The Religion Discussion

[bluefete]

And where God came from?

Can you create yourself?

Is is so hard to conceptualize an ever existing creator?

If there is no God, the universe would not spontaneously combust because there would not be any matter/anti-matter.

Can science ever explain the first life forms without a creator?

You ever notice that scientific theories are accompanied by "possible", probably", "may", "could" and so on.

[maj. tom]

So is it so hard to conceptualize an ever existing universe?
Why did the universe have to be created? Why couldn't it have existed forever as a singularity before the direct observations we have made of the cosmic background radiation?

Do you know science is very much settled on the idea that we will never know what was there before? No life, no civilization, no entity in this entire universe for all the existing future can ever know that answer. But we should just stop looking, because God did it. And then how would you have atomic clocks to sync the internet with which to write your pinhole view of the world?

Did you know that science is very much settled on the idea that we don't know and will never know how life started? We have a good idea based on infinitesimal probabilities, but should we stop learning, exploring, discovering? According to you, yes. God did it, the end.

Can science ever explain God? Well maybe one day 6000 years from now, if such a being exists. Perhaps we just don't have the tools yet to observe God. But he sure doesn't exist based on the theories of your religious books, the absurd things that they claim, because we already have had those tools and have not observed anything yet. But again, we should just have stopped at inventing the steam engine and God did everything else. The end right?

Is it possible for you to think outside of the brainwashing you were given as a child? I posed a thought experiment about 4 pages back, but the badboy it was posed to threw a tantrum and just moved on without answering it. Can you try please?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=23100#p9910582

I would like to hear the results of this if you can. I am open to continue learning about the universe and how other people see it.

[bluefete]

I will give you a 2 fold answer. The 2nd one will address the link (thanks for it, btw).

Even if the universe was always existing (quite possible), it does not answer the question of how life started or originated. Even the 'great' Atheist Richard Dawkins, once said that life started in mud.

When I first heard that, I said that Dawkins believes in God and is fooling everyone.

Then a couple years ago, I found this:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/75 ... tion-bible

But of course, Dawkins being Dawkins failed to mention the biblical link because it would have destroyed his thesis.

Look at the language used - "might have been"; "more likely to be found" and so on.

It is ironic that you mentioned the steam engine because thousands of years ago a famous prophet stated that in the latter days 'knowledge shall be increased". Isn't that what is driving science and technology today?

In my father's lifetime, he lived through WW2, the Korean war, Vietnam, 9/11, the birth of modern computing, the dawn and growth of the space age including the moon landings, the rise of commercial air travel, the birth of the internet, magnetic trains, the Hubble telescope and many other amazing STEM discoveries. He understood what was written thousands of years ago. All these discoveries and events happened in less than 100 years.

According to Neil Armstrong (1994): "There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."


Now your question in the link about living in the future and having a different belief concept than today is quite plausible.

If you have lived your whole life without being exposed to God, that would not necessarily make you lost. The time when most people "discover" God is when they get sick. I mean really sick. Some curse away their sickness. Other start to understand their mortality and that science cannot do anything to stop death.

All the great scientific discoveries and inventions now and 5,000 years from now will not help us understand death any better. Cryogenics is the hope of resurrecting by freezing your live body before you die or your dead body after you die. Makes no sense to me. But it is one way science tries to counter death.

Interesting article: https://www.newsweek.com/cryonics-freez ... any-709999

[Slartibartfast]

Just re-quoting cuz I feel like this got buried in the recent activity. I'm still interested in hearing what you have to say though.

Hey i aint forget to reply. Jus been real busy

Cool. If you ever feel interested to really go down the rabbit hole check out the Vancouver debate between Jordan Peterson (clinical psycologist/ believer) and Sam Harris (neuroscientist/ atheist) on youtube. They both make excellent points for and against religion that I never even considered. They go far more in depth than any argument you will come across in this thread and both have a way or articulating ideas that you knew you had but couldn't truly find the words for. I'm sure you would like Jordan Peterson stuff.

Differentiating between my belief and another wont convince anyone of my belief still. One could argue well thats ur interpretation. The key question is how do i know that i am right. Faith is the EVIDENCE of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If the God i believe in expresses himself through the written word and all he says about himself is true, then it is quite clear that the other religions are not. Many would take offense but thats it. I don’t need to read a hindu, islam, or any other book to know.
But not to stray from the real question, faith IS the evidence. It is the PROOF. Faith that leads to salvation is as easy making up ur mind, a change of heart, a thought. Something so simple and many people miss that point. You can do that in quiet moment alone. It’s not about goin in a church, or some pastor layin hands on you, or pushing ur head down in water, or a setta shouting and dancin, communion, speakin in tongues..... none of that nonsense or whatever u see with benny hinn and companies. Ur faith results in a personal relationship with God. I hope that answered ur question.
Anyways, i gonna watch the video u recommended and give my views

Faith is belief without evidence and by definition cannot be considered evidence by and of itself. That's a circular reasoning fallacy. But anyway, lets agree to disagree on this one. I'm not as interested in disproving religion as I used to be.

I'm more interested in the effects of religion and atheism because at the end of the day thats what really matters. That debate covers the negatives of both (dogmatic nature of religion and nihilistic/moral relative nature of atheism) as well as potential ways of thinking to overcome them.

The only thing I'll note from your reply is the fact that your belief is internal and you derivision of morality will most likely be as well even though it is inspired by the bible. This is an important distinction and a lot more favourable than religious fundamentalism IMO because you still have the power to battle against religious dogmatism.

Bare with me for a moment eh. You say faith is not the evidence but i am telling you it is. 1.Do you understand how that faith is exercised?
2.Do you know how long it will take you to get that evidence once you exercise that faith?
3.In your opinion, what do you think will happen if you exercise that faith?

Awaiting ur response.

No problem man.

1. So my understanding of faith is that it is a belief that is not based on evidence. "Blessed is he who has not seen and yet believes" sums it up nicely I think. To exercise the faith means that you don't just believe in the teachings of the text but allow it to influence you actions and decisions.

2. I'm guessing that once you have faith (if you are using faith as your evidence) then by having faith you instantaneously gain the proof for it.

3. The effects of exercising the faith can be either good or bad depending on how you let it influence you. Performing charitable work in the name of God is good, keeping yazidi girls as sex slaves is bad. The problem arises when your holy book justifies atrocities and you commit them in good faith.

Now I say using faith as your proof is circular reasoning because you use your conclusion as your premise in the following manner
Premise
I believe that God exists and his teachings are true --> If I believe something then it must be true --> therefore God and his teachings are true because I believe in them --> I believe God exists and his teachings are true

Let me know if I misrepresented your argument or point of view anywhere.

1. Consider a person on their death bed and i told them to believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved. A person in such a scenario wouldn’t even know about teachings from the text and as such cannot act upon that due to their current situation. If he just believes alone is the point i trying to make. You dont have to do anything prior. Just believe.


2. If point 1 is the action, and i said after believing u would have proof. What hinders a person from taking a moment if the result is instant?

I wont comment on what was said after. I am trying to get the foundation clear as day.

I tried explaining the concept of trust to someone else last week and it is hard for the unbeliever to grasp, i mean i was once there. But as i think of it more i am realising that trust may not be the actually issue, but the desire to know the truth has to be real. God will only reveal himself to you if you have that desire.

That sam harris/ jordan peterson debate was interesting. Alot of words i had to google. Lol. But those guys put alot of time and effort into their research. Not everyone can afford to to that, certainly not me. I have had only one source material and yet i could have related to many things he said if you look past the eloquent vocabulary.

Yeah don't feel bad. I had google assistant on speed dial for that debate. Regardless of your stance though, you are sure to learn something. But back to what you are saying.

If faith is all that is required and actions don't matter then the God you worship is clearly a very vain God. And brings me back to the Marcus Aurelius quote from earlier.

Now you talk about faith being all that I need. The problem with that is that I wasn't born an atheist. My parents were very strict catholics (in a good way, they practiced what they preached). I became very involved in the Church after graduating because I honestly wanted my knowledge of the faith to be on par with my knowledge of science as I believed that necessary to be a well rounded worshipper of God. I even toyed with the idea of going into the priesthood a couple times. My faith was unwaivering even though something felt wrong to me since I was a child. I thought this doubt was due to my ignorance and tried to purge it with more and more knowledge of the faith but the better my understanding became the stronger my doubt grew.

It all reached a tipping point one evening in while I was attending an all night mass and prayer vigil hostes by the pope with 2,000,000 other people from around the world. I had been taking part in world youth day for the two weeks prior.

Mid-hymn I looked around to take in the sureal scene of being in the midst of 2,000,000 people being "moved" by the spirit and swaying in time with eachother and the pleasant tune. The twinkle of a million candle lights in the cool night breeze was a sight to behold. The Irish girl I had been chatting to for the past couple hours still stood next to me. It was at that moment I heard my voice die and felt my faith die with it.

I'll be honest. I felt instantly sick. Like I needed to emotionally throw up, if that makes sense. You see, I had honestly given my faith my best shot. I tried my best to give myself to God and the church. I was "blessed with opportunities to speak with bishops and arch bishops from Spain, England and Rome. I did everything that I was told and obeyed God's laws to the letter and at what should have been the epitome of my spiritual experience I felt nothing.

Then I felt lied to. I felt betrayed. But, the worst part is, with no faith left I realised that tuere was no God to be the culprit. I betrayed and lied to myself. Since I could remember being concious I always knew that something felt off. I could still remember sitting at the end of the pew just in front of the side entrance to St. Mary's church (before they redid the cieling in 1998) when I first felt that uneasy feeling that something didn't make sense. I was 5 years old at the time and I was 21 years old now. It hurt to admit to myself that I had been ignoring my rationality for the past 16 years. At that moment I made a vow to never lie to myself again.

So you see, my lack of faith is not from lack of trying. Faith is defined as belief without proof and cannot be considered proof. How can something be considered as the same, as that thing that it is defined as the absence of? I guess by suspending logic and lying to yourself about your deductive reasoning. Similar to how atheism is considered a type of religious belief.

Anyway. Hope you enjoy reading that as much as I enjoyed writing. I'm trying to practice my prose. Lol. Gonna get to the rest of replies tmorrow. Game of thrones start so I'm out for tonight.

[eitech]

Hey i aint forget to reply. Jus been real busy

Cool. If you ever feel interested to really go down the rabbit hole check out the Vancouver debate between Jordan Peterson (clinical psycologist/ believer) and Sam Harris (neuroscientist/ atheist) on youtube. They both make excellent points for and against religion that I never even considered. They go far more in depth than any argument you will come across in this thread and both have a way or articulating ideas that you knew you had but couldn't truly find the words for. I'm sure you would like Jordan Peterson stuff.

Differentiating between my belief and another wont convince anyone of my belief still. One could argue well thats ur interpretation. The key question is how do i know that i am right. Faith is the EVIDENCE of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If the God i believe in expresses himself through the written word and all he says about himself is true, then it is quite clear that the other religions are not. Many would take offense but thats it. I don’t need to read a hindu, islam, or any other book to know.
But not to stray from the real question, faith IS the evidence. It is the PROOF. Faith that leads to salvation is as easy making up ur mind, a change of heart, a thought. Something so simple and many people miss that point. You can do that in quiet moment alone. It’s not about goin in a church, or some pastor layin hands on you, or pushing ur head down in water, or a setta shouting and dancin, communion, speakin in tongues..... none of that nonsense or whatever u see with benny hinn and companies. Ur faith results in a personal relationship with God. I hope that answered ur question.
Anyways, i gonna watch the video u recommended and give my views

Faith is belief without evidence and by definition cannot be considered evidence by and of itself. That's a circular reasoning fallacy. But anyway, lets agree to disagree on this one. I'm not as interested in disproving religion as I used to be.

I'm more interested in the effects of religion and atheism because at the end of the day thats what really matters. That debate covers the negatives of both (dogmatic nature of religion and nihilistic/moral relative nature of atheism) as well as potential ways of thinking to overcome them.

The only thing I'll note from your reply is the fact that your belief is internal and you derivision of morality will most likely be as well even though it is inspired by the bible. This is an important distinction and a lot more favourable than religious fundamentalism IMO because you still have the power to battle against religious dogmatism.

Bare with me for a moment eh. You say faith is not the evidence but i am telling you it is. 1.Do you understand how that faith is exercised?
2.Do you know how long it will take you to get that evidence once you exercise that faith?
3.In your opinion, what do you think will happen if you exercise that faith?

Awaiting ur response.

No problem man.

1. So my understanding of faith is that it is a belief that is not based on evidence. "Blessed is he who has not seen and yet believes" sums it up nicely I think. To exercise the faith means that you don't just believe in the teachings of the text but allow it to influence you actions and decisions.

2. I'm guessing that once you have faith (if you are using faith as your evidence) then by having faith you instantaneously gain the proof for it.

3. The effects of exercising the faith can be either good or bad depending on how you let it influence you. Performing charitable work in the name of God is good, keeping yazidi girls as sex slaves is bad. The problem arises when your holy book justifies atrocities and you commit them in good faith.

Now I say using faith as your proof is circular reasoning because you use your conclusion as your premise in the following manner
Premise
I believe that God exists and his teachings are true --> If I believe something then it must be true --> therefore God and his teachings are true because I believe in them --> I believe God exists and his teachings are true

Let me know if I misrepresented your argument or point of view anywhere.

1. Consider a person on their death bed and i told them to believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved. A person in such a scenario wouldn’t even know about teachings from the text and as such cannot act upon that due to their current situation. If he just believes alone is the point i trying to make. You dont have to do anything prior. Just believe.


2. If point 1 is the action, and i said after believing u would have proof. What hinders a person from taking a moment if the result is instant?

I wont comment on what was said after. I am trying to get the foundation clear as day.

I tried explaining the concept of trust to someone else last week and it is hard for the unbeliever to grasp, i mean i was once there. But as i think of it more i am realising that trust may not be the actually issue, but the desire to know the truth has to be real. God will only reveal himself to you if you have that desire.

That sam harris/ jordan peterson debate was interesting. Alot of words i had to google. Lol. But those guys put alot of time and effort into their research. Not everyone can afford to to that, certainly not me. I have had only one source material and yet i could have related to many things he said if you look past the eloquent vocabulary.

Yeah don't feel bad. I had google assistant on speed dial for that debate. Regardless of your stance though, you are sure to learn something. But back to what you are saying.

If faith is all that is required and actions don't matter then the God you worship is clearly a very vain God. And brings me back to the Marcus Aurelius quote from earlier.

Now you talk about faith being all that I need. The problem with that is that I wasn't born an atheist. My parents were very strict catholics (in a good way, they practiced what they preached). I became very involved in the Church after graduating because I honestly wanted my knowledge of the faith to be on par with my knowledge of science as I believed that necessary to be a well rounded worshipper of God. I even toyed with the idea of going into the priesthood a couple times. My faith was unwaivering even though something felt wrong to me since I was a child. I thought this doubt was due to my ignorance and tried to purge it with more and more knowledge of the faith but the better my understanding became the stronger my doubt grew.

It all reached a tipping point one evening in while I was attending an all night mass and prayer vigil hostes by the pope with 2,000,000 other people from around the world. I had been taking part in world youth day for the two weeks prior.

Mid-hymn I looked around to take in the sureal scene of being in the midst of 2,000,000 people being "moved" by the spirit and swaying in time with eachother and the pleasant tune. The twinkle of a million candle lights in the cool night breeze was a sight to behold. The Irish girl I had been chatting to for the past couple hours still stood next to me. It was at that moment I heard my voice die and felt my faith die with it.

I'll be honest. I felt instantly sick. Like I needed to emotionally throw up, if that makes sense. You see, I had honestly given my faith my best shot. I tried my best to give myself to God and the church. I was "blessed with opportunities to speak with bishops and arch bishops from Spain, England and Rome. I did everything that I was told and obeyed God's laws to the letter and at what should have been the epitome of my spiritual experience I felt nothing.

Then I felt lied to. I felt betrayed. But, the worst part is, with no faith left I realised that tuere was no God to be the culprit. I betrayed and lied to myself. Since I could remember being concious I always knew that something felt off. I could still remember sitting at the end of the pew just in front of the side entrance to St. Mary's church (before they redid the cieling in 1998) when I first felt that uneasy feeling that something didn't make sense. I was 5 years old at the time and I was 21 years old now. It hurt to admit to myself that I had been ignoring my rationality for the past 16 years. At that moment I made a vow to never lie to myself again.

So you see, my lack of faith is not from lack of trying. Faith is defined as belief without proof and cannot be considered proof. How can something be considered as the same, as that thing that it is defined as the absence of? I guess by suspending logic and lying to yourself about your deductive reasoning. Similar to how atheism is considered a type of religious belief.

Anyway. Hope you enjoy reading that as much as I enjoyed writing. I'm trying to practice my prose. Lol. Gonna get to the rest of replies tmorrow. Game of thrones start so I'm out for tonight.

Just to clear the air on your first statement, faith is just the initial stepping stone or foundation. After that works come into play. Jus to quote:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The works or teachings come after of course.

I can really empathize with your story. I was actually watching a video hosted by Justin Peters today and he said somethin that i now see. He said bad doctrine can have a catastrophic effect on a person’s life, meaning it can really mess up your view of God with incorrect information. But look at it this way the constant is that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. In all this I have tried to give you a different perspective on what it really is. Jus food for thought.

Waiting to download my copy of GOT too

[bluefete]

I wasn't born an atheist. I became very involved in the Church after graduating because I honestly wanted my knowledge of the faith to be on par with my knowledge of science as I believed that necessary to be a well rounded worshipper of God. I even toyed with the idea of going into the priesthood a couple times. My faith was unwavering even though something felt wrong to me since I was a child. (You were indoctrinated and that became part of your problem. When you started to question, you did not get the right answers. Church doctrine and what God wants us to understand are 2 very different thing.)

It all reached a tipping point one evening in while I was attending an all night mass and prayer vigil hosted by the pope (There you go! More indoctrination and propaganda)with 2,000,000 other people from around the world. I had been taking part in world youth day for the two weeks prior.

Mid-hymn I looked around to take in the sureal scene of being in the midst of 2,000,000 people being "moved" by the spirit and swaying in time with eachother and the pleasant tune. The twinkle of a million candle lights in the cool night breeze was a sight to behold. The Irish girl I had been chatting to for the past couple hours still stood next to me. It was at that moment I heard my voice die and felt my faith die with it.

I'll be honest. I felt instantly sick. Like I needed to emotionally throw up, if that makes sense. You see, I had honestly given my faith my best shot. I tried my best to give myself to God and the church. I was "blessed with opportunities to speak with bishops and arch bishops from Spain, England and Rome. I did everything that I was told and obeyed God's laws to the letter(That was the Church's law NOT God's law) and at what should have been the epitome of my spiritual experience I felt nothing.

Then I felt lied to. I felt betrayed. But, the worst part is, with no faith left I realised that there was no God to be the culprit. I betrayed and lied to myself. Since I could remember being concious I always knew that something felt off. I could still remember sitting at the end of the pew just in front of the side entrance to St. Mary's church (before they redid the cieling in 1998) when I first felt that uneasy feeling that something didn't make sense. I was 5 years old at the time and I was 21 years old now. It hurt to admit to myself that I had been ignoring my rationality for the past 16 years. At that moment I made a vow to never lie to myself again.

Faith is defined as belief without proof and cannot be considered proof. How can something be considered as the same, as that thing that it is defined as the absence of? I guess by suspending logic and lying to yourself about your deductive reasoning. Similar to how atheism is considered a type of religious belief.

Anyway. Hope you enjoy reading that as much as I enjoyed writing. I'm trying to practice my prose. Lol. Gonna get to the rest of replies tmorrow. Game of thrones start so I'm out for tonight.

This was a nice read. So, just like me, you started to question and God helped you to understand that what you were worshipping and believing was not really about him. You were propagandized into a doctrine that was far removed from what God wanted. That is religion generally. It is not until you read the scriptures for yourself (Bible, Koran, Gita etc) that you start to get an understanding of God's nature and existence.

In your case, you went the way of non-belief. Deep in your heart you know. But, you are waiting for proof. One day, it will come in a way you do not expect.

[Slartibartfast]

This is why I ask you guys to outline exactly what you believe that you think makes your arguments so convincing and your reasoning so sure. I have yet to find an argument that does not defy logic. Saying that I left the faith due to bad doctrine is a cheap cop out without know how I was indoctrinated. At least provide me with the "good doctrine" that everyone speaks of. I have yet to hear arguments that come close to what I was taught years ago. I known priests get a bad rep for the pedophelia and backwards thinking sometimes but there are priests out there that are highly qualified and skilled philosophers. In fact, it was a priest that lectured me in philosophy. The priests I have met have dedicated their life to studying the bible and philosophy. Why do you think that they would not be qualified to form an opinion on belief independent of the Church.

I am saying that despite the best arguments I've heard to date, I still see no more reason to believe in God than unicorns. I'm saying that seep in my heart I always knew that there was no reason for me to believe.

Also, I'm not saying I have to reason to believe in Jesus or the Christian God. I'm saying that I see no reason to believe in any God. I'm open to hearing about all religions and personal faith systems.

The best arguments I've heard for religion to date are those of Jordan Peterson and he changed my mind to think that the "baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater" so to speak. So what interests me the most right now is sorting the baby from the bathwater when it comes to religions. I mean, after studying this for decades, it will always fascinate and interest me. That's why I always get sucked back into this thread.

[eitech]

This is why I ask you guys to outline exactly what you believe that you think makes your arguments so convincing and your reasoning so sure. I have yet to find an argument that does not defy logic. Saying that I left the faith due to bad doctrine is a cheap cop out without know how I was indoctrinated. At least provide me with the "good doctrine" that everyone speaks of. I have yet to hear arguments that come close to what I was taught years ago. I known priests get a bad rep for the pedophelia and backwards thinking sometimes but there are priests out there that are highly qualified and skilled philosophers. In fact, it was a priest that lectured me in philosophy. The priests I have met have dedicated their life to studying the bible and philosophy. Why do you think that they would not be qualified to form an opinion on belief independent of the Church.

I am saying that despite the best arguments I've heard to date, I still see no more reason to believe in God than unicorns. I'm saying that seep in my heart I always knew that there was no reason for me to believe.

Also, I'm not saying I have to reason to believe in Jesus or the Christian God. I'm saying that I see no reason to believe in any God. I'm open to hearing about all religions and personal faith systems.

The best arguments I've heard for religion to date are those of Jordan Peterson and he changed my mind to think that the "baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater" so to speak. So what interests me the most right now is sorting the baby from the bathwater when it comes to religions. I mean, after studying this for decades, it will always fascinate and interest me. That's why I always get sucked back into this thread.

Why do you think so many ppl get indoctrinated? Tell them something they want to hear from a person in authority. Look at how many ppl have been deceived. False doctrine is real. You cannot use ur logic to decipher good doctrine.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.

But above all, if you hold on to your reasoning of faith you would never get it. That’s the point you need to see for yourself to understand

[Slartibartfast]

But above all, if you hold on to your reasoning of faith you would never get it. That’s the point you need to see for yourself to understand

Of course not. Reasoning is how we make sense of the world. Is your argument basically telling me that it won't make sense if I think about it so what I need to do is not think about it and just accept that it makes sense (but not think about it making sense because it doesn't make sense if i think about it?

[eitech]

But above all, if you hold on to your reasoning of faith you would never get it. That’s the point you need to see for yourself to understand

Of course not. Reasoning is how we make sense of the world. Is your argument basically telling me that it won't make sense if I think about it so what I need to do is not think about it and just accept that it makes sense (but not think about it making sense because it doesn't make sense if i think about it?

Ur right. Reasoning is how we make sense of the world. What i am speakin of is something not of this world. Remember, the evidence of things not seen. By way of natural reasoning it will never make sense.

[Kasey]

Everyone has to believe that whatever they grew up knowing as their primary religion should be the true gateway to afterlife. Its just up to people to respect everyones individual upbringings and beliefs.

I have a serious problem with this. Why are we required / expected to respect other ppl religious beliefs? I have a deep love and passion for my old car....probably more than some have for jesus / allah / bramha....does that mean out of respect for my deep rooted belief and lifestyle that nobody should poke fun at me and my car? Of course not, that would be crazy
Yet, Bob believes in a man in the sky and it's cool to walk around a chunk of meteorite embedded in an old building, and it's criminal to point and laugh? Jane believes in a ghost who died but really didn't because he was immortal anyway, thereby absolving himself of any true sacrifice, and I can't kyak kyak when her procession ledd by a dude toting a heavy plank is walking up Sando hill?????
One of the most gross crimes against humanity is this thing about respecting religious beliefs....heck the same ones who demand it are the same ones who send out missionaries to convert those who believe in other stuff....

Everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want, but NOBODY should be denied the right to point and laugh at the beliefs of others

Most sense I have read since last year

[Slartibartfast]

But above all, if you hold on to your reasoning of faith you would never get it. That’s the point you need to see for yourself to understand

Of course not. Reasoning is how we make sense of the world. Is your argument basically telling me that it won't make sense if I think about it so what I need to do is not think about it and just accept that it makes sense (but not think about it making sense because it doesn't make sense if i think about it?

Ur right. Reasoning is how we make sense of the world. What i am speakin of is something not of this world. Remember, the evidence of things not seen. By way of natural reasoning it will never make sense.

By way of any reasoning at all it does not make sense.

Evidence for things not seen means still assumes some form of tangible evidence. Black holes weren't seen until earlier this year, yet we've had mountains of measurable andd tangible proof for them with theories dating back decades. What you speak of cannot be considered as evidence by any meaning of the word.

All you have to do is replace "God" in every instance of your argument with "unicorns" to see how ridiculous it sounds.

Unicorns are not of this world so you therefore cannot understand them. Have faith in their existence and they will exist. Faith is all the proof that you need that unicorns exist. Your faith is your evidence for unicorns unseen.

This ridiculous line of reasoning purported in religious arguments is what never sat right with me and is what ultimately drive me out of the faith. The "indoctrination" that everyone seems to bash is actually what made the most sense to me and kept me in the faith for so long. There is a lot of good philosophy in the bible, though it is not exclusive to the bible. I have yet to find an argument that convinces me that I made the wrong decision.

Jordan Peterson at least put forth a strong argument to not rid the world of religion. I try to show that to religious people that are interested because I think his ideas offer a way to actually reconcile religion with atheism.

I will say this, if all the world lost all religion and religious reference overnight it would be extremely bad. Conversely if everyone woke up tomorrow as a devout worshipper (regardless of religion) it would also be. This suggests that rather than working towards either extreme, there appears to be an ideal middle ground that everyone seems to be ignoring.

I'm no longer interested in disproving religion, I'm interested in proving that worshipers and atheists can support and empower eachother in a way that is good.

[MG Man]

I'm no longer interested in disproving religion, I'm interested in proving that worshipers and atheists can support and empower eachother in a way that is good.

you letting that design award for Norway go to your head
What we need is a world driven by humanism: yes you can be an aishole because there is no afterlife consequence, but we'd really rather you didn't because it's not cool, and here's some laws we can throw at your delinquent aiss if you insist on being a tool about it

[Kasey]

I feel like either bouncing his vehicle or setting of the alarm constantly to irritate him.

WWJD?

[Zetski]

I can end this entire religious discussion in one line.... watch me

DNA disproves the evolution theory.. DNA doesn’t code new information.. only from existing.

[zoom rader]

I can end this entire religious discussion in one line.... watch me

DNA disproves the evolution theory.. DNA doesn’t code new information.. only from existing.

DNA testing works,

Had one done it shows all your health issues and helps you in treating and preventing them from becoming a major issue.

Plus it shows your genetic ethic make up

[maj. tom]

Really now Zetski? I see you don't know anything about DNA or reproduction.
So how mutations that randomly arise are passed onto the next generation?

I suggest that you do some more reading. I found one of the simplest websites that could explain this, with diagrams for you: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... tations_04

[Zetski]

Really now Zetski? I see you don't know anything about DNA or reproduction.
So how mutations that randomly arise are passed onto the next generation?

I suggest that you do some more reading. I found one of the simplest websites that could explain this, with diagrams for you: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... tations_04

I have the perfect counter for your argument.

RNA

[maj. tom]

you saying RNA is a counter?! To what? RNA translates DNA into proteins by using a 3-nucleotide to 1 amino acid codon. You really don't know do you...
I won't embarrass you. But do some more reading ok?

[Kasey]

^^He wont be able to, Someone is advising his retorts......poorly.......prolly his pastor.

[bluefete]

Guess who are the evolutionists?

[hydroep]

[Rovin]

not making offense about anybody religion eh but ...

https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... Dre5a6e4rc

Car stolen while priest blesses house

Roman Catholic Priest, Father Urban Hudlin’s car was stolen last Saturday while he was visiting a home in Diego Martin.

Hudlin, who is stationed at the Holy Cross Priory in Arima, was reportedly at the home to bless it.

While praying, his vehicle was stolen.

He is said to be traumatised by the experience.

Father Hudlin’s possessions, including an iPad and other important documents were still inside the vehicle.

The car is a blue Wingroad license plate PCL 4508.


Family members say that the vehicle was recovered with the license plate already swapped.

It is uncertain if Hudlin’s possessions were also recovered.

[eitech]

not making offense about anybody religion eh but ...

https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... Dre5a6e4rc

Car stolen while priest blesses house

Roman Catholic Priest, Father Urban Hudlin’s car was stolen last Saturday while he was visiting a home in Diego Martin.

Hudlin, who is stationed at the Holy Cross Priory in Arima, was reportedly at the home to bless it.

While praying, his vehicle was stolen.

He is said to be traumatised by the experience.

Father Hudlin’s possessions, including an iPad and other important documents were still inside the vehicle.

The car is a blue Wingroad license plate PCL 4508.


Family members say that the vehicle was recovered with the license plate already swapped.

It is uncertain if Hudlin’s possessions were also recovered.

There is nothin to be offended about here. Some like to preach no weapon formed against them will prosper....believers get sick, robbed, die, all the same...

A couple years ago a RC priest was interviewed for xmas and he said he stopped blessing toys cuz its not scriptural but if others want to do it he has no problem. That shows you the level of ignorance. And they continue to bless inanimate objects and ppl who don’t know better will feel good. No value whatsoever.

[bluefete]

I remember when I was a child the priest said "all who did not come to mass on Christmas day, sit down. No blessing for your toy." Or some such.

And they want to know why I am against Religious Doctrine today.

not making offense about anybody religion eh but ...

https://trinidadexpress.com/news/local/ ... Dre5a6e4rc

Car stolen while priest blesses house

Roman Catholic Priest, Father Urban Hudlin’s car was stolen last Saturday while he was visiting a home in Diego Martin.

Hudlin, who is stationed at the Holy Cross Priory in Arima, was reportedly at the home to bless it.

While praying, his vehicle was stolen.

He is said to be traumatised by the experience.

Father Hudlin’s possessions, including an iPad and other important documents were still inside the vehicle.

The car is a blue Wingroad license plate PCL 4508.


Family members say that the vehicle was recovered with the license plate already swapped.

It is uncertain if Hudlin’s possessions were also recovered.

There is nothin to be offended about here. Some like to preach no weapon formed against them will prosper....believers get sick, robbed, die, all the same...

A couple years ago a RC priest was interviewed for xmas and he said he stopped blessing toys cuz its not scriptural but if others want to do it he has no problem. That shows you the level of ignorance. And they continue to bless inanimate objects and ppl who don’t know better will feel good. No value whatsoever.

[sMASH]

me eh unnahstanz why he traumatized...

[ScHoolboySoloQ]

when i was a little boy i was poor and my mother did not have money to send me to school that day. she prayed to God to help then a few moments later she found 200 dollars in the grass on the side of the road. that is how i know God does exist. also there was a time i was being choked at night and i said jesus jesus jesus. it stopped afterwards.

[bluefete]

Great article. Very well researched. Excellent read. Not for the faint-hearted.

https://wired868.com/2020/06/15/claudes ... sed-jesus/

Claude’s comments: The origins of white supremacy and role of Columbus, Victoria and an ‘Italianised’ Jesus

Claudius Fergus Monday 15 June 2020 Guest Columns, View Point 2 Comments

“Racism has been Europe’s greatest gift to the world.”

So said Dr Eric Williams, the first Prime Minister of T&T (Selwyn Cudjoe, Eric Williams Speaks). Of course, Williams was being sarcastic. If racism was a gift to the world, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the greatest gift to Japan.

Racism is not a gift. It is a disease of the mind that has impacted every facet of West-European civilisation.


Photo: Crowds enjoy a KKK lynching in the United States during the 1930s.

Many ancient literary cultures of the eastern hemisphere (the ‘Old World’) have racial, skin-colour and class prejudices embedded in their worldview, which is often discerned in their sacred scriptures. Although the Bible condoned physical slavery many times over, it does not speak directly to white supremacy or Western European-American-styled racism.

The current anti-racism global protests is unprecedented, but we should not deceive ourselves that a few capitulations—however significant, by some custodians of white supremacy—would lead to the complete eradication of the disease.

In order to exterminate a disease, pathologists must understand its origin, form and structure, because it is the nature of pathogens to morph into new and more deadly forms. So it is with supremacism.

In this article, I look at the origin of white supremacy. Some conclusions may be unsettling.

In saying so, I am reminded of the 1992 film, ‘A Few Good Men’. In a dramatic court scene, US Navy lawyer Lt Kaffee (Tom Cruise) seeks to extract admission of a war crime from Col Jessup (Jack Nicholson).

Kaffee screams: “I want the truth!” Jessup shouts back contemptuously: “You can’t handle the truth!”


Photo: Colonel Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson, delivers his memorable tirade during classic movie, A Few Good Men.

White supremacy is the presumption that the white nations of Western Europe and their Diasporas have a special, even divine right, to rule the world and control the world’s resources. The ideology of global white supremacy was constructed on three fundamentals: (a) the primacy and control of property (b) the European version of Christianity (c) ubiquitous symbols of white power.

Property in today’s context includes real estate, industrial and precious minerals, banks, insurance companies, stocks, bonds, trust funds, cartels and other assets.

According to Aristotle (384-322 BCE), one of Greece’s best known ancient philosophers, some men are born to rule; others are born to be ruled. In this equation, rulers were landlords; ruled were landless and unfree.

After Rome adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Empire in the fourth century, landlords eagerly embraced the new religion as a tool of class domination. Not surprisingly, Christianity provided owners of property with the first intellectual justification for European racism. We will return to this point.

To English philosopher, John Locke (1690), property is the means by which humans relate to God and to each other. In Article 2 of the French ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man’ (1789), liberty and property are the first and second ‘natural and imprescriptible rights of man’. These two rights are intimately connected in West-European law, religion and philosophy.


Photo: The encomienda system in the Caribbean.

American educationist, Oliver DeMille, puts it this way: “Take away property and you take away freedom.”

White imperialists’ presumption of a divine right to rule translates into the right to dominate property globally. It explains their first criminal experiment: the seizing of the Caribbean and enslavement of the natives under encomienda.

It explains the absurdity of the Native Lands Act (1913) in South Africa under which white settlers appropriated 93% of the country’s land in which they were a tiny, alien minority. In Australia and New Zealand, they took every inch of the land; and in the USA, they squeezed the surviving natives onto a few reservations.

Similar grand larceny of land occurred in Canada, Latin America, the Caribbean and several colonies in Africa, including Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Namibia and Kenya.

The Papacy (the office of Pope) is the original institution of West European-American racism. Every Christian Church organisation founded by whites in Europe and the Americas inherited this legacy.

The Papacy sanctioned the European slave trade and enslavement of Africans within the first decade of their commencement. The year 1441 is acknowledged as the official launch of the European Atlantic slave trade in African bodies.


Photo: Ghanaian captives set to be sold as slaves.

Popes keenly followed this development. In 1455 Pope Nicholas V issued ‘Romanum Pontiflex’, a Bull (Decree) condemning the peoples of West Africa as ‘Children of Satan’, to be reduced to perpetual slavery and their lands taken away from them. This Bull was a Roman Catholic remake of the Jewish ‘Curse of Ham’.

The myth of the Curse of Ham was invented by Jews in their ‘Commentaries on The Torah’ (Old Testament), called The Babylonian Talmud, compiled between the third and sixth centuries AD. The original curse in Genesis fell on the Canaanites (Palestinians); the curse in Talmud fell on black Africans.

The Talmud demonised every physical trait of the African to justify their enslavement. Nicholas’ Bull was more pernicious than the Talmudic curse, replacing Ham with Satan. Artists of the Renaissance would translate this curse into images of Satan as a black man.

The return of Columbus from his first transatlantic voyage ushered in the first phase global white supremacy. Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) stamped his authority on this new era by immediately issuing the Bull, Inter caetera.

Inter caetera contemptuously divided the non-white world between the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies. Four months later, Alexander followed up with another Bull, Dudum siquiem, spelling out with greater clarity the European enterprise to dominate ‘all islands and main-lands whatsoever, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered’, south and west of Europe and the Far East.


Photo: Pope Alexander VI was credited with justifying the transatlantic slave trade.

White imperialist nations are still holding to this mandate of world domination, enforcing it with sanctions and formidable military weaponry.

Not satisfied with their share of the loot, the Portuguese bilaterally renegotiated a political settlement with Spain, known as the Treaty of Tordesillas, in September 1494. In order to reassert the Churches’ authority over the new imperialism, Alexander’s successor, Pope Julius ll, sanctioned the Treaty of Tordesillas with a new Bull, Ea quod, issued in 1506.

In 1495, two years after Columbus’s first return, Pope Alexander commissioned Leonardo da Vinci to paint ‘The Last Supper’ for the Church of Santa Maria (Holy Mary) in Milan, owned by the Dominican Order. Dominican monks pioneered the spiritual conquests of America.

They assisted Columbus in preparing for his first transatlantic voyage. Their churches were the most important buildings within Caribbean encomiendas.

We should note that Columbus named his first flagship the ‘Santa Maria’ (Holy Mary); another of his three ships he named the Niña (Holy Child/Jesus—Spanish ships bore only female names). Together, they were the Madonna and Child of the first voyage.

Bartolome de Las Casas wrote that Columbus was sent to the Caribbean by God; but Columbus dedicated the conquests and genocide that followed the first voyage to Mary.


Photo: Christopher Columbus sails to the Caribbean.

Columbus’ body was interred in the Church of Santa Maria (Holy Mary) in the Dominican Republic. In Trinidad, his statue was erected on the windward side of the Cathedral Church of the Immaculate Conception (of the Virgin Mary).

The Spanish conquest of America was a Marian enterprise, a westward extension of the Crusades.

Pope Julius ll (1503-1513) was even more important to the construction of white supremacy. Named after Julius Caesar, he would oversee some of the most pernicious decrees coming out of the imperial church. By the time he was elected, the gold of the Caribbean and the tea and spices of the East were swelling the coffers of Spain, Portugal and France (via its sea pirates).

For Julius ll, it was not sufficient to conquer by the sword but, more so, by the spirit. Accordingly, in 1506 he commissioned master Renaissance artist Michelangelo to decorate the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with white-supremacist images of The Creation, The Fall of Man, The Great Flood and other imagined epics of the Old Testament. The Sistine Church is to Western Christianity what the Kaaba is to Islam.

Michelangelo was not doing interior decoration! He was creating a new cosmogony and cosmology for Roman Catholicism, central to which was the Italianisation of the Holy Trinity: thus, a white Italianised Jehovah, a white Italianised Jesus, and a white Holy Spirit (white dove); complemented by a white Italianised Mary, a white Italianised Joseph, a white Italianised Adam and Eve and Noah and other great Prophets of the Old Testament. White supremacy cannot exist independent of these alpha-male white images.


Image: ‘The Last Judgment’ by Michelango.

In Simon Bening’s ‘The Temptation of Christ’, painted in the late 1520s, Satan is a distinctly African human-like figure, with the feet of a chicken, visible from just above the claws.

In Michelangelo’s ‘The Last Judgement’, also in the Sistine Chapel, but painted in the 1530s (after Julius’ tenure), Jesus, Mary and all the angels are white; most of the demons in hell waiting to torment fallen white sinners are distinctly Africanised.

During the early fourteenth century, Duccio painted the latest official Madonna and Child (Mary with baby Jesus). In this painting, Jesus still had distinct ‘nappy’ hair; Mary’s hair was completely covered by her veil.

In 1512, Julius commissioned another great Renaissance artist, Raphael, to paint a new Madonna and Child. Taking his cue from Michelangelo, the new image of Jesus was that of a distinctly Italian child with straight golden hair, in the arms of an Italian mother with straight auburn hair partly exposed.

Many times more potent than words, images shape reality. European colonisers around the world deployed these images as their primary weapons of cultural and psychological warfare.

Although they were created by Rome, all Protestant colonisers shared these foundational images of white supremacy, complemented by the demonisation of the black man.


Photo: The painting ‘Christ Before Caiaphas’ was done by Italian painter Duccio di Buoninsegna before Michelango’s ‘Italianised’ version of Jesus.

It is these ‘realities’ that morally justified the gut-wrenching horrors inflicted on enslaved Africans by ‘God-faring’ white Christians; informed the negative stereotyping of Africans by Scientific Racism; reduced black men’s value to three-fifths of a white man under the American Constitution; and makes it routine police procedure to snuff out a black man’s life as public spectacle—in the white man’s eye, Africans have long been the children of a lesser God, the children of Satan.

The second wave of supremacist symbolisms was a product of the age of scientific racism. Not surprisingly, secular heroes replaced religious icons.

The quintessential hero-figure in the USA was Christopher Columbus. Two Roman Catholic Diasporas were largely responsible for his resurrection, the Italian and the Irish.

In 1786, Italians in New York founded the Columbian Order to promote an alpha-male hero befitting European American individualism and adventurism. A century later, Irish Americans founded the Knights of Columbus to promote ‘the ideal of Christopher Columbus’.

The ideal Columbus was a mythical hero, unburdened by the atrocities he had committed and commissioned.

Queen Elizabeth l had launched Britain into the imperial age; Queen Victoria completed it. During the late nineteenth century Britain launched its quintessential icon of white supremacy to complement its status as the Empire where the sun never sets.


Photo: A statue of Queen Victoria.

Images of Queen Victoria became as numerous as those of Columbus; Victoria-named landscapes also rivalled the ubiquity of Columbus’—especially after her death in 1901. Over 50 statues were shipped to India and scores were mounted in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

In every colony, institutions and places were named or renamed after her: Victoria Institute, Victoria Museum, Queen’s Park, Queen Street, Victoria Square, Victoria Park, Victoria Lines (Great Wall of Malta); also, unique geographical features, such as Lake Victoria, Victoria Bay, and Victoria State and Queensland (Australia).

As Head of the Anglican Church, Victoria became England’s alter ego of Mary the Virgin Queen of Catholicism. ‘Victorian morality’ cemented this claim.

One giant marble statue of her in India was treated as a murti, garlanded, with flowers at the feet, and shampooed.

White supremacy cannot be defeated unless white idolatry is eradicated.

[bluefete]

Then came this:

https://scotloyd.blog/2020/06/11/a-lett ... hzA_mDo3Lk

A letter to Roy. He’s the black guy in my pictures.

scotloyd Uncategorized June 11, 2020 3 Minutes

Dear Roy,

You were the friend of my youth. You are black and I am white. When we became adults, we drifted apart. You served in the military. I served in the ministry. You died too soon for me to tell you this in person, so I’ll tell you now. You endured more than you should have, suffered more than you deserved, and were held to the unreasonable expectations of white culture, yet still you were my friend.

You came to my white church. You stayed in my white home. You ate at my white table. Yet I never stayed at yours. An occasional visit to your world was all my whiteness could warrant, yet you were expected to live in mine.


Roy at my birthday party.

I was in your presence when the n-word was used, on multiple occasions. I said nothing. You ignored it, while others laughed at your expense. You were teased by folks in the church, mocking your blackness, pretending to be welcoming. We wore our whiteness that arrogantly paraded unceasingly before you. We expected you to conform to our culture because we thought it superior. We saw ourselves as the savior your community needed, that you needed.

We deceived you with pictures of a white Jesus, and never told you the truth that he was black. Jesus was more like you than he was like us. Yet we pretended otherwise. Because to do differently would have elevated you above us. And we couldn’t have that.

People shook my hand and patted me on the back. “How good of you to befriend this black boy!” they said, without even acknowledging you standing there. My white world treated you as anomaly, a novelty, tolerated only as long as you were obedient, subservient, and didn’t try to date any of the white girls in the youth group.


Roy and me at the Pentecostal Youth Camp in 1986

In retrospect, I now know that my white world abused you, stifled you, truncated your growth and experience. Long before Eric Garner or George Floyd cried “I can’t breathe” all us white folks were stealing your oxygen. You sung our songs, read our bible, believed our gospel, all of which were stolen 100 years earlier from another black man at Azusa Street. We never told you his story, only ours.

Perhaps it was a saving grace that you were spared the turmoil in our world today? Had you been given time to reflect on the harm brought to you by my culture, you may have justifiably lost your mind, leading to a compounding of your suffering. You would have been justified in your anger at how you were treated, marginalized, ignored. You were present in my world, but remained largely invisible. Only seen on the occasions we wanted to justify our sins by pointing to your body as a token of our righteousness. We were hypocrites and fools. You were patient and endured our taunts longer than you should have.


Roy getting ready to ride with us. Raising money for missionaries.

Ironically, many white folks reading this that shared our history, will remember all of this differently. They will recall how kind we were to you. How we payed your way to youth camps, bought you meals, had you in our home, and were gracious enough to include you in all our activities. “We treated you like family” they will protest. Refusing to reflect on the motivations of why we chose to do so. Refusing to confront the arrogance of assuming that you should come to us to learn, because we know better than you.

Roy, I’m sorry man. I’m sorry that I didn’t know better. That I didn’t do better. I’m sorry that I’m just now saying this, years after your death. I’m listening now. I’m learning now. I’m speaking up now.

I hope you can hear me.

I love you.

Scot


Critique of his letter:

https://scotloyd.blog/2020/06/15/a-fair ... er-to-roy/

[matr1x]

But when afros making negative statements about Hinduism it shows they are no.better than white supremacists