Why Thank God For My Car?

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
@ HumbleThinker

@ HumbleThinker

"I might add, it could do you some good to take my advice."

Now I know you are a bat-shit crazy Religious Absolutist. Of course I am going to insult any religious bullshit you have to say. That is what I get paid for now days. As for being extremely personal accounts… Whaaa! Go cry back to mommy.

You never saw my earlier posts. I am exactly like Christopher Hitchens, "I don't give a damn if something I say or write offends anybody. That is their problem not mine."

And I shall never curb my sayings/writings when attacking someone else's ideas. Another adage: "If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Arakish: "Only YOU have the power to give a word, phrase, sentence, and/or number the power to offend YOU!"

I do not care how personal anything posted on a public forum board is. Once posted, it is fair game. Don't like the offense, as said, go cry back to mommy.

You are exactly like AJ777 in being the most closed-minded and dangerous person on these forum boards. If you don't want anything attacked, then do not post it here. Because I shall damned sure attack it without any regard of how it may offend you. Want to know why? Because I find religion and its bastard children, Religious Absolutists and Apologists, to be the most offensive and repugnant "things" in all existence. If you do not want your religious beliefs and ideas attacked, then you are in wrong place dude.

rmfr

HumbleThinker's picture
@Akarish

@Akarish

Thank you for your words, Now I know you are a bat-shit crazy Atheist Absolutist.

"You are exactly like AJ777 in being the most closed-minded and dangerous person on these forum boards"

I really don't see how you can make this claim. We have been the most open minded ones here.

"Whaaa! Go cry back to mommy."

And you keep saying this, even though I am not crying. I have not been offended by ANYTHING that has been said to me. Your untrue criticisms have been nothing but a dishonest deflection and distraction; and at the most base level, completely hypocritical.

"Because I find religion and its bastard children, Religious Absolutists and Apologists, to be the most offensive and repugnant "things" in all existence."

Ohhhhh, and I thought it was the religious absolutists who were "close-minded" and thought everyone who was outside their religion looked down others. Now it is clear it is really YOU. Thank you for the illuminating comments, arakish. Keep up the good work.

CyberLN's picture
HumbleThinker, you asserted,

HumbleThinker, you asserted, “The fact that "religion" has existed since the 'dawn of man' proves to me that it is an important concept to understand, regardless of its' authenticity.”

When was the ‘dawn of man’?
How did you determine this as a fact?
To which species of man do you refer?
Do you, then, think all religions are equally important?

HumbleThinker's picture
@CyberLN

@CyberLN

I appreciate the comment. Not sure its' important to address here, especially since it is unrelated to the OP. But I will elaborate.

Historical documents show that the earliest hominids that we are aware of engaged in 'ritualistic' behavior. Altars, religious artifacts, etc have been found in some of the earliest civilizations. Even early species are believed to have mystics and 'sight-seers'. Many of them used hallucinogenic chemicals to produce this effect. Homo neanderthalensis are shown to have buried their dead, which is a characteristic of religiosity.

Scientists in the field of the anthropology of religion point out that even our chimpanzee and bonobo ancestors "do not practice religion, but have characteristics necessary for the development of religion."

If 'the use of religion' evolved and remained for over 400,000 years, then it is an extremely important piece in understanding who we are. The claim that religion is evil, doesn't seem right to me. If religiosity has evolved, it has to have had some beneficial impact on our survival. No?

Traits that are said to be necessary for religious propensities in animals: high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self"of continuity.

"Do you, then, think all religions are equally important?"

I will say this, a world WITHOUT religion, is one in which I would not want to be living in.

Also, If I would so bold to point out my hypothesis on this: (NO EVIDENCE, JUST HYPOTHESIS)
The story of creation says God created man out of dirt and placed him in Eden. Although it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, there is no reason to assume that evolution had not yet begun, and early man-like hominids roaming the earth. One was taken, and God "breathed the breath of life" into him. This is known as the soul. This is what Christians believe put us above the rest of the animal kingdom. Dogs do not have souls, and therefore do not go to heaven (sorry). It is my speculation that it was in that moment that 'man' began using religion in the sense that we understand it now. It has existed since then, because the soul of mankind yearns for God. You may not admit it to yourself, but all of mankind wants to know Him. We have different approaches, but to the same end.

CyberLN's picture
So, based on what you have

So, based on what you have written, it is not, indeed, a fact that religion has existed since this unspecified ‘dawn of man’. It is conjecture, supposed, guessed at, extrapolated, but not a fact.

Will you then be retracting your earlier assertion?

HumbleThinker's picture
@CyberLN

@CyberLN

Okay, okay. It is NOT a FACT that religion has existed since the 'dawn of time'.

"Will you then be retracting your earlier assertion?"

No.

"The exact time when humans first became religious remains unknown, however research in evolutionary archaeology shows credible evidence of religious-cum-ritualistic behaviour from around the Middle Paleolithic era (45-200 thousand years ago).
Culotta, Elizabeth (6 November 2009). "On the Origin of Religion". Science. 326 (5954): 784–787. doi:10.1126/science.326_784. PMID 19892955.

Pointing out my exaggerated use of 'dawn of time' is a distraction from the point of my comment. Relgious thinking has existed for a very long time, and it is suggested that it lies deep within the fabric of who we are as human beings. Would you disagree, then, that it is at least important to understand?

CyberLN's picture
Interesting, you edited your

Interesting, you edited your response without indicating it. Originally you did retract your assertion.

Here’s the deal...you asserted a fact. I called you on it. You retracted it. Now you retract the retraction because I was unable to determine from what you wrote that you were ‘exaggerating’.

Religious thinking has existed a long time? How long is that? How broad is the s one of this religiou thinking? Is one flavor of it better than another? If it is, as you say, deep within the fabric of who we are as humans, does that mean it’s genetic?

HumbleThinker's picture
Yes, I admit to what you say.

Yes, I admit to what you say. Tbh, I don’t know to “indicate it”. Especially on mobile (which for some reason doesn’t even allow me to copy and past). Not trying to be deceiving, just thought about it a little more, and changed my mind. I know it was an exaggeration and I changed it. What more do you want, a pat on the back? We both know you are addressing this specific point as a point of semantics. It’s really irrelevant to the overall point. How long do you think Reilly’s propensities have been around?

And yes, I think it’s genetic. To what degree, I can not say. It is speculation.

CyberLN's picture
To indicate an edit, simply

To indicate an edit, simply add the additional information at the end of the original post with something like, “edited to add...”

In an online forum, where body and facial idicators of meaning and intent are unavailable, using precision with one’s words becomes even more important. Since I am unable to access anything other than what you have written, those words are most certainly not irrelevant.

Now...to comment on your speculation that religiosity is genetic....from where do you think it came?

Nyarlathotep's picture
HumbleThinker - Not trying to

HumbleThinker - Not trying to be deceiving...

While it violates no rules here at AR; retroactively making a major, unannotated changes to the debate record is pretty nasty.

Nyarlathotep's picture
HumbleThinker - Dogs do not

HumbleThinker - Dogs do not have souls, and therefore do not go to heaven (sorry).

How do you know that?

Sky Pilot's picture
Nyarlathotep,

Nyarlathotep,

"HumbleThinker - Dogs do not have souls, and therefore do not go to heaven (sorry).

How do you know that?"

Doesn't the biblical fairy tale say that dogs are excluded?

Revelation 22:15(CEV) = 15 But outside the city will be dogs, witches, immoral people, murderers, idol worshipers, and everyone who loves to tell lies and do wrong.

Then there is the hadith =

Sahih Muslim Book 024, Hadith Number 5249.

Chapter : Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.

"Abu Talha reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) having said: Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture."

xenoview's picture
HumbleThinker

HumbleThinker

What objective evidence do you have that your god created anything? What objective evidence do you have that humans have souls and other animals don't?

HumbleThinker's picture
This is unrelated to the OP.

This is unrelated to the OP. And frankly, an irresponsible question. You are, once again, asking me to prove God exists rather than entertaining the premise that God DOES exist to address the point, which is clearly just an extension of my Christian beliefs.

Nyarlathotep's picture
HumbleThinker - You are, once

HumbleThinker - You are, once again, asking me to prove...

He asked you for evidence, not a proof.

arakish's picture
@ HumbleThinker

@ HumbleThinker

And if your human-created make-believe sky faerie does not exist?

You are such a liar. You REQUIRE us to ASSUME your human-created make-believe sky faerie does exist in order to answer your questions. Why can you NOT do the vice versa and ASSUME your human-created make-believe sky faerie does NOT exist in order to answer our questions? Why are you Religious Absolutists so damned hypocritical?

rmfr

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Humblethinker

@ Humblethinker

HumbleThinker - Dogs do not have souls, and therefore do not go to heaven (sorry).

If there are no dogs in heaven...it ain't heaven.

(Edit, original quote added)

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: "If there are

@Old Man Re: "If there are no dogs in heaven...it ain't heaven."

For real, we HAVE TO GET a "Ten Thousand Agrees" button installed.

HumbleThinker's picture
Haha I hear ya. I do.

Haha I hear ya. I do.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Humblethinker

@ Humblethinker

Well maybe you should spend your time praying to your god to allow dogs to have souls.
It would be as useful as you making fatuous comments on these pages.

Personally I am glad to lack the belief in such a complete dick as your gods.

Totally fucks up any idea of an intelligent creator if it can't give animals a soul. What a drelb.

(edit spelling and last line)

HumbleThinker's picture
Yikes, that took a turn.

Yikes, that took a turn. Instead of just smiling and nodding you felt the need to attack. Why is that?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Humble Thinker

@ Humble Thinker

When you (or anyone) makes fatuous, religion based comments I will call you out.

All animals have consciousness, those closest to us we anthropomorphize. To say a dog lacks a 'soul', but a human has one is a complete dick. By 'soul' I mean a consciousness that has emotions, feels pain, plus in some cases expresses itself across speciation

"It lacks a soul" is a religious ploy used, amongst others, by the slavers..."they are animals the blacks, they don't have souls". Just a religious excuse for killing, amoral behaviour and whatever else the religious hierarchy decide to inflict on "lesser beings" who do not or cannot or even will not accept their religiosity.

If you feel I am attacking you then don't be a dick because of your religion.

HumbleThinker's picture
Jesus, sounds like you have

Jesus, sounds like you have had a few dogs die under your command. Sorry, not my fault.

"All animals have consciousness, those closest to us we anthropomorphize. To say a dog lacks a 'soul', but a human has one is a complete dick. By 'soul' I mean a consciousness that has emotions, feels pain, plus in some cases expresses itself across speciation"

Well here's the problem, we don't agree on what a soul is. I never said dogs don't have consciousness or emotions. Of course they do. But our faith does say we have that which animals do not.

""It lacks a soul" is a religious ploy used, amongst others, by the slavers..."

You do realize, animals were domesticated for OUR benefit. Food, protection. I would actually propose that YOU, sir, are a slaveowner.

"Just a religious excuse for killing, amoral behaviour and whatever else the religious hierarchy decide to inflict on "lesser beings" who do not or cannot or even will not accept their religiosity."

Interesting comment. Would you be suggesting that Homo Sapiens are NOT the greatest species existing today?

P.S. If you get offended by my comment that dogs don't have souls, that's your problem, not mine. I'm not being a dick : )

Nyarlathotep's picture
HumbleThinker - Would you be

HumbleThinker - Would you be suggesting that Homo Sapiens are NOT the greatest species existing today?

Greatest with respect to what?

Nyarlathotep's picture
HumbleThinker - If you get

HumbleThinker - If you get offended by my comment that dogs don't have souls...

I'm not offended, I'm just curious:

Starting with your postulates: god exists, an afterlife (heaven) exists.

How to you reach the conclusions that dogs don't participate in the afterlife (don't go to heaven)? Or is that a postulate also?

eta: the word don't

Sky Pilot's picture
Nyarlathotep,

Nyarlathotep,

"How to you reach the conclusions that dogs don't participate in the afterlife (don't go to heaven)? Or is that a postulate also?"

According to the Christian and Islamic fairy tales people will be resurrected on Judgment Day and get sorted for either heaven/paradise or the lake of fire/hell. So how will animals be resurrected and judged? These are human specific fairy tales and the writers excluded animals except for the weird creatures around the bibical God character who already bunk with him.

shiningone's picture
@ Diotrephes

@ Diotrephes

"According to the Christian and Islamic fairy tales people will be resurrected on Judgment Day and get sorted for either heaven/paradise or the lake of fire/hell."

Not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPi6RjQ-jKg

CyberLN's picture
HT, you asked, “Would you be

HT, you asked, “Would you be suggesting that Homo Sapiens are NOT the greatest species existing today?”

What are the parameters of ‘greatest’? What does that mean? What does it include?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ HumbleThinker

@ HumbleThinker

Interesting comment. Would you be suggesting that Homo Sapiens are NOT the greatest species existing today?

Nope. The whole point of my post was to highlight the arrogance and reasoning behind the "no souls" belief.

I will be brief the 'belief' that animals do not have souls, like the same accusation levelled ,for many years, at negroes and chinese was to allow unfettered and guilt free exploitation of living things.
If it didn't have a soul it wasn't killing, if it didn't have a soul then torture, murder and any other pain or indignity just would not 'count against you' in the final reckoning.
The whole 'no soul' argument is just one example of how religions' teachings conceal the most foul hypocrisy.

Yes I have been lucky to have befriended and shared my home and work with several dogs, been owned by cats and been friended by birds over the years, Animals were 'domesticated for our benefit" but not our sick demand to be "superior". Most cats I know consider us to be utterly clumsy and incapable of survival without their care and guardianship.

I do not believe in souls, but so see the concept as just a smug, hypocritical religious method of one upmanship and excuse for terrorism.

HumbleThinker's picture
Understood. It is in my

Understood. It is in my opinion that animals don’t have souls. The only “evidence” I have is from the Bible. Maybe you will call it an opinion. I will be honest, I don’t care for animals much. I respect them as Gods creation and I respect that they aid in our survival, but that is all. I do not form personal attachments to animals, not do I feel they deserve any more respect than that. As a matter of fact, it feels wrong to say they deserve the same rights as us, as PETA seems to suggest, and I have no qualms about the food industry.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.