12th January 2008

“The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made.”

Christopher Hitchens

9 Responses to “12th January 2008”

  1. Thunder Says:

    * The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. *

    If I were him I would petition for this ignominious quote to be redacted or removed. It is stupid mumbo-jumbo. If a person reduces that statment to math they would have to conclude he is saying there is only one criticism of religion. There are some types of idiomatic speech which should be abstained from for the good of a persons reputation.

    * Religion is man-made. *

    Obviously religion is not the sole proprietor of dogmatism.

  2. Hypatia Says:

    Surely, the conclusion that religion is man-made is purely factual.

    Is it dogmatic to say 2 + 2 equals 4? No, it’s a fact.

    All written scriptures come from men. All dogmas have been defined by men. QED religion is man-made by definition.

    Woman don’t get a look in.

  3. Renshia Says:

    ” Obviously religion is not the sole proprietor of dogmatism.”

    Defiantly religion is not, but it sure does lead the pack.
    I have also seen from the posts presented lately that it is not slowing down either.
    I find it amazing that someone can read a bible, that is admittedly written by man, take some pompous asses opinion from a pulpit of what they read and them decide it is true, without any proof, but the tingling in their stomach.
    Then they have the audacity to call it fact and they call us ignorant and unenlightened because we disagree. It just goes to show that all their really really doing is looking out for themselves. It is just a selfish endeavor to cover their buts. They look at their lives and know that if what is said is true, they must crawl on their knees. because of the despicable person they let themselves be. Then they continue to be this despicable person, and use their religion as a disguise

  4. Renshia Says:

    ” Obviously religion is not the sole proprietor of dogmatism.”

    Defiantly religion is not, but it sure does lead the pack.
    I have also seen from the posts presented lately that it is not slowing down either.

    I find it amazing that someone can read a bible, that is admittedly written by man, take some pompous asses opinion from a pulpit of what they read and them decide it is true, without any proof, but the tingling in their stomach.
    Then they have the audacity to call it fact and they call us ignorant and unenlightened because we disagree.

    It just goes to show that all their really really doing is looking out for themselves. It is just a selfish endeavor to cover their buts. They look at their lives and they must crawl on their knees because of the despicable person they let themselves be. Then they continue to be this despicable person, and use their religion as an excuse and a disguise of what they are.
    To make themselves feel better they accept the “fact” that all people are horrible sinners and can’t help it. Never realizing that all they are doing is making a choice. It is so nice to be able to blame our wicked nature on some evil influence instead of taking responsibility for our own actions.

  5. Thunder Says:

    * Surely, the conclusion that religion is man-made is purely factual. *

    Look up the word dogmatism. After you do that then present your proof or admit it is to you a matter of opinion. Otherwise you are being dogmatic.

    * Is it dogmatic to say 2 + 2 equals 4? No, it’s a fact. *

    It can be both. Definately 2+2=4 and you would be right to say it is. But in keeping with the theme of the point if you can`t demonstrate or point out or express proof then it is both a fact and also a dogmatism. I`ll give you a for instance…… The law of falling bodies…… I DON`T believe they are correct. Being somewhat analytical myself I can see where their experiment is insufficient to prove what they claim as indisputable.

    * All written scriptures come from men. *

    And noone disputes that men pen scripture. Going only that far you are demonstrably correct (except for the two instances that I know of where it is expressed that script was directly from God). But as I have previously espressed…… conclusions that exert claim of observation beyond the scope of the capabilities to observe is invalidly stated.

    * All dogmas have been defined by men. *

    I dispute that. It is the lack of proper [invalid] definition that makes a dogma.

    * QED religion is man-made by definition. *

    I`ll take your word for it. My take on qed is that it is an ipso facto issuance of challenge to negate or refute logically or by experimentation.

    * Woman don’t get a look in. *

    Another data mismatch error. The term man-made is incorrectly inferrable to indicate gender except as a circumstance of grammar.

  6. Thunder Says:

    * I have also seen from the posts presented lately that it is not slowing down either. *

    Impertinence? I have already said I`m within my prerogative and your disputation of that is dogmatism. I was there, you were NOT! In the absence of your ability to provide countermanding evidence you have no standing to dispute. I take that a step farther when I refuse to divuldge particulars of what I contend to have observed. I do that to lessen your decent into unsubstantial doubtful disputation (it is a vanity for you to tell me I didn`t experience what I clearly did to myself).

    * I find it amazing that someone can read a bible *

    It is not exactly super human (except to understand) :?)

    * that is admittedly written by man *

    The meaning (SPIRIT) of it is a matter of debate to you.

    * take some pompous asses opinion from a pulpit of what they read *

    Unclear….. is it the someone who read the bible in the first part of your sentence or someone subsequent to that? Iac….. The proper construction is not to take what someone says upon their own validity. You misunderstand the construction. Unfortunately many who avow christianity do opperate as you say….. But that is NOT how it is suppose (or intended) to operate. I KNOW you can`t legitamately say that about my own pursuit of understanding.

    * and them decide it is true, without any proof *

    You can`t entice me to reject clarity for your condition of confusion.

    * the tingling in their stomach. *

    YOU interjected that. That is your characterization. It is possible you got that from someone else. You didn`t get it from me. It has no place in conversation with me or about me. You can pretend all you want but I know you don`t have any idea what you are talking about.

  7. Thunder Says:

    * Then they have the audacity to call it fact *

    I have no choice. If I disavowed it I would be lying.

    * they call us ignorant and unenlightened because we disagree. *

    ‘Ignorant’ is not always pejorative. It is only in default pejorative when it is expressed as a synonym of stupidity. Your ignorance is only synonomous with stupidity when you insist on persisting in it while in pretense of authorization. It is a much more accurate statment for atheists to say they aren`t interested than it is for them to pretend that they rejected it after understanding it.

    The difference between a believer and anyone and everyone esle is similar to the difference between a coroner and a surgeon. A coroner doesn`t have to worry so much about steadiness of hand (-ling). Not so for the surgeon. Believers let the scriptures talk to them….. others perform autopsies looking for reasons why something alive isn`t alive. And NO YOU DON`T LOOK FOR THE PULSE. The believer is there telling you there is a pulse and you keep asking them to prove it (CHECK FOR YOURSELF IF YOU DON`T BELIEVE ME; BUT, WHILE YOU CONTINUE TO LIFT YOUR KNIFE TO THE AUTOPSY I`M GOING TO CONTINUE TO SCREAM IT IS ALIVE).

    * It just goes to show that all their really really doing is looking out for themselves. *

    You lack foundation for presenting that conclusion being relative to your run up.

    * It is just a selfish endeavor to cover their buts. *

    I think that shoe is on the other foot. I think it is unmistakable that your antipathy is personal (as is your arguments).

    * They look at their lives and know that if what is said is true, they must crawl on their knees. *

    You have taken the position there is no God. I don`t think the above argument reflects the existence of God as the issue.

    * because of the despicable person they let themselves be. *

    I`m gonna personalize that a little. I do despise myself but not because of being christian. I despise what is not christian about me. I don`t capitulate to your position. I have not done anything to you. Your scope of target is way too broad for the things that you truely have to complain about (whatever they may be).

    * It is so nice to be able to blame our wicked nature on some evil influence instead of taking responsibility for our own actions. *

    That is a characterization of christianity that is incompatible with its true construction. Sorry but that just doesn`t reflect the truth.

  8. Ina Burris Says:

    gx0w8p290i8ac0xc

  9. Hydrolyze Guy Says:

    I’ve been looking all around for this stuff. Luckily I just found it in Msn.