Is religion devised stupidity to control the people?

[exchemist]

The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby – who has two grace-and-favour homes including Lambeth Palace – is paid £83,400


Police paid less , army paid less , where money come from pay him

So Sustainer, back again already, eh? And this time pretending not to be English?

Well, it makes a change from nonsense science, I suppose.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

O earth. It's heavens. No humans. First advice I will name earth a God. I will claim science of God is to know substances I can use and change. Earth products.






As you cannot argue self presence. The human thinking.

A human scientist.

Do you know God then scientist?

What substance is earth?

A rock he said pretty basic let's give a planet a name. Then claim human law says so.

Scientist do you know what rock was when it wasn't a Rock?

Not possible he said. If I pretend the planet rock does not exist then any type of body or substance on it would be destroyed.

As I am not just discussing the planet itself.

First means a machine theist science claim I know by experimentation using machine parts made out of rocks substances is lying?

Answer yes. Why humans wrote the bible against sophist lying. Human theism.

Pretty basic God planet earth advice. No scientist knew god.

Science asks everyone as a theist what do you know about God.

They ask for science. They don't ask for or as a belief.

If science asks prove God to me....either the scientist actually wants you to tell them what God is or the scientist is asking another scientist what is your claim in science as a status...God.

To argue thesis. Humans theorising science laws for machine conditions reacting.

Why God in human presence is an argument.

First advice I find is: God named this planet Earth as per Genesis 1:10.
ALL the rest of the planets are named by people.

 

[Sheldon]

First advice I find is: God named this planet Earth as per Genesis 1:10.
ALL the rest of the planets are named by people.

Hahahahahhahahahaha, bar none, this is the funniest post I've ever read, kudos. There simply aren't enough smiley faces for that, well well, it can't be good for me to laugh that hard at my age.

 

[Sheldon]

So you speak only about one form of Christianity in your rant against religion

If you could make a comparable demonstration of even one example of objective evidence for any of your claims, your criticism might be a little less ironic.

 

[Sheldon]

You may find people within religious leadership who exploit the "system" but again, that is not the main issue of religious practice.

No true Scotsman fallacy...again...

 

[Sheldon]

You do know that the Imam you mention was a businessman, and his wealth comes from business, not by exploition of poor people?

You mean because business never use exploitation?

Or that business never exploits religion, or vice versa?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you could make a comparable demonstration of even one example of objective evidence for any of your claims, your criticism might be a little less ironic.

As I said a few times alread. I have no need to prove my personal belief, since you or other non-believers have no understanding of spiritual practice and that it is personal to each practitioner, so my answer wouldonly mean something to me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You mean because business never use exploitation?

Or that business never exploits religion, or vice versa?

Mundane business and money has nothing to do with spiritual practice

 

[exchemist]

No true Scotsman fallacy...again...

So if someone were to say that all blacks are thieves, and you were to point out that most of them are not, that would be the No True Scotsman fallacy, would it?

 

[Sheldon]

I have no clue what it cost, nor does it bother me personally, I am not interested in money or what othets spend their money on, for me, the important is the spiritual aspects of the practice

You mean like the RCC's long history of their spiritual practice of selling indulgences?

Like charging grieving parents a fee, to buy their dead baby out of purgatory, when it died before it could be baptised, that was sold as a spiritual practice.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You mean like the RCC's long history of their spiritual practice of selling indulgences?

Like charging grieving parents a fee, to buy their dead baby out of purgatory, when it died before it could be baptised, that was sold as a spiritual practice.

I don't know anything about RCC

 

[Sheldon]

Mundane business and money has nothing to do with spiritual practice

Ah, another of your bare claims.

Well of course as an atheist, I don't believe spiritual matters exist.
However the RCC sold indulgences for centuries, these were spiritual matters to them. Then there were the vast monies they generated for the Vatican coffers from selling spiritual relics? Tithing, avoiding paying tax themselves, church collections, and on and on. There are simply too many examples to ignore here, despite your valiant efforts.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ah, another of your bare claims.

Well of course as an atheist, I don't believe spiritual matters exist.
However the RCC sold indulgences for centuries, these were spiritual matters to them. Then there were the vast monies they generated for the Vatican coffers from selling spiritual relics? Tithing, avoiding paying tax themselves, church collections, and on and on. There are simply too many examples to ignore here, despite your valiant efforts.

Since you come to RF you haven't made one nice comment on any RF spiritual or religious person.

You have not proven for one second that your claim of "All Religions have no truth in them since nobody can give you "proof" you accept as YOU proof"

You havent had one full serious comment about anyone except about your self..

Bye bye Sheldon

 

[Sheldon]

I don't know anything about RCC

So you deny a point in a debate forum, then when facts are presented deny those, then finally try to use ignorance as an excuse? You could try honestly examining the claims, do you know what indulgences were? That'd be a good start, for you to see your claim that "spiritual matters have nothing to do with money" is risible. Then there's the sale of holy relics of course, largely forbidden now by the church, but that was not always the case. The Vatican is a sovereign city-state with its own economy.

 

[Sheldon]

Since you come to RF you haven't made one nice comment on any RF spiritual or religious person.

Is that the main purpose of debate?

You have not proven for one second that your claim of "All Religions have no truth in them since nobody can give you "proof" you accept as YOU proof"

I've never made that claim, tut tut. Is it nice to misrepresent someone like that?

You havent had one full serious comment about anyone except about your self..

What utter rubbish, now you're just indulging in ad hominem.

Bye bye Sheldon

Debate is not for everyone of course, some theists struggle to cope with their beliefs being critically scrutinised.

 

[Sheldon]

If it was not for god nothing would exist.

I don't believe you, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for this claim?

 

[Sheldon]

As I said a few times alread. I have no need to prove my personal belief,

And I have explained this is a public debate forum, no one gets to just reel off unevidenced claims unchallenged.

since you or other non-believers have no understanding of spiritual practice and that it is personal to each practitioner, so my answer wouldonly mean something to me.

Yet another no true Scotsman fallacy. Besides you have not attempted to explain or evidence a single of your many many claims as fare as I can see.

 

[1213]

Which religious leaders do that?

By what I know, for example Catholic Church did that at one point.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

By what I know, for example Catholic Church did that at one point.

When my uncle died the priest said he heard Mr. K. was a pius man, then the word "BUT" entered his speech.
That "BUT" was to buy prayers to get him out of purgatory.
How odd since Romans 6:7, 23 says the dead are acquitted of their sins.

 

[PruePhillip]

I can fathom what you're trying to say sorry, and the unnecessary line breaks do not help. I am still none the wiser as to the context of those stats, or what question you're suggesting they ask or answer?

Well, you CAN fathom what I am saying. Not sure how else I could answer the question about to whether religious people are stupid are not, other than looking at the worlds religious and secularists build.