If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Does religion help you "Love your neighbour"? No, according to this study   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 317
    More: Obvious, faiths  
•       •       •

10482 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2013 at 11:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



317 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-22 12:54:38 PM  
diagoras.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-22 12:55:26 PM  

FarkinHostile: FeFiFoFark: I wouldn't believe in anything if it wasn't for my Lucky Astrology Mood Watch!

- S. Martin

Not as on point unless you site the entire quote:

"It's so hard to believe in anything anymore. I mean, it's like, religion, you really can't take it seriously, because it seems so mythological, it seems so arbitrary...but, on the other hand, science is just pure empiricism, and by virtue of its method, it excludes metaphysics. I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch."


/Still voted funny


you are correct --- much better.
 
2013-01-22 12:55:30 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: the only good christian is a dead christian...

-Foetus

Song


The epitome of tolerance.
 
2013-01-22 12:55:58 PM  
Thou shalt not kill murder.
Seriously.
 
2013-01-22 12:59:17 PM  
The two worst problems I've had in the last year were because of the two most devout Christians I've been unfortunate enough to have to deal with this year. Both did everything they could to ruin my life because I wasn't one of them. And I am one of the nicest guys you've ever met, did absolutely nothing to provoke them. They just didn't like that I was "different" and therefore should be marginalized and eliminated.

I take the Buddhist approach to religion, if they are good people then who am I to care what God they worship? Unfortunately I usually find that they aren't really good people, just people with such poor morals that they need a God club to join to feel as if they are worthy human beings and since people like me, who need no threats to be good aren't part of their club then I must be a threat.

/There are close to 5000 human made Gods throughout the ages
//if there is a God, humans could not understand it and therefore should concentrate on living the best life they can
///I don't trust man, and man invented the Gods that he commands you to worship, if you can't see the problem with that...
 
2013-01-22 12:59:29 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Amos Quito: The rabbis of the Talmud determined that an Israelite was not liable for murder unless he intentionally killed a fellow Israelite.

You're excluding so much context, it's almost unfair.

1. Intention is such a major part of capital crime. In order to be liable for capital murder, so many conditions have to be met that in any capital murder case we know that the accused intended to kill the victim. If anyone else was killed - Israelite or no - that person is generally not liable for the death penalty. Maybe life imprisonment, but not execution. Tractate Sanhedrin says that any court that carried out more than 1 death sentence in a generation was a bloody court.
2. We're talking about a situation where in-group and out-group crime were treated differently the world over. I don't know of any modern opinion that would support that interpretation being applied (though there are no batei din these days that would hear a capital case, so perhaps the point is moot), and there were many court systems that had separate rules for tiers of citizens. That doesn't make it right, but there's at least some context. The fact that Jews could not enforce any judgement against Roman citizens, for example (during the time the Talmud was beginning to be compiled), may have played a role in how they were seen by Jews.
3. There's also an idea that runs throughout Tractate Sanhedrin that "in-group" crimes are much more heinous than inter-group crime.

Plus, you know, the fact that Noahide law says murder is out as well, meaning NO ONE's allowed to kill ANYONE.

// no I'm not reading your link
// quote-mining a 2,000 year old tome is fun, but ultimately teaches you very little - hence my objection that context is missing
// did you know that the Talmud's "answer" is often at odds with how Jews practice today?



Don't get butthurt. I'm not picking on Jews in particular.

As you know ALL of the Abramic religions are heavily into the in-group vs out-group "thing".

Hence the Crusades, and the Jihads, and the Zionism, etc.


And OF COURSE you're not going to read Dr. Hartung's excellent essay - it might pop your bubble.
 
2013-01-22 01:00:28 PM  

SpectroBoy: [diagoras.files.wordpress.com image 800x600]


I don't know why fellow atheists use this macro. House was an interesting character for a TV show, but he's interesting partially because he's a pretty horrible person most of the time. He doesn't seem like somebody you should aspire to be like.
 
2013-01-22 01:02:29 PM  

Lochsteppe: Kome: This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.

Thanks for this - I might end up using this article for a thing I'm working on.


That one in particular is related to something I'm working on as well. Might I ask what you're working on?
 
2013-01-22 01:03:51 PM  

Fast Moon: The article seems to indicate that your religion functions like, and has essentially the same effect on your behavior as, "team colors".


which is why you see so much of the big tent CHRISTIANITY... inclusive of anything that has 'jesus' in it... protestant, catholic, mormon, JW, 7thday adventist... all one big happy christian family (ignore the differences between us... we're all CHRISTIANS) it makes their 'team' look bigger than the 'other team'... but if the non-christian religion were gone they'd go back to hating and killing each other... the same way the muslims are with their various sects... if there is an 'other' religion to hate/kill then they are all kind of one big happy group... but take away the 'outsiders'... and they'll happily return to killing each other for obscure divergences from scripture or whether or not god wants you to shave and get a haircut... or not.
 
2013-01-22 01:06:08 PM  

Amos Quito: And OF COURSE you're not going to read Dr. Hartung's excellent essay - it might pop your bubble.


I'm not religious, and haven't been for some time now. If your goal is to get me to leave the faith, I beat you to it.

However, I can't unlearn things I learned in my youth, and some of that means the interpretations I learned are different from what others have learned/come up with on their own. Some of that is simply factual (no, we don't have sex through a be-holed sheet), and some is interpretation (I have never heard a modern opinion reflecting the notion that a "heathen" who attacks/kills a Jew gets death every time, and the converse gets you a slap on the wrist; though I have heard a multitude of explanations for why the Talmudic editors felt that way).

Part of the reason I stopped being religious is because of arguments like these. I spent 16 years learning the rules in school, and I feel like every philosophical question was asked, answered, then re-asked for the hell of it. So no, I don't really care what Scholar #984628608 says about it - chances are that I've heard it already or don't really care to delve into the topic AGAIN.
 
2013-01-22 01:06:54 PM  

SmackLT: I believe that the study was done in earnest, and maybe it is instructive that a lot of people are hypocrites.

I spent a lot of time reading different religious texts and found a lot in those different texts to inspire me. When my focus was on that, I believe that my general attitude toward others was better than when it had been a while. It took my focus off of me and onto principles that I consider more universal. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in itself.


I spent a lot of time reading the bible and found a lot in those various texts to inspire me. When my focus was on that, I believe that my general attitude toward rape, incest and murder was better than when it had been a while. It took my focus off of me and onto those heathens who tried to take my guns.,
 
2013-01-22 01:07:31 PM  

genner: Your looking at it the wrong way.
This study also proves that being an atheist doesn't make you a better person.


Atheism isn't a moral position.
 
2013-01-22 01:08:13 PM  

Rich Cream: Thou shalt not kill murder.
Seriously.


quit quote mining 2000 year old tomes

Space_Poet: I take the Buddhist approach to religion


are you a level 5 vegan?

Space_Poet: if there is a God, humans could not understand it and therefore should concentrate on living the best life they can


if there is a god, what is living the best life?
 
2013-01-22 01:08:22 PM  

Sofa King Smart: fickenchucker: I've always taught my kids we're Catholic because that's how I was raised and I'm not really in the mood to learn a new set of rules. But if they want to go Lutheran or something else that's not an outright cult (like Scientology) they won't get any weird family fighting from me.

and what if they go outside Christianity alltogether? what if they decide that all religion is just variations of uneducated sheep herder mythology from various parts of world and that there is no god... will they get any 'weird family fighting' from you then?


Nah--I just want them to be better people than I am.

If they go Buddhist, Jewish, Islamian, or whatever, to find their way I don't really care. Just so long as they don't twist whatever they gravitate towards into what we're discussing here--the excess judgmentalism and ostracizing of us and their friends because of silly things like eating beef or pork.
 
2013-01-22 01:08:57 PM  

Mugato: whores


You said "whores" twice. You must really like em. :-)
 
2013-01-22 01:08:57 PM  
I guess this explains why religious leaders disapprove of youth in Asia.
 
2013-01-22 01:09:28 PM  
...and I was kidding about Islamian--I know it's Muslim.
 
2013-01-22 01:09:50 PM  

david_gaithersburg: I get worried when Fark goes more than 24 hours without a hate speech thread.

Seig heil!


I honestly don't know what you are trying to accomplish. There is no official title bestowed for "Worst Poster on Fark", and even if there was, you know Drew's cheap ass wouldn't be giving out any kind of worthwhile prize for it. Why do you bother?
 
2013-01-22 01:11:52 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


So is trolling.
 
2013-01-22 01:11:58 PM  

skipjack: umad:

You can't use logic on an illogical person. Ridicule is all that is left.

You guys are arguing over whether Batman or Iron Man would win in a fight. We're telling you that it doesn't farking matter, since they're both made up.

If ridicule is all you have left, then you haven't communicated effectively. That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.



This is simply untrue. What you're relying on here is false equivalence. Not all ideas are of equal merit or value. Some are simply ridiculous and if you do not treat them as ridiculous (note the root of the word "ridiculous") you lend them the veneer of legitimacy that they do not deserve.

Take religions for example. People treat them VERY seriously, even though they pretty much all are absolutely, hilariously, ridiculously, idiotic when you break them down in to what people are actually asking you to believe as fact. But because religions went virtually unchallenged for millenia (and are still seen as valuable tools to control and harvest wealth from masses of people) by non-believers these ancient myths run many, many, many peoples' lives around the world. We even have lawmakers who want to put their religious beliefs and teachings in to LAW! It's insane, but that's what you get when you're not allowed to ridicule that which is deserving of it.

But if I told you today to believe me when I said that everyone has an invisible thing called a "wathan" which carries our mind magically and was gifted to us by a mysterious creator with magic powers who saw all and was judging us all from his home in the sky. That this creator and his cohorts promised us an eternal life after we die so long as we agree to follow the rules.... Well you'd laugh at me, because what I was describing would sound like some kind of fantasy novel - which it is. That's a very broad description of Riverworld by Philip Jose Farmer. But change "wathan" to "soul" and that's also the "Abrahamic" religions too. Riverworld was penned in a time that you wouldn't necessarily get stoned to death for questioning it, so it hasn't had a few thousand years to be mistaken as fact and go unchallenged until it has a comfy nest in a place between our unconcious and societal acceptance. That's the difference between fantasy we believe as fact and fantasy we still understand is fantasy.
 
2013-01-22 01:13:36 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: The number 7 and the letter Q!: t3knomanser: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Any system that teaches good morals can help a person love their neighbor

I sincerely doubt that pro-social behavior is something that can be learned. I think that human beings, by and large, instinctively engage in pro-social behaviors. There are inherent conflicts with our limitations in that regard (we're great in societies of 20ish people, we start failing in societies of thousands, and it gets all farked up when you try and build a society of millions), but that's not because we need to learn to "love our neighbor". We simply need to recognize that these strangers are our neighbor.

We are social animals, and we are inherently compassionate and kind to our peers. Those that are not are deviants, and I do not believe that education fixes it- it's a biological issue that must be treated.

Interesting idea. I honestly haven't studied human instinctual behavior in detail (I'm an English teacher) but now I've got something to look up online when the kids are napping. Thanks.

You and t3knomanser may find this book interesting: The Moral Landscape. The author makes the argument that essentially, morality comes from biology and the fact that humans are social beings, and not religion. I'm not quite finished yet but it's a pretty interesting read and a position I haven't heard laid out often enough. I picked it up to further arm myself against those who tell me I have no moral compass and am a selfish, horrible person because I'm an atheist. Obviously, I know that isn't true but I like being able to argue my point beyond just pointing at myself. :-)


I'll try to grab a used one online (kinda poor right now). I don't get the "atheists have no moral compass" argument. My compass may be different than yours, but that doesn't mean yours doesn't exist.

With every point of view there are things that are unexplained. We fill them in with some kind of faith. I know people who believe that science will one day answer every question, and get frustrated when science winds up with a small answer and a bunch of new questions (I think that's the coolest thing about science, myself. That, and air-conditioning.). I also know people who are afraid that science will kill God. It all depends on the premises you accept and the basis of your faith in whatever.

Can't guarantee I'll agree with the book, but I love learning new stuff. Thanks.
 
2013-01-22 01:13:41 PM  

Rich Cream: Thou shalt not kill murder.
Seriously.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat:


Seriously. So put down the McMurderBurger, fatty.
 
2013-01-22 01:14:03 PM  

fickenchucker: ...and I was kidding about Islamian--I know it's Muslim.


Or if they're laid-back and genuinely nice atheists, I wouldn't really care. I'm not much into evangelizing a belief system anymore or finding reasons to be annoyed at everyone.
 
2013-01-22 01:15:16 PM  
walk the middle path.
live and let live.
leave it better than you found it.
do no harm.
 
2013-01-22 01:15:18 PM  
But what if your neighbour is an altar boy?

SpectroBoy: What a religious person loving his neighbor may look like

/ NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!!!


Allow me to provide a counter-point:
msnbcmedia.msn.com
 
2013-01-22 01:15:33 PM  

latenite: Almea Tarrant: latenite: A. Yeah, people are greedy, stupid, selfish, etc. Not news. The question is, are they following the principles of their religion at the time? If not, you're merely judging a sick man for needing a doctor.

B. While we're at it, let's forget about the hospitals, universities, charities, etc. that have been established on behalf of one religion or another.

Interesting point on A. My counterpoint is that as religion is basically supposed to provide tenets by which to live you life, if people "need the doctor" a lot, then the system altogether probably isn't too healthy.

And for a balanced argument, including B. would make it necessary to include:

C. All the wars, murders, torture, and brainwashing that have occurred in the name of one religion or another.

How much health care a person needs has more to do with how sick the person is rather than the quality of the health care.

Also, I mentioned (B.) because all I see posted in regards to religion is (C.). But how much sense does it make to judge God based on the faults of His followers in the first place?


No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.
 
2013-01-22 01:16:57 PM  

I drunk what: if there is a god, what is living the best life?


Well, I guess that's personal but to me it's a basic, simple approach: be happy and do what makes you happy without making others unhappy. Live without hurting others, in fact live and make others' lives better if possible, that's true success. Give back to what gives you life (yes I am a serious environmentalist because of this rule), treat all life as sacred but do what you must to survive so you can continue to do more good. There's other ideas to living a good life but that's the basics.
 
2013-01-22 01:17:13 PM  
Religion is used to justify why the person hates their neighbor so much.

Besides, those who distrust completely, are distrustful themselves.
 
2013-01-22 01:18:06 PM  

Kome: Lochsteppe: Kome: This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.

Thanks for this - I might end up using this article for a thing I'm working on.

That one in particular is related to something I'm working on as well. Might I ask what you're working on?


My specialization exam (paper) in technical communication. I'm focusing partly on ethics and open-source or collaborative projects. McFarland's article might be helpful in discussing how an in-group can be (and should be, I think) much broader than just the corporation a tech writer works for. That, in turn, helps me talk about a tech writer's ethics as something larger in scope than just corporate or professional ethics. We'll see.
 
2013-01-22 01:18:13 PM  

SpectroBoy: [diagoras.files.wordpress.com image 800x600]


do you have any cute pics of what an anti-religious person loving his neighbor may look like? lulz
 
2013-01-22 01:18:46 PM  
My parents believe that they are religious because they go to church. I swear they truly believe that there's a chart somewhere that will indicate they are OK to enter heaven because they were in the 98% percentile. Meanwhile after church, they go to a restaurant for breakfast and treat the server and staff like servants and tip 5% because they 'never really get go service there'. Yea religion!
 
2013-01-22 01:19:45 PM  

meat0918: that's because people; due to natural, tribalistic tendencies; instinctively treat it is "Love my neighbor that is also the same religion as me, and only if I really, really have to."


Thread over. Also study over, give this man a research grant.
 
2013-01-22 01:20:42 PM  

skipjack: That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.


Does not, doodyhead.
 
2013-01-22 01:21:54 PM  

I drunk what: Rich Cream: Thou shalt not kill murder.
Seriously.

quit quote mining 2000 year old tomes



Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.
 
2013-01-22 01:21:59 PM  

Space_Poet: be happy and do what makes you happy without making others unhappy


what should we do with all the sadists?

Space_Poet: Live without hurting others


no vaccines for your society?

also do you mean other life or just people?

Space_Poet: treat all life as sacred


are you against abortion?

do you eat meat?
 
2013-01-22 01:23:02 PM  

Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.


the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real
 
2013-01-22 01:23:30 PM  

skipjack: punkhippie:
Oh horseshiat. Ridicule is a very efficient way to indicate that something isn't worth a serious response. It goes back as far as human language.

Stop cowering behind fake rules of etiquette. Nobody is fooled.

I've used ridicule many times, and I'll use it in the future, but doesn't make it right or effective and I've done more harm than good IMHO. It's those life lessons you learn, then forget and repeat. I


How does one criticize a paranoid without making them feel that they are being "ridiculed", or "persecuted"?
Or should people with paranoid belief systems be held above criticism?
if I were to opine that the world is a behavioral lab being run by invisible unicorns who live on the other side of the Moon, would those who pointed out that the belief is ridiculous be somehow "intellectually insecure"?
It is not "ridicule' to point out that that which is ridiculous, is, in fact, ridiculous. Ridiculous things are ridiculous due to their own ridiculous natures - not to the external observations of those with the wit to perceive that they are ridiculous.
You are trying to make up your own, arbitrary rules of human social intercourse - and they don't apply in the real world. Leave the "fair and balanced" delusion to the Faux News crowd - it fails in actual reality.
 
2013-01-22 01:25:41 PM  
I don't want to detract from the derp in this derptastic thread, but as hstein3 pointed out:

"A team of behaviour experts asked a group of Malaysian people with different religious backgrounds to take part in a series of tasks involving sharing money with other participants" means this study is only valid within Malaysian culture of Malaysians actually living in Malaysia, and that's assuming their selection pool was large enough and spread enough across Malaysian culture to even accurately reflect that.

I find it amusing, though, that they are purporting to convey these results from a small, very insular culture in the South Pacific to the entire world. This is how to lie with statistics - don't understand them in the first place, and them report them to a bunch of other people who don't understand them either.

Classic.
 
2013-01-22 01:27:16 PM  

Lochsteppe: Kome: Lochsteppe: Kome: This reminds me of a pair of other recent papers. One was the recent study looking at how political affiliation affects charitable donations, finding that liberals and conservatives donate equally, but to different organizations. Conservatives tending to donate to religious organizations, like their own congregation, that serve typically to benefit the in-group while liberals tend to donate more to secular organizations that tend to help in-group and out-group equally (and also that people tend to donate less overall when the opposite party occupies the White House). The other was a study looking at whether or not people perceive humanity as their in-group or not, finding - among other things - that those who identify all of humanity as members of their in-group tend to donate more to humanitarian relief efforts. Citations for both are below, in case anyone is interested:

Margolis, M., & Sances, M. (2012). Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States. Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States (September 4, 2012).

McFarland, S., Webb, M., & Brown, D. (2012). All Humanity Is My Ingroup: A Measure and Studies of Identification With All Humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830-853.

Thanks for this - I might end up using this article for a thing I'm working on.

That one in particular is related to something I'm working on as well. Might I ask what you're working on?

My specialization exam (paper) in technical communication. I'm focusing partly on ethics and open-source or collaborative projects. McFarland's article might be helpful in discussing how an in-group can be (and should be, I think) much broader than just the corporation a tech writer works for. That, in turn, helps me talk about a tech writer's ethics as something larger in scope than just corporate or professional ethics. We'll see.


Ah, very cool. Best of luck!
 
2013-01-22 01:27:43 PM  

mongbiohazard:

This is simply untrue. What you're relying on here is false equivalence. Not all ideas are of equal merit or value. Some are simply ridiculous and if you do not treat them as ridiculous (note the root of the word "ridiculous") you lend them the veneer of legitimacy that they do not deserve.


Incorrect. I don't have to ridicule someone in order to note that their idea is ridiculous. For instance, I don't have to ridicule you for your ridiculous notion that people aren't allowed ridicule that which you think is deserving. I can just point out the many people that have, the greatest being, IMHO, Mark Twain.

/also, ridicule...I just wanted to type it out once more.
 
2013-01-22 01:28:46 PM  

Deucednuisance: skipjack: That you feel you need to use ridicule says more about you than the person you're ridiculing.

Does not, doodyhead.


Meanypants.
 
2013-01-22 01:28:46 PM  

Cymbal: No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.


If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?
 
2013-01-22 01:30:16 PM  

I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real


For someone who's quit posting on Fark ... you're really stirring up the shiat today!

/to everyone else: Don't take IDW seriously ... all his posts are designed to spin you around in circles. He has no point to make.
 
2013-01-22 01:31:52 PM  

latenite: Cymbal: No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.

If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?


What do you mean by "judging God"?
 
2013-01-22 01:32:18 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: the only good christian is a dead christian...

-Foetus

Song


Whoa... thread officially Thurwelled.

Noice.

TAKE IT OUTSIDE, GOD BOY!
 
2013-01-22 01:32:50 PM  
Religion also indicates that a person is untrustworthy. If a person can so easily lie to themselves, how difficult do you think it is for them to lie to you?

You may know the sweetest kindest people who are religious, but believe me...they will lie to your face so convincingly, because they're experts at making themselves believe their own lies.

Then when you catch them in the lie, the anger bursts forth, and sometimes violence.
 
2013-01-22 01:33:25 PM  

latenite: Cymbal: No one is judging God. We are judging religion. Which is a human invention, and thus extremely fallible. All your misdirection does is show us all how illogical your argument is.

If you are judging religion, which is about man's relationship to God, and religion is a human invention, are you saying that God is also a human invention? If so, how then are you not judging God when you judge religion?


To be honest, many of us criticize both but it is fair to point out that they are two completely different things.

Theism is believing in an unprovable concept without any evidence. Religion is snake-oil salesmen preying on theists.
 
2013-01-22 01:35:35 PM  

I drunk what: Rich Cream: Well, if we're talking about what he-said-He-said then let's get back to the original "quote" and not some made-up thing.

the whole thing is made up, they are all myths, only science is real



You only believe in science. It's not tangible either.
 
2013-01-22 01:35:46 PM  

skipjack: Communication is key. For instance, a smart gentlemen once said "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." and also said "religion poisons everything". Both statements are used universally by many atheists yet the second statement was spoken without proper evidence, and faithfully believed by many.


Perhaps it was spoken without simultaneously stating evidence, but that doesn't mean that the evidence for the veracity of the statement is not plentiful.

Frankly, this is a situation where another oft-spoken phrase is apropos:

"It goes without saying".
 
2013-01-22 01:36:10 PM  
I find that a bottle of wine is much more effective than religion when I attempt to love my neighbor. Rum works too, but she doesn't drink beer.
 
Displayed 50 of 317 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report