How is new earth creationism a more goofy belief than transubstantiation?

[Warren Stupidity]

A thread in gd points out how goofy creationists are by making fun of a proposed Noah's Ark addition to the creationism museum.

But why are these sorts of nonsensical beliefs in obvious nonsense any sillier than the standard beliefs of mainstream Christianity (or Islam or Judaism or any of the other major religions?)

The Eucharist performed in many Christian churches every week purports to transform bread and wine into the flesh and blood of god. To counter the obvious fact that the bread is still bread and that the wine is still wine, an entire goofball theoretical framework of Aristotelian physics is constructed, transubstantiation, that claims that the substance of what was bread has become flesh while it's continued observed bread-ness is 'an accident' an incidental property that is irrelevant to its transformed substance. This goofy nonsense is less goofy than new earth creationism how?

[Warpy]

1. It doesn't matter how goofy the dogma looks to outsiders

What these belief systems do is provide a little compartment in the brain that can be accessed in order to make the believer feel safe, no matter what is happening to him or around him.

It doesn't have to make any sense. It actually never makes much sense, especially when it's been handed down since the Bronze Age.

[rug]

2. This reminds me of another post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12309032#post12

[EvolveOrConvolve]

7. LOL, I thought you gave up the habit

[eqfan592]

12. Remember kids; he's always watching....

GAHOMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!

[rug]

41. Are you posting in a sealed, pressurized cylinder?

If you think you do, you should check the ToS.

[eqfan592]

70. Just because you can troll, doesn't mean you should troll.

So to answer your question; no, I don't think that, but that won't stop me from making fun of those who troll.

[rug]

73. Reading a DU group is not trolling, even if you say it.

Especially when that group is the source of the trolling.

Far be it from me to stop you from making fun of people who are spying on you.

[trotsky]

21. Are you kidding?

He can't quit us.

[rug]

23. Reading DU is a hard habit to break.

Almost as hard as giving up using a safe haven group to troll another DU group.

[eqfan592]

32. Or trolling a safe haven group for things to try...

...and use against people in another group.

[rug]

40. It's pretty clear who's trolling what group.

[Goblinmonger]

44. Yeah, you posted something

from a safe haven group in here in a clear ad hominem attempt to dismiss the OP.

What was that your Jesus said about a plank in the eye?

[rug]

46. I reposted an intent to disrupt originally posted in your group.

Why is it that whenever I see shit like this OP posted in Religion, there is often a prior post in A/A announcing it?

Oh, and that verse describes hypocrites.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Couple things

1. It's not "my group." I'm a host. I try to do what the subscribers to that group want and to make it run smoothly. Perhaps your friends that are hosts of other groups may think differently, but I'm doing what my job description is. And, according to what seem to be the feelings of the majority of A/A subscribers, we're doing it pretty well.

2. That wasn't an intent to disrupt. That was an intent to make a point. Which he did.

3. You are complaining about trolls while trolling hence the reference to hypocrites.

[rug]

49. That's three things.

1. Read your Sop and show me where it countenances being a launching pad for trolling other groups.

2. It certainly was, though a poor one. And I don't think calling something "goofy" is a well-made point.

3. Finding the source of trolling is not trolling. And I did find the source, in the very group you host with such integrity.

[Goblinmonger]

50. Frankly, I don't care what you think about my hosting abilities.

You were blocked from the group for a purpose (before my tenure, of course) and from everything I have seen and read, the group is still very happy with that decision since you clearly wanted to do nothing but to disrupt in there.

So, save your breath in trying to tell me about the SoP of the group I host and your concept of my integrity as a host, because I really couldn't give two shits about what you think in that regard.

And it still hasn't escaped the collective minds of the readers that you have never addressed the point of the OP. Why are creationists "dumbasses" but those that believe in transubstantiation not?

[rug]

51. You're rather persistent for someone who doesn't care.

And speaking of diversions, a topic close to your heart, what does a banning have to do with this?

The fact of the matter is this was patently posted as provocative flamebait; the OP is not seeking genuine discussion (and based on your responses in this thread, I doubt you do either), particularly since it was discussed right here very recently; and the net result is pure disruption, a result you are apparently pleased to permit.

Talk about planks.

[eqfan592]

55. The OP is pointing out what he/she views is an inconsistency.

If you think that is "flamebait," then I think it only serves to underscore the need for people such as yourself to examine the question (and perhaps their own beliefs) in a thoughtful manner.

Your concept of trolling is flawed beyond anything I would ever recognize as "trolling." Now, your own actions on the other hand...

[rug]

58. No, the OP is posting flamebait.

The evidence is his prior stated intent.

This underscores the need "for people such as yourself" to examine what the fuck you're doing.

And why.

[eqfan592]

60. If only such evidence existed to substantiate your claim.

Sadly for you, that is not the case. Posting an intent to post an OP somewhere else does not equate to an intent to post "flaimebait." Perhaps if you would be willing to respond to his questions in a meaningful manner the question would not pop up repeatedly.

As for a need to examine "what the fuck" somebody is doing and why, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror and ask yourself that very same question.

[rug]

64. There is. Oodles. Look around the thread.

[eqfan592]

66. Yes, and candy is raining from the skies here.

Oodles. Just take my word for it....

[rug]

68. Now that's just goofy.

It must come from "a little compartment in the brain".
(Insert duck picture.)
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. 80,152.
Ritual cannibalism and vampirism (I almost left out) !
Little electric chairs.
Some magic thing going on.
Wow, who knew? 1,000,000.
Woo.
Nonsensical.
Easter bunny.

Why, this thread is poetry.

[eqfan592]

72. Not nearly as poetic as calling somebodies point a "crock."

Or saying they need to examine "what the fuck" they are doing. I mean, I literally had tears in my eyes. Such posts clearly serve to underscore the righteousness of your position!

[rug]

74. Had you a point, I'd have used another word.

[eqfan592]

75. Ah, so your unwillingness to acknowledge a point means it doesn't exist.

Got it. I'll add that to the every growing list of "rugisims." lol

[rug]

77. I am bound by empirical evidence.

[eqfan592]

79. Oh, you're surely bound by something, rug.

But at least on this subject, it most certainly is not empirical evidence. And I have to say that this entire exchange was extremely....enlightening.

Goodnight, rug.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

172. Well said.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. How is my op disruptive?

It asks a simple question about what theists believe, and why some beliefs here are open season to ridicule while others, equally absurd, are not. How is that disruptive? Is it more or less disruptive than your endless fascination here with atheists gone bad?

[rug]

88. Explain this:

"I'm thinking that an OP on the Eucharist is in order."

[Warren Stupidity]

108. Discussing the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is disruptive?

Why would that be so?

[rug]

115. Well, let me see.

You post in A/A muttering about "nonsense" and declaring a new (considering you did the same thing just a couple of weeks before} OP about the Eucharist is in order. Then, lo and behold, a day later you post the self-same OP about this "goofy" religious belief setting off a gaggle of clucking, partially listed in #66, and now creepily ask how a discussion of a fundamental belief is disruptive.

You're transparent.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. Again, how is discussing the fundamental beliefs of christianity disruptive?

Your response does not address the question asked.

[rug]

146. Because that's not what you're doing.

You should at least have the integrity to acknowledge you're posting flame bait to bash a religious belief.

Since you haven't answered my question, the presumption applies.

[Warren Stupidity]

150. No I asked a question based on an observed thread in GD.

That thread was an enormous pile-on against creationist idiocy with no objection from you or any of the other theists here. This thread asks if that belief is any goofier than transubstantiation. That question is not flamebait. However I think perhaps if you stomp your foot enough and toss out enough alerts it will magically transform itself from a legitimate question appropriate to this forum into flamebait. Go for it!

[rug]

152. The only alert I know of about is the one Goblinmonger put on me.

You should get more organized.

[snooper2]

142. If one is going to say mythology is correct and challenge empirical evidence

concerning human evolution, the creation of our planet, our moon, our Sun, our galaxy and the universe at large you are going to get challenged yourself.

This is the religion forum, if you can't discuss the fundamental beliefs of religion what good is it?

[rug]

147. That's all well and good but it's not a playground for coy snark.

Which was the intention.

[skepticscott]

175. Good thing for you

that your snark is never coy.

[xocet]

177. Shouldn't you be more sensitive? - He's clearly in Agony and is throwing Fits....

[rug]

180. Considering your favorite group, that's rather funny.

[xocet]

182. WOYH...no need to duck...n/t

[rug]

183. WKRP

[rug]

178. No, it isn't..

[xocet]

176. Because questioning beliefs is problematic - it leads to thinking about said beliefs....

and takes them out of their warm, fuzzy, faith-based security blanket.

[rug]

181. I have yet to see intellectual rigor displayed in this goup when questionng beliefs.

I have heard numerous references to warm, fuzzy, faith-based security blankets and Santa Claus but that's about it.

[Goblinmonger]

10. Nice deflection

from the question posed by the OP.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. I wouldn't expect anything else.

[rug]

25. Considering you confuse Aristotlean physics with Aristotlean metaphysics, you shouldn't.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. actually no, accident and substance are part of his physics.

They are then applied to the metaphysics of transubstantiation in an attempt to make it believable.

[rug]

45. Sure it is.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html

[rug]

24. You must have missed the thread here the last time he asked it.

And if you think this OP is an attempt at discussion, why don't you ask him in his A/A post why he thinks this OP is in order now? If you did, the level of disruption might lessen.

[Goblinmonger]

30. I'm not his nanny.

As much as you want to be a nanny and make sure that others think and act exactly as you do, I don't see that as my role here on DU. And if you are insinuating that I should because of my role as host, I hope everyone here remembers that that is what you want hosts to do if you ever are silly enough to throw your hat in the ring for host of Religion.

And you have never answered the question of the OP. Many hand-holding, let's-all-get-along Christians in this group have mocked creationism. Why is this belief any better?

[rug]

39. Then maybe yos should check yout facts before you snark.

[Goblinmonger]

42. The fact that you are deflecting the issue

is about as transparent as a newly cleaned window.

Whether or not he posted about this in A/A or here a previous time I don't remember is irrelevant to the point of why it is OK to call creationists dumbasses on here but this belief gets a pass.

[rug]

47. The fact is I am spotlighting an intent to disrupt.

And he posted about transubstantiation (albeit incorrectly) already in Religion within the last couple of weeks.

The intent to disrupt by posting this OP is what he posted in A/A.

[eqfan592]

56. An intent to post a contentious OP does not equate to an intent to "disrupt" in the manner you...

...seem to be suggesting it does. Sorry, but you are attempting to sell a very weak excuse to explain your own trollish behavior, and I (as well as others) are simply not buying it.

[rug]

59. No, it's the product of intellectual curiosity.

What a crock.

[eqfan592]

61. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Wow, thanks for the laugh. Trolling explained as "intellectual curiosity." If all you had done was read over it, I wouldn't have a problem with that explanation, but what you attempted to do here with the information is what turned it into trolling.

[rug]

65. Read again.

"An intent to post a contentious OP does not equate to an intent to 'disrupt'". Now read the response.

Here, if it helps,

[eqfan592]

67. Ahhh, I see, so I should just assume from now on that you are only responding to the title...

...of a post, and not its content. Got it. I see that communications course you took is really paying off.

[rug]

69. Or you may move your lips if it helps.

[eqfan592]

71. Move my lips? To where, exactly?

I kinda like them where they are at right now.....

[Evoman]

82. Why do you go into AA. You're not an atheist.

Why dont you just stay out of a group that has nothing to do with you?

[Goblinmonger]

83. He's been banned from there

so he must have some feelings of abandonment or something.

[trotsky]

84. The guy spends his time on DU picking through the atheist safe haven.

He spends a hell of a lot of time on the Internet following PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and many other "new atheists." Not only that but he keeps abreast of news regarding freethought organizations.

He seems to be more obsessed with atheist news and views than any atheist I know.

[rug]

87. I'll gladly compare the volume of my atheist reading to your volume of theist reading.

[trotsky]

89. It's good to be proud of one's obsession, I guess...

[rug]

95. The first step is owning up to it.

You'll get over it.

[trotsky]

96. Get over your strange obsession?

It's never bothered me. I find it amusing more than anything else.

[Evoman]

98. You guys are so snippy.

It's hilarious....I feel like I took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up on the DU Playground Forum.

[trotsky]

99. You need to change a vowel.

Another forum regular has praised rug as "snappy." Get with it, dude!

[Evoman]

92. Lol...thats funny. He's more into atheists than I am.

I read Harris and Dawkins years ago, but haven't really read any atheist literature since then. I don't visit websites. Apart from when religious people bother me or try to hijack government, I barely even think about it.

[rug]

86. It's hard to feel abandoned when you keep coming over.

[Evoman]

93. Just out of curiosity....nothing to do with this conversation.

Do you have a neck beard?

I keep picturing you with one, and I'd rather have a more accurate picture of you in my head.

[rug]

94. That's funny, I keep picturing you with a pirate hat.

[Evoman]

97. I have a fedora that I call my "Travelling hat".

Whenever I go on a trip, I wear my awesome hat.

So...no neckbeard, lol?

[rug]

100. Actually I do.

Shaved it only once, on my daughter's 14th birthday. She never saw me without a beard. She said, "Grow it back."

[Evoman]

101. Man, I can't stand facial hair. I gotta shave as soon as I get hair.

It doesn't help that I'm patchy and look like crap. Mustache makes me look like a stereotypical latino gangbanger.

[rug]

102. I barely comb my hair in the morning.

Growing a beard is the path of least resistance.

Good luck with getting your hair back. It puts things in perspective.

[Goblinmonger]

105. "keep coming over"? So I shouldn't be here.

You can try paint me as the mean fucker all you want, but one of the two of us has been banned from a safe haven group. Do I come into Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity and piss in your cereal? No. That's why I'm not banned there. Hell, I don't think I've ever even looked at a post there. You, on the other hand, cannot say the same.

[rug]

114. You're the one that talked about abandonment.

I'll continue to read what I want, where I want, and when I want.

As for this OP, it germinated in your little group and was posted here simply to start a pissing contest which, as you can see from glancing around, it achieved nicely.

[rug]

118. I'm not the one who posted flamebait for the sake of posting flamebait.

I posted its source.

And thank you so much for granting me your leave to read DU freely. That's quite liberal of you. Unfortunately it is not a view shared by many in that little group, as the comments in this thread emonstrate.

[eqfan592]

119. lol, saying your behaving like a troll for doing what you do...

...is not the same as saying you don't have a right to do it. Bit of a difference, rug.

And you did post flamebait, rug. You did so by attempting to "post its source" as you call it. Simply talking about an issue of contention in another group and then posting an OP about it elsewhere does not automatically equate to flamebait. However, the same cannot be said of what you did.

Clearly this is a topic of discussion you wish to avoid at all costs, and so you decided it was best to try and derail the conversation completely instead.

[rug]

120. As a matter of fact, I discussed it at length in this Group.

Google it if you want a discussion.

Now, to the point at hand, are you calling me a troll?

[eqfan592]

122. Oh yes, I'm sure you did rug.

Now, to the point at hand, are you calling me a troll?

And here we were, just talking about another form of baiting....

[rug]

123. It's a question. Since you raised the issue, answer it or scuttle away.

[eqfan592]

124. Ahhh, even more baiting!

You just can't resist, can you? lol

[rug]

126. I see you've answered. It's clear you prefer insinuation to discussion.

Unsurprising.

[eqfan592]

127. Actually, I prefer not to have my posts alerted on.

Which should be unsurprising.

[rug]

130. Then perhaps you should not make cowardly, unsubstatiated insinuations.

[eqfan592]

131. I take offense to that!

There is nothing at all cowardly nor unsubstantiated about my insinuations!

[Goblinmonger]

137. You mean like this person did here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=34999

You'll be happy to know that the jury didn't think it was a big idea. But the hypocrisy of yours is glaring.

[rug]

148. Better luck on your alerts.

Tell me, what percentage of your alerts on me have succeeded?

You don't have to tell me the number of times, that would take too long, just the percentage.

[Goblinmonger]

136. I find this tactic of yours shameful, rug

You try to get as many posts as you can to alert on in case the first jury doesn't like your alert. Unbelievable. And there are hosts of this form that think you are "snappy."

[rug]

151. I find cowardly insinuation shameful, Goblinmonger.

Along with hypocrisy.

[Goblinmonger]

135. The comments indicate

that we have no idea why you would want to read there. The only reason we can come up with is because you want to run over here and point at us and call us meanies. Grow up.

[rug]

149. If that's the only reason you can come up with, it's sadder than I thought.

Oh, and grownups don't think in terms of "meanies".

[Goblinmonger]

134. You completely misunderstand me. When you use the metaphor "keep coming over"

it reflects an attitude that this is your house and you are somehow tolerating me. This isn't your house. This is the community center which is open for all. Your house is the safe haven group for whatever religious sect you identify with--I would guess the Catholic group. A/A is my house. One of us has come over to the house of the other and taken a giant shit in the middle of the living room and then thrown a tantrum when he was told he can't came back in the house because of that and still continues to peek in the window for some reason. The other of us has avoided the sanctity of the other's house out of respect. The shit-taker continues to paint the one who respects the safe have group as an intolerant, mean asshole. The term projection comes to mind.

Go ahead and read what you want, where you want, and when you want. It's a free country and it is within the rules of DU. But don't expect that I and others aren't going to call you out when what you do makes you look ridiculous and childish. Like this time.

[rug]

153. And it's pretty bad to take a shit in the commons.

[Warren Stupidity]

155. nah, it only looks, smells, and tastes like shit.

that is an accidental property. The substance is peaches and cream.

[rug]

156. I see. You are comparing the Eucharist to shit.

Why did it take you so long, warren Stupidity?

You could have just posted it in the OP and eliminated all the coyness.

[Warren Stupidity]

157. well no, I'm claiming that shit can also be transubstantiated.

But there you go again putting words in my mouth. Can I have something to drink too?

[rug]

160. I doubt that's what you're saying.

Why don'y you just go ahead and explain the transubstantiation of shit.

[Goblinmonger]

161. Give up this round of "Let's find an alert that sticks"

It is very clear what he was saying. He wasn't saying the communion host was shit. Give it up and move on to something else.

[rug]

162. Between us, the only one who alerted in this thread is you.

Maybe you should start another Metawhine on your theory.

[Goblinmonger]

163. You think I alerted on eqfan592's post?

Seriously? And your baiting of him with the same question multiple times is pretty damn transparent. Oh, perhaps you didn't alert but one of your buddies did so you can say you didn't alert, but what your were doing is about as clear as it gets. Most people in Meta agreed with me about what you were doing and the obviousness of it. I'm surprised you didn't rally the troops to that thread to defend you. There's still time for that, isn't there.

[rug]

164. "Most people in Meta agreed with me"

Now what is that fallacy, it was just on the tip of my tongue . . . .

[Goblinmonger]

165. Oh, please.

And for you to now eschew Meta after going there when you were pnwed hotlinking to someone's photobucket account seems, well, silly.

[rug]

166. Lol, you're flailing.

[Goblinmonger]

167. Whatever gets you through the night. n/t

[rug]

169. It's not flailing.

[Warren Stupidity]

170. It is a miracle.

In my religion shit is transubstantiated into peaches and cream. But I already said that. You seem to doubt my claims. More, you appear to be attempting to miraculously transubstantiate the words I've typed here into some other words I haven't typed. Why would you do that?

[rug]

85. Why shouldn't I? It's DU.

Are you self-conscious?

[Evoman]

91. No. I don't give a shit what you do. Just strikes me as weird.

I never go into religious groups. Of course, I don't need "ammunition" for conversations. I guess I don't care enough.

I'd rather listen and respond the what someone is currently saying.

[LARED]

3. A slight correction

Transubstantiation as you are using it a doctrine unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

[rug]

4. Don't stop him, he's on a roll.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Well not quite.

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 06:46 AM - Edit history (1)

The eastern branch holds very similar beliefs, as do some Anglicans. But I'm fine with restricting this belief to the largest sect.

Oh and on rereading my op I actually did not claim that transubstantiation was found in most mainstream Christian sects, but that goofy nonsense equivalent to creationism was found in most mainstream Christian sects. The Eucharist is an example of this.

So now that we have straightened that out, how is transubstantiation less goofy than creationism?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. There's no overlap between the churches that teach young earth creationism and the

Roman Catholic church.

[Warren Stupidity]

109. That might be true, but how is it relevant?

We have goofy over here and we have goofy over there. Both purveyors of goof are part of the Christian religion, have common theological and philosophical roots, etc. And of course theist goofiness is certainly not limited to Christian sects.

[Skittles]

6. it isn't

all that religious nonsense is goofy

[PDJane]

8. Yes. Thank you.

Absolute nonsense, based on the need to control others and the desire to live forever.

Obviously, this is from an atheist.

[Skittles]

9. it would be OK if they kept it to themselves

if people need to believe in such stuff to help them live in this fucked up world that is OK but when they try to make it law and or "morals" it truly sucks

[Angry Dragon]

14. +80,152

[backscatter712]

11. Gotta love Christianity's ritual cannibalism and vampirism of their deity!

When you look at it from the outside, Christianity is fucking twisted!

[Warren Stupidity]

17. That is very rude. Go back to ridiculing creationism.

Or something like that. So far nobody from the theist camp has any answer.

[backscatter712]

29. Don't forget Christians use an execution device as their primary symbol,

and display it everywhere on the tops of churches and on the necks of followers!

Who was it that originally suggested that if Jesus was put to death 20 years ago that people would be wearing little electric chairs on their necks?

[Scootaloo]

78. And that's not even the core doctrine...

You know, original sin; possibly the most perverse idea humanity has ever created, right there.

[ButterflyBlood]

13. That's only the Catholic Church, not all of "mainstream Christianity"

The church I took communion in this morning doesn't claim its wine and crackers are anything other than wine and crackers and doesn't consider them anything but symbolic.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Yes just eastern and western catholic churches and some Anglicans.

Or in other words the vast majority of Christians. And I don't fully believe your assertion that your communion does not make any claim above crackers and wine. Which church is that? They might not go full on transubstantiation, but there is likely some assertion of supernatural activity. Methodists Presbyterians and Lutherans all have some magic thing going on.

[cordelia]

20. Call it magic, call it what you want.

Do United Methodists believe the communion elements actually become the body and blood of Christ?

“No, we believe that the change is spiritual. They signify the body and blood of Christ for us, helping us to be Christ’s body in the world today, redeemed by Christ’s blood. We pray over the bread and cup that they may make us one with Christ, “one with each other, and one in service to all the world.”

[ButterflyBlood]

36. I go to a Vineyard church, which believes in memorialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorialism

Memorialism is the belief held by some Protestant denominations that the elements of bread and wine (or juice) in the Eucharist (more often referred to as The Lord's Supper by memorialists) are purely symbolic representations of the body and blood of Jesus, the feast being established only or primarily as a commemorative ceremony.

[trotsky]

18. The Catholic Church isn't mainstream?

Wow, who knew?

[trotsky]

19. On this very board, there is someone who implores everyone else to respect the beliefs of others...

yet has called believers in creationism "a bunch of dumbasses." Try saying that about people who believe in transubstantiation.

The liberal, tolerant, open-minded believers here have decided that some religious beliefs (and believers!) are worthy of ridicule and some are not. Careful though, when you point this out, you will be called a militant fundie atheist bigot.

[Goblinmonger]

31. +1,000,000

You also might get people that won't respond to you anymore because you are a giant meanie.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. People here have no problem ridiculing scientology, attacking all of its believers, etc.

The hypocrisy is manifest.

[mr blur]

22. It isn't. In fact it's even less goofy than transubstantiation,

which manages to combine Magical Thinking with Woo and is accepted by all kinds of "intelligent" people even though they can neither rationalize nor defend it. It's...you know...a matter of 'Faith' and therefore beyond criticism.

[rug]

26. Well, it looks like this OP has achieved its intended result.

[djean111]

27. Asking this as an atheist - why jeer at other beliefs?

I don't care what anyone else finds comfort in believing, as long as they don't force those beliefs on me or my life.

[backscatter712]

33. Because they do try to force those beliefs on everybody else.

I've come to the conclusion that religion can be not just nonsensical, but downright dangerous. Not all the time, and not every place of worship is dangerous, but religion does create the conditions for making people believe not just in nonsense, but the kind of nonsense that causes them to override basic moral instincts and go out to actively harm others, while believing wholeheartedly that what they're doing is "righteous".

We're fortunate in that here in the U.S. and the western world, we've managed to turn the volume down on the religious batshittery, compared to where it was in centuries past. Try going to Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia - those are examples of places where if you deny, criticize or mock the predominant religion, they will KILL you. Make no mistake. There are plenty of fundy Christians who want that over here. They want to execute atheists, and they're frustrated because the rest of America won't let them do it. But they're always looking for new ways to seize power and impose their batshit on the rest of us by force.

[rug]

43. Who's forcing a consecrated wafer down your throat?

[eqfan592]

113. The religious right, and you damned well know it.

Except its not a wafer, just laws governing all of us inspired by their warped sense of morality which was inspired by their particular brand of religion.

[rug]

117. The religious right is forcing a consecrated wafer down your throat?

No wonder you're pissed off.

Nevertheless, you shouldn't let it blind you to the distinction of a religious belief and political action.

[eqfan592]

121. Wow, you really are only capable of responding to the titles of posts.

Otherwise you would have seen where I said "Except it's not a wafer."

And if you really think that political action that is founded in specific religious beliefs with little or no secular foundation to speak of doesn't occur in this country, then you are the one that is blind.

[rug]

125. Considering this flamebait OP is about transubstantiation,

what laws have been enacted in this country to impose that belief?

[eqfan592]

128. If only your reply was to the OP, your question may have merit.

Given that it was not, and given the context of the reply you responded too, and what I said in my own reply, your line of questioning is without merit.

[rug]

129. Oh, tedious bullshit.

[eqfan592]

132. Tedious bullshit you brought down on yourself.

[rug]

133. Nothing has been brought down on me.

The tedious bullshit remains with its source.

[demosincebirth]

104. Tell me, who's forcing those beliefs down on you. If it's on TV, change the channel...if they come

to your door, don't answer...if the stop you on the street, walk away. Now who's forcing...

[eqfan592]

112. Wow, really?

I mean, really?? Have you LOOKED at the number of bullshit laws that the religious right have tried to pass/have passed with their religion being either the only or the primary inspiration??? Or is that not "forcing" their beliefs on us in your book?

[demosincebirth]

139. What ever. Your bigotry for religion is well shown by your statements nt.

[Goblinmonger]

140. That word. I don't think it means what you think it means. n/t

[snooper2]

143. because we would like to have a planet that isn't driven by thousands year old mythology

in 4-500 years...

Some curious 15 year old might be reading this

This allows us to communicate things like- "Yo, watch "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman it's greatness!

[On the Road]

28. I Think You Should Start Out by Observing

that Plato is just as goofy as New Earth Creationism. That is the only philosophical system under which transubstantiation makes sense. After that, you can take on Aristotle, Socrates, and the pre-Socratics.

[jeepnstein]

38. Legalism is goofy.

I see it in all sorts of ways in almost every denomination I've visited. Someone picks this or that element of Scripture and turns it into their personal jihad. The result is inevitable. Some people just have to be right, no matter the consequence.

It was the legalistic crowd that finally succeeded in having Jesus put up on the cross. And we've still got folks inside the Church doing their darndest every day to kill Him to this very day.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. They are the same. A professed belief in a group's goofy beliefs is a way to show group loyalty.

Actual belief in goofy and nonsensical things is not required any more than an actual belief in an Easter bunny is required at Easter time when young kids are running around looking for Easter eggs.

This is shown by the faces of many believers who grin and often cannot contain themselves when dealing with outsiders. They are grinning because they know that the outsiders, or some of them, actually think that they hold such beliefs in a serious manner. They don't. It's a game in which outsiders are excluded.

[Warren Stupidity]

144. yeah it does seem to me to be a game.

But I'll be damned if I can get anyone from the theist side to admit as much. They either refuse to answer, engage in diversions, obfuscate, or depending on the goofiness level, profess an actual belief, which to me is inevitably unbelievable. None admit it is just goofy, unless it is not in their creed (e.g. creationism.)

[Moonwalk]

53. Quantum Physics? Transubstantiation seems less goofy than creationism if we consider....

Quantum physics. Meaning it exists while unobserved, but doesn't if observed. Observe it and it's bread, stop observing it and it becomes flesh. Also, as both he flesh and blood is divine and not human, it works even better, as one could argue that divine flesh is bread and divine blood is wine. Why not, as divine being can be anything it wants to be, can't it?

Mind you, I'm not saying this isn't goofy, just that if we're rating goofiness, I'd rate this less so than Noah's Ark with dinosaurs. Transubstantiation poses an interesting thought experiment when it comes to explaining it. Noah's Ark with dinosaurs is just stupid.

[Warren Stupidity]

145. "woo is not explained by invoking the magic phrase 'quantum physics'" - the Chopra Rule.

[Moonwalk]

159. Granted, and I thank you for reminding me of that--however, Woo would seem to be explained here...

...by more Woo. That still puts Noah's Ark as more goofy as it's trying to explain Woo with bad science.

[dimbear]

54. Transubstantiation is a flatout one event only acceptance of magic. It isn't testable.

OTOH, there are piles of actual evidence that creationism is empirically false.

Plus--creationism is much more susceptible to cartoons.

[eqfan592]

57. You're suggesting that it isn't possible to test transubstantiation of this sort?

I do believe you are incorrect on that.

[dimbear]

62. Are there experiments to show that 'mystical equivalences' can be false?

It's the concept of plausible deniability that comes up so often. Concepts lost in the mists of the past or lost in the glow of a mystic halo are just harder to disprove than something flat-out wrong like creationism.

Just my opinion.

Before I get trounced, better admit there are those who insist on the perfectly literal equivalence of the blood and the wine. That's a problem for my answer.

[eqfan592]

63. lol, no trouncing is forth coming.

You are correct in that there is no way to disprove a "mystical equivalence," as you put it, but in terms of the literal equivalence I would say there is a means of disproving that, but you do not appear to be talking about the literal equivalence, and admit that it is a problem for your answer, which would satisfy my original disagreement with your posting.

[rox63]

76. No one is teaching transubstantiation as science

It is only taught as a religious/spiritual belief.

[eqfan592]

80. So your argument is creationism is only OK to laugh at because...

...some people want to teach it as science? So the ideas promoted by YEC's should not be laughed it if they weren't trying to teach them as science, in spite of all the scientific evidence available that is counter to the belief?

[rox63]

90. People are welcome to whatever spiritual beliefs they want to believe

But science relies of evidence, experimentation, and measurable results. Some people believe in a God or gods, others believe they will be reincarnated, some believe in heaven or hell. All that is well and good, but don't try selling it as science or fact.

[LeftishBrit]

107. People have all kinds of beliefs that aren't strongly supported by evidence

If people try to argue the cause of YEC, transubstantiation, or (as people have done) telepathy or spoon-bending with me, I will certainly argue as to why it's contradicted by the evidence. But for the most part, people don't consider that transubstantiation is scientifically evidence-based. They treat it as a matter of faith. The biggest problem with many YEC people is that they want to have it both ways: they believe in something, through faith, that is contradicted by the evidence and they try to claim that the evidence supports it, and thus distort the evidence and the scientific method. And then insist that schoolchildren should be taught bad science. It is the intrusiveness into science and education that is the big problem with YEC people, and I don't find this so much with most other beliefs.

[JoePhilly]

103. This thread begs for a "Religious goofyness rating system".

We could take some of the major "goofy" beliefs from a number of major religions, and then rank them.

Maybe have folks create a "top 10", those are popular.

[Warren Stupidity]

111. Excellent idea.

[dimbear]

179. Use a logarithmic scale, like the Richter index. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

106. While I personally believe in neither, the crucial difference is...

that at least to the best of my knowlege, no one is suggesting that science teachers should refrain from teaching kids the basic laws of physics because they contradict transubstantiation, or that equal time in science lessons should be given to both because 'physics is just a theory too'.

I don't mind if someone happens to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, so long as they don't insist that everyone else must believe it too, and in particular interfere with what children can learn in science lessons.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. Well that is indeed a substantial difference.

However it is not relevant to the goofiness.

And as another poster pointed out, there may be no overlap between Christian sects that believe in transubstantiation and Christian sects that believe in creationism. Also not relevant. However these two points lead to a third observation: both sets are promoting regressive political agendas. The roman catholic church is one of the leaders of homophobic legislative initiatives and of anti abortion and now more general anti reproductive rights legislative initiatives while the fundaloons are perpetually trying to force creationist poison into our school systems.

[ButterflyBlood]

168. I don't disagree with that at all

Both the YEC-teaching churches and RCC are quite reactionary and incredibly backward, and I won't have anything do with either one of them.

[Iggo]

141. I don't think I've ever said...

...one is any more or less goofy than the other.

They're both pretty fuckin goofy.

[Zen Democrat]

154. If you change the word Dogma to Dog Mess, it makes more sense.

[SDjack]

158. Transubstantiation is the more goofy. I can actually participate in experiments,

and the results are always the same. No change occurred. I wasn't present when Earth was created and when humans began. So, I can see that goofballs will accept the word of their preacher rather than invest several years of study of the sciences. But, even a goofball can participate in the transubstantiation experiment and taste that no change occurred.

[MattBaggins]

171. No one really seems serious about this question but what the hell

For me it's just a question of audience. First of all most Catholics I know think the Eucharist is just symbolic and are not even aware of the concept of Transubstantiation.

My wife fancies herself a Catholic and made our oldest go through all the hokey pokey for First Communion and my 8 year old thinks it is crazy but still can't understand that bit of malarkey quite as well as she can a debunking of the flood myth.

People are going to get all glassy eyed and start drooling over Transubstantiation yet they can follow through if you challenge them to consider the engineering behind an Ark, a forty day downpour, and just how many animals would be involved and the food requirements.

My daughter made me proud when she asked a friend of hers in a serious tone if she really believed that someone could be dead for 3 days and magically come back to life.

[Warren Stupidity]

173. Which is sort of the point. An 8 year old can figure this out.

And yet when you ask believers what specifically they believe, they get all huffy and generally won't answer the question. I'm fine with "I just like the music", or "I like christmas presents", or even "I don't think about it, it is just what we do and always have done". I get all that. I don't get people who claim that any of this nonsense is 'real'.

None of it is real. No virgin birth. No man-god. No heaven. No hell. No resurrection. No transubstantiation. Take all the magic away. Is there anything left?

[skepticscott]

174. Well, 8 years olds

DO figure it out. And when it's called Santa Claus, we let them enjoy the notion when they're little, and then let them get over it, as we know they will and always do. But when it's called God or Jesus, the childhood imprint has to be maintained, no matter the cost.