<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Jul 18 2005, 10:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jul 18 2005, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jul 18 2005, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jul 18 2005, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> MedHead you're making a serious oversight when comparing religion bashing to sexuality/race/whatever. A religion is an idea, and like any other it can be challenged and questioned. This is good and <b>normal</b>. Sexuality or race aren't ideas they are simply how you're born. Bashing an idea and bashing a way someone is born are two very different things.
Skorpion: <a href='http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO..._stand_up.shtml</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I asked for hard references, not more juvenile rhetoric!
Why is it bad to criticise religion? Because there are more important things in the world than being right. That's something I'm starting to realise lately. Religion isn't rational, and it doesn't need to be. That doesn't mean it should be dismantled and discredited. It means something important to a lot of people, and there's <i>nothing wrong with that</i>.
The one major proviso, which is "as long as it doesn't affect other people". As soon as people use religion for political gain, or to justify atrocities, then the power structure of the organisation needs to be re-examined. That kind of corruption is a factor of <i>any</i> kind of organisation, not merely religious ones.
But getting back to my main point, if I understand it correctly your argument boils down to "there is a right way to think, and religion is not it. Therefore everyone who believes in religion must be made to see that they are wrong, because they are wrong". That's counterproductive and pointless; besides the fact that people should be allowed to believe whatever they like (aforementioned proviso included).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sexuality or race aren't ideas they are simply how you're born. Bashing an idea and bashing a way someone is born are two very different things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Surely you don't mean to say that the only factor that should bar the way of racism and sexual discrimination is "they're born that way, they can't help it"? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You make a good point there. If it's not hurting anyone, why should we seek to disprove what they believe in?
The thing is though, I think the majority of people (not all, certainly) aren't out there with the explicit intention of discrediting other people's religious beliefs, I think they simply want to further pursue the truth. The main problem I as an individual have with religion, is that to me it gives the impression of constantly trying to cover for itself. It encourages people not to investigate further and to take things at face value, it promotes the status quo. I can't ascribe to that philosophy. I don't think any ideology or practice is beyond questioning until proven as fact, and that any path that suggests that the way to enlightenment is by not questioning it, definitely has something to hide.
So is it really a matter of those out there questioning and investigating religion hurting the beliefs of theists? Or is it that theists who could (realistically) just as easily be deluding themselves as they could be correct are hurting themselves?
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jul 18 2005, 06:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jul 18 2005, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i dont get it spacer <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He's just reassuring us as to why he's a restricted member.
<!--QuoteBegin-Shzar+Jul 18 2005, 07:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shzar @ Jul 18 2005, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jul 18 2005, 06:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jul 18 2005, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i dont get it spacer <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He's just reassuring us as to why he's a restricted member. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> hah, what a lame comment, I am too and its for a completely garbage reason
rofl <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The look of surprise on the bear's face is priceless.
Hey CWAG, check this; <a href='http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/sexual_discharges/lv15_16a.html' target='_blank'>The Bible on the topic of "Discharges".</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Jul 18 2005, 10:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jul 18 2005, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I asked for hard references, not more juvenile rhetoric! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He's a professor at Oxford university. At the very least I think that it's more than juvenile rhetoric.
Edit: If you thought that was my reference when you asked for proof that 90% of the bible was rewritten, sorry... it wasn't supposed to be that. It was a reply to a different post.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jul 18 2005, 08:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jul 18 2005, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Jul 18 2005, 10:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jul 18 2005, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I asked for hard references, not more juvenile rhetoric! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He's a professor at Oxford university. At the very least I think that it's more than juvenile rhetoric. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I hear that Oxford has been hiring a lot of juveniles lately.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Jul 18 2005, 09:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Jul 18 2005, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html' target='_blank'>When to stone your children.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Was that you growing up?
Or, is that you growing up rather? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Depot+Jul 18 2005, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Depot @ Jul 18 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Jul 18 2005, 09:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Jul 18 2005, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html' target='_blank'>When to stone your children.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Was that you growing up?
Or, is that you growing up rather? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, it's plans for my future children.
<!--QuoteBegin-Shzar+Jul 18 2005, 06:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shzar @ Jul 18 2005, 06:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would like to extend my gratitude to the mod who temp banned certain people with a certain spoiler in their sigs about a certain extremely popular book. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Pssst, Jesus dies.
...But then he comes back again, so it's all okay.
rofl <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The look of surprise on the bear's face is priceless. .[/URL] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Note the bunny in the background watching this.
What are you talking about... You lika do da cha cha... I lika do da chacha... Jesus Lika do da Cha Cha
Adam and Eve did da cha cha together in bed and da world was borned!
Sadam and Steve did it in bed together <span style='color:orange'>and nobody else really wants to read the rest of this sentence - <b>ZeroNemesis</b></span>
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>This post has been edited by <b>ZeroNemesis</b> on Jul 19 2005, 02:32 AM</span>
rofl <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The look of surprise on the bear's face is priceless. .[/URL] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note the bunny in the background watching this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Holy **** how did I miss the bunny.
<!--QuoteBegin-xioutlawix+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xioutlawix)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So is it really a matter of those out there questioning and investigating religion hurting the beliefs of theists? Or is it that theists who could (realistically) just as easily be deluding themselves as they could be correct are hurting themselves?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->What I meant is that there's no point in badgering people to defend their religious beliefs when they obviously don't want to.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He's a professor at Oxford university. At the very least I think that it's more than juvenile rhetoric.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be honest, I didn't thoroughly read the article through the first time. I have just now, and I stand by my comment.
<!--QuoteBegin-the article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Douglas is dead, but his words are an inspiration to us now to stand up and break this absurd taboo. My last vestige of ‘hands off religion’ respect disappeared as I watched the “Day of Prayer” in Washington Cathedral. Then there was the even more nauseating prayer-meeting in the New York stadium, where prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonation and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say, “Enough!” Let our tribute to the September dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->This paragraph is probly the best example of what I'm talking about. I picked my words deliberately - it <i>is</i> juvenile to think that nothing matters more than Being Right on the basis of Factual Analysis alone. Ironic how emotive and opinionated Dawkins' article is, considering that's exactly what he's supposedly opposed to. Nice sounding language without factual backing carries no weight. He's not making a case or building an argument - it's pure opinion (and he's entirely entitled to it).
It's <b>juvenile</b> to think that we should base our beliefs on facts? Beliefs that he thinks (rather fairly IMO) lead to people dying? Come on. If all he was saying was that we should destroy religion because (in his opinion) it has no factual basis, that's something else. He's saying we should at least base these beliefs <b><i>that we kill people over (have wars, prejudice, etc)</b></i> on facts. You're using a strawman... you're bashing an argument that is different from the one he is making.
Oh and: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, I didn't thoroughly read the article through the first time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I picked my words deliberately - it is juvenile<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You picked your words deliberately before thoroughly reading the article. By your own admission. Not at all prejudiced or anything.
<!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+Jul 18 2005, 08:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Jul 18 2005, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Brick Testament is an awesome site on several levels.
Though I do get an impression that it is parody. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sure it's a parody. There are some <a href='http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html' target='_blank'>hints</a>, and then there's the <a href='http://www.thereverend.com/' target='_blank'>stronger evidence</a> (that's the website of the BT's creator).
The best parodies don't need some lame "disclaimer", if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hear that Oxford has been hiring a lot of juveniles lately.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (;
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jul 19 2005, 05:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jul 19 2005, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's <b>juvenile</b> to think that we should base our beliefs on facts? Beliefs that he thinks (rather fairly IMO) lead to people dying? Come on. If all he was saying was that we should destroy religion because (in his opinion) it has no factual basis, that's something else. He's saying we should at least base these beliefs <b><i>that we kill people over (have wars, prejudice, etc)</b></i> on facts. You're using a strawman... you're bashing an argument that is different from the one he is making.
Oh and: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, I didn't thoroughly read the article through the first time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I picked my words deliberately - it is juvenile<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You picked your words deliberately before thoroughly reading the article. By your own admission. Not at all prejudiced or anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's juvenile to think that we should base other people's beliefs on our facts while ignoring the big picture.
[edit]I never said I wasn't prejudiced. I just said that, even after reading the article, I felt my prejudice was vindicated.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Religion has actually convinced people... that there's an invisible man... living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day, and the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does NOT want you to do. And if you do ANY of these 10 things he has a special place full of fire, and smoke, and burning, and torture, and anguish, where he will send you to live, and suffer, and burn, and choke, and scream, and cry, forever and ever until the end of time... but he loves you." - George Carlin<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Reeke+Jul 20 2005, 11:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Reeke @ Jul 20 2005, 11:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Religion has actually convinced people... that there's an invisible man... living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day, and the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does NOT want you to do. And if you do ANY of these 10 things he has a special place full of fire, and smoke, and burning, and torture, and anguish, where he will send you to live, and suffer, and burn, and choke, and scream, and cry, forever and ever until the end of time... but he loves you." - George Carlin<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And that's why I love George Carlin.
But hell, wouldn't you be terrified <i>not</i> to believe in the Invisible man? What with the fire and smoke at his disposal?
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Jul 20 2005, 08:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jul 20 2005, 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jul 19 2005, 05:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jul 19 2005, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's <b>juvenile</b> to think that we should base our beliefs on facts? Beliefs that he thinks (rather fairly IMO) lead to people dying? Come on. If all he was saying was that we should destroy religion because (in his opinion) it has no factual basis, that's something else. He's saying we should at least base these beliefs <b><i>that we kill people over (have wars, prejudice, etc)</b></i> on facts. You're using a strawman... you're bashing an argument that is different from the one he is making.
Oh and: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, I didn't thoroughly read the article through the first time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I picked my words deliberately - it is juvenile<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You picked your words deliberately before thoroughly reading the article. By your own admission. Not at all prejudiced or anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's juvenile to think that we should base other people's beliefs on our facts while ignoring the big picture.
[edit]I never said I wasn't prejudiced. I just said that, even after reading the article, I felt my prejudice was vindicated.[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're missing out on the fact that <b>the facts are the big picture</b>. Or is your God a God of the gaps?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Jul 20 2005, 11:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Jul 20 2005, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But hell, wouldn't you be terrified <i>not</i> to believe in the Invisible man? What with the fire and smoke at his disposal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what I used to think, but really, going to church etc. <i>just in case</i> isn't believing, it's hoping - and here comes God with his hope-crushing fist of power!
Besides, if I followed the commands of <i>all</i> the invisible men around, then I wouldn't have any time to myself. I would also be wearing lederhosen twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.
I think blindly trusting something is alot more juvenille, but anyway, if there is a god I honestly think that he'd want you to live your life to the fullest and enjoy it as much as possible.
I see the "god" as the Universe itself, responsible for the creation of innumerous stars and other celestial objects through "laws" such as gravity, electro-magnetism, and strong and weak force...punishment for breaching a "law?" No known one yet, we might figure one out...
Are you German, Snidley? I thought you were British? <a href='http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html' target='_blank'>Instructions for Women</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Jul 20 2005, 01:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Jul 20 2005, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Jul 20 2005, 11:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Jul 20 2005, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But hell, wouldn't you be terrified <i>not</i> to believe in the Invisible man? What with the fire and smoke at his disposal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what I used to think, but really, going to church etc. <i>just in case</i> isn't believing, it's hoping - and here comes God with his hope-crushing fist of power! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't that part of what agnosticism is? Believing just in case? On that topic do I share Douglas Adams' point of view; that if there is a God, he is not impressed by this wishy-washy, duplicitous 'belief' in him. I think it's OK if someody is undecided, but purposefully balancing on the fence, ready to reap the benefits of both sides...?
Agnostic is a pretty vague term. It covers people who just plain don't know, people who don't care one way or the other, people who reckon that a creator would be impossible for us to understand, and others that I can't remember off the top of my head.
I'd guess the word comes from the Latin <i>agnosco</i>: "I do not know".
Comments
Skorpion: <a href='http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO..._stand_up.shtml</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I asked for hard references, not more juvenile rhetoric!
Why is it bad to criticise religion? Because there are more important things in the world than being right. That's something I'm starting to realise lately. Religion isn't rational, and it doesn't need to be. That doesn't mean it should be dismantled and discredited. It means something important to a lot of people, and there's <i>nothing wrong with that</i>.
The one major proviso, which is "as long as it doesn't affect other people". As soon as people use religion for political gain, or to justify atrocities, then the power structure of the organisation needs to be re-examined. That kind of corruption is a factor of <i>any</i> kind of organisation, not merely religious ones.
But getting back to my main point, if I understand it correctly your argument boils down to "there is a right way to think, and religion is not it. Therefore everyone who believes in religion must be made to see that they are wrong, because they are wrong". That's counterproductive and pointless; besides the fact that people should be allowed to believe whatever they like (aforementioned proviso included).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sexuality or race aren't ideas they are simply how you're born. Bashing an idea and bashing a way someone is born are two very different things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Surely you don't mean to say that the only factor that should bar the way of racism and sexual discrimination is "they're born that way, they can't help it"? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make a good point there. If it's not hurting anyone, why should we seek to disprove what they believe in?
The thing is though, I think the majority of people (not all, certainly) aren't out there with the explicit intention of discrediting other people's religious beliefs, I think they simply want to further pursue the truth. The main problem I as an individual have with religion, is that to me it gives the impression of constantly trying to cover for itself. It encourages people not to investigate further and to take things at face value, it promotes the status quo. I can't ascribe to that philosophy. I don't think any ideology or practice is beyond questioning until proven as fact, and that any path that suggests that the way to enlightenment is by not questioning it, definitely has something to hide.
So is it really a matter of those out there questioning and investigating religion hurting the beliefs of theists? Or is it that theists who could (realistically) just as easily be deluding themselves as they could be correct are hurting themselves?
He's just reassuring us as to why he's a restricted member.
He's just reassuring us as to why he's a restricted member. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
hah, what a lame comment, I am too and its for a completely garbage reason
rofl <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The look of surprise on the bear's face is priceless.
Hey CWAG, check this; <a href='http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/sexual_discharges/lv15_16a.html' target='_blank'>The Bible on the topic of "Discharges".</a>
Though I do get an impression that it is parody.
He's a professor at Oxford university. At the very least I think that it's more than juvenile rhetoric.
Edit: If you thought that was my reference when you asked for proof that 90% of the bible was rewritten, sorry... it wasn't supposed to be that. It was a reply to a different post.
He's a professor at Oxford university. At the very least I think that it's more than juvenile rhetoric. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hear that Oxford has been hiring a lot of juveniles lately.
Was that you growing up?
Or, is that you growing up rather? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Was that you growing up?
Or, is that you growing up rather? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, it's plans for my future children.
<img src='http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/accidental_death/nm36_26-27.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/accidental_death/nm36_27.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Pssst, Jesus dies.
...But then he comes back again, so it's all okay.
rofl <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The look of surprise on the bear's face is priceless.
.[/URL] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the bunny in the background watching this.
Adam and Eve did da cha cha together in bed and da world was borned!
Sadam and Steve did it in bed together <span style='color:orange'>and nobody else really wants to read the rest of this sentence - <b>ZeroNemesis</b></span>
<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>This post has been edited by <b>ZeroNemesis</b> on Jul 19 2005, 02:32 AM</span>
rofl <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The look of surprise on the bear's face is priceless.
.[/URL] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note the bunny in the background watching this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Holy **** how did I miss the bunny.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He's a professor at Oxford university. At the very least I think that it's more than juvenile rhetoric.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To be honest, I didn't thoroughly read the article through the first time. I have just now, and I stand by my comment.
<!--QuoteBegin-the article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Douglas is dead, but his words are an inspiration to us now to stand up and break this absurd taboo. My last vestige of ‘hands off religion’ respect disappeared as I watched the “Day of Prayer” in Washington Cathedral. Then there was the even more nauseating prayer-meeting in the New York stadium, where prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonation and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say, “Enough!” Let our tribute to the September dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->This paragraph is probly the best example of what I'm talking about. I picked my words deliberately - it <i>is</i> juvenile to think that nothing matters more than Being Right on the basis of Factual Analysis alone. Ironic how emotive and opinionated Dawkins' article is, considering that's exactly what he's supposedly opposed to. Nice sounding language without factual backing carries no weight. He's not making a case or building an argument - it's pure opinion (and he's entirely entitled to it).
If all he was saying was that we should destroy religion because (in his opinion) it has no factual basis, that's something else. He's saying we should at least base these beliefs <b><i>that we kill people over (have wars, prejudice, etc)</b></i> on facts.
You're using a strawman... you're bashing an argument that is different from the one he is making.
Oh and:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, I didn't thoroughly read the article through the first time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I picked my words deliberately - it is juvenile<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You picked your words deliberately before thoroughly reading the article. By your own admission. Not at all prejudiced or anything.
Though I do get an impression that it is parody. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure it's a parody. There are some <a href='http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html' target='_blank'>hints</a>, and then there's the <a href='http://www.thereverend.com/' target='_blank'>stronger evidence</a> (that's the website of the BT's creator).
The best parodies don't need some lame "disclaimer", if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hear that Oxford has been hiring a lot of juveniles lately.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(;
Found that just randomly browsing.
If all he was saying was that we should destroy religion because (in his opinion) it has no factual basis, that's something else. He's saying we should at least base these beliefs <b><i>that we kill people over (have wars, prejudice, etc)</b></i> on facts.
You're using a strawman... you're bashing an argument that is different from the one he is making.
Oh and:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, I didn't thoroughly read the article through the first time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I picked my words deliberately - it is juvenile<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You picked your words deliberately before thoroughly reading the article. By your own admission. Not at all prejudiced or anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's juvenile to think that we should base other people's beliefs on our facts while ignoring the big picture.
[edit]I never said I wasn't prejudiced. I just said that, even after reading the article, I felt my prejudice was vindicated.[/edit]
And that's why I love George Carlin.
But hell, wouldn't you be terrified <i>not</i> to believe in the Invisible man? What with the fire and smoke at his disposal?
If all he was saying was that we should destroy religion because (in his opinion) it has no factual basis, that's something else. He's saying we should at least base these beliefs <b><i>that we kill people over (have wars, prejudice, etc)</b></i> on facts.
You're using a strawman... you're bashing an argument that is different from the one he is making.
Oh and:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, I didn't thoroughly read the article through the first time<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I picked my words deliberately - it is juvenile<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You picked your words deliberately before thoroughly reading the article. By your own admission. Not at all prejudiced or anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's juvenile to think that we should base other people's beliefs on our facts while ignoring the big picture.
[edit]I never said I wasn't prejudiced. I just said that, even after reading the article, I felt my prejudice was vindicated.[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're missing out on the fact that <b>the facts are the big picture</b>. Or is your God a God of the gaps?
That's what I used to think, but really, going to church etc. <i>just in case</i> isn't believing, it's hoping - and here comes God with his hope-crushing fist of power!
Besides, if I followed the commands of <i>all</i> the invisible men around, then I wouldn't have any time to myself. I would also be wearing lederhosen twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.
most i've learned. Why do the people of Sodom want to, uh, rape
the men-angels???
EDIT: ohnoes! strawmen!
of innumerous stars and other celestial objects through "laws" such as
gravity, electro-magnetism, and strong and weak force...punishment
for breaching a "law?" No known one yet, we might figure one out...
Are you German, Snidley? I thought you were British?
<a href='http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html' target='_blank'>Instructions for Women</a>
That's what I used to think, but really, going to church etc. <i>just in case</i> isn't believing, it's hoping - and here comes God with his hope-crushing fist of power! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't that part of what agnosticism is? Believing just in case? On that topic do I share Douglas Adams' point of view; that if there is a God, he is not impressed by this wishy-washy, duplicitous 'belief' in him. I think it's OK if someody is undecided, but purposefully balancing on the fence, ready to reap the benefits of both sides...?
Oh, and Depot too. Where is he, this type of thread is like his bread and butter.....except with less eating and more ranting.
I'd guess the word comes from the Latin <i>agnosco</i>: "I do not know".