Religulous

[The Batman]

I know what a lot of people think of Bill Maher and some of his views, but most people have to admit he has a fair point every once and a while, even if you don't agree with him a majority of the time. After watching his movie he brought up a really good point about the Egyptian God Horus. He showed how Horus shares a lot of the same things as Jesus Christ such as:

His mother was a woman called Meri
His father was called Jo-Sep
His father was of royal descent
His birth was heralded by a star
His birth was witnessed by Shepherds
King Herut tried to have him killed
He was 30 when baptised
His baptiser went on to be beheaded
He was followed by 12 disciples
He walked on water and healed the sick
He gave a 'sermon on the mount'
He was crucified
...between 2 thieves
He was buried in a tomb
He was resurrected after 3 days

I know there are a lot of religious people on this thread and I want to know what you think about something like this. The point Maher was trying to make is that it sounds like the story of Horus was just carried down and eventually became the story of Jesus. So would you just chalk all this up to coincidence?

[Pax Britannia]

I read a book a while back (cant remember the title i'll have to look it up) that said all the worlds major religious figures were essentially the same soul being recycled over and over.

[The Batman]

I read a book a while back (cant remember the title i'll have to look it up) that said all the worlds major religious figures were essentially the same soul being recycled over and over.

Yeah, thats the point Maher was trying to make, and no matter your world view, it is a fair point.

[Pax Britannia]

Yeah, thats the point Maher was trying to make, and no matter your world view, it is a fair point.

I left the book at home when I moved but it took most of its message from old Egyptian teachings. The Sun apparently is the source for all the soul energy of humans on earth. Our souls come from the Sun when we're born and go there again when we die. Souls have differing levels of energy and those with large amounts of energy (Jesus, Horus, Buddha) keep getting sent back to earth.

Obviously it's a bit out there in terms of accepted thought but I found the book interesting none the less.

[Yelram]

I know what a lot of people think of Bill Maher and some of his views, but most people have to admit he has a fair point every once and a while, even if you don't agree with him a majority of the time. After watching his movie he brought up a really good point about the Egyptian God Horus. He showed how Horus shares a lot of the same things as Jesus Christ such as:

His mother was a woman called Meri
His father was called Jo-Sep
His father was of royal descent
His birth was heralded by a star
His birth was witnessed by Shepherds
King Herut tried to have him killed
He was 30 when baptised
His baptiser went on to be beheaded
He was followed by 12 disciples
He walked on water and healed the sick
He gave a 'sermon on the mount'
He was crucified
...between 2 thieves
He was buried in a tomb
He was resurrected after 3 days

I know there are a lot of religious people on this thread and I want to know what you think about something like this. The point Maher was trying to make is that it sounds like the story of Horus was just carried down and eventually became the story of Jesus. So would you just chalk all this up to coincidence?

Its all about the zodiac and the sun cycles. Why were there "12" disciples? Why did he die, and rise again on the 3rd day. Heres a decent Youtube video.
WMtyRM4sE3U

[halfabubbleoff]

I know we are all having an intellectual discussion about this, but I want to throw in a more "spiritual" reasoning to the mix.

I am familiar enough with the movie to know that it attempts to debunk most religions. However, this same example could be used to shore up the idea of one divinity.

If there really is a divine being watching over everything and guiding creation, wouldn't it make sense that he/she/it would not wait so long to be worshiped? If you look at almost every major religion, you see striking similarities. Read the Hindu texts. They have their own ten rules (commandments) to live by. I used to have them framed on the wall along with the Christian ten. They mirror each other almost exactly.

Wouldn't it make sense that the rules would stay unchanged by geographic area and background? The similarity between Horus and Jesus could be seen as an attempt to bring the same story/lesson "up-to-date" for a new audience with different perspectives in order to get the same point across. The fact that many religions share so many core ideas and stories lends some strength to the argument that they all came from the same source.

Granted, the same argument could be made in the support of dragons as well. They are the one mythical creature that exists in every civilization/geographic area in the world in one form or another. So take all of this for what it is worth.

[Insomniac]

I know what a lot of people think of Bill Maher and some of his views, but most people have to admit he has a fair point every once and a while, even if you don't agree with him a majority of the time. After watching his movie he brought up a really good point about the Egyptian God Horus. He showed how Horus shares a lot of the same things as Jesus Christ such as:

His mother was a woman called Meri
His father was called Jo-Sep
His father was of royal descent
His birth was heralded by a star
His birth was witnessed by Shepherds
King Herut tried to have him killed
He was 30 when baptised
His baptiser went on to be beheaded
He was followed by 12 disciples
He walked on water and healed the sick
He gave a 'sermon on the mount'
He was crucified
...between 2 thieves
He was buried in a tomb
He was resurrected after 3 days

I know there are a lot of religious people on this thread and I want to know what you think about something like this. The point Maher was trying to make is that it sounds like the story of Horus was just carried down and eventually became the story of Jesus. So would you just chalk all this up to coincidence?

I don't know how accurate these even are, I mean Isis and Osiris were Horus's parents, and Osiris was the god of death and rebirth. That's a much more valid comparison than anything else. The OP reminds me more of the Lincoln/Kennedy assassination chainmail than anything.


After Set killed Osiris, Horus had many battles with Set, not only to avenge his father, but to choose the rightful ruler of Egypt. One scene stated how Horus was on the verge of killing Set; but his mother (and Set's sister), Isis, stopped him. Isis injured Horus, but eventually healed him.[/URL]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#cite_note-7"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#cite_note-7)
By the Nineteenth dynasty, the enmity between Set and Horus, in which Horus had ripped off one of Set's testicles, was represented as a separate tale. According to Papyrus Chester-Beatty I, Set is depicted as trying to prove his dominance by seducing Horus and then having intercourse with him. However, Horus places his hand between his thighs and catches Set's semen, then subsequently throws it in the river, so that he may not be said to have been inseminated by Set. Horus then deliberately spreads his own semen on some lettuce, which was Set's favorite food (the Egyptians thought that lettuce was phallic). After Set has eaten the lettuce, they go to the gods to try to settle the argument over the rule of Egypt. The gods first listen to Set's claim of dominance over Horus, and call his semen forth, but it answers from the river, invalidating his claim. Then, the gods listen to Horus' claim of having dominated Set, and call his semen forth, and it answers from inside Set.

Which I may have liked to have seen reproduced in the bible, but isn't.

This documentary (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=696492648668420724&hl=en), which I can't find the full version of anymore, but that gets across the gist. Jesus Christ isn't based on a real historical person at all, and none of his first disciples ever believed he was. Which is nonsense.

But it does a good job of bringing up the figures like Mithras, Apollo, and Osiris and the similarities.

[Yelram]

I know we are all having an intellectual discussion about this, but I want to throw in a more "spiritual" reasoning to the mix.

I am familiar enough with the movie to know that it attempts to debunk most religions. However, this same example could be used to shore up the idea of one divinity.

If there really is a divine being watching over everything and guiding creation, wouldn't it make sense that he/she/it would not wait so long to be worshiped? If you look at almost every major religion, you see striking similarities. Read the Hindu texts. They have their own ten rules (commandments) to live by. I used to have them framed on the wall along with the Christian ten. They mirror each other almost exactly.

Wouldn't it make sense that the rules would stay unchanged by geographic area and background? The similarity between Horus and Jesus could be seen as an attempt to bring the same story/lesson "up-to-date" for a new audience with different perspectives in order to get the same point across. The fact that many religions share so many core ideas and stories lends some strength to the argument that they all came from the same source.

Granted, the same argument could be made in the support of dragons as well. They are the one mythical creature that exists in every civilization/geographic area in the world in one form or another. So take all of this for what it is worth.


Join my movement, I call us the "Panenthiest Alltheists", its basically exactly what you're saying. God is in everything, and every religion attempts to express something inexpressible, and comes short, due to a wide range of human imperfections.

[The Batman]

I don't know how accurate these even are, I mean Isis and Osiris were Horus's parents, and Osiris was the god of death and rebirth. That's a much more valid comparison than anything else.

In the movie the only things that were mentioned were these.
He was born to a virgin
King Herut tried to have him killed
He was 30 when baptised
His baptiser went on to be beheaded
He was followed by 12 disciples
He walked on water and healed the sick
He gave a 'sermon on the mount'
He was crucified
...between 2 thieves
He was buried in a tomb
He was resurrected after 3 days

The list I found was just browsing the internet to find it. So lets just take away the father and mother thing.

[The Batman]

Join my movement, I call us the "Panenthiest Alltheists", its basically exactly what you're saying. God is in everything, and every religion attempts to express something inexpressible, and comes short, due to a wide range of human imperfections.

Do you think religion comes short in every way possible? Or just in certain areas?

[Archetype]

Are we seriously gonna have a thread for every time somebody hears about the similarities between Jesus and Horus/Mithra/Dionysus/Krishna/Attis/etc.?

[Yelram]

Do you think religion comes short in every way possible? Or just in certain areas?

You get a bunch of people together, pretending to be self righteous, and its a disaster everytime. The philosophy could be rock solid. "Love one another", I mean really, how can someone fuck that up? How can they change that into "Believe Jesus is God or you go on to eternal damnation", I will never know. Spirituality is the best way to describe true "religious" thought, even though "Religion" stole the word. And it seems spirituality is usually inclusive, whereas religion tends to be exclusive.

[The Batman]

Are we seriously gonna have a thread for every time somebody hears about the similarities between Jesus and Horus/Mithra/Dionysus/Krishna/Attis/etc.?

Is it not a fair point? To see where you are going, you have to see where you came from.

[Archangel]

People should read my posts more, because then, they wouldn't fall for this easy bullshit.

Public Enemy sampled James Brown's Funky Drummer, and built up an entire new song around it. However, according to atheists, by borrowing certain elements, it has no merits whatsover. Jeff Buckley's cover of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah is widely regarded as superior to the original, but since it isn't all original, it's worthless. Geoffrey Chaucer, in his Canterbury Tales, basically copies Petrarch's treatment of Boccaccio's Griselda - but he didn't come up with the source material, so it ipso facto sucks.

Now, go look at a map. Especially one of the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Come on, I'll wait.

...



Okay, have you noticed something? The major cultural centres of the region are WITHIN A STONE'S THROW OF EACH OTHER. So when schools of thought co-exist there for several thousand years, how likely do you think it is that they borrow from each other?

Exactly.

Egyptian religion borrowed from the Mesopotamians and the Sumerians, and the Greeks in turn borrowed heavily from them; the Romans just adapted whatever the Greeks had come up with 1:1, and in turn passed it to the Germans. Et mother fucking cetera.

Now, Judaism was mostly apart from all that, because as a rather exclusive club, it didn't proselytise. However, you can find stuff from Gilgamesh in Genesis, just as you can find Judaic monotheistic tendencies in Hesiod and Plato. Christianity, though, being persecuted, had to adapt and convert in order to survive - and how much easier is it to convert people with stuff they can easily draw parallels to? Look at Paul's letters - he wrote them to Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans; so it's only fucking normal that he would draw on stuff familiar to them.
If you want to go watch the Super Bowl with a friend who knows dick about football, but is an avid rugby fan, what do you do? You draw parallels. You tell him that a try is more or less like a touchdown, what the difference in passing and tackling rules are - however, always keeping on a common ground easily understood by both (spinning the sports metaphor a bit further, we all know that baseball evolved from cricket, just as football evolved from rugby - does that mean that they're worthless, not even real sports? What if someone finds out what rugby itself evolved from? Is the whole value of sports put in doubt?).
So if you're from Palestine, your next big neighbour is Egypt. You and the Egyptians have a lot of common history, do a lot of trade and cultural exchange etc - so what the fuck is more logical than to describe Jesus to them in familiar terms, rather than totally starting from scratch and thus alienating them?

In a similar manner, when expanding north, Christianity absorbed certain German rituals such as tree worship and thanksgiving festivals - traditions which are alive to this day. This is how the evolution of thought works. It's only fucking natural.

Both linguists and neuroscientists agree that the human mind only comprehends things through either metaphor or metonymy: The existence of sub- and superstrata in religion is a classic example of the former at work.

People act like this is something new, or that figuring this out makes you an expert on religion and its innate fallacy. The obvious irony in all this is that it's right there in the bloody Bible itself - if you know a thing or two about philosophy, you will instantly notice that in his speech on the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17), Paul, being a classically trained (not to mention brilliant) philosopher and orator, avails himself of the imagery used by the stoics and the epicureans to describe the nature of God. Why? To more easily convince people. And as seen in the example of Dionysius the Areopagite, it worked.

I wonder, where are the atheists jumping up and down, going "teh Biblez is a lie, Paul uses stoic terminology and imagery!!1 None of it is teh originalz!"...
Oh, that's right, they don't know shit about philosophy, they just want to feel smarter than Christians without actually reading shit, because, you know, reading is hard.

To notice the most natural thing in the world of thought, and to point that out as an argument of a thought's fallacy just shows that the people in question have no fucking idea what thought really is.

[Archangel]

Oh yeah, [/thread]

[Archetype]

Is it not a fair point? To see where you are going, you have to see where you came from. Look to the left of this post. What does that name say? Where do you think that came from? You think I just pulled it out of my ass to rip off Arch? It's not a good point, essentially, because it goes a hell of a lot deeper than Bill Mahr could ever pull out of his ass. Read some of the old threads after you read Arch's post.

[Archangel]

Look to the left of this post. What does that name say? Where do you think that came from? You think I just pulled it out of my ass to rip off Arch?

Uh... yes?

[Archangel]

Simply put, if you base value on originality, pretty much nothing about mankind is of any worth - if you dig deep enough. There is no originality.
Somebody (I forget who) once called the entirety of 2000+ years of Western thought "Plato and annotations"; the thing is, the man had a point.

That's the beauty of it, that everything is built on top of everything else.

[Pax Britannia]

Like a massive gay pile.

[Archangel]

Exactly.




Wait. Oi!

[Yelram]

Oh yeah, [/thread]

Not that I dont somewhat agree with the idea of different religions being built off of previous ones, but I seem to think the truth is closer to some actual form of reality that different cultures saw, and documented in their own cultural way.

[The Batman]

Simply put, if you base value on originality, pretty much nothing about mankind is of any worth - if you dig deep enough. There is no originality.
Somebody (I forget who) once called the entirety of 2000+ years of Western thought "Plato and annotations"; the thing is, the man had a point.

That's the beauty of it, that everything is built on top of everything else.

I don't have a lot of time to respond properly because I have school work, but i skimmed what you wrote. I was under the impression that you are a Christian man who believes in Jesus Christ. If not please correct me, because from what I have read it seems like you agree that Jesus was created by man and that the idea of Him has been passed down through the centuries.

[Archangel]

Le sigh. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=6186)

Your reading comprehension sucks righteous balls, though, if that's what you got from my post.

[White Rhino]

I don't have a lot of time to respond properly because I have school work, but i skimmed what you wrote. I was under the impression that you are a Christian man who believes in Jesus Christ. If not please correct me, because from what I have read it seems like you agree that Jesus was created by man and that the idea of Him has been passed down through the centuries.
Originally Posted by Archangel http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/solido/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=474509#post474509)
Your reading comprehension sucks righteous balls, though, if that's what you got from my post.I guess mine sucks as well, because that is what I got from your post.
Originally Posted by Archangel http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/solido/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=474509#post474509)
Christianity, though, being persecuted, had to adapt and convert in order to survive

[Archangel]

Apparently, it does.

[riseabove!]

Oh yeah, [/thread]

[Morfin]

Me, too (or three). I get what you are saying, Arch, in terms of patterns and building on what has been used before. And if that is what the story of Jesus was presented as -- a parable, story, whatever, I am fine with that.

However, my understanding is that, while many Christians don't believe in the literalness of the Genesis story -- creation in 7 24-hour days -- many do believe that not only was Jesus a real, historical figure, but that the other parts of the Gospels are accurate. Most notably, Catholics and the Virgin Birth, and the death and resurrection. Again, if presented as a story, that is one thing. If presented as fact, then that's another thing.

I know, Le Sigh Part Deux.

[Archangel]

But I happen to believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection...

[Morfin]

OK, I'm still with you. But the details -- 12 disciples, when the birth occurred, three wise men -- those are more lore-based, rather than literal truth?

[Archangel]

Who knows? That's my entire point: In an age of total documentation, there are a dozen different - not to mention wildly conflicting - interpretations as to how and why Kennedy got shot. And you honestly expect totally unequivocal accounts of stuff that happened in a remote Roman protectorate 2,000 years ago?

That, my friend, is where that "faith" thing kicks in.

[hatepoppy]

adama and ewa's eldest anunnaki grandson yehoshawa is the being that has been twisted into what we know as jesus. it is by the direct manipulation of the reptilians from zeta reticuli that his teachings have been bastardized into the divisive institutions we call religion.

[Morfin]

No, I don't expect it, nor demand it. I am more trying to square my understanding of Christian beliefs that the Gospels are, in terms of Jesus' birth, life, and death, factual.

If my understanding is incorrect according to the Catholic or other Christian beliefs, then I want to know. Or at least try to understand.

[wonderllama]

Who knows? That's my entire point: In an age of total documentation, there are a dozen different - not to mention wildly conflicting - interpretations as to how and why Kennedy got shot. And you honestly expect totally unequivocal accounts of stuff that happened in a remote Roman protectorate 2,000 years ago?

That, my friend, is where that "faith" thing kicks in.


Firstly, you suck...I just spent an hour reading old posts linked through this thread and linked through the link in the link...BASTARD! :D

Secondly, I think it's pretty much been sorted that LHO shot Kennedy.
Sure, funny business was going on, but he did it and the why is troublesome cos he's dead.

Lastly, I just ate the last hot cross bun and am sad about this.

I guess the part that troubles me so much about the specifics of religion is what Arch said, they are from such a long time ago and yet they are very specific in the details. I personally feel it to be a cop out for me to accept things in that manner. That's for me of course, not everyone else.

Hey, I feel it is a cop out when my mechanic says "trust me, it cost that much to service your car man".

[halfabubbleoff]

This is one of the problems I have posting in Philo. My favorite threads, but Arch posts here, and we agree too damn much!

Arch, you are right on target with your statements above in regard to the gospels. In fact, I could not tell you how many scientific papers I have read (and been forced to read) on the historical basis for the New Testament. Either their is some basis to a lot of the stuff in there, or the conspiracy is even more invovled thatn the Kennedy assassination.

My only issue with the whole Religion "conflict" is the whole "I'm right, so you are wrong," mentality. As I said in my first post in this discussion, there are too many similarites between them to go to that extreme.

Yelram, we are pretty close, but I beg to differ on the "every religion attempts to express something inexpressible, and comes short, due to a wide range of human imperfections." part. I beg to differ. I think a lot of them hav eit pretty close to the mark. You hit the nail on the head in a later post when you brought in the human element. People do take the best of ideas and end up twisting them into something less than they should be. Far too many people get caught up in the "idea" rather than the substance. Who says science and faith are exclusive? Allah, God, Goddes, Osiris, "The Sun", Gaia, Etc.... blah blah blah..... A rose by any other name.......

Then again, if they didn't we woudn't need religion or Arch's meaningful insights into human nature (and people's reading ability).

Oh, and wonderllama: Don't get things started about the Kenedy bit. There is a HUGE group that believes he was a figurehead who missed and that there was someone else who actually pulled the trigger on Kennedy. Granted, alot of these people aslo believe that Elvis and hitler are having drinks on a beach in Argentina......

[wonderllama]

Oh, and wonderllama: Don't get things started about the Kenedy bit. There is a HUGE group that believes he was a figurehead who missed and that there was someone else who actually pulled the trigger on Kennedy. Granted, alot of these people aslo believe that Elvis and hitler are having drinks on a beach in Argentina......

I must admit, I used to be one of those who thought it was a conspiracy, but the more I have read and the better the explanations have become...as well as my better understanding of the physics of it all (plus I saw Penn Jillet shoot the same gun in less time ;) ) have all pointed to it being Mr Oswald.

Elvis & Hitler? Well...that goes without saying *if you like pina coladas....*

For the sake of continuing any debate...I do have trouble with people simply relying on faith with minimal or no evidence for anything, I think the faith part comes when you see evidence and you have faith it is right! And although I concede the lack of evidence FOR something doesn't therefore mean the opposite it true, I think the ferociousness with which both sides of this debate attack the non-supporters of their position are what drives general opinion.

It's why Arch has what I see as a fanatical dislike of Professor Dawkins...and yes, he's stated he has similar feelings for religious extremists as well *cough* Islam *cough*...but any situation needs people with extreme views i suspect, otherwise we're all mellow and disinterested.

[Archangel]

I don't have a fanatical dislike of Dawkins.

I have a very sensible dislike of people who talk about stuff they know jack shit about.

[wonderllama]

Well, I said "I" saw it as a fanatical dislike...he seems to crop up a lot in your posts.

Disliking someone for talking about things on which they may be less qualified to speak than someone else pretty much leaves there to be 0 people you like I would suggest.

I believe "don't respect" would be better given that Dawko may be in fact an excellent dinner guest. I don't doubt for a second you would have a brilliant time talking to him...

[Septic_Porpoise]

what is your definition of "minimal evidence?" is the most widely spread book on the planet minimal? is documented evidence that Jesus lived minimal? you need to specify when something goes from the level of "minimal" to "reasonable."

[Archangel]

Well, I said "I" saw it as a fanatical dislike...he seems to crop up a lot in your posts.


Just like Jerry Falwell probably got a lot of mention on atheist blogs, and for much the same reasons.


Disliking someone for talking about things on which they may be less qualified to speak than someone else pretty much leaves there to be 0 people you like I would suggest.

Bullshit. But to presume that because one knows about cells and microbes, one is ipso facto qualified to speak with any semblance of authority on metaphysics is pretty much the most jarring display of arrogant idiocy I've come across.

I believe "don't respect" would be better given that Dawko may be in fact an excellent dinner guest. I don't doubt for a second you would have a brilliant time talking to him...

I do. I saw him on TV several times, and found him to be ill mannered, boorish, self-absorbed, and incredibly ignorant. I saw him say on live TV that "the 'why' doesn't matter", and laughed out aloud.

[wonderllama]

Bullshit. But to presume that because one knows about cells and microbes, one is ipso facto qualified to speak with any semblance of authority on metaphysics is pretty much the most jarring display of arrogant idiocy I've come across.

But what if he said the same thing as you?
I'm not trying to be a smartarse here, I genuinely want to know how you'd feel about him if he came to the same conclusions or position as you, AND with the same passion he has for his current stance. Would you still say the same things about him?



I do. I saw him on TV several times, and found him to be ill mannered, boorish, self-absorbed, and incredibly ignorant. I saw him say on live TV that "the 'why' doesn't matter", and laughed out aloud.

Isn't that a lot of English people?
And if you don't agree with him, especially his dismissing the "why", wouldn't you love to discuss it with him like how you enjoy discussing it with people here who have far more moderate views?

[Archangel]

But what if he said the same thing as you?
I'm not trying to be a smartarse here, I genuinely want to know how you'd feel about him if he came to the same conclusions or position as you, AND with the same passion he has for his current stance. Would you still say the same things about him?


I've gone on record on these very boards several times saying that I respect the thought behind a stance, not the stance itself. Put simply, I feel ashamed when idiots agree with me.

Isn't that a lot of English people?
And if you don't agree with him, especially his dismissing the "why", wouldn't you love to discuss it with him like to enjoy discussing it with people here who have far more moderate views?

All he does is in the service of Richard Dawkins. He isn't interested in discussion, and I honestly doubt he cares that much. He IS, however, interested in fuelling his considerable ego and milking his idiot disciples for all they're worth.

[wonderllama]

I've gone on record on these very boards several times saying that I respect the thought behind a stance, not the stance itself. Put simply, I feel ashamed when idiots agree with me.

Fair enough



All he does is in the service of Richard Dawkins. He isn't interested in discussion, and I honestly doubt he cares that much. He IS, however, interested in fuelling his considerable ego and milking his idiot disciples for all they're worth.

A slight diversion from the topic at hand, but still on Dawkins.
Have you seen an interview between Dawkins and Derren Brown where they discuss Psychic charlatans and similar topics?

Far from coming across as someone who is milking his disciples, he is turning to an expert in the field to explain what is being done to fool and convince people that their dead relatives are speaking to them.
Xswt8B8-UTM <-- there's part 1
He's not trying to dismiss God here, so don't just shy away from it, it's a good watch (for Derren Brown mostly).

I like a lot of the things presented by Dawkins, but I don't believe you think I am an idiot.

[Archetype]

Secondly, I think it's pretty much been sorted that LHO shot Kennedy.
Sure, funny business was going on, but he did it and the why is troublesome cos he's dead.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u50/jjmckool/magic-bullet-blender-lrg.jpg
I guess the part that troubles me so much about the specifics of religion is what Arch said, they are from such a long time ago and yet they are very specific in the details. I personally feel it to be a cop out for me to accept things in that manner. That's for me of course, not everyone else.

Hey, I feel it is a cop out when my mechanic says "trust me, it cost that much to service your car man".

This coming from the guy who believes LHO shot Kennedy, alul.


For the sake of continuing any debate...I do have trouble with people simply relying on faith with minimal or no evidence for anything, I think the faith part comes when you see evidence and you have faith it is right!
I'm pretty sure you just niggerrigged that definition of faith.



Far from coming across as someone who is milking his disciples, he is turning to an expert in the field to explain what is being done to fool and convince people that their dead relatives are speaking to them.
You forget, he's actually a scientist. He likes science. He respects it. He's not gonna shit all over it by making wild accusations about it. It's a part of his world view to analyze empirically. Now how do you think that relates to metaphysics? Simply put, it doesn't. You can't analyze metaphysics with a yard stick and some observation. And he hates it for it. When it comes right down to it, he's one of those "nice on a good day" guys.

[Archangel]

He's not trying to dismiss God here

Please. This is just a build up in his constant attempt at ridiculing anything intangible - his sneering at religion is almost audible in the background. Come on, "The Professor" has gone on record saying that the Abraham/Isaac episode in Genesis is the same thing as crazy people believing to hear voices.

The thing is, Kierkegaard came to a rather different conclusion.

You listen to Dawkins, I listen to Kierkegaard, how about that.

[Pax Britannia]

Would God punish someone who genuinely believed he didnt exist? Reminds me of how missionaries flooded into Africa to try and save as many souls as possible. Would God really send a Kenyan tribesman from the 19th century to hell for all enternity for not worshipping in a Christian church?

Seems a tad retarded.

[Archangel]

You forget, he's actually a scientist. He likes science. He respects it. He's not gonna shit all over it by making wild accusations about it. It's a part of his world view to analyze empirically. Now how do you think that relates to metaphysics? Simply put, it doesn't. You can't analyze metaphysics with a yard stick and some observation. And he hates it for it.

The thing is, a trained monkey or a computer can use a yard stick and observe. They cannot, however, come up with The Republic or the Comedy.

Dawkins's hatred for metaphysics is, like most hatred and ridicule, the result of a profound inferiority complex; basically, he's one step above the redneck calling the urban sophisticate a "faggot", and desperately trying to bring everything down to a level that his limited comprehension can grasp.

[Aegis]

That, my friend, is where that "faith" thing kicks in.

This gets me every time. How can one just put their faith in something that there's no tangible proof of other than an old book? I was brought up in the Christian Reformed Church and hated every minute of it. I have since converted to Catholicism but rarely go because I just can't wrap my mind around it.

I'm serious about this, nobody can ever give me an answer other than "you just do".

[Archetype]

Ah, Christ, I really wish I didn't know what Post-Modernism and Modernism were. I'm seeing it in every fucking post, shit's infesting my brain. AND IT'S FUCKING STOOPID.

[wonderllama]

Please. This is just a build up in his constant attempt at ridiculing anything intangible - his sneering at religion is almost audible in the background. Come on, "The Professor" has gone on record saying that the Abraham/Isaac episode in Genesis is the same thing as crazy people believing to hear voices.

The thing is, Kierkegaard came to a rather different conclusion.

You listen to Dawkins, I listen to Kierkegaard, how about that.

I admit, he probably IS using it to push his own barrow, but what he is in effect doing is proving that something which believers are convinced is true and directed at themselves and their loved ones (ie: talking to a dead relative) can be faked, it can be created to profit from the gullible, the lonely, the needy.

As much as you disagree with his methods and message etc, he's doing the closest thing to what he would like to do which is to prove or disprove the existence of God. That can't be done, so he's pissed...we know that. But in showing how easy it is to dupe people into believing that someone can speak to the dead, hear messages from them and the like, he is still making a valid point.

People want to believe.
Most in God, me in Aliens...but it's the same desire.

Dawkins and Kierkegaard.
I'm prepared to listen to both, I'm not prepared to call one nor those who agree with them idiots however...

[Archangel]

This gets me every time. How can one just put their faith in something that there's no tangible proof of other than an old book? I was brought up in the Christian Reformed Church and hated every minute of it. I have since converted to Catholicism but rarely go because I just can't wrap my mind around it.

I'm serious about this, nobody can ever give me an answer other than "you just do".


Jesus Christ, it's not rocket science: If you have tangible proof, it's no longer "faith" but "knowledge". You don't believe that 2+2=4, and it doesn't require anything to believe that Bush was a bad president.

People take these leaps of faith every fucking day: You don't have any proof that your friends will be there for you, you don't have any proof that your girl loves you, you don't have any proof that the government has the country's best interests at heart, you don't have any tangible proof that the individual exists and is endowed with free will - as a matter of fact, you have a lot of proof to the contrary; but for some reason, you go on assuming those things anyway.

Why?

[Archangel]

Dawkins and Kierkegaard.
I'm prepared to listen to both, I'm not prepared to call one nor those who agree with them idiots however...

Relativism is a bitch. They shouldn't even be named in the same sentence.

[wonderllama]

You started it! ;)

[Archetype]

Dawkins and Kierkegaard.
I'm prepared to listen to both, I'm not prepared to call one nor those who agree with them idiots however...
Pussy.

[Aegis]

Jesus Christ, it's not rocket science: If you have tangible proof, it's no longer "faith" but "knowledge". You don't believe that 2+2=4, and it doesn't require anything to believe that Bush was a bad president.

People take these leaps of faith every fucking day: You don't have any proof that your friends will be there for you, you don't have any proof that your girl loves you, you don't have any proof that the government has the country's best interests at heart, you don't have any tangible proof that the individual exists and is endowed with free will - as a matter of fact, you have a lot of proof to the contrary; but for some reason, you go on assuming those things anyway.

Why?

Good point, guess I never actually thought of it that way. Seems I spend most of my time trying to disprove it rather than having an open mind.

[wonderllama]

Good point, guess I never actually thought of it that way. Seems I spend most of my time trying to disprove it rather than having an open mind.

You don't have proof before it happens...you can however prove each of those things at some stage. I think that's the opposing position.

[Archangel]

Good point, guess I never actually thought of it that way. Seems I spend most of my time trying to disprove it rather than having an open mind.

Religion is a construct based on certain dogmata, which require some type of faith.

But so is every human endeavour. Prove to me that man is free and has inalienable rights: You can't. Prove to me that justice and equality are paramount virtues: Same thing. And anybody who knows politics and history can show you any amount of examples where unfree, unequal societies flourished - and yet, most of the civilised world holds those things to be true.

What I love is when people say that religion is "false" because people don't agree on its meaning. By that reasoning, I could argue that because democrats and republicans often disagree on how to interpret the (dogmatic) founding principles of the United States, democracy is a crock of shit. Hell, you people had a bloody fucking civil WAR over that stuff, and remain profoundly divided on a great many fundamental issues; but nobody disputes the legitimacy of the ideals themselves...

[freegood]

^The thing that got me when I read those replies in the dawkins forum is how self assured they were that liberty and freedom were natural and innate concepts...that its secular qualities made bringing it up in a religious debate so alien and foreign. I wonder what things that are blind to me yet are right in front of my face...

Democracy can be considered an old political system, but it's successful practice is a new invention, and if you consider it old, then society's "natural" inclination would be to improve it shortly after the Greeks adopted it rather than burying it for several thousand years. Instead, democracy or republicanism is more like a barge teetering on the edge of disaster. Faith is the only thing propping the ship up.

[Archangel]

I never got around to checking out that Dawkins forum link you repped me...

But yeah, some politician declares dogma to be "self evident", and everybody agrees; but if a cleric does the same thing, and it's the most preposterous thing in the world.


What can I say, people are stupid - I can barely deal with the idiocy of academics, I can't even imagine how I'd feel if I were confronted with the real world on a regular basis.

[halfabubbleoff]

What can I say, people are stupid - I can barely deal with the idiocy of academics, I can't even imagine how I'd feel if I were confronted with the real world on a regular basis.


Nothing meaningful this time. Just wanted to say:

Best quote in any forum EVER.

[vasili denisov]

His mother was a woman called Meri
His father was called Jo-Sep
His father was of royal descent
His birth was heralded by a star
His birth was witnessed by Shepherds
King Herut tried to have him killed
He was 30 when baptised
His baptiser went on to be beheaded

For some reason, when I read this I hear a banjo playing over it and it sounds like the opening credits to a 60s sitcom, like "The Awesome Adventures of Max Baer Jr., Martyr".

[Yelram]

I never got around to checking out that Dawkins forum link you repped me...

But yeah, some politician declares dogma to be "self evident", and everybody agrees; but if a cleric does the same thing, and it's the most preposterous thing in the world.


What can I say, people are stupid - I can barely deal with the idiocy of academics, I can't even imagine how I'd feel if I were confronted with the real world on a regular basis.

Did you ever think that the academics are often the stupid ones, that cant see the forest for the trees? How many of these "real world" people do you interact with? Because in my experience, intelligentsia is where the most ignorance and stupidity exists. They may be well versed in various different writings that people have historically rated as "important", but they dont understand the typical goings on of the everyday people. I would much rather have a mildly intelligent leader, who sought to live up to the principles of our country, and the will of the people, than some self-proclaimed academic, who thinks that government intervention is the solution for the "common man". Because the "common man", in his opinion, and from what I can extract from your posts, yours as well, is an idiot, that needs the "wizards of smart", to help his day to day existence. You see Richard Dawkins in the same way I see him. If you were a biology major, you'd be sitting here telling me how much of a toolbag Kierkegaard was for even wasting his time on something "not real". Just like you tried to make "phillipchocolate" sound stupid for using a modern philosophy writers book to emphasize a point. And what was your reasoning? That you had quoted Kierkegaard, and it was some sort of travesty to mention the two in the same thread? Academics just need to get their heads out of their collective asses, and realize that their brainwash.... I mean their education, is not the be all, end all of reality.