The One Time When More Is Certainly Not Better

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Presented with little comment - except to say, maybe those Mayans were on to something?

 

 

Source: Goldman Sachs

0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 11/30/2012 - 21:23 | 3025630 knukles
knukles's picture

Here here!

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 00:12 | 3025886 Hangfire
Hangfire's picture

Don't forget the one about the 7 Chinese Brothers!  

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 00:13 | 3025888 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

I like The Little Red Hen: "Now, who will help me eat this bread?"

"I will! said the UAW. "I will!" said the SEIU. "I will!" said Jamie Dimon. "I will!" said Lloyd Blankfein. "I will!" said the Congressional Black Caucus.

"Like hell," said the Little Red Hen. "Alla you done sat around on yo asses an collected welfare while I did all the work.  All this bread are belong to me."

"I'm going to have to seize that bread under the National Defense Resources Preparedness Act," said Lord Obama.

BOOOOM!

"Okay, never mind", said His Highness.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 00:31 | 3025891 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

dup post

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 15:59 | 3026656 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

This is true, although I would suspect the great majority of people who downvoted the 'bible-as-horsedung' comment would likewise take great offense at being conflated with fairy tale stories. Because the problem with modern religion isn't the texts and stories; it's the fact that the pious take the texts so literally (especially with regard to 'chosen people' and 'one true gid' mumbo-jumbo). Which is why a comparative mythologist such as Joseph Campbell is so reviled in some religious circles.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 20:57 | 3025584 boogerbently
boogerbently's picture

In the 2010 census:

90% of Americans believe in a God.

77% align themselves with some Christian belief.

Ask yourself where ALL the "good behaviors" come from.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 21:24 | 3025633 knukles
knukles's picture

The Muzzies?

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:05 | 3026018 Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

Genuine Christianity is a hard road to walk, and takes a lifetime of effort to master if ever.  Don't judge those too harshly who are failing, they may still yet claim the prize.  

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:07 | 3026020 MeanReversion
MeanReversion's picture

Classic fallacious reasoning I.e., the fallacy of appeal to popularity. At one point in time people believed the world was flat as well, but that didn't make it any more true.

If you really believe good behaviours come from religion then you are really delusional. Although I will say religion does a good job of controlling the behaviour of those who can't think for themselves. As napoleon said 'Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich'

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 18:11 | 3025182 Whiner
Whiner's picture

"The fool hath said in his heart,'There is no God'".

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 19:57 | 3025480 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Fools despise wisdom and the folly of fools is deceit.  Forward!

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 20:01 | 3025485 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

The fool hath said in his heart "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no god'.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 23:13 | 3025814 SilverDOG
SilverDOG's picture

Whiner,

Keep whining; Whiner.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:10 | 3026022 MeanReversion
MeanReversion's picture

"Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool." - Mark Twain.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:24 | 3026040 old naughty
old naughty's picture

Excellent quote.

The con and the fool are irrelevant, its the "invented" that is worth exploring.

Who invented? For what purpose?

Until new invention cometh...

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 19:59 | 3025463 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

I wouldn't go that far, it does show us some history and some wise ideas (unfortunately also a lot of stupidity). It's not completely useless, just very overrated.

 

I too am somewhat surprised by the religiousity of the ZH visitor/member. I expected at least 75% to be non-religious. People are not truly free unless they are independent from both government AND religion.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 20:39 | 3025541 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

I don't think it means there is religiousity on ZH. If he had said (which he wouldn't) that any other religious book was a steaming pile of horse manure, in some places in the West he could be charged with a hate crime.  So his dig on the Bible was seen as just another cowardly stab at Christianity.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 00:44 | 3025927 THX 1178
THX 1178's picture

In the West? Not in America. You can call any book of scripture whatever you want to.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 01:58 | 3026009 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"In the West? Not in America. You can call any book of scripture whatever you want to."

Really?  I thought in America they just arrested and held without bail, the producer of that movie that didn't have anything to do with the "protests" in Bengazhi? 

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 01:33 | 3025975 MeanReversion
MeanReversion's picture

Actually, the same applies to the Quran or any other major religious text. There is zero evidence that ANY fictitious deity exists. Consequently, said religious tomes are nothing more than a collection of fairy tales like Aesops fables or the Grimm fairy tales. Religious text have some value, as they provide us with some historical context of the time they were written, but the number of redactions, excisions, forgeries and insertions made over generations into the bible makes it wholly untrustworthy as a source, and especially a source to be taken literally.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:16 | 3026030 Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

I'm guessing you're not laying on your deathbed as you write?

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 06:40 | 3026133 knowless
knowless's picture

The human mind functions in predictable ways, because we are animals. Physiological emotional responses hold true across all humanity, a society can be developed by exploiting these responses Religion is no different than any other political, hierarchical structure. To believe otherwise is self delusion. On my deathbed the only afterlife i will retain is the memory of my actions to those that knew and witnessed me, that is better in my mind than a fallacious eternity of "pleasure" or "pain", as the two are so intertwined in the necessity for each other that they become a synonymous symbiosis.

Under torture i might recant my non faith but it would be nullified by The Truth.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 21:08 | 3027211 Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

But you don't know the Truth about the afterlife.  No one does.  The Christian doesn't know.  We are all guessing. That's the part you guys seem to forget.  Some of us prefer to play it safe.  Others are more brave, i suppose. 

 

As far as exploitation, yes adherents are manipulated, and so are atheists.  I am devoted, but live outside of society's herd. 

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 22:43 | 3025766 pipelayer
pipelayer's picture

John 8:32

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 23:15 | 3025820 SilverDOG
SilverDOG's picture

pipelayer,

8/32 is only a quarter of an inch. Kinda short john isn't it?

Sun, 12/02/2012 - 14:40 | 3028228 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pot, Hitler, Kim Un...all have been freed from religion. They promised to free everyone from government, too.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 20:17 | 3025504 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

One way to get rid of irrational nut jobs is to say something like "god is a cunt" and they will run from the room like a Ned Flanders waving their arms above their heads and screaming "it's the devil, it's satan himself". Fucking irrational nut jobs. The truly ironic thing is that every Christian should covet the armageddon because it's what their bible has prophesised. So, let me ask, are you looking forward to the distruction of the earth or not? Surely, you must be thrilled because it means you meet your god. I swear to fuck, if there is eternal life after death and I end up in the same place as my mother and sister law FOREVER then please god banish me to hell because it would be far more pleasant.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 20:24 | 3025513 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

. . . . . . oh and a truly ironic thing is that these suicide bomber crack pots are probably the most pious a human being can ever get in a sort of twisted and truly fucked up way because they really do believe they are going instantly to heaven. I mean, credit where credit is due, that is one ballsy conviction to make. Christians claim this bullshit of life after death but are quivering in their boots at the mere thought of death.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 20:53 | 3025572 Dr.Vannostrand
Dr.Vannostrand's picture

Brav-fuck-o to you sir! Great flow of consciousness in those couple of comments.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 22:08 | 3025711 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Actually BOA, most everything you said is incredibly shallow. I am presuming you think the irrational nut jobs are anyone who has any theology, except the theology of atheism.

What you expose more of is yourself and frankly your thinking is boring, typical, shallow, juvenile and dime-a-dozen thoughts.

I categorize atheists into two types. The first and most common type are what I call "typical atheists". They are actively anti-religious and hostile. They are universally shallow, hostile and generally egotistical. Their method is simple derision while assuming the superior. These types are easily recruited to totalitarianism for reasons I will not elucidate, by the way.

The second type with which I do not mind conversing are what I call "non-theists". They are similar to agnostics but have decided there is probably no god but do respect religions, religious people, theology and aspects of these that have contributed to the betterment of humanity. They are not insulting and are often rather thoughtful. Many have actually come out of in-depth studies of theology. I find that many of these may be libertarian atheists. I can even ally with them for the good of the temporal world.

Not sure which type is more common here at ZH, but the hostile type seem to make more comments, at least.

Fortunately, in my theology the Judeo-Christian God loves both which is good news. Don't think Allah is so charitable and Eastern gods seem rather neutral as enlightenment is pursued. Perhaps some ZH'ers of Eastern religions might add to this.

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 22:46 | 3025774 alesarte
alesarte's picture

most obnoxious post I've read on zh. and in 4 years I've read a lot.

 

 

 

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 23:12 | 3025808 magpie
magpie's picture

Really ? It boils down the whole argument quite nicely.

I'll make it even shorter: Atheists by default assume religious people are stupid, while religious people assume Atheists are generally immoral. Both convictions can be easily disproven - how many in the natural sciences before the last century were out and out atheists ? And why do so many different religions and cultures strangely have similar social mores ?

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 00:48 | 3025934 alesarte
alesarte's picture

You made it even more ignorant.  Generalizations are for lazy thinkers.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 01:52 | 3025990 magpie
magpie's picture

Ignorant...for not lauding a Ned Flanders reference ?

Oh to what has effete intellectualism come to. After reading Asteroids comment, i fail to see the differences to a tenpenny selfhelp pamphlet - deconstruct the ego already, 1980 called and wants its postmodernism back.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 04:39 | 3026100 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

That is really funny when you actually don't get it. There is truth to what he says and it goes back to human nature. Most people will conform their theology and belief systems to fit their actions. It you believe that then you would tend to assume atheists are at best amoral at worst immoral. That is logical once you remove any higher theological beliefs. There is no particular anchor against human nature. It is not a fair assumption to make when you meet a particular atheist as many will still carry much of the morality they have learned.

What history shows is there is some evidence for the immoral atheist. The most murderous and repressive regimes of all times are atheist, Soviet Union, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and so on. They have two interesting distinctions. The fearless leader becomes a god so you have to read their little red books, listen to three hour speeches, salute the fuhrer, pay homage to "great leader' (NK) and see their statues on every corner. The second is they kill their own people en masse. That is very rare for classical monarchs. They usually kill and enslave the other "tribe". All the religiously based atrocities you can name pale in comparison, although muslims seem to be trying to catch up.

Once an atheist rejects all religions he presumes some superior knowledge. Therefore all people who believe in things the atheist cannot seem to detect must be fools. This also would be a bad assumption. Very often the religious person will have equal reasoning abilities if you give them any number of tests or match degrees or ask one to repair your car. The religioius person will tend to want overlook flaws and explain away bad behavior in their own religion, but it is actually much easier, at least for Western religions. I believe truth holds up over time so testing one's religion is a virtue, not a vice.

Generalizations, well thought out are not lazy. They are efficient and offer a starting point. Some may call them stereotypes. They save time but are often misapplied.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 05:23 | 3026119 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

Gawd, FreedomGuy, have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition (also known as the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition). This has to be truly one of the darkest periods of human history and committed by none other than . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . drum roll please . . . . . . . CHRISTIANS. Not just the the dumb peasant christians but the holy office, the highest, the most moral, the closest to god.

Funny how christians always harp on about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot but happily overlook some of the greatest and truly horrific atrocities committed by those with a hotline to god. If bloody cathloic priests sodomizing children isn't bad enough then I don't know what adjectives to use when good, decent, respectable cardinals who would never lay a hand on a child, cover up the crimes and send the perpetrators away to commit more acts on more innocent children. Fuck the way human beings rationalise their fucking beliefs, it makes me sick to the stomach.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 07:42 | 3026159 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

"bring on" and others, who attack those who have faith: an old sufi saying.."do not cut down a tree that is giving shade."

as someone with a health and science backround..i find it sad that so many use science or systems that claim to be science (economics & psycology as examples) to attack faith.

if one looks at DNA for example..it is clear DNA is information. the accepted science class says the DNA of simple bacteria was a result of chance : some form of energy (radiation) plus organic chemicals..and you get DNA or RNA ..

to understand the complexity: the old saw applies..put 1000 monkeys in a room with a 1000 type writers (ok mac pros) with unlimited time..and they will write war and peace. but my friends for it to apply to the creation of DNA you might want to add a factor of x to 50th or more..

the universe and life the very planet earth is proof of some design..where you take it from there is up to you.

 

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 15:27 | 3026613 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Seriously BOA, I have heard of the Spanish Inquisition and many more religious oppressions. How many died? About 400 would be the high estimate. Was it oppressive? You bet. You give religious people power and it corrupts them, as well. How many countries did the same?  In Christianity we deal with the fallibility of all men, including clergy. Does atheism prevent dictatorships, sodomy and any other crime? It does not. So in what practical way is it superior? Does it een have a moral code to balance those? When sodomy is recongnized in the Catholic church does the Church defend it? Does it quote a Christian doctirne to justify it? It does not. It condemns it. Did everyone participate? No. Do you think these things occur in all societies everywhere? Yes. Which societies have doctrines and morals that prevail against it?

I will remind you that Spain was on the front line against Islamic conquests, as well. There were terrible bloody battles with the most violent and oppressive religion of modern times. Convert or lose your head was the basic deal. These were not times of bearded college professors in tweed coats sipping Earl Grey and arguing finer theological points. This was a time of swords, seiges, pestilence and death on every corner. This was a collision of two powerful religions deciding the fate of the West. What you and your sycophantic puerile atheists see is actually a romantic self serving view of the times. You claim to decry the abuses of the times yet your ideas bring more of the same measured in megatons. 

When I look at your beliefs and the Left in general, I will admit to a particular fault in myself. It is that I passionately despise your beliefs to the core of my being. I despise the foolish lies you tell yourself and the ridiculous constructs you make out of history. The way you analyze history is so self serving and arrogant that your are fools or truly motivated by something dark. You always bring darkness with you pretending to be prophets of enlightenment. Your ideas enslave and kill tens of millions...and then you call it "good". No one says that about any of the abuses you mention in Christianity, Judaism or even Western thought based upon those. I should probably be more charitable to the misguided souls like you, but I find myself more intolerant as I get older.

You can do the math any way you want. You cannot even get remotely close to the numbers killed within and the oppression of atheist societies. Compare the KGB, the political inquisitors of communism to anything in Spain. All communist countries are prisons with political inquisitors everywhere. Stalin authorized anyone to kill, rob and rape priests in the 1930's because he hated religious people, probably similar to you. Religion was a drug so priests were drug dealers. You could do what you liked to them. Stalin particularly hated Roman Catholics because they still held a Pope in higher esteem than him. I listened to a lecture by a Soviet defector and it was morbidly fascinating.

I do not know what we gain by trying to prove "Your bad is worse than my bad." But stand back and look at where people want to live and where people prosper and are happiest on this fallible planet. No one with an ounce of sense goes to an atheist country, not even you atheists. American Communists and leftists are all liars and charlatans because not a one of them gives up their wealth and moves to any communist country. In Western countries at least we prosecute bad priests, bad atheists and bad people in general because we have a moral code derived from the places you despise.

As a libertarian, I argue that there are bad people everywhere and you don't give them power over you. Even good people get corrupted by power. Power corrupts the Catholic church and only their doctrine puts any balance to it. It is insanity to believe that only good people get into government. Frankly, narcissists, sociopaths and egomaniacs are primarily the ones drawn to it like rats to cheese. That is in fact who generally works their way to the top.  I can ally policitally with a libertarian atheist but they are few and far between. They generally seem to put the State into that God-shaped void in their soul...and then the trouble begins.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:17 | 3026031 MeanReversion
MeanReversion's picture

Actually, I prefer to think of religious people as delusional. I too was at one time deluded. I had 12 years of religious instruction, was heavily involved in organised religion until I started doing the relevant research into how the major religious texts came to be (ironically, via university level theology courses about 15 years ago), mainly the bible. And if you are familiar with that history you come to realise, the bible cannot be trusted as a source.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:47 | 3026053 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Actually, I prefer to think of socialists as delusional.  And very religious in their beliefs.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 04:44 | 3026102 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Well said, Harbanger. Their promised utopia never quite arrives does it? Funny, it is similar to the atheists talking about the heaven, hell or Armageddon the religious person will never see in their beliefs.

Modern collectivisim is every bit as ferverent as any religion on earth with more evidence against it. They are damned mean when they take power in the extreme, as well.

Thanks for the wit and a good chuckle.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:04 | 3026017 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

Thank you

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 00:55 | 3025943 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

"My theology",My god", "My beliefs". EGOTISM in the purest form. The concept of god, I hate to say it, is nothing more than the ultimate extension of the human ego. We are so self centred, so full of fucking shit that we presume with all the self righteous entitlement that the so called creator of the universe gives a flying fuck what we do in our day to day lives and has an open line of communication with believers for their most trivial daily events. A christian living the high life in our privileged western democracy thinks god interacts and intervenes in their already perfect lives (by comparison) while a child is torn limb from limb in the jungles of the Congo or a child is forced at gun point to slaughter his own family (Maybe god hates black people while he can't spend enough time ensuring Suzie passes her HSC or Janes wedding goes oh so smoothly). Christian. Jewish and Muslim beliefs have to be called for what they are, a self indulgent fantasy where there is no bounds beyond which the ego can extend, even trascending space and time itself to communicate with the so called creator.

It is the "beliefs" that an atheist like myself attacks not the individual but a christian cannot see the diffrerence such is the infusion of ego at the expense of all logic, common sense, reflection on history and any ability at self deprecation. The ego cannot flinch, cannot admit flaws and cannot accept that it IS POSIIBLE that we are all dumb mother fuckers who have along way to go. The majority have at most 1 to 2 years extending their knowledge beyond the absolute basics and that is for the relative few who complete high school. Beyond which the majority never read another book, never absorb another fact and never even make any effort to extend their vocabulary. As Russell Bertand so presciently stated "Why is it that fools so sure of themselves and wise people so full of doubt". Ego is but one small part of the answer. It takes countless thousands of hours of reading before one begins to realise just how full of shit one is, how little one knows and how absolutely flawed ones mind is. Humans barely know how to think let alone what to think. Your gods exist, that is a fact, but only within the confines of the mind, the internal universe, which has the luxury of indulging thoughts and ideas that are not bound by the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics or biology. The external universe, the one our brains find so difficult to interpret as reality does not pander to fantasy, whims, fairytales or superstition. It is indiffrerent to you, indifferent to me and will go on being for eons after humans have long gone.

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:03 | 3026015 old naughty
old naughty's picture

Well done.

Permit me to add one point: we are in a gigantic lab, designed and created (yes, created, but not by the God most believed) for us humans to learn, to be ONE.

We are not learning very well, repeat...repeat...repeat...

How old Earth is...

 

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 02:28 | 3026042 Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

Bring on, you believe the world is an accident, and that also takes faith. 

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 06:58 | 3026107 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

Oh no you don't Raymond Reason, don't tar me with the same affliction of "faith" as possibly you may/or may not suffer.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING because the very words "I believe" are utterly meaningless. I pursue information/knowledge in a process called learning but we are forever confined to the process, there is no arrival, no destination. Unless you're an arrogant cunt of course and think you're endowed with knoweledge via revelation.

Faith is a cop out buddy. It is for the intellectually lazy. The gullible. I would like the words "I believe" to be banished from the English language because those two seeming harmless words are nothing more than fodder for the dumb masses.  

What combination of words after the term "I believe" forms an invalid statement. THERE ARE NONE. As long as the sentence abides by the rules of the English language then any combination of words presumably forms a construct that cannot be criticised. Unless if you're a christian and the sentence is "I believe in Mohommed" or you are a Muslim and the sentence is "I believe jesus is the son of god".

I'd hate also to be the bearer of bad news but faith is an utterly invalid concept and can be proved so by simple deductive reasoning as you will understand and as your name suggests. Follow me with this it's very simple:

If "faith" is used to validate one belief

Then "faith" can be used to validate any belief.

Some beliefs contradict others, therefore some beliefs must be wrong.

With invalidates the first statement.

 

FAITH cannot be used to validate a belief, sorry you've had to learn this at such a late age but hell, we all had to eventually learn Santa doesn't exist. One day, maybe, the human race will mature and we will accept that we're on our own, that moral codes and conduct is something we use our cerebral cortex to define for the betterment of the human race. Fanciful bullshit on my part though I admit - we're just too fucking stupid.

 

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 15:43 | 3026635 Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

we're just too fucking stupid

You make a point that defeats your own arguement.  We are stupid, because we don't know everything...we simply do not know what follows phsical life.  Therefore noone can claim to have no faith.  You fool yourself to say you believe in nothing, it is impossible.  There is light or darkness, or vaying degrees of each.  If you claim light does not exist, you cannot claim that darkness does not exist also.  Sorry, but you do have faith.  You believe the soul does not exist.  You form your opinion with incomplete knowledge, as i form my opinion with incomplete knowledge.  We both practice faith. 

Sun, 12/02/2012 - 04:47 | 3027658 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

"we simply do not know what follows phsical life.  Therefore noone can claim to have no faith."

Utterly fallacious logic, I mean, it's not even logic. You're trying to combine two completely disconnected concepts. How do you jump from "not knowing what comes after physical life" to "therefore everyone must have faith". Faith in what?

What is this obsession with eternal life. Jeez, we humans are greedy mother fuckers.

 

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 05:10 | 3026108 BringOnTheAsteroid
BringOnTheAsteroid's picture

Oh no you don't Raymond Reason, don't tar me with the same affliction of "faith" as possibly you may/or may not suffer.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING because the very words "I believe" are utterly meaningless. I pursue information/knowledge in a process called learning but we are forever confined to the process, there is no arrival, no destination. Unless you're an arrogant cunt of course and think you're endowed with knoweledge via revelation.

Faith is a cop out buddy. It is for the intellectually lazy. The gullible. I would like the words "I believe" to be banished from the English language because those two seeming harmless words are nothing more than fodder for the dumb masses.  

What combination of words after the term "I believe" forms an invalid statement. THERE ARE NONE. As long as the sentence abides by the rules of the English language then any combination of words presumably forms a construct that cannot be criticised. Unless if you're a christian and the sentence is "I believe in Mohommed" or you are a Muslim and the sentence is "I believe jesus is the son of god".

I'd hate also to be the bearer of bad news but faith is an utterly invalid concept and can be proved so by simple deductive reasoning as you will understand as your name suggests. Follow me with this it's very simple:

If "faith" is used to validate one belief

Then "faith" can be used to validate any belief.

Some beliefs contradict others, therefore some beliefs must be wrong.

With invalidates the first statement.

 

FAITH cannot be used to validate a belief, sorry you've had to learn this at such a late age but hell, we all had to eventually learn Santa doesn't exist. One day, maybe, the human race will mature and we will accept that we're on our own, that moral codes and conduct is something we use our cerebral cortex to define for the betterment of the human race. Fanciful bullshit on my part though I admit - we're just too fucking stupid.

 

Sat, 12/01/2012 - 04:47 | 3026104 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

You sound pretty sure of yourself, Asteroid.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!