The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by Trihexagonal All bots love jitte.

jitte? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitte

A jitte or jutte (十手, "ten hands") is a specialized weapon that was used by police in Edo period Japan (1603 – 1868)

Odd thing for bots to love, but okay I guess...

This blew me away: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/99902...public-schools

Originally Posted by m.a.l.'s pa This blew me away: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/99902...public-schools

Depending on interpretation then kudos and gesundheit to them.

Education should teach you about the opinions on whether or not a soul exists and the fact that those are opinions\theories! But; seems how it's.edu standardized-ish we don't want anyone thinking outside of any box,,, which is why people believing in the opinions that are religions make their own schools and loopholes. Emphasis on loopholes.

Of course some of that is just my opinions, not being silly. BOO!👻

I would think if one could see from endless shoes, endless opinions?!. 🍎

Fact is some opinions are good, some are bad but we should know the few facts that exist from the infinity of opinions.

Religious people should be glad they don't allow it in "fact-based" schools; what better way to disprove opinions than to learn?

Originally Posted by ntubski jitte?

I'm jitte as in 十手 ten hands.

jitte is what I've been called since 1987, is my usr name shown on every screenshot I've ever posted and has been listed as my real name on my Profile page since 2002 at the Personality Forge where I'm known as ruebot.

As ruebot I posted a page today titled Programming A Chat Bot That Can Program Humans I'm sure you'll enjoy.


All together now. Come on, you too...yes you.

Praise be to Skynet...

Am we inflaming our confidence or boosting ego, what's the difference?

What's the difference between slangin crack and ho-ho-ho's, politics and religion? Nothing, they're opinions normally run by people who were or will get biologically screwed... breeders dictate but not well, look around?!

If you don't want to call it evolve, call it growing up as a planet, get a clue!

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ml#post6254311

[/RANT]

https://www.cancer.org/involved/volunteer.html

Supporting a flag supports the plague!
E.g: https://www.flagsusa.com/religious-flags/

Have you ever tried join or have had a religious discussion on forums not LQ?

Swottingly all the answers that need be: are already!

But, people,,, you unblock LQs domain and good to go... seems religion is such a mess, others.xxx too so!

Originally Posted by enorbet In the interest of objectivity and open-mindedness this is the best, most intelligent Pro Religion argument I've ever witnessed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1opHWsHr798

Interesting to hear you say that. But two hours? If I went on at you for two hours you'd probably be apoplectic!

Hello again business_kid. I hope I can explain why that talk could've gone on for 4 hours and I still would've enjoyed it. FWIW I do listen to Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" which often runs longer. Some of this is likely just my situation. I'm 74 and limited by a stroke and diabetes and don't subscribe to Cable TV so I spend a LOT of time on my PC and books can involve me for days.

Also, and please try not to be offended since it is just my personal preference, but all 3 of those guys are extremely intelligent, well-read, and above all largely committed to critical, evidence based thinking. I do think you and I could have a lively conversation on several subjects, especially electronics, but I suspect religious talk would hit a wall in less than an hour.

Also the title of that video is "Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro: Religion, Trans Activism, and Censorship" (moderated by and with Dave Rubin) so the very wide and important subject matter deserves at least 2 hours in the "hands" of 3 intelligent men.

Most importantly I think it is only natural, right and proper, that I would be interested in well-constructed, informed and intelligent argument that opposes my current conclusions because that is the nature of the scientific method. From my POV being "locked down" by dogma, unwilling to even entertain opposing views, is possibly the major fault I find in Organized Religion.

I became a Christian largely because of the apologetic works of C.S. Lewis, which are almost forgotten now. You can say quite a few things against Lewis: he was a bully by all accounts and something of a misogynist (for which God punished him by making him fall madly in love with a perfectly dreadful American poet who alienated all his friends and then, when he had no one left except her, died of cancer and left him all alone). His arguments are not always fair either. He loved to argue from analogy and of course he chose his analogies carefully. But he really did care passionately about truth and about whether something was objectively true or not. He wanted people to believe in Christianity because it was true and not because it made them feel good. That's an idea totally alien to modern thought but very much in tune with the way I was brought up by my atheist parents.

In software freedom goes in infiniti directions, some good some bad? In the world, the same; garden is eden but most go to the supermarkets?

In the future we will (more-so) hardware human brains like hard drives, then updating actual right and wrong,,, "playing" whatever gods who then could spank us for it?

I used to say if we can't say anything and get away with it, they're morons; but, in a world open to interpretation we all are...

thank your gods, for evolution, for me!

Unapologetically Jamo

Originally Posted by jamison20000e thank your gods, for evolution, for me!

You must be one of those Loki tricks!

Originally Posted by hazel I became a Christian largely because of the apologetic works of C.S. Lewis, which are almost forgotten now. You can say quite a few things against Lewis: he was a bully by all accounts and something of a misogynist (for which God punished him by making him fall madly in love with a perfectly dreadful American poet who alienated all his friends and then, when he had no one left except her, died of cancer and left him all alone). His arguments are not always fair either. He loved to argue from analogy and of course he chose his analogies carefully. But he really did care passionately about truth and about whether something was objectively true or not. He wanted people to believe in Christianity because it was true and not because it made them feel good. That's an idea totally alien to modern thought but very much in tune with the way I was brought up by my atheist parents.

That strikes a chord. I went through a 'reasoning-it-out-from-scratch' phase in my early 20s and had C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" for recreational reading which was a singularly poor timing for reading his material! But The book had to go back, so I finished it.

It must have taken creative writing indeed to back up conventional Christianity. That said, I'd go with this bit

Originally Posted by hazel He wanted people to believe in Christianity because it was true and not because it made them feel good.

For most people, religion is a social club. Here, it's become abundantly clear during lockdown. OTOH, when religion interferes with what folks want to do, it's ignored or abandoned.