Hatred of religion

[ChrisL]

You say the same things about religious people. Lol. There is no physical evidence of a God, but others believe he exists. You call them delusional, then you turn around and say the exact opposite about transgender people. Lol. Too funny. Your own hypocrisy is staring you in the face, and you can't even see it.

But there is no real evidence of a god. And happy transgendered people are evidence that it's the right thing to do for these people. So you're wrong. Again.

A lot of them are not happy, as the suicide rates of 41% amongst these people demonstrate. Your mutilating them physically is not the solution.

Then why is suicide so high among soldiers and middle aged to senior men?

Depression and illness.

But they should repress these feelings according to you..and everything would be okay...

I didn't say that. I said SOME things are better left in the closet, IMO. That's not repressing. That's just keeping some things private, as some things should be.

 

[Moonglow]

But there is no real evidence of a god. And happy transgendered people are evidence that it's the right thing to do for these people. So you're wrong. Again.

A lot of them are not happy, as the suicide rates of 41% amongst these people demonstrate. Your mutilating them physically is not the solution.

Then why is suicide so high among soldiers and middle aged to senior men?

Depression and illness.

But they should repress these feelings according to you..and everything would be okay...

I didn't say that. I said SOME things are better left in the closet, IMO. That's not repressing. That's just keeping some things private, as some things should be.

So if it'd not repression, or freedom, what is it?

 

[ChrisL]

Why do we have to know about and accept someone else's weird quirks/delusions?

 

[Moonglow]

Why do we have to know about and accept someone else's weird quirks/delusions?

You expect us to accept yours...

 

[ChrisL]

A lot of them are not happy, as the suicide rates of 41% amongst these people demonstrate. Your mutilating them physically is not the solution.

Then why is suicide so high among soldiers and middle aged to senior men?

Depression and illness.

But they should repress these feelings according to you..and everything would be okay...

I didn't say that. I said SOME things are better left in the closet, IMO. That's not repressing. That's just keeping some things private, as some things should be.

So if it'd not repression, or freedom, what is it?

It's knowing what should be kept private. Some people are into some weird things and don't feel the need to announce it to everyone they meet or to have everyone else be accepting of it.

 

[ChrisL]

Why do we have to know about and accept someone else's weird quirks/delusions?

You expect us to accept yours...

Such as? Give some examples of some weird quirks that I expect you to accept, or is this another poor attempt at insult because you actually have no argument? Thanks.

 

[ChrisL]

I expect Moonblow will go back into his shell now. Or his closet. Lol!

 

[there4eyeM]

Undoubtedly, the major center of sickness in the world is this 'I' everyone talks about. 'I', 'self', the persona we tout is taken for so real, yet when we look to find it, identify it, pin it down, it isn't all that easy to do. There is great confusion as to how much of it is inherent and how much acquired. In any case, enormous sacrifices are made both on the individual and collective levels.
At the extremes, we have the Napoleons and Stalins and Hitlers that inflict what is nothing more than personal whim on entire continents of people. This serves to magnify the importance and power of what is, after all, an ephemeral quality. The genes that make our legs, face, genetic parts, etc., have existed for millenia and will continue, but this little, limited, frustrated 'self' ends with the grave.
While alive, though, everything seems to revolve around this 'I', even when we see all the time how powerless it is. It can't cure a cold, it can't heal a broken bone, it can't even stop itself from smoking or drinking in many cases. It certainly is not all of what we are, and arguably not the most important part. For this one aspect of our being to dominate all the rest is, to put it mildly, exaggerated.
To hear the statement of someone that he/she was born in the wrong body is testimony to a false understanding of language and/or nature. It simply is not possible. It might not be the body that the current 'I' prefers, but this 'I' was not present when the body that houses it came into being. A person may justifiable say, "I want to change this body (that 'I' call 'mine', whatever that means really)". Saying it is the wrong body somehow attributes choice where it does not exist and a victim that has not been victimized.
What we need, all of society, is to do a great deal more examination of our true nature, our existence, and this flawed accentuation of whatever this 'I' is. Not just 'transgenders'; all of us.

 

[ChrisL]

Undoubtedly, the major center of sickness in the world is this 'I' everyone talks about. 'I', 'self', the persona we tout is taken for so real, yet when we look to find it, identify it, pin it down, it isn't all that easy to do. There is great confusion as to how much of it is inherent and how much acquired. In any case, enormous sacrifices are made both on the individual and collective levels.
At the extremes, we have the Napoleons and Stalins and Hitlers that inflict what is nothing more than personal whim on entire continents of people. This serves to magnify the importance and power of what is, after all, an ephemeral quality. The genes that make our legs, face, genetic parts, etc., have existed for millenia and will continue, but this little, limited, frustrated 'self' ends with the grave.
While alive, though, everything seems to revolve around this 'I', even when we see all the time how powerless it is. It can't cure a cold, it can't heal a broken bone, it can't even stop itself from smoking or drinking in many cases. It certainly is not all of what we are, and arguably not the most important part. For this one aspect of our being to dominate all the rest is, to put it mildly, exaggerated.
To hear the statement of someone that he/she was born in the wrong body is testimony to a false understanding of language and/or nature. It simply is not possible. It might not be the body that the current 'I' prefers, but this 'I' was not present when the body that houses it came into being. A person may justifiable say, "I want to change this body (that 'I' call 'mine', whatever that means really)". Saying it is the wrong body somehow attributes choice where it does not exist and a victim that has not been victimized.
What we need, all of society, is to do a great deal more examination of our true nature, our existence, and this flawed accentuation of whatever this 'I' is. Not just 'transgenders'; all of us.

I totally agree with this. Our society seems to be all about, "take a pill" or "get a surgery" and that will cure all your problems. The quick fix instead of focusing on what the underlying issues may be. Why not focus on being a good "person" and doing things that will enrich your life and make you feel good about yourself? It all does seem to be very selfish with the focus being entirely on "self," and I think that is exactly a big part of the problem with our modern society. The focus is on me, me, me. I want, I want, I want.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I deal in logic and evidence. Not beliefs and feelings.

Good. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Are you an evolution denier? Do you believe the world is only 6000 yers old? In other words, are you a Young Earth Creationist?

I asked a very simple and logical question. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why is it so trendy today to attack religion? Historically communist regimes and ideologues such as Karl Marx were the biggest adversaries to religion, because they wanted people to have nothing to trust in other than the state. Coincidentally most atheists today are also progressives who look to "science" and government to offer them meaning.

I fear the popularity of attacking religion is being primarily influenced by cultural Marxism and progressivism, and just like the Soviet Union, the end result won't be pretty.

Because religion causes so many problems, and is all made up anyway.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I deal in logic and evidence. Not beliefs and feelings.

Good. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Are you an evolution denier? Do you believe the world is only 6000 yers old? In other words, are you a Young Earth Creationist?

I asked a very simple and logical question. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Evidence for evolution - fossils

 

[Weatherman2020]

I deal in logic and evidence. Not beliefs and feelings.

Good. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Are you an evolution denier? Do you believe the world is only 6000 yers old? In other words, are you a Young Earth Creationist?

I asked a very simple and logical question. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Evidence for evolution - fossils

Sorry, didn't ask to see cartoons. I prefer hard science.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why is it so trendy today to attack religion? Historically communist regimes and ideologues such as Karl Marx were the biggest adversaries to religion, because they wanted people to have nothing to trust in other than the state. Coincidentally most atheists today are also progressives who look to "science" and government to offer them meaning.

I fear the popularity of attacking religion is being primarily influenced by cultural Marxism and progressivism, and just like the Soviet Union, the end result won't be pretty.

Because religion causes so many problems, and is all made up anyway.

And the 145 million murdered by their own Godless Commie governments in the past century is not an issue with you?

 

[emilynghiem]

There are people who attack and mock anything they can because it somehow makes them feel a bit better about themselves.

Surely religion has done plenty to earn honest criticism, but these people take it much further by mocking decent people who are sincere in their faith.

When person A attacks and mocks and insults person B, I'm far more likely to wonder about person A.

No, guy, some of mock religion because it is mean and stupid.

Period.

Here's the thing. Most "Atheists" started out as religious people. I was brought up as a very strict Catholic, went to Catholic Schools for 12 years. And I started to suspect these Nuns and Priests were full of shit when in fifth grade, a nun told me God had to drown every baby in the World because they were "wicked".

I concluded it was bullshit when another nun I knew growing up said that God had a good reason for my mother to die of cancer after suffering from it for a year.

So now, I really do not give a **** how "sincere" you are in your beliefs. It just tells me you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the inherent illogic of it.

Hi JoeB131
Is it right and logical to assume and treat ALL of a religion as "mean and stupid"
because of the abuses of specific people and cases?

In this case, if there are widespread cases of men raping women,
are ALL MEN ABUSERS to be rejected and feared as dangerous?

Some feminists do hate all men, I've met one who took it that far.
Just decided she did not like men period. She has a son and doesn't like him because he's a man.
Now, she happens to be consistent in supporting ALL women regardless of their status, religious or political views. So she makes up for that one bias, by having no bias at all when it comes to women. I've seen her
defend this universal inclusion of women at all costs, so I know she is consistent with that.

Do you agree with her arguments to reject you if you are a man, just because of the abuses of other men?

Now, JoeB131 if your argument is that not all men rape women.
Or the majority of men do not go around committing rape.
Can't we say the same of religion. That the majority of Christians and Catholics do NOT abuse their religion
but sincerely apply it in ways to do more good for society than harm.

What percentages are you looking at when you condemn religion?

Are you even considering the practice of natural spiritual healing,
made famous by the Catholic priests but now practiced today by Pentecostal
and other denominations, even medical doctors such as Scott Peck (psychiatrist who used
it to cure schizophrenic patients) and Phillip Goldfedder who switched to spiritual healing
when he found it worked better than neurosurgery he was licensed to practice for many years previously.

Is it fair to judge an entire belief system
by looking at just the abuses and not the proper practice that has saved lives and helped people?

If so JoeB131, by your logic, should we equally "condemn all men for war and rape blamed on men" and "overthrow ALL govt and laws" since there isn't one that hasn't been abused to harm and kill people!

Why pick only on religion?
Why not go after ALL other groups using this same generalized logic?
(Look online for "judicial abuse" "legal abuse" -- is that grounds for
rejecting all laws and rulings through judicial and legal practice as abusive?)

JoeB131 is your logic and reason sound or biased?
Since you experienced religious abuse, it is because you personally have not forgiven the abuse that you blame religion (just like women who have experienced violent rape may fear all men in general due to PTSD).

What if you forgave and decided the abuse can be corrected using the proper teaching of that religion? How much of this judgment is coming from you, personally, not the religion itself?

And if it is your personal bias, isn't that your problem and not the fault of the religion
for being abused by people practicing it or teaching it wrong.

How is the fault of other Catholics you assume are "mean and stupid" who are innocent
if you cannot forgive the wrongs done by someone else?

 

[emilynghiem]

I deal in logic and evidence. Not beliefs and feelings.

Good. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Are you an evolution denier? Do you believe the world is only 6000 yers old? In other words, are you a Young Earth Creationist?

I asked a very simple and logical question. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Do you mean this: Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked an anthropologist who is Jewish and Christian about this.
She said these older fossils are prehuman, ie not fully human.

They could be created separately and not in a process of "evolution" per se.
In the Bible, there were giants and other prehuman tribes, "daughters of the earth"
before Adam and Eve. So it can be argued that these other tribes are the lineage of people
that Adam and Eve's sons may have taken on as wives.

Adam and Eve may represent the first "self-aware" human lineage with a conscience
that passed knowledge and experience from one generation to the next. While the
other creatures that weren't fully human were more like animals without ego
and ability to exercise free will and reason in relation to a collective human conscience.

 

[Mac1958]

There are people who attack and mock anything they can because it somehow makes them feel a bit better about themselves.

Surely religion has done plenty to earn honest criticism, but these people take it much further by mocking decent people who are sincere in their faith.

When person A attacks and mocks and insults person B, I'm far more likely to wonder about person A.

No, guy, some of mock religion because it is mean and stupid.

Period.

Here's the thing. Most "Atheists" started out as religious people. I was brought up as a very strict Catholic, went to Catholic Schools for 12 years. And I started to suspect these Nuns and Priests were full of shit when in fifth grade, a nun told me God had to drown every baby in the World because they were "wicked".

I concluded it was bullshit when another nun I knew growing up said that God had a good reason for my mother to die of cancer after suffering from it for a year.

So now, I really do not give a **** how "sincere" you are in your beliefs. It just tells me you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the inherent illogic of it.

Hi JoeB131
Is it right and logical to assume and treat ALL of a religion as "mean and stupid"
because of the abuses of specific people and cases?

In this case, if there are widespread cases of men raping women,
are ALL MEN ABUSERS to be rejected and feared as dangerous?

Some feminists do hate all men, I've met one who took it that far.
Just decided she did not like men period. She has a son and doesn't like him because he's a man.
Now, she happens to be consistent in supporting ALL women regardless of their status, religious or political views. So she makes up for that one bias, by having no bias at all when it comes to women. I've seen her
defend this universal inclusion of women at all costs, so I know she is consistent with that.

Do you agree with her arguments to reject you if you are a man, just because of the abuses of other men?

Now, JoeB131 if your argument is that not all men rape women.
Or the majority of men do not go around committing rape.
Can't we say the same of religion. That the majority of Christians and Catholics do NOT abuse their religion
but sincerely apply it in ways to do more good for society than harm.

What percentages are you looking at when you condemn religion?

Are you even considering the practice of natural spiritual healing,
made famous by the Catholic priests but now practiced today by Pentecostal
and other denominations, even medical doctors such as Scott Peck (psychiatrist who used
it to cure schizophrenic patients) and Phillip Goldfedder who switched to spiritual healing
when he found it worked better than neurosurgery he was licensed to practice for many years previously.

Is it fair to judge an entire belief system
by looking at just the abuses and not the proper practice that has saved lives and helped people?

If so JoeB131, we should condemn all men for war and rape blamed on men,
and overthrow the govt and laws since there isn't one that hasn't been abused to harm and kill people!

Why pick only on religion?
Why not go after other groups using this same logic?
(Look online for "judicial abuse" "legal abuse" -- is that grounds for
rejecting all laws and rulings through judicial and legal practice as abusive?)

It goes back to my original point. There are people who simply have a great deal of hate in their heart and have a need to let it out. It makes them feel a little better about their own lives, if only temporarily.

So they identify groups they feel are the easiest to attack (for whatever reason) and let 'er rip.

Since no one is perfect, since everyone has flaws and has weaknesses and makes bad decisions, anyone can be a target for people like that.
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I deal in logic and evidence. Not beliefs and feelings.

Good. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Are you an evolution denier? Do you believe the world is only 6000 yers old? In other words, are you a Young Earth Creationist?

I asked a very simple and logical question. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Do you mean this: Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked an anthropologist who is Jewish and Christian about this.
She said these older fossils are prehuman, ie not fully human.

They could be created separately and not in a process of "evolution" per se.
In the Bible, there were giants and other prehuman tribes, "daughters of the earth"
before Adam and Eve. So it can be argued that these other tribes are the lineage of people
that Adam and Eve's sons may have taken on as wives.

Adam and Eve may represent the first "self-aware" human lineage with a conscience
that passed knowledge and experience from one generation to the next. While the
other creatures that weren't fully human were more like animals without ego
and ability to exercise free will and reason in relation to a collective human conscience.

No, I said transitional fossils.

 

[emilynghiem]

I deal in logic and evidence. Not beliefs and feelings.

Good. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Are you an evolution denier? Do you believe the world is only 6000 yers old? In other words, are you a Young Earth Creationist?

I asked a very simple and logical question. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Do you mean this: Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked an anthropologist who is Jewish and Christian about this.
She said these older fossils are prehuman, ie not fully human.

They could be created separately and not in a process of "evolution" per se.
In the Bible, there were giants and other prehuman tribes, "daughters of the earth"
before Adam and Eve. So it can be argued that these other tribes are the lineage of people
that Adam and Eve's sons may have taken on as wives.

Adam and Eve may represent the first "self-aware" human lineage with a conscience
that passed knowledge and experience from one generation to the next. While the
other creatures that weren't fully human were more like animals without ego
and ability to exercise free will and reason in relation to a collective human conscience.

No, I said transitional fossils.

All evolution is faith based, as is creation.
None of us was physically there when this supposedly happened.

All the evidence in the world of how the process goes,
STILL does not prove it happened in the past or how.

So good luck, even if anyone produces any evidence of the process,
it still doesn't prove things in the past that remain faith based.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Good. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Are you an evolution denier? Do you believe the world is only 6000 yers old? In other words, are you a Young Earth Creationist?

I asked a very simple and logical question. Show me the fossils of the trillions of transitional species.

Do you mean this: Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I asked an anthropologist who is Jewish and Christian about this.
She said these older fossils are prehuman, ie not fully human.

They could be created separately and not in a process of "evolution" per se.
In the Bible, there were giants and other prehuman tribes, "daughters of the earth"
before Adam and Eve. So it can be argued that these other tribes are the lineage of people
that Adam and Eve's sons may have taken on as wives.

Adam and Eve may represent the first "self-aware" human lineage with a conscience
that passed knowledge and experience from one generation to the next. While the
other creatures that weren't fully human were more like animals without ego
and ability to exercise free will and reason in relation to a collective human conscience.

No, I said transitional fossils.

All evolution is faith based, as is creation.
None of us was physically there when this supposedly happened.

All the evidence in the world of how the process goes,
STILL does not prove it happened in the past or how.

So good luck, even if anyone produces any evidence of the process,
it still doesn't prove things in the past that remain faith based.

I know evolution is faith based. That's why I asked those that hide behind the "my beliefs are based upon science" crowd for the scientific evidence. Only to of course get no anwer to the question.