Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Why being anti-religion will backfire

Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 06, 2009, 11:44:01 AM
Quote
After hauling in the throw, the Raiders' Johnson dropped to his knees and raised his hands to the heavens in a brief and innocuous display of his religious faith. It was one the most humble, classy and decent end zone celebrations you'll ever see.

The officials didn't like it one bit. They whistled Johnson for excessive celebration and a 15-yard penalty.

But he dropped to his knees in a motion resembling prayer, and got nailed with a 15-yard penalty. "I'm just getting on my knees giving my respect to God," Johnson told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I don't see how that's a personal foul or anything like that."

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/Raiders-Get-a-Penalty-for-Thanking-God-63539342.html

Once you start a crusade against belief in something, the Crowd takes that to mean it's OK to bash those who believe in anything. So now many things are taboo. This makes a mockery of those idiot Satanist-liberals like Gaahl who talk about "freedom" as their reason for bashing Christ, and don't point out the obvious: bad thought is bad thought wherever we find it, and the origin is the Crowd, who will twist even a good theory into lies because they are weak and cannot accept reality.

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 06, 2009, 06:14:28 PM
It is out of control today. Every man who tries to brace his individuality criticizes "Religion". They'd say Religion is the origin of all malice, and that it had brought nothing but ignorance, repressing historical figures that were never "stumped" by their religiosity - denying their own infrastructure, their basics, their ethics, etiquettes, etc. The Crowd, as Mr. Conservationist pointed out, is the real problem.
Mister X: I'm denying the virginity of Mary!
Mister Y: Denying her virginity? On what evidence?
Mister X: Well, she was pregnant.

NHA

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 07, 2009, 03:38:02 AM
Looks more like the usual news-entertainment slant on an issue to me.

If you actually watch the video, Its not so hard to see why the refs called him on showboating.

The author of that web article is just being a retard drama queen - typical sanctimonious bullshit to appeal to peoples emotions.

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 07, 2009, 07:11:57 AM
"Do you believe in God?"

"...I believe in myself."
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 07, 2009, 08:54:11 AM
"Do you believe in God?"

"...I believe in myself."

Is there a difference?

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 07, 2009, 08:55:30 AM
"Do you believe in God?"

"...I believe in myself."

Is there a difference?

Yes. The self does not exist.

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 07, 2009, 09:59:26 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8294225.stm

This form of anti-religion seems reasonable enough.


Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 07, 2009, 02:37:52 PM
"Do you believe in God?"

"...I believe in myself."

Is there a difference?

When one places the self on a pedestal, they think of themselves as their own God, so in that sense, no. To be honest I was just quoting a sample from a Brutal Truth song. I am no fan of religion, but I see no need to preach to others of my views.
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 08, 2009, 04:44:38 PM
"Do you believe in God?"

"...I believe in myself."

Is there a difference?

Does man contain God, or God contain man?

Well, God is a symbol, so man contains it.

But the symbol refers to all, so it contains man.

It's one logical step past what most monkeys can handle.

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 12, 2009, 04:37:35 PM
When one places the self on a pedestal, they think of themselves as their own God, so in that sense, no.

The modern fallacy:

Have pride in nothing but yourself; worship nothing but yourself.

This is why we fear biology: it tells us that we didn't create ourselves or our abilities. We inherited them.

That thought alone really unnerves modern people. Should be spray-painted on all walls.

Re: Why being anti-religion will backfire
October 14, 2009, 02:30:17 PM
St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. The proof is most notable because it claims to prove the existence of Lemmy by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of Lemmy as a perfect being. St. Anselm’s proof is summarized here:

1. Lemmy exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of Lemmy resides as an idea in our minds.
2. Lemmy is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of Lemmy does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that Lemmy only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for Lemmy to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that Lemmy is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because Lemmy, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for Lemmy to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence Lemmy exists in reality as well as our understanding.