Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule

SR # 135, actually, even at that stage problems are minimal, or at least humanly manageable.

The REAL problem (or if you are a believer, REAL power) arises when the abducted person delivers a specific "message for ALL of mankind" and proclaims the rejection of the "message" to have implications for one or more people, or to signal something inherently good or evil about these others.

At that point aliens, abductees, and listeners all become political agents, and little more.

Now, IF you went even further, and claimed your abduction to be the VERY LAST such astral sojourn, then you have perfected politics. All that remains is for you to enforce that claim as the law, by all means necessary - using rewards and using punishments.

Re: # 142

it is not the 'godless' that are 'inventing' the bs as you put it ... they actually "look for" the answers, admittedly don't always find them ... but keep looking nevertheless ... rather than satisfying themselves with incomprehensible bs such as you regularly produce here

and you go and have an even nicer day sir

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

akcheema writes ""who moved the prime-mover"??"

Please refrain from using BS language and arguments from the ignorance era, like Anil who even after having being stumped regarding science clings to his BS about science proving. Science progresses through falsification disproving hypothesis to "indirectly" "prove" the tested hypothesis but NEVER EVER directly. Anil take a hike if you don't understand something rather than cling to falsehood in this disgraceful manner.

Akcheema, the "moving" is required because of specific characteristics in the created universe that necessitate a creator, the beginning, the probable end, change, the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. If such are NOT the attributes of a creator, it would require no "moving" similar to if the universe had the characteristics that atheists of the ignorance era imputed on it it might not have required "moving"- comprendey how you dishonest godless folk change criteria to go into absurd directions...much like Anil clinging to his BS.

Re: # 138; corrections

... inter-changeability

and

... than (not then)[last line]

apologies

Re: # 137

akcheema sahib:

"who moved the prime-mover"??

This is where the belief system of "believers" start and they create an absolute, much like newtonian absolute, instead of relativity. The point this belief system starts, rationality, reasoning and logic stops, and above all probity and questioning stop.

I wonder how can one ridicule religion, as such, as there cannot be a universal definition of the term … because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes.

As regards the film in question, it can be commented upon only if we can see it. But how can we do that? Is it available on line?

Re: # 137

... and if we can postulate the emergence of the "ever-existing prime mover" ex-nihilo, the universe itself becomes a much smaller matter to explain ... the theory of matter/energy interchangability becomes much more plausable (when it has more than enough verifiable evidence around) then the gobbledigook you lot try to satisfy yourselves with

Re: # 127; masadi
[[The taken for granted world isn't "enough proof". ]]

how is that 'proof' for anything?? so you cannot conceive the 'existence' of something without a 'prime-mover'?? .. then "who moved the prime-mover"??

Re: # 135


My trouble, however, begins when a remote trailer park resident gets abducted by a UFO from his out-house and returns to tell the tale to his wife half three hours later. Just because I believe in the existence of aliens does not follow that I must also believe that they came to the man in the Nevada trailer park, or for that matter, to a remote cave on a hill, overlooking a desert village somewhere in the remote tribal territory at the fringe of the Roman and Persian empires.


Let's go further.. Even giving a benefit of doubt that God indeed talked to some dude from Arabia in a secret cave through a messenger, why should God stop with that message.

He sent an earlier messenger 600 years back (let's say 0 A.D), it is statistically possible that he is still communicating with someone in earth. and that could be hamidm2. :-)

1) Does God exist?

2) Does s/he 'purposely' influence the universe?

3) Does s/he make direct communication with humans?

Most people get stuck on the first two points. I consider that futile. We should skip the first two points and start with the assumption that god does exist and influences the natural universe.

Okay, now comes the third question. Direct communication with humans. THAT is where I have trouble. The first two I concede.

It's just like with the aliens and their UFOs... Given the billions and billions of stars in our galaxy, and given that there are more billions of galaxies than there are stars in our own galaxy, common sense would argue that the existence of an "M class" planet with intelligent life on it is almost a stastical certainty. Carl Sagan argued that almost 30 years ago. I believe that intelligent alien exists, simply because it 'should' exist. No problem there either.

My trouble, however, begins when a remote trailer park resident gets abducted by a UFO from his out-house and returns to tell the tale to his wife half three hours later. Just because I believe in the existence of aliens does not follow that I must also believe that they came to the man in the Nevada trailer park, or for that matter, to a remote cave on a hill, overlooking a desert village somewhere in the remote tribal territory at the fringe of the Roman and Persian empires.

...SR

Masadi sahib:

Please keep foul words to yourself. I am not surprise at your refusal to learn. Repeat after me, Scientfic methods prove, and never disprove. Corollary is deduced, and since it is not proven, scientific probity continues.

later..............

anil: and don't try to cover up your ignorance by throwing 7th century to Mills nonsense, you 500 BC to Adam Smith moron

#129 Anil you've proved that HBS didn't teach you basic science when you claimed that science proves and does not disprove. Science progresses through disproving, you have proven yourself to be a total idiot...

Have a nice day
TNI Masadi

Khurram writes "This is because the big questions are not scientific questions and their answers are not scientific."

When the religious man defines "Big" to exclude science, his BIG is usually very small and within the realm of science...

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi