Sitting during National Anthem on 911

[gunslingerdick]

Here's a better answer to that question than I could ever hope to give. About :30 in some guy asks Hitch basically the exact same question.

View embedded media

We're not debating "Hitch". We were discussing this with you. If I wanted to know what "Hitch' thought, I'd be arguing with him on a different message board. For someone that often chastises others for being brainwashed, it's ironic that you point to someone else's testimony to express your views.

But for argument's sake, let's say you and this Hitch fellow are on the exact same page and you just wanted others to know that there are select few that believe what you believe. He still didn't even really answer the question. Why does it matter to you what other people believe in? Sure, religion can sometimes create conflict and can promote division. But it also promotes living your life in a way to serve others and to do what's right and gives people a moral compass. Any particular piece of life has its pros and cons. Technology has created lots of problems in human interaction. But the positive impact it's had on humanity far outweighs the negative. That's why there aren't that many people trying to rid the earth of technological advances. You're choosing to see the negative side of religion versus seeing the positive side to religion. Furthermore, on an individual basis, religion hardly does any harm at all and only gives people hope. Who the f**k are you to come and attempt to ruin that for them?

I know for me, my spirituality and religious affiliation works for me. I don't take the Bible literally. I see the lessons as metaphors for how one should live. And if you have a kind heart, those metaphors are going to translate into positive messages and a positive way of life. If you're not of kind heart, then yeah, you can probably interpret the teachings of all religions to say what you want. But can't you do that with any teachings - secular or religious?

Look, if you view yourself as more intellectually evolved and superior to those that subscribe to a religion, then fine. Live your life without religion. But don't go f**king it up for those of us that are clearly not on your level. We idiots can't wrap our brain around the depth of your thinking. Therefore, we need something else to hold on to. Our faith gives us that. So you take your intellectual superiority and live your life and we'll take our faith and live ours. Being that both are unprovable (can't prove or disprove that any higher being exists), your way is no more right than mine. But understand that you are the minority. Your thinking is the one that deviates from the norm. It's usually the oddballs that are the ones that have to just eat it. That means, I'm not forcing religion on you. I don't give a f**k about you. You can live without faith all you want. But being the oddball, you should sit quietly and enjoy your intellectual superiority. We religious folks, being the majority, have the luxury of sharing our commonality with others. If that bothers you, then sit there and take it.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Yeah, what Dick said except I do care about your wellbeing and only hope happiness and peace are with you always.

 

[uncboy10]

We're not debating "Hitch". We were discussing this with you. If I wanted to know what "Hitch' thought, I'd be arguing with him on a different message board. For someone that often chastises others for being brainwashed, it's ironic that you point to someone else's testimony to express your views.

But for argument's sake, let's say you and this Hitch fellow are on the exact same page and you just wanted others to know that there are select few that believe what you believe. He still didn't even really answer the question. Why does it matter to you what other people believe in? Sure, religion can sometimes create conflict and can promote division. But it also promotes living your life in a way to serve others and to do what's right and gives people a moral compass. Any particular piece of life has its pros and cons. Technology has created lots of problems in human interaction. But the positive impact it's had on humanity far outweighs the negative. That's why there aren't that many people trying to rid the earth of technological advances. You're choosing to see the negative side of religion versus seeing the positive side to religion. Furthermore, on an individual basis, religion hardly does any harm at all and only gives people hope. Who the f**k are you to come and attempt to ruin that for them?

I know for me, my spirituality and religious affiliation works for me. I don't take the Bible literally. I see the lessons as metaphors for how one should live. And if you have a kind heart, those metaphors are going to translate into positive messages and a positive way of life. If you're not of kind heart, then yeah, you can probably interpret the teachings of all religions to say what you want. But can't you do that with any teachings - secular or religious?

Look, if you view yourself as more intellectually evolved and superior to those that subscribe to a religion, then fine. Live your life without religion. But don't go f**king it up for those of us that are clearly not on your level. We idiots can't wrap our brain around the depth of your thinking. Therefore, we need something else to hold on to. Our faith gives us that. So you take your intellectual superiority and live your life and we'll take our faith and live ours. Being that both are unprovable (can't prove or disprove that any higher being exists), your way is no more right than mine. But understand that you are the minority. Your thinking is the one that deviates from the norm. It's usually the oddballs that are the ones that have to just eat it. That means, I'm not forcing religion on you. I don't give a f**k about you. You can live without faith all you want. But being the oddball, you should sit quietly and enjoy your intellectual superiority. We religious folks, being the majority, have the luxury of sharing our commonality with others. If that bothers you, then sit there and take it.

Maybe if you idiots quit using your fairy tales to screw things up for the rest of us then we'd leave you alone. Until then I'm gonna continue to point out your own stupidity until your forced to recognize it.

Ironic that you'd use technology as an example. Especially considering religion has fought technological advances that have improved human quality of life since the beginning. How far has stem cell technology been set back by dumbass evangelicals? How many lives could have been saved if it weren't for those morons?

To this day there are Catholics fighting the use of effing birth control. Going so far as to campaign around Africa telling people that condoms cause AIDS. How many LIVES have they taken from people with this nonsense? How much suffering have they caused because of some idiotic dogma that obviously has no basis in reality?

Christianity, as well as every other religion has spent its entire history subjugating women. Anyone who would deny this is an idiot. The bible clearly states that the wife is the property of her husband and should serve him the way she serves god. Which is disgusting.

Two thousand years of fighting in the M.E. why? Because two different gods apparently told two different groups of people they have the right to the same land. Yeah SOMETIMES religion causes conflict...

Back to the original subject. Why did those planes get hijacked and flown into buildings? Because god told them to.

Who has ALWAYS been at the center of any movement to deny people equal rights? The religious right.

These are the masses you so proudly cling to.

You don't need twisted interpretations to see how corrupt religion is. The books do that job for themselves. People like you think the radicals are just people who misuse religion. You're wrong. They're the people who have actually read the texts, and are actually following them. You follow some weak apologist version of an ideology because on a subconscious level you think being associated with a religion makes you a better person. At the end of the day I doubt that you seriously believe you're going to be able to live forever in paradise because some hippie got nailed to a tree a few thousand years ago... So not only do you lack a true understanding of religion, you lack conviction. So run back to your big crowd that makes you feel safe and secure now before you hurt yourself.

Saying that its equally reasonable to believe in a religion because you can't prove or disprove it, shows how flawed your understanding of basic logic is. The burden of proof for a positive claim lies with the person making it. There's no good reason to believe ANYTHING until there is actually evidence to suggest its existence. So your own arguments favor my position and you aren't even bright enough to realize it.

 

[uncboy10]

And Hitch passed away. He was one of the greatest writers and polemicists of all time. The difference is, I don't claim his arguments are divine revealed truth. They have to stand on their own. But here ya go, have some more.

 

[uncboy10]

Funny thing is, you're all atheists too. I just take it one god further.

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

Funny thing is, you're all atheists too. I just take it one god further.

I agree completely about religion. It screws people up in so many ways. Just one question out of curiosity and I will leave you alone. I respect your beliefs and it works for you. Do you have intuition or what we sometimes call "gut feelings?"

 

[uncboy10]

I agree completely about religion. It screws people up in so many ways. Just one question out of curiosity and I will leave you alone. I respect your beliefs and it works for you. Do you have intuition or what we sometimes call "gut feelings?"

We can explain intuition in neurological terms. There's nothing supernatural about "gut feelings"

It isn't about what "works for me." Something is either true or it isn't. Its laughable to me hearing religious people fall back on that. "Who cares if I'm wrong if being wrong works for me..."

 

[chick_bleeds_carolina_blue]

We can explain intuition in neurological terms. There's nothing supernatural about "gut feelings"

It isn't about what "works for me." Something is either true or it isn't. Its laughable to me hearing religious people fall back on that. "Who cares if I'm wrong if being wrong works for me..."

Okay then.

 

[strummingram]

We can explain intuition in neurological terms. There's nothing supernatural about "gut feelings"

It isn't about what "works for me." Something is either true or it isn't. Its laughable to me hearing religious people fall back on that. "Who cares if I'm wrong if being wrong works for me..."

But, you are at least aware that you don't know everything. "Science" doesn't know everything either. And, as far as "explaining intuition in neurological terms" goes, that's fine. But, the mind is exceptionally powerful. Thought, feelings, intuition, etc. etc., are constantly evolving.

And, "truth" is subjective. People like Hitchens remind me of religious people in some ways. They have their beliefs and they truly believe that those beliefs are truth. As intelligent as Hitchens was, he didn't know everything there is to know.

 

[uncboy10]

But, you are at least aware that you don't know everything. "Science" doesn't know everything either. And, as far as "explaining intuition in neurological terms" goes, that's fine. But, the mind is exceptionally powerful. Thought, feelings, intuition, etc. etc., are constantly evolving.

And, "truth" is subjective. People like Hitchens remind me of religious people in some ways. They have their beliefs and they truly believe that those beliefs are truth. As intelligent as Hitchens was, he didn't know everything there is to know.

No it isn't. You could make the case that our human concept of truth will always be to some degree subjective. But we live in a material universe. There are right and wrong answers to metaphysical questions about said universe. Trying to reduce everything to subjectivity is nonsense. The truth of the distance between Jupiter and the Sun is not subjective. There is an exact numerical representation of that space, and any other answer to the question would be factually incorrect. Subjective truth claims and objective truth claims are completely different things. Saying there is a god is an objective truth claim. You are making a positive claim about the metaphysical nature of the universe. And in reality that god either exists or he doesn't. Calling it faith, or subjective, or anything you want doesn't change the fact that you are ultimately either right, or wrong. My goal is to have my admittedly subjective view of the world to align as closely as possible to the objective reality of what the universe actually is.

Hitchens was advocating for secular skepticism. At no point did he claim to have the answers. He just was particularly adept at disproving the people who DO claim to have the answers.

Of course the mind is powerful and constantly evolving. But that still doesn't make it anything other than a ridiculous complex network of electrical synapses. There's no magic. Nothing supernatural. Just matter and energy.

You're right I don't know close to everything. Science doesn't know close to everything. But science isn't an entity, its a process. The scientific process is the only method we have of truly understanding the world around us. That is where the line between objective and subjective is drawn. People can subjectively say that they've experienced "god" or any other kinds of nonsense. The human brain is very easy to trick. But they never seem to be able to provide any real empirical evidence, then claim that they're subjective experiences are equally valid... Personally, I have little patience for this

 

[uncboy10]

Okay then.

Feel free to ask away if you have any other questions. I enjoy being challenged. I just don't bother to mince words when I reply.

 

[strummingram]

You could make the case that our human concept of truth will always be to some degree subjective.

That was exactly the case I was making. The "human concept of truth" is what you're talking about here, too. That is all we have- OUR filter! Or, is it?

But we live in a material universe.

We live in a much more complex universe than that.

The scientific process is the only method we have of truly understanding the world around us.

That is something I don't agree with. I mean, you can actually categorize lots of things as "science." But, I think you're selling yourself short by discounting the many, MANY other doors and opportunities for understanding the universe because, in effect, your religion is science. I see many so-called atheists who simply believe a scientist's explanation, or a "scientific explanation". They themselves have no idea how the scientist did what he claims he did (or she). They can't do the steps themselves. But, they believe it. they believe their explanation. That doesn't make it "wrong" at all. It just makes it a belief based on a subjectivity. You're taking someone's word because you trust their ability. You call it objective and not subjective. But, I believe it is all subjective in this plane of consciousness.

I do think Science is making huge contributions and helping us along a great deal. It will continue to do that. The human species has moved the needle a LOT since the so-called "Age of Reason." I also know that spirituality and science will finally meet.

Just out of curiosity; Do you believe in Extra Terrestrials? Are there other life forms besides ours here on Earth?

 

[UNC71-00]

http

 

[uncboy10]

That was exactly the case I was making. The "human concept of truth" is what you're talking about here, too. That is all we have- OUR filter! Or, is it?


We live in a much more complex universe than that.


That is something I don't agree with. I mean, you can actually categorize lots of things as "science." But, I think you're selling yourself short by discounting the many, MANY other doors and opportunities for understanding the universe because, in effect, your religion is science. I see many so-called atheists who simply believe a scientist's explanation, or a "scientific explanation". They themselves have no idea how the scientist did what he claims he did (or she). They can't do the steos themselves. But, they believe it. they believe their explanation. That doesn't make it "wrong" at all. It just makes it a belief based on a subjectivity. You're taking someone's word because you trust their ability. You call it objective and not subjective. But, I believe it is all subjective in this plane of consciousness.

I do think Science is making huge contributions and helping us along a great deal. It will continue to do that. The human species has moved the needle a LOT since the so-called "Age of Reason." I also know that spirituality and science will finally meet.

Just out of curiosity; Do you believe in Extra Terrestrials? Are there other life forms besides ours here on Earth?

I don't see what else there is besides matter and energy. Sure, there's a ton of it that falls outside of our ability to perceive it. But that doesn't make it supernatural. It's still part of the natural universe, we just aren't sufficiently evolved to appreciate it.

Your point about science is important. It is true that people often take the word of the scientific community at face value. However, it's also true that whenever a scientist makes a discovery, he is immediately checked by everyone else in the scientific community. If the results of the experiment don't hold up, it will be discredited. Obviously that system doesn't work perfectly but it's definitely the best we've got by a long shot. Most people don't have the resources to conduct real experiments. What people really need to do is learn how to examine evidence, and to understand how experiments should be structured so that they can recognize inherent biases. Then they can double check for themselves.

Calling science or atheism a religion is bullshit no matter how you slice it. The point you're making is that they can be dogmatic. That doesn't make them a religion. It takes more than just dogma to have a religion. Atheism is literally the lack of a religion. Calling that a religion is the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I." Again, many atheists can be dogmatic. That doesn't make them religious.

You can also be a spiritual secular person. I would consider myself to be a deeply spiritual person, but I don't believe there's anything out there beyond the natural world. I've definitely been out there a few times if ya know what I mean... But, I've always felt that the natural world is awe inspiring enough on its own without needing to invent a supernatural dimension.

I would say that it's statistically almost a certainty that there is extra terrestrial life out there somewhere. The universe is nearly 14 billion light years across. That's a lot of empty space to exist without any kind of simple bacteria at least. Whether or not there is intelligent life is a completely different question. I'd guess it's probably likely. Again the universe is way bigger than anything we are capable of comprehending. The problem is that they would likely be so far away that we would have to travel at the speed of light for thousands of years to get to their planets.

 

[strummingram]

Again the universe is way bigger than anything we are capable of comprehending.

Like I said earlier; It's a matter of how you believe, not if you believe.

ETA:

When I compared science to religion, it's not an insult. I mean that people believe the scientists. The scientists argue with each other as to who is doing it right or wrong. You see science proving and disproving itself, and advancing all the time. The same goes with people and their spiritual interpretations. It's all moving in a perpetual forward motion.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

That is something I don't agree with. I mean, you can actually categorize lots of things as "science." But, I think you're selling yourself short by discounting the many, MANY other doors and opportunities for understanding the universe because, in effect, your religion is science. I see many so-called atheists who simply believe a scientist's explanation, or a "scientific explanation". They themselves have no idea how the scientist did what he claims he did (or she). They can't do the steps themselves. But, they believe it. they believe their explanation. That doesn't make it "wrong" at all. It just makes it a belief based on a subjectivity. You're taking someone's word because you trust their ability. You call it objective and not subjective. But, I believe it is all subjective in this plane of consciousness.

Very well said. It's fairly clear from the back and forth that boy allows his disdain for religion to dictate his opinion of what could explain the things that go unexplained by science. I agree with him (and you) that for the most part religions are harmful, but I'm also of the opinion that it's possible things we can't explain don't always just happen by chance.

 

[strummingram]

Very well said. It's fairly clear from the back and forth that boy allows his disdain for religion to dictate his opinion of what could explain the things that go unexplained by science. I agree with him (and you) that for the most part religions are harmful, but I'm also of the opinion that it's possible things we can't explain don't always just happen by chance.

I think religions, in and of themselves, are okay. They all promote the same basic message. When the people get involved, and they start insisting that theirs is superior, or the only right way, and killing other people who have a different way of doing it, and scaring people into thinking that if they don't follow them, they're headed for some eternal rotisserie, THEN it gets harmful.
Being critical of people who use religion to hold power over other people is also something I think we could benefit from.

People make God into the most unsavory human being with their religions... sometimes.

 

[carolinablue34]

That was exactly the case I was making. The "human concept of truth" is what you're talking about here, too. That is all we have- OUR filter! Or, is it?


We live in a much more complex universe than that.


That is something I don't agree with. I mean, you can actually categorize lots of things as "science." But, I think you're selling yourself short by discounting the many, MANY other doors and opportunities for understanding the universe because, in effect, your religion is science. I see many so-called atheists who simply believe a scientist's explanation, or a "scientific explanation". They themselves have no idea how the scientist did what he claims he did (or she). They can't do the steps themselves. But, they believe it. they believe their explanation. That doesn't make it "wrong" at all. It just makes it a belief based on a subjectivity. You're taking someone's word because you trust their ability. You call it objective and not subjective. But, I believe it is all subjective in this plane of consciousness.

I do think Science is making huge contributions and helping us along a great deal. It will continue to do that. The human species has moved the needle a LOT since the so-called "Age of Reason." I also know that spirituality and science will finally meet.

Just out of curiosity; Do you believe in Extra Terrestrials? Are there other life forms besides ours here on Earth?

In my opinion there is no such thing as moral relativism. There are universal truths about morality and good human behavior, even if people have different opinions on what that is.

It's one of the main problems I have with some forms of liberalism. They insist on all sorts of standards for morality in the West (aka evil white men) but will go soft on authoritarian, theocratic, or communist states that are far worse for minority groups and women to live in.

 

[duckfook]

إذا كان الجنوب قد فاز ، كنا قد جعلت

Lol

 

[strummingram]

In my opinion there is no such thing as moral relativism. There are universal truths about morality and good human behavior, even if people have different opinions on what that is.

It's one of the main problems I have with some forms of liberalism. They insist on all sorts of standards for morality in the West (aka evil white men) but will go soft on authoritarian, theocratic, or communist states that are far worse for minority groups and women to live in.

That first paragraph is going to require me to read it a few times. After one attempt:

If people have different opinions (beliefs) about what a universal truth is, or isn't- or morality and "good" behavior- ... if all of those are subject to opinions, then where does the universal truth actually exist?

The second one sounds like you're taking some things personally. I don't think I've ever seen any liberal defend despotic regimes or cultures for what they are, nor do they defend the premise that the regimes oppress people. I'm not sure what a "liberal" is, exactly. But, if someone identifies as such, I would imagine that they're rarely in a situation to discuss the conditions with the people of those regimes. The whole concept of liberalism and conservatism is not something I really subscribe to.

But, regardless, we, as individuals, see things and interpret everything through our own personal filters. It helps me to realize, or at least consider, that what works for me may not work for others, and my way is not better, it's just different. And, the same philosophy goes when I consider other people or other cultures and their way of doing things.

No one does anything "wrong" given their world view. When people do something "wrong" (from others' perspectives), they've justified it to themselves and it's no longer "wrong" in their mind. Or, they've at least justified it enough to do it.

 

[coryfly]

Here's a better answer to that question than I could ever hope to give. About :30 in some guy asks Hitch basically the exact same question.

View embedded media

I don't generally watch links. So I'm not going to watch that one. If you don't want to answer it that is cool though. I really don't mind. I was just curious. I've heard various answers over the years, many of them reasonably stated even if I thought they were flimsy. The best argument I've heard so far (I guess) is that people take it to the extreme. However, most of those people are going to take something to the extremes anyway so it seems like 'religion' is just an excuse for them. People can twist anything and then screw it up. That is not on God (or a god) whether you believe in him or not. It is more on the individual. Regardless, maybe that is not what the dude in the video even rolls with. I just don't know who he is so don't really care much tbh.

 

[uncboy10]

I don't generally watch links. So I'm not going to watch that one. If you don't want to answer it that is cool though. I really don't mind. I was just curious. I've heard various answers over the years, many of them reasonably stated even if I thought they were flimsy. The best argument I've heard so far (I guess) is that people take it to the extreme. However, most of those people are going to take something to the extremes anyway so it seems like 'religion' is just an excuse for them. People can twist anything and then screw it up. That is not on God (or a god) whether you believe in him or not. It is more on the individual. Regardless, maybe that is not what the dude in the video even rolls with. I just don't know who he is so don't really care much tbh.

I've answered the question multiple times in this thread alone. The damage done by religion is widespread and severe.

 

[carolinablue34]

That first paragraph is going to require me to read it a few times. After one attempt:

If people have different opinions (beliefs) about what a universal truth is, or isn't- or morality and "good" behavior- ... if all of those are subject to opinions, then where does the universal truth actually exist?

The second one sounds like you're taking some things personally. I don't think I've ever seen any liberal defend despotic regimes or cultures for what they are, nor do they defend the premise that the regimes oppress people. I'm not sure what a "liberal" is, exactly. But, if someone identifies as such, I would imagine that they're rarely in a situation to discuss the conditions with the people of those regimes. The whole concept of liberalism and conservatism is not something I really subscribe to.

But, regardless, we, as individuals, see things and interpret everything through our own personal filters. It helps me to realize, or at least consider, that what works for me may not work for others, and my way is not better, it's just different. And, the same philosophy goes when I consider other people or other cultures and their way of doing things.

No one does anything "wrong" given their world view. When people do something "wrong" (from others' perspectives), they've justified it to themselves and it's no longer "wrong" in their mind. Or, they've at least justified it enough to do it.

I made my argument rather badly.

To put it more concisely, I think that relativism doesn't work as a standard set of ethics especially when it comes to culture. We can all agree that castrating girls at a young age is immoral. But to those tribes/cultures it's perfectly normal and not wrong at all. But to any sane, rational person that's a horrible thing to do.

As for my second paragraph, it's just one of my personal beefs with certain people on the left I know. The "patriarchy" tumblr types that I believe get selectively outraged at tedious stories that they use to back up their warped version of "oppression." But when it comes to women in Saudi Arabia who can't drive, give testimony, travel alone, go without the headscarf, disobey her husband (you get the general picture) they say, "It's their culture and Islam is a religion of peace, blah, blah, blah."

That's why I believe moral relativism doesn't work. In my mind, there are clearly situations that are right and wrong but obviously as you said, much of that depends on world view.

I'm fully aware that much of right and wrong is subjective to the individual, but we can't close our eyes and say "it's just the way they do things" in every given scenario.

 

[duckfook]

UNC boy vs whoever.....quit drinking smdh

 

[strummingram]

but we can't close our eyes and say "it's just the way they do things" in every given scenario.

Well, no. It's a very fine line.

But, if we enjoy and appreciate our freedom to choose and do as we see fit; the only way that remains intact is if we afford others the same thing. I definitely believe that what you do to others, you do to yourself.

 

[coryfly]

I've answered the question multiple times in this thread alone. The damage done by religion is widespread and severe.

The damage done by religion yes, not by the belief in God though. Not making a distinction is lazy. I have no qualms with atheist and also believers having major issues with religious perversions. Again, people thirsty for power or who are borderline nuts use it on the weak or to do terrible things. That is weighting the good vs bad of belief though and I think you lose when you do that. I probably dislike the far Christian right more than you and I'm a Christian. My curiosity stems from so many atheists going crazy regarding even the hint of an existence of a god. Most atheists I know constantly obsess over God and those who believe in God. It is as annoying and nonsensical as the Christians I know who won't embrace science alongside their belief.

 

[uncboy10]

The damage done by religion yes, not by the belief in God though. Not making a distinction is lazy. I have no qualms with atheist and also believers having major issues with religious perversions. Again, people thirsty for power or who are borderline nuts use it on the weak or to do terrible things. That is weighting the good vs bad of belief though and I think you lose when you do that. I probably dislike the far Christian right more than you and I'm a Christian. My curiosity stems from so many atheists going crazy regarding even the hint of an existence of a god. Most atheists I know constantly obsess over God and those who believe in God. It is as annoying and nonsensical as the Christians I know who won't embrace science alongside their belief.

The vast majority of people who believe in god, believe in a particular god from a particular religion. You don't need religion to find the problems with a belief in god, but considering the dominant majority of theists are religious, its definitely relevant. The religious always try to play this game. Anyone who does anything bad in the name of religion is committing a "religious perversion." Stoning someone for being gay isn't a perversion of christianity. That's exactly what "god's book" says to do. You're the one perverting the religion with your diluted apologist version of it. It wasn't a perversion of Islam when they flew those planes into the twin towers. They were waging jihad exactly the way the Quran calls for them to. It isn't surprising that atheists tend to know more about religions than religious people themselves do.

But the idea of god on its own is equally disgusting. You don't need religion to hold god accountable for the conditions of the humanity and the rest of the world. What kind of creator would leave thousands of children to die in agony before the age of 5 every single day? With power comes responsibility. Your god either doesn't care to end that suffering, or it doesn't have the power to. So it's either impotent or evil.

There is nothing even remotely nonsensical about attacking theism. It is the great bane of our species. Pretending like it's just a few nutjobs taking a perfectly innocent philosophy and warping it, is completely insane. Only someone who hasn't actually read any of these religious texts in their entirety could make that mistake.

If the world was full of deistic naturalists similar to strum then the fight would be over. But you said yourself that you're a christian. Not someone who believes in just a god. Someone who believes in a particular god. A jealous god who eternally tortures anybody who doesn't believe in him or worship him. You believe he got a woman pregnant with his son, just to have him tortured and killed all so that he would be able to forgive his own creation... You act like it's just the "far right christians" who are nutjobs, when you have to believe things that are patently absurd just to call yourself a christian at all.

This is an interesting social phenomenon. You can find self-described christians who believe all kinds of things that actually contradict the basic ideology. If you discuss it with many of them they will never allow any belief to be nailed down, because they've heard evil aspects of christianity pointed out so many times that they're too scared to commit. They try to dilute it down to just the most basic tenets and jump through any intellectual hoops that are necessary to still call themselves a believer. Why? Because so many people have been hardwired to associate religiosity with morality.

 

[uncboy10]

The bunny gets it

 

[coryfly]

The vast majority of people who believe in god, believe in a particular god from a particular religion. You don't need religion to find the problems with a belief in god, but considering the dominant majority of theists are religious, its definitely relevant. The religious always try to play this game. Anyone who does anything bad in the name of religion is committing a "religious perversion." Stoning someone for being gay isn't a perversion of christianity. That's exactly what "god's book" says to do. You're the one perverting the religion with your diluted apologist version of it. It wasn't a perversion of Islam when they flew those planes into the twin towers. They were waging jihad exactly the way the Quran calls for them to. It isn't surprising that atheists tend to know more about religions than religious people themselves do.



But the idea of god on its own is equally disgusting. You don't need religion to hold god accountable for the conditions of the humanity and the rest of the world. What kind of creator would leave thousands of children to die in agony before the age of 5 every single day? With power comes responsibility. Your god either doesn't care to end that suffering, or it doesn't have the power to. So it's either impotent or evil.

I have a hard time believing this is still an issue. Again, as I'm sure you've been told, the idea of God and free will at all acknowledges that shitty things happen. To think otherwise would discount the entire idea of faith. If every single time something bad is about to happen God acts to prevent it then there would be no such thing as faith. I get that you don't have faith, which is ok. That's fine. It is not acceptable to act like you are smarter than the room and yet not be able to understand the meaning of what faith is, which is certainly not that an entity that is omnipotent is either impotent or evil.

There is nothing even remotely nonsensical about attacking theism. It is the great bane of our species. Pretending like it's just a few nutjobs taking a perfectly innocent philosophy and warping it, is completely insane. Only someone who hasn't actually read any of these religious texts in their entirety could make that mistake.

You have already lost the argument if you make statements that imply someone who disagrees with you must actually know nothing. This is something my smarter atheist friends understand. There are certainly way more than a 'few' though. I don't think I've ever said there were only a few, though I could have I suppose. If so, that was not my intent.

If the world was full of deistic naturalists similar to strum then the fight would be over. But you said yourself that you're a christian. Not someone who believes in just a god. Someone who believes in a particular god. A jealous god who eternally tortures anybody who doesn't believe in him or worship him. You believe he got a woman pregnant with his son, just to have him tortured and killed all so that he would be able to forgive his own creation... You act like it's just the "far right christians" who are nutjobs, when you have to believe things that are patently absurd just to call yourself a christian at all.

My belief in God is actually probably similar to strum in more ways than most Christians. I don't really have to believe anything you say I must believe to call myself a Christian. You just generalize every Christian the same. That is on you.

This is an interesting social phenomenon. You can find self-described christians who believe all kinds of things that actually contradict the basic ideology. If you discuss it with many of them they will never allow any belief to be nailed down, because they've heard evil aspects of christianity pointed out so many times that they're too scared to commit. They try to dilute it down to just the most basic tenets and jump through any intellectual hoops that are necessary to still call themselves a believer. Why? Because so many people have been hardwired to associate religiosity with morality.

The vast majority of people who believe in god, believe in a particular god from a particular religion. You don't need religion to find the problems with a belief in god, but considering the dominant majority of theists are religious, its definitely relevant. The religious always try to play this game. Anyone who does anything bad in the name of religion is committing a "religious perversion." Stoning someone for being gay isn't a perversion of christianity. That's exactly what "god's book" says to do. You're the one perverting the religion with your diluted apologist version of it. It wasn't a perversion of Islam when they flew those planes into the twin towers. They were waging jihad exactly the way the Quran calls for them to. It isn't surprising that atheists tend to know more about religions than religious people themselves do.

Saying God's book says that we need to stone anyone is pretty ignorant for someone who seems to think they know more than the rest of us. There are other, better, more relevant examples you could have used. I find it a little silly for Christians to be held accountable for your inability to understand context or to comprehend a little better. I'll be honest in that I don't really care much about what the Quran says.

But the idea of god on its own is equally disgusting. You don't need religion to hold god accountable for the conditions of the humanity and the rest of the world. What kind of creator would leave thousands of children to die in agony before the age of 5 every single day? With power comes responsibility. Your god either doesn't care to end that suffering, or it doesn't have the power to. So it's either impotent or evil.

I have a hard time believing this is still a discussion point. Again, as I'm sure you've been told, the idea of God and free will at all acknowledges that shitty things happen. To think otherwise would discount the entire idea of faith. If every single time something bad is about to happen God acts to prevent it then there would be no such thing as faith. I get that you don't have faith, which is ok. That's fine. It is not acceptable to act like you are smarter than the room and yet not be able to understand the meaning of what faith is, which is certainly not that an entity that is omnipotent is either impotent or evil.

There is nothing even remotely nonsensical about attacking theism. It is the great bane of our species. Pretending like it's just a few nutjobs taking a perfectly innocent philosophy and warping it, is completely insane. Only someone who hasn't actually read any of these religious texts in their entirety could make that mistake.

You have already lost the argument if you make statements that imply someone who disagrees with you must actually know nothing. This is something my smarter atheist friends understand. There are certainly way more than a 'few' though. I don't think I've ever said there were only a few, though I could have I suppose. If so, that was not my intent.

If the world was full of deistic naturalists similar to strum then the fight would be over. But you said yourself that you're a christian. Not someone who believes in just a god. Someone who believes in a particular god. A jealous god who eternally tortures anybody who doesn't believe in him or worship him. You believe he got a woman pregnant with his son, just to have him tortured and killed all so that he would be able to forgive his own creation... You act like it's just the "far right christians" who are nutjobs, when you have to believe things that are patently absurd just to call yourself a christian at all.

My belief in God is actually probably similar to strum in more ways than most Christians. I don't really have to believe anything you say I must believe to call myself a Christian. You just generalize every Christian the same. That is on you.

This is an interesting social phenomenon. You can find self-described christians who believe all kinds of things that actually contradict the basic ideology. If you discuss it with many of them they will never allow any belief to be nailed down, because they've heard evil aspects of christianity pointed out so many times that they're too scared to commit. They try to dilute it down to just the most basic tenets and jump through any intellectual hoops that are necessary to still call themselves a believer. Why? Because so many people have been hardwired to associate religiosity with morality.

I think you complicate, as many Christians do as well, the basic theology. So you have a lot in common with those you hate. Congrats on that. That is largely the fault of the church throughout the years. I just choose to find guidance on my own.


A non-believer will always have the advantage in a discussion like this. Nothing at all regarding faith can be proven. I have no issues with those who don't believe either. I get it. I've been there. It makes a lot of sense. It is just the silliness of one thinking not 'believing' makes them smarter. It is almost as silly as Christians thinking the same thing. There is no correlation either way. I've been both and was no more or less intelligent when I lacked my 'faith'.

 

[JuleZ '02 HEEL]

 

[uncboy10]

Saying God's book says that we need to stone anyone is pretty ignorant for someone who seems to think they know more than the rest of us. There are other, better, more relevant examples you could have used. I find it a little silly for Christians to be held accountable for your inability to understand context or to comprehend a little better. I'll be honest in that I don't really care much about what the Quran says.

Except that it does say that. There are multiple verses with injunctions to stone people to death for various offenses, most of which are ridiculous. Any one of them could be used as a justification for violence, at least until those books start being regarded for the fiction that they are. And yes there are better, more relevant examples that clearly disprove the claim that the bible has divine origins. Not one of those examples would help your case.

I have a hard time believing this is still a discussion point. Again, as I'm sure you've been told, the idea of God and free will at all acknowledges that shitty things happen. To think otherwise would discount the entire idea of faith. If every single time something bad is about to happen God acts to prevent it then there would be no such thing as faith. I get that you don't have faith, which is ok. That's fine. It is not acceptable to act like you are smarter than the room and yet not be able to understand the meaning of what faith is, which is certainly not that an entity that is omnipotent is either impotent or evil.

There is a difference between shitty things happening as a result of choice, and children being slaughtered by the thousands as a result of the circumstances of their birth. God wouldn't have to act to prevent the natural disasters that killed them if he didn't design them in the first place. Faith is actually the suspension of reason. Choosing to believe something despite the evidence. I never said that faith = believing god is impotent or evil. I said that was the logical implication of observing the natural world with the philosophy that it was designed. If you think it's all part of god's plan for millions of children to suffer and die in agony, and you still worship that god... Then you're not a very moral person.


My belief in God is actually probably similar to strum in more ways than most Christians. I don't really have to believe anything you say I must believe to call myself a Christian. You just generalize every Christian the same. That is on you.

I don't generalize every christian the same at all. There are many different flavors of delusional. But I can certainly point to distinctions in the theology that are necessary beliefs for someone to qualify as a christian. Sure, you don't have to believe anything, and you have the right to call yourself whatever you want. But if you don't believe that a guy was tortured to death and rose from the dead so that his dad could forgive you and let you into paradise, then you aren't a christian and according to the theology of christianity you would be going to hell.

I think you complicate, as many Christians do as well, the basic theology. So you have a lot in common with those you hate. Congrats on that. That is largely the fault of the church throughout the years. I just choose to find guidance on my own.

I was raised a christian and have read the bible cover to cover multiple times. I'm very well aware of the theology both basic and complex. In fact, generally speaking atheists have proven that they tend to have a greater understanding of theology than those who actually practice the religions themselves. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. The basic theology involves worshiping a human sacrifice and believing that it made it possible for god to forgive you so that you can live forever in paradise after you die. That is a laughably ridiculous myth to believe in.


A non-believer will always have the advantage in a discussion like this. Nothing at all regarding faith can be proven. I have no issues with those who don't believe either. I get it. I've been there. It makes a lot of sense. It is just the silliness of one thinking not 'believing' makes them smarter. It is almost as silly as Christians thinking the same thing. There is no correlation either way. I've been both and was no more or less intelligent when I lacked my 'faith'.

Yes we have the advantage because the burden of proof is on you, and you have no evidence. Therefore there is no good reason to believe that claim. Wish thinking is all the religious have to fall back on.

Do I think it's a stupid thing to believe? Absolutely. But there are plenty of intelligent people who believe stupid things. The debate isn't about intelligence, it's about the consequences of religion and theism. Said consequences have been awful. Religion has been on the wrong side of history since the beginning of time.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

^ I can't help but feel this is like a NC State fan that spends his entire life researching UNC athletics to try to find things that indicate that UNC athletics suck.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

If you think it's all part of god's plan for millions of children to suffer and die in agony, and you still worship that god... Then you're not a very moral person.

Again I realize you're railing on religions more than theism here, but one doesn't have to "worship" a god in order to have that god exist. Maybe whatever creator is out there - isn't capable of changing the course of events happening now (was only able to create). Maybe God has the power to "fix things" but approves of and/or is indifferent to the suffering in the world. Maybe those wouldn't be your idea of a perfect God, but neither would mean God doesn't exist.

 

[uncboy10]

Again I realize you're railing on religions more than theism here, but one doesn't have to "worship" a god in order to have that god exist. Maybe whatever creator is out there - isn't capable of changing the course of events happening now (was only able to create). Maybe God has the power to "fix things" but approves of and/or is indifferent to the suffering in the world. Maybe those wouldn't be your idea of a perfect God, but neither would mean God doesn't exist.

Or maybe it's all just make believe and there's no god at all. Which seems like the most likely option given the complete lack of evidence for the existence of any god(s).

You're right though. That wouldn't logically disprove the existence of god, just the benevolence or omnipotence or both. Which kinda starts to detract from the whole concept of a god doesn't it?

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

Or maybe it's all just make believe and there's no god at all. Which seems like the most likely option given the complete lack of evidence for the existence of any god(s).

The evidence for a creator, in my opinion, is that the universe had to have come from somewhere. Things don't just pop into existence on their own.

You're right though. That wouldn't logically disprove the existence of god, just the benevolence or omnipotence or both. Which kinda starts to detract from the whole concept of a god doesn't it?

To some it may very well detract from their concept of God. Not really mine though.

 

[uncboy10]

The evidence for a creator, in my opinion, is that the universe had to have come from somewhere. Things don't just pop into existence on their own.

To some it may very well detract from their concept of God. Not really mine though.

If the universe could not exist without something bringing it into existence, then why wouldn't you apply the same logic to god. A god couldn't just pop into existence on its own.

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

If the universe could not exist without something bringing it into existence, then why wouldn't you apply the same logic to god. A god couldn't just pop into existence on its own.

I'm not certain that's true. In order to be a god, it would presumably possess abilities that we can't comprehend. One of those could be creating itself, which although it sounds weird, makes more sense than a piece of dust creating itself. There's the belief in many science circles (which I would have to assume contain some atheists) that there's several more dimensions than the 3 we're aware of (4 if you count time). A god could be derived from one of those several other dimensions that we're not able to understand. We're also not very educated on black holes. Stephen Hawking, an atheist (and a member of my death pool squad), developed a theory that black holes are portals to other universes. Who's to say the god of our universe couldn't have come from another universe?

 

[carolinablue34]

Or maybe it's all just make believe and there's no god at all. Which seems like the most likely option given the complete lack of evidence for the existence of any god(s).

You're right though. That wouldn't logically disprove the existence of god, just the benevolence or omnipotence or both. Which kinda starts to detract from the whole concept of a god doesn't it?

Dude, I feel as though you're trying to prove something. You have every right to be an atheist, and I respect that right. Religion does not make a person moral.

At the same time, what are you gaining by obnoxiously asserting that there is no God and anyone who does believe there is one, is an idiot? You're similar to my step grandfather. He focuses so much time and effort trying to prove to me that there's no God that it becomes tiresome. I wouldn't try to convert anyone to my beliefs, there are some atheists that go beyond the idea of not believing in a creator (which is fine) but then they get offended at the idea that billions of people believe in some sort of religion and lazily blame the world's problems on that alone.

 

[carolinablue34]

Well, no. It's a very fine line.

But, if we enjoy and appreciate our freedom to choose and do as we see fit; the only way that remains intact is if we afford others the same thing. I definitely believe that what you do to others, you do to yourself.

I'm not suggesting we Westerners try fix every perceived wrong, but I am a believer in taking a stance against practices contradictory to secular law. That goes for Christianity (which I believe in) but I'm mainly talking about Islam and it's current place in Europe.

I don't want to be in Belgium someday and wake up to the sound of some yodeling Arab at 5:30 am for some mandatory rug kissing, not being able to drink, or not see the beautiful face of an intelligent woman.

 

[strummingram]

I'm not suggesting we Westerners try fix every perceived wrong, but I am a believer in taking a stance against practices contradictory to secular law. That goes for Christianity (which I believe in) but I'm mainly talking about Islam and it's current place in Europe.

I don't want to be in Belgium someday and wake up to the sound of some yodeling Arab at 5:30 am for some mandatory rug kissing, not being able to drink, or not see the beautiful face of an intelligent woman.

Then stay out of Belgium? If Islam makes sense to more people, then it will grow and more people will embrace it. You cannot stop it. If an ideology's time has come, then it has come. I think these ancient religions are definitely on the way out. But, it's hard to convince someone who belongs to one of them of that.

I realize most American Christians are afraid of everything Islamic, but, that's not my problem, personally. Islam is just another Abrahamic religion to me. I would suggest you scale way-back on the right-wing media consumption. I would recommend staying away from all political media, in general... all of it. They sell fear, and it's cheap.