Religion, what's the point?

It's not a corporation though is it? why would they want to be global? I feel like there's something in their teaching that makes them feel more entitled to right the wrong. A little bit like SJW. Which means the quickest way to get me uninterested.

There’s a quote I like by Talal Asad:

“If one believes oneself to be the source of salvation, the wish to make others reflect oneself is not unbenign, however terrible the practices by which this desire is put into effect.”
 
You can't claim to be a vegetarian whilst eating a beer burger. And I think the most vehement person against my posts has accepted (with provisos) Dawkins is really sort of agnostic.

It's obvious from the stein interview that Stein wasn't being malicious. It was Dawkins who was frothing at the who.

Not much else to say really

That 'who' in this context should be challenged every single time because it's either a dishonest or an ignorant question (or both). It presupposes that there is a someone behind it while every other possible way is simply dismissed, which is really stupid if you're actually interested in finding the truth about how we and/or the universe came to be.

And before you say it. No, Dawkins presenting a "science fiction scenario" about aliens does in no way make that question any more valid.

It's also pretty clear by now that it's you who are letting your emotions guide your views when it comes to him, I'm quite certain you broke the irony meter when you accused someone else of doing that a couple of pages back. In the post you are replying to here it is being stated, for probably the 755th time by now, that Dawkins words were misrepresented in the documentary and that doing that is wrong, which you strawman by replying that Stein did nothing wrong in the interview and it was instead Dawkins who was "frothing at the who", as if that is somehow relevant or excuses what the final product showed.

You're constantly twisting things to suit your view of him and to be frank it's making you come across as very dishonest.
 
I used to debate belief in God with all kinds of people on hiphop forums back in the day. From Black Hebrew Israelites, who were the most misogynistic men I've ever encountered, to 5%ers, with their linguistic gymnastics ('libraries = lies buried' was a particular favourite), to the Koranic Science guys, like our friend Roane here. I'd go back and forth with them for days, weeks, months sometimes, and we'd always end up at the same place - they have faith in things they cannot prove. That's what it all boils down to. They are either born into that faith, so it's part of their identity, or they arrived there after some sort of trauma, so they cling to it like a life raft. But they offer no answers, just interesting detours. And, after a while, you realise that the detours are all roundabouts, and they're just going round and round in circles.

Non-existence is the default position of anything. All swans were white until we discovered a black one. This doesn't mean that the black swan wasn't around before we encountered it, but it does mean that we couldn't say with certainty that there were black swans. If the Abrahamic god exists, where is the evidence of him/it, for it would surely have surfaced after two millenia? Therefore, one has to conclude that a belief that such an entity exists is based on faith alone. And you must acknowledge that or provide evidence to the contrary. It's that simple.
 
I used to debate belief in God with all kinds of people on hiphop forums back in the day. From Black Hebrew Israelites, who were the most misogynistic men I've ever encountered, to 5%ers, with their linguistic gymnastics ('libraries = lies buried' was a particular favourite), to the Koranic Science guys, like our friend Roane here. I'd go back and forth with them for days, weeks, months sometimes, and we'd always end up at the same place - they have faith in things they cannot prove. That's what it all boils down to. They are either born into that faith, so it's part of their identity, or they arrived there after some sort of trauma, so they cling to it like a life raft. But they offer no answers, just interesting detours. And, after a while, you realise that the detours are all roundabouts, and they're just going round and round in circles.

Non-existence is the default position of anything. All swans were white until we discovered a black one. This doesn't mean that the black swan wasn't around before we encountered it, but it does mean that we couldn't say with certainty that there were black swans. If the Abrahamic god exists, where is the evidence of him/it, for it would surely have surfaced after two millenia? Therefore, one has to conclude that a belief that such an entity exists is based on faith alone. And you must acknowledge that or provide evidence to the contrary. It's that simple.
I agree with all of that but that is not why some people like to believe not just in magic, but in religion in particular.

Religion does something that logic can not (science might some day, but not today). That is the promise of immortality for yourself and all those that you have lost and for those we fear to lose. It matters not anything at all when the promise is so big and so desirable.

Religion will continue to be a very powerful force for as long we (humanity) fail to do:
1) make people at peace with death. Accept the reality of nature and stop hoping for living in the Force
2) none

As long as there will be people that can not accept that they will not exist forever, then religion will exist. If there is still life in the Universe when everything goes dark and distant and away, that life will dream of cheating reality.
 
What's the difference between religion and magic?

There’s a partial answer to this question in this book:

“[The] belief that earthly events could be influenced by supernatural intervention was not in itself a magical one. For the essential difference between the prayers of a churchman and the spells of a magician was that only the latter claimed to work automatically; a prayer had no certainty of success and would not be granted if God chose not to concede it. A spell, on the other hand, need never go wrong, unless some detail of ritual observance had been omitted or a rival magician had been practising stronger counter-magic. A prayer, in other words, was a form of supplication: a spell was a mechanical means of manipulation. Magic
postulated occult forces of nature which the magician learned to control, whereas religion assumed the direction of the world by a conscious agent who could only be deflected from his purpose by prayer and supplication.”
 
There’s a partial answer to this question in this book:

“[The] belief that earthly events could be influenced by supernatural intervention was not in itself a magical one. For the essential difference between the prayers of a churchman and the spells of a magician was that only the latter claimed to work automatically; a prayer had no certainty of success and would not be granted if God chose not to concede it. A spell, on the other hand, need never go wrong, unless some detail of ritual observance had been omitted or a rival magician had been practising stronger counter-magic. A prayer, in other words, was a form of supplication: a spell was a mechanical means of manipulation. Magic
postulated occult forces of nature which the magician learned to control, whereas religion assumed the direction of the world by a conscious agent who could only be deflected from his purpose by prayer and supplication.”
So magic is like a new car and a prayer is like my mum's old Ford Escort back in the 80s, sometimes worked, sometimes didn't.
 
Religion isn't about miracles. It's about peace of mind. It stops people from asking questions

12l52f.jpg
 
Religion isn't about miracles. It's about peace of mind. It stops people from asking questions

Depends on the religion. Some are comfort religions for others it actually more comforting to believe we cease to exist upon death.
 
God had fxxk all to do with it.
Because as anyone with a tenth of a brain cell knows that the oil wasn't there when God was supposed to have created the earth.

Yeah but by the time we evolved and needed oil it was there.

Praise be! What foresight!
 
This mensa just might be @WI_Red ’s governor in a couple of years.

Im breaking my self ban on the religion thread to say the he almost certainly will be and NC is fecked if he is. Cooper is a fantastic Governor and has done some incredible things, even with GOP supermajorities in the Senate and now House. Funny how that works in places like NC and WI. GOP supermajorities in 50/50 states….
 
This is a logical fallacy.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

The issue is you assume the cause is some supernatural invisible bloke. This isn't what science means by cause.

The universe has a beginning and it has an end. Science will tell you that for the last 80 odd years.

Sort of. Maybe. But probably not in the way you mean.

If events depend on events this is not rational or logical as there would be no be no end

What on earth are you talking about?

The cause of the universe must be uncaused itself. It can't have a beginning and it can't have an end.

Only in the sense that time was created during the Big Bang. Not in the sense you seem to mean.

Asking this question is a question of category. The creator and the created are not the same.

You start from the assumption that some supernatural being is a creator. Which is nonsense.

One is dependent on many factors the other cannot be. You can ask what paint looks like or what it smells like but you can't ask what it sounds like. That isn't in the paint category.

I imagine paint (drying or otherwise) has or makes a sound. Just because you can't hear it, any more than you can see UV or x-rays, means little.