The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

RR,

You can conflate science and religion; data and scripture all day long.  You can do it with your thumb up your ass while singing Yankee Doodle for all I care.  It's still a logically fallacious argument

It was a bad argument the last six times you tried it, and if you left and came back here in ten years, guess what?!  It would still be a BAD fucking argument.  Science and religion are different.  That's why one is called "science" and the other is called "religion".  They are not synonyms.

I'm done wasting my time arguing against fallacies.  This is the problem with you guys.  People get so fed up with the willful ignorance that they say, "fuck this assclown, I'm done," and the Christian walks away Feeling as though they've accomplished something.

Congratulations, you've accomplished making yourself look like a stupid asshole for five pages.  I'll get started on your trophy.

I agree, that science and religion are not the same. I also agree with you, that these are bad arguments. That was my point from the beginning. I don't believe that the differences in science and religion change the principles, of how we acquire knowledge, and justify our beliefs. This would be special pleading, and unjustified.

Before you go; however, could you do me the courtesy, of explaining what you believe is fallacious, and why my reasoning is incorrect here, that calls for the above post.

I already explained to you in the post you just quoted why drawing false similarities between science and religion to make them appear they are on equal par is fallacious.

So, now what YOU need to do is explain to me what this means:

"I agree, that science and religion are not the same. I also agree with you, that these are bad arguments. That was my point from the beginning. I don't believe that the differences in science and religion change the principles, of how we acquire knowledge, and justify our beliefs."

Because to me that sounds like you saying one thing, and then saying the opposite out the side of your neck, if you catch my drift.

[KevinM1]

RR and Steve seem to conveniently forget that otherwise intelligent, 21st century people believe stupid shit all the time. Again, Scientology and Mormonism immediately spring to mind.

As far as 'for so little gain'/risk of harm or death goes, Jesus was also a political revolutionary. I mean, shit, guys. Revolutionaries and their followers face that kind of risk as a matter of course.

Are you guys really so dense that you don't get that religion, regardless of what it is, has always been a political apparatus? Or that the stories you claim to know so well aren't just about spirituality, but of a man becoming a seditious threat to the social order of the time (which is why he was fucking tortured and killed)? Stop turning off your brains and start looking at the bigger picture.

[Crossless2.0]

Christ would be so proud.  [emoji41]

Of me

Bullshit! Jesus proud of a non-kosher monster like yourself? Not a chance, unless you were to assume an evil spirit and plunge off a cliff.

Now Paul, on the other hand . . .

[RoadRunner79]

RoadRunner

Who says you can't test evolution?  You test it by drawing inferences about "missing link" species based on what fossils you can dig up.  If you later find the species you're looking for, it confirms that your inferences were correct.  Happens all the time.

See, you don't understand what "testing" is.  It doesn't necessarily mean guys in lab coats sticking electrodes up monkey's asses or whatever.  It means you are actively looking for data, ideas, or really any way to demonstrate that a theory is false.  And that's where your testimony fails-- it doesn't actively seek contradiction; it is part of a tradition where the suspension of disbelief is considered a virtue, and the seeking of contradiction is considered heretical.  This is not a good environment in which to seek truth about the real world.  It's also, in my opinion, an anti-theist position-- because if you think God is REAL, then you will seek to understand his universe as perfectly as possible.  Instead, you fixate on the authority of 2000 year-old testimony from uneducated desert dwellers.  If God is real, he must think that's incredibly stupid, and maybe a bit insulting.

Evolution has the advantage of being useful.  It explains things we can see, and is not currently challenged by any other theory of why animals are the way they are.  Unless, that is, you consider the 6-day creation story a useful and water-tight theory.  But if you do think that, be prepared for the derisive laughter of anyone who doesn't share your preferred cultural mythology.

BennyBoy,

Thanks, I appreciate this post, and think that it is much closer to a thoughtful discussion, then what I have been seeing. I think we could have an interesting discussion on this, if you wanted to make another thread. This isn't really about evolution, unless you consider the argument techniques given in this thread as valid. (But I think with that type of hyper-skepticism you can question anything and everything). I'm not interested in debating this here in this thread, but I would wager, that I know precisely what you are referring to by your test and inference to a missing link. Not because I am clairvoyant or anything like that, but because you don't have a lot of option to choose from and I think that "happens all the time" is a bit of an overstatement.

I also think that you have some misconceptions regarding Christianity, shown here. FYI, I do believe in a six day creation, and find it useful. I also acknowledge, that the word used for day, has a number of meanings other than 23 hrs and 56 minutes, that some contend. I did notice, that when you went for evolution to the creation account, that you also changed from useful, to useful and water tight. Why is that?

[Edwardo Piet]

Of me

Bullshit! Jesus proud of a non-kosher monster like yourself? Not a chance, unless you were to assume an evil spirit and plunge off a cliff.

Now Paul, on the other hand . . .

Jesus forgave me for kicking him in the balls. I think that demonstrates he loves me.

Or he's a sexual masochist.

[Crossless2.0]

RR and Steve seem to conveniently forget that otherwise intelligent, 21st century people believe stupid shit all the time.  Again, Scientology and Mormonism immediately spring to mind.

As far as 'for so little gain'/risk of harm or death goes, Jesus was also a political revolutionary.  I mean, shit, guys.  Revolutionaries and their followers face that kind of risk as a matter of course.  

Are you guys really so dense that you don't get that religion, regardless of what it is, has always been a political apparatus?  Or that the stories you claim to know so well aren't just about spirituality, but of a man becoming a seditious threat to the social order of the time (which is why he was fucking tortured and killed)?  Stop turning off your brains and start looking at the bigger picture.

Yes, it does seem as though the authors of the Gospel accounts bend over backwards to play down any seditious tendencies within Jesus' message -- so much so that Pilate becomes an ever more sympathetic figure (and the Jews correspondingly more culpable for his death) the later the Gospel in question. It's not hard to understand in light of the revolt staged by the Jews and ruthlessly suppressed by the Romans, not to mention the traction the movement had within largely Gentile circles. But these very understandable human motives mean nothing to people who see the hand of their god at work in all of this. For them, there is no big picture, just Truth carved into stone.

[SteveII]

Wow, another 10 pages of just trying to establish that some events in a story book really happened. Which still has no bearing whatsoever on the question in the OP.

Even if they did happen, it makes fuck all difference right now. If 2000 years ago was the last time God favoured anyone in the correct religion, I think we can consider him irrelevant until further notice.

That would depend entirely on the message he left when he was here 2000 years ago. If that message was..."I can now have a personal relationship with you" why would that 'consider him irrelevant'?

[robvalue]

Because it doesn't do anything that a relationship with a toaster can't do, if you thought it was magic.

[Crossless2.0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcRf0y5-_Uw

[SteveII]

Because it doesn't do anything that a relationship with a toaster can't do, if you thought it was magic.

If your premise is that there would be a difference/advantage (evidence) in a religion if God 'favored' one of them and then you dismiss the difference/advantage of a personal relationship with God because God the existence of God has not been proved, then you are arguing in a circle.