OT: The religion thead...

[Mechatrommer]

you're so silly, mechatrommer, talking about robot fucking..... This is a bad example because we don't have emotion towards robots. Watch those cartoon on tv lately, robots are killed left and right. Robot incest that is nothing.

here, you have to use up all bit of your imagination, not only what have been taught directly to you, but you need to expand it yourself, thats how human works, thats how scientists discover new things . i said, "let say" we are able to create "true intelligent"... now its seem its hard for you to understand semaphores...

try this.. read back my story... change Time -> God, Robot -> human, Mars -> Earth. still doesnt that make sense to you? but infact you already got it somewhere by stating.... "we don't have emotion towards robots", now change we -> god, robot to -> human. should i rephrase?

"god dont have emotion towards human" you said it not me, but that doesnt change the fact he does exist (if he does), infact you've given god a bad image by saying god dont care about us. you drink not salty water, your home is not so hot, you can bath and eat delicious food, not rotten tree branch, and yet you believe its nothing, its come from evolution and human created it whatever. do you know the word "wise" and "wisdom" have been evolving in term of its meaning during a period of time?

He should have foreseen incest and created more humans in a mere thought

and why do you expect Him to care? its in his own right. incest or not incest. incest doesnt reveal massive atomic energy to atmosphere? infact you do it who cares? but somehow there's something about incest that will give negative impact to humanity be it heredity, morality, spirituality or physically who knows? i believe, He let incest going rampant (exagerration here ) is.... by design! for some unknown reason or nonsensical to our knowledge and understanding. but keep faith scientists are looking for it... the reason why.

[lowimpedance]

Hmm
 I suspect the gene pool might have been a little small perhaps!.
Maybe that explains everything .
 Quite an interesting thread

Apart from hacking low cost digital CRO's, Religion and who wants to be an Engineer get the most interest 

[free_electron]

we are talking here of your final destination.

wormfood / fishfood or ashes ...

What is the purpose in life ? To be happy and productive. Do no harm ,help where you can and generally try to enjoy yourself. When you die it is over. If you are short-changing yourself because you hope to get a better 'afterlife' .... not very smart.
And don't let anyone convince you that ' its ok to be poor and have misery , you will be rewarded in the afterlife' , especially if at the same time they ask for a donation...

I don't care if you believe in God / Gods / Flying spaghetti monsters / The Force / Eywa / treespirits or whatever. And i am not mocking anyone. To each his own beliefs. And i respect that. No problem. Do as you please.

But , here is the part i DO have a problem with : ORGANIZED religion. It's all about MONEY , POWER and CONTROL.

Look at everything that has been done in the name of god , and all the misdeeds performed by religious organisations. And its not just one religion : all of them. Look at northern ireland between christians and protestants .. look at palestina , look at the muslim world : Sunnies vs Sji-ites. Heck even INSIDE one religion they are battling each other in the name of the SAME god.... Look at the Roman Catholic church with their painting over of childabuse... They sit on piles of money , the pope walks around in 100.000$ prada shoes and drinks out of solid gold cups...
Jesus Christ was a carpenter , walked in sandals and a 'carpet' and drank out of a wooden or stone bowl ...

I know one thing :
If the Roman catholic God does exist, and he would show up in Rome ... the whole of the vatican would be the first against the wall... due to all the misdeeds they done and still do. And the same goes for all the other gods and religions. Let, for each religion, have their god show up and make judgement of the 'controlcenter' of his/her respective religions.... The're won't be anything left. The sheer amount of misdeeds done in 'deiities names' is enough to warrant the obliteration of them. Let's go on crusades , let's send little kids into minefields carrying a little plastic key to the 'paradise', lets suppress women , let's hate people that do not belong to our religion or believe in our god. Let's declare the pope infallible and then, when he declared something we (the puppeteers) didn't like , dig his corpse up , put it back on the throne , recant the thing, and cut the corpse up and burn it so nobodoy can undo what we just undid...
You do know why the mandate of celibacy was created right ? So that the earthly posession of priest would not go to their offspring but would go to the 'church' to enrich it further ...

One of the heighest commandments is 'love thy neighbour as thyself. Share , do not envy . And it gets trodden on over and over and over..

It's not the individual that goes to church / mosque / whatever and prays , and gives to charity. It's the puppeteers at the top. They don't even follow their own rules, and they always have an explanation in their favor. They twist and turn as their own satan in a vat of holy water... Those are the true evil in the world. Add they can't be controlled by governments... they are outside the law ... above it , beyond it. And in some cases they are the government ...

[robrenz]

@ Kremmen

We are not that far apart on many things.  Religions are not imune to the effects of human nature and large organization.
The only rules/guidance I need and attempt to follow is in the book.

Regards, robrenz

[EEVblog]

The only rules/guidance I need and attempt to follow is in the book.

I hope not!
There are many horrible things in that book! (and the new one too, let along the far worse "old" one)
Hopefully you are one of those who like to use their own morals to pick'n'chose the good bits... 

Dave.

[Mechatrommer]

I hope not!
There are many horrible things in that book! (and the new one too, let along the far worse "old" one)
Hopefully you are one of those who like to use their own morals to pick'n'chose the good bits... 
Dave.

and have you studied/look at the latest version muslim holy book quran? i believe its the latest after bible (old or new tastement) since in there mentioning about bible, but not in the bible mentioning about quran. let me relink again here...
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/BibleQuranScience.pdf
the study has been done by french doctor, i'm not sure if he's religious or not. the download link is free, you dont have to pay a cent

[EEVblog]

I don't care if you believe in God / Gods / Flying spaghetti monsters / The Force / Eywa / treespirits or whatever. And i am not mocking anyone. To each his own beliefs. And i respect that. No problem. Do as you please.

But , here is the part i DO have a problem with : ORGANIZED religion. It's all about MONEY , POWER and CONTROL.

Ditto.
Anyone is free to believe what they want to believe, and by all means go and shout it in the street and on forums, that's your business, and your right.
But just don't proselytise to me, or my child. Keep it out of the schools, don't expect government tax free status and favor because of it, keep it out of politics, and don't expect any special treatment because of what you believe.

For the record, I actually have no problem at all with theists or spiritalists et.al, because they are just lofty individualistic ideas. But the organised religions and their holy books, whilst often well intentioned, are in fact, just plain batshit silly.

And also do understand that many people will think you may be a bit nuts and/or deluded if you believe in what the organised religions and these holy books tell you, because quite frankly, the stories are hilarious, border on the ridiculous, and are clearly just re-hashes of older fables.
And please be ware that you have no right to be "respected" for your beliefs. If your beliefs are obviously silly, there is a very good chance you will get laughed at, and for very good reasons. Just as if you went around saying you believe in Ra the sun god, or Thor, or Elvis, or any one of the countless gods that have been worshiped over the eons.
To think that the Judeo-Christian god and it's holy books are in some way any different to the countless others, is just plain wishful thinking.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Someone stating, given enough time and under the right circumstances a flight ready 747 could just come together by chance out of all of the correct base materials that exist in an industrial junk yard, would be called an idiot.  Yet stating that we (life) immensely more complex than the 747, just happened out of primordial ooze is considered scientifically sound.

So you slept hibernated through the semester in school when they covered evolution, mutation and natural selection? Ah sorry yes, they are reversing the calendar in the US school system - back to the middle ages. I smile at such ignorance, but only because the alternative would be to weep. I'm sure i am not alone.

Yes, it's sad.
And the amount of scientific ignorance in robrenz's statement is stunning, but I'm afraid very common. Just like other common religious apologetic misconceptions, like the meaning of the word theory etc.
And of course no offense to robrenz implied, there is nothing wrong with being wrong and lacking knowledge on what is a technical subject matter. And highly technical one at that if you actually want to get into the nitty gritty of how life evolved over billions of years.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Australia`s Top Cardinal, for all his high office and grand title, is just like the rest of us a fallible human, what could have ever caused him to presume to know who will enter Heaven?Only God knows or will ever know who is to enter Heaven,be he sinner or saint.Presumption in any form is wrought with danger in this case danger of an eternal nature.It seems to me an unwise choice on your part to quote this man as a valid argument

I was taking the piss, not making a factual argument.
Newsflash - there almost certainly is no heaven to go to.
And by "almost certainly", I mean half a bee's dick of a chance, bugger all, sweet FA.
And for it to be the christian heaven, just one of countless afterlife stories throughout human existence? - even less chance again...

Dave.

[MikeK]

To think that the Judeo-Christian god and it's holy books are in some way any different to the countless others, is just plain wishful thinking.

Yep.  I think this gets lost on many people.  We deride Greek and Roman mythology - we even call it MYTHology - but it was real as rocks to those people.  What if Constantine (I think?) didn't convert to Christianity and the Roman Empire didn't fall?...They'd still be believing in their gods.  Would that then make their religion more true?  It was the Jews who got the idea to get rid of plural gods and come up with a single god.

[EEVblog]

Yep.  I think this gets lost on many people.  We deride Greek and Roman mythology - we even call it MYTHology - but it was real as rocks to those people.  What if Constantine (I think?) didn't convert to Christianity and the Roman Empire didn't fall?...They'd still be believing in their gods.  Would that then make their religion more true?  It was the Jews who got the idea to get rid of plural gods and come up with a single god.

And who's to say for example that the Australian Aboriginal dreamtime stories aren't true?
We call them stories and myths, because they sound so obviously silly based on modern knowledge. But does adam and eve, the talking snake, the burning bush, the stone tablets, the sun stopping, and noah et.al fair any better? To a modern educated person with no religious indoctrination, many of the stories are just as equally fanciful as the christian stories. But they do seem to fair a bit better because they are more "human".

Dave.

[A Hellene]

Exactly, Mike and Dave!

Being studying my native language, as I have adapted the etymology as one of my most beloved and enlightening hobbies, let me say that the term "myth" is an English transliteration of the Classical Greek noun mythos or mytheuma (I am sorry but the forum database does not support Greek characters), which actually mean narration, logos; and this was the way for the information to pass from generation to generation, before writing was invented. It is the Church Inc. that distorted the meaning of that term (amongst lots of other ones) in order to discredit the Hellenic inheritance as fables. It is funny though that the Greek language had already have a special term for the fables, still used today: paramythion = para (= beside, beyond) + mythos, meaning imaginary myth.


-George

[A Hellene]

Since I can see that a message with critical information and answers about the ways of manipulation of humans by other humans does not get any attention by just linking to it, I think I should repost that information:


Let me present you one of the best reads I have had in the last two decades, since I begun surfing the WWW. Having been studying History myself, especially the little details omitted from the mainstream history books, I could not find any unverifiable claims within that fine work. Furthermore, according to my personal views there are no panaceas; there are no absolute truths, since this is the very definition of the dogmas. But this is an excellent work describing eloquently the ways people have been using to manipulate other people from the dawn of humanity until our days.

This is a free book by Stefan Molyneux under the sarcastic title "The Handbook of Human Ownership: A Manual for New Tax Farmers." It is about the history of human exploitation by other humans; it is a rather indigestible piece of work, verbalised in the second person singular as a monologue of an archon (a ruler) giving advices to a newly anointed politician about the duties and the benefits of his new position. Actually, this book is the sequel of his introduction to the concept of Human Ownership, this ancient institution that proudly lives even today, in the age of information...


Now, since videos seem to be quite more easily digestible that books, here are two documentaries by Stefan Molyneux on the concept of Human Ownership that I would unreservedly recommend to anyone to watch:


and




-George

[Lightages]

Roger Waters on religious dogma



Richard Dawkins on the disease


Bill Mahr
RELIGULOUS Bill Maher Full Documentary Film

It is hard to say it better than these guys.

[Vredstein]

Putting my two cents out there would be like trying a little "H". The story never ends with "happily ever after." Seen enough damage done to know better. No way. Nope. Ain't gonna settle nothin'. Ain't gonna change a single mind. If you don't realize this, you have no business being near a live wire.

[TriodeTiger]

We've not a clue if other another universe exists where there are no molecules, atoms or concepts of time, why we are conscious, if any of this is actually happening or we just perceive it as happening. We use our reality's tools to understand our reality, and in doing so we are limited to the bounds it has and we can go no further. Speculation, "top scientists" are completely worthless and just a single point in time to understand more of our reality and not why it is here or had happened. It could have been completely different before the universe was created, and every theory (big bang, ...) would be invalidated and specific to just where we are now. If there were no mass or particles in another universe it was created by something else, and our big bang theories are completely specific to us and do not disprove a creator.

Certainly, in ancient times religion was developed. Certainly every one of them could be wrong, that just clouds the debate with bashing scriptures and inferring faith is bad because we are taught to believe in Santa or the bible, it is all irrelevant and possibly very specific to our times and not before this all happened.

I've no clue why I wrote this, or did I? Is our goal to know everything? Everything could be false in infinite other cases where everything we know does not apply.

It is impossible to know unless "he" gives of an answer (which will be forgotten, and unknown to anyone else in the universe, speculated, found to be something tangible and shoved aside as false), so until then, both God and no God are correct and our arguments do not make sense.

[EEVblog]

both God and no God are correct and our arguments do not make sense.

Both cases are possible, but both cases are not equally likely, not by a long shot!
We reason almost everything in this world using evidence and processes of science.
And if we apply the same standard of evidence for religion stories and god, the answer is that god(s) almost certainly doesn't exist, as there is essentially zero real evidence for him/it/they.
And every educated religious person will readily admit there is little to no real testable evidence for their god, and hence that is why they call it faith. And of course there is nothing wrong with holding a faith position if you so desire. But believing in something does not increase the likelihood of it actually being true over and above the evidence.

If a bookmaker ran the odds, backing there is no god would be even money.

Dave.

[rolycat]

The passion of the religious types arguing their case here reminds me of Dave's old blog about audiophoolery.

Once they are sucked in by the mythical benefits of the fantasy they have been peddled, the enormous financial and emotional investment compels them to defend it in the teeth of all the evidence.

It's amazing how discerning golden ears can be when their owner has his fingers stuffed in them and is chanting "I'm not listening". Or alternatively, "God is great".

[AntiProtonBoy]

You mean my ceramic audio cable supports are completely useless? 

[steve_w]

this is more my style:

http://www.venganza.org/about/

Apparently some states in the US allow this to be taught.  Anybody know if thats true or just another urban legend?

regards

SW

[Mechatrommer]

The passion of the religious types arguing their case here reminds me of Dave's old blog about audiophoolery.
Once they are sucked in by the mythical benefits of the fantasy they have been peddled, the enormous financial and emotional investment compels them to defend it in the teeth of all the evidence.

they got a point! no cable is perfect 0 ohm. so on the other hand, the intelligent guys, who realized this simply say... there is no god, since there is no perfect 0 ohm cable
if audiophoolery wasted so much money, then how much time wasted for scientists to discover something, and for what? if in the end we'll go poof! nothing? oh maybe the argument they want to get rid of armageddon, big commet coming, massive tide going to suck up all the land... earth is not sustainable anymore gotta go to mars, and why? survival? why need to maintain survival? why dont just let nature leads the way? if the commet coming why dont just us simply smile at it and ready to embrace a blank screen? thats life!

why defend humanity? and morality? if religious is so called "brainwashed" to obey the book, then why the other guy need to obey morality? isnt it so called "brainwashed"? this all things (the rule, the law, the intelligent, the information, the knowledge, the survival, the conciousness) just doesnt make sense to me if in the end we'll go poof. what make sense to me is if its "the law of the jungle" and "survival of the fittest"... without intelligent and conciousness. what are you fighting for guys in this very short life?

[TriodeTiger]

Both cases are possible, but both cases are not equally likely, not by a long shot!

Any "proof" we see, smell, hear, touch, observe, derive is specific to our special universe and the physics binding it.

Therefor we (in our incredibly limited fashion) can only say that there is nothing observable. If particles do not govern physics in another universe, then should God "break the rules" and provide proof in some fashion to them? Why to us in our realm?

Our science is only valid relative to what we know. If we determine our reality to be something very different from how we observe it (that we do not exist as we see we do) then you cannot apply "science" to add disproof to there being a God.

And so you do not know if it is less or more equal a chance.

We reason almost everything in this world using evidence and processes of science.

And so any relative science or logic we can use is invalid, as it is specific to how we see things, how we perceive reality, and how life reasons with its existence.

To us there is some proof, but not to the universe, not to other possible life forms that are further than us.

If we program a computer to have the ability to come up with their own evolved conclusions, they will agree because that is all they can do (their science can *never* explain we exist), yet we behind our monitors know it to be false. Who is wrong, when in their reality it is right?

Faith (in origin) does not adhere to fact, it transcends it, and therefor is also right (just not in our perception of knowledge)

[itdontgo]

Oh dear.  Arguing about God is the same as believing in it.  Just let believers believe and, dare I say, waste their time on it.  Dont waste your time arguing about it or thinking about it.  It's an impossible arguement win.  The very word belief implies there is no hard evidence to back it up or deny it.  It's just a pointless waste of time exercise either way.

[MrPlacid]

itdontgo, this is actually enjoyment for Dave.

[EEVblog]

itdontgo, this is actually enjoyment for Dave.

Bingo! 

Dave.