Why does the existence or non-existence of god matter?

Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:37 am

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]I said several times that nothing will actually come of it. Taking it as something that would have real-world effects was your own fault.

But since you are taking it personally and have apparently done the indoctrination under discussion, did you see the post about not giving children a choice?

Did you ask them if they wanted to hear about the cartoon god? If not, why not? What would have happened if they had said no?[/quote]

So I can accuse you of abusing your child, and you're cool with that, since nothing will come of it?
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:48 am

Sure. Talk is just talk.

I notice you didn't answer my questions.
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:00 am

Well, of course I didn't do any of those things. I'm not one of your cardboard cutout villains, twisting my moustache as I corrupt the innocent.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:23 am

[quote=""Politesse""]Well, of course I didn't do any of those things. I'm not one of your cardboard cutout villains, twisting my moustache as I corrupt the innocent.[/quote]
You didn't do those things? You didn't ask them if they wanted to hear about it? That's the forcing of religion I am complaining about.

If you really mean that you didn't force it on them, then why are you getting upset? If it was the case they came to you asking about religion because they heard it somewhere else, without you initiating it, I'm not really even talking about you and you are getting upset over nothing.
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:07 pm

The upset is not over nothing; it’s Poli’s way to try to reframe the narrative so that we’re not talking about the harms of cult indoctrination. Ditto the hyperbolic righteous indignation loaded with straw. S.O.P.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:14 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]I merely made the assumption[/quote]

:rolleyes:
when you call something child abuse, that you mean it should be dealt with in a fashion similar to all other kinds of child abuse.
In order to avoid addressing the actual question, which was whether or not it constitutes a form of child abuse. We know.
[straw]I don't think you've thought through the implications of calling someone a child abuser, and I stand by that judgment.[/straw]
It’s so easy to stand by your own strawman isn’t? You have fun with that.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 1939
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:35 pm

Post by Greatest I am » Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:39 pm

Christians kidnapping Jewish children from their parents was quite popular in medieval days. It was justified by Christians by their saying that without being baptised, the Jewish babies would end in hell.

That was all a part of the Inquisitors thinking.

Regards
DL
God is a cosmic consciousness .
Telepathy the key.
Our next evolution. No choice.

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:44 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]
So I can accuse you of abusing your child, and you're cool with that, since nothing will come of it?[/quote]
To continue, atheists get accused of all kinds of things, such as "having no morals", and so on. (Despite the fact that the prison population is majority religious. Our percentage there is far less than our percentage of the US population.)

If we got upset every time a biblebanger said something like that, we would be exhausted every day.

Just existing is our primary "offense", punishable by death in some places.

So I'd say being accused of abusing a child is mild compared to that. Are you likely to get the death penalty for it?
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:53 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]The upset is not over nothing; it’s Poli’s way to try to reframe the narrative so that we’re not talking about the harms of cult indoctrination. Ditto the hyperbolic righteous indignation loaded with straw. S.O.P.[/quote]

You brought it up! :bang:
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:54 pm

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]
Politesse;683133 wrote: So I can accuse you of abusing your child, and you're cool with that, since nothing will come of it?
To continue, atheists get accused of all kinds of things, such as "having no morals", and so on. (Despite the fact that the prison population is majority religious. Our percentage there is far less than our percentage of the US population.)

If we got upset every time a biblebanger said something like that, we would be exhausted every day.
[/QUOTE]Yes, you do. And that's wrong. And if you insist on doing the same to others, while complaining when they do it to you, you're a hypocrite with inconsistent moral positions.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:56 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
Politesse;683121 wrote:I merely made the assumption
:rolleyes:
when you call something child abuse, that you mean it should be dealt with in a fashion similar to all other kinds of child abuse.
In order to avoid addressing the actual question, which was whether or not it constitutes a form of child abuse. We know.
[straw]I don't think you've thought through the implications of calling someone a child abuser, and I stand by that judgment.[/straw]
It’s so easy to stand by your own strawman isn’t? You have fun with that.[/QUOTE]It's not even clear what you're trying to ask. Whether what constitutes child abuse?
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

sohy
Posts: 10981
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:32 pm
Location: Georgia, USA

Post by sohy » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:38 pm

Koy wrote: Lying to your children and making them believe that something fictional is non-fictional is the worst form of child abuse possible; the first unforgivable sin. Yes, that includes Santa as that is just the cult gateway.

And, yes, that form of child abuse is worse than incestuous rape, because destroying/manipulating a formative, vulnerable being’s ability to critically process/assess external telemetary is the basis of what in turn allows that child to become an incestuous rapist (or soldier, or cult member, or Republican, or any other form of programmable pawn) in the first place.
This is what Koy said when this argument began. Poli's posts are correct. Koy said that instructing your children, although he referred to it as lying, is the worst form of child abuse. Koy said it was worse than incestuous rape. So, what else are we supposed to think Koy meant when he made that claim? Children are removed from their homes for less than the worst form of child abuse, so we assumed that's what Koy meant.

You need to think before you post Koy. You're the one with the problem, not Poli.

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:49 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]
Jackrabbit;683156 wrote:
Politesse;683133 wrote: So I can accuse you of abusing your child, and you're cool with that, since nothing will come of it?
To continue, atheists get accused of all kinds of things, such as "having no morals", and so on. (Despite the fact that the prison population is majority religious. Our percentage there is far less than our percentage of the US population.)

If we got upset every time a biblebanger said something like that, we would be exhausted every day.
Yes, you do. And that's wrong. And if you insist on doing the same to others, while complaining when they do it to you, you're a hypocrite with inconsistent moral positions.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't actually complaining, since I completely ignore them. The point was that such accusations don't mean shit. I consider them more comical than anything, especially when those who say it display their own lack of morality in so many ways.

Interesting that you dropped the part about dying. Surely you don't think that is the same on both sides. It would be the height of insanity for an atheist to go to a muslim country. Admittedly, the religious kill each other too, but atheists are not involved in that.
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:03 am

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]I wasn't actually complaining, since I completely ignore them. The point was that such accusations don't mean shit. I consider them more comical than anything, especially when those who say it display their own lack of morality in so many ways.[/quote]

I don't find child abuse (or murder for heresy) comical.

And I don't give a flip about imaginary "sides".
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:48 am

[quote=""Politesse""]
Jackrabbit;683165 wrote:I wasn't actually complaining, since I completely ignore them. The point was that such accusations don't mean shit. I consider them more comical than anything, especially when those who say it display their own lack of morality in so many ways.
I don't find child abuse (or murder for heresy) comical.

And I don't give a flip about imaginary "sides".[/QUOTE]
By "them", I was referring to the insults against atheists, specifically the one about morals. If you actually follow the thread, insults against atheists are what you said I was complaining about, and I said I actually wasn't complaining about the insults against atheists. They are too stupid to take seriously, being based on absolutely nothing. Who gives a shit?

Seriously? You thought I was saying murder was comical? Especially since I could be a victim of it if I went to one of those countries? Dang. :eek: I promise to be more explicit with my wording if you promise to pay more attention to what is actually said. I'll try to spell it out in exhausting detail from here on out to make it easier.
Last edited by Jackrabbit on Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Fri Jan 26, 2018 2:06 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]
And I don't give a flip about imaginary "sides".[/quote]
Imaginary sides? :bang:
side -- the position, course, or part of a person or group opposing another: "I am on your side in this issue."
I'd say that if people of one group are being killed by people of the other, simply for being the "wrong" group, that qualifies as opposition.

At one time there were only atheists. Then various ancient dickheads wanting unearned power/respect/pussy claimed that a god or gods existed, that they spoke for him/them, and often that there was something wrong with those who didn't believe in him/them. Thus creating religious sides, which have been with us ever since.

TL;DR version: there are sides, but today's atheists didn't create them, just have to live with them, though staying alive might sometimes be iffy unless we stay at home or are careful about what countries we visit.
Last edited by Jackrabbit on Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:10 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]
Koyaanisqatsi;683145 wrote:The upset is not over nothing; it’s Poli’s way to try to reframe the narrative so that we’re not talking about the harms of cult indoctrination. Ditto the hyperbolic righteous indignation loaded with straw. S.O.P.
You brought it up! [/QUOTE]

I brought up the notion that cult indoctrination is a form of child abuse (yes, even asserting it to be worse than incestuous rape) and gave the reasons why I believe it constituted abuse:

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]Mystical thinking (the indoctrinated belief that magic is real, essentially) is the primary cause behind man’s inhumanity to man. Manipulating solipsism for nefarious ends—no matter how sincere or “genuine” the beliefs of those who are nevertheless manipulating may be—is the destruction of individual critical thinking.

Lying to your children and making them believe that something fictional is non-fictional is the worst form of child abuse possible; the first unforgivable sin. Yes, that includes Santa as that is just the cult gateway.

And, yes, that form of child abuse is worse than incestuous rape, because destroying/manipulating a formative, vulnerable being’s ability to critically process/assess external telemetary is the basis of what in turn allows that child to become an incestuous rapist (or soldier, or cult member, or Republican, or any other form of programmable pawn) in the first place.

It is identicalto taking a blind baby and teaching them false Braille.[/quote]

You are the one who responded with this load of straw:
I do not think that our Supreme Court would find a small minority group's interpretation of "child abuse" to be more important than a constitutional right, on balance. After all, if they started taking children away from Christians because atheists are upset with them...
Iow, that my argument was just about being “upset” with Christians ffs and that atheists being “upset” is not a basis for the Supreme Court to act upon. And then from there on in the thread you kept trying to make it about punishment and not about the harms.
Stupidity is not intellen

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:15 pm

[quote=""sohy""]You need to think before you post Koy.[/quote]

You need to see my above post to Poli and think while you read, sohy.

If you want to argue that cult indoctrination/brainwashing (as I defined it) is not the “first unforgivable sin” or not worse than incestuous rape or not identical to teaching a blind child false Braille as I asserted, by all means go right ahead. It would be an on-the-topic counter.

But don’t insult anyone’s intelligence as Poli did by stuffing straw about how I was saying that atheists are just “upset” with Christians and that being “upset” is no basis to tear children away from their homes, etc., etc., etc. and then try to reframe the topic in terms of “since it can’t be enforced, there is no justification for redefining the laws on ‘child abuse’” or the like.

Let’s make it very simple:

My assertion: Cult indoctrination is the worst form of child abuse and here are the reasons why...
Poli’s strawman: Redefining child abuse laws in order to tear children away from their parents just because you’re upset with Christians is reprehensible.


Now do you see it?
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:39 pm, edited 9 times in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:19 pm

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]
Politesse;683167 wrote: And I don't give a flip about imaginary "sides".
Imaginary sides? :bang:
side -- the position, course, or part of a person or group opposing another: "I am on your side in this issue."
I'd say that if people of one group are being killed by people of the other, simply for being the "wrong" group, that qualifies as opposition.

At one time there were only atheists. Then various ancient dickheads wanting unearned power/respect/pussy claimed that a god or gods existed, that they spoke for him/them, and often that there was something wrong with those who didn't believe in him/them. Thus creating religious sides, which have been with us ever since.

TL;DR version: there are sides, but today's atheists didn't create them, just have to live with them, though staying alive might sometimes be iffy unless we stay at home or are careful about what countries we visit.[/QUOTE]
Yes, imaginary sides. Not imaginary opposition, just imaginary sides. I am a "believer" to you in the same sense that both you and I are a "gentiles" to a Jew, "mochadi" to Romani, or "imperialists" to a communist. It is always possible to the world as "my kind versus everyone-else", but it is a purely subjective categorization that does not account for reality as it exists beyond the edge of our worldview.

Let's not even start on your mythological history, based on no archaeological evidence that I have ever seen.
Last edited by Politesse on Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

User avatar
Politesse
Posts: 19647
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:28 am
Location: Chochenyo territory

Post by Politesse » Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:29 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
sohy;683164 wrote:You need to think before you post Koy.
You need to see my above post to Poli and think while you read, sohy.

If you want to argue that cult indoctrination/brainwashing (as I defined it) is not the “first unforgivable sin” or not worse than incestuous rape or not identical to teaching a blind child false Braille as I asserted, by all means go right ahead. It would be an on-the-topic counter.

But don’t insult anyone’s intelligence as Poli did by stuffing straw about how I was saying that atheists are just “upset” with Christians and that being “upset” is no basis to tear children away from their homes, etc., etc., etc. and then try to reframe the topic in terms of “since it can’t be enforced, there is no justification for redefining the laws on ‘child abuse’” or the like.

Let’s make it very simple:

My assertion: Cult indoctrination is the worst form of child abuse and here are the reasons why...
Poli’s strawman: Redefining child abuse laws in order to tear children away from their parents just because you’re upset with Christians is reprehensible.


Now do you see it?[/QUOTE]
Your "reasons" involved your complete misunderstanding of religion, and any attempt to correct your blatant ignorance is swiftly re-interpreted as a "dodge" to distract from the reality that you alone can see and drag the conversation off-topic from what you want it to be. Which, honestly, I don't care about. Separating children from their parents on the basis of religious intolerance is the only part of this I find offensive, your conspiracy theories and pop psychology are your own business as long as you aren't advocating the suspension of civil liberties on account of them. You are, but since you won't define what actions you are advocating against whom or on what basis, I'm forced to assume that you are just blowing off steam, not making a serious argument. Which I still find reprehensible considering the language you used to do it, but we obviously won't get anywhere arguing about it.
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:12 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]Your "reasons" involved your complete misunderstanding of religion[/quote]

:rolleyes:
and any attempt to correct your blatant ignorance is swiftly re-interpreted as a "dodge"
And where exactly in the above exchange did you “attempt to correct” my “blatant ignorance” about religion?
to distract from the reality that you alone can see
And Jackrabbit and Jobar and...
and drag the conversation off-topic from what you want it to be.
:noid: Fucking hell Poli. My assertions are directly related to the topic of this thread as well as to what prompted them in the first place. YOU are the one that immediately stuffed straw and tried to derail with THIS kind of bullshit:
Which, honestly, I don't care about. Separating children from their parents on the basis of religious intolerance...
Enough. You don’t think that cult indoctrination/brainwashing children is a form of abuse. Noted. No one is arguing that we should remove children from their parents on the basis of religious intolerance.

For the last time, MY argument is: cult indoctrination is the worst form of child abuse because it destroys a child’s critical thinking abilities at the time of their formation, which in turn allows for all manner of man’s inhumanity to man later in life. It is the first unforgivable sin; like teaching a blind child false Braille.

Or put it this way, if a pediatrician were deliberately irradiating my child’s brain with my enthusiastic approval, in order to shrink my child’s amygdala so as to destroy or otherwise alter my child’s capacity for empathy, thereby turning them into a sociopath, would you consider that doctor’s actions to be criminal and my approval (and forced participation of my child in such a way) to be a form of child abuse, or would you dismiss any such attempts to so categorize all of that with an appeal to “medical intolerance” and say something asinine like, “you’re just ignorant about the benefits of sociopathy and how we believe that altering a child’s amygdala allows them to grow up to be successful and productive” and the like?

Or, worse, stuff some ridiculous strawman about how anyone objecting to what the doctor and I and my child are doing is protected by the Constitution and trying to rip my child away from me would cause more harm than allowing the doctor to irradiate my child’s brain, etc., etc., etc?

You may agree or disagree with my assertion (and provide your arguments), but you absolutely may not stuff any straw that I am arguing to take children away from their parents just because I am upset with Christians.

ETA: Let me clarify further, as there are TWO strawmen in your position, Poli. One is that anyone is arguing that children should be taken away from their parents. I am not making that argument, nor is taking children away form their parents an automatic extension of labeling something a form of child abuse as I previously pointed out. Some forms of child abuse do result in that occurring, but not all.

The other strawman is a sub-set of that one, which is that anyone is arguing to take children away from their parents just because they are upset with Christians. If (IF) I were to argue that children should be taken away from their parents, the reason to do so would not be because I am “upset.”

The justification for taking children away from their parents would be because the children are being demonstrably harmed by their parents’ actions (or inactions) in such a manner as to require such immediate and invasive force. Unfortunately, psychological/emotional abuse—which is what cult indoctrination would fall under—does not currently or typically rise to that threshhold in this country, but once again, that is a different topic. While my assertion that cult indoctrination/brainwashing is a form of child abuse worse than incestuous rape, I qualified that assertion:
And, yes, that form of child abuse is worse than incestuous rape, because destroying/manipulating a formative, vulnerable being’s ability to critically process/assess external telemetary is the basis of what in turn allows that child to become an incestuous rapist (or soldier, or cult member, or Republican, or any other form of programmable pawn) in the first place.
Iow, it is the psychological/cognitive damage that is the defining quality of this form of abuse.

Regardless, punishment is a debate about what happens after we have all agreed and established that cult indoctrination is in fact properly classified as a form of child abuse and therefore what should be done about it? As I have repeatedly stated, I don’t know exactly what should be done about it; I only know—assert—that it is a form of child abuse and should be categorized as such.

Perfectly clear now what I am/was objecting to in your response to what I asserted?

ETAETA: Not to mention the fact that parents aren’t the only perpetrators of cult abuse. So there are three sets of straw you’re trying to stuff.

So, again, it’s:

My assertion: Cult indoctrination is a form of child abuse and here are the reasons why...
Poli’s strawman: Arguing to rip children away from their parents because you’re upset at Christians is reprehensible.
Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi on Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:36 pm, edited 14 times in total.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:49 pm

[quote=""Politesse""]
Jackrabbit;683178 wrote:
Politesse;683167 wrote: And I don't give a flip about imaginary "sides".
Imaginary sides? :bang:
side -- the position, course, or part of a person or group opposing another: "I am on your side in this issue."
I'd say that if people of one group are being killed by people of the other, simply for being the "wrong" group, that qualifies as opposition.

At one time there were only atheists. Then various ancient dickheads wanting unearned power/respect/pussy claimed that a god or gods existed, that they spoke for him/them, and often that there was something wrong with those who didn't believe in him/them. Thus creating religious sides, which have been with us ever since.

TL;DR version: there are sides, but today's atheists didn't create them, just have to live with them, though staying alive might sometimes be iffy unless we stay at home or are careful about what countries we visit.
Yes, imaginary sides. Not imaginary opposition, just imaginary sides. I am a "believer" to you in the same sense that both you and I are a "gentiles" to a Jew, "mochadi" to Romani, or "imperialists" to a communist. It is always possible to the world as "my kind versus everyone-else", but it is a purely subjective categorization that does not account for reality as it exists beyond the edge of our worldview.
[/quote]
That doesn't mean that there aren't sides. You can't have opposition without them. It just means there are more than two sides and that an individual can have opposition with multiple opponents at the same time. For instance, I am opposed to christians, muslims, scientologists, and any other religion that tries to control other people or affect them in any other negative way. I don't pay attention to the others at all and don't consider them opponents.

And it's not my kind versus everyone else. There are specific targets because of specific behaviors. Those who don't have those behaviors are not included. I think anything having to do with supernatural shit is silly, but if they don't cause problems for anyone, there is no opposition and no sides. I don't have opposition with those who search for Bigfoot or believe in fairies, UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster either.

As far as reality is concerned, I don't think the Bigfoot chasers are any different from the religious. But at least they don't hurt nobody with their silliness.
Let's not even start on your mythological history, based on no archaeological evidence that I have ever seen.
Ever hear of Occam's razor? My mythological history is much simpler, and therefore more likely, than any in which gods actually exist.

Archaeological evidence may show people worshiping gods and otherwise talking about them, but there is absolutely nothing about the gods actually doing anything. Otherwise why do you need faith? Does the archaeological evidence document every single event that happened for that entire period? Maybe the moment where the guy decided to create the myth just didn't get picked up.
Last edited by Jobar on Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:04 am, edited 5 times in total.
Reason: edit requested
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

User avatar
Jackrabbit
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 9:30 am
Location: City Dump

Post by Jackrabbit » Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:42 pm

On top of that, if somebody was planning such a hoax, why in the bubonic hell would he leave physical evidence of it lying around? He would hide it from his contemporaries, which would be somewhat necessary in order to fool them, so how in the fuck could archaeologists find anything about it? The plan would exist only in his brain, which would be a little difficult to examine thousands of years later, assuming his head could be found and identified.
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>

dancer_rnb
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:38 pm

Post by dancer_rnb » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:10 am

I'll just point out taking children away from their parents because you don't like what they are being taught has always been a Xtian thing. They did it to Jews and they did it to the native Americans.
There is no such thing as "politically correct." It's code for liberalism. The whole idea of "political correctness" was a brief academic flash-in-the-pan in the early 1990's, but has been a good conservative bugaboo ever since.

User avatar
Jobar
Posts: 26251
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Georgia

Post by Jobar » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:18 am

At one time there were only atheists. Then various ancient dickheads wanting unearned power/respect/pussy claimed that a god or gods existed, that they spoke for him/them, and often that there was something wrong with those who didn't believe in him/them. Thus creating religious sides, which have been with us ever since.
IMO theistic belief, in the form of just-so stories explaining the natural world, is coeval with language. I've read arguments that magical belief may be even older than language; some of the more advanced apes exhibit behavior that looks something like religious ritual. (I know Koy recalls Biff the Unclean, who worked with Koko the gorilla. Way back in '02 he started a thread called 'Lord of the Apes' about possible religious behavior in chimps and gorillas.)

Post Reply