Apparently christianity is bullshit...

[P3nT4gR4m]

Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.

What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.

Also, it isn't falsifiable.  In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

You're right. I still can't help finding the whole notion hilarious but I guess laughing at the afflicted is a bit rude 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So where does that leave a person who leaves the religion of their birth for another nonatheist faith?

[Lord Cataplanga]

Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.

What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.

Also, it isn't falsifiable.  In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.

What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.

Also, it isn't falsifiable.  In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.

You can't mix science and religion.  They are by definition mutually exclusive, and attempting to apply one to the other always ends in tears.

For example, I offer the Institute for Intelligent Design.

And why is this?

Because if God is everywhere, you can't take your God detector to a no-God zone to zero it.

And if the spags DID prove God's existence, then their faith is DESTROYED, because the definition of faith in a religious context is "belief without proof".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.

What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.

Also, it isn't falsifiable.  In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.

Because science requires natural explanations for natural phenomena it can neither support nor falsify hypotheses that angels ghosts or spirits whether benevolent or evil cause storms rainbows illnesses and cures. Such supernatural explanations are simply outside the bounds of science as are religious matters which are issues of personal faith. -my biology text book

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.

What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.

Also, it isn't falsifiable.  In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.

Because science requires natural explanations for natural phenomena it can neither support nor falsify hypotheses that angels ghosts or spirits whether benevolent or evil cause storms rainbows illnesses and cures. Such supernatural explanations are simply outside the bounds of science as are religious matters which are issues of personal faith. -my biology text book

I think that denying the evidence in front of our faces (germ theory, etc), is pretty fucking stupid, and not only unnecessary for belief, but harmful to it.

[Lord Cataplanga]

Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.

What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.

Also, it isn't falsifiable.  In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.

You can't mix science and religion.  They are by definition mutually exclusive, and attempting to apply one to the other always ends in tears.

For example, I offer the Institute for Intelligent Design.

And why is this?

Because if God is everywhere, you can't take your God detector to a no-God zone to zero it.

And if the spags DID prove God's existence, then their faith is DESTROYED, because the definition of faith in a religious context is "belief without proof".

This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.

Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.

Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.

Usually people tend to prefer one over the other, usually at the expense of the other.  However, I am a Holy Man™, and such indulgences are not my fate.

Instead, I have become a bit of a deist.  God set it up, and made the rules accessible.  It's our job to figure out the rules.  Therefore, the hardshell Baptist idea that "There are some things man was not meant to know" is a blasphemy, and not going to the doctor because "it's God's will" is sacrilege.

As far as your petty sins, who has time for that?  Not God.  And what sort of deity gives a FUCK if you believe in him?  It would be like suddenly having the ants in the yard killing each other in your name.  Odd, but not terribly important.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.

What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.

Also, it isn't falsifiable.  In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.

Because science requires natural explanations for natural phenomena it can neither support nor falsify hypotheses that angels ghosts or spirits whether benevolent or evil cause storms rainbows illnesses and cures. Such supernatural explanations are simply outside the bounds of science as are religious matters which are issues of personal faith. -my biology text book

I think that denying the evidence in front of our faces (germ theory, etc), is pretty fucking stupid, and not only unnecessary for belief, but harmful to it.

Well thats true but not what i took from it. I figure it was more of a thing to be like look this is a science class dont waste the professors time with questions that have nothing to do with science. Its from the first chapter.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well thats true but not what i took from it. I figure it was more of a thing to be like look this is a science class dont waste the professors time with questions that have nothing to do with science. Its from the first chapter.

Yeah, whoops, misread your post.  My bad, carry on.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.

What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.

Also, it isn't falsifiable.  In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.

I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.

You can't mix science and religion.  They are by definition mutually exclusive, and attempting to apply one to the other always ends in tears.

For example, I offer the Institute for Intelligent Design.

And why is this?

Because if God is everywhere, you can't take your God detector to a no-God zone to zero it.

And if the spags DID prove God's existence, then their faith is DESTROYED, because the definition of faith in a religious context is "belief without proof".

This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.

Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.

The word god itself is fairly meaningless for debate. It means different things to different people.
For example. Some tribe worships the sun. Well them their god actually exists gives life and is for all intents immortal but isnt going to pay much attention to your blood sacrifice.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Science is a really great reality tunnel, because it reflects the real, actual universe we live in.  There's not much to be said against it¹.  However, one reality tunnel is sort of meager fare for a person.






¹  Except when they deep-sonar'd Loch Ness.  The fuckers.  Give me my Goddamn monster back, you shitbags!  THANKS FOR PEELING THE VINYL BACK AND MAKING THE UNIVERSE THAT MUCH LESS COOL THAN IT WAS BEFORE.  And NOW they're after Bigfoot.  LEAVE HIM ALONE, ASSHOLES!  HE ISN'T BOTHERING YOU!

[P3nT4gR4m]

This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.

Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.

Usually people tend to prefer one over the other, usually at the expense of the other.  However, I am a Holy Man™, and such indulgences are not my fate.

Instead, I have become a bit of a deist.  God set it up, and made the rules accessible.  It's our job to figure out the rules.  Therefore, the hardshell Baptist idea that "There are some things man was not meant to know" is a blasphemy, and not going to the doctor because "it's God's will" is sacrilege.

As far as your petty sins, who has time for that?  Not God.  And what sort of deity gives a FUCK if you believe in him?  It would be like suddenly having the ants in the yard killing each other in your name.  Odd, but not terribly important.

See the thing with that is it's a belief in god, sure, but it's not a god that influences your decision making process on a day to day basis. If it's a case of I don't matter to god and god doesn't matter to me, then that's not "faith", at least not in the sense I understand the term. Faith to me is "Do/don't do x" "Why?" "cos god will kill/jack you off if you do/don't"

If someone's already in a position where they'll go along with whatever x happens to be "cos god" then there is a serious vector for abuse. It's like having a bunch of trojan's installed in a bunch of windows machines - The religious leader has a "botnet" of humans, trying to spam copies of themselves to other uninfected ones or carry out a ddos attack.

Fair enough, it's the exception rather than the rules these days but I'm not sure it was always that way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

See the thing with that is it's a belief in god, sure, but it's not a god that influences your decision making process on a day to day basis.

The only time I can think of having that run my day-to-day decisions is if I'd been ordered to be a death camp guard or something, where I'd have to either go along with it or become a victim of it.  The whole POINT of agency is to FIX SHIT YOURSELF, not to wait for big sky daddy to fix it for you.

Pretty sure God wasn't cheering William Jennings Bryan along when he was claiming that whales are fish and humans aren't mammals.  It would be like watching your teenage son suddenly decide that your REAL intent for him was for him to wear diapers forever.

[P3nT4gR4m]

See the thing with that is it's a belief in god, sure, but it's not a god that influences your decision making process on a day to day basis.

The only time I can think of having that run my day-to-day decisions is if I'd been ordered to be a death camp guard or something, where I'd have to either go along with it or become a victim of it.  The whole POINT of agency is to FIX SHIT YOURSELF, not to wait for big sky daddy to fix it for you.

Pretty sure God wasn't cheering William Jennings Bryan along when he was claiming that whales are fish and humans aren't mammals.  It would be like watching your teenage son suddenly decide that your REAL intent for him was for him to wear diapers forever.

Problem is the prehistoric people who invented god received god's holy word wrote down a lot of bizarre shit that probably didn't even make much sense in the prehistoric context, never mind nowadays