Religion is a mental illness
-
From where I'm standing, anyone dumb enough to place their lives in the hands of an unknown, unseen and, quite frankly, nasty little god is a fool. What does it say about you if you worship a god that lets innocent children die of starvation or allows a natural disaster to overwhelm and destroy the lives of thousands of poor people in countries where the people can barely cope when things are going well? What, exactly, did these people do to incur the wrath of your spiteful little god?
Well, your comment represent a different kind of ignorance to that of the OP, and you're entitled to your opinion.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Well, your comment represent a different kind of ignorance to that of the OP, and you're entitled to your opinion.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
So, no actual answer, just an insult. Try answering the question without resorting to a personal attack or tell me I'm wrong and demonstrate why. Until you can you'd be wiser to stay silent. There's an old saying which I would say applies very neatly to you: open your mouth and prove you're a fool: keep it shut and keep 'em guessing.
-
So, no actual answer, just an insult. Try answering the question without resorting to a personal attack or tell me I'm wrong and demonstrate why. Until you can you'd be wiser to stay silent. There's an old saying which I would say applies very neatly to you: open your mouth and prove you're a fool: keep it shut and keep 'em guessing.
digital man wrote:
There's an old saying which I would say applies very neatly to you: open your mouth and prove you're a fool: keep it shut and keep 'em guessing.
I actually wrote a detailed answer to your reply, and I've deleted it. You want to say I am insulting ( I wasn't - you ARE ignorant, the definition of which is, uninformed ), and then you think it's OK to insult me ? That makes you a hypocrite, and it makes talking to you, beneath me.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
mnvkng76 wrote:
If we were to disprove the existence of ANY of the gods of the worlds religions we would be destroying the cultures and heritages developed over thousands of years.
Happens all the time: where is Zeus now? Or Thor? Yet the Greeks and the Scandinavians appear to be surviving; I mean, hubba-hubba, have you seen some of those Scandinavian women??? Yeehah! (sorry, I'm being a redneck and I've never even been to the Ozarks or wherever they come from).
mnvkng76 wrote:
Now suppose we prove that GOD does exist in a fashion which even the most ardent atheist would have to accept.
So what if god does exist? Would it change my life other than that I've been proved wrong? No, not really. I would still not become a religious adherent since what would be the point? A real god does not need worshipping: what sort of a god requires its ego massaged on that scale Not much of a god, I would have thought.
mnvkng76 wrote:
Maybe its just better if both sides agree to disagree, have a beer, and use the efforts they put into this argument to solve more pressing issues like ,oh I don't know .. end world hunger?
Yeah, right...
digital man wrote:
Happens all the time: where is Zeus now? Or Thor? Yet the Greeks and the Scandinavians appear to be surviving; I mean, hubba-hubba, have you seen some of those Scandinavian women??? Yeehah! (sorry, I'm being a redneck and I've never even been to the Ozarks or wherever they come from).
They were disproved? When? Don't get me wrong I don't believe in those pantheons, but I don't recall any one giving any definitive proof they don't or didn't exist. Belief systems changed, but there was no one moment in history that can be pointed to as saying " these gods didn't exist", except by other religious systems. Science has no way to point to them and say they DIDN”T exist. Thats the crux of the whole argument. Again I'm not saying that I believe in those pantheons, just that theres no tangible proof that can be pointed to as saying they didn't exist.
digital man wrote:
So what if god does exist? Would it change my life other than that I've been proved wrong? No, not really. I would still not become a religious adherent since what would be the point? A real god does not need worshipping: what sort of a god requires its ego massaged on that scale Not much of a god, I would have thought
You life wouldn't maybe, but many would. You don't live in a vacuum, whether you believe so or not. Your needs and concerns aren't the be all and end all of this question, nor are mine. And as far as your theological question about what sort of a GOD needs to be worshiped? I'm not discussing the validity of religions, I'm asking a question about whether humanity as a whole is better off without the answer. You've answered for yourself and thats fine, but leave the arguing about religion itself out of the discussion. As far as Scandinavian women, my wife is Swedish. So yeah, I've seen some of them.. and yeah many of them are hot.
-
peterchen wrote:
misses the point of religion, which is understandable
Are you saying religion is understandable or that the article misses the point? Personally I don't understand willingly giving your life to religion. What is to be gained from it apart from yet one more person/group telling you how to live? I'm a grown-up with lots of life experience, warts 'n all. I know how to live without some mentally deranged priest or rabbi or imam or whomever whatever telling me I should do it like they do or something bad will happen to me. LEAVE ME ALONE: I don't need you and I don't want you.
digital man wrote:
that the article misses the point?
that one. First, I don't expect you to understand, only to accept. Second, separate belief and church. Third, I didn#t tell you anything. mentally deranged indeed.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
digital man wrote:
that the article misses the point?
that one. First, I don't expect you to understand, only to accept. Second, separate belief and church. Third, I didn#t tell you anything. mentally deranged indeed.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistSorrym, was not referring to you in particular, rather to the raving nutter evangelists who'd as soon damn you to hell as convert you. :)
-
digital man wrote:
There's an old saying which I would say applies very neatly to you: open your mouth and prove you're a fool: keep it shut and keep 'em guessing.
I actually wrote a detailed answer to your reply, and I've deleted it. You want to say I am insulting ( I wasn't - you ARE ignorant, the definition of which is, uninformed ), and then you think it's OK to insult me ? That makes you a hypocrite, and it makes talking to you, beneath me.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Mine was a direct observation based on your reply and you've just reinforced it.
-
digital man wrote:
There's an old saying which I would say applies very neatly to you: open your mouth and prove you're a fool: keep it shut and keep 'em guessing.
I actually wrote a detailed answer to your reply, and I've deleted it. You want to say I am insulting ( I wasn't - you ARE ignorant, the definition of which is, uninformed ), and then you think it's OK to insult me ? That makes you a hypocrite, and it makes talking to you, beneath me.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
I actually wrote a detailed answer to your reply, and I've deleted it. You want to say I am insulting ( I wasn't - you ARE ignorant, the definition of which is, uninformed ), and then you think it's OK to insult me ? That makes you a hypocrite, and it makes talking to you, beneath me.
Good job man, I am sure Jesus is so glad to have you protecting him from all the evil athiests on this board! He certainly has a big reward waiting on you in heaven for all your hard work.
There is no heaven, there is no hell, except here on Earth. - Anton LaVey
-
Mine was a direct observation based on your reply and you've just reinforced it.
digital man wrote:
Mine was a direct observation based on your reply and you've just reinforced it.
Isn't it amazing how quickly he gets defensive and starts throwing insults? I bet in his little world he really thinks he is doing something important though. The sad thing is all the losers who line up to vote him 5 because of his membership status.
There is no heaven, there is no hell, except here on Earth. - Anton LaVey
-
digital man wrote:
Mine was a direct observation based on your reply and you've just reinforced it.
Isn't it amazing how quickly he gets defensive and starts throwing insults? I bet in his little world he really thinks he is doing something important though. The sad thing is all the losers who line up to vote him 5 because of his membership status.
There is no heaven, there is no hell, except here on Earth. - Anton LaVey
I would have been happy had he chosen to demolish me with an astute, learned argument which I was incapable of refuting due to its shining brilliance. He chose to respond with an insult. Charming. He did say that he'd constructed such an argument but chose not to put it up. What a pity: good, bad or indifferent one should always be prepared to answer to one's opinions and beliefs.
-
Sorrym, was not referring to you in particular, rather to the raving nutter evangelists who'd as soon damn you to hell as convert you. :)
ok :)
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
digital man wrote:
There's an old saying which I would say applies very neatly to you: open your mouth and prove you're a fool: keep it shut and keep 'em guessing.
I actually wrote a detailed answer to your reply, and I've deleted it. You want to say I am insulting ( I wasn't - you ARE ignorant, the definition of which is, uninformed ), and then you think it's OK to insult me ? That makes you a hypocrite, and it makes talking to you, beneath me.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Don't cast your pearls before swine my friend.
"Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science." - Gary Zukav
Jason Henderson
space art blog -
From where I'm standing, anyone dumb enough to place their lives in the hands of an unknown, unseen and, quite frankly, nasty little god is a fool. What does it say about you if you worship a god that lets innocent children die of starvation or allows a natural disaster to overwhelm and destroy the lives of thousands of poor people in countries where the people can barely cope when things are going well? What, exactly, did these people do to incur the wrath of your spiteful little god?
I like how you keep returning to the "letting innocent children die". So, you worship children? Keyword: Natural. Why you insist on a meddler is beyond me. I for one would find more value in a God that stays out of the way and observes rather than one which meddles in everyday life. I've never been a fan of Fate, Destiny, Divine Intervention, or Providence. We should succeed soley by our own actions and not a meddling God manipulating the entire thing for personal want. Next. And again, natural disasters are not God's Wrath. Its natural... This is the weakest argument against religion, yet people choose it all the time, even your atheist manifesto uses this as a major point of contention. Which is just rediculous. Not to mention intelligently deficient.
This statement was never false.
-
Curious about something, and maybe this is the wrong thread for the question, but here goes.. I see people on both sides of the religious question basically become elitist die hards in their opinions. Only the atheists have the true logical answers, because if something cannot be empirically proven, it cant be true. Believers in (insert religious affiliation here) tell those atheist's that they have the truth of belief, and the holy words handed down to prove their side, and the others must be wrong. My quetion is this.. do we REALLY want to prove or disprove the existence of GOD? If we were to disprove the existence of ANY of the gods of the worlds religions we would be destroying the cultures and heritages developed over thousands of years. While I know that the history of almost every religion has its dark periods, those religions also have thousands of good and honest souls who have given their life work to furthering their religions message in peaceful ways. Taking something so fundamental to their being away from them doesn't sound very noble to me.... Now suppose we prove that GOD does exist in a fashion which even the most ardent atheist would have to accept. What we are telling that person is that his very life's work and belief system is nothing. that the safe world of logic, predictable physics, and well thought out theory's can be blown away at the whim of an all powerful creator. Again, not a very noble thing to do. Maybe its just better if both sides agree to disagree, have a beer, and use the efforts they put into this argument to solve more pressing issues like ,oh I don't know .. end world hunger?
mnvkng76 wrote:
Only the atheists have the true logical answers, because if something cannot be empirically proven, it cant be true.
That's actually not correct. Only the agnostics have it right, since you really can't prove nor disprove God's existence.
mnvkng76 wrote:
What we are telling that person is that his very life's work and belief system is nothing.
So, you are in the camp that Atheism is a "belief"?
This statement was never false.
-
mnvkng76 wrote:
If we were to disprove the existence of ANY of the gods of the worlds religions we would be destroying the cultures and heritages developed over thousands of years.
Happens all the time: where is Zeus now? Or Thor? Yet the Greeks and the Scandinavians appear to be surviving; I mean, hubba-hubba, have you seen some of those Scandinavian women??? Yeehah! (sorry, I'm being a redneck and I've never even been to the Ozarks or wherever they come from).
mnvkng76 wrote:
Now suppose we prove that GOD does exist in a fashion which even the most ardent atheist would have to accept.
So what if god does exist? Would it change my life other than that I've been proved wrong? No, not really. I would still not become a religious adherent since what would be the point? A real god does not need worshipping: what sort of a god requires its ego massaged on that scale Not much of a god, I would have thought.
mnvkng76 wrote:
Maybe its just better if both sides agree to disagree, have a beer, and use the efforts they put into this argument to solve more pressing issues like ,oh I don't know .. end world hunger?
Yeah, right...
digital man wrote:
A real god does not need worshipping: what sort of a god requires its ego massaged on that scale Not much of a god, I would have thought.
I agree with this sentiment. Organized relgion needs to grow up and mature. What I think the point of it though, is not ego massaging, but rather a dedication of focus that leads, or rather guides the direction of the individual. Such that by focusing on the spiritual it allows you to expand your capacity in this regard. Same with prayer. A mechanism to expand spiritual capacity, or dimensional awareness. Also, say for instance that there isn't a God, but that we do indeed have the potential to expand our consciousness to a more cosmic level. Say we could by virtue of our actions and meditations prepare our spirit for continuity outside our physical manifest. Then a concept of God would be useful to prevent individual selfishness, and Godheads from claiming the position in a hierarchical format. Pure theory and conjecture, but a possibility that even as we grow dimensionally, we could use a centralized superior, even if its an aggregate resultant from a collective super conscious, to maintain a balance of freedom with differing levels of attainment by various personalities. Or in otherwords, a safety valve to prevent the equivalent of spiritual dictators. I like watching Stargate SG 1 for this perspective. Where all of our lore is resultant of ascendant human beings and other sentient races throughout the galaxy. Most of mythology is derived from these interactions, mistaken for the one true God. I also like how they treat all of this from a materialist perspective, but don't even deal with the concept of God. Even when extrapolating the truth out to being ascendant humans, and aliens being responsible for religious myth, they still can't effectively deal with confronting the concept of God. And I think this will be true throughout eternity. The concept will always be a concept no matter how advanced we become. For some they'll have an experience which speaks otherwise, but it will always be personal. I should state probably for the record, that I find no value in organized religion. Its a social construct for people who want to share something they think is in common. But in my view, that's it. I think its actually a deterrant.
This statement was never false.
-
mnvkng76 wrote:
Only the atheists have the true logical answers, because if something cannot be empirically proven, it cant be true.
That's actually not correct. Only the agnostics have it right, since you really can't prove nor disprove God's existence.
mnvkng76 wrote:
What we are telling that person is that his very life's work and belief system is nothing.
So, you are in the camp that Atheism is a "belief"?
This statement was never false.
this statement
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Only the atheists have the true logical answers, because if something cannot be empirically proven, it cant be true.
Was meant to be almost tongue in cheek. It was synopsis of atheists viewpoints, which admittedly may be putting it a bit simplistically.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
So, you are in the camp that Atheism is a "belief"?
Of course its a belief. Even lack of belief in a God is belief in something. In this case the person in question believes there is no God. SO it is a belief.
-
digital man wrote:
A real god does not need worshipping: what sort of a god requires its ego massaged on that scale Not much of a god, I would have thought.
I agree with this sentiment. Organized relgion needs to grow up and mature. What I think the point of it though, is not ego massaging, but rather a dedication of focus that leads, or rather guides the direction of the individual. Such that by focusing on the spiritual it allows you to expand your capacity in this regard. Same with prayer. A mechanism to expand spiritual capacity, or dimensional awareness. Also, say for instance that there isn't a God, but that we do indeed have the potential to expand our consciousness to a more cosmic level. Say we could by virtue of our actions and meditations prepare our spirit for continuity outside our physical manifest. Then a concept of God would be useful to prevent individual selfishness, and Godheads from claiming the position in a hierarchical format. Pure theory and conjecture, but a possibility that even as we grow dimensionally, we could use a centralized superior, even if its an aggregate resultant from a collective super conscious, to maintain a balance of freedom with differing levels of attainment by various personalities. Or in otherwords, a safety valve to prevent the equivalent of spiritual dictators. I like watching Stargate SG 1 for this perspective. Where all of our lore is resultant of ascendant human beings and other sentient races throughout the galaxy. Most of mythology is derived from these interactions, mistaken for the one true God. I also like how they treat all of this from a materialist perspective, but don't even deal with the concept of God. Even when extrapolating the truth out to being ascendant humans, and aliens being responsible for religious myth, they still can't effectively deal with confronting the concept of God. And I think this will be true throughout eternity. The concept will always be a concept no matter how advanced we become. For some they'll have an experience which speaks otherwise, but it will always be personal. I should state probably for the record, that I find no value in organized religion. Its a social construct for people who want to share something they think is in common. But in my view, that's it. I think its actually a deterrant.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
A real god does not need worshipping: what sort of a god requires its ego massaged on that scale Not much of a god, I would have thought.
The problem with this statement is two fold. One, not everygod NEEDS to be worshipped. In Many religions, you have the free will to choose whether you worship or not. If you don't follow the path that those religions lay out, there will be consequences. This isn't unreasonable in the fact that humankind sees the need to create laws for itself, as if there were no laws or order, then chaos would ensue. I don't see much difference. If you don't follow the law in your country, you suffer consequences, the same in most religions. It's not Organized religion that needs to grow up so much as the individuals in this world who either think that being "religous" makes them right and so may judge every one, or who think that religion itself is to blame for all the worlds woes, and want to be able to do or say anything they want without consequence. The truth is that on both sides of the fence the individuals, not neccesarily the atheist viewpoint, or the religious viewpoint, than is the problem. People just want to point fingers, say their better than one another and yet never want to takle responsibility for themseleves or others who need thier help. The worlds a messed up place no matter where you live, and we need to wake up and stop this stupidity. Whether or not God exists isn't the question, the question is why are we wasting time with that when we should be working on making ourselves beter people in general? The second problem with that statement is assumes that the writer has knowledge about a how a GOD should act, when the author indicates that he or she doesn't beleive in a god. You cannot judge how a thing or person should act, if you don't acknowledge its existance, or possible existance.