Wtf?

[Qfwfq]

Why did Agamemnon go burn Troy? Why was Alexander so Great? Why di Julius come, see and win? etc.....

 

Why did de Gama and Colombo set sail?

[Boerseun]

Why did Agamemnon go burn Troy?

'Cause of some hot chick. Well, she was hot in the movie, okay?

Why was Alexander so Great?

Dunno. If by 'Great' you mean anything more than nine inches, there probably was another hot chick involved.

Why di Julius come, see and win?

Veni, vidi, vici, or "I came, I saw, I conquered", includes three elements:

Coming, eyeballing, and conquest. Yep. Hot chick, again.

Why did de Gama and Colombo set sail?

De Gama set sail because of alimony payments, and Colombo's a detective in New York. Unless you meant Columbus, who set sail 'cause he convinced the Queen of Spain to bankroll a fishing expedition. Yep - chicks, again.

[Qfwfq]

Well, I can't deny, I appreciate the humour!

 

:eek:

 

;)

 

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Qfwfq]

Oh, yeah. Get a load of Colombo's hot chick...

[motherengine]

Mother Engine,

 

The Crusades stand out as a prime example of religion leading to violence.

The recent case over the weekend of the guy in Afghanistan who got sentenced to death because he converted from Islam to Christianity says the same thing. Here, it's not a case of individual violence, its a case of the imams or whoever ordering someone to go and kill someone else because of religious BS.

I agree with you - humans are violent. That being the case, we shouldn't give them extra ammo, or bring them under the illusion that there might even be a justification of sorts for their inbred aggressivenes. Religion is just strengthening their existing aggression.

 

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot,

Boerseun

 

to me the belief in a god is not inherently harmful and may actually be beneficial for many people. faith is not a scientific assertion and so cannot be held accountable to scientific reasoning. no matter how ridiculous the idea of god or a great spirit may seem there is simply no way to empirically test such things. so dismissal faith in god is opinion with a lack of evidence which in turn is prejudice, not science.

 

as far as fuel for an unstable chemistry, i understand your point, though i see radical fundamentalism as the problem, not religion in and of itself. we will probably just have to agree to disagree on this subject.

[motherengine]

I don't think a "cartoon" should be the Basis for killing people and Burning buildings!

 

So what if it was insensitive? :)

 

If they are "really" God-Loving Muslims, then they would turn a blind eye, and merely hold a grudge...

 

But like Boerseun has said from the Beginning of this thread, Many Religious people cannot think rationally apparently...

 

Because if someone proved a Scientific Theory wrong, there would not be BloodShed - but rather more inquiry, and communication...

 

I am beginning to agree...WTF???

 

When Tinkerbell Fornicates,

Racoon

 

there is no reason why anyone should not do anything. why shouldn't someone shrug off responsibility for provoking violence in less 'enlightened' people? i would love to see someone prove responsibility is anything but a concept used to manipulate people into acting accordingly to a system of social government. why shouldn't someone fly a plane into a building? people died, so what? people are always going to die, procreation itself is a death sentence if one looks at it logically. the reason i object to both behaviors is simply because i have an emotional element to my being that is called empathy. i see no difference in empathizing with 'idiots' or 'innocents'. empathy is an unbiased emotion and no amount of arrogant intellectualism is going to convince me that anyone deserves to be murdered or mocked (in this case via a belief system or a radical viewpoint).

[Queso]

bravo-

that was a brilliant paragraph.

i feel the exact same way about embarassment.

[motherengine]

call me crazy but i see technological progression as having made life easier for some and more difficult and dangerous for all. despite turf wars the 'uncivilized' native american seems to have functioned in a kind of balance with the 'evil' natural world. and, yes, they were religious. just an opinion. take it as you will.

 

to clarify:

 

some of the tribal people of north america utilized the natural world without violating or demonizing it and probably didn’t suffer from unfulfillable aspirations of a post-industrial world. being raised with the comforts provided by modern society gives me some emotional bias favoring industry but does not require me to have an intellectually favoring position.

 

people have been trained to accept the “starchild” approach to existence, which is the idea that technological advance is what we should be doing with our time on earth. we should "reach for the stars" and immortality (talk about a collective anxiety disorder concerning cessation). technology has given rise to enough comfort and confidence to allow earth dwelling animals the delusion that they 'should' progress just because commerce (and mental stimulation) provokes technology to progress, until humans will inevitably become a self manufactured commodity (or has this already happened?). nature is about change not progression. one problem for the contemporary ‘man’ is that ‘he’ can imagine a world which ‘he’ is biologically incapable of realizing.

 

I have no romantic notions of nature, it is harsh and cruel. But it is not sadistic or arrogant. these distortions or amplifications stem directly from civilization. and though civilization is an inevitable result of the natural process, this does not mean that everyone has to jump on board the "science/technology is our savior" bandwagon. lofty ambitions aside the species is just another creature wandering in an ever-changing world. we were not built to last and, faith in an afterlife aside, we won’t. easing as much suffering as possible in the meantime seems to me to be the only thing science is good for.

 

way off subject and loving it.

[Spiked Blood]

Right...

 

Cartoons depicting some hairy fella with a bomb in his turban, agitating countries and individuals to the point where we've seen casualties?

 

Countries apologizing left, right and center because they've 'allowed' their free press (let's stress the 'free' part here) to print these cartoons?

 

Who's in the right, and who's in the wrong?

 

From my perspective, the whole thing is telling of our communal, collective (yes - that includes you AND all the Muslims/Christians/Hindus/Jews/Hairybacks/Rockspiders/etc) idiocy.

 

Jesus did not walk on water. He simply was not buoyant enough.

Moses did not split the Red Sea with his Magic Wand. It's physically impossible.

Nobody can survive a trip inside a whale.

Five loaves of bread and two fishes cannot feed thousands.

Mohammed did not bring God's Will to the people, because...

 

< Drum roll...>

There is no such thing as God.

 

I know.

 

I will get burnt (possibly at the stake, if I'm lucky) for this from all possible sides.

 

But I actually don't give a rip.

 

Why should I be sensitive (i.e. not print cartoons that might offend a whole lot of people suffering from the same mass delusion)?

Shouldn't I be compassionate and inform them that there are helplines for people suffering from these kind of neurological disorders?

Why should I feel compelled to appease them (be it any of the common religions), make them feel that: 'Sure - there's this Big Guy up in the Sky lookin' after your interests - I don't believe it, but seeing as you've got the masses behind you, I must pussyfoot around your delusion'?

 

Why, being an atheist, should I feel that they've got a bigger stake in world affairs than I've got? Is Truth decided by popular vote nowadays?

 

I personally feel offended at such childish things as belief in a 'God' and offense taken at such a 'God' (or his prophet) being depicted in a badly rendered cartoon having such an influence in my world.

 

Why should I pussyfoot around a Christian or Muslim's delusion, saying "Sure, you're probably right - lemme shut the f*ck up rather" , and not be offended when the courts (in my so-called free, non-secular country) insist on me taking an oath with my hand on the Bible? WTF?!?! Should I insist on somebody testifying putting his hand on the latest 'Auto Trader'?

 

Why, exactly, should I feel even the slightest guilt about offending Mohammed? Or Jesus, or Brahma, or Barney the Dinosaur, for that matter? They are all imaginary characters, with superpowers, the likes of which Superman is the closest my kids will ever be exposed to, outside of an historical context.

 

If the majority of Earthlings should feel offended at their mass delusions being exposed for what they are - hot air - should I feel bad about it, or should I feel good for showing them the stupidity (and danger) of their ways?

 

Jesus showed us the Path of Love, right? Go an' explain that to the guys in the Mid East, who's still pissed off about the Crusades. Go and tell that to Joan of Arc. Go and tell that to... whoever.

 

So why should I give the slightest rip for cartoons, making fun of a figure who represents a mass delusion? Or why should I give a rip for the thousands of idiots who are offended by this?

 

Religion is a mass delusion, and the single most harmful thing yet invented

 

I disagree. Isn't it an ignorant view to judge all religions as harmful because of the acts that have been done by some of them?

 

I think religion often gets blamed, when in fact it's just a mask for politics.

 

I also find it quite humourous that you label it as idiotic because there are aspects of them that you can't explain and don't comprehend. Aren't scientists supposed to be open to all possibilites?

 

If people use religion to give their life meaning, then I say good for them. Don't judge the whole because of the acts of the few.

[Qfwfq]

Was it necessary to quote the whole, long thing?

 

Anyway Boeseun has realized that hot chicks are at least as harmful and dangerous as religion. I wonder if he's willing to ban them? :hihi:

[Boerseun]

I disagree. Isn't it an ignorant view to judge all religions as harmful because of the acts that have been done by some of them?

No. My gripe with religion is with religion's premise. And everything sprouting from that flawed premise makes all of them equally harmful, in my personal, honest opinion.

I think religion often gets blamed, when in fact it's just a mask for politics.

Could very well be, and I won't argue too much with that point. However, that's not my point of departure in this thread.

I also find it quite humourous that you label it as idiotic because there are aspects of them that you can't explain and don't comprehend. Aren't scientists supposed to be open to all possibilites?

Of course scientists are supposed to be open to all possibilities. But the aspects that can't be explained are inventions of religion itself. Therefore, the whole circular argument falls by the wayside. Christianity tells you that Jesus turned water into wine, right? And science has no answer for that. But keep in mind that it's *only* Christianity that tells you that an obscure unemployed Jewish carpenter had this one specific skill. So there goes objectivity out the window. We have to use the word of Christianity in order to prove Christianity. Sorry - no dice.

If people use religion to give their life meaning, then I say good for them. Don't judge the whole because of the acts of the few.

I'm starting to agree with you. I'm tired of trying to get people to see my point objectively and dispassionately. But then again, we should be consistent and argue the case for Santa Claus. Santa Claus, after all, adds a lot of meaning to the lives of five-year olds. Why should we destroy their illusions?

[Qfwfq]

Christianity tells you that Jesus turned water into wine, right? And science has no answer for that. But keep in mind that it's *only* Christianity that tells you that an obscure unemployed Jewish carpenter had this one specific skill. So there goes objectivity out the window. We have to use the word of Christianity in order to prove Christianity. Sorry - no dice.

Explaining that is totally outside the scope of science.

 

If Bob makes the fridge light go on, exactly when you open the door, God decides each and every time whether or not Bob will succeed in doing his duty. There is also such a thing as hermeneutics. Over here in this very Catholic country, nobody believes in Creationism. People here simply don't see the need to dispute science just because of certain details of the Book of Genesis.

 

Santa Claus, after all, adds a lot of meaning to the lives of five-year olds. Why should we destroy their illusions?

Absolutely no reason to do so. Why would you ever do a thing like that? There's nothing wrong with Santa Claus. Please don't try to shake my firm belief in him.

[ughaibu]

Sterilisation of water by fermentation was one of the most important discoveries of the ancient world. It was fully to be expected that achievement of this discovery was mythified and attributed to a religious hero.

It's surprising that people expect religious myths to be literal accounts of the truth, rather than symbolic representations of general ideas. The compilers of the Bible included four gospels, that's a tacit statement that one of the books most important sections is at best 25% factually reliable. If the compilers themselves aren't concerned about literal accuracy, why are the readers?

[Spiked Blood]

No. My gripe with religion is with religion's premise. And everything sprouting from that flawed premise makes all of them equally harmful, in my personal, honest opinion.

Ok. Well, could you like, explain to me where the universe is expanding into, cause, like, I don’t understand.

Of course scientists are supposed to be open to all possibilities. But the aspects that can't be explained are inventions of religion itself. Therefore, the whole circular argument falls by the wayside. Christianity tells you that Jesus turned water into wine, right? And science has no answer for that. But keep in mind that it's *only* Christianity that tells you that an obscure unemployed Jewish carpenter had this one specific skill. So there goes objectivity out the window. We have to use the word of Christianity in order to prove Christianity. Sorry - no dice.

Frankly, my good man, I am deeply offended. Why would anybody want to question the ingenuity of turning water into wine?

 

To be honest, I don’t understand your argument, though. Jesus was a superior being, he could do a hell of a lot more than just defy science. As for using Christianity to prove Christianity. Are there not different factions of Christianity? I mean, is the scientific community a collective whole that all believes the one thing? Speaking of things that don’t make sense to me, can you prove the existence of gravitons? Cause, like, if I can’t see one, how do I know it’s there?

I'm starting to agree with you. I'm tired of trying to get people to see my point objectively and dispassionately. But then again, we should be consistent and argue the case for Santa Claus. Santa Claus, after all, adds a lot of meaning to the lives of five-year olds. Why should we destroy their illusions?

 

Uhm, what? Are you suggesting that Santa Claus doesn't exist? You fool! Don't make me call up my friend, the Easter bunny, to come kick your ***!

 

It doesn’t matter if a person is right or wrong. If they’re happy being wrong, then good, just as long as they’re happy and they don’t infringe on others.

[Qfwfq]

Avoid strong language Spike Blood, even though I suppose you only mean it in a jocular manner. It doesn't set good example.

[Racoon]

#1)To be honest, I don’t understand your argument, though. Jesus was a superior being, he could do a hell of a lot more than just defy science.

 

#2)It doesn’t matter if a person is right or wrong. If they’re happy being wrong, then good, just as long as they’re happy and they don’t infringe on others.

 

This was a good post I thought by Spiked Blood, as a newbie here jumping right into the Fire and Brimstone!! :lol:

 

#1) But there isn't "proof" that Jesus was a superioir being. Thats the whole point of WTF?! No proof of Heaven,No proof of your Salvation, No proof of God...

Churches like the Vatican have been Banking Mad Cheddar$$$ due to the "writing" of this in scripture for a long, long time...How the hell do we really know what went on 2000+ years ago??

By listening to the Popes and preachers who exploit, control, and profit from peoples eagerness to believe what they are told??

 

#2) Ignorance is Bliss! :xx:

personally I'd rather be Right and a little bitter...

 

meh...

[Qfwfq]

How the hell do we really know what went on 2000+ years ago??

By listening to the Popes and preachers who exploit, control, and profit from peoples eagerness to believe what they are told??

I don't find this relevant at all. Enough historic fact exists to say that Christianity is based on a few true events, which details of the Gospels are exact isn't so fundamental. Hermeneutics are applied by religious scholars to many of the described events, rather than assumption of them being fact.

 

As for *proof* of more fundamental beliefs, religion ain't science, just as science ain't... I mean, shouldn't be, faith.