Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< a long semantic exercise that missed my point entirely >>>[/quote]Dr.Matt581 I am honored sir that you would take time from your day to address my long standing challenge that has now found it’s way into this thread though it is much more comprehensively explored in several others. Before we go further I would like to take this opportunity to fully acknowledge that I do not pretend to command your expertise in any of the academic domains in which you have undoubtedly worked very hard to earn your truly commendable level of accreditation. I doubt I would ever have that type of formal discipline. I have also read enough of your posts to tip my hat respectfully to your rather impressive cerebral prowess. That is not in question either.

I cannot tell you how elated I am that we are speaking. I hope it continues. [/quote]

Then what did you mean when you said:

My post explained why 2 + 2 = 4 and can never equal anything else in the number system I defined, which is the one that the vast majority of people on the planet use, just with different names for the numbers. If you can provide me an example where the properties and axioms I laid out do not hold up I would love to hear it. What exactly did you mean?

[quote]
I hope it continues because I intend to demonstrate, with your help of course, that the foundational position that I hold is utterly impervious to any attack from any human being, regardless of how capable, or level of academic achievement in any field or fields. Anything you can possibly be lettered in is built upon my foundation. Take note I implore you, that I did not say that I will defeat you in a debate. No sir. While I have grateful confidence in the giftings my God has blessed me with, the power is in my position, not my person. I am merely a vessel and a highly unlikely one at that. [/quote]

Here you have lost me completely. What exactly are you talking about?

[quote]
Now. Your above post can be summarized as follows. Once we assign necessary but arbitrary axiomatic linguistic symbols to the abstract components of the equation, the outcome is self evident. Please verify, if you would, whether that is accurate or not before we go any further. [/quote]

The symbols we use to represent numbers and to describe mathematical operations are arbitrary, but the underlying operations are not. If you come upon a group of identical rocks and you take a single rock and put it in an empty bucket, you have what I defined above as the operation “1 + 0 = 1” if you put another one in the same bucket you now have the operation “1 + 1 = 2.”

You can never take a single rock, put it in an empty container and get anything other then what is equivalent to the one rock that you put in. For example, say it is a fragile rock and breaks into 4 equal pieces (they do not have to be equal pieces, it just makes this example easier). Now you have added a single object to an empty container and now you have 4, right? No, those 4 objects are now fundamentally different from the single rock that you started with and arbitrarily defined as “1” but they add up to be exactly equivalent to the single rock that you put into the bucket.

What you now have is the beginning of an axiomatic definition of division, which is breaking a larger object or group into smaller objects or groups that add up to equal the original object or group. I could go through and axiomatically define all of the algebraic properties if you would like, or if you would prefer to study the subject yourself, I can recommend some reading material on number theory and algebraic analysis.

102

You know, I don’t disagree with you here; this whole existence could be an illusion. Where we part ways is at how likely it is that existence might be an illusion. If it’s a 50/50 chance then I’d have to admit what you’re saying is correct, but I don’t believe that.

We’re here and I believe that the chance that our existence is not an illusion is 99.9%. This is certain enough to behave in a manner that’s equal to 100% certainty.

And yet I find it far easier to believe you’re real than, say, god eventhough you can’t prove god’s existence absolutely. Yet somehow you believe that something as unprovable as god is real, but I’m not.

Why is that?

A number of what, exactly? There can be a number of planets in a star system but without the mind giving it a number, a label, there are just planets.

Absorb other people’s ideas, parrot theory and even conflate them to suit my own beliefs and worldviews? I could do that, but I’d feel insincere and dishonest. This is how I study, and I’m truely grateful you’re assisting my in my studies…

103

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< underlying operations >>>[/quote]Tell me about these. If you would please Sir. I am not interested in the arbitrary linguistic symbolism. That’s the paint job. I wanna know why she runs. We could say wopplydoo uhugt wopplydoo ferbst blooberdwiddle and if we mutually agree that wopplydoo, uhugt, ferbst and blooberdwiddle are now valid representations of what we once called two, plus, equals and four respectively, we’ve explained absolutely nothing of what 2 + = and 4 ACTUALLY are, where they come from, why they’re here and our utter inability to function without them. Most importantly of all for the purposes of this discussion, you haven’t told my IF and HOW you’re certain about ANY of this.

You’re tellin me what stuff’s called. I’m askin you how and why it works and if and how you’re sure. If you don’t know how and why it works and if and how you’re sure, then who does? If nobody, then where does that leave us?
I meant it when I told you I appreciate your time BTW.

104

[quote]ephrem wrote:[quote] pat wrote: This whole existence can be an illusion. [/quote]You know, I don’t disagree with you here; this whole existence could be an illusion. Where we part ways is at how likely it is that existence might be an illusion. If it’s a 50/50 chance then I’d have to admit what you’re saying is correct, but I don’t believe that. We’re here and I believe that the chance that our existence is not an illusion is 99.9%. This is certain enough to behave in a manner that’s equal to 100% certainty. [quote] pat wrote: I am likely very real, but I cannot prove it absolutely. [/quote] And yet I find it far easier to believe you’re real than, say, god eventhough you can’t prove god’s existence absolutely. Yet somehow you believe that something as unprovable as god is real, but I’m not. Why is that? [quote] pat wrote: The objects of the mind exist independently of it. The mind is a way to detect it but deductively it exists independently. A number for instance, will still be a number whether you are aware of it or not, if you exist or not.[/quote] A number of what, exactly? There can be a number of planets in a star system but without the mind giving it a number, a label, there are just planets. [quote] pat wrote: You need to study.[/quote] Absorb other people’s ideas, parrot theory and even conflate them to suit my own beliefs and worldviews? I could do that, but I’d feel insincere and dishonest. This is how I study, and I’m truely grateful you’re assisting my in my studies…[/quote]This conversation should REALLY concern Pat, but it won’t. Pat you may be the least intellectually consistent smart person I have ever seen. How you can dare to attribute all these “maybes” and “likelys” to the Christian God is a marvel indeed as well. What’s even more marvelous is the fact that if you could see this you’d say you weren’t attributing these to the Christian God. Probability in a logical unbiblical vacuum.

105

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< underlying operations >>>[/quote]Tell me about these. If you would please Sir. I am not interested in the arbitrary linguistic symbolism. That’s the paint job. I wanna know why she runs. We could say wopplydoo uhugt wopplydoo ferbst blooberdwiddle and if we mutually agree that wopplydoo, uhugt, ferbst and blooberdwiddle are now valid representations of what we once called two, plus, equals and four respectively, we’ve explained absolutely nothing of what 2 + = and 4 ACTUALLY are, where they come from, why they’re here and our utter inability to function without them. Most importantly of all for the purposes of this discussion, you haven’t told my IF and HOW you’re certain about ANY of this.

You’re tellin me what stuff’s called. I’m askin you how and why it works and if and how you’re sure. If you don’t know how and why it works and if and how you’re sure, then who does? If nobody, then where does that leave us?
I meant it when I told you I appreciate your time BTW. [/quote]

The reason my descriptions were vague and I just defined terms and axioms is because that is what pure mathematics is, it is purely abstract until you decide to impose it on a real system, and it is completely up to the person using number theory and algebraic properties such as addition to decide what they want to impose it upon. You can impose number theory on anything you want and once you have the axioms I posted will always hold true, all you have to do is define the object/objects you are attempting to quantify and specify what a single object is. You can even apply number theory to groups that contain different things. For example, say you want to count people in a restaurant. That is easy, we all can tell what a person is and differentiate one person and it is easy to define what a single person is. But, all people are not the same. Some of us are missing limbs or organs, some are bigger or smaller. You just have to specify any restrictions you are placing on your quantification so that others can understand you. If you are just concerned with counting living people regardless of differences, then specify that. If you are only counting people that are female, specify that. If you just say people, specify what you are considering a person. When deciding what you are going to impose the axioms I defined earlier on, you need to decide what you are going to impose it on and how you will classify those object/s.

Defining zero is easy, it is simply an absence of what you are classifying. Imagine you are attempting to classify and quantify rocks. You decide what you will identify as a rock. You and I can both imagine a rock since we have been taught what to associate that series of noises with so I do not need to define a rock further. Now we will decide what properties of those rocks we want to quantify: size, shape, color, weight, texture, whatever. Let us imagine that we are trying to count the number of rocks that are the same size, regardless of weight. Now we must define a single rock. This is easy in this case, but is not always and sometimes requires great specificity, especially in my field. We can pick up a rock and separate it from a pile of others, unless there is an outside medium like an adhesive causing it to stick to another rock or object and it will not change at all and we can feel its physical boundaries. Now that we have defined a single rock and what properties about that rock that we are comparing with other objects.

Now we can begin to quantify. We have a single rock that has the property we are interested in and now we put it in a container that was devoid of any rocks. Using the axioms that I defined above, this can be symbolically defined as 1 + 0, which is 1. If you find another rock that has the qualities you are quantifying and put it in the bucket, you have the operation 1 + 1 = 2, and it can never be anything else. You will never be able to put a single rock as it was defined into a bucket and get several rocks that all are exactly identical in every way to the original rock. If, when you put a rock into the bucket and it changes in such a way that it no longer has the properties you are quantifying then it now has a value of 0, since it represents an absence of the qualities you are quantifying. That does not necessarily mean that it is no longer a physical object, or that it does not exist, just that it no longer represents the properties that you are quantifying and you are likely entering into the realm of division.

I think this is where your confusion about number theory is coming from. Numbers by themselves have no intrinsic meaning until you impose them onto real objects, that is why when you ask someone what 2 is, they will probably look at you like you are an idiot. 2 is just a number that can represent objects that need to be defined and classified first before the number 2 has any real world meaning. The algebraic properties (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division), however, will always hold whenever you impose a number/counting system on real objects.

106

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
If God wanted to deliver his message, why did he only deliver it to very few people using text, and then beyond that make it difficult to understand? Why wouldn’t he make it very clear so that there is no question at all?
[/quote]
This is the whole “Why isn’t God more obvious” argument. I don’t know since I am not God. [/quote]

Ok but what is your opinion on how ridiculous it is for anyone to accept that an all powerful being capable of creating other beings isn’t capable of coming to earth to talk to us and instead just gives some vague book to a few people? Don’t you think that it’s pretty bad communication for an all powerful God?

If there was a company on Earth called God and they had no phone system, no email, no building, no employees, no nothing except an old book that someone found, would you do business with this company? How would you even go about attempting to do business with a company that has no fucking system of communication? HELLO!? ANYBODY THERE?!

No but I’m supposed to dedicate my time and my life to worshiping some asshole who never came to talk to us. Oh but he left this book, see!

All powerful creator my ass. [/quote]

LOLOLOLOLOL! One of the best posts ever!

Joe, this stuff is so bizarre that I think ppl invented it just to short circuit the thinking process if someone followed it. Dummies afterall are easier to rule.[/quote]
Get a room you two. You are the worst and least knowledgeable debater here. [/quote]

You are the Master De-bater.

Debating whether fantasy beings exist…yeah…LOLOLOLOLOL!

107

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< I think this is where your confusion about number theory is coming from. >>>[/quote]I promise I’m not confused. I also promise that I will not be able to answer until later tonight at the earliest and that I will never ignore you. I have left people hangin like this before, quite unintentionally, but will find a way not to let that happen with you. I wish I could promise that HeadHunter will say something worth reading soon, but alas it does not appear to be likely.

108

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
If God wanted to deliver his message, why did he only deliver it to very few people using text, and then beyond that make it difficult to understand? Why wouldn’t he make it very clear so that there is no question at all?
[/quote]
This is the whole “Why isn’t God more obvious” argument. I don’t know since I am not God.
[/quote]

Ok but what is your opinion on how ridiculous it is for anyone to accept that an all powerful being capable of creating other beings isn’t capable of coming to earth to talk to us and instead just gives some vague book to a few people? Don’t you think that it’s pretty bad communication for an all powerful God?
[/quote]
He did come to Earth. And he communicated well. He taught us to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. To do good rather than bad. To live a life of respect and dignity. It’s in the book. It’s a pretty big book to and I would hardly call it vague. Multifaceted, but not vague.
[/quote]

A: You have no way of knowing if your holy book is authentic.
B: Your holy book is immoral.
C: Why no communication now? (And don’t say prayer because there have been prayer studies and I’ve prayed myself and nobody speaks back, prayer is a complete and utter waste of resources)

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
If there was a company on Earth called God and they had no phone system, no email, no building, no employees, no nothing except an old book that someone found, would you do business with this company? How would you even go about attempting to do business with a company that has no fucking system of communication? HELLO!? ANYBODY THERE?!
[/quote]

If being religious didn’t work, nobody would do it. There is value. The book is about relating to God, to understand his ways and why they work better than our ways. That if we stay the course we will be alright and the people around us will be benefited from our existence because we give from the heart out of love. And you can communicate with him, it’s call prayer.
[/quote]

The point isn’t whether there is value, because first off any value religion does bring can be obtained without religion, and on Earth religion brings an overall negative effect. It divisive and makes people crazy. It literally is just like a virus actually. The bad outweighs the good. And once again, prayer doesn’t work. If you’ve ever actually prayed with an open mind you would know this lol

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
No but I’m supposed to dedicate my time and my life to worshiping some asshole who never came to talk to us. Oh but he left this book, see!

All powerful creator my ass. [/quote]

You don’t have to dedicate your life to anybody or anything. It’s totally your choice, which you clearly made. But that’s your problem. If you can get along with out God in your live, then fine. I cannot.
As far as creation, well seeing as you can’t do anything about it, that you have so little control over it, I would argue that he is at least more powerful than you are.[/quote]

Actually it’s not my choice what I believe. It’s not yours either. I can only believe what I am convinced of. For example my name Joe, I cannot choose to believe my name is Chris, because I know that inside I truly believe my name is Joe. So there is no choice in that case.

The same goes for religion for me, until I am presented with sufficient evidence to believe in a higher power, I won’t believe. And I cannot just choose to believe.

The difference is a lot of people don’t really care if their beliefs are true…Or they have believed for so long that their senses are dulled and they aren’t really thinking in terms of “Does this actually make sense?” which I try and always ask about every situation. Unless I’ve had some scotch in me then it gets iffy…

109

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
If God wanted to deliver his message, why did he only deliver it to very few people using text, and then beyond that make it difficult to understand? Why wouldn’t he make it very clear so that there is no question at all?
[/quote]
This is the whole “Why isn’t God more obvious” argument. I don’t know since I am not God. [/quote]

Ok but what is your opinion on how ridiculous it is for anyone to accept that an all powerful being capable of creating other beings isn’t capable of coming to earth to talk to us and instead just gives some vague book to a few people? Don’t you think that it’s pretty bad communication for an all powerful God?

If there was a company on Earth called God and they had no phone system, no email, no building, no employees, no nothing except an old book that someone found, would you do business with this company? How would you even go about attempting to do business with a company that has no fucking system of communication? HELLO!? ANYBODY THERE?!

No but I’m supposed to dedicate my time and my life to worshiping some asshole who never came to talk to us. Oh but he left this book, see!

All powerful creator my ass. [/quote]

LOLOLOLOLOL! One of the best posts ever!

Joe, this stuff is so bizarre that I think ppl invented it just to short circuit the thinking process if someone followed it. Dummies afterall are easier to rule.[/quote]
Get a room you two. You are the worst and least knowledgeable debater here. [/quote]

Haha. Trust me there is no debate.

110

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.”[/quote]

That quote doesn’t make any sense.

“for those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.”

That’s the part that doesn’t make sense. I don’t believe, and there is a very clear explanation to me about religion and the bible. So therefore an explanation is possible to those who don’t believe, and therefore that quote is nonsense.

111

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< a long semantic exercise that missed my point entirely >>>[/quote]Dr.Matt581 I am honored sir that you would take time from your day to address my long standing challenge that has now found it’s way into this thread though it is much more fully explored in several others. Before we go further I would like to take this opportunity to fully acknowledge that I do not pretend to command your expertise in any of the academic domains in which you have undoubtedly worked very hard to earn your truly commendable level of accreditation. I doubt I would ever have that type of formal discipline. I have also read enough of your posts to tip my hat respectfully to your rather impressive cerebral prowess. That is not in question.

I cannot tell you how elated I am that we are speaking. I hope it continues.

I hope it continues because I intend to demonstrate, with your help of course, that the foundational position that I hold is utterly impervious to any attack from any human being, regardless of how capable, or level of academic achievement in any field or fields. Anything you can possibly be lettered in is built upon what I’m talkin about. Take note I implore you, that I did not say that I will defeat you in a debate. No sir. While I have grateful confidence in the giftings my God has blessed me with, the power is in my position, not my person. I am merely a vessel and a highly unlikely one at that.

Now. Your above post can be summarized as follows. Once we assign arbitrary axiomatic linguistic symbols to the abstract components of the equation the outcome is self evident. Please verify, if you would, whether that is accurate or not before we go any further.

[quote]colt44 wrote:<<< your Theologically beliefs can still remain intact. >>>[/quote]No. My Christian ones cannot, but thank you. You’ll find plenty of deceived and deluded company around here who will be glad to take your hand though. I would sooner submit to being skinned alive.

[/quote]

Trib I Must confess, every time I see a post of yours I do one of two things, comletely skip over it (and I’d say that’s about 90% of the time) or read it. When I actually take the time to see what you have to say, you bring a smile to my face:) Perhaps not for the reasons you would want me to, but thank you for providing me with such wonderful entertainment.[/quote]

I think it’s just painful so I skip it most of the time, unless I am trying to figure out what somebody else is talking about.[/quote]

Haha poor Tribulus. Seems like he might actually need God for his depression. But yes he’s good for a laugh at least. Trib try smoking a joint instead!

112

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:<<< When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?[/quote]YOU TOO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
[/quote]

Haha yeah right Tribulus. You literally deny evolution right in the face of evidence. You’ve clearly expressed in your posts that you’re literally afraid to accept it because your Christian Beliefs will be affected.

I have a sneaking suspicion you know evolution is true, and that you’re really just being a weakling by running away from the truth. There’s a reason people on this board think you’re a little nutty.

113

600×750 60.1 KB

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
The same goes for religion for me, until I am presented with sufficient evidence to believe in a higher power, I won’t believe. And I cannot just choose to believe.

The difference is a lot of people don’t really care if their beliefs are true…Or they have believed for so long that their senses are dulled and they aren’t really thinking in terms of “Does this actually make sense?” which I try and always ask about every situation. Unless I’ve had some scotch in me then it gets iffy…

[/quote]

Joe, have you forgotten Doublethink? (1984) In this world, things have to make sense but in magicland, anything goes – the creator of the world gets pissed at his creations, decides to redeem them by being born as his own son from a virgin. Then dies a horrible death while onlookers have a picnic. Then the dead guy comes back to life to prove that magicland exists and that we can go to magicland when we die if we believe all this.

Then, if your mind says this is all nonsense, you turn off your mind and believe it anyway. Becoming a robot is the key to salvation.

114
115

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
The same goes for religion for me, until I am presented with sufficient evidence to believe in a higher power, I won’t believe. And I cannot just choose to believe.

The difference is a lot of people don’t really care if their beliefs are true…Or they have believed for so long that their senses are dulled and they aren’t really thinking in terms of “Does this actually make sense?” which I try and always ask about every situation. Unless I’ve had some scotch in me then it gets iffy…

[/quote]

Joe, have you forgotten Doublethink? (1984) In this world, things have to make sense but in magicland, anything goes – the creator of the world gets pissed at his creations, decides to redeem them by being born as his own son from a virgin. Then dies a horrible death while onlookers have a picnic. Then the dead guy comes back to life to prove that magicland exists and that we can go to magicland when we die if we believe all this.

Then, if your mind says this is all nonsense, you turn off your mind and believe it anyway. Becoming a robot is the key to salvation. [/quote]

That was beautiful. Quite poetic. You should write a Holy Book. Start a new age religion. That’s funny though because I don’t think any new religions would be accepted, they’d just get shit on unless something supernatural actually occurred and everyone saw it. But all the supernatural claims contained in Religious myths/fairy tales would never be accepted today if someone claimed that they happened in the modern era. People only believe it if it’s really really old, when you should actually believe it less when it’s older, not , ya know, make it a large part of your life…

116

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Tribulus, you are truly a fool if you believe anything written down in that book. Imagine if you never heard of Christianity and you found that book in a bookstore and started…actually this just reminded me of:

117

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
The same goes for religion for me, until I am presented with sufficient evidence to believe in a higher power, I won’t believe. And I cannot just choose to believe.

The difference is a lot of people don’t really care if their beliefs are true…Or they have believed for so long that their senses are dulled and they aren’t really thinking in terms of “Does this actually make sense?” which I try and always ask about every situation. Unless I’ve had some scotch in me then it gets iffy…

[/quote]

Joe, have you forgotten Doublethink? (1984) In this world, things have to make sense but in magicland, anything goes – the creator of the world gets pissed at his creations, decides to redeem them by being born as his own son from a virgin. Then dies a horrible death while onlookers have a picnic. Then the dead guy comes back to life to prove that magicland exists and that we can go to magicland when we die if we believe all this.

Then, if your mind says this is all nonsense, you turn off your mind and believe it anyway. Becoming a robot is the key to salvation. [/quote]

That was beautiful. Quite poetic. You should write a Holy Book. Start a new age religion. That’s funny though because I don’t think any new religions would be accepted, they’d just get shit on unless something supernatural actually occurred and everyone saw it. But all the supernatural claims contained in Religious myths/fairy tales would never be accepted today if someone claimed that they happened in the modern era. People only believe it if it’s really really old, when you should actually believe it less when it’s older, not , ya know, make it a large part of your life…
[/quote]

Is this shit for real? You two are obviously the same person.

118

You’ll get used to it.

119

I hope my explanation of the philosophy of science wasn’t too off Dr. Matt in case you skimmed through it in part #1.

120

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
The same goes for religion for me, until I am presented with sufficient evidence to believe in a higher power, I won’t believe. And I cannot just choose to believe.

The difference is a lot of people don’t really care if their beliefs are true…Or they have believed for so long that their senses are dulled and they aren’t really thinking in terms of “Does this actually make sense?” which I try and always ask about every situation. Unless I’ve had some scotch in me then it gets iffy…

[/quote]

Joe, have you forgotten Doublethink? (1984) In this world, things have to make sense but in magicland, anything goes – the creator of the world gets pissed at his creations, decides to redeem them by being born as his own son from a virgin. Then dies a horrible death while onlookers have a picnic. Then the dead guy comes back to life to prove that magicland exists and that we can go to magicland when we die if we believe all this.

Then, if your mind says this is all nonsense, you turn off your mind and believe it anyway. Becoming a robot is the key to salvation. [/quote]

That was beautiful. Quite poetic. You should write a Holy Book. Start a new age religion. That’s funny though because I don’t think any new religions would be accepted, they’d just get shit on unless something supernatural actually occurred and everyone saw it. But all the supernatural claims contained in Religious myths/fairy tales would never be accepted today if someone claimed that they happened in the modern era. People only believe it if it’s really really old, when you should actually believe it less when it’s older, not , ya know, make it a large part of your life…
[/quote]

Is this shit for real? You two are obviously the same person.
[/quote]

You mean that only one person can think that faith is irrational?

Religion was invented by men but for the opposite of what you think. Religion was invented to SEPERATE us from God. God wants to speak to us but we have put FALSE IDOLS between ourselves and God. Why did the whole Reformation happen? Because roman catholicism, the worst of the lot, had completely made talking to God a sin; only priests could do this.

Man is made in God’s image. The highest attribute of Man is his mind. So thinking should be our highest virtue. But faith destroys that, demanding that we shut off our reason and accept faith in its place.

The whole purpose of organised religion is centered in hatred of Man and his mind. Organised religion seeks to seperate man from God and put itself in God’s place. As such, it really is evil incarnate.