I like to think its a sort of hybrid of bigotry and empathy... the individual feels that you are willfully ignoring something that is terribly important to them, and that sets you apart as someone different but also needing help.

"Hell is a bad place; you don't want to end up there; just start believing and quit arguing with me wierdo!"


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Morganth:
Depends on what the fundamental is. No one's ever scared of the Amish, but if they're not fundamentalists, no one is. >> ^Boise_Lib:
Fundamentalism is some scary shit.
Monotheism strikes again.


That's a very good point. I don't understand why fundamentalists need to tell everyone else how to live. I think it has something to do with being adjacent to power. Give fundamentalists power and you have problems...the Amish, I don't think they seek power too much.

>> ^Morganth:

Depends on what the fundamental is. No one's ever scared of the Amish, but if they're not fundamentalists, no one is. >> ^Boise_Lib:
Fundamentalism is some scary shit.
Monotheism strikes again.



That's a very good point. I don't understand why fundamentalists need to tell everyone else how to live. I think it has something to do with being adjacent to power. Give fundamentalists power and you have problems...the Amish, I don't think they seek power too much.

Depends on what the fundamental is. No one's ever scared of the Amish, but if they're not fundamentalists, no one is. >> ^Boise_Lib:

Fundamentalism is some scary shit.
Monotheism strikes again.

Fundamentalism is some scary shit.

Monotheism strikes again.

Re "cherished as birthplace of monotheism" 5:08
Jerusalem is birthplace of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), but definitely NOT the birthplace of monotheism.

Zoroastrians and Egypt's Akhenaten introduced monotheism centuries before there was Judaism.

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.

Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.

I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation* so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.

*edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.

>> ^Farhad2000:

Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

He says no one's fighting over Isis or Greek gods etc. "anymore". Were they ever? It's pretty hard to inspire the kind of groupthink you get in monotheisms when there's a whole pantheism of gods, each more human and flawed than the other... Once you proclaim that there is only one true god/doctrine, then you're ready for some real "divinely" inspired action (especially when you choose the war god Yahweh as your one and only).

^concerning the above comments, I will concede two points: first, this is obviously an angry rant that is not to be taken too seriously (cf. the comic it is transcribed from). Second, the author clearly has Christianity (and the Abrahamic monotheisms in general) in mind when using the term "religion", causing its use to partially exclude certain religions.

That being said, the sentiment of contempt and disrespect for people's refusal to use their "god-given" brains in the domains of ethics, superstitious beliefs, etc., is perfectly understandable, and does not mean that the bearer of such sentiment has no empathy for the human being, even when considering said human being an idiot.

An extreme example: I have nothing but contempt and not one iota of respect for the WBC gang, and yet I would rush to their guru's aid (as probably any one of you commentators would) if he were to be hit by a truck. Does that mean I think he's not stupid? Or suddenly have respect for him? NO. Only basic human empathy.

As for the Weinberg quote, yes, I am aware of the Stanford and Milgram experiments, which show the effect of authority on human behaviour. Weinberg's quote implicitly integrates those experiments; indeed, what greater and more unquestionable authority is there than God(s)? How many disgusting, unethical and barbaric actions and wordlviews are continually sanctioned by religious authority (and the weight of the sheeple's adherence thereto), that no self-respecting ethical and empathetic person would otherwise accept?

As for Communism, it is nothing but a state religion, with the Party replacing God. I won't bother addressing the moronic argument of "Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc...", which has been thoroughly debunked by many speakers far more eloquent than myself (e.g. Hitchens).

Finally, @quantumushroom, your answer about atheists being delusional not only makes no sense (unless you're teetering into solipsism), but quoting the Bible does not help your case in the least. Benjamin Frankin's comment seems to be a cynical criticism of the masses' stupidity and immorality, not a sanction of religion's merit.

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

I think you're looking for the word "empathy" when writing REspect.

>>> That's correct. REspect is the treatment resulting from empathy.

1) Strawman attack. Nothing in the letter suggests what you're accusing it of.

>>> The Bozo in question wrote, "I have nothing but contempt for you (the religious)." Therefore I would not expect REspect or empathy from such an individual. He's set himself up as an enemy, needlessly, I might add. Look at all the angry responses here. Probably what he was after.

2) Atheists are smarter than religious people within the domains mentioned.

>>> What "domains" are we considering? Science? Famous Scientists Who Believed in God There are plenty of dumb atheists as well as dumb religious people. There are also atheists who have not a whit of curiosity about the universe.

3)You have two points here that have nothing to do one with the other.

They're close cousins.

First: most religions (including the worst of the lot, i.e. the Abrahamic monotheisms) do exclude all other religions.

Bozo said "you realize all the OTHER religions are wrong" in blanket condemnation.

The farther one moves from this exclusivity, the closer one gets to a religion being a philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism), or woo (e.g. New Age).

You forget Hinduism, a dynamic, evolving faith older then Christianity, with billions of gods. It accepts other paths as legit. But even as Hinduism is weighted down with a caste system, Christianity has broken barriers around the world across all nations and races and even within itself.

Second: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg

Weinberg needs to read up on communism, a much more potent enemy of human dignity and worth. Communist countries are run by a--holes who believe they are the only true gods. Religion can be abusive, insulting and dehumanizing in the wrong hands, just like politics and language. However, there is no atheist tradition declaring 'All life has value.' Einstein once said 'Either everything is a miracle or nothing is.' The lack of sanctity endemic to atheism places it on the side of nothing being miraculous. It doesn't mean atheists are bad people, it means they have no reference outside of their own feelings, which leads us to...

4) Care to explain how atheism is delusional?

I said the atheist is delusional, not atheism, and I'm not referring to what atheists think of deities at all.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? This means you and I can rationalize anything at any time. We lie to ourselves ALL THE TIME to preserve our own egos and pride, with a subconscious dominantly seeking pleasure or avoiding pain. A single human is not even a unified consciousness but a collection of competing desires and savage impulses. It's a miracle in itself that anyone ever stops to look outside of themselves.

The atheist has as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else, but I'm still siding with Ben Franklin: If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?

@quantumushroom

I think you're looking for the word "empathy" when writing REspect.

1) Strawman attack. Nothing in the letter suggests what you're accusing it of.

2) No, replace "religion" with "white supremacy" (or any other form of stupid ideology) and the conclusions remain the same, without the speaker being an idiot. Atheists are smarter than religious people within the domains mentioned.

3)You have two points here that have nothing to do one with the other. First: most religions (including the worst of the lot, i.e. the Abrahamic monotheisms) do exclude all other religions. The farther one moves from this exclusivity, the closer one gets to a religion being a philosophy (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism), or woo (e.g. New Age).
Second: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg

4) Care to explain how atheism is delusional?

I wonder if the decline of monotheism in Finland has anything to do with the increased ability of the country as a whole to focus on quality education.

And well I used to steady these things quite deeply..I investigated all of the resurrection accounts..it was surprising how far away it was from factual..none of it held up..i never investigated gilgamesh, but ive heard of it...zorotorism for example.. thats easy, it is a blatant copy of judiasm, mixed in with a reading of the messiah prophecies. there are critical differences however. they say the spirit of God is bad and good and He is only good. They worship the creation rather than the one who created it. there is no atonement, and salvation is by works. it is just like any other pagan religion, but with an idea of good and evil gained from judiasm and the prophecies of the messiah. zorro is a crude copy of christ, not the other way around as it turns out. Remember Satan is the accuser ie the prosecuting attorney. He understands the law down to the letter, he understood a messiah was to come..he always knows his rights.. >> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Is there a point where you're actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you just going to stay in the peanut gallery and snipe at me?
No one is out. Just because different Christians believe different things doesn't make them unchristian. Misled, perhaps, but anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Personally, I am non-denominational.
How is the book of John ruled out? What on earth are you talking about? The passages referring to what people call the rapture could be interperted a few different ways..I accept them, I just read them differently.
Look, it's clear you don't know anything about scripture. Why don't you do some research before you toss around these ignorant statements.
>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, I don't believe in the rapture..I don't think it is biblical. I know a lot of Christians hope for that but I think it's a false doctrine. No, I don't believe in the May 21st 2011 date either..for two reasons. One is that scripture clearly states that no one knows the hour. That alone makes anyone setting a date automatically wrong. The other is that the person who made this prediction had made another prediction that the world would end in 1994. Obviously it didn't happen so that means that he is a false prophet. If a prophet makes a prediction and even one letter of it doesn't come true it means he is not a real prophet.
>> ^shuac:
While I certainly do not wish to add more stress to shiny by adding more questions to his docket...but ultimately, I cannot resist. And anyway, they're easy yes/no questions...
1) Do you believe in the rapture?
2) Do you believe that it will happen on May 21, 2011 as many theists predict?


ok.
so the pentacostals are out /scratches them off the list.
as is the book of john../more scratching.
any other books i should dismiss?


i am just following the conversation brother.
listening to your witness and taking notes.
so dont dismiss the books but allow for interpretation../check.
read more scripture../check
let me ask you a question.
since you feel im "sniping" from the peanut gallery.( i was being a snark..but snipe is nicer)
if you do not believe in the rapture and find it non-doctrinal,would you consider yourself to be a preterist?
do you consider yourself from ecclestiassitcal,calvinism or maybe even of a arminianism theosophical school of thought?
and if ecclestiassical..how have you resolved the issue of the nicean creed?
another i am curious as to how you may have resolved is zoroastrianism.
how have you been able to separate the seemingly identical stories from both the bible and this pre-christian religion?
i mean one could come to the conclusion that monotheism was actually born from this religion which was influential in judaism and christianity.
reading zarathustra's sermons one may find some close similarities to many of the earliest books of the bible.
or the story of gilgamesh and its seemingly identical recitation of noah,even though gilgamesh was centuries before noah.
how did you rationalize that particular conundrum?
one last question.
since you are christian,as am i,i am extremely curious how you were able to resolve the issue of the resurrection deities:
krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected.
what about the female resurrection deities?
ishtar and persephone?
they have similar stories too!
i am curious how you dealt with these particular theological dilemmas.

These are most excellent question(s)..I am happy to answer it..i will get back to you with all the facts, I will answer it in full but first I will just say that there is a massive amount of deception out there. Especially in these cases..a lot of half truths that people accept as whole ones. Not one of them bears any validity. The facts never hold up in these cases, and I mean 0 bears any true refutation of the facts. This world is fallen and mankinds new strategy is to try to forget about Him or write Him out..I will only say Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do. People believe they don't need God. They don't know they commit spiritual suicide. This fantasy world they dream up to replace Him is so ridiculous..It's been compared to disneyland. We are just drowning in existential bullshit. Primitive tribalism. Barbarianism. Extreme vanity and pride. No mercy, no forgiveness. In their coldness, people believe these lies because they have not much imagination of anything truly good and its always as good as who you really are. I find the truth is always accurate in situations like these. It is measured according to what it really is, and the well is poisoned by any lack of character, no matter how slight, because God is perfect. People aren't getting away with anything. God knows their hearts better than they do. If you're not good you won't know about it, you just couldn't imagine it really. And the bible says none of us are good. So we have to seek God. we are intolerant useless greedy selfish..there are just some of the synomyms i can think of..Peter Gabriels Big Time seems relevent..And some of them are Christians who are just sort of taking on the mantle for curtural reasons. Well the bible says these people have only borrowed the name and that is at a price. The facts always bear out, if people investigated they would figure that out. The truth always bears investigation by definition and the facts will always hold up. That is, that Jesus Christ is the living God and will heal you.

>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Is there a point where you're actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you just going to stay in the peanut gallery and snipe at me?
No one is out. Just because different Christians believe different things doesn't make them unchristian. Misled, perhaps, but anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Personally, I am non-denominational.
How is the book of John ruled out? What on earth are you talking about? The passages referring to what people call the rapture could be interperted a few different ways..I accept them, I just read them differently.
Look, it's clear you don't know anything about scripture. Why don't you do some research before you toss around these ignorant statements.
>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, I don't believe in the rapture..I don't think it is biblical. I know a lot of Christians hope for that but I think it's a false doctrine. No, I don't believe in the May 21st 2011 date either..for two reasons. One is that scripture clearly states that no one knows the hour. That alone makes anyone setting a date automatically wrong. The other is that the person who made this prediction had made another prediction that the world would end in 1994. Obviously it didn't happen so that means that he is a false prophet. If a prophet makes a prediction and even one letter of it doesn't come true it means he is not a real prophet.
>> ^shuac:
While I certainly do not wish to add more stress to shiny by adding more questions to his docket...but ultimately, I cannot resist. And anyway, they're easy yes/no questions...
1) Do you believe in the rapture?
2) Do you believe that it will happen on May 21, 2011 as many theists predict?


ok.
so the pentacostals are out /scratches them off the list.
as is the book of john../more scratching.
any other books i should dismiss?


i am just following the conversation brother.
listening to your witness and taking notes.
so dont dismiss the books but allow for interpretation../check.
read more scripture../check
let me ask you a question.
since you feel im "sniping" from the peanut gallery.( i was being a snark..but snipe is nicer)
if you do not believe in the rapture and find it non-doctrinal,would you consider yourself to be a preterist?
do you consider yourself from ecclestiassitcal,calvinism or maybe even of a arminianism theosophical school of thought?
and if ecclestiassical..how have you resolved the issue of the nicean creed?
another i am curious as to how you may have resolved is zoroastrianism.
how have you been able to separate the seemingly identical stories from both the bible and this pre-christian religion?
i mean one could come to the conclusion that monotheism was actually born from this religion which was influential in judaism and christianity.
reading zarathustra's sermons one may find some close similarities to many of the earliest books of the bible.
or the story of gilgamesh and its seemingly identical recitation of noah,even though gilgamesh was centuries before noah.
how did you rationalize that particular conundrum?
one last question.
since you are christian,as am i,i am extremely curious how you were able to resolve the issue of the resurrection deities:
krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected.
what about the female resurrection deities?
ishtar and persephone?
they have similar stories too!
i am curious how you dealt with these particular theological dilemmas.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Is there a point where you're actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you just going to stay in the peanut gallery and snipe at me?
No one is out. Just because different Christians believe different things doesn't make them unchristian. Misled, perhaps, but anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Personally, I am non-denominational.
How is the book of John ruled out? What on earth are you talking about? The passages referring to what people call the rapture could be interperted a few different ways..I accept them, I just read them differently.
Look, it's clear you don't know anything about scripture. Why don't you do some research before you toss around these ignorant statements.
>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, I don't believe in the rapture..I don't think it is biblical. I know a lot of Christians hope for that but I think it's a false doctrine. No, I don't believe in the May 21st 2011 date either..for two reasons. One is that scripture clearly states that no one knows the hour. That alone makes anyone setting a date automatically wrong. The other is that the person who made this prediction had made another prediction that the world would end in 1994. Obviously it didn't happen so that means that he is a false prophet. If a prophet makes a prediction and even one letter of it doesn't come true it means he is not a real prophet.
>> ^shuac:
While I certainly do not wish to add more stress to shiny by adding more questions to his docket...but ultimately, I cannot resist. And anyway, they're easy yes/no questions...
1) Do you believe in the rapture?
2) Do you believe that it will happen on May 21, 2011 as many theists predict?


ok.
so the pentacostals are out /scratches them off the list.
as is the book of john../more scratching.
any other books i should dismiss?



i am just following the conversation brother.
listening to your witness and taking notes.
so dont dismiss the books but allow for interpretation../check.
read more scripture../check

let me ask you a question.
since you feel im "sniping" from the peanut gallery.( i was being a snark..but snipe is nicer)
if you do not believe in the rapture and find it non-doctrinal,would you consider yourself to be a preterist?
do you consider yourself from ecclestiassitcal,calvinism or maybe even of a arminianism theosophical school of thought?
and if ecclestiassical..how have you resolved the issue of the nicean creed?
another i am curious as to how you may have resolved is zoroastrianism.
how have you been able to separate the seemingly identical stories from both the bible and this pre-christian religion?
i mean one could come to the conclusion that monotheism was actually born from this religion which was influential in judaism and christianity.
reading zarathustra's sermons one may find some close similarities to many of the earliest books of the bible.
or the story of gilgamesh and its seemingly identical recitation of noah,even though gilgamesh was centuries before noah.
how did you rationalize that particular conundrum?
one last question.
since you are christian,as am i,i am extremely curious how you were able to resolve the issue of the resurrection deities:
krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected.

what about the female resurrection deities?
ishtar and persephone?
they have similar stories too!

i am curious how you dealt with these particular theological dilemmas.