The Arrogance of Christianity

[Yggdrasil]

Originally Posted by countdown2chaos

Well, you can't blame Constantine though, he did make a smart and intelligent move for himself, just not future humanity in general, besides the elitist.

Of course, the man was brilliant. By constructing an extremely proselytic and dogmatic religion, he managed to keep all of Europe under central authority for long after the decay of Rome.

[Yggdrasil]

Originally Posted by PastorSehmish

Indeed this may be the point of thread initially. Unlike monkeys however, threads do evolve, and it's in your best interest to keep up with it, lest some of the other posters think you are 'retreating' in a sense.

Don't worry brother, I'm not judging you.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

You still fail to address my point.

[Hexadecimal]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

Neither the Pastor, Europa, or Hexadecimal get the point of the damn thread. The New Testament is a SECONDHAND ACCOUNT written A CENTURY or MORE after the supposed events took place. Stop taking the events described in them as literal truths.

You silly geese wouldn't even be talking about Luke, John and the gang if Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea hadn't concluded that they were the 4 most compatible to be used to run an organized religion, as well as to discredit the Gnostic texts.

I understood perfectly the point of your thread; I could just not care less to discuss it, and quite honestly, found commenting on Pastor's post to be of much greater interest. Nativity scenes do not interest me, nor does your opinion of them, nor does your opinion of those who enjoy them and believe the canonized Gospels to be the entire Word. You claim I missed the point: I saw it clearly - you spent several paragraphs espousing a childish resentment against something you willfully intended and asked no question of the reader to respond to. I do have a question for you: What makes you think I would have any response for such a firmly held opinion? What is there to discuss? Am I just supposed to say, "I believe differently, you're wrong and I'm not."?

[The Rudeboy]

Originally Posted by vazilizaitsev89

as much as I hate quoting marx, he said it best "religion is the opiate of the masses"

And Scientific Naturalism is the Alcohol.

EDIT:
Deciding on either religion or lack thereof of your own free will is the Marijuana.

[Phanatic]

Originally Posted by Europa

The whole "premise of the fucking religion" is not the accuracy of it's teachings but willingness to belief its accuracy.

Which makes it fundamentally flawed. To accept religion, you have to lower your guard of common sense and critical thinking, and believe in secondhand accounts (from people who were tripping balls on deleriants) of the supernatural? Sounds like a book I'd rather leave on the shelf.

[Yggdrasil]

^ Thank you. At least someone gets my point. Having blind faith in non-empirical evidence is not a virtue, and is at the very least a refuge to the weak-minded.

[The Rudeboy]

Originally Posted by Phanatic

Which makes it fundamentally flawed. To accept religion, you have to lower your guard of common sense and critical thinking, and believe in secondhand accounts (from people who were tripping balls on deleriants) of the supernatural? Sounds like a book I'd rather leave on the shelf.

You do the same thing believing anything else. Evidence is interpreted.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by The Rudeboy

You do the same thing believing anything else. Evidence is interpreted.

Yes, and in science it is interpreted with a standard.

In religion it is interpreted with a standard a six year old might use.

Wake up children.

[Dark_Magneto]

Originally Posted by Europa

From what you've written, I assume you don't believe there is a heaven or hell. I agree with you. But I consider myself to be unfortunate in this, and can only hope that sometime in my life I'll find something I can believe in, to convince me that an afterlife does exist.

You don't need it.

When your time comes, you should just die.

It doesn't matter whether it be disease, age, or if your opponent is a lunatic... so long as your time comes.

Just die.

"It is easy to remove the mind from harping on the lost illusion of immortality. The disciplined intellect fears nothing and craves no sugar-plum at the day's end, but is content to accept life and serve society as best it may. Personally I would not care for immortality in the least. There is nothing better than oblivion, since in oblivion there is no wish unfulfilled. We had it before we were born, yet did not complain. Shall we whine because we know it will return? It is Elysium enough for me, at any rate."

- H.P. Lovecraft

People have the wrong idea. They think that even if their current life sucks, they have a better one waiting in the hereafter.

Normally these people would never awaken from their fantasies. They live trivial lives since they believe they have an endless one on hold. They proceed from this assumption. No matter how old they get they'll continue to tell theirselves "My real life hasn't started yet". "The real life is up next, so this life is trivial".

They continue to tell themselves that. And they age. Then die. And as the darkness takes them, only then may they realize that the life they lived was the real thing.

People don't live provisional lives, nor do they die provisional deaths.

That's a simple fact.

The problem is whether or not they realize this simple fact.

Whether they have truly awakened.

Killing all ones' religious beliefs may be a drastic remedy, but it can also be a good opportunity to wake them up. With this cognitive bloodbath, if they can break through this true "life" in the face of "death", they may awaken. The fog in their minds will lift. The gates of rebirth will open.

Of course... only if they can make it through.

For most people, it's out of the question. Their cultural influences, childhood indoctrination, peer pressure, and institutionalisation will not allow them to consider it. Their ego is to such an extent that to entertain the concept that they could truly, completely die and be existentially negated must not be allowed.

Out of all the creatures on the planet, humans are the only ones that have egos and recognize the fact that they will some day die. Various afterlife beliefs are merely a method of cognitive escapism to deceive oneself and ease the mental anguish that inevitably results from acknowledging ones' own inevitable demise.

[Yggdrasil]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

Yes, and in science it is interpreted with a standard.

In religion it is interpreted with a standard a six year old might use.

Wake up children.

Once again, BP makes a very valid point. In science, we use standards by which all things are analyzed and classified: among them the principal scientific method. No whoo-ha's, if's, and's or buts. Religion can contort whatever they deem as evidence of their deity as much as they like, but their fallacious logic will always show.