We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-10-2016, 04:17 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(05-10-2016 02:48 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(05-10-2016 12:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I don't know why I bother responding to these "chew toys".
......... religion damages the brain .......
"We are the Believers. Lower your shields and surrender your reason. We will add your educational and personal distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

Thank you, the potential friend, for the response. How the brain is damaged???
Many theists say, what they are not sure yet, what Jesus Christ is the Godman. But they have chosen to follow this assumption, as if the Jesus Christ is the Godman. In the Science it is called "following the hypothesis." What is "wrong" with that constructive behavior?



Except that "following the hypothesis" is not what science does. Not ever. Not even close.

Do you even know what the word hypothesis means?

Hypotheses are ideas based on an evaluation of all the available data, ideas which are in need of testing in order to be confirmed or rejected. In science, you form a "null hypothesis", which is what would be demonstrated if the hypothesis is not correct (loose description)... and then you deliberately try to falsify your idea. If you idea is not subject to falsifiable testing, then it is not an hypothesis. Period. It is for this reason that an hypothesis is worthless without further action. It cannot be "followed" because it is worthless. If you chase an idea seeking to confirm it, you run into the problem known as "confirmation bias", the issue that science was created to try to avoid.

The reason I say that your religion is damaging to the brain is because it makes you say things in an attempt to justify yourself that are simply incongruous with reality, like "in science we follow the hypothesis", when the exact opposite of that is the truth.

You are too emotionally attached to your identity as a Believer, and all the religious-cultural ideas that have been programmed into your head via your religious upbringing/society, to be capable of truly examining the things we are saying here.

You literally can't do it honestly, not without risking your entire identity and being, and sense of self and purpose in this world. It has become entrenched in your personality to the point of making you unable to do what the rest of us can easily do. Thus, you are damaged.

Worse, you try to defend and justify this broken behavior by "projecting" it onto the people around you, claiming that it is all of them, and not you, who have the problem. That is why we can say that your religion has damaged you.

I'm not saying this as an insult, but out of pity.

One easy example is that you cannot even tell us why you keep insisting that FUCK is a word you aren't allowed to say without sinning (hint: it's not in the Bible), that you should be able to tell us not to say, to declare us violent for using it, and all because someone in your religious culture programmed you to think that.

You have similar programming about sexuality, as you have revealed to us, which is probably very painful for you to examine too closely.

The very notion of "sin" is a virus that lets programmers slip their programs onto your hardware, getting past your skeptical filters, in order to re-wire your operating system so that you can't even see that you're damaged, let alone start to repair the damage... even when people clearly and patiently (and later, less patiently and more aggressively) point out to you that you're damaged.

And before you say "oh it's just because you're all atheists that you think that!", which is another program you've had installed on your brain in order to defend your religious lunacy, keep in mind that some of the people in this conversation are not atheists, and we're all telling you the same thing.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
05-10-2016, 04:44 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(05-10-2016 02:48 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Many theists say, what they are not sure yet, what Jesus Christ is the Godman. But they have chosen to follow this assumption, as if the Jesus Christ is the Godman. In the Science it is called "following the hypothesis." What is "wrong" with that constructive behavior?

It's not constructive. It is the alignment of one's life with one of the most stupid fucking myths I have ever heard:
  • A god creates a planet.
  • The god creates humans who lack moral sense and forbids them to eat from a magic tree.
  • Not having the sense to know right from wrong yet, the humans eat the forbidden fruit at the suggestion of a well-meaning and entirely truthful Talking Snake™.
  • This upsets the god, who throws the humans out of the only home they ever knew.
  • This god then goes on to cause a flood to kill virtually everything on the planet.
  • After the descendants of the survivors of the flood repopulate the planet, the god is still not satisfied. He rapes a betrothed virgin via a magic pigeon-spook, causing her to bear a son who later gets nailed to a tree for the crimes of other people.
  • As apparently the "son" was actually its own father, he magically comes back to life, wanders around for a few weeks and then disappears into the sky.
  • (To be continued, with the winner-take-all bloodbath in Revelation...)
And supposedly anyone who doesn't believe this nonsense gets to be tortured forever. Fuck. That. Shit. No one with half a brain should believe such a ridiculous story, but it's kept alive by believers threatening their own children, vulnerable adults, and nonbelievers with the wrath of their invisible fiend.

And this is why I want to see Christinsanity destroyed and relegated to a footnote in the back pages of history.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Astreja's post
05-10-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
when you put it that way.....................
Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(05-10-2016 02:48 PM)theBorg Wrote:  In the Science it is called "following the hypothesis." What is "wrong" with that constructive behavior?

uhhhh ... because that is something you should never ever do. I mean if you want any credibility in the scientific community.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
05-10-2016, 05:37 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
[Image: 4b8d082fe2fae4fa9e267e55fabbbaca.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Dark Wanderer's post
05-10-2016, 09:16 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(05-10-2016 10:10 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(05-10-2016 10:03 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Is theBorg = Heywood?

Nah. Heywood was a ***, but he was a smart guy who made reasonable (***) arguments.

I am "sorry" for edition of the negatives in your comment, friend. The tribute to a True Christian:


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 09:26 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(05-10-2016 12:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-10-2016 11:01 AM)theBorg Wrote:  I see the educated one here, my respect to Chas!
How logical is the wave-particle dualism? Is it within the logic laws of Aristotle?

Wave-particle dualism is a dualism of two limited models of reality.
Fundamental particles are what they are - neither waves nor particles; we merely observe and describe the behavior as wave-like or particle-like in different circumstances.
I see the strong human with logic here. However, such logical clearness is not observed in the modern Quantum Physics (in exception of David Bohm interpretation of QM).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2016 09:39 PM by theBorg.)
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
(05-10-2016 12:19 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-10-2016 11:56 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Wait! I thought jesus died for our sins. So if we don't sin, jesus died for nothing!

Jesus committed suicide...........

Is it really adequate? Look the following parable:

If a hero at 9/11 has willingly sacrificed his life, but saved the people from the collapsed WTCenter, he committed the suicide???? I strongly disagree.

The tribute to the heroes:


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 09:55 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
Jew Aliza, our dear theist, has given me -1 for saying, what suicide is the biggest sin. I hope, she will not begin the "disproof" with herself. We must not make here the exceptions, because we are among atheists, and the atheistical statistics (according to my knowledge) says, what they are likely to get killed by themselves. They need our emotional support, dear Jew.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 09:58 PM
RE: We'd better say "no false gods", than "no gods"
Looks like Borg got stood up by Rosemary Palm again.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: