Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Religion cannot be proven by worldly sciences


  • Please log in to reply
2034 replies to this topic

#1681 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 28 September 2012 - 01:19 PM

There's nothing to "get" - as I said, the "creator" of FSM has said it as a joke.

The "creator" of the Bible hasn't.

Do you get it?


Yep, I get that one was satire and the other was earnest.

Do you understand satire and why it's used?
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1682 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,150 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 28 September 2012 - 01:28 PM

Yeah I was saying it's ok to make a positive assertion and say "I do not believe it exists" which is one step further from just lacking a belief in a deity all together. I guess my wording was a little confusing.

Thanks for clarifying. I think the thing with many atheists (myself included), is that they use "lack of belief" to refer to the concept of gods as a whole, while disbelieving in more specific gods. It's kind of tough to actively disbelieve in all possible gods, because that would include definitions of gods we haven't heard yet or gods whose definition is so vague that there's not enough substance to disbelieve in. In those cases, lack of belief is much more apt. In cases where theists make positive claims about the definition of their god, there's more substance to dismiss that particular hypothetical being as unlikely and actively dismiss it unless evidence is presented to the contrary.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#1683 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,022 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 28 September 2012 - 01:36 PM

Thanks for clarifying. I think the thing with many atheists (myself included), is that they use "lack of belief" to refer to the concept of gods as a whole, while disbelieving in more specific gods. It's kind of tough to actively disbelieve in all possible gods, because that would include definitions of gods we haven't heard yet or gods whose definition is so vague that there's not enough substance to disbelieve in. In those cases, lack of belief is much more apt. In cases where theists make positive claims about the definition of their god, there's more substance to dismiss that particular hypothetical being as unlikely and actively dismiss it unless evidence is presented to the contrary.

Hmm great point VICfan.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1684 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,661 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 28 September 2012 - 02:10 PM

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."

As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.

It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.

When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the "relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long.

When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good painting or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of living. In addition to the most elementary precepts directly motivated by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering, there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach considerable imporcance. Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally even where its attainment and its accessibility to all would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many such questions which, from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-called "relativistic" viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with the more subtle moral decisions.

When considering the actual living conditions of presentday civilized humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow. men. This competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.

There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain so-called primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one in the study of religion as such, is advised to read the description of the Pueblo Indians in Ruth Benedict's book, Patterns of Culture. Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in it a temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness.

The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.

-Albert Einstein


It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

-Albert Einstein

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm[/img]


imo the New Atheist Movement might've considered the wisdom of Albert Einstein before advocating the view that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.

Esp. when trying to use science to disprove religion. First off, while science is, religion is not easily defined. Yes, you can prove or at least logically conclude that archaic traditions (ie. praying to God) have no effect on the phenominal world, but is that disproving religion entirely? No. Religion, regardless of deity or tradition, is there regardless of fact or rationality. The two concept cannot meet.

This is why the only result of any science vs. religion debate is "a pointless stalemate".
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/08/atheism-religion-debate-stalemate-archbishop

If Einstein and other historical agnostic genius-level scientists like him saw great value in religion, as it relates the human condition and our need to understand the universe, then clearly religion is not entirely worthy of being 'disproved' anyway, is it?

We can only have progress here if we ditch the stalemate debate and move on. Einstein knew this. 60yrs later some of us still haven't learned.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1685 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,661 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 28 September 2012 - 02:13 PM

(Please don't deflect into a 'What new atheist movement?' argument. It's the collective works of recent athiest philosophers who have advocated the idea of getting rid of religion.)
  • 0
Posted Image

#1686 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:07 PM

I'm eating an apple right now :bigblush:
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1687 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:13 PM

I'm eating an apple right now :bigblush:


:lol:

Bitch
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1688 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,661 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:14 PM

Apple is a new religion, and Steve Jobs was it's high priest.
http://www.washingto...lgTL_story.html
;)
  • 0
Posted Image

#1689 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,714 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:22 PM

Apple is a new religion, and Steve Jobs was it's high priest.
http://www.washingto...lgTL_story.html
;)


They certainly have a lot of the same earmarks as religious zealots do...
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1690 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,661 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:22 PM

Posted Image
"60 years later... Still pwning."
  • 0
Posted Image

#1691 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 28 September 2012 - 04:51 PM

Apple is a new religion, and Steve Jobs was it's high priest.
http://www.washingto...lgTL_story.html
;)


Saying things are a new religion is the new religion. ;)
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1692 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:14 PM

Hilarious video:



FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
  • 2

Posted Image


#1693 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:19 PM

lol cringe worthy
  • 0

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect


#1694 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,007 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 29 September 2012 - 02:46 PM

Hilarious video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tczCwtIQg&feature=related

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!


Made my day, thank you Pouria. I love Fox news, the paragon of truth :)

For those who have yet to watch the video, I suggest you do so by candlelight.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1695 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 30 September 2012 - 02:10 AM

Hilarious video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tczCwtIQg&feature=related

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!


What a complete joke CNN is ? The armpit of journalism through out the world. These baboons ask this guy to come on the show and villianize him for his answers. The do not give him a chance at all. Blind is not even close to what I am thinking. Designed propaganda to make the bible belt feel oh so special. :sick: Look how defensive they get when he asks a simple logical question. It nearly short circuits all their brains at once ! Priceless !

Edited by vanfan73, 30 September 2012 - 02:13 AM.

  • 0

tumblr_m9hjp8vrqX1reh8b2o1_250.gif

Once, on vacation,  using only a rake and a pair of sunglasses,

I single-handedly defended a small village in Italy from a colony of angry wasps. :ph34r:


#1696 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,007 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 30 September 2012 - 09:15 AM

What a complete joke CNN  is ? The armpit of journalism through out the world. These baboons ask this guy to come on the show and villianize him for his answers. The do not  give him a chance at all. Blind is not even close to what I am thinking. Designed propaganda to make the bible belt feel oh so special.   :sick:  Look how defensive they get when he asks a simple logical question. It nearly short circuits all their brains at once ! Priceless !


Pretty sure it's Fox news Vanfan73. There is no way Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper would allow their journalistic integrity get THAT compromised. CNN also has a tendency to make sure that if they have a blonde woman on their panel, she doesn't have the propensity to go full retard like Laura Ingraham, Gretchen Carlson, or the mouth breather in the above video. Don't get me wrong, CNN can make vast improvements but it is miles ahead of Fox "Daily Show Fodder" News.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1697 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 30 September 2012 - 09:57 AM

Pretty sure it's Fox news Vanfan73. There is no way Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper would allow their journalistic integrity get THAT compromised. CNN also has a tendency to make sure that if they have a blonde woman on their panel, she doesn't have the propensity to go full retard like Laura Ingraham, Gretchen Carlson, or the mouth breather in the above video. Don't get me wrong, CNN can make vast improvements but it is miles ahead of Fox "Daily Show Fodder" News.


Posted Image

Posted Image

Edited by Pouria, 30 September 2012 - 10:00 AM.

  • 1

Posted Image


#1698 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,425 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 30 September 2012 - 11:30 AM

Pretty sure it's Fox news Vanfan73. There is no way Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper would allow their journalistic integrity get THAT compromised. CNN also has a tendency to make sure that if they have a blonde woman on their panel, she doesn't have the propensity to go full retard like Laura Ingraham, Gretchen Carlson, or the mouth breather in the above video. Don't get me wrong, CNN can make vast improvements but it is miles ahead of Fox "Daily Show Fodder" News.


lol my bad . Was way to tired last night to realize it was Fox news. Aren't they basically the same though ?
  • 0

tumblr_m9hjp8vrqX1reh8b2o1_250.gif

Once, on vacation,  using only a rake and a pair of sunglasses,

I single-handedly defended a small village in Italy from a colony of angry wasps. :ph34r:


#1699 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,791 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 30 September 2012 - 02:47 PM

Pretty sure it's Fox news Vanfan73. There is no way Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper would allow their journalistic integrity get THAT compromised. CNN also has a tendency to make sure that if they have a blonde woman on their panel, she doesn't have the propensity to go full retard like Laura Ingraham, Gretchen Carlson, or the mouth breather in the above video. Don't get me wrong, CNN can make vast improvements but it is miles ahead of Fox "Daily Show Fodder" News.


I LOL'd when I saw the names of Zionist foot-soldier Wolf Blitzer and CIA-trained Anderson Cooper next to 'journalistic integrity'.
  • 1

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

11477626583_2368927097.jpg     49997_b70e6ae14ce1652fa11bd1dda624afd1.g   7649118508_ce3e8a74a1_o.jpg

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#1700 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,007 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 30 September 2012 - 11:36 PM

I LOL'd when I saw the names of Zionist foot-soldier Wolf Blitzer and CIA-trained Anderson Cooper next to 'journalistic integrity'.


**WARNING** : Contains explicit lyrics that some may find offensive. Not recommended for persons under the age of 18 or Republicans of any age. Everyone else, enjoy.


  • 0
Posted Image

#1701 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 30 September 2012 - 11:49 PM

What a complete joke CNN is ? The armpit of journalism through out the world. These baboons ask this guy to come on the show and villianize him for his answers. The do not give him a chance at all. Blind is not even close to what I am thinking. Designed propaganda to make the bible belt feel oh so special. :sick: Look how defensive they get when he asks a simple logical question. It nearly short circuits all their brains at once ! Priceless !


I thought he did a great job and remained very steadfast in communicating his beliefs. I don't think it was all that bad. I expected a lot more than that from FOX.
  • 0

#1702 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 01 October 2012 - 11:40 PM

On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God

The latest wave of Muslim hysteria and violence has now spread to over twenty countries. The walls of our embassies and consulates have been breached, their precincts abandoned to triumphant mobs, and many people have been murdered—all in response to an unwatchable Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Whether over a film, a cartoon, a novel, a beauty pageant, or an inauspiciously named teddy bear, the coming eruption of pious rage is now as predictable as the dawn. This is already an old and boring story about old, boring, and deadly ideas. And I fear it will be with us for the rest of our lives.

Our panic and moral confusion were at first sublimated in attacks upon the hapless Governor Romney. I am no fan of Romney’s, and I would find the prospect of his presidency risible if it were not so depressing, but he did accurately detect the first bleats of fear in the Obama administration’s reaction to this crisis. Romney got the timing of events wrong—confusing, as many did, a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for an official government response to the murder of Americans in Libya. But the truth is that the White House struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle. It may seem a small detail, given the heat of the moment—but so is a quivering lip.

Our government followed the path of appeasement further by attempting to silence the irrepressible crackpot Pastor Terry Jones, who had left off burning copies of the Qur’an just long enough to promote the film. The administration also requested that Google remove “Innocence of Muslims” from its servers. These maneuvers attest to one of two psychological and diplomatic realities: Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate.

The contagion of moral cowardice followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as “religious sensitivity” among Muslims. Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religion—as though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork.

Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law. And where they do not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the imbecile holding the placard only had more power. This grotesque promise is, of course, fulfilled in nearly every Muslim society. To make a film like “Innocence of Muslims” anywhere in the Middle East would be as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow.

What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.

At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses.

Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, “religion” is a term like “sports”: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail no more risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of “sports” as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term “religion” is scarcely more useful.

Consider Mormonism: Many of my fellow liberals would consider it morally indecent to count Romney’s faith against him. In their view, Mormonism must be just like every other religion. The truth, however, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than its fair share of quirks. For instance, its doctrine was explicitly racist until 1978, at which point God apparently changed his mind about black people (a few years after Archie Bunker did) and recommended that they be granted the full range of sacraments and religious responsibilities. By this time, Romney had been an adult and an exceptionally energetic member of his church for more than a decade.

Unlike the founders of most religions, about whom very little is known, Mormonism is the product of the plagiarisms and confabulations of an obvious con man, Joseph Smith, whose adventures among the credulous were consummated (in every sense) in the full, unsentimental glare of history. Given how much we know about Smith, it is harder to be a Mormon than it is to be a Christian. A firmer embrace of the preposterous is required—and the fact that Romney can manage it says something about him, just as it would if he were a Scientologist proposing to park his E-meter in the Oval Office. The spectrum between rational belief and self-serving delusion has some obvious increments: It is one thing to believe that Jesus existed and was probably a remarkable human being. It is another to accept, as most Christians do, that he was physically resurrected and will return to earth to judge the living and the dead. It is yet another leap of faith too far to imagine, as all good Mormons must, that he will work his cosmic magic from the hallowed ground of Jackson County, Missouri.

That final, provincial detail matters. It makes Mormonism objectively less plausible than run-of-the-mill Christianity—as does the related claim that Jesus visited the “Nephites” in America at some point after his resurrection. The moment one adds seer stones, sacred underpants, the planet Kolob, and a secret handshake required to win admittance into the highest heaven, Mormonism stands revealed for what it is: the religious equivalent of rhythmic gymnastics.

The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it. Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City.
The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking.


  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1703 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 01 October 2012 - 11:54 PM


Edited by CAPSLOCK, 02 October 2012 - 12:11 AM.

  • 1

#1704 JeremyW

JeremyW

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 12

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:05 AM

This thread will NEVER end.
  • 0

#1705 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:09 AM

This thread will NEVER end.


So?
  • 0

#1706 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:15 AM

This thread will NEVER end.


It was , is , and ever shall be :lol: Posted Image

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 02 October 2012 - 01:16 AM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#1707 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,511 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:33 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBvtIKEO4pQ


they should just do a simple memorial with names and pictures, or names and date. Kind of like a war memorial. Since not everyone is christian, and we have to also respect the atheists too.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  


#1708 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,050 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:01 AM

they should just do a simple memorial with names and pictures, or names and date. Kind of like a war memorial. Since not everyone is christian, and we have to also respect the atheists too.


So...on the one hand I agree with you, but on the other, why can't Christians also honour them in their own way?

For example, this person(what's sad is the few atheists attacking because they don't like how this person is asking people to pray for the soldiers - it's a facebook page - if you (as an atheist) want to honour them in your way - then make your own page and stop attacking how others are doing it... :

http://www.facebook....them?ref=stream

"PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE, BUT DO NOT TELL ME TO TURN THE OTHER CHEEK AND JUST IGNORE IT. I AM TIRED OF DEDICATING MY TIME, ENERGY AND HEART ONLY TO BE ATTACKED BY A FACEBOOK MILITIA WHO SAYS DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.
I started "Honor Them"
on June 30, 2010. For the past several hours I have been the target (literally) of several Atheists who take issue with my request that some of you join me in prayer. I ask you all this of your own free will. What you choose to do is your decision. These attacks stemmed with 1 man who told me (repeatedly) that I do not honor them all because I publicly use the word pray. I explained to the 'gentleman' that I respect his beliefs and this is how I choose to run my page. Despite my attempts to end the conversation peacefully he continued to belittle all of my hard work and say that I was "wrong" in how I honor them. After asking him to please leave me alone several times I blocked him from the page. I exercised the utmost patience with this man and gave him ample opportunity to respect my beliefs as I respect his. However, this mutual respect was lost on him. This page is about respect, not fighting. However, now I have a bunch of Atheists attacking me in his defense. Is this really why I started this page? NO. Let me remind you that this is MY page. I welcome everyone else to start their own and honor them in the way that they CHOOSE to. WHY Is it always so necessary to attack? Anyone who chooses to attack me, know this, you are a cowardly cyber warrior if you have nothing better to do than attack someone who has done nothing but posted something on her own wall. Are you proud of yourself for attacking a woman via the internet? Are you proud that you have jumped to conclusions and come after a woman without all the facts? OR do you know the facts, but simply think that the only respect to be given should be directed at you? Should I just follow what you say like a lamb being led to slaughter? Or am I allowed to have my own beliefs? Am I not an American? Do I not have rights? Do I not have the freedom to say I PRAY? Anyone who thinks I am wrong for how I honor them, ask yourself this - Is there a wrong way to honor them? Isn't any form of gratitude and honor given important? OR IS IT ONLY ABOUT YOU AND YOUR BELIEFS? That's something you may really want to consider. The ME ME ME generation is getting old. ~ Amanda"

  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1709 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:14 PM

This thread will NEVER end.


How else do you think people on this site get ridiculously high post counts?
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#1710 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,150 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:37 PM

How else do you think people on this site get ridiculously high post counts?

I always thought the real high posters got there through GDTs and fantasy GM stuff.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.