Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Religion Is Evil
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Religion
UnderTow
I want to say so many things about this, but god damn gesus christé, how can you possible comprehend the mind-obliterating bullshit that is put forth by people and their myths.

Two Creationists take home schooled kids on a tour of a natural history museum filling their minds with Young Earth Creationist Bullshit.

These two men (and their 'church')(and the parents that allow this) should be banished from the Earth. They do not deserve it.
Please load them on a spare rocket and set course for the Sun.

To entrap and pollute the children, is damning to the extreme.

I suggest we water torture them, endlessly.

-UT
painter
Children get taught all kinds of crap in state run schools too, though, don't they? So far as I recall, that George Washington -- the symbolic corner-stone of our Republic -- couldn't tell a lie is still foundation level indoctrination.

A society can't teach its kids the truth about themselves and their place in the grand scheme of things from macro to micro if the society doesn't know this truth itself.

Does it?

Then there is, for me, the bigger question of how children actually learn -- or could learn if allowed to by a society that had a more holistic understanding of what a human being actually is and what its real (mostly hidden) potentials actually are. But that is a much bigger issue. What kids are REALLY taught is to obey authority and whatever 'rebellion' shows up against it gets trivialized and sold back to them as a matter of style.

Scull and funk'n bonze.
Omega892R09
You are absolutely correct UT as this story demonstrates:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2402,Pol...l-Help,Fox-News

To put it another way, 'religion spoils everything.'
lunk
QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 28 2008, 02:48 PM) *
You are absolutely correct UT as this story demonstrates:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2402,Pol...l-Help,Fox-News

To put it another way, 'religion spoils everything.'


There is something wrong with this story.

The parents let the girl have shots from a doctor
when she was 3, but they wouldn't take her to a doctor
when she was very ill at age 11?

Oh, I see, it's originally from faux-snooze.

I wonder if Richard Dalkins has seen through
the blue-pill shaped ruck-sacks, yet.

still the non-religious lunk
dMz
QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 28 2008, 05:35 PM) *
the blue-pill shaped ruck-sacks, yet.

still the non-religious lunk

Yes, but which rule are you taking "exception" to... ??
lunk
QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 28 2008, 04:53 PM) *
Yes, but which rule are you taking "exception" to... ??


There's a rule?
I guess I don't like the idea of myth being portrayed as fact.

The first video looked like a divide and confound ploy.
Divide the people into 2 camps; creationists and evolutionists,
both of which believe in a beginning, I guess I take exception to
this, as before a beginning there had to have been a past,
therefore there cannot, and never was, a beginning, or for
that matter, an end.

the exception to the rule, lunk
Nunyabiz
What those lunatic Creationist did in that video is without any question child abuse and they should all be imprisoned for it.
If I were the museum curator I would not allow them in.
UnderTow
Thank nunyabiz.

And wow, I didn't even realize how the "home schooled" fell in there. I know home schooling and it's benefits.

But it in itself has nothing to do with this tragedy. Religion can ruin anything.

And the Fed can stay the F out of Education. It's not the States fault.
Timothy Osman
QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Mar 29 2008, 01:11 AM) *
What those lunatic Creationist did in that video is without any question child abuse and they should all be imprisoned for it.
If I were the museum curator I would not allow them in.


I don't know about not letting them in, I think I saw this video somewhere else and the curator summed it up pretty well by saying that some of the kids having seen the evidence will start to question the dogma which is denying it.

Charles Darwin himself struggled with his religious beliefs and if you think about it as he was deeply religious and if his beliefs in religion were suppressed he may felt it necessary to defend his religious beliefs against whatever dogma was attacking them. Thus no ticket on the Beagle.
Darwin went on to say something profound, to me at least in that evolution depends on the happiness and or harmony of a species to be willing to procreate. He also believed that human sentience evolved so that as a species we could experience happiness.
Could it be that the belief in the divine is just a natural way for humans as a species to enjoy happiness/harmony at It's base but over time has been corrupted and used as a method of control and manipulation by the usual suspects.
mrodway
QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Mar 27 2008, 12:11 AM) *
If I were the museum curator I would not allow them in.


I most likely would - but they would have to put up with a bit of heckling from over the PA system smile.gif
painter
QUOTE (Timothy Osman @ Mar 29 2008, 01:04 AM) *
Could it be that the belief in the divine is just a natural way for humans as a species to enjoy happiness/harmony at It's base but over time has been corrupted and used as a method of control and manipulation by the usual suspects.


This is much closer to the way I see it.

Atheists who rail against religion make the same mistakes religious people railing against science do. They are both trapped by their own 'literality', mistaking their metaphors for the connotation; that is, mistaking their symbols for the deeper Truth those symbols represent and are meant to help us understand. Sorry religious folk, what you call GOD is not some cosmic egotist sitting on a golden throne demanding universal obedience and eternal praise from his creation. Sorry scientific folk, atoms aren't billiard balls or any other kind of 'balls' and much of what you call "fact" is theory which may, and often is, revised as new data is accumulated. OF COURSE religious people are wrong to insist that all creation was accomplished in seven (literal) Earth days. But, then again, there may be some fundamental principals beneath that metaphor that has more validity. For example, what has been translated as "days" may actually refer to seven different levels of cosmology of which we and our science may know only one or two by any direct, physical experience or experiment. But that is just a guess. Equally, OF COURSE science's insistence on evolution as a fundamental principal of genetic change through time works as a practical analysis of why certain traits are inherited. However, without some form of Lamarkism, it fails to explain a lot of important details about the arrival of our own species, and especially that most characteristic aspect of our own species, the development of symbolic referencing which -- as I am attempting to indicate -- both expands our capacity to comprehend the universe within which we find ourselves while simultaneously limiting it by the frame of the language used. At base, for example, our mathematics has it all wrong: What we call 'whole numbers' (one, two, three, etc.) are, in fact concepts, the actuality of which can not be found anywhere in the experiential universe. There is no "one" anything as everything is a part of a larger whole and every identifiable part is made up of yet smaller and smaller parts all the way down to the sub-atomic level where our ability to describe with any accuracy what is actually 'there' or 'not there' fails us. Meanwhile, on the other hand, what mathematics calls "irrational numbers," certain proportional relationships such as pi and phi, appear universal as they are found operating at every scale of the cosmos we've so far been able to map.

The fundamental point is, the map is not the territory, the name is not the thing named, and this is true for science as well as for religion. We need our maps to help us understand our world including ourselves in it but what we are and what the world is is not the map.
Sanders
Painter, you blow me away sometimes. Nice post.

BTW, there is actually evidence of Lamarkism that goes on with respect to the immune system. I forget the details, but I remember reading about it.
...........................

I remember the moment I realized that there is no god, that we creatures are essentially sophisticated machines descended from bacteria, that there is no "purpose", except what we chose to affix. I had grown tired of reading about quantum physics (Richard Feynman had kept me mentally busy and happy for a couple of years) and had moved on to biology, and was inevitably attracted to Richard Dawkins. I read all of his books in order ... and, at the moment I "understood" (it's sort of like the moment where you understand that 9-11 was actually an inside job, but even more earthshaking), Dawkins was talking about that moment - the feeling of (let's see if I can remember the metaphor) ... the sand all slips out of your insides. I'm sure the metaphor was a bit different, but that was the feeling, Dawkins described it perfectly exactly as I was reading it and feeling it. There is no god, there is no "afterlife", there is no purpose, there is only "this". It was so much like the feeling when I realized elements in our own government perpetrated 9-11.

It's not a good feeling. I will say, yes indeed ignorance is bliss. I think the "powers that be", whoever they are, understand this - that without religion this world would just collapse.

I have moved past it all - I have found new crutches, I set goals, I achieve them and set new ones, I place my faith in myself and the people around me, I live. Many people, I believe, would lack the ability to do that if both religion and their faith in government (as a benign caretaker) was suddenly pulled out from under them. Those of us who have worked through various stages and come to grips with a reality that is closer to what is real in our own good time are the lucky ones, IMO. To be confronted with all of this suddenly, is too much for many people.

My grandparents were religious. But they didn't wear it on their sleeves, and they were good people, salt of the earth. They knew Roosevelt was a traitor, they knew the country was veering off course. They lived through the depression, they knew about the international (centered in England) "banksters", they had common sense. I actually think, more than my dad (hopeless case) - that I would have had a receptive audience were to have talked to my grandparents about 9-11. But I would have hesitated before trying to convince them that there is no god - I think such stark reality isn't for everyone ...

So what's my point?? Er, um, I'm not sure. Baby and bathwater come to mind.
THE_DECIDER
there is no good or evil...only right and wrong...

imho

"universal law"
painter
QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 29 2008, 09:52 AM) *
. . .
There is no god, there is no "afterlife", there is no purpose, there is only "this".
. . .
So what's my point?? Er, um, I'm not sure. Baby and bathwater come to mind.

Sanders, you and I are almost 'on the same page' with "this", baby, bath water, and etc., ad infinitum.

However, there is one point of discussion I feel the need to press regarding "this".

What do we really KNOW about "this" and HOW do we know it? This is the fundamental conundrum I've been harping about in various threads having to do with esotericism, alternative theories regarding the nature of the universe and human nature, etc. Those of us who have grown up in and been conditioned by everything that constitutes late Twentieth, early Twenty First Century "education" (conventional, intentional and not), have a particular perspective on things that is both unique to our own individual life-path and, yet, shared with most other people reared within our own 'pond' so to speak. The contents of our consciousness is 'such and so' and it is through and within this 'such and so' that we make meaning of the energetic forces impacting our sensorium moment to moment.

The point for me is that this self/world matrix is as much a construct as that of any other, pre-literate, pre-humanist, pre-scientific, pre-industrial, pre-technological, etc., matrices that preceded it. "We don't know who discovered water but we're pretty sure it wasn't the fish," is a metaphor for where we stand in relation to our own ideational and perceptual fields. We just take it for granted that what we see and understand is "real" -- when it is highly likely that nothing could be further from the truth. Of course it is "real" in the same sense that it 'exists' in us as a ideational and perceptual field and is, therefore, "real" in that limited sense. It is "real" in the same sense that "rainbows" are real, although, in point of fact, "rainbows" have no actual existence outside the experience of a subjective observer with a perceptual apparatus at least somewhat similar to our own neuro-physiology and conceptual predispositions.

The point is, this "THIS" has FAR more possibilities than our ordinary perceptual consciousness allows us to perceive precisely because it is oriented and structured and focused in habituated patterns that filter out much of the energetic forces interacting with us on levels of potentiality that even our science can not measure. To KNOW THIS beyond entertaining it as an abstract and hypothetical possibility requires that one move beyond symbolic ideation and choose to intentionally engage with our latent potential to pay attention to and consciously transcend the inherent limitations of our conditioned self/world matrix. This possibility is what the great religious teachings have always been about. This is what people who aren't just 'yucking it up' are attempting to do through their use of psychedelics and other forms of meditation that disrupt the ordinary input-output circuitry within the brain.

Those who have been successful in this effort invariably report back that the universe is far stranger than we imagine and that there is a universal connectedness -- the possibility of discovering for one's self that consciousness is in actuality not only non-individual it is non-local and non-temporal operating at every level of manifestation within a multi-dimensional cosmos from the Absolute to the Absolute.

Talk about babies and baths -- we have hardly a clue. Any of us who ACCEPT the limitations that have been foisted upon our sense of self and world by contemporary so-called civilization ARE MISSING THE POINT of our very existence which is to at least once in our limited span of life to touch within ourselves that miraculous quality of consciousness which is both transcendent and trans-temporal, without which we don't know jack sh*t about what is and isn't real and or possible.
maturin42
Here's what Roy Zimmerman has to say on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
painter
QUOTE (maturin42 @ Mar 29 2008, 01:20 PM) *
Here's what Roy Zimmerman has to say on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs

handsdown.gif laughing1.gif
Nunyabiz
On a scale from 1 - 100.. One being as close to factual reality as is possible for the human mind to achieve Science & Atheist are around the 5-10 on that scale.

These nut bag Creationist are 98+ they are basically insane.
painter
QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 28 2008, 04:53 PM) *
QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 28 2008, 05:35 PM)

the blue-pill shaped ruck-sacks, yet.

still the non-religious lunk

Yes, but which rule are you taking "exception" to... ??


Did you mean: "Richard Dawkins" rucksacks ??

color me clueless: painter
painter
QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Mar 29 2008, 06:21 PM) *
On a scale from 1 - 100.. One being as close to factual reality as is possible for the human mind to achieve Science & Atheist are around the 5-10 on that scale.

These nut bag Creationist are 98+ they are basically insane.


No argument re "nut bag Creationists" but statements like that suggest a misplaced "faith" in scientism and limited awareness of what constitutes paradigm shifts in the history of science.
lunk
QUOTE (painter @ Mar 29 2008, 07:04 PM) *
Yes, but which rule are you taking "exception" to... ??


Did you mean: "Richard Dawkins" rucksacks ??

color me clueless: painter


Yes, he said in his film about religion something like, I'm paraphrasing here, "What is it in religion that takes young men with rucksacks and turns them into suicide bombers"

Inadvertently agreeing with OCT.
painter
QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 30 2008, 08:02 AM) *
Yes, he said in his film about religion something like, I'm paraphrasing here, "What is it in religion that takes young men with rucksacks and turns them into suicide bombers"

Inadvertently agreeing with OCT.


Well, by that way of thinking, what is true of "religion" in this sense is equally if not more true of "nationalism" and various other "isms". Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. (Voltaire) What difference does it make if you dress it up in a uniform with flags -- or a dark suit and tie or lab coat and a logo? Anyone who identifies so thoroughly with a set of beliefs or ideologies that he can be made to perceive a threat to these beliefs or ideologies as an attack upon himself can be motivated to kill in the name of whatever.

The fundamental question is, why are we human beings so suggestible? How is it our society puts us in a trance from day one and reinforces that trance through "rewards" and "disciplines" of all types, conditioning us to see our world and ourselves in it in a particular way? How is it we get so entrained in systems of belief -- regardless what category of system -- that we begin to operate as if that system is as important if not more important than life itself?
Sanders
Maaannn, I'm trying not to appear to fawn over painter's words ... I think I made a little complementary comment after another of painter's posts just yesterday ... but sheeesh. Painter, you blow me away sometimes. That above post, I think I'm gonna print it out and hang it on my wall somewhere.
Sanders
I made a mental observation today, one I wouldn't have had I not read one of those recent painter-posts. Japan, if you can imagine, is a totally different world. We have McDonalds, we have GAP, we have a lot of what the US has, we have about the same weather as many places in the US, the banks are owned by pretty much the same people, etc. etc. But jeeeez, it's like being on Mars or something. So completely different feeling than being in the US. And, for maybe the first time, I wondered "why "- and realized that it is the culture here, and the history of the country, and the way people interact and think - that permeates every nook and cranny and zoning law and traffic regulation - some things drive me completely crazy ... but, in a way, Japan is really cool. It's really, stubbornly, decentralized. The streets in Tokyo go every which way (and in fact, it was designed that way on purpose!!! - so enemies couldn't march straight into the city) and there are no street signs to speak of, so if you aren't local you won't have a clue where anything is or where to find anything. Japan is all about neighborhoods, and personal connections, and "En". En is a single character word that means .... er, um, gaaawwwd, this is the hardest word in the world to translate, yet in japanese it is written with one single simple character, and when you say the word "en", everyone knows exactly what you mean. It's something like, you have a connection to someone (or something or someplace ) - you have a history with them, or with people they and you know, or fate brought you together - maybe via those personal connections. It's like a combination of fate and common history coming together to make a connection with someone - and so you have "en".

Well, Japan can be a pain in the @ss place to live in sometimes, but it has some things going for it as well. Ooops, did I go off topic?
painter
QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 30 2008, 10:17 AM) *
Ooops, did I go off topic?

yes1.gif laugh.gif

Kinda sorta. This "en" sounds very interesting. Japanese culture recognizes something that is invisible to our own -- and I think that part is very on-topic. Perhaps even a meta-topic.
Sanders
A little inside Japanese joke ....

In Japanese, many words are prefixed with "go", or "o". Hashi means chopsticks - in Japanese it's "Hashi". But you almost never say "hashi", you say o-hashi. When you speak about someone's family (kazoku), you always prefix it with "go" - GO-Kazoku. There is no difference in meaning between 'go' and 'o', it's just a grammatical rule that determines which prefix to use. The prefix is honorific ... water (mizu) is always o-mizu. So, "en", being a very important concept in Japan, is usually prefixed with "go" - so you say "go-en" (honorable fate-history-connection).

In english we call Japanese money "yen", but in Japan it's called "en". Same pronunciation as the "en" I have been talking about. The word for five is "go", so 5-yen is "go-en". The honorific way to talk about that other (history-fate) "en" is ... "go-en". Do you have "go-en"?? Do you have a nickel? Do you have "connection and history and fate to be here"? - same word. Sorry, it's a Japanese joke. I suspect it doesn't translate. rolleyes.gif

BUT!!! ... the Japanese are supersticious - they always want to have a nickle in their pocket - so they know they have "go-en".


I don't often talk about Japan, but my visa is up for renewal and recently I struggled with whether to stay here or return to the US - America is my country, I really miss it. But, there are so many unknowns - anyway, finally I decided to stay in Japan and keep on keeping on. I guess maybe Japan and I have "go-en"?
lunk
QUOTE (Sanders @ Mar 30 2008, 10:17 AM) *
The streets in Tokyo go every which way (and in fact, it was designed that way on purpose!!! - so enemies couldn't march straight into the city) and there are no street signs to speak of, so if you aren't local you won't have a clue where anything is or where to find anything.


I guess, if martial law is declared here, (N. America)
it might be an idea to take down all the
local street signs in my neighborhood.

On the road of de-creation, lunk
Devilsadvocate
The human mind has both a capacity for kindness and for evil at the same time;
In the same way, it also possesses the capacity for deep rationality and complete irrationality at the same time.
To deny the existance of one of those opposing principles- no matter how contradictory they may be in themselves- would ultimately mean denying our very humanity itself.
Irrationality may well be a very negative property; but if it is not contained in some way, it tends to take on a life of its own.
That was the role which religion once was supposed to play:
To provide the irrational element within the mind with a place where it could exist without doing damage.
Things which can not be seen with the (physical) eye must be rendered visible by way of symbols; sometimes that's the only way in which a particular concept can be understood by a mind which, due to the limitations hoisted upon it by the physical aspect of existance, would not be able to grasp a non-physical concept easily.
Unfortunately, that can end up defying the original purpose for using those symbols:
The moment the original meaning is lost, people all too often end up worshipping the very symbols whose original meaning they have forgotten...
With disastrous results.
It can mean a situation were "...My symbol is more sacred than yours...";
and when that happens- we tend to end up with crusades...
In antiquity, science and spirituality were tied together.
They were simply seen as two different sides of the same thing.
When those two principles became separated from each other, we ended up with a god-centered universe as prescribed by the medieval church.
The resulting imbalance was followed by an anti-reaction: The renaissance, and the reformation, which brought a new openness to a more rational approach.
That in turn lead to plenty of positive developements- but it also brought an almost superstitious belief in science as the measure of all things, and the solution to all problems.
We may very well end up with a new wave of irrational superstitious ideas, and if only as an anti-reaction to the negative aspects of the science-and-rationality-centered universe.
Unless we manage to tie those two principles back together.
After all, our shortcomings are a part of ourselves- and unless we provide a space where they can exist without doing damage, they end up running riot...
Sinewy
Why is Religion EVIL?

Typical response: It has caused many wars and deaths...blah blah blah.

That is not why Religion is EVIL.

So again, why is Religion EVIL?

Corruption and misinterpretation (which again is an extension of the SELF). So the conclusion is that RELIGION is not EVIL.
UnderTow
You don't have to ask why it is evil. Because it just is.

There is no God, GOD, or god. Religious Myths are tools created by men, to control men. To control wealth, knowledge, and power.

It is Evil.
Sinewy
QUOTE (UnderTow @ May 8 2008, 09:11 PM) *
You don't have to ask why it is evil. Because it just is.

There is no God, GOD, or god. Religious Myths are tools created by men, to control men. To control wealth, knowledge, and power.

It is Evil.



That is not me asking "Why"? That is the common atheist question and response.


If religious myths are tools created by men, to control men, then that should hold true for all ideologies.
UnderTow
You are lost and pointless.

You are trapped within your religious infused false mind set.

It's is like trying to explain color to a blind person.
UnderTow
Re:Atheist

Try this thread on for size Sinewy.

10 Myths -- And 10 Truths -- About Atheism

In case you don't read, here's a choice quote:
As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Sinewy
QUOTE (UnderTow @ May 9 2008, 01:24 PM) *
You are lost and pointless.


Buddy, how am I lost? So I shall assume that you are lost because you are an atheist?!

QUOTE
You are trapped within your religious infused false mind set.


Now you assume I am trapped, but can it be that you are trapped?!

QUOTE
It's is like trying to explain color to a blind person.


Bad analogy. See the argument from your side clearly stems from denying anthropomorphism with regards to God. I agree, I am against that as well.
Sinewy
QUOTE (UnderTow @ May 9 2008, 01:27 PM) *
Re:Atheist

Try this thread on for size Sinewy.

10 Myths -- And 10 Truths -- About Atheism

In case you don't read, here's a choice quote:
As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."


I think I will keep it to one thread UnderTow since it follows on the same lines and themes.

And to mention, I have read those "10 myths-10 truths" before. Those are nothing new, as it exhibits fallacies regarding religion and makes some hasty generalizations. Similar arguments have been made throughout the human lifespan.

With regards to the quote of Robert's, it seems he is an agreement with what I had mentioned. There are zealots who attribute an anthropomorphic nature of "a God", and this is very repulsive to people and may lead people to atheism.
lunk
Doesn't the word evil come from religion?
Evil is an idea that came from religion.
I think that it is better to think of the word "evil" as
the words "in error" as they are less confounding and divisive.
An error can usually be corrected,
where as evil, it seems, can't be...
without causing more errors.

imo, lunk
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.