God is not great: How religion poisons everthing

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:30 pm

garyb wrote:
BingoTheClowno wrote:Are you saying that christians were too stupid and followed his advice? Are you saying that christians don't think for themselves?
no, i'm saying the bastard blames religion for war, and then he does his best to incite a war, which just happens to be against an atheist, who is supposed to be a bad war monger.

however, if christians or anyone did follow his bad advice, it only proves my point that hitchins is a Judas goat and a a bad example. he is the guy that this thread is about. i'm saying that atheists could look to better sources to prove their point.

bingo, you are not a very good debater.....stop trying to start fights.

That's not what the term Judas' Goat mean. So you are again contradicting yourself.

Post by **garyb** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:39 pm

a Judas goat is a bad leader. one who leads people to their destruction while appering to be on their side. mr hitchens is against religion because of religion's war-mongering, yet he would lead the country into a war that even the religious are against, which is damaging to the country. that's a Judas goat, period.

squirm and wiggle all you want, hitchens is a very bad example.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:36 pm

stardust wrote:
back to topic:
What exactly drives you to post in a music gear forum a thread with this title ?

The topic is religion and non-existence of god and your denial of the proof that he doesn't exist.
What drives me to post in a music gear OFF TOPIC forum a thread with this title? I'm not sure, I think I want to start a new church and indoctrinate you with the salvation of Einstein, Max Plank, Newton and Laplace.
Why, you don't like topics like these? Does it make you uncomfortable? Your mommy doesn't approve of such topics? Your priest told you to cover your eyes when posting on this thread?

Post by **garyb** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:51 pm

BingoTheClowno wrote: I think I want to start a new church and indoctrinate you with the salvation of Einstein, Max Plank, Newton and Laplace.

bingo, you are a clowno!
those guys all believed in god and einstein could have been called religious...

who was it who said, "god does not play dice with the universe"?

baaaa,baaaa,baaaaa

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 2:19 pm

That's why I picked them, so you would feel comfy.

skwawks · Post by **skwawks** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:48 pm

There was a teev program back in the eighties called the ascent of man which tied together social artistic and scientific advances into a time based coherent view . The presenter ,I forget his name ..he was a professor,Bronowski or something like that...... spent one episode demonstrating that if you examine something in higher and higher resolution you eventually get to the point where you" the observer" are having a strong effect on what you are observing which means that what you are observing is no longer in it's natural state and that therefore your observations may no longer be valid . He used this situation to demonstrate the benefits of uncertainty,which I guess means having an open mind . Theres nothing wrong with any gestalt as long as people dont bash other people over the head with their particular idea of whats right ,or burn them at the stake or any of that nasty shit .theres room for everyone isn't there . Religion isn't evil ...people are ...some people are absolute arseholes and will self and other deceive and use anything to justify their actions . Its not the anythings fault it's the persons fault .

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:13 pm

Religion is man-made. If you look through a telescope on Mars you'll see that there's no religion. And disregard gary if he tells you that the image below is a proof that there is.

Post by **garyb** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:26 pm

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:24 pm

Looks like Peter Frampton when he had hair.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:10 am

alfonso wrote:
darkrezin wrote:What came before the Big Bang? What caused the Big Bang to happen?

There is a lot that conventional rational science does not know and cannot even theorize about.
At the moment these are the limits (we assume, I don't know where is the actual limit in physics knowledge). Don't you think that bypassing them with supernatural theories is not the most correct thing to do? Why can't we accept the limits of our knowledge and just try to move them forward slowly like we are doing since we stopped fearing our shadow?

You have to admit that the simple fact that superstitions and theories that can't be proven are so many, so different and so much historically defined, that they show a big need to know, but don't represent a knowledge.

Let's accept our limits. Who do we think we are to make assumptions about what's not accessible by our senses? Well, most of the people don't assume anything really, but they are not trained to live in uncertainty, so they just follow. And someone gets big $$$ for this.

Have you ever thought why the worst enemies of some religions have been the psychologists and the communists? Not because they were ideologically different, no....but because they too try to sell happiness and hope, stealing the market.

I love uncertainty, it keeps my mind moving.

I'm not into buying salvation either (I would never be able to afford it). Contrary to what you may think, there are a lot of people who believe in God who don't do it because they're afraid of the alternative or bogged down in superstition. It simply gives them happiness and guidance in life.

If you come across someone who is trying to push it in your face or affect your life in some adverse way then the problem is that they have ulterior motives or there is something wrong with the politics in your society. I'm getting pretty bored of saying it now, there seems to be an instinctive blinker in atheists' minds that refuses to see this simple fact.

I love uncertainty too, and exploring mystery. I am constantly learning all the time. Spiritual beliefs are not a barrier to that at all. If anything they help me in terms of positivity and ethical methods when doing so.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:38 am

I think I want to start a new church and indoctrinate you with the salvation of Einstein, Max Plank, Newton and Laplace.

Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but Newton...
heh. That guy was EXTREMELY religous, and was about as Christian as they come.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06 ... index.html

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:06 am

darkrezin,

This idea of having a god without having a religious affiliation or attending church is certainly a very contemporary way of being and I welcome it. I see it as a step in the right direction of abolishing religion, at least in modern society.

There will always be quaint out of the way places with charming primitive beliefs. Let them exist too but not in our public schools etc.. and let's realize this is a vestige of an ancient era when many mythological beings were thought to exist.

Most of us long ago went from hundreds of gods to one god. Now we need to take that one last but significant step in the evolution of human thinking to make it zero gods.Thankfully, I can see from reading the user comments that we are heading in that direction.

I don't mean to offend anyone or seem condescending.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:44 am

you don't nessessarily, but some of your ideas about the subject are slightly innaccurate.

in the world of hundreds of gods it's always been known(

) that these were all aspects of the greater divinity.

having a god without the religious affilliation is actually the older tradition.

manfriday-it's true about einstien and a personal god, but he certainly believed in a creator and his ideas were not that out of line with certain schools of jewish thought.....

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:48 am

manfriday wrote: Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but Newton...
heh. That guy was EXTREMELY religous, and was about as Christian as they come.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06 ... index.html

Yes, he was religious and he wrote the following: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." This is not surprising giving the times he lived in, where, again, to not recognize the church meant persecution by the Grand Office of the Inquisition. Of course we now know not who but what sets the planets in motion. But you might want to learn about his papers entitled An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture where he is against the Trinity doctrine. Such claims led the House of the Lords to issue the Act for the Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness, act used to persecute and hang those who proclaimed it. Imagine how many other things he could have discovered had he not wasted time on such bullshit.
History's a bitch.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:55 am

anybody who considered himself to be protestant in the "abrahamic" tradition is opposed to the pagan idea of trinity. this is a common complaint from early protestant thinkers..deeper understanding of the babylonian mysteries would explain what i'm saying.....

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:00 am

manfriday-it's true about einstien and a personal god, but he certainly believed in a creator and his ideas were not that out of line with certain schools of jewish thought.....

My understanding was that he believed in god in the same way that Hawkins believes in God.. that God is not a personal creative force, but an impersonal energy that was the catalyst for the formation of the universe.. But not really a 'creator' in the sense that it was a willful act by a higher intelligence.

Of course we now know who sets the planets in motion.

No, we do not. We only have theories as to the method.

Imagine how many other things he could have discovered had he not wasted time on such bullshit.

It may be bullshit to you, but it was a very big deal in his personal life.
Imagine all of the things you could accomplish in your life time if you did not waste time making music. Or hating christians. Or engaging in the other activities that are important to you on a personal level, yet may seem like 'bullshit' to others.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:01 am

Gary is right on both counts.

I can only speak about Hinduism as it's part of my culture but it is made clear that any image of a God including that of Vishnu (the overall single God) is only a form that is comprehensible to human eyes and understanding. The true nature of God and the meaning of existence is quite simply beyond our comprehension. You may think that this is a limiting factor for learning, but this is not the case at all. If there's any way to comprehend infinity, the origin and nature of the universe, etc, then I'd love to hear about it. Until then, I don't think it's possible to dispute anything. The only thing behind this is that there are many more important and pertinent things to worry about in life, such as being nice to others and living ethically. Until this situation has been reached, humanity isn't really in a position to go wasting billions of dollars on scientific research that ultimately does nothing but provide war technology and further means of controlling society.

It is also made clear in Hinduism that there is no set path to follow, and everyone has their own. Any ritual and ceremony comes from a devotion to God and a willingness to worship God, in return for guidance. It's obviously very difficult to prove tangible evidence for God returning his side of the bargain but I think that it's really up to the individual worshipper - it's their time that they are putting into it after all and no-one else's. Why begrudge someone that freedom just because you think it is such a futile thing to do?

Also another interesting thing about the Hindu religion is that its origins lie in meditation and subsequent writings about meditative experiences, although it has also described many avatars/prophets through the years (manifestation of God as man).

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:05 am

manfriday wrote:
It may be bullshit to you, but it was a very big deal in his personal life.
Imagine all of the things you could accomplish in your life time if you did not waste time making music. Or hating christians. Or engaging in the other activities that are important to you on a personal level, yet may seem like 'bullshit' to others.

I don't hate christians.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:07 am

anybody who considered himself to be protestant in the "abrahamic" tradition is opposed to the pagan idea of trinity. this is a common complaint from early protestant thinkers..deeper understanding of the babylonian mysteries would explain what i'm saying.....

Hu? The trinity concept has been an orthodox Christian (protestant or Catholic) teaching since the beginning. While the word "trinity" never shows up in the bible it was pretty well established by the early church that trinitarian concepts are present. Arianism, and Gnosticism (certain sects anyway) are about the only movements I can think of off hand who rejected the notion of the trinity.
If I remember what I read correctly, dealing with the trinity and cannonizing it once and for all was the primary focus of the Council Of Hippo. Since then no major christian sect protestant or otherwise has raised the issue of the trinity.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:13 am

I don't hate christians.

Oh. Perhaps I misunderstood or misinterpreted. I apologize for drawing the wrong conclusion on that matter.