Scientists Prove That All Religious Books Are Man-Made Nonsense

[cleanhippie]

The following post is a link from a news article. I neither endorse nor condemn this article. I present it as a topic for discussion, nothing more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The scientists headed by Doctor Julius Sanreso, welcomed the research findings and said that it would be in the interests of those who believe in such nonsense as organised religion or creationism to accept the fact that religious books were written by men as a control system.

"Just think for one second, if 'God' or a 'messenger of God' had written that particular religious book/bible, how come the writings only occur within a very limited period in human history? Also, consider the fact, that a human writing on a piece of paper, or a few pieces of paper, is not the word of 'God'. If they were really written by a universal God or entity, the books would not be limited to some pre-medievel costume drama but would encompass all universality and science. God would presumably be universal and timeless as well as all-knowing, as is the universe, therefore these man-written books and scriptures, are just that, man-written nonsense used to control men and women thousands of years ago. Why would 'God' write anything anyway? One must consider the fact that, even now, there are religious zealots and ordinary people still entrenched in a control belief system that is so far removed from reality that it borders on madness. There is no rational or scientific way that organised religions can have a modicum of truth or factual reality because of the very reason that these books are entombed in the time that they were written. These books should therefore simply be viewed as limited parables and historical fiction and as a lesson in how millions of people can be easily controlled."

--snip--

The problem for the world's political leaders, is that slowly, humans who were controlled for so many years by fictitious writings, may suddenly lose their controlled 'faith'. This could be quite dangerous, because it would mean that these people would suddenly wake up and realise that they have been fooled for so long by being communally hypnotised.

"We must ensure that the people who have been fooled for so long by fictitious belief systems utilised to control humans do not get too angry when they realise that what they believe in is nonsense written by humans. This could be dangerous for society, so we must either let them carry on believing their fiction or try to somehow support them when they realise the truth," Dr Sanreso said.

The research paper will be published in its entirety in 2015.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/index.php?news=3102

[rug]

1. The Daily Squib is the British Onion.

Here's a cute one:

"Scottish Voice Recognition Software May Take Years to Develop"
By Scragger Bawbag

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/sci_tech/3077-scottish-voice-recognition-software-may-take-years-to-develop.html

[cleanhippie]

2. Ahh, I was wondering if it was parody or not. Poe's Law strikes again.

[Jim__]

4. I woo naa ah noowin that twer a spoof.

I used to work for a company that did contract work with IBM and we wound up working with an IBM office in England. We had a lot of conference calls with them. One of their people was Scottish. A brilliant guy, he knew the whole system and could answer any question off the top of his head. But I couldn't understand a word he said - well maybe one or two words.

I'd always tell him, "John, I'll send you an e-mail." And he'd always reply with something that would have somewhere in the stream, "... oon the phoone, ere en noow ...," which I think meant he wanted to answer the question right there on the phone. So, I'd ask and I'd get about 10 minutes of, "Ah woods loch thes wee siri telephain tae kin whit aam bludy weel sayin. Ya Bas!" After which I'd say, "Thanks, John." Then I'd wait a few hours and send him an e-mail with the same question. The problem was that by then he'd gone home and I'd have to wait 'til the next day to get the answer.

[silverweb]

24. That's hilarious!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]You're a patient man, that's for sure!

[rug]

31. Lol!

Maybe The Squib got their story right.

[MarkCharles]

3. I only read the first paragraph before I suspected ...

that it might be The Onion. Then I saw the link, ah yes, the UK's equivalent, which someone has already pointed out.

I do see an inverse relationship between those that understand science and the firmness of their beliefs in Biblical absolutes or vice versa.

All in all, I think religions of any variety serve more of an emotional and social value to most followers, although I find those that firmly believe in what is stated in the Bible or Quran or whatever book tend to have a much lower opinion of the value of scientific findings to their lives.

[Dorian Gray]

5. It's

not as funny as The Onion.

[humblebum]

6. Just more typical radical atheistic blather. The entire premise is contrived

and manipulated. They have defined their own concept of God, and then explained why such a god cannot exist. Everything in the article is defined within the very narrow perspective of atheistic thought, and clearly for the purpose of denigrating believers. Same story over and over. Not to be taken seriously as any credible proof or opinion.

[cbayer]

7. First, it has been pointed out that this is satire. Second, use of inflammatory language

aimed at atheists is really not helpful. Could you not have made your point without saying "typical radical atheistic blather"?

[Iggo]

8. It's useless to even try.

But thanks for trying anyway.

[humblebum]

9. I keep forgetting that we are not supposed to criticize atheism. Perhaps

you would care to list all of the words and phrases that can no longer be used around here. And I also stated that it was not to be taken seriously. Nonetheless, it is anti-religious in its tone, and it is wrong to publish such "inflammatory" articles here, but to not allow equally strong rebuttal. That makes no sense.

[cleanhippie]

11. Yawn

(To any potential jury: this is my opinion about this posters "argument" that is repeated ad nauseum. This has nothing to do with the poster himself.)

[cbayer]

13. You can do whatever you like. I am just pointing out that use of language

can either promote or shut down debate. You have broken no rules here, as far as I am concerned. But you set a tone that got the expected (and equally unhelpful) responses.

While I suspect that OP was initially posted as inflammatory, the fact that it is satire kind of took the wind out those sails, didn't it?

[cleanhippie]

10. And THIS is why he gets nothing but YAWN and Zzzzzzz from me.

Its the same shit, different day, over and over and over and over.

Some things will NEVER change, this is one of them.

[cbayer]

14. Something could change. You could just stay out of each other's way.

Unless, of course, you both get some kind of pleasure from this.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it tedious and boring and toxic to the group.

[cleanhippie]

15. Well, my post is only in response to that nonsense.

And any other type of response typically receives more of the same nonsense (see the responses below for examples).

I guess I could just put him on ignore, but then I would miss little gems like "where you see contradiction, I see confirmation."


My life would be just a bit less fulfilling had I not seen that.

[humblebum]

16. So why not just ban anything that bothers anybody in anyway? In any

lively discussion you are bound to have a few feathers ruffled. I would say again, if you are going to allow controversial articles to be displayed, it is just wrong, and undemocratic, not to allow controversial rebuttals.

Toxic, you say. I find nothing more toxic than trYing to establish a "groupthink" mentality. Not to imply that that is your intention, but that could and will happen if you try too hard to filter free open expression.

And when I say "toxic", I mean toxic to DU. Lively, heated discussion is at the heart of DU.

[cbayer]

17. I am all for lively discussion and even heated debate.

Ruffled feathers don't bother me nor do controversial articles.

What I personally object to is the purposeful use of hostile language that one knows will offend and incite.

There will never be groupthink in this group, but I think there can be civility.

[cleanhippie]

18. But, but, but, STALIN! And the "league of militant atheists!!!"

Sorry, I just could not resist. Poor impulse control.

[humblebum]

20. And some would even attempt to change or blot out historical fact. nt

[cleanhippie]

21. Is someone saying something?

See, cbayer, right on cue. As if its scripted or something.

[humblebum]

19. That only goes back to what constitutes,

"purposeful use of hostile language that one knows will offend and incite?" Terms like "hate" and "bigot" incite and offend. But, "blather" or "nonsense" - those I must question.

[cbayer]

22. I guess I would make the decision based on what kind of response I got when using

that language.

I recently found out that "gypped" is an offensive term to some people. Not saying I will never use that term again, but I won't use it loosely. And I certainly won't use it around people I know find it offensive and inciteful.

So if I am see that using a phrase like "typical radical atheist blather" creates a firestorm and spawns equally inciting or offensive responses, I would probably stay away from it.

Unless, of course, what I wanted to do was incite and offend (which I can not claim I never want to do).

[humblebum]

23. You should seriously consider making a list. Or perhaps eliminating all inflammatory articles. Just

because they are satirical, does not necessarily make them non-controversial. Satirical articles about race or sexual orientation, etc. are still considered controversial most of the time. Regardless, there is very much a danger here of hurting DU. I think you are being overly concerned and actually trying to shape something to suit your sensitivities.

[cbayer]

25. You can think that, but I will clearly define my aim here.

I want this group to be a welcoming place where believers of all sorts and non-believers of all sorts who want to discuss religion can come and have civil debate.

I want this group to be a place where we can join forces to promote Democratic principles and Democratic candidates, because I believe we have common ground.

I would like to eliminate the petty snipe fests and personal attacks that have been the hallmark of this group for a very long time, and the reason why many people who are interested in this topic avoid it.

We may or may not be able to achieve that goal, but I think I am working with a group of excellent and like-minded hosts who share those goals.

[humblebum]

28. The place to achieve like- minded political goals is not in a religious/atheist

forum. That is the purpose of the political oriented discussions.

[cbayer]

29. Disagree. This is a political website with clearly stated political goals.

The place to discuss religion without any thought to politics would be a religious/atheist site.

Most importantly, religion has exerted a tremendous (negative) influence in this country over the last 10 or more years. One of the best ways to combat that is to lessen their influence, and liberal, progressive religious groups have an important opportunity to do that.

Even though religion plays a big role in politics, the discussion of that is not really permitted outside of this group, so it can't be discussed elsewhere.

I really disagree with you on this point.

[humblebum]

30. Point taken. Good luck in your goals. Now if you will kindly go back and remove any

threads critical of religion or religious people, or any incidental language in them of which you disapprove, maybe we can proceed.

[humblebum]

12. So tell me. How is it that the statement,

"...All Religious Books Are Man-Made Nonsense" isn't inflammatory, but "typical radical atheist blather" is?

Or is "nonsense" more acceptible than "blather?" Both are not directed at individuals, except that the author affirmatively stated "ALL" religious books, while I clearly specified "radical" atheistic....

[skepticscott]

27. Hey if the truth is inflammatory

whose fault is that?

[mr blur]

26. Well, fooled you, it seems.