe that there are plenty of species that have not been officially recognized by science. Bigfoot is one of them.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 22, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What is respectable about faith?


It doesnt matter what YOU think is respectable, its about having respect for another man and how he wants to live. If you have no faith thats not our problem, so respect the ppl that do. Its that simple. When we die one of us is gonna be wrong and one of us is gonna be right.. until then you should stop waisting your time trying to convince people that their beliefs are wrong. Its like trying to convince someone their name isnt their real name.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> At the end of the day lets leave it at people that believe in god dont need scientific evidence, we have proof, and even when it seems like god isnt there, we still have faith. Atheists need to respect that. Respect faith. If you dont have any thats fine but leave other people alone. And there is plenty of credible evidence that bigfoot exists.





It's fine to believe something on faith IF you understand what that means. It means you are not allowed to debate your idea, because you can not support it. It means you are not allowed to use your ideas to influence any sort of social or public policy, because you have no justification. You can not expect your faith to have value to anyone but yourself. You have the right to express, explain and celebrate your belief and then sit down and be quiet because your idea amounts to wild speculation. Speculation is not afforded certitude. When the idea of God acquires more support than the idea of leprechauns or the tooth fairy, you might then have something more to say. Until then, you have the right to your personal faith, but not respect.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> It doesnt matter what YOU think is respectable, its about having respect for another man and how he wants to live. If you have no faith thats not our problem, so respect the ppl that do. Its that simple. When we die one of us is gonna be wrong and one of us is gonna be right.. until then you should stop waisting your time trying to convince people that their beliefs are wrong. Its like trying to convince someone their name isnt their real name.


I used to think that ^^..
Later on I found out I was trying to say "respect the believer" and not "respect faith".

Faith deserves no respect. But we should respect the believer as a person. Pad does respect believers (he showed respect to me when I had a religion). He doesn't respect faith though. Why should he?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 22, 2012)

kaendar said:


> im dead serious. I believe that there are plenty of species that have not been officially recognized by science. Bigfoot is one of them.


hehehehe!!!


----------



## Doer (Jun 22, 2012)

Cut.Throat. said:


> Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddhas teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
> 
> 
> The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have gods words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand gods nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.
> ...



They are re-wrting this religion, like all others. Buddha had to get permission from Vishnu. Vishnu in his elephant manifestation lay with Buddha mom, 
in a dream. Buddha is the son of God. That what the older stories say. Now it better to preach re-incarnation, but in the 11 Century, the Reposete wrote, sadly, in the Maya/Illusion of "existance" even re-incarnation is impossible.

In the West we tend to idolize the Dala Lama and all that, but, I see it as a backwards religion like all of them are. They all start with a man and good intentions. But, then later, the followers need the God card. BTW cultures that are Buddhists have a very un-helpful view of the afflicted and the un-fortunate. They chastise them for guilt, but heep guilt upon them in this life for past lives.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Im dead serious. I believe that there are plenty of species that have not been officially recognized by science. Bigfoot is one of them.


What would lead you to believe in Bigfoot? All I've seen/heard is ... testimony, and you already know my opinion of that. No physical evidence of any sort afaik, not even a bone, or any other source of biochemical markers. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 22, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> It doesnt matter what YOU think is respectable, its about having respect for another man and how he wants to live. If you have no faith thats not our problem, so respect the ppl that do. Its that simple. When we die one of us is gonna be wrong and one of us is gonna be right.. until then you should stop waisting your time trying to convince people that their beliefs are wrong. Its like trying to convince someone their name isnt their real name.


Nothing inherently deserves respect. Respect, by definition is based on certain qualities and some qualities are not deserving of respect. It seems your position is to respect everything, regardless of what it is. We should respect ignorance and stupidity, we should respect violence and injustice, we should respect hatred and bigotry.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> What would lead you to believe in Bigfoot? All I've seen/heard is ... testimony, and you already know my opinion of that. No physical evidence of any sort afaik, not even a bone, or any other source of biochemical markers. cn


An actual bigfoot would seriously undermine the idea of human evolution. As far as we know, hominids are the only species that evolved the capability to walk upright. If we find more primates that walk upright, that's one thing, finding them on the North American continent would be incredible.


----------



## Doer (Jun 22, 2012)

Indeed, and I don't believe we should be forced into this double-think about respect. It's part of the tyranny of opinion, to me. I don't have to have an opinion or take a stance to have a discussion and I don't have to respect the stance or opinion, belief, etc of others. We just try not to be rude to each, and succeed, more or less. We have lost the meaning of respect. It's not a gang thing. That thing is about dis-respect actually and all it's subtle rules.

Respect is earned, never demanded. 

Yet, to preach Fear is to command hatred. That's my main beef with Religion.


----------



## Oscar Zeta Acosta (Jun 23, 2012)

I feel like the further we develope the less place we have in society for religion. The evolution of science is becoming so solid that people can't help but hold greater faith in it than most of the other gods out there, which means at some point in time we could see the eradication of some of the oldest traditions and beliefs as well as maybe a more solid, but smaller sect of believers cast from possible proof of religious stories. Finding an ancient religious artifact or city might just help with that, though as with most things of historical significance it would be behind a vault door with no public admittance. 

My money's on Noah's ark. Lol

Either way for the time being I see more and more people getting fed up of religion being the drive behind so much death and despair. Its probably going to hit boiling point soon if we don't manage to take away the misinterpretations and extremism out of some of the various religious holy text.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> What would lead you to believe in Bigfoot? All I've seen/heard is ... testimony, and you already know my opinion of that. No physical evidence of any sort afaik, not even a bone, or any other source of biochemical markers. cn


Well besides some pretty good videos there are audio recordings, tracks, hair and fecal samples. The only reason no serious testing is done on it is because scientist wont touch it with a flagpole in order to preserve their reputation.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> An actual bigfoot would seriously undermine the idea of human evolution. As far as we know, hominids are the only species that evolved the capability to walk upright. If we find more primates that walk upright, that's one thing, finding them on the North American continent would be incredible.


Bigfoot (bigfoots?) are hominids. They arent some mythical magical creatures. And they have been reported on 4 continents, not just NA.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Bigfoot (bigfoots?) are hominids. They arent some mythical magical creatures. And they have been reported on 4 continents, not just NA.


So you're proposing they followed the migration of humans? How come they do not act like a migratory species or leave any evidence of their existence until quite recently? 

Sorry bub, you have been taken in by one of the biggest hoaxes of all time.


----------



## Doer (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Bigfoot (bigfoots?) are hominids. They arent some mythical magical creatures. And they have been reported on 4 continents, not just NA.



There have been un-confimed sightings of all manner of things. But, just like UFOs, there are only stories of sightings. Modern stories, now, with modern "evidence." When we have hunted down all the large game in NorAm, will someone ever tag a UFO or a bigfoot?

Hunters are killed every year by themselves but never a bigfoot brought down. Loggers are all over those mountains, even fying helicopters over remote glens. And who is to say? Maybe there is no bigfoot, only Micheal Valentine Smith. Ya grock?


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Well besides some pretty good videos there are audio recordings, tracks, hair and fecal samples. The only reason no serious testing is done on it is because scientist wont touch it with a flagpole in order to preserve their reputation.


I don't buy it. In the words of a friend "I'm not even renting that one". If actual hair samples existed and clearly demonstrated a previously undocumented instance of north American megafauna (to say nothing of a primate!) that would MAKE any zoologist's career. i could even see a Nobel in it. You seem to be susceptible to the unlogic, the antilogic of conspiracy theory. That's too bad, because millions have discovered it to be the ultimate reason-proof fortress since it comes presupplied with multiply redundant ways to say 
"lalalalaaaaLAAAA I can't hear you". 
There's a fine line between defending a faith and engaging in outright denial, cartooned in the expression "lalalaLAAA I can't hear you". Imo conspiracy theories are completely and irredeemably in the Denial-worshiper camp. (in some languages, Denial and Satan are congeners.) cn


----------



## missnu (Jun 23, 2012)

I think people hate on religion because when you are a child you get told that this is the way things are and you believe it because you are a child...but as you get older you start to see the holes in the story, and sometimes when people first fall off the Jesus wagon they are a little upset at having been told untruths for so long...

Same reason the DARE program causes a rise in drug use...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 23, 2012)

On that note ^, same reason teen pregnancy rates are higher in 'abstinence only' states. 

Lying to people seems to be a counterproductive way to accomplish a goal... hmm...


----------



## cindysid (Jun 23, 2012)

Can't we all just get a bong?LOL


----------



## Doer (Jun 23, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> On that note ^, same reason teen pregnancy rates are higher in 'abstinence only' states.
> 
> Lying to people seems to be a counterproductive way to accomplish a goal... hmm...


References, please.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 23, 2012)

Doer said:


> References, please.


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/11/states-with-abstinence-only-sex-ed-programs-rank-highest-in-teen-pregnancies/


----------



## Doer (Jun 23, 2012)

One really begins to wonder about what a lot of things mean. The War on Drugs. It has to be just some kind of CIA scam that turned into billions of dollars of business on all sides. The flypaper of power.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 23, 2012)

And that's a beautiful part of being a skeptical person. It's a lot harder for the power that is to screw you over if you know what to look for.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So you're proposing they followed the migration of humans? How come they do not act like a migratory species or leave any evidence of their existence until quite recently?
> 
> Sorry bub, you have been taken in by one of the biggest hoaxes of all time.


No they didnt follow the migration of humans.. they were probably already here.. native americans and native canadians have stories of sasquatch from very far back. Ancient civilizations all over the world speak of sasquatch.. there arent that many.. one zoologist estimated probably only 2000 in North America.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> No they didnt follow the migration of humans.. they were probably already here.. native americans and native canadians have stories of sasquatch from very far back. Ancient civilizations all over the world speak of sasquatch.. there arent that many.. one zoologist estimated probably only 2000 in North America.


How would they have beat humans here? You obviously have no idea how evolution and migration work do you?


BTW, someone that calls himself a 'cryptozoologist' is not necessarily a zoologist.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> No they didnt follow the migration of humans.. they were probably already here.. native americans and native canadians have stories of sasquatch from very far back. Ancient civilizations all over the world speak of sasquatch.. there arent that many.. one zoologist estimated probably only 2000 in North America.


You don't understand. They couldn't have just been here in North America already. Having some of their traits already pretty clearly defined, it's obvious if they did actually exist, they would be closely related to humans.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> How would they have beat humans here? You obviously have no idea how evolution and migration work do you?
> 
> 
> BTW, someone that calls himself a 'cryptozoologist' is not necessarily a zoologist.


There were animals on this continent for millions of years before humans came. I dont understand your logic.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> There were animals on this continent for millions of years before humans came. I dont understand your logic.


Other animals are not hominids. Learn something about human evolution and get back to me.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Other animals are not hominids. Learn something about human evolution and get back to me.


I dont think that bigfoot are in the line of human evolution. You seem to think that just because they are bipedal. I think they have lived on the world far before humans have.. and they continue to live because of their ability to maintain their population and remain un-detected, for the most part.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Well besides some pretty good videos there are audio recordings, tracks, hair and fecal samples. *The only reason no serious testing is done on it is because scientist wont touch it with a flagpole in order to preserve their reputation.*


Because being the first scientist to confirm Bigfoot would be bad for the reputation? There wouldn't be millions of dollars, fame, awards and prestige? This is only a demonstration of how little you understand the scientific community and the scientific method, and how little you have actually thought about your position.



"Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas: Its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved." --Bertrand Russel


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> I think the fact that bigfoot thrives and remains undetected is one of the least understood things there is. I know they have a rather tight community and are actually very intelligent. I know the guy who made that jerky commercial. He was just acting. He's not really mean or vindictive.


Uncle Buck.. is that you?? I love your new tribal disguise.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Because being the first scientist to confirm Bigfoot would be bad for the reputation? There wouldn't be millions of dollars, fame, awards and prestige? This is only a demonstration of how little you understand the scientific community and the scientific method, and how little you have actually thought about your position.
> 
> 
> 
> "Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas: Its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved." --Bertrand Russel


It is a known and very openly spoken about point that scientist do not even want to risk their reputation by attempting to study a cryptid. Look it up because right now you are very wrong.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 23, 2012)

And heres 10 cryptids that were proven real for all you science nerds that say its not possible.

http://listverse.com/2010/08/13/top-10-cryptids-that-turned-out-to-be-real/


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> And heres 10 cryptids that were proven real for all you science nerds that say its not possible.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2010/08/13/top-10-cryptids-that-turned-out-to-be-real/


http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> It is a known and very openly spoken about point that scientist do not even want to risk their reputation by attempting to study a cryptid. Look it up because right now you are very wrong.


It's a very openly spoken point that scientists love to discover new things, especially when they were told they couldn't. Look it up.



Kaendar said:


> And heres 10 cryptids that were proven real for all you science nerds that say its not possible.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2010/08/13/top-10-cryptids-that-turned-out-to-be-real/


If science is afraid to study cryptids then how were 10 of them confirmed?


----------



## robert 14617 (Jun 23, 2012)

religion needs to take a lesson from nature


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 23, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> I dont think that bigfoot are in the line of human evolution. You seem to think that just because they are bipedal. I think they have lived on the world far before humans have.. and they continue to live because of their ability to maintain their population and remain un-detected, for the most part.


So one post you claim it is a hominid and now you claim it isn't? Any hominid, by definition exist within the lineage of humans. Learn some taxonomy, learn some basic science before you go spouting your ridiculous ideas.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 24, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> It's a very openly spoken point that scientists love to discover new things, especially when they were told they couldn't. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> If science is afraid to study cryptids then how were 10 of them confirmed?


Scientist didnt want to study those either.. but eventually the amount of evidence was overwhelming and they had to stop ignoring them, which is exactly whats gonna happen to bigfoot.


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 24, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So one post you claim it is a hominid and now you claim it isn't? Any hominid, by definition exist within the lineage of humans. Learn some taxonomy, learn some basic science before you go spouting your ridiculous ideas.


Ok, sorry for that one mistake. Bigfoot is a real species that exists, theres too much evidence for it than against it. Thats all im sayin..


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Scientist didnt want to study those either.. but eventually the amount of evidence was overwhelming and they had to stop ignoring them, which is exactly whats gonna happen to bigfoot.


Discovering bigfoot would lead to many awards and lots of cash.

Others have already pointed that out but I felt like I should remind you since it seems like you forgot their point.


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Scientist didnt want to study those either.. but eventually the amount of evidence was overwhelming and they had to stop ignoring them, which is exactly whats gonna happen to bigfoot.


The amount of evidence that god is make believe is overwhelming. But you seem to ignore that.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Ok, sorry for that one mistake. Bigfoot is a real species that exists, theres too much evidence for it than against it. Thats all im sayin..


When did it evolve? And from what kind of ancestor? Were it's ancestors in North America _before_ humans first arrived around 14,000 years ago? Why are there no skeletons or physical remains?


----------



## Mojo Risin (Jun 24, 2012)

*What's Will All The Religion Hatred?


You ask a foolish question. When the answer is obvious. To base your life on Mythology when you know all the myths of the ages have been proven false but for some reason you insist on taking the road of no responsibility for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/v/vQgI4bHpAlA?version=3&hl=en_US



*


----------



## Kaendar (Jun 24, 2012)

Skeptic? Heres some scientists who are discreetly testing bigfoot hair and DNA samples

http://thinklings.org/?post_id=6655

http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2012/05/british-swiss-scientists-initiate.html


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Skeptic? Heres some scientists who are discreetly testing bigfoot hair and DNA samples
> 
> http://thinklings.org/?post_id=6655
> 
> http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2012/05/british-swiss-scientists-initiate.html


At least link to a somewhat credible source.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/big-foot-genetic-testing-120522.html


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Skeptic? Heres some scientists who are discreetly testing bigfoot hair and DNA samples
> 
> http://thinklings.org/?post_id=6655
> 
> http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2012/05/british-swiss-scientists-initiate.html


"One hypothesis is that yetis are surviving Neanderthals. The joint project will take DNA samples from areas where there have been alleged sightings to see whether the Neanderthal DNA traces are stronger in the local population."

​That's from the second link

This is why understanding science is important. Neanderthals lived 0.35-0.03 million years ago and were confined to Europe and Western Asia, homo sapiens (modern humans) reached North America 14,000* years ago. How could a species that died off 15,000 years earlier reach a new place before modern humans and there be absolutely no record of it happening? Every Neanderthal skeleton ever discovered has been in Europe and Western Asia. 

Would you agree that somewhat puts that theory to rest?


----------



## Mojo Risin (Jun 24, 2012)

*Are the Bigfoot-Sasquatch-Yeti surviving Neanderthals?*

One way to find out would be to use any viable DNA to clone one, using a human female. But I doubt that idea would gain much traction, and what would we do with it?
As one Toronto Sun reader suggests, &#8220;I am sure Toronto is full of them and they vote Liberal&#8221;&#8230; -JG.
Scientists deploy genetics in search for bigfoot
Toronto Sun
Chris Wickham: Reuters
May 22nd, 2012
LONDON &#8212; Scientists are turning to genetic testing to see if they can prove the existence of the elusive hairy humanoid known across the world as bigfoot, yeti and sasquatch.
A joint project between Oxford University and Switzerland&#8217;s Lausanne Museum of Zoology will examine organic remains that some say belong to the creature that has been spotted in remote areas for decades.
&#8220;It&#8217;s an area that any serious academic ventures into with a deal of trepidation &#8230; It&#8217;s full of eccentric and downright misleading reports,&#8221; said Bryan Sykes at Oxford&#8217;s Wolfson College.
But the team would take a systematic approach and use the latest advances in genetic testing, he added.
&#8220;There have been DNA tests done on alleged yetis and other such things but since then the testing techniques, particularly on hair, have improved a lot due to advances in forensic science,&#8221; he told Reuters.
Modern testing could get valid results from a fragment of a shaft of hair said Sykes, who is leading the project with Michel Sartori, director of the Lausanne museum.
Ever since a 1951 expedition to Mount Everest returned with photographs of giant footprints in the snow, there has been speculation about giant Himalayan creatures, unknown to science.
There have been eyewitness reports of the &#8217;yeti&#8217; or &#8217;migoi&#8217; in the Himalayas, &#8217;bigfoot&#8217; or &#8217;sasquatch&#8217; in America, &#8217;almasty&#8217; in the Caucasus mountains and &#8217;orang pendek&#8217; in Sumatra.
Tests up to now have usually concluded that alleged yeti remains were actually human, he said. But that could have been the result of contamination. &#8220;There has been no systematic review of this material.&#8221;
The project will focus on Lausanne&#8217;s archive of remains assembled by Bernard Heuvelmans, who investigated reported yeti sightings from 1950 up to his death in 2001.
Other institutions and individuals will also be asked to send in details of any possible yeti material. Samples will be subjected to &#8220;rigorous genetic analysis&#8221;, and the results published in peer-reviewed science journals.
Aside from the yeti question, Sykes said he hoped the project would add to the growing body of knowledge on the interaction between humanity&#8217;s ancestors.
&#8220;In the last two years it has become clear that there was considerable inter-breeding between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals &#8230; about 2 to 4 percent of the DNA of each individual European is Neanderthal,&#8221; he said.
One hypothesis is that yetis are surviving Neanderthals. The joint project will take DNA samples from areas where there have been alleged sightings to see whether the Neanderthal DNA traces are stronger in the local population.
As for the project&#8217;s chances of success? &#8220;The answer is, of course, I don&#8217;t know,&#8221; said Sykes. &#8220;It&#8217;s unlikely but on the other hand if we don&#8217;t examine it we won&#8217;t know.&#8221;

See original here.

Pretty funny.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Ok, sorry for that* one* mistake. Bigfoot is a real species that exists, theres too much evidence for it than against it. Thats all im sayin..


Yes, that's all your sayin, that god, the great and omniscient homophobe, created humans and placed them above the animals, yet he also created this other intelligent species of Bigfoot smart enough to hide from us, and never mentioned them in the bible, or worries about getting them into church. 

You don't want to understand science, you misrepresent science because that is the only way your views make sense. You are a genuine flake.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." --John F. Kennedy


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jun 24, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Yes, that's all your sayin, that god, the great and omniscient homophobe, created humans and placed them above the animals, yet he also created this other intelligent species of Bigfoot smart enough to hide from us, and never mentioned them in the bible, or worries about getting them into church.
> 
> You don't want to understand science, you misrepresent science because that is the only way your views make sense. You are a genuine flake.
> 
> "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." --John F. Kennedy


You've just been face palmed. Great post.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> Skeptic? Heres some scientists who are discreetly testing bigfoot hair and DNA samples
> 
> http://thinklings.org/?post_id=6655
> 
> http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2012/05/british-swiss-scientists-initiate.html


Correction. They are testing hair and DNA samples _alleged _to be from bigfoot or another species.



But...but... but... wouldn't his ruin their reputation like you claimed?


----------



## Doer (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> I dont think that bigfoot are in the line of human evolution. You seem to think that just because they are bipedal. I think they have lived on the world far before humans have.. and they continue to live because of their ability to maintain their population and remain un-detected, for the most part.


Maybe they have cloaking technology?


----------



## Doer (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> It is a known and very openly spoken about point that scientist do not even want to risk their reputation by attempting to study a cryptid. Look it up because right now you are very wrong.


Come on. Why strain? There are well funded, zoology field studies underway all over the world. We search high and low for new creatures. Criptids are found every year. If you don't understand how someone is willing to jump up and claim Cold Fusion, without any peer review, then you need to re-examine how science is done.

People have jumped up and claimed Big Foot, every year. It is no different, except the Cold Fusion guys were actual researchers, so they shut up.

This is a great quote: My views on the tyranny of opinion put to voice.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." --John F. Kennedy


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2012)

Kaendar said:


> And heres 10 cryptids that were proven real for all you *science nerds that say its not possible*.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2010/08/13/top-10-cryptids-that-turned-out-to-be-real/


You have yet to establish that ANY science nerds are saying it isn't possible.


----------



## billybob420 (Jun 24, 2012)

Religion is stupid, hence the lack of respect.


----------



## Doer (Jun 24, 2012)

Originally Posted by *Kaendar*And heres 10 cryptids that were proven real for all you *science nerds that say its not possible*.

http://listverse.com/2010/08/13/top-...ut-to-be-real/


Heisenberg said:


> You have yet to establish that ANY science nerds are saying it isn't possible.


We are geeks atually. We get things done. As I mentioned, cryptids are found, you just listed 10. But, you also claimed cryptids are not worth risking reputation, but they went out and found 10???

Just try to grip more firmly. It helps.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> So basically what we have is a clique of morons who hate Christians because they simply disagree with them, yet demand the same Christians they openly hate show respect to them. Fascinating bigotry.


What we have is a clique of skeptical individuals who require evidence to discuss beliefs in any meaningful way. If you don't have evidence of your beliefs, and can't handle criticism or properly defend them, don't post on a public forum about them. 

If you do post about them, you can't complain when they're analyzed. If they're irrational, it will be pointed out. Unsubstantiated beliefs hold no foundation in reality, which means those that hold them have no moral superiority or moral right to conform society based around them. If you can't understand this, take a few classes on human morality, psychology, and society to get a better idea.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Can your children discuss adult topics without resorting to name calling? Perhaps you need some special ed.


Decent. Room for improvement however. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> And who determines what is "irrational"? What criteria do you use to judge "irrationality"?


Double response. Penalty assessed. cn


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> And who determines what is "irrational"? What criteria do you use to judge "irrationality"?


Like I said: It depends on what the definition of "is" is.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> And who determines what is "irrational"? What criteria do you use to judge "irrationality"?


The rules of logic, if you don't understand them, research them.


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 24, 2012)

Because none of those beliefs are real dude... Get it through your head, and tell that point... Tell Santa we all said hi...


Religious Zealot Douche Bags!


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> What rules of logic have I broken?


If you are allowed marriage then everyone is allowed marriage. Pretty simple.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> LOL. You're gonna flip when you find out who you just said that to.


Interesting ploy. Work the mystery/threat angle You go, girl. cn


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> LOL. You're gonna flip when you find out who you just said that to.


We all know you're kaendar.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> So anyone who believes marriage is a man and a woman is wrong thinking?


You say the darnedest things


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> LOL. You're gonna flip when you find out who you just said that to.


Kaendar... be quiet..


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> So anyone who believes marriage is a man and a woman is wrong thinking?


Correct. It's just a piece of paper and some rings. Get over yourself.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Togtokes and I know each other. You're on the outside looking in. Don't take yourself so seriously or you'll embarrass yourself even further.


Good. Good!! Let it flow through you. Feeeeeeel it. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> So anyone who believes marriage is a man and a woman is [engaging in] wrong thinking?


Obviously. A marriage is a contract. A man and a woman are two humans. It's apples and the classified section you're comparing. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Naw. You and your pals believe the darndest things. Stupid things that aren't rational or logical. Public school students, no doubt.


That was the darnedest thing you could have said.


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Wow. Just think of all those billions and billions of people who have lived on the earth and wrongfully thought marriage was a man and a woman. I just thank God I could be born and live in this enlightened age and learn from all you enlightened intelligent people. I'm so blessed. God bless you.


Flying spaghetti monster bless you too friend.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> A marriage is a covenant. Do you understand what a covenant is?


That's a female relative who's also into Wicca. Whadd I win, Pat? cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> I ate the flying spaghetti monster with extra sauce.


Oh. You're Catholic! ~conspiratorial whisper~ They eat their God, you know. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Am I right? Didn't you attend public school where they indoctrinated you to believe homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality.


You have the darnedest way of speaking.


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> I ate the flying spaghetti monster with extra sauce.


Then you are blessed to have his noodely appendages in your intestines. Still doesn't change the fact you're a bigot.


----------



## Cut.Throat. (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Why, of course. I'm a bigot and you're a bigot. We're all bigots.


Hey at least you admit it. Next step is coming out of the closet.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> You won a trip to the dictionary to find out what a covenant is. Congratulations.


And you were doing so well, only to choke in the home stretch. Rookie. cn


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Oh yeah, I've heard that. I don't go along with that. Defies common sense, logic, and rationality. I hope the moderator is pleased with me now.


Believing in god as a fact defies sense, logic, and rationality.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Believing in god as a fact defies sense, logic, and rationality.


No, Heph; it's human. I don't begrudge anyone his or her faith. What I dislike is evangelism by either side. cn


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 24, 2012)

Hmmmm, Considering i don't know anyone off this site lol.... MrGreenThumb? Metallica? If not fuck off dipshit lol.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> I'm new here. You don't really want me to fuck off. Do you know a woman named Nancy?


Whoah. We have a *palmist *in the house. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Do you tolerate evangelists or do you just demand they tolerate you?


Two separate questions there, conflated into a no-win sentence structure. Ask each question separately and without the cheek if you truly want a dialog. cn


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> No, Heph; it's human. I don't begrudge anyone his or her faith. What I dislike is evangelism by either side. cn


No believing in god as fact doesn't make sense, requires lack of logic, and it's irrational to make up an invisible being that controls your life. 

How is an agnostic person gonna be evangelical?


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> I'm new here. You don't really want me to fuck off. Do you know a woman named Nancy?


I sure don't. You must. And if you knew me, and freely through names about i would not want to know you.. Just saying.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> No believing in god as fact doesn't make sense, requires lack of logic, and it's irrational to make up an invisible being that controls your life.


If we take that logic and run with it to its ultimate conclusion, nothing is rational in the end. I firmly believe that we are subjectivists by our very natures. 



> How is an agnostic person gonna be evangelical?


What I mean by evangelism by the other side comes from militant rationalists. Different category than agnostics. For militant rationalist evangelism, i refer you to The Sativa High's posts of some months ago. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> We have people on this site who have no problem insulting and demanding tolerance while spewing insults and intolerance in the next breath.


I know that. But you are talking to me now. Please focus. cn


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Don't you know Phil and Nancy?


No sir never heard of them... What a strange day.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> I'm focused just fine. Go.


You place a very low value on having your questions answered. Ah, youth. cn


----------



## TogTokes (Jun 24, 2012)

Are you just padding posts or what dude? 198 in less than a month.. i for one do not like any of these religious posts... this is a weed forum.

my opinion.


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

In less than a day. Chick posts as much as I do. Sad.  cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> What makes you think I'm a youth and what makes you think I place a very low value on having my questions answered?


Because instead of doing the tiny bit of work involved in asking the question again and properly, you tell me "Go", imperative. Older, wiser folk are not so peremptorily wasteful. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> I think it's polite to reply to posts directed at me. Are you having a problem figuring out that if you're asked many questions it's gonna take many posts ro reply to them? That's the way it works. I'm very popular. You guys must be starved for entertainment.


Enjoy your popularity then. It's fleeting. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Older wiser folk don't like to waste their time. What tiny bit of work did you expect me to do?


I already pointed it out to you. Remove the trap from your sentence construction and stand down from the belligerent attitude. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Sorry to hear about yours fleeting.


oooo. Definite points for that one. The Nigerian judge awards 5.8. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> Trap? Did you fall into the trap? You need to wise up when you see a trap. It's not my fault you step into the trap. It's called experience. Get some.


Count on it.


> Whatever gave you the idea that I have a "belligerent attitude"?


Nice try! cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

Neal N. Blowme said:


> I don't think I've been belligerant at all. Sometimes weenies feel that direct confident people are being belligerent. That might be the case here.


Deduction for passive aggression. Work on your game. cn


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Because instead of doing the tiny bit of work involved in asking the question again and properly, you tell me "Go", imperative. Older, wiser folk are not so peremptorily wasteful. cn



I hate being looked down upon because of my age.. I'm gonna go throw a tantrum in the corner now.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> oooo. Definite points for that one. The Nigerian judge awards 5.8. cn


...couldn't explain how, but one of my favorite Monty Python quotes comes to mind 

*french accent* "I fart in your gen-er-al direction - your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries"


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jun 24, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...couldn't explain how, but one of my favorite Monty Python quotes comes to mind
> 
> *french accent* "I fart in your gen-er-al direction - your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries"
> 
> View attachment 2226916


Yeah?!?! Well I "wave my private parts at your aunties".


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jun 24, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Yeah?!?! Well I "wave my private parts at your aunties".



Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 24, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem


Wit' a side of "aeternam", an' a pitcher o' t' bitter. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 25, 2012)

Awww. My fishing critique of Blowme's racist trolling was deleted. On what grounds, I wonder, especially with some of the arrant shite left standing elsewhere. cn


----------



## kpmarine (Jun 25, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem


[video=youtube;YgYEuJ5u1K0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYEuJ5u1K0[/video]


----------



## skunkd0c (Jun 28, 2012)

padawanismyhoe said:


> How much about life can somone know who spends 100% of their time on the internet???? Cannabineer shut the fuck up for once!!!!!! Hahahahaha


You left "your" own thread to come and bother these nice people
stop throwing that rattle out of your pram 
learn not to hate those who are more intelligent than you 

peace little fella


----------



## skunkd0c (Jun 28, 2012)

padawanismyhoe said:


> go ahead and correct somthing i spelled wrong or somthing 2 try and take attention off what i said being the truth Canna......yah see.... i know your style faggot


you are venting bro, stop the rage it's eating you up


----------



## cannabineer (Jun 28, 2012)

Did I miss another contestant? (Good.) cn


----------



## blazinkill504 (Jun 28, 2012)

who the fuck is this padawaismyhoe. dude never shuts his dumb ass up bout he's always in real life yet he's on here sayin he's doin shit in real life...


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Jul 3, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I mean if you don't believe in a religion fine, just leave that persons religion alone. What's the point of being a douche and shooting down there belief? What do you have to gain? All your doing is causing negativity in the forums so don't go posting bad things in other threads that have to do with something that has nothing to do with you. I'm a Christian and I don't go around saying your wrong for not believing in what I believe in so why tell me I'm wrong? If your so sure your right about what you believe if you believe in buddha, Jesus, muhammed, the sphaghetti monster it doesn't matter don't tell other people there wrong when nobody knows what happens after death or if life completely ends when you die. So I'm not sure if all you guys are gonna agree with me but I'm calling a truce between all religions and asking for peace and no more negative posts. So shall we commence peace?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq6jnZai3aM&feature=plcp


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 4, 2012)

Sad that some people actually believe the tower of babel story is actually true. God is scared of a tower shorter than our modern skyscrapers but does nothing to prevent us from going into space?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Jul 4, 2012)

420IAMthatIAM said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq6jnZai3aM&feature=plcp


How tall was the tower of babel before the people were split up?


Did we miss heaven on our way to the moon and back? We were probably going too fast lol.


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Jul 4, 2012)

peace would give the impression that we are both right, (religious and non-religious) and without a dialogue we will never know. so what if there is some argument here and there, it makes for good entertainments and sheds light on what people believe are bullet-proof ideas. what cannot stand on its own should be left alone.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jul 4, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem


Your words reminded me of one of the greatest requiems I've ever heard. Take the time to listen to this, it's so beautiful and the boy soloist's voice is ethereal...

[video=youtube;wtg7XjNGTk0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtg7XjNGTk0[/video]


----------



## RebelMan (Jul 8, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Sad that some people actually believe the tower of babel story is actually true. God is scared of a tower shorter than our modern skyscrapers but does nothing to prevent us from going into space?


God was not scared??? IDK why you make those assumptions, God fears no man, and would have no reason to do that. Making up things like that just make no one to believe you and destroys the efficacy of yourself.


----------



## cannabineer (Jul 8, 2012)

RebelMan said:


> God was not scared??? IDK why you make those assumptions, God fears no man, and would have no reason to do that. Making up things like that just make no one to believe you and destroys the efficacy of yourself.


A LOTR quote might be à propos here. I - am - no - MAN! ~swings sword~
cn


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 9, 2012)

RebelMan said:


> God was not scared??? IDK why you make those assumptions, God fears no man, and would have no reason to do that. Making up things like that just make no one to believe you and destroys the efficacy of yourself.


Make some sense please. Are you asking if god was scared? What assumptions did I make? I'm going by the text in Genesis. If you have another reason that god was 'worried' about children of man not having anything restrained from them, then I am open to your interpretation but don't come here and act like I just made it up.


----------



## kpmarine (Jul 9, 2012)

RebelMan said:


> God was not scared??? IDK why you make those assumptions, God fears no man, and would have no reason to do that. Making up things like that just make no one to believe you and destroys the efficacy of yourself.


Straight from Genesis 11:
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. [SUP]6 [/SUP]The Lord said, &#8220;If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. [SUP]7 [/SUP]Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.&#8221; 


So, if he wasn't in some way intimidated by man, why was he concerned about mankind having no limits? Seeing as he is supposed to be all-knowing, and allegedly created us; how are any of mankind's abilities shocking? Why would god have to pull a tactical move like that, if we didn't scare him?


----------



## Doer (Jul 9, 2012)

Very interesting. This stuff is the key I think. God does not want us to figure it out. 

Here's another.

"And after the sixth part, he rested."

Hardly all powerful, to need rest and need to take steps to block us. There are more, to be sure. Let's make a list. BTW, not much of a block really. I have a unversal translator on my iPhone.


----------



## kpmarine (Jul 9, 2012)

I've been wondering for some time; if a man can only marry a woman, and vice versa. Who do hermaphrodites get to marry? Surely god thought of them. The other one is the ridiculous variety that people come in, yet we are all made "in god's image". How does that work? 

The mark of Cain is another good one. There were only 3 people in the world when god marked Cain: Cain, Adam, and Eve. What was the point of marking him? It's not like there were other people to kill him in his wanderings.

Then there's the issue of genetic diversity. If we all came from two people, how do we get so much diversity? Look what inbreeding does now, how did they avoid this issue then? We are all the product of rather severe incest, according to the bible.


----------



## Doer (Jul 9, 2012)

God has made man, in his own image.

Man's image. We are, you and I more identical than any other two animals would be. Including two dogs. They seem more diverse than they are, btw.

In fact, I've read there is more genetic diversity in the average pack of wild chimpanzee, than there is in the entire human race. Tjhis is the real suprise of decoding the human genome. 

Follow back the female passed mitochrondrial-dna and that is what you find, a bottle neck. Only one female line has survived. And another track up the dna will show that She has only one male line that survived. Maybe 70,000 years ago, on a much different shore of East Africa. Us humans were forced out of the Garden, by Wrath, maybe by volcano, across to the Saudi. At that time, and because of that time, the population was reduced to a very dangerous bottleneck. Someone invent a boat thing!

Perhaps, as few as a thousand and we, only us, survived. So, I don't want to say this all is false, I want to know why there is a story about. I do know that oral tadition is much more infallible, than wirtten words. It has to be memorized, word for word, and never altered.


----------



## kpmarine (Jul 9, 2012)

Doer said:


> God has made man, in his own image.
> 
> Man's image. We are, you and I more identical than any other two animals would be. Including two dogs. They seem more diverse than they are, btw.
> 
> ...


The mitochondrial eve and her male contemporary did not live at the same time. All that common female link means is that the other descendants have no direct relatives on the woman's side alive today. At least, that's how I understood it. That was not the only woman around at the time. Genetic diversity at all is counter to the "made in god's image" bit, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Doer (Jul 9, 2012)

Yes, I was trying to establish that by refering to the lines and not an actual marriage. Thanks. No they were not in the same generation at all, that's right. If you are taking about generations after generations of only a few thousand scattered around, trying to be fruitful. And of those that remain today from only one genetic Adam and from only one genetic Eve. That is pretty weird it ended up this way when we figured it out. This pair of lines are the only genes that were strong enough to survive. Kinda heavy, really.

Of these few thousands left that tried to slowly populate the earth over the ages, only this little close family of Man survives. That's weird, but to see there is a story from that very region which would eventually cradle the Messpotamian settlememts, and woud have the cultural memory to know about it. That is very interesting, right? Something even close to what is suggested in the dna track is fantastic to me!

It doesn't prove or disprove anything. Like the Flood there is the oral tradition from the region. And that becomes the stories and that becomes the religion. As a tribe we keep the knowledge until we write it down. Then it is not memorized any more, alas, it's ediited. But, survival of the fittest is written in the genes of this tiny village of in-breeds on this tiny world.


----------



## cannabineer (Jul 9, 2012)

kpmarine said:


> The mitochondrial eve and her male contemporary did not live at the same time. All that common female link means is that the other descendants have no direct relatives on the woman's side alive today. At least, that's how I understood it. That was not the only woman around at the time. Genetic diversity at all is counter to the "made in god's image" bit, as far as I can tell.


Interesting. i read Doer's post with the same critical eye, and was gratified that he presented it evenly. Many believe the bottleneck had to do with a small-scale extinction event centered on the Toba supervolcanic eruption of approx. 72000 BCE. 
It's very possible, in a population that encountered one or more bottleneckings down to about a thousand individuals, for a maternal line to end up taking over. Allomaternal lines could have survived for thousands of years, but inexorable chance capped all but the one. cn


----------



## kpmarine (Jul 9, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Interesting. i read Doer's post with the same critical eye, and was gratified that he presented it evenly. Many believe the bottleneck had to do with a small-scale extinction event centered on the Toba supervolcanic eruption of approx. 72000 BCE.
> It's very possible, in a population that encountered one or more bottleneckings down to about a thousand individuals, for a maternal line to end up taking over. Allomaternal lines could have survived for thousands of years, but inexorable chance capped all but the one. cn


There's way too much fascinating stuff in the world, and not nearly enough time to learn it all.


----------

