My post is just dismissive because Moose brings up relevant arguments and your response dismisses them; so i returned the favour

The way I sum up religion is pretty simple. No one knows what is real. We wont find out till we are dead anyway, so while we wait, why not waste time and do all the things that we love, (i have no problem if someone wants to bow at the sun at a certain hour each day if they enjoy doing it)
but also try new things and just enjoy this planet or waiting room as much as we can.

and isn't that the only heaven we can ever truly know

...






Thankyou Thankyou


(apart from the scientologists.... they can board their 747 air plane space ships and go shove themselves back into the volcanos that froze your frozen ghost alien bodies cause that evil lord xenu guy,... wanted you... uh dead, for some reason, but you are gonna go back to the planet AS ghosts and kill him?! - pretty close?....

....which is why i was upset with the advert i saw... the original post.....)

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

Well said

That's why the academy saw it fit to give me the award for best Speech.

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

I've set a filter now on scientology.org, if everything should be ok these ad's shouldn't show anymore within 24-48 hours.

LOL! that is epic saint hehe N1

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

The funny thing is, i set it under "competitive ads", there can be only one world ruling society!

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

Really? You think that Moose's post contained relevant arguments? He stated 3 things:
1) That a religion is defined by how old and mysterious it is. That, as I put in my first reply, is nonsensical. For starters a religion is defined by one thing and one thing only: that people believe in it. More over the only truly old religion in the world is Judaism (likely some 2400 years old or so). All the rest, especially Johnny-come-lately Christianity, are progressively newer than each other, the latest ones being invented over the last couple of hundred years (which is extremely recent as far as world history goes).
2) That religion has historically held things back, particularly in the eastern world. This is just false. Religion has been a staggeringly destructive force in Britain and across parts of Europe where it was undeniably responsible for the dark ages that held us back developmentally and threw are technological advancements out by some 200-400 years, but in the middle and far east no such things happened. While Islam is now regarded as the religion of fundamentalists, all bent on keeping the old ways and not wanting the world to change or adapt, they are only a very recent development. Christianity was the first and best at that, adapting a full on "bell, book and candle" "burn the witches" philosophy at a time when Islamic states were thriving and flourishing both technologically and sociologically.
3) That those with religion are more likely to give to charity. I don't have any hard facts to hand about that - just woken up and need food first - but it is utterly apparent that neither does Moose. Those "facts" he states are clearly pulled out of the clear-blue sky and represent nothing at all bar a possible prejudice on his behalf (in that he believes religious people to be better people? - not certain but that is the intimation of that post). Whatever his sources for that statement I refute them without data on my side using simple logic: there is no way what-so-ever to tell what the belief system of a person is that gave to charity. It is utterly impossible and I will bet there are no legitimate studies on this to be found.

So, as I said: Moose's post was just misinformed. Now I know that as usual no one will have read that and I will just get the usual load of bunk thrown at me 'cos you don't like me but it doesn't change facts. Annoying little things, aren't they?:

_________________
"Fire rained from the sky on the day I was born: 10,000 lives I ended before drawing first breath. Do not speak to me of guilt or regret, Jonathan.” - Brayan, The Keepers of the Fire

I only give to animal charities, fuck everyone else, and after i read that article about the fake homeless guy who made £23,000 last year im never ever giving any of those fucks the time of day

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

Well this is wrong, true story.

Howard you just sorted out what my dissertation will be on now! I shall research further than my own limited (only about 20 books ) research so far and write a 22 thousand word response. This thread shall be bumped good sir!
I like you
You yourself, much like dawkins and his gang have not used a single fact to debunk religion, instead you have just thrown insults at religion and unfounded arguments at it and assumed they were true.

P.S.

I do like you

It's really, really not - sorry. The Dark Ages are called that for a reason - they are a time brought upon us by rulers adopting overly zealous, fundamental Christian beliefs and pushing their population so far back into fear that we, as a culture, almost vanished. Book burning, people burning, torture, desecration and far worse took us to the edge of darkness and but for the ages of reason (when science began to gain a foothold in the common consciousness during the late 15th to 17th century) coming around we would be screwed. It is thoroughly acknowledged by the religious and irreligious alike that but for the Dark Ages, Western culture would be advanced more than 200 years further than it is now.
Cool! I look forward to reading such a work (as would my girlfriend, for she is a true student of ancient history)
Even cooler. Sorry, I am simply used to receiving short shrift every time I actually try and verbalise and opinion or any kind of fact around here. The oft whipped horse will shy away from the rod and all.
Hardly fair. Dawkins represents himself well. The problem is that logic cannot be used to dissuade the illogical (and with the greatest will in the world, religion defies logic by its very nature). No religious person is every going to "see the light", so to speak, and suddenly realise that they are wrong in their beliefs for they are, as is quite apparent, the type of person who requires such emotional support. Religion simply does not, by its very nature, stand up to empirical scrutiny and the fact that we now have hard, provable evidence as to why it is humans are prone to belief make it even worse.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 41022.html
(Not the full story but a good start)

Anyway - strong atheist or not, I have always held an "each to his own" viewpoint. My problem is that very few religious people are equally magnanimous.

_________________
"Fire rained from the sky on the day I was born: 10,000 lives I ended before drawing first breath. Do not speak to me of guilt or regret, Jonathan.” - Brayan, The Keepers of the Fire

trying to disprove or "debunk" (???) religion is sort of like trying to fuck a mains electrical output socket; no matter which way you'll never be able to satisfy either party...

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

Well the problem with dawkins and "New Athiests" are that they are closed to all forms of debate, as you yourself said, why use logic to prove the illogical; however in the past it was debate and respected debate between Athiests and Theists - Now it is as you say: some illogical theory that nutjobs have who need to be insulted, to be destroyed, to be killed ( not exaggerating here, I believe it was Hitchens who said believers of Christianity should be killed as it would be safer).

If athiests want to be atheists then the Vienna circle is to be beleived - that you cannot talk about god in any way as it makes the assumption that talk of god is meaningful. Yet dawkins and Hitchens and so dont talk of God, they talk of the broad brushed stroked beleivers who are nutjobs, insane, mentalists, dangerous ( a paraphrased quote from the god delusion).

Where have the philosiphors gone? the reasoners? the thinkers? not those on a crusade to destroy 'this disease of religion'

"the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries"
Anthony Flew, a key athiest for his entire life, became a deist (lets not get this confused with a complete believer, but let us see that infact there IS room to debate, there IS room to speak logically).

The sad thing is, Dawkins science is good, hence why he is a professor at oxford!, unfortunately his science does not come into his pure anger, his malice and his intent on just insulting and belittling religion. A man of science who cannot reason.

I dont talk of religion here as the big hierarchical institute either, I talk of it as the personal beliefs one holds.



This is probably the least true argument. Most religious people care, but don't mind. Its when unfounded and untrue lies are spouted by those such as dawkins and co. that we speak up, not taking offence but rather making a stand. Wouldn't dawkins if I were to sit here and call his a fraudelent scientist, a fool, a dangerous person in society for his beliefs.

I read that and see no proof of pretty much anything? Being "under the spirit" per say is a bodily reaction in itself to the spirit of God, I can imitate the reactions of people under the spirit myself - however that is not what is happening. Of course belief is a survival instinct, such as the belief that holding onto the cliff face will save you. No one questions the existence of the cliff face? Of course I have only had 10 mins to look over this as I must dash, but im sure there is more in the article for me to see.

THERE IS ONLY ONE RELIGION! You should all be baptised in tomato and garlicy goodness to cleanse you of sin!

http://www.venganza.org/

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."

That is a tough post to respond to. You raise some good points but in order to discuss them I have to share my core opinions about religion and the are, even today, still very difficult to understand by those who are religious. I will make this post here but then most likely stop as I have genuinely no wish to offend or alienate people over religion and I will tread as lightly as I can. Please just keep in mind that I direct this at no one in SpA, if only as I have very little information about said people.

Comments that "Christians should be killed as it is safer" do seem enormously over the top and deeply threatening but I have to confess that it is something I have thought of my own free will at times, though I did not really mean it entirely literally.

Religion is just a total enigma to me. Not because I do not understand it or because I have no grounding in it, but because the entire concept is utterly baffling. I am not a Strong Atheist out of some sort of choice or decision that I made, I simply am one. I have never in my whole life felt that something was missing or that it defied explanation through normal means thus requiring a supernatural element in order to explain it. I have simply never believed in anything for as long as my memory allows me to recall, and I have clear, lucid memories dating back to when I was 2 years old. I recall the first times I was taught about Christianity when sat in preschool aged 3. The teacher sat us all down and told us some stories and parables and tried to paint us a big picture of who god was and how important he is. I laughed. Not from scorn but simply because I though my teacher was telling us a funny, crazy story. I got yelled at like crazy that day but my outlook on the world of religion has never shifted.

To me and to the other like me who are utterly, truly and completely bereft of belief, the concept of a god is, I am sorry to say, utterly laughable. That seems purely offensive to the religious. I know this first hand as I have had friends throughout my life that have covered the whole spectrum of religion and I used to, when younger, have lengthy discussions with them and we would tussle over the issues. Now though I simply do not see the point. As sad as that may seem to those with religion, that I will not even entertain discussion of something they hold dear above all; it is simply something I cannot do as I do not see that there is anything at all to discuss. Balls posted a picture of the flying spaghetti monster in jest but the simple truth is that the church of TFSM makes exactly as much sense to me as Christianity, Islam of Judaism. I simply do not see a shred of difference. This is why I willingly accept that Scientology is a religion - to me the concepts are no different.

As tot he fact (and I agree that you are right here) that more and more pure science types are becoming deists of one form or another: You can see why it is happening. Science is throwing us complete curve balls right no like Plank's Constant. It's screwy, no doubt, but I simply cannot see the hand of a divine being behind it. All I see is a conundrum that we do not yet fully understand, the same as we have had throughout Science's brief history. In 20 years we will have made greater headways into Quantum Physics and then seeming aberrant anomalies like Plank's Constant will just be part of the furniture, understood and accepted as yet more proof that there was nothing supernatural around how the universe formed.

Anyway - a brief explanation and one that will not spark a fire I hope at least

_________________
"Fire rained from the sky on the day I was born: 10,000 lives I ended before drawing first breath. Do not speak to me of guilt or regret, Jonathan.” - Brayan, The Keepers of the Fire

Noooo, NOOOOO not another discussion about religion! AAAAAAH!

_________________
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell

To be fair though, at least Greasy and Howard are talking to each other with a certain level of respect and mutual understanding.

Which should always be the basis for intelligent debate.

Plus it means i can jump in with some stupid as shit involving spaghetti...

_________________
-"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
-"No, not really. This is a different thing, it's spontaneous and it's called wit."