The Religion Portion Of The Talk Freethought Has Livened Up A Bit Of Late

[DLH]

Oh! Oh! Oh! I know! Amphipithecus?! Aegyptopithecus?! Archaeopteryx?!

What the fuck is an Amphipithecus?

Amphipithecus. On page 1 of the New York Times, August 16, 1985, an artist's reconstruction of the earliest known primate - from which humans evolved - with its hairy self, was inspired by what? "The rear portion of a lower jaw . . . together with the frontal jaw fragment found half a century before."

A star, Amphipithecus, was born! Anthropologist at Harvard University as calling these fossils a "pool of light in acres of darkness."

 

[DLH]

You're joking!

Even if I were joking, which I'm not, you know how offensive that comment was right?

Being dismissive of someone by demeaning half of the population won't get you far in life.

You think that it was markedly offensive for me to have compared you to women or just to say the word "women?" You don't think that women ever think to themselves: Men . . .

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, you ought to focus your attention on the source, anyway. People are getting to the point where they don't need to join some parade of organized religion. The atheists ought to understand that, I've seen more organized creatures running around farmyards with their heads cut off.

And you need to understand that religion is primarily a social disease. No group: no disease. Your made up one man sect is the equivalent of a non contagious mutant strain of the disease: fatal to the carrier, but won't be transmitted. So no real concern to anyone but you.

The fracturing of modern religion signifies the ultimate decline and possible future extinction of the phenomenon. You fail to recognize that without social pressures it is unlikely that people would spontaneously become religious. You claim you do not 'need' an organized sect, but au contraire, you were PRODUCED by such a sect, despite the fact you chose to leave it.

A sect produced you, you will produce nothing.

The fact that this is common shows the extent of religion's decline. Just because you don't recognize the importance of social forces in the continuation of religion. You believe in the importance of the bible only because you were taught to do so. No one stumbling on the bible unprepared would consider it at all convincing. No religious group means no social pressure to accept the bible, or any teaching or belief.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh, and in Hindi and related languages, masculine names commonly end in 'a.'

Wheras in Latin and related languages, including English, feminine names commonly end in 'a.'

This is not the first time I have seen this cause confusion among the unlettered.

Weren't you earlier claiming to have some sort of profound knowledge of language?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One thing that bothers me is that we simply can't get someone to come in here and defend mainstream Christian religion anymore. We've had nothing but a parade of heretics and one-man cultists for the last several years. There's absolutely no point in arguing against a religion that will die along with its sole proponent.

Well, you ought to focus your attention on the source, anyway.

That'd be good advice for you to follow. But you apparently believe in your own version of the Bible. Biblical perfection has never been so easy as to make up new rules as you go along.

 

[Sajara]

Even if I were joking, which I'm not, you know how offensive that comment was right?

Being dismissive of someone by demeaning half of the population won't get you far in life.

You think that it was markedly offensive for me to have compared you to women or just to say the word "women?" You don't think that women ever think to themselves: Men . . .

I know this is all a derail and maybe someone can fix that...but yes, it is offensive for people to derisively write off someone else by disparaging half the population, regardless of if they are saying Men... or Women...

Your point was clear and it speaks volumes for your character. Jesus would not be pleased.

Why do you think it is usually the religious that lack manners?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why do you think it is usually the religious that lack manners?

They're all sure god exists to forgive them...

 

[skepticalbip]

One thing that bothers me is that we simply can't get someone to come in here and defend mainstream Christian religion anymore. We've had nothing but a parade of heretics and one-man cultists for the last several years. There's absolutely no point in arguing against a religion that will die along with its sole proponent.

I think that most mainstream Christians have the sense to realize that everything in the Bible can't be taken literally. Even the Catholic church accepts that evolution is how species developed and that the universe is over 13 billion years old. The Pope even thought the BB theory was great because he sees the "original cause" as god, claiming that science has demonstrated god.

That pretty much just leaves the cultists who are insisting on Biblical literal interpretation and the one man religious conspiracy theorists who are sure science is "out to get them". Trying to talk to the latter is very much like trying to talk sense to a 9-11 truther.

 

[skepticalbip]

One thing that bothers me is that we simply can't get someone to come in here and defend mainstream Christian religion anymore. We've had nothing but a parade of heretics and one-man cultists for the last several years. There's absolutely no point in arguing against a religion that will die along with its sole proponent.

Well, you ought to focus your attention on the source, anyway. People are getting to the point where they don't need to join some parade of organized religion. The atheists ought to understand that, I've seen more organized creatures running around farmyards with their heads cut off.

That leaves open the question of why you chose the Bible as the book that contains truth if you didn't "join some parade of organized religion". Why did you reject as truth the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, the Sutras, the Dao De Jing, the Triptaka, the Advesta, the Qur'an, etc., etc.? Or, since you claim to not need organized religion, why didn't you write your own BOOK OF TRUTH rather than accept a book compiled by an organized religion to further their beliefs?

 

[funinspace]

Well, you ought to focus your attention on the source, anyway. People are getting to the point where they don't need to join some parade of organized religion. The atheists ought to understand that, I've seen more organized creatures running around farmyards with their heads cut off.

That leaves open the question of why you chose the Bible as the book that contains truth if you didn't "join some parade of organized religion". Why did you reject as truth the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, the Sutras, the Dao De Jing, the Triptaka, the Advesta, the Qur'an, etc., etc.? Or, since you claim to not need organized religion, why didn't you write your own BOOK OF TRUTH rather than accept a book compiled by an organized religion to further their beliefs?

This is a funny point. DLH has either at least somewhat joined the then emergent Roman Catholic parade of organized religion, in order to consider their larger Bible to be The Holy Book, or he joined up with the rebellious Protestant groups that came a millennia later, and weed wacked out 20% of the older Bible to form their version.