Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Victorianpunk, your pictures just promote the idea of religious arrogance and don't add anything of substance to your posts. Also, repeating the same nonsense over and over again isn't going to prove that what you say is true. Also, the thread is about 'what you would like to see religion replaced with,' yet you have never given anything that even remotely relates to that topic. If you want to discuss your ideas of the 'problems' with rationalism and anti theism then you should start a new thread on it, but this thread isn't the place to do it.
Wouldn't it be nice if Victoria Punk could make a rational argument to convince people to believe in God instead of making childish emotional arguments by posting photos? Perhaps he can prove the existence of a God and explain how it can possibly exist? Perhaps Victoria Punk can tell us who created God and who created the creator that created God and so on?
A picture is worth a thousand words. If you have trouble with the logical end result of rationalism, than it is not me you have a problem with, but rationalism.
A repeat myself because my position gets ignored, but never refuted...perhaps because there is no way to refute them?Continue attacking the way the statement is said, ignoring the statement, but not refuting the statement, and you will continue to look down right foolish.
Actually, I have, repeaditly, but, like most things the rationalist cannot refute, it gets ignored. Allow me to spell it out in one, easy-to-read-sentence: If we replace religion with pure non-msyticism/non-romanictist rationalism, what we have is a Borgcollective, i.e., a dystopia.
It is ridiculous how you yammer on and on about achieving balance, yet all you have offered up is extremist interpretations of tyrannical endpoints for all positions other than your own. That is not balance nor is it logical.
You like to quote Joseph Campbell. I suggest you read and study some of his books because he did not promote what you are promoting nor did he interpret opposing philosophies like you do. You obviously have missed what he discussed in great depth.
We ignore your "arguments" because they are just as absurd and illogical as any fundamentalist preacher's exhortations that we're all going to burn in h*ll. It sounds very much like the same thing. Your arguments are apocalyptic threats without basis and without supporting evidence. When faced with opposing argument, you resort to claiming words are meaningless. They are only meaningless when distorted out of common understanding in your attempts to browbeat.
By the way, love is not a crutch. Dependency is a crutch and dependency is not love. It is yet another human emotion that you say you don't know, yet define it as something entirely different than it really is.
You might also take and understand a 10th grade geometry and logic class. You have demonstrated false premises all over your posts which automatically invalidate any associations you have made and render the conclusions absurd.
Oh, and you still haven't addressed the topic of the thread. Your bolded statement is only yet another attempt at saying religion should not be replaced. That is an easy to understand answer to the question posed in the thread.
in my personal situation "positive thinking" has come to be like another sort of fascism (and i was glad to see it named as that by some german book author, but i forgot his name and did not pursue the issue any further, after all, i can't just buy each and any book on the market).
it is fine to be educated and/or occupied with lifelong learning and studying the works of others - it is not fine having to live with an ever widening gap between theory and practice with one's own self disappearing into nowhere.
I don't like the question about replacing religion.
To me that would be comparable to a surgeon, after removing a tumor, asking what I want as a replacement. Religion will not leave a vacuum. If religion was just removed is enough.
Last edited by Visvaldis; 02-03-2009 at 09:04 AM..
I don't like the question about replacing religion.
To me that would be comparable to a surgeon, after removing a tumor, asking what I want as a replacement. Religion will not leave a vacuum. If religion was just removed is enough.
I don't like the question about replacing religion.
To me that would be comparable to a surgeon, after removing a tumor, asking what I want as a replacement.
I think your comparison is an interesting viewpoint and of course a nonreligious person like myself doesn't need a replacement but for those who tend to have religious beliefs it would seem to me that those thoughts would have to be redirected in another direction which sounds alot like replacing religion with something else. In all fairness though, I think it would sound arrogant if I were to suggest that religious people should be doing exactly that. I do believe in religious freedom and freedom of thought in general so I don't want this thread that I started to make it sound like I want to have religion forcefully stamped out. Anyway, I'm just trying to clarify the intent of the thread.
Wouldn't it be nice if Victoria Punk could make a rational argument to convince people to believe in God instead of making childish emotional arguments by posting photos? Perhaps he can prove the existence of a God and explain how it can possibly exist? Perhaps Victoria Punk can tell us who created God and who created the creator that created God and so on?
I agree. It would be nice if they would at least attempt to rationally prove that their god(or any god for that matter) exists, except he just keeps rehearsing the same irrational emotive arguments.
I don't like the question about replacing religion.
To me that would be comparable to a surgeon, after removing a tumor, asking what I want as a replacement. Religion will not leave a vacuum. If religion was just removed is enough.
Good post. I don't think it needs replacing with anything new. Rational thought has been around for at least as long as religion has, or we wouldn't be here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
