tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34805796.post116102551949940169..comments2024-01-23T12:49:03.885-05:00Comments on Jewbiquitous: Missing the PointAnniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10434918343302976597noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34805796.post-1161562229345607762006-10-22T20:10:00.000-04:002006-10-22T20:10:00.000-04:00Hello Harley,The folowing blurb is somewhat off to...Hello Harley,<BR/><BR/>The folowing blurb is somewhat off topic for your post here, but it does address the topic of religion being one of the underlying cause of human struggle and conflict and why that is true. Money and politics are the other two. Follow the links and dowload my Ebook also for much more detail about many other aspects of this situation.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the Creator exists, but religion is a false viewpoint and propounds false images (idols) and false doctrine (errors, lies, and deception). It's purpose is deception and to cause conflict. It uses some truth and some wisdom to weave strong lies that cause strong delusion.<BR/><BR/>************<BR/><BR/>David Kuo's book, Tempting Faith, does nothing to dispel claims of an American theocracy as some are asserting. In fact, he has inadvertently provided stunning insights into their true nature and purpose. No leader of an empire ever truly believes the religions used to manipulate subjects. That would be like a drug dealer hooked on his product; its bad for business...<BR/><BR/><B>Understanding why religion is strong delusion</B><BR/><BR/>Christians often quote things like "know them by their fruits," yet after millennia of being duped into abetting blatantly evil scoundrels, many still don't understand the meaning or import of much of what they read. The same canon paradoxically propounds "faith," which means the complete opposite of "know them by their fruits," i.e., to discern the truth by analyzing deeds and results (works) and to weigh actions instead of merely believing what is said.<BR/><BR/>The deceptive circular logic of posing a fantasy messiah who urges both discernment of the truth and faith (belief without proof) clearly represents a skillful and purposeful effort to impose ignorance and confusion through "strong delusion." Any sage worth his salt could understand the folly of this contradictory so-called wisdom. This and mountains of evidence demonstrate that faith and religion are the opposite of truth and wisdom. It is no wonder charlatans like Rove, Bush, and others have marked Christians as dupes to be milked as long and as hard as possible. Any accomplished con artist easily recognizes religion as the ultimate scam and fervent followers as ready-made marks and dupes.<BR/><BR/>We now live in an era where science has proven so much about the vastness, rationality, mathematical preciseness, and structural orderliness throughout every level of our 11-dimension universe. Nonetheless, large percentages of people still conclude that these flawed and contradictory religious canons are the unmodified and infallible "word of God." People who can't (or won't) discern the difference between truth and belief are easily misled about the differences between good and evil, wisdom and folly, perfection and error, reason and irrationality, and right and wrong. <BR/><BR/>The fact that political leaders have always had close relationships with religious leaders while cooperating to manipulate followers to gain wealth and power is overwhelming evidence that the true purpose of religion is deception and delusion. People who are unable to effectively discern basic moral choices or to reason accurately are easily indoctrinated to follow the dictates of national and imperial leaders who wrap themselves in religious pretense. Truth and wisdom are direct threats to the existence and power of empires. That is why imperial leaders always strive to hide so-called secret knowledge and impose deception and ignorance upon their subjects.<BR/><BR/><B><I>What then is the purpose of "faith" but to prevent otherwise good people from seeking to understand truth and wisdom?</I></B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://exposing-religious-deception.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Read More...</A><BR/><BR/>Peace...Seven Star Handhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15707393570093417590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34805796.post-1161100631095982372006-10-17T11:57:00.000-04:002006-10-17T11:57:00.000-04:00Oh, David Kelsey, you always know just what to say...Oh, David Kelsey, you always know just what to say. One day, I will be as eloquent and concise as you are.harleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18147082501818375715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34805796.post-1161099182650461042006-10-17T11:33:00.000-04:002006-10-17T11:33:00.000-04:00It seems that agnostics tend to be nicer, or at le...It seems that agnostics tend to be nicer, or at least less "ends justifies the means" like, than either fundamentalist religious folk or fundmanetalist atheists.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the greatest thing we can do for improving the world is not spread faith, but rather, spread doubt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34805796.post-1161094040847179622006-10-17T10:07:00.000-04:002006-10-17T10:07:00.000-04:00My comment from 10:05 with the correct citation:Be...My comment from 10:05 with the correct citation:<BR/><BR/>Beside the seething anger, you make excellent points. I should have clarified that I was responding to Dawkins's interview on Slate and not his book. He is entirely correct when he asserts that people use faith to justify their violence and I said so in my post. I apologize if you found my writing to be jargon; that's the biggest critique I get in my academic work, also. I highly respect Dawkins's work and agree with many of his views. I also think there are moments, such as in the Slate interview, when he is incendiary instead of insightful.harleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18147082501818375715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34805796.post-1161093927335671662006-10-17T10:05:00.000-04:002006-10-17T10:05:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.harleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18147082501818375715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34805796.post-1161043561320207812006-10-16T20:06:00.000-04:002006-10-16T20:06:00.000-04:00Your comment on Dawkins work is tawdrdy sophistry ...Your comment on Dawkins work is tawdrdy sophistry masquerading in the impressive sounding jargon of the pseudo logician. <BR/><BR/>I only read the first four paragraphs before giving up in disgust and will refute them below, but before I do I think it is compelling to point out that Dawkins (of whom I am not an unreserved fan) does not feel the need to write in an oblique jargonized style in order to dress up his writing. His reasoning is clear, lucid and simply expressed, stylistic touches which are usually an indication of seriousness when discussing matters of pure reason. <BR/><BR/>Now to refute the innane gibberish you spout in your third and fourth paragraphs. You use the truism that 'relgion is not theism' as some sort of refutation of Dawkins arguments. Dawkins does not claim that it is, a merely superficial reading of his work would show that his concern is between those who prefer rational, science-based understandings of phenomena and those who prefer supernatural (i.e. faith based) explanations for phenomena. Your supposed refutation is therefore meaningless and pointless.<BR/><BR/>As to your second point that he confuses association with cause, you dance through a dozen hoops in considering everything except the question of whether there actually is a connection between religious faith and violence/malfeasance. Where does Dawkins say that religion is the exclusive cause of the world's maladies? Therefore, what is the point of your citing such phenomena as earthquakes, nazism, etc? <BR/><BR/>To be honest I was reading your article with an open mind up to this point as I am not a through-and-through supporter of Dawkins ideas but you completely floated off into nonsense here. I could go on but won't. Stop messing around with high sounding latin expressions and work on your core reasoning a little more. <BR/><BR/>Dawkins main point that people's insistince that just because they have 'faith' that something is true therefore justifies their violent actions is a very strong one, and one back by much historical and contempory evidence. Are you capable of writing a straightforward refutation of this idea? I doubt it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com