patrick.net

hmmm..Looks like someone got a good confessional spanking in the olden days...
Dan8267 says

marcus says

Besides, there will always be religion.

That's a pretty big fucking assumption. And even if it were true, that's no reason not to fight it anymore than one would give up the fight because someone says

SoftShell says

hmmm..Looks like someone got a good confessional spanking in the olden days...

Your statement is based on the ludicrous assumption that a person can only oppose an evil that directly harmed him or herself. This assumption is easily dismissed. I've never been murdered in my life, yet I strongly oppose murder and believe in prosecuting murderers.

Dan8267 says

We need morality to advance as fast as software and hardware does, and the only way to do that is to remove the very subject of morality from religion and put it in engineering where it is supposed to be.

marcus says

What a coincidence. You're an engineer (or might as well be one).

So I see, this is all about you. Everyone needs to be like you.

Dan8267 says

You can't even remotely address what I say, so you make up a bullshit argument that has nothing to do with what I posted.

I've told you a thousand times that the messenger is irrelevant. Yet, in your arrogance and willful ignorance, you continue to make everything about me. Yes Marcus, I'm vastly more intelligent than you are. Get over it. Deal with it already. Your tantrums are getting boring.

I see.

For the record, I find your supposed genius argument more than lacking. You're the one that will say it's because I don't understand it.

What's lacking is that you presuppose that religion is holding morality back. My point was that the kind of religion we have (and the type of politics and govt we have) are a reflection of how evolved (unevolved) we are.

Not the other way around.

Dan8267 says

Yes Marcus, I'm vastly more intelligent than you are.

I don't know about that. But you're pretty funny sometimes. I'll give you that.

Dan8267 says

That's a pretty big fucking assumption. And even if it were true, that's no reason not to fight it anymore than one would give up the fight because someone says

- there will always be poverty, so no point in doing anything about it

- there will always be rape, so no point in prosecuting it

For a genius, you sure are thick.

I said that since religion will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better religions rather than no religion. A battle that can be won, or at least where inroads could be made.

It's a fact that as people leave established moderate religions such as Presbytarians or Catholics, you are increasing the percentage of fundamentalists. This has been the trend in recent decades.

So why don't you and the other genius adolescent children go on r/atheists and talk more Catholics and moderate protestants into becoming atheists. That's really going to improve the world.

Science is a religion. It is a faith on the negation of faith.

Another genius.

I respect most religions but I cannot stand Gnostic Atheists. They are epistemically confused and they are not usually funny.

Science started with a superior stance to religion, based on the idea that scientists did NOT know it all and were searching for verifiable answers in an infinite universe of possible facts. As science has entered open combat with religion, it's had to take hard stances on issues for which it has no definitive proof. It's become more dogmatic than say, the Catholic Church when it comes to it's unquestioned belief system and excommunication of those who dare to offer alternative theories. Any wavering on core beliefs, however, is seen to give comfort to the deistic enemy, or worse, the proponents of Intelligent Design.
Science has lost the moral high ground, precisely when it resorted to shouting down detractors and enshrining dogmas that have not yet been proven correct and may be proven false! I love the idea of science. The meticulous building of fact upon fact, hypothesis, theory, and experiment is what has enabled our society to make unbelievably astounding breakthroughs. But when the papal congregation of "peers" decide to ignore the very process by which the order is named, they become just another rabble of clerics arguing about how many neutrons can spin in a Planck distance.

Scientists care about Peer-reviews. Unless they know a Lord, how is that possible?

Dan8267 says

I'm vastly more intelligent than you are.

Intelligence as a measure was invented by those who:

1) thought intelligence could be measured
2) they would be measured favorably by that measure

Actually, it can be parameterized as:

X as a measure was invented by those who:

1) thought X could be measured
2) they would be measured favorably by that measure

X could be the length of a man's... well... (At least that is slightly less subjective.)

Yes. He's compensating, as everyone who has been around here a while knows.

Quigley says

As science has entered open combat with religion, it's had to take hard stances on issues for which it has no definitive proof. It's become more dogmatic...

Total BS.
Science is not a set of results, it is a methodology, and one that is constantly proved valid as a tool to accumulate knowledge on the world.

People who believe in dogma are always ready to call science dogmatic: they want to lower it to their own level because they only understand the world in fixed, unchanging ideas.

But that's precisely the point: if it can't be revised, it's not knowledge. If it's not validated by observation, it's not knowledge. Thus scientific facts are not of the same nature as dogmas, and cannot be placed at the same level.

In that sense there is no conflict between science and religion, because as far as knowledge of the physical world is concerned, there is ONLY science.

If you claim that there is life after death: that's an arbitrary belief that cannot even be excused as spiritual in any way. The best that can be said about it is that it may be emotionally satisfying to some people.

Quigley says

Science has lost the moral high ground

Morality has nothing to do with science. The high ground of science was never based on morality.

Peter P says

I respect most religions but I cannot stand Gnostic Atheists. They are epistemically confused and they are not usually funny.

You are the one who is epistemologically confused.

If you admit the methodology of science as valid, any claim of existence of a God that influences the physical world, of life after death, etc... can only be seen as a terrible lack of intellectual honesty.

You can't have it both ways. You can't admit this methodology and at the same time "respect" religions.

Heraclitusstudent says

Quigley says

Science has lost the moral high ground

Morality has nothing to do with science. The high ground of science was never based on morality.

Enhance your reading comprehension and perhaps I'll begin taking you seriously.

Quigley says

Enhance your reading comprehension

Maybe you need to enhance your writing skills.

Quigley says

Science started with a superior stance to religion, based on the idea that scientists did NOT know it all and were searching for verifiable answers in an infinite universe of possible facts. As science has entered open combat with religion, it's had to take hard stances on issues for which it has no definitive proof. It's become more dogmatic than say, the Catholic Church when it comes to it's unquestioned belief system and excommunication of those who dare to offer alternative theories. Any wavering on core beliefs, however, is seen to give comfort to the deistic enemy, or worse, the proponents of Intelligent Design.

Science has lost the moral high ground, precisely when it resorted to shouting down detractors and enshrining dogmas that have not yet been proven correct and may be proven false! I love the idea of science. The meticulous building of fact upon fact, hypothesis, theory, and experiment is what has enabled our society to make unbelievably astounding breakthroughs. But when the papal congregation of "peers" decide to ignore the very process by which the order is named, they become just another rabble of clerics arguing about how many neutrons can spin in a Planck distance.

Quigley is making his point in a provocative way, but I agree completely.

I can disprove the "Soul" easily, as well as "Good and Evil" people.

Dementia.

Makes great people act like monsters. Funny, the brain is deteriorating and the soul seems to be turning wicked at the same time. What a coinky-dink, unless there is a simpler explanation: No Soul, All Brains.

Counter argument:
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/21/near_death_explained/

Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Oxygen Deprivation, reduced bloodflow to the brain, electrical stimulation to certain parts of it, etc. can all cause the brain to do weird things.

My dad swore that the dean of UMich gave him a diploma at 2AM several weeks ago - and that there was a lot of broken glass and that my mom threw out his diploma. He fell asleep watching the UMich game and knocked away the CPAP machine. It took him 24 hours to realize it was 100% a delusion, there was no broken glass, no dean, and no diploma for mom to have thrown out.

Just because brain function is limited, doesn't mean the senses don't work at all. Somebody with limited brain function can still hear, smell, even see to some degree.

Also, a lot of NDEs don't report the room correctly, even though they swear they saw themselves on the operating table.

Quigley says

Counter argument:

Right.
An experience that can be reproduced by drugs or brain stimulation must in fact be something totally different because.... ."fill-in your emotionally loaded explanation"

As long as you guys don't separate what is human experience and what is empirical knowledge of the physical world you will continue to miss the point.

Also, blind people "See" in their brain functions, which is excreted by biochemicals just like the Liver excretes bile and Stomache excretes Stomach Acids. Even lifetime blind people visualize things in their heads.

That Blind people have NDEs is evidence for, not against, it being a biochemical experience.

marcus says

Quigley is making his point in a provocative way, but I agree completely.

Seriously? You agree that science is dogmatic?

His point is loaded with paid for propaganda such as "Global warming is a global conspiracy of liberal scientists" with for ideological background: "Evolution and even the big bang theory is BS generated by liberal atheists satanists", and "Yeah science used to be great, but let me choose when it makes sense to me".
Let propaganda separate us from the "liberal atheists scientists enemy".

marcus says

For a genius, you sure are thick.

When an idiot calls someone else an idiot, one must question the idiot's judgement. Fools often call the wise fools.

marcus says

I said that since religion will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better religions rather than no religion.

Equivalent to saying that rape will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better rapes rather than no rapes. Same for poverty, corruption, and war.

No wonder you don't find my arguments convincing. You don't even read them.

Ultimately religion is evil. It should be fought with education, rationality, and a demand for evidence. The same goes for superstition, the ultimate basis of religions.

Peter P says

Science is a religion. It is a faith on the negation of faith.

This is a lie. The religion apologists often try to convince people of the lie that science is based on faith. Science is base on questioning and demanding evidence. The cornerstone of science is the scientific method.

Side note: I'd say "support hypothesis" rather than "accept hypothesis".

Science is based on evidence, repeatability of experiments, and transparency. As such, science is a self-correcting mechanism. Religion, in contrast, is a joke. Apply the scientific method to the question of a god, and all experiments reveal a rejection of the god hypothesis.

To state that science is somehow a faith-based guess of how the universe operates is an utterly ridiculous lie that makes the liar look like a complete idiot. Science allowed man to walk on the moon, cure diseases, fly, and create nuclear weapons and the Internet. Science has an indisputable track record. Faith does not. You cannot pray you way to the moon.

The abundance of technology in our everyday lives proves the validity, accuracy, utility, and supremacy of science. The countless wars, genocides, and tortures in history proves the vileness of religion.

marcus says

Yes. He's compensating, as everyone who has been around here a while knows.

Marcus's insecurities become transparent every time he busts a nut when someone says anything anti-Dan. Marcus, you really need to get over your obsession of me. I don't think about myself as much as you do.

Heraclitusstudent says

Morality has nothing to do with science.

On that I disagree. Sociobologists have extensively documented the existence of morality in social species from meerkats to apes to whales to squirrels. Morality was developed by nature through evolution. Therefore, it is most certainly a valid scientific subject. The existence of religion simply hinders mankind from developing the science of morality and thus also the engineering principles to apply morality to government and business. In other words, we have immoral political leader and immoral economic systems because religion has prevented STEM from taking over morality.

thunderlips11 says

Oxygen Deprivation, reduced bloodflow to the brain, electrical stimulation to certain parts of it, etc. can all cause the brain to do weird things.

Exactly.

Hell, if there are so many souls of all the dead people in all of history, why the fuck doesn't one of them communicate clearly about the consequences of immorality and prevent the next genocide? Or is that too insignificant?

Hell, if Jesus had a soul, why doesn't he tell Putin to lay off the gays? Or told Hitler to leave the Jews alone? Or told the American south that no, slavery is bad? And don't give me the crap that he says it in the Bible. He doesn't, and any half-intelligent being, nonetheless an all-knowing one, would realize that a little face-time with one's god goes a long way in convincing people not to commit such vile acts.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

Morality has nothing to do with science.

On that I disagree.

You can study morality as a scientific subject, but what constitutes scientific fact is not based on a moral judgement.

Any attempt to link morality with science is further proof that science is dogmatic.

Peter P says

Any attempt to link morality with science is further proof that science is dogmatic.

Mammals evolved cooperative social behaviors. The "God has written on our hearts" is really "Primate morality written in our DNA"

Dan8267 says

When an idiot calls someone else an idiot, one must question the idiot's judgement. Fools often call the wise fools.

True.

Dan8267 says

I'm vastly more intelligent than you are. Get over it.

Dan8267 says

Equivalent to saying that rape will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better rapes rather than no rapes. Same for poverty, corruption, and war.

If you think this is a legitimate analogy to what I said, then as usual, you prove what I would prove about your reasoning, better than I ever could.

Dan8267 says

Ultimately religion is evil.

THat's the core of your adolescent confusion. Nothing more than an assertion.

The proof you would cite, is no different than proof that humans are inherently evil. And it can be argued that they are at times.

Again, my point ? We get religion that reflects who we are and how evolved we are. It's an absurd fallacy to suggest that who we are, that is our morals, and how 'good' we are is a refection or an effect (primarily) of our religion

Dan8267 says

Hell, if Jesus had a soul, why doesn't he tell Putin to lay off the gays? Or told Hitler to leave the Jews alone? Or told the American south that no, slavery is bad? And don't give me the crap that he says it in the Bible. He doesn't, and any half-intelligent being, nonetheless an all-knowing one, would realize that a little face-time with one's god goes a long way in convincing people not to commit such vile acts.

Once again evidence that the religion that you reject is a young child's idea of what it might mean for there to be a god.

Heraclitusstudent says

marcus says

Quigley is making his point in a provocative way, but I agree completely.

Seriously? You agree that science is dogmatic?

No. Atheists who say argue for example they can prove that there is no god, without even taking in to account the spectrum of adult definitions of what god is or might mean, and atheists who say that they are being totally logical and scientific when what they assert is mostly an emotional rationalization related to their own rejection of their childhood beliefs ?

They are dogmatic. And this is incredibly transparent to objective agnostic types, who are the ones who have the least "skin in the game."

thunderlips11 says

Peter P says

Any attempt to link morality with science is further proof that science is dogmatic.

Mammals evolved cooperative social behaviors. The "God has written on our hearts" is really "Primate morality written in our DNA"

I think morality is subjective. "Cooperative" behaviors in animals are perhaps primitive examples of trade.

The existence of god is unknowable. This gives rise to faith.

Atheists who can "prove" the non-existence of god are worse than alchemists. At least we know that alchemy is theoretically possible.

marcus says

No. Atheists who say argue for example they can prove that there is no god, without even taking in to account the spectrum of adult definitions of what god is or might mean, and atheists who say that they are being totally logical and scientific when what they assert is mostly an emotional rationalization related to their own rejection of their childhood beliefs ?

Peter P says

Atheists who can "prove" the non-existence of god are worse than alchemists.

You think scientists cannot reject an hypothesis because it is "unknowable". This where you are wrong.

Scientist MUST reject any hypothesis that is not anchored in observation or reasonable explanation.

Fantastic hypothesis are assumed WRONG until proven otherwise by solid facts.

It really is that simple.

Let's take this statement: "an invisible pink unicorn lives in NYC subway and bends the laws of physics to remain undetectable". I think we can agree this hypothesis is scientifically WRONG. The same goes with God's intervention in the physical world, life after death, and other miracles.

Further, I claim that at the end of the day, this is not so much a question of scientific method. It is a question of basic intellectual honesty: do we know this? Why would we believe it? No reason. We shouldn't believe it. Period.

marcus says

And this is incredibly transparent to objective agnostic types, who are the ones who have the least "skin in the game."

Are you an agnostic? Bringing agnosticism to this discussion to defend faith is a bad idea.

Heraclitusstudent says

The same goes with God's intervention in the physical worlds, life after death, and other miracles.

Many believe in 'god' without believing that 'she' (for lack of an appropriate pronoun) is a being or that she intervenes.

As with Dan, your agenda is an obstacle to applying 'science' or logic to this topic.

If you want to use your scientific thinking to reject the idea that there is a god that is this wise old white dude with a long white beard, who lives in the clouds, and who will be our personal buddy when our astral body lives in eternal bliss after this life, then I'm with you.

Rejecting this is easy.

But for example, when you ask say the Dali Lama whether he believes in "god" (quotes because really what we are tolking about is someting beyond name and beyond description), if he answered yes, it would not be because he defines god in a way remotely close to this.

Heraclitusstudent says

marcus says

And this is incredibly transparent to objective agnostic types, who are the ones who have the least "skin in the game."

Are you an agnostic? Bringing agnosticism to this discussion to defend faith is a bad idea.

Choosing a belief in the face of unknowability is the very essense of faith.

marcus says

Many believe in 'god' without believing that 'she' (for lack of an appropriate pronoun) is a being or that she intervenes.

I do think most believers do in fact think God 'intervenes' or 'intervened'. They pray for certain things to happen etc... Belief in Creation or Jesus being resuscitated is belief in intervention.

Is it really your belief that God never intervenes or intervened within the physical world? If you admit that, this is already something, and a base for a different discussion.

Peter P says

Choosing a belief in the face of unknowability is the very essense of faith.

Obviously you have understood nothing of what was explained above.

Science never have a final theory that is 100% known and cannot be revised.
Does that mean that every scientific information is not knowledge but faith?
Just the opposite, it is knowledge because it can be revised.

Heraclitusstudent says

You can study morality as a scientific subject, but what constitutes scientific fact is not based on a moral judgement.

Morality isn't about facts. It's about mathematical models. It's a science like climatology and an engineering discipline like bridge building. Building a moral code is like building a bridge. Some designs work much better than other, and the reasons can be traced back to mathematics.

Peter P says

Any attempt to link morality with science is further proof that science is dogmatic.

Your unfounded assertion is indicative of a high level of ignorance on the subject matter. Allow me to introduce some knowledge and understanding to you.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/GcJxRqTs5nk

http://www.youtube.com/embed/c2Bd-bVgCfM

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0m_192a6kLg

Note that CBS News was pussing out when it falsely asserted that De Waal's speculation (not a hypothesis or a theory) angered atheists. That was bullshit on the part of CBS News.

I believe that superstition arose as a by-product of the complexity of the brain, and the false belief in immortality through an afterlife evolved as a way to prevent the highly intelligent hosts from killing themselves off before replicating its DNA. I.e., our genes lie to us and manipulate us for their own selfish purpose. Big surprise.

As for religion, it arose because it was useful for the tribal leaders and the state. It's not a coincidence that monotheism rose during Constantine's reign. Constantine and later other state leaders, needed to unite the population under one vision, his. If there are multiple gods, those gods can disagree. But if there is only one god, you have to unquestioningly accept his position, which just so happens to be exactly the same as the state's.

Monotheism is a lot more useful to the state than polytheism. God is on our side. If there were multiple gods, some of them could be on the other guy's side. Monotheism makes the sole remaining god unquestionable, and thus makes the state unquestionable.

In any case, there is nothing dogmatic about the science in the above videos. The very statement that it is religious dogma to use science to understand morality is a ridiculous lie and dogma itself. Please notice that when Peter P asserted that scientific study of morality is dogma, he did not give a single reason as to why anyone should believe the statement. This is typical of dogma.

Dogma requires no reason. Science demands reason.

jazz music says

Dan8267 says

I'm vastly more intelligent than you are. Get over it. Deal with it already.

Let's all sing the song ...

Marcus constantly brings up my intelligence. I never do. However, I make no apology for being smart. Do models apologize because they are beautiful? Does Pavarotti apologize for having a beautiful voice? Does a soldier or fire fighter apologize for being brave? Does a body builder apologize for being strong? Does a figure skater apologize for being graceful? Does a ballet dancer apologize for being agile?

Why should any intelligent person apologize for working his or her ass off learning things and making the world a better place through science, technology, social advancement, or any other way? If a person looks down on intelligence, than that person is a dumb ass and his or her willful stupidity is worthy of scorn. I don't give a damn if someone is jealous of how smart I am. I'll never bench-press what Schwarzenegger can today, nonetheless what he could in his prime. I don't look down on Arnold for having accomplish that because I'm not insecure in my value as a human being. Anyone who attacks a person for being beautiful, strong, graceful, or intelligent is insecure in his or her worth as a human being, and probably rightfully so.

marcus says

If you think this is a legitimate analogy to what I said, then as usual, you prove what I would prove about your reasoning, better than I ever could.

Marcus, you should work on Fox News. You can't debate an issue, so you resort to twisting words into their opposite meaning, and do so in an amateurish and childish way. You could be the next Sean Hannity.

When you actually want to contribute to the conversation let me know. Until then, don't waste my time.

marcus says

THat's the core of your adolescent confusion. Nothing more than an assertion.

Assertions, by definition, don't have supporting points. In every thread, I have firmly supported the conclusion that religion is inherently bad and have explained in exquisite detail about exactly why it is. You just never listen because it contradicts your small world view. Nonetheless, I'll repeat some of the key points just to make you look like a fool.

Religions are power structures based on falsehoods called dogma. Things like such-n-such god exists, that god says we should behave like this, and you will be rewarded or punish after you die (when we can't confirm that you are being rewarded or punished) by this god based on whether or not you behaved as we told you to on behalf of said god.

Power corrupts. Power structures that are based on lies are most susceptible to corruption. This is why religion is inherently bad.

Transparency is the primary tool for combating corruption. However, transparency reveals the lies of a religion (such-n-such god didn't exist, Jesus did not walk on water or rise from the dead, you are not god's chosen people). Transparency threatens the power base of religion, and therefore religion cannot tolerate transparency. For this same reason, religion cannot tolerate science.

Without the ability to admit to the lies and correct policy after revealing the lies, even more lies and more corruption must occur in order to preserve the power structure. As time goes on, all religions become more corrupt until they collapse, fragment, or are conquered and/or subjugated by other religions. History is full of examples of this including the subjugation of Judaism, the fragmentation of Christianity, and the wars between Anglicans and Catholics during the reign of Mary I.

Oh snap, did I just demonstrate how much the statement ultimately religion is evil is not an assertion? You know, any teacher worth his salt would be able to distinguish between an assertion and a thesis. I wonder what Marcus's classroom must look like.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/30tHHmIobds

marcus says

Once again evidence that the religion that you reject is a young child's idea of what it might mean for there to be a god.

A child like Epicurus?

Outside of Marcus's delusional world, the fact remains that only a child would accept religion, which is exactly why all religions literally indoctrinate children into their cults rather than waiting for the child to grow up. Almost any adult would reject religion as utter nonsense if not indoctrinated before the age of reasoning. Religion is a form of child abuse.

Peter P says

I think morality is subjective.

In the exact same way that source code is subjective, not at all. People often confuse the meaning of subjective/objective vs relative/absolute vs meaningless/meaningful. Just because something is relative does not make it meaningless or subjective, or vice-versa.

There are lots of ways to code a web application, but the results fall directly out of the design and implementation. The software development process allows great freedom in choice, but not in consequences of choice. The code is not subjective! The same goes for bridge building and morality.

Peter P says

Atheists who can "prove" the non-existence of god are worse than alchemists.

People who make absolute statements that are trivially disprovable are worse than alchemists.

Let god be a rational number whose square is two. Do you really think I cannot disprove that god? By similar a priori logic, I can disprove entire classes of gods.

Oh wait, I already have.

Basically, if you are a pussy who refuses to define god or define it in a meaningful way such that we can communicate on what constitutes that god, then the very question of god's existence is meaningless. So you don't get to even participate in the discussion.

However, if you do define god in a meaningful way, you're now trapped. As soon as you define god, you lose all your power and all your ability to bullshit. Once I have a definition of god, one of two things happen. Either I outright disprove the existence of that god as in the previous link, or I demonstrate that the god you are talking about has motherfucking nothing to do with any gods worshiped or prayed to by anyone, as in the case of the Clockmaker God. Sure, I can't prove that Clockmaker God doesn't exist, but no one worships Sheldon Cooper or calls him god. Hell, it's quite possible that Sheldon Cooper does exist and did create our universe, but that hardly makes him a god.

In conclusion, science and knowledge do indeed trump superstition and ignorance in the long run. Ultimately, reason does indeed disprove entire classes of gods. And the gods that cannot be disproved by a priori logic are not the gods that people believe in, for such gods are limited by the laws of physics and have no supernatural components. Put simply, the universe does not allow for the creation of a being that the monotheists want. And thank the universe for that, for any such god would surely do more evil than good as his morality would be based on the morality of the dumbest, most tribal, and most bigoted of humans. The Bible clearly proves this point.

Jesus, that was delicious.

The indoctrination of children is the primary issue. It should be a human right for children to have NO religious education prior to 18.

And it is indoctrination. Religions know this and fight secular education, knowing the only way they can maintain control and followers is to have as many kids indoctrinated as possible. "It's our freedom as parents to poison our kids minds with Invisible Sky Daddies who will punish them for thinking about masturbating."

People will laugh at the idea that there is a bearded Viking in the sky who wields a Hammer.

But they will cry and howl and donate money over a Jewish Carpenter who also wielded a hammer and ascended into the sky.

What difference is there? None really. Both have holy books - if anything the Prose Edda is more verifiable since we know who wrote it - Snorri Sturluson - a Christian Bishop, so a hostile witness. Compare that to the anonymous or contested authorship of both the OT and NT. Theologians even debate what letters ascribed to Paul are actually Pauls and not forgeries. Luther himself thought Hebrews dubious.

Dan8267 says

Marcus constantly brings up my intelligence. I never do.

Ironoinic you've been talking about morality. Look no further than this thread, to see the first time I've talked directly or inderectly to Dan or about Dan in a long time.

Not only is Dan the one that brought up his supposed intelligence in this thread, I've seen him doing it constantly over the years with me and others.

I could find dozens of times that Dan has touted his own intelligence explicitly, and dozens more where it's was obvious he has something to prove in this area.

Unlike Dan, being the honest person I am, I can assure you, that like most normal people I have NEVER stated in this forum how intelligent I think I am. NEVER ! Sure, from time to time I mock Dan's arrogance and obvious insecurity about his own intelligence. But that's always after he brings it up. Look no further than this thread to see how true this is.

I only hope for Dan's sake, that the sniveling and dishonest little prick that Dan portrays himself as in this forum isn't who he is in real life.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

THat's the core of your adolescent confusion. Nothing more than an assertion.

Assertions, by definition, don't have supporting points. In every thread, I have firmly supported the conclusion that religion is inherently bad and have explained in exquisite detail about exactly why it is. You just never listen because it contradicts your small world view. Nonetheless, I'll repeat some of the key points just to make you look like a fool.

All you had to do, is read the next sentence. Nice touch with the "exquisite detail." That's classic Dan right there.

Here it is in context. Not that you take the time to comprehend what I'm saying ( as concise as it is)

marcus says

Dan8267 says

Ultimately religion is evil.

THat's the core of your adolescent confusion. Nothing more than an assertion.

The proof you would cite, is no different than proof that humans are inherently evil. And it can be argued that they are at times.

Again, my point ? We get religion that reflects who we are and how evolved we are. It's an absurd fallacy to suggest that who we are, that is our morals, and how 'good' we are is a refection or an effect (primarily) of our religion