Firefly
United Kingdom is not a country.
I meant the burden (I first typed bourbon
) of proof is always on the atheist's shoulders.Why is nobody talking about Romney's Mormonism anymore?
- Thread starter cryptophreak
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I meant the burden (I first typed bourbon
) of proof is always on the atheist's shoulders.
[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Y-_JAjAwE[/m]
[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0-fEW148Ow[/m]
[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0-fEW148Ow[/m]
Last edited:
And the silliness continues, this time with Renegade suggesting that because some smart people advocate religion I have to be the genius of all times to say it's idiotic.
So I suppose my question is essentially answered: the reason nobody is talking about Romney's religious stupidity is because everyone is afraid to label it as such.
I really think that we should be beyond shielding our leaders from scrutiny when they demonstrate colossal lapses in judgement.
So I suppose my question is essentially answered: the reason nobody is talking about Romney's religious stupidity is because everyone is afraid to label it as such.
I really think that we should be beyond shielding our leaders from scrutiny when they demonstrate colossal lapses in judgement.
You yourself said you were better than them, confirming my question.
...and not only did you delete a post where you said you considered yourself superior, you edited the post I was quoting, then created a new post trying to make it look as if I was putting words in your mouth.
For someone supposedly superior, you sure aren't very sneaky.
For someone supposedly superior, you sure aren't very sneaky.
This was not intended to be about me so I attempted to avoid that topic by deleting my comments. You are not clever for pointing that out.
But since we're already there, yes, I do have this advantage (as I imagine you do also) over the majority of leaders, partly because of the scientific consensus we've inherited. And yes, a significant number of world leaders have been infuriatingly stupid. Recently democracy has had much to do with that fact, as it is a system whereby the dumbest among us are equally responsible for selecting our finest.
I will probably not respond to you again specifically because this conversation is beginning to feel a bit like playing Go with five year olds -- few quite understand what's going on but the dumbest of the lot are sure they're winning.
I'm sick and on medication so I might be moved to revise this later.
But since we're already there, yes, I do have this advantage (as I imagine you do also) over the majority of leaders, partly because of the scientific consensus we've inherited. And yes, a significant number of world leaders have been infuriatingly stupid. Recently democracy has had much to do with that fact, as it is a system whereby the dumbest among us are equally responsible for selecting our finest.
I will probably not respond to you again specifically because this conversation is beginning to feel a bit like playing Go with five year olds -- few quite understand what's going on but the dumbest of the lot are sure they're winning.
I'm sick and on medication so I might be moved to revise this later.
Hope you feel better soon (really do mean that), and I hope the doctor isn't religious (sorry, couldn't resist ).
).
Last edited:
To me, concerning religion, the #1 sign of mental inferiority is not being able to understand (or not trying to understand) why the other person believes what they believe.
Show me a "miracle" that includes heavens opening and angels of God ascending and descending and we'll talk.
You know, science involves rational thought but it is not infallible. Often times our first explanation for something we observe turns out to be incorrect once we gain the necessary additional knowledge. We're limited to what we know and, as it turns out, that's remarkably very little.
That isn't to say that claiming to know things about the unknown (I'll put the Bible into that category) is any better. But someone professing faith because (as dragonfliet put it so well) they feel it is right, isn't necessarily someone of inferior intellect. There are those on both sides of the fence.
Bottom line - get over it. You come across as very all-knowing and very smug. Pretty much like the religious people you condemn.
I'll just quote Douglas Adams.
It is admittedly difficult to avoid a smug disposition when batting children's arguments away, so after a while I stop trying.
We simply can't go on pretending that the basic questions we solved about religion centuries ago are still worthy of consideration. There is no genuine mystery about it anymore, and continuing to play along is tiresome and degrades us all.
[m]http://youtu.be/bBUc_kATGgg[/m]
It is admittedly difficult to avoid a smug disposition when batting children's arguments away, so after a while I stop trying.
We simply can't go on pretending that the basic questions we solved about religion centuries ago are still worthy of consideration. There is no genuine mystery about it anymore, and continuing to play along is tiresome and degrades us all.
[m]http://youtu.be/bBUc_kATGgg[/m]
Last edited:
ok, well, I was going to avoid this topic but now I'm going to wade into the deep end. I'm going to try and make this as honest, sincere, and non-offensive as possible. I'm not going to bash anyone or anything in particular, and I'm not going to call anyone stupid or ignorant, etc etc. I'm not going to say anything or anyone is evil or get into hearsay about the specific beliefs of any certain denomination.
I want to see if we can press on the finer points of this debate without getting personal. I encourage you to read my entire post (if you're even going to start) before you decide to reply to any one part of it.
I want to try and have a respectful discussion for once...
I think the bigger issue is the bigger picture.
I understand that for every atheist or agnostic scientist and philosopher, there are at least as many renowned rationalists and scientists have still hold a belief in some greater power or force; be it god or an unspecified overseer.
but what I don't understand at the end of the day, no matter how hard I try, is why do intelligent people feel the need to believe in these things to begin with?
as you so eloquently stated Jason, belief does not have to affect intelligence and vise versa, because they are completely separate spectrums. there is no place for belief on the rational spectrum.
that's fine of course.
but going forward (as a species, as the human race) I simply cannot figure out why the belief is necessary to anyone.
let me phrase it like this.
if you're an inmate at state prison and you're incarcerated for life without the possibility for parole (or trapped in some kind of similar, hopeless situation) then "finding" Jesus, for example, makes a lot of sense to me. because those are some rough times and spirituality can make peace out of a chaotic environment.
but for intelligent people living fulfilling lives with all the liberty that many people around the world would kill for, why do they feel the need to believe in something that they know they cannot see/touch/feel or otherwise find any evidence for?
this isn't about one religion, this isn't about one god, and this isn't about anyone or any place or any time in particular. it's just a concept that I cannot grasp.
where does the need to believe in the irrational come from in an otherwise rational person?
without trying to upset anyone or call anyone out, can't we just stop for a minute and agree that religion is a farce?
there's so many different kinds with so many conflicting rules and inconsistencies; religion exists in the form that is exactly what you would expect of something that was man-made.
there's a thousand different brands, none of them are compatible, they all purport to be the one/true calling, and they're all at odds with each other.
so.
either JUST ONE of them is right. in which case; lucky guess.
or.
ALL of them are wrong.
or.
ALL of them are right.
which is - of course - impossible.
so why do people subject themselves to any of it?
that's what I can never figure out.
I mean it's so obvious.
religion is farcical in all forms. let's just admit this and move on. faith is faith but that's because faith is inherent gullibility. the word HAS to be "faith" because it could never be "certainty."
if you raise a child in a non-denominational environment then they will grow up and get through life just fine. as good and well-adjusted as any other person raised in a loving, caring household; with faith or not. the point being that if you could raise an entire society today (educating them in all the facets of current knowledge about our world and universe) within a vacuum that was void of religious influence, then I'm pretty sure you would find that there's no need for religion.
the vast majority of people raised without having a religion beaten into them at an early age don't find any reason for it later in life. if you want faith to get you through the hard times then you'll find it in your friends, family, and joy for the beauty that is life.
in other words there's no calling.
the holy spirit doesn't manifest itself when you're not looking for it because it only exists inside your brain. it is so obviously man-made.
if you want to believe then that's fine.
but we've got to admit that it's 99.99999999999999^9% false.
you can maintain your faith, by all means, but you have to admit that in all likelihood it's simply not real. only then can we move on to the important questions and the bigger picture.
for instance, it's pretty evident that no matter who you are, your religion is determined (first and foremost) by where you were born and who you were born to. a girl born in the United Arab Emirates is positively sure that Muhammad is the one true savior and that Allah is the only way into the afterlife. a boy born in Kentucky is sure that Jesus Christ is the one true savior and that (the Abrahamic) God is the only way into the afterlife.
that's the point in and of itself.
how can anything be right or true when all of it is based on mere happenstance? your passion for your beliefs is dictated merely by the luck of your fathers sperm. sometimes people change their beliefs, sure, by studying other tenets that were unavailable to them as children. but then surely that's more evidence of how ridiculous it all is; that you can change your faith in the ULTIMATE question about life on a whim, that you can shift with the seasons.
but these are supposed to be your answers to the INFINITE.
how can they be so loose? how can their power to you be based on nothing more than luck of the draw? how can you put faith in something that can be taken with such faithlessness?
we also must consider the trajectory of our own existence.
as I'm sure you are aware, almost 99% of the species that have existed on planet Earth are now extinct. most species die out or evolve into forms that are nearly unrecognizable to the previous chain. is man suddenly so special? are we just going to stop here? with our 4 digits, 1 opposable thumb, a spleen that does nothing, a brain that weighs 5 pounds, and hair that only grows on our head?
are we the final outcome? of course not, that's absurd.
homosapien is who we are now.
it's not who we always were, and it's not who we are always going to be. the apocalypse will not be the return of the messiah and the purging of the sinful to the fires of Hell. it's either going to be our next world war or - if we make it long enough - some form of natural disaster such as an asteroid or the inevitable death of our sun and collapse of our solar system into the black hole left in it's wake.
who is going to be witnessing these events?
not humans, that's for sure. the sun isn't due to go supernova for another 5 billion years or so; that's about how much hydrogen it has left to fuel its nuclear fusion.
assuming we manage to not kill ourselves for even HALF that long (you know, just the next 2.5 billion years), the "people" that will be alive to seriously contemplate these events won't be human; not the humans we know. yet every religious text on Earth is predicated on human action as witnesses to both the beginning and the end.
how convenient it is that most of the world's major religions were founded in a place and era when literacy and science were at an all-time low. how convenient that god only made bushes burn and seas part when no one had access to a video camera or the ability to critically analyze and document the phenomenon for future generations. how convenient that miracles and saviors and the only "proof" we might ever have only occurred so long ago they are impossible to verify.
why can't we get over this as a species?
why do you need to believe in any part of any of it?
why can't the love of your friends, family, and utter beauty of the natural world be all the faith you'll ever need?
Junior Seau took his own life this week.
you might have seen his parents and children on TV talking to the press. they were hysterical, they were crying and screaming; all the faith in the world cannot alleviate their inability to understand why something like this would happen. to accentuate the problem, their faith teaches them that suicide is a mortal sin for which you sill surely go to Hell for committing.
why let people believe this tragic nonsense?
in spite of a life lived with the utmost grace and care for others, why compound their grief with the idea that their son/father/brother is now forever being tortured among a lake of fire just because he did something that an old book says you shouldn't do?
why do you believe in Santa until it becomes evident that he could not exist?
why do you distinguish between Mother Goose and Dr. Seuss but not John, Luke, or Paul?
why?
I want to see if we can press on the finer points of this debate without getting personal. I encourage you to read my entire post (if you're even going to start) before you decide to reply to any one part of it.
I want to try and have a respectful discussion for once...
I think the bigger issue is the bigger picture.
I understand that for every atheist or agnostic scientist and philosopher, there are at least as many renowned rationalists and scientists have still hold a belief in some greater power or force; be it god or an unspecified overseer.
but what I don't understand at the end of the day, no matter how hard I try, is why do intelligent people feel the need to believe in these things to begin with?
as you so eloquently stated Jason, belief does not have to affect intelligence and vise versa, because they are completely separate spectrums. there is no place for belief on the rational spectrum.
that's fine of course.
but going forward (as a species, as the human race) I simply cannot figure out why the belief is necessary to anyone.
let me phrase it like this.
if you're an inmate at state prison and you're incarcerated for life without the possibility for parole (or trapped in some kind of similar, hopeless situation) then "finding" Jesus, for example, makes a lot of sense to me. because those are some rough times and spirituality can make peace out of a chaotic environment.
but for intelligent people living fulfilling lives with all the liberty that many people around the world would kill for, why do they feel the need to believe in something that they know they cannot see/touch/feel or otherwise find any evidence for?
this isn't about one religion, this isn't about one god, and this isn't about anyone or any place or any time in particular. it's just a concept that I cannot grasp.
where does the need to believe in the irrational come from in an otherwise rational person?
without trying to upset anyone or call anyone out, can't we just stop for a minute and agree that religion is a farce?
there's so many different kinds with so many conflicting rules and inconsistencies; religion exists in the form that is exactly what you would expect of something that was man-made.
there's a thousand different brands, none of them are compatible, they all purport to be the one/true calling, and they're all at odds with each other.
so.
either JUST ONE of them is right. in which case; lucky guess.
or.
ALL of them are wrong.
or.
ALL of them are right.
which is - of course - impossible.
so why do people subject themselves to any of it?
that's what I can never figure out.
I mean it's so obvious.
religion is farcical in all forms. let's just admit this and move on. faith is faith but that's because faith is inherent gullibility. the word HAS to be "faith" because it could never be "certainty."
if you raise a child in a non-denominational environment then they will grow up and get through life just fine. as good and well-adjusted as any other person raised in a loving, caring household; with faith or not. the point being that if you could raise an entire society today (educating them in all the facets of current knowledge about our world and universe) within a vacuum that was void of religious influence, then I'm pretty sure you would find that there's no need for religion.
the vast majority of people raised without having a religion beaten into them at an early age don't find any reason for it later in life. if you want faith to get you through the hard times then you'll find it in your friends, family, and joy for the beauty that is life.
in other words there's no calling.
the holy spirit doesn't manifest itself when you're not looking for it because it only exists inside your brain. it is so obviously man-made.
if you want to believe then that's fine.
but we've got to admit that it's 99.99999999999999^9% false.
you can maintain your faith, by all means, but you have to admit that in all likelihood it's simply not real. only then can we move on to the important questions and the bigger picture.
for instance, it's pretty evident that no matter who you are, your religion is determined (first and foremost) by where you were born and who you were born to. a girl born in the United Arab Emirates is positively sure that Muhammad is the one true savior and that Allah is the only way into the afterlife. a boy born in Kentucky is sure that Jesus Christ is the one true savior and that (the Abrahamic) God is the only way into the afterlife.
that's the point in and of itself.
how can anything be right or true when all of it is based on mere happenstance? your passion for your beliefs is dictated merely by the luck of your fathers sperm. sometimes people change their beliefs, sure, by studying other tenets that were unavailable to them as children. but then surely that's more evidence of how ridiculous it all is; that you can change your faith in the ULTIMATE question about life on a whim, that you can shift with the seasons.
but these are supposed to be your answers to the INFINITE.
how can they be so loose? how can their power to you be based on nothing more than luck of the draw? how can you put faith in something that can be taken with such faithlessness?
we also must consider the trajectory of our own existence.
as I'm sure you are aware, almost 99% of the species that have existed on planet Earth are now extinct. most species die out or evolve into forms that are nearly unrecognizable to the previous chain. is man suddenly so special? are we just going to stop here? with our 4 digits, 1 opposable thumb, a spleen that does nothing, a brain that weighs 5 pounds, and hair that only grows on our head?
are we the final outcome? of course not, that's absurd.
homosapien is who we are now.
it's not who we always were, and it's not who we are always going to be. the apocalypse will not be the return of the messiah and the purging of the sinful to the fires of Hell. it's either going to be our next world war or - if we make it long enough - some form of natural disaster such as an asteroid or the inevitable death of our sun and collapse of our solar system into the black hole left in it's wake.
who is going to be witnessing these events?
not humans, that's for sure. the sun isn't due to go supernova for another 5 billion years or so; that's about how much hydrogen it has left to fuel its nuclear fusion.
assuming we manage to not kill ourselves for even HALF that long (you know, just the next 2.5 billion years), the "people" that will be alive to seriously contemplate these events won't be human; not the humans we know. yet every religious text on Earth is predicated on human action as witnesses to both the beginning and the end.
how convenient it is that most of the world's major religions were founded in a place and era when literacy and science were at an all-time low. how convenient that god only made bushes burn and seas part when no one had access to a video camera or the ability to critically analyze and document the phenomenon for future generations. how convenient that miracles and saviors and the only "proof" we might ever have only occurred so long ago they are impossible to verify.
why can't we get over this as a species?
why do you need to believe in any part of any of it?
why can't the love of your friends, family, and utter beauty of the natural world be all the faith you'll ever need?
Junior Seau took his own life this week.
you might have seen his parents and children on TV talking to the press. they were hysterical, they were crying and screaming; all the faith in the world cannot alleviate their inability to understand why something like this would happen. to accentuate the problem, their faith teaches them that suicide is a mortal sin for which you sill surely go to Hell for committing.
why let people believe this tragic nonsense?
in spite of a life lived with the utmost grace and care for others, why compound their grief with the idea that their son/father/brother is now forever being tortured among a lake of fire just because he did something that an old book says you shouldn't do?
why do you believe in Santa until it becomes evident that he could not exist?
why do you distinguish between Mother Goose and Dr. Seuss but not John, Luke, or Paul?
why?
Last edited:
I have to admit, Jacks, that I didn't read your whole post because I got tired-head after the chapter
p), but the paragraph above stuck out at me. Forgive me if I take it out of context, but I don't think my retort will.I have issues with that paragraph for 2 reasons:
1) Their faith does not teach that suicide is a mortal sin that would condemn someone to hell. No where does the Bible teach it, and anyone in the religious circles proclaiming that is ignorant.
2) I'm a little disturbed that someone's reason passing is used as an illustration for an argument on a video game forum. Seems a little classless, but maybe that's just me.
Spleen is such a funny word.
Anywho, back to Jacks's argument. I'll take the Devil's Advocate approach (no pun intended):
You talk about different religions that may differ slightly or significantly, and you say that all of them being correct is impossible. Perhaps, religion today, as well as ancient religions, are converging on a single truth, but they don't know it yet?
Take mathematics and astronomy as an analogy. The Arabs and related ancient civilizations were great astronomers and mathematicians, inventing the astrolabe and the modern numeric system we use every day. The Mayans, half a world away, were too great astronomers and mathematicians, even independently developing the concept of zero.
Perhaps religion is converging the same way. Perhaps in the future religion and science will converge, with science describing the framework the so-called 'God' or creator or maker created. We never really know for sure.
Anywho, back to Jacks's argument. I'll take the Devil's Advocate approach (no pun intended):
You talk about different religions that may differ slightly or significantly, and you say that all of them being correct is impossible. Perhaps, religion today, as well as ancient religions, are converging on a single truth, but they don't know it yet?
Take mathematics and astronomy as an analogy. The Arabs and related ancient civilizations were great astronomers and mathematicians, inventing the astrolabe and the modern numeric system we use every day. The Mayans, half a world away, were too great astronomers and mathematicians, even independently developing the concept of zero.
Perhaps religion is converging the same way. Perhaps in the future religion and science will converge, with science describing the framework the so-called 'God' or creator or maker created. We never really know for sure.
Last edited:
Maybe, but this is not really religion and science converging so much as a scientific discovery that religious people will try to claim as a prediction of theirs.
1.) I'll admit I've never read the bible cover-to-cover. but all I've heard from every Christian I've ever asked about it is that suicide is some kind of blasphemous act that is the equivalent of murder which is a mortal sin.
and not because it's [not] forbade in the 10 Commandments or anything, but - and this is the way they would phrase it - because suicide is the denial of the "gift" of salvation. and in that sense, it is deplorable.
http://carm.org/questions/other-questions/if-christian-commits-suicide-he-still-forgiven
2.) so... what point are you trying to make?
that we can't bring real-world examples into a discussion because they're recent? seems irrelevant to me.
or that we can't use such examples because this the OT forum in a video game forum? what difference does it make? we're not going to be able to all get together in college classroom or anything so here seems as good as anywhere to have the discussion.
either way your point seems moot.
let's focus on the issue at hand.
perhaps, but 2 problems remain.
first is that they cannot know it. they don't know it now, they never will (baring the miraculous). the only people who "know" what comes after this Earthly life are dead and they're not talking. all of the "answers" posed by virtually every religion are actually things that cannot be known by any living person.
the second problem is that you'll still never get them to agree.
as long as their source text remains unchanged and unchallenged they will always be at violent and oppressive odds with each other.
therein lies the crux of my argument.
to say that "oh, perhaps they are coming together to reveal some kind of greater truth" is fine and dandy in defense of religion's perpetual immaturity, but then you still have to acknowledge (as you did) that we can never know for sure.
and to say that "oh, perhaps science will gradually confirm various aspects of religious faith" is an inescapable logical fallacy in the form of a loophole.
someone who is religious can simply wait around for science to make marvelous and beautiful discoveries about the wonders of the natural world, and then they can say "aha! so that's how God did it!" or "well that explains how God works."
there is no place for this in a sane debate of the issue.
the whole religious viewpoint is predicated on the notion that God is Superman. he or she can clearly do anything, so anything we discover must be his or her doing. this is ridiculous. we cannot get any closer to the "grand, converging truth" that we seek as an intelligent species as long as we allow such shallow pseudo-logic to have the same place in the discussion as ideas taken from the scientific process.
one side offers observable, testable, and reproducible theories rooted in nature. it doesn't ask you to suspend disbelief.
the other side offers an opiate. an irreversible, inexplicable, unquestionable, and unassailable certainty about things that no living person can be certain of.
one side says to believe in yourself and the power of your mind and strength of will as a human.
you are moral because morality is inherent with higher level thought processes. you do good for the sake of doing good, because good begets good. it's how we survive. we are prone to acts of kindness at least as much as acts of war. it is in our evolutionary DNA.
the other side says that you are born sick and must believe in an absolute authority in order to be made well. you cannot be moral without this authority telling you how. this authority hangs the incentive of ETERNAL LIFE or the punishment of ETERNAL TORTURE over your head like a carrot-and-stick act. it says that you should do good in order to curry reward and avoid evil in order to avert everlasting punishment.
this is a false morality and a false justice.
how can you tell people this? how can you tell children this?
the offer of an everlasting authority that cannot be challenged - even in the face of potential everlasting reward - is something that is ultimately not worth having. it represents the classic slave/master relationship. you have to love and/or devote yourself to something intangible more than you love and/or devote yourself to your family. and this intangible being knows your every thought and can convict you of thought crime in spite of your actions.
how can you love something you fear?
why would you want to?
Last edited:
I just wanted to poke my head in here and post the obvious response to the title that everyone missed:
Are you kidding me? Everyone is talking about it. The media response is getting ridiculous.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-2-2012/mormon--mo--problems
Are you kidding me? Everyone is talking about it. The media response is getting ridiculous.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-2-2012/mormon--mo--problems
Last edited:
I love how people spell 'rediculous'.
But at least he's making fun of both R's and D's.
But at least he's making fun of both R's and D's.
Last edited: