The Invisible Pink Unicorn was a precursor meme to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The whole point is that nothing can be 'invisible' and 'pink', just as nothing can be 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient'. There is no way of knowing if God truly exists, it is true. Likewise, though, there is no of knowing if the Invisible Pink Unicorn truly exists or not. The same goes fairies, ogres, psychic nuns, vampires, Allah, reiki, and extrinsically-purple-meta-sheep that exist outside and beyond material sheep. It is simply intended to draw the debate back down to Earth, ironically, in that it should remind theists that what they believe is entirely arbitrary, inaccessible, and quite likely gibberish yogurt that has long past its use-by-date in the Great Fridge Of Useful Theories About The World.

[This message was edited by Fuzzies on 06-10-08 at 01:05 PM.]

Is Gibberish Yogurt the one that tastes like strawberries?


-Aeras

Fuzzies,

And ALL homosexuals are psychologically, abnormal, unstable, perverted, corrupt, untrustworthy, weak, worthless individuals, who like parasites, eat away at the moral fabric of society. They will never be satisfied until they can have free access to the doors of our classrooms, to teach their depravity to the most vulnerable of society. They, in no way, add to a better world, since the degree to which they break down society, there is no one individual homosexual that can contribute something that would negate their overall cumulative negative affect. Despite all the advances in science, there is NO scientific proof of a “Gay Gene”. There never will be. The popularity of homosexuality will ebb and flow as it always has throughout history. It will never permanently gain acceptance in society despite the wishful thinking, and joyous delusions, of its practitioners. Homosexuals cannot truly believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution because homosexuality can never ensure any species survival.

I do not believe the above. I presented them has an example of the same kind of vitriolic- Psycho Babble Barf Monster - that’s a good name for a good satiric parody atheist - labeling you spew at the religious.

Despite your name, Fuzzies, you are anything but fuzzy. Your labeling of the religious like you do is curious. Do you enjoy being labeled with the words above? If not why do you do it to others? Militant hatred of homosexuality represents a drop of water in the sea of religious experience and practice.

Another interesting thing about you, and others like BofH, is that you continually reference rational thinking in your posts yet post the most irrational, nutty, statements regarding religion. No prominent, respected, atheist today posts such nonsense. Actually, they speak about their distaste if it.

I am not sure how you blind yourself to, waht should be obvious, self knowledge, but it appears that this kind of personal flaw is not only found in the domain of the religious.

P.S. I tried to watch several episodes of the English version of The Office and had a hard time understanding the dialogue. I have to stick to the US version which I think is really funny.

-----------------------------
"In all of our hearts lies a longing for a Sacred Romance. It will not go away in spite of our efforts over the years to anesthetize or ignore its song, or attach it to a single person or endeavor." Brent Curtis

[This message was edited by eagleandchild on 06-10-08 at 04:31 PM.]

It is true that the way I have presented religion is a little uncharitable - only a little, mind, because anything particularly sympathic to religion I find vastly overcharitable. I think religions have a function in society, they DO something. They simply don't do anything uniquely helpful, and they up the chances of particularly unhelpful behaviour in their practitioners.

I hope I have never said that many or most religious people practice 'militant hatred of homosexuality'. Most do not do that. However, 'religious practice and experience' involves suspending certain curiousities, pushing to the background certain critical faculties. That sort of behaviour is not a good foundation for understanding anything. Going around reading "intent" into nature clouds a theist's understanding of How the World Works. Theists do not interpret what they see freely, instead they haphazardly squeeze what they see into a presupposed Higher Power's Great Scheme (be that God or the Inivisble Pink Unicorn).

Some very moderate Christians that I have met, as an example, talk about what men and women are 'meant to do', or claim that it is 'natural' to eat certain foods. To take extreme examples, the Catholic church supposes it is 'unnatural' to use contraceptives other than abstaining from sex. Such everyday claims show a total lack of scientific knowledge, anyone who talks about such intent casually must have only the foggiest understanding of evolutionary theory. What is worse, theists hold these opinions quite aside from whether they are supported by evidence. Since the Bush administration started pushing abstinence over contraceptions in schools what have we seen? Teenage pregnancy much the same, S.T.I.s more common. Despite these terrible results, most religious lobby groups in the US are still maintaining their position. Why is that? Is it because they value their presumed, unevidenced relationship with a god and his commands over people's health and above any pragmatic values? Of course it is! Theists tend to belief, whether evidenced or not, that their spreading their religion solves social ills, it could not possibly cause them.

People simply are not literate in science, and what is worse is that most science reporters is major newspapers don't seem to be either. I don't know if you followed the genome profiling of the platypus a while back, but the reportage was appalling and drew a myriad of conclusions that simply were not there to be drawn (i.e. that the platypus is some kind of "chimera" or a "link between mammals and birds" or a "prehistoric mammal").

Look at what is happening in Texas right now! The Education Board there is actively slipping the Bible into schools under cover of 'history'. I approve of teaching comparative religion, I approve of examining religion's role critically and compassionately. A lot of good things have come out of religion. A lot of nice people practice religion. Theists are usually good people with good intentions. For all that many theists might be lovely, progressive people, that does not change the fact that religion requires people to stop thinking in terms of evidence - what we observe and what we can falsify - and to instead think in the same terms as the Emperor in the fable The Emperor's New Clothes. Religion is the very essence of a 'psychobabble barf monster'.

I think my opinions make you angry and so you opt for a reactionary response to them, rather than explaining to me in clear terms how God (or what-have-you) differs from parodies like the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The primary difference I can see is that old gods came about organically through a long history of myth and investigation, whereas the IPU is contrived, contempory, and consequently less nuanced. These differences barely render comparisons between the two trivial or unworthy of serious analysis.

[This message was edited by Fuzzies on 06-10-08 at 07:47 PM.]

Both versions of the office sucks equally
Now ... can we call it even? Why don't you both watch the real show like "Keeping up with the Kardashians", "Bounty hunter", "Ghost chase", "The Kimora show", or "House of Nick Carter".

quote:

---

The whole point is that nothing can be 'invisible' and 'pink', just as nothing can be 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient'.

---

You don't know that.

quote:

---

And ALL homosexuals are psychologically, abnormal, unstable, perverted, corrupt, untrustworthy, weak, worthless individuals, who like parasites, eat away at the moral fabric of society. They will never be satisfied until they can have free access to the doors of our classrooms, to teach their depravity to the most vulnerable of society. They, in no way, add to a better world, since the degree to which they break down society, there is no one individual homosexual that can contribute something that would negate their overall cumulative negative affect. Despite all the advances in science, there is NO scientific proof of a “Gay Gene”. There never will be. The popularity of homosexuality will ebb and flow as it always has throughout history. It will never permanently gain acceptance in society despite the wishful thinking, and joyous delusions, of its practitioners. Homosexuals cannot truly believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution because homosexuality can never ensure any species survival.

I do not believe the above. I presented them has an example of the same kind of vitriolic- Psycho Babble Barf Monster - that’s a good name for a good satiric parody atheist - labeling you spew at the religious.

---

I think it's cool to be able to say anything and say "I don't mean that. It was just an example". It's like saying if I were to call your mom a n*****r and your wife a s**k then it would have been a racist statement but I didn't.


"Nunc Scio Quit Sit Amor"
But it's still not premarital sex
if you don't plan on getting married

While I'm not sure that there couldn't be something or some entity that is omniscient, it is impossible KO for something to be invisible and pink at the same time. They are contradictory states and contradictions don't exist in nature.

For instance, a plane cannot be simultaneously landed on the ground and flying in the air. They are contradictory states. This is where the phrase comes in that you can't have your cake and eat it too. The act of eating the cake destroys its structure and form resulting in you no longer having it once it is eaten.

From my personal observations, there are contradictions in the Bible or in the teachings of Catholocism (and thereby Christianity). Its resolving these contradictions that results in the bitter arguments between people who want to understand things in a clear and somewhat logical way and people who don't want their faith questioned whether or not they concurrently believe in two different states that are contradictory.

The question of how do you know God truly exists is a question with 6 billion different or slightly differing answers. Its a question that can only result in a shouting match especially by those people who don't want their faith questioned no matter how good the question might be or how the question might ultimately expand or change the directions of their faith. Its the possibility of change that deters and inhibits these discussions through any medium.


-Aeras

"A plane cannot be simultaneously landed on the ground and flying in the air."

What if the plane was omnipotent?

Fuzzies:

I want to review some of your comments to see how uncharitable you really are. I am having a little trouble with what you say - only a little.

You said, “It is true that the way I have presented religion is a little uncharitable - only a little,”

Which is odd statement becasue only a few days ago you said this: “gods are inventions of cruel and ignorant would-be do-gooders, and reflect only the worst of psychotics and human monsters.”

You also said this: “anything particularly sympathitic to religion I find vastly over charitable.”

And, “They simply don't do anything uniquely helpful, and they up the chances of particularly unhelpful behavior in their practitioners.”

I do not know if you see the disconnect.

It is obvious you are completely blind to examples of religion doing good throughout history and your comments reflect a serious lack of self knowledge.

How do your three comments above stand up when looking at religious organizations like:

World Vision,http://www.worldvision.org/, The International Red Cross,http://www.icrc.org/, The International Justice Mission,
http://www.ijm.org/,or the Salvation Army - to name a few.

These groups are on the forefront of relieving human suffering in the world?

Do these groups “reflect only the worst of psychotics and human monsters?” Do they not “do anything uniquely helpful?” Do “they up the chances of particularly unhelpful behavior in their practitioners?”

How can you claim to be operating on a purely rational bases and post such nonsense? They show you are far from being rational in your discussion?

How about religious people helping animals:

There are (to name a few):

The Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians: An Interfaith Peace Effort Pursuing Plant-based, Nonviolent Nutrition.

Best Friends Network: http://network.bestfriends.org/Petitions/Detail.aspx?gu=religion&pn=6&g=922d350e41804f64aa372d2805b912c1

Compassion is good. Deep compassion, the kind that is helping the least, the last, and the left outs of this world, and those slammed by disasters, is found almost solely in organizations that are based on religious practice.

Basically your comments are so off the wall and in the deepest darkest place of you bias e that it is no wonder you believe in Invisible Pink anythings. It is difficult to take anything you say seriously when your bias is blinding.

I could stop there but here are more examples of being a “little uncharitable”

“However, 'religious practice and experience' involves suspending certain curiosities, pushing to the background certain critical faculties.”

And

“Theists do not interpret what they see freely, instead they haphazardly squeeze what they see into a presupposed Higher Power's Great Scheme (be that God or the Inivisble Pink Unicorn).”

"People simply are not literate in science."

Here you offer other example of nonsense noodles with a dash of reason.

There are numerous Christian Scientist on the forefront of discovery; Francis Collins is one of many. Before you pick apart Francis Collins, obviously whatever faults you may find in him, you cannot say he represents an unreasonable religious man "suspending certain curiosities and pushing to the background certain critical faculties.”

quote:

---

Some very moderate Christians that I have met, as an example, talk about what men and women are 'meant to do', or claim that it is 'natural' to eat certain foods. To take extreme examples, the Catholic church supposes it is 'unnatural' to use contraceptives other than abstaining from sex. Such everyday claims show a total lack of scientific knowledge, anyone who talks about such intent casually must have only the foggiest understanding of evolutionary theory. What is worse, theists hold these opinions quite aside from whether they are supported by evidence. Since the Bush administration started pushing abstinence over contraceptions in schools what have we seen? Teenage pregnancy much the same, S.T.I.s more common. Despite these terrible results, most religious lobby groups in the US are still maintaining their position. Why is that? Is it because they value their presumed, unevidenced relationship with a god and his commands over people's health and above any pragmatic values? Of course it is! Theists tend to belief, whether evidenced or not, that their spreading their religion solves social ills, it could not possibly cause them.

---

It is disingenuous to show as premise examples “moderate Christians,” Catholic policy towards sex education, and the Bush administration and then make the huge logical jump in drawing conclusions about religous people or practices in general.

quote:

---

Look at what is happening in Texas right now! The Education Board there is actively slipping the Bible into schools under cover of 'history'. I approve of teaching comparative religion, I approve of examining religion's role critically and compassionately. A lot of good things have come out of religion. A lot of nice people practice religion. Theists are usually good people with good intentions. For all that many theists might be lovely, progressive people, that does not change the fact that religion requires people to stop thinking in terms of evidence - what we observe and what we can falsify - and to instead think in the same terms as the Emperor in the fable The Emperor's New Clothes. Religion is the very essence of a 'psychobabble barf monster'.

---

Now here you are being curious. How can you approve of examining religion critically and compassionately when you have already said that religious practitioners are followers of “inventions of cruel and ignorant would-be do-gooders, and reflect only the worst of psychotics and human monsters?”

I am not sure how to interpret your schizophrenic posting. Discussing things like Christians thinking in terms of evidence is a good debate topic. If you could get based your biases it would be nice to talk about them. You’re uncharitable, and angry, posts towards religious practitioners and groups makes this too hard. Although it is mildly funny to read such posts it makes it too hard to discuss anything other than your bias.

KO - you need to go rent the first 3 seasons of the Office and watch them all without leaving the couch - then see if think otherwise.
-----------------------------
"In all of our hearts lies a longing for a Sacred Romance. It will not go away in spite of our efforts over the years to anesthetize or ignore its song, or attach it to a single person or endeavor." Brent Curtis

[This message was edited by eagleandchild on 06-11-08 at 06:42 PM.]

quote:

---

gods are inventions of cruel and ignorant would-be do-gooders, and reflect only the worst of psychotics and human monsters

---

This refers to the inventors of religions, not modern practitioners. Moreover, I used the word 'reflect' rather than 'embodies' very deliberately.

Furthermore the International Red Cross is not religious affiliated. It is a non-partisan charity, and that is very important in its mission.

quote:

---

Before you pick apart Francis Collins, obviously whatever faults you may find in him, you cannot say he represents an unreasonable religious man "suspending certain curiosities and pushing to the background certain critical faculties.”

---

I can indeed say that Collins has suspended certain curiosities and pushed to the background certain critical faculties because Collins believes in the God-of-the-gaps. Collins' God is the answer to as-yet unanswered questions, that is (as Richard Dawkins called it) "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain." If Collins is concerned about unanswered questions he could be searching for answers, not hypothesising one out of air and based on blind assertions.

One of the reasons Collins gives for this is his belief that humans have a unique 'moral law' that indicates a 'spiritual nature'. However, looking to the animal kingdom and the animals that he rightly acknowledges we share kinship with, we see clear evidence of non-human animals' moral schemes. There are good evolutionary explanations for the development of morality, groups that work together and form trusting bonds are far more likely to be successful than ammoral groups for a start. The truth is that Collins isn't a very good theorist.

Collins is an intelligent guy, no doubt. That does not mean his religious beliefs are intelligent or compelling.

[This message was edited by Fuzzies on 06-12-08 at 03:27 AM.]

How to make a pink unicorn

quote:

---

While I'm not sure that there couldn't be something or some entity that is omniscient, it is impossible KO for something to be invisible and pink at the same time. They are contradictory states and contradictions don't exist in nature.

---

Theoretically anything is possible dear. If it was pink in the first place but I made it invisible, it's still pink right? Like if I made a black guy invisible, is he still black? I would think so.... or should we just call him Michael Jackson?

It's hard for me to come up with any good analogy. You are smart and cute at the same time yet I found you very sexy. I want to nibble your toes and share you with Fuzzie. How about that for an analogy?

quote:

---

The question of how do you know God truly exists is a question with 6 billion different or slightly differing answers.

---

Still debatable though.

quote:

---

Furthermore the International Red Cross is not religious affiliated. It is a non-partisan charity, and that is very important in its mission.

---

It's very religious affiliated. My friend is one of the director of World Vision here in Thailand. They do praise Jesus every morning but they do work sometimes on Sunday too so I don't know what to call them.

quote:

---

KO - you need to go rent the first 3 seasons of the Office and watch them all without leaving the couch - then see if think otherwise.

---

Dude, I was kidding ok. I was also kidding about watching all these dumb ass reality tv shows. You pretty much got to be a complete moron to enjoy shit like Kim Kardash or Nick Carter TV. The office is pretty entertaining in moderation. Personally I enjoy the British version a lot more. It's after all the original. I wouldn't follow the whole series no matter which version it is. It just not my thing. I like to watch 'Boston Legal', 'House', 'Nip/Tuck', 'Soprano', 'Entourage', 'Criminal mind' and 'Chuck'.

I am not saying that they are better shows but it's something I like to watch. Just like wine ...just because I like it doesn't mean that its good and just because I hate it doesn't mean that its bad.


"Nunc Scio Quit Sit Amor"
But it's still not premarital sex
if you don't plan on getting married

World Vision is not the International Red Cross, likewise UNICEF and Save The Children are no religious affiliated.

Also, your 'analogies' give me the creeps.

Know FSM, no fear! No FSM, know fear!

Okay, I'm going to ask a question here that will either help, or make things ten times worse. It takes a certain level of arrogance to be able to say you absolutely know a god does or does not exist. My question is: Do you really think you're that smart? Do you think that damn highly of yourself?
I'm not trying to turn this debate elsewhere, but Fuzzies and other atheists, all of your reason and rationality is based on assumptions. Theists...they're just books, written and revised thousands of times by human hands. Have some sense, please?
Both sides are ridiculous. One because it relies entirely on intellectual arrogance and complete reliance on current absolutes, the other because it's too naive but has good intentions (like a puppy that thinks it has done you a favor by chewing your shoes).Both of you want far to much simplicity or at least want to make things far too simple (x god exists because x book says so or god does not exist because science says so(it doesn't))
Given, agnostics (let's assume that I am one) are usually one of two groups. The first, thinking it's incredibly clever and equally driven by arrogance. The second, having enough sense to know it's part of the first group.
But please, pay no attention to my senseless rambling.

"He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God." -Aeschylus

Fuzzies,

In your response you did not say anything about the obvious good being done for suffering people, and animals, in the name of religion.

World Vision is a Christian organization that does not hide that in anyway. I may be wrong but, I do not think there is any organization that is doing more for suffering people in the world.

The International Justice Mission is the same. They are doing incredible things so free people of victims of slavery, sexual exploitation and other forms of violent oppression. One example, that I read, was the rescue of many women being forced into prostitution and having to “service” 10-15 men per day.

Here is a sample story

http://www.ijm.org/newsfromthefield/ijminterventionbringsfreedomto32heldinslavery

The Salvation Army is huge and they are definitely a Christian based organization.

History http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq%5Cwww_sa.nsf/vw-sublinks/5622F771BD70A75A80256D4E003AE0A3?opendocument

Another local example is the Los Angeles Mission, http://losangelesmission.org/aboutus/aboutus.html, They are a tireless supporter of the needy in Los Angeles.

You said: “anything particularly sympathetic to religion I find vastly over charitable.”

“They simply don't do anything uniquely helpful, and they up the chances of particularly unhelpful behavior in their practitioners.”

Obviously, to say your uncharitable statement about people of faith is wrong would be an understatement unequal to anything I can think of right now. I am just blown away that someone could live such an isolated life to think that way.

I think, of all people, you should,(and this is not an example of the "ought/is" issue), get carried away with generalizations about a group of people. It's easy to forget about the actual people behind your generalizations.

Second, I have a hard time trying to understand that according to you, Jesus, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and all the early Christian martyrs were: “cruel and ignorant would-be do-gooders, and reflect only the worst of psychotics and human monsters.” Whatever degree of historical validity you place on it, one would only have to read the New Testament to see that ridiculousness of your statement.

Also, if the inventors of Christianity were “cruel and ignorant would-be do-gooders, and reflect(ed) only the worst of psychotics and human monsters,” I would think most of the practitioners would be the same - or at least "reflect" your description.

On a side note:
There are non religious groups helping people. I personally do not think there are non religious organization that have the level of compassion fueling them as the religious ones do.

-----------------------------
"In all of our hearts lies a longing for a Sacred Romance. It will not go away in spite of our efforts over the years to anesthetize or ignore its song, or attach it to a single person or endeavor." Brent Curtis

Pink unicorn can turn you on

quote:

---

Do you really think you're that smart? Do you think that damn highly of yourself?

---

Absolutely not. I am not egotistic you know. I do believe in God. Personally I felt God before - once - and the experience was too much for me to handle. I went on drinking wine, eating buffet and getting laid for a few days stright but still couldn't deny God. I just want to be sure that it isn't the case of not enough amount of alcohol, food or sex.

I just don't think we have the slightest clue what God is in this World/Universe. The concept God is too big for me to comprehend as a human being and I don't think we can communicate to supreme being (at least not in human language).

What I think we have to remember is ... there is a significant differences between:
1. The actual God.
2. The God in religion concept.

Go ahead ... make fun of it. I don't care.

quote:

---

There are non religious groups helping people. I personally do not think there are non religious organization that have the level of compassion fueling them as the religious ones do.

---

Because religious people want to go to heaven. It's that firing fuel that drive people to do good deed. Either that or not going to hell. Fear can also drive people as well.

Not that it's a bad thing.


"Nunc Scio Quit Sit Amor"
But it's still not premarital sex
if you don't plan on getting married

quote:

---

What I think we have to remember is ... there is a significant differences between:
1. The actual God.
2. The God in religion concept.

Go ahead ... make fun of it. I don't care.

---

Nothing to make fun of there.

"He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God." -Aeschylus

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuzzies:
I can indeed say that Collins has suspended certain curiosities and pushed to the background certain critical faculties because Collins believes in the God-of-the-gaps. Collins' God is the answer to as-yet unanswered questions, that is (as Richard Dawkins called it) "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain." If Collins is concerned about unanswered questions he could be searching for answers, not hypothesising one out of air and based on blind assertions.
One of the reasons Collins gives for this is his belief that humans have a unique 'moral law' that indicates a 'spiritual nature'. However, looking to the animal kingdom and the animals that he rightly acknowledges we share kinship with, we see clear evidence of non-human animals' moral schemes. There are good evolutionary explanations for the development of morality, groups that work together and form trusting bonds are far more likely to be successful than ammoral groups for a start. The truth is that Collins isn't a very good theorist.

Collins is an intelligent guy, no doubt. That does not mean his religious beliefs are intelligent or compelling.

[This message was edited by Fuzzies on 06-12-08 at 03:27 AM.]

---

I forgot to mention the Reverend Martin Luther King. I am pretty sure he did some good things in the name of Religion. Then again he may just be born of “cruel and ignorant would-be do-gooders, (that) reflect only the worst of psychotics and human monsters.”

Evolution cannot explain origin of life, consciousness, and – although evolution has tried hard - morality. Collins is not making God-of-the-gaps arguing because evolution can’t explain something’s therefore God did it. Just like we should not fall into the trap of atheists-of-the-gaps arguing which believes that since science explains something it can explain everything.

I think it is reasonable to say that humans have a unique moral law.

The degree to which humans practice morality is so much greater than the degree to which animals practice morality. This degree, and level of uniqueness, is so wide and great that it would be fair to say it is unique and distinct. Animals are mostly responsible for the suffering of other animals. Atheists, like Peter Singer, are good at wining human converts to the animal rights movement but, unfortunately he is not been so successful at winning animals over to the animal rights movement.

-----------------------------
"In all of our hearts lies a longing for a Sacred Romance. It will not go away in spite of our efforts over the years to anesthetize or ignore its song, or attach it to a single person or endeavor." Brent Curtis

quote:

---

Evolution cannot explain origin of life, consciousness, and – although evolution has tried hard - morality.

---

I'm bowing out of this debate after this, because I suspect it is pointless. Nevertheless, every point you made here, in this sentence, is misguided and/or false.

Chemistry may very well explain the origin of life, that is likely. What science cannot yet explain is the origin of the universe (note the "yet").

There's a whole science called neuroscience that explains consciousness incorporating evolution.

Morality is easily explained in evolutionary terms. Being moral often has clear benefits for oneself and one's kin. We observe morality in other animals but we alone have such complex thoughts and moral schemes. Animals like dogs deal in simple concepts like 'fair and unfair', and not spelt out as such.

quote:

---

I forgot to mention the Reverend Martin Luther King. I am pretty sure he did some good things in the name of Religion. Then again he may just be born of “cruel and ignorant would-be do-gooders, (that) reflect only the worst of psychotics and human monsters.”

---

Reverend King was a great man. He was not 'born of' anyone cruel. He was taught an ancient, unlikely folktale and he cherry-picked some of the best, most beautiful parts of it to form his philosophy. It was still cherry-picking. King did not need to be religious to do what he did, nor do any of us, and we should all stand up for freedom, liberty, and equality.

quote:

---

There are non religious groups helping people. I personally do not think there are non religious organization that have the level of compassion fueling them as the religious ones do.

---

Arrogant rubbish. I'm amazed you can say something like that with a straight face.

quote:

---

Second, I have a hard time trying to understand that according to you, Jesus, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and all the early Christian martyrs were: “cruel and ignorant would-be do-gooders, and reflect only the worst of psychotics and human monsters.” Whatever degree of historical validity you place on it, one would only have to read the New Testament to see that ridiculousness of your statement.

---

You assume I haven't read the Bible? My boyfriend was threatening to throttle me just last year for trying to read it to him.

The Bible is a very unpleasant book, with a few nicenesses as well. Matthew I can stand, and not just because he's my namesake.

Arrogant rubbish is exactly how I was going to describe your recent plunge into the deep dark depths of atheist balderdash - and I mean that in a respectful way.

You can bow out if you like. I think it is probably best for you to regroup. You have done a miserable job addressing the main points of our discussion which is your ridicules, baseless, irrational, vitriolic statements about religion and the religious. You are the one carefully cherry-picking points to avoid the obviously absurdity of your outrageous generalizations. You may not know it but that kind of arguing is as ancient as the religion you treat so callously.

To say Reverend King was “a great man” and “did not need religion” is so lacking rational thought, and completing obliterates your own previous arguments, that I would say you last serious of posts should go down in the QL annals as examples of how scary isolation from the real world and selective reading can produce the most twisty of twisted pretzel,(another good name for satiric parody atheist), logic.

In all of Reverend Kings writings, and speeches, he clearly says he bases everything on his belief in Christianity. His version is not some creation of his own. He would say that himself. You may have certainly read the bible but clearly you have not comprehended it. Most likely you have focused mostly on the parts that feed your bias.

Actually, I would take your boyfriends advice and quit reading the bible, for now, and read some books on cultural sensitivity.

quote:

---

The Bible is a very unpleasant book, with a few nicenesses as well. Matthew I can stand, and not just because he's my namesake.

---

What can I say, except there seems to be no limit, or shame, to your nonsense.

Now go regroup.

-----------------------------
"In all of our hearts lies a longing for a Sacred Romance. It will not go away in spite of our efforts over the years to anesthetize or ignore its song, or attach it to a single person or endeavor." Brent Curtis

[This message was edited by eagleandchild on 06-13-08 at 04:48 PM.]

Don't know if anyone said this already, but...


I think the most rational argument for Christianity is... well... I'll reveal it to you as I talk about it...


You... whoever happens to be reading this... Just ask yourself this question: When an animal kills another animal in the wild--for instance, a lion killing a zebra for food--is this morally wrong, or just natural behavior of an animal? Just think about it.

Now, think about these questions: "When a human kills another human, is this wrong? Is it wrong for women to have less rights than men? Is it wrong to steal?"

Think about that.

Now, let's take women's equality to men, for example: If you said "YES" it is wrong for women to have less rights... would this mean that you'd want women to have rights in societies where women have little or no rights at all? Yes? Well, wouldn't that be a form of imposing your morals on them? Yes? So, in some respects, you believe that contemporary culture has a superior moral code to other cultures, correct? (and I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with this). Yes?

Okay. Last question: "Where did this curious sense of right and wrong... this moral code that you have... come from?"

Even those who say that morals are relative (amoralists/moral relativists) will suddenly turn right around and say, "But you promised!" ... "That's not fair!" ... "That's none of your business!" So, whether we all acknowledge it or not, there is SOME kind of natural law or natural sense of right and wrong that we have, and that we are born with. So, my question is... "Where did this sense of right and wrong come from?"

Secular Humanists/Darwinists/Naturalists cannot answer this question adequately, in my opinion, because their understanding of the world around them is based on science and explaining chemical reactions... so any morals we have would simply be accidents. But we just came to the conclusion a minute ago that morals are not at all an accident... in fact, we are born with them, and they have to come from somewhere.

So, to answer the ultimate question in this topic, I would say that our sense of right and wrong is the most rational evidence of the existence of a God.

I'm sure this will stoke up the debate. :-)

"From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put." -Winston Churchill