Do you agree with Voltaire that “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”?

First topic message reminder :

Most people who follow a particular religion do so because of geography. If you’re born in Iran or Indonesia, the odds are that you’ll be a Muslim. If you’re born in Spain or Italy, you’ll as likely as not be a Catholic. In Germany, you'll probably be a Catholic if you grow up in Cologne, Mainz or Bavaria, but a Protestant if you are raised in another part of the country. I suppose many of us aren’t able to detach ourselves from the conditioning we’ve received when young, but I still find it hard to accept that otherwise rational people will believe things that there is no logical reason to believe.

Virgin birth? Can you really believe that? How about resurrection, a fantasy that the early Christian Paul wrote about? Is it any coincidence that in his native Tarsus there were inscriptions calling Herakles, who died and descended into Hades, a divine saviour? The legend has it that Herakles came back to life in due course; does that sound familiar? And then there’s an angel called Gabriel popping in for a chat with Muhammad in his cave, while another angel, this time called Moroni, told Joseph Smith where to find some gold plates. A lot of people really believe all this nonsense.

The three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all teach that unquestioned faith is a virtue. Many protagonists assert that every word in the Bible or the Qur’an must be believed as the literal truth. The danger then is that some followers of those faiths read the more violent parts of the Old Testament, or the verses of the Qur’an which date from after Muhammad’s flight to Medina, and then interpret the requirements of their religion accordingly.

I wouldn’t dream of claiming that atheists don’t commit atrocities, for nationalism or some other political ideology, or just because they’re insane (although the latter often suffer from religious mania). But isn’t the idea of encouraging people to believe absurdities the first step on the road to committing atrocities such as 9/11, 7/7 and the Charlie Hebdo massacre?

polyglide, it was entertaining to discuss with you. Some of my closest friends are firm believers and I respect them for that; my sainted mother-in-law goes every week to church and obviously gets something from the experience. If I take her I feel out in the cold, unable to warm to the words of the Lord's assignee.

I will let you and Dr. Sheldon continue your unsolvable dispute. Apologies for the little interruption - I perhaps stayed rather longer than I intended. I liked this little religious oasis of relative calm here.
Have a good Christmas and remember marco when you get round to the Bleak Midwinter carol.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:How can you keep making the same asinine claim that everyone has failed to understand you, just because they point out how ludicrous, and poorly thought your arguments are......

I've enjoyed meeting you here and of course we seem to think in pretty much the same terms. You are very fortunate to have the licence to throw such insults - but there's a lot more to theism than we covered. It would have been interesting to hear your views on the supernatural - but tempus, as Virgil might have observed, effugit.
Lots of good wishes to you in all your enterprises.

marcolucco,
Not long enough in my opinion marcolucco, when I discuss a subject I like to do so with people who appreciate the feelings of others even if they totally disagree with them, however, when I first replied to this subject I was met with objectional replies and wrongly did the same whic helps no one.

I enjoyed your replies but not a lot
Because there are many things you forgot
We live in the here and now
No one knows why and how
Theories they do abound
But no real answers can be found
Science has done good and bad
But the state of the world is very sad
Marcolucco you have all my best wishes
And trust my efforts have left you in stiches ( of laughter)

God bless.

marcolucco wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:How can you keep making the same asinine claim that everyone has failed to understand you, just because they point out how ludicrous, and poorly thought your arguments are......

I've enjoyed meeting you here and of course we seem to think in pretty much the same terms. You are very fortunate to have the licence to throw such insults - but there's a lot more to theism than we covered. It would have been interesting to hear your views on the supernatural - but tempus, as Virgil might have observed, effugit.
Lots of good wishes to you in all your enterprises.

Thanks marco, hope you'll pop in again sometime, erudition and intelligence are always welcome. We have lost a few good posters from here, Shirina, Tosh, and Snowyflake amongst others are all missed.

marcolucco,
I am realy sorry you are not going to continue on the site.

I would have liked to discuss the possibility that the creator has in fact used the earth for several attempts to untilise it for the benifit of the things he had created and destroyed them when the evil amongst his realm contaminated everything, very similar to the earth today and the state of both the humans and the earth in general.

I could not do so with the present posters as all they appear to do is abuse the clear definitions of words and abuse by horrendous accusations of homophobia and lying etc;

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,
               I am realy sorry you are not going to continue on the site.

               I would have liked to discuss the possibility that the creator has in fact used the earth for several attempts to untilise it for the benifit of the things he had created and destroyed them when the evil amongst his realm contaminated everything, very similar to the earth today and the state of both the humans and the earth in general.

Why did he create evil at all? Remember you have claimed many times on here that everything that exists must have been created. I also asked you what created your deity when you claimed this, but you never answered, forgot most probably in all the excitement, perhaps you can furnish us with an answer now?

Polyglide wrote:I could not do so with the present posters as all they appear to do is abuse the clear definitions of words and abuse by horrendous accusations of homophobia and lying etc;

You post a brazen lie like that and then turn crybaby when it's pointed out. Well since you've lied again, and raised the topic again I'll expose your lie again.

Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia
Post by polyglide on Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:54 pm
Are you saying homosexuality is not a perversion? the dictionary says it is.
LINK TO PAGE

One more time...
Oxford English dictionary
Homosexuality
adjective
Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
LINK TO OED ONLINE

The only one lying here is you, and this rather childish display is clearly for my benefit as I'm now the only one idiotic enough to have anything to do with your nasty homophobic and ad hominem abuse. Everyone else including marcolucco has run away from your BS, as fast those two gay men you're pretending to be friends with would, if they ever found out what an obnoxious bigoted homophobe you are behind their backs.

             

             

The Independent Spoiler alert



http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/the-big-bang-theorys-amy-farrah-fowler-and-sheldon-cooper-finally-had-sex-a6780331.html

The spoiler alert is a little superfluous given you've posted a photo. 

oftenwrong,
You are not wrong this time.

The recent atrocities in Paris seem to make Voltaire's words as relevant now as in the latter part of the 18th century when he first wrote them. While it can be tempting to despair at finding any solution I think Voltaire's words broadly offer one in the idea we need to stop religions teaching absurdities to children.  When we raise future generations indoctrinated with absurd and divisive beliefs the outcome surely is inevitable. 

It's time now, in the 21st century to reject the belief that we owe more allegiance to bronze age superstitions than to each other.

Dr, Sheldon,
Thoughts for Cristmas holidays.

I have considered the facts that to give a definition by the dictionary definitions relative to a matter is normal and natural.

I then considered a suggestion regarding anyone who is obsessed and in denial of same.

The result being that one who does so is either covering up a phobia against that in question or realy wants to indulge but is afraid of admit it.

I thought it most interesting.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Thoughts for Cristmas holidays.  I have considered the facts that to give a definition by the dictionary definitions relative to a matter is normal and natural.  I then considered a suggestion regarding anyone who is  obsessed and in denial of same.  The result being that one who does so is either covering up a phobia against that in question or realy wants to indulge but is afraid of admit it.  I thought it most interesting.

Thanks for the lecture on dictionary use, however Christmas has a h in it, and really has two l's, and the comedy gold of those commas in the first sentence, coupled with the capital t used after the second comma seems to be wasted on you, again. Just what that indecipherable, semi-literate gibberish has to do with the topic, or my post is lost on everyone but you it seems. So I'll re-post it, since you've ignored it completely.

The recent atrocities in Paris seem to make Voltaire's words as relevant now as in the latter part of the 18th century when he first wrote them. While it can be tempting to despair at finding any solution I think Voltaire's words broadly offer one in the idea we need to stop religions teaching absurdities to children. When we raise future generations indoctrinated with absurd and divisive beliefs the outcome surely is inevitable.

It's time now, in the 21st century to reject the belief that we owe more allegiance to bronze age superstitions than to each other.

Were you looking at the wrong post or something?

Dr, Sheldon,
I was really pointing out the obvious.

The atrocities in Paris were carried out by lunatics with no regard for any religion or anything else other than doing what their paymasters asked.

The whole matter has nothing to do with religion but money and oil reserves etc;

What we should do is have a world wide agreement that humans will behave in a reasonable manner which is not happening in our country at the present time.

MPs and others from all walks of life indulging in the most henious of crimes and becoming more and more tollerant of the undesireable which have nothing to do with anything other than self gratification etc;

If religion was to be abolished, as the Bible predicts, countries will turn against religion etc; then who do you think will improve matters and devise a means of government that has eluded mankind from the beggining that stops mankind from evil?.

My spelling mistakes take into account your inability to understand what is written.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 I was really pointing out the obvious.  The atrocities in Paris were carried out by lunatics with no regard for any religion

Meanwhile back on planet earth....

Polyglide wrote:The whole matter has nothing to do with religion but money and oil reserves etc;

You're off your tits, I try hard not to say it each time you post, but enough is enough, not much Oil in Paris matey, Jesus wept.

Polyglide wrote: What we should do is have a world wide agreement that humans will behave in a reasonable manner which is not happening in our country at the present time.

 
Piece of piss then, odd we've not sorted it before, have you considered the diplomatic core, or politics? Though it's a little ironic coming from someone who thinks human rights should be based on sexual orientation. Oh the irony.....               

Errant nonsense removed as it has no relevance whatsoever

   If religion was to be abolished,  

   
No one suggested religion be abolished, this would go a little more smoothly if you read my post before responding.             

My spelling mistakes take into account your inability to understand what is written.

Your spelling mistakes were indicated because you insist on laughably telling others they lack comprehension, so it's fair to point out that your execrable grammar and spelling are indicative of your woeful grasp of English, and that includes your inability to grasp even the simplest of concepts, arguments, and correlations.

Anyone who can claim publicly that religious terrorists committing acts of terrorism in the name of a religion and religious state or caliphate "has nothing to do with religion" really should not comment on the ability of others to comprehend arguments and debates, as they clearly live in a fantasy world.

Dr, Shedlon,
I wish you would make a New Year resolution to read what is written and not what you THINK is written.

Paris has nothing to do with Oil?.

I think you will find every nation is involved in oil and the availability in the future.

The fanatics are using the proceeds from oil to finance their atrocities and are USING religion as an excuse, if you keep up to date you will see that many of those involved have never attended their place of religion and are no ore religious than you are in fact they are heathens.

Many are not even Muslims but are their for the money and drugs etc;

You must be more stupid than you appear if you think any Western country is behaving in anything like a reasonable manner.

In England we have thousands of people starving many of them children needing food banks etc; to survive and we are supposed to be an example to the world ???????.

Just read the papers and see the news to see the state the world is in and all because of diplomats etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon, I wish you would make a New Year resolution to read what is written and not what you THINK is written. Paris has nothing to do with Oil?. I think you will find every nation is involved in  oil and the availability in the future. 

I wish you'd get your godamn elbow off that return key and stop using double fking line breaks all the time, but hey ho. We were talking about the religious terrorist attacks in Paris, and you claimed they had nothing to do with religion but were about oil, this is absurd nonsense. I'd ask if you ever considered whether every single posters inability to respond to what you think you've written might be your fault, but what would be the point. I've told you innumerable times that you lecturing others about their grasp of English is a very silly route for you to take. It would greatly help your cause if you could grasp how badly written your posts are, how almost incomprehensible they are, and then you might be able to start improving your grasp of English, spelling and grammar.

Polyglide wrote:The fanatics are using the proceeds from oil to finance their atrocities and are USING religion as an excuse, if you keep up to date you will see that many of those involved have never attended their place of religion and are no ore religious than you are in fact they are heathens.

So ISIS, a religious theocracy, fighting and committing atrocities to install an Islamic caliphate, has nothing to do with religion. That's absurdly idiotic, it's too dumb to even require any comment.

Polyglide wrote:  Many are not even Muslims but are their for the money and drugs etc;

I see, you won't mind if I go ahead and laugh, loudly, at another ridiculously idiotic piece of hyperbole laden rhetoric, and the comedy gold of that semi colon is matched only by your use of their instead of there. Jesus wept.

Polyglide wrote:You must be more stupid than you appear if you think any Western country is behaving in anything like a reasonable manner.

Ouch, I'll get my burns checked out later, in the mean time I'll just point out that I made no mention of the behaviour of western countries. So well done champ your blazing a trail of stupidity here that is quite breathtakingly idiotic, and calling someone stupid when you dolt know that their and there are two different words is yet more comedy gold.

Polyglide wrote:In England we have thousands of people starving many of them children needing food banks etc; to survive and we are supposed to be an example to the world ???????.

What the fk are you talking about? Considering you started your disjointed rant with "I wish you would make a New Year resolution to read what is written" it's pretty hilarious for you to post these utterly irrelevant straw men arguments. I made no mention Of England, or it being an example of anything, you're off your tits. I'm not English, and I don't even live in England champ.

Polyglide wrote: Just read the papers and see the news to see the state the world is in and all because of diplomats etc;  

Aw ffs, this is a wind-up, fair play you've done me properly, I genuinely thought you were being serious. Diplomats, aha, yes those diplomats, damn them, they're to blame for everything.



               

     

Dr, Sheldon,
I use the type of English I feel applicable to the situation and the person concerned.

Now I am aware that you are not in England I can understand your lack of understanding and feel using Pigeon English would be preferable.

I try to annoy and raise ones temper at times in an endeavour to find the real person and I am still in a mist regarding you.

I think you must be a little lost boy at heart whose mother mollycoddled to the extent of ruining any sense or reason that you could possible have had and are lost in a mist of scientific fiction.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I use the type of English I feel applicable to the situation and the person concerned. Now I am aware that you are not in England I can understand your lack of understanding and feel using Pigeon English would be preferable.

You're illiterate, it's as simple as that, and the fact you don't know how embarrassing that sentence is, is pure comedy gold, but you'll never know why it seems. Doubly tragic really, as you seem to think you're point scoring somehow.

Polygide wrote:I try to annoy and raise ones temper at times in an endeavour to find the real person and I am still in a mist regarding you.

The most annoying thing next to your inability to stop hitting the return key twice after every sentence is that can't find the comma key at all, and when you do you use a capital letter after it, but fortunately it's more hilarious than it is annoying.

Polyglide wrote: I think you must be a little lost boy at heart whose mother mollycoddled to the extent of ruining any sense or reason that you could possible have had and are lost in a mist of scientific fiction.  

I'm crushed. I think if you are genuinely in your eighties then I don't have the heart to respond in kind as this long ago started to feel like I was kicking a stupid puppy. Still I suppose you had to somehow run away from a statement as imbecilic as claiming ISIS terrorist are nothing to do with religion. Sadly this may not be the most idiotic claim you've made.

Any thoughts on Voltaire's premise, or my last post? Or is your temper tantrum now straddling the only remaining three threads, to be the fitting epitaph to your graceless bigoted homophobic rants, peppered with the most clichéd superstitious bilge I've had the misfortune to read?

Dr, Sheldon,
I have written numerous and published articles relative to my sports and all in long hand and my inability to use the computer for punctuation etc; is because I have never used the computer for doing so.

I have pointed out that you do not know that a capital letter follows a full stop and the evidence is there in one of your latest posts, so I do not need any advice from you, you have no excuse after setting yourself up as an expert.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 I have written numerous and published articles relative to my sports and all in long hand and my inability to use the computer for punctuation etc; is because I have never used the computer for doing so.

                 I have pointed out that you do not know that a capital letter follows a full stop and the evidence is there in one of your latest posts, so I do not need any advice from you, you have no excuse after setting yourself up as an expert.  

I'm not interested, I explained long ago that if you persisted in making asinine and insulting remarks denigrating my ability to understand English that your execrable spelling and grammar would be pointed out. I've lost count of how many times you were warned, but every time someone offers a response that doesn't mesh with your beliefs you resort to the same petty accusations about them not being able to understand what's been said. I'll let your execrable spelling and grammar alone if you desist from this silly lie, like endlessly claiming I don't understand what omnipotent means in post after post when I was offering the Oxford English dictionary definition in the precise context the dictionary applies it to a deity. Or where you relentlessly and endlessly refused to accept the Oxford English dictionary didn't support your false claim that "all dictionaries define homosexuality as a perversion" and failed to produce a single dictionary to support your false claim, dishonestly claiming it was others who ignored the dictionary definition, despite being unable to produce a single dictionary yourself that supported your claim. Instead endlessly and dishonestly trying to cite a thesaurus and link the word perversion to the word homosexuality, which is quite clearly not what you claimed. Then bizarrely, despite me quoting your claim, with a link each time and proper definition you lost your temper repeatedly and resorted to petty insults, and lies that it was others who ignored dictionary definitions. If you want people to discuss things with you then learn to treat people with respect regardless of whether they share your beliefs, it will also help if you learn the fundamental difference between attacking an idea, belief, premise or claim, and pure ad hominem where you attack a person, which you have done repeatedly to several posters, and long before I arrived on here.

Dr, Sheldon,
If you look back to the original posts you will find that it was not I that started the personal attacks, I just responded in a like manner.

You say I ignore dictionary definitions, I do not, I accept them all and I have pointed out several that say exactly what I claim

Because some do not include what others do does not change matters, I have given you both the title and relative pages of same that confirm all that I have said and it cannot be denied because it is verifiable if you took the time to check.

You cannot pick and choose definitions.

 by polyglide on Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:19 am

Dr. Sheldon,
Just because you are unable to understand something does not invalidate it, it just proves your ignorance

 This was the first use of pure ad hominem, and you used it.

Polyglide wrote:You say I ignore dictionary definitions, I do not, I accept them all and I have pointed out several that say exactly what I claim

Nonsense. You claimed "all dictionaries defined homosexuality as a perversion" . Not only can you not support this with a single dictionary,  but I and several others have quoted and linked the OED definition which utterly refutes your claim . It's a lie to say otherwise, as this has been shown repeatedly.  

Polyglide wrote: I have given you both the title and relative pages of same that confirm all that I have said 

Nonsense. You have offered a reference to a Thesaurus about the word perversion. It's irrelevant semantics as you claimed "all dictionaries" and your claim was about the definition of Homosexuality not the word perversion. 


It's simple enough,  do you accept the OED definition or not? If you do then obviously it utterly destroys your claim as it does not define homosexuality as a perversion and doesn't even mention perversion. If you don't accept the OED then quite obviously you're lying now? 


Which is it,  was your claim that all dictionaries defined homosexuality as a perversion a lie, or is your claim to always use dictionary definitions a lie?

Polyglide wrote:
You say I ignore dictionary definitions, I do not, I accept them all and I have pointed out several that say exactly what I claim

Liar....

Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia
Post by polyglide on Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:09 pm
According to every dictionary I know, homosexuality is a perversion,

Oxford English dictionary definition of Homosexuality
adjective
Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
LINK

You're a bare faced liar Polyglide, pure and simple, how can you not be embarrassed to lie so obviously again and again?

Dr, Sheldon,
As someone who says he understands the English definitions you should be aware that when a word such as homosexuality is stated as, Sexualy attracted to the same sex, you then have to look at where that fits in with perversion and abnormal and in both cases the dictionary confirms that it fits both.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                As someone who says he understands the English definitions you should be aware that when a word such as homosexuality is stated as, Sexualy attracted to the same sex, you then have to look at where that fits in with perversion and abnormal and in both cases the dictionary confirms that it fits both.  

Rubbish, and that's not what you claimed, you're just showing with every single post that you are not just homophobic but utterly devoid of any integrity on the subject. You claimed:

Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia
Post by polyglide on Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:09 pm
According to every dictionary I know, homosexuality is a perversion,

Not only can't you show a single dictionary that does this, you are showing astonishing dishonesty by ignoring the Oxford English dictionary, Merriam Websters, and Collins, the three biggest dictionaries in the English speaking world, all of which utterly disprove your bigoted and erroneous claim. For God's sake man try and show a shred of integrity and admit you were wrong.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained elsewhere the definitions relative to homosexuality in the Collins dictionary and they confirm everything I have said.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I have explained elsewhere the definitions relative to homosexuality in the Collins dictionary and they confirm everything I have said.

Liar,

Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia
Post by polyglide on Wed Feb 11, 2015 2:09 pm
According to every dictionary I know, homosexuality is a perversion,

homosexual
noun
a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex
LINK TO COLLINS DICTIONARY

Give it up man, you're embarrassing yourself, how can you bear to portray yourself as such a blatant liar? The homophobia is bad enough.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have given you the references in the Collins dictionary including the pages which irrefutably states that homosesuality is a perversion and those indulging are perverts.

Of corse the dictionaries have watered down the references to homosexuality as previously shown, however, if you look at crime in the dictionary it does not say what is and what is not a crime because crimes are numerous.

So get it into your thick head all dictionaries when you consider just what sexual relations between the same sex is you find that all say that it is a perversion and those involved perverts.

I'm out. As I said in the other thread,  conversing further with such an intransigent, unpleasant illiterate ignorant bigot is pointless. Anyone stupid enough to be unable to read a single line definition in a dictionary isn't going to learn. Anyone that is such a stupid bare faced liar that they'll repeatedly add a word to a dictionary definition that isnt there, just to support their own bigoted homophobic prejudice, when the dictionaty is repeatedly posted in front of them, is as devoid of intelligence as they are of integrity. 

Finally anyone nasty and bigoted enough to relentlessly insult others as you do can rant to an empty forum, and wallow in their own lies, bigotry and hipocrisy. Again I feel genuinely sorry for the gay people you are pretending to be friends with but who you clearly despise and insult behind their backs. 

I'm out, knock yourself out champ.....pour your bigotry and bitterness out as your moronic superstition slowly is rejected in educated societies like the UK.

Dr, Sheldon,
As I have said and proven everything I have stated is true and verifiable.

The head of the African Christian Church has just stated exactly what I have pointed out previously.

He said that homosexuals flaunting their homosexuality and proclaiming it to be a a cause for celebration when they are well aware that nearly all the religions say it is wrong and wanting to use the facilities of those churches etc; do their cause not good.

Exactly what I have said previously.

Who has ever claimed that religions are not the primary source of homophobic bigotry and prejudice? I certainly haven't, so I am not sure what you think quoting religious homophobia achieves.

Gay people are getting the same rights as heterosexual people, and it's long over due, and the fact some people are blinkered by archaic religious prejudices is sad, but that's their choice. If they use those beliefs to try and justify actively discriminating against gay people however then in most civilised countries they will have to accept being censured by anti discrimination laws. Sadly many countries throughout the world don't have laws to protect human rights, it's very edifying though to see religions champion the evil and immoral actions of such people in other countries though.