!**XXAngelVampirePrincess Ella XX!

Wow... That was so ungodly, lol.

meqdadya

y he didn't do conversation with me ?? lol `

Bedega

lmao. That was a beautifully constructed masterpiece. I haven't enjoyed religious humor that much in a long time lol.

adamryan

note: I have no idea why the responses in the beginning are in bold. There weren't any html tags in my comment when I posted it.

adamryan

4) You wrote, "keep in mind that religion is nothing more than thoughts, like any other make-believe story, and the only place those thoughts truly live is in the minds of people. It doesn't matter what form of Christianity is considered by theological scholars (and again: waste of time, why not study archaeology instead?) to be "pure" or "true," because all that matters is how many people believe it." Are you serious? So all religions are based on stories, and nothing more? There is no evidence at all for the belief? That's the view you're going to take? 6) "Look, I'm not trying to refute anything. I'm not trying to argue the merits of Christianity or display my knowledge of religion's history. I'm past all that. You should be too. Everyone should be. We outgrew our religion pants long ago when we figured out other, more accurate methods of discovery than simply telling stories of things we think we saw and things we know we didn't. Now the idea of religion is holding us back more than anything, and we'd go a lot further if we let go of our superstitions and moved on with our life." It's sad. You have the potential to know better, but you refuse it. By the way, nice deleting my rebuttal from your page. If that doesn't show that you fear critique, I don't know what does.

adamryan

2) Does not disprove the existence of God because it CAN'T disprove the existence of God. It's about religion, not God. That would be like critiquing harshly Capitalism and then saying that economics isn't real. It's absurd. God transcends religion. 3) Your response to what I wrote was EXTREMELY poor. By saying I'm "missing your point", you're averting the attention away from the errors you've made. And do you really think that by generalizing religion as something that is only a "flawed creation", that will somehow end the conversation? Religion or faith in God is not something that is flawed. Belief in an irrational religion, however, is, and I will agree with you there. I wouldn't say that an Aztec who thinks that by cutting out the heart of another human for the benefit of his belief in the Legend of the Five Suns, he properly has a rational belief; I don't support his religious belief, not on the basis that it is because he has a religious belief, but on the basis that what he believes to be true is explained and shown to be wrong via science. This isn't so, however, when it comes to Judeo-Christian theology. And anyone who takes the time to study will soon see how this theology is drastically different from all other pagan concepts of a deity. So actually (regarding Judeo-Christian theism), it's quite the reverse. It's an evidential view when you consider the philosophical arguments it employs and defends; and not only is it an evidential view, but it is actually quite a respectable one, if you take the time to diligently study it. This is why I take offense to people who haven't studied it, yet clump it in together with all other "religions". It's an action of ignorance. And you, CBATTAGLIA, you do this when you say, "We made the whole thing up, starting a long time ago, and we're still making more shit up today." This shows that your view of it is (to use your own 10 Signs You're A Fundie Christian), the idea that the Bible was written by ignorant people living in tents, when in reality, that is the furthest thing from the truth.

adamryan

SECOND REPLY

adamryan

CONTINUED: 7) ...What I meant by "philosophical stupidity" is the all-too-common feature found in society (and exhibited by you in your writing) for people to be complete unlearned in philosophy, religion, theology (anything, for that matter), and yet still feel some sort of authority to be able to speak intelligibly regarding it. It is this that I find utterly stupid. As if, by asserting one's own opinion against it, this will confute it. I admit, though, that I can see how people can be properly deluded if they believe their professed perspectives are evidenced by some sort of scholastic background. No doubt, there may be many people running around thinking the claims of the Da Vinci Code somehow refute Christianity, or prove that there were parts of the Bible which the church wanted to keep secret, etc, even though the entire premise has been almost wholly debunked and discredited years ago. It is this relation of diligent study to open professions of faith that I am referring to; or, to be more specific, rather the lack of diligent study to yet a still ardent profession of faith, regardless of what the truth may actually be. 8) "In short: learn to laugh and not be such a douche, then we'll talk." I'll learn to laugh when you learn to think. -adamryan

adamryan

CONTINUED: 4) ...So for you to have God say that the texts are, essentially, untrustworthy bastardizations of the originals is simply untrue. Yes, it is true that the Scriptures were translated many, many times as the faith of Jesus spread across the planet, and yes in some instances many things were poorly interpreted because of it, but the argument loses it's strength when we consider the lack of need to continue to use these non-originals when we have the originals available to utilize. [Note: it's worth doing a Google search on this one, look up "Isaiah scroll". People who have visited the museum or have the studied the copies of these originals continue to write about their amazement that even after close to 3,000 years (Isaiah is dated to 8th century BCE), the original Isaiah scroll found at Qumran word is nearly word-for-word the same now as it was when when it was written then, 2800 years ago.] 5) "God: i do hate it when i'm held accountable for nature's stuff, though. that shit is on autopilot. it just works with what it's given" HAHA, I actually liked this part when I read it. Quite clever. 6) "...'Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' " This mistake is Douglas Adams', but if you agree with him then I suppose you are just as guilty. Belief in the existence of God is not something you only take on faith; to categorize it as if it were would be disingenuous. Theism itself is something that is logically defensible and is therefore requiring very little "faith". One who logically believes tables exist does not need to accept on "faith" that tables may exist in another person's home. It's inferred, common and a reasonable belief. And those who claim faith is all that is needed to believe in God truly cut themselves short. Either that, or they are too lazy to study philosophy. Proof does not deny faith, it affirms faith. Jesus' teachings were buttressed by evidence (though arguably a different kind of evidence, given that his teaching method was parabolic), Paul preached the faith to pagans in Acts 17 using reasonable evidences of God, and NT Scripture itself even says to be able to logically explain and defend (Greek word, "apologia", which means to be able to give an almost legalistic-like defense of or for) the faith with evidence and proof in 1 Peter 3:15. Douglas Adams is wrong. 7) As for your, "I was interested in what you meant by "philosophical stupidity," but since you gave no context, I'll go ahead and assume it was self-referential, since only a complete dunce would make such a vague and pointless statement after reading a satirical (that's sa-teer-ik-al, just in case you have trouble reading the big words) piece of fiction" What I meant by "philosophical stupidity" is the all-too-common feature found in society (and exhibited by you in your writing) for people to be complete unlearned in philosophy, religion, theology (anything, for that matter), and yet still feel some sort of authority to be able to speak intelligibly regarding it. It is this that I find utterly stupid. As if, by asserting one's own opinion against it, this will confute it. I admit, though, that I can see how people can be properly deluded if they believe their professed perspectives are evidenced by some sort of scholastic background. No doubt, there may be many people running around thinking the claims of the Da Vinci Code somehow refute Christianity, or prove that there were parts of the Bible which the church wanted to keep secret, etc, even though the entire premise has been almost wholly debunked and discredited years ago. It is this relation of diligent study to open professions of faith that I am referring to; or, to be more specific, rather the lack of diligent study to yet a still ardent profession of faith, regardless of what the truth may actually be. 8) "In short: learn to laugh and not be such a douche, then we'll talk." I'll learn to laugh when you learn to think. -adamryan

adamryan

CONTINUED: 3) "CBATTAGLIA: ok, but if that's true, why all the hatred and fighting done in your name? it's kind of pointless if they're all fighting for the same side. God: lol, don't go pinning that on me. and yes, it's completely pointless. the fact that they commit these atrocities in my name pisses me off to no end." a) Again, this is linked to the previous topic listed above. If two groups of religious people believe their views are correct and the other's wrong, and one of those groups preaches the killing of "infidels", isn't surprising to see how a religious war wouldn't be inevitable. b) The fact that religious wars have been fought, however, does not nullify the validity of the faith itself; it makes it less appealing and less likely to be true (especially if you believe in the omnibenevolence of the deity you assume exists). I encounter this argument a lot, typically in the allegation that "since the Christian church is responsible for the Inquisition, Crusades, etc," it therefore must be an erred religion. I believe the most critical assessment we can make of this would be to note those who were truly responsible for the behaviour. Were those responsible truly Crusading by religious teaching, or by political agenda? You apply this critique to history's litany of religious wars and you find that the Crusades was rather a religious war carried out in a very non-religious manner. You find that it isn't the religion's fault at all, but rather the failed religionists'. To blame Jesus for the stupidity of some of his alleged followers is not only shallowly perceived and a scapegoat-argument, it's a mockery of the existence of the true faith He taught. How so many people cannot see this is just wild. 4) "CBATTAGLIA: i see...so you don't endorse any "holy" texts? God: lamo! NO! do u know how many times those things have been translated, interpreted and rewritten to include or exclude certain passages??? i'm pretty sure there's even a story out there about my son making a trip to Utah." This shows a lack of research on your part. If you're going to be putting words in God's mouth, I think it would be courteous to make Him seem, at the very least, like he knows what He's talking about. No learned historian, religious scholar or textual critic who has studied the Judeo-Christian scriptures would use this argument. The argument was a strong one until 1947, when we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran. That discovery gave us extraordinarily early original copies, dating from as early as 70 CE (40 years after Jesus is crucified). And when we consider the Jewish duty to not only be able to recite Torah, but also to faithfully copy the religious text verbatim and unerringly, any doubts or uncertainty regarding the legitimacy of the texts themselves are removed. So for you to have God say that the texts are, essentially, untrustworthy bastardizations of the originals is simply untrue. Yes, it is true that the Scriptures were translated many, many times as the faith of Jesus spread across the planet, and yes in some instances many things were poorly interpreted because of it, but the argument loses it's strength when we consider the lack of need to continue to use these non-originals when we have the originals available to utilize. [Note: it's worth doing a Google search on this one, look up "Isaiah scroll". People who have visited the museum or have the studied the copies of these originals continue to write about their amazement that even after close to 3,000 years (Isaiah is dated to 8th century BCE), the original Isaiah scroll found at Qumran word is nearly word-for-word the same now as it was when when it was written then, 2800 years ago.] 5) "God: i do hate it when i'm held accountable for nature's stuff, though. that shit is on autopilot. it just works with what it's given" HAHA, I actually liked this part when I read it. Quite clever. 6) "...'Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' " This mistake is Douglas Adams', but if you agree with him then I suppose you are just as guilty. Belief in the existence of God is not something you only take on faith; to categorize it as if it were would be disingenuous. Theism itself is something that is logically defensible and is therefore requiring very little "faith". One who logically believes tables exist does not need to accept on "faith" that tables may exist in another person's home. It's inferred, common and a reasonable belief. And those who claim faith is all that is needed to believe in God truly cut themselves short. Either that, or they are too lazy to study philosophy. Proof does not deny faith, it affirms faith. Jesus' teachings were buttressed by evidence (though arguably a different kind of evidence, given that his teaching method was parabolic), Paul preached the faith to pagans in Acts 17 using reasonable evidences of God, and NT Scripture itself even says to be able to logically explain and defend (Greek

adamryan

Dear CBATTAGLIA, As enlightening as your reply was (clearly, you must be some great intellect since you can disagree with a philosophy satirically), I feel obligated to criticize your statements and elucidate my own. To begin, calling someone a "douche" is, in itself, an act of douchiness. So be warned, he who casts the first douche, likely is a bigger one. ;) Moving on: You said, 1) "I never attempt to make any claim of theological legitimacy, I simply wanted to create an amusing dialogue in which I point out a few of the absurdities I see in organized religion." If you haven't taken the time to study something, why criticize it? I know next to nothing about archaeology, but you won't see me going around laughing at paleobotanists (much less will you read something penned by me elaborating satirically on the silliness I imagine of grown men and women digging through dirt and breaking rocks). I'll highlight a few parts that I assume you find as "absurdities...in organizied religion.", and give a response to it as well, since I feel it is in order. 2) "the core is the same, and that core is me. to some, i am more than one being. to others, i have more eyes or limbs. some even believe that i have no physically recognizable form. the interpretations may vary, but my existence is constant." Your argument here is that God is, essentially, an an isomorphic concept. The idea that all religions, at their essence, preach the same entity (god) and morals isn't a new one, nor a correct one. And it's actually quite easy to refute. It goes something like this: a) IF seperate religions are teaching/preaching the existence of the same God but under different names, then this would require that the religions be compatible in their understanding and teaching of God (for if it is the same god, he would remain unchanged from religion to religion, since surely no puny follower of the almighty god would think it'd be fine to attempt change the deity's commands, morals, will and teachings etc) b) Yet we know there are incompatible claims and teachings between many theistic religions (If Jesus truly was the son of God, then he logically cannot be the son of Allah, for Allah has no son [Quran 18:4-6, 23:91]) and each religion is, not surprisingly, unable to coexist given their Scriptural differences. c) Therefore, the claim that the God of both/all religions is actually the same, is patently false. A simple test of this would be to try convincing an orthodox Jew that every Shabbat the G-d he/she worships is "actually" also the same god the Mormons worship. You likely will not be able to defend yourself from the verbal lashing you'll inevitably receive. 3) "CBATTAGLIA: ok, but if that's true, why all the hatred and fighting done in your name? it's kind of pointless if they're all fighting for the same side. God: lol, don't go pinning that on me. and yes, it's completely pointless. the fact that they commit these atrocities in my name pisses me off to no end." a) Again, this is linked to the previous topic listed above. If two groups of religious people believe their views are correct and the other's wrong, and one of those groups preaches the killing of "infidels", isn't surprising to see how a religious war wouldn't be inevitable. b) The fact that religious wars have been fought, however, does not nullify the validity of the faith itself; it makes it less appealing and less likely to be true (especially if you believe in the omnibenevolence of the deity you assume exists). I encounter this argument a lot, typically in the allegation that "since the Christian church is responsible for the Inquisition, Crusades, etc," it therefore must be an erred religion. I believe the most critical assessment we can make of this would be to note those who were truly responsible for the behaviour. Were those responsible truly Crusading by religious teaching, or by political agenda? You apply this critique to history's litany of religious wars and you find that the Crusades was rather a religious war carried out in a very non-religious manner. You find that it isn't the religion's fault at all, but rather the failed religionists'. To blame Jesus for the stupidity of some of his alleged followers is not only shallowly perceived and a scapegoat-argument, it's a mockery of the existence of the true faith He taught. How so many people cannot see this is just wild. 4) "CBATTAGLIA: i see...so you don't endorse any "holy" texts? God: lamo! NO! do u know how many times those things have been translated, interpreted and rewritten to include or exclude certain passages??? i'm pretty sure there's even a story out there about my son making a trip to Utah." This shows a lack of research on your part. If you're going to be putting words in God's mouth, I think it would be courteous to make Him seem, at the very least, like he knows what He's talking about. No learned historian, religious scholar or textual critic who has st

cbattaglia

You're still a douche. And please don't spam.

cbattaglia

Hi Adamryan. Nice to meet you. Thank you for your interest in my work. I recommend you read through it again, this time being careful to note that a) it's satire, which requires something called a sense of humour to understand, and b) you're a douche. You might notice the use of "lol" and "u" when god speaks. This is what is called a joke, which the dictionary defines as "something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement." I never attempt to make any claim of theological legitimacy, I simply wanted to create an amusing dialogue in which I point out a few of the absurdities I see in organized religion. If you still feel the same way after reading it again, please feel free to keep it to yourself, since the criticism you appear to provide is anything but constructive. I'm the first to admit I do not have any formal training in theology, for the same reason I have no formal training in juggling knives: I don't like to waste my time learning the nuances of useless, impractical BS. You don't need a theology degree to see the ridiculousness of claims that natural disasters are the work of a pissed-off omnipotent father figure. Perhaps if you had been more specific, or specific at all, about what made you say what you said, I would have actually taken it with more than a grain of salt. I was interested in what you meant by "philosophical stupidity," but since you gave no context, I'll go ahead and assume it was self-referential, since only a complete dunce would make such a vague and pointless statement after reading a satirical (that's sa-teer-ik-al, just in case you have trouble reading the big words) piece of fiction. In short: learn to laugh and not be such a douche, then we'll talk.

adamryan

clearly written by someone with a poor understanding of theology. it's so sad that philosophical stupidity can be so ubiquitous.

pink rose

this is really not funny ..