Facts of life

[r3vbr]

religion was invented to control the masses

people who believe in faith-based ideas (not logical) are sheep with no minds

black people are generally (statistically) way dumber/more stupid than whites and asians, although they have bigger dicks and are better at phisical/brute force stuff such as sports

french people are lazy and think government should take care of their lives

japanese people are opposite of french, they work so hard they dont have time to think about ideology/intellectual bullcrap

rival religions cannot coexist by nature. the book of islam condemns activities done my catholics, bible condemns other stuff done by other religions, etc. "religious tolerance" does not coexist with religious obedience. osama bin laden is a true muslim..

intelligent design is a joke, and not worth waisting time debating about it

i will post some more later..
discuss /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
religion was invented to control the masses

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Its certainly used to control the masses, but invented for it? Thats as ridiculous as saying that government created the economy.

[r3vbr]

a long guy ago, at ancient times, some con-artist/scammer and his buddies were looking for a way to make a quick buck/ not have to work/ be or feel important/ control people, so they invented things like dragons, devil, goblins, ghosts, alah, rá, shiva, holy ghost, angels, monsters, etc.

people believe in EVERYTHING those days, of course theyll buy any story you sell.

Only difference is that catholics/muslims/jewish are already a LONG TIME scam... they invented these scams a long time ago.

New scams are invented almost daily. Raelism, Piramids, aura energy, telepathy, etc.

in 2000 years from now, maybe Scientology or Raelians will become as mainstream and """""respected""""" as those other religions.

Riddick: i thing ONE of the reasons religion was invented was to control the masses, AMONG other reasons such as the ones i cited at the beginning....

[PoBoy321]

Just OOC, do you have even the slightest cursory knowledge of the evolution of any religions?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
a long guy ago, at ancient times, some con-artist/scammer and his buddies were looking for a way to make a quick buck/ not have to work/ be or feel important/ control people, so they invented things like dragons, devil, goblins, ghosts, alah, rá, shiva, holy ghost, angels, monsters, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this your personal theory? Is it based on anything factual whatsoever?

[vhawk01]

Come on guys...dont indulge.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on guys...dont indulge.

[/ QUOTE ]

My first response was actually intended as a joke...you know, as if I were tacitly agreeing with the rest of his points by only disagreeing with one....haha...umm, well I guess you had to be there.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
people who believe in faith-based ideas (not logical) are sheep with no minds

[/ QUOTE ]
do you believe that?

baa

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people who believe in faith-based ideas (not logical) are sheep with no minds

[/ QUOTE ]
do you believe that?

baa

[/ QUOTE ]

ZING!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people who believe in faith-based ideas (not logical) are sheep with no minds

[/ QUOTE ]
do you believe that?

baa

[/ QUOTE ]

MUCH better

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
religion was invented to control the masses

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Its certainly used to control the masses, but invented for it? Thats as ridiculous as saying that government created the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also disagree. Religion grew out of inquisitiveness into nature and the universe...it was the genesis of science. When natural laws were not easy to develop supernatural explanations were needed to fill the gap in knowledge.

At that point it didnt take long for the early charlatans of organized religion to learn how to leverage the non-disprovable into control and wealth.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
I also disagree. Religion grew out of inquisitiveness into nature and the universe...it was the genesis of science. When natural laws were not easy to develop supernatural explanations were needed to fill the gap in knowledge.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I also completely disagree with that, I will say on that note, Freud makes an excellent point as to man becoming the "prosthetic" god...as in all seeing (telescopes, microscopes, night vision, binoculars), all hearing (aids, telephones, intercoms), all knowing (printing press, computers, internet) through his prosthetics (technology), etc etc, replacing the previously god-like attributes with everyday gadgets and explaining the declining awe and revere for church and its authorities.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also disagree. Religion grew out of inquisitiveness into nature and the universe...it was the genesis of science. When natural laws were not easy to develop supernatural explanations were needed to fill the gap in knowledge.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I also completely disagree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You disagree with this portion of my statement, not the follow up about hijacking religion?

I didnt even think the portion you disagree with is disputable. It was certainly the stance taken in every ancient history and every relgious course Ive ever taken.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also disagree. Religion grew out of inquisitiveness into nature and the universe...it was the genesis of science. When natural laws were not easy to develop supernatural explanations were needed to fill the gap in knowledge.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I also completely disagree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You disagree with this portion of my statement, not the follow up about hijacking religion?

I didnt even think the portion you disagree with is disputable. It was certainly the stance taken in every ancient history and every relgious course Ive ever taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Riddick, perhaps you could wax philosophical on your beliefs about the origins of religion?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
religion was invented to control the masses

[/ QUOTE ] In my view, the 'oppressed' or the 'masses' create religion themselves in order to get through the day.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
religion was invented to control the masses

[/ QUOTE ] In my view, the 'oppressed' or the 'masses' create religion themselves in order to get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds about right. Religion has certainly been used to control groups of people, but that came long after its inception.

[mikeevans12]

I understand what you are trying to say. However, what you are saying is no stronger than someone who advocates faith based ideas. Faith based, means that the thought is beyond knowledge and is embodied by different features. Now, when someone takes a faith based idea and calls it knowledge they are contradicting the notion of faith. Faith and religion has been manipulated by some in an effort to control the masses. But, logical based thinking can be used in the same way. Anytime someone advocates a universal claim as truth, the claim has the potential to be manipulated. For example, taking your assertion that implies logic based-ideas are good. What is logic based on? On concepts like the "Law of Contradiction" and the "Law of the excluded middle" these claims are only 100% accurate if you make the assumption that humans are capable of knowing all of truth. Another example is Mathamatics. No mathamatician or philosopher has ever been able to create a complete and undoubtable system of mathmatical axioms. A man named Frege thought he did it, but Bertrand Russell, showed that one of his axioms produced a paradox, and any system that has a paradox violates the laws of logic, thus Frege's system was flawed.

The point I am trying to make is that anyone who claims to know something as true must rely on a particular incomplete foundation. To some extent some exercise of faith is needed somewhere. Only a skeptic can offer a claim like "we can't know anything for certain", but that claims reveals nothing about the world, and we all seek to understand our world in someway.

Also, you can't even make claims that experience and science are true forms of knowledge. Both assert some notion of cause and effect, but even that claim is incomplete. David Hume offered a great argument against causality.

You might say challenging logic, math, and causation is stupid and a waste of time, but they like religion and faith in general involve a certain point where you have to make an assumption that cannot be conclusivly justified. So even people who beleive in logical ideas are just as sheepish in your argument as faith based thinkers. The only diffence is the assumptions that the faith-based and logical-based thinkers adopt.

Even logical and mathmatical ideologies about the nature of existence and reality are based on inconclusive claims.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
David Hume offered a great argument against causality.

[/ QUOTE ]

no he didnt, he merely caasted doubt upon causality. he offered no solutions to the perception of it.

He told us that man percieves things through causality, thus nothing can truely be certain. this does not put causality into the realm of doubt, rather the percievers of it.

[mikeevans12]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David Hume offered a great argument against causality.

[/ QUOTE ]

no he didnt, he merely caasted doubt upon causality. he offered no solutions to the perception of it.

He told us that man percieves things through causality, thus nothing can truely be certain. this does not put causality into the realm of doubt, rather the percievers of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He does argue against causality. He is an empiricist that claims that knowledge is embodied (arises) by expierence. People cannot observe a cause between two impressions, all that is observed is a sequence of event where one thing happens first the other second, we cannot percieve any cause between two things.

I was using this point by Hume, to show that something as obvious as causality can be doubted. Point being even causality is rooted in an incomplete/inconclusive notion.

And casting doubt upon a claim is an argument against that claim.