Why are JUBbers so prejudiced against the religious/religion in general?

[eastofeden]

Ascribing consciousness to nature by defining God as nature itself or "Mother Nature" sounds like a bit of a cop out. We know that natural selection is real. If there was a better way to create intelligent beings then why go through millions of years of evolution to end up with the same result?

You assume we are intelligent. I disagree. How intelligent is it to make wiping each other out for power and control the end game? Destroying the planet and it's species for a few bucks? Defying Nature..trying to control it? Intelligent? ..nah...

 

[HornyJock]

Not everyone agrees with you on that one.

No problem bro, I respect that.
That was my point of view of course.
If religion make some people feel better, it's a good thing.

As long as Religion don't mess with Science or push for backward agendas I am good.

 

[Hakuba]

You assume we are intelligent. I disagree. How intelligent is it to make wiping each other out for power and control the end game? Destroying the planet and it's species for a few bucks? Defying Nature..trying to control it? Intelligent? ..nah...

We are intelligent compared to most other organisms on this planet, but all evidence points to human evolution as something ongoing, so if we're allowed to continue evolving our intelligence will most likely surpass our natural destructive instincts at some point.

 

[eastofeden]

We are intelligent compared to most other organisms on this planet, but all evidence points to human evolution as something ongoing, so if we're allowed to continue evolving our intelligence will most likely surpass our natural destructive instincts at some point.

One can only hope...but the prospects don't look good for that happening....

I forgot to mention earlier...the problem with "God" is that so many people want to define "God" for everyone else. If everyone defined "God" for themselves...and shut the fuck up about it afterward...the human race maybe would evolve a lot faster since "God" seems to be telling a lot of the fuckheads who destroy everything and everyone around them to do so...

...and since they define "God" as the creator..I define "God" as the only actual creator of everything..and that would be NATURE..so my definition is not a cop out.

I didn't even mention the spiritual aspect to it...because that is a BELIEF I have. I happen to think everything in nature..and animals/mountains/trees/ect...all have spirit and soul...but I wouldn't suggest anyone else believe it.

The thing I suggest is indisputable. Nature really IS a God..IF "God" is the creator....

 

[zoltanspawn]

Science can prove that the universe wasn't created in 6 days a few thousand years ago. It can't necessarily disprove that there is NO god, but it can disprove all the popular theories about the creation of the universe that is tied to all the major religions, and that ought to be enough proof for anyone. The only god that science can't disprove is one that is not affiliated with any religion that we know of.

Well, many Hindus assert that this universe is merely one of countless billions Vishnu creates in his slumber. Disprovable by science?

 

[zoltanspawn]

We are intelligent compared to most other organisms on this planet, but all evidence points to human evolution as something ongoing, so if we're allowed to continue evolving our intelligence will most likely surpass our natural destructive instincts at some point.

Or, with any luck, our particular species might disappear and make way for one with a more benevolent intelligence altogether.

 

[jbrown329]

Most of the time I don't really have a problem with religion. But... take a look at Judge Ray Moore. The 10 Commandments have no damn place at the Courthouse. Look at the freaks that scream about keeping "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That line was NOT there until the 1950s. All because of the "godless" Communists.

Then there's the whole creationism shit. Sorry, evolution is a fact.

The original (unofficial) motto of the United States was "E pluribus unum" (Out of many, one). Not "In God We Trust". Again, that was done in the 1950s.

That phrase was not on our money originally. It was added to coins in 1864 and paper currency in 1957. Clearly, they are unconstitutional. See the 1st Amendment.

Idiots screaming at the top of their lungs that 'Merica is a "Christian nation". No, it's not you fuckwit. If it was...... it would be a theocracy (and there happens to be a shitload of 'christians' that would be overjoyed if it was).

You want to go to church on Sundays? Fine, go for it. But keep thy religion to thyself. Quit forcing it on everyone else. Don't come knocking on my door trying to "spread the word". I'm liable to tell you to fuck off as I slam the door in your face. Don't be sending me postcards saying that the end is near and that I need to be saved. You're wasting paper. Those don't even make it indoors. Right into the garbage they go.

And the most hateful assholes I've ever run across online are self professed Christians. I've been told that I deserve death because of my sexuality. There is no "Love thy neighbor" with that crowd.

 

[Kulindahr]

Atheists treat everyone equal and hold everyone to the same standards.....

Not so. Militant atheists are just as much obnoxious fundamentalists as religious ones.

 

[Kulindahr]

Science can prove that the universe wasn't created in 6 days a few thousand years ago.

So it can disprove a fantasy held by people who don't understand how to read ancient literature.

It can't necessarily disprove that there is NO god, but it can disprove all the popular theories about the creation of the universe that is tied to all the major religions, and that ought to be enough proof for anyone. The only god that science can't disprove is one that is not affiliated with any religion that we know of.

Science can't disprove the God of the Bible (Jewish or Christian), but that's mostly because the Bible really doesn't make any scientific claims.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hostility at least in the LGBT community would logically stem from the callousness many, or shall I say most, have faced from some religious people in our lives, not to mention the overall liberal tendencies owing to our strong presence in urban centers. So we are calloused against religion in general.

I still can't decide who I've been treated worse by, fundamentalist Christians or certain gays -- it's a tight race. In both cases I've found myself regarded as an object and not a person, the difference being that some fundamentalist Christians see me as a "soul" to be "saved" while some gays have seen me as a hunk of flesh to be ridiculed or exploited... so the one regards me as an immaterial object and the other regards me as a material object. Either way, it's not fun being treated as an object.

 

[Kulindahr]

You assume we are intelligent. I disagree. How intelligent is it to make wiping each other out for power and control the end game? Destroying the planet and its species for a few bucks? Defying Nature..trying to control it? Intelligent? ..nah...

Heh. This reminds me of my older brother's definition of man (old sense, i.e. "human"): the only animal that doesn't make use of the brains God gave him/us (we agreed that G W Bush was a superb example: rated by experts as having an IQ around 125, his actions suggested he wasn't using a quarter of it for anything anyone else could see).

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, many Hindus assert that this universe is merely one of countless billions Vishnu creates in his slumber. Disprovable by science?

Brahma, not Vishnu -- Vishnu is the Preserver, balance to Shiva the Destroyer; Brahma is the Creator.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or, with any luck, our particular species might disappear and make way for one with a more benevolent intelligence altogether.

Wish I could remember which novel it was.... but I read a great sci-fi novel recently which was really an argument that the proposition that any species that makes it to the stars will be peaceful is inherently flawed, because evolution requires competition, and intelligence turned to competition, given the nature of Nature, will always include not merely a capacity for but a tendency to violence. The arguments were very similar to ones I've read that "liberal" and "conservative" are two aspects of humanity that we need to survive, each for a different aspect of survival. At any rate, one aspect of the argument was that any species without the capacity for violence will never achieve civilization because it will never be able to rise above merely surviving against predators; thus every intelligent species will have a built-in animosity to the "other", and the only way to achieve regarding all members of one's species as not-other is to encounter an exterior enemy that can be so regarded.

It reminded me a bit of a series I once read where when Humans reached the stars there were warrior-like machines out in the galaxy that fought against all biological life, and in one book it was discovered that they were initially created by a group whose species was threatening its own existence by constant warfare; they created the battle machines to provide an outside enemy for them all to unite against. This led to an understanding of why the machines were superb individual fighters but poor at coordinating a general war against biological life: they were intended to be undefeatable, and so to provide a permanent foe, but also unable to actually win their war.

And that in turn reminds me of an honors class where we discussed the proposition that any community which discovers itself without enemies will create one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Most of the time I don't really have a problem with religion. But... take a look at Judge Ray Moore. The 10 Commandments have no damn place at the Courthouse. Look at the freaks that scream about keeping "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That line was NOT there until the 1950s. All because of the "godless" Communists.

Every frakking time I read about Judge Moore I recall how I really pissed off a professor in a course entitled "Christian ethics": he started off with a discussion of the Ten Commandments, and I stuck up my hand and inquired if I was in the wrong place, because it was supposed to be Christian ethics, not Old Testament ethics. I ended up derailing the entire course with my insistence -- to which a visiting professor agreed! -- that if we're doing Christian ethics we have to start at the Cross, with the example of someone sacrificing absolutely everything for others.

I would love to tell Judge Moore to his face that he is not being Christian at all, because the Christian response -- the response coming from the Cross -- to gays or anyone else would be "How can we sacrifice to help?", not "How can we win?" The moment you're trying to win, you've stopped being a Christian -- and putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse isn't about sacrificing for others, it's about winning.

 

[Rickrock]

..the God is Mother Earth directly or indirectly...Mother Earth is a VERY REAL GOD.... Nature itself is God.

I believe that nature and evolution are tools that God uses so you are very close to right. We can't see God, but we can see his works.

As far as science, I believe that science is proving what the bible says and that one day we will learn how God has done most things. For instance we now understand the miracle of the rainbow shown to Noah as being light diffused through water crystals.

 

[star-warrior]

As far as science, I believe that science is proving what the bible says and that one day we will learn how God has done most things. For instance we now understand the miracle of the rainbow shown to Noah as being light diffused through water crystals.

Water crystals? Holy heck.

 

[Hakuba]

Not so. Militant atheists are just as much obnoxious fundamentalists as religious ones.

You added the militant part. I'm sure anyone who's militant anything is obnoxious regardless of what they're militant about.

Science can't disprove the God of the Bible (Jewish or Christian), but that's mostly because the Bible really doesn't make any scientific claims.

It can disprove pretty much everything that the Bible claims that God did. If you strip the Jewish/Christian god of it's supposed powers is there anything left to prove or disprove?

 

[Kulindahr]

It can disprove pretty much everything that the Bible claims that God did. If you strip the Jewish/Christian god of its supposed powers is there anything left to prove or disprove?

No, it can't. All science can do is say that without the introduction of outside influence, things claimed in the Bible will not occur naturally -- it can't say they can't be done.

 

[Hakuba]

No, it can't. All science can do is say that without the introduction of outside influence, things claimed in the Bible will not occur naturally -- it can't say they can't be done.

Sure it can. Start with the creation of the universe.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

Atheists can prove God doesn't exist? Do go on.

Atheists don't have to prove gods do not exist. They don't believe in them.

Theists have to prove the god(s) they believe in exist(s), because they do believe.

Ironically, theists tend to be very good at "proving" the non-existence of all the gods they don't believe in.

Oh, and what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. See Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy.