>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward


Yeah, except Romney is a thoroughly unlikeable individual. He's about as slimy as they come right now, gives me the creeps seeing him speak. He reminds me of the evangelical priests you see on TV, and if satan walks the earth....he's one or all of those guys.

God provides the evidence; that's what I mean about being able to empirically verify my claim.
No, that's not empirical evidence in anyone's definition of it... not one bit. You 'invited him in', you 'get some feeling'... that's not proof, that's you feeling stuff. Not empirical evidence.

It is exactly the definition. If it is untrue, nothing will happen. If it is true, God will come into your life and change you. That is empirical verification. It isn't "some feeling". It is a supernatural encounter with God which will utterly transform your life. You're simply arguing from ignorance, here.

So no comment on what Penn said?
Yeah, he has a view that if you really believe in the bible and you really believe that people will spend eternity in damnation if they don't repent. If you really believe that. Then it is upon you to actually try to save people from that fate. He felt that this man did that for him out of kindness and did it with a kind heart.

Now I bet (in fact I'm sure he's talked about such things) his views on people telling others that they're horrible people for being gay, that they are an abomination, that they should never be able to be married (which is a man made construct, nothing to do with a 'god')... and for people who do that in a way which makes others uncomfortable. I bet he has a problem with that.

I think his point was that this man believed what he does, this man felt that Teller deserved to 'be saved' and tried to help him be saved in a really NICE way. He didn't badger him, he didn't verbally attack him as being godless... he just gave him a gift that he hoped would help him find 'his truth'.

Now it won't at all, Teller will never become religious, but he saw the man came from a good place.

What you do here is entirely different. Any video on evolution or science or anything that goes against your world view is shat on by you. That's abusive, that's combative, that's not trying to save people.

And you didn't mention why you posted a version of the video with him reiterating that he's an atheist rather than the full one.
His point was, if you believe that Jesus is God, and His words are true, you are going to tell people the gospel. He may agree or disagree with how a particular person may do that; that isn't the point. Jesus told people flat out what was right and wrong, He talked about hell, and He told people the truth. There are many biblical examples of sharing the gospel, and I am in line with them.

It's amazing though, as you get through insulting me throughout the thread, that you are going to say I am abusive and combative because I post my opinions on science videos. That's kind of a joke, I think. I can't post anywhere or say anything without getting flak from the usual suspects. It doesn't matter what it is. Perhaps you prefer an echo-chamber where everyone agrees with you all the time, but suprise, it's a diverse world out there and a diversity of viewpoints.

I didn't mention why I posted the shorter video because there was no conspiracy. That's the video I initially found, I figured shorter was better than longer, and I posted it. It turns out that the longer one was posted on here already, so even if I had wanted to, I couldn't have posted it. Also, don't say Penn will never give his life to Jesus Christ. I believe that he will. If he is thoughtful enough to understand evangelism from the chistian viewpoint, somewhere in his heart he is open to knowing God. God can change a heart in the blink of an eye.

>> ^spoco2:

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.

Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:

1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?

2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?

4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?

5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?

7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?

>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

Actually bob, the most dangerous womb to be in is in a religious person's womb

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Source

And it's even a pro-life website. So even by their own admission, religious people are having the most abortions. Why should religious influence be taken seriously AT ALL when you guys can't even follow your own rules? It's the same old religious double standard. It's OK for ME to have an abortion, but not YOU!

This idea of "a wall of seperation" of church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist association while he was in France. It has been misinterpreted in recent times as a principle of exclusion of religion from government, but is this really what Jefferson intended? If he did, you might want to ask yourself why Jefferson attended church every sunday..in the house of representitives. You might want to ask why Jefferson closed presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ", or why he negotiated treaties that used federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the indians. You also might want to ask why public education was teaching the scripture in schools, and why nearly every state had its own church..and why many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

This idea of "freedom from religion" has no basis in history, or in the intentions of our founders. The secular community apparently feels that they can move in to this house that Christianity built and evict the ones who built it. It would be a bit like you inviting me to stay at your house and then I tell you that I am going to redecorate it the way I please and would you please stay in your room and never come out again.

Consider the words of William Rehnquist in a supreme court ruling about this issue:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts


>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

The answer is the evangelical millenialist crackpots in the USA.

This guy is full of false dichotomies and pretension. First, the whole "ritual" and "community" things are not specific to religion. Look at the art world, school, family life: all full of ritual. And the point about community has already been made above. Second, no one will look down on an atheist who likes aspects of culture and human thought/production linked to religion, be they architectural, textual or other.

He starts with the premise that it's the norm to know that believing in deities is non-sense and no-one does, and those who do do no harm. Well bullocks. The reason people are loud about arguing against superstitious beliefs is because they have dire consequences, especially when they are indoctrinated into vulnerable child minds who cannot oppose them (because not testable nor evidence-based). And that is a danger to humanity, period.

As for thinking about things, as it said above, education should take the place of giving people knowledge and material to be in awe of (e.g. anything by Carl Sagan) and philosophise about. The only reason the evangelicals/pentacostalists are convincing is because they are preaching to a crowd of indoctrinated sheep, making a conscious effort to bypass any critical thought. I think it would be terrible to "preach" that Shakespeare is wonderful. No. Live it. Learn to appreciate it critically. Or dislike it, but know why. And no, propaganda is never good. It is trying to imprint a message onto you without you questioning. No matter how "good" a message is, it should be up to the receiver to critically receive it, and accept/reject it based on their critical appraisal thereof.

Ugh, this guy annoyed me.

>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.


I used Dawkins as an example simply because he has the reputation of being the "most strident fundamentalist atheist" (whatever that is). In fact, he actually attempts to answer your question in the God Delusion. You'll have to read it for the full explanation but (paraphrasing here) it boils down to the idea that religion evolved as a combination of a few evolutionary traits, such as believing your parents and ascribing intent to occurrences. There's a whole chapter on the roots of religion there (from an evolutionary point of view), and it is explained far better than I could here.

I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.

But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.

Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.

Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>> ^bareboards2:

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.
Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.
I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.
The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.
I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.
But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.
Just stay out of the laws of the land.
That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.
And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

I keep making the same comment on videos about religion and no fundamentalist atheist has intelligently responded to my point.

Humans have evolved with the need for religion, some portion of humanity. It has survived the evolutionary process. THEREFORE there must be some purpose or use for it, for some portion of humanity.

I find it galling in the extreme to read over and over again the chastisements of atheists dismissing a belief in God as being stupid and irrational.

The human need and ability to create the divine MUST HAVE AN EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE. Scorning and scolding people about an ingrained, evolutionarily chosen trait is ignorant and rude and no different from evangelicals, those who have that trait in spades, forcing their beliefs onto others.

I do not believe in an intelligent force in the universe, guiding everything. The doctrines and specific myths told by religions ... I personally do not understand how folks can believe these things to be factually true.

But millions do. Millions have. There must be some need for it and it is NOT MY PLACE to tell someone else to abandon something that gives structure and solace.

Just stay out of the laws of the land.

That is why I like this vid so much. It shows the human need for ... something... without it being doctrinaire.

And Richard Dawkins isn't the only atheist in the world. He is just a loud one, @ChaosEngine.

>> ^bareboards2:

philosophy
I love this talk. I find that some atheists can be just as dogmatic and invasive in imposing their point of view as any evangelical. This guy has it nailed.


There were some interesting ideas, but mostly I wasn't impressed.

He opens by talking about the "kind of atheist that likes christmas carols". So, for example, Richard Dawkins?

He then talks about how we can use the "tools of religion" to make our lives better. He's essentially talking about 2 things, community and indoctrination.

Community, I think we can all agree happens easily without religion. Just look at this site. For a more real world example, last years earthquake in my home town saw groups of people coming together to dig out liquefaction from each others houses.

Indoctrination, on the other hand, I can live without.

As for the sense of mysticism or wonder, again that's not an issue I worry about. On this site alone there are hundreds of videos that talk about a secular sense of wonder about the universe (pretty much anything with Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Brian Cox). At a more local level, that "sense of belonging to something bigger" comes back to community for me. Whether that's a group of friends, a city trying to rebuild itself, or even in the larger sense that we all inhabit the same rock flying through space.

*philosophy

I love this talk. I find that some atheists can be just as dogmatic and invasive in imposing their point of view as any evangelical. This guy has it nailed.

The fact that he doesn't realise that his "faith" was instilled - ie, brainwashing- shows how successful brainwashing can be. Kids who are sent to these places should be removed from their parents, it is child abuse. These evangelical monsters must be stopped. How many children have been robbed of their innocence (by ALL faiths) and left filled with terrible fear of a god they are COMMANDED to love? Educate the children, allow them to make up their own minds, and if, one day, they need the crutch of a bronze age myth, they can choose their own.

Phenomena such as Faith Healing, Glossolalia and Snake Handling existed in US christian movements as early as the 1800's. It seems like the video you replied with is more like one christian group trying to distance itself to the embarrassment that is evangelicals, and it's easy to rope in foreign adaptations of Pentecostalism to use as evidence.

Pentecostalism itself is a foreign adaption which is based on a heresay known as montanism (now neo-montanism). It got its start in the early 1800's by the "Irvingites", who followed an outcast pastor teaching heretical christology doctrines. The father of the modern movement (early 1900s), John Alexander Dowie, believed he was the prophet Elijah and the first restored apostle to the church. It also has links with free masonry.

Ultimately your embed is just commentary on internal strife in an overall larger movement that I don't care about, and is a distraction from the real issue. What all of these have in common is the fact that human beings have a fundamental inability to avoid large scale social misdirection, and that is observable through every aspect of our existence regardless of culture, religion, social structure, lifestyle, sports team, et al.

The embed is about the false spirit which has invaded the church, which is the same spirit working in the video above. It is highlighting the abberant behavior that people who don't know much about Christianity assume is normal for Christians. This is due to the proliferation of the pentecostal and charismatic churches. This is not a judgement against pentecostals or charismatics, it is simply to say that this spirit of disorder is not from God.

Yes, there is a herd mentality, which is why the bible tells us to discern all things. Human beings are fundementally vulnerable to spiritual deception. Only God can protect us from this delusion that society is steeped in.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you that the obsession over materialism, commercialism and sexuality as exploited by modern media, such as the original video portrays, is in many ways a poison to the human condition, there are many worse examples of this in every society. Least of which would be this exact scenario played out in Western culture when a pop-star pays a charity visit to support their government sanctioned killers in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Evil doesn't often come dressed in red skin and armed with pitchforks. Evil can be banal and mundane, and it will usually come camouflaged as something good. I don't condemn the good deed, but I think you have to admit there is something profoundly disturbing about seeing grown men, soldiers no less, lose their minds as if someone flipped a switch. And yes, there are worse things, but that isn't really the point. I was pointing out the strings so someone might notice the puppeteer.

I really feel like you come here to show other people your belief as a way to convince yourself. Having a personal crusade to publicly disclaim everything that you judge as contradicting to the beliefs you were raised with makes it easy to put the doubt you have about your own faith out of mind.

I grew up without any religion in my life. I was formally agnostic, and so I understand your perspective. You don't see any evidence of a spirit, and none of it adds up in your mind. To you it's all some kind of mass delusion or hysteria. That's what I used to think until God showed me He is very real, and very much involved in what is going on on Planet Earth. I found that material existence is but a veil to a much larger reality. I pray that God will give you that experience as well, and show you that Jesus loves you, and that He is the way, the truth and the life. I am not here to prove something, I am here to do the will of God and tell you that Jesus died for your sins so you can be reconciled to God and have eternal life. I am here to warn you that the wages of sin is death, and that if you die in your sins without Gods pardon, you face Gods judgement, and hell. I say these things out of love, because I care about what happens to you.

PS - have you ever seen Japanese tentacle porn?

Hell vomited up that garbage, there is no doubt. I find though that true corruption comes by 1000 cuts. By the time a child is six years old, they will have spent more time in front of the Television/media than they will have spent quality time with their dads in a whole lifetime. That is what is really disturbing, and no one is standing in the gap. Modern parenting is putting your kid in front of a TV and giving them whatever the TV programs them to ask for. Sadly, this is just scratching the surface.

>> ^artician