TheMaker

i should've said "creator". is it your belief that life came about as a result of random activity?

I'm not convinced I have any "belief" insofar as this is concerned. None of us knows the origin of man, so all any of us really has is a collection of testable hypotheses. Some are ridiculous on their face (flimsy religious non-explanations, for instance), whereas others seem to point to further questions (evolution, for instance, or the Big Bang theory, each of which sufficiently answers at least one important question but in so doing introduces a few of its own).

Since religious attempts to address man's origin are completely unsatisfactory (we can boil them down to a single one-word answer that would not even prove sufficient to a curious child: "Because"), I am forced to continue asking questions and looking for answers elsewhere. Once again, Ockham's razor cuts clean and true: follow the crumbs, eventually you'll find the cookie. Year after year after year, science continually yields astonishing new discoveries to explore, whereas religion ran out of ideas hundreds of years ago. It's time to roll up our sleeves and attempt to answer our own questions. If we're smart enough to ask them, it stands to reason that on a long enough timeline we'll prove smart enough to answer them. It's simply a matter of being patient, humble and waiting for evidence to present itself.

If that doesn't float your boat, there's always religion, which offers snappy answers to life's trickiest questions, as well as a plethora of easy pseudo-explanations for the pious, the judgmental and the terminally stupid.

P.S., "Creator" is still a loaded term. Again, my apologies.

If I were a believer, I'd probably resort to saying something like "I don't like your tone, mister!" or "Stop being so mean!" right about now.

Instead, I'll simply point out that ignoring my evidence - and it's only "mine" in that I happen to be the guy bringing it to the discussion - won't make it go away. And not giving a shit sure doesn't hurt my core argument any...

In addition to never having existed, Jesus Christ as he is described in the bible was not without sin. He was not above bigotry or class warfare. He was not immune to committing acts of ghastly violence, up to and including murder, stemming largely from his own occasionally foul temper and general pettiness.

You've done a very respectable job of defending philosophical dithering over the last few pages, Winston. Maybe now we can move on past the astounding, logic-defying leap of faith that is necessary to believe in any god, and begin to address why it is patently stupid to believe in specific gods who are still kicking around due to superstition, desperation, ruthless inculcation and so on.

In what way is "randomness" a "god?"

You say all religion = lie. You state it as scientific law

I don't think I've ever positioned anything as "scientific law" in my life. Even gravity and evolution are "merely" accepted theories that have stood up to centuries of scrutiny and have managed to anticipate new scientific discoveries. Corroborating evidence is central to upholding such theories, which is why science has such a tremendous advantage over religion in the physical, or "real," world.

That god does not exist is a scenario that is likely enough to be considered true by nearly every objective measure. That doesn't necessarily make it "scientific law," but it's certainly a fact insofar as anything can be said to be one. "Big Bird doesn't actually exist" isn't exactly a "scientific law," but we can safely position it as a fact. "Unicorns are not real." "I am not a two-headed space monster disguised as a man." "God does not exist." These are all like statements in that they cannot be categorically proven, and they are also similar in that we have many more reasons to believe they are true than false.

We've been over this, and it's impossible to prove a negative. The best I can do is present a collection of evidence that all but disproves the god hypthesis. I have done this by poking holes in scripture and revealing its many contradictions. I have done this by illustrating the faulty logic behind the god hypothesis. I have done this by pointing out the likely literary sources of various religious texts. I have done this in many, many ways in dozens of messages spread across two different threads.

but your "proof" is always, "some do this", "some believe this", "all are this" (which consequently is proven wrong time and again by exception)

I actually have no idea what you're talking about. Your arguments have finally been eclipsed by the vagaries you've resorted to embracing in order to further them.

Apparently I'm damned if I tar all religions with the same brush, and I'm damned if I take the time to address the nonsense of each religion separately...

our existence points in the direction of us having been brought into existence.

"Brought into?" Uh, no, nothing points in that direction. Maybe the bible.

Sorry.

Yes, it IS rather telling that nobody is defending your claims.

Ha! Right, my bad. I meant "refuted my claims," obviously.

Anyway. I included scriptures and verses. Specific lines in some cases. I rest my case.

I don't think either position is "below me," Winston. I simply don't see how they represent anything other than philosophical dithering and halfhearted apologetics. The fact remains: there is no evidence pointing in the direction of the existence of any god that man has yet invented. If that weren't conclusive enough, we can analyze the shit out of religious texts and rather convincingly trace their origins to pagan rituals, wishful thinking, caste systems, and any number of other ancient, brutish substitutes for reason and intellect. I've torn scripture to shreds in several posts now; nobody has yet defended my claims that Jesus is a murderer according to scripture, that the bible makes physically impossible claims, et al. Rather telling, no?

I'd just like to point out that, as of page 35, the board's religious faithful has been putting virtually all of its energy into arguing that quite literally anything is theoretically possible.

You might want to pick up the pace a bit, guys.

I'm a graphic designer and artist by trade; if I make up bumper stickers that read "GOD - ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, SO WHY THE FUCK NOT?" can I count on you guys to buy two each?

That's not proof of the existence of anything other than one hot piece of ass.

But you don't even know if I believe in God or not... (I don't).

I didn't write that message assuming you do or don't believe in god. My logic isn't going to change based on whether you're a devout Christian or someone who simply enjoys playing the devil's advocate. Read it over again if you don't believe me. It certainly scans.

Regardless, I just have this to say - the argument is out there that belief in a deity is a crutch of small minds. That's fine and might be true in certain situations. I don't think it's universally true. There are many great minds that are theists. Conversely, I offer that the need to have an absolute answer in an unprovable situation is in the same ballpark of the previoiusly mentioned small mind.

Tons of great thinkers have self-identified as theists throughout history. My own argument has less to do with religion being used as a crutch and more to do with religion being a rather obvious lie. It can become a crutch as easily as it can become a tool of oppression or vengeance or any number of other things, up to and including kindness and generosity. Not all of religion's intellectual side effects are poisonous, but it does us no favours as a species to obfuscate the fact that religion itself is a terrible lie. We have seen great thinkers inspired by god, true, but we have just as frequently seen them curtailed by religiosity throughout history, and it is my strong belief that this unconscious oppression potentially amounts to a holocaust of human knowledge.

It's happening but we hear about the successes, not the countless failures and problems and how a successful cloning is tantamount to a miracle.

This statement applies to virtually every scientific pursuit apart from cloning, as well. Science is iterative, and its discoveries must stand up to the most rigorous peer review imaginable before they can be considered successful. The public generally doesn't give two shits about this process, and although I would argue that we actually hear a great deal about cloning in the media, I suspect it has found a kind of mainstream appeal mostly because of its pseudo-controversial aspects, which are mostly promoted by the cautious, if not downright fearful, faithful. That and the fact that cloning is just neat.

Actually, this isn't excellent at all, kwall. It's simply naive and designed to obfuscate the meat of most arguments against theism.

First of all, it should be crystal clear to everyone following along at home that I am not remotely "threatened" by your naivete, Winston. I am simply confounded by your insistence that I do the impossible.

You cannot prove a negative in practical terms. It's true that a lack of evidence can never disprove a given hypothesis, but a large enough number of negative instances can make it so improbable as to be eliminated from serious consideration.

A prime example might be as follows: there is no trace of the unicorn in the fossil record, nor has a unicorn ever been observed in the wild; therefore it can be reasonably assumed that unicorns do not exist.

You're essentially asking why I'm "threatened" by the fact that negative proof is an absurd concept. I might turn the question around on you and ask why you continue to ignore that it's just as impossible to conclusively disprove the existence of Zeus and Cthulhu and Snuffy as it is to disprove the existence of god. I suspect the reason has something to do with the fact that a part of you realizes that god is no less absurd than any of those other ridiculous false notions, and that there is no good reason whatsoever to believe in him.

So you're admitting that belief can be incorrect on its face, then, or at least wrongheaded/ill-conceived?

I' date=' as an atheist, would say the principles expressed here offer a good example of how atheists aren't "arrogant" as is so commonly suggested except the way in which you make every single argument IS arrogant. Even Bill Maher says certainty on the side of atheism is just as bad as certainty on the side of religion.[/quote']

 

First of all, nobody is advocating certainty, at least as far as I can tell. I haven't seen any fundamentalists leaving comments here (most would never dare to participate in a conversation like this one) insisting that god is great and that he has all the answers. All I've been promoting is free inquiry and healthy skepticism, often citing examples of how observation, reasearch and reason can provide comprehensive answers to complex questions. If one thinks that this is an example of "arrogance," then one must be terribly stupid. On the other side of the coin, religion really doesn't attempt to explain anything at all. Not in any substantive way, at least.

 

I don’t find TheMaker’s posts to be arrogant' date=' I think they’re brutally honest – and, as is usually the case, in place of engaging his posts on an intellectual level, his detractors simply throw personal insults around.[/quote']

 

I appreciate your appraisal, Neon. I also appreciate your measured tone and the clarity of your arguments, both of which are admirable and quite necessary components of discussions like this one. My posts are written quickly and conversationally, so I don't see any reason to censor myself or make unnecessary concessions to politeness. One of my goals is to drag religion itself across the coals, and I would be terribly upset if I weren't offending at least a few people with my remarks. Depending on how long my day has been, yeah, I'll drop an F-Bomb here and there. Don't like it, guys? Stop reading my shit. Pretty simple.

 

Athiests don't like to admit that non belief in a deity also requires the leap of faith that a believer requires to take the opposite side of the argument.

 

Since a deity's existence or non-existence is non-provable' date=' a definite statement for either side requires a leap of faith.[/quote']

 

Boy, you're really reaching now, aren't you? Non-belief is not quantifiable in the same way that belief happens to be. Would you also argue that it takes a rather tremendous leap of faith to withhold belief in Zeus and Hera? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Snuffleupagus? The Tooth Fairy? Santa Claus? Where does it end?

 

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. This is a very straightforward concept, and I am positively staggered that it manages to confound so many people whose minds have been so poisoned by religious "thought."

 

The simple fact of the matter is that absolutely nothing in nature points to the existence of any sort of god that has been imagined by man to date. Everything in the bible, especially the blood-soaked, rage-fueled Old Testament, is utter fucking nonsense. The Koran is violent, derivative tripe. These texts are clear products of their time. Their frankly appalling moral ideals are tethered to their respective centuries and are informed by barbaric, outmoded ways of thinking. It does not require anything remotely close to a leap of faith to arrive at such conclusions. It simply takes a 21st Century mind and the ability to read.

 

With all due respect' date=' outside of your own head, your experiential belief in god proves nothing insofar as the actual existence of a god is concerned.[/quote']

 

Bingo. This is equally true of a schizophrenic's experiential belief in, say, CIA agents who follow him around and wish to lock him inside a giant birdcage to punish his misbehaviour. (For the record, I know a man who believes this particular scenario to be true with every inch of his being. This does not prevent his belief from being anything more than a tragic delusion.)

 

Indeed - the point of the story of Santa Claus is to toughen up kids against the crushing blows that life will deliver for the rest of their days.

 

Right. The idea of a benevolent' date=' loving creator figure serves much the same purpose, only adults are encouraged to believe in one 'til their dying day.

 

You joke this off-handedly away, but how can you delve so deeply into debunking belief, religion, it's sourge upon a free-thinking civilization, and still say, Amen.

 

Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Christian conventions are so embedded in western society that it's practically automatic for people of every stripe to say things like "Hallelujah" and "Goddamn" and "God bless you" and "Jesus fucking Christ on a motherfucking cross, all covered with his own disgusting blood and feces?"

 

Nah. Couldn't be.

 

It probably has something to do with all atheists' secret desire to embrace Christ and live a holy life of etc.!

 

And on the subject of Christmas, I don't actively celebrate it, but I do occasionally give and receive gifts. Since they're nearly always given in the spirit of generosity, and not religion, I don't have very many qualms with this ritual.

so, these questions that we are incapable of answering (or, are not comfortable answering), should we just stop contemplating them?

Serious question: are you actually bothering to read what I write? Because I'm sincerely beginning to suspect you aren't.

Please refer to the Newton/LaPlace example that I have provided at least five times in this thread. Free inquiry is what I'm advocating, as free inquiry is the only thing that has the capacity to free us from myth and superstition. This has been proven millions of times in the course of human history.

It is religion's official position to answer the question "Why is the sky blue?" with a pat "Because it's the will of Bog, my child." Science does not accept this pure fucking nonsense as an acceptable answer to an important question. Why is the sky blue? Science would explain that molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. Instead of the mindlessly idiotic condescension proffered by all religions, science instead rolls up its sleeves and sets about doing the hard work that is necessary to help explain the mysteries of the natural world.

I applaud scientific minds that answer questions previously considered unanswerable, I don't tell them to shut the fuck up. That is the domain of faith, as evidenced in thousands and thousands of ways since the birth of humanity. (Fun recent example: stem cell research bans!)

You make plenty of valid points, but my mother and grandmother, who attend church regularly, never tried to marginalize or destroy me for not going to church.

Then consider yourself lucky. Like I said, this is the norm in 2008. But the very real threat of social ostracism is indeed a major player in the secret lives of many closeted American atheists. I'm not one of these douchebags who hits up Google every time he posts on a messageboard and then litters his posts with links, but I'm half-tempted to pluck out a few prime examples for you. I suspect you're being disingenuous, though, so I'm not going to bother. Again, think of how many atheists you're aware of in public office, in entertainment, and so on. There are a great number of polls available that indicate America's fear and mistrust of atheists. The one that sticks in my mind is that an openly gay congressmen has a much better chance of being elected waydownsouth than an atheist. Food for thought, huh? You're implying that I'm resorting to histrionics to help my point along, but I really have no need of doing that. Please don't take my word for it, though. Research this stuff yourself! You just might learn something interesting.

My best friend's mother is a devout Catholic, she's the only one out of 6 in her immediate family who is, and she is fine with that, and she has never tried to convert me or preach to me.

Again, consider yourself lucky. I generally find it a lot easier to deal with Catholics and Jews than Christians, simply because the piety and proselytizing aren't quite the game-changer that etc.

Gotta go, but I also hope this thread stays active for a while. It's neat.

What's so funny? Religion is still an unadulterated lie, it's still ridiculous on its face, and all that we have agreed on here today is that good can flourish under most any circumstances. Within cults, in the secular world, etc. How does this help religion's case in any way, shape or form?

Mother Theresa was driven to help the poor at least in part because of her faith in god. Warren Buffet, an "agnostic," is driven to help the poor for entirely more practical concerns. The fact of the matter is that both of these individuals have done much good in their time, irrespective of their spiritual beliefs. Although, hey, I really have to point out that Buffet's motives are a lot purer than Mother Theresa's were. He contributes sizable donations to charities because he understands the moral and economic value of doing so. If he is motivated by inequality, it is an inequality rooted in dollars and cents - that is to say, if he feels guilty, he does so because of the fact that he is a "have" and so many of his fellow human beings are "have-nots" - and not a spiritual inequality rooted in the wages of sin. Mother Theresa no doubt cared deeply about those whom she helped, but there can also be no doubt that at least part of her reason for helping them at all involved a bucketload of shame and a desire to please the bullying, paternalistic father figure she called "god." We are quite fortunate that she chose to channel her delusions in such a productive fashion; just imagine if somebody of Mother Theresa's conviction and standing were a zealot fixated on, say, the pursuit of Islamo-fascism, instead of delivering food and clean water to those in desperate need of them in exchange for a mere conversion! We don't need to imagine this scenario, unfortunately, because if we turn to the news, we will find plenty of frightening real-life examples of such figures.

I'm astonished at the disingenuous quality this conversation always seems to take on whenever the believers begin to pile on. My argument has never - EVER - been that "religion is bad because on a long enough timeline it will lead to corruption and evil" (although that statement appears to be lamentably true all the same). The content of a person's character is determined by far more than which mythical deity they do or don't believe in. The case against religion is simply that the physical, metaphysical and pseudo-historical claims made by it are patently and demonstrably false, not to mention contradictory in accordance with their own mandate. That religion is not even close to being a necessary component of 21st Century life, and can in fact create more problems than it sets about solving, is merely circumstantial.

do you believe that humankind is capable of answering every question that it is capable of asking? in other words, are there any questions that we will never know the answer to?

I don't feel comfortable answering this question with a straight yes or no. My hunch, however, is that humankind isn't sufficiently advanced to deal with everything it encounters in a way that makes sense to us. I also suspect rather strongly that the god delusion has everything to do with naive and wishful thinking, and nothing to do with credible scientific inquiry. Last I checked, string theory didn't originate because some illiterate moron in the desert was contacted directly by Bog the Space-Monkey and told to "write this shit down, son. S'impordant."

Again, it's important to remember that even Isaac Newton once thought stable planetary orbits were beyond the comprehension of mere man. LaPlace begged to differ, discarded the god hypothesis, rolled up his sleeves, and went about proving him wrong. The great thing about mankind is that we are SO MUCH SMARTER than that stupid, ogrish, paternalistic loser called "god" as he appears in the bible. The bible has aged incredibly poorly as a text, and it will continue to do so exponentially as the sum of human knowledge continues to multiply in the coming century. With age comes experience. With experience comes wisdom. Christians love to play pretend and imagine that their useless little cult will still be around in another thousand years.

No.

It won't be.

We've already outgrown religion as a species. We're already smart enough to parse its many lies and contradictions and false claims. Too many of us are simply too lazy and too stubborn to let go. That will change. On a long enough timeline, even the most hopeless, lost and slow-witted human being will find no reasonable solace in religion. And that's because the truth, however painful it may be for some to acknowledge, is that it provides none.

Yeah, sure. Hope springs eternal, right? Not faith, mind you - hope. Big difference. And so it stands to reason that in a universe characterized not by the guiding hand of an invisible saviour, but rather capricious acts of great physical violence, good can spring from nearly any scenario. Oskar Schindler, "in darkest light..." and all that jazz.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate in this context to mention the legend of Santa Claus, and the joy and hope it stirs in the imaginations of small children. Most would agree that it's all well and good for small kids to believe in such tall tales, primarily because this kind of yarn has the capacity to provide developing minds with so much joy and excitement, but also because children can't reasonably be expected to know any better. At some point prior to adolescence, however, children begin to apply reason to the legend of St. Nick, and they stop believing. Their belief is supplanted by a natural curiosity born of free inquiry, which tells them straight away that Santa Claus cannot possibly exist as he has been described to them. Now, I'm not one of these louts who thinks it's just the most amoral and beastly thing in the world to lie to children about Santa, but a part of me has always found it a bit supercilious to deliberately mislead kids in such a manner. There is something inherently cruel about devising a plan wherein a child is convinced by an adult that a friendly, selfless, benevolent man exists and will reward their good behaviour with gifts every year. And fine, all right, maybe it affords the kid a few years of childish glee, but it also comes equipped with a built-in sense of crushing disappointment when the kid one day finds out that there is no Santa Claus, and that no amount of wishful thinking can alter this reality.

Children who still believe in Santa Claus are very much like adults who still believe in god. The key difference between these groups is that the adults who still believe in fairy tales have never chanced to apply free inquiry to the nonsensical babblings of the Bible, the Koran, et al. - not the outlandish physical claims made in these writings, nor the even more fantastical and unprovable metaphysical claims. We are instructed not to blaspheme from a young age. We are told that the word of god is rigid and absolute (regardless of the fact that Christianity has been revised countless times since its inception). In times past, blasphemers were punished through imprisonment, torture, murder, or, as was often the case, a vile and inhuman combination of all three. This is certainly not the case in any western democracy in 2008, but the automatic respect reserved in all quarters for religion runs fast and deep in our society. Churches are insulated from taxation. Their bold proclamations are allowed to take root in congregations numbering in the tens of thousands, regardless of how hateful and intolerable they might seem to rational minds (stop me if you've heard this one: a gay walks into the WTC on September 11th...). A friend of mine who taught in an otherwise pleasant Ohio suburb earlier in the decade complained of the social stigma she faced simply for not going to church on Sunday. In 2008. "Do as we say, do as we do, or risk being marginalized or destroyed" seems to be the message espoused by every cult, and that is certainly true of Christianity and Islam.

Anyway... arguing that religion can be a source for good is like insisting that one must continue to take a placebo in order to beat a case of cancer. A placebo is ultimately useless because it's fake, like all religion, not to mention an unnecessary resource. Wouldn't it be far better to devote one's time and energy to seeking out a legitimate cure rather than have to rely on the potential limited psychological benefits of a phony one?

If this is really what your argument has come to - "religion might possibly be valid because people are inspired to do good because of its teachings" - then you really don't have an argument at all. The secular world is rooted in truth and the wholesale rejection of myth and superstition. Good and charitable deeds can and should be done in the name of man, rather than in the name of the petty, capricious, vindictive, archaic tribal warlord of a God introduced in the Old Testament and promoted by the New.

Any other questions?

30 Rock is funny as fuck and Ricky Gervais is not a fat, unfunny, useless twat.

Wow. You must have the worst sense of humour in the world. Big fan of Friends and Two and a Half Men, are we? The Scary Movie series? Hot Shots Part Deux?

My contribution to the thread: Bob Dylan crashed his motorcycle in Woodstock in 1966; he didn't have a meltdown because of hitting the road too hard with way too many drugs in his system.

Holy red herring batman! You of course realize by now that no one here cares what you do or don't believe in.

We saw this a lot in the last thread. Lots of smiley faces jacking themselves off and stifled fake yawns. Covering its eyes and ears and mocking its critics is what religion does best, after all. There is nothing else it can do. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The Wizard of Oz is real, I tell you!"

And of course the infantile "you said 'Jesus Christ,' that means you believe" insinuation always seems to crop up on a long enough timeline, however playfully. Yeah, it's absolutely fucking riotous that a society that is overwhelmingly Christian is loaded down with colloquialisms rooted in Christianity. That's just lol-worthy, right there. Personally, I'm thankful that most of them are at least seen to blaspheme against "the lord."

You seem kind of naive.

That's exactly right. Religion is the most successful mitigating factor ever to prop up warfare and empire-building alike.

And look, M.Christine, I understand your argument, but I maintain that it's a naive one. The relationship between belief and lifestyle is inextricable in so many ways, which is something I've been attempting to prove through example in at least two threads involving this particular clutch of themes. Again, you have a nice, happy, tolerant view of religion and spirituality, but it does not address several stumbling blocks that represent very real problems for the human race.

I am offended to my very core by the absurd truth claims made by every organized religion, but even if one were to forgo appeals to reason and take it for granted ("on faith," if you will) that god exists, one is still left with a host of unsolvable problems involving the incompatible truth claims made by each of the world's religions. Not only that, scripture is riddled with holes that prevent it from living up to its own deluded opinion of itself. Jesus Christ was without sin, apparently, even though he was prone to callous acts of brutishness in many of the bible's books, up to and including several acts of murder. The bible is purported to be the inerrant word of god, and yet its lessons are at once morally appalling and and anchored two thousand years in the past. The world according to the bible is localized entirely in the Middle East, with no mentions of any flora or fauna from then-undiscovered places like Australia or South America, let alone once-dominant species that had fallen to extinction.

The concept of revelation is simply beyond the pale. Why does god always seem to manifest himself only to illiterate, simple men who can scarcely even fulfill his wishes? Why can't people simply read the Koran and laugh their fucking asses off at how totally shameless it is? The thing is basically wholesale plagiarism, nicking plot elements and even entire verses from the Old Testament, the Torah, and a number of other sources. "Dammit, how come Arabs haven't had a chance to chat one-on-one with god yet? When we gonna get our turn? Let's write our own crazy fucking creation myth!" And so they did, the historical and literary record tells us. The transparency of these petty, childish texts is appallingly obvious when they are examined in their proper context.

There is nothing about religion that is honest, or even "truthy," to use one of my favourite neologisms. But the reason I'm dredging up all of these facts is not to further decimate the validity of religion (this is something that anybody could do without expending any effort whatsoever), although that's certainly a ball on which one of my eyes is always fixed, but rather to illustrate the ridiculous lengths the faithful are willing to go in order to protect the well-intentioned delusions of their ancient ancestors. In this thread, we've seen people attempt to box me by casting doubt on the fact that Jesus is a killer and a thief according to the bible. We've seen people protect the morally sound aspects of religion that only scrupulous editing has been able to provide and promote. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change a number of important realities.

There is no god, no Jesus, and no Moses; the historical record indicates that Muhammed probably lived, but he was certainly little more than a delusional sand-eater from naive circumstances who was prone to being wracked by seizures. All of this stuff is pure and absolute bunkum. Feel free to trek up Ararat every year 'til the sun falls off the fucking chair, you aren't going to find any Ark. There is no Ark. There is no reason to believe that there ever was an Ark. Believing that the Ark is a metaphor of some kind is fucking stupid. I think we all recognize these truths on some level; even those of us who are unwilling to admit them.

And so the operative question is not "in what way do the more mild strains of a rabid delusion pose a threat to my lifestyle?" The operative question is "why should we make excuses for even a mild strain of a rabid delusion, especially when the very real possibility of inflammation always exists?" It's akin to making friends with a petty thief and defending him by suggesting that, hey, at least he ain't a murderer! Or it's like celebrating, or perhaps merely tolerating, a benign tumour on the grounds that it isn't an immediate, malignant threat. It's simply absurd.

1) Religion is a lie at worst and a placebo at best.

2) Religion therefore offers nothing.

3) I will not tolerate the tolerance of religion. This will never change.

Those separations are pretend. They change.

Just like religion. Heh.

(I'd leave, but you all just seem to enjoy my participation so much...)

Wilco is a band I look forward to seeing whenever they blow through town, but I mostly listen to the studio recordings. I'm a CD guy, generally.

Misunderstood

Why Would You Wanna Live

I Must Be High

Impossible Germany

Venus Stop the Train

Jesus Etc. (maybe the most durable melody I've ever heard...)

Remember the Mountain Bed (with a huge tip o' the cap to Woody)

You Are My Face

Pieholden Suite (I really came around to this one over the years)

In a Future Age

Muzzle of Bees

And a bunch more!

Sorry for mixing you up with somebody else, bobbob. At any rate, orchestra's got the right idea. I presented numerous examples of how religion poisons thought in that other thread, ranging from the myriad ways it inspires violence and war, to the knack it has for stifling free inquiry at even the most basic and unconscious level.

You might argue that you're protecting only moderates with your well-intentioned tolerance, and that may seem fine to many on the surface; moderates aren't as constrained in their beliefs as fundamentalists, but they nonetheless enable the destructive fantasies of, say, hardcore Christianity and radicalized Islam to tear a rather horrifying swath through 21st Century reality by providing cover for the beliefs of their adherents. "What they believe is valid," argues the moderate brainlessly, "it's simply a rigid, authoritarian version of the word of god. Times change, and so too must the unchanging law of god. We just don't say it like that, of course!" Among non-believers, the "permissive atheist" provides the same kind of cover for the fundamentalist. If you're going to call yourself an atheist, the very least you can do, in my opinion, is call religion on the carpet to atone for its "sins."

Religion does damage. Individual beliefs in unprovable nonsense have a way of becoming collective beliefs in unprovable nonsense. One has a way of becoming many. This is how cults tend to function, regardless of their size or tax-exempt status. Unprovable nonsense has a way of wanting to indoctrinate, coerce and otherwise assert its wild truth claims pertaining to nothing less than the entire fucking universe. We have seen this again and again and again and again throughout our history. Empires frequently cite divine providence as a justifiable cause when supporting their state-building enterprises.

Sure, there are more land claims in the Middle East than you can shake a stick at, but most parties agree that they are there according to the will of god. Muslims resent Jews and have done so for centuries. I don't think anybody can accuse me of tarring with a broad brush when I say that many in the Middle East would not think twice before visiting bodily harm on a Jew (or Christian, for that matter). We see this frequently with incursions into Israel's borders, usually involving bullets and rockets. Meanwhile, Jews make assertive, often callous land-grabs based on little more than mythology dating to the Old Testament. Top elected politicians in the modern democratic state of Israel refer to Palestinians as being "no better than dogs." The president of Iran, meanwhile, denies that the Holocaust ever happened and refers to Israel as a "rotting corpse" while threatening to erase it from existence with absolutely stunning regularity. Crazy, crazy motherfucking shit happens in the name of religion. We need not look back to the Crusades to find further examples of this insane behaviour. We see other struggles around the world even today, pathetic and tragic as that statement surely is. The Sunni/Shia split. The sinister influence of Islam in Europe. India and Pakistan. There can be no religious solutions to religious problems. (I would apologize for appearing to "pick on" Islam in these examples if I gave a flying fucking shit about offending Muhammed, PBUH. Fortunately, I do not.)

Since this thread is about a Larry Charles film, does anybody remember the astonishing scene in Borat during which an American politician suggests that Jews will not ascend to Heaven because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour? It's a rather disquieting moment, and it's an interesting proof of how even "nice, upstanding" folks can be polluted by their religion into thinking less of people who do not subscribe to their patently ridiculous beliefs. This is how sinister religious thought truly is, and it's a fine illustration of how holy war is perhaps not even the most appalling "sin" committed in the name of religion. Religion is far from innocuous even among those who do not engage in violence or acts of war.

For example, Bible-based arguments abound which prohibit sex education from being taught in a transparent, shameless and comprehensive fashion even in many North American schools. Instead of teaching the Third World to embrace safe sex, the church has encouraged a veritable holocaust of poverty, starvation and AIDS, all for the sake of a bunch of phoney-baloney bullshit that is not only manifestly untrue, but which does us no good whatsoever.

The resurgence of polio in North Africa and the Middle East also owes a tremendous debt to religion. Last year in Pakistan, a senior government official was killed when he was returning from a tribal council to convince people to immunize their children against the disease. Armed "prayer leaders" warned the politician's entourage against dispelling local misconceptions about the vaccine's benefits. These same men had earlier informed the tribe that the government was there only to spread "Western vulgarity," and that the polio vaccine would in fact do them harm. I wish I could say that this sort of calamity were some kind of fluke, but the fact of the matter is that this sort of thing has been happening in Africa for years. And polio is gaining tremendous ground in this part of the world. Thanks again, religion! For nothing at all. (On-topic! I'd like to thank religion for NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING at all.)

I personally stand to benefit from an economy the size of the United States experimenting in an unhindered fashion with stem cell research. So do millions more. I like the idea of millions and millions of madmen not wanting to see you, bobbob, as well as I, as symbols of "Western decadence" that must be destroyed. I don't like it when fat, stupid, useless, stupid, disgusting, stupid, inhuman, stupid, cunt-for-brains assholes like Falwell and Robertson blame our gay friends for 9/11. I don't like it when sexually ambiguous teens are murdered with astounding ferocity because their PERCEIVED lifestyle is "against god."

You cannot deny that religion is the greatest poison of all fucking time. I simply don't understand how you can call yourself an atheist, a materialist, or a secular humanist and pretend that you don't observe archaic religious thought poisoning the living fuck out of our planet on an almost hourly basis. Please do not deny deny this.

I'm finished with this subject on this forum. I hope at least some of you will read this and think about it.

So Jesus existed to you, and the bible should be taken for it's literal word?

Stop being disingenuous. I don't know how you're set as far as your commitments go (aren't you the guy who basically sees every Wilco show in the Western world, or am I thinking of a different poster?), but I certainly don't have the time to repeat myself endlessly. You know my stance on religion (that it's total, unadulterated bullshit), thanks to our last go-round. I was merely addressing the Biblical record, which is quite different from the historical one.

My point, since you clearly need to have it spelled out for you, is that not only is religion a fantasy, it is also contradictory and morally ambiguous. But don't worry - generations of religious scholars and thinkers have tailored scripture to fit their purposes. If you need to believe that Jesus is/was (WILCO REFERENCE GUYS LOL) real and that he was without sin, by all means - have a fucking party, dude. Just knock yourself right straight out! The sheer idiocy of revised Christianity allows - and generally even encourages - you to do this rather easily. We have moderates to thank for that!

I have a great difficulty playing any music I know the words to (whether it's Wilco or bad classic rock or Top 40) and talking with someone/listening to what they're saying and not the music. When I drive with others in the car the radio is off or tuned to a classical station; when I entertain (or rather, both times I have entertained) it's classical or jazz. I can't study to music, read to music, or talk with people around music I know the words to. It's a bit easier in restaurants, but I still tune people out a lot of the time.

Man, I'm the exact same way. And here I'd been thinking I was alone!

I'm always blown away by the number of folks who profess listening to music at work. One of my jobs involves a lot of typing and phone calls, and I just can't listen to music while doing that sort of thing; my other job involves peace and quiet and a lot of visually oriented computer tasks, and when I'm doing that stuff I find I'm constantly listening to music.