7 of 27
7
Saw “Religulous”—Review
Posted: 29 October 2008 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
Aaron - 29 October 2008 01:15 PM

Succinctly and beautifully illustrated response, Jefe.  The part I bolded I particularly appreciate.

I second the motion.  I have bright-eyed relatives in Salt Lake who believe in the existence of Joseph Smith’s ‘golden tablets’ just a surely as other Christians believe that Moses carried the Ten Commandments down the mountain - the rock tablets engraved by God.  Their indoctrination began the day they were born.  A few months ago wasn’t there a serious presidential candidate who believed in the golden tablets?

Why isn’t this enough to convince Clay that ‘bright’ capable people will believe anything if they are conditioned since birth?  What are the chances that Romney will ever say that the golden tablets are a myth?  That Sarah Palin will ever say that Genesis is a pre-science allegory?

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 11:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Jefe - 29 October 2008 01:05 PM
Carstonio - 29 October 2008 12:53 PM

I would love to see someone make an action movie where the bad guys win at the end, just to fuck with people’s expectations.


To Live and Die in L.A.

The Usual Suspects

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 11:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2136
Joined  2006-02-20
Carstonio - 29 October 2008 12:53 PM

I would love to see someone make an action movie where the bad guys win at the end, just to fuck with people’s expectations.

‘The Passion’.  Oh, I forgot.  Getting yourself nailed to a pole at the end means you win.

 Signature 

“The simple fables of the religious of the world have come to seem like tales told to children.”  - Nobel Prize recipient - Francis Crick

“It is time we recognized the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved.” - Sam Harris

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2006-02-23

Amadeus

I particularly like the ending when he states “I absolve you” to the Priest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

That’s easy to answer.  Invoking god is the easy way out.  It ameliorates having actual responsibility for how the world is, and it’s a security blanket that one can wrap oneself in with almost no effort whatsoever.  We’ve only recently been technological enough to understand why existence operates as it does, so anything previous to the last 150 years or so falls into the darkness of our collective species’ immaturity.

It’s like asking why do so many 2 year olds believe in monsters under the bed and Santa Claus?  Because it’s been they do not have sufficient means to analyze the veracity of the claims.  There’s no evidence that there are monsters or there aren’t monsters, but it’s easier to believe there are because the dark scares us.  When we grow up, we realize there aren’t monsters, Santas, or gods, because the lack of evidence is enough to accept the premise as false.

And it’s been like this for humans for thousands of years—tens of thousands in fact, and only in the last 150 years have we even had any tools viable enough to let us figure out what is actually going on.  That’s not enough time for the reality that there is no god to sink in, especially when the religious viral meme and the lack of proper education perpetuates the simplistic superstition rather than the much more difficult discipline of scientific analysis.

That’s a reasonable response Reasonist smile  Let me ask you an honest question though, and I’m not trying to be hostile, so don’t misunderstand my tone.  Does it ever bother you to assume that the religiosity of the world is due to a lack of “discipline in scientific analysis”?  More personally, does it bother you that you must assume yourself to have superior adaptablility or evolutionary potential than most of the world in regards to belief, critical analysis, reason, etc?  I mean, obviously you have “figured it out”.  This truth, according to your previous post, seems to have only “sunk in” for the few, while the many remain blind and ignorant…

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 05:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2008-05-26
clayforHim648 - 29 October 2008 09:00 PM

I mean, obviously you have “figured it out”.  This truth, according to your previous post, seems to have only “sunk in” for the few, while the many remain blind and ignorant…

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever read.

It’s tantamount to telling someone they should feel guilty or shamed for being smarter than most people. 

Of course, for fuckwit retards who only wish to maintain a bronze age level of intelligence and human advancement, feeling guilty about being intelligent is a perfectly reasonable state of mind I suppose.

Clay, when are you going to realize that posting your religious bullshit on here only HARMS your cause…you simply verify to all of us that religious folks are a bunch of uneducated, brainwashed, delirious, delusional ignoramuses who don’t even deserve to speak in public because it is a drain on society.

I would have more respect for you if you could come up with reasonable arguments that include facts instead of conjecture..then, you would at least be giving a worthy attempt at winning us to your way of seeing the world.

Have a great day in imaginary land.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 06:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1031
Joined  2007-12-04
clayforHim648 - 18 October 2008 05:06 PM

Those that are obsessed with finding sufficient evidence to believe in God must somehow explain how and why so many other people have accepted and believed in God without sufficient evidence.

Shermer answers this well in his book “How We Believe.”  He points out that people are pattern-seeking, myth-making, and story-telling animals.  People are superstitious.

Before the microscope, all those same people thought sin, not germs, caused disease.

Atheist have nothing to explain.

clayforHim648 - 18 October 2008 05:06 PM

But with all the talk about intellectual honesty, I don’t think these criticisms are remotely honest.

You neither understand the term “intellectual” nor are you “honest.”

clayforHim648 - 18 October 2008 05:06 PM

  I think there is “sufficient evidence” to believe in Christ, but its unlikely that anyone here is going to come to accept that when they’ve already decided there isn’t sufficient evidence.

Rather than rely on “puff” statements like “I think,” I actually read and based my decision on years of study.  I just finished Eusebius’The History of the Church.  If you took time to read your own church history (written by a Church Father) you would learn that in Book 3 of this book Eusebius openly states that the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John are disputed and are only canonized because “some people found them valuable.”  There is your proof.


As to Mahar’s film…funny but he never takes on a heavyweight in the film…all interviewed were cartoonish…He and Moore would benefit by adding better opponents.

 Signature 

http://www.thehereticandthepreacher.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
clayforHim648 - 18 October 2008 05:06 PM

Those that are obsessed with finding sufficient evidence to believe in God must somehow explain how and why so many other people have accepted and believed in God without sufficient evidence.

We must not make the mistake of treating believers in the various religions as though they all believe in God with different names. That’s theistic chauvinism, like the “Great Spirit” nonsense in the old Westerns.

LogicAndReason - 29 October 2008 10:34 PM

Shermer answers this well in his book “How We Believe.”  He points out that people are pattern-seeking, myth-making, and story-telling animals.  People are superstitious.

A tendency to not let the facts stand in the way of a good story. This is a weakness that humanity must overcome. We need to recognize that while our emotions are important to ourselves as individuals, they are not important to the indifferent universe. I’m probably just as guilty as anyone else of sometimes wanting reality to be a certain way. We simply need to recognize that the emotional, subjective world inside our heads is separate from the world outside our heads.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 08:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
clayforHim648 - 29 October 2008 09:00 PM

That’s a reasonable response Reasonist smile  Let me ask you an honest question though, and I’m not trying to be hostile, so don’t misunderstand my tone.  Does it ever bother you to assume that the religiosity of the world is due to a lack of “discipline in scientific analysis”?  More personally, does it bother you that you must assume yourself to have superior adaptablility or evolutionary potential than most of the world in regards to belief, critical analysis, reason, etc?  I mean, obviously you have “figured it out”.  This truth, according to your previous post, seems to have only “sunk in” for the few, while the many remain blind and ignorant…

Why should it bother me?  Did it bother the sailors on the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria that their fears of a flat earth and falling over the edge of the ocean were completely incorrect?

While the crew of the ships of Christopher Columbus did whatever it was they did in “The New World”, their relatives back home still labored under the misapprehension that the world was flat, that no one could live in the “Antipodes” (cause they would fall off, being upside down and all), and that ships that sailed too far went “over the edge” into some unknown eternity.

Should those who knew better feel bad that they knew better and their friends and relatives did not?

Interestingly, a BIG difference though, between those people of superstition in Europe and people today, is that back then, when Columbus and Co came back, the superstition of the “flat earth” rapidly died off.  As illiterate and superstitious as those folks were, they seemed to rapidly be able to weigh the evidence, conclude their previous fears were wrong, and discard them in favor of the reality they were confronted with.

If only modern Christians were as adaptable!  Doesn’t it bother you that against mountains of evidence disproving the claims of the bible, you remain a modern flat-earther?

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2008 09:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

Interestingly, a BIG difference though, between those people of superstition in Europe and people today, is that back then, when Columbus and Co came back, the superstition of the “flat earth” rapidly died off.  As illiterate and superstitious as those folks were, they seemed to rapidly be able to weigh the evidence, conclude their previous fears were wrong, and discard them in favor of the reality they were confronted with.

If only modern Christians were as adaptable!  Doesn’t it bother you that against mountains of evidence disproving the claims of the bible, you remain a modern flat-earther?

Interesting analogy Reasonist, but I think insufficient, and its shows again how the existence of God and the reality of faith are not synonomous with finding crackers in the pantry (reference to older thread..sorry i don’t have the title).  Columbus and Co proved that they could sail to the other side without falling into an abyss…what have you proven in relation to the existence of the Christian God?  There is no distance for you to traverse in order to claim, “There is no God.”  Therefore, why the smug conclusion that all religious folks are flat-earth morons? 

No, I think it only bothers atheists that theists can remain as they are, despite much skepticism.  It doesn’t bother theists.  That should say something to you.  16th century Europeans quickly shed their belief in a flat earth because sailors had come back without taking the plunge into space.  Yet these same people kept their convictions that a sovereign God existed and was active in the world (at least some of them…a good bit were probably as doubtful as you).  Why should that change today?  Where have you sailed to find that religion and faith is hocus pocus and not a genuine road to eternal life with an eternal Creator?

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2008 05:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
Keep The Reason - 30 October 2008 12:13 AM

Did it bother the sailors on the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria that their fears of a flat earth and falling over the edge of the ocean were completely incorrect?

What you describe is a literary invention by Washington Irving - humankind had known since ancient Greece that the world was round. In fact, Irving’s deliberate mythmaking is part of the larger problem, twisting historical facts to make a good narrative.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2008 05:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1031
Joined  2007-12-04
clayforHim648 - 30 October 2008 01:46 AM

No, I think it only bothers atheists that theists can remain as they are, despite much skepticism.

Your viewpoint is much too self-centered Clay.  Non-believers are not bothered by what you believe at all, we object to the effects of your superstitions:

1.  Bigotry
2.  Attacks on science and progress
3.  Misogyny
4.  Antisemitism
5.  Homophobia
6.  the $100 Billion tax break to forward your superstitions

You come to this website to force your superstition on others; that is the problem.  Nobody cares what you believe.

 Signature 

http://www.thehereticandthepreacher.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2008 05:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
clayforHim648 - 30 October 2008 01:46 AM

what have you proven in relation to the existence of the Christian God?  There is no distance for you to traverse in order to claim, “There is no God.”

We mus stop treating this as a matter of Christianity versus atheism. It’s wrong to give any religions a privileged position over the others, or to treat some religions’ claims as inherently more likely than others. They’re all on an equal footing as to the lack of proof.

The issue isn’t about a flat declaration that gods or other supernatural beings don’t exist. The issue is that their existence is extremely unlikely given the lack of evidence. The burden of proof is not on people who are skeptical of that existence - instead, the burden is on people who flatly declare that gods do exist.

One could argue that people who flatly declare that gods don’t exist also bear a burden of proof. In practice, however, that is much less of a concern. That’s because these people are NOT trying to push any sort of philosophy or theology. They’re not trying to convince others to obey based on alleged orders from their gods. And they don’t claim that eternal suffering as an acceptable or warranted punishment for disobedience.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2008 05:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3208
Joined  2007-04-26
LogicAndReason - 30 October 2008 09:41 AM


1.  Bigotry
2.  Attacks on science and progress
3.  Misogyny
4.  Antisemitism
5.  Homophobia
6.  the $100 Billion tax break to forward your superstitions

In some cases, those illogical things have secular causes. The problem is much, much greater when they have religious causes, which are much more capable of overwhelming reasoning. The religious causes are essentially, “It’s wrong to challenge this because it comes from a transcendent authority that can never be challenged.” To my knowledge, the only secular ideology that comes close to that is Maoism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2008 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

It seems that C4Him is trying to call nonbelievers “elitists.” He is not saying it directly. He is casting the bait and hoping that some idiot will make a statement that proves his hypothesis that we are all evil social Darwinist and Communists who are doing the Devil’s bidding. Once satisfied, he can sleep better, knowing that he helped God fight Satan’s demons.

Bwa Ha Ha Ha! I am Legion!

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 27
7
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed