Religion IS crazy!

[bunyip]

Everyone on this forum should read 'Unholy Trinity', written by former Victorian police detective Dennis Ryan - the story of Ryan's decades long struggle to bring pedophile priest Father John Day to justice for his horrific crimes against children.
Dennis Ryan first came across Day after pulling over a car being driven by a known prostitute. In the back were two more known prostitutes, and a man naked from the waist down, his genitals showing, wearing a clerical collar, and as drunk as a monkey. Such was Ryan’s introduction to Father John Day.

In the end Dennis Ryan failed in his campaign to bring Day to justice, and the Catholic church destroyed Ryan for his efforts to do so.

If Father John Day repented of his sins before he died, and as a result has ended up in this place called Heaven, I doubt if I'd feel very comfortable being there and having to put up with Day's stench every day, no matter how favorably God looks on him.
Can you imagine the little kids that Day raped and abused, ending up in Heaven themselves, and coming face to face with Day. They'd feel like killing the mongrel!

http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/67

Even more intriguing is the prospect of Dennis Ryan coming face to face with Father John Day in heaven. I doubt if Dennis will feel anything but contempt for the piece of vermin called John Day, regardless of how forgiving God might be of Day’s atrocious crimes.

‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’.
So says the bible. But apart from little children being welcome in heaven, so apparently are pedophile priests, Mafia thugs, murderers and rapists – you name it - nobody is too evil to get through the pearly gates as long as he or she says sorry to God and asks for forgiveness.

What a ridiculous load of nonsense are so many of the teachings of Christianity.

 

[Value Collector]

Good to hear! Now will you please stop doing it!
Theists are perfectly capable of formulating their own beliefs and certainly do not require the assistance of those whom seek to only recognise their failings in the hope of debunking an entire religion

.

I am not defining theist ideas, i am commenting on the ideas that have been presented to me, you then try to play down those ideas, and install your own, which is taking away from the fact that millions believe those ideas, so it is you who is trying to prune.

I made no such comment on Isaac Newton!
I provided three questions accompanied by a quote from Isaac. You rightly recognised this as a counter to some of your earlier comments

.

Your three questions were poised in a way that sounded like you were suggesting Isaac would be in heaven, i simply said he wouldn't according to Muslims.

Earlier in this discourse I was asked to provide some examples of the benefits of religion. I've directed attention to at least two (of the many) historical examples of the foundations of our modern science being pioneered by the mystical pursuits of theists.

Not just benefits, i asked you to provide examples of three benefits the couldn't be achieved in other ways. Isaac newtons discoveries did not rely on religion, either way those facts would have been discovered, and if the church's hadn't shutdown guys like Galileo they may have been discovered earlier.

 

[FxTrader]

Oh boo hoo!

That horrible cynic has popped my illusion of superiority over others!
It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!

The English language doesn't mean what cynic says it means and cynic's dictionary is wrong!
It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!

Cynic keeps unfairly directing my attention to historical facts and parallels in human behaviours.
It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!

Cynic keeps saying I'm just like those horrible bullies in the playground and I know I'm not because I know those bullies have gotten it wrong and that entitles me to bully them!
It's not fair! I don't want to play anymore!

I know I'm right but cynic hasn't played fair! It's so unfair! I don't want to play anymore!

Mommee!!!! Protect me from that nasty cynic on the internet!!!!!

(Judge not lest ye be judged!)

I would have thought such a childish rant and outburst would have been beneath you, how disappointing! You misinterpret my post, I am not withdrawing from the discussion just declining to play the word games that you revel in here, it's pointless and you know it. You seem the think that continual repetition of fallacious, unsubstantiated arguments and self-styled definitions adds credibility and weight to them - it doesn't.

Your intention here is clear, to obfuscate argument with minutia and distraction in a vain attempt to validate the whacky, fantastic claims and beliefs of your fellow brotherhood of the supernatural here.

As for the rest of the BS you've posted here, I claim no superiority over others nor, unlike the religious, do I claim to have access to certain knowledge and absolute truth about the afterlife and eternity - the ultimate in arrogance.

As far as I can recall you have not presented any historical "facts" here, just unsubstantiated claims and false comparisons. As to the charge that I am a bully, I was unaware that you thought of yourself and fellow apologists for religious nonsense here as smaller, weaker people - they seem quite inclined to assert and defend themselves and hurl insults as others have noted in this thread and others. Weak argument invites refutation and rebuttal and fantastic faith based claims without evidence deserve and are given no respect.

I note that, once again, you fail to address my arguments and instead engage in a juvenile tirade. I'll let others "judge" who is doing the blustering and badgering in this post.

 

[Chris45]

Thats the problem with faith, it can make you do silly things, some peoples faith leads them to preach others causes them to shoot people or blow them up or cut peoples head off.

What a ridiculous comment. You are not a very deep thinker are you?

Two examples from today's news of what people without faith can do.

http://www.news.com.au/national/tee...ng-in-cranbourne/story-fncynjr2-1226835252326

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...-on-friday-night/story-fnii5v6w-1226834954314

 

[rumpole]

I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?

The old question of "who created God" can be answered fairly simply. No one did as he always existed. "Creation" only applies if time applies, the notion of a God would have to be of an entity that created time , rather than one that existed in time. Unless this notion can be completely ruled out there will always exist at least the possibility of a God.

As to religion, I don't accept the credentials of mortals to purport to be the spokespeople of an Almighty. Any evidence that preachers are people with special abilities of paranormal communication is virtually non existent. On the other hand, the power and control structure of the churches over their parishioners is only too apparent, and once which I have studiously avoided whenever possible.

 

[Value Collector]

What a ridiculous comment. You are not a very deep thinker are you?

Two examples from today's news of what people without faith can do.

http://www.news.com.au/national/tee...ng-in-cranbourne/story-fncynjr2-1226835252326

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...-on-friday-night/story-fnii5v6w-1226834954314

Good people do good things, bad people do bad things,

But the only way to get good people to do bad things is by convincing them god wants them to.


I never said only religious people do bad things, thats not the case at all, but many, many good people have done bad things because of faith.

 

[cynic]

I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?

The old question of "who created God" can be answered fairly simply. No one did as he always existed. "Creation" only applies if time applies, the notion of a God would have to be of an entity that created time , rather than one that existed in time. Unless this notion can be completely ruled out there will always exist at least the possibility of a God.

As to religion, I don't accept the credentials of mortals to purport to be the spokespeople of an Almighty. Any evidence that preachers are people with special abilities of paranormal communication is virtually non existent. On the other hand, the power and control structure of the churches over their parishioners is only too apparent, and once which I have studiously avoided whenever possible.

Did you ever go to university?

 

[rumpole]

Did you ever go to university?

Tell me about it

 

[cynic]

Tell me about it

Our modern universities are descended from monasteries.

 

[Value Collector]

I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?

The old question of "who created God" can be answered fairly simply. No one did as he always existed. "Creation" only applies if time applies, the notion of a God would have to be of an entity that created time , rather than one that existed in time. Unless this notion can be completely ruled out there will always exist at least the possibility of a God.

As to religion, I don't accept the credentials of mortals to purport to be the spokespeople of an Almighty. Any evidence that preachers are people with special abilities of paranormal communication is virtually non existent. On the other hand, the power and control structure of the churches over their parishioners is only too apparent, and once which I have studiously avoided whenever possible.

But the time to believe something is when you have evidence it exists,

The laws of physics didn't necessarily need a designer, they could just be,

There are lots of unknowns, but saying "I dont know, there fore god" is silly, its best to say " I dont know, maybe we will find out"

 

[lindsayf]

Our modern universities are descended from monasteries.

Which did you attend?

 

[burglar]

Our modern universities are descended from monasteries.

Agree, there is evidence.
Adelaide University Cloisters:

 

[cynic]

I would have thought such a childish rant and outburst would have been beneath you, how disappointing! You misinterpret my post, I am not withdrawing from the discussion...

So you do want to play then!

...just declining to play the word games that you revel in here, it's pointless and you know it...

Will you please make up your mind! (To play or not to play, that is the question!)

...You seem the think that continual repetition of fallacious, unsubstantiated arguments and self-styled definitions adds credibility and weight to them - it doesn't.

I am simply repeating the truth as I understand it. The fact that the things I've posted represent a challenge to your personal religion does not entitle you to denigrate, myself, my honesty nor my mental faculties!

Your intention here is clear, to obfuscate argument with minutia and distraction in a vain attempt to validate the whacky, fantastic claims and beliefs of your fellow brotherhood of the supernatural here.

On the contrary I am attempting to bring clarity to the argument!

As for the rest of the BS you've posted here, I claim no superiority over others nor, unlike the religious, do I claim to have access to certain knowledge and absolute truth about the afterlife and eternity - the ultimate in arrogance.

You could've fooled me!
Do I need to sift through your posts in order to alert you to the theme of theistic intolerance that can be seen to permeate your posts to this thread?

As far as I can recall you have not presented any historical "facts" here, just unsubstantiated claims and false comparisons. As to the charge that I am a bully, I was unaware that you thought of yourself and fellow apologists for religious nonsense here as smaller, weaker people - they seem quite inclined to assert and defend themselves and hurl insults as others have noted in this thread and others. Weak argument invites refutation and rebuttal and fantastic faith based claims without evidence deserve and are given no respect.

I note that, once again, you fail to address my arguments and instead engage in a juvenile tirade. I'll let others "judge" who is doing the blustering and badgering in this post.

Yes! I see what you mean, Newton, the druids, alchemy, monasteries, Pythagoras etc. What would they have to do with historical facts? Must be all just religious superstition eh!!?

 

[cynic]

Which did you attend?

My highest academic qualification is form 6/year 12/ matriculation/HSC (or whatever it is that they happen to call it these days).

 

[cynic]

From one of the other religious threads:

According to my copy of "The Award Compact English Dictionary" (ISBN 0-86163-109-9):
"any mode of faith and worship"
is an acceptable definition of the word "religion".
Personally I believe that the expression "belief system" (or perhaps "system of belief") is sufficient and in accord with the original definition and intent of the word.
Your efforts to artificially limit the word to theistic claims is a departure from my understanding of scientific method.


See what I mean?! I did tell you that scientists were just like religious folk!

Had you not noticed that many scientists are doing the same thing with their (chosen) scientific doctrine?




Again, (according to my copy of the aforementioned dictionary):
"a taking of what another says or does as true and right"
is a fair definition of the word "faith".
It is also a very apt description of what many scientists do!
...

Given that some are accusing me of word games I thought I'd mention that the definitions of the terms "religion", "faith" and "worship" have all been taken from the same dictionary. As I was not the author of said dictionary I cannot be rightfully accused of redefining the language in respect to those words!

Furthermore it may interest some to know my reasons for preferring this dictionary. The first paragraph of the preface amply reflects the reasoning behind my choice:

PREFACE

This work is intended for the use of young people, and the definitions and meanings are accordingly given in a very simple manner.
Words from the same root have been grouped in paragraphs, so as to bring out the family relations of the words. The commonest roots, sepecially those used as prefixes, have been put in small capitals (thus: PRO-,TELE-). These will give interest to the study of the language and help to a clear and accurate understanding of the meanings.
...

P.S. Aforementioned dictionary offers "to hold dear" as a defintion of "worship".

 

[rumpole]

There are lots of unknowns, but saying "I dont know, there fore god" is silly, its best to say " I dont know, maybe we will find out"

No I say "we don't know therefore all possibilities are still open", but your last statement is fine as well. (maybe we won't find out is also a possibility)

 

[burglar]

My highest academic qualification is form 6/year 12/ matriculation/HSC (or whatever it is that they happen to call it these days).

The discussion has long since passed the point where gentlemen would agree to disagree.
So what say you, gentlemen?

 

[cynic]

The discussion has long since passed the point where gentlemen would agree to disagree.
So what say you, gentlemen?

Can we disagree to agree?
(cbc appears to have mastered this unconventional art.)

 

[rumpole]

The discussion has long since passed the point where gentlemen would agree to disagree.
So what say you, gentlemen?

I agree

 

[FxTrader]

I believe there may well be a God, simply because we live in a universe governed by precise laws and by mathematics, both of which I find difficult to believe could have invented themselves. Even if we live in a "multiverse" consisting of bubbles of universes with their own laws and mathematical relationships the question still has to be asked why do any of the universes need to exist at all ?

- An intelligent and thoughtful argument, how refreshing. There are two issues here, one of existence and one of necessity. The laws that govern our universe and the universe itself (however composed) don't seem to require a creator as a necessity to exist or function. That our universe, as we currently understand and observe it, requires a beginning seems evident based on current scientific evidence. The pattern of nature is the development of simple structure to the more complex over vast periods of time with randomness also evident. God the architect implies order and purpose without randomness.

If an expansive God concept does exist, it's highly improbable that such a God would manifest itself in any of the ways described in human religious myth.

The old question of "who created God" can be answered fairly simply. No one did as he always existed. "Creation" only applies if time applies, the notion of a God would have to be of an entity that created time , rather than one that existed in time. Unless this notion can be completely ruled out there will always exist at least the possibility of a God.

The question of infinite regression is a valid one, asserting no origin for a God assumes a form of existence that requires no beginning, contrary to everything we observe in our universe. If a God always existed transcending time, then it's quite reasonable to argue that our universe has always existed in some form as well.

As to religion, I don't accept the credentials of mortals to purport to be the spokespeople of an Almighty. Any evidence that preachers are people with special abilities of paranormal communication is virtually non existent. On the other hand, the power and control structure of the churches over their parishioners is only too apparent, and once which I have studiously avoided whenever possible.

Agreed.