Religion headed toward extinction

[ChezGiven 0]

Any reason why?

[Gemmill 44805]

It's the "withering little laugh" that did it for me.

[ChezGiven 0]

Well you were always one to get wrapped up in 'personalities'

[Gemmill 44805]

Admit it though, he sounds like a dick.

[ChezGiven 0]

Its the journalist who describes his laugh as withering, not him. I know very little about him tbh.

[Gemmill 44805]

Just admit it!

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Did anyone see Louis Theroux the other night with the Westboro Baptist (is that the name?) Church? Was very good. It was funny to see religious people trying to argue with them at picket lines. You can't argue with them coming from a christian viewpoint because they interpret the Bible literally, as was intended.

[Renton 21579]

Did anyone see Louis Theroux the other night with the Westboro Baptist (is that the name?) Church? Was very good. It was funny to see religious people trying to argue with them at picket lines. You can't argue with them coming from a christian viewpoint because they interpret the Bible literally, as was intended.

 

They were absolute nutters.

 

How can you interpret the Bible literally when it is full of contradictions? No wonder they are mad.

[Happy Face 29]

The bit where the young lass struggled with loving a lad she's still in contact with, but pretending to be happy he would burn in hell was heartbreaking.

[NJS 4377]

Did anyone see Louis Theroux the other night with the Westboro Baptist (is that the name?) Church? Was very good. It was funny to see religious people trying to argue with them at picket lines. You can't argue with them coming from a christian viewpoint because they interpret the Bible literally, as was intended.

 

They were absolute nutters.

 

How can you interpret the Bible literally when it is full of contradictions? No wonder they are mad.

 

There are no contradictions when it comes to homosexuality though.

[Park Life 71]

Global warming is the new religion gumbies.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The bit where the young lass struggled with loving a lad she's still in contact with, but pretending to be happy he would burn in hell was heartbreaking.

 

I didn't see it that way. Louis obviously pitied them, because they were so emotionally stunted or whatever, and incapable of having normal relationships and so on. I just thought, "Who cares? They're a bunch of absolute arseholes! FUCK EM!" Seeing the young kids reciting all the crap was a bit disturbing, but I feel people can avoid such attempts at inculcation, even at a young age, unless they are absolutely incurious and unquestioning. I don't see how you can be conscious of reality and reconcile it with the garbage written thousands of years ago. It'll be fun to see what happens after 2012 or whenever they reckon the apocalypse is coming.

[Meenzer 15518]

Global warming is the new religion gumbies.

 

All those people who believe the planet is in serious peril. What a concept.

[Park Life 71]

Global warming is the new religion gumbies.

 

All those people who believe the planet is in serious peril. What a concept.

 

Well it served mailine religion for long enough, but they just switched it. Man is now the enemy and the planet is in peril. It gives carte blanche for what is planned and the planning has been going on for some time.

[Park Life 71]

For those who still don't understand it goes like this

 

 

Forest/River spirits> nature god>earth god (most earth gods were feminine)>sky god (male)> materialism (capitalism/communism)>fasicm (proto paganism-arayans purity quasi ss spiritualism-) > structuralism (science/machines/daydreams/nasa*)>return of nature (structuralism and materialism fail) earth nature (feminine)>neo -paganism >gaia (the planet is in danger) global warming is a proxy for a return to earth god. Cycle complete.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Park Life

[Monkeys Fist 42379]

For those who still don't understand it goes like this

 

 

Forest/River spirits> nature god>earth god (most earth gods were feminine)>sky god (male)> materialism (capitalism/communism)>fasicm (proto paganism-arayans purity quasi ss spiritualism-) > structuralism (science/machines/daydreams/nasa*)>return of nature (structuralism and materialism fail) earth nature (feminine)>neo -paganism >gaia (the planet is in danger) global warming is a proxy for a return to earth god. Cycle complete.

Does that mean we'll all soon be shagging nymphs in the woods and stinking of goat?

 

Oh goody

[SloopJohn 0]

Any reason why?

 

because us progressive enlightened atheist have lost our "we don't have a dogma" or "we're not dogmatic" argument.

[ChezGiven 0]

Any reason why?

 

because us progressive enlightened atheist have lost our "we don't have a dogma" or "we're not dogmatic" argument.

 

Not sure i get you. I believe a cancer drug works on the basis of a clinical study. Its not 100% proof but the odds are good, however it remains a belief. As that belief works along the same fundamental scientific principles as more than likely used by 'progressive enlightened atheists', then i presume your calling that belief dogma? All scientific experimental discovery is belief in an assumption (hypothesis) that you try to falsify (controlled experiments). If your definition of dogma incorporates that and religious belief then its too broad to be meaningful, isnt it?

[Phil 6]

I cant see religion dying out until we encounter aliens. Although the Bible rewrite was swept under the carpet, so maybe it can be rewritten again.

[trophyshy 7083]

I cant see religion dying out until we encounter aliens. Although the Bible rewrite was swept under the carpet, so maybe it can be rewritten again.

 

Possibly one of the major reasons for lack of disclosure, the feared impact of this paradigm shift.

 

www.disclosure.org

[SloopJohn 0]

Any reason why?

 

because us progressive enlightened atheist have lost our "we don't have a dogma" or "we're not dogmatic" argument.

 

Not sure i get you. I believe a cancer drug works on the basis of a clinical study. Its not 100% proof but the odds are good, however it remains a belief. As that belief works along the same fundamental scientific principles as more than likely used by 'progressive enlightened atheists', then i presume your calling that belief dogma? All scientific experimental discovery is belief in an assumption (hypothesis) that you try to falsify (controlled experiments). If your definition of dogma incorporates that and religious belief then its too broad to be meaningful, isnt it?

 

a lot of the terms banded around in religion debates are too broad to be meaningful but it doesn't stop people using them unfortunately.

 

and i'm calling writing a Humanist bible dogmatic, as it means that there is a text, although not completely accepted, that is authoritative on the subject of the way to conduct one's life.

[Renton 21579]

Any reason why?

 

because us progressive enlightened atheist have lost our "we don't have a dogma" or "we're not dogmatic" argument.

 

Not sure i get you. I believe a cancer drug works on the basis of a clinical study. Its not 100% proof but the odds are good, however it remains a belief. As that belief works along the same fundamental scientific principles as more than likely used by 'progressive enlightened atheists', then i presume your calling that belief dogma? All scientific experimental discovery is belief in an assumption (hypothesis) that you try to falsify (controlled experiments). If your definition of dogma incorporates that and religious belief then its too broad to be meaningful, isnt it?

 

a lot of the terms banded around in religion debates are too broad to be meaningful but it doesn't stop people using them unfortunately.

 

and i'm calling writing a Humanist bible dogmatic, as it means that there is a text, although not completely accepted, that is authoritative on the subject of the way to conduct one's life.

 

Have you read the book before coming to this conclusion about it?

[NJS 4377]

and i'm calling writing a Humanist bible dogmatic, as it means that there is a text, although not completely accepted, that is authoritative on the subject of the way to conduct one's life.

 

I tend to agree - you can't use the argument that human morality is generally derived from being social, empathatic animals (as I do) so any attempt to set that morality from an arbitrary book is superfluous - and then write such a book.

[SloopJohn 0]

Any reason why?

 

because us progressive enlightened atheist have lost our "we don't have a dogma" or "we're not dogmatic" argument.

 

Not sure i get you. I believe a cancer drug works on the basis of a clinical study. Its not 100% proof but the odds are good, however it remains a belief. As that belief works along the same fundamental scientific principles as more than likely used by 'progressive enlightened atheists', then i presume your calling that belief dogma? All scientific experimental discovery is belief in an assumption (hypothesis) that you try to falsify (controlled experiments). If your definition of dogma incorporates that and religious belief then its too broad to be meaningful, isnt it?

 

a lot of the terms banded around in religion debates are too broad to be meaningful but it doesn't stop people using them unfortunately.

 

and i'm calling writing a Humanist bible dogmatic, as it means that there is a text, although not completely accepted, that is authoritative on the subject of the way to conduct one's life.

 

you read the spiel? it pretty much describes the book as thus. if the author says that's t

 

Have you read the book before coming to this conclusion about it?

 

Grayling on the book:

 

"The Good Book mirrors the Bible in both form and language, and is, as its author says, “ambitious and hubristic—a distillation of the best that has been thought and said by people who’ve really experienced life, and thought about it.” Drawing on classical secular texts from east and west, Grayling has “done just what the Bible makers did with the sacred texts,” reworking them into a “great treasury of insight and consolation and inspiration and uplift and understanding in the great non-religious traditions of the world.” He has been working on his opus for several decades, and the result is an extravagantly erudite manifesto for rational thought."

[ChezGiven 0]

The difference is the source of morality; religion points godwards, and this book/example/atheist view uses rational thought.

 

The subsequent systems of morality are both as dogmatic as each other, its their source that differs and that is the critical issue.