Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
+10
Ivan
astra
polyglide
bobby
boatlady
Tosh
Shirina
snowyflake
oftenwrong
Greatest I am
14 posters
Page 3 of 6
Page 3 of 6 • 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Greatest I am Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:59 pm
First topic message reminder :
Should Governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNHM84lBA0
These lies were and are given to insure social harmony in an uneducated and gullible population. Our Governments lie and allow liars to lie to us of the supernatural, fantasy and magic.
Governments learned a long ago that religions were a good tool to use for social manipulation and control. Governments allowed and encouraged belief in fantasy, miracles and magic, the opium of the masses, and have lived with the drugged up population and religions.
Governments, with this noble lie, have maintained the current idiocy of immoral teachings within religions and have caused much unjust discrimination and denigration of innocent populations of Gays, women and many others, for just doing what we now see as moral.
Do you think we have matured enough as a people that we can now rescind the laws that protect religions and gives them a tax haven and legitimacy?
Are we intelligent enough to not need these lies anymore?
Can the population take our real reality or is the Government just going to let the flim-flam con game of religions to continue to damage the mental capabilities of the citizens in our country?
Flim-flam and con artists are subject to the law of the land. --- except for religions.
Can the population of take the truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded
Regards
DL
Should Governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDNHM84lBA0
These lies were and are given to insure social harmony in an uneducated and gullible population. Our Governments lie and allow liars to lie to us of the supernatural, fantasy and magic.
Governments learned a long ago that religions were a good tool to use for social manipulation and control. Governments allowed and encouraged belief in fantasy, miracles and magic, the opium of the masses, and have lived with the drugged up population and religions.
Governments, with this noble lie, have maintained the current idiocy of immoral teachings within religions and have caused much unjust discrimination and denigration of innocent populations of Gays, women and many others, for just doing what we now see as moral.
Do you think we have matured enough as a people that we can now rescind the laws that protect religions and gives them a tax haven and legitimacy?
Are we intelligent enough to not need these lies anymore?
Can the population take our real reality or is the Government just going to let the flim-flam con game of religions to continue to damage the mental capabilities of the citizens in our country?
Flim-flam and con artists are subject to the law of the land. --- except for religions.
Can the population of take the truth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVfY9k&feature=player_embedded
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:16 am
RockOnBrother wrote:
That’s why some things “ain’t none of the democracy’s biz-ness.” That’s also why I despise any democracy that disparages the unalienable right to free exercise of religion. That includes dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves; some democracies that do that ought to check and see (1) that they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) to what they committed themselves when they signed. A nation’s word ought to be its bond.
oftenwrong wrote:
The lofty ideals expounded in the above quotation allow no room for pragmatism.
Incorrect.
oftenwrong wrote:
A religion which involved, e.g. Human Sacrifice would make a nonsense of absolute freedom of worship.
A statement which equates “Human Sacrifice” to “dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves” is a nonsensical statement.
Guest- Guest
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by snowyflake Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:02 am
I suppose I am looking at this in the same way I look at the NHS. All hospitals in Britain practice evidence-based medicine. No treatment is prescribed that hasn't been tested under rigourous scientific methods. You would not go to a hospital that prescribed prayer for 4 hours or fasting for a week and expect your health to improve. I want my government to base their policies on evidence and research. I don't want my government to base their policies on religious agendas.
Jeremy Hunt is our new minister of Health and he has stupidly said that he would like to see the abortion limit reduced to 12 weeks gestation. Well, I know this is utterly stupid, without evidence and so dangerous for many, many women. First, women are not routinely given the first test until they are 14 weeks and if the baby has a trisomy or other abnormality that would mean the mother must carry until she miscarries which can happen at any time but the later into the pregnancy, the more danger to the mother. If she happens to have a live birth the babies do not usually survive past a few days without extreme medical intervention. And they suffer unnecessarily.
Jeremy Hunt is talking out of his Tory backside and not basing his statement on facts or evidence. And that, to me, is scary.
Jeremy Hunt is our new minister of Health and he has stupidly said that he would like to see the abortion limit reduced to 12 weeks gestation. Well, I know this is utterly stupid, without evidence and so dangerous for many, many women. First, women are not routinely given the first test until they are 14 weeks and if the baby has a trisomy or other abnormality that would mean the mother must carry until she miscarries which can happen at any time but the later into the pregnancy, the more danger to the mother. If she happens to have a live birth the babies do not usually survive past a few days without extreme medical intervention. And they suffer unnecessarily.
Jeremy Hunt is talking out of his Tory backside and not basing his statement on facts or evidence. And that, to me, is scary.
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 65
Location : England
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:43 am
snowyflake wrote:
I suppose I am looking at this in the same way I look at the NHS. All hospitals in Britain practice evidence-based medicine. No treatment is prescribed that hasn't been tested under rigourous scientific methods. You would not go to a hospital that prescribed prayer for 4 hours or fasting for a week and expect your health to improve. I want my government to base their policies on evidence and research. I don't want my government to base their policies on religious agendas.
Snowy,
Actually, you do, exactly as I do, in a strange sort of way. We first must free ourselves from “religious” chains, know the truth, and allow the truth to set us free. Betcha you forgot that Jesus taught that.
Government under God, in resonance with Paul’s teaching regarding freedom from dogizo (transliterated Greek) remains by its very nature free from the chains of religious dogma. Government under God exist for the purpose concisely identified in the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these [certain unalienable] rights [unto all men], governments are instituted among men”; thus, at its core nature resides lies the abiding impetus to free folks of all dogmas that they might be free to live their lives as they so choose.
Substitute “governments (plural) under God’s” for “religious” and we get “governments under God’s agendas”, the agendas shared by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States (by law) and the United Kingdom (by custom). Included amongst these shared agendas is is the agenda item guaranteeing folks’ unalienable rights to freedom from compulsory adherence to any dogma, religious or otherwise.
I am a Christian; I am a Christian by choice, just as I was once an agnostic by choice and a Baha’i by choice. As the brothers on the block say in SSD, “I do what I want to.” My health care comes courtesy of some of the finest applied scientists on the planet, all of whom base their treatments on methodologies and medications derive from “evidence and research”, and I ain’t mad at none of ‘em.
snowyflake wrote:
Jeremy Hunt is our new minister of Health and he has stupidly said that he would like to see the abortion limit reduced to 12 weeks gestation. Well, I know this is utterly stupid, without evidence and so dangerous for many, many women.
I don’t like abortion, period. If a thread is initiated which focuses on this topic, I’ll go into detail as to why on that thread, but I shall not hereon.
Dislike of abortion doesn’t blind me to the absolute inappropriateness of “gub’mint stickin’ its nose into” decisions which concerned parties ought to make in consultation with one another as “gub’mint sticks its nose out of their biz’ness.” There’s more, but this is not the arena in which it ought to be said.
Guest- Guest
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by snowyflake Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:21 am
Rock, I don't think anyone 'likes' abortion but sometimes for the health of the mother it is necessary and it is safe when conducted by trained professionals at the appropriate time. No one wants to end a pregnancy just for the sake of it but all things must be considered and first and foremost is the overall health of the mother and the baby. And this decision is between her (and her family if she wishes) and her physician alone.
My point is that we elected Jeremy Hunt and he's an idiot. Governments under God or not, I don't want legislation based on religious agendas. I will support all agendas based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which includes freedom of religion but legislation, like healthcare, needs to be evidence based.
My point is that we elected Jeremy Hunt and he's an idiot. Governments under God or not, I don't want legislation based on religious agendas. I will support all agendas based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which includes freedom of religion but legislation, like healthcare, needs to be evidence based.
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 65
Location : England
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by oftenwrong Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:28 pm
Jeremy Hunt is of course not only Health Minister but Minister for particular use of the letters "H" and "C".
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Shirina Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:22 pm
That’s also why I despise any democracy that disparages the unalienable right to free exercise of religion. That includes dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves
This creates the danger of non-believers becoming second-class citizens.
A good example of this occurred within the school where I taught. Teachers were not allowed to wear beards and mustaches as doing so was a potential disruption of the classroom. Now, how a mustache is going to disrupt the class, I have no idea, but that's not really the point. The point is that teachers who wore facial hair for religious reasons were allowed to do so. Once people are given special dispensation to break or ignore rules that others still have to follow, then the system is no longer egalitarian.
Why, for instance, are people allowed to burn American flags but not Korans? Why is South Park allowed to make fun of Jesus but not Muhammad? Why was the creator of this latest anti-Muhammad video arrested? This is the danger of absolute religious freedom.
In addition, we really need to define just what "religious freedom" actually is. Were I to define it, religious freedom would only protect the indispensable aspects of a person's faith. For instance, the government could not ban certain holy books or prohibit church/temple/mosque/synagogue attendance, just to name a few obvious things. However, far, FAR too many Christians in America feel that whenever they cannot get what they want, whenever they cannot impose the smallest part of their beliefs onto the rest of society, that somehow violates their freedom. I do not feel that "religious freedom" includes letting one teacher wear beards when none of the other teachers can, or that it includes wearing crosses as jewelry, or that it includes banning gay marriage. It does not include banning books from public libraries or pulling television shows off the air because it features an atheist character (i.e. "House") or because a commercial committed "blasphemy" by comparing a hamburger with God (i.e. a Hardee's ad). Those things are not "religious freedom" but rather "religious intolerance." The right-wingers in this country have fabricated a "war on religion" based on the precept that religion is sovereign -- even over the US Constitution. That, despite the Constitution's sovereignty clause, this most sacred of documents relinquished its power to the Bible.
What hogwash.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:40 pm
Shirina wrote:This creates the danger of non-believers becoming second-class citizens.That’s also why I despise any democracy that disparages the unalienable right to free exercise of religion. That includes dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves
This ensures free expression of religion for all men, all inclusive, and thus single class citizenship for all men, all inclusive.
Shirina wrote:
What hogwash.
Incorrect.
Guest- Guest
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Shirina Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:08 pm
This ensures free expression of religion for all men, all inclusive, and thus single class citizenship for all men, all inclusive.
No, actually, it doesn't. I'm not suggesting that we don't have freedom of religion. It goes without saying that I support the right of people to believe what they want.
But what happens when the freedom to practice religion butts heads with the freedom NOT to practice religion? Or when it butts heads with a different religion entirely, i.e. Christianity vs. Islam?
Perhaps, as a Texan, you remember the controversy over Blue Laws and how the "right" for Christians to close down ALL shops on their Sabbath interfered with the "right" of Jewish folks to do business on Sunday and close their shops on THEIR Sabbath -- which is Saturday?
This is a classic example of why there can be no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by oftenwrong Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:12 pm
RockOnBrother wrote:RockOnBrother wrote:
That’s why some things “ain’t none of the democracy’s biz-ness.” That’s also why I despise any democracy that disparages the unalienable right to free exercise of religion. That includes dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves; some democracies that do that ought to check and see (1) that they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) to what they committed themselves when they signed. A nation’s word ought to be its bond.oftenwrong wrote:
The lofty ideals expounded in the above quotation allow no room for pragmatism.
Incorrect.oftenwrong wrote:
A religion which involved, e.g. Human Sacrifice would make a nonsense of absolute freedom of worship.
A statement which equates “Human Sacrifice” to “dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves” is a nonsensical statement.
A statement which equates “Human Sacrifice” to “dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves” is a nonsensical statement. Rock, how is your argument strengthened by suggesting that it's what I wrote?
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:19 pm
That’s also why I despise any democracy that disparages the unalienable right to free exercise of religion.
....unless the religion preaches against the Law and against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then it foregoes its unalienable right to free exercise.
A woman who is subjugated by a mysogynistic religion/culture is not free to wear the clothing of her choice, and this is wrong, however banning this clothing infringes her right to wear the clothing of her choice, which is also wrong.
I am old enough to remember religious voices wanting mini-skirts, bikinis and hot pants banned, even though women were not being ordered to wear them.
The burka is a tricky one, there must be a better way of freeing women from a misogynistic religion or culture. Governments are averse to getting too involved in domestic affairs, and Muslim women are intimidated by their fathers, uncles, husbands and brothers with the full backing of their religion/culture.
There is no obvious solution, it took our Christian cultures long enough to accept the emancipation of women. I suppose all we can do in the west is provide Muslim women the protection of the law if they do decide to exercise their freedoms. I am not too optimistic, most Muslim women have a form of Stockholm Syndrome, they are in love with their captor, his name is Allah.
Last edited by Tosh on Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by oftenwrong Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:24 pm
"....most Muslim women have a form Stockholm Synrome, they are in love with their captors."
Already covered by the aphorism, "Better the Devil you know!"
Already covered by the aphorism, "Better the Devil you know!"
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:11 pm
Already covered by the aphorism, "Better the Devil you know!".
I am not so sure " better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" accurately describes the predicament of Muslim women living in the west. I believe they may want more freedom but the cost outweighs the benefits.
To us it seems they have a simple choice between freedom and captivity, however what price freedom if it means intimidation and ostracisation from ones own family and community.
In my opinion male western attitudes only changed due to the effects of the second world war, domestic emancipation kind of sneaked in the back door. Men needed women to work both during and after the war due to a shortage of men, this required family planning( birth control) and resulted in smaller families. Employment politically and domestically empowered women and they demanded equal pay, equal rights etc etc, before men knew it women had achieved equal status in society.
Last edited by Tosh on Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:25 pm
The other side of the coin is our current economic system is removing the choice of most women to stay at home and be a mum and wife. I believe this is also wrong and more importantly bad for children and society, we are all products of our childhood and absent parents cannot be conducive to a healthy balanced mind.
Like most things the solution lies somewhere in the middle, we should stive for a society that enables choices, women should not be forced to stay at home or forced to work.
Like most things the solution lies somewhere in the middle, we should stive for a society that enables choices, women should not be forced to stay at home or forced to work.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:04 am
oftenwrong wrote:A statement which equates “Human Sacrifice” to “dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves” is a nonsensical statement. Rock, how is your argument strengthened by suggesting that it's what I wrote?RockOnBrother wrote:RockOnBrother wrote:
That’s why some things “ain’t none of the democracy’s biz-ness.” That’s also why I despise any democracy that disparages the unalienable right to free exercise of religion. That includes dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves; some democracies that do that ought to check and see (1) that they signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and (2) to what they committed themselves when they signed. A nation’s word ought to be its bond.A statement which equates “Human Sacrifice” to “dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves” is a nonsensical statement.oftenwrong wrote:
A religion which involved, e.g. Human Sacrifice would make a nonsense of absolute freedom of worship.
You chose to equate “Human Sacrifice” to “dictating to folks with what manner of attire they must clothe themselves.” You chose it, you own it.
Guest- Guest
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:04 am
snowyflake wrote:
Rock, I don't think anyone 'likes' abortion but sometimes for the health of the mother it is necessary and it is safe when conducted by trained professionals at the appropriate time. No one wants to end a pregnancy just for the sake of it but all things must be considered and first and foremost is the overall health of the mother and the baby. And this decision is between her (and her family if she wishes) and her physician alone.
You have spoken truth. I would remove the parenthesis and the “if statement”, add a bit more, and say, “And this decision is between her, her family, and her physicians and other health care professional/healers alone.” The crucial part of your statement of truth is non-involvement of government bureaucrats and bureaucracies.
snowyflake wrote:
My point is that we elected Jeremy Hunt and he's an idiot. Governments under God or not, I don't want legislation based on religious agendas.
I believe you’re actually speaking of dogma-based agendas. In fact, “dogma”, the noun, comes with many attached adjectives, “religious” being but one.
You’ve viewed five documents that, when implemented as expressed, actualize the overall agenda of governments under God, stated here once again from the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Realize that the agenda here is not set by the democracy, “the consent of the governed”, or the government the democracy empowers, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from”; the agenda pre-exists the democracy and the government empowered by the democracy, “to secure these rights.”
Realize that in a government under God, the democracy’s just powers are used, via the justly empowered government, to secure unalienable rights endowed unto all men by the higher power, their shared Creator, which precludes the democracy from abridging through legislation the unalienable rights of the minority, even if the majority assents thereto. In other words, as recently stated by the brothers on the block in SSD, “If y’all don’t like it, get to stepping.”
snowyflake wrote:
I will support all agendas based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which includes freedom of religion but legislation, like healthcare, needs to be evidence based.
UDHR is among the finest expositions of government under God that I’ve ever seen. Didja notice that Afghanistan is a signatory?
Guest- Guest
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:36 am
Shirina wrote:No, actually, it doesn't.This ensures free expression of religion for all men, all inclusive, and thus single class citizenship for all men, all inclusive.
Actually it does. See below.
Shirina wrote:
I'm not suggesting that we don't have freedom of religion. It goes without saying that I support the right of people to believe what they want.
But what happens when the freedom to practice religion butts heads with the freedom NOT to practice religion? Or when it butts heads with a different religion entirely, i.e. Christianity vs. Islam?
Nothing, since neither of the three practices you’ve mentioned butt heads.
Shirina wrote:
Perhaps, as a Texan, you remember the controversy over Blue Laws and how the "right" for Christians to close down ALL shops on their Sabbath interfered with the "right" of Jewish folks to do business on Sunday and close their shops on THEIR Sabbath -- which is Saturday?
I do remember Blue Laws. Passage and enforcement of Blue Laws was and is not exercise of religion; thus, any principle related to free exercise of religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the passage and enforcement of Blue Laws.
Going “left field” for a moment, when Jews and Seventh Day Adventists challenged Texas’ Blue Laws, the statute was changed to require closure on either Saturday or Sunday, Since Jewish Shabbat begins on our Friday evening at sundown and ends on our Saturday evening at sundown, that change still didn’t make the Blue Laws “fit” Judaism. That, and the fact that all manner of folks protested Blue Laws’ intrusion upon their unalienable right to shop (“Ah’ll bah whut I wonna bah whin ah wonna bah it”), a right brought by our forefathers to Texas from Tennessee, pretty much sounded the death knell for Blue Laws in Texas.
Shirina wrote:
This is a classic example of why there can be no freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.
Flawed logic. The illogicity (ought to be a word) of this train of thought lies in its flawed presumption. In fact, as I write, I enjoy free exercise of religion, or freedom of religion, (I studied and worshiped today, studied last Monday night) and freedom from religion (I’ve not been compelled to pick up snakes, speak in tongues, shake, quake, whoop and holler, get the “spirit” and shout “Oh Jesus! Oh Jesus!” while falling backwards over the pews, or anything else I “don’ wonna do” in quite a while).
Guest- Guest
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by oftenwrong Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:59 pm
Illogicality is a word found in many dictionaries.
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:22 pm
oftenwrong wrote:
Illogicality is a word found in many dictionaries.
Illogicality is not illogicity, which ought to be a word.
Guest- Guest
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by oftenwrong Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:33 pm
Serendipity is a word. I don't know what it means, but it doesn't sound like a word that is used to hurt people.
Serendipity.
Dippity doo-dah, dippidy-ay ...... Now see what you've done!
Serendipity.
Dippity doo-dah, dippidy-ay ...... Now see what you've done!
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:17 pm
Now now girls, no scratching.
Ow, do you believe in evolution, and do you think it was directed ?
I can't accept you are a creationist.
Ow, do you believe in evolution, and do you think it was directed ?
I can't accept you are a creationist.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by oftenwrong Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:02 am
I can't accept you are a creationist.
For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!
For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows and did it my way!
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:37 pm
.did it my way!
I guess some kind of divine spirit influencing manknd, you probably keep all the creation/evolution details a bit fuzzy in your mind.
I agree there is a spirit that influences mankind and its a bi-product of nature-nurture, the evolutionary spirit.
You are obviously a death denier like the rest of them.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by polyglide Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:46 pm
Tosh, leave the spirits alone and stick to pop.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by oftenwrong Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:10 pm
"I don't mind dying. I just don't want to be there when it happens."
Woodie Allen
Woodie Allen
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:27 pm
Tosh, leave the spirits alone and stick to pop..
Polyglide !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you are back, where have you been ?
Can you run me through Noah's Ark again, the story with predators, prey, men, dinosaurs, herbivores and carnivores, all living together like survival of the fittest never existed.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by polyglide Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:57 am
Sorry for being away so long Tosh, I have been laughing my head off at all your comments and could not stop.
However, the importance of your future life, or lack of it, is of concern to me as it is of all the other lost souls.
I agree there is much to consider regarding the survival of the fittest, although I would call it the survival of the most able.
You can have several birds in a family, some able to fly fast but not for long, others steady but can go on for ever.
If there was a very limited supply of food which was a short distance away the birds that could fly the fastest over a short distance would be there and have eaten all the food before the slow birds arrived the latter would die.
Likewise, if the food was a long way away the short distance birds would not be able to make it.
Both lots of birds could be as fit as fiddles.
As I have said previously, there is much we do not know of the history of the earth, it may have had beings of which we cannot comprehend and used in several other manners, the fact is we do not know.
What we do know is that we are here and as far as I am concerned it is through the wishes of God and anything prior to that is of no concern to me.
Can anyone with any sense think that man would have survived on the basis of the survival of the fittest?
However, the importance of your future life, or lack of it, is of concern to me as it is of all the other lost souls.
I agree there is much to consider regarding the survival of the fittest, although I would call it the survival of the most able.
You can have several birds in a family, some able to fly fast but not for long, others steady but can go on for ever.
If there was a very limited supply of food which was a short distance away the birds that could fly the fastest over a short distance would be there and have eaten all the food before the slow birds arrived the latter would die.
Likewise, if the food was a long way away the short distance birds would not be able to make it.
Both lots of birds could be as fit as fiddles.
As I have said previously, there is much we do not know of the history of the earth, it may have had beings of which we cannot comprehend and used in several other manners, the fact is we do not know.
What we do know is that we are here and as far as I am concerned it is through the wishes of God and anything prior to that is of no concern to me.
Can anyone with any sense think that man would have survived on the basis of the survival of the fittest?
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:54 pm
Can anyone with any sense think that man would have survived on the basis of the survival of the fittest?.
The proof of the pudding is your very existence my dear, nature selected the fittest genes to survive and here you are.
What we do know is that we are here and as far as I am concerned it is through the wishes of God and anything prior to that is of no concern to me.
By anything you mean knowledge, this is called an Ostrich thinker.
If the truth does not concern you then you are being foolish.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Greatest I am Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:48 pm
Christianity would die without Islam.
Belief is a psychological and imposed condition. Mutual fear and The Nobel Lie is sustaining both Islam and Christianity by governments. They are using religion and the religious as patsies.
The Lie is necessary, Plato argues, in order to keep a stable social structure. In Plato’s mind, The Noble Lie is a religious lie that’s fed to the masses to keep them under control and happy with their situation in life.
Plato did not believe most people were smart enough to look after their own and society’s best interest. The few smart people of the world needed to lead the rest of the flock, Plato said. And The Noble Lie had to continue.
I have been puzzled for some time now as to why the West embraces a pathological and genocidal God who shows almost all works and deeds of hate instead of love.
If I understand why the West chose the Christian God of war correctly, that choice was made and is sustained by the pressures of war brought against it by Islam. The Islamic dogma of kill the infidels show other religions that that God is just as pathological and intolerant as the Christian God with his, believe in me or end in hell policy. The West fought fire with fire. A holy pissing contest based on the Noble Lie on both sides.
Rome, now the West, would have had to have a different God than what their Eastern counterparts had. Rome was created as a defensive response to invasions from the Khans and tribes of the Fertile Crescent, Islam. As the Asian tribes relented in their expansion, the main enemy of the West became and is now Islam.
Constantine chose Christianity. First, as a ploy to win in battle and maintained it later, even as he was not a Christian at heart, for his own self-aggrandizement as his plan, according to archeology, was to usurp Jesus as the new King/God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4
From there, Rome pushed northward and promoted the Christian God of war on his ability to win battles. The West of today was born.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA_SSpQDpl4&feature=related
Unfortunately, morality was never the draw for this Christian God. Only his barbarism that was used against all other Gods and most notably Islam’s.
The fear of Islam then is what is still the driving force that explains the West embracing the pathological and genocidal God of Christianity. It was all just the one-upmanship of killing power.
Vatican II tried for rapprochement with Islam and today, progressive Christianity is trying to offer an olive branch to Islam.
Are the right wings of Christianity and Islam ready to bury the hatchet of war and competition and have their Gods kiss and make up or will the demographics of Muslim peoples force the remainder of this century to be one of conflict?
Will both religions have what it takes to return to the older thinking that there is only one nameless God for all, or will we continue to fight for what is basically a name for God that all books of wisdom say we should not name?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/04/identity-that-sends-us-toward-the-other-with-love/
Should both Christianity and Islam revert and follow their religious root, Judaism, and recognize that their man created versions of their Gods are evil and reject them as unfit to rule any peaceful loving egalitarian nation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI
Regards
DL
Belief is a psychological and imposed condition. Mutual fear and The Nobel Lie is sustaining both Islam and Christianity by governments. They are using religion and the religious as patsies.
The Lie is necessary, Plato argues, in order to keep a stable social structure. In Plato’s mind, The Noble Lie is a religious lie that’s fed to the masses to keep them under control and happy with their situation in life.
Plato did not believe most people were smart enough to look after their own and society’s best interest. The few smart people of the world needed to lead the rest of the flock, Plato said. And The Noble Lie had to continue.
I have been puzzled for some time now as to why the West embraces a pathological and genocidal God who shows almost all works and deeds of hate instead of love.
If I understand why the West chose the Christian God of war correctly, that choice was made and is sustained by the pressures of war brought against it by Islam. The Islamic dogma of kill the infidels show other religions that that God is just as pathological and intolerant as the Christian God with his, believe in me or end in hell policy. The West fought fire with fire. A holy pissing contest based on the Noble Lie on both sides.
Rome, now the West, would have had to have a different God than what their Eastern counterparts had. Rome was created as a defensive response to invasions from the Khans and tribes of the Fertile Crescent, Islam. As the Asian tribes relented in their expansion, the main enemy of the West became and is now Islam.
Constantine chose Christianity. First, as a ploy to win in battle and maintained it later, even as he was not a Christian at heart, for his own self-aggrandizement as his plan, according to archeology, was to usurp Jesus as the new King/God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4
From there, Rome pushed northward and promoted the Christian God of war on his ability to win battles. The West of today was born.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA_SSpQDpl4&feature=related
Unfortunately, morality was never the draw for this Christian God. Only his barbarism that was used against all other Gods and most notably Islam’s.
The fear of Islam then is what is still the driving force that explains the West embracing the pathological and genocidal God of Christianity. It was all just the one-upmanship of killing power.
Vatican II tried for rapprochement with Islam and today, progressive Christianity is trying to offer an olive branch to Islam.
Are the right wings of Christianity and Islam ready to bury the hatchet of war and competition and have their Gods kiss and make up or will the demographics of Muslim peoples force the remainder of this century to be one of conflict?
Will both religions have what it takes to return to the older thinking that there is only one nameless God for all, or will we continue to fight for what is basically a name for God that all books of wisdom say we should not name?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/10/04/identity-that-sends-us-toward-the-other-with-love/
Should both Christianity and Islam revert and follow their religious root, Judaism, and recognize that their man created versions of their Gods are evil and reject them as unfit to rule any peaceful loving egalitarian nation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by polyglide Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:46 pm
The fact that we are here, Tosh, is because God gave us the custody of all other living things and made them subject to our bidding.
How long would you last naked in a lions den or naked anywhere else for that matter?.
Why are we not naturally fited with garments that keep us warm, surely evolution would have by now solved all our requirements and we would have evreything incorporated from all walks of life so that we could do everything that all other animals can do etc;
I am afraid we are a species entirely apart from any other and by being self indulgent and egoistic we have lost our way.
Is there a way back? no, but the way forward is by accepting the promises made by God.
It is far too late to bother about history, this almost always portrays us as idiots in one way or another and we never seem to learn from our mistakes.
unfortunately, we have little time left to decide.
How long would you last naked in a lions den or naked anywhere else for that matter?.
Why are we not naturally fited with garments that keep us warm, surely evolution would have by now solved all our requirements and we would have evreything incorporated from all walks of life so that we could do everything that all other animals can do etc;
I am afraid we are a species entirely apart from any other and by being self indulgent and egoistic we have lost our way.
Is there a way back? no, but the way forward is by accepting the promises made by God.
It is far too late to bother about history, this almost always portrays us as idiots in one way or another and we never seem to learn from our mistakes.
unfortunately, we have little time left to decide.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Shirina Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:17 pm
This first statement:
Gives us the reason why this statement...It is far too late to bother about history
... is true.we never seem to learn from our mistakes.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Greatest I am Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:05 am
polyglide wrote:The fact that we are here, Tosh, is because God gave us the custody of all other living things and made them subject to our bidding.
How long would you last naked in a lions den or naked anywhere else for that matter?.
Why are we not naturally fited with garments that keep us warm, surely evolution would have by now solved all our requirements and we would have evreything incorporated from all walks of life so that we could do everything that all other animals can do etc;
I am afraid we are a species entirely apart from any other and by being self indulgent and egoistic we have lost our way.
Is there a way back? no, but the way forward is by accepting the promises made by God.
It is far too late to bother about history, this almost always portrays us as idiots in one way or another and we never seem to learn from our mistakes.
unfortunately, we have little time left to decide.
Are you saying the bible lies when it says that Satan had dominion here?
Was the temptation of Jesus also a lie then as Satan tempted him from a position of having dominion here?
If he does not have dominion then there was no temptation.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am- Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:13 am
Why are we not naturally fited with garments that keep us warm, surely evolution would have by now solved all our requirements and we would have evreything incorporated from all walks of life so that we could do everything that all other animals can do etc;
You seem to be under the impression genetic mutation and natural selection act with thinking foresight, it does not.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
oftenwrong- Sage
- Posts : 12062
Join date : 2011-10-08
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by polyglide Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:49 am
I agree, natural selection would not involve intelligence or there must be an intelligent source.
That is why evolution is nonsense, anyone who thinks there has not been an intelligence far beyond our understanding involved in creation is a little bit lacking in any kind of understanding.
I haved asked previously to just explain the life cycle of a butterfly or that of an oak tree by natural selection, you can have the next thousand years and you would be still as much in the dark as you apparently are now, I have given a reasonable reason for life on earth and there is no way you can disprove it, the truth will out in the end and that is not far off.
That is why evolution is nonsense, anyone who thinks there has not been an intelligence far beyond our understanding involved in creation is a little bit lacking in any kind of understanding.
I haved asked previously to just explain the life cycle of a butterfly or that of an oak tree by natural selection, you can have the next thousand years and you would be still as much in the dark as you apparently are now, I have given a reasonable reason for life on earth and there is no way you can disprove it, the truth will out in the end and that is not far off.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Shirina Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:13 pm
I have given a reasonable reason for life on earth and there is no way you can disprove it
This is called a "non-falsifiable argument" which is a form of fallacy. In essence, it's a non-argument because it cannot be proved or disproved; there are no hard facts to discuss. In other words, I could hand you a line like this: "I have a microscopic kitten on the tip of my finger and he's meowing at you right now ... and you can't disprove that he's really there." And you can't. Even if you put my finger under a microscope, I can simply say he ran off before you had time to focus it. Or that the kitten is invisible ... or even that the microscopic kitten exists outside of time and space as we know it. I could say anything at all about this kitten as long as I don't blow it and give a condition that could actually be tested. It's called a "non-falsifiable argument" because it can't be proven false. Not because the argument is a solid one, but just the opposite: there's nothing to work with.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:25 pm
Strict adherence to belief in that which is logical only leads to disbelief in several conclusions derived from rigorous scientific inquiry. Illogicity (otbaw, “ought to be a word”) inhabits certain fundamental “truths.”
I trust that the above does not go unchallenged.
Guest- Guest
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:08 pm
I haved asked previously to just explain the life cycle of a butterfly or that of an oak tree by natural selection, you can have the next thousand years and you would be still as much in the dark as you apparently are now, I have given a reasonable reason for life on earth and there is no way you can disprove it, the truth will out in the end and that is not far off.
Polyglide dearest of the dearest,
Rationality and reason is forming a conclusion based on the proprtion of evidence and logic, therefore evolution is a reasonable cause for life;s divergence on earth and Yahweh is an unreasonable cause for life on earth.
Yahweh is unreasonable because there is no evidence and no logical proof, to prove God must be the reason logically one needs evidence and there aint any.
Telling me God made the butterfly is not an explanation, how did God make the butterfly is an explanation.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Tosh Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:12 pm
Strict adherence to belief in that which is logical only leads to disbelief in several conclusions derived from rigorous scientific inquiry. Illogicity (otbaw, “ought to be a word”) inhabits certain fundamental “truths.”
Illogicity is just short hand for " I make the rules of logic ", if one challenges this truth then one is of course illogical.
Tosh- Posts : 2270
Join date : 2012-08-15
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by polyglide Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:43 pm
Tosh, if you keep up with current affairs you will have read where scientists think there was a melt down of the earth some 250 million years before the first known animals materialised, killing all life, be they animal vegitable or mineral.
We then have several other ages that we actually know about, this contradicts evolution, there would not be the time for man to evolve between then and now, nor all the plant life, there would be millions of inbetwenies etc;
We have no idea why the earth has had several ages and uses, nor do we need to know.
All we need to consider are the facts and they point to one possibilty only and that is instant creation.
It is pointless challenging the truth, however, it is not pointless challenging that which some "think" is the truth.
We then have several other ages that we actually know about, this contradicts evolution, there would not be the time for man to evolve between then and now, nor all the plant life, there would be millions of inbetwenies etc;
We have no idea why the earth has had several ages and uses, nor do we need to know.
All we need to consider are the facts and they point to one possibilty only and that is instant creation.
It is pointless challenging the truth, however, it is not pointless challenging that which some "think" is the truth.
polyglide- Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by Shirina Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:33 pm
All we need to consider are the facts and they point to one possibilty only and that is instant creation.
God insta-creating rabbits:
He has a nightly show on the Las Vegas strip.
Shirina- Former Administrator
- Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!
Re: Should governments rescind the noble lie of religions?
by snowyflake Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:21 pm
A mass extinction does not mean that all species went extinct. 250 million years ago 92% of marine species and 70% of land animals became extinct. Not everything died. There is evidence for this assertion which is supported by other evidence.
But 6,000 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth (not necessarily in that order). There is no evidence for this assertion. So why would anyone believe it?
But 6,000 years ago, God created the heavens and the earth (not necessarily in that order). There is no evidence for this assertion. So why would anyone believe it?
snowyflake- Posts : 1221
Join date : 2011-10-07
Age : 65
Location : England
Page 3 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Similar topics» Is the need of salvation an evil lie from religions?
» Telling lies for God
» How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?
» Why do we select warrior gods who can only grow their religions by violence, instead of persuasion to a better way of life?
» So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?
» Telling lies for God
» How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?
» Why do we select warrior gods who can only grow their religions by violence, instead of persuasion to a better way of life?
» So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?
Page 3 of 6
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum