God is not great: How religion poisons everthing

[BingoTheClowno]

Dear friends of the intellectual narrowness.
I think you recently lacked of positive enthusiasm.

please find here some booster for your discomfort in order to recharge your batteries.

In short: You are deeply locked into the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam with the atheistic panting for a proof of god.

Get alive my friends


Dear friends of dialectic lopsidedness, that you impressively demonstrated in this thread.

For your enjoyment a simple google search spit out some links.
I am sure reading them will bring you hours of discomfort that you seem to prefer to slightly more decent ways of life.

Enjoy.

All others do not need to waste time on it. Nothing amazingly new. Just the other side of the medal.


You dont know nothing about Big Bang Bingo.
Again you abuse scientific theories for your ideology of perceived superiority.
Still, you lack of modesty towards other's experience.
This is no insult as you might claim again.
You are so concerned with your (tortured) ego that you very likely will not see anything than your own point of view.

Is it really so difficult to accept that you and the likes of you are not the superbrains and messiahs that the world has waited for ?
In the best case you attract some other egocentrics to share their personal pretentiousness.

You dont know nothing more about this world than others, but you are entitled like anyone else to live a good life and be a good example what life should be.

It is easy to let you live your way of life. It does not matter much. I wish you a happy, meaningful and prosperous life. Dont suffer too much. That is really unhealthy.

Please spare me your doctrine of salvation. It lacks of capacity.



The big bang theory is a theory.
It is not a history book for charlatans like you demonstrate here to be one.
It is one of the current well accepted models to explain a certain portion of empiric physics results.
There are for example other theories like the the cyclic universe from Steinhardt Turok that even better fits the current (the current !!) perception in physics.

Argumenting on your level would immediately ask what was before the planck era and who or what triggered the big bang ?

You dont know nothing about cosmology and it's limitations.
And you abuse again physics to spread your doctrine.

Your other proofs are often discussed in the philosophy of religions.
You cant stand the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam even if you try to ignore it.

Thanks for immediately approving your hypocrisy.


you are in your pattern of ignoring if you dont like things again.
This pattern is boring because it repeats now.
Though it seems to fit into the -ism way of feeling superior and knowing it better than all others, you should be aware that by that it becomes visible, that your doctrine is not capacious enough.

Also your try to instrumentalise science for the purposes of atheism is a repetition.
Science is a tool that knows it's epistemic limits.
You ignore these limits in your deterministic world view.
Scientist do research, you do exegesis of science models.
They ask for the how and what, you claim to know the why and who.

The positive thing about is that your extreme simplifications and your demonstrated scientific nescience unveils your doctrine. Thus it looses credibility.

As you can see also other readers are not taken in by this pseudo scientific arguments.
Did you notice that you do the same kind of exegesis like the ones you are anti to ?

And I love to see your obscenities. They tell more about your ideologic intent than your adopted arguments.

Man, I'm sorry but I don't know how to deal with lunatics.

[alfonso]

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.

[braincell]

I can explain love as a biological, chemical, process which has been an evolutionary benefit for the individuals and the species and which creates a very nice bond, some would say an illusion but an enjoyable one.

[garyb]

this all has nothing to do with god, whether god actually exists, whether religion itself is the cause of all horror or whether or not Christopher Hitchins is a Judas Goat who blames religion for war and then advocates the destruction of a sovereign state to kill it's secular leader.

for those who don't know what a Judas Goat is, here's the old wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat
and a better description:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1365232


baaaa, baaaaa!

[BingoTheClowno]

That's a preposterous allegation and, once again, one without any evidential support. All you do gary/stardust is smear other people that hurt "your beliefs". That's all you did and I suppose will continue to do, because you are not interested in learning anything, all you are doing is "pantingly" trying to "adjust" reality to fit it in within your system of beliefs. I'm really tired of this bullshit.

[garyb]

what are you talking about? hitchins was all over the radio and tv calling for the us to invade iraq. it's fact, not preposterous. the guy is a hypocrite regardless of my beliefs. he's a bad example to foillow, a Judas goat.

here in his own words he attacks christians for NOT WANTING TO GO TO WAR AGAINSTY SADDAAM:
http://www.slate.com/id/2079860/

which is it? are christians the ultimate war mongers or are they disgusting pacifists?

[BingoTheClowno]

Are you saying that christians were too stupid and followed his advice? Are you saying that christians don't think for themselves?

[BingoTheClowno]

I can explain love as a biological, chemical, process which has been an evolutionary benefit for the individuals and the species and which creates a very nice bond, some would say an illusion but an enjoyable one.

Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy.

[garyb]

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.

[BingoTheClowno]

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.

[garyb]

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]

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?

[garyb]

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]

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

[skwawks]

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]

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.

[garyb]

[braincell]

Looks like Peter Frampton when he had hair.

[darkrezin]

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]

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