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

by **Ivan** Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:06 pm

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?

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:02 pm

oftenwrong,
If you read a load of rubbish it will eventually tell and it does.

Please have a more selective reading habit.

Try the best book in the world, the Bible, act accordingly and even if you do not believe you will not be so ill advised.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:39 pm

polyglide wrote:oftenwrong,
If you read a load of rubbish it will eventually tell and it does.

Please have a more selective reading habit.

Try the best book in the world, the Bible, act accordingly and even if you do not believe you will not be so ill advised.

You love your grandiloquent claims almost as much as your constant use of ad hominem. The bible is a collection of superstitions and myths. Some loosely based on events perhaps, but most are not. It's very far from being the best book ever written by some margin and on a number of criteria. Perhaps if you took the time to read more widely you might be capable of some objectivity at least.

It's ironic that you don't see how your blinkered and slavish devotion to one single tome validates Ivan's point about Voltaire'so claim.

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:51 pm

DR. Sheldon,
My remarks were aimed at oftwrong, however, if you think they apply to you, be my guest.

My reading has gone beyong the Dandy and Beano, but it appears you still indulge.

The Bible has more substantiated content than any scientific paper regarding evolution.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:38 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
My remarks were aimed at oftwrong, however, if you think they apply to you, be my guest.

My reading has gone beyong the Dandy and Beano, but it appears you still indulge.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Unfortunately your understanding has not.

The Bible has more substantiated content than any scientific paper regarding evolution.
Dr Shelldon Cooper wrote:Nonsense, it's mumbo jumbo hokum and superstition, but I suspect you're just trolling now, at least i hope you are as if you're not then this claim is so very sad.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:24 am

polyglide wrote: The Bible has more substantiated content than any scientific paper regarding evolution.

Well that kind of delusional faith in palpable absurdities certainly satisfies the first part of Voltaire'a premise. Now given we've seen your own posts reveal the true level of bigotry and prejudice your beliefs have engendered in you, I'm inclined to think Voltaire's entire premise is true. At least where the more suggestable and unintelligent or feeble minded are concerned anyway, but then I suppose that demographic are easier to convince into believing absurdities in the first place. As your posts have so amply demonstrated to all.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:52 pm

DR. Sheldon,
Self delusion manifests intself in many ways but you appear to have crossed the boundaries of credence.

You can quote as many scientists as you like who think their theory is relevant and I can quote you an equal number who will refute their findings on as sound a ground.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:04 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
Self delusion manifests intself in many ways but you appear to have crossed the boundaries of credence.

You can quote as many scientists as you like who think their theory is relevant and I can quote you an equal number who will refute their findings on as sound a ground.

Science and the scientific process validate evidence, you are citing opinion, I am merely accepting that the same process that validates gravity, relativity, the chemical composition of water etc, and has cured countless diseases is also correct on the tiny number of scientific theories that happen to refute your chosen version of your chosen superstition. So go ahead and bluster about 'scientists' who share your love of superstition, until they get anything validated that proves their beliefs it'll remain hokum superstition.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:06 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
Self delusion manifests intself in many ways but you appear to have crossed the boundaries of credence.

You can quote as many scientists as you like who think their theory is relevant and I can quote you an equal number who will refute their findings on as sound a ground.

Do have any thoughts on the thread OP?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:11 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon, You can quote as many scientists as you like who think their theory is relevant and I can quote you an equal number who will refute their findings on as sound a ground.

Yet you have ignored every request of mine to show even one piece of evidence that any scientists has managed to get peer reviewed and published that validates creationism. So your claim is a blatant and demonstrable lie isn't it.

by polyglide Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:10 am

Dr. Sheldon,
I have asked you previously to give me stage by stage the developement of the butterfly, one legged, one winged, one eyed, then subsequent evolvement etc;

There is not one item of inbetweenies, when if evolution was correct, then there would be countless ones without even looking.

When a chromosome is affected by DNA and results in a mutation, that mutation in most cases never reaches maturity and if it does, it never breeds its like to the extent that it creates another species.

If you encounter, say a bus, you would not believe it came about by chance, you would know that intelligence and knowledge was involved.

Yet you obviously believe that life came about chance.

Srange.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:11 pm

Polyglide I have repeatedly pointed out that science has validated masses of evidence for evolution. Your ignorance of this no more invalidates it than your ignorance of the theory of relativity invalidates that. Can you present verbatim the entire theory of relativity and all the evidence in one post on here?

You are simply ignoring my repeated requests for you to show one single piece of evidence for creationism that satisfies the same strict scientific process including peer review that the masses of evidence for evolution has.

This smoke screen about butterflies isn't fooling anyone as anyone with even a basic understanding of evolution knows that an enormous number of transitional fossils exist.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:22 pm

polyglide wrote:When a chromosome is affected by DNA and results in a mutation, that mutation in most cases never reaches maturity and if it does, it never breeds its like to the extent that it creates another species.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:If this were a peer reviewed scientifically validated refutation of evolution then perhaps you can explain why it has never succeed in refuting evolution?

No news flash around the world.

No theists celebrating in the streets.

No scientists acknowledging this paradigm shifting news throughout the world.

No Nobel prize.

What could this mean? In case you're struggling it means you've simply posted another piece of creationist propaganda.

If you encounter, say a bus, you would not believe it came about by chance, you would know that intelligence and knowledge was involved.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Buses are not organic, the comparison is moronic as you've been told.

Yet you obviously believe that life came about chance.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No I don't, as I've repeatedly said every time you use this lie. Chance plays a part, which is not the same thing. People defy massive odds to win the lottery BY CHANCE every day, are you really so stupid as to think this is not possible?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:53 pm

polyglide wrote: When a chromosome is affected by DNA and results in a mutation, that mutation in most cases never reaches maturity and if it does, it never breeds its like to the extent that it creates another species.

Someone's using conservapedia as a source, oh dear, busted. Wink

Try this:

Point-by-Point Refutation of Conservapedia's Counterexamples to Evolution

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Counterexamples_to_Evolution#Point-by-Point_Refutation_of_Conservapedia.27s_Counterexamples_to_Evolution

by snowyflake Sat Feb 28, 2015 12:16 pm

I don't think polyglide should do science without a license. Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:29 pm

snowyflake wrote:I don't think polyglide should do science without a license.

Well when I am entirely ignorant about a subject I tend to listen to people ho have knowledge or expertise on that subject. Though I am inclined to check my facts even when I think I have some knowledge on a subject.

Unfortunately theists deal in absolutes. As we have seen Polyglide's posts do again and again.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:45 pm

polyglide wrote: God promised that Cristianity would be taught thoughout the world before it's end. This has almost been accumplished.

You might have a point if it were a single homogeneous religion, rather than a massively fragmented and disparate collection of widely varying beliefs. Some so fundamentally different that they could hardly be called the same religion except in name. The original religion of course was Judaism, with both Christianity and Islam representing heretical distortions of the original, though their adherents don't see it like that obviously, but try telling the average Christian that Mormonism is a legitimate Christian religion .

by polyglide Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:24 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
The only true Christian is the one that believes in the Bible and tries to act accordingly.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:13 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, The only true Christian is the one that believes in the Bible and tries to act accordingly.

No True Scotsman Fallacy - AGAIN. However the fact that others feel you are not a true Christian, and you they, is precisely the point I was making. Re-read my post..

You claimed:

polyglide wrote:
God promised that Cristianity would be taught thoughout the world before it's end. This has almost been accumplished.

I refuted this precisely because beyond the broadest dictionary definition they are not one homogeneous group, but hold disparate beliefs and ideas based doctrine dogma and scripture, the latter being a muddled and contradictory tome adding greatly to this. By claiming anyone who doesn't share your views is not a true Christian you're actually proving my point.

by polyglide Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:10 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I have pointed out very clearly so that even a child could understand.

A true Christian is one who believes in the Bible and acts accordingly.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:09 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I have pointed out very clearly so that even a child could understand.

A true Christian is one who believes in the Bible and acts accordingly.

Perhaps only a child? I neither need nor want your subjective attempt to redefine words, the grasp of English in your posts is nothing to boast about anyway, and I can access the dictionary definition in seconds by searching online. If the Oxford English definition isn't how you define it then the error is yours not the English Oxford dictionaries.

Beyond that your semantics is pure obfuscation as you've made no attempt to respond to my post content:

You claimed:
polyglide wrote:
God promised that Cristianity would be taught thoughout the world before it's end. This has almost been accumplished.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I refuted this precisely because beyond the broadest dictionary definition they are not one homogeneous group, but hold disparate beliefs and ideas based doctrine dogma and scripture, the latter being a muddled and contradictory tome adding greatly to this. By claiming anyone who doesn't share your views is not a true Christian you're actually proving my point.

Try again....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:16 pm

[size=31]Do you agree with Voltaire that “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”?[/size]

Given that religious terrorists are busy committing acts of indiscriminate murder, including babies and children, based on the idea their own immolated corpse will reappear unscathed in heaven to be greeted by 72 virgins I'd say the answer was an unequivocal yes.

Of course this doesn't mean believing absurdities will definitely turn you into a mass murderer but it's one less hurdle for the human mind to negotiate on its way to committing such atrocities.

by polyglide Fri Aug 07, 2015 1:53 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I believe that everyone has options, if you can be mislead towards evil or any other possibility then it is by choice.

72, virgins I thought it was 7 they thought would be theirs.

It depends exactly how you define absurdities.

One mans meat etc;

To one who feels that God created everything the thought that others think they came about by chance is just as absurd to the former.

You call those doing all the vile things on earth religious, in fact they are terrorists posing as representing a religion.

Ask any true devout Muslim if they agree with what others are doing in the name of their faith and they will tell you no.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:48 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I believe that everyone has options, if you can be mislead towards evil or any other possibility then it is by choice. 72, virgins I thought it was 7 they thought would be theirs. It depends exactly how you define absurdities. One mans meat etc;

absurdity
noun
plural noun: absurdities
the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.

Since they claim they'll survive their own deaths, and be rewarded by God with 72 virgins daily, for committing vile and indiscriminate murder, then I'd say that qualifies as an absurdity. Perhaps you disagree?

Polyglide wrote:To one who feels that God created everything the thought that others think they came about by chance is just as absurd to the former.

No one has claimed everything came about by chance, and why you need this explained to you endlessly I don't know. Chance played it's part, and we know for a mathematical certainty that random-chance events will produce vast complexity given enough time and repetition. So if people want to misunderstand facts, deny scientific facts, and then reach the spurious and ill informed conclusions that what they think science claims is absurd then I guess that's up to them.

Polyglide wrote:You call those doing all the vile things on earth religious, in fact they are terrorists posing as representing a religion.

The atrocities I pointed out were committed by the religious and religions, and it's asinine to try and subjectively claim they are not based on your own interpretation of what religious means, in order to only allow decent nice people to qualify. This is called the no true Scotsman fallacy. You may not like ISIS or their beliefs, as indeed I don't, but to claim they're not religious is absurd, and to claim they don't behave as they do because they're religious is equally absurd.

Polyglide wrote:Ask any true devout Muslim if they agree with what others are doing in the name of their faith and they will tell you no.

I never said otherwise, in fact if you read my post (quoted below) you'd see I carefully qualified my remarks, which nonetheless agree with the question predicated in the thread title, that if you can make people believe in absurdities then you can make commit atrocities.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 4:16 pm
Of course this doesn't mean believing absurdities will definitely turn you into a mass murderer but it's one less hurdle for the human mind to negotiate on its way to committing such atrocities.

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:25 am

Dr, Shedlon,
I feel that many people are born more receptive to the attentions of others and there are more circumstances that have to be taken into consideration than the limited ones you quote.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:37 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
I feel that many people are born more receptive to the attentions of others and there are more circumstances that have to be taken into consideration than the limited ones you quote.

An irrelevant response, without any attempt to evidence the claim, that ignores entirely what I posted. Try again:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:48 pm

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon,
I believe that everyone has options, if you can be mislead towards evil or any other possibility then it is by choice. 72, virgins I thought it was 7 they thought would be theirs. It depends exactly how you define absurdities. One mans meat etc;

absurdity
noun
plural noun: absurdities
the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.

Since they claim they'll survive their own deaths, and be rewarded by God with 72 virgins daily, for committing vile and indiscriminate murder, then I'd say that qualifies as an absurdity. Perhaps you disagree?

Polyglide wrote:
To one who feels that God created everything the thought that others think they came about by chance is just as absurd to the former.

No one has claimed everything came about by chance, and why you need this explained to you endlessly I don't know. Chance played it's part, and we know for a mathematical certainty that random-chance events will produce vast complexity given enough time and repetition. So if people want to misunderstand facts, deny scientific facts, and then reach the spurious and ill informed conclusions that what they think science claims is absurd then I guess that's up to them.

Polyglide wrote:
You call those doing all the vile things on earth religious, in fact they are terrorists posing as representing a religion.

The atrocities I pointed out were committed by the religious and religions, and it's asinine to try and subjectively claim they are not based on your own interpretation of what religious means, in order to only allow decent nice people to qualify. This is called the no true Scotsman fallacy. You may not like ISIS or their beliefs, as indeed I don't, but to claim they're not religious is absurd, and to claim they don't behave as they do because they're religious is equally absurd.

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:41 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
If there was only Christianity there would be no problem.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:08 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
If there was only Christianity there would be no problem.

An irrelevant response, without any attempt to evidence the claim, that ignores entirely what I posted. Try again:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:48 pm

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon,
I believe that everyone has options, if you can be mislead towards evil or any other possibility then it is by choice. 72, virgins I thought it was 7 they thought would be theirs. It depends exactly how you define absurdities. One mans meat etc;

absurdity
noun
plural noun: absurdities
the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.

Since they claim they'll survive their own deaths, and be rewarded by God with 72 virgins daily, for committing vile and indiscriminate murder, then I'd say that qualifies as an absurdity. Perhaps you disagree?

Polyglide wrote:
To one who feels that God created everything the thought that others think they came about by chance is just as absurd to the former.

No one has claimed everything came about by chance, and why you need this explained to you endlessly I don't know. Chance played it's part, and we know for a mathematical certainty that random-chance events will produce vast complexity given enough time and repetition. So if people want to misunderstand facts, deny scientific facts, and then reach the spurious and ill informed conclusions that what they think science claims is absurd then I guess that's up to them.

Polyglide wrote:
You call those doing all the vile things on earth religious, in fact they are terrorists posing as representing a religion.

The atrocities I pointed out were committed by the religious and religions, and it's asinine to try and subjectively claim they are not based on your own interpretation of what religious means, in order to only allow decent nice people to qualify. This is called the no true Scotsman fallacy. You may not like ISIS or their beliefs, as indeed I don't, but to claim they're not religious is absurd, and to claim they don't behave as they do because they're religious is equally absurd.

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:15 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
Even under the most distressing circumstances no one can make another do anything, they must ultimately agree.

You can persuade and torture but ultimately the choice is yours.

There is another aspect to this, who decides what an absurdity is.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon, Even under the most distressing circumstances no one can make another do anything, they must ultimately agree. You can persuade and torture but ultimately the choice is yours. There is another aspect to this, who decides what an absurdity is.

So your claim that people going about their lives in a legal fashion influences religious terrorism is utterly wrong then? You need to make up your mind, You still haven't remotely acknowledged the points I have made, why is that? I posted the dictionary definition of an absurdity and offered one as an example of the beliefs of religious terrorist who murder indiscriminately in the belief they alone will be preserved after their suicide and gifted 72 virgins in an eternity of bliss You have ignored all this though. I don't now why, though since you always do this in every thread I get the impression you have no real interest in discussion and simply want to preach in the hope of proselytising others. Odd really as you must by now be aware that only I am silly enough to engage with you, and I am will never be proselytised into belief using faith and denial of scientific facts.

Here are my points again, have another try:

An irrelevant response, without any attempt to evidence the claim, that ignores entirely what I posted. Try again:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:48 pm

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon,
I believe that everyone has options, if you can be mislead towards evil or any other possibility then it is by choice. 72, virgins I thought it was 7 they thought would be theirs. It depends exactly how you define absurdities. One mans meat etc;

absurdity
noun
plural noun: absurdities
the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.

Since they claim they'll survive their own deaths, and be rewarded by God with 72 virgins daily, for committing vile and indiscriminate murder, then I'd say that qualifies as an absurdity. Perhaps you disagree?

Polyglide wrote:
To one who feels that God created everything the thought that others think they came about by chance is just as absurd to the former.

No one has claimed everything came about by chance, and why you need this explained to you endlessly I don't know. Chance played it's part, and we know for a mathematical certainty that random-chance events will produce vast complexity given enough time and repetition. So if people want to misunderstand facts, deny scientific facts, and then reach the spurious and ill informed conclusions that what they think science claims is absurd then I guess that's up to them.

Polyglide wrote:
You call those doing all the vile things on earth religious, in fact they are terrorists posing as representing a religion.

The atrocities I pointed out were committed by the religious and religions, and it's asinine to try and subjectively claim they are not based on your own interpretation of what religious means, in order to only allow decent nice people to qualify. This is called the no true Scotsman fallacy. You may not like ISIS or their beliefs, as indeed I don't, but to claim they're not religious is absurd, and to claim they don't behave as they do because they're religious is equally absurd.

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:31 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
I thought an absudity was an unreasonable or foolish thing etc; according to my dictionary.

One may think a thing foolish and another the opposite, I asked who defines absurdity realtive to the post?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:41 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
I thought an absudity was an unreasonable or foolish thing etc; according to my dictionary. One may think a thing foolish and another the opposite, I asked who defines absurdity realtive to the post?

Are you saying the idea that committing indiscriminate murder including babies and children in a suicide attack based on the religious belief that the religious terrorist committing the act will alone be preserved for all eternity in heaven with a daily supply of 72 new virgins is NOT unreasonable or foolish? Based on what exactly?

It's foolish or absurd if it flies in the face of all known evidence, and evokes claims that are demonstrably implausible and un-evidenced. So you can chalk up virgin births and talking snakes, and young earth creationists as well. The number of people who believe in absurdities is not relevant to the thread or to the defining what is absurd. Invoking bare numbers of believers if just argumentum ad populum, one could easily point out that everyone once thought the earth the centre of the universe, science has proved otherwise with proper evidence.

by polyglide Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:45 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
Again you miss the point, I never said anything was an absurdity, I said who defines it?.

I know of many scientist who for a long time believed in the absurd things that now make one laugh, crime is a different matter as is terrorism and all other such matters and I feel most people can see the difference.

The most thought sane people have indulged in the most henious crimes so it is just a matter of personal choices and has nothing to do with anyones belief.

Judges, MP's, solicitors, well known people from all walks of life have indulged in the most henious crimes so to attempt to isolate any one section is not realy a means of proving anything.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:24 pm

Do you find the idea that committing indiscriminate murder including babies and children in a suicide attack, based on the religious belief that the religious terrorist committing the act will alone be preserved for all eternity in heaven with a daily supply of 72 new virgins, unreasonable or ridiculous? As that would be the dictionary definition of an absurdity. Hence the question in Ivan's thread title would seem to be answered.

You never answered when I asked, and have ignored the question ever since, and are now waffling about the definitions of an absurdity, who knows why, obfuscation? I've already posted the dictionary definition of an absurdity as well. Here it is again....

absurdity
noun
the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.

The example offered in my question quite obviously is germane to the thread title, it's clearly an absurdity, it's clearly a religious belief, and it clearly has led religious people to commit the worst kind of atrocities and indiscriminate murder.

So it's hard not to disagree with Voltaire's claim in Ivan's question. Since religions abound with absurdities, and religions & the religious have always committed atrocities then this is reason enough to be wary of religions and their claims to absolute truth.

by polyglide Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:53 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I have answered this in another post.

If humans had paid regard to God's advice there would have only been one religion, therefore no religious wars etc;

What to one person may be ridiculous to another it may be reasonable.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:00 pm

No, you've not answered it. Try again...

Do you find the idea that committing indiscriminate murder including babies and children in a suicide attack, based on the religious belief that the religious terrorist committing the act will alone be preserved for all eternity in heaven with a daily supply of 72 new virgins, unreasonable or ridiculous? As that would be the dictionary definition of an absurdity. Hence the question in Ivan's thread title would seem to be answered.

You never answered when I asked, and have ignored the question ever since, and are now waffling about the definitions of an absurdity, who knows why, obfuscation? I've already posted the dictionary definition of an absurdity as well. Here it is again....

absurdity
noun
the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.

The example offered in my question quite obviously is germane to the thread title, it's clearly an absurdity, it's clearly a religious belief, and it clearly has led religious people to commit the worst kind of atrocities and indiscriminate murder.

So it's hard not to disagree with Voltaire's claim in Ivan's question. Since religions abound with absurdities, and religions & the religious have always committed atrocities then this is reason enough to be wary of religions and their claims to absolute truth.

by polyglide Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:07 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
Of course I do not agree with anything these people are doing, however, they are not Christians and were Christianity the only religion this would not be happening.

However, it is not an absurdity to all the millions of Muslims who choose to use the Koran in the manner they do.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:11 pm

You still haven't answered my question.. I didn't ask if you agreed with them.

Do you find the idea that committing indiscriminate murder including babies and children in a suicide attack, based on the religious belief that the religious terrorist committing the act will alone be preserved for all eternity in heaven with a daily supply of 72 new virgins, unreasonable or ridiculous?

There are christian terrorists as well of course. Both contemporary and historical. So your claim is not very compelling, and since you offer no evidence yet again, merely your own subjective opinion it's pretty meaningless.

by polyglide Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:38 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I feel saying I DO NOT AGREE with what these people are doing is sufficient for most people to understand my feelings, however, I think what they are doing is unfortunate, ill founded, unreasonable and ridiculous.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:23 pm

So by definition it's a religious belief that is in your own words absurd, and causes the holder of the belief to commit atrocities.

QED then.

by polyglide Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:35 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
As usual you do not understand what is written.

It has nothing to do with religion when a person decides to do something which that religion does not condone.

I am talking about the actual people carrying out the present killing and other such matters.

You have people who call themselves of some religious order including Christianity who carry out all kinds of anti social activities they would probably do so irrespective of anything including religion or atheism, there are more true heathens than true Christians.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:56 pm

Religious terrorists. They're Muslims in this instance. You do know that Muslims are religious?

by Sponsored content