Post: #126

No matter how well versed Scorpion might be in Christianity, and I agree that he is incredibly well versed, he can not show me fundamental proof for God. You are a man of science Roosh. It is disappointing to see you losing faith in it. SJW's and liberals have unfortunately hijacked atheism, and this is unfortunate. We should focus on righting the ship of atheism and logic instead of jumping into a failed system just for nostalgia's sake. Some members might be romanticizing what a theocracy actually entails.


How can one fight for fundamental principles of Democracy, such as due process rights for men accused falsely of rape, and at the same time believe in such an illogical system and ignore separation of church and state?

Post: #127

Quote:You are a man of science Roosh. It is disappointing to see you losing faith in it.

Yes, it does take "faith" to believe in some of the imperfect science we are dogmatically taught today. I read history, and I see that the facts of the day were later proven embarrassingly wrong with further advancements, so I wonder in 500 years when they look back to 2015, how much they will laugh at some of the things we believed, and the grave errors we made from those beliefs.

I'm not throwing everything out, but it's wise to examine some of the "facts" you may take for granted every now and then. Any changes must proceed slowly, and with care.

Post: #128

(05-23-2015 05:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 04:34 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Since so many people are unable to make subtle distinctions they will usually have an emotional response along the lines of how pointing this out this means that you must inherently think homosexuals are inferior in every single way. Nothing along those lines is being asserted.

One of the problems with arguing with the cultural left is that their arguments are easier to put on a bumper sticker. "Say no to hate!" "Equality for everyone!" "The right to love!" These phrases may be simple-minded but they have a major emotional impact, especially on millennials. The traditionalist side doesn't have zingers like that. Maybe the closest they ever got was "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". But in an increasingly secular society as the West is becoming, that no longer has much sway. I feel that the traditionalist side here is more nuanced and takes more explaining. Like everything I wrote in my big reply to VVVV can't really be put on a bumper sticker.

I'm convinced that a big reason for the huge success of progressives in the last few years is because they know exactly how to summarize their entire platform into a bumper sticker - only now the bumper stickers these days are not the things you slap onto your car but rather viral pictures and videos you share with all your friends on social media. If there's anything the modern progressive left is good at, it's snark and taking advantage of pop culture trends.

A good majority of the ideologies that millennials have are constructed piece by with each piece being some nicely Photoshopped picture accompanied with an oh so witty one line zinger that they saw either on Facebook or Twitter. The decayed attention span and constant need to be amused that people of this generation have makes them easy marks for people working in pop media who know exactly how to exploit these decencies and tend to have progressive leanings.

Why is it that there isn't a push for polygamy even though there's no logical reason to deny it if you also accept the reasoning gay marriage activists use to justify their agenda namely that consenting adults can do whatever they want with each other? It's simply because LGBT activists have way more allies in Hollywood, NYC, SF, etc. then the polygamists do.

Post: #129

(05-24-2015 07:52 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:You are a man of science Roosh. It is disappointing to see you losing faith in it.

Yes, it does take "faith" to believe in some of the imperfect science we are dogmatically taught today. I read history, and I see that the facts of the day were later proven embarrassingly wrong with further advancements, so I wonder in 500 years when they look back to 2015, how much they will laugh at some of the things we believed, and the grave errors we made from those beliefs.

I'm not throwing everything out, but it's wise to examine some of the "facts" you may take for granted every now and then. Any changes must proceed slowly, and with care.

I expected you to point out my usage of the word "faith" because every time I have an argument on religion with forum members someone jumps on "faith". These members make the argument that you need "faith" in science, and this makes science no different than a religion. I think that this is a naive argument made just for the sake of argument. You are too knowledgeable to make such an argument without subconsciously realizing it to be false.

I completely agree that in 500 years science will have greatly evolved. Many things that we believe to be true today will not be believed to be true in the future. If science is being taught dogmatically, then it is not science at all, and is some liberal hijacked version that we must not trust. I am not entirely certain what parts of science you are talking about, and where this dogma is being taught. I am guessing that some of it has to do with evolution since you have been reading a book on it.

SJW's have hijacked atheism and "science". They claim that their assertions are true because they are backed by "science" and "statistics", but these people have degrees in Spanish and WGST, how can they know what pure mathematics is? These people use pseudo-science, rigged studies, and a corrupt form of the scientific method to prove their assertions, when in fact it should be the facts that guide you to the truth. Even a high school chemistry student knows how easy it is to fudge data to fit preconceived notions. Our entire argument on false rape accusations relies on the fact that these "1 in 5" or "95% unreported" studies are rigged.

While we must not and can not engage with the true crazies, there are also intelligent people out there who do know science and mathematics. If our side is in the right then we should be able to prove it using sound mathematics and statistics. How can we complain about science being hijacked by dogma if our counter to it is the ultimate dogma of all time : Religion. We will have no leg to stand on. If our end goal truly is to have a better society then will have to reach a much larger audience at some point. This means that will will have to sway the reasonable moderates.

I have stated earlier in this thread that I am against gay marriage, and abortion [in most cases]. I have real logical reasons for believing this. My atheism and reliance on science does not stop me from making fair judgements. In fact science mandates that I hold these beliefs. Killing someone is wrong, and a 6 month old premature baby can survive and become a grown adult. Thus aborting a 6 month old fetus is murder. "Because God" is not a satisfactory reason, and in the modern world will only sound laughable.

500 years ago we did not know about relativity and particle physics. We laugh at the geocentric view of the Universe, and we laugh at the Flat Earth Society. Ofcourse we will laugh at some of the science we believe in today. This does not mean we throw out the scientific method itself. The point of science is to look for the truth. There is a truth out there and we must look for it in the most objective way possible. Only through this search can there be progress.

It should not be surprising that there are holes in Darwinian evolution. In fact, I would be greatly shocked if Darwinian evolution were 100% true. It is such an old theory. With the kind of technology and knowledge of quantum mechanics and genetics we have now, it would be a shame if we had not found kinks in it. These kinks do not mean we throw out the scientific method and go back to the dark ages. It means that we persevere to get ever closer to the ultimate truth. Religion does not leave any room for this progress at all. The truth is already written in the Bible. Move along, nothing else to see. People will die and society will stagnate if religion is to be a part of our code.

Many very intelligent guys on the forum have stated the sentiment that just because liberals are so pissed off by religion [mainly Christianity] it must be worth giving it a try. This sentiment can not be further from the truth.

I have shown in earlier threads how Christianity and religion in general are nothing but crutches for man's fundamentally frightened nature. Eschewing Religion allows a man to choose the best parts of multiple value systems and come up with his own code of honor. Christianity gives you the code and mandates that it is the only correct one. You have no choice, but this means that you also have no responsibility. When you have your own code, when you have made your own decisions, this makes you 100% responsible for the consequences. This is a frightening prospect, but to me it is also a liberating and exciting one. My pride does not allow for anyone else to claim credit for my successes, or claim responsibility for my failures. They are mine.

Liberal atheists are first when it comes to claiming credit for their successes, but they hide and cry when it comes to taking responsibility for their failures. A true man must take stock of both.

I might be overreacting, or atleast reacting too early with this post, but I think that it is critical that "neomasculinity" not become a religious movement. Religion tends to hijack and like a parasite engulf whenever it is a part of. We have been encouraging progress, fact based argument, and taking responsibility for our life and actions on this forum. We can not lose track of that bottom line.

Post: #130

(05-23-2015 01:34 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 12:23 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  All drugs, gay marriage, etc, should be fully legal. Basically, unless you are harming someone else or preventing someone else from exercising/enjoying their own freedom, you should be able to do whatever you want, and government should stay out of the way.

The atheist-libertarian is forced to either join in with the increasingly debaucherous behavior of his society, or withdraw from its corrupting influence. He fights for nothing because he stands for nothing. He just wants to be left alone while society crumbles around him, because in his childish desire to deny God (and thus objective morality) he simultaneously robs himself of the moral and spiritual foundation necessary to oppose the forces of destruction and decay. Thinking himself intellectually powerful for refuting God, he has rendered himself morally impotent, and is thus powerless to oppose the corruption that surrounds him.

A childish desire to deny God? "Belief" is a dangerous trap and the easy way out of tough questions. Children "believe", adults think. If we are presented with evidence that shows our position is wrong, we change it. I can see nothing more antithetical to that as religion is.

It's crazy to assume that because someone denies God, they stand for nothing.

A morality based on thinking and introspection is far more powerful than one handed down to you by a book or a priest.

Maybe there's truth to the idea that religion is needed in society as a glue. Maybe nationalism can function as the glue as well. Ultimately those are both scalable beliefs that large sections of society can take on. I don't know enough about politics or history to comment.

What works for an individual may not work for all of society.

Post: #131

I really don't get this place sometimes.
MRAs are constantly dumped on (and rightly so) because they're whiny weaklings that want to rely on the government to fix things, but people advocating legislating morality and theocracy are righteous crusaders out to save society?



Call me crazy but I see a contradiction here.

Post: #132

When you look into the machinations behind the 'popular will', it is quite amazing that 39% of voters still had the integrity to vote NO.

Quote:In Ireland all of the major political parties backed Same Sex Marriage, the press ran three times as many articles in favour of Same Sex Marriage as those against and the Yes campaign were allowed to spend almost ten times as much as the No campaign, with the majority of money coming in from overseas.

Fearghas Obeara, a one-time policy adviser to the President of the European Parliament pointed out what defenders of traditional marriage were up against: “all the political parties, about 160 out of 166 members of parliament, all the media, all the major US multinationals, 90% of the funding was on the Yes side, it is extraordinary, and something approaching a miracle, that 40% of the voters had the courage to vote No.”

Independent Senator Rónán Mullen, one of the few politicians who openly backed the No campaign stated: “It is an indisputable fact that the media coverage until the formal start of the campaign was entirely one-sided. It is even more worrying that a crazy amount of overseas money from one American foundation poured into groups on the Yes side in recent years. For the sake of our democracy we need to have a public reflection on how this happened, and its implications for law and policy in Ireland.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/...o-serfdom/

Post: #133

What pains me the most about this referendum is the horrible hypocrisy involved in banning presidential runs by people under 35.

I can understand voting yes for gay marriage - the spirit of equality and all that - but simultaneously voting against a completely identical concept? It's just killing me!

Post: #134

On faith and science, it is worthwhile pointing out that science moves, but scripture doesn't. The 'word of god' will remain the same in 500 years, but science will have become 500 years more accurate to the truth.

Reality is objective, and knowledge comes from reason.

And like I keep saying, religion is not socially conservative because it is handed down by supernatural creatures 'who unlike people, know right from wrong'. It is so because religious books were written by people thousands of years ago, and people back then were socially conservative. If the bible was written today, every religious person who has commented in this thread would hate it and call for atheism.

Post: #135

(05-24-2015 07:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  With all due respect, Volando, you're out of your league debating scorpion and Bosch on this issue with your atheism 101 talking points, and because of that, you're dialing up the aggression to compensate, but this will inevitably need to another suspension for you.

I appreciate the frank warning. Apparently there are some things I still need to learn about the forum. I should probably avoid any thread that mentions religion in even a tangential way.

What other non-imperical beliefs is it impermissible to criticize?

I am guessing that no one would get banned for pointing out how irrational Scientology is, or for expressing their opinion that Muslims are terrorists and their violence is rooted in Islam, so is the danger I'm skirting specifically related to how I approach Christianity?

To explain my approach more accurately, I am not unfamiliar with the details of the major monotheistic faiths or how they capture and indoctrinate their members, and what arguments underpin their belief systems. I disagree with the notion that I am somehow out of my league or regurgitating poorly understood talking points.

But I don't see the utility of entering into a detailed discussion of theistic arguments. If someone believes in Santa Claus, it's the equivalent of me engaging them in a discussion on the true color of the robes Santa wears, the number of reindeer he uses, and whether or not he needs helpers to hand out all of the gifts.

Anyway, I've tried to reasonably express my opinion, I don't think anything in this particular post is ban worthy, unless traditional Christianity is now a major component of how you define your movement.

All of the above aside, I think I have a lot more in common with the average religious RVFer than I do with the average atheist non-RVFer, so I will not discuss the issue in a confrontational manner, or even really at all. It's not like someone is going to change their religion based on some stupid post I make, or that I'm going to change my perspective either.

I think it's best to focus on the core values we have in common - notches, travel, exercise, languages, self-improvement.

Post: #136

(05-23-2015 07:15 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  England: you're speaking about a country that is discussing criminalising any form of 'Islamic Blasphemy', where family court processes are often closed to the public, and where a foreign tourist can have a baby removed from her body due to her mental state.

Your story about that Lesbian step-mother is one terrible example of the current craziness. When I saw the scene in the final Mad Men episode where Don Draper was explained by all females in his family that he is not going to get custody of his children after his ex-wife dies of cancer - well that was exactly what is going on. The biological father, wealthy, successful, not crazy - just a little bit lost - that biological father is treated by everyone like the last straw and Betty's husband or aunts and uncles are going to get custody of Don Draper's own sons. That is the extent of the propaganda.

I have talked to women here in Poland who knew girls who came got into problems with the British CPS. They threatened to take away her child over some crazy allegations that a stranger made. She asked the Polish authorities what she should do. They said: "Run! Don't stay in Britain any day longer. We have seen it multiple times that British agencies have taken away children over some bogus reason." So she fled - did not even give notice to her job - just took her child and came back to Poland. While it is true that they take away children of people in Poland it usually happens only to the poorest of the poor here - when couples can barely afford electricity and live in derelict houses. The agencies are still staffed by heterosexual married women, but I am sure given enough time Poland will become Britain over the next decades.

The reason for this is the global agenda - in some countries however it may take decades or centuries.

Why the difference? Social Consciousness. The social consciousness of a population is contrived of the customs, views, perceptions of morality, religion etc. They give us an ethical framework on how to behave in life. Sometimes they can be stifling, but if it's positive it gives a foundation upon which to build civilization. In countries like Japan or China that foundation is probably less religious, but more derived from customs and strong social pressure. In Europe & the US it was partly Christianity - partly age-old customs of marriage and family (existed in European countries before Jesus - Rome, Greece as well as in German, Gaelic or Slav ancestors). If VVVV is advocating for a world free of any religion he has to be aware that this void must then be filled with something else. If that were Chinese and Japanese customs, well one could live with that.

But guess what - the void of religion in the West will be filled with the gender-bending SJW ever-updated dogma. It won't be filled with some enlightened perception of highly ethical atheism either. It will be utter craziness and marxist cultural dictatorship.

AB is right in moving somewhere else. Unless you have tremendous financial resources available, you simply cannot raise your children in the West unencumbered. The same sex marriage is just a stepping stone where ever more degenerate practices shall be normalized.

Post: #137

Regarding Japan, as far as the system here goes, the mother has ultimate power over the children. Joint custody doesn't even exist - on a divorce the court just gives her automatic full custody. Even one Japanese PM never saw his offspring again. It is also very important if you have a child with a Japanese woman outside Japan to place a block on issuance of a passport to that child with the local authorities. Japan is a black hole of child abduction. If a Japanese woman successfully boards a flight to Japan with a child, it is never seen again. This is common knowledge.

Post: #138

Also - my personal take on the gay marriage thing:

Gays & lesbians should be allowed to live in peace. They should be allowed to have some legal contracts that allow them to visit each other in hospital, let them inherit each other's property etc.

However I would not call it marriage. Also I would treat their unions as second rate. Biological and heterosexual couples should always have precedence over them. Plus - it should not be possible for them to adopt any child unless that child's options are worse than that - disabled problematic child that would end in even worse foster homes.

For example: If a lesbian woman has a child with a heterosexual man and then comes together with a lesbian woman, then that biological father should when married to a woman should have automatic full custody.

In a way their unions would not be totally equal, but they should have their freedom. No marriage for them, because that would make them not only equal, but due to current SJW dogma it makes them superior to heterosexual couples.

Post: #139

(05-24-2015 07:43 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  No matter how well versed Scorpion might be in Christianity, and I agree that he is incredibly well versed, he can not show me fundamental proof for God. You are a man of science Roosh. It is disappointing to see you losing faith in it. SJW's and liberals have unfortunately hijacked atheism, and this is unfortunate. We should focus on righting the ship of atheism and logic instead of jumping into a failed system just for nostalgia's sake. Some members might be romanticizing what a theocracy actually entails.


How can one fight for fundamental principles of Democracy, such as due process rights for men accused falsely of rape, and at the same time believe in such an illogical system and ignore separation of church and state?

You are massively missing the point.

I am not religious, and would probably be labeled an atheist. Yet I can see the value of religious traditions, such as no homosexuality, marriage, not fucking your cousin, etc.

The dogmatism of atheists really pisses me off sometimes, they become as blinkered as religious extremists.

In the context of this discussion questions such as 'can you prove God exists' are irrelevant, unhelpful, and show a lack of intellectual capacity for the discussion at hand.

Humans struggle to function without belief systems. That applies to atheists too, it's a belief system, just like religion.


On the topic of this thread: I am against gay marriage. It diminishes the value of marriage in society. Progressives are too busy forcing new progressive laws on to Western societies.

Meanwhile this is happening /thread-47525-...pid1023085

Post: #140

(05-25-2015 06:41 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  If a Japanese woman successfully boards a flight to Japan with a child, it is never seen again. This is common knowledge.

Well - not exactly true. You will see your daughter again doing Japanese porn when she is 18.

Post: #141

Welcome back Scorpion, great posts as always.

Out of curiosity, do you belong to a specific denomination?

Post: #142

(05-25-2015 07:09 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Well - not exactly true. You will see your daughter again doing Japanese porn when she is 18.

Well, since it's Japan, I'd console myself in the fact that she started so late.

Post: #143

(05-24-2015 07:43 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  No matter how well versed Scorpion might be in Christianity, and I agree that he is incredibly well versed, he can not show me fundamental proof for God. You are a man of science Roosh. It is disappointing to see you losing faith in it. SJW's and liberals have unfortunately hijacked atheism, and this is unfortunate. We should focus on righting the ship of atheism and logic instead of jumping into a failed system just for nostalgia's sake.

How can we be focused on "righting the ship of atheism."

Atheism is a negative, it is simply not believing in something, that's all. I'm an atheist but I don't think about it. It isn't important to my life, and it shouldn't be important to the lives of anyone here.

The SJW's have "hijacked" atheism because it's a negative. There's no belief system there, so they think it's cool to use it to show how "enlightened" they are for simply not believing in something. The people who make a big deal about their atheism are usually some of the most retarded people you'll ever come across, because they're trying to be positive about something that is fundamentally a negative. Contrary to what they say, atheism is not inherently smarter than Christianity or other beliefs.

If you don't believe in God, just don't believe in God. I don't devote myself to this non-belief of mine.

There is no belief system in atheism and logic is merely a tool. Starting movements around them is retarded.

Post: #144

(05-25-2015 08:02 AM)Libertas Wrote:  If you don't believe in God, just don't believe in God. I don't devote myself to this non-belief of mine.

There is no belief system in atheism and logic is merely a tool. Starting movements around them is retarded.

This is a good clarification to my previous point.

For you and I, it is a non-belief, and not something we devote thought or time to.

For the typical internet atheist, being an atheist is their belief system. They think religious people are inferior because they don't share their beliefs.

Post: #145

The simple, fundamental error made by Slim Shady, Volando and other atheists who advocate science as the only means for understanding ultimate truth is that science is limited to the observation of the physical world itself. By definition, science cannot tell us anything about what lies beyond the physical world, and therefore can provide no insight into what caused the physical world to come into being, or what ultimate purpose the physical world serves. Science is an excellent tool for telling us what is, but a lousy tool for explaining the existential meaning behind what is. (As a quick aside: From a societal level, the spread of belief systems that provide no existential meaning is extremely dangerous and unstable. It's like a ship with no ballast. Our science-loving friends no doubt understand that nature abhors a vacuum, and the human mind is no different. The gaping lack of meaning inherent to atheism does not result in most atheists becoming hyper-logical, humanitarian scientists out to better the world. No, rather they simply become extreme hedonists pursuing their own pleasure at society's expense, and/or they latch on to whatever the prevailing beliefs and issues of the day are and substitute these values and meanings instead. This is why SJWs and progressives are overwhelmingly atheist: they are attempting to fill the void of meaning in their lives due to the absence of God by worshiping "equality" and "social justice").

The hard limits of science result in atheists being forced into the awkward position of advocating a position of faith - faith that "one day" science will overcome these limits and allow man to understand the ultimate nature of reality. In essence, this is the belief that through science, man will achieve omniscience, and have full knowledge not just of the physical world but of everything that preceded it and lies outside of it. In short, that man will become God. Science and a belief in man's capacity for knowledge and ability therefore become the core tenets of the atheistic "faith". There is inherently an enormous amount of arrogance and pride necessary to this position, and that arrogance is very clear in the posts of the atheists in this thread, who believe that their narrow human understanding is sufficient basis for understanding the whole of reality, even that which lies outside the physical world.

I believe that pride truly is the great stumbling block that prevents men (especially intelligent men) from embracing religion and admitting that their scientific understanding of the universe will always fall short. There's a reason why the Bible (as well as numerous other ancient wisdom texts and dozens of great philosophers) warn us against the dangers of pride and hubris. Rarely does man get himself in greater trouble than when he becomes overconfident in his abilities and understanding. This simple maxim applies for everyday life as well as when grappling with existential questions. The starting point for investigating these matters should rightfully be a position of the deepest humility, of recognizing that our knowledge is supremely limited, both as individuals and as a species. The idea that man has all the answers through science is completely unfounded, and as much an article of faith as any religion. I believe that atheists feel this contradiction even if they can't detect it due to pride, and the cognitive dissonance inherent to putting their faith in a position that advocates not having faith is the major reason why many atheists are so hostile and angry toward the religious: subconscious projected self-loathing ("Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Rom. 1:22).

Post: #146

(05-24-2015 08:29 AM)davyjose Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 06:18 AM)N°6 Wrote:  This will leave the Calvinist and Anglican British remnant in Northern Ireland under pressure to follow suit (this was where a Christian business was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake despite gay marriage not being recognised in NI).

The odds of gay marriage being legalised in the North of Ireland while Unionism rules the roost are virtually nil.

They may be under pressure certainly, but believe me they won't give two shits, it'll matter little to them.

Quote: Northern Ireland under pressure after Irish gay marriage referendum win

LGBT campaigners to step up push for equal marriage rights after Northern Ireland becomes only western European country where it is still banned

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/...are_btn_tw

Post: #147

(05-23-2015 04:35 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  Strictly religious people on the forum must be either virgins, married, or hypocrites.

Pick one.

I would be very interested to hear what the people who seem to be proposing some kind of fascist theocracy seem to be doing in their own lives. I know there are some married guys around here but I can't think of a single member who has ever said that they're married and living a traditional religious lifestyle. Unless these members are living this lifestyle and just not sharing it publicly it seems extremely hypocritical to say the State that should enforce that lifestyle on everyone.

You can talk about about messed up divorce laws in the West but you'd think it's better to at least try it than to stay single, have pre-marital sex and live in sin or what have you. Certain kinds of Muslim immigrants and the Ultra-Orthodox Jews seem to be living their traditional religious lifestyles quite successfully in my big, progressive, cosmopolitan city without the family laws or high cost of living stopping them. They marry in their early 20's, have lot's of kids, they don't get divorced and their children stay within the faith. I don't see why you couldn't join a traditional church and do the same, especially in a much more religious country like the USA.

Nonetheless, I don't think anyone's personal religious views have ever been changed by a debate on an internet forum.

Post: #148

Quote:Nonetheless, I don't think anyone's personal religious views have ever been changed by a debate on an internet forum.

Mine have - it was through exposure to religious viewpoints in debates here (along with encouragement/guidance from some members via PM) that religion began to make sense. I ordered a Bible, booked a flight to Israel for a week, and now it's an important part of my life as an adult man.

Accepting a higher power and moral code doesn't make you a saint overnight, but it certainly changes your relationship with the world and redefines your purpose in it. The best explanation I can offer would be a quote from Tim Keller, a Christian apologist (can easily be applied to other faiths):

"Everyone has a war within themselves. We all want to live according to a high moral code, but none of us can meet the demands of our moral code. The reason for this is that inside of ourselves there is a desire for evil as well as a desire for good. Therefore, none of us can win the battle. But the battle changes when we become a Christian. The deepest parts of ourselves change so that for the first time our most inner being delights in the law of God. We move from a battle we cannot win to a battle we cannot lose."

Post: #149

(05-25-2015 08:35 AM)scorpion Wrote:  The simple, fundamental error made by Slim Shady, Volando and other atheists who advocate science as the only means for understanding ultimate truth is that science is limited to the observation of the physical world itself. By definition, science cannot tell us anything about what lies beyond the physical world, and therefore can provide no insight into what caused the physical world to come into being, or what ultimate purpose the physical world serves. Science is an excellent tool for telling us what is, but a lousy tool for explaining the existential meaning behind what is. (As a quick aside: From a societal level, the spread of belief systems that provide no existential meaning is extremely dangerous and unstable. It's like a ship with no ballast. Our science-loving friends no doubt understand that nature abhors a vacuum, and the human mind is no different. The gaping lack of meaning inherent to atheism does not result in most atheists becoming hyper-logical, humanitarian scientists out to better the world. No, rather they simply become extreme hedonists pursuing their own pleasure at society's expense, and/or they latch on to whatever the prevailing beliefs and issues of the day are and substitute these values and meanings instead. This is why SJWs and progressives are overwhelmingly atheist: they are attempting to fill the void of meaning in their lives due to the absence of God by worshiping "equality" and "social justice").

The hard limits of science result in atheists being forced into the awkward position of advocating a position of faith - faith that "one day" science will overcome these limits and allow man to understand the ultimate nature of reality. In essence, this is the belief that through science, man will achieve omniscience, and have full knowledge not just of the physical world but of everything that preceded it and lies outside of it. In short, that man will become God. Science and a belief in man's capacity for knowledge and ability therefore become the core tenets of the atheistic "faith". There is inherently an enormous amount of arrogance and pride necessary to this position, and that arrogance is very clear in the posts of the atheists in this thread, who believe that their narrow human understanding is sufficient basis for understanding the whole of reality, even that which lies outside the physical world.

I believe that pride truly is the great stumbling block that prevents men (especially intelligent men) from embracing religion and admitting that their scientific understanding of the universe will always fall short. There's a reason why the Bible (as well as numerous other ancient wisdom texts and dozens of great philosophers) warn us against the dangers of pride and hubris. Rarely does man get himself in greater trouble than when he becomes overconfident in his abilities and understanding. This simple maxim applies for everyday life as well as when grappling with existential questions. The starting point for investigating these matters should rightfully be a position of the deepest humility, of recognizing that our knowledge is supremely limited, both as individuals and as a species. The idea that man has all the answers through science is completely unfounded, and as much an article of faith as any religion. I believe that atheists feel this contradiction even if they can't detect it due to pride, and the cognitive dissonance inherent to putting their faith in a position that advocates not having faith is the major reason why many atheists are so hostile and angry toward the religious: subconscious projected self-loathing ("Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Rom. 1:22).

An interesting perspective. However, it is the simple, fundamental error of pride that has led you down a false path.

Human beings are nothing more than highly evolved primates. It may be comforting to believe differently, and it may make us feel important, but that does not make it true.

Our understanding, or lack thereof, of the universe does not in any way alter it.

To say something has a particular purpose is to assert that our thoughts and beliefs affect the fundamental nature of the universe. They do not. A rock is a rock, it is neither good nor evil. It does not have a destiny or a purpose. A million people could hold and worship a particular rock for a million years and pass on traditions about the rock, but it would still be just a rock.

There are no hard limits to science, there are hard limits to the evolved intellectual capacity of homo sapiens. Science is merely a way of trying to render what is, into a form that a human being can understand and categorize.

Post: #150

(05-25-2015 08:51 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 08:29 AM)davyjose Wrote:  

(05-24-2015 06:18 AM)N°6 Wrote:  This will leave the Calvinist and Anglican British remnant in Northern Ireland under pressure to follow suit (this was where a Christian business was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a gay wedding cake despite gay marriage not being recognised in NI).

The odds of gay marriage being legalised in the North of Ireland while Unionism rules the roost are virtually nil.

They may be under pressure certainly, but believe me they won't give two shits, it'll matter little to them.

Quote: Northern Ireland under pressure after Irish gay marriage referendum win

LGBT campaigners to step up push for equal marriage rights after Northern Ireland becomes only western European country where it is still banned

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/...are_btn_tw

Won't happen as long as the DUP are in charge, or are a significant voice within Unionism, not a chance. They're Ireland's answer to the Westboro Baptists.

But for how long that'll be is uncertain, I'd imagine another 15 years if demographic trends are anything to go by.