Theology

[SiL]

You're using it right.

Just, you're using it right where it's entirely irrelevant to be using it.

[Crazy Rich]

You're using it right.

Just, you're using it right where it's entirely irrelevant to be using it.

How so?

[SiL]

You asked earlier where the scientific "proof" that religion was insane was, which didn't really apply to the conversation, for one thing.

And now you're saying that because you can't disprove that God exists, scientifically belief and nonbelief are on the same footing -- which is false.

[Tough little S.O.B.]

religion has been a vehicle for philosophy, and in this regard it has been useful to teach some good things about some basic morality, some good concepts (dont kill, dont get laid with your neighbor wife etc) but it could've been done without the need of religion.

So, even it has been useful, it was not completely necessary or the only way to do so...

You don't need religion to be good. It make some people to be good, yes, but it was not the only way. And looking at the whole picture, for me, it did and still does much more bad tan good.

And it's completely irrational, absurd, without any scientific base and it tends to interfere in individuals lives and liberties.

We would be much better without it.

[Crazy Rich]

You asked earlier where the scientific "proof" that religion was insane was, which didn't really apply to the conversation, for one thing.

And now you're saying that because you can't disprove that God exists, scientifically belief and nonbelief are on the same footing -- which is false.

First part is a given I'll admit.

But what I'm saying is in atheism all your really required to do is not believe in a deity, true you can't observe that there is a deity, but at the same time that doesn't mean absolutely that there in no deity in one way or another either, yet it's insisted that there is no deity. It's the same as in religion when a deity can't be observed yet it is still insisted that there is deity. This itself is not the scientific part, when I say scientifically I refer to observing whether or not a deity exist through measurable evidence. Neither have measurable evidence, theism goes "yes" while atheism goes "no" when neither claims can be observed or measured.

[SiL]

As funny as a lot of that was, some bits just made me cringe. I've yet to meet a Christian, hardcore Bible-thumper or otherwise, who thought Christianity was the oldest religion, and

Sumarian man: (⌒ー⌒)  I know right? I totally think my kids need to remember all the outdated bullshit my barely literate ass thought up in a haze of primitive instinctuality. Then they can pass it on and even expand it!

I don't understand what point you think you're making here. It reads like you're saying it was a bad thing people invented writing and started passing down thoughts, ideas, laws, beliefs, etc.

[SiL]

You can clarify your intent, which is more than can be said for the authors of, say, the Bible. Parody doesn't work as well when the message you're trying to lampoon doesn't actually get across in what you say.

(And I rescind "never met anyone who said Christianity was the oldest thing" when I take into account Seventh Day Adventists and the like.)

[SiL]

There is no message to lampoon. I don't quite religion, that is inconsequential. I would consider this more satire, and as such to be perceived entirely as a joke, which is what I personally find religion to have metamorphosed into.

I meant the point of that passage, but evidently you seem to wish to remain as vague and uninformative as the texts and authors you endeavour to satirize, rather than to offer any sort of explanation of enlightenment, and I suppose I will just have to accept this and move on.

[Sabby]

But what I'm saying is in atheism all your really required to do is not believe in a deity, true you can't observe that there is a deity, but at the same time that doesn't mean absolutely that there in no deity in one way or another either, yet it's insisted that there is no deity.

You're entire stance of Atheism and Religion being the same seems to rely on this one assertion, yet you've been corrected on it multiple times. Atheism is disbelief. Yes, some Atheists go further and make the claim God is not real, but that's on them. It's something they pile on top of their Atheism.

Can you claim that something is not true and also believe in it? No. The claim it isn't true comes on top of disbelief. So even Atheists who claim God is not true are still operating on disbelief. This is not hard to understand.

Yes, making the claim puts the burden on proof on them. You are absolutely correct. I don't claim God is not real specifically because I know I couldn't prove it. So we absolutely do agree on that. However, what I do claim is that a God is so unlikely to exist that I act as if it didn't.

Atheism and Religion are not the same thing. Deal with it.

[SiL]

And furthermore the point of the passage was to convey that early humans were dolts with bad ideas that survived history unnecessarily along with some good ideas.

It's not really being a dolt if you don't even have the means to know better. There's plenty to make fun of in religion, but disparaging the intelligence of the species thousands of years ago seems rather unfair, doesn't it? I'm sure in the same amount of time we'll be seen as the dolts with bad ideas that insist on living on.

though why anyone owes you any explanation for their humor is beyond me.

Because you were using humour to make a point, and your point was lost; I wanted to know what it was, and asked. As I am entitled to do

Nice to see the cracks showing in your abject politeness! Ask a simple question, get an increasingly condescending answer. Thank you

[Crazy Rich]

Deal with it eh?

I said before that as far as beliefs go they are different, but in the perspective that neither can actually back up their stance through observation and measurement is awfully similar.

Deal with it.

[SiL]

 

Two seconds in a room with a person and I can turn them into a twat. Amazing.

For the record, if he'd just answered the first time, instead of answering, editing, deleting posts, editing, etc. this all would've been avoided, but no. Now I'm a dick. Wonderful.

[Crazy Rich]

In SiL I trust.

[SiL]

How have you all managed to co exist with sil? What an exquisite Prima Donna. 

Cos I'm perfectly amiable when people answer simple questions instead of being needlessly vague to uphold their aloof posturing on an Internet forum.

Not that you can read this, as you have me blocked.

Which is why you'll continue to reply after my posts, almost as though you could read them. Hm.

[Mr. Sin]

In SiL I trust.

Which is why you're blocked as well.