Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.

[Belacqua]

Yea because water is sooooo new and not older than caffeine or carbonation.

Carbonated water was invented by Christian minister Joseph Priestley.

[arewethereyet]

I don't think religion is caffeinated or carbonated.

Yea because water is sooooo new and not older than caffeine or carbonation.

Way to miss my point. 

Religion is a racket, just like any other form of social grouping be it politics, religion or business.

Every religion in the world in human history, is a result of surrounding and prior influences. Just like Coke and Pepsi compete. 

Religion is simply our species excuse to justify social pecking orders. Just like Ford And Chevy don't like the competition of the other.

The "homo"/great ape line of our human species existed long before homo sapiens. Humans existed long before even the first sedentary cities or concepts of farming. Humans existed long before the first written languages, or first written religions.

But one thing that has not changed in evolution, even outside our species, is evolutionary competition. Religion is merely a bullshit human invented placebo to justify social pecking orders. Just like Coke and Pepsi want to dominate each other. But all parties involved failing to understand water existed long before soda or caffeine.

Did you feel that breeze when my remark flew right past you?

[Brian37]

Yea because water is sooooo new and not older than caffeine or carbonation.

Carbonated water was invented by Christian minister Joseph Priestley.

Um yea ok.

And  Asian invented what we now know as gunpowder.

Arabs invented Algebra 

And the ancient Egyptians were master engineers. 

You do know one of our resident Muslims whom posts here loves to point to the Koran and claim all sorts of scientific insights.

Point being, that human discovery has never been a result of religion, but a result of our evolutionary curiosity.

Worldwide in every century worldwide there are countless points of individuals of all nations and all religions whom have contributed to future discoveries. That says to me, that it isn't a religion, or political party, or a nation that has a patent on discovery. It merely means that our species is curious.

I hate it when Christians quote Aquinas. I hate it when Muslims point to Algebra. I hate it when Sam Harris points to Buddhism. 

It isn't that religious people cant, or don't accept science. It is more along the lines that religion is not akin to science. 

I have over the past 20 years, run into apologists who point to Islam, Christianity, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhism, and point to science as evidence that they got the one correct club.

If one can willingly accept, and rightfully so, that Thor is not an explanation for lightening, then why should any scientific advance, no mater who makes the discovery, have to lead to a religious club by any label?

Humans worldwide, in our human history, have contributed to our understanding of nature and reality. But I do get tired of apologists using our natural curiosity to point to religion or a god/God.

---

I don't think religion is caffeinated...

Well Mormonism certainly isn't.

You got me on that one.

But still, they base their religion on a founder who was a con artist. I think Joseph Smith would have sold Red Bull if alive today. And lets not get stared on the magic underwear.

[Ranjr]

Thor was the just story we told children to help them sleep on stormy nights.  We didn't expect adults to take it seriously.  Similarly with Jesus.  We were trying to make the kids stop hitting each other.  Who could predict that "turn the other cheek" and "do as you would be done by" would turn into fight club?

[vulcanlogician]

But still, they base their religion on a founder who was a con artist. I think Joseph Smith would have sold Red Bull if alive today. And lets not get stared on the magic underwear.

I've actually discovered porn centered around Mormon underwear, which (I presume) is appealing to repressed young Mormons who actually took the time to fantasize about that sort of thing. Same principle with nun porn. Nun porn is one of the best things Catholicism has ever produced. You can't have a concept of "naughty" without repression and boundaries. Fucking nuns is verboten. But we all know how much sweeter the forbidden fruit is... Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Mormon underwear. I can't be mad at Mormonism if it's going to be that kinky.

As for the religion being founded by a con artist. I think there's a long list of religions founded by con artists. You basically have a choice with religion. Is the founder a con artist? Or was he delusional? Take your pick. Each one has its own perils.

[Belacqua]

Point being, that human discovery has never been a result of religion

Sometimes it has. 

, but a result of our evolutionary curiosity.

Yes, Aristotle's Metaphysics begins: "All men by nature desire to know."

Worldwide in every century worldwide there are countless points of individuals of all nations and all religions whom have contributed to future discoveries. That says to me, that it isn't a religion, or political party, or a nation that has a patent on discovery. It merely means that our species is curious.

I wish you had enough curiosity to learn how to use "who" and "whom." You consistently use "whom" incorrectly.

But I agree with you that no single group has a monopoly on discovery. Non-religious, religious, liberal, conservative, they all desire to know. 

I hate it when Christians quote Aquinas. I hate it when Muslims point to Algebra. I hate it when Sam Harris points to Buddhism. 

There's really no need to have so much hate. Aquinas, algebra, and Buddhism have all added interesting things to the human experience. If you have curiosity about their contributions you can learn a lot.

It isn't that religious people cant, or don't accept science. It is more along the lines that religion is not akin to science. 

Right! 

Religious claims are metaphysics, and it's a mistake to ask for science-type evidence for them. A lot of people lack curiosity about metaphysics, but that doesn't mean it's a waste of time.

If one can willingly accept, and rightfully so, that Thor is not an explanation for lightening, then why should any scientific advance, no mater who makes the discovery, have to lead to a religious club by any label?

No scientific advance can be used to prove the superiority of any religious group, or of atheism, or of any political group.

I do get tired of apologists using our natural curiosity to point to religion or a god/God.

You can put those people on ignore, and go have a coke or a pepsi.

[arewethereyet]

But still, they base their religion on a founder who was a con artist. I think Joseph Smith would have sold Red Bull if alive today. And lets not get stared on the magic underwear.

I've actually discovered porn centered around Mormon underwear, which (I presume) is appealing to repressed young Mormons who actually took the time to fantasize about that sort of thing. Same principle with nun porn. Nun porn is one of the best things Catholicism has ever produced. You can't have a concept of "naughty" without repression and boundaries. Fucking nuns is verboten. But we all know how much sweeter the forbidden fruit is... Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Mormon underwear. I can't be mad at Mormonism if it's going to be that kinky.

As for the religion being founded by a con artist. I think there's a long list of religions founded by con artists. You basically have a choice with religion. Is the founder a con artist? Or was he delusional? Take your pick. Each one has its own perils.

I went to Catholic schools and was taught by nuns...I can't help but think of Sr. Mary Claire's pantyhose with the toes and heels paired with her sandals and full habit.  I can't make my mind go from there to porn.  Just can't do it.

[Brian37]

Thor was the just story we told children to help them sleep on stormy nights.  We didn't expect adults to take it seriously.  Similarly with Jesus.  We were trying to make the kids stop hitting each other.  Who could predict that "turn the other cheek" and "do as you would be done by" would turn into fight club?

^^^^^^^ This.

[Belacqua]

Thor was the just story we told children to help them sleep on stormy nights.  We didn't expect adults to take it seriously.  Similarly with Jesus.  We were trying to make the kids stop hitting each other.  Who could predict that "turn the other cheek" and "do as you would be done by" would turn into fight club?

^^^^^^^ This.

Here, Ranjr has invented an origin myth to explain where religion comes from. There is no way to prove it's true. Ethnologists and anthropologists have various theories. 

But since it sounds good to you, you've decided to go ahead and believe this unprovable just-so story. 

You are doing what you say religious people do.

[Brian37]

But still, they base their religion on a founder who was a con artist. I think Joseph Smith would have sold Red Bull if alive today. And lets not get stared on the magic underwear.

I've actually discovered porn centered around Mormon underwear, which (I presume) is appealing to repressed young Mormons who actually took the time to fantasize about that sort of thing. Same principle with nun porn. Nun porn is one of the best things Catholicism has ever produced. You can't have a concept of "naughty" without repression and boundaries. Fucking nuns is verboten. But we all know how much sweeter the forbidden fruit is... Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Mormon underwear. I can't be mad at Mormonism if it's going to be that kinky.

As for the religion being founded by a con artist. I think there's a long list of religions founded by con artists. You basically have a choice with religion. Is the founder a con artist? Or was he delusional? Take your pick. Each one has its own perils.

Not Mormon, but same principle of living in a patriarchal past. 2 minutes 12 seconds into this video, pretty much the same principle, just the Amish version.