This is more like it...

prove-me-wrong wrote:

theropod wrote:Just a thread bump so Prove-Me-Wrong won't forget his promise. We wouldn't want to get the idea in our heads that this supposed/asserted Muslim was trolling us.

Seeing as P-M-W has posted today in the "Why Drink Alcohol" thread he must have found that making yet more ignorant statements was far more important than keeping his word. So much for honor.

RS

You must think you a very clever man.

Impatient, yes? Are you that afraid of Islam that seeing anticipating what I have to say keeps you up at night. If you understood the underlying reasons why Islam is the most triumphant religion in history and the fastest growing in the world, you would understand that your fear is unfounded.


I am still in the process of consulting with my peers. A properly devised response will be forthcoming to Calisseia, as promise.

Makes me think of this

Steve wrote:This is more like it...

The weirdest crickets I have heard.

Oooh. Recording the sounds that insects make, and playing them back... sin!

Calilasseia wrote:You mean this?

Well, yeah. But I only wanted the, "You'll handle us?"* bit for the analogy. I don't expect prove-me-wrong to kick everyone's arse


* "You challenge us?"

prove-me-wrong wrote:What I want to know is, what is your general view of religion? Keep it at a few paragraphs at most please. I get dizzy reading walls of text!

So if you had say... 3 to 5 minutes to explain to me your views on religion and what its role is in the world, what would you say to me? Do you think there is a conflict between science and religion or do they complement one another? Do you think, even if you do not like religion, that religion sometimes has some redeeming qualities? If so, what are they?

This is quite simple. The underlying requirement of religion, that we choose to believe something without evidence because it's comforting, is ultimately destructive to the human endeavor of trying to understand our universe. It introduces bias to our observations and undermines placing value upon what can be objectively known. It provides additional and harmful opportunities for us to splinter into factions which cannot be readily or rationally reunited to the good of our species- because we allow unsupported assertions and discard requirements for evidence. It puts up roadblocks to ultimately developing a better, more flexible social structure, built around our species requirements, because preference is given to older social structures from more ignorant times. And again, because we allow unsupported, evidence-free assertions, we have a more difficult time dethroning harmful social constructs.

Needless to say, accepting unsupported assertions absent evidence because we want them to be true is the polar opposite of the sort of thinking which is required to do science. Thus religion is most kindly described as the antithesis of science.

Still crickets?

Come on PMW get busy with that rebuttal.

RS

Come now theropod! You are just being arrogant.

I like it. It reminds me of Matt Dillahunty's (Of The Atheist Experience TV Show) recommendation to theist callers that they pray first before calling; To look for spiritual guidance in finding the argument that will convince the hosts and nonbelieving audience that their god is real. It makes their subsequent watchmaker argument or thinly veiled Pascal's wager all the funnier.

So Prove is going to consult with fellow believers before he posts. I'm sure he'll be forthcoming with the best possible refutation Calli's post he can possibly come up with, I for one can't wait.

Religion seems to cause its adherents to lose the ability to distinguish between the words "atheist" and "irreligious."

theropod wrote:Still crickets?

Come on PMW get busy with that rebuttal.

RS

Even the crickets have died waiting.

prove-me-wrong wrote:

So if you had say... 3 to 5 minutes to explain to me your views on religion and what its role is in the world, what would you say to me? Do you think there is a conflict between science and religion or do they complement one another? Do you think, even if you do not like religion, that religion sometimes has some redeeming qualities? If so, what are they? [/color]

Well, I will bite as well.

My views on religion? I come from a country where up until the 1980's you could not go to school unless you were baptized. I come from a country where my hard earned money that goes for taxes pays for priests and churches. I come from a country where UNFORTUNATELY we do not have a separation of church and state. I come from a country where priests do whatever they like with money and belongings. I come from a country where the church could pay off the debt of the 3rd world countries and then have more money than anyone else still.

Religion is fear. Religion is oppression. Religion is misogyny. Religion is hatred. Hatred of people that are different from what religion perceives to be "normal". As a woman I reject the misogyny, I reject to be a "victim" of religion. Look at the women in Islam and how oppressed they are. The first thing that put me off religion was its misogyny, then its anti-scientific stance.

Religion and science do not mix. Science has shown that "god of the gaps" does not work. The more science discovers, the narrower the gaps are. Religion says it knows everything but in reality, it's nothing more than wishful thinking, a fantasy worse than fantasy books. Because at least with fantasy books you know it's not real; however a lot of people are deceived into believing in religion and they are made to feel afraid. Religion and science do not mix.

Religion is the ultimate misanthrope; it keeps people afraid with its ridiculous notion of sin. Religion makes people be afraid of themselves, stops them from reaching their true potential. By putting so many ridiculous constraints, by making people feel ashamed, by making people feel inferior, religion stops progress. And without progress, there is stagnation. And where there is stagnation there is death. Religion is death of the human mind.

OlivierK wrote:

prove-me-wrong wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Religion - and mythology generally - is a hangover from the days of oral tradition and law. The ability to store knowledge in written form also gave rise to the ability to independently test and refine that knowledge. Those that champion religion are effectively championing illiteracy over literacy. While you admit that science is better at answering the "how" questions, secular thinking and writing is also better at answering the"why" questions, and aesthetic questions, and legal questions, and ethical questions.

Ok let me challenge you on this point. How does secular thinking answer the "Why" question of why human beings exist? Or why the planets formed? That is the motive behind the existence of the universe and everything in it? What is the purpose?

How does religious thinking answer the "why" questions? It asserts motive without justification. It asserts purpose without justification.

Secular thinking approaches these questions without unjustified assumptions. Hence its better track record on everything from ethics to planetary formation. Frankly, the best explanation we have for the purpose or motive of human beings' existence is that there isn't an externally imposed one. To the extent that religious thinking asserts otherwise, it is merely wrong, or unable to back it's assertions with anything other than further assertions.

Let me challenge you, who assert the superiority of religious thinking in certain spheres, to a simple challenge: provide an example where religious thinking provides a better answer to any question at all, where "better" involves actual explanatory power, and not merely an assertion of an answer.

Perhaps if prove-me-wrong is finding a response to Cali too hard, they could apply themselves to my far simpler challenge in the last paragraph above.

Are we there yet?

Calilasseia wrote:I notice that after a four day absence, he's returned and launched another thread, whilst ignoring the further developments in this one. I'll feel free to draw appropriate inferences from this.

Four days have passed again. Will history repeat itself?

ADParker wrote:

theropod wrote:Still crickets?

Come on PMW get busy with that rebuttal.

RS

Even the crickets have died waiting.

Well, that's not cricket.

It's an ex-cricket.

All statements to the effect that this cricket is still a going concern are from now on inoperative