Post: #201

Religious people cherry pick when it comes to science.

They accept the science of airplanes and cellphones, but they reject the same science that requiores proof of god.

What a joke.

Post: #202

(09-06-2013 11:01 AM)soup Wrote:  Religious people cherry pick when it comes to science.

They accept the science of airplanes and cellphones, but they reject the same science that requiores proof of god.

What a joke.

They're religious until they require medical attention.


Then it's all "doctor!! doctor!!", when saved they return to their old ways, thanking god when they should be thanking the doctor. Religious people should drive without airbags.

Post: #203

I'm surprised that hipsters haven't taken up being ironically religious. Has anyone seen anything like this?

This could a new iteration of hipster culture, to help keep it chugging crappy beer well into this century.

The problem is that it would require them to falsify sincerity. It may just be too much work.

Post: #204

(09-06-2013 11:10 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  I'm surprised that hipsters haven't taken up being ironically religious. Has anyone seen anything like this?

This could a new iteration of hipster culture, to help keep it chugging crappy beer well into this century.

The problem is that it would require them to falsify sincerity. It may just be too much work.

Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?

Post: #205

(09-06-2013 11:06 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  They're religious until they require medical attention.


Then it's all "doctor!! doctor!!", when saved they return to their old ways, thanking god when they should be thanking the doctor. Religious people should drive without airbags.

New Agers can be just as bad. It's all about vibrational levels and colour therapy until TSHTF. Sean Locke (Brit comedian) made a joke about it: "When I get run over by a car, I want to hear sirens, not wind chimes."

Post: #206

(09-06-2013 11:06 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 11:01 AM)soup Wrote:  Religious people cherry pick when it comes to science.

They accept the science of airplanes and cellphones, but they reject the same science that requiores proof of god.

What a joke.

They're religious until they require medical attention.


Then it's all "doctor!! doctor!!", when saved they return to their old ways, thanking god when they should be thanking the doctor. Religious people should drive without airbags.

I said I was bowing out of this thread, but I thought I'd share this with you as it's relevant! And funny.

Post: #207

And while we're at it, one more completely unrelated clip dissing American fatties!

Post: #208

A man today has two choices: join a religion or become a feminist. Atheist men do not have a chance against feminists and most of them are feminists already. If you think your brilliant arguments will give you any advantage with women, you have already lost. Richard Dawkins explains evolution to his third wife while he is doing the dishes.

Post: #209

(09-06-2013 12:08 PM)Sherman Wrote:  A man today has two choices: join a religion or become a feminist. Atheist men do not have a chance against feminists and most of them are feminists already. If you think your brilliant arguments will give you any advantage with women, you have already lost. Richard Dawkins explains evolution to his third wife while he is doing the dishes.

Whose ass did you pull this out of?

Post: #210

(09-06-2013 12:08 PM)Sherman Wrote:  A man today has two choices: join a religion or become a feminist. Atheist men do not have a chance against feminists and most of them are feminists already. If you think your brilliant arguments will give you any advantage with women, you have already lost. Richard Dawkins explains evolution to his third wife while he is doing the dishes.

Post: #211

(09-06-2013 03:19 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Nature has two goals for humans: survivability and reproduction. Religious people have more children than atheists (many studies have been done on this). From the standpoint of nature, religion is an evolutionary benefit that does a better job at continuing the human species. Whether you believe or not, whether you think religion is rational or not, it has helped perpetuate the human race. Many of us exist today due to religion's cultural pressure on causing your grandparents or parents to marry and procreate.

If I was given a kingdom to rule, I would promote religion to ensure it's longevity.

_________________

Couldn't agree more....
Great leaders throughout history have found religion to be an indispensible aid to governance. Ashoka, Charlemagne, etc...the list is nearly endless. Religion promotes good order and social cohesion, provides moral instruction to the young, and performs a hundred other social functions to keep the population quiescent. It's easy to scoff at such things, but we have to take man as he is, not as we wished him to be.

Post: #212

(09-06-2013 11:06 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 11:01 AM)soup Wrote:  Religious people cherry pick when it comes to science.

They accept the science of airplanes and cellphones, but they reject the same science that requiores proof of god.

What a joke.

They're religious until they require medical attention.


Then it's all "doctor!! doctor!!", when saved they return to their old ways, thanking god when they should be thanking the doctor. Religious people should drive without airbags.

Pretty obvious neither of you guys understand what Science is. Science does not tell us what is, but only what is not.

The science of airplanes and cellphones is based on the falsifcation of 1 million other theories.

Science cannot apply to things that cannot be falsified, such as morality or religion.

Post: #213

(09-06-2013 08:52 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:07 AM)Samseau Wrote:  In 300 years from now barely anyone will know what a computer is, or an antibiotic.

Yeah, just like that printing press gizmo - what a flash in the pan that was!

Nice try with the false equivocation of words. Just because we call the printing press by function does not mean the printing press of today is anything of similarity to a printing press of 300 years ago.

So thanks for inadvertantly proving my point. The printing press of 300 years ago is nothing like the printing press of today, and the average joe has no idea what how a printing press of the 1700's operated.

Likewise, a computer of 300 years from now will be almost indistingushable from a computer today. Same as the printing press.

Post: #214

(09-06-2013 10:27 AM)j r Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:05 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:17 AM)j r Wrote:  I've got no real problem with religion (although I have lots of little problems with various aspects of religious dogma), but let's be honest and admit that what you guys are advocating is an external means of controlling the population. How is that red pill?

Just as red-pill as advocating external control of women.

I don't advocate for external control of women (nor do I advocate for radical feminism). I advocate for individual men learning the truth of human nature and social dynamics to have successful relationships and good interactions with women.

Then you've already lost. The only true rule of human nature is that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning social dymanics is mirage. What we call social dymanics is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

So the logical endgame of teaching human nature to the masses is to let them fight for control via violent means, since after all there is no God and there is no point to existence other than to get what you want.

Quote:I advocate for individuals undertaking serious study and introspection to come to an understanding of the universe that leads them down the path of happiness and virtue.

You sound like any Christian priest I've ever talked to.

Post: #215

^ I don't know what your point was in all this "X amount of years from now, Y won't be around". 300 years from now, religion won't be around either in all probability. In fact, once we reach the technological singularity, all bets are off for what earth will be like. It's actually a fascinating thing to read about, and mind blowing and too difficult to comprehend. I don't think it ends well for humans, most probably a Matrix type ending if anything.

Post: #216

(09-06-2013 05:18 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  Just because my mind experiences something it cannot explain and is filled with wonder, does not automatically mean I have to resort to mystical explanations. I certainly cannot prove that God doesn't exist, but I go on the balance of probabilities.

You make some very good points in your post. I would argue that genuine spiritual/mystical experiences cannot and will never be explained. Hence the necessity of experience rather than discussion/description.

I read a great Kurt Vonnegut quote where he was being interviewed, and on the topic of science vs. religion said, in his usual wry humor, that technology was progressing so quickly that he was certain that in his lifetime astronomers would finally find God with their telescopes.

Ultimately, religion and the spiritual experience cannot be quantified in everyday, logical language. It can be described, at best, in vagaries. To most people, this disqualifies it as being "real".

It's for this reason, that in Buddhist practice talking is very much discouraged. There is an attitude of, "Stop talking, stop discussing, stop describing, shut up and meditate." I agree with this. Discussing the spiritual experience convolutes it. Some people may never experience it in their lifetime, and some people are born into it and we call them saints and gurus. The only way to know is to experience it.

For myself, I can say it is as real as this computer screen in front of me.

Post: #217

(09-06-2013 05:18 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  You seem to want to have it both ways: the limited subjectiveness of our experience is being used as evidence that there is no real world out there, and yet it is also being used as evidence that there is something mystical, beyond our comprehension. The first is a non-sequitur; just because our senses and minds interpret the world for us in no way proves that there isn't solid reality outside of our experiences of it. The fact that you can guide someone's mind in meditation to experience something other-worldy in no way proves that something external to that mind caused the experience.

I don't believe I made any such point. As in my last post, I state "It's as real to me as this computer screen in front of me."

That is, I acknowledge that they are both entirely subjective experiences that are shareable. I can show someone my computer screen. I can teach someone a breathing meditation. They're one and the same.

Post: #218

(09-06-2013 02:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:27 AM)j r Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:05 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:17 AM)j r Wrote:  I've got no real problem with religion (although I have lots of little problems with various aspects of religious dogma), but let's be honest and admit that what you guys are advocating is an external means of controlling the population. How is that red pill?

Just as red-pill as advocating external control of women.

I don't advocate for external control of women (nor do I advocate for radical feminism). I advocate for individual men learning the truth of human nature and social dynamics to have successful relationships and good interactions with women.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning social dymanics is mirage. What we call social dymanics is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning religion is a mirage. What we call religion is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Post: #219

If anything, religion teaches one to be a white knight.

Abstinence
Marriage
Family
Pedestalizing

Red pill is "free for all" and social Darwinism.

Post: #220

(09-06-2013 02:57 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 02:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:27 AM)j r Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:05 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:17 AM)j r Wrote:  I've got no real problem with religion (although I have lots of little problems with various aspects of religious dogma), but let's be honest and admit that what you guys are advocating is an external means of controlling the population. How is that red pill?

Just as red-pill as advocating external control of women.

I don't advocate for external control of women (nor do I advocate for radical feminism). I advocate for individual men learning the truth of human nature and social dynamics to have successful relationships and good interactions with women.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning social dymanics is mirage. What we call social dymanics is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning religion is a mirage. What we call religion is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Except for the fact that relgions are based upon God, which is immortal and immutable.

What are social dymanics based on?

Post: #221

(09-06-2013 03:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 02:57 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 02:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:27 AM)j r Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:05 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Just as red-pill as advocating external control of women.

I don't advocate for external control of women (nor do I advocate for radical feminism). I advocate for individual men learning the truth of human nature and social dynamics to have successful relationships and good interactions with women.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning social dymanics is mirage. What we call social dymanics is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning religion is a mirage. What we call religion is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Except for the fact that relgions are based upon God, which is immortal and immutable.

What are social dymanics based on?

The consensus. Exactly the same as "God" is based on in religion.

Post: #222

(09-06-2013 03:38 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 02:57 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 02:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:27 AM)j r Wrote:  I don't advocate for external control of women (nor do I advocate for radical feminism). I advocate for individual men learning the truth of human nature and social dynamics to have successful relationships and good interactions with women.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning social dymanics is mirage. What we call social dymanics is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning religion is a mirage. What we call religion is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Except for the fact that relgions are based upon God, which is immortal and immutable.

What are social dymanics based on?

The consensus. Exactly the same as "God" is based on in religion.

Nope. All religions are created by prophets who perform miracles. It is God who creates the religion and not vice versa.

Post: #223

(09-06-2013 03:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:38 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 02:57 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 02:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning social dymanics is mirage. What we call social dymanics is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Morality only comes in if the strong will it. Thus the idea of learning religion is a mirage. What we call religion is nothing more than the conventions of our time and are completely relative. There is nothing true or absolute about them.

Except for the fact that relgions are based upon God, which is immortal and immutable.

What are social dymanics based on?

The consensus. Exactly the same as "God" is based on in religion.

Nope. All religions are created by prophets who perform miracles. It is God who creates the religion and not vice versa.

It's sentiments like this that are the reason our culture is starting to rightfully tee off on organized religion. So your point is that there's nothing true or absolute about other people's views, those are relative. But your view isn't relative it's absolute, because a book says that someone performed a miracle or something and because God created it.

God created it? Really? I'm pretty sure the historical record shows that man created each and every religion.

How is this any different from the feminist, who claims that everyone else's views on sex and gender are all just relative social constructs, oh but not their own constructs of female-favoring anti-masculine androgyny, no that's not a social construct, that's just the way it's supposed to be.

Your religion's morality is no different than anyone else's morality, I assure you. All of it was crafted by humans, the only difference is that some people claim their morality is also God's. Right.

Post: #224

Wow. Wtf happened to this thread. You Americans are extreme when it comes to this topic.. In Europe we don't give a damn as much. Everybody can be atheist or religious, who cares. Let's have a drink and talk about girls..

Btw. what's the name of the rule that states: "The less you need to KNOW about a subject, the more responses will a forum thread provoke." .. not hating, but Religion, by definition, is a perfect example. 2nd is probably politics.

Post: #225

(09-06-2013 02:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Pretty obvious neither of you guys understand what Science is. Science does not tell us what is, but only what is not.

The science of airplanes and cellphones is based on the falsifcation of 1 million other theories.

Science cannot apply to things that cannot be falsified, such as morality or religion.

How much science or engineering have you actually practised? I don't mean school physics classes or thinking about it in your ivory tower surrounded by books, but actually done in real life as a job on the shop floor or in a lab?

You seem to have some basic high-school grasp of epistemology and have conflated the idea that science consists of testing hypotheses with the bizarre notion that science can only falsify theories. It is one thing to say that science is only our best current approximation to the Truth, and quite another to say that it only describes "what is not".

The power of science is prediction. A car designer can, without a car turning a wheel, accurately calculate how much fuel it will use, how fast it will go around corners, and a thousand other things that he may wish to know. And the answers will be correct, most of the time. How on earth is that predictive power based solely upon falsification? Science can prove that a new plane will be able to take off, within a very narrow sliver of doubt. I would guess that you have put your 'faith' in Boeing or Airbus at some time or other? Or did the planes take off because you were clutching your bible?

It is precisely because religion cannot be falsified that it remains the refuge of scoundrels and corral of dupes (and to be fair, some good people who have honest faith).

As for the 300 year thing, you have latched on to the form of printers and computers whereas I am talking of the function. I am confident that computers, as in machines that manipulate digital information, will be with us for some considerable time.