Religulous

[Burn-E]

You guys have fun with proof texting.  It's a practice I refuse to engage in in any context.

But I basically already stated that.

[ErikS]

2 hours ago, mattsk8 said:

Was Hitler an agnostic, an atheist or a God fearing man? That's going to be tough for you to answer (although I'm positive he wasn't a "God fearing man"), because he made claims to all of them, depending on who he was talking to. And why do you guys suppose that is??

I can see what you're trying to do here, so let me drive a few nails into that coffin...

Why atheism is evil and shouldn't be allowed...

Napoleon... Kim Jong... Mussolini... Mao Zedong... Pol Pot... Stalin... All representatives of your atheist "religion". I can give more examples too if you'd like. 

Hitler was a deist, he used political means to accept or reject religion .. as in he used it to his advantage to raise up established religions, and then of course destroy them when it seemed fit for his nationlist views.  

These were men, doing bad things for political reasons.  If you think a person being agnostic or an atheist is a following, I fell sorry for your thought processes.
 

7 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

You guys have fun with proof texting.  It's a practice I refuse to engage in in any context.

But I basically already stated that.

Faith is the absence of evidence. Its the core argument.

[mattsk8]

2 minutes ago, ErikS said:

Hitler was a deist, he used political means to accept or reject religion .. as in he used it to his advantage to raise up established religions, and then of course destroy them when it seemed fit for his nationlist views.  

These were men, doing bad things for political reasons.  If you think a person being agnostic or an atheist is a following, I fell sorry for your thought processes.
 

You just reiterated everything I already said; work on reading comprehension. And if you don't think atheism is a following, you need to wake up. I'll agree that agnostic isn't a following, it has too many loose interpretations that IMO all boil down to someone that may or may not believe in a creator, but really doesn't care either way.

[Burn-E]

Actually that is an incorrect characterization.  Taking off will expound later.

[Fudge_Brownie]

13 hours ago, Burn-E said:

Indoctrination is a funny word.  Is it indoctrination when you teach a child the laws of physics?  Is it indoctrination when you teach a teenager the rules of the road and how to drive a car?  Is it indoctrination when you teach a child that actions have consequences and how to evaluate which consequences are better than others? 

See, the view that teaching principles and truths is wrong and somehow harms a child is founded on the belief that it removes their capacity to think for themselves.  We educate children to help them understand the principles that will allow them greatest possible success and happiness in life.  I once debated this with a father who stopped by a friend's apartment when I was visiting one day. (..) And quite often it is down paths that are destructive to self and to society. I pointed to my friend and asked, "What have you taught them as a result?  Is this the outcome your wanted?"

Is teaching them physics indoctrination? No, because they're usually taught the scientific method and how those principles were derived. They also explain the concept of theories, and why they aren't considered indisputable. I'm not aware of any well recognized alternative system of belief. And a good teacher will cover why they should consider the alternative. Rules of the road? In some ways it can be, yes. I have a real big problem with people who teach and expect blind obedience without question. For example, just because the law says you have the right of way does not mean you should exercise it. As for consequences, I'm not sure there's an alternative. Teach them that actions don't have consequences and raise a sociopath?

Religion used 'correctly' isn't the worst way to raise a moral child. A lot of what was linked earlier models basic parenting direction, minus all the god stuff. We just disagree on whether you need to answer to god, or feel part of some greater good to live life. The French father seems to have failed at parenting, so that is surely not the outcome he wanted. My issue is that religion wasn't the only other way. It's an option. And if presenting children with religion, I think it's unfair not to present that there are many religions, and people who live without it, and work hard not to bias it. I think we're on the same page that religious text is abused and misused to steer people in the wrong direction. But that's one of my core problems with how abuse-prone it is. Especially on weak minded people.

RE: Kim Davis, I'm fine with striking the word marriage from any state law. I won't be surprised when she refuses to sign licenses for civil unions as well.

[ErikS]

8 minutes ago, mattsk8 said:

You just reiterated everything I already said; work on reading comprehension. And if you don't think atheism is a following, you need to wake up. I'll agree that agnostic isn't a following, it has too many loose interpretations that IMO all boil down to someone that may or may not believe in a creator, but really doesn't care either way.

Hold up, tell me how I proved your point.  Religious people have fucked up the world just as much as those without a faith.  Shouldn't it be more like 99% of the world's problems are from those without religion, and 1% from those with it?  We've had 2000 + years to get it, and God to show up.  Where is he?  I'd love to go to heaven and live eternal in pure light and knowledge and clouds and shit.    

And don't do the whole "reading comprehension" bullshit. I am very good read, very good.     

[Fudge_Brownie]

12 minutes ago, mattsk8 said:

And if you don't think atheism is a following, you need to wake up. I'll agree that agnostic isn't a following, it has too many loose interpretations that IMO all boil down to someone that may or may not believe in a creator, but really doesn't care either way.

Atheism is the absence of belief, without a structure, membership base, etc. The commonality they share is the lack of religion. That does not make it a following. But I can see how you get confused when there are groups of more extreme or vocal atheists who form groups under that label. I don't think we have a word for that and probably should. Atheist activists? They're more of an anti-religion group than a group of people who lack belief. 

[mattsk8]

18 minutes ago, ErikS said:

Hold up, tell me how I proved your point.  Religious people have fucked up the world just as much as those without a faith.  Shouldn't it be more like 99% of the world's problems are from those without religion, and 1% from those with it?  We've had 2000 + years to get it, and God to show up.  Where is he?  I'd love to go to heaven and live eternal in pure light and knowledge and clouds and shit.    

And don't do the whole "reading comprehension" bullshit. I am very good read, very good.     

I was referring to what you said about Hitler, I said the same thing, he was an opportunist and used whatever means he could to further his agenda. And my whole point was that I could use the same argument that you and Kevin were trying to use to say religion is evil and is responsible for the deaths of millions.

As to when God will "show up"....

2 Peter 3:3-10; "...you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare."

I think this^^ perfectly answers your question.

[Yellow95]

2 hours ago, ErikS said:

I have a question, what bathroom could God use in North Carolina?

 

Probably the same bathroom Hitler and Woody use.

[mattsk8]

32 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

Atheism is the absence of belief, without a structure, membership base, etc. The commonality they share is the lack of religion. That does not make it a following. But I can see how you get confused when there are groups of more extreme or vocal atheists who form groups under that label. I don't think we have a word for that and probably should. Atheist activists? They're more of an anti-religion group than a group of people who lack belief. 

That's^^ agnostic. And I'm not the confused one; you just tried to say "absence of belief, without a structure, membership base, etc" as a definition for them, then stated that it is confusing when they form groups.

Atheist... a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic... a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[Burn-E]

What Pandora's box have we opened Alden?

It's 23:00 in Bulgaria and I'm wiped so I don't have the brain energy to say more than Alden there is only one way if you want the full truth.  I never said it was impossible to lead a moral life without a belief in God.  What I should have explained though is that doing so is like leaving on a cross country trip without maps (including your gps/smartphone) and a set of glasses to overcome myopia. You can do it.  You can be even extremely effective in changing the world for the better.  But why do it independently when so much more is available that could make you even more effective?  It reminds me precisely of my young toddlers who reach the "I'll do it myself phase."  

Where you see a lack of scientific method I see a lack of understanding how faith is precisely applying the scientific method toward things spiritual.  We learn step by step and I would consider myself a failure if I ever forced a relationship with God on one of my children.  It never works that way.  They have to develop a witness of their own.  I cannot give it to them but I can teach them to find it.  We introduce them to friends of various faiths and encourage interfaith dialogue to understand and respect the values and spiritual beliefs of others.

I think you just lack a contextual model on how this actually works.

And Erik as I said to Alden faith is an experiment that leads to knowledge.  It requires an approach where we lack a perfect knowledge of things some of which  may not be seen but are true.  That does not mean we cannot gain confirmation and a perfect knowledge.  In fact that should be the goal. 

You apply faith on a daily basis and likely do not even realize it.

[Fudge_Brownie]

42 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

I never said it was impossible to lead a moral life without a belief in God.  What I should have explained though is that doing so is like leaving on a cross country trip without maps (including your gps/smartphone) and a set of glasses to overcome myopia. You can do it.  You can be even extremely effective in changing the world for the better.  But why do it independently when so much more is available that could make you even more effective?  It reminds me precisely of my young toddlers who reach the "I'll do it myself phase." 

The BoyScout/Girl Scouts offer similar moral structuring without dependence on god. Granted, there is some link between the BSA and organized religion, but it's fairly easy to ignore and operate without it. I guess my point is that religion provides a purpose, a reason, and a a road map but it's like saying you're going from NYC to LA, use this map, and to do it you have to believe you're guided by god instead of just believing you're on a road trip. AA walks that line too. I've heard it depends on god, others say a purpose is all you need. E.g. your life goal is to be a good friend/family member or good citizen.

2 hours ago, mattsk8 said:

That's^^ agnostic. And I'm not the confused one; you just tried to say "absence of belief, without a structure, membership base, etc" as a definition for them, then stated that it is confusing when they form groups.

Atheist... a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic... a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

"a person who (..) lacks belief in the existence" === "absence of belief". Agnosticism might as well be called 'undecided'.

Being atheist does not mean you are a member of any group, following, or movement. But some atheists might form a group and become active in trying to lobby some idea. That does not mean other atheists are a member of that movement, nor are they followers of ideology. What you're trying to say is akin to saying gearheads are a part of a following because some of them form groups.

[Burn-E]

Guess who the largest single contributor is in both participation and funding to the Boy Scouts of America?

~50% of the troops are Mormon

[ErikS]

6 hours ago, Burn-E said:

Guess who the largest single contributor is in both participation and funding to the Boy Scouts of America?

~50% of the troops are Mormon

I cherish my Boy Scout years. Fire, knives, camping, knots, sticks you can make into weapons, more knives.

[mattsk8]

16 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

"a person who (..) lacks belief in the existence" === "absence of belief". Agnosticism might as well be called 'undecided'.

Being atheist does not mean you are a member of any group, following, or movement. But some atheists might form a group and become active in trying to lobby some idea. That does not mean other atheists are a member of that movement, nor are they followers of ideology. What you're trying to say is akin to saying gearheads are a part of a following because some of them form groups.

We can split hairs over this, but if you read what you just posted, that doesn't make sense either. IMO, to be an "atheist" means you have taken a stand that there absolutely is no creator God or gods; and to be agnostic means you don't know or don't care. FWIW, Ozzy is agnostic (as opposed to the common belief that he's the prince of darkness or a devil worshiper)...

Lyrics to his song "I Don't Know"...

"People look to me and say
Is the end near, when is the final day?
What's the future of mankind?
How do I know, I got left behind

Everyone goes through changes
Looking to find the truth
Don't look at me for answers
Don't ask me
I don't know

How am I supposed to know
Hidden meanings that will never show
Fools and prophets from the past
Life's a stage and we're all in the cast..."

And when I say "atheism is a religion"... obviously you can split hairs over the definition of religion too...

Religion... the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially (but not limited to) a personal God or gods.

Atheists have to believe in a "superhuman controlling power"; call it what you want but you certainly aren't in control of your own destiny, you don't pick and choose whether you live or you die (or even where you end up for that matter). Obviously you can control whether you die, but you didn't pick when you were born and you can't control the circumstances surrounding you. And that is the scramble for them to try to make what they believe (again, atheism is NOT the absence of belief, that's agnosticism) make sense- they know that to make the claim that there is no God, they need to attempt to account for the [obvious] creation that surrounds them. Hence the reason Psalm 14:1 says, "Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God".