Shrunk wrote:

John Platko wrote:Very good videos that get to the heart of religious experience, they pull aside the curtain, and show what's really going on. I've noticed many atheists are rather fond of them too.

Does that surprise you?

John Platko wrote:
I'm Catholic, it's a fact, just like it's a fact that I'm an American.

Griz_ wrote:Thanks for the explanation regarding the video. That is along the lines of what I imagined. My personal view is that I would rather see the truth of things. I think that regarding the Mass, many don't really want to know the truth and are comforted in their delusion. The idea that their closely held life-long beliefs could be wrong are frightening to them. Much like the placebo effect which is often a very real thing and often does have a positive result, but in the big picture are we not better off knowing the reality and moving knowledge forward rather that accepting illusions? I see religion the same way. Once the veil had been lifted in that video did the girl not see what was really happening and then not have the same, or perhaps even a more profound sense of wonder and awe about the human brain and the realization of how little we truly know about how it works?

I find reality much more satisfying than magic because reality raises more questions whereas the belief in magic is a dead end.

John Platko wrote:
Why? I've found that many Christians are not overly fond of, or even capable of, dealing with the truth.

However given that, perhaps it's best they are not physically deciding what parts of the Bible are worth keeping.

Onyx8 wrote:And it works w/o a god.

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

!=

Sigh .....

Now, I know you're taking the piss. Goodbye.

I can't imagine why you would say that. I was simply pointing out that the two phrases do not mean the same thing. You misrepresented what I said and I corrected that misrepresentation. No urine involved.

Hair-splitting nonsense - there's no functional difference at all: quite the contrary for your claim to have any meaning, my wording must necessarily be true. For a proscription against allowing fantasies about god to cause people to do harmful things, it necessitates that fantasies about God can cause you to do harmful things. Your claim genetically requires my wording of it to be true, even if you're unable to see it, or just engaging in willful obfuscation as it appears you have done throughout this entire thread. Not only does it not misrepresent you, it is inherent to what you claimed. Of course, had you really meant it, then you wouldn't have challenged what I said, and we would have actually been able to pin something down. But fortunately, you moved the topic now onto semantics instead, so we can all look the other way while you pocket the rabbit.

John Platko wrote:
It's the difference between saying:

Eating wild mushrooms cause you harm.

and

Don't let eating wild mushrooms cause you harm.

That is, not all wild mushrooms are harmful, but you need to be careful because some are harmful.
On the other hand, some wild mushrooms are delicious!

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I'm Catholic, it's a fact, just like it's a fact that I'm an American.

Just like I'm a Hindu. I don't believe in anything related to Hinduism, but I do quite like the sound of the word, therefore it's a fact that I am one.

John Platko wrote:. My being a Catholic is a fact. It's not like, if you don't believe such and such: poof - you magically stop being Catholic.

Onyx8 wrote:And it works w/o a god.

John Platko wrote:It is interesting how when Natalie experienced what she experienced that
somehow "God" popped into her head. Why do you think that happened?

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:. My being a Catholic is a fact. It's not like, if you don't believe such and such: poof - you magically stop being Catholic.

Quite right Platko - it's not magical, it's definitional.

If you reject critical components of an ideology, then you cannot seriously contend that you adhere to that ideology.

So, I firmly support the principles of democracy, but I just don't think common people should get a vote, in fact, why even bother with voting in the first place? Let's just have a wealthy, high status family pass on their absolute dictator status via inheritance. Oh, but I definitely believe in the principles of democracy. Just because I don't believe in elected representation doesn't mean I magically stop being a democrat.

John Platko wrote:
I think the way it works here is I stop being a Democrat if I don't vote for a few years.

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:
It's the difference between saying:

Eating wild mushrooms cause you harm.

and

Don't let eating wild mushrooms cause you harm.

That is, not all wild mushrooms are harmful, but you need to be careful because some are harmful.
On the other hand, some wild mushrooms are delicious!

Both statements require that the eating of wild mushrooms can cause harm.

It would be entirely pointless to proscribe something which couldn't actually happen.

You're going to need a pneumatic drill to get past the bedrock

It doesn't really matter anyway, Platko - you've already achieved the desired intent of obfuscating this point sufficiently now that you can safely consider the original point lost in the manufactured confusion.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Any religion that tolerates alternate beliefs has lost it's power to intimidate, and is attempting to maintain power through tolerance.

The catholic church can't burn people alive anymore for heresy and they can't control what people believe about the natural world because of science, so they tolerate ideas that the bible may not be literal.

It's a business, and they are doing what is best for business.

John Platko wrote:the Catholic Church has a very long history of interpreting the Bible

John Platko wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:Any religion that tolerates alternate beliefs has lost it's power to intimidate, and is attempting to maintain power through tolerance.

The catholic church can't burn people alive anymore for heresy and they can't control what people believe about the natural world because of science, so they tolerate ideas that the bible may not be literal.

It's a business, and they are doing what is best for business.

That's a nice story but the truth is the Catholic Church has a very long history of interpreting the Bible and not taking parts of it literally. Facts matter!