religion

[Tenlaar]

Why do you keep it calling it magic
Because you keep insisting that something outside of the laws of the universe exists and has a role in events.

Jesus Christ existed.

Prove it.

[G13]

Because you keep insisting that something outside of the laws of the universe exists and has a role in events.

A role in events? What events? That's an ambiguous statement at best.

Something existed outside The Universe before it was created. Something existed outside of Space and Time before they existed because Space and Time were created when The Universe was created. The laws that govern the Universe were created when The Universe was created. All Matter and Energy was created when the Universe was created.

You don't need to claim "magic" created these things when you can just look at the complexity and symbiosis of Nature and Life. The complexity of data and structured order in ALL LIFE and Nature.

Mathematics and Probabilities work in favor of Design and Creation. Not random chance. For example musical notes exist. The frequencies in which they operate exist, but that doesn't create music. A creative force behind arranging those notes in specific mathematical calculations creates music. Songs don't write themselves.

Something cannot come from Nothing.

Probabilities

Dimensions

Try thinking outside Materialism which is fast fading in light of Information Theory. It's not difficult if you try.

Prove it.

Prove what?

[Glenzig]

If the laws of the universe don't create anything then anything created has to be by a force outside the laws of the universe. AKA magic.

I guess if that's the term you want to ascribe to it, then whatever. But you know as well as anyone else that the laws of the universe didn't create themselves.

[G13]

Even if you don't believe Jesus Christ was the son of God he existed

Roman Historians at the time have confirmed this. Pontius Pilate and Calaphas were real people. Calaphas tomb has even been discovered. There is a wealth of historical information outside of The Bible that proves he existed. Read Josephus who was far from a Christian.

Very few scholars claim Jesus didn't exist. The only proof Socrates existed were his followers. Did Socrates not exist?

You're aware that Richard Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed right?

[RobotElvis]

Because you keep insisting that something outside of the laws of the universe exists and has a role in events.



Prove it.

▪ A number of secular writers who lived close to the time of Jesus made specific mention of him. Among them was Cornelius Tacitus, who recorded the history of Rome under the emperors. Regarding a fire that devastated Rome in 64 C.E., Tacitus relates that it was rumored that Emperor Nero was responsible for the disaster. Nero, says Tacitus, tried to place the blame on a group whom the populace called Christians. Tacitus writes: “Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”—Annals, XV, 44.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also mentions Jesus. In discussing events that took place between the death of Festus, the Roman governor of Judea about 62 C.E., and the arrival of his successor, Albinus, Josephus says that High Priest Ananus (Annas) “convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others.”—Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200 (ix, 1).

[Archalen]

I don't think you can look at how complex and finely tuned The Universe is and come to the conclusion it structured and ordered itself from Nothing or by random chance. The probabilities that our reality was built this way are just not workable mathematically.

The laws that govern the Universe did not write themselves. The obvious engineering and design behind kinds/types/body plans show an obvious creative mind behind their development. You don't see mis-happen and randomly formed life. Quite the contrary. You see life with specific functions that supports other life.

The harmony and symbiosis between plants and animals. The seasons. The self healing and self replicating functions of all life. It's too complex. Time doesn't make things more complex. Quite the contrary actually. Time = Entropy and Entropy damages and erodes genetic code. Things become more disorganized over time.

Clearly aliens didn't build the universe. Didn't write it's laws. If aliens existed they would be ruled under the same laws that govern the entire universe. Time/Space/Matter came into existence with "The Big Bang". If you look at the essence of Matter, a table for instance, 99% of what you perceive as solid matter is actually only about 1-2% Matter. Your reality is governed by how your brain is processing data and electrical signals. Think of your life as literally a virtual reality. Your body an organic machine that temporarily hosts your eternal soul in this reality. There is a creative mind that exists outside Time and Space that is behind our Reality. It's all about perception and perspective.

Time/Chance is not a creative force. Consciousness, Moral absolutes and Love are Spiritual forces and Creative forces beyond the 5 senses. Beyond the physical world. A Creator would obviously let himself be known to his creation. He would want his creations to behave in certain ways to protect them from themselves (sin). He would lead by example through actions, not words, as to what the Love of a parent really is for their children (Self Sacrifice) but at the same time He would want his children to "choose" to love Him willingly out of their own Free Will. He wouldn't create "I Love You" robots.

I firmly believe that Jesus Christ answers all of those questions perfectly. His life. His teachings. His Death and His resurrection. That's not about a religion either by the way. Religion has nothing to do with it. Mankind by his very nature is deceitful and corrupt. If you rely on mankind for Truth you are putting your "Faith" in the wrong place.

Now it's perfectly understandable if you do not share that view and there are plenty of people that believe in Intelligent Design who are not Christians. They are perfectly logical and reasonable people that see the obvious intelligence and creativity in all life. Personally I don't think anyone can be "convinced" to believe in God. Through your own journey in Life you're going to go through shit that leads you down that path, but you're never going to take that first step until you learn grace, humility and forgiveness. These are spiritual things. Intangible things, but it doesn't make them any less real.

This is the problem that Evolutionists can't deal with. They've become too comfortable in their ivory towers dictating how things are to everyone else, except all of their assertions are based upon frauds like Piltdown Man, The Peppered Moth, the bogus embryo drawing ect. When challenged they run from the debate like Leewrong or they call you retarded without offering any rebuttal.

I hope that answers your question.

I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.

For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.

Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.

I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.

I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.

[Archalen]

A role in events? What events? That's an ambiguous statement at best.

Something existed outside The Universe before it was created. Something existed outside of Space and Time before they existed because Space and Time were created when The Universe was created. The laws that govern the Universe were created when The Universe was created. All Matter and Energy was created when the Universe was created.

You don't need to claim "magic" created these things when you can just look at the complexity and symbiosis of Nature and Life. The complexity of data and structured order in ALL LIFE and Nature.

Mathematics and Probabilities work in favor of Design and Creation. Not random chance. For example musical notes exist. The frequencies in which they operate exist, but that doesn't create music. A creative force behind arranging those notes in specific mathematical calculations creates music. Songs don't write themselves.

Something cannot come from Nothing.

Probabilities

Dimensions

Try thinking outside Materialism which is fast fading in light of Information Theory. It's not difficult if you try.



Prove what?

This is why defining your technical notions is so important. Now you mention Information Theory. I can't even be sure how you are using the term "entropy" since it is used slightly differently in Information Theory.

[RobotElvis]

I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.

For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.

Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.

I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.

I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.

I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it.

There is not one instance ever observed where design is the product of a non intelligent force. I'm not talking about speculation on the bing bang or abiogenesis, let's think beyond that. I'm saying something that has been observed by humans that does not have design.

If there is intelligence then there is a personality behind it. This to has never been observed by humans, intelligence devoid of personality.(I know that someone will use A.I. As an example but that is something created and programmed and shows the personality of the original designer/s)

[RobotElvis]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's

[radditsu]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity



Just cursory search it goes c. C is the fastest things go. Not just light.

[leewong]

...

"I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it."

If design were apparent then we wouldnt be having this conversation. "I personally feel" I am quoting these words to stress why your chain of thought is flawed.

[Glenzig]

"I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it."

If design were apparent then we wouldnt be having this conversation. "I personally feel" I am quoting these words to stress why your chain of thought is flawed.

Where is design not apparent?

[leewong]

Ok I got a good question for you Leewong.

Light is the "fastest" thing in the known universe right?

But if the sun went supernova the light would take eight minutes to reach us on earth before we knew that it had went supernova.

But gravity would cease immediately.

So is gravity being a force, faster than light?

Sorry these are the things that I think of when I'm two glasses in to a bottle of Maker's

The gravitational wave would propagate at the same speed as light would. The affects of both would be observed simultaneously. Gravity would not shut off before the lights went out.

"The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c.[1] Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any interaction in nature." -wikipedia

[iruinedyourday]

NO GOD WOULD DESIGN YOU IDIOTS

[radditsu]

Ok I have not had a physics class in well over a decade amd the science channel is all about that kaku cocksucker talking over planets smashing together as if to say "look at this cool shit guys. We can cgi some planets blowing up!" And then they cum all over their own chests.


Science tv is the worst yall.

[Tenlaar]

▪ A number of secular writers who lived close to the time of Jesus made specific mention of him. Among them was Cornelius Tacitus, who recorded the history of Rome under the emperors. Regarding a fire that devastated Rome in 64 C.E., Tacitus relates that it was rumored that Emperor Nero was responsible for the disaster. Nero, says Tacitus, tried to place the blame on a group whom the populace called Christians. Tacitus writes: “Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.”—Annals, XV, 44.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also mentions Jesus. In discussing events that took place between the death of Festus, the Roman governor of Judea about 62 C.E., and the arrival of his successor, Albinus, Josephus says that High Priest Ananus (Annas) “convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others.”—Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200 (ix, 1).

So your proof is from Josephus and Tacitus, both of whom weren't even born yet when Jesus was supposedly killed and both of whom wrote their mentions of him after the gospels had already been written and Christianity was already a forming religion? That's some airtight shit right there.

[leewong]

Where is design not apparent?


The claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. There are good reasons why people should see design that is not there:

1. Humans anthropomorphize. We tend to attribute our humanlike qualities to all sorts of things. Since design is what humans do, we attribute it far and wide.

2. Evolution has much in common with a design process. It generates trial-and-error modifications of existing forms and discards the inferior versions. So naturally, order will arise from this process alone.

[Glenzig]

The claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. There are good reasons why people should see design that is not there:

1. Humans anthropomorphize. We tend to attribute our humanlike qualities to all sorts of things. Since design is what humans do, we attribute it far and wide.

2. Evolution has much in common with a design process. It generates trial-and-error modifications of existing forms and discards the inferior versions. So naturally, order will arise from this process alone.

Well you definitely anthropomorphize evolution every time you talk about it.

[Glenzig]

“Even if we have a reliable criterion for detecting design, and even if that criterion tells us that biological systems are designed, it seems that determining a biological system to be designed is akin to shrugging our shoulders and saying God did it. The fear is that admitting design as an explanation will stifle scientific inquiry, that scientists will stop investigating difficult problems because they have a sufficient explanation already.

But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. Evolutionary biology texts often cite the human coccyx as a "vestigial structure" that hearkens back to vertebrate ancestors with tails. Yet if one looks at a recent edition of Gray’s Anatomy, one finds that the coccyx is a crucial point of contact with muscles that attach to the pelvic floor. The phrase "vestigial structure" often merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. The human appendix, formerly thought to be vestigial, is now known to be a functioning component of the immune system.


William A. Dembski

[leewong]

Well you definitely anthropomorphize evolution every time you talk about it.

Sure I do.

/eyeroll

[Glenzig]

Sure I do.

/eyeroll

"It generates trial and error...and discards inferior."

That implies intelligence. You can have trial and error without intelligence to pick out the portions that worked. Otherwise you would just have error. You can't regard something as inferior without intelligence. Evolution or natural selection then would have to be a form of intelligent selection. But if there is no one to do the selecting, how does anything get selected?

[radditsu]

"It generates trial and error...and discards inferior."

That implies intelligence. You can have trial and error without intelligence to pick out the portions that worked. Otherwise you would just have error. You can't regard something as inferior without intelligence. Evolution or natural selection then would have to be a form of intelligent selection. But if there is no one to do the selecting, how does anything get selected?

Eating and fucking better is success. And jesus hates the fuckin without a ring. Poor monkeys going to hell.

[radditsu]

Eating and fucking = reproduction and growth. Poor traits tend to die off after a few tries. More things with a better trait that is stronger and fucks harder and has more exist. They then have more room to develop. Bigger seals get to fuck the women.

[radditsu]

You dont have to be smart to eat and fuck.

[leewong]

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. Evolutionary biology texts often cite the human coccyx as a "vestigial structure" that hearkens back to vertebrate ancestors with tails. Yet if one looks at a recent edition of Gray’s Anatomy, one finds that the coccyx is a crucial point of contact with muscles that attach to the pelvic floor. The phrase "vestigial structure" often merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. The human appendix, formerly thought to be vestigial, is now known to be a functioning component of the immune system.


William A. Dembski

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Dont have to. It was a slightly throwaway phrase to describe very interesting phenomena that were discovered in the 1970s. You do realize genetics is a relatively new field, right? Our knowledge isnt static. Scientists now know a good percentage of this "junk DNA" is used in regulation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/
From the article above:
"Should we be retiring the phrase “junk DNA” now?
Yes, I really think this phrase does need to be totally expunged from the lexicon."

"Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. "

"A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

[leewong]

....

"That implies intelligence. You can have trial and error without intelligence to pick out the portions that worked. Otherwise you would just have error."

FFS, dont be dense. Mutation bad...animal die. Mutation good...animal survive better. How does that process require a mind to govern it?

[Glenzig]

“Consider the term "junk DNA."

Dont have to. It was a slightly throwaway phrase to describe very interesting phenomena that were discovered in the 1970s. You do realize genetics is a relatively new field, right? Our knowledge isnt static. Scientists now know a good percentage of this "junk DNA" is used in regulation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/
From the article above:
"Should we be retiring the phrase “junk DNA” now?
Yes, I really think this phrase does need to be totally expunged from the lexicon."

"Or consider vestigial organs that later are found to have a function after all. "

"A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Well that wasn't actually the point of that particular quote. The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research. Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you.

[iruinedyourday]

who cares if jesus was alive or not, he wouldnt have liked any of you christian mother fuckers one bit thats all that matters.

[radditsu]

Eat and fuck better= More things.

[leewong]

The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research. Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you.

"The point was that realizing that everything we see in the natural world is designed is not a hindrance, but a benefit to scientific research."

First, you have to show design is apparent and not based on personal feelings. Otherwise, the claim is nonsensical. Also, this man you quoted didnt even know the definition of vestigial or is being dishonest about it. Either way it doesnt look good for him.

"Those article you linked actually bear that out, since those terms were not invented for a means of explaining design, but evolution. Which only reinforces the point of the quote I posted. So I guess, thank you."

Nice assertion. How would terminology like "junk DNA" meant to describe a phenomena we observe reinforce the quote you posted? Explain in detail.

[leewong]

How would terminology like "junk DNA" meant to describe a phenomena we observe reinforce the quote you posted? Explain in detail.

Mutation bad...animal die. Mutation good...animal survive better. How does that process require a mind to govern it?

I have answered your questions for how many pages now? How about you answer just one of mine. Take your pick.

[leewong]

I have answered your questions for how many pages now? How about you answer just one of mine. Take your pick.

Was meant for Glenzig. Just clarifying.

[G13]

I am pleasantly surprised; you responded very descriptively and non-defensively. Unfortunately, I don't think I have enough time to adequately discuss every point made here, but I will bring up some issues. I am trying to understand why "intelligent design" is a compelling explanatory theory. Firstly, if starting from scratch, I would have to tease out what is meaningful in your discussion. To do that, I would need technical notions defined with the context of your explanatory theory.

Thanks for the reply. You didn't come at with me with your first post claiming intellectual superiority because you believe in Evolution while at the same time calling everyone else stupid that doesn't. Appreciate it.

The Universe is actually finely tuned like a musical instrument at very specific frequencies. Scientists are now learning that this is not by accident. We're talking about the entire Universe, which in and of itself is a closed system. Everything within that closed system is governed by it's laws. Everything.

The laws that govern the Universe exist. They did not create themselves. By themselves they have no power to create life. They only explain how shit works. Not what built it. For example adding and subtracting doesn't magically put more money in your pocket. Action, desire, passion, love, hard work, ect. do. These are intangible things that cannot be measured by Science.

Just like the love of a parent for it's child is not something that can be measured by the laws that govern the universe. Our actions and choices we make in life come from somewhere within us spiritually. Intangible, but no less real. The law of gravity doesn't make you fall in love. Which is why in a spiritual sense when you examine the life, death and resurrection of Christ you start to understand God's Love for His Creation. What He was willing to go through for everyone out of Love. Self Sacrifice. That's the example given to all mankind.

Christ said it over and over again. You must be reborn in Spirit. Your body is carnal with desires of the flesh. Everyone is a miserable sinner and the wages of sin are death. Only through Christ can you learn to overcome it. Rise above it. He is the example. Love is what overcomes the Flesh. When you love Christ you understand The Father. When you understand Christ you love The Father. You choose to love The Father willingly, which is what He wants. You choose to overcome your sin and structure your life in obedience out of Love. Not fear of judgement. Once you accept Christ in your heart there is no more Fear.

If you would have told me I'd be typing that a few years ago I would have thought you were bonkers, but you haven't walked my path. Everyone has their own path. Everyone has different levels of evidence they require to have Faith which always leaves me scratching my head because Evolutionists scoff at Faith yet demand you accept their Theory as fact when it can't be tested or observed in the field (Macro Evolution/Darwinian Evolution/Origin of the Species) and the only creative/intelligent force they cite that drives it are Time and the Laws of the Universe which are just laws and measurements. So who is really demanding more Faith?

There are spiritual things that can't be measured or explained away by Materialism which is why He is hated so much. Christ represents accountability for the things you do in this world and it's understandable that a lot of people have a problem with that. I wrestled with my own sin for a looooong time (still do) and had to go through some gnarly shit, but i realize now I had to be broken down and built back up. It's still an ongoing process and it always will be for the rest of time upon Planet Earth. It's done out of Love. Not Judgement.

You can't haughtily expect this shit to just be handed to you. You have to learn humility, grace and forgiveness. Again, things that cannot be measured by Science, yet these actions still have much more influence on what shapes reality, the future and human action than the laws of the universe. I could get into dimensions at this point, but that is a whole nother can o worms.

For instance, you use the word "creative" a lot. It almost sounds like "creative," the way you use it in "creative force" and "creative mind," could fit a number of specific definitions. In context, it sounded like a mere complement (I use this technical notion "complement" the way statisticians use it) to "randomness" and "time." You also mentioned that love, consciousness, and moral absolutes belong to the subset of spiritual and creative forces, but you still didn't define exactly what they mean. So far, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't understand exactly what I'm trying to believe. If you are using "creative" merely as it is defined in a dictionary, we can discuss that, but I would like a specific definition.

Musical notes exist at specific frequencies. By themselves they don't create music. They are just frequencies. An intelligent and creative mind/force creates music. Intelligence to know the proper sequence and arrangement using mathematical calculations to place notes within polymetric time measurements and the creative force to project the feeling and emotion they want to convey. What the emotions the composer is feeling within themselves.

Depending upon what notes/tempo you use songs can be happy, sad, upbeat, fast, slow, ect. The odds a song could write itself meeting any of these requirements from absolutely nothing are zero. The most plausible explanation using probabilities should be enough evidence for the layman to know an intelligent and creative mind produced that music and there was deep emotional feelings like love that powered it.

This is why I gave the example previously. If you were fly to some planet and discover a complex language and code never before discovered would it be logical to conclude that

A) An intelligence created it?

B) It came about from Nothing?

DNA is the language of Life. It's in everything around us. In all of Creation. Time didn't write it. Time is just Time. It isn't intelligence. It isn't creative. It's just a measurement.

You don't need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation (infinity) to know there was an intelligence behind the design. The same can be said of your phone. Your car. Your house. Take the Iphone for instance. Was Steve Jobs an intelligent robot or did he have passion and love for his creation? He also needed Matter to put it all together. This is the major problem I have with Evolutionists. They provide false choices and a false premise for the creation of the Universe. It's either Science or God when in reality the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Newton himself was trying to understand God. Not disprove his existence.

Also, I take issue with your understanding of entropy. This is one word you have employed which has a very meaningful technical notion. However, you used the term incorrectly. This law of thermodynamics refers to a closed system, and the earth cannot be isolated as a closed system in this context. For instance, an explanatory theory such as evolution would not violate this law, since the burning of the sun's "fuel" would represent a far greater increase in entropy than the decrease signified by evolution.

I've already touched upon this within this very thread. The sun is extremely random and destructive. If you leave something unprotected out in the sun it actually increases entropy. Roofs on cars, houses. Skin wrinkles faster ect. If my use of entropy bothers you than just call it the Law of Increasing Randomness. Our galaxy also is a part of the universe and cannot escape it's laws on a technicality, especially in light of the fact that the 2nd law was tested and proven on our own planet, sun and all.

I will tell you that by employing the scientific method, we are necessarily dedicated to it's limitations. Namely, that we are merely organisms with a limited cognitive scope. However, this admission doesn't necessarily prove anything within intelligent design, and it doesn't disprove scientific theories, it is just an admission.

How can something that has been created ever truly know and understand the intelligence and creativity of what created it? I truly believe with the emergence of Information Theory, we are only beginning to scratch the surface. As we get deeper and deeper into cells and witness the absolutely incredible and breathtaking design and creativity, you really can only marvel at it's perfection. But then again, could you expect anything less?

I absolutely agree that people who believe in intelligent design can be reasonable and logical. Einstein had a loose notion of God, and it sounded a lot like intelligent design. It is worth noting though that his revolutionary papers in 1905 were all the culmination of a mastery of interplay between mathematical formalism and physical intuition (he referred to intuition basically as the result of previous intellectual learning and experiences), and that in fact his notion that "God does not play with dice" was a big factor in his decision to reject quantum mechanics and pursue a unified field theory until his dying day, which was a dead end road. I think that is very instructive.

Einstein actually used very strong words to denounce Atheists who tried to use him to disprove God. He made it very clear he was not an Atheist. Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I hope we can find some common ground. I gotz to go to workz.

[RobotElvis]

So your proof is from Josephus and Tacitus, both of whom weren't even born yet when Jesus was supposedly killed and both of whom wrote their mentions of him after the gospels had already been written and Christianity was already a forming religion? That's some airtight shit right there.

You seem not to grasp the fact that josephuscare two of the most highly regarded historians.

Josephus wrote much more than one quote about Jesus. Shall we expunge the wars of the Jews from the history books because they occurred before Josephus' birth?

Tacitus wrote about the history of Augustus. Childish drivel, not to be trusted?

Historians of such high caliber would not risk their reputation on giving false testing of someone they had no concern for.

To Josephus Jesus was a false prophet sent to mislead Israel from God.

To Tacitus he would have been the leader of a dissenting sect that was leading people away from state worship.

But hey they were born a few years after Jesus died so it's all bunk.
That's why I believe Neil Degrass Tyson or Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawkings when they talk about how the cosmos was created, because they were there you know.

[G13]

So your proof is from Josephus and Tacitus, both of whom weren't even born yet when Jesus was supposedly killed and both of whom wrote their mentions of him after the gospels had already been written and Christianity was already a forming religion? That's some airtight shit right there.

I only provided two sources? Really? Are you denying the validity of historical evidence? All history, especially from back then are ancient records. Read Paul's letters. Read Galations. They are recognized by historians as direct evidence. Tacitus was recognized as one of Rome's greatest historians. He verified the biblical account of Jesus' trial and execution. He also confirms that Pontius Pilate existed. That he governed Judea. Within tacitus' writing he confirms Jesus founded Christianity, was put to death by Pilate, that Christianity was founded in Judea and later spread to Rome. Did he just make it up for shits and giggles?

Really if we're going to have a conversation you need to at least be honest and stop with the nonsense. Using your logic the case can be made that no major historical figure back then existed.

The only proof Socrates existed were his followers. Did Socrates exist? The only historical proof he ever existed comes after he lived. Was Socrates made up by his followers? If Christ followers made him up, would they have willingly allowed themselves to be brutally tortured and murdered by the Romans if they didn't denounce Him?

These claims that Christ didn't exist are only very recent claims by Atheists and no serious historical scholars take them seriously.

[RobotElvis]

"I personally feel this way. If design is apparent in every molecule in the universe, then by necessity there has to be an intelligence behind it."

If design were apparent then we wouldnt be having this conversation. "I personally feel" I am quoting these words to stress why your chain of thought is flawed.

I feel was in the context of what I believe. And I know your semantic argument on believe and faith so whatever.

This is a logical deduction I haveade based on the evidence of the natural world around me.

Design is appera by and immutable to the natural world they even have a scientific field called: biomimetics.

You give arguments against design based upon biological evolutionary terms , natural selection, trial and error.
But those do not apply to cosmological entities. There are no stars or nebulae that had to struggle through trial and error, natural selection to reach their present form. Yet the complexity and design is apparent.

A speck of dust has approximately 3t atoms, depending on its mass. Just think about how complex atoms are.

If molecules — the main structures that are involved in chemistry — are the words from which all of the materials around us are built, then atoms are the letters, the building blocks for molecules. Just as there are words of all lengths, a typical molecule may contain a few or a hundred or even a hundred thousand atoms. A molecule of table salt (NaCl) contains two atoms, one of sodium (Na) and one of chlorine (Cl); a molecule of water (H2O) has two of hydrogen and one of oxygen; a molecule of table sugar (C12H22O11) is made from twelve atoms of carbon, eleven of oxygen and twenty-two of hydrogen in a very particular arrangement.

Very particular arrangement.

That is a non biological molecule that cannot be naturally selected by trial and error or natural pressure.

Not only do I see design in nature based on evidence, but it is highly ordered also.

[leewong]

....

"You seem not to grasp the fact that josephuscare two of the most highly regarded historians."

Josephus is HIGHLY debated. He wasnt accurate and in some cases he even contradicts himself. Historians read him with a huge grain of salt.

Tacitus's book The Annals, where he talks about Jesus, are based in part on secondary sources which is why the accuracy is debated/questioned.

"Shall we expunge the wars of the Jews from the history books because they occurred before Josephus' birth?"

Speaking of Jews. Why isnt there a single shred of evidence that they were in Egypt ever?

"Tacitus wrote about the history of Augustus. Childish drivel, not to be trusted?"

No one is calling it childish drivel in the historical community. What they do question are some of his secondary sources. Also, need I remind you that Tacitus was a politician. He was a great historian but he was also a politician.

"Historians of such high caliber would not risk their reputation on giving false testing of someone they had no concern for."

A politician would. Also, secondary sources and Joseph wasnt accurate or considered high caliber.

"That's why I believe Neil Degrass Tyson or Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawkings when they talk about how the cosmos was created, because they were there you know."

Anyone can conduct the experiments and uncover the laws of physics...loosely speaking. You can verify their claims like the universe is expanding or cosmic background radiation. That is a the difference.

[Pokesan]

Fuck or die. That's natural selection. He who fucks the most is the winner.

[RobotElvis]

"You seem not to grasp the fact that josephuscare two of the most highly regarded historians."

Josephus is HIGHLY debated. He wasnt accurate and in some cases he even contradicts himself. Historians read him with a huge grain of salt.

Tacitus's book The Annals, where he talks about Jesus, are based in part on secondary sources which is why the accuracy is debated/questioned.

"Shall we expunge the wars of the Jews from the history books because they occurred before Josephus' birth?"

Speaking of Jews. Why isnt there a single shred of evidence that they were in Egypt ever?

"Tacitus wrote about the history of Augustus. Childish drivel, not to be trusted?"

No one is calling it childish drivel in the historical community. What they do question are some of his secondary sources. Also, need I remind you that Tacitus was a politician. He was a great historian but he was also a politician.

"Historians of such high caliber would not risk their reputation on giving false testing of someone they had no concern for."

A politician would. Also, secondary sources and Joseph wasnt accurate or considered high caliber.

"That's why I believe Neil Degrass Tyson or Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawkings when they talk about how the cosmos was created, because they were there you know."

Anyone can conduct the experiments and uncover the laws of physics...loosely speaking. You can verify their claims like the universe is expanding or cosmic background radiation. That is a the difference.

Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore proof-read) his work.


Josephus is seen as a writer of his time period should be. He used the literary style of his time that was acceptable in the historiagraphic field.
This included conjectures and omissions. And a non linear but thematic timeline, which can lead to the conclusion that he is being inaccurate within the timeline. However this is an acceptable style in the vien oh Thucydides.

Standing on his own merit it may be hard to accept Josephus claim about Christ as historic, but as it is in harmony with Tacitus an esteemed historian then it is an acceptable piece of historical evidence.


Yes I have no problem with scientific experiments, in fact I find them fascinating.
But the aforementioned scientists also offer much speculation and conjecture themselves.
Yet they are not doubted as being authentic.

[leewong]

....

"I feel was in the context of what I believe. And I know your semantic argument on believe and faith so whatever."

There is that word again.

"This is a logical deduction I haveade based on the evidence of the natural world around me."

Logic deductions are not scientific. Is it logical that an atom can exist in more than one place as shown in the double slit experiment? Think of an experiment to prove creationism and conduct it. Only then will you gain foothold. It shouldnt be too hard to get some of the mega-churches in this country and around the world to fund this research.

"Design is appera by and immutable to the natural world they even have a scientific field called: biomimetics."

Yes, we study what billions of years of selection by natural forces has produced and mimic the engineering. The reason it appears designed is because nature has selected for beneficial traits and discarded the bad. I in no way see how that proves a Creator.

"There are no stars or nebulae that had to struggle through trial and error, natural selection to reach their present form."

Stars and nebulae do not struggle. They did not go through a trial and error process either. They follow the laws of nature we observe...nothing more, nothing less. I have no idea what you are trying to say here so I will leave it at that.

"A speck of dust has approximately 3t atoms, depending on its mass. Just think about how complex atoms are."

Complexity does not equate a creator. I dont know why you keep inferring this with zero evidence to support it. Oh, I know...feelings. To quote Pink Floyd "showing feelings...of an almost human nature. This will not do!"

"That is a non biological molecule that cannot be naturally selected by trial and error or natural pressure."

Molecules form different compounds naturally. Different environments and different molecules form different compounds. The system that describes that process is NOT natural selection. Natural selection has nothing to do with it.

Natural selection applies to living organisms not matter. It is a term used to describe how an environment either rewards a biological trait or squashes it. A molecule is not living and it doesnt have genetic traits therefor it would be idiotic to think natural selection applies to it.

[leewong]

...

"Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore proof-read) his work."

Yeah, I read that on Wikipedia too. Please use quotes for your sources and cite them. Let's look at exactly what Tacitus says.

"Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."" - http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

So there you have it.

"Standing on his own merit it may be hard to accept Josephus claim about Christ as historic, but as it is in harmony with Tacitus an esteemed historian then it is an acceptable piece of historical evidence."

Both are highly controversial and neither even come close to proving that Jesus was a deity.

[leewong]

Yes I have no problem with scientific experiments, in fact I find them fascinating. But the aforementioned scientists also offer much speculation and conjecture themselves. Yet they are not doubted as being authentic.

In the U.S., 46% hold the creationist views of Christians. I would say there is plenty of skepticism. There is nothing stopping Christians from funding real scientific research into what they are claiming. Until they actually do this and produce some tangible evidence they wont be taken seriously.

[iruinedyourday]

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--h2-IB1_n--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/765292275147400518.gif

[Tenlaar]

Well I am glad I didn't have to type all that shit myself when I got home. Good looking out, Leewong.

[leewong]

Well I am glad I didn't have to type all that shit myself when I got home. Good looking out, Leewong.

It had actually been pretty slow here today.

*props feet up on the desk

[leewong]

It had actually been pretty slow here today.

*props feet up on the desk

*has

[RobotElvis]

In the U.S., 46% hold the creationist views of Christians. I would say there is plenty of skepticism. There is nothing stopping Christians from funding real scientific research into what they are claiming. Until they actually do this and produce some tangible evidence they wont be taken seriously.
All scientific experiments show that there is design and complexity in nature.

[RobotElvis]

"Tacitus makes use of the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He also read collections of emperors' speeches, such as Tiberius and Claudius. He is generally seen as a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his sources. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before he had finished (and therefore proof-read) his work."

Yeah, I read that on Wikipedia too. Please use quotes for your sources and cite them. Let's look at exactly what Tacitus says.

"Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."" - http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

So there you have it.

"Standing on his own merit it may be hard to accept Josephus claim about Christ as historic, but as it is in harmony with Tacitus an esteemed historian then it is an acceptable piece of historical evidence."

Both are highly controversial and neither even come close to proving that Jesus was a deity.
Prefect (from the Latin praefectus, perfect participle of praeficere: "make in front", i.e., put in charge) is a magisterial title of varying definition, but which, basically, refers to the leader of an administrative area.

A prefect's office, department, or area of control is called a prefecture, but in various post-Roman empire cases there is a prefect without a prefecture or vice versa. The words "prefect" and "prefecture" are also used, more or less conventionally, to render analogous words in other languages, especially Romance languages.



A procurator Augusti, however, might also be the governor of the smaller imperial provinces (i.e., those provinces whose governor was appointed by the emperor, rather than the Roman Senate). The same title was held by the fiscal procurators, who assisted governors of the senatorial provinces (known as a legatus Augusti pro praetore, who were always senators). In addition, procurator was the title given to various other officials in Rome and Italy.

The argument that he should gave used prefect instead of procurator is invalid. The same person could have many titles in the roman system.

And in the trial if Jesus Pilate was acting in the official capacity as a roman procurator.

[Whirled]

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." = Stuart Chase

/thread

[leewong]

All scientific experiments show that there is design and complexity in nature.

C'mon, I know you are smarter than this Robot. Complexity and what appears to be "design" are byproducts of natural selection. Both can easily be accounted for by the mechanisms of evolution.

[leewong]

Prefect (from the Latin praefectus, perfect participle of praeficere: "make in front", i.e., put in charge) is a magisterial title of varying definition, but which, basically, refers to the leader of an administrative area.

A prefect's office, department, or area of control is called a prefecture, but in various post-Roman empire cases there is a prefect without a prefecture or vice versa. The words "prefect" and "prefecture" are also used, more or less conventionally, to render analogous words in other languages, especially Romance languages.



A procurator Augusti, however, might also be the governor of the smaller imperial provinces (i.e., those provinces whose governor was appointed by the emperor, rather than the Roman Senate). The same title was held by the fiscal procurators, who assisted governors of the senatorial provinces (known as a legatus Augusti pro praetore, who were always senators). In addition, procurator was the title given to various other officials in Rome and Italy.

The argument that he should gave used prefect instead of procurator is invalid. The same person could have many titles in the roman system.

And in the trial if Jesus Pilate was acting in the official capacity as a roman procurator.

Well, if it was only this claim that made the passage look fishy then I would consider the argument. You failed to address the 3-4 other reasons it is highly suspect. Even the most conservative historians dont give the passage credence. At best, a contemporary Christian told Tacitus the story and he repeated it without checking the facts because none of it matches up to Roman records or other historians that lived during Jesus's time. Isn't that a bit suspect to you?

[RobotElvis]

Well, if it was only this claim that made the passage look fishy then I would consider the argument. You failed to address the 3-4 other reasons it is highly suspect. Even the most conservative historians dont give the passage credence. At best, a contemporary Christian told Tacitus the story and he repeated it without checking the facts because none of it matches up to Roman records or other historians that lived during Jesus's time. Isn't that a bit suspect to you?


CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen
Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the
hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of
Rome also." Annals XV, 44

What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
Jesus did exist
Jesus was the founder of Christianity
Jesus was put to death by Pilate
Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)

Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?
Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus referenced government
records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny
the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical
investigation. An example of Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus
distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or
folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.

Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?
Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and
insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this passage. There is no verifiable
evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.

Skeptic Interjection: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?
Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such a source
(assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in
Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus'
existence (a topic not debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.

Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?
Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator:
"But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... Antiquities XVIII, 3:1
"Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2
"Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XII
It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an anachronism for the sake of clarity or, since
Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held both positions.


As for some of the other claims they are speculative.
"Tacitus should have blamed the Jews and not the Christians"
Speculation.

Seneca doesn't mention Christ or Christians: Seneca was a historian that focused on the arts, not on political history. If we read an amazon review of the best literature of the 20th century and it never mentioned Bill Clinton would we assume he did not exist?

To use Esubius as a reference is dubious at best. He unlike Tacitus before him is not noted for his diligent research into historical facts.
To say that esubius' lack of mention of the tacetian account is proof of its non-existence at his time is a speculative assumption.

[RobotElvis]

You do also realize that your source material is coming from Acharya s.

I hope you don't find her as a competent authority on the historical nature of Jesus.

[RobotElvis]

C'mon, I know you are smarter than this Robot. Complexity and what appears to be "design" are byproducts of natural selection. Both can easily be accounted for by the mechanisms of evolution.

What naturally selects non-biological entities?

[radditsu]

Everone who said anything about Jesus is an authority. It is what is inside your heart that counts.

[Lune]

Every religious denomination and most religions are just the original belief system adapted to any given culture.

Original Christianity (Paul the Apostle & pals), fragmented to serve many different cultures:

Eastern Orthodox for the eastern slavshits
Catholicism for the Mediterranean wops and some northern micks.
Protestantism for hardworking nordic people
Coptic sect for Africans

Much later, we saw Evangelicalism for people who are now so far removed from Jesus' original teachings that they ignore the vast majority of that wacky ancient scripture and catholic-esque ritualism that just doesn't apply to contemporary society anymore.

So I really don't know how you can take your own religious beliefs seriously when you know damn well that whatever pure form of Jesus's teachings once existed, have been twisted into a pretzel again and again to accommodate various belief systems.

[iruinedyourday]

So I really don't know how you can take your own religious beliefs seriously when you know damn well that whatever pure form of Jesus's teachings once existed, have been twisted into a pretzel again and again to accommodate various belief systems.

That works out really well for most modern american Christians.

They hate the poor, the meek, the gay, the immigrants, the next state over, the coastal cities, the Canadians, medicine, the Europeans, the desperate, the president, the future president, the future, the sick, the dying, the female, the list goes on and on.

Oh but they donate to churches so that makes them good in Jesus's eyes right?! Even though those donations go back into the church campaigns against all the poor, the meek, the gay, the immigrants...

[leewong]

....

"What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:
Jesus did exist
Jesus was the founder of Christianity
Jesus was put to death by Pilate
Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)"

No amount of restating this makes it true.

Jesus did exist - No records or contemporary historians during Jesus's life wrote about him.

Jesus was the founder of Christianity - only according to biblical text which we know a great deal of is historically incorrect. Contemporary Christians living during Tacitus's time would be repeating this historically incorrect information.

Jesus was put to death by Pilate - not according to Roman records or contemporary historians.

Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus) - not according to Roman records or historians. Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists) - which is part of the controversy. Need I remind you of this? "However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened"

"Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?"

Yes, his passage does not reflect the records or historical writings of that time. Tacitus was not infallible. He made mistakes and with this passage there is no evidence on record to verify it. Some parts of it like the burning or Rome and a Christian persecution are easily falsifiable.

"Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?"

Yes, his passage does not reflect the records or historical writings of that time. Tacitus was not infallible. He made mistakes and with this passage there is no evidence on record to verify it. Some parts of it like the burning or Rome and a Christian persecution are easily falsifiable.

"Skeptic Interjection: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?"

The answer you give here is pure conjecture and that is not evidence. Show me the records of Jesus being executed or a record showing Christians burning Rome.

"Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?"

It certainly casts doubt or else we wouldnt be having this conversation and historians wouldnt debate it either. It is only one of the questionable items about this passage.

[leewong]

What naturally selects non-biological entities?

I already stated that natural selection does not apply to non-biological entities and why.

[G13]

Every religious denomination and most religions are just the original belief system adapted to any given culture.

Original Christianity (Paul the Apostle & pals), fragmented to serve many different cultures:

Eastern Orthodox for the eastern slavshits
Catholicism for the Mediterranean wops and some northern micks.
Protestantism for hardworking nordic people
Coptic sect for Africans

Much later, we saw Evangelicalism for people who are now so far removed from Jesus' original teachings that they ignore the vast majority of that wacky ancient scripture and catholic-esque ritualism that just doesn't apply to contemporary society anymore.

So I really don't know how you can take your own religious beliefs seriously when you know damn well that whatever pure form of Jesus's teachings once existed, have been twisted into a pretzel again and again to accommodate various belief systems.

Except there is actual physical and forensic proof of Christ's death and resurrection

It's called The Shroud of Turin

The image on the cloth (which dates consistently to the time of Jesus death 33 AD) is a 3 dimensional image on a piece of cloth of a man brutally beaten, tortured and crucified. No known technology exists today that could put that image on a cloth like that and certainly nothing existed back then that could have done it.

The image on the cloth contains distance mapping. The image can be read like a 3d map. Photographs and paintings don't work that way.

The image actually has characteristics of an X-ray. Bone structure can be seen, especially on the hands and facial area

All the wounds on the cloth are 100% consistent with biblical accounts. The weapons that were used for torture are 100% accurate to what the Romans would have used for torture during that time. The wounds on the head are consistent with a rudimentary crown of thorns. The wounds on the wrists are 100% consistent with what the Romans would have done if they nailed someone to a cross. They wouldn't have put the nails through the palms. They would have put them through the wrist area between the 2 bones there for stability. 100% consistent.

Recent studies confirm the image could only have put there by a severe discharge of Light and Energy.

The carbon dating from 1988 used a tampered sample on the end of the cloth that had been repaired after the shroud was damaged in a fire. Recent dating techniques which studied the decay rate of the microfibers age the shroud consistently with the time of Jesus' death

No traces of paint or any such nonsense is on that cloth

Real blood with bilirubin has been confirmed on the cloth. All consistent with severe torture before death. The body goes into shock during severe stress and produces this chemical in the blood

The type of blood on the cloth is AB. Scientists have confirmed the blood was on the cloth before the image

The image is actually "on top" of the cloth and could conceivably be scraped away by a razor. It literally rests upon the top most fibers of the material. It only penetrates the tope two microfibers. A human artist (hundreds of years before Da Vinci) could not have faked that. No human artist could fake that today

The type of material was very expensive in that era and is consistent with biblical accounts

Pollen found on the cloth is consistent with what would have been found in jerusalem during that era. Physical evidence on the cloth itself to confirm where the event took place

Road dust found on the area around the hands and feet are almost exclusively from that area in Jerusalem during that time

There are over 120 scourge marks on the body. 100% consistent with biblical accounts.

All evidence contained within the shroud is 100% consistent with biblical accounts

3D negative image on a piece of cloth. It almost looks like a human being trapped under ice.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1617273/original.jpg

[G13]

I already stated that natural selection does not apply to non-biological entities and why.

Natural Selection is not Macro Evolution/Darwinian Evolution

Weaker life forms die. That's all it confirms.

Does not write genetic code to create never before seen life forms out of existing life forms

[leewong]

You do also realize that your source material is coming from Acharya s.

I hope you don't find her as a competent authority on the historical nature of Jesus.

As I stated before, even the most conservative historian have trouble with the passage and it's claims. There isnt a single piece of evidence that supports it. Instead, the historical record and writings of contemporary historians (during Jesus's time) contradict it.

Maybe, Christians should be funding archeological digs and real science instead of relying on conjecture and hotly debated historical passages if they want to prove something.

[Glenzig]

As I stated before, even the most conservative historian have trouble with the passage and it's claims. There isnt a single piece of evidence that supports it. Instead, the historical record and writings of contemporary historians (during Jesus's time) contradict it.

Maybe, Christians should be funding archeological digs and real science instead of relying on conjecture and hotly debated historical passages if they want to prove something.

She's not conservative, and she certainly isn't a historian.

[Korrupt]

seek help

[leewong]

She's not conservative, and she certainly isn't a historian.

And I never claimed she was either. Nice try though. Too bad your reading comprehension precludes you from any debate. Go sit down in the corner and put the dunce cap back on.

[radditsu]

Except there is actual physical and forensic proof of Christ's death and resurrection

It's called The Shroud of Turin

The image on the cloth (which dates consistently to the time of Jesus death 33 AD) is a 3 dimensional image on a piece of cloth of a man brutally beaten, tortured and crucified. No known technology exists today that could put that image on a cloth like that and certainly nothing existed back then that could have done it.

The image on the cloth contains distance mapping. The image can be read like a 3d map. Photographs and paintings don't work that way.

The image actually has characteristics of an X-ray. Bone structure can be seen, especially on the hands and facial area

All the wounds on the cloth are 100% consistent with biblical accounts. The weapons that were used for torture are 100% accurate to what the Romans would have used for torture during that time. The wounds on the head are consistent with a rudimentary crown of thorns. The wounds on the wrists are 100% consistent with what the Romans would have done if they nailed someone to a cross. They wouldn't have put the nails through the palms. They would have put them through the wrist area between the 2 bones there for stability. 100% consistent.

Recent studies confirm the image could only have put there by a severe discharge of Light and Energy.

The carbon dating from 1988 used a tampered sample on the end of the cloth that had been repaired after the shroud was damaged in a fire. Recent dating techniques which studied the decay rate of the microfibers age the shroud consistently with the time of Jesus' death

No traces of paint or any such nonsense is on that cloth

Real blood with bilirubin has been confirmed on the cloth. All consistent with severe torture before death. The body goes into shock during severe stress and produces this chemical in the blood

The type of blood on the cloth is AB. Scientists have confirmed the blood was on the cloth before the image

The image is actually "on top" of the cloth and could conceivably be scraped away by a razor. It literally rests upon the top most fibers of the material. It only penetrates the tope two microfibers. A human artist (hundreds of years before Da Vinci) could not have faked that. No human artist could fake that today

The type of material was very expensive in that era and is consistent with biblical accounts

Pollen found on the cloth is consistent with what would have been found in jerusalem during that era. Physical evidence on the cloth itself to confirm where the event took place

Road dust found on the area around the hands and feet are almost exclusively from that area in Jerusalem during that time

There are over 120 scourge marks on the body. 100% consistent with biblical accounts.

All evidence contained within the shroud is 100% consistent with biblical accounts

3D negative image on a piece of cloth. It almost looks like a human being trapped under ice.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1617273/original.jpg




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin


?? oh you mean that fake thing they faked when it was fake. Cool story bro

[radditsu]

Also i dont know what studies you are talking about, since you cant study it anymore.

[radditsu]

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/


its in this documentary as well. as a ton of other bullshit people think aren't made by man so books and commercial airtime can be sold.

[leewong]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin


?? oh you mean that fake thing they faked when it was fake. Cool story bro

Holy shit, did G13 post something about the Shroud of Turin? Bwahaha. BTW, the dates arent the only thing that point to a fake.

-Draping the cloth under and over the body is a practice from the Middle Ages.

- No record of this particular shroud can be found before it showed up in Lirey, France, around 1350

-Two succeeding bishops from the area pronounced the shroud a fake when it was first discovered, the second purportedly producing the artist who created it.

-"No examples of complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave. In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized — and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus — multiple burial wrappings wrapped tightly around the body with a separate cloth over the face" - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

- "none of the gospels make any mention of any miraculous burial cloth after Jesus's resurrection. Curious that the most holy relic in all of Christendom doesn't even get so much as a word in its holy texts, isn't it?" - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

- There are also claims of "bloodstains" on the cloth, but Hebrew law dictated cleansing of the corpse before wrapping and bodies don't bleed after death. Chemist Walter McCrone identified the substance as a "combination of red ochre and vermilion tempera paint." - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

- "Dr M. M. Baden, a pathologist, pointed out the blood trickles from the scalp are evidence of forgery, on the ground that blood from a scalp wound does not flow in rivulets but mats the hair." - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

- "Also of note is the lack of wrap-around distortion. For a shroud that was supposedly wrapped around the body of Christ, the lack of wrap-around distortion across the torso, thighs and legs is striking." - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

[RobotElvis]

As I stated before, even the most conservative historian have trouble with the passage and it's claims. There isnt a single piece of evidence that supports it. Instead, the historical record and writings of contemporary historians (during Jesus's time) contradict it.

Maybe, Christians should be funding archeological digs and real science instead of relying on conjecture and hotly debated historical passages if they want to prove something.

I would like to see some of this evidence.
The legitimacy of Tacitus account is only debated by a handful of historians .
Ass a whole it is accepted.

[RobotElvis]

And I never claimed she was either. Nice try though. Too bad your reading comprehension precludes you from any debate. Go sit down in the corner and put the dunce cap back on.

You used her website as proof for your argument. Thus saying she is an authority.

[Glenzig]

And I never claimed she was either. Nice try though. Too bad your reading comprehension precludes you from any debate. Go sit down in the corner and put the dunce cap back on.

Ok. I reread the article you linked. Who are these conservative historians that are claiming that Tacitus is not reliable?

[leewong]

You used her website as proof for your argument. Thus saying she is an authority.

Does she need to be an authority to recount what other historians are saying?

[leewong]

Ok. I reread the article you linked. Who are these conservative historians that are claiming that Tacitus is not reliable?

You are right. No historians have ever debated the passage and it is considered rock solid.

/eyeroll

How about trying to look something up yourself instead of demanding I spoon feed you everything? You never answer my questions so why should I answer yours?

[Glenzig]

You are right. No historians have ever debated the passage and it is considered rock solid.

/eyeroll

How about trying to look something up yourself instead of demanding I spoon feed you everything? You never answer my questions so why should I answer yours?

That's not what I asked. I asked who the conservative historians she quoted were. I've answered plenty of your questions. Maybe they weren't the answers you were looking for, but I have answered at least most of them.

[leewong]

....

"I asked who the conservative historians she quoted were."

And I said I was done spoon feeding you answers that you can easily google yourself.

"but I have answered at least most of them."

I will refer you back to this post which you still have not responded to:
http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1626813&postcount=1781

Also, show me a post where you actually answered a question of mine. You are going to be digging a long time to find it.

[RobotElvis]

You are right. No historians have ever debated the passage and it is considered rock solid.

/eyeroll

How about trying to look something up yourself instead of demanding I spoon feed you everything? You never answer my questions so why should I answer yours?

You are on a slippery slope making a claim of extraordinary size. Glenzig doesn't have to produce any evidence, the burden of proof is on you.

A small minority of historians doubt Tacitus, that hardly serves as proof.

[Frieza_Prexus]

So, is G13 Lumie?

I figure someone here is.

[Glenzig]

"I asked who the conservative historians she quoted were."

And I said I was done spoon feeding you answers that you can easily google yourself.

"but I have answered at least most of them."

I will refer you back to this post which you still have not responded to:
http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1626813&postcount=1781

Also, show me a post where you actually answered a question of mine. You are going to be digging a long time to find it.

Junk DNA is a term that was used by scientists who were content with ascribing uselessness to a large portion of the code found in DNA. Why is this significant? Well as Dembski put it:"Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA."
Can't be a lot more self explanatory than that.
As to your comment on mutations, what am I supposed to answer? You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it.

[leewong]

You are on a slippery slope making a claim of extraordinary size. Glenzig doesn't have to produce any evidence, the burden of proof is on you.

A small minority of historians doubt Tacitus, that hardly serves as proof.

Slippery slope? I asked Glenzig to simply give me the same respect I have given him. I have answered hundreds of his questions. He has answered maybe 2 of mine. Instead, he ignores the questions I ask while throwing three more at me. This has nothing to do with the burden of proof. It has everything to do with him refusing to debate properly or answer a simple question.

"A small minority of historians doubt Tacitus, that hardly serves as proof."

Show me the numbers. How many agree? How many disagree? Minority and majority arent very accurate terms...for all you know it means 49% and 51%. Let's say 20% debate the validity. Is that a large enough number to claim there is an active debate? What about 21%? 22%? What is the magic number that I need to surpass the "historians debate" threshold?

[leewong]

Junk DNA is a term that was used by scientists who were content with ascribing uselessness to a large portion of the code found in DNA. Why is this significant? Well as Dembski put it:"Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA."
Can't be a lot more self explanatory than that.
As to your comment on mutations, what am I supposed to answer? You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it.

Why then do we find useless portions of DNA? Did god put them there to fool us? The linked article stated 10% of the junk DNA was found to have a purpose. What about the other 90%? Why is it there? I know why but do you?

'You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it."

You didnt call shit out. Answer the question. Here it is again for you:

"Mutation bad...animal die. Mutation good...animal survive better. How does that process require a mind to govern it?"

So tell me...what mind governs that process? I want evidence to support your answer not a dismissal or dodge.

[radditsu]

So, is G13 Lumie?

I figure someone here is.

Its not naez? Pretty sure it's naez. I mean its the same shit post trolling he always does in regards to this.

[Glenzig]

Why then do we find useless portions of DNA? Did god put them there to fool us? The linked article stated 10% of the junk DNA was found to have a purpose. What about the other 90%? Why is it there? I know why but do you?

'You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it."

You didnt call shit out. Answer the question. Here it is again for you:

"Mutation bad...animal die. Mutation good...animal survive better. How does that process require a mind to govern it?"

So tell me...what mind governs that process? I want evidence to support your answer not a dismissal or dodge.

The point is that instead of saying "there is a large portion of DNA that we have not found a purpose for yet", they were content to call it junk DNA and build evolutionary models around that. Yes there is still a large portion of DNA that is considered junk, but if it was left at that how would you ever find out whether or not it actually has a use. Assuming design forces you to look for the ultimate level of function and purpose in that junk DNA.

You're right that doesn't require a mind to govern it. It also isn't the current explanation of mutation causing any sort of meaningful change in living things. You're use of that explanation, and every other use if the explanation I have read, calls for an intelligence in selecting and discarding certain amounts of genetic information. Information that the organism isn't privy to.

[leewong]

...

"Assuming design forces you to look for the ultimate level of function and purpose in that junk DNA. "

Highlighted that for you. Science is not based on assumption. You have to put up or shut up.

"You're right that doesn't require a mind to govern it. It also isn't the current explanation of mutation causing any sort of meaningful change in living things."

It is the current explanation. Beneficial mutations are selected for and bad mutations are selected against. This is exactly what evolution claims and has claimed even before we knew what a gene was.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." - Wikipedia

What changes? Traits. Why? Mutations and environmental selection. No god required. End of argument.

[leewong]

Here is an exercise for both Glenzig and RobotElvis or any other creationist:

Think of an experiment that would prove life or the universe was created by a creator. Not a thought experiment, not an assertion based off of an assumption, an honest to goodness scientific experiment that uses the scientific method. Think real hard about it. I am not even asking you to post it here. Just think about it.

[iruinedyourday]

Could you imagine if you read this much documentation written by people who weren't just idiots that played EQ?

you guys might be smart enough in that scenario, to not just be idiots that play eq.

[leewong]

Could you imagine if you read this much documentation written by people who weren't just idiots that played EQ?

you guys might be smart enough in that scenario, to not just be idiots that play eq.

Havent logged in my account in some time now. Hence why I havent finished updating and releasing my custom UIs: Shameless plug (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156209) :O

[iruinedyourday]

Havent logged in my account in some time now. Hence why I havent finished updating and releasing my custom UIs: Shameless plug (http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156209) :O

haha! what a surprise, the person that contributes and makes life better for strangers, is not a creationist.

[leewong]

haha! what a surprise, the person that contributes and makes life better for strangers, is not a creationist.

Lol, I wouldnt go that far :P I get joy from creating UIs and mods for games. Been creating them since quake 2 and it has been rewarding. I would list a few of my other mods/UIs here but I wouldnt want some of the folks here shitting up my message boards and such.

[leewong]

I think I might try this UI tonight. Looks pretty dang slick.

You are using a godless heathens UI, Glenzig :P

[Glenzig]

You are using a godless heathens UI, Glenzig :P

Its ok. I'll do 1,000 hail Mary's and flog my back tonight.

[RobotElvis]

Could you imagine if you read this much documentation written by people who weren't just idiots that played EQ?

you guys might be smart enough in that scenario, to not just be idiots that play eq.

Thanks!

[iruinedyourday]

youre welcome!

http://i.imgur.com/tipZGkj.gif

[runlvlzero]

Yeah there's no way I was going to participate in this thread. Won the religious card argument a few months back anyway with some good existentialism that made Hurb believe.

Shit, folks just critically evaluate everything and make up your own minds. Life is religious. Because there's no way to know for sure. It's either that or your one dead fucking zombie letting other people dictate your ideas.

So I laugh when I see people flame back and forth about religion. I mean I guess everyone's got a valid perspective on this. But you are all seriously missing the point.

The point being. Religion. Is just an organized faith that a larger group of people believe in. They kind of come and go like nations, ideas, commercialism, new products, species, etc...

This is has all happened before and will all happen again.

[leewong]

Yeah there's no way I was going to participate in this thread.

You just did.

As for the rest of your nonsense. The world is becoming more and more secular everyday. Atheism is the fastest growing irreligious group in the US. Most of Europe is atheistic. Religion is dying a slow death.

[runlvlzero]

Atheism is just as rigid a belief system as any other. It does not allow for any growth. Therefore, religious. I know people argue it.

But you have to take the absence of a thing on faith just as much as you have to take the existence of a thing. Just because some people experience a thing and have more certainty than you. Doesn't make it good to refuse to believe there could be more.

It's like worshiping ignorance. Which is worse than worshiping rumors.

[runlvlzero]

I guess further athiesm imlplies the complete disbelief of something just because it is not scientific.

Thats pretty dumb. It's mechanical. And thoughtless.

There's plenty room in our lives for fiction and make believe. Or even the lucky random circumstance or actual miracle or yet to be understood forces.

Therefore, I condemn atheists to the shit heep I condem catholics to. To bad they can't truly undersand what it is they actually believe in. Because both have a lot to learn and give. If they could only let go of 'it must be this way'

Catholisicm for example has some very good historical reference points to other religions and is a great religion to study if you're interested in mans primitive power structures and brainwashing. There at the root of it all is some very good philisophical and actualy virtuous and yet uncorrupted spiritual proof to some of the stories as well.

But no one is willing to pull their heads out their asses and take the leap from cynisism to true skeptisism, to just understanding and applying and moving on with the flow.

[runlvlzero]

Eh live in misery as you want. Wish I knew how to truly spread enlightenment. But thats not what I'm here for. I'll let some other poor smuck chase that dream.

[leewong]

Atheism is just as rigid a belief system as any other. It does not allow for any growth. Therefore, religious. I know people argue it.

But you have to take the absence of a thing on faith just as much as you have to take the existence of a thing. Just because some people experience a thing and have more certainty than you. Doesn't make it good to refuse to believe there could be more.

It's like worshiping ignorance. Which is worse than worshiping rumors.

Atheism only makes one statement. There is no evidence for god(s). No claim on anything else. What you are arguing is akin to saying those that dont believe in unicorns practice a rigid belief system. Is not collecting stamps also a religion?

[runlvlzero]

Atheism only makes one statement. There is no evidence for god(s). No claim on anything else. What you are arguing is akin to saying those that dont believe in unicorns practice a rigid belief system. Is not collecting stamps also a religion?

Every single 'athiest' i've met and talked to is also so a-religious, I doubt that the athiestic dogma really permits the belief in anything outside of a transhumanist agenda of extending life and dominating those that don't believe what they do, and imposing their own political and moral views based on much scientific hooohooo. Some of which I respect and agree with. But certainly not all.

I once considered myself an athiest. But I got sick of reading athiests blogs.

I don't know what there may or may not be. I know that there may be nothing. And it doesn't hurt to practice a little faith. I also feel like my conciousness is to limited to use to judge the absence of a godess, gods, dieties, etc. It's foolish to say no.

I think people who dictate that their god must be worshiped is dumb, cause obviously seems pretty illogical god would only be a patriarchal male who plagerised a whole bunch of shit and made insane people write books.

BUT. Who knows? It's just way not likely. More likely the universe is holographic in nature or there's a spiritual side of things that may be understood in a technical way one day. But it's all rather new agey and there's a lot of ways one could go with it.

But I do believe it's likely that there are such things as a higher level conciousness that effectively is interested in us in some way and may interact with us. It's highly probable that we leave a mark permenant enough that it matters at some level to the rest of the universe. Even if we don't know what that is.

I mean Einstiens theory of relativity is great. But really time is experienced linearly, but it could be different. Just because were eating bits at a time doesn't mean that this path and tapestery isn't already woven.

[runlvlzero]

Also, it could very well be that there is something and those that believe in that something all just simply put there own face on it. Who cares if that ants worship the kids on the playground all differently as dieties who drop candy crumbs everywhere...

it's likely that we don't even know what we are doing, and in that I trust people to make up their own minds in how they worship this unknown which we can learn about but never ever conquer in its infinity

[runlvlzero]

It's easy to let certainty cloud ones ability to observe the facts and experience the truth. Happens all the time. Therefore anything that preaches certainty is probably the most flawed human creation ever.

[runlvlzero]

I'm not preaching certainty, in that I know athiesm is wrong. I just don't think it's likely to be right and i'm pretty flexible. Therefore religion... whatever the original OP was talking about.

Aint no prob it will always be, like I said, and we could wipe it out, eventually it'll probably turn up again or we'll end up running into it.

religion or lack there of is just another dealwithitglasses.jpg and people can srsly decide to be asses about what they believe or dont believe or we can all take reality with a grain of salt, which is what i'm advocating we spread around. maybe we should make a religion about doing that?

[runlvlzero]

yeah Op just mad because people tried to organize their beliefs and use it for financial gain at some point, thread so derailed from there.

thats an amoral thing to do, don't care what you believe in, needless to say met plenty 'religious' or 'spiritual' people who are super nice and awesome and dont fucking douche around

also met plenty 'athiests' who can all frakking go to hell and die and would love nothing other than to kill babies and puppies, it makes me fucking sick

[leewong]

I guess further athiesm imlplies the complete disbelief of something just because it is not scientific.

Thats pretty dumb. It's mechanical. And thoughtless.

Not disbelief because it is unscientific but because it has no evidence to support it. No one is claiming science knows everything. There are plenty of things outside the human scope of knowledge.

Ask yourself, "What has been the most reliable method for answering questions about the universe?". Do you have a better method?

"Thats pretty dumb. It's mechanical. And thoughtless."

Says the guy typing on a computer produced by the very methodology he is slamming. How many monks does it take to invent a microwave?

"But no one is willing to pull their heads out their asses and take the leap from cynisism to true skeptisism"

Ughh, you do know what peer review is and why it exists, right? Scientists are skeptics to the absolute core. Are you being skeptical about your own beliefs? You certainly are acting like you alone have the answers.

[leewong]

Eh live in misery as you want. Wish I knew how to truly spread enlightenment. But thats not what I'm here for. I'll let some other poor smuck chase that dream.

Who is living in misery? Dont project your shit on me.

[leewong]

Therefore anything that preaches certainty is probably the most flawed human creation ever.

Are you certain? If so, you are the most flawed human on earth and therefor wrong. If not, then the statement is false.

[runlvlzero]

I don't know you all seem very unhappy about religion and stuff, considering the 184 pages of replies about it.

Also. You can't genuinely call yourself an athiest if your not 100% sure about the lack of god(tm)

I didn't slam science. It has its place, great for making computers and nuclear bombs and all kinds of other fun shit. But it doesn't replace lots of other things like vision, and astral projection, or good feelings about life, can it help lead to some of that yeah.

But you can't soley depend on science. I mean no one has even invented an entirely synthetic food that can sustain human life yet. Will they one day. But it will always be 'empty'

hence thoughtless machines

the computers are only great because they are driven by more than just the drip drip of time. there's the entire complex universe driving my thoughts of what I mash out on this keyboard

stop thinking so concretely is all I ask. And yep, I'm calling athiesm a concrete ideal.

[runlvlzero]

Oh and one last post (i abso fucking lutely swear) right now (for a little bit) i'm going to try and sleep...

thanks for the few responses and the inspiration to get my thoughts in order. Cause srsly pretty certain that uncertainty is the way to go.

night nights

[runlvlzero]

oh shit, outside of certainty, experimentation is always good :P

[runlvlzero]

night nights for realz

[leewong]

....

"I don't know you all seem very unhappy about religion and stuff, considering the 184 pages of replies about it."

184 pages because the subject interests me. I find joy in perusing my interest. Lucky for me I can. I still think you are projecting.

"Also. You can't genuinely call yourself an athiest if your not 100% sure about the lack of god(tm)"

Yes I can...watch me. I am an atheist. There is no such thing as 100% certainty. There is nothing in the claim "there is no evidence for a god(s)" that requires 100% certainty.

"I didn't slam science."

Yes, you did. The words mechanical and unthinking come to mind. Do you mind if I call you mechanical and unthinking? It isnt a slam I promise.

"and astral projection"

Oh boy...not even going to touch this.

"stop thinking so concretely is all I ask. And yep, I'm calling athiesm a concrete ideal."

Says the guy making a concrete statement.

[Champion_Standing]

still here, long dream.

[Tenlaar]

I didn't slam science. It has its place, great for making computers and nuclear bombs and all kinds of other fun shit. But it doesn't replace lots of other things like vision, and astral projection, or good feelings about life, can it help lead to some of that yeah.

PLUS ANOTHER 9 POSTS OF RAMBLING NONSENSE IN A ROW


http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-never-go-full-retard-15.png

[runlvlzero]

I'm glad everyone fully understands my point of view now. :P

This thread needed to die, 9 posts might be sufficient, not sure.

[leewong]

I'm glad everyone fully understands my point of view now. :P

This thread needed to die, 9 posts might be sufficient, not sure.

I dont think you understand your own point of view. Those that do understand it laugh at it for it's lack of logic and anti-science edicts.

[runlvlzero]

Thanks for paraphrasing me without actually paraphrasing me and telling me what you think you read, because, I said none of that.

I'm going to leave this thread now. There's plenty of information and life experience for you to learn from without my interference.

[leewong]

Thanks for paraphrasing me without actually paraphrasing me and telling me what you think you read, because, I said none of that.

I'm going to leave this thread now. There's plenty of information and life experience for you to learn from without my interference.

Oh no, teacher of great wisdom. Please dont leave.

[Tenlaar]

But you have to teach us how to astrally project first!

[runlvlzero]

Nope. My mission is accomplished. I said what I had to say.

[Tenlaar]

Nope. My mission is accomplished.

Yeah buddy.

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1402/65/1402659586855.jpg

[Archalen]

http://i.imgur.com/WBvLFul.jpg

[runlvlzero]

Yeah buddy.

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1402/65/1402659586855.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/WBvLFul.jpg

xD

[radditsu]

Astral project yourself a cock in the ass.

[runlvlzero]

Astral project yourself a cock in the ass.

If i'm astral I have a vagina ;)

dream sex where it's at IMO

[Ahldagor]

http://www.alamoministries.com/content/Spanish/Antichrist/spnazigallery/21hitlercardinal.jpg

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

So I'm getting ready to leave when the secretary (Middle aged bible thumping black woman who conveniently ignores the total endorsement of slavery/misogyny/rape in her holy books) for the night shift comes in as I'm reminding the rest of the night crew to check out the blood moon eclipse.
She starts spouting on about how it's a sign of the end of times and that every blood moon to ever happen has happened on a Hebrew holiday. So I stop her in her tracks and explain to everyone that literally every Hebrew holiday falls on a new or full moon considering they follow a lunar calendar. I also explain that solar/lunar eclipses can only happen on the new/full moon respectively, furthermore I explain why a blood moon is red(ish).

Everyone else must of had a basic grasp of reality because after the explanation they all nodded their heads and went about their business... except for the secretary, who had this daft look on her face while she slowly shook her head because my blasphemous words clearly went in one ear and out the other.

If that's not bad enough, just two nights ago she went on a tangent to one of her friends about how bad she felt for all of the kids who are going to burn in hell for eternity at the end of the month for trick-or-treating. :eek:

Religion literally poisons one's mind.

[Sidelle]

You might as well have said to her that Jesus' wife Mary Magdalene was on her period and that is what caused the blood moon.

You cannot argue that shit with those people. By those people, I MEAN RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS.

But speaking of "those other people".. why did you feel it necessary to tell us she's black? You are so busted... :)

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

But speaking of "those other people".. why did you feel it necessary to tell us she's black? You are so busted... :)

So busted... for having a good memory.
http://i.imgur.com/sDI759E.png

[katrik]

I don't have a 'big' problem with religion. I do believe that it sets the human race back as a whole, with the absence of needless wars and focus on advancement/science. But, culture is not a bad thing.. religion helps people cope with the reality of death, helps out local communities, helps feed the poor, etc. I do have a problem with extremists.. every religion has them.. which stinks. I'm an atheist, but i'm not in your face about it. I'm private about it, as I think all religion/beliefs should be.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

lol (http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/10/07/stephen-collins-child-molestation-tmz-7th-heaven/16846839/)

[paulgiamatti]

So busted... for having a good memory.
http://i.imgur.com/sDI759E.png

So if she was white you would've said, "middle-aged bible-thumping white woman"?

Double busted. :D

[paulgiamatti]

I don't have a 'big' problem with religion. I do believe that it sets the human race back as a whole, with the absence of needless wars and focus on advancement/science. But, culture is not a bad thing.. religion helps people cope with the reality of death, helps out local communities, helps feed the poor, etc. I do have a problem with extremists.. every religion has them.. which stinks. I'm an atheist, but i'm not in your face about it. I'm private about it, as I think all religion/beliefs should be.

I agree with a lot of this, especially the last sentence, but culture can and should be just as robust and vibrant and spiritual without religion as it is with religion. This idea that atheism somehow detracts from all the good things we enjoy in life, like music and the arts, or self-transcendence and enlightenment, and that these things can only be provided by religion is just simply false. Atheism is not acultural, nor does religion have some kind of monopoly on or secret keys to culture.

Every good thing you just mentioned that can be done with the help of religion can also done by the irreligious, except helping people cope with the reality of death - religion doesn't help people do this in any way whatsoever.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

So if she was white you would've said, "middle-aged bible-thumping white woman"?

Double busted. :D

Again no. White people being devout christians is slightly less hypocritical than black people doing so.

[paulgiamatti]

How very subtly racist of you.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

How very subtly racist of you.

That's not what racism is. That's not even close to what racism is. Please try again.

[paulgiamatti]

Yeah, actually it's more overtly racist than just racist subtlety.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

White southerners were never slaves. Black southerners are descended from slaves. The bible not only condones but specifically endorses slavery as 'a legitimate practice'.

Do the fucking math you moron.

[paulgiamatti]

How about you develop some kind of a moral conscience instead of painfully defending your racism instead?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

How about you develop some kind of a moral conscience instead of painfully defending your racism instead?
Defending? I'm openly racist. The world would be a much better place if the middle east (Israel included) was walled off and never looked at again. Liberians are the morons of the month, raiding and destroying ebola quarantine zones, they deserve whatever happens to them. It would bring me the greatest amount of pleasure possible if someone nuked the fuck out of Puerto Rico considering at least a percentage of Mexicans actually try yet the fucking parasitic spics are never mentioned. Fuck the Irish, fuck the south, fuck Jehobos, fuck magical underpants mormons. I don't much care for the french and I've never met a Cambodian containing a hint of civility.

That my friend, is racism. It's emotionally motivated, rooted in stereotype and anecdotal evidence.

White southerners were never slaves. Black southerners are descended from slaves. The bible not only condones but specifically endorses slavery as 'a legitimate practice'.

That is an observation. It's based upon empirical evidence backed up by observational study.

:)

[paulgiamatti]

Again no. White people being devout christians is slightly less hypocritical than black people doing so.

Just quoting this since you're obviously trying to deflect from it at this point. They're your words, not mine. If you want to withdraw it, that's fine - and I won't think less of you for it. I'd actually gain some respect for you if you demonstrated the ability to change your mind in real-time.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Is there a language barrier, or are you just jacking off at your own attempted political correctness?

Explain to me how you come to the conclusion that marginalized people directly descended from slaves following a book that explicitly endorses slavery/racism is not hypocrisy.

Or

Explain to me how you come to the conclusion that privileged/racist people directly descended from slave owners following a book that explicitly endorses slavery/racism (their own ideals) is hypocrisy.

[Glenzig]

Consider the following regulations included in the Law given through Moses:


● Kidnapping a man and then selling him was punishable by death. (Exodus 21:16) However, if despite all the provisions made to prevent poverty, an Israelite found himself deeply in debt, perhaps as a result of poor management, he could sell himself as a slave. In some cases he might even be able to earn a surplus by which he could redeem himself.—Leviticus 25:47-52.


● This was not the oppressive kind of slavery that has been common in many lands through the ages. Leviticus 25:39, 40 says: “In case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler.” So this was a loving provision to care for Israel’s poorest.


● A person found guilty of stealing who was unable to make full restitution according to the Law could be sold as a slave and in this way pay off his debt. (Exodus 22:3) When he had worked off the debt, he could go free.


● Cruel and abusive slavery was not allowed under God’s Law to Israel. While masters were allowed to discipline their slaves, excesses were forbidden. A slave killed by his master was to be avenged. (Exodus 21:20) If the slave was maimed, losing a tooth or an eye, he was set free.—Exodus 21:26, 27.


● The maximum time that any Israelite would have to serve as a slave was six years. (Exodus 21:2) Hebrew slaves were set free in the seventh year of their service. The Law demanded that every 50 years all Israelite slaves p. 29were to be set free nationwide, regardless of how long the individual had been a slave.—Leviticus 25:40, 41.


● When a slave was released, the master was required to be generous toward him. Deuteronomy 15:13, 14 says: “In case you should send him out from you as one set free, you must not send him out empty-handed. You should surely equip him with something from your flock and your threshing floor and your oil and winepress.”


Later, in the days of Jesus and his apostles, slavery was an entrenched practice in the Roman Empire. As Christianity spread, it was inevitable that individuals who were slaves and others who were slave owners would come in contact with the good news and become Christians. Neither Jesus Christ himself nor his apostles preached a gospel of social liberation, as if trying to reform the existing system. Rather, both slaves and slave owners were admonished to love one another as spiritual brothers.—Colossians 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2.

[RobotElvis]

White southerners were never slaves. Black southerners are descended from slaves. The bible not only condones but specifically endorses slavery as 'a legitimate practice'.

Do the fucking math you moron.
It seems as if you are changing history. There were plenty of white slaves in antebellum south. The Irish slave trade was thriving in England and the colonies long before the African slave trade. In fact the Irish were viewed as more profitable because of being cheaper than African slaves. And in the Protestant south there was just as much bigotry toward a catholic Irish slave as toward a black African slave.

So there are southern whites that descend from slaves.

[Glenzig]

As is the case with every Bible-related question, the issue of slavery must be considered in context. A careful examination of the Scriptures reveals that God deplores the mistreatment of humans.


Such an examination also reveals that the kind of slavery practiced by God’s people in the Bible is not the cruel and abusive slavery that is envisioned by most people today. And the Bible shows that God will deliver us from all forms of slavery in due time. Then, all mankind will enjoy true freedom.—Isaiah 65:21, 22.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

http://ekkescorner.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/cherry-pick.png


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Ya omitted that part I see.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)

God approves!

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

Yet another exception to your 'points'.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

Kinda contradictory to your little tooth/eye example huh?

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 )
That's the new testament!

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

More new testament wholesomeness.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48)

They don't know what's wrong, but beat them anyway. Jesus approves! :cool:

[katrik]

You all need jobs.

[paulgiamatti]

Explain to me how you come to the conclusion that marginalized people directly descended from slaves following a book that explicitly endorses slavery/racism is not hypocrisy.

I'm not saying this is not hypocrisy, I'm saying it's no more hypocritical than anyone else doing so. Any suggestion of such is, as I already stated, subtly racist at best.

Explain to me how you come to the conclusion that privileged/racist people directly descended from slave owners following a book that explicitly endorses slavery/racism (their own ideals) is hypocrisy.

The practice of slave ownership as commanded by the bible is inherently hypocritical as well as immoral. They claimed virtue and righteousness in their preaching, but turned a blind eye to the people they brutalized and subjugated and raped and murdered. It's also hypocritical to follow these teachings today while claiming to have any kind of morals at all.

[Glenzig]

The Bible gives no indication that the enslavement of humans by other humans was part of God’s original purpose for mankind. Furthermore, no Bible prophecies allude to humans owning fellow humans through slavery in God’s new world. Rather, in that coming Paradise, righteous ones “will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble.”—Micah 4:4.


Clearly, the Bible does not condone the ill-treatment of others in any form. On the contrary, it encourages respect and equality among men. (Acts 10:34, 35) It exhorts humans to treat others the way that they would like to be treated. (Luke 6:31) Moreover, the Bible encourages Christians humbly to view others as superior, regardless of their social standing. (Philippians 2:3) These principles are totally incongruous with abusive forms of slavery practiced by many nations, especially in recent centuries.

[Patriam1066]

If Christ believed in an afterlife, and if he knew slaves rebelling against their masters would simply be murdered, why wouldn't he advise them to submit to bondage? Why did MLK not advise blacks to fight in a bloody rampage against whites. Practicality is always lost on you idiots. Slave revolts never work. However, if you assume the moral high ground, people generally, as an introspective reaction, tend to see the evil in their ways.

Christ advised the obedience of slaves. That's 1000x better of a strategy than anything you dip shits could come up with. Ask Spartacus or Nat Turner.


Also way to bring back a shitty thread

[Patriam1066]

It's also hypocritical to follow these teachings today while claiming to have any kind of morals at all.

It's immoral to follow any teaching, because existing is immoral.

By living, we destroy the planet in many ways:

1. We emit CO2 and methane. Holy shit global warming we're fucked.
2. By paying taxes, we contribute to warfare. Holy shit we're murderers.
3. We destroy habitats. By constantly expanding to more land, we deprive indigenous plant and animal life of their homes. Holy shit we suck.

If you care about morality, kill yourself. Otherwise, stop being a sanctimonious ass hole.

Let me leave you with some Robert Heinlein...

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

[leewong]

If Christ believed in an afterlife, and if he knew slaves rebelling against their masters would simply be murdered, why wouldn't he advise them to submit to bondage?

Lol, so funny how Christians try and justify these passages. Why didnt Jesus command the slave owners to NOT OWN SLAVES in the first place? You say it is to save slaves lives but isnt murder also wrong? The slave owners were already going against Jesus's will by killing runaways. SO WHY CONDONE IT?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Lol, so funny how Christians try and justify these passages. Why didnt Jesus command the slave owners to NOT OWN SLAVES in the first place? You say it is to save slaves lives but isnt murder also wrong? The slave owners were already going against Jesus's will by killing runaways. SO WHY CONDONE IT?

God works in mysterious ways ofc.

[Patriam1066]

Lol, so funny how Christians try and justify these passages. Why didnt Jesus command the slave owners to NOT OWN SLAVES in the first place? You say it is to save slaves lives but isnt murder also wrong? The slave owners were already going against Jesus's will by killing runaways. SO WHY CONDONE IT?

1. this has nothing to do with christianity
2. The slave owners had christ killed. His followers were the poor and the downtrodden... His theology, at the time of his life, would have zero effect on the actions of those who own slaves. You guys don't see religion as history, which is your biggest problem. Christ, as a historical figure, had influence over a very limited number of people. He was preaching to them.

Whatever theology has occurred since then is attributable only to individual theologians, not to the man himself. Religion is a fluid, living thing than reflects cultural changes. One day you'll understand that.
Ignore thousands of years of collective wisdom of your ancestors at your own peril.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

1. this has nothing to do with christianity
2. The slave owners had christ killed. His followers were the poor and the downtrodden... His theology, at the time of his life, would have zero effect on the actions of those who own slaves. You guys don't see religion as history, which is your biggest problem. Christ, as a historical figure, had influence over a very limited number of people. He was preaching to them.

Whatever theology has occurred since then is attributable only to individual theologians, not to the man himself. Religion is a fluid, living thing than reflects cultural changes. One day you'll understand that.
Thats the whole point though, that in 2014, such ideologies provided in the book are too antiquated and have no place in a productive society today.

Ignore thousands of years of collective wisdom of your ancestors at your own peril.

Scientific progress is indeed amazing and those who refuse to learn from everything that our ancestors have achieved are the greatest threat of all.

[iruinedyourday]

Religion is a fluid, living thing than reflects cultural changes. One day you'll understand that.

Its not living

[Glenzig]

Thats the whole point though, that in 2014, such ideologies provided in the book are too antiquated and have no place in a productive society today.



Scientific progress is indeed amazing and those who refuse to learn from everything that our ancestors have achieved are the greatest threat of all.

If that's true, then why hasn't slavery been abolished?

[Patriam1066]

Thats the whole point though, that in 2014, such ideologies provided in the book are too antiquated and have no place in a productive society today.



Scientific progress is indeed amazing and those who refuse to learn from everything that our ancestors have achieved are the greatest threat of all.

Oh, but it does. Seventh Day Adventists are healthy because they believe God commands them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Utah doesn't suffer many social ills in other states, I'd argue that that is related to strong family and community values (Mormon values). Christian charities were the first into Liberia to fight ebola, while you sat at your computer. Religious states in the US donate more to, and are more active in charities.

Gregor Mendel created genetics. Where did he find the resources to study pea plants? Holy shit, he was a monk in a monastery? I guess you don't believe in mendelian genetics anymore because he was associated with the evil catholic church trying to control us all!!!!! Tools

I reiterate: "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

If you see no value in a religion, then don't follow it. Conversely, if you see some value in parts of it but little in other aspects, incorporate what you will into your life. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to utilize your brain to decide what is right and wrong in your life. If I decide to go to a house of worship, in my case a Baha'i shrine, why the hell is that any of your business?

I was raised in the religion that my mother taught me, and it would kill her if I left it. So why did I stay? Merely out of respect to her? Not quite. My faith taught me to work hard, to smile in the face of adversity, and to be tolerant. What part of those values do you deem to be evil? If I read them in a philosophy tome or a textbook, would they be inherently more valuable than if they came from scripture? What makes you the arbiter of right and wrong?

The only "religion" that scares me is this incessant desire from liberals and atheists to silence anyone who has a different opinion. What a fucked up world we'd have if you guys had the power to create a society without diversity of opinion, culture or thought. I'll keep praying to my flying spaghetti monster that you never have the capability.

Oh, and there are plenty of countries that have thought police apparatuses. I suggest you move to Iran, China, or Russia; you'd all fit in perfectly. Drones following the queen like in every other hive.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/operation-blessing-international-sending-american-aid-workers-to-provide-chlorine-fight-ebola-in-liberia-127563/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/03/23/march-23-2012-seventh-day-adventists-and-health/10575/

[leewong]

1. this has nothing to do with christianity
2. The slave owners had christ killed. His followers were the poor and the downtrodden... His theology, at the time of his life, would have zero effect on the actions of those who own slaves. You guys don't see religion as history, which is your biggest problem. Christ, as a historical figure, had influence over a very limited number of people. He was preaching to them.

Whatever theology has occurred since then is attributable only to individual theologians, not to the man himself. Religion is a fluid, living thing than reflects cultural changes. One day you'll understand that.
Ignore thousands of years of collective wisdom of your ancestors at your own peril.

1. Um, so Bible passages from the New and Old Testament have nothing to do with Christianity...interesting.
2. So what. The slave owners should not affect what laws Jesus is passing down to human beings anymore than a murderer not following his laws would. If God was truly omnipotent he could write a book in such a way that it is timeless. What you are suggesting is that God writes different rule books for different cultures and that his laws change as time passes.

[Patriam1066]

1. Um, so Bible passages from the New and Old Testament have nothing to do with Christianity...interesting.
2. So what. The slave owners should not affect what laws Jesus is passing down to human beings anymore than a murderer not following his laws would. If God was truly omnipotent he could write a book in such a way that it is timeless. What you are suggesting is that God writes different rule books for different cultures and that his laws change as time passes.

No, I'm suggesting that men wrote the Bible, and every other book, not God. You are at fault for assuming that a book of morals, written by men, has no value because you don't believe in God. If God doesn't exist, then why bring him into this? Why not take moral lessons from the Bible, since they are the teachings of men? Are you honestly telling me that there is nothing in the Bible that you find valuable? If you are, then you're a sociopath. The New Testament is 95% at least sound moral philosophy.

My point about it not being about christianity is that A) I'm a baha'i and
B) As always, you guys miss the point of religion. This isn't God sitting on high giving you instructions on life. This is YOUR ANCESTORS who were smarter than you, who saw the savage nature of the society that they lived in, telling their people "Hey dickheads, maybe you should stop killing one another and being ass holes."

If you don't believe in God, that's fine. But don't expect your arguments to convince me to not follow my religion. I have a sense of morality that doesn't bring me into conflict with any tribe, race, religion, or culture. That morality came from a religious upbringing. Does that make me evil?

[Glenzig]

1. Um, so Bible passages from the New and Old Testament have nothing to do with Christianity...interesting.
2. So what. The slave owners should not affect what laws Jesus is passing down to human beings anymore than a murderer not following his laws would. If God was truly omnipotent he could write a book in such a way that it is timeless. What you are suggesting is that God writes different rule books for different cultures and that his laws change as time passes.

You do realize that the bible was written for the entire human family right? No, you probably didn't.
You realize that there are still countries where slavery is legal right? So would it be more "timeless" to not speak of slavery? Or would it be more beneficial to set some practical principles for those who may still own slaves?

Obviously God is wise enough to realize that no matter what century you live in, slavery would be around in some areas. I'd call that pretty "timeless".

[Sidelle]

Some of you seem to really love missing the point. I get what he's saying, why don't you even try to think about it? You look dumb when you give your typical biased knee-jerk responses that kinda seem like you miss the point on purpose. Oh nevermind. You're all just trolling, right?..

Patriam, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your posts, whether or not I agree or disagree with things you say. I'm glad you actually have the patience to try and explain your views because at least they're thought-provoking and interesting.

[Archalen]

Oh, but it does. Seventh Day Adventists are healthy because they believe God commands them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Utah doesn't suffer many social ills in other states, I'd argue that that is related to strong family and community values (Mormon values). Christian charities were the first into Liberia to fight ebola, while you sat at your computer. Religious states in the US donate more to, and are more active in charities.

Gregor Mendel created genetics. Where did he find the resources to study pea plants? Holy shit, he was a monk in a monastery? I guess you don't believe in mendelian genetics anymore because he was associated with the evil catholic church trying to control us all!!!!! Tools

I reiterate: "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

If you see no value in a religion, then don't follow it. Conversely, if you see some value in parts of it but little in other aspects, incorporate what you will into your life. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to utilize your brain to decide what is right and wrong in your life. If I decide to go to a house of worship, in my case a Baha'i shrine, why the hell is that any of your business?

I was raised in the religion that my mother taught me, and it would kill her if I left it. So why did I stay? Merely out of respect to her? Not quite. My faith taught me to work hard, to smile in the face of adversity, and to be tolerant. What part of those values do you deem to be evil? If I read them in a philosophy tome or a textbook, would they be inherently more valuable than if they came from scripture? What makes you the arbiter of right and wrong?

The only "religion" that scares me is this incessant desire from liberals and atheists to silence anyone who has a different opinion. What a fucked up world we'd have if you guys had the power to create a society without diversity of opinion, culture or thought. I'll keep praying to my flying spaghetti monster that you never have the capability.

Oh, and there are plenty of countries that have thought police apparatuses. I suggest you move to Iran, China, or Russia; you'd all fit in perfectly. Drones following the queen like in every other hive.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/operation-blessing-international-sending-american-aid-workers-to-provide-chlorine-fight-ebola-in-liberia-127563/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/03/23/march-23-2012-seventh-day-adventists-and-health/10575/

I've read extensively about Seventh Day Adventists. Roughly one half are vegetarian, and those who are not generally eat less meat/ dairy products/ eggs. They also have built-in exercise like nature walks and have a very tight community. In regards to their religion, they are more contemplative (remind me more of Buddhists) than their other Christian counterparts.

They live longer in general than the rest of the United States, but that has nothing to do with belief in a Judeo-Christian philosophy. I know this for certain because other long-lived peoples of the world are not Christian. Instead, what long-lived people have in common is great social support, healthy and happy relationships, constant exercise (even if just walking a lot), eating fewer meats and dairy/egg products, eating more whole foods, etc.

[Archalen]

I know you didn't explicitly say that they live longer because they are Christian. I just wanted to make sure no readers will commit that fallacy.

[paulgiamatti]

If Christ believed in an afterlife, and if he knew slaves rebelling against their masters would simply be murdered, why wouldn't he advise them to submit to bondage? Why did MLK not advise blacks to fight in a bloody rampage against whites. Practicality is always lost on you idiots. Slave revolts never work.

Christ advised the obedience of slaves. That's 1000x better of a strategy than anything you dip shits could come up with. Ask Spartacus or Nat Turner.

Ah yes, what a strategy indeed! He was working in the best interest of the slaves, of course! Oh, and just to be sure it seemed authentic, there's a bit about how it's okay to beat slaves within an inch of their lives - and if they die, no big deal, the slaves are our property after all. No worries, it's all part of the strategy. It has to be practical, right?

However, if you assume the moral high ground, people generally, as an introspective reaction, tend to see the evil in their ways.

Completely baseless assertion. People who assume the moral high ground because they think they have god on their side are the people who end up rationalizing things like bigotry, slavery, and genocide.

It's immoral to follow any teaching, because existing is immoral.

This is a complete non-argument and not even worth addressing. Warfare is necessary to kill people like Hitler who want to exterminate entire ethnic populations. The fact that every human being has a carbon footprint doesn't make every human being immoral. What a waste of a thought.

The only "religion" that scares me is this incessant desire from liberals and atheists to silence anyone who has a different opinion. What a fucked up world we'd have if you guys had the power to create a society without diversity of opinion, culture or thought.

More nonsensical confusion of religion and irreligion, and also not really even worth addressing. This is the typical non-thinking religious reaction to having their shitty, immoral beliefs challenged: "You just want to silence everyone that doesn't agree with you!" No, us challenging you does not mean we're trying to silence you. Get over yourself.

Oh, and there are plenty of countries that have thought police apparatuses. I suggest you move to Iran, China, or Russia; you'd all fit in perfectly. Drones following the queen like in every other hive.

And speaking of societies without diversity of opinion, culture or thought, have you looked at Iran lately? Have you looked at North Korea? Do you know what a theocratic dictatorship is? Did you know that this is what religion created?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Oh, but it does. Seventh Day Adventists are healthy because they believe God commands them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Utah doesn't suffer many social ills in other states, I'd argue that that is related to strong family and community values (Mormon values). Christian charities were the first into Liberia to fight ebola, while you sat at your computer. Religious states in the US donate more to, and are more active in charities.

Gregor Mendel created genetics. Where did he find the resources to study pea plants? Holy shit, he was a monk in a monastery? I guess you don't believe in mendelian genetics anymore because he was associated with the evil catholic church trying to control us all!!!!! Tools

I reiterate: "I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

If you see no value in a religion, then don't follow it. Conversely, if you see some value in parts of it but little in other aspects, incorporate what you will into your life. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to utilize your brain to decide what is right and wrong in your life. If I decide to go to a house of worship, in my case a Baha'i shrine, why the hell is that any of your business?

I was raised in the religion that my mother taught me, and it would kill her if I left it. So why did I stay? Merely out of respect to her? Not quite. My faith taught me to work hard, to smile in the face of adversity, and to be tolerant. What part of those values do you deem to be evil? If I read them in a philosophy tome or a textbook, would they be inherently more valuable than if they came from scripture? What makes you the arbiter of right and wrong?

The only "religion" that scares me is this incessant desire from liberals and atheists to silence anyone who has a different opinion. What a fucked up world we'd have if you guys had the power to create a society without diversity of opinion, culture or thought. I'll keep praying to my flying spaghetti monster that you never have the capability.

Oh, and there are plenty of countries that have thought police apparatuses. I suggest you move to Iran, China, or Russia; you'd all fit in perfectly. Drones following the queen like in every other hive.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/operation-blessing-international-sending-american-aid-workers-to-provide-chlorine-fight-ebola-in-liberia-127563/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/03/23/march-23-2012-seventh-day-adventists-and-health/10575/

I cannot break up quotes on my phone browser so I apologize if my response isn't formatted in a way that is pleasing to the eyes.

Mormons etc.: family values need not come from religion in a modern productive society. Regardless, for every Mormon that you see, there are fifty others who identify as Christian who live in excess. While it's true that there were Christian groups among the first wave of aid, this belies the fact that there are more aid based groups not associated with faiths when compared to 'missions'. While I sat at my computer telling everyone to be calm and rational in regards to Ebola, Christian groups have been pressing for border closures and deportations as well as the abandonment of fellow citizens who were potentially infected. There are exceptions to every rule, in this case your positive examples are just that. Your point about who is more charitable is simply wrong, even with less than 20 percent of the nation opting out of selecting a religion, a secular charity (bill gates) generates much more aid than any religious charity.

Gregor Mendel did not discover genes BECAUSE he was religious, he did so in spite of the fact. He came to his conclusions via scientific experimentation, not from the pages of the bible. Correlation =/= causation. The fact that he separated his scientific curiosity from his faith is good on him alone, not his religion. The source of his funding is also largely irrelevant so I don't know why you are implying it would matter to me. The nazis invented/perfected rocket science. Do you think I believe space exploration is evil?

The rest of your post is essentially in defense of personal faith which I'm in full support of. As stated a billion times, your right to your own faith ends at the tip of your nose.

[paulgiamatti]

Oh, but my bad, we should all pay attention to what Patriam has to say about Jesus loving those poor slaves because it's thought-provoking. We don't want to hear any of that boring stuff about Jesus preaching immoral iron-age bullshit that has no validity in the 21st century. We want to hear what a great guy he was, because that's exciting!

[Sidelle]

Oh, but my bad, we should all pay attention to what Patriam has to say about Jesus loving those poor slaves because it's thought-provoking. We don't want to hear any of that boring stuff about Jesus preaching immoral iron-age bullshit that has no validity in the 21st century. We want to hear what a great guy he was, because that's exciting!

I'm sorry you took my post personally, though I don't recall using your name specifically, nor did I quote anything you've said... So what's got you all rustled? Do you think I was talking about you for some odd reason? :)

[paulgiamatti]

btw ur all gonna die who cares

That's kind of the problem though, some people actually think they're going to survive their death. Some people actually believe with no evidence whatsoever that they're going to reappear in some other realm of existence and recognize their grandparents, while everyone else suffers an eternity of torture in hell.

[iruinedyourday]

I cannot break up quotes on my phone browser so I apologize if my response isn't formatted in a way that is pleasing to the eyes.

nothing you've ever posted is pleasing to the eyes

[iruinedyourday]

nothing you've ever posted is pleasing to the eyes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dnaumEHJa8#t=21

[Sidelle]

That's kind of the problem though, some people actually think they're going to survive their death. Some people actually believe with no evidence whatsoever that they're going to reappear in some other realm of existence and recognize their grandparents, while everyone else suffers an eternity of torture in hell.

I'm curious. Why is it a "problem" for you if other people believe that, though? Maybe you don't realized that you're making the same mistake a lot of religious people do: you judge, mock, and condemn the beliefs of other people if they happen to oppose your own.

I think they call that intolerance, no?

So again I ask: why is it a "problem" for you personally?

[Patriam1066]

And speaking of societies without diversity of opinion, culture or thought, have you looked at Iran lately? Have you looked at North Korea? Do you know what a theocratic dictatorship is? Did you know that this is what religion created?

Iran has been islamic for 1400 years, and for most of that time, it was a world or at least regional power. Now, it is a retrograde shit hole, but not because of Islam. It's because the elites believe that their philosophy is superior to all others, and others should submit to the correct thinking. It's the exact argument that you make. You keep saying how your positions are superior, and you'll be damned to see any other position. You are intolerant.

Oh and by the way. Iran banned slavery back in the Achaemenid era, because of Zoroastrianism. Most of the world had slavery at the time, but the Persians stopped due to religious teaching. Riddle me this Batman, what was evil about that edict?

Religion is millennia of culture, art, philosophy, and literature. I honestly don't understand why you guys don't get that. I am not 100% sure that God exists, how the fuck could I be. I don't believe in spirits, the soul, and while Id like to believe in an afterlife, I'm certainly not convinced that there is anything beyond this. What I am 100% certain of is that there are good christians, bad atheists, and vice versa. I am also 100% certain that different cultures and their religious beliefs have practical values to give modern humanity. The Upanishads, Quran, Bible, and the Avesta all have something useful within their pages.

im done again. There's no point arguing

You're convinced that the world started in the post Christian period, and that the modern culture you enjoy has no connection to Christianity. Those are both unequivocally false precepts, but I couldn't xonvince you otherwise even if I wasted my whole life trying.

Keep hating everyone around you. I'll have a smile on my face with all the other idiots at the shrine praying to the sky God. We'll all do charity and try to feed the hungry, and you'll be in your basement expounding on your supreme morality on Internet forums.

[iruinedyourday]

Keep hating everyone around you. I'll have a smile on my face with all the other idiots at the shrine praying to the sky God. We'll all do charity and try to feed the hungry, and you'll be in your basement expounding on your supreme morality on Internet forums.

Sounds like you're the guy with the problem hating other people dude.

[Patriam1066]

I'm curious. Why is it a "problem" for you if other people believe that, though? Maybe you don't realized that you're making the same mistake a lot of religious people do: you judge, mock, and condemn the beliefs of other people if they happen to oppose your own.

I think they call that intolerance, no?

So again I ask: why is it a "problem" for you personally?

Yeah thats pretty much my point. These guys don't see how close they are to religious fundamentalists...as someone who grew up in Iran, I see it immediately.

Sounds like you're the guy with the problem hating other people dude.

I have maybe 10-15 posts in this thread, 3/4s of them are positives about religion, the remainder is attacking those who attack my beliefs. In contrast, this thread is 200 pages of "religion is and always has been evil and those who practice it are evil." Somehow, that makes me the hater? Get a grip

[Glenzig]

Sounds like you're the guy with the problem hating other people dude.

You need better reading comprehension skills.

[myriverse]

I'm curious. Why is it a "problem" for you if other people believe that, though? Maybe you don't realized that you're making the same mistake a lot of religious people do: you judge, mock, and condemn the beliefs of other people if they happen to oppose your own.

I think they call that intolerance, no?

So again I ask: why is it a "problem" for you personally?
It becomes a problem because it's the basis for a lot of horrible shit that goes down in the world.

[Glenzig]

It becomes a problem because it's the basis for a lot of horrible shit that goes down in the world.

True. Scientism has also been responsible for a lot of terrible atrocities. I don't see anyone rallying against science though.

[Patriam1066]

It becomes a problem because it's the basis for a lot of horrible shit that goes down in the world.

Stalin, Mao, pol pot, the Young Turks, Hitler (probably an occultist so not sure he belongs)

All secular / atheist. All are the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century.

I'd love to see the Mormon homicide / violent crime rate compared to other groups in the US.

[paulgiamatti]

I'm curious. Why is it a "problem" for you if other people believe that, though? Maybe you don't realized that you're making the same mistake a lot of religious people do: you judge, mock, and condemn the beliefs of other people if they happen to oppose your own.

I think they call that intolerance, no?

So again I ask: why is it a "problem" for you personally?

I'm pretty sure this has already been discussed at great length in the previous pages but, in short, it's not a problem for me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter. The world is a very big place, and humanity as a whole has better things to do than concern itself with any one person's petty grievances over another's beliefs. I don't care what anyone believes - I don't care if you believe in one god or twenty gods; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However, when beliefs become indoctrinated into scripture and methodically and mandatorily doled out as education, it then becomes not only my problem but everyone else's as well. Fortunately, here in the States we now live in a post-secularist society and these kind of teachings are no longer mandatory. Religious studies are still very much a required part of many European societies, and I hope I don't need to point out the horrific state of affairs in many of the middle-eastern and Asian countries that have to put up with violent, militarized groups that take literal interpretations of religious scripture to the extreme.

These things happen because of ideas. The idea of vicarious redemption through Christ is extremely immoral. Modern day Christianity is literally a cult predicated on human sacrifice which assures its followers they can do away with every wrongdoing of their past by simply accepting Christ as their lord and savior. Solipsistic worldviews are hugely, unequivocally immoral. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. Vicarious redemption is inherent in Christianity. This is not in any way a good thing. It teaches that if you simply give yourself over to Christ you can rid yourself of every sin you've ever committed or ever will commit. And it doesn't end there - in doing so, you'll not only survive your own death, but you can take pleasure in the condemnation of the unworthy - those who've blasphemed - who will, rest assured, spend an eternity in hellfire for their sins. This is absolute poison. Here's an idea, how about you take responsibility for your actions in this life, in this world.

Keep hating everyone around you. I'll have a smile on my face with all the other idiots at the shrine praying to the sky God. We'll all do charity and try to feed the hungry, and you'll be in your basement expounding on your supreme morality on Internet forums.

Once again trying to make it look like religion has a monopoly or some sort of hidden access to kindness and charity, but no one's buying it. There are just as many secular, non-religious charitable organizations as there are of the religious, except the non-religious charities don't attempt to proselytize and win converts to a sadistic cult. Non-religious groups don't carry out charity in hopes for good karma to carry them into the next life - they do it for the betterment of this life, for the betterment of this world. Culture, charity, and yes, even kindness will be perfectly fine without religion, I can assure you. Neither spirituality nor art requires bullshit superstitious immoral beliefs, and humanity as a whole will be much better off without them as well. Good riddance.

[Glenzig]

Stalin, Mao, pol pot, the Young Turks, Hitler (probably an occultist so not sure he belongs)

All secular / atheist. All are the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century.

I'd love to see the Mormon homicide / violent crime rate compared to other groups in the US.

Yeah Hitler was definitely an occultist. But then again so was Darwin, so it really doesn't conflict with his scientistic position. Most people view the rise of secularism as the end of superstition, when actually as secularism increases in an area, so does occultism. Hard to ignore that correlation.

[Aviann]

These things happen because of ideas. The idea of vicarious redemption through Christ is extremely immoral. Modern day Christianity is literally a cult predicated on human sacrifice which assures its followers they can do away with every wrongdoing of their past by simply accepting Christ as their lord and savior. Solipsistic worldviews are hugely, unequivocally immoral. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. Vicarious redemption is inherent in Christianity. This is not in any way a good thing. It teaches that if you simply give yourself over to Christ you can rid yourself of every sin you've ever committed or ever will commit. And it doesn't end there - in doing so, you'll not only survive your own death, but you can take pleasure in the condemnation of the unworthy - those who've blasphemed - who will, rest assured, spend an eternity in hellfire for their sins. This is absolute poison. Here's an idea, how about you take responsibility for your actions in this life, in this world.


Once again trying to make it look like religion has a monopoly or some sort of hidden access to kindness and charity, but no one's buying it. There are just as many secular, non-religious charitable organizations as there are of the religious, except the non-religious charities don't attempt to proselytize and win converts to a sadistic cult. Non-religious groups don't carry out charity in hopes for good karma to carry them into the next life - they do it for the betterment of this life, for the betterment of this world. Culture, charity, and yes, even kindness will be perfectly fine without religion, I can assure you. Neither spirituality nor art requires bullshit superstitious immoral beliefs, and humanity as a whole will be much better off without them as well. Good riddance.

Yes, yes, and YES!

[Patriam1066]

I'm pretty sure this has already been discussed at great length in the previous pages but, in short, it's not a problem for me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter. The world is a very big place, and humanity as a whole has better things to do than concern itself with any one person's petty grievances over another's beliefs. I don't care what anyone believes - I don't care if you believe in one god or twenty gods; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However, when beliefs become indoctrinated into scripture and methodically and mandatorily doled out as education, it then becomes not only my problem but everyone else's as well. Fortunately, here in the States we now live in a post-secularist society and these kind of teachings are no longer mandatory. Religious studies are still very much a required part of many European societies, and I hope I don't need to point out the horrific state of affairs in many of the middle-eastern and Asian countries that have to put up with violent, militarized groups that take literal interpretations of religious scripture to the extreme.

These things happen because of ideas. The idea of vicarious redemption through Christ is extremely immoral. Modern day Christianity is literally a cult predicated on human sacrifice which assures its followers they can do away with every wrongdoing of their past by simply accepting Christ as their lord and savior. Solipsistic worldviews are hugely, unequivocally immoral. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. Vicarious redemption is inherent in Christianity. This is not in any way a good thing. It teaches that if you simply give yourself over to Christ you can rid yourself of every sin you've ever committed or ever will commit. And it doesn't end there - in doing so, you'll not only survive your own death, but you can take pleasure in the condemnation of the unworthy - those who've blasphemed - who will, rest assured, spend an eternity in hellfire for their sins. This is absolute poison. Here's an idea, how about you take responsibility for your actions in this life, in this world.



Once again trying to make it look like religion has a monopoly or some sort of hidden access to kindness and charity, but no one's buying it. There are just as many secular, non-religious charitable organizations as there are of the religious, except the non-religious charities don't attempt to proselytize and win converts to a sadistic cult. Non-religious groups don't carry out charity in hopes for good karma to carry them into the next life - they do it for the betterment of this life, for the betterment of this world. Culture, charity, and yes, even kindness will be perfectly fine without religion, I can assure you. Neither spirituality nor art requires bullshit superstitious immoral beliefs, and humanity as a whole will be much better off without them as well. Good riddance.

You do realize that China and North Korea are atheist states? Dude, evil isn't religion. It isn't wconomic. It isn't social. It comes from people who believe that they have the right to tell others how they should live. You're absolutely right... Religious extremism is a HUGE problem. But so is the Chinese one party state. Any form of political/governmental extremism is a bad thing.

My point is twofold: religion is a sociological and historical development. It is inseparably tied to our advancement.
The other point is that you saying "we're better off without it" is identical to a Muslim extremist saying that we're better off without Yazidis. Just because you see a group as detrimental to humanity doesn't make them so, and it certainly doesn't elevate you to a position to have the decision over what religions, philosophies, and cultures are acceptable.

[Patriam1066]

Better off without it....

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/10/07/the-christian-element-in-the-hong-kong-protests/

Damn those Christians, fighting for democracy.

[Glenzig]

I'm pretty sure this has already been discussed at great length in the previous pages but, in short, it's not a problem for me. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter. The world is a very big place, and humanity as a whole has better things to do than concern itself with any one person's petty grievances over another's beliefs. I don't care what anyone believes - I don't care if you believe in one god or twenty gods; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However, when beliefs become indoctrinated into scripture and methodically and mandatorily doled out as education, it then becomes not only my problem but everyone else's as well. Fortunately, here in the States we now live in a post-secularist society and these kind of teachings are no longer mandatory. Religious studies are still very much a required part of many European societies, and I hope I don't need to point out the horrific state of affairs in many of the middle-eastern and Asian countries that have to put up with violent, militarized groups that take literal interpretations of religious scripture to the extreme.

These things happen because of ideas. The idea of vicarious redemption through Christ is extremely immoral. Modern day Christianity is literally a cult predicated on human sacrifice which assures its followers they can do away with every wrongdoing of their past by simply accepting Christ as their lord and savior. Solipsistic worldviews are hugely, unequivocally immoral. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. Vicarious redemption is inherent in Christianity. This is not in any way a good thing. It teaches that if you simply give yourself over to Christ you can rid yourself of every sin you've ever committed or ever will commit. And it doesn't end there - in doing so, you'll not only survive your own death, but you can take pleasure in the condemnation of the unworthy - those who've blasphemed - who will, rest assured, spend an eternity in hellfire for their sins. This is absolute poison. Here's an idea, how about you take responsibility for your actions in this life, in this world.



Once again trying to make it look like religion has a monopoly or some sort of hidden access to kindness and charity, but no one's buying it. There are just as many secular, non-religious charitable organizations as there are of the religious, except the non-religious charities don't attempt to proselytize and win converts to a sadistic cult. Non-religious groups don't carry out charity in hopes for good karma to carry them into the next life - they do it for the betterment of this life, for the betterment of this world. Culture, charity, and yes, even kindness will be perfectly fine without religion, I can assure you. Neither spirituality nor art requires bullshit superstitious immoral beliefs, and humanity as a whole will be much better off without them as well. Good riddance.

Once again you are conflating what people say the bible says with what it actually says. The bible does not say that you have an immortal soul, that is an extra-biblical doctrine with Babylonian origins. The bible does not say that you have an immortal soul, again that is an extra-biblical doctrine with Babylonian origins. What the bible actually teaches about death can be summed up in two verses.
Eccl. 9:5,6 "5 For the living know* that they will die,+ but the dead know nothing at all,+ nor do they have any more reward,* because all memory of them is forgotten.+ 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun."

[paulgiamatti]

You do realize that China and North Korea are atheist states?

In Orwell's 1984 it's also assumed there's no more religion - there's no church in 1984, not even a tame state church. No one mentions the idea of faith except in big brother, so it's as if it's an entirely secular dictatorship. In North Korea, you might think this is also the case since it has an officially communistic ideology, but it's not - it's the most religious state you can possibly imagine.

Although Kim Jong-un has inexplicably gone missing, and North Korea is currently being run by a sort of de facto "supreme leader" - his sister Kim Yo-jong - he isn't actually the president of North Korea. That title was given to his grandfather, the late Kim Il-sung, who at the time of his death in 1994 was given the title. He is still designated in the North Korean constitution as the country's "Eternal President". In a theocracy people are required to worship the same god as their leaders, but North Korea takes it a step further - their citizens are made to worship their dear leader as if he were a god himself.

If you think North Korea is entirely atheistic in nature, I suggest you read some testimonies from some of those who've defected and were fortunate enough to make it out alive. As Christopher Hitchens said, North Korea isn't a secular state; it's a necrocracy, or a thanatocracy, or a mausolocracy. It's theocracy taken to the highest extreme you can possibly take it to.

[paulgiamatti]

And w/r/t China, I mean look, I'm not saying Christians cannot or do not fight for just causes or perform moral actions. I'm simply saying that faith is not a requirement to do so, and it doesn't need to be taught to children in schools. Upholding a moral society is everyone's responsibility, not just religion's.

[Patriam1066]

And w/r/t China, I mean look, I'm not saying Christians cannot or do not fight for just causes or perform moral actions. I'm simply saying that faith is not a requirement to do so, and it doesn't need to be taught to children in schools. Upholding a moral society is everyone's responsibility, not just religion's.

I'm not sure why we're arguing then. I don't disagree with this. I'm just telling you that when you say "we're better off without religion," that you couldn't possibly be more wrong. There are so many assumptions there, like 1) religion hasn't helped us
2) religion doesn't continue to help us
3) that good / bad are solely the domain of people's religious convictions.

There is so much going on in the world that happens completely independent of religion, and if it were abolished, would continue to happen.

If you were to ask me though, from my limited travelings on this planet, I would say that Christians are without a doubt the most moral group. I would say Buddhists are a close second. That's just my opinion. I don't think attacking them accomplishes anything except demonstrate the ignorance of those vilifying people they don't understand.

I said this earlier in this thread. There is a reason that Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, NZ, Australia, Canada, UK, US, Finland, Estonia . . . .etc, are all overwhelmingly successful. Even if these places are post-Christian, you cannot separate their common Protestant heritage from why they are successful today.

Religion isn't pointless. It never has been. It's responsible for things that you probably take for granted. The Enlightenment, the secular movement that probably had more to do with Europe's current culture than anything other than the World Wars, doesn't happen without the Protestant Reformation.

Also, the first universities on this planet were Islamic. I could google Islamic polymaths and tell you what they did, but I'll let you do that yourself.

Religion is timeless. It has always been important. It will always remain important. And even if Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are eliminated, rest assured, people will follow something different. It's my profound hope, that if these things are replaced, they are replaced with something better. I honestly don't think that they would be. Good luck finding better teachers than Jesus or Buddha.

Saadi Shirazi, a devout Persian Sunni:


Adam's sons are body limbs, to say;
For they're created of the same clay.
Should one organ be troubled by pain,
Others would suffer severe strain.
Thou, careless of people's suffering,
Deserve not the name, "human being".

Much better in Persian

http://vimeo.com/53253260

go to 33:00 minutes in and listen to about 37:00

[Patriam1066]

I am not saying that one is only moral if they believe in God. I don't think being an atheist precludes you from having a sense of morality, or even from getting into heaven if there is one. I also think that being religious doesn't preclude you from being intelligent, thoughtful, and a contributing member of society.

[Glenzig]

I'm not sure why we're arguing then. I don't disagree with this. I'm just telling you that when you say "we're better off without religion," that you couldn't possibly be more wrong. There are so many assumptions there, like 1) religion hasn't helped us
2) religion doesn't continue to help us
3) that good / bad are solely the domain of people's religious convictions.

There is so much going on in the world that happens completely independent of religion, and if it were abolished, would continue to happen.

If you were to ask me though, from my limited travelings on this planet, I would say that Christians are without a doubt the most moral group. I would say Buddhists are a close second. That's just my opinion. I don't think attacking them accomplishes anything except demonstrate the ignorance of those vilifying people they don't understand.

I said this earlier in this thread. There is a reason that Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, NZ, Australia, Canada, UK, US, Finland, Estonia . . . .etc, are all overwhelmingly successful. Even if these places are post-Christian, you cannot separate their common Protestant heritage from why they are successful today.

Religion isn't pointless. It never has been. It's responsible for things that you probably take for granted. The Enlightenment, the secular movement that probably had more to do with Europe's current culture than anything other than the World Wars, doesn't happen without the Protestant Reformation.

Also, the first universities on this planet were Islamic. I could google Islamic polymaths and tell you what they did, but I'll let you do that yourself.

Religion is timeless. It has always been important. It will always remain important. And even if Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are eliminated, rest assured, people will follow something different. It's my profound hope, that if these things are replaced, they are replaced with something better. I honestly don't think that they would be. Good luck finding better teachers than Jesus or Buddha.

Saadi Shirazi, a devout Persian Sunni:


Adam's sons are body limbs, to say;
For they're created of the same clay.
Should one organ be troubled by pain,
Others would suffer severe strain.
Thou, careless of people's suffering,
Deserve not the name, "human being".

Much better in Persian

http://vimeo.com/53253260

go to 33:00 minutes in and listen to about 37:00

I'm pretty sure it just comes down to people like PaulG not wanting anyone anywhere telling them what is or isn't moral. All the while not realizing that he is doi g the exact same thing.
You're absolutely right though, the removal of organized religion would hardly mean the end of religion itself. And if you think that religion based on centuries old holy books is immoral, you'll be very disappointed in the replacement.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Can one of you P people please get a fucking avitar? I can't figure out who is saying what!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

If you were to ask me though, from my limited travelings on this planet, I would say that Christians are without a doubt the most moral group. (http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/10/alabama_pastor_tells_congregation_that_he_has_aids _and_slept_with_members.html?wpisrc=topstories) I would say Buddhists are a close second. That's just my opinion. I don't think attacking them accomplishes anything except demonstrate the ignorance of those vilifying people they don't understand.
A conservative estimate puts roughly 20% of Christians as not being complete pieces of trash. If you think a group that is 80% immoral hypocrites is the most moral group on the planet, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
http://allhumorpic.com/wp-content/uploads/funny-woman-praying-church.jpg

I said this earlier in this thread. There is a reason that Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, NZ, Australia, Canada, UK, US, Finland, Estonia . . . .etc, are all overwhelmingly successful. Even if these places are post-Christian, you cannot separate their common Protestant heritage from why they are successful today.
Don't know why you bounced back and fourth around the globe with that list, but let's add some perspective.
Australia, New Zealand (MFW the autocorrect thinks 'Zealand' is a typo), Canada, and the US are all nations developed by persons who had fled from religion or religious states.
Denmark, Sweden, Holland, the UK, Finland (not sure about Estonia) are all falling apart because of the influx of Muslim immigration. It's gotten to the point that the 'Progressive' leaders of both the U.K. and Sweden have made it required for news outlets to not list the names of the perpetrators of rape or members of these games because every single one has a Muslim name and they don't want to sound racist. Look it up. Rape in Europe has gone up 5000% since the Muslim invasion started in 2006.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

members of these gangs*

[Patriam1066]

80% of christians are pieces of trash... Wow. Holy shit you're bigoted.

Those countries were founded by people fleeing famine and economic insecurity. Also, the puritans were actually more religious than the average Englishman.

Protestant culture has as foundational values three things:
1. Literacy
2. Tolerance
3. Critical thinking

The western world is successful almost assuredly because of the developments that are a direct result of the cultures created by the Reformation. The only commonality of those countries is their Protestant heritage. It isn't an accident, it isn't a mistake. The success of the western world is built upon a religious ethos.

Also, I mentioned Buddhists are a close second. What portion of them are immoral oh enlightened one. Please tell us all your valuable estimation of other people's worth.

How can you not see how common you are to a religious extremist. 80% of christians suck says the atheist. 80% of Yazidis suck said the muslim

[Patriam1066]

I'm pretty sure it just comes down to people like PaulG not wanting anyone anywhere telling them what is or isn't moral. All the while not realizing that he is doi g the exact same thing.
You're absolutely right though, the removal of organized religion would hardly mean the end of religion itself. And if you think that religion based on centuries old holy books is immoral, you'll be very disappointed in the replacement.

Yeah. At least this is how I see it. I'm glad that j make sense to one other person on this server.

[Glenzig]

Yeah. At least this is how I see it. I'm glad that j make sense to one other person on this server.

I actually really enjoy your posts and your overall weltanschauung. I disagree with certain viewpoints you hold, but I understand why you hold them and respect that.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

80% of christians are pieces of trash... Wow. Holy shit you're bigoted.
Well let's do some math. The Catholic church, widely held as the single most corrupt and fraudulent organization on the planet, just got a new pope. Pope Francis is a rational, thought provoking individual that nobody in their right mind would ever try to downplay as being just another of the figureheads that popes in the past have been. Yet after he has said some fairly radical things (by christian standards) such as creationistic evolution being in line with the words of the bible, or according to the bible atheists need not necessarily burn in hell for eternity if they are honestly good people, or my favorite one, his preaching live and let live. Heck, he's even recently stated that parents should *gasp* discuss sex with their children! Oh the humanity!
Yet the bishops and cardinals are now doing what they can to keep him from speaking because guess what. Pope Francis is but one good man, in a cesspool of corrupt individuals (aka trash).

Now let's take a look at a few of those christian charity organizations that you seem to covet so much.

Father Bruce Ritter: Fitting that back in the day they compared him to Mother Theresa (We'll talk more about her later). Let's just say he's one of many 'good christians' who ran homeless shelters and extorted sexual activity from the residents.

John Bennet Jr. who ran the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy which was a ponzi scheme and he paid himself over 23,000 a week in 'consulting fees'. He used his reputation as a leading Christian figure to disarm donor suspicions of which he managed to get investments from major nonprofits like American Red Cross, World Vision, and Nature Conservancy.

Look at the Salvation Army with it's hiring practices and the people they outright refuse to help based on their sexual preference.

Then there's Mother Theresa... oh boy. So many books written on that despicable woman and her sadistic torture operation.

These are just a few of many examples around. Does this mean that there aren't any good christian charity organizations? Of course not. That said, a few good apples doesn't suddenly un-spoil the bunch.

Now let's look at a group like Susan G. Komen, which isn't a christian charity, yet they are funded primarily by right-winged groups, groups which via their money have pushed the organization to do some really stupid things. First by campaigning against planned parenthood, and then against embryonic stem-cell research. Now they are promoting fucking fracking, which uses assloads of carcinogenic chemicals.
http://gas2.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pink-drill-bit.jpg
A group that is supposed to be fighting cancer, working happily with one of the causes of it... Think before you pink.

Those countries were founded by people fleeing famine and economic insecurity. Also, the puritans were actually more religious than the average Englishman.
http://i.imgur.com/sp4HaXH.png
This is such a distortion of the truth, I don't even want to give you the credit of evoking me to form a concise answer.
Protestant culture has as foundational values three things:
1. Literacy
2. Tolerance
3. Critical thinking
In theory. Communism is also a model form of government... in theory.
The western world is successful almost assuredly because of the developments that are a direct result of the cultures created by the Reformation. The only commonality of those countries is their Protestant heritage. It isn't an accident, it isn't a mistake. The success of the western world is built upon a religious ethos.
This is more cherry picking. Firstly, the success of the western world had come despite the actions of Christianity.
Look at Issac Newton. Everyone always totes about how he was superbly religious, yet while he identified as Christian, he didn't believe in the holy trinity and his experiments/discoveries had him that close to being tried as a heretic, which would likely have happened had he not suddenly began to claim that God was directly involved in his discovery of gravity.

Just mentioning the names Copernicus and Galileo speaks for themselves.

Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake when the church didn't even have an official stance on Heliocentric models.
There's a laundry list of people who were killed specifically because the both the Catholic church as well as the pre and post Protestant church of England were afraid of progress.

Also, I mentioned Buddhists are a close second. What portion of them are immoral oh enlightened one. Please tell us all your valuable estimation of other people's worth.
Your reading comprehension must be pretty poor if you gathered from my response that I actually agree with your stance that Buddhists are somehow less moral than people who hail from an Abrahamic faith.
It's simply yet another flaw in your 'opinion'.
How can you not see how common you are to a religious extremist. 80% of christians suck says the atheist. 80% of Yazidis suck said the muslim
uh.. that's a tough one! (also follow your questions with question marks next time)
http://i.imgur.com/NnW9j.png

[Glenzig]

I love when people think that the Catholic Church is representative of what the bible actually says. Makes me laugh.

[RobotElvis]

Well let's do some math. The Catholic church, widely held as the single most corrupt and fraudulent organization on the planet, just got a new pope. Pope Francis is a rational, thought provoking individual that nobody in their right mind would ever try to downplay as being just another of the figureheads that popes in the past have been. Yet after he has said some fairly radical things (by christian standards) such as creationistic evolution being in line with the words of the bible, or according to the bible atheists need not necessarily burn in hell for eternity if they are honestly good people, or my favorite one, his preaching live and let live. Heck, he's even recently stated that parents should *gasp* discuss sex with their children! Oh the humanity!
Yet the bishops and cardinals are now doing what they can to keep him from speaking because guess what. Pope Francis is but one good man, in a cesspool of corrupt individuals (aka trash).

Now let's take a look at a few of those christian charity organizations that you seem to covet so much.

Father Bruce Ritter: Fitting that back in the day they compared him to Mother Theresa (We'll talk more about her later). Let's just say he's one of many 'good christians' who ran homeless shelters and extorted sexual activity from the residents.

John Bennet Jr. who ran the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy which was a ponzi scheme and he paid himself over 23,000 a week in 'consulting fees'. He used his reputation as a leading Christian figure to disarm donor suspicions of which he managed to get investments from major nonprofits like American Red Cross, World Vision, and Nature Conservancy.

Look at the Salvation Army with it's hiring practices and the people they outright refuse to help based on their sexual preference.

Then there's Mother Theresa... oh boy. So many books written on that despicable woman and her sadistic torture operation.

These are just a few of many examples around. Does this mean that there aren't any good christian charity organizations? Of course not. That said, a few good apples doesn't suddenly un-spoil the bunch.

Now let's look at a group like Susan G. Komen, which isn't a christian charity, yet they are funded primarily by right-winged groups, groups which via their money have pushed the organization to do some really stupid things. First by campaigning against planned parenthood, and then against embryonic stem-cell research. Now they are promoting fucking fracking, which uses assloads of carcinogenic chemicals.
http://gas2.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pink-drill-bit.jpg
A group that is supposed to be fighting cancer, working happily with one of the causes of it... Think before you pink.


http://i.imgur.com/sp4HaXH.png
This is such a distortion of the truth, I don't even want to give you the credit of evoking me to form a concise answer.

In theory. Communism is also a model form of government... in theory.

This is more cherry picking. Firstly, the success of the western world had come despite the actions of Christianity.
Look at Issac Newton. Everyone always totes about how he was superbly religious, yet while he identified as Christian, he didn't believe in the holy trinity and his experiments/discoveries had him that close to being tried as a heretic, which would likely have happened had he not suddenly began to claim that God was directly involved in his discovery of gravity.

Just mentioning the names Copernicus and Galileo speaks for themselves.

Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake when the church didn't even have an official stance on Heliocentric models.
There's a laundry list of people who were killed specifically because the both the Catholic church as well as the pre and post Protestant church of England were afraid of progress.


Your reading comprehension must be pretty poor if you gathered from my response that I actually agree with your stance that Buddhists are somehow less moral than people who hail from an Abrahamic faith.
It's simply yet another flaw in your 'opinion'.

uh.. that's a tough one! (also follow your questions with question marks next time)
http://i.imgur.com/NnW9j.pngThe League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[48] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[49] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag.

The League purged its rightist members in 1932–1934. In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."[25]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[48] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[49] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag.

The League purged its rightist members in 1932–1934. In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."[25]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

And... they disbanded in 1947. :cool:

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

http://i.imgur.com/1iCMuC9.jpg

[Sidelle]

Omg. Shut up, Kagatob. Your posts make me tired.

Lol. :)

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Omg. Shut up, Kagatob. Your posts make me tired.

Lol. :)

Sounds like a personal problem.

Go to bed. :)

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Kagatob is by far the worst person here. Just so... tedious. Pseudo-intellectual, sheltered, and most importantly - confidently wrong about the way the world is. And that's saying something in this particular context. You idiots.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

confidently wrong

[Glenzig]

And... they disbanded in 1947. :cool:

Ah. So that means none of it actually happened. I like how that works.

[LulzSect]

Otaku nerd raises fair points. Is today Opposite Day?

[runlvlzero]

Kagatob I think it's time you top worrying about what other people are doing on their own time, and start praising juses more so that you can learn to live withyourself and then u will be ok with all those juses freaks.

P.S. thx Katrik Juses is the best #1 :D

[Archalen]

The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[48] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[49] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag.

The League purged its rightist members in 1932–1934. In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."[25]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

You could go back and forth on the "this atheist did this, this religious person did that" debate for a long time and get nowhere.

There is nothing inherently good about atheism, but there is nothing inherently bad either. If you suspend logic to become religious, you are in danger of believing other myths also not founded on reason. You can, at your own discretion, run errands for your god that are good for society only if your particular religious worldview happens to be true.

To clarify, I've seen atheists who are uber-rational when it comes to religion, but then suspend logic to believe in the religion of self-correcting free markets. Or believe in the religion of the state (stupidly defend everything their political party does). So my argument is not for atheism, it is for rationality in general.

[paulgiamatti]

You could go back and forth on the "this atheist did this, this religious person did that" debate for a long time and get nowhere.

There is nothing inherently good about atheism, but there is nothing inherently bad either. If you suspend logic to become religious, you are in danger of believing other myths also not founded on reason. You can, at your own discretion, run errands for your god that are good for society only if your particular religious worldview happens to be true.

To clarify, I've seen atheists who are uber-rational when it comes to religion, but then suspend logic to believe in the religion of self-correcting free markets. Or believe in the religion of the state (stupidly defend everything their political party does). So my argument is not for atheism, it is for rationality in general.

QFT!

I have to reiterate, I just think it's incredibly silly that atheism has become a "movement". I think it's absurd to proclaim, "I am an atheist!". What are you atheistic about? Thor? Zeus? The tooth fairy? Everyone is an atheist when it comes to some deity or another, just as agnosticism is atheistic by definition - it's still the unbelief in deity.

I do have to differ on calling statism a religion though, even though I know that's a point that's often made by many leftist public intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky. It doesn't make sense in my mind to suddenly start calling a whole bunch of different things "religion" when we all know exactly what religion is and what religion means. Just because I religiously brush my teeth in the morning doesn't mean I am now devoted to the religion of dental hygiene.

[paulgiamatti]

I guess the distinction I'd like to see made is between things that are simply religious and religion itself. Just because something can be religious, doesn't mean it is therefore a religion.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Ah. So that means none of it actually happened.
No, it did, and it was a legitimately horrible movement run by legitimately horrible people. The key is to recognize a few things.

First and foremost, they didn't even last twenty-five years, which is part of why I'm dismissing the movement as something significant since it doesn't exist today every single group I posted about above still does exist with the sole exception being the literal stake burning inquisitorial branch of the mentioned religions. Even then, today you have the suppression of knowledge and the bastardization of education (Kentucky/Tennessee).

Secondly, and this is obviously more important in a general sense but second in the context of your response. You need to look at the movement's roots. It's a movement that rose out of an intellectual class that was involved neck deep in a regime that has committed arguably more heinous acts than even Nazi Germany, a regime who's motives were 100% based on the accumulation of power, a regime who's stance on religion was literally beside the point.
In short, regardless of what they claimed or espoused to officially, they were still a morally bankrupt group born from a morally bankrupt group using a twisted ideological system in an attempt to rationalize their own actions. If you must insist on comparing Atheism a religion, I'd argue that you should compare LoMA to a cult.
I like how that works.

Context is king after all. ;)

It would be nice if the ones here who are vocally pro-religion would understand that the majority of anti-theists don't believe that non-religion by itself is inherently good, it is in fact neutral. The intellectual view of religion overall in today's society is a clear net negative. Removing the negative always results in a closer to positive number, even zero is an improvement over a negative in this case.

Can I "prove" to you that religion is a net negative in society today? No. At least no more than I can "prove" to you that gravity exists. All I need to do though, is drop an object to show you the overwhelming evidence that gravity is there. All I need to do though is point you towards the middle east, the Catholic Church, Ken Ham, or any other religious affiliation with significant influence/resources.

[RobotElvis]

You could go back and forth on the "this atheist did this, this religious person did that" debate for a long time and get nowhere.

There is nothing inherently good about atheism, but there is nothing inherently bad either. If you suspend logic to become religious, you are in danger of believing other myths also not founded on reason. You can, at your own discretion, run errands for your god that are good for society only if your particular religious worldview happens to be true.

To clarify, I've seen atheists who are uber-rational when it comes to religion, but then suspend logic to believe in the religion of self-correcting free markets. Or believe in the religion of the state (stupidly defend everything their political party does). So my argument is not for atheism, it is for rationality in general.
I agree my point in posting that was in reference to the picture that Kaga posted. It would be irrational to say that extremism only comes from a religious background. It's not a problem inherent in religion, but in humans in general. We are creatures of extreme habits. We rationalize things according to our own perspective despite the harm that may cause others. Most people are really moral and check themselves before they do this, but there are those who do not despite their religious or non-religious background. I guess I was just showing some context to his antidote.

That being said. I do feel that it is much easier of a leap for religious individuals to become extremist and radical. This is due to the fact that people feel that they can self-interpret the scriptural doctrines that they feel support their ideologues while ignoring the fact that it goes against the core of their religion's beliefs.

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

TLDR

[myriverse]

QFT!

I have to reiterate, I just think it's incredibly silly that atheism has become a "movement". I think it's absurd to proclaim, "I am an atheist!". What are you atheistic about? Thor? Zeus? The tooth fairy? Everyone is an atheist when it comes to some deity or another, just as agnosticism is atheistic by definition - it's still the unbelief in deity.
In order to be an atheist, you cannot accept any of them. The term is absolute, not relative. Also, belief in spirits (like fairies) is not theism, and the tooth fairy was never deified. It's only a silly (ahem) fairy tale that parents used upon their children to make life fun. <-- spoilers

Agnostics accept the possibility, which is different quite from atheism.

I do have to differ on calling statism a religion though, even though I know that's a point that's often made by many leftist public intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky. It doesn't make sense in my mind to suddenly start calling a whole bunch of different things "religion" when we all know exactly what religion is and what religion means. Just because I religiously brush my teeth in the morning doesn't mean I am now devoted to the religion of dental hygiene.
Indeed.

[Patriam1066]

You could go back and forth on the "this atheist did this, this religious person did that" debate for a long time and get nowhere.

There is nothing inherently good about atheism, but there is nothing inherently bad either. If you suspend logic to become religious, you are in danger of believing other myths also not founded on reason. You can, at your own discretion, run errands for your god that are good for society only if your particular religious worldview happens to be true.

To clarify, I've seen atheists who are uber-rational when it comes to religion, but then suspend logic to believe in the religion of self-correcting free markets. Or believe in the religion of the state (stupidly defend everything their political party does). So my argument is not for atheism, it is for rationality in general.

My entire argument is for rationality.
1. How is it rational to judge other people? If anyone is honestly arrogant enough to believe that they have this life figured out, then I feel sorry for them. Let people choose their own beliefs.
2. You said markets don't self-correct. I'm not going to debate that, but what would you advocate in their place? Communism? I'm not going to make that leap without you stating it, but I'd ask for clarification. To me, that statement, which sounds like a critique of capitalism, sounds entirely irrational.
3. I believe that my religion is rational for several reasons. Why would it be rational to hurt my mother? She's deeply religious, and if her children became agnostic / atheist, it would destroy her. Hurting one's mother is not a rational course of action. In addition, I already talked about Seventh Day Adventists and how their religion helps them to become healthier. Mormons have BETTER FAMILY STRUCTURES than everyone in the US. Their religious beliefs are very rational compared to so many one parent households in the US. Don't believe me? Look at how many criminals come from households from single mothers. Let me be clear, Mormonism and a two parent household does not preclude poverty, and it certainly isn't the only path to success. I'm just saying, as someone rational, you should take data and statistics for what they say. Strong families produce children that are more likely to become productive members of society.

All of that is to say, rationality isn't as objective as you think. I just gave you my interpretation of statistics, conditions, and the social milieu. If you're telling me that 2 + 2 = 4, then sure, I agree with you. If you're telling me that religion automatically leads to a gullible populace likely to believe in the persecution of gays or lesbians, for example, I don't agree. I believe in God. I don't hate gays. In fact, I support gay marriage. I also thing that a strong two parent household, gay or straight, is much better than a single parent home. Am I unequivocally wrong, and if you believe I am, do you have objective proof of your assertion, or are you, like me, bringing your own biased interpretation of statistics, facts, and life experiences that no human being can separate from judgments that they make every day?

I don't see the arguments against religion, presented in this thread, as being rational at all. Basically, you guys are assuming a lot about religious people, which makes your arguments anything but logical. Logic isn't based on assumption.

Finally, I would like to say that I at elast consider you to be someone who doesn't seem like a bigot. When I hear Kagatob talk about 80% of Christians being trash (2 billions christians meaning ~1.6 billion people are trash in his estimation when he almost certainly hasn't met these people), I really can't even fathom how someone could be so ignorant. At least when you present a point, I see where you're coming from. You sound like many of my friends who don't understand my beliefs. And yes, shocker, I have atheist friends. I think the biggest issue here, is that a lot of people can't agree to disagree. Let me be clear, I do not care whether you believe in my religion. I don't preach it, I don't hand out pamphlets... I am no evangelist. At the same time, I don't appreciate being mocked or derided because I see value in morality and belief in God. I am a rational human being who doesn't take persecution of others lightly. I wish some of you could see that the things you say are:
1. Deeply offensive
2. Based upon crude assumptions of religious people, most likely caricatures of Al-Qaeda and the Westboro Baptist Church. Most religious people are neither them nor saints; most lie somewhere in the moral gray area, like most atheists / agnostics I might add.

I won't claim to be offended; I'm not. But I honestly don't understand how bigotry, even if its against a religion that you believe is vile, is anything other than pure irrationality.

[Patriam1066]

Can I "prove" to you that religion is a net negative in society today? No. At least no more than I can "prove" to you that gravity exists. All I need to do though, is drop an object to show you the overwhelming evidence that gravity is there. All I need to do though is point you towards the middle east, the Catholic Church, Ken Ham, or any other religious affiliation with significant influence/resources.

Richard Dawkins advocates aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome. Please explain how that is worse than Ken Ham?

Also, the Catholic Church is a large organization rife with corruption. It's also the single largest charitable organization in the history of the planet. You are so biased its not even funny.

I would rather live in a world of all Catholics than a world of all Kagatobs. I'm sure you feel a strong opinion towards me as well, but honestly, you sound like a caricature of a human being. How a person could grow up in the United States, surrounded by diversity, and be so opinionated is beyond me. You're a child.

[paulgiamatti]

In order to be an atheist, you cannot accept any of them. The term is absolute, not relative. Also, belief in spirits (like fairies) is not theism, and the tooth fairy was never deified. It's only a silly (ahem) fairy tale that parents used upon their children to make life fun. <-- spoilers

Agnostics accept the possibility, which is different quite from atheism.

Excellent points. I still feel like it's a non-statement to say you don't believe in deities though. Most religious people don't believe in the thousands of gods that have been invented throughout history, but make an exception for one. They are mostly atheistic - almost as atheistic as I am, I just take it one god further.

I am willing to accept that when talking about atheism in this context, it can be assumed that the terminology is absolute. Just like when we say someone is "religious", we know we aren't talking about people who brush their teeth every morning.

Agnosticism, however, is very much atheistic by definition. The moment you go from believing in a god to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. I believe it could be a possibility - I think it's highly unlikely, and all scientific evidence shows us just how unlikely it is, but if Jesus descends from the heavens tomorrow and raptures every believer into an eternity of praise and worship, I will then have to become a believer. It's not a linear scale of atheism -> agnosticism -> believer. Agnosticism is atheism.

[paulgiamatti]

I believe that my religion is rational for several reasons. Why would it be rational to hurt my mother? She's deeply religious, and if her children became agnostic / atheist, it would destroy her.

This is not a reasonable basis for rationality. Something is either true, or it isn't. It doesn't matter how much you would like for something to be true, or how much it would hurt your mother for something to not be true - these things just simply do not matter. The universe doesn't care about you, or me, or anyone else. We are a speck of dust that could be wiped out of existence in a cosmic millisecond, and the universe wouldn't even blink an eye. This is not rationality is any sense whatsoever.

[Patriam1066]

Excellent points. I still feel like it's a non-statement to say you don't believe in deities though. Most religious people don't believe in the thousands of gods that have been invented throughout history, but make an exception for one. They are mostly atheistic - almost as atheistic as I am, I just take it one god further.

I am willing to accept that when talking about atheism in this context, it can be assumed that the terminology is absolute. Just like when we say someone is "religious", we know we aren't talking about people who brush their teeth every morning.

Agnosticism, however, is very much atheistic by definition. The moment you go from believing in a god to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. I believe it could be a possibility - I think it's highly unlikely, and all scientific evidence shows us just how unlikely it is, but if Jesus descends from the heavens tomorrow and raptures every believer into an eternity of praise and worship, I will then have to become a believer. It's not a linear scale of atheism -> agnosticism -> believer. Agnosticism is atheism.

God doesn't matter. This has nothing to do with deities. This is about historical and sociological movements that today are known as "religion". Why didn't Jews eat pork? Because pigs destroy soil, and they didn't have a great deal of agricultural rich land. Enter today, when you guys say "wow the Jews pork tastes great ignorant fucks." Just because you miss the connection, religion doesn't become irrelevant. I'm tired of pointing out certain religious beliefs and their connection to moral virtues. I'm tired of explaining that religious people aren't guaranteed to be good nor are atheists guaranteed to be evil.

I believe in God. Am I 100% certain of his existence? Fuck no, how could I be.

I am 100% certain that if I weren't raised with values, that came from my religion, that have TANGIBLY helped me throughout my life, I wouldn't still be religious. You believe that people who believe in God are a bunch of morons who believe in an infallible scripture that's thousands of years old. No mother fucker, I believe that THOUSANDS OF GENERATIONS of my ancestors, whose advancements led to the life that I A) enjoy today and B) had zero part in developing (I am not responsible for Western culture, but our collective ancestors are), have certain valuable lessons to impart to me. When I see how Kagatob feels about his fellow man, and compare that to how my mother would give her last meal to a hungry person, I feel that I've made the LOGICAL assessment.

And I realize I expressed anger here, its not at you PaulG. It's frustrating reiterating the same point and seeing no baseline level of udnerstanding from the other side.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Richard Dawkins advocates aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome. Please explain how that is worse than Ken Ham?

Also, the Catholic Church is a large organization rife with corruption. It's also the single largest charitable organization in the history of the planet. You are so biased its not even funny.

I would rather live in a world of all Catholics than a world of all Kagatobs. I'm sure you feel a strong opinion towards me as well, but honestly, you sound like a caricature of a human being. How a person could grow up in the United States, surrounded by diversity, and be so opinionated is beyond me. You're a child.

Implying abortion is immoral.

Bill Gates has them beat. Most of the Catholic church's "charitable" proceeds go right back into the church, either to build new churches or to fund their latest abstinence only campaign, or to skin the dicks of African children because of some bunk study from 8 years ago.

Call me whatever you want. It won't change facts. You preach about the values of diversity while at the same time vigorously defending the largest xenophobic and bigoted group. Our definitions of trash are clearly very different. If you can show me evidence that more than twenty percent of people of Abrahamic faith actually practice everything that they preach, I'll happily eat my words.

[Archalen]

QFT!

I have to reiterate, I just think it's incredibly silly that atheism has become a "movement". I think it's absurd to proclaim, "I am an atheist!". What are you atheistic about? Thor? Zeus? The tooth fairy? Everyone is an atheist when it comes to some deity or another, just as agnosticism is atheistic by definition - it's still the unbelief in deity.

I do have to differ on calling statism a religion though, even though I know that's a point that's often made by many leftist public intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky. It doesn't make sense in my mind to suddenly start calling a whole bunch of different things "religion" when we all know exactly what religion is and what religion means. Just because I religiously brush my teeth in the morning doesn't mean I am now devoted to the religion of dental hygiene.

That's exactly right. Honestly I just don't have a better word for what I mentioned than "religion." The things I mentioned just share many attributes with religion.

[Patriam1066]

This is not a reasonable basis for rationality. Something is either true, or it isn't. It doesn't matter how much you would like for something to be true, or how much it would hurt your mother for something to not be true - these things just simply do not matter. The universe doesn't care about you, or me, or anyone else. We are a speck of dust that could be wiped out of existence in a cosmic millisecond, and the universe wouldn't even blink an eye. This is not rationality is any sense whatsoever.

These are all your opinions. You have ZERO evidence of your worldview being true. In 100 years, the advancements we will have made in quantum mechanics / cosmology will make everything that you believe today completely irrelevant. My morals will still be sound.

This isn't about universal truth. This is the problem. I dont' believe in certainties. I believe in God, but I don't know about him. For that reason, I am inclined to value other people's worldviews. You are resolute in your conviction that what you believe is right, and it just isn't. It's an opinion that you hold. You think that we have unlocked the nature of the universe. We haven't. You'll probably say you believe in science's discoveries to the best of our present day knowledge. I'd say I believe in morality to the best of our current day knowledge. Who is right? And by the way, the way you described the world is completely compatible with a Deist's convictions. As far as how I see the world, I'd call myself a Deist. I believe in the virtues and traditions of the Baha'i faith, however.

As for hurting my mother not mattering... all I can say is that pretty much justifies how I feel. Most of the things we do in this life will have zero effect on the future of the planet. But you know what, the way a son treats his mother absolutely does. My children will see this, they will learn how to treat others from my example. Why does a pitbull with a bad owner strike out compared to one whose owner raised him well? Our actions towards others on this planet matter very deeply to the course of human history. A poorly treated dog could murder a passerby, creating an orphan. That same dog, raised well, might save his owners life.

The ripple effects throughout this life are unknown to all of us. You guys are so certain of everything....

Reminds me of a Bertrand Russell quote:
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."

Or, for another:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

I am not irrational because I believe in God. You, however, are irrational for discounting the immeasurable POSITIVE impact that humanity's collective religious traditions have had. But you know what, I'm not even certain of that. I'm humble enough to realize that that is my own biased perspective on sociology.

[paulgiamatti]

I think the biggest issue here, is that a lot of people can't agree to disagree.

I just don't think the whole "agree to disagree" thing is conducive to learning. It's basically an agreement that says, "Okay, let's just stop arguing about stuff."

No, I will not. I like arguing. I think humanity would be much worse off without argument or debate. People need to have their views challenged, and in some cases offended. I have no problem offending ideas - I'm not trying to offend you personally or silence you in some way, but if your ideas are offended by argument, I can't say I really care about that.

Ridiculing beliefs is important. Some beliefs simply need to be made fun of, and people are going to get offended in the process - offending people is not necessarily a positive thing, but at least it broaches the subject.

[Patriam1066]

Implying abortion is immoral.

Bill Gates has them beat. Most of the Catholic church's "charitable" proceeds go right back into the church, either to build new churches or to fund their latest abstinence only campaign, or to skin the dicks of African children because of some bunk study from 8 years ago.

Call me whatever you want. It won't change facts. You preach about the values of diversity while at the same time vigorously defending the largest xenophobic and bigoted group. Our definitions of trash are clearly very different. If you can show me evidence that more than twenty percent of people of Abrahamic faith actually practice everything that they preach, I'll happily eat my words.

You're a child. Not responding to you any more. I'm sorry you got bullied by a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. I'm sorry your family didn't celebrate Christmas like the other kids. Mine didn't either. I don't hate people because of it though.

I'd love to know how the Catholic Church is xenophobic. I'd also like to know how a person who mentioned Muslims immigrants contaminating Sweden somehow objects to xenophobia. Interesting conundrum you have there, but children generally don't think past their anger.

Finally, abortion isn't the issue. The issue is eugenics. Let me give you an example. China started the one child policy, so chinese parents, who value sons, started selecting males and aborting females. Riddle me this Batman, if abortion isn't immoral, what about the results of abortion? What would you call a modern China with 100 million more men than women? Certainly sounds moral to me!!!!! Funny how when you mess with nature, it tends to mess with you back.

Eugenics is immoral. Unequivocally.

[Patriam1066]

I just don't think the whole "agree to disagree" thing is conducive to learning. It's basically an agreement that says, "Okay, let's just stop arguing about stuff."

No, I will not. I like arguing. I think humanity would be much worse off without argument or debate. People need to have their views challenged, and in some cases offended. I have no problem offending ideas - I'm not trying to offend you personally or silence you in some way, but if your ideas are offended by argument, I can't say I really care about that.

Ridiculing beliefs is important. Some beliefs simply need to be made fun of, and people are going to get offended in the process - offending people is not necessarily a positive thing, but at least it broaches the subject.

Last post for a while.

My point is that to you, my beliefs are ignorant. To me, you sound like someone who is ignorant of history and religion's practical importance to the development of humanity. For a long time, priests (not catholic, a general term) were the only literate members of society. They were the only ones who could transmit ANY knowledge from generation to generation. This isn't about God. Its about humanity's progress from hunter-gatherer to today. Religion had a positive role.

What I'm saying is, if people argue like this, it takes away tiem for more productive endeavors. I could argue with Kagatob all day, but it doesn't accomplish anything. I can't convince a 30 year old bitter virgin that he's wrong, how could I? Nor could he convince me that eugenics is moral. It isn't going to happen. We have democracy for a reason. You get to vote and say your piece. In the same way, you can choose to belong to any philosophical / religious organization that you choose. It isn't compulsory. I just don't want to be judged for being different. I dealt with this shit in Iran and OVER MY DEAD BODY will people persecute my family here. There's no where else for me to flee to. Maybe you don't feel that you are persecuting me, but I see you attacking my convictions on completely baseless assumptions like:
1) Religion has something to do with idiots who believe with certitude in the existence of an anthropomorphic God
2) Religion breeds intolerance, when the arguments I see here are based upon bigotry in its purest form
3) Religion is useless and has always been so.

You seem intelligent. Do I honestly seem like a dumb fuck? Seriously, I'd like to know. Do I sound like somehow who is a fucking idiot who believes God hates gay people? If you answer that question affirmatively, then I really have no other point to make. If you say "No," then I'd ask you to reconsider what you've assumed about other religious people.

[paulgiamatti]

You'll probably say you believe in science's discoveries to the best of our present day knowledge. I'd say I believe in morality to the best of our current day knowledge.

Morality is impossible without science. Slavery used to be considered acceptable because we used to believe that certain people were inferior and not human - science has told us that this is wrong. Religion teaches that women are inferior and therefore men's property - science has told us that this is wrong. We know homosexuality isn't wrong because science has observed that homosexuality occurs in all mammalian species. Morality without science is meaningless.

[paulgiamatti]

You seem intelligent. Do I honestly seem like a dumb fuck? Seriously, I'd like to know.

No, I wouldn't say this about anyone who has posted here except G13. As I've stated numerous times, theism or atheism or agnosticism have nothing to say about intelligence. It's not a question of intelligence, but of morality. Plenty of award-winning scientists whose work we'd be much poorer without have been believers. The originators of the scientific method were largely theistic as well. If I were to call every believer stupid or unintelligent I'd only be fooling myself. That's how I approach these arguments because I sincerely believe that even the more moderate deists - people who don't read the bible, and don't go to church - still tend to hold solipsistic, I'm-the-center-of-the-universe worldviews.

You do seem to have a better sense of morality than most of the other deists and theists who've posted here, and I think it might be due to the fact that you're probably only a deist, and one who questions his own faith and certainty at that. Atheism doesn't mean exemption from immorality - I've attacked Kagatob plenty of times, and I've questioned leewong as well. More importantly, I question my own morality every single day that I'm alive. I like to debate and I like to argue, but I'm not trying to be condescending or project an air of moral superiority around anyone here. No one is perfect, but this also doesn't mean everyone is equal in their morals - I try to avoid false balance at all costs. Just because two people are arguing doesn't mean you can simply cancel them out and assume they're both equally wrong or equally right. Objectivity has nothing to do with impartiality. I am extremely skeptical of people who are unbiased or impartial about everything.

I believe in God. Am I 100% certain of his existence? Fuck no, how could I be.

Hell, with an encouraging nudge I think you could even be a rationally sound agnostic which, by the way, would also make you an atheist.

[Glenzig]

Morality is impossible without science. Slavery used to be considered acceptable because we used to believe that certain people were inferior and not human - science has told us that this is wrong. Religion teaches that women are inferior and therefore men's property - science has told us that this is wrong. We know homosexuality isn't wrong because science has observed that homosexuality occurs in all mammalian species. Morality without science is meaningless.

Of course, with human knowledge apotheosized, the instruments of knowledge attain a quasi-divine status as well. Commensurate with this deification of knowledge is the virtual canonization of science. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia, which means “knowing.” As a form of “knowing,” science is inevitably consecrated as the new incarnation of divine revelation. In fact, the consecratory processing of science was consummated years ago with the Baconian dictum: nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (“Knowledge itself is power”). As a catalyst for the potential expansion of human power, science enjoys secular humanism’s deepest veneration and has been accorded absolute epistemological primacy. This is known as scientism.

Scientism is, in essence, the fetishization of science. It holds aloft the investigational methods of science as the sole criteria for establishing truth. Premised as it is upon empiricism and quantification, scientific observation is restricted to physical phenomena. Thus, only phenomena that are observable and quantifiably demonstrable are eligible for serious consideration. From the vantage point of scientism, research regarding supra-sensible entities does not qualify as a credible field of study. In his article “The Shamans of Scientism,” Michael Shermer describes scientism as:


a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science. (No pagination)

Scientism should not be confused with legitimate science. Its epistemological rigidity would probably discourage the genuinely investigative mind. Ironically, many of the minds that shaped modern science were not nearly as rigid. Arguably, if the innovators of previous generations had labored under such pathological skepticism, then many of them would have never discovered the breakthroughs in science and technology that this current generation enjoys. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes the distinction between science and scientism in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare:


Science, when practiced as the application of man’s God-given talents for the production of appropriate technology on a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science gone mad, which is what we have today. (Hoffman 49)

Concerning this important distinction, Rama Coomaraswamy states:


Traditional man, placing science in a hierarchal relationship to the totality of truth, sees no conflict between what is demonstrable by measurement and what he knows from Revelation. His attitude towards the “modern scientistic outlook” with its claim to the totality of truth and its refusal to recognize any moral master is, however, quite another matter. In no way can he give his assent to irrational postulates such as progress, evolution, and the perfectability of man qua man–ideas which have their origin in man’s collective subconscious rather than in God. If any conflict exists, it is not between science and faith properly understood, but between modern and traditional attitudes. (No pagination)

Convinced that their outlook encompasses the “totality of truth,” the shamans of scientism are overtly hostile towards supernatural explanations. According to their criteria, all inquiry must be restricted to this ontological plane of existence. Shermer succinctly voices this so-called “modern attitude”:


. . .cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions. (No pagination)

Scientism is epistemological imperialism. It stipulates the ecumenical imposition of science upon all fields of study. No doubt, a majority of contemporary thinkers would regard this universal extrapolation of science as desirable. After all, science has contributed to the technological advancement of human society. It harnessed electricity through the light bulb, cured illnesses through inoculations, and traversed space through rockets. Surely, such a force could equally enhance the human condition if applied to questions of history, morality, and governance.

However, the contemporary mind, blinded as it is by its own chronocentricism, has failed to recognize a significant shortcoming in the investigational methods of science. Michael Hoffman reveals this shortcoming:


The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or “cut, burn and poison” methods of cancer “treatment.” (49)

Indeed, as a system of quantification, science can concern itself only with quantifiable entities. Items that defy quantification must be precluded. This prompts a disturbing question. Exactly what items must an exclusively scientific outlook omit? The answer is provided in The Report from Iron Mountain, a document purporting to be the product of a secret government think tank:


Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of human life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest “good” for the greatest number, the “dignity” of the individual, and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for the justification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We have attempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principal characteristic of which is not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, in Whitehead’s words, “. . .it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and moral judgments.” (Lewin 13-14; emphasis added)

An exclusively scientific approach jettisons all “axiomatic values.” The “esthetic and moral judgments” that preserve man’s humanity must be totally disregarded in a purely scientistic society. In fact, man himself must be altered. Because man’s humanity poses a problem for a state governed according to a system of quantification, that particular attribute of his being must be expunged. Hoffman provides an eloquent summation:


The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance; a state of affairs symbolized by the “All Seeing Eye” above the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill. (50)

The truncated pyramid mounted by the “All Seeing Eye” represents the blueprint according to which society is being re-sculpted. It is the standard schematic for authoritarian governments, which ride into dominance astride the epistemological imperialism of scientism

[Misto]

Morality is impossible without science. Slavery used to be considered acceptable because we used to believe that certain people were inferior and not human - science has told us that this is wrong. Religion teaches that women are inferior and therefore men's property - science has told us that this is wrong. We know homosexuality isn't wrong because science has observed that homosexuality occurs in all mammalian species. Morality without science is meaningless.

http://www.troll.me/images/george-bush-he-mad/shut-your-fuckin-mouth.jpg

[paulgiamatti]

I love it whenever someone uses the word "scientism", because I know I can immediately ignore everything they're about to say. These types of words were invented specifically for the pseudo-intellectuals who know absolutely nothing about what science is what science entails. It's nonsensical jargon.

[RobotElvis]

Morality is impossible without science. Slavery used to be considered acceptable because we used to believe that certain people were inferior and not human - science has told us that this is wrong. Religion teaches that women are inferior and therefore men's property - science has told us that this is wrong. We know homosexuality isn't wrong because science has observed that homosexuality occurs in all mammalian species. Morality without science is meaningless.

You contradict yourself. Science observes that homosexual acts occur in nature, so it's ok according to your opinion. Yet you vilify religion for saying women are inferior, which is also present in the animal kingdom, domination of the female by the male.
That is a contradiction.

If you accept homosexuality as ok because animals do it, then you must also accept as ok other animalistic traits: cannibalism, incest, murder, rape, infanticide, etc.

Have fun with your subjective morality.

[Glenzig]

I love it whenever someone uses the word "scientism", because I know I can immediately ignore everything they're about to say. These types of words were invented specifically for the pseudo-intellectuals who know absolutely nothing about what science is what science entails. It's nonsensical jargon.

Actually it is a descriptive term for people like you. It isn't "made up", so much as it was necessary to define the position of those like yourself who exclude anything outside of physical science. It isn't even pejorative. It just is what it is. And it happens to describe your world view to a tee.

[RobotElvis]

I love it whenever someone uses the word "scientism", because I know I can immediately ignore everything they're about to say. These types of words were invented specifically for the pseudo-intellectuals who know absolutely nothing about what science is what science entails. It's nonsensical jargon.

sci·en·tism
ˈsīənˌtizəm/
nounrare
thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

[paulgiamatti]

Science isn't a concrete, definitive arbiter of morals - we still need to apply human reasoning and rationality to develop the full picture, but science has the responsibility of informing us on a fundamental level what is good and what is bad.

Science tells us women are no less human than men, not that they have the exact same physiological makeup as men. Science tells us perfectly well how incest, murder, rape, and infanticide are bad - they're detrimental to society. Incest produces genetic defects, murder and infanticide kill people, and rape is harmful to the victim in various physical and psychological ways.

Cannibalism on the other hand is more debatable. There are some diseases that can be contracted from cannibalism, but probably not more than any other type of meat that humans consume. I am against cannibalism, but I'm not sure if I could call this a moral statement. If it requires killing someone, then that's obviously immoral, but if it's simply a deceased person's flesh that someone is consuming, then I can't really say there's anything morally reprehensible about that.

[paulgiamatti]

No, "scientism" is a perfect example of shitty jargon invented by people who don't understand science.

[Glenzig]

No, "scientism" is a perfect example of shitty jargon invented by people who don't understand science.

Ah. So you think it was invented by religious types to deflect interest in real science. Nope.

[paulgiamatti]

if it's simply a deceased person's flesh that someone is consuming, then I can't really say there's anything morally reprehensible about that.

And this assumes of course that there's a whole thing of consent laid out beforehand, which I'm sure I don't need to point out.

[RobotElvis]

Science isn't a concrete, definitive arbiter of morals - we still need to apply human reasoning and rationality to develop the full picture, but science has the responsibility of informing us on a fundamental level what is good and what is bad.

Science tells us women are no less human than men, not that they have the exact same physiological makeup as men. Science tells us perfectly well how incest, murder, rape, and infanticide are bad - they're detrimental to society. Incest produces genetic defects, murder and infanticide kill people, and rape is harmful to the victim in various physical and psychological ways.

Cannibalism on the other hand is more debatable. There are some diseases that can be contracted from cannibalism, but probably not more than any other type of meat that humans consume. I am against cannibalism, but I'm not sure if I could call this a moral statement. If it requires killing someone, then that's obviously immoral, but if it's simply a deceased person's flesh that someone is consuming, then I can't really say there's anything morally reprehensible about that.
Hmmmmm........ If it was just an issue of science telling us what to believe though then it should be cut-and-dry.

It seems your answer is very shifty. And you don't really know what to believe in.

[RobotElvis]

I got the first post on 100 and 200! I win

[paulgiamatti]

science has the responsibility of informing us on a fundamental level what is good and what is bad.

Rereading this, I think I'd change "good and bad" to "natural and unnatural". Good and bad are probably more subject to human rationality, although science can certainly tell us how some things are obviously good for us or obviously bad for us.

[paulgiamatti]

It seems your answer is very shifty. And you don't really know what to believe in.

Do I really need to make another post demonstrating what intellectual honesty is? Instead of just believing that a supreme infallible creator is responsible for everything and also decides for us what is moral and immoral - a worldview that is immoral by definition - I allow myself to learn things.

Crazy concept, huh? It's pretty weird how this science thing works, I know. It goes out into the real world and observes and discovers things, and changes the way we think about things in the process. It's called learning.

I believe we know nothing, and I believe that anyone who thinks they have the answers to the universe, just like religion does, is very likely wrong and definitely immoral.

[RobotElvis]

Do I really need to make another post demonstrating what intellectual honesty is? Instead of just believing that a supreme infallible creator is responsible for everything and also decides for us what is moral and immoral - a worldview that is immoral by definition - I allow myself to learn things.

Crazy concept, huh? It's pretty weird how this science thing works, I know. It goes out into the real world and observes and discovers things, and changes the way we think about things in the process. It's called learning.

I believe we know nothing, and I believe that anyone who thinks they have the answers to the universe, just like religion does, is very likely wrong and definitely immoral.
You got me. I don't know what intellectual honesty is. I can only read one book, my holy book. I have never learned what science really is. I look forward to your ranting post describing it. It will teach me morality, thank you so much. *sarcasm*

Your biggest problem seems to be that you think because of your world view you are somehow intellectually and morally superior to any and all that do not share same world view. That is the exact opposite of free thinking and honest.

[paulgiamatti]

Your biggest problem seems to be that you think because of your world view you are somehow intellectually and morally superior to any and all that do not share same world view.

Not an accurate representation of any of my posts, so I'll just quote myself in hopes that you'll actually read and learn something.

Atheism doesn't mean exemption from immorality - I've attacked Kagatob plenty of times, and I've questioned leewong as well. More importantly, I question my own morality every single day that I'm alive. I like to debate and I like to argue, but I'm not trying to be condescending or project an air of moral superiority around anyone here. No one is perfect, but this also doesn't mean everyone is equal in their morals - I try to avoid false balance at all costs. Just because two people are arguing doesn't mean you can simply cancel them out and assume they're both equally wrong or equally right. Objectivity has nothing to do with impartiality. I am extremely skeptical of people who are unbiased or impartial about everything.

[Archalen]

My entire argument is for rationality.
1. How is it rational to judge other people? If anyone is honestly arrogant enough to believe that they have this life figured out, then I feel sorry for them. Let people choose their own beliefs.
2. You said markets don't self-correct. I'm not going to debate that, but what would you advocate in their place? Communism? I'm not going to make that leap without you stating it, but I'd ask for clarification. To me, that statement, which sounds like a critique of capitalism, sounds entirely irrational.
3. I believe that my religion is rational for several reasons. Why would it be rational to hurt my mother? She's deeply religious, and if her children became agnostic / atheist, it would destroy her. Hurting one's mother is not a rational course of action. In addition, I already talked about Seventh Day Adventists and how their religion helps them to become healthier. Mormons have BETTER FAMILY STRUCTURES than everyone in the US. Their religious beliefs are very rational compared to so many one parent households in the US. Don't believe me? Look at how many criminals come from households from single mothers. Let me be clear, Mormonism and a two parent household does not preclude poverty, and it certainly isn't the only path to success. I'm just saying, as someone rational, you should take data and statistics for what they say. Strong families produce children that are more likely to become productive members of society.

All of that is to say, rationality isn't as objective as you think. I just gave you my interpretation of statistics, conditions, and the social milieu. If you're telling me that 2 + 2 = 4, then sure, I agree with you. If you're telling me that religion automatically leads to a gullible populace likely to believe in the persecution of gays or lesbians, for example, I don't agree. I believe in God. I don't hate gays. In fact, I support gay marriage. I also thing that a strong two parent household, gay or straight, is much better than a single parent home. Am I unequivocally wrong, and if you believe I am, do you have objective proof of your assertion, or are you, like me, bringing your own biased interpretation of statistics, facts, and life experiences that no human being can separate from judgments that they make every day?

I don't see the arguments against religion, presented in this thread, as being rational at all. Basically, you guys are assuming a lot about religious people, which makes your arguments anything but logical. Logic isn't based on assumption.

Finally, I would like to say that I at elast consider you to be someone who doesn't seem like a bigot. When I hear Kagatob talk about 80% of Christians being trash (2 billions christians meaning ~1.6 billion people are trash in his estimation when he almost certainly hasn't met these people), I really can't even fathom how someone could be so ignorant. At least when you present a point, I see where you're coming from. You sound like many of my friends who don't understand my beliefs. And yes, shocker, I have atheist friends. I think the biggest issue here, is that a lot of people can't agree to disagree. Let me be clear, I do not care whether you believe in my religion. I don't preach it, I don't hand out pamphlets... I am no evangelist. At the same time, I don't appreciate being mocked or derided because I see value in morality and belief in God. I am a rational human being who doesn't take persecution of others lightly. I wish some of you could see that the things you say are:
1. Deeply offensive
2. Based upon crude assumptions of religious people, most likely caricatures of Al-Qaeda and the Westboro Baptist Church. Most religious people are neither them nor saints; most lie somewhere in the moral gray area, like most atheists / agnostics I might add.

I won't claim to be offended; I'm not. But I honestly don't understand how bigotry, even if its against a religion that you believe is vile, is anything other than pure irrationality.

1.) How is it rational to judge other people?

For the most part, it's not emotionally intelligent to waste your focus on judging other people, when you could be focus on improving on your own faults and can focus on positive things. If you are referring to atheists who make it a point to debate with the religious regularly, well they have a very real grievance that religious beliefs can be used to commit acts which otherwise would be obviously ethically questionable. I think it should be a movement for reason rather than a movement for atheism.

2.) I'll talk about markets later if I have time. But that's a last priority for me.

3.) Would it be rational to hurt my mother? You are arguing on pragmatic grounds, since this has nothing to do with whether a god really exists or not (just because something is comforting or easy doesn't make it true). I could make long arguments on this point, including one of being an atheist and having to stay in the closet because some Christians in the bible belt equate atheism with evil. I've had personal experiences where people immediately think I'm a bad person because I don't believe in their god and take great personal offense. So if you really are an atheist, there's a systemic argument that you should come clean and tell everybody (to pave the way for future atheists by making it more socially acceptable). However, it might not be rational to tell your mother; it won't hurt to not tell one person whom you know will be deeply affected, but this doesn't prove that a god exists. Neither rational reason given above involves you staying religious because it will make your mother feel better.

Again about the Seventh Day Adventists. Their belief in God does not directly influence their health. It indirectly influences their health because of their specific interpretation of The Bible. Almost every single Christian I've talked to interprets the verse as "dominion" over animals, not "stewardship" over animals. I personally like the latter better. Just the other day, I talked to a Christian who told me "I eat animals because I am Christian." I am not lying to you, he said exactly that, in response to talking to somebody who was vegan. This is relevant because a vegetarian diet is proven to be healthier, and that is what is crucial about the Seventh Day Adventist...many are vegetarian (I discussed this more previously). So you can interpret The Bible in one way and be as unhealthy as any other American, or interpret it in a certain way and become healthier. I am vegan, and I am not religious.

You say "we" are assuming a lot about religious people before making our assertions. I don't know about others, but my core reasons for remaining agnostic require no assumptions about anybody.

I have more to say but not enough time! Thanks.

[Glenzig]

Do I really need to make another post demonstrating what intellectual honesty is? Instead of just believing that a supreme infallible creator is responsible for everything and also decides for us what is moral and immoral - a worldview that is immoral by definition - I allow myself to learn things.

Crazy concept, huh? It's pretty weird how this science thing works, I know. It goes out into the real world and observes and discovers things, and changes the way we think about things in the process. It's called learning.

I believe we know nothing, and I believe that anyone who thinks they have the answers to the universe, just like religion does, is very likely wrong and definitely immoral.

You claim to strive for truth and intellectual honesty. You claim you love to learn new things and expand your knowledge. Yet, you admit that your worldview is based off of lack of knowledge, as if that somehow makes you intellectually superior by leaving room for advancement. Well have fun with your lack of knowledge of the universe. You won't offend me by remaining willfully ignorant of anything that might challenge your lack of knowledge. I am confident in my knowledge of the universe. I don't feel that i know everything about everything, but i don't need to in order to form a concrete belief in God and morality. I don't feel the need to backpedal and speak in half measures about subjects like morality and right and wrong. And for that I am thankful.
If you admit you have no clue about the universe, then why is it that you feel so vehemently that the bible or any other holy book is wrong? Maybe your lack of knowledge is restricting you from seeing an obvious truth.

[paulgiamatti]

That's not even worth responding to. Complete misconstrual of anything I've written, and if the only person that can subscribe to your fundamentally flawed line of thinking is RobotElvis, then I have nothing else to say.

But sure, yeah, you happen to know that there is a creator of the universe because you thought long and hard about it while taking a shit one morning. It just happened to occur to you based on no evidence and no rationality that that is the way things are. Never mind science and observation and experimentation and physics and cosmology, we don't need any of that nonsense. Let's just imagine things are the way they are, because it sounds nice to us, and then accuse anyone else who doesn't subscribe to the same notions as being close-minded.

Never mind actually admitting to the things we don't know, we can just pretend we know things! Then we'll try to convince others to do the same, but get this - instead of calling it willful ignorance, let's call it confidence!

[Aviann]

That's not even worth responding to. Complete misconstrual of anything I've written, and if the only person that can subscribe to your fundamentally flawed line of thinking is RobotElvis, then I have nothing else to say.

But sure, yeah, you happen to know that there is a creator of the universe because you thought long and hard about it while taking a shit one morning. It just happened to occur to you based on no evidence and no rationality that that is the way things are. Never mind science and observation and experimentation and physics and cosmology, we don't need any of that nonsense. Let's just imagine things are the way they are, because it sounds nice to us, and then accuse anyone else who doesn't subscribe to the same notions as being close-minded.

Never mind actually admitting to the things we don't know, we can just pretend we know things! Then we'll try to convince others to do the same, but get this - instead of calling it willful ignorance, let's call it confidence!

http://www.venganza.org/images/th_FSM3d.jpg

[Glenzig]

That's not even worth responding to. Complete misconstrual of anything I've written, and if the only person that can subscribe to your fundamentally flawed line of thinking is RobotElvis, then I have nothing else to say.

But sure, yeah, you happen to know that there is a creator of the universe because you thought long and hard about it while taking a shit one morning. It just happened to occur to you based on no evidence and no rationality that that is the way things are. Never mind science and observation and experimentation and physics and cosmology, we don't need any of that nonsense. Let's just imagine things are the way they are, because it sounds nice to us, and then accuse anyone else who doesn't subscribe to the same notions as being close-minded.

Never mind actually admitting to the things we don't know, we can just pretend we know things! Then we'll try to convince others to do the same, but get this - instead of calling it willful ignorance, let's call it confidence!

You can be dismissive all you want. It doesn't sway my beliefs one bit. My belief isn't based on a sudden feeling or emotional revelation. I've studied long and hard on many different subjects including science, philosophy, religion (not just my own, but as many as I can find time for), history, mythology. I try very hard not to be dismissive of others beliefs or points of view, something you obviously struggle with. I also am not opposed to reading or listening material that is juxtaposed to my own beliefs, something you have shown you are unwilling to do by mentally shutting off anything you view as an ignorant or misinformed. You're stance seems to be one of predetermined rigidity. Its actually pretty sad. Its the very antithesis of open mindedness and critical thinking.
I'm sure my viewpoint doesn't change your beliefs either. And I can live with that. I would never want to force anyone to believe a certain way about anything. Something you seem to be fairly comfortable with.

[paulgiamatti]

And now the ad hominems - the desperate last resort of the side that knows they've lost the argument. You can mischaracterize me all you want, but no one's buying it.