Asia Carrera wears Pastafarian headgear for drivers liscense photo

[Cooking with Zyklon B]

Guess I meant to say mean-spirited and pointless.  This is why I don't really care for Richard Dawkins and his brand of angry atheism- a person secure in their own beliefs shouldn't feel a need to make fun of others for what they believe.

I've read 'The God Delusion' (admittedly that's it) by Dawkins, and I didn't really get the feel of "angry atheism" out of that book.
...And I guess people secure in their own beliefs don't need to make fun of others, just off 'em. Here, you can hold on to my blanky while you step into that cold Iron Maiden. You should be glad people are just resorting to poking fun nowadays (at least in this part of the world).

This sort of thing is really silly.

No, actually it isn't. Its much less silly then being allowed to get your picture taken for government issued ID while wearing full head gear because you believe in some completely retarded religion that has no proof for any of its claims. At least this is comical and it still shows your face.

This I concur with. "religious persecution" for insisting that you want to conceal your face for an identification photo. Almost as ridiculous as claiming that it's somehow racist to require photo ID to cast a ballot.

How is it mean spirited?  They're mocking real religions, and the people that wear head coverings that have actual religious significance.

Hate to break it to ya, but pastafarianism is recognized as a "real religion."

I went to high school with a Christian girl who always wore head coverings, and sometimes people said really hurtful things to her for it. 

...And I'm sure her faith in a jewish zombie was all the stronger for it, right?

[Slave of the Beast]

How exactly does one behave like an "angry atheist"? Violently shake a piece of blank paper?
 
In any case Zek's description of Dawkin's is incorrect; he describes himself as an anti-theist.

[Cooking with Zyklon B]

How exactly does one behave like an "angry atheist"? Violently shake a piece of blank paper?

When I see the two words angry atheist together, I'd be more prone to think of Nietzsche before Dawkins on any day of the week.

Fun fact: I damned near finished 'The God Delusion' while trying to ignore a crack rabbit preacher on the bus from Seattle. I couldn't resist nonchalantly pulling out that book and cracking it open as he goes on and on about what a fucking godly(For such a pious person he used excessive profanity to underscore how devout he was) person he was, and all his bad decisions were the equivalent of satan holding a gun to his head.

[equanimity]

Dawkins on his anger:

Almost posted one of the videos with him screaming at people in public, but this seemed fairer.

[equanimity]

These conversations tend to start off on the wrong foot because people see religious belief and rationality as being at odds.  They're not; they simply exist in entirely different realms of thought and experience.  Of course religion isn't going to stand up to science in a debate based on logic and empirical evidence.  Religion is irrational and subjective, though in this context those words are not synonymous with "false".  They are different methods of seeking specific types of truths, and neither is more important than the other.  This is why I take issue with certain Christian beliefs as well, like those "Christian scientists" saying that the earth is 6,000 years old.  That's religious thought making a failed attempt at existing in rational terms, whereas what you're doing is trying to force rationality onto the ineffable and immeasurable experiences of spirituality.  Rationality and spirituality.  Logic and myth.  Science and religion.  The ancient Greeks of course referred to these as logos and mythos, respectfully.

The kinds of questions we explore in each of these methods of obtaining knowledge and wisdom are different from one another.  Science may ask, "How did life come into existence?" while spirituality may wonder, "For what purpose does life exist?"

Again, it is a mistake for religion to proclaim that their truths are scientifically true.  In saying that "Adam was created of mud and stone," a creation myth is not meaning that's what literally happened.  Myths are written in the language of symbolism, metaphor, exaggeration and deep emotion.  To interpret them in the realm of reason misses the point entirely.

I've been watching some interesting Dawkins stuff on youtube today, and something that really struck me was that at one point he said that wondering about the purpose of existence is simply an invalid question.  He likened it to being ridiculously curious about the color of jealousy.  And he's totally right, within the confines of rational thought there is absolutely no reason to ask such questions.  Moving out of that place though, we find that jealousy is green and purpose can be an unexplainable religious experience.

*Waits for Zek to derail alter the natural flow of the thread with personal statements.*

[Satyr]

Yeah, if these people want to believe there's a 'world of infinite happiness and lots of balloons', let them.

[Flowerz]

These conversations tend to start off on the wrong foot because people see religious belief and rationality as being at odds.  They're not; they simply exist in entirely different realms of thought and experience.  Of course religion isn't going to stand up to science in a debate based on logic and empirical evidence.  Religion is irrational and subjective, though in this context those words are not synonymous with "false".  They are different methods of seeking specific types of truths, and neither is more important than the other.  This is why I take issue with certain Christian beliefs as well, like those "Christian scientists" saying that the earth is 6,000 years old.  That's religious thought making a failed attempt at existing in rational terms, whereas what you're doing is trying to force rationality onto the ineffable and immeasurable experiences of spirituality.  Rationality and spirituality.  Logic and myth.  Science and religion.  The ancient Greeks of course referred to these as logos and mythos, respectfully.

The kinds of questions we explore in each of these methods of obtaining knowledge and wisdom are different from one another.  Science may ask, "How did life come into existence?" while spirituality may wonder, "For what purpose does life exist?"

Again, it is a mistake for religion to proclaim that their truths are scientifically true.  In saying that "Adam was created of mud and stone," a creation myth is not meaning that's what literally happened.  Myths are written in the language of symbolism, metaphor, exaggeration and deep emotion.  To interpret them in the realm of reason misses the point entirely.

I've been watching some interesting Dawkins stuff on youtube today, and something that really struck me was that at one point he said that wondering about the purpose of existence is simply an invalid question.  He likened it to being ridiculously curious about the color of jealousy.  And he's totally right, within the confines of rational thought there is absolutely no reason to ask such questions.  Moving out of that place though, we find that jealousy is green and purpose can be an unexplainable religious experience.

*Waits for Zek to derail alter the natural flow of the thread with personal statements.*

Again, you are fundamentally confused about basic terms and concepts and have no idea what you are talking about.

"These conversations tend to start off on the wrong foot because people see religious belief and rationality as being at odds."

...They are.

You then proceed to try and defend this point by painting religion as philosophy and then defending philosophy . Religion is not the same thing as philosophy.

Religion is completely false, retarded, and insane. Science is the study of nature using observation and experiments. Philosophy is essentially the same thing, but without any physical experiments. "For what purpose does life exist?" is philosophy, not religion. You seem confused as to the actual definition of the words you are trying (failing) to argue about. Religions use philosophy to manipulate stupid people and make them believe something that has no evidence to support it is in fact a concrete fact. The abomination that is religion was created as a result of ancient humans failing at philosophy and then abusing the concepts to manipulate people. So yes, religion and rationality are directly at odds with each other, if you disagree, you do not understand one or both of the terms.

[equanimity]

Again, you are fundamentally confused about basic terms and concepts and have no idea what you are talking about.

"These conversations tend to start off on the wrong foot because people see religious belief and rationality as being at odds."

...They are.

You then proceed to try and defend this point by painting religion as philosophy and then defending philosophy . Religion is not the same thing as philosophy.

Religion is completely false, retarded, and insane. Science is the study of nature using observation and experiments. Philosophy is essentially the same thing, but without any physical experiments. "For what purpose does life exist?" is philosophy, not religion. You seem confused as to the actual definition of the words you are trying (failing) to argue about. Religions use philosophy to manipulate stupid people and make them believe something that has no evidence to support it is in fact a concrete fact. The abomination that is religion was created as a result of ancient humans failing at philosophy and then abusing the concepts to manipulate people. So yes, religion and rationality are directly at odds with each other, if you disagree, you do not understand one or both of the terms.

Philosophy isn't exclusive to the "mythos" side of things.  This shouldn't even need to be said, considering that "logic" is a subset of philosophy.  Philosophy of religion is another, and a very important aspect of the larger religion thing.  Religion is like sets of communally shared beliefs and practices based around religious philosophical thought.  I'm not sure how you're confusing philosophy, mythos, and religion; but you are.

To be fair, a lot of people these days interpret their chosen religions literally.  That sort of thing, to me, makes very little sense.  But I consider myself to be religious, and have found a lot of meaning in various religious teachings and practices when viewed through the lens of mythos.  Science is scrutinized and understood, while religion is explored faithfully and experienced.  Does this not make sense?

[Flowerz]

Again, you are fundamentally confused about basic terms and concepts and have no idea what you are talking about.

"These conversations tend to start off on the wrong foot because people see religious belief and rationality as being at odds."

...They are.

You then proceed to try and defend this point by painting religion as philosophy and then defending philosophy . Religion is not the same thing as philosophy.

Religion is completely false, retarded, and insane. Science is the study of nature using observation and experiments. Philosophy is essentially the same thing, but without any physical experiments. "For what purpose does life exist?" is philosophy, not religion. You seem confused as to the actual definition of the words you are trying (failing) to argue about. Religions use philosophy to manipulate stupid people and make them believe something that has no evidence to support it is in fact a concrete fact. The abomination that is religion was created as a result of ancient humans failing at philosophy and then abusing the concepts to manipulate people. So yes, religion and rationality are directly at odds with each other, if you disagree, you do not understand one or both of the terms.

Philosophy isn't exclusive to the "mythos" side of things.  This shouldn't even need to be said, considering that "logic" is a subset of philosophy.  Philosophy of religion is another, and a very important aspect of the larger religion thing.  Religion is like sets of communally shared beliefs and practices based around religious philosophical thought.  I'm not sure how you're confusing philosophy, mythos, and religion; but you are.

To be fair, a lot of people these days interpret their chosen religions literally.  That sort of thing, to me, makes very little sense.  But I consider myself to be religious, and have found a lot of meaning in various religious teachings and practices when viewed through the lens of mythos.  Science is scrutinized and understood, while religion is explored faithfully and experienced.  Does this not make sense?

No, it does not. You clearly do not understand that religion =/= philosophy. You also brought up logic, which was just ironic. You then mentioned some shit about mythos, which has nothing to do with anything, which is when I skipped to the end of you post and vowed to not read anything you ever write if it is longer than 2 sentences.

FYI, the actual definition for philosophy is "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." The definition of religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

As I tried to explain (and failed apparently), philosophy has nothing to do with region.  Religion does however have something to do with philosophy in the sense that religion uses philosophical premises to manipulate people into worshiping something. I won't be reading your reply, act accordingly.

[equanimity]

No, it does not. You clearly do not understand that religion =/= philosophy. You also brought up logic, which was just ironic. You then mentioned some shit about mythos, which has nothing to do with anything, which is when I skipped to the end of you post and vowed to not read anything you ever write if it is longer than 2 sentences.

FYI, the actual definition for philosophy is "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." The definition of religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

As I tried to explain (and failed apparently), philosophy has nothing to do with region.  Religion does however have something to do with philosophy in the sense that religion uses philosophical premises to manipulate people into worshiping something. I won't be reading your reply, act accordingly.

[Satyr]

"Think of all the pain they have to endure, just to appease a meaningless entity". Wouldn't you agree, Zek? I'd say that's why religion's fucked.

[equanimity]

"Think of all the pain they have to endure, just to appease a meaningless entity". Wouldn't you agree, Zek? I'd say that's why religion's fucked.

Religious people tend to be happier than the non-religious.  This is likely due to the social and community aspects of religion, but yeah.

[SlayerJ27]

Damn, she's fugly nowadays. 

[Flowerz]

"Think of all the pain they have to endure, just to appease a meaningless entity". Wouldn't you agree, Zek? I'd say that's why religion's fucked.

Religious people tend to be happier than the non-religious.  This is likely due to the social and community aspects of religion, but yeah.

Social and community aspects of religion? Yeah, maybe that helps for sure. Maybe it also helps thinking that everything has a purpose, that there is a reason for everything, that good will triumph over evil in the end, that you will be rewarded for your pious life, that when you die, you will go to a better place, be reunited with your loved ones. Religion brings a definite (false) answer to all of the philosophical questions that man naturally asks, which have no real answer. Religion completes our naturally curious mindset (which would otherwise be destined to remain incomplete) and ties everything in a neat little bow. It answers all the hard questions with the answers we all want to hear. Its gives us solace in the chaos, it assures us in the darkness, gives us motivation in our most desperate moments, and comfort in happier times.  Religion falsely but convincingly answers all the hard philosophical questions that curious individual might happen to ask. It unites us in our differences, bringing reason, purpose and utter assurance to a reality in which none of those things should logically exist. Yes, religious people may be happier, I have no doubt.

For that matter, so are people with downs syndrome. Consider that and draw whatever parallels you are capable of. Also be sure to keep your replies under three sentences if you desire a reply.

[JasonVorhees]

isn't asia Carrera a pornstar lol