This just in: Harold Camping says the Rapture will occur in five months.
Apparently, he didn't carry the one.
*FACEPALM*
I didn't even know about the original prediction until the Parish Priest cracked a joke regarding this during his sermon.
This just in: Harold Camping says the Rapture will occur in five months.
Apparently, he didn't carry the one.
21 Oct 2011? Well, at least I don't need to buy a new card for my trackphone as it's currenttly set to expire on 31 Oct 2011.
Harold Camping has said that October 21, 2011 will be Judgment Day, and if Jesus won't do it, then he will have to do it himself. Between now and then he will be placing special Apocalypse Stones all across the world, and then if the Rapture doesn't happen he will read a spell from the Necronomicon to ignite them. According to Camping, "One way or another, the world ends in October."
This just in: Harold Camping says the Rapture will occur in five months.
I can end that world in four months!
Harold Camping has said that October 21, 2011 will be Judgment Day, and if Jesus won't do it, then he will have to do it himself. Between now and then he will be placing special Apocalypse Stones all across the world, and then if the Rapture doesn't happen he will read a spell from the Necronomicon to ignite them. According to Camping, "One way or another, the world ends in October."
Wasnt that an early Paizo adventure path? Rapture Tide or somesuch?
Oh sure, he's going to end the world 10 days before the new season of Walking Dead ... geez, talk about whacked priorities.
+1
Harold Camping has said that October 21, 2011 will be Judgment Day, and if Jesus won't do it, then he will have to do it himself. Between now and then he will be placing special Apocalypse Stones all across the world, and then if the Rapture doesn't happen he will read a spell from the Necronomicon to ignite them. According to Camping, "One way or another, the world ends in October."Wasnt that an early Paizo adventure path? Rapture Tide or somesuch?
I don't know, White Knife, but I do know this: with or without the Rapture, the world ends on October 21, 2011!!!
My followers will join with Harold Camping's followers to insure that the Apocalypse will happen this time. I will be taken to another planet to live out the rest of my life on a paradise. See the movie Knowing, starring my good friend Nicholas Cage, for more details.
Harold Camping has said that October 21, 2011 will be Judgment Day, and if Jesus won't do it, then he will have to do it himself. Between now and then he will be placing special Apocalypse Stones all across the world, and then if the Rapture doesn't happen he will read a spell from the Necronomicon to ignite them. According to Camping, "One way or another, the world ends in October."Wasnt that an early Paizo adventure path? Rapture Tide or somesuch?I don't know, White Knife, but I do know this: with or without the Rapture, the world ends on October 21, 2011!!!
My followers will join with Harold Camping's followers to insure that the Apocalypse will happen this time. I will be taken to another planet to live out the rest of my life on a paradise. See the movie Knowing, starring my good friend Nicholas Cage, for more details.
|
And as G.I.Joe taught us: "Knowing is half the battle."Harold Camping has said that October 21, 2011 will be Judgment Day, and if Jesus won't do it, then he will have to do it himself. Between now and then he will be placing special Apocalypse Stones all across the world, and then if the Rapture doesn't happen he will read a spell from the Necronomicon to ignite them. According to Camping, "One way or another, the world ends in October."Wasnt that an early Paizo adventure path? Rapture Tide or somesuch?I don't know, White Knife, but I do know this: with or without the Rapture, the world ends on October 21, 2011!!!
My followers will join with Harold Camping's followers to insure that the Apocalypse will happen this time. I will be taken to another planet to live out the rest of my life on a paradise. See the movie Knowing, starring my good friend Nicholas Cage, for more details.
Yo Joe, a Real American Hero he will no doubt stop this Mr. Camping fellow and his evil cult seeking to end the world before my birthday happens. G.I. Joe has never failed before I doubt he will fail now.
Oh sure, he's going to end the world 10 days before the new season of Walking Dead ... geez, talk about whacked priorities.
I thought the new season was going to start earlier in July? Or did they push it back to October again?
Yo Joe, a Real American Hero he will no doubt stop this Mr. Camping fellow and his evil cult seeking to end the world before my birthday happens. G.I. Joe has never failed before I doubt he will fail now.
Camping is certainly a semi-isolated figure (given how isolated one can really be at the head of a media empire) but his crazy did not come from out of nowhere. I suspect GI Joe would be unequal to combating such a sweeping problem. I mean it's not Yosemite Sam with a napkin over his face.
And GI Joe usually fights things with guns. While that might arguably solve the problem, I can't get behind it.
...which isn't to say that I don't have a giggle-inducing image of Sergeant Slaughter shoving his gun up a clergyman's ass and reading Dawkins aloud to him.
Yo Joe, a Real American Hero he will no doubt stop this Mr. Camping fellow and his evil cult seeking to end the world before my birthday happens. G.I. Joe has never failed before I doubt he will fail now.
You obviously didn't see the recent movie.
Camping is certainly a semi-isolated figure (given how isolated one can really be at the head of a media empire) but his crazy did not come from out of nowhere.
Wow, the author of that blog is really angry. Way too angry, in my opinion. It always bothers me when people have that big a chip on their shoulder where religion is concerned. It seems to be indicative of a mindset that irrationally believes that the world will be a better place without religion. As if that's the only facet of our collective society where people put blind faith in things they don't truly understand.
Many many years ago, a good man way back in AD 400 or so wrote the following...
"It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for [non-Christians] to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [of cosmology]... If [non-Christians] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinion about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books."
Regardless of whether one accepts the "faith" contents of the book, stuff like this happening is definitely not a new phenomena.
Wow, the author of that blog is really angry. Way too angry, in my opinion. It always bothers me when people have that big a chip on their shoulder where religion is concerned. It seems to be indicative of a mindset that irrationally believes that the world will be a better place without religion. As if that's the only facet of our collective society where people put blind faith in things they don't truly understand.
Camping is certainly a semi-isolated figure (given how isolated one can really be at the head of a media empire) but his crazy did not come from out of nowhere.
PZ Myers is still right, though. Care to refute him (without resorting to the "it's a matter of faith" fallacy)?
Maybe I'm a weak (and irrational) man for being unable to face the facts without a crutch... but religion (at least for me) serves three roles generally without going further into doctrinal issues (which will likely lead to a huge shouting match if discussed):
- It answers the cosmic question of "Why?" (rather than how).
- It provides a framework which allows me to make sense of my life.
- It gives me impetus to get up in the morning and face the world with a spring in my step.
Whether or not you agree with the rest of the doctrine, I'd like to believe (and this is a personal stand) that from at least an individual standpoint, belief in a higher being is a reasonable, rational solution to an uncaring universe.
My private belief (delusion?) anyway.
Wow, the author of that blog is really angry. Way too angry, in my opinion. It always bothers me when people have that big a chip on their shoulder where religion is concerned. It seems to be indicative of a mindset that irrationally believes that the world will be a better place without religion. As if that's the only facet of our collective society where people put blind faith in things they don't truly understand.
The world would be a better place without religion: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
And even if it's not the only ill in our collective society, a world without religion is still better than a world with religion.
It's like a patient who has multiple medical problems; you don't fail to treat a broken leg just because the patient also has a heart condition.
PZ Myers is still right, though. Care to refute him (without resorting to the "it's a matter of faith" fallacy)?
I don't need to refute him, and speaking of fallacy, he's set up his own straw man. Religion isn't the problem; human nature is the problem. Human beings, on the whole, blindly follow the teachings of others. If religion were to disappear tomorrow, that wouldn't change things. Politics, mass media, pop culture icons, junk science, the cult of science, polarized ideology, conspiracy theories...take your pick. There are countless things for people to glom onto and follow blindly.
Most people don't want to make every decision for themselves, they'd rather someone do it for them. That's the underlying problem. It's easy to blame religion, but the actual problem is the person willing to believe what they're told.
Wow, the author of that blog is really angry. Way too angry, in my opinion. It always bothers me when people have that big a chip on their shoulder where religion is concerned. It seems to be indicative of a mindset that irrationally believes that the world will be a better place without religion. As if that's the only facet of our collective society where people put blind faith in things they don't truly understand.The world would be a better place without religion: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
And even if it's not the only ill in our collective society, a world without religion is still better than a world with religion.
It's like a patient who has multiple medical problems; you don't fail to treat a broken leg just because the patient also has a heart condition.
Of course, religion brings more than just ill into the world, so to borrow from your analogy, if a person has tumors, you don't just shoot them; you operate on them and remove the bad so they can continue to live a healthy life.
Of course, religion brings more than just ill into the world, so to borrow from your analogy, if a person has tumors, you don't just shoot them; you operate on them and remove the bad so they can continue to live a healthy life.
Perhaps you can name some non-ills brought to the table by religion (and exclusively religion; coming from no other source but religion)?
|
The 'why' of religion, especially the Christian religion, is bothersome to me: ultimately, everything is simply to bring man closer to God so that man may worship Him. Sure, I'm committing extreme summation of a subject that fills libraries, but the gist of it all is the quest to bend the knee before the Creator.
The rebel in me says I'd rather have a godless universe where I make my own why than a universe where my chief responsibility is to be subservient. I'm not sure I agree that, if given two choices, godless vs god that godless is somehow more rational, since my chief complaint against it is almost childish.
Nonetheless, I'm not necessarily afraid of the average crackpot on the street. I've personally met religious military leaders who seem completely normal until they start talking about belief, then they transform into something...and that something is both scary and immovable. Religion seems to turn on some set of instructions in their brains that overrides absolutely everything else.
Of course, religion brings more than just ill into the world, so to borrow from your analogy, if a person has tumors, you don't just shoot them; you operate on them and remove the bad so they can continue to live a healthy life.Perhaps you can name some non-ills brought to the table by religion (and exclusively religion; coming from no other source but religion)?
Conversely, perhaps you can name some of the ills of religion that only come from religion and no other source?
Edit: And to put a finer point on the medical analogy: If a person is suffering from multiple problems caused by the same source, does it make more sense to treat the problems, or eliminate the source of those problems?
- It answers the cosmic question of "Why?" (rather than how).
- It provides a framework which allows me to make sense of my life.
- It gives me impetus to get up in the morning and face the world with a spring in my step.
For the first item, the question presumes its answer in its terms. If one strips away the assumption that cosmic questions have some kind of intentionality behind them, it's all hows. Honest and rigorous investigation will unearth any intentionality that actually might be there. That's pretty good, I'd say. We're smart. We can figure stuff out.
For the second and third items, plenty of people manage them sans religion. It's not so bad, really. I mean I got up with a spring in my step Tuesday because the season finale of Glee was on that night. Last night I got quite a spring in my step from some online gaming with a friend.
Decent gig, all and all. You even get to sleep in on Sundays. :)
|
PZ Myers is still right, though. Care to refute him (without resorting to the "it's a matter of faith" fallacy)?Wow, the author of that blog is really angry. Way too angry, in my opinion. It always bothers me when people have that big a chip on their shoulder where religion is concerned. It seems to be indicative of a mindset that irrationally believes that the world will be a better place without religion. As if that's the only facet of our collective society where people put blind faith in things they don't truly understand.
Camping is certainly a semi-isolated figure (given how isolated one can really be at the head of a media empire) but his crazy did not come from out of nowhere.
Having an opinion does not make one right. Several posters prove this daily. Neither does owning a car mean someone is capable of driving. Which many people prove on the roads on a daily basis.
- It answers the cosmic question of "Why?" (rather than how).
- It provides a framework which allows me to make sense of my life.
- It gives me impetus to get up in the morning and face the world with a spring in my step.
For the first item, the question presumes its answer in its terms. If one strips away the assumption that cosmic questions have some kind of intentionality behind them, it's all hows. Honest and rigorous investigation will unearth any intentionality that actually might be there. That's pretty good, I'd say. We're smart. We can figure stuff out.
Yet you need not strip away the conviction that there is an intentionality to concentrate on how. What you need is a rigorous and fact based methodology.
For the second and third items, plenty of people manage them sans religion. It's not so bad, really. I mean I got up with a spring in my step Tuesday because the season finale of Glee was on that night. Last night I got quite a spring in my step from some online gaming with a friend.Decent gig, all and all. You even get to sleep in on Sundays. :)
I think it is excellent that people can do this in different ways. They can assume intentionality, they can assume there is no intentionality, or they can assume neither of these and bask in the mystery. None of these perspectives need harm or attack the others because they involve forming a picture of what lays beyond all the hows of the cosmos.
I think it is excellent that people can do this in different ways. (A) They can assume intentionality, (B) they can assume there is no intentionality, or (C) they can assume neither of these and bask in the mystery. None of these perspectives need harm or attack the others because they involve forming a picture of what lays beyond all the hows of the cosmos.
Way I see it, the problem is not A, B, or C above. The problem is stupidity.
Of course, religion brings more than just ill into the world, so to borrow from your analogy, if a person has tumors, you don't just shoot them; you operate on them and remove the bad so they can continue to live a healthy life.Perhaps you can name some non-ills brought to the table by religion (and exclusively religion; coming from no other source but religion)?
Conversely, perhaps you can name some of the ills of religion that only come from religion and no other source?
Edit: And to put a finer point on the medical analogy: If a person is suffering from multiple problems caused by the same source, does it make more sense to treat the problems, or eliminate the source of those problems?
The medical analogy is just an analogy. And like any analogy, it can be useful in some areas and break down in others. That said, in medicine, sometimes it is possible to treat the root cause (the source), and other times treating the symptoms (the problems) is the only remedy available. HIV infection is an excellent example of a treatment-resistant source of multiple problems.
Again, I think this answer goes beyond the meaningful domain of the medical analogy; I'm not sure what HIV would be analogous to in "all the facet[s] of our collective society where people put blind faith in things they don't truly understand".
On the exclusive ill, I'll start with the ill that gave birth to this thread: Rapture
I don't think there is a source of rapture other than certain sects of the Christian religion? And if the news is any indication, there are plenty of people who bankrupted themselves due to a faith-based (as opposed to evidence-based) belief in it.
No Religion -> No Rapture -> No self-bankrupting due to belief in rapture
There are more ills, but I yield to your response (and hopefully a non-ill).
Belief in Harold's rapture was caused by stupidity, not by religion.
The same goes for science. The destruction and gradual loss of arable soil by industrial monoculture farming (scientifically based) is caused by stupidity, not by science.
[Edit] Here's another one: Logic is not to blame for the fallacious contentions on this thread, stupidity is.
I don't think there is a source of rapture other than certain sects of the Christian religion? And if the news is any indication, there are plenty of people who bankrupted themselves due to a faith-based (as opposed to evidence-based) belief in it.
The problem here is not faith, it is hallucination. Many of those who did NOT fall for Harold's BS are people of faith.
Now, if every person of faith acted like such morons, then I could see your point (ed: your point that belief in the rapture was a consequence of faith).
On the exclusive ill, I'll start with the ill that gave birth to this thread: Rapture
I don't think there is a source of rapture other than certain sects of the Christian religion? And if the news is any indication, there are plenty of people who bankrupted themselves due to a faith-based (as opposed to evidence-based) belief in it.
No Religion -> No Rapture -> No self-bankrupting due to belief in rapture
There are more ills, but I yield to your response (and hopefully a non-ill).
Analogies aside, then. (I tend to go to them overmuch anyway...)
Define "plenty of people." As far as I am aware, Camping's followers are relatively few and confined to the continental United States. Camping told them that in order to be ready for the rapture they would have to remove themselves from their churches. It seems to me that Camping's radical message, like most radical movements, only appeal to a fringe group. It's perfectly feasible that such folk could be driven to unstable and irrational acts through other means of persuasion.
The vast majority of Christians dismissed Camping's prediction, as did the vast majority of religious folk, as there are more non-Christians in the world than Christian. So while I concede that ill did arise from the situation, in the overall scale of things it was a minor ill.
I simply choose not to paint with too broad a brush, so to speak. I've met close-minded a+~~#~!s with religious beliefs, and without. I've met kind, generous folk who were atheists, and those who were people of faith. And when anyone chooses to vehemently attack something I don't immediately see as wrong, I tend to be wary of their motives. (I'm speaking of Myers, not you.)
Belief in Harold's rapture was caused by stupidity, not by religion.
The same goes for science. The destruction and gradual loss of arable soil by industrial monoculture farming (scientifically based) is caused by stupidity, not by science.
[Edit] Here's another one: Logic is not to blame for the fallacious contentions on this thread, stupidity is.
Well said.
Having an opinion does not make one right. Several posters prove this daily.
+1
For the first item, the question presumes its answer in its terms. If one strips away the assumption that cosmic questions have some kind of intentionality behind them, it's all hows. Honest and rigorous investigation will unearth any intentionality that actually might be there. That's pretty good, I'd say. We're smart. We can figure stuff out.For the second and third items, plenty of people manage them sans religion. It's not so bad, really. I mean I got up with a spring in my step Tuesday because the season finale of Glee was on that night. Last night I got quite a spring in my step from some online gaming with a friend.
Decent gig, all and all. You even get to sleep in on Sundays. :)
Simply presenting my own take on things. I think I have a rational reasons for functioning this way even if I may be operating on false assumptions. I simply believe what I believe and it helps me live my life.
I see religion as a source of strength. Others look at me as hobbling myself.
As much as I believe, at the end of the day, it's a human interpretation of things... I interpret the signs as evidence that God is real. Others arrive at entirely different conclusions.
Frankly, you could be right, and your way could be better, which is fine by me (at least one of us got it right).
:)
Belief in Harold's rapture was caused by stupidity, not by religion.
As was the request, religion was an exclusive source (necessary condition) of the ill. This does not mean it is a sufficient condition of the ill.
Belief in Harold's rapture was caused by stupidity, not by religion.As was the request, religion was an exclusive source (necessary condition) of the ill. This does not mean it is a sufficient condition of the ill.
I agree. I'm not sure what you mean. But I agree.
Belief in Harold's rapture was caused by stupidity, not by religion.As was the request, religion was an exclusive source (necessary condition) of the ill. This does not mean it is a sufficient condition of the ill.
FYI:
(1) Necessary condition and exclusive source are not synonymous.
(2) It is possible to believe in apocalypse, waste money on dumb shit, and generally be an a$$#@*--without religion. Y2K would seem to serve as a perfect example.
|
|
Belief in Harold's rapture was caused by stupidity, not by religion.As was the request, religion was an exclusive source (necessary condition) of the ill. This does not mean it is a sufficient condition of the ill.
It is not a necessary condition of the ill. This is merely your opinion of said options.
|
Just want to add one thing to this mix. First a disclaimer. While I was raised Baptist and have looked into other belief systems over the years, my beliefs do not hold to any one belief system.
That said, one of the tenants of Christianity is the concept of Free Will. Those who acted based off Camping's predictions did so of their own Free Will (and IMO bad judgment). Just as the majority of Christians who heard Camping's predictions did not act based off them did so based off their own Free Will (and IMO good judgment).
When dealing with folks like Camping, one cannot use a wide brush to paint over "all" or "most" or even "plenty of" Christians. Typically these type of instances involve a very small minority of the whole and painting in the whole based off the actions of a small percentage does the vast majority a vast disservice.
That said, that same brush cannot be used when talking about those who follow other belief systems when some members act outside the norm for the majority of the group.
Just my 2 cp.
Belief in Harold's rapture was caused by stupidity, not by religion.As was the request, religion was an exclusive source (necessary condition) of the ill. This does not mean it is a sufficient condition of the ill.
Man. That just sounds so sciency and stuff.
Ok, why did this thread all of the sudden become about religion and atheism? This thread is about making fun of a guy who did a stupid thing and the people who believed he was right beyond a shadow of doubt regardless of what potential evidence may have been brought forth to them from whatever source. Seriously, stay on topic or I may have to resort to sterner measures.
Belief in Harold's rapture was caused by stupidity, not by religion.As was the request, religion was an exclusive source (necessary condition) of the ill. This does not mean it is a sufficient condition of the ill.
FYI:
(1) Necessary condition and exclusive source are not synonymous.
(2) It is possible to believe in apocalypse, waste money on dumb s!$~, and generally be an a$$#@*--without religion. Y2K would seem to serve as a perfect example.
(1) In general, "necessary condition" and "exclusive source" are not synonymous. However, in the context of a discussion of an ill that comes from religion and no other source, they are.
The world cannot have the ill of rapture unless the world has religion. Therefore, religion is a necessary condition of rapture.
Reference: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
(2) The ill I specified was not apocalypse (nearly every person or all people on Earth dying). The ill I specified was rapture (a number of people believing that they will be removed from Earth by a supernatural being).
I got pop corn up my nose. Should I oughtta go to the ER?
Ok, why did this thread all of the sudden become about religion and atheism?
HITLER!!!
Has anyone seen my hyperspace modulator?