Why Scutfargus is interesting?

[robbie36]

If you think about it the 'Is there a God?' question is not very interesting. You see noone knows whether there is a God or not. Having very strong beliefs in things we cant know about is stupid. Right?

Now nearly all of us believe in things that dont exist - it is just that we dont have very strong beliefs in them. For instance, I believe that there is intelligent life on another planet somewhere in the universe. I might be wrong but it just seems quite likely given how big people say the universe is.

So it is quite normal to believe in ghosts, tooth fairies, UFOs, Gods, afterlife, goblins etc.. I am fine with that. But if you said that you go off to church every week and worship the toothfairy I would think you were very stupid.

So what is interesting about Scartfargus is this. It seems interesting to me that seemingly intelligent people devote their lives to believing in things that they cant know whether they exist or not. Look at the number of priests, clergy or whatever there are out there. Look at how this stuff is taught in every school.

How does the likes of Scartfargus come about? How can someone like him believe what he believes? The answer is that it is remarkably easy to brainwash people. And that once you have brainwashed people with one stupid idea it is remarkably easy to brainwash them with another one.

Think of what is at the core of the Scartfargus message. It is this. If you truely believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, was God, then you will have everlasting life.

On the one hand it sounds totally absurd but on the other it has a certain appealing ring to it. The ring goes like this 'wow is that all i have to do, that isnt very much?' But at first you turn to the guy and say 'that's rubbish' and he replies 'look if you dont want everlasting life that's fine by me.... but if you want it this is all you have to do'. Now the reality is that if you say this enough times to people, many will eventually end up believing it. Why not? It isnt asking much and you get everlasting life afterall. Believing in it seems like a good insurance policy.

Now once you do believe... you think it is pretty amazing. Suddenly you have gone from a skeptic to a believer and you think to yourself. Wow how could I have been so stupid? All I had to do is believe in Jesus Christ and I got eternal life. Wow why didnt I think of that before? Why is everyone else so stupid? I must tell everyone.

Now here is where the problem starts. Once you have one firmly held stupid belief it is very easy to plant other ones. You say 'look before you didnt believe me about JC being the son of God but now you know it is true'.... 'it wasnt you who was stupid but everyone else' Did you know that JC rose from the dead? Its here in the bible' 'You must come to church every day and worship God if you want a happy life'

And quite soon you are doing stupid things for something you dont even know exists - like going to church and worshipping that God. And then you are not very far away from going off to war and killing people because you think you are doing God's work.

Now you might think there isnt that much of this sort of programming going on but there is. When you are born you are christened in church. You are told to say your prayers every night. You are made to repeat the Lord's prayer. President Bush talks about God in pretty well every speech he makes.

And if you criticise peoples religous beliefs people either say you are boring or, worse still, they say you should 'respect other peoples religous beliefs'. I just dont get it 'why should we respect other peoples religous beliefs?'

Working out what is right and wrong? What is interesting and what is not? What is important and what is not? Is difficult enough in life without having all the God crap shoved down out throats. I would have thought the process that turns someone into a Scartfargus is quite interesting and quite important. And one that I hope my children are never exposed to.

Anyway it seems more important that the FA cup? What is everyone's favourite colour? Whether Babyloupsin is a cheap slut or a really nice girl?

But I readily admit it is not as important or as interesting as sex.

[Loburt]

I promise I'll still respect your beliefs in the morning, Robbie.

[Khun_Sam]

Robbie that was a very post. I wonder how long it took you to write.

I'm amazed that I managed to read the whole thing even without pictures of sexy babes in between the paragraphs. That's how good it was.

I have often asked myself the same questions.

There are several very religious persons in my family, all of them very highly educated and most of them very rational in their general thinking, except when it comes to their faith. And I have to admit that a few of them have a higher intellect than myself.

It seems that at some point in time they have been touched by some holy spirit or have seen the 'light' somehow. Otherwise it is hard to explain why some people have so much faith in their God and not others, who have had a similar upbringing to them. Sometimes I wished that I would also be touched by the holy spirit which could bring some sense to our being. But it just has not happened for me.

[johnno]

i think scutwhatsisname is interesting cos you can do many tricky things to his name to make it sound silly/funny/rude

amen

[eagle]

Now nearly all of us believe in things that dont exist - it is just that we dont have very strong beliefs in them. For instance, I believe that there is intelligent life on another planet somewhere in the universe. I might be wrong but it just seems quite likely given how big people say the universe is.

I hear ya , I hope there is intelligent life out there cause we are lacking here

[eagle]

Yes, he should be allowed to express himself,

he's controversial, and gets peoples heart racing,

A bit like John Merrick

I vote for scutfargus POPE of Thailandfriends

[WiCKeDBiRD]

I think for some of those sensible ppl who somehow do believe in -GOD-

and manage to go to chruch every Sunday.

its probably like ... mmmm -Lottery-.... for them.

You dont know if you are going to -WIN- or not..

BUT if you take a chance by buying it.. you might -WIN-..

All you have to do is to buy it..

and keep it in your pocket...

and then wait for the Result.

These kind of ppl cant be easily -Brainwashed-... I guess.

Dont know... just my 2 Bahts.

-WB-

[scutfargus]

Got to admit that I am flattered to have my own thread. WHen I am a little less busy, I will tell you all about how I was brainwashed.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

-Brainwashed-

Mmmm I kind of like this word ... really 8)

[johnno]

Got to admit that I am flattered to have my own thread. WHen I am a little less busy, I will tell you all about how I was brainwashed.

gee, i hope you stay busy :evil:

[SiamHotel]

Got to admit that I am flattered to have my own thread. WHen I am a little less busy, I will tell you all about how I was brainwashed.

after u KILL YOURSELF la?!!

plz plzzz do NOT change your mind!.... k, thx, bye

-- Noxferatu

[melasinsh]

Having very strong beliefs in things we cant know about is stupid. Right?

... But if you said that you go off to church every week and worship the toothfairy I would think you were very stupid.

robbie

1) I somehow believe your points would have been more credible if you had not kept using the word stupid throughout. Anytime I see someone keep using the word stupid, I give less credence to their arguments.

There are very many intelligent people that will go to church every week and worship the God of their choice.

2) There is a classical argument that goes against the very backbone of your argument. We hypothesize that "Blackholes" exist in space. Very intelligent people believe in them very strongly. You cannot see a blackhole, can you?

Can you show me a picture of a blackhole. No, you cannot. You can only show me a picture of where very intelligent people "believe" there is a blackhole.

This works quite well because Astrophysicists say light cannot escape from a blackhole due to the strong gravitational pull so we will never be able to see one. We hypothesize there is a blackhole because we measure an unusually large pinpoint source of X-rays in a particulary area where there is no visible light or star.

Very intelligent people can hold firmly (very firmly) to things we can't be certain about, can't know about, can't see.

[zeusbheld]

Having very strong beliefs in things we cant know about is stupid. Right?

... But if you said that you go off to church every week and worship the toothfairy I would think you were very stupid.

robbie

1) I somehow believe your points would have been more credible if you had not kept using the word stupid throughout. Anytime I see someone keep using the word stupid, I give less credence to their arguments.

There are very many intelligent people that will go to church every week and worship the God of their choice.

2) There is a classical argument that goes against the very backbone of your argument. We hypothesize that "Blackholes" exist in space. Very intelligent people believe in them very strongly. You cannot see a blackhole, can you?

Can you show me a picture of a blackhole. No, you cannot. You can only show me a picture of where very intelligent people "believe" there is a blackhole.

This works quite well because Astrophysicists say light cannot escape from a blackhole due to the strong gravitational pull so we will never be able to see one. We hypothesize there is a blackhole because we measure an unusually large pinpoint source of X-rays in a particulary area where there is no visible light or star.

Very intelligent people can hold firmly (very firmly) to things we can't be certain about, can't know about, can't see.

point #1 is fine, point #2 is not even a point. if you try again, use something that we cannot know about (know in the epistemological sense) as that was what r36's post was about.

there are some interesting arguments against what he says, starting from a fallacy, equating seeing with existence is far from one of them. his words were CANNOT KNOW ABOUT.

this is a really really really weak example because there is considerable physical evidence for the existence of black holes. we will never see them, by definition, but we can most definitely know about them.

by the way i can show you lots of pictures of things that dont exist, i can even make them in photoshop. htis doesnt make them any more real.

however, i believe that a very strong case can be made that it is safe to assume that something testable, repeatable, predictable is real regardless of whether we can ever see it. although it is possible that what we believe a black hole to be now ain't exactly what it really is.

if you want to argue for or against God, that is one thing. if you want to argue against what robbie said, fine. but the descriptions of the universe physics gives us are the closest thing to knowledge we can hope to have, arguing against them is a great way to risk ruining your credibility.

cannot SEE is NOT the same as cannot KNOW ABOUT. apparently i had the wrong defintion of classical? classical = fallacious?

[melasinsh]

point #2 is not even a point. if you try again, use something that we cannot know about (know in the epistemological sense) as that was what r36's post was about.

I think if you had actually read r36's posting, you would have noticed his example which I will paraphrase as, "He believes there is probably life elsewhere on some other planets in some other galaxy because he has been told how large the universe is." However he continues to claim it is not something he feels strongly about since it cannot be known for sure. To claim it is most definitively true is "stupid."

A rough paraphrase but accurate nevertheless. I chose to take a perfectly valid example extrapolating from his starting point. He has in NO WAY, shape nor form restricted this discussion to an epistemological matter.

No, I have had this discussion before, there is no reason, except your own desire to say so, that there is strong physical evidence that blackholes exist. Can you provide the proof??? Can you explain why they are "probably" present???

I think you are providing a perfectly valid living example of my point. Yourself. You "think" you are very intelligent logical reasoning human being and have come to accept the existence of something we will never be able to resolve or prove to many people's satisfaction.

[johnno]

Think of what is at the core of the Scartfargus message. It is this. If you truely believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, was God, then you will have everlasting life.

so only approx 30% of the worlds population will have everlasting life??? the christian ones??? even tho the other 70% are good people and practice their own religion and live according to their religous principals???

i was born in australia, a majority christian country, so i was raised a christian. now, if i was born in indonesia, there is a safe bet i would be a muslim cos that is what the majority of indonesians are. if i was born in thailand, it is a safe bet i would be buddhist, again because that is what a majority of thais are. so how does this fit in with your theory robbie? maybe these good people live up country and have never experienced christianity or want to cos they are happy with their lot? is God really so shallow that he created these very same people but now he is gonna bring about some rules that these people have no chance of conforming to cos they don't know these new rules???? nowhere in their religion does it mention that they have to give up their religion and take up a new one or else they are doomed to non-everlasting life.

what a crock of ****.

and i still say scutfargus is only interesting cos of his name and what you can do to it. 8) :shock:

[Loburt]

No, I have had this discussion before, there is no reason, except your own desire to say so, that there is strong physical evidence that blackholes exist. Can you provide the proof??? Can you explain why they are "probably" present???

I think you are providing a perfectly valid living example of my point. Yourself. You "think" you are very intelligent logical reasoning human being and have come to accept the existence of something we will never be able to resolve or prove to many people's satisfaction.

There is plenty of evidence that "suggests" the existence of black holes. There are numerous places in the galaxy and universe that have been detected where star matter is being siphoned off and drawn into a point where it is disappearing.

In my opinion, black holes still are theoretical objects. Nonetheless, there is evidence to support their existence.

Starting in the late 18th century, for more than a hundred years, astronomers "believed" there was a ninth planet. With the limited technology of their times, they couldn't see this planet, and so some doubted its existence. The scientists who believed it existed, did so because of variations in the orbit of Neptune, the eighth planet. These variations could be explained by another planet, further out from the sun, having a gravitational effect upon Neptune. There was observable physical evidence that led them to theorize, and many to believe, that a ninth planet was out there.

In 1930, scientists, armed with better telescopes than they had ever had before, discovered this ninth planet - Pluto.

So it is entirely possible to believe something exists that you can not see, and that it in fact does exist. But in science, as opposed to religion, this is based on some observable evidence instead of faith and nothing else.

[MikeAussieGuy]

I am far from being able to confidently discuss this topic however I have read much on the topic of Black Holes.

I was never in doubt such a thing existed, and the learned, certainly the ones I have read anyway have no doubt such a thing exists.

I am suprised to read here that doubt exists.

Anyway have a look at :

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050509_blackhole_birth.html

its a great site and discusses the recent discovery of the newest Black Hole.

[zeusbheld]

I think if you had actually read r36's posting,

i read YOURS i didnt need to read his.

you would have noticed his example which I will paraphrase as, "He believes there is probably life elsewhere on some other planets in some other galaxy because he has been told how large the universe is." However he continues to claim it is not something he feels strongly about since it cannot be known for sure. To claim it is most definitively true is "stupid."

yeah but you also have to read the thesis of what he's saying not just the example. he clearly states his primary idea even if the example you mention might not illustrate this.

and ps: do you know if there is life on some other planet?

A rough paraphrase but accurate nevertheless. I chose to take a perfectly valid example extrapolating from his starting point. He has in NO WAY, shape nor form restricted this discussion to an epistemological matter.

again, i dont give a flying **** about what he said, MY poiint is that your extrapolation sucked. it's NOT about HIS post for me it's about your rape of physics.

No, I have had this discussion before, there is no reason, except your own desire to say so, that there is strong physical evidence that blackholes exist. Can you provide the proof??? Can you explain why they are "probably" present???

did i bring it up or did you? can YOU demonstrate that physics is epistemologically inferior to whatever horseshit you're TRYING to talk about?????? sorry but i found it offensive.

I think you are providing a perfectly valid living example of my point.

and i havent seen you MAKE a point.

=Yourself. You "think" you are very intelligent logical reasoning human being and have come to accept the existence of something we will never be able to resolve or prove to many people's satisfaction.

so because we cannot prove it "to many people's satisfaction," it is not true?

what about the fact that you can make predictions based on physics AND THEY WORK CONSISTENTLY????? can you make a prediction that will work consistently without invoking physics????????????? i ******* doubt it.

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

it's about whether i can use physics to make a prediction or your whooshy "everything's relative" bullshit.

lame response. YAWN.

[zeusbheld]

This is what puts me off religion. People view it as a bit of an insurance policy...just in case. The selfishness of man, our desire for personal gain above all else... has transcended todays spiritual journey.

saaaaay son... you're quick.

can i offer you a job in my corporation? i can promise you all the sheep you can do.

[Loburt]

Thanks for the link, MAG, nice site.

Still, at this point in time, I think black holes must remain theoretical objects for which there is evidence of existence.

Nonetheless, 50 or 100 years from now scientists with better instruments, technologies, etc. may develop a different and better theory about what's happening out there.

Or, their current theories may be proven right.

[zeusbheld]

I am far from being able to confidently discuss this topic however I have read much on the topic of Black Holes.

I was never in doubt such a thing existed, and the learned, certainly the ones I have read anyway have no doubt such a thing exists.

I am suprised to read here that doubt exists.

Anyway have a look at :

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050509_blackhole_birth.html

its a great site and discusses the recent discovery of the newest Black Hole.

THANKS. i think melashnish might have an interesting point if he didnt choose such an unfortunate example .

[zeusbheld]

Thanks for the link, MAG, nice site.

Still, at this point in time, I think black holes must remain theoretical objects for which there is evidence of existence.

Nonetheless, 50 or 100 years from now scientists with better instruments, technologies, etc. may develop a different and better theory about what's happening out there.

Or, their current theories may be proven right.

black holes are not a law of nature the way that the acceleration of gravity is ,

but they are considerably more proven than a LOT of what we hold to be true.

[zeusbheld]

This is what puts me off religion. People view it as a bit of an insurance policy...just in case. The selfishness of man, our desire for personal gain above all else... has transcended todays spiritual journey.

saaaaay son... you're quick.

can i offer you a job in my corporation? i can promise you all the sheep you can do.

...hmmm...

Do i get my own orifice with a view of a paddock of some sought?

God Bless You Zues. (Ive decided to go with the insurance btw)

you get several orifices, most of which are yours already (although some of them, you might find, you are sharing).

[zeusbheld]

So it is entirely possible to believe something exists that you can not see, and that it in fact does exist. But in science, as opposed to religion, this is based on some observable evidence instead of faith and nothing else.

E X A C T L Y

[scutfargus]

So what is interesting about Scartfargus is this. It seems interesting to me that seemingly intelligent people devote their lives to believing in things that they cant know whether they exist or not. Look at the number of priests, clergy or whatever there are out there. Look at how this stuff is taught in every school.

How does the likes of Scartfargus come about? How can someone like him believe what he believes? The answer is that it is remarkably easy to brainwash people. And that once you have brainwashed people with one stupid idea it is remarkably easy to brainwash them with another one.

Think of what is at the core of the Scartfargus message. It is this. If you truely believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, was God, then you will have everlasting life.

Robbie, that is the core.

How I was Brainwashed

by scut fargus

My father was raised a Christian Scientist (which is neither Christian nor scientific) and my mother was raised Mormon (not anymore, however). They did take us to church, but to several different churches. I can only recall going to a Mormon church once, but I might have gone more often. I went to a baptist summer session (a week I think) and won a Bible (I can't tell you how disappointing that was to me). Mostly I went to Unity church (that is where the parents took us) and I mentioned before that the pastor was a woman who wore a low cut dress (being a woman pastor was quite progressive for those days). Everything but the gospel of Jesus Christ was taught there.

My mother was heavily involved with Edgar Cayce groups, and I read some of his books and believed in it and believed strongly in reincarnation (as a result of my upbringing and reading about Edgar Cayce regressing people back to past lives). Because I was raised in the public school system, I also believed strongly in evolution.

I recall going to "dream groups" where we would discuss our dreams; and most of them there, as far as I know, believed in reincarnation as well.

Around 21 or so, I was exposed to the gospel for the first time where it sort of clicked. I did not really understand it, but I knew, for some reason, there was some kind of decision to be made. Now, even though I liked the gal who presented to me, I still resisted. That is normal. I resisted strongly in fact. I really was not that resistant to religious ideas, but to the gospel, I was. Although she and I did not argue about it, I pretty much had the same ideas that most of you have presented. It can't be the Word of God; and it has been translated so many times as to lose its original meaning. Oh, yeah, and I knew about those hidden gospels that organized religion kept out of our hands (we had some at home in our library). So, I was quite misinformed, but I did not know that then. Well, after facing the gospel, and rejecting it, God shoved me down to the ground, and things changed considerably. I was forced to go back and think about it.

At that point, I began to read a lot. I read Jehovah Witness stuff, Armstrong church stuff, other cultic stuff, as well as some mainstream Christian literature and even some Catholic literature. I really don't know when I believed, if I believed in Jesus Christ first, and read that stuff, or believed after. But, I did a lot of reading and thought a lot about these basic issues. One thing that struck me was, I had never ever heard anything like Jesus is God--that God came in the flesh to this earth. That seemed so weird to me. It was hard to wrap my mind around that.

I eventually noticed that a couple of different authors and speakers (J. Vernon McGee and RB Thieme Jr) were saying roughly the same things but were completely different personalities and there was no association between them (I found out later that they did know one another). What they said seemed to be in line with the Bible as well. I read cultic literature, and I read anti-cultic literature...then I would check it out in the Bible, to see what the Bible said. I wasn't really convinced that it was the Word of God at that point, but I had to have something to test these different opinions with. These cultic materials, of course, challenged the fundamental beliefs of Christians. At some point in all of this, I read, "Believe in Jesus Christ and you have eternal life." That was the first time I understood the gospel (when I rejected it before, I was essentially rejecting Christianity, although I did not know what it was exactly). And then it struck me--I don't know if this is right or not, but it says this over and over again in the Bible, why not take a chance and believe? Well, I think I believed in Jesus Christ on several occasions to make sure it took. However, the first time I believed in Jesus Christ, that was when I got eternal life.

Now, my interest in evolution began to develop at this time. I was sure that evolution was true--it seemed logical, and of course, very scientific; and I was taught this in school (back then, it never occurred to me that I was taught anything that was incorrect in school--go ahead and make fun of me, but that thought never entered my brain at that time).

Anyway, some of the cultic literature made some reasonable arguments against evolution. Now, just so you understand, I did not have a point of view which I needed to adhere to in this regard. I had already assumed that God used evolution to bring all things about, and I was cool with that. However, the literature which offered arguments against evolution was quite interesting. The Jehovah Witness stuff in this regard was okay; but the Armstrong material was pretty convincing. Then I began to pick up other books which dealt with this topic in more detail.

I want to emphasize, at that point in time, whether I believed in evolution or not really was not a fundamental thing to me. There was no pressure for me to believe one way or the other. No Christian and no speaker at any time told me that I should look into this and change my views. For most of you, much of what you believe is tied to evolution...especially if you do not believe in God, you have to believe in something. You know man came from somewhere, and if you don't believe in God, then you can't just ignore this issue--so, evolution provides you a way to believe that there is no God or that belief in God is optional. It is a fundamental issue for you that is hard to let go of. It wasn't for me--even though I believed in evolution, I could be swayed one way or the other with a good argument; I could be quite open minded about it. First of all, that evolution was even questioned struck me as interesting, as I had no idea anyone could even question that theory. I thought it was like questioning the theory of relativity. And, originally, I thought the arguments were going to be similar to those of the "Flat Earth people," who were around at that time--all rhetoric and no substance. However, without coercion, but after a great deal of reading, I finally went over to the other side, and stopped believing in evolution and I ended up believing that we were created in a very short period of time directly by God.

And that is how I came to be brainwashed.

The End