Religions are mostly wrong

hawkI said:
Religions are all wrong. Some religions are wronger than others. I would love to tell you about it. But it wouldn't be allowed. At most of the forums I know of, the only thing you are allowed to do is basically hold hands and sing kumbaya.
Click to expand...

You're quickly proving yourself to be a fucking moron.
 
hawkI said:
Maybe to a moron, I would seem to be. I speak from personal experience. There is no greater teacher than that.
Click to expand...

Personal experience at being a fucking moron? I believe it.

The only thing idiots like you have to worry about on JPP is a 12B violation...and maybe Rule #11 or #14, but those are rare. Saved only for the most exceptional fucking morons. :thup:
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Frank,



"Definitely atheist" means an individual who actually believes there is no creator being.

Definition of atheist: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being." That describes my position.

I really do not believe there is one. I have no doubt in my position. The idea that a super powerful being would have the ability and decide to create a world of lessor beings makes no sense to me. It is not logical. For what purpose would this be done? Amusement of the super powerful being? There is no logical reason to create a world of inferior beings, then sit back and watch it, or require that some of the more advanced of the inferior beings pay homage. If a being possessed such powers this would be a boring exercise.

And it begs the next unanswered question: Who created the creator? For what purpose? I simply cannot subscribe to this theory.

I can't rule it out. I have no way to prove it's BS, but I think it is. I am not afraid of what might happen to me after I am dead. Our best scientific knowledge indicates that when an individual dies brain function ceases. The individual functions no longer, is unable to have thoughts or identify as an individual. It is simply the end of life. That means the individual is no longer subject to pain or punishment because the individual no longer exists. What was becomes biological residue. There is no existence to be concerned about after that point.

By holding that belief, there need be no concern about what happens after death. No individual should have any concerns about it because they won't be around to experience anything. They will not exist at that point.

There was a point prior to birth when the individual did not exist; and upon death it will be precisely the same as prior to becoming an individual life form. Nothingness.

I don't know what you are after. I have explained quite clearly my position. It seems very straightforward. No amount of elaboration could embellish it further. I really feel like nothing beyond the first two lines of this post was required. Everything I wrote after the first two lines was not needed. I hope that suffices for you. I do not know what 'great depth' could say, that the first two lines did not make abundantly clear.
Click to expand...

Well, Poli, you are saying that you do not know if any gods exist or not...but that you are guessing that there are none. The only difference that I see in our positions on this matter is that I am unwilling to make the guess, which I consider to be a blind guess. (I acknowledge that I am also am unwilling to make the blind guess in the other direction, as so many others do.)

I have no problem with you folk who make the guesses in either direction.

I was trying to find out why you thought making the guess was important. I am still not sure, but I thank you for explaining what you have.
 
hawkI said:
Religions are all wrong. Some religions are wronger than others. I would love to tell you about it. But it wouldn't be allowed. At most of the forums I know of, the only thing you are allowed to do is basically hold hands and sing kumbaya.
Click to expand...

lol.....you obviously have never met us......
 
Hi Frank,

Frank Apisa said:
Well, Poli, you are saying that you do not know if any gods exist or not...but that you are guessing that there are none. The only difference that I see in our positions on this matter is that I am unwilling to make the guess, which I consider to be a blind guess. (I acknowledge that I am also am unwilling to make the blind guess in the other direction, as so many others do.)

I have no problem with you folk who make the guesses in either direction.

I was trying to find out why you thought making the guess was important. I am still not sure, but I thank you for explaining what you have.
Click to expand...

It was not a matter of importance at all. Just simple closure. Done wondering about it. It was simply a conclusion I arrived at after years of being agnostic. I realized this was my actual belief. No creator. No afterlife. All doubts of it slipped away. Mostly because religions appeared to be so based on faith that I simply do not share. If I tried to claim I did share that faith I would be lying to myself. I would rather be honest with myself. This is what I believe. We are on our own. We don't know how it all got started and we don't have to. I certainly refuse to share in creator theory. I do not see it as having any merit at all.
 
Saint Guinefort said:
Here's graphic evidence of how I know you lied about googling Freezing Point Depression. I still have one of the texts I used teaching chemistry. This is the 10th Edition of Brown, Lemay and Bursten, "Chemistry the Central Science". A pretty standard issue intro chemistry textbook. Probably not unlike what you had for high school chemistry.

Note how they describe "Freezing Point Depression" yet never mention "entropy". I'm not denying the role of entropy but it sure does look like you, who claimed to not pay much attention in high school chemistry, must have googled something. Because it simply isn't commonly taught in intro chemistry classes that way.

sU5jiCp.jpg


You are free to continue the lie as you like, I understand your ego is tied up in sounding smarter than you are. But be aware that some of us know your game. We know your dirty little secrets.
Click to expand...
Saint Guinefort said:
THe funniest part about this whole debate is you claimed Enceladus couldn't be that cold because water can't exist as a liquid below 0degC. Something YOU SAID. Which means either:

1. YOU THINK ENCELADUS ONLY HAS DEIONIZED WATER
or
2. YOU DIDN"T KNOW ABOUT FREEZING POINT DEPRESSION

Which is it?

Go ahead, avoid the question. Because you KNOW you said it.



WHICH IS IT?
Click to expand...
Saint Guinefort said:
LOL. You didn't though, did you? And that's not the point. You didn't google "entropy" you googled "Freezing point depression" (you didn't even know the phrase "colligative property") and you saw the word "entropy" in the Wiki or whatever source you hit.

Remember, I've actually TAUGHT intro chemistry many times. I know how it is taught and I took plenty of it myself. When it comes to freezing point depression they seldom in intro classes invoke the entropic effects. Almost always if you ask someone they will point out the role of ions disrupting the ability of the water molecules to link up in a coherent ice crystal structure.



Is it imperative that you lie about things all the time? I NEVER ONCE SAID entropy is exotic. But leveraging entropy to explain a colligative property like freezing point depression, which you CLEARLY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT when you suggested Enceladus couldn't be that cold because you thought liquid water couldn't exist below 0degC) shows that you googled.



For a guy who claimed to have not paid much attention in high school chemistry you seem to have stumbled upon a method of describing a relatively common concept in a manner that sounds more like someone with many many credit hours of chemistry. That's how I know.

Thanks for your continued tacid accession that you googled and that you are a raving hypocrite.


(HONESTLY I wish I could explain this to you more simply but you've shown repeatedly you don't actually comprehend what is written in posts to you.)
Click to expand...
^^^
Obsessed with "Freezing point depression".

8fdw7d.jpg
 
BartenderElite said:
If you really look at most of them, so many of the tenets & principles are from a "human" perspective, and tie into human emotions like fear & hate, and also human reactions to that, like worship & sacrifice.

It always begs the question: why do we put SO much on words that were written by ancient peoples, who had no understanding of the world or universe around them, and were largely ruled by fear & superstition? I mean, just looking at the Bible - it's a mess of contradictions. And God is sometimes portrayed as this immature, easy-to-anger being, who is all kinds of sensitive and needs to be adored & worshipped all the time.

It doesn't take a big leap of logic to realize that a timeless being wouldn't be like that. Even most who have lived long lives aren't like that.

There is a basic undercurrent through all of the religions that is probably the truth - and that is love. But the rest of it deserves more scrutiny. I believe that organized religion holds us back as a civilization, and often keeps us from realizing the truth about who we are, and why we are here.
Click to expand...

It's all opinion. Thanks for sharing.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I don’t think religion can be wrong
Click to expand...


So this Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement of Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. born USA citizens are Islam national religion of Mohammed Valhalla pedophilia martyrdom is "one nation under God with equal justice under law" according to Christiananality pedophilia not so master race master plan..... as Putin's Navalny in Siberia
 
BartenderElite said:
If you really look at most of them, so many of the tenets & principles are from a "human" perspective, and tie into human emotions like fear & hate, and also human reactions to that, like worship & sacrifice.

It always begs the question: why do we put SO much on words that were written by ancient peoples, who had no understanding of the world or universe around them, and were largely ruled by fear & superstition? I mean, just looking at the Bible - it's a mess of contradictions. And God is sometimes portrayed as this immature, easy-to-anger being, who is all kinds of sensitive and needs to be adored & worshipped all the time.

It doesn't take a big leap of logic to realize that a timeless being wouldn't be like that. Even most who have lived long lives aren't like that.

There is a basic undercurrent through all of the religions that is probably the truth - and that is love. But the rest of it deserves more scrutiny. I believe that organized religion holds us back as a civilization, and often keeps us from realizing the truth about who we are, and why we are here.
Click to expand...

Gods are created in the image of man. Not the other way around.
 
BartenderElite said:
If you really look at most of them, so many of the tenets & principles are from a "human" perspective, and tie into human emotions like fear & hate, and also human reactions to that, like worship & sacrifice.

It always begs the question: why do we put SO much on words that were written by ancient peoples, who had no understanding of the world or universe around them, and were largely ruled by fear & superstition? I mean, just looking at the Bible - it's a mess of contradictions. And God is sometimes portrayed as this immature, easy-to-anger being, who is all kinds of sensitive and needs to be adored & worshipped all the time.

It doesn't take a big leap of logic to realize that a timeless being wouldn't be like that. Even most who have lived long lives aren't like that.

There is a basic undercurrent through all of the religions that is probably the truth - and that is love. But the rest of it deserves more scrutiny. I believe that organized religion holds us back as a civilization, and often keeps us from realizing the truth about who we are, and why we are here.
Click to expand...

Every religious person makes this argument.
 
PoliTalker said:
Done wondering about it. It was simply a conclusion I arrived at after years of being agnostic. I realized this was my actual belief. No creator. No afterlife. All doubts of it slipped away.
Click to expand...
You just described how you were an atheist but then transitioned to becoming a theist. You had no theism (i.e. atheist, although you erronously referred to your lack of theism as somehow being "agnosticism") but after careful contemplation, you arrived at the deliberate conclusion of "No creator. No afterlife" ... which is a theistic belief about the supernatural, and at that moment, you instantly became a theist.

Allow me to be the first to congratulate you on your new found faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top