The Antichristian Phenomenon
Jesus is a cunt
Posted by: Waldheri in World Events, tags: Freedom of speech, Netherlands, politics
Gay Jesus t-shirt from T-shirt hell
The Netherlands is one of the most progressive countries in the world. This small European country was the first in the world that allowed gay people to marry (since April 1st 2001), after having introduced registered partnership in 1998. Women have been allowed to get abortions in certified clinics and hospitals since 1981. In addition to these examples of liberal politics it is worth mentioning the legality of prostitution and drug use (under certain conditions). With these liberal politics in mind and the continuing decline of religious adherence in the Netherlands, one would not expect that there are still serious traces of religious infection found in Dutch jurisprudence. Only yesterday a majority of the government voted for the removal of the blasphemy law.
The blasphemy law is as follows (Article 147, translated to the best of my abilities):
Punishable by at most 3 months jail time or a fine of the second category is:
1. he who publicly, orally or in writing or depiction, expresses himself offensive to religious feelings by scornful blasphemy
2. he who ridicules a practitioner of religion in his permitted practice
3. he who abuses the objects dedicated to religious service where and when the practice of that service is permitted
This removal of this law was voted for to permit more room to free speech, which is always a good thing. It is not surprising that the only parties who voted against were all religious (and particularly Christian) in nature: The Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), the Christian Union (CU) and the Reformed Political Party (RPP). These governmental fractions value the extra protection it gives religious people – extra protection the non-religious do not have and should not want. The minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin (who is a CDA member) is rooting for a circumnavigation of this decision by introducing an addendum to another law against discrimination. Luckily, most political parties are not amused by this, and I agree. We must not pamper everybody and provide them with a protective shell against anything that might be unpleasant. We live in a varied society and instead of hiding behind laws we must confront each other with our differences. We might actually progress and, God forbid, learn something.
These blasphemy laws are entirely unncessecary. In the last seventy years there have been only three cases of judges finding someone guilty of blasphemy, the last one being in 1965. It is absolutely ridiculous to prosecute somebody over hurting the feelings of others. Other than an unwanted reflection of reality for the easily provoked religious, blasphemy is an entirely victimless crime. So even if you do think there is merit to this law, it is entirely useless, which is another reason to abolish it.
The abolishment is a symbol for the progression of secularism, which has yet to rise to its full height. The public defacing and ridicule of religion is something to be welcomed after millennia of oppression. In this golden age of science snakes and burning bushes that talk, ressurections and boats that contain all animal species should be a thing of the past – a bad case of mental fleas that is shook off without too much trouble by common sense and rational inquiry. Yesterday, reason triumphed in the Netherlands.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c2036633-ba53-49cb-bbc3-98e6a388accf)
Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.
Loading ...
January 21st, 2009 at 6:43 pm - Edit
haha, I wonder if we got any law like these left in Sweden too…
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:18 am - Edit
Controversial title much?
Well done to the Netherlandians. Btw, what is the percentage of Christians or Church goers that they have over there?
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm - Edit
Ah, reading things like this makes me proud to live in the Netherlands. I'm not sure what our percentage of churchgoers is, but just looking around at school makes me believe it's extremely low in the new generation. Most of the churchgoers I know go to church because of their parents, not because they actually feel the need to, or are religious themselves.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm - Edit
Still, it's not all great. The separation of church and state, for example, still hasn't quite reached its optimum level. Two of the three parties in the current 'kabinet',as we call it, are christian, one of them a little more than the other. And still, when I see them debate on TV, they can't seem to focus on politics, and can't seem to revert from shouting 'Yes, but God…', 'Didn't the Bible say…?' and stuff like that. And our own damn queen puts so much God into the annual reading of the 'Miljoenennota', that it's hard to believe an actual separation of church and state exists. The SGP for example, the Socialistically Reformed Party, has put up a motion to include the ten commendments into our constitution. And this is actually a party which has a number of seats in the Dutch parliament.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm - Edit
I guess what I'm trying to say here, is yes, we are progressive. Relatively speaking that is. We're the first country to take steps onto the road towards the reduction of religion to the status of a cult instead of it's status as the hidious stain on the world as it is today. But we still have a lot of wrinkles to iron out.
Thumbs up!
March 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm - Edit
Well, thanks to the so called "progressive" policies, the Netherlands will soon be another Islamistan and all your progresiveness will go to hell.
Blasphemy might be now legal in the Netherland, but when you speak out against Islam, you'll be persecuted or maybe murdered by some muslim subhuman. Wow! That's awesome! And actually very progressive as well, isn't it?
March 16th, 2009 at 1:48 pm - Edit
Indeed, there are those who want to make the Netherlands a new islamic colony. Luckily, judging by the fact that the PVV under Geert Wilders is now the largest party in the Netherlands according to public opinion, it seems to me it's clear that we don't fucking want that.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:43 pm - Edit
Okay, so you might not think this is a progressive policy, but in what way does this have to do with persecution by Muslims after critiquing their religion? If anything, this policy protects those who speak out, because Muslims can take no legal action based on blasphemy claims.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:48 pm - Edit
It's like if muslims care about legality of their actions
March 19th, 2009 at 4:45 am - Edit
Good for the Netherlands! I my opinion, blasphemy is a healthy and wonderful thing because it is helping to destroy religion, and that's FANTASTIC! I wish things were that far along in the United States where I live ! I am as anti-god and as anti-religion as I can get, and I am PROUD of that! I am a teacher, and I am happy to say that I can see a change in the teens these days…they are MUCH more blasphemous and anti-god than they were just a few years ago, and that is a good thing indeed ! I openly and unashamedly say "jesus is a cunt! And Fuck god and the "holy spirit" ! I have no problem putting my name on this in a public forum !
April 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm - Edit
<img src="http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h20/picsam/jesus.jpg" border="0" alt="jesus Pictures, Images and Photos"/>
May 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm - Edit
I am not regestering. You can call me a coward. But I have strength in Jesus Christ my Lord, and I will pray for you all.
May 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm - Edit
I will stick needles in voodoo dolls for you
May 15th, 2009 at 9:55 pm - Edit
matters not, my friend. it was predicted that i would face persecution on this earth in His name and it won't compare to the eternal glory I have waiting for me in heaven
May 16th, 2009 at 8:33 am - Edit
I fear you will be dearly disappointed.
May 18th, 2009 at 4:44 pm - Edit
And how do you now? What is your evidence? If you have none, I have a great book for you to read . . .
It provides evidence of validated predictions since the beginning of time, therefore, I have no reason to doubt.
May 18th, 2009 at 6:50 pm - Edit
There is nothing to indicate anything will happen. When our meat dies, our minds will die with it. I do not dabble in the supernatural, as anything becomes equally possible in those realms. There, not having a soul is equally likely as having a hundred of them. It is all hopeless, fruitless speculation.
Am I correct to assume you are talking about the Bible, that book of vulgarities? I have read major parts of it (it annoys me Christians often assume those who are actively opposing it haven't)- it did not convince me of anything other than the savagery and lack of sophistication of our ancestors.
May 18th, 2009 at 7:24 pm - Edit
It is funny that you should mention evidence. The burden of proof for an afterlife is on you, not us for suggesting there is not one. So let's see that evidence. Remember, only empirical, experimentally verified data will be considered. Anecdotes do not count as evidence.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:57 pm - Edit
I am speaking of the Bible, though I never accused you of not reading it. Seeking knowledge is necessary and I applaud you for it. As far as a book of vulgarities . . . really? I agree, the Old Testament God was a vengeful and angry God. This is the reason Jesus was necesssary. To die for me, though I truly deserve it because of my sins, so that I may have everlasting life.
Now, my God who is perfect and just, has payment for my iniquities against Him. And that payment was in the form of the only perfect human being of all time. I fail to see what is vulgar about the sacrifice of innocent blood for the sake of all mankind.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:11 am - Edit
While I have no empirical evidence of an after life, if you look in Isaiah 53, a book written about 300 years before crucifixion even existed, there are written descriptions of how our savior was going to die for us.
And as far as your empirical evidence, though you may not belive me, even your evidence is based on some major assumptions made at the beginning of time. Forgive my ignorance, I can't list those assumptions now, but my assumptions are faith-based and so are yours. Science is merely a gift from God who aren't ready to accept His truth. He lets you come to Him when you are ready and He will accept you lovingly at that time.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:44 am - Edit
You are aware that the words "pierced" and "crushed" could imply quite a number of gruesome deaths, not JUST crucifixion, right? Even more vaguely it says "wounded" and "bruised" in the KJV…
I do not have empirical evidence for or against any afterlife, which is why I am dubious of its existence. I would like to see the 'assumptions' you assume I make, if just for the humor factor.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:57 am - Edit
I just find him a very funny troll
May 20th, 2009 at 11:42 am - Edit
Sure one of the individual statements standing alone could be doubted, but to make all of them together, to line them all up in a row? Pierced, crushed, for our sins? That just seems too coincedental for me . . .
And I do know of one assumption for you that the scientific world makes. It is widely accepted, yet based off of some heavy faith in certain unproven ideas. The following link explores how accurate the idea of Carbon Dating really can be. It is a worthwhile read. However, I guess the conclusion of my argument is that while you make your decisions and viewpoints, they are, as are all, based on only widely accepted unprovable ideas. Do I have proof of Creation? Afterlife? Or even all of JC's miracles? Of course not, but I accept them because to me, the evidence for far outweighs the evidence against.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.ht...
May 20th, 2009 at 12:55 pm - Edit
You do are aware that the reason we don't generally use carbon dating as a tool of measure is because it is dependent on carbon, right? And some fossils are so old there is no carbon left in the fossil itself, making carbon dating a useless tool. Which is why we generally don't use it anymore.____If you really think you are smart coming claiming carbon dating is a fraud… think again. We are well aware of it.____As for the miracles of Jesus Christ: we got no evidence for them, and just because you believe in them doesn't make them into evidence. Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word itself.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:36 pm - Edit
There—is—no—evidence. The fact that it was written in a book, does not mean anything. I'm sure you've heard of this genre called 'fiction', which is, by definition, an untrue story. Do you know the gospels were written decades after supposed Jesus' death?
What widely unprovable ideas are you talking about that we base our decisions and viewpoints on? Do you even know what my viewpoints and decisions are to begin with? And do you honestly believe scientists don't know the limits of various radiometric dating methods? Can you guess how they figured out why those limitations apply?
May 20th, 2009 at 5:09 pm - Edit
My angry friends, let me answer both of you in one response. I was merely pointing out one of the generally accepted ideas that don't necessarily hold water. I would love to hear your viewpoints, though. You obviously know mine, I do not hide from them. And the "stories" you speak of concerning JC were written by 4 men (at the very least in the Gospels) but those men had little or even no contact with each other. So these stories are not fiction. They are eye-witness accounts of the life of Jesus. Much more, they are accounts that severely endangered their authors at a time when defense of Jesus as the Christ would find you thrown into a cell. So the fact that 4 different men told nearly the exact same story under such severe duress does not make it fiction. In a court of a law it would admitted as viable evidence that you seek.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:58 pm - Edit
Here's a Christian site on Carbon dating that you might respond to: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
Radiometric dating as a concept is far from unproven. Various types can and have been used to crosscheck dates and they all correlate. Radiometric dating is only "unproven" if you believe what you read on Creationist propaganda sites, which do not represent the scientific community.
Pierced, crushed, for our sins = stoning, stabbed to death with swords, stabbed in the back with a dagger, if he had died in the initial beating, if he was killed by animals, if he was shot with arrows, slings, and/or other projectiles, If he had his head bashed in with a mace or flail, if he was made a pincushion with ninja stars… do you need me to come up with more examples of deaths that involve piercing and crushing? Again, the wound/bruised version of the KJV is even more vague and he could have been run over by a chariot or even had his neck broken or something. Crucifixion is not the only death that fits the description.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:59 pm - Edit
I'm not angry.
Here's a Christian site on Carbon dating that you might respond to: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
Radiometric dating as a concept is far from unproven. Various types can and have been used to crosscheck dates and they all correlate. Radiometric dating is only "unproven" if you believe what you read on Creationist propaganda sites, which do not represent the scientific community.
Pierced, crushed, for our sins = stoning, stabbed to death with swords, stabbed in the back with a dagger, if he had died in the initial beating, if he was killed by animals, if he was shot with arrows, slings, and/or other projectiles, If he had his head bashed in with a mace or flail, if he was made a pincushion with ninja stars… do you need me to come up with more examples of deaths that involve piercing and crushing? Again, the wound/bruised version of the KJV is even more vague and he could have been run over by a chariot or even had his neck broken or something. Crucifixion is not the only death that fits the description.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:34 pm - Edit
I certainly cannot refute that crucifixion was specifically predicted. But again, my faith leads me to understand what Isaiah was talking about, while faith in other ideas leads you to believe what you do believe.
And Creationist Propaganda sites? Wouldn't any site defending their own position be considered propaganda? Is that wrong?
May 21st, 2009 at 1:25 am - Edit
If Jesus isn't really the Son of God and the Bible isn't true and Christianity is stupid then why does the majority of the worlds population believe? Also, if it's just a bunch of myths and fairy tales then why do you spend so much time trying to refute it? I don't see many people creating websites dedicated to disproving the tooth fairy. Obviously there is a God. How can you explain conscience without a Creator? Evolution can't produce conscience, it's seperate from your brain. What you need to understand is that you're made of three different things. Spirit, soul, and body. Your mind, will, and emotion are your soul. Your body is what gives you the ability to interact with the physical, material world. And your spirit is what gives you the ability to interact with the spiritual world. Your brain does not control your decision making, your soul does. Your brain can't tell you that you like or dislike something, all it does is tells your body what to do.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:03 am - Edit
Faith is useless in trying to determine what things to believe. "I believe in it very much" is not a valid reason to believe in anything. I expect sound argumentation, empirical evidence, &c., especially on important topics such as these. The claims made by the religious are extraordinary (people coming back from the dead after several days, virgin births, miraculous healings, and so on) and thus require extraordinary evidence. The fact that some people wrote about it is not sufficient.
It is great to defend your position. It becomes propaganda when you systematically misrepresent evolutionary theory, ignore rebuttals to claims, and generally don't feel awkward about lying. The scientific community is not paying attention to creationism anymore because it is "conpsiring against it" – creationism simply doesn't hold any water. It has popped up several times in the 20th century, and never has it had any real impact because there simply is—no—evidence.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm - Edit
Then what is your evidence? I will tell you again, eye-witness accounts certainly count as evidence to me. Can you prove the theory of evolution? Do you know that it is only a theory? An idea? Yeah maybe it is true. But I have seen the love of God. I have seen the power of Him who came to die. And in seeing that, I know that while other theories certainly do exist, my evidence cripples all other arguments. But don't worry, I discuss this not to push my beliefs on you. God has His own plan for you and it is certainly not my place to discern that. I trust His brilliance as creator of all things.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm - Edit
Anecdotal evidence is hardly evidence. WHat convinces you is irrelevant. Many people are convinced of the existence of Kishna, Allah or even Odin. Do you believe their eye-witness accounts too? After all it is evidence.
You may have seen God, or you may be insane. How will you ever know?
May 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm - Edit
Actually, I know of a story in which approximately 40 authors (probably more) independently agree on the key facts, characters, setting, and so on, having created a vast collection of short stories and novels that all agree and are cohesive. In this story, it claims that dragons are real and have the power to transform into humans, that there is a pantheon of warring gods, that it is possible to use magic, there are such things as dwarves, elves, and horrible monsters. (No it's not LotR) That means it must be true! How could 40 people independently agree that dragons could turn into humans if it wasn't true! They saw it! That means dragons DO exist and walk among us! My evidence is these books!
…..
Of course we can prove the Theory of Evolution, and you misunderstand the word "Theory". In technical use, the word "theory" means far more than a guess or idea. Here's a definition from the dictionary to get you started:
Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
If we were to follow your non-technical definition, that would mean that the Germ Theory of Disease is just an unsupported idea, despite the evidence, in which case, why do you take antibiotics or any type of medicine when you get sick?
Here is an article I wrote out of a compilation of a debate I had with a creationist on Amazon which you may find enlightening: http://www.antichristian-phenomenon.com/anath/int...
In it I support evolution through genetics. We are able to measure the rate of change in each individual genome for every generation, as well as use genetics to map the overall global shifts and changes in population. Ultimately genetics is the definitive proof for evolution so I expect in future posts you will offer your rebuttal against genetics, instead of simply ignorantly claiming there are "gaps in the fossil record" (which is nonsense). Genetics renders the fossil "argument" obsolete.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pm - Edit
Sorry Joel, but there has been some wonderful work done on consciousness in the past century and it has been discovered that your consciousness is NOT actually separate from your brain. I recommend Daniel Dennet's "Consciousness Explained" as well as picking up a neuroscience magazine such as Scientific American MIND to update yourself on the most recent findings. If you do not have extra money to purchase one of these upstanding publications you can always read a number of mind and brain stories here: <a href=”http://www.scientificamerican.com/mind-and-brain” target=”_blank”>http://www.scientificamerican.com/mind-and-brain
and watch Dan Dennett's TED talks here: <a href=”http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/dan_dennett…” target=”_blank”>http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/dan_dennett…
Here is another group of TED talks about the brain: http://www.ted.com/index.php/search?q=brain&x...
Enjoy. : )
May 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm - Edit
How can they be eyewitnesses if JC died way before they wrote their gospels? And what about the other 5+ gospels out there? Why do they hold less credibility just because the Vatican decided to not include them within the Bible?
No, in a court of law having same people telling the same story is not equal to evidence, especially when they are supposed eyewitnesses. In a court of law they refer it to a non-evidental case, because the truth can only be revealed whether what each of the eyewitnesses claim are logical claims and make sense with the rest of the story. But there is still a 50% chance that it may not agree with all with the truth.
It is also obvious you don't know anything about witness psychology. People can actually so strongly want to believe they saw something they can just make it up, independently of each other! How do you know this did not happen?
By the way, I cannot seem to reply to new posts for some reason, so I will need to refer to anyone in a new "thread".
And Dan, evolution can create conscience. We have even proven where conscience is located in our brain. And what is the spiritual world, exactly? Because I have honestly yet to see anything outside the material world as I know. Also, primarily emotions control our decision making, emotions are controlled by our brain which releases different types of chemicals released by your brain. We can measure these chemicals. We know that you experience the same type of emotion when patting a dog as being hug by a friend, for example, because same type of chemicals are involved. We also know that depressed people suffer a lack of serotonin and dopamine production. That's why antidepressants work for severely depressed people, because it increases the production rate of said chemicals.
Haha Anath, I guess I made your work for you
May 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm - Edit
I feel like starting a new one also, hope you don't mind . . .
To Anath: I do not misunderstand the word theory. I am high school math teacher and understand what a theorem is. It is a proven idea based on other theories and definitions. However, in the world of geometry, we have certain undefinable words that we just accept and every other definition or rule or theory is based off of these ideas. What exactly is a point? A line? Space? These things can not truly be defined. So to say that a line segment is the collection of all points between two specific points relies pretty heavily on what a point is, which we have no idea, if you want to be "technical". To say I was using the word in a non-technical sense is false. The Theory of Evolution can be justified by evidence that the scientific community believes in. But there are some things that maybe even you don't know.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm - Edit
To LeaT: They can be eyewitness account because both Matthew and John were two of his disciples. Mark was a contemporary of Paul, one of the first and arguably the greatest Christian and Luke was a contemporary of Peter, another who knew Jesus first hand. Therefore, I consider them quite reliable.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:45 pm - Edit
While I heartily share the rejection of Christianity as a bogus ideology, I must register my unhappiness about observing Jesus called nasty names. What has existed for the last two millenia, based on the New Testament, is a perversion of what the Man of Galilee was really about. That was why the Aquarian Gospel was revealed to Levi Dowling, to correct the travesties of the Roman Empire.
At first Rome tried to destroy the Christine movement by persecution, but that only made it stronger. Then Emperor Constantine hit on an idea that worked like a charm. Instead of attacking Chtistianity, take it over, and screw it from within. So he called the Council of Nicea in what is now Turkey, and there passed laws as to which book the Empire considered canonical. Anyone possessing a book not considered really from God by the Emperor faced the death penalty.
Some forbidden books were hidden. Discovered in modern times, they present a Jesus whose teachings are much closer to Hindu and Buddhist ideas. Plainly, it is questionable whether this bullshit religion based on the New Testament really presents the Jesus who actually lived. Instead of insulting Jesus, insult Twistianity based on the Screw Testament.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:04 pm - Edit
Hmm, based on the kind of comments this post generates, I would call it a great success of the lulz
I wonder where all these people suddenly come from…
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 am - Edit
But the problem is that neither you or I actually KNOW that they were his disciples, and that they were present during all events they claimed happened. We can believe they were there, but that is as far as we can go. We can never truly tell whether they may actually make everything up on spot. It's like saying C. S. Lewis' magical wardrobe doesn't exist (and it was later destroyed in the latter part of his series) and that he wasn't there in Narnia himself. No one can actually prove that he wasn't, but logically it is better to assume it was not the case since we also logically know that it is not possible to enter another world through a magical wardrobe. Since all evidence for the wardrobe is destroyed, we cannot prove either that the world actually exists.
This is exactly the same case as with Christianity. What you have are testimonies that something happened, but there is no way we can actually prove so is the case because all evidence which supports it outside the primary written source simply don't exist. Realistically, we can then assume the miracles didn't happen, just like C. S. Lewis never really entered a magical wardrobe into another world.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 am - Edit
Me too! Having an offensive title DOES help
EDIT 3
Btw db0, thanks for fixing the silly FF error that you couldn't reply to an already existing thread.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 am - Edit
Well, you are. A thesis is formed on an idea (I was taught that in high school btw) with what you may consider a plausible outcome when accounting a cause-effect scenario, a theory is only based after the thesis has been tested. A theory is based on evidence and facts that were found during an experiment, if there are no facts backing up a theory it is not a theory, it is a thesis.
As for your example with lines and points, these are in themselves abstract concepts. We just decide what is a line or a point, simply because it's a lot easier to just decide abstract figure x is this and abstract figure y is that. If you cannot decide what the abstract figures mean, it simply doesn't matter. Yes, we do base a lot of theories around not necessarily geometric figures but around mathematics, but you as a maths teacher should know that we merely use maths as the language to define what we are trying to express. We can express "I love you", which is itself an abstract concept since love is an emotion and therefore by natural default abstract, in several different languages, but the meaning remains the same.
Just like I can express that 1/4 is also 25%. I am using two different languages that express the same thing that is built around the same system. WIthout any actual definition of what system we are supposed to use, we cannot progress anywhere. It's like the previous discussion I had about existence. It's useless to start wondering whether you or I actually exist, because it is something we simply cannot prove. However, we do know that both you and I are self-actualized beings, we are self-aware, and this awareness itself brings up the possibility for us to actually wonder whether we do exist in the first place, and therefore we define our existence through the stimuli we receive from the physical word. Whether the physical world as we conceive it actually exists doesn't really matter, but we need a basis for our understanding and that basis is that we are self-actualized and that we therefore exist through our self-actualization.
Maths may be an abstract concept in itself, but we need a tool to understand the universe we live in, and for that maths work great in its various forms. As for the proof of evolution, if you had ever owned a dog or cat, you had probably put some effort into picking what race you wanted. The fact that we can breed animals and pick certain features we prefer in upcoming generations is very much proof of evolution. If the evolution theory was so wrong in all aspects, it would've been discarded by the science community for a better alternative. Our understanding of evolution and nature itself has lead to many great discoveries, such as the mapping of DNA, genetic cloning and other forms of genetic engineering. These things are nothing to scuff at. If it was all wrong, they would not have developed into what they are today.
One of the things that actually inspired Darwin in the first place to come up with his theory of evolution was animal breeding. He was wondering how it came that animals could change features by aggressively cherrypick what features you wanted them to have and how it worked. Studying animals all over the world then made him realized that most animals got something in common in terms of features (all birds got wings), but they still greatly differed in how they looked and functioned in the environments they lived in. Anyway, I am sure you can read more about that on ze internetz than having me to tell you, but if I were you, I wouldn't just scuff over Darwin's idea, which now further developed by the science community, perfectly explains how we can breed a dog to have a yellow fur.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm - Edit
Unless we find the green and yellow rings! But then we'd have much larger problems on our hands. : P
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm - Edit
If you do not misunderstand the word "theory", then why did you use it incorrectly, and in a demeaning way?
Now I expect a discussion of genetics, like I said, so come on, tell me how genetics doesn't work. Disprove evolution through genetics. There's quite a bit of math in genetics so that should be easy for you!
And I certainly did not claim to know everything, and neither does the scientific community. Newton has a great quote out there about being a boy on the seashore of knowledge turning over pretty shells. We still have barely even wet our toes yet. BUT falling back on "Cant' explain! Hole in knowledge! goddidit!11!!" Is a dishonest and cheating. Maybe God did do it, but if he did, we'll find out about it. So far there has been no indication of the supernatural, so there's no reason to believe the goddidit hypothesis.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm - Edit
Fair enough. Then my stance should not be debated by you. If neither of our beliefs can truly be proven then we each entitled to our positions. Telling me I am wrong, kind of goes against your premise of seeking evidence and discovering truth. While I can't find exact evidence of JC's miracles except for what I a believe to be first-hand, eye-witness accounts, you can't find concrete evidence that the events did not happen. Telling me something didn't happen simply because it never did before or since is not scientific.
Maybe that's why they call it faith . . .
I have faith in a man, born of God, who was also God himself. I have faith that he came to Earth, for a reason, that being to pay the price I should have paid. That after his death, which was predicted, he rose back to Heaven, which was predicted. I have faith that simply by believing all of this, I will see my place in Heaven some day as well.
God Bless You
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm - Edit
continuing from above . . .
Telling me I am wrong will not help. Telling me I don't have proof is not scientific, for neither do you. So, if you ever wish to hear more about the wonder that is my God, I would love to communicate in a slightly less offensive forum. Sure, I willingly stepped into here, if only to satisfy curiousity. But I have thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. Having a chance to publicly proclaim the glory of my God is an awesome thing.
I will check back in from time to time, seeking anyone who needs it. If you have anything else pressing, though:
larlhamd@sbcglobal.net
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:38 pm - Edit
Quick! Insert fuck, cunt, asshole and similar derogatives in the other post titles!
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm - Edit
And we're back at square one. Christians and people of other religions are making positive claims, about events and such. This is all good and well, but you can't expect the rest of the world to accept those claims when there is no evidence for them. How often must I tell you that the Gospels were not written by contemporaries of Jesus – or if they were, the Gospels were written between 65-100 CE, a few decades after the supposed Jesus? So there are no "first-hand, eye-witness accounts".
Even if there were, that doesn't count for much. People believe to have seen, heard, smelled and felt all kinds of things. Read Carl Sagan's The demon-haunted world for an analysis on what alien abduction accounts have in common with the witch hunts, and generally why people believe strange things.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 am - Edit
You see, the problem is more akin to that we are not rejecting it didn't happen, scientists, archeologists, theologists and whatnot all try to find more evidence, examining all options we have. Sometimes there is some great news item popping up, such as a claim that we found Noah's ark. Ultimately, we cannot prove it was Noah's ark, and this is the crux. Even if we did find parts of Jesus body still intact, we cannot actually determine it is truly Jesus' body. Logically, all of the miracles may have some real event basis, we know there was a great flood, but it certainly didn't cover all the world for example.
Scientists and non-believers are generally interested in finding supporting evidence (because it would be pretty cool if humans could learn to walk on water) to all these various claims, but what we know of general physics today simply contradicts mostly everything the BIble has so far claimed. Furthermore, the more we discover the more we realize that many of those claims simply don't hold water to modern discoveries of how this universe functions, such as the earth rather rotating around the sun than than the opposite.
And then, if we look at other religions, we have the problem with which religious claim is most right? Maybe the earth was spat out from Gaia's divine womb, or that there are evil spirits out there to get us, that are unrelated to the Judaistic religions.
Once you start to study all various forms of faith that have been practiced and are practiced over the world, you realize that the only thing they utterly got in common is the need to be more true than any other form of practice. For the Maya indian tribe Q'eqchi', mountain spirits are true, just like Jesus Christ (they believe both in mountain spirits and practice Catholic Christianity), for the Luo people living in Kenya near Lake Victoria, bitter money and ancestors are true, for the Songhay living near West Niger, spirits are true along with Allah (they believe both in good and evil spirits, sorcery and practice Islam).
It may not make any sense to you, but I, who study these people, realize that there is no ultimately right or wrong when it comes to religious practice, and I think that even more so it is important for everyone to gain an acceptance that other religious practices are not wrong just because your holy scripture may might that claim (or because of your strong faith).
So when it comes to being right or wrong, the better stance would be to say that I may accept that my religion may not be the right religion, but it is right to me, which is quite a major difference from what is usually expressed by Christians and otherwise.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:13 pm - Edit
Might be a bit late, but still…..the majority of the worlds population does not believe (or at least not in god)….the two largest religions together do not account for the same amount of people that don't believe (that globally)….you're probably in the United States of Doctrine…the only place 90% is indeed religious….i wonder why
If you're going to TED like the other replier suggest also take a look at Richard Dawkins' talk http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins...
August 18th, 2009 at 10:13 pm - Edit
I've just read that the "Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau"
expects that 33% will be churchgoing in 2010 going down to 25% in 2020. We can only hope that the downfall (including all the other religions christians are atheists about) goes faster. Cause I've honestly had enough…
December 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am - Edit
You are all a pack of CUNTS and I hope you all DIE a horrible death that never ends
December 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am - Edit
they came out of you scatty asshole
December 27th, 2009 at 9:59 am - Edit
I want to invite everyone to a mass orgy with gasoline coctails afterwards
December 27th, 2009 at 11:32 am - Edit
These comments are full of win!
December 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm - Edit
To the OP…I agree that Blasphemy Laws should not exist, but neither should a number of laws. Here in the U.S. we have laws that make it a crime to speak out against just about every other identifiable group that may be classified as a minority. i.e. Gays, blacks, hispanics, Muslims etc….Speaking out against gay marriage makes you a homophobe, not cowering to the demands of main stream black leaders makes you a racist. Having a problem with illegal aliens makes you a racist. Speaking out against Muslim Terrorists makes you a…you ready for this?…An Islamaphobe.
So far as I know, the U.S. has never had a "Blasphemy Law". Here you can say whatever you want about Christianity…But you better not utter a single negative word about any other groups…..You call it "Progressive"? I call it self righteous hypocrisy.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:30 pm - Edit
Funny how you confuse laws with social pressure. There isn't a law that will brand you "Certified Homophobe" if you speak out against gay marriage. People who disagree with that attitude and are low on actual arguments might simply go for an ad hominem like that. If you please, show me these laws that make it illegal to speak out against any group of people? I think you will be hard pressed to find any such laws because I would think it falls under the freedom of speech.
You can be as "racist" as you like in your speech, or as "homophobic" as you like. But that doesn't mean I might condemn things you say. That's just my exercise of free speech as well. Saying they can't call you homophobic or racist is appealing to your right to free speech, but insisting others can't appeal to theirs.
December 31st, 2009 at 5:45 pm - Edit
You are not facing persecution here my friend… the only thing you are facing here is reality. Which is something the church has lost long ago. If the church had it's way, great thinkers would have been burnt at the stake, as witches and warlocks. You would not be sitting here debating with non believers on a computer. You would be sitting in a house made of dung and straw, and you would truly know the meaning of persecution. For in the past if your personality was not in accordance with the church, you were put to death. If you suffered from epilepsy, the church said you were possessed by the devil and were therefore put to death after their prayers did not work.
Today we can accept people and have more empathy to our fellow man than ever was the case in the dark ages my friend. Just be thankful that you were born in this era, and not in the time of church rule.