Religion IS crazy!

[bellenuit]

All you can do is sigh in disbelief...

A CHILD bride allegedly married off at 12 was told sharia law “overrides” Australian law, court documents revealed.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...ria-law-override/story-fnii5s3x-1226996078122

This, apparently, is authentic........

 

[SirRumpole]

yes. but religion means the groups will never mingle or intermarry, religion is the wedge holding the divide open, with out the religion, conflicts get resolved, negotiated and traded away.

Yes that's true , but it also holds between members of different tribes and ethic groups.

 

[Value Collector]

War will happen for reasons other than religion. Are you going to say that the two greatest wars in the last hundred years were fought over religion ?

There was religion involved in both the German and Japanese side.

Hitler as discussed played on the traditional mistrust of Jews, which had been propagated by the catholic church.

and,

The Japanese Emperor was considered infallible, as he was a God, meaning his people were happy to follow his orders and would not go against him, so much so that after the allies had won, they ordered an end to the state religion of Shintoism

General Douglas MacArthur, in his capacity as Supreme Commander of Allied Powers in the Pacific, brings an end to Shintoism as Japan's established religion. The Shinto system included the belief that the emperor, in this case Hirohito, was divine.

On September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, MacArthur signed the instrument of Japanese surrender on behalf of the victorious Allies. Before the economic and political reforms the Allies devised for Japan's future could be enacted, however, the country had to be demilitarized. Step one in the plan to reform Japan entailed the demobilization of Japan's armed forces, and the return of all troops from abroad. Japan had had a long history of its foreign policy being dominated by the military, as evidenced by Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoye's failed attempts to reform his government and being virtually pushed out of power by career army officer Hideki Tojo.

Step two was the dismantling of Shintoism as the Japanese national religion. Allied powers believed that serious democratic reforms, and a constitutional form of government, could not be put into place as long as the Japanese people looked to an emperor as their ultimate authority. Hirohito was forced to renounce his divine status, and his powers were severely limited””he was reduced to little more than a figurehead. And not merely religion, but even compulsory courses on ethics””the power to influence the Japanese population's traditional religious and moral duties””were wrenched from state control as part of a larger decentralization of all power.

But I agree, the religious aspects were not the total cause, hence in a very short period pretty much all is forgiven and we have been trading with both the Germans and the Japanese since. Where as if there was a big religious divide the wars seem to carry on for generations, there is a reason the war in Afganistan has be called "The Long War".

 

[Value Collector]

No, that wasn't you artist, that was bellenuit and VC.

All I wanted you to do was read the actual texts Cynic claimed talks about chromosomes, If you did that you would realise that he was speaking rubbish.

I was just trying to promote a little scepticism in you, Because you seem to take every religious claim as true.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes that's true , but it also holds between members of different tribes and ethic groups.

yes, and we should fight against racism and xenophobia also, and any other unfounded beliefs that keep humans from working together. We are all just people, we all want very similar things, and we can work together to get them.

It's a sickening thing when you see Australia Day celebrations, which should be a day of celebrating everything great about Australia, become racist and xenophobic. Patriotism can easily switch to tribalism and racism, this should be resisted.

 

[SirRumpole]

yes, and we should fight against racism and xenophobia also, and any other unfounded beliefs that keep humans from working together. We are all just people, we all want very similar things, and we can work together to get them.

It's a sickening thing when you see Australia Day celebrations, which should be a day of celebrating everything great about Australia, become racist and xenophobic. Patriotism can easily switch to tribalism and racism, this should be resisted.

Can't argue with that.



Damn...

 

[artist]

(I have no wish to turn this interesting thread into a focus on what is happening in the ME at present: it just seems like the most current example of the hatred demonstrated by both sides.)

I agree, and what I am posting now I do in that spirit.

"As the sun begins to sink over the Mediterranean, groups of Israelis gather each evening on hilltops close to the Gaza border to cheer, whoop and whistle as bombs rain down on people in a warzone hell a few miles away. . . .

. . . .

An atmosphere of an anticipatory excitement grows as dusk falls, in the expectation that Hamas militants will increase rocket fire after breaking their Ramadan fast, and the Israeli military will respond with force.

The thud of shellfire, flash of an explosion and pall of smoke are greeted with exclamations of approval. “What a beauty,” says one appreciative spectator."

http://www.alternet.org/world/israelis-gather-hillsides-watch-and-cheer-military-drops-bombs-gaza

I also know of Palestinian school books (not that there remain any schools as we know them in Gaza) which teach children maths by setting problems such as "There are five Israeli soldiers and I kill three of them. How many are still alive?"

I can give many such examples from across time, geography and political / religious persuasions.

I often weep for us all.

 

[cynic]

Yet another thinly veiled attack on evolution theory and abiogenesis in the guise of "accidental causation" in an attempt to justify belief in the supernatural. Presuming to know anything certain about cosmic origins, God(s), spirit worlds etc. is at best self-delusion and at worst supreme arrogance. "Belief" in such things is really faith based and not evidenced based belief. Your "deep convictions to the contrary" no doubt fall into the blind faith category.


Here we go again, there's no reason to be moral or have a sense of good and evil if you don't believe in a sky God or cosmic architect. The religious have a claim to moral superiority because their imagined celestial dictator tells them what is right or wrong via scribble in iron-age scrolls, no moral grey areas in those stone tablets. Just more unsubstantiated rhetorical garbage that's contiually wheeled out by the religious to justify belief. Once again, religion and religious beliefs are not true because their presumed to be useful in controlling the behaviour of the flock.


A rhetorical argument intended yet again to be critical of anyone who does not pursue mystical, magical explanations for existence and purpose. It's hardly "idealistic" to pursue rational explanations for origins.


While I would normally ignore such comment as whimsical digression, given your past account of conversations with the dead you could actually be serious. If so, you're really struggling with that fine line between reality and unreality here.

The repeated disingenuous efforts to contort my postings into something other than what they are, have not excaped my attention.

My stated position is and has always been that no religion that I've encountered to date can truly claim to hold the monoploy of truth, morality or facts, and I object to anyone arrogantly stating and/or implying that I have said anything to the contrary!

Please extend me the courtesy of not pretending to know my mind! I'm sure you wouldn't want me pretending to know yours!!

No one here is obliged to believe a word I say if they don't want to, but just because someone opts for non belief doesn't entitle them to claim authority over what may be considered true.Nor does it entitle them to boldly accuse me of dishonesty.

I suspect that some members of this community would be terrified if they were to have the shattering realisation of the truth behind my postings!

Tell me FXtrader! Although you don't believe me, how would you feel if you were to one day discover that everything I've posted to this thread is TRUE?

 

[bunyip]

The Japanese Emperor was considered infallible, as he was a God, meaning his people were happy to follow his orders and would not go against him

Sounds a bit like the setup in the Catholic church where through the ages the popes have been considered infallible, believed to have supernatural powers just like the various gods that mankind has created, and Catholics have been expected to follow the orders of their pope without question.

Fortunately, many Catholics have now progressed to the stage where they no longer agree with such outdated views, and they no longer feel obligated to follow the orders of their pope. The widespread use of contraception among Catholics is one example of this.
And yet in many parts of the world there are still Catholics who remain glued to the old Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility and godliness, and they continue to feel obligated towards total obedience to the pope.
I wonder how long it will take them to open their eyes and realize that popes are not quite the magnificent men that the Catholic church makes them out to be.
The Catholic church doesn’t help by making a saint out of one of their popes who aided and abetted a junkie, embezzler and pedophile.

 

[lindsayf]

I suspect that some members of this community would be terrified if they were to have the shattering realisation of the truth behind my postings!

All this mystical speak. The shadows and the terror.
Are you attempting to position yourself as a spiritual grand master of some kind?
Perhaps your vague language and pseudo spiritual claims will win you a few followers via PM.
Either that or you do have a very good sense of humour.

 

[cynic]

All this mystical speak. The shadows and the terror.
Are you attempting to position yourself as a spiritual grand master of some kind?

Certainly not!!!

Perhaps your vague language and pseudo spiritual claims will win you a few followers via PM.
Either that or you do have a very good sense of humour.

Perhaps you'd like to answer the question that I posed to FXtrader:

...
I suspect that some members of this community would be terrified if they were to have the shattering realisation of the truth behind my postings!

Tell me FXtrader! Although you don't believe me, how would you feel if you were to one day discover that everything I've posted to this thread is TRUE?

lindsayf, if memory serves me correctly, a response to my question regarding one of your earlier posts, is yet to be received, so I won't be holding my breath!

 

[FxTrader]

The repeated disingenuous efforts to contort my postings into something other than what they are, have not excaped my attention.

Of course all here should remember that only Cynic has a license to interpret Cynic correctly. I contorted nothing, your meaning was clear enough even though you revel in metaphorical phrasing, semantic argument and obfuscation.

My stated position is and has always been that no religion that I've encountered to date can truly claim to hold the monoploy of truth, morality or fact, and I object to anyone arrogantly stating and/or implying that I have said anything to the contrary!

Now that statement is truly disingenuous, you are a highly biased poster. Your riddle laden dribble here has always come down on the side of religious posters from the moronic taunts of cbc to those who just slavishly parrot back religious propaganda like Tink and Pav without submitting a shred of evidence to support their strong belief in religious myth. Your strong bias in favor superstition and myth is quite evident throughout this thread.

Please extend me the courtesy of not pretending to know my mind! I'm sure you wouldn't want me pretending to know yours!!

Of course it's unlikely that I would know your "mind", you don't seem to know your own given how nebulous, infinitely flexible, and deliberately obscure your expressed views are here. Clearly you find it difficult to speak plainly on the topic at hand or you deliberately chose not to.

No one here is obliged to believe a word I say if they don't want to, but just because someone opts for non belief doesn't entitle them to claim authority over what may be considered true.Nor does it entitle them to boldly accuse me of dishonesty.

Who suggested you were dishonest? Why would I doubt you have seen and spoken with apparitions, ghosts, spirits etc. It must be true because you said so!

I suspect that some members of this community would be terrified if they were to have the shattering realisation of the truth behind my postings!

LOL, thanks for the comic relief.

Tell me FXtrader! Although you don't believe me, how would you feel if you were to one day discover that everything I've posted to this thread is TRUE?

Something I ponder every day cynic.

 

[cynic]

...
Something I ponder every day cynic.

That isn't what I was asking! Now would you care to answer the question actually asked of you?

Tell me FXtrader! Although you don't believe me, how would you feel if you were to one day discover that everything I've posted to this thread is TRUE?

Of course all here should remember that only Cynic has a license to interpret Cynic correctly. I contorted nothing, your meaning was clear enough even though you revel in metaphorical phrasing, semantic argument and obfuscation.
...
Now that statement is truly disingenuous, you are a highly biased poster. Your riddle laden dribble here has always come down on the side of religious posters from the moronic taunts of cbc to those who just slavishly parrot back religious propaganda like Tink and Pav without submitting a shred of evidence to support their strong belief in religious myth. Your strong bias in favor superstition and myth is quite evident throughout this thread.
...
Of course it's unlikely that I would know your "mind", you don't seem to know your own given how nebulous, infinitely flexible, and deliberately obscure your expressed views are here. Clearly you find it difficult to speak plainly on the topic at hand or you deliberately chose not to.
...
Who suggested you were dishonest? Why would I doubt you have seen and spoken with apparitions, ghosts, spirits etc. It must be true because you said so!
...
LOL, thanks for the comic relief.
..

Something I ponder every day cynic.

I've taken the liberty of bolding a few sections of one of my earlier posts to this thread. Despite some posters' claims to the contrary, this is by no means the only post in which I've expressed those sentiments!

I can partially (although not totally) agree.
My post was primarily intended as a rebuttal to the opinion that those subscrbing to a belief in a higher being/power were either illogical or indoctrinated beyond the capacity for critical thought. A brief examination of the history of major scientific pioneers strongly suggests that, not only did many hold strong religious/philosophical beliefs, but on many occasions their scientific discoveries arose consequent to pursuits inspired by those religious/philosophical beliefs!
...
Yes this is very much akin to my philosophy. As it happens, even with science's progress into unravelling the mysteries of creation, much continues to remain unexplained.
Has an account been given for the origins of the particles/energy that led to the Big Bang event?
Certainly we are able to experience the existence of things such as energy/matter, volume and the passage of time.
Is anyone actually able to define the limits of the universe that we experience?
If they are, how do they resolve the puzzle of what lies outside of those limits?
If there's nothing outside, how could there be anything inside?
If it has a beginning, from whence did it come?
If it has an ending, where did it go?
If something has no begining nor ending, how could it ever have come to be and how could time be finite or even definable?
To me, the mere concept of existence is an intriguing paradox. To date, neither my belief in God nor my belief in science has yielded a solution to this conundrum! If you've somehow managed to discover a solution, I'm sure that many of us here would be happy to hear of it!
...
Rather than limit myself to one stream of religious texts, my preference is to reply with my current understanding of the origins of several branches of science. Chemistry resulted from discoveries made by druid alchemists whilst engaged in their quest for the philosopher's stone. Initial interest in the movement of heavenly bodies (i.e. astronomy) arose from the practice of astrology. Much of our mathematics was provided by philosophers, many of whom subscribed to metaphysical belief systems of one form or another (if my memory serves me correctly, Pythagoras had an active interest in numerology!). I am also of the understanding that religious bodies/organisations founded the vast majority of our earlier universities. I do not insist that a firm belief in higher powers is a prerequisite for the expansion of the frontiers of science, however, I do believe that, whilst so much continues to remain unexplained, a mind that is open to a wider array of possibilities is essential!My reasons for arguing the case for divine belief systems is twofold.
Firstly, I've experienced phenomena (often coincident with prayer/meditation) for which science has, as yet, failed to provide adequate explanation. The automatic denigration of my cognitive faculties, which is often the typical response of resolute disbelievers, could hardly be described as anything less than prejudicial and hence unscientific. (The "I know I am right therefore you must be wrong" philosophy simply doesn't wash with me!)

Secondly, whilst there are mysteries within our universe, that remain unexplained by science and other religions, I fail to see how anyone subscribing to one belief system can automatically claim to have such absolute authority over the truth as to be able to boldly and confidently declare another belief system entirely false.Please understand that whilst I do have a firm belief in the existence of the divine, I do have an enquiring mind and, as such, remain open to the consideration of any alternative explanation that eventuates.

I've known many wonderful people in my time. Some believe in divinity, some disbelieve and others are undecided.

Whilst the aberrant actions of some devotees have certainly done a great disservice to the cause of various belief systems, including Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Science (yes! Some scientists have been naughty too!), it shocks me that intelligent people will so quickly condemn an entire philosophy without first giving consideration to the many wonderful contributions made to our society.

 

[Julia]

No, that wasn't you artist, that was bellenuit and VC.

That is simply not correct, Tink. See below:
Also, it seems quite reasonable for anyone to ask you to explain what you understood of cynic's remarks when you agreed with them. I note you've not responded to anyone's request to offer such an explanation.
It's hard not to agree with bellenuit's suggestion that you simply agree with anyone who is supporting even a vaguely pro-religion stance.

I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread.

If my suspicions prove to be correct those posters can anticipate my continued disclosure of controversial (and therefore uncomfortable) perspectives on reality, theology, philosophy and contemporary science.

Tink, it was cynic, not I, who said
"I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread."

and it was VC, not I, who said
"Guilty, I wanted tink to learn something,... not because of the glowing reviews, but simply because i suspect she takes things at face value, rather than taking a sceptical approach. I wanted her to at least examine this one claim for herself. "

I on the other hand simply asked you politely and sincerely if you would explain to me in your own words how you understand the link between verses in Genesis and chromosomes because you said you understand it. I don't understand it. No-one else apart from you has been able to understand it. I think it would be wonderful to establish such a connection, but I find cynic's style of communication impenetrable and frustrating.

If you include me in your put-down of people being " . . . immature playing games, with no interest in religion, except to put it down" then I find that presumptuous, erroneous and offensive.

 

[Tink]

Sorry Julia, but you are wrong.

The discussion between VC and bellenuit was way before that one.

Please look back over the discussion.

 

[FxTrader]

I've taken the liberty of bolding a few sections of one of my earlier posts to this thread. Despite some posters' claims to the contrary, this is by no means the only post in which I've expressed those sentiments!

Thanks for the carefully selected post. This meandering, rambling and self-indulgent expose' is replete with examples of your bias toward "divine belief systems" and preference for divine (supernatural) explanations for the rhetorical questions posed. You try to suggest a harmony between modern science and fantastic religious beliefs that does not exist and leap to being an apologist for mutually intolerant belief systems that each stake a claim on having a monopoly on absolute truth in the form of their particular religious myth. This example only reinforces the statements I have made here regarding your religious bias. It's no mystery as to why Tink and Pav are your biggest supporters here.

My favorite quote though is...

Firstly, I've experienced phenomena (often coincident with prayer/meditation) for which science has, as yet, failed to provide adequate explanation.

This uncritical acceptance of claimed supernatural experiences is very common indeed. I have seen it expressed by many religious believers (praying in tongues, assumed answers to prayer, miraculous healings etc.). Unfortunately such claims are rarely if ever testable, repeatable, or critically accessible. If the unexplainable happens... God, no further inquiry required. Such experiences are then used to justify religious belief, not just to those who experienced them, but then professed to others as well with evangelistic fervor. I actually had a friend boldly declare he witnessed a leg grow longer during a faith healing event and proclaimed this "fact" on social media (much to his later embarrassment).

Assuming the "phenomena" you've supposedly experienced has no immediate rational or scientific explanation, this does not permit you to logically extrapolate that something supernatural has occurred and give you cause to justify religious myth or imply doubters or skeptics are narrow minded.

 

[cynic]

Thanks for the carefully selected post. This meandering, rambling and self-indulgent expose' is replete with examples of your bias toward "divine belief systems" and preference for divine (supernatural) explanations for the rhetorical questions posed. You try to suggest a harmony between modern science and fantastic religious beliefs that does not exist and leap to being an apologist for mutually intolerant belief systems that stake a claim on having a monopoly on absolute truth in the form of their particular religious myth. This example only reinforces the statements I have made here regarding your religious bias. It's no mystery as to why Tink and Pav are your biggest supporters here.

My favorite quote though is...

This uncritical acceptance of claimed supernatural experiences is very common indeed. I have seen it expressed by many religious believers (praying in tongues, assumed answers to prayer, miraculous healings etc.). Unfortunately such claims are rarely if ever testable, repeatable, or critically accessible. If the unexplainable happens... God, not further inquiry required. Such experiences are then used to justify religious belief, not just to those who experienced them, but then professed to others as well with evangelistic fervor.

Assuming the "phenomena" you've supposedly experienced has no immediate rational or scientific explanation, this does not permit you to logically extrapolate that something supernatural has occurred and give you a cause to justify religious myth or imply doubters or skeptics are narrow minded.

FXTrader, did you actually have anything new to offer to the discussion?

Perhaps an answer to that other question I asked of you?

 

[FxTrader]

Perhaps an answer to that other question I asked of you?

Given this non-reply to my post why should I indulge your hypothetical question? I thought my previous response was clear though. Let me rephrase, the possibility that any of your fantastic, supernatural claims are "true" is so remote that such a question does not warrant serious consideration.

 

[cynic]

Tink, it was cynic, not I, who said
"I suspect that some (not all) members may have been targetting that particular poster on account of her glowing support for my participation in this thread."

and it was VC, not I, who said
"Guilty, I wanted tink to learn something,... not because of the glowing reviews, but simply because i suspect she takes things at face value, rather than taking a sceptical approach. I wanted her to at least examine this one claim for herself. "

I on the other hand simply asked you politely and sincerely if you would explain to me in your own words how you understand the link between verses in Genesis and chromosomes because you said you understand it. I don't understand it. No-one else apart from you has been able to understand it. I think it would be wonderful to establish such a connection, but I find cynic's style of communication impenetrable and frustrating.

If you include me in your put-down of people being " . . . immature playing games, with no interest in religion, except to put it down" then I find that presumptuous, erroneous and offensive.

Artist, may I once again sincerely apologise for the confusion that has arisen. I certainly have not experienced you as anything but openly diplomatic and pleasant in your participation throughout this and other threads on this forum.

Unfortunately, based upon past history, I had cause to suspect the motives of just a couple of the posters that posed the question of Tink. As I didn't want to be seen to be singling people out, I quoted all four (if I recall correctly) when enquiring about the need for revisitation of my earlier discourse.

 

[cynic]

Given this non-reply to my post why should I indulge your hypothetical question? I thought my previous response was clear though. Let me rephrase, the possibility that any of your fantastic, supernatural claims are "true" is so remote that such a question does not warrant serious consideration.

To my understanding, the possibility of our existence is equally remote and yet we experience ourselves as extant.

Nobody is obliged to indulge me at all if they don't want to.

However those unwilling to answer questions that confront the integrity of their own personal belief systems would be most unwise to arrogantly claim the right to contest and/or oppress the beliefs of others!

Now, would you like to answer the question?

Or may I take your response/s thus far as being your definitive refusal?