fucking terrifying

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Reprise: nobody needs religion - all its positive actions and inspiration can be achieved without it, though experience and ambition. It is not a sentient thing, so of course it cannot rape and murder by itself either. I've already stated that a violent film created as fictional art and entertainment cannot carry the can for violent acts as religion - created so profoundly as a fact and a way of life - so repeatedly does. If such a disproportionate amount of people begin bloody wars through an interpretation of Zombie Creeping Flesh the matter might have to be looked at again.

People have been helped by religion. THEY apparently needed it.


The religions that you refer to are a way of life, one that is against those wars and murder et cetera. If there is a way of life that says "Hey, don't kill people" and the people who claim to follow said way of life say "Okay" then kill people, how is that way of life to blame? Who CARES if it's based on invisible men in the sky or the souls of dead aliens or anything like that? Hell, people can believe that the whole universe is on the back of a giant turtle if they want. If the message is "don't kill people", and people who claim to follow that religion kill people, the religion is not to blame. The people doing the killings is. I don't care HOW ridiculous the beliefs of the religion seem to everyone else.
EDIT: and re: the "disproportionate" remark, do you have statistics regarding the amount of people who have killed and murdered and started wars in the name of God/Allah/Whatever vs. the total number of believers? I don't just mean the fact that all you may hear about is the violent ones, I mean concrete facts and numbers.

[PR3SSUR3]

Kane: So far as why people choose to become religious, this varies from person to person - but nobody turns because the doctrines are fact. As I have already covered, people may want a new set of positive (and negative) rules to follow for whatever their own reasons, but they can achieve nothing that cannot be obtained through self discipline and rational thought (apart from the mystical but redundant - often damaging - elements that go with it). I'm not really interested in having a load of God botherers on the couch, since the concept is so wholly misguided.
Freud also spoke of religion as an illusion, and maintained that it is a fantasy structure from which man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity.

I have also already expressed thoughts on the wrong connection with political movements.

What do you want me to back up my statements with, Homer Simpson's calculated document that God does not exist?

It is interesting that I am now being challenged to close arguments about the non-existence of the divine, and it is a testament to how far this thread has come.

And I don't have a particular fondness for arguing, but this isn't going to be whacko day so somebody has to bring gravity to the situation.

:cool:

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
What do you want me to back up my statements with, Homer Simpson's calculated document that God does not exist?

which is why you leave that out of the argument. You don't bring stuff in that you can't back up on your own. "You can't prove me wrong, so I'm right" isn't an argument. You have to prove yourself right.

[PR3SSUR3]

Nobody knows or can estimate the number of Islamic Extremists there are scattered across the globe, since the likes of Al-Qaeda has no clear structure and its members are difficult to determine.

There is surely only a small percentage of the (approx) 1.3 billion Muslims who subscribe to terror.

Within this small percentage, in the United States in 2004 Islamic Extremists commited 57% of fatalities and 61% of woundings where a terrorist perpetrator could be identified. There were 655 terror attacks worldwide in the same year, and almost 2000 people died. Many more in internal reglious war and cleansing operations.

As a direct result of watching The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, 0% of its fanatics gave or followed orders to kill. If the film had 1.3 billion fans, it is estimated none of them would kill in its name since the film does not preach irrefutable values and rules and warn gravely against violation.

The consequences of religious abuse are violent and far-reaching, and since it is an unneccessary practice in the first place even a small percentage of wayward nutters is enough to seal its fate as a bane on modern life.

If you go back to the preacher and paleontologist story you will find meaning that I do not have to prove a single thing about the idea of religion.

[The STE]

For one, you haven't given a credible source. For two, you're completely misinterpriting my comparison to violent movies. Take two people, each have commited a murder. One person says he did it for Christianity, one person did it because of a violent movie he saw. The religion is as much to blame for the one killing as the movie is to the other: not at all. The people CHOSE to kill.

And as far as calling it an unnecessary practice, it is apparently necessary to the ones who say they were helped by religion. "Oh, but they could have-" nope. Could they have been helped with something else? Maybe, maybe not. But their religion helped them.

[PR3SSUR3]

My credible source is the NCC.

You could have said millions of rogue Muslims is still not a disproportionate amount of killers within one movement. However it is difficult to determine either way since there are not exactly many areas of life to compare portions of which that go bad on this large a scale. Race, perhaps, but that is hardly a lifestyle choice - and the behaviour of many within is of course often dictated by religion once again. Social movements do not inflict the same terror, political movements are inflicted upon the masses by the elite of the group.

So while two different people might well each cite religion and Dawn of the Dead as their influence to commit murder, it is most unlikely that as the number of committed members increases the number of atrocities increases the same between them. More people are always going to kill in the name of religion, or do you not think so for sure because there are not quite as many violent film fans to survey? Religion breeds many, many self-serving nutters - violent cinema only a handful at best.

I've already given you my thoughts several times on your last paragraph. It is as neccessary as the morning cup of tea. It might be nice, and familiar, but I would echo Freud's analysis from a few posts ago.

[Haunted]

I wouldn't rely on Frued were I you. Psychiatric medicine has increasing moved away from Fruedian principles over the last hundred plus years. Now, with even more advanced findings of the mental workings of the brain, which, in truth, will possibly never be fully understood, Frued's ideas are being tossed out at a faster rater than ever.

In the 90's people started becoming really mistrustful of psychiatric medicine, because many psychiatrists were themselves nuts. However, there are diamonds in the rough, as the saying goes. These are the doctors that keep abreast of neurology and neuropsychiatry, and advancements in neurological research.

A regular run of the mill shrink will prescribe lithium and prozac...maybe a mild antipsychotic for someone with bipolar disorder. A doctor of psychiatry will prescribe an anticonvolsent medicine because the chemicals that cause the massive fluctuations in mood patterns are related to the chemicals that cause epilectic seizures.

Also, it is a medical fact that putting someone with bipolar disorder on an antidepresant is seriously stupid, because it will cause manic episodes which in turn cause psychotic episodes. Thus, among learned doctors of psychiatry who actually know what they're doing, don't really use psychotropic medication anymore, because it doesn't work. (Psychotropic= Antidepresants and shit like that). They also don't dope you up on heavy medication, because they believe that quality of life is essential to the patient.

Also, bare in mind that Frued was, in fact, an opium addicted coke head in love with his mother. ...Just a little food for thought.

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
My credible source is the NCC.

You could have said millions of rogue Muslims is still not a disproportionate amount of killers within one movement. However it is difficult to determine either way since there are not exactly many areas of life to compare portions of which that go bad on this large a scale. Race, perhaps, but that is hardly a lifestyle choice - and the behaviour of many within is of course often dictated by religion once again. Social movements do not inflict the same terror, political movements are inflicted upon the masses by the elite of the group.

So while two different people might well each cite religion and Dawn of the Dead as their influence to commit murder, it is most unlikely that as the number of committed members increases the number of atrocities increases the same between them. More people are always going to kill in the name of religion, or do you not think so for sure because there are not quite as many violent film fans to survey? Religion breeds many, many self-serving nutters - violent cinema only a handful at best.

I've already given you my thoughts several times on your last paragraph. It is as neccessary as the morning cup of tea. It might be nice, and familiar, but I would echo Freud's analysis from a few posts ago.

Yes, you've given your thoughts several times, but you've yet to back them up. All you do is say "people don't need religion" and a handful of other things that you just stretch out to paragraph length. Although I will ask one question: Do you have any actual experience with religion, or just what you look up on the internet?

[PR3SSUR3]

Well, I seem to have more than engaged your statements, questions and accusations, so your dismissive comments are plainly incorrect as anyone unbiased reading the thread can see for themselves.

It is not for a man to disprove the incredible theories of another - he can only be expected to prove his alternative explanations. In this case, the idea of creationism is destroyed by evolution delivered through paleontology, and the subsequently weakened concept of a deity has been laid to rest through the simple physics and mathematics that are understood to govern life. And I've given examples of how religion has created worldwide repression and death (and children raping) for many centuries, and that it seems to be on the up and up. Take away the fantastical elements of religion and the doctrines become simply general good sense with no divine or - most importantly for the stability of the planet - extreme consequences that can be threatened by installed 'leaders'. Just think - condoms greenlighted for AIDS and famine-ridden African countries.

It's a much better state of affairs all round. Of course if you're asking me to prove that people do not need religion then you're going to have to be patient - it will take time to get round everyone, and I am not a magician like that Jesus and David Blane.

I have enough experience with the subject - maybe less than you, maybe more than you... who knows?

---

Freud issue: Coke snorting Freud made groundbreaking observations of the human mind and behaviour that today's wayward neurotic children are unlikely to take kindly to. In these casual pill popping times, it's no wonder.

Now, are you angry because you cannot accept your mutated lack of penis?

;)

[The STE]

Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Well, I seem to have more than engaged your statements, questions and accusations, so your dismissive comments are plainly incorrect as anyone unbiased reading the thread can see for themselves.

It is not for a man to disprove the incredible theories of another - he can only be expected to prove his alternative explanations. In this case, the idea of creationism is destroyed by evolution delivered through paleontology, and the subsequently weakened concept of a deity has been laid to rest through the simple physics and mathematics that are understood to govern life. And I've given examples of how religion has created worldwide repression and death (and children raping) for many centuries, and that it seems to be on the up and up. Take away the fantastical elements of religion and the doctrines become simply general good sense with no divine or - most importantly for the stability of the planet - extreme consequences that can be threatened by installed 'leaders'. Just think - condoms greenlighted for AIDS and famine-ridden African countries.

It's a much better state of affairs all round. Of course if you're asking me to prove that people do not need religion then you're going to have to be patient - it will take time to get round everyone, and I am not a magician like that Jesus and David Blane.

I have enough experience with the subject - maybe less than you, maybe more than you... who knows?

Coke snorting Freud made groundbreaking observations of the human mind and behaviour that today's wayward neurotic children are unlikely to take kindly to. In these casual pill popping times, it's no wonder.

Now, are you angry because you cannot accept your mutated lack of penis?

;)

The theory isn't the point. YOU brought it into the conversation, YOU back up YOUR point. End of story. As for your "alternative explanation", you haven't offered any. All you've said is that God doesn't exist. Well, that's one of your main points of argument, so back it up.

You have given NO examples of how RELIGION has cause any of the things you have described. PEOPLE did it, and you haven't given one single credible argument as to why one should shift the blame away from people. You bring up science and logic, but you have so far used neither as a part of your argument. You have an unbelieveably biased view against something you know very little to nothing about (looking up things to back up your "religion is bad" argument doesn't count), and you're turning this into a circular argument.

No, you have not given a credible argument to blame religion for the atrocities done in its name. The only thing you've said is that "People did bad things in the name of religion, and people don't need religion, therefore it's religion's fault" and that is a terrible argument.

You brought up Freud, found out that his theories are being all but done away with nowadays, and just insult the "wayward neurotic children" and "pillpoppers" who don't give a shit about Freud anymore, just because invoking the name of Almighty Freud didn't work.

And then, GASP, resort to petty (there's that word again) insults. Aw, Haunted has a mutated crotch, that just totally negates anything she says, doesn't it? It's not that YOU'RE wrong (you are), it's that she's mad about her groin! BRILLIANT!

Ad Hominems just make it seem like you're grasping at straws. I mean, one could easily point out that you're being an arrogant, bigoted asshole who's trying to be Oh So Trendy by using all of his logic (which you have referred to, but never used) and science (see: logic) to debunk that retarded-ass religion stuff. I could even throw in a sarcastic "you're so cool" and add a smiley face at the end, maybe a :cool: or something. It would be easy, but why do it? It doesn't argue any points, it doesn't back up anything that anybody says, it just attacks the person who's making the points. And if we're gonna do that then just give me a minute and I can start up an AIM chat room and we gan discuss this like real 8th graders.