10th November 2011

“Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgements that happen after we die. It therefore has no reality check and it is therefore uniquely armoured against criticism, questioning, and self-correction.”

Greta Christina

12 Responses to “10th November 2011”

  1. R J Says:

    so, is old greta saying religion is just a

    big steaming pile of bulls**t ???????

    well, DUH !!!!!!!!

  2. n0m0l0s Says:

    There’s no fuss believing in invincible being. A lot of invincible things exists. If the entity does’nt speak to you, then how can you hear him. There might be abundance of other forces that have not been detected with the human outdated tools. Living or dying are just phases in our lives. It’s just going back to our original form “soul”. Souls have existed even before we are born. Nobody can deny events that will happen after we die. A lot of thing escapes from reality check. Dreams for example.
    See… all these possibilities have to be taken into scientific consideration.

  3. archaeopteryx Says:

    Double duh!

  4. Atheist MC Says:

    But she says it so well…

  5. archaeopteryx Says:

    GC is right and the paragraph is well-written. I certainly didn’t intend to convey any disrespect to her!

  6. Dan Says:

    That’s why we call it Faith. If it was based on anything real we’d call it something else.

  7. jhm Says:

    The thing to remember is that all these invisible forces are all that are left for the faithful to claim. All previous tangible attributes have been removed by those who sought to explain the world around them using the power of reason and logic.

  8. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    n0m0l0s “invincibility” is defined as the property being difficult or impossible to defeat. This quote mentions the invisible, the inaudible, the intangible, the undetectable, and events and judgments that happen after we die but makes no mention about invincible beings.

    So aside from you completely missing the point of today’s quotation, something you do with regularity, you are functionally off topic again.

    If we deconstruct what you have said we might make the following observations:

    1) “no fuss in believing in invincible being” If by “fuss” you mean an excessive display of anxious attention or activity; needless or useless bustle in believing in “invincible beings” perhaps you are right. I can’t imagine anyone spending much time or energy getting all worked up about invincible beings; except of course children playing video games.

    2) You say “A lot of invincible things exists.” but you don’t give any examples so it is difficult to accept this statement. Considering your statement is subjective at best I’ll wait for you to identify the invincible things you speak of before commenting further.

    3) “…entity does’nt speak to you, then how can you hear him… might be abundance of other forces…not been detected…human outdated tools.” Maybe you are trying to say humanity has yet to advance technologically to a point where we are capable of detecting all forms of communication? If so your sentence construction is an abomination, if not you are just grunting and making noises here.

    4) “Phases” as a distinct period or stage in a process of change or forming part of something’s development certainly would include living and then dying but what is the point? We were living and then things changed and we were dead. Great point?

    5) As for your concept of the “soul” I have to imagine you feel that “soul(s)” are immortal and that is fine for you to feel that way but before you ask anyone else to also believe that you should provided some reason for them to do so. For me a person’s soul is a person’s identity, both morally and emotionally, the essence of who they are, it is their intellectual energy and intensity as revealed in their performance, it is their zest for life personified. I don’t see the soul as requiring supernaturalism for its existence; to the contrary I think the soul is an entirely natural aspect of the cacophony of thoughts that ripple within the brains, back and forth between the conscious and sub-conscious. The “how” in a person’s actions that identifies the “who” they are.

    6) You say “Nobody can deny events that will happen after they die”. This much is obvious isn’t it? I mean they are dead, how would they deny anything after they were dead? You might add that “Nobody can do much of anything after they are dead”. Perhaps you have been watching too many zombie films?

    7) “A lot of thing escapes from reality check. Dreams for example. See… all these possibilities have to be taken into scientific consideration.” What! What in the flying F_ck are you talking about? I thought you were against science in favor of religion, have you had a change of mind?

    Really dude, you need to think before you type.

  9. electrabotanical Says:

    The origin of Religion is best explained by mental health phenomena such as hallucinations, paranoia, simple dreams and drug-induced states (such as with tainted food) Religious founders are a rare personality type known as “prophets” – people with a talent for persuasion, a big vision and a bigger need to get attention and followers. They use their imaginations to draw power unto themselves.

    The spread of religion is acheived by brainwashing, indoctrination, community pressure, actual intimidation and baseless threats of tortured souls.

    You can count me out of the mass hysteria.

  10. Rj Says:

    E.B. post at 1639

    me too baby, me too.

    post at 236



    sinjin post at 1631….point #5

    very nicely put !!

  11. Jeff Says:

    Julian Jaynes, in his only popularly published work, “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”, theorized that the origin of religion lies in an earlier mental organization of humankind. When language developed, the right handed among us were carrying on conversations between the two halfs of our brains, with the right brain supplying the internal side of the conversation and the left providing the externalized portion. (Reverse for the left handed among us, of course.) In evidence, he places the earliest translated cuneiform tablets, which seem to say something on the order of “My god tells me to tell the tablet to tell you to tell your god” thus and so. He further cites the Iliad as an example of story telling in the Bicameral mode, and the Odyssey as the story of the transition from Bicameralism to Consciousness.

    Anyhow, when someone tells you that they talk to God, it might just be that they are functioning under and outdated form of human consciousness, and should be given some slack for their un-evolved state.

  12. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Interesting Jeff: Leftovers of the bicameral mind today include religion, hypnosis, possession, schizophrenia and the general sense of need for external authority in decision-making.

    This explanation says a lot. Not sure how it becomes better established, but I’m interested.

    A time where the hemispheres of the brain didn’t work like they do today. Sure would explain why the god(s) don’t speak to people anymore.