Celdran has balls. He's earned the ire of the Damasos. Like Pope Ratzo and his vengeful attack on atheists during his recent visit to the UK, the defensive reaction of the celibate (this has not been proved to be true) men (straight and gay) in robes just shows how the dagger has been thrust to the hilt. They're hurting because, well, the truth damn hurts like Hell. The more they squirm and lick their wounds seek retribution for having been offended the more Celdran's ingenuously succinct gambit succeeds.
And with PZ Myers (aka Pharyngula) picking up on this event, the situation in the Phil has now been brought to the attention of atheists,. humanists, rationalists worldwide.
Anyone who tells me I'm being intolerant of intolerance and therefore am being hypocritical is being a simpleton. Well of course I tolerate some and not other deeds/behavior/etc. And will tolerate them to a lesser or greater degree depending on the circumstances and other factors. For instance I give children a free pass when it comes to silly beliefs but am critical of adults when they cling to puerile ideas. When it comes to intolerance of intolerance, it would be well to ask, Which kinds of intolerance can't you tolerate? I would have little problem with intolerance against torture for instance.
"I'm not sure what is with all the "of course I believe in God" crap," Well, obviously, he was cRAPping
Thinking there *is* a Santa and expecting gifts from him is a phase we outgrow. We grow into reality. Religion is the same thing or ought to be the same. Which unfortunately isn't for the majority. Many would rather have the blue pill and stay in the Matrix. The comforts of delusions.
Morpheus to christianchick: "Take two red pills then see me in the morning."
"Satanists do not actually believe in or worship Satan; they use the symbol of Satan to shock, challenge, and unsettle. For Satanists, Satan is merely a powerful image of an adversary."
hmmm, perhaps instead of Satanism it ought to be labeled Iconoclasm
In clinical trials and scientific experiments in general there needs to be operational definitions. "Greater good" is simply too nebulous. What exactly would be measures of "greater good"? Now if we "cannot possibly know what the greater good is in any situation" then how do you know whether there is in fact praying causes some greater good? It remains just a claim unless that can be substantiated. And having subjective criteria and no boundaries in choosing what constitutes a hit simply will not do. We can just as well sacrifice chickens and then gather "evidence" that it leads to greater good. Without any precise definition of what results we're looking we can be absolutely sure we'll find confirmatory evidence.
The question I'd like believers to answer is: What evidence or results would you accept as refuting your belief? What would it take for you to conclude that prayer doesn't work?
The obvious question for the gnostic whatever is: How do you know? State your reasons/evidence. Thereafter, we can debate whether the reasons and evidence offered are sufficient to merit the claim s/he knows X.
21st century blog technology employed to disseminate prehistoric superstitious claptrap. Wish we could beam these nutcases a couple of millennia back in time.... But then again that would be violation of the temporal prime directive.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Company