[Samseau]

(09-09-2013 06:14 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No one in this thread is being rational. You're discussing things outside the realm of experience. Thus irrational. Morality is included with irrationality.

You are the one trying to engage in a rational discussion about something that is supposed to exist outside of rationality.

Why not keep quiet and let god sort out who goes to heaven and hell?

If god is real, you're right and have nothing to worry about and we will go to hell and that's that.

I'm just answering questions and providing skepticism into the Atheist's den of irrationality. Skepticism is the highest form of rationality, and most people make up their minds on this subject with far too little critical thinking.

The only extent to which religious dicsussions can be rational is once the premises are agreed upon; for example if we agree that there is a God who designed the universe then based on this irrational premise we can logically conclude he must have created all things.

So when Slayer said,

Quote:

I don't agree that God created all things. That's your personal opinion and faith, I will leave it at that.

He's missing the point - if we agree that the universe was not an accident but the product of a designer, then you must accept that morality is part of that design.

This also answers the following criticism by Arkitect:

Quote:

You've mentioned morality a couple of times now. I always find it pretty incredulous that religion and morality are brought together under one roof. I never saw a response from you to my post earlier - not sure if you missed it, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[soup]

(09-09-2013 06:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:14 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No one in this thread is being rational. You're discussing things outside the realm of experience. Thus irrational. Morality is included with irrationality.

You are the one trying to engage in a rational discussion about something that is supposed to exist outside of rationality.

Why not keep quiet and let god sort out who goes to heaven and hell?

If god is real, you're right and have nothing to worry about and we will go to hell and that's that.

I'm just answering questions and providing skepticism into the Atheist's den of irrationality. Skepticism is the highest form of rationality, and most people make up their minds on this subject with far too little critical thinking.

The only extent to which religious dicsussions can be rational is once the premises are agreed upon; for example if we agree that there is a God who designed the universe then based on this irrational premise we can logically conclude he must have created all things.

So when Slayer said,

Quote:

I don't agree that God created all things. That's your personal opinion and faith, I will leave it at that.

He's missing the point - if we agree that the universe was not an accident but the product of a designer, then you must accept that morality is part of that design.

This also answers the following criticism by Arkitect:

Quote:

You've mentioned morality a couple of times now. I always find it pretty incredulous that religion and morality are brought together under one roof. I never saw a response from you to my post earlier - not sure if you missed it, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Your whole thing is about accepting that first step. But, that first step is what the argument is about.

I actually do believe in intentionality, but I don't believe it needs to come from the top down; it's been proven that complexity can arise from simplicity, and that a god-head does not need to be in place to design something that is more simple.

Religious people look at nature assume, like they would after opening a mechanical watch, that such beauty and complexity must have been the work of some designer.

Again, watch the vid I posted on Conway's game of life and you will see that you don't need to have a designer.

[Samseau]

(09-09-2013 07:03 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:14 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No one in this thread is being rational. You're discussing things outside the realm of experience. Thus irrational. Morality is included with irrationality.

You are the one trying to engage in a rational discussion about something that is supposed to exist outside of rationality.

Why not keep quiet and let god sort out who goes to heaven and hell?

If god is real, you're right and have nothing to worry about and we will go to hell and that's that.

I'm just answering questions and providing skepticism into the Atheist's den of irrationality. Skepticism is the highest form of rationality, and most people make up their minds on this subject with far too little critical thinking.

The only extent to which religious dicsussions can be rational is once the premises are agreed upon; for example if we agree that there is a God who designed the universe then based on this irrational premise we can logically conclude he must have created all things.

So when Slayer said,

Quote:

I don't agree that God created all things. That's your personal opinion and faith, I will leave it at that.

He's missing the point - if we agree that the universe was not an accident but the product of a designer, then you must accept that morality is part of that design.

This also answers the following criticism by Arkitect:

Quote:

You've mentioned morality a couple of times now. I always find it pretty incredulous that religion and morality are brought together under one roof. I never saw a response from you to my post earlier - not sure if you missed it, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Your whole thing is about accepting that first step. But, that first step is what the argument is about.

Different people are arguing to me about different things. You're still in the God denial phase.

[soup]

(09-09-2013 07:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:03 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:14 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No one in this thread is being rational. You're discussing things outside the realm of experience. Thus irrational. Morality is included with irrationality.

You are the one trying to engage in a rational discussion about something that is supposed to exist outside of rationality.

Why not keep quiet and let god sort out who goes to heaven and hell?

If god is real, you're right and have nothing to worry about and we will go to hell and that's that.

I'm just answering questions and providing skepticism into the Atheist's den of irrationality. Skepticism is the highest form of rationality, and most people make up their minds on this subject with far too little critical thinking.

The only extent to which religious dicsussions can be rational is once the premises are agreed upon; for example if we agree that there is a God who designed the universe then based on this irrational premise we can logically conclude he must have created all things.

So when Slayer said,

Quote:

I don't agree that God created all things. That's your personal opinion and faith, I will leave it at that.

He's missing the point - if we agree that the universe was not an accident but the product of a designer, then you must accept that morality is part of that design.

This also answers the following criticism by Arkitect:

Quote:

You've mentioned morality a couple of times now. I always find it pretty incredulous that religion and morality are brought together under one roof. I never saw a response from you to my post earlier - not sure if you missed it, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Your whole thing is about accepting that first step. But, that first step is what the argument is about.

Different people are arguing to me about different things. You're still in the God denial phase.

Did you even watch the vid, or are you just trying to change the subject?

The god denial phase is where it's at. We can't move forward until this addressed.

You can talk about hypotheticals forever, but it's all fiction if you can't get people to agree on that foundation.

[Wadsworth]

(09-09-2013 06:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:14 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 05:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

No one in this thread is being rational. You're discussing things outside the realm of experience. Thus irrational. Morality is included with irrationality.

You are the one trying to engage in a rational discussion about something that is supposed to exist outside of rationality.

Why not keep quiet and let god sort out who goes to heaven and hell?

If god is real, you're right and have nothing to worry about and we will go to hell and that's that.

I'm just answering questions and providing skepticism into the Atheist's den of irrationality. Skepticism is the highest form of rationality, and most people make up their minds on this subject with far too little critical thinking.

The only extent to which religious dicsussions can be rational is once the premises are agreed upon; for example if we agree that there is a God who designed the universe then based on this irrational premise we can logically conclude he must have created all things.

So when Slayer said,

Quote:

I don't agree that God created all things. That's your personal opinion and faith, I will leave it at that.

He's missing the point - if we agree that the universe was not an accident but the product of a designer, then you must accept that morality is part of that design.

This also answers the following criticism by Arkitect:

Quote:

You've mentioned morality a couple of times now. I always find it pretty incredulous that religion and morality are brought together under one roof. I never saw a response from you to my post earlier - not sure if you missed it, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

So you're admitting that the discussion is fundamentally non rational, since you're admitting that the entire premise is non rational. Further, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You've just said X, therefore X. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

[Samseau]

(09-09-2013 07:19 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

So you're admitting that the discussion is fundamentally non rational, since you're admitting that the entire premise is non rational. Further, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You've literally just said X, therefore X. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

Yes. That's why it's called a faith.

Quote:

The god denial phase is where it's at. We can't move forward until this addressed.

How many times do we need to go over this, you cannot prove/disprove god. There will never be a way to move forward on this.

But I will say this - those who seek Christ will find him. And once you experience God you will never be able to doubt Him again, but you will still be unable to prove His existence to anyone.

[Aliblahba]

Samseau (monkey version) vs Atheists- Round 20

[Wadsworth]

(09-09-2013 07:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:19 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

So you're admitting that the discussion is fundamentally non rational, since you're admitting that the entire premise is non rational. Further, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You've literally just said X, therefore X. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

Yes. That's why it's called a faith.

Cool. And I have no problem with this. But how can you expect others to adopt morality that is based around your personal faith?

[TheSlayer]

(09-09-2013 06:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

So when Slayer said,

Quote:

I don't agree that God created all things. That's your personal opinion and faith, I will leave it at that.

He's missing the point - if we agree that the universe was not an accident but the product of a designer, then you must accept that morality is part of that design.

I am not missing the point at all, bro. I agreed with you that there may be a higher power of being that designed the universe, I never accepted that as a given. Furthermore, I have also adamantly stated that if there is a higher power of being I don't accept that is resembles anything what organized religion will have us believe.

The premise that morality is a part of that design is problematic if you refuse to accept organized religion's version of god like I do. Why is morality a part of that design? Again, you are just going by your faith or your "gut feeling". Additionally, you have boiled it down to that Christianity is the one true religion. If you are a Christian then I have no problem with that, but you are arguing from a Christianity is the superior religion POV (which all religious people tend to do with their own religion).

This means that you believe in Christianity's version of god and not some higher being who designed the universe, which is what I agreed with. Clearly, we are talking about different 'Gods' which is again a glaring hole in theism with different religions and multiple gods.

[Samseau]

Quote:

The premise that morality is a part of that design is problematic if you refuse to accept organized religion's version of god like I do.

Not at all - why can't one reject organized religion while accepting that morality is part of God's design?

[Samseau]

(09-09-2013 07:28 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:19 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

So you're admitting that the discussion is fundamentally non rational, since you're admitting that the entire premise is non rational. Further, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You've literally just said X, therefore X. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

Yes. That's why it's called a faith.

Cool. And I have no problem with this. But how can you expect others to adopt morality that is based around your personal faith?

The same way everyone expects others to confirm to their morality. Remember, there is no scientific experiment explaining why it's wrong to murder for profit.

[Wadsworth]

(09-09-2013 07:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

The premise that morality is a part of that design is problematic if you refuse to accept organized religion's version of god like I do.

Not at all - why can't one reject organized religion while accepting that morality is part of God's design?

Abortion is part of God's design.

(09-09-2013 07:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:28 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:19 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

So you're admitting that the discussion is fundamentally non rational, since you're admitting that the entire premise is non rational. Further, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You've literally just said X, therefore X. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

Yes. That's why it's called a faith.

Cool. And I have no problem with this. But how can you expect others to adopt morality that is based around your personal faith?

The same way everyone expects others to confirm to their morality. Remember, there is no scientific experiment explaining why it's wrong to murder for profit.

No, but morality based arguments should be grounded in reason, that is to say they should be rational. I have no problem with consensus moral judgements if they're arrived at based on reason. I have a problem with consensus moral judgements if they're arrived at via someone's faith.

And there need not be any scientific explanation for why murder is wrong. Morality is an emergent property of consciousness. It needs neither science nor "God."

[Teedub]

(09-09-2013 07:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

But I will say this - those who seek Christ will find him. And once you experience God you will never be able to doubt Him again, but you will still be unable to prove His existence to anyone.

FINALLY! You've admitted you're a Christian. Cool. However, if you were born in Pakistan, you'd probably be a Muslim. Born in India, a Hindu, and thus worship several God's. How do you know which one is the right one? If any at all? Also, how do you balance, in your mind, the rational scientific stuff you've acknowledged in this thread, with the blatantly untrue stuff in the Bible?

Moreover, what about Gorillas and other Apes. They have been studied to feel emotion, grief, sadness etc. Are they also worthy of heaven?

[Quintus Curtius]

It would be useful to remind ourselves here of the purpose of religion. Nothing is to be gained by squabbling about theological absurdities. One can always find examples of religious clowns, fools, and bigots. Pointing them out does not advance our understanding. What is more important is to understand the purpose and place of religion.

No society can rest its moral code on inducements to honesty, altruism, or noble ideals. The masses would not listen, and would not be inclined to obey. Individuals are not naturally sociable, and will not willingly subordinate his personal interests to those of the group on his own accord. There needs to be something to frighten him into submission, frankly. There should be some invisible watchman, and religion performs this task admirably. As the ancient geographer Strabo said:

In dealing with a crowd of women, at least, or with any promiscuous mob, a philosopher cannot influence them by reason or exhort them to reverence, piety, or faith...there is need of religious fear also, and this cannot be aroused without myths and marvels. For thunderbolts, aegis, trident, torches, snakes, etc., are myths, and so is the entire ancient theology. But the founders of states gave their sanction to these things as bugbears wherewith to scare the simple-minded....Philosophy, however, is for the few..."
Strabo, Geography, I.2-8

Civilization is created and sustained by the few. The basic masses of humanity hardly change from epoch to epoch. And this is why religion is universal. It is necessary. I know some reading this are going to say, "Oh no, not me, I don't need anything to keep me in check, I'm so noble and wonderful and superior". Really? I think not. I say to him who says this: on this Forum, a microcosm of society, you are only as good and generous as your prudence and fear allow you to be. You know that if you step out of line, the suspended sword of Tuthmosis or Roosh will fall directly on your neck. So, you think about that.

Everyone's conduct is driven by fear, to some extent. We should not think we are morally superior to people from other ages and epochs. Yes, medieval man was a "God intoxicated" being. But what about us? I think we could argue that instead of worshipping God, we have just substituted worship of the state and science.

Fear is the first mother of the gods, as Lucretius says. Above all, fear of death. For primitive man, death was all around him. Fear created totemism in primitive man, the fixation on totems and taboos. He needed something to keep the fear of death at bay, some belief system that gave his life meaning. In anthropology, nearly every object has at one point been the object of worship: sun, moon, animals, plants, etc.

Religion props up morality by using myth and taboos. Magic and even sorcery were developed to provide cohesion to the social group, bind it together with shared rituals, and to some measure inspire terror for correct conduct in human relations. Is it any accident that the greatest number of primitive taboos were attached to women? Was there not a reason for this? Women, under most primitive taboos, were unclean, untouchable at certain times, and these beliefs found their way into religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The Macusi people of British Guiana forbade their women from bathing in the water at certain times out of fear of poisoning the waters.

As societies become more advanced, however, knowledge and science grow. New ideas begin to clash uncomfortably with the old theologies, which change ever so slowly. Eventually, in advanced stages of civilizations, the educated classes begin to abandon religion completely, and this we see happening in Western Europe, Japan, and many sectors of the US. It is inevitable. But then, as the old moral supports wither away, human conduct becomes more and more degenerate. Life becomes a senseless pursuit of pleasures without end. And then the society begins to collapse, ever so slowly. A civilization and its religion tend to fall together.
And then, after many generations of chaos and turbulence, a new religion arises.

QC

[TheSlayer]

I think this thread has run its course. We are just going around in circles and it is evident what certain members believe in and I don't think anyone is going to change their mind.

[kbell]

(09-09-2013 06:48 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 06:32 PM)kbell Wrote:  

Judaism is NOT vague. You have to take into account the oral law Mishna, Talmud (commentary and more on Oral law), and Torah (Old Testament). Their is also very specific instructions on everything you can think of.

Are you kidding me? The talmud is over 6K pages, and the sources it cites are Rabbi's, not prophets of God or anything like that, but just a bunch of priests.

There are also many contradicting opinions between the Rabbi's.

I was banging a Jewish girl for the month of August, and we talked a lot about religion. She went to a Jewish high school in Newton, MA, and they studied the Talmud extensively. She had also been to Isreal.

She said that the main tenet of Judiasm is that there is no consensus, that the teachings of God are shrouded in mystery, and that it is impossible to arrive at geniune knowledge. The entire point of reading the Talmud was to be lost in the mysticism of its teachings, and feel the divine force of the unknown.

She joked with me, "It's rumored that anyone who reads the entire Talmud + Old testiment goes insane from all the knowledge they learn. The more they know, the less you will understand it."

My reply, "What a great religion." Then we banged.

A girl your banging isn't some learned Rabbi either. She probably is relatively new to the study as well. It takes about seven years to really learn the Talmud decently. And that's only after having a solid understanding of Torah. Judaism is unfortunately a very difficult religion to really get. That could be why its not as popular as Islam and Christianity. They can be simplified a lot for the masses. Along with the lack of heavy missionary work either so it doesn't spread as fast either. And also in more religious studies of Judaism women are not included usually. They are taught separately and its more with very defined blessings and kosherut laws involved in running a kitchen and home.

To add further complication there is more than one sect of Judaism and they are not going to do everything the same way. However this is similar to Christianity yet smaller in scale. Off the top of my head on Christianity side, they have Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, and Baptist and most likely a ton more. Judaism, you have, Lubavich, Satmar, and Sephardic versions. And you got the declining version from Modern Orthodox, Traditional, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructions (seems like feel good churchs more than shuls).

Most versions of Judaism however are pretty direct on how you should act and behave. There is some leeway but its not as vague as you claim.

[Invisible Jester]

I'm not surprised that many players have hostilities toward religion given the part about not lusting after anyone except the one you love.

[soup]

(09-09-2013 07:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 07:19 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

So you're admitting that the discussion is fundamentally non rational, since you're admitting that the entire premise is non rational. Further, you're engaging in circular reasoning. You've literally just said X, therefore X. Your conclusion is built into your premise.

Yes. That's why it's called a faith.

Quote:

The god denial phase is where it's at. We can't move forward until this addressed.

How many times do we need to go over this, you cannot prove/disprove god. There will never be a way to move forward on this.

But I will say this - those who seek Christ will find him. And once you experience God you will never be able to doubt Him again, but you will still be unable to prove His existence to anyone.

First we have to know which definition of god you are talking about because there are many.

If you are talking about The Christian god, you are monotheistic and denounce polytheism because you think you are the elite.

Why not take it down even further and say there is zero god?

Samseau, it sounds like you've been brainwashed to accept what has been told to you, just because it was told to you when you were a child.

[Teedub]

(09-09-2013 08:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

I think this thread has run its course. We are just going around in circles and it is evident what certain members believe in and I don't think anyone is going to change their mind.

I agree, we're going around in circles. Lock it up.

[NY Digital]

(09-10-2013 04:30 AM)soup Wrote:  

Samseau, it sounds like you've been brainwashed to accept what has been told to you, just because it was told to you when you were a child.

One could also argue you were brainwashed to not believe in God.

[soup]

(09-10-2013 08:45 AM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 04:30 AM)soup Wrote:  

Samseau, it sounds like you've been brainwashed to accept what has been told to you, just because it was told to you when you were a child.

One could also argue you were brainwashed to not believe in God.

go for it.

[TheKantian]

lol. This thread went full blown retard.

[iknowexactly]

(09-09-2013 08:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I know some reading this are going to say, "Oh no, not me, I don't need anything to keep me in check, I'm so noble and wonderful and superior". Really? I think not.
QC

"You think not." What you think is not evidence.

Some of us just don't believe shit there is no evidence for.

You're saying I should remold myself to try to believe some medieval shit because YOU think I can't be socially responsible without it?

I work in health care and have probably done more for people than you ever will. Without believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So, "I think not" about your prescription for me.

[Quintus Curtius]

(09-10-2013 12:27 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 08:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I know some reading this are going to say, "Oh no, not me, I don't need anything to keep me in check, I'm so noble and wonderful and superior". Really? I think not.
QC

"You think not." What you think is not evidence.

Some of us just don't believe shit there is no evidence for.

You're saying I should remold myself to try to believe some medieval shit because YOU think I can't be socially responsible without it?

I work in health care and have probably done more for people than you ever will. Without believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So, "I think not" about your prescription for me.

____________________

I think you're misunderstanding my comments.
I make no claim to be able to prove or disprove some higher Deity. That would be futile. No one can ever answer such questions because they are fundamentally unanswerable. It is important to get past such things.

No do I advocate for any belief system one way or another. I have never, in any of my comments, suggested that someone should or should not believe in a Deity. It is not my place to order people to do anything. I'm just a guy radiating out at you from a glowing computer screen. I don't have any power over anyone else.

All I have tried to do is point out the anthropological basis for belief in religion. I think there is ample historical and scientific evidence that religion is a deeply rooted part of the human experience. Explaining something does not equal endorsement of it. My point is to show that, regardless what you or I believe, religion has always been a force in human affairs and will go on being so. Man wants it so. He prefers comfort to knowledge, and certainty to science.

The comment I made that you refer to above was done for a specific purpose. I was trying to make the point that none of us are exempt from the laws of human nature. We are, all of us, driven by the same wants, needs, and fears that have animated mankind from the beginning. Even if we believe we are exempt, we are not. We behave ourselves because our environment and conditioning have permitted it to be so. No one should think he or she is an island unto himself, floating serenely above the masses.

Atheism forgets that it stands atop an edifice that was built by the labor and collective experience of thousands of years of piety and devotion. We take it for granted because it is nearly invisible and imperceptible. The moral codes that preserve order in society--that are so easy to take for granted--are the product of religious mythologies that have permeated every stone of that edifice.

[soup]

(09-10-2013 01:27 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(09-10-2013 12:27 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-09-2013 08:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I know some reading this are going to say, "Oh no, not me, I don't need anything to keep me in check, I'm so noble and wonderful and superior". Really? I think not.
QC

"You think not." What you think is not evidence.

Some of us just don't believe shit there is no evidence for.

You're saying I should remold myself to try to believe some medieval shit because YOU think I can't be socially responsible without it?

I work in health care and have probably done more for people than you ever will. Without believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So, "I think not" about your prescription for me.

____________________

I think you're misunderstanding my comments.
I make no claim to be able to prove or disprove some higher Deity. That would be futile. No one can ever answer such questions because they are fundamentally unanswerable. It is important to get past such things.

No do I advocate for any belief system one way or another. I have never, in any of my comments, suggested that someone should or should not believe in a Deity. It is not my place to order people to do anything. I'm just a guy radiating out at you from a glowing computer screen. I don't have any power over anyone else.

All I have tried to do is point out the anthropological basis for belief in religion. I think there is ample historical and scientific evidence that religion is a deeply rooted part of the human experience. Explaining something does not equal endorsement of it. My point is to show that, regardless what you or I believe, religion has always been a force in human affairs and will go on being so. Man wants it so. He prefers comfort to knowledge, and certainty to science.

The comment I made that you refer to above was done for a specific purpose. I was trying to make the point that none of us are exempt from the laws of human nature. We are, all of us, driven by the same wants, needs, and fears that have animated mankind from the beginning. Even if we believe we are exempt, we are not. We behave ourselves because our environment and conditioning have permitted it to be so. No one should think he or she is an island unto himself, floating serenely above the masses.

Atheism forgets that it stands atop an edifice that was built by the labor and collective experience of thousands of years of piety and devotion. We take it for granted because it is nearly invisible and imperceptible. The moral codes that preserve order in society--that are so easy to take for granted--are the product of religious mythologies that have permeated every stone of that edifice.

religion is the pussification of the mind