>> ^rottenseed:

in Vatican city, she's been legal for 6 years!>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^carneval:
>> ^Yogi:
I love you...please to be marrying me now kthxbye.
EDIT: Nevermind she seemed older.

Well, she's 18. Use that information as relevant to you...

Which is legal!



Well in soviet russia, she's legal and you're not ...

in Vatican city, she's been legal for 6 years!>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^carneval:
>> ^Yogi:
I love you...please to be marrying me now kthxbye.
EDIT: Nevermind she seemed older.

Well, she's 18. Use that information as relevant to you...

Which is legal!

>> ^ponceleon:

Must have struck a nerve... I'm so happy the Streisand effect is in full swing on this one: the more they fight it, the more it will be circulated on the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect


Thanks, ponceleon.
I knew that that would happen, but didn't know that the effect had it's own name.

Cool wiki page, too.

I don't see how he's being condescending... nor do I see him being a douchebag.
>> ^therealblankman:

Who's the condescending douchebag with the beard?

"The idea that the group is coming together in a community, and that Miller is developing a compound, in my opinion, is ominous. Because only the most extreme cults isolate themselves in a compound: Jonestown, or Waco, Davidian Group"... Vatican City...

I love that the first part of his comment makes him sound afraid of people "coming together in a community".

>> ^blankfist:

I'd like to booya all over Hermoin... er, she's of age now right?


It's all about being in the right country at the time of the deed blankfist Go to the Vatican: Age of consent is 12 there... And I am quite certain Emma Watson is older than 12...

>> ^hpqp:

@SDGundamX
You make a very fair point, and I agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it is important to respect people, even when one does not respect certain among their beliefs.
When it comes to evidence, however, I disagree that there is no evidence against the beliefs of theists; all the evidence points to those beliefs being the creation of men from a specific timeperiod in history. In a court case you don't necessarily need a "smoking gun" to disprove someone's alibi, if their alibi is so obviously made up, or logically impossible.
As for the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior., I would refer you to my Santa Claus comparison above. Sure, Santa Claus may exist, but for a grown person to believe in Santa when all the evidence points to him being the production of the human imagination is - to put it bluntly - dumb... even idiotic.
You say A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc. This is exactly the delusion that the so-called "New Atheists" are trying to fight against (amongst other things) because not only is it an empty promise, but it also lends credence (and thus power) to the belief systems it is attached to (X-ity, Islam, etc.) which in turn do far more damage.
It's funny that you exclude Scientology because "Hubbard admitted to making it up". Historical evidence shows that John Smith was a conman and a charlatan, yet try and tell a mormon today that his/her faith is based on a conman's made up religion. The people who believe may or may not be charlatans (look at all the preachers/gurus who make huge profits... heck, check out the golden decked halls of the Vatican), but those who founded such beliefs most probably were, at least to a certain degree.
Finally, as to whether or not being rude is always counterproductive, it would seem that is a matter of divergent opinions (you can tell what mine are in the comments above).


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.

My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.

About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.

I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails).

Just one more thing... since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

@SDGundamX

You make a very fair point, and I agree with you to a certain degree. I agree that it is important to respect people, even when one does not respect certain among their beliefs.

When it comes to evidence, however, I disagree that there is no evidence against the beliefs of theists; all the evidence points to those beliefs being the creation of men from a specific timeperiod in history. In a court case you don't necessarily need a "smoking gun" to disprove someone's alibi, if their alibi is so obviously made up, or logically impossible.

As for the New Atheists themselves are the ones demanding special treatment. They are essentially saying that everyone must think the same way that they do, and those who don't are somehow inferior., I would refer you to my Santa Claus comparison above. Sure, Santa Claus may exist, but for a grown person to believe in Santa when all the evidence points to him being the production of the human imagination is - to put it bluntly - dumb... even idiotic.

You say A lot of people believe because they feel their faith improves their life--provides them with social and psychological comfort, gives them a sense of mission and hope, etc. This is exactly the delusion that the so-called "New Atheists" are trying to fight against (amongst other things) because not only is it an empty promise, but it also lends credence (and thus power) to the belief systems it is attached to (X-ity, Islam, etc.) which in turn do far more damage.

It's funny that you exclude Scientology because "Hubbard admitted to making it up". Historical evidence shows that John Smith was a conman and a charlatan, yet try and tell a mormon today that his/her faith is based on a conman's made up religion. The people who believe may or may not be charlatans (look at all the preachers/gurus who make huge profits... heck, check out the golden decked halls of the Vatican), but those who founded such beliefs most probably were, at least to a certain degree.

Finally, as to whether or not being rude is always counterproductive, it would seem that is a matter of divergent opinions (you can tell what mine are in the comments above).

>> ^hpqp:

@Contagion21 and @SDGundamX
Indeed, I stand corrected.
The Vatican's stance on evolution is an excellent example of its hypocrisy and doublethink/doublespeak. Without the myth of creation/fall, the notion of original sin is impossible, rendering Jesus' sacrifice (i.e. redemption) unnecessary. That's pretty much the whole creed crumbling right there. So while it officially embraces evolution, it still teaches the mutually exclusive doctrine of Adam/Eve/the Fall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Polygenism



I found these to be interesting reads.

Adam, Eve, and Evolution (Official Catholic Church stance)

What is a Mitochondrial Adam and Eve

@Contagion21 and @SDGundamX

Indeed, I stand corrected.

The Vatican's stance on evolution is an excellent example of its hypocrisy and doublethink/doublespeak. Without the myth of creation/fall, the notion of original sin is impossible, rendering Jesus' sacrifice (i.e. redemption) unnecessary. That's pretty much the whole creed crumbling right there. So while it officially embraces evolution, it still teaches the mutually exclusive doctrine of Adam/Eve/the Fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Polygenism

>> ^Contagion21:

>> ^hpqp:
@ponceleon
The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.

To clarify, he rejected random evolution. That is, that it could have occured naturally and without guidance. (See Dawkins writings on why evolution should never be considered "random" to begin with, but that's another issue entirely.) So, based on what I'm reading in that link, he's not saying we don't have a shared ancestry with other primates, just that IF we do, it's not a random occurance.
So catholics are still allowed to believe that evolution has occured, even for humans, they just have to accept that God is the driving force behind it.


Thanks for pointing this out and also thanks for actually reading the article, unlike (I suspect) the other 7 people who upvoted the original comment.

>> ^hpqp:

@ponceleon
The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.


To clarify, he rejected random evolution. That is, that it could have occured naturally and without guidance. (See Dawkins writings on why evolution should never be considered "random" to begin with, but that's another issue entirely.) So, based on what I'm reading in that link, he's not saying we don't have a shared ancestry with other primates, just that IF we do, it's not a random occurance.

So catholics are still allowed to believe that evolution has occured, even for humans, they just have to accept that God is the driving force behind it.

@ponceleon

The pope did recently reject human evolution though... I guess science really doesn't deal kindly with the whole anthropocentric human-worshipping that is at the basis of monotheism, which created god in man's image.

Well this is the current Vatican position:

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/06/us-pope-bigbang-idUSTRE7052OC20110106

Oh, wait, I forgot, those are the wrong kind of Christians... only Shinyblurry types know what's right and what's not!

In all seriousness, I just don't get why idiots have to close their eyes to the evidence that the world wasn't created 6000 years ago. FFS, just do what the Catholic church is doing and basically point out that the ultimate question of what caused it all to start is one that will likely always be a mystery. That I can respect.

Jesus and Robin Hood and Socrates, and any other popular figures from more than a couple of centuries ago, have their existence/non existence blurred with legends, stories and all sorts of stupid demented bullshit to the point where no one really knows what the story is. Anyone who claims to is lying.

You take the good stuff and kind of hope they were like that. Christianity is the selective filtering of some ancient stories from an uneducated diseased fearful superstitious population of people who rarely lived past 35, warped to suit the morality and power structure of a succession of morally dubious civilisations in which the ones with the big hats claiming to know more about what 'god' thinks are invariably FAR more like the self righteous fat ruling class who had Jeebs nailed up. If that actually happened. I mean , if Jeebs was real enough to drive a nail through - they certainly nailed up thousands in that time.

I mean what about the pope/nuns/monks/water into wine etc etc? That's not in the bible. People add, and remove, whatever they want to suit their purpose. They don't seem to be afraid of retribution for it, so either they have a HUGE ego (god will agree with me!) or they don't really believe in any of that shit. The pope sure as hell doesn't, or he'd clean up the Vatican bank sharpish.

Shiny may be bonkers but at least he's not wearing a silly hat in a golden city tricked from the poor and desperate, shouting at Africans that the fantasy god he has violently imposed on them will hate them for using Jonnies to stop Aids.



>> ^hpqp:

Well considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.