100 Greatest Quotes from Fundamentalist Christian Chatrooms

[saf-one]

The statement "nothing is true unless it can be empirically proven" is itself unprovable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fundamentalist, but surely this fervant belief in the need for empirical proof is arguably no less deluded than putting faith in any religion? The enlightenment taught us about the importance of science and gave us many advances in the fields of medicine, physics, astonomy etc. But it also left a legacy of belief that unless something can be measured, weighed and quantified it is not worth documenting.

Dawkins' books on evolutionary biology are extremely well written, but he got out of his depth with theology. To see just how well "The God Delusion" isn't written, read "The Dawkins Letters" by David Robertson. It's full of well-reasoned, logical counter-arguments to the points Dawkins raises in his book. And when these issues were raised on his website, Dawkins called Robertson "a dangerous fruitcake", rather than engage in serious debate with him.

Im my eyes its not a case of "fervant belief in the need for empirical proof".

Some proof, a little fact and a bit of hard evidence will do and off we go a bit more knowledgeable about our past and future.

Rather than blindly following an old cobbled together, non factual, story book and a non existent supernatural character, taking his word as "the truth" and not looking, questioning, discovering, learning and thinking.

"a legacy of belief that unless something can be measured, weighed and quantified it is not worth documenting"- but isnt everything quantifiable one way or another?

I have read sum of Mr Robersons "Dawkins letters". He doesn't really make a decent counter argument or give evidence to back up his staunch beliefs and rambles on about how terrible the world would be without religion...and has a sly dig at Islam etc. I would expand but need to get some work done then got to bed.

Seems like a cop out I know.

[Lucius]

I missed the Dawkins thing the other night (mainly coz i didn't know it was on) but if it was half as good as this one I will have to look it up:

2 episodes with 5 parts so it is a bit of a commitment to watch it all.

This is pretty good too:

YouTube - Penn & Teller - The Bible is Bullshit 1 of 3

[nullmouse]

The statement "nothing is true unless it can be empirically proven" is itself unprovable.

It's self-refuting, but religon's argument is also self-refuting: How can something as complicated as life only be created by a creator, yet something as complicated as a creator not be created?

(Also, as a side note, the "nothing is true unless it can be empirically proven" as a phrase is unprovable - It is also a highly simplified understanding of how science works. Gravity existed before it was proven scientifically to work. Cells did not appear just because we went looking for them.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fundamentalist, but surely this fervant belief in the need for empirical proof is arguably no less deluded than putting faith in any religion? The enlightenment taught us about the importance of science and gave us many advances in the fields of medicine, physics, astonomy etc. But it also left a legacy of belief that unless something can be measured, weighed and quantified it is not worth documenting.

I disagree completely - The enlightenment never stemmed the publication of fiction or the generation of art.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Try telling local-lads their cars mean jack, or your Grannie that daytime tv is a blight, or the millions who tap into Moyles-the-early-morning-brain-soother every morning that the guy has 'em by the balls and can now get laughs literally out of nothing. That T-in-the-Park is a corporate haven whereby normal hospitality goes out the window because it's fun to play in the mud, sing in the rain and essentially be irreverently treated like a gormless cash-dispenser for a few rich cock-suckers who currently have the world sewn up. I believe there's a 'magic' in these pursuits equal to that of Christianity and the various superstitions and bogus theories Dawkins investigated, and one you'd be hard-pushed to make people part from. If only someone could demonstrate the true consequence of actions; the web of relations between our consumption and a limitless number of social, political, environmental and moral sources.

So basically - religion aside, there are lots of other irrationalities kicking about that people use to give meaning and purpose to life in a Godless world. Or so I think..8-)

I get what you are saying. It is true that there are many problems in our culture besides irrational religion (is there another kind?), that we ALL have our little ignorances (though I wouldn't say that laughing at Chris Moyles in the morning is equal to understanding and further then accepting the Christian belief of Hell, the Virgin Mary or the Resurrection; no, laughing at Moyles is far less mindful than that).

But do you mean to say that we shouldn't try to highlight these absurdities for the consideration of the populace? That's how consciousness gets raised. The very fact that we have debunking shows on primetime T.V goes to show that the zeitgeist is moving steadily and with purpose, in Britain at least.

Look elsewhere in the world and then wince at the damage that irrationality and superstition are the primary cause of.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Dawkins' books on evolutionary biology are extremely well written, but he got out of his depth with theology.

Lulz!

My favorite ever sentence! Hahaha!

[KimyReizeger]

But do you mean to say that we shouldn't try to highlight these absurdities for the consideration of the populace? That's how consciousness gets raised. The very fact that we have debunking shows on primetime T.V goes to show that the zeitgeist is moving steadily and with purpose, in Britain at least.

.

I don't doubt it benefical to point out absurdities. I was just thinking it arguable that rampant consumerism is equally damaging, equally full of mistruths and ignorance, and equally resistant to change. People understand their lives through what they spend their money on just as people once understood their lives through God - we obviously all want to distract ourselves from the fact that life is literally pointless.

[Frosty Jack]

we obviously all want to distract ourselves from the fact that life is literally pointless.

"whaaat?? Well I'm fucked if I can be bothered evolving now..."

[KimyReizeger]

]

"whaaat?? Well I'm fucked if I can be bothered evolving now..."

I can't see any true point or objective 'good' in the existence of any life-form. Though I suppose you dispute this?

[lepeep]

I actually agree with that. I'm not a religious person myself. However, I'd describe myself as "Agnostic" and that's only because in my head, I'd *like* to think that Karma exists. Again, I suppose I'm gripping onto some kind of purpose.

I'm actually quite miffed I missed this program. What channel was it on? It's maybe still on iplayer...

channel 4, so it'll be on 4OD, no doubt.

I've just finished reading the "tricks of the mind" book (by...*cough cough* Derren Brown)...

bar the smug (and I think rather funny) stuff about hypnosis, memory etc, the last chapter is about Logic & perception...(he references Bertrand Russell, quite a lot)...

It's a fantastic look at how superstition, "patern" and "the need for answers" dictates how people perceive the world - giving rise to a need for "other worldly answers".

The section about winning the lottery is particularly interesting, how when people think that winning is so remote a chance, that "special reasons" (stars, destiny etc) come in to how / why they won - but there is none (obviously) other than blind chance.

We expect someone to win the lottery (more often than not) each week, it's just it is so extra-ordinary to the person winning, that "reasons" comes in to play...

I'd reccomend just reading the last chapter, if you think he's a smug tosser - it's a great read.

[framheim]

i think he's a smug tosser but a very intelligent and canny smug tosser. i enjoy his shows a great deal but i'm always left feeling a bit guilty about it.

might have to check the book out though.

[Frosty Jack]

I actually agree with that. I'm not a religious person myself. However, I'd describe myself as "Agnostic"

"To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

Life of Pi.

[Le Stu]

The father of memetics goes and has a shouting match with Ted Haggard?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

That was worth it, as was the bit where a Rabbi called him a fundamentalist. However, that was the point where I switched off and it's now become almost a reflex. Surely he can do better than this?

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

"To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

Life of Pi.

If atheism is a religion then health is a disease.

[all_his_engines]

Im my eyes its not a case of "fervant belief in the need for empirical proof".

Some proof, a little fact and a bit of hard evidence will do and off we go a bit more knowledgeable about our past and future.

Rather than blindly following an old cobbled together, non factual, story book and a non existent supernatural character, taking his word as "the truth" and not looking, questioning, discovering, learning and thinking.

"a legacy of belief that unless something can be measured, weighed and quantified it is not worth documenting"- but isnt everything quantifiable one way or another?

I'm not suggesting that you do follow the bible blindly, but since the idea that something must be empirically proven to be true is unprovable in itself, a lack of empirical evidence is not a valid argument - philosophically speaking - against religion.

In what way is everything quantifiable? How can you measure the joy of parenthood, the feeling of love, the pleasure of experiencing a work of art, the intrinsic satisfaction of a job well done etc.?

[all_his_engines]

It's self-refuting, but religon's argument is also self-refuting: How can something as complicated as life only be created by a creator, yet something as complicated as a creator not be created?

Because human beings have a very difficult time comprehending the temporal concept of eternity. For us, everything must have a beginning and an end because our entire world-view is informed by our own mortality. But just because our perceptions are limited in this way, doesn't mean that that's how existence actually operates.

(Also, as a side note, the "nothing is true unless it can be empirically proven" as a phrase is unprovable - It is also a highly simplified understanding of how science works. Gravity existed before it was proven scientifically to work. Cells did not appear just because we went looking for them.)

Of course, but doesn't it then follow that there could be forces at work in this world that we have yet to observe scientifically, and indeed may never do so? Just because we can't measure something, doesn't mean it's not there. That's the essence of the statement.

I disagree completely - The enlightenment never stemmed the publication of fiction or the generation of art.

I never said it did. The legacy of empiricism relates to our understanding of the physical world, not to the reflection of it provided by art.

[lepeep]

"I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine. "

"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. "

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted. "

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. "

"Science may set limits to knowledge, but should not set limits to imagination. "

- Bertrand Russel

[nullmouse]

Of course, but doesn't it then follow that there could be forces at work in this world that we have yet to observe scientifically, and indeed may never do so? Just because we can't measure something, doesn't mean it's not there. That's the essence of the statement.

If there were forces at work that couldn't be measured scientifically, we'd probably have noticed a lot more anomalies in the readings that can be measured by now. Unless, of course, that unmeasurable force or forces acts in a closed loop that doesn't affect our perception of the natural world. Which would be convenient. But that's the problem with these trains of thought, a supernatural entity or state can be argued to be undetectable, clever enough to evade detection or just above the mere understanding of us mortals. You could claim any number of mythical beasts rules the world but shift our perception of reality so we're not aware of them. It's true, prove it's not etc.

Yes, something may be true but not proven. However, we can scientifically demonstrate the presence of gravity or cells, confirming it to be true - But until that scientific evidence was gathered it was just a hypothesis waiting to be confirmed, denied or modified based on the evidence. Scientifically it contained no weight.

I never said it did. The legacy of empiricism relates to our understanding of the physical world, not to the reflection of it provided by art.

Your phrasing "But it also left a legacy of belief that unless something can be measured, weighed and quantified it is not worth documenting" implied to me that you thought it did. I took art to also be a documenting process.

[all_his_engines]

Art can certainly be considered a documenting process, but isn't limited in the way that scientific documentation (rightly) is. Basically, art is not generally considered to be a solid map of reality on which we can base assumptions about the real world, so I don't consider it to have been limited in that way. But I understand that I should have made myself more clear on that point.

Again, your comments about science are all based on this implicit assumption that empirical scientific observation is the be-all and end-all of our ability to perceive and experience reality. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating a rejection of science. It's given us an extraordinary amount of knowledge about the world we live in, and a great many ways to make the world a better place. My main problem is that most people's arguments against religion can seemingly be paraphrased as: "You can't prove it scientifically, therefore it can't be real". This, as we've just been discussing, is a fundamentally flawed argument.

[nullmouse]

My main problem is that most people's arguments against religion can seemingly be paraphrased as: "You can't prove it scientifically, therefore it can't be real". This, as we've just been discussing, is a fundamentally flawed argument.

"You can't prove it scientifically, therefore it can't be real"

"Nothing is true unless it can be empirically proven"

It occurs to me I've been trying to say things in a really roundabout way, and your rephrasing of your original statement made me realise this.

"You can't prove it scientifically, therefore it can't be real" doesn't account for being able to disprove something by refuting a hypothesis.

"Nothing is true unless it can be empircally proven" is misleading in the use of the word 'true', and would be much more accurately stated as "nothing is a scientific fact until it can be empirically proven", which isn't self-refuting. Many things can be true without proof, but that does not mean it is scientifically proven to be so, as we both agree. "Nothing is true unless it can be empircally proven", in my opinion, seems to equate truth with being scientifically proven.

[lepeep]

Art can certainly be considered a documenting process, but isn't limited in the way that scientific documentation (rightly) is. Basically, art is not generally considered to be a solid map of reality on which we can base assumptions about the real world, so I don't consider it to have been limited in that way. But I understand that I should have made myself more clear on that point.

Again, your comments about science are all based on this implicit assumption that empirical scientific observation is the be-all and end-all of our ability to perceive and experience reality. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating a rejection of science. It's given us an extraordinary amount of knowledge about the world we live in, and a great many ways to make the world a better place. My main problem is that most people's arguments against religion can seemingly be paraphrased as: "You can't prove it scientifically, therefore it can't be real". This, as we've just been discussing, is a fundamentally flawed argument.

This approach to maintaining that "science doesn't account for everything" (to me) is the reason why people do "bank on the unknown", because science "refutes" a god (currently) - people are scared that, "that's it". - to account for "mystery", or REASONS why things are...it all boils down to the need for REASON, people are not happy with the (fact) that we are random, we are here "just because", not because some giant hand finely crafted us - and we are special etc.

we are not special, we are not important and we die - and nothing happens after that. People obviously feel scared of that (facts?) - so we make up stories to comfort our complex psyches.

Imagine knowing that we are not special, we are just a blip. It's that (apparent fact) that religious people can't get over - not that science doesn't accomodate a god.

[pogofish]

Dunno if anyone has posted this link but it has a few things worthy of consideration:

FACT:

1 out of 5 masturbators will become registered sex offenders.2 out of 5 will engage in beastality.

2 out of every 3 men who masturbate will engage in a long term homo-sexual relationship and practice incest.

2 of the same 3 men will commit suicide. All of them will burn in Hell for their sins.

90% of all men who masturbate will have one or more STD’s in their life. 53% will die from a sexually related disease.

Beating Satan, Not Your Penis Republican Faith Chat

So thats us telt eh?

[Surfer_Rosa]

Beating Satan, Not Your Penis Republican Faith Chat

So thats us telt eh?

Join the thousands of sexually dependent men across the globe who have said, Hands Off, Satan. Thats My Genitalia Not Yours!

Priceless. Although the ex-masturbator's testimony was a bit o_O

[all_his_engines]

"Nothing is true unless it can be empircally proven" is misleading in the use of the word 'true', and would be much more accurately stated as "nothing is a scientific fact until it can be empirically proven", which isn't self-refuting. Many things can be true without proof, but that does not mean it is scientifically proven to be so, as we both agree. "Nothing is true unless it can be empircally proven", in my opinion, seems to equate truth with being scientifically proven.

That's true. Another part of my problem is that people generally equate scientific fact with truth.

Of course, that statement makes me sound like some kind of religious nutter, but what I mean is that people rarely seem to put any deep thought into what they consider "truth" to really mean.

[all_his_engines]

This approach to maintaining that "science doesn't account for everything" (to me) is the reason why people do "bank on the unknown", because science "refutes" a god (currently) - people are scared that, "that's it". - to account for "mystery", or REASONS why things are...it all boils down to the need for REASON, people are not happy with the (fact) that we are random, we are here "just because", not because some giant hand finely crafted us - and we are special etc.

we are not special, we are not important and we die - and nothing happens after that. People obviously feel scared of that (facts?) - so we make up stories to comfort our complex psyches.

Imagine knowing that we are not special, we are just a blip. It's that (apparent fact) that religious people can't get over - not that science doesn't accomodate a god.

Although you make a good point, saying that people are only religious because of existentialist fear and doubt is a sweeping generalisation. And as far as I'm aware, science has yet to either refute or confirm the existence of God.

[nullmouse]

That's true. Another part of my problem is that people generally equate scientific fact with truth.

Of course, that statement makes me sound like some kind of religious nutter, but what I mean is that people rarely seem to put any deep thought into what they consider "truth" to really mean.

I completely agree, I think the meaning of many words clash in discussions like this because they have subtly different meanings in common, scientific of philosophical use. "Theory" is probably a good example of this, and what people take to be a "truth" I think comes under the same problems.