The "Mark of the Beast" may very well be an allusion to humanity's addiction to the machine, to material gain. The Whore Babylon, the system that feeds upon resources and in doing so, consumes itself. The same whore which deludes and seduces humans to blindly follow a system which may inevitably wipe out the species.

Some scholars believe the allegory refers to the Roman Empire ,or a similar one.... the NOW-

Personally, I can't wait for some bio-mods, heads-up display retinas, all of it. Plug me into Babylon, baby!!

1) 7 points is a fairly big margin of victory in a presidential race. Look back at previous debate numbers for comparison.
2) An individual opinion of who won a debate is somewhat subjective (there must be criteria, or the term "win" would be meaningless). A scientific poll of who the population at large thinks won the debate is an objective statistic. If we agree that the winner, de facto, is the person ahead on that statistic, then it's objective. Everybody agrees that Romney won the first debate based on that metric. Obama won this one.

>> ^schlub:

#1) 7 points is hardly a landslide victory
#2) Deciding who "won" an argument is totally subjective.
Though, I find it difficult to trust any news media. Especially those as big as CNN, Fox, NBC, etc.. the only reason any of them show results of polls is to influence viewers (i.e. voters). PERIOD. It's not to be informative. It's not to be honest. It's not to be helpful. It's because people blindly follow the lead of others.
"Oh, 75% think X is good? I also think X is good because, well I simply can't form an objective opinion of my own."

#1) 7 points is hardly a landslide victory
#2) Deciding who "won" an argument is totally subjective.

Though, I find it difficult to trust any news media. Especially those as big as CNN, Fox, NBC, etc.. the only reason any of them show results of polls is to influence viewers (i.e. voters). PERIOD. It's not to be informative. It's not to be honest. It's not to be helpful. It's because people blindly follow the lead of others.

"Oh, 75% think X is good? I also think X is good because, well I simply can't form an objective opinion of my own."

remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, I agree people have used the message for personal gain..but your statement confuses me. Since you admit the gospel was the sincere account of the disciples who wrote it (it would have to be for them to martyr themselves over it), and they preached a resurrected, glorified Christ who is the Savior of the world, why don't you believe them?
>> ^enoch:
i think you misunderstood who i was refering to when i spoke of those who sought power perverted christs message.
the disciples didnt and nor did those early christians who suffered and died for their beliefs.
but there have been many who have used christs message to garner power,influence and to line their own pocket.
this can be traced back to only a few 100 yrs after christs death all the way to present day.
if you would like to call that a conspiracy theory,i guess thats your choice but i think the evidence is overwhelming.



remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.
simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

I'm glad you reference your video, which is a perfect example of trying to make illogical moral exceptions for your deity. You accuse my comment of being but "a weak appeal to emotions", but it is actually a succinct argument refuting the video's thesis. But since you clearly cannot understand anything with a hint of subtlety, I will spell it out for you:

The video argues that evil must exist in order for there to be freedom of the will. Fine enough, but that only accounts for the kinds of evils done by humans. The things my comment link to are all examples of evils that are not caused by human actions, but by nature (i.e. "acts of God"), and affect perfectly innocent beings. A child who is born with a genetic disorder that will cause it (and it's parents) to suffer for it's whole life is not a matter of "freedom of the will". Answer me this, with a simple "yes/no" answer please: did the 13-day old baby killed by the family dog deserve it?

I know what you'll say: all of humankind, nay, of creation, is tainted because of "original sin". Remember how we've already discussed this ad nauseum? The concept of original sin relies on the story of Creation and the Fall. I know you literally believe that all of humankind is the offspring of an incestuous clusterfuck that started with Adam and Eve, and was renewed when God killed everyone except one family (incest ftw eh?). Let's put aside how utterly disgusting and impossible that is, and concentrate on how it is also a totally immoral belief. You are saying that God, omni-potent/benevolent, lets every single being be "tainted" with "sin" no matter how they live, and thus deserve anything nature's twisted ways will throw at them? All because ONE person did not blindly follow his orders (although without knowing it was wrong to do so)? Do you even realise what a sick, twisted tyrant of a deity you are defending?

It's clear you didn't understand the argument the video was making, or even your own argument:

The video is outlining Plantigas free will defense which states:

God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will who can make moral choices. Freedom (and, often it is said, the loving relationships which would not be possible without freedom) here is intended to provide a morally sufficient reason for God's allowing evil

The FWD neatly solves the logical problem of evil. Now, you make a point from natural evil, but this also addressed by the FWD. The corruption that came into the world was from originl sin. You say it isn't fair that other people have to suffer for the choices of the prior generation, ignoring that every child is impacted by the choices of their parents, and every other generation before them. God would either have had to start over or prevent all evil, and either choice would eliminate free will. What you miss is that people still have the same opportunities to accept or reject Gods offer of salvation, regardless of original sin. Children who have no capacity to make that choice do receive salvation.

What you're really referring to is the Evidential problem of evil which goes like this:

A) It is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God, would allow gratuitous suffering.
B) Gratuitous suffering does exist.
C) Therefore it is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent exists.

There are a few ways to address this argument. In chaos theory, something small and insignificant, like the flapping of a butterlfys wings, can lead to something large and powerful, like the creation of a hurricane. Likewise, the actions we undertake have a ripple effect that go beyond our finite understandings. In the movie sliding doors, there are two timelines to the story, where the heroine is trying to get on a subway, and either makes it at the last minute, or gets there a few seconds late and misses it. In the timeline where she makes it, she goes on to have a happy and successful life, but is suddenly killed in a car accident. In the other, she endures a lot of suffering but ends up living to a ripe old age.

Only an omniscient God could see how all of this is going to play out. Just because something may seem pointless to us at the time doesn't mean it couldn't turn out to be beneficial later. If God is working towards a greater good, suffering may be part of how that ultimate good is achieved. It's easy to think of examples. Let's say you were going to take a trip to Tibet to climb Mt Everest, but you ended up breaking your leg and cancelling the trip. Later you find out that the plane you were going to take crashed into the ocean. What seemed pointless at the time actually saved your life.

The invasion of Normandy resulted in untold casualities, but served the greater good of serving to end the war. So, it isn't something we can really quantify, whether some suffering is pointless or not. It is also an incomplete sample. You can say yes, when you only consider the suffering in the world, God doesn't seem as likely, but that is part of the picture. When you consider all of the good things, the probability starts to balance out.

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.(Job 1:1) The very first verse says Job was perfect. "But that's the narrator speaking!" you might interject. Fine:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 2:3) This is God speaking, and he follows by saying that "[Satan] movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause", i.e. "Satan made me do it". It is not Dan who is twisting the story, but you. Unless, of course, the Bible is not inerrant, but there's no way you'll accept that, now is there.

I've already addressed all of this. Although some translations render the word as "perfect", it is referring to an outstanding moral character and piety towards God, not sinlessness. This is proven by Jobs own words:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

As far as "the devil made me do it", you fail to understand what is going on. Satan is like a prosecuting attorney in Gods courtroom.

Revelation 12:10

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

Satan laid a false accusation against Job, brought him to trial, and Job was tried and tested and found innocent.

Thankfully for you (and everyone else) he is but a figment of your imagination.

You protest too much, hpqp. Your fervent denial shows you have more than a clue. You accuse me of delusion but you're the one fooling yourself.

>> ^hpqp

@shinyblurry

I would rather ignore you, but I will not stand by your false accusations of me having "nothing to back up my [so-called] posturing and derision", or of "suppressing" what doesn't agree with my alleged "narrow views".

I'm glad you reference your video, which is a perfect example of trying to make illogical moral exceptions for your deity. You accuse my comment of being but "a weak appeal to emotions", but it is actually a succinct argument refuting the video's thesis. But since you clearly cannot understand anything with a hint of subtlety, I will spell it out for you:

The video argues that evil must exist in order for there to be freedom of the will. Fine enough, but that only accounts for the kinds of evils done by humans. The things my comment link to are all examples of evils that are not caused by human actions, but by nature (i.e. "acts of God"), and affect perfectly innocent beings. A child who is born with a genetic disorder that will cause it (and it's parents) to suffer for it's whole life is not a matter of "freedom of the will". Answer me this, with a simple "yes/no" answer please: did the 13-day old baby killed by the family dog deserve it?

I know what you'll say: all of humankind, nay, of creation, is tainted because of "original sin". Remember how we've already discussed this ad nauseum? The concept of original sin relies on the story of Creation and the Fall. I know you literally believe that all of humankind is the offspring of an incestuous clusterfuck that started with Adam and Eve, and was renewed when God killed everyone except one family (incest ftw eh?). Let's put aside how utterly disgusting and impossible that is, and concentrate on how it is also a totally immoral belief. You are saying that God, omni-potent/benevolent, lets every single being be "tainted" with "sin" no matter how they live, and thus deserve anything nature's twisted ways will throw at them? All because ONE person did not blindly follow his orders (although without knowing it was wrong to do so)? Do you even realise what a sick, twisted tyrant of a deity you are defending? Thankfully for you (and everyone else) he is but a figment of your imagination.

Back to Job; since you like Bible quotes so much, here's one:

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.(Job 1:1) The very first verse says Job was perfect. "But that's the narrator speaking!" you might interject. Fine:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 2:3) This is God speaking, and he follows by saying that "[Satan] movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause", i.e. "Satan made me do it". It is not Dan who is twisting the story, but you. Unless, of course, the Bible is not inerrant, but there's no way you'll accept that, now is there.

http://videosift.com/video/Herman-Cains-9-9-9-plan-Occupy-Wall-Street

@~1:15 "If you take a look at a wealthy person, ALL of the money that is earned... is ultimately going to be spent."

This trickles down how? Be either spending/investing in consumer goods or publicly traded ventures/securities? That's such a weak correlation and yet he makes it sound like it's a foregone conclusion. What about overseas tax shelters and foreign investments? What about the knee-jerk reaction of Wall Street investors to see stock and hold onto cash when the market dips? He does not provide a complete explanation.

. . .


@~2:30 "That money is used to grow the economy, to produce goods, to provide services, to create jobs... they're not using it to benefit themselves, they're using it to benefit society."

Sarcasm -> So when rich people buy things, they aren't doing enjoying it. That's why we say "money can't buy happiness." When they buy that 12th sports car, they're taking on that hardship for their country. Weep. <- end sarcasm. The rest of us need to buy stuff too, and as wages for the middle and lower income majority stagnate or worse, the top tier has enjoyed a boom.
. . .

@~4:10 "Any money that is diverted from savings [read as equities and bond investments in the domestic market] to government is money that would have been used to produce private sector jobs and grow the economy and instead the money goes to the government."

He states that liberals miss the bigger picture when they argue that the top should pay more taxes. He goes on here to describe the government is a black hole, where all taxes are simply wasted. What about social security, medicare and the damn debt? Honestly, it astounds me that he doesn't make the connection between the generally accepted idea that the debt needs to be paid but instead of taxing from more from the most successful individuals, he seems to side with the Republican fiscal policy of accomplishing this through budget cuts alone. This is a contributing factor to global perception America's quality of life: it doesn't even make the top 10 anymore in the Nation Ranking Quality of Life Index.

. . .

@~10:30 "The protesters [OWS] should be protesting the White House. Capital Hill... That's what's failed them. It's not Captialism, but the lack of Capitalism."

So the government is too big, and we need to cut spending and stop over regulating so Capitalism can frolic freely in the forest. Sounds so me like hasty Obama blaming. I think the mortgage-backed securities practices and resulting global crisis are a perfect example of unfettered Capitalism at work. Republicans can't have it both ways, no matter how matter-of-fact you say it. This fallacy is a major sticking point for me and a major contributor to my personal ideological opposition to the Republican viewpoint. All allegations of racism aside, ignoring the shocking gun toting and violent rhetoric of hard-line Tea Party demonstrators, saving all the ridiculous comments made by the GOP candidates recently, I just see the party trying to hide their allegiance to corporations. They do this by forming ludicrous allusions to "the State-run death camps" and distracting people from the real issue of wealth disparity by talking about inflammatory topics like "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

I don't even blindly follow the Democratic dogma. They can't come out of this squeaky clean either. I'd wager they're just about as pampered and subsequently influenced by lobbyists as their Republican counterparts, although they seem to maintain their "just and true, pro-underdog" image to a large extent. I hope OWS results in the end of this corporate crony-ism.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Keep sucking that corporate cock. Keep sucking with all your heart and all your mind. Close your eyes and keep sucking it until you are filled up with the warm and sticky spurt of freedom. You are not a whore. You are not a dupe. You are a self made rugged individualist. Breathe in. You are not blindly following a fantastical doctrine. You have come to these conclusions on your own. Breathe out. You are not a sucker. You are a hero. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe out. You are the living embodiment of liberty. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded for your loyalty. Breathe out. One day you will be rewarded. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded. Breath in. One day you will be rewarded with spurt. Breathe out. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are an champion. Breathe out. You are ayn champion. Breathe in. Champion. Breathe... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and... spurt.
I'm spent.
>> ^marbles:
"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"
I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.
The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.



LOL nice. That's the best you got?

You should focus more on making rational arguments instead of trying to attack those you disagree with.

Keep sucking that corporate cock. Keep sucking with all your heart and all your mind. Close your eyes and keep sucking it until you are filled up with the warm and sticky spurt of freedom. You are not a whore. You are not a dupe. You are a self made rugged individualist. Breathe in. You are not blindly following a fantastical doctrine. You have come to these conclusions on your own. Breathe out. You are not a sucker. You are a hero. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe out. You are the living embodiment of liberty. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded for your loyalty. Breathe out. One day you will be rewarded. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded. Breath in. One day you will be rewarded with spurt. Breathe out. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are an champion. Breathe out. You are ayn champion. Breathe in. Champion. Breathe... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and... spurt.

I'm spent.

>> ^marbles:

"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"
I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.
The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.

I enjoyed the video, it has a great message, however his line of argument was actually off track in my opinion. The cognitive dissonance doesn't involve "I did something stupid" vs "I'm a smart person" - it goes deeper than that. There is a straight suspension of rational thought, most likely due to them wanting to believe this figure that they to admire (for a variety of reasons) knows something that they don't.

So my argument would be that they don't even register that they've done something stupid because before they even reached that mental checkpoint they have made the justification that because some part of their psyche needed what this person offered, they would go to any lengths to satisfy the demands of said person. So it's not about right and wrong any more, it's about providing themselves with mental comfort. The justifications probably came years earlier when they failed to get into grad school, or their boyfriend dumped them and told them they were stupid, so they began to gradually build up a mechanism by which they could go through life without feeling like they had to take responsibility when something went wrong - placing their faith in others. That way, when something bad does happen, it's not their fault.

Using this argument, one could see how if they had placed their faith in someone previously (e.g. something good happened after they prayed), then it would be a good idea to continue that behavior because more good things might happen. So in a sense, the decision to blindly follow someone is actually a logical progression of previous experience. It's just unfortunate that they ignore a whole bunch of stuff that a 'normal' person wouldn't.

PS
I may or may not have just written this to justify why the pig slaughter vid shouldn't have been part of his argument... because I eat meat.

PPS
However, if you just read that last sentence and thought to yourself, "oh crap, maybe his argument is invalid, it's going to be a pain rereading it and deciding for myself if it's valid" then congratulations, you just experienced a similar feeling to what drives certain individuals to try to make life easier on themselves by placing their faith in a person who postures themselves as a leader (and kind of verified my argument).

Gah, now I'm playing mindgames with myself.

Thoughts?

I believe religionists are lazy thinkers who simply believe because it's the easy way out, and they're afraid to face the ugliness of what may well be the truth about life. It's a lot easier to say "oh that sounds like a good idea, I'll just believe in that," because it means that you don't have to put any effort into seeking answers for yourself. Instead, you blindly follow out of fear, ignorance, and laziness.


- Edit -
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
Meh.
If you're going to hold the argument that there's grey area on the existence of God you might as well throw everything out the window.
Unicorns, ghosts, alien cattle mutilation, flying spaghetti monster, all are equally unprovable, therefore equally likely as any deity.
Likewise there are an infinity of permutations on what a "God" might be. Then the odds of a god existing are Infinity:1 or, to put it another way, the mathematical chance is 0.
Ergo God does not exist. Anyone arguing that he DOES exist, or that it's indeterminate is wrong. Period.

Too bad evolution made us predisposed to belief and faith. It is sad it is a natural instinct with as much gravity as sex, almost...


So, wait, you're being serious? O.o You really think religion is a result of natural instinct?

Hey again! First off, thanks so much for taking the time to reply even though things are busy for you in RL--I totally understand how that is and hope everything is going fine.

Reading over your post, it occurred to me that there are actually some things we agree on. One thing, for instance, that I think we agree on is that dogma is very, very bad. Blindly following others is never going to lead to a good situation. Forcing others to do things "because that's the way we've always done it" is unlikely to give good results either.

Since I'm pretty sure we agree on this point, let's turn to the point we disagree on. As you said, "does religion bring the good stuff?" The answer to this question I think comes partly from how we're defining religion. If we're going to define religion very narrowly as dogma--a set of prescriptive rules about behavior and practice that everyone must follow--then clearly we answered the question in the last paragraph. Dogma isn't going to bring the good stuff, no. I'm absolutely with you on that.

However, I find such a definition of religion (i.e. religion = dogma) exceedingly narrow and frankly unrealistic. When you look at churches, or temples, or synagogues, or covens, or whatever you see that religion is much more than a set of prescribed rules. All religions are composed of people, and these people interact in very complex ways with both each other, with the religion's leadership, and with whatever religious texts are used. Religion to me, then, is a complex socio-cultural phenomenon. Looking at most churches in the U.S., for example, I don't see a lot of people blindly following the Bible, nor do I see the church leadership encouraging people to blindly follow the Bible (otherwise, I think the death rate from stonings in the U.S. would be much higher than it actually is). What I do see are people coming together to help themselves, help each other, and help their communities, using the Bible as a guide (note I said guide here--I know very few people who base their decisions solely on their religious text; also I chose Christianity for this example, but really you could substitute the religion of your choice there).

Based on these observations, I'm therefore going to quote Daisaku Ikeda, a prominent Buddhist leader. He once said, "Religion exists to serve people; people do not exist to serve religion." My definition of religion therefore is a set of practices that help us grow beyond our own selfish tendencies and serve a greater good. I personally find it irrelevant whether the practices are man-made or divinely inspired so long as they get people to behave more compassionately to each other. To me, that's religion. Anyone who is acting without compassion towards another human being is not following the teachings of their own religion. And any organization that preaches hatred or violence should not be considered a religion at all. If you look at the Bible, or the Koran, or the Buddhist sutras, the overarching message you see is one of love for fellow humankind: the Golden Rule. That is religion and that is what people should be practicing.

Clearly, therefore, I think proper religious practice does bring the good stuff. But can religious practice bring the bad stuff too? Yeah. I'm not denying that. When people choose not to think critically for themselves there will always be someone willing to come along and exploit them. I also think many religious organizations have organized themselves in such a way as to, as you said, be a drain on society and hide behind the banner of religion while carrying out atrocious crimes. But as I said above, I don't really consider the people doing those things as being religious or representing "religion" per se. And as we've talked about in previous posts, I don't think that the existence of such corrupt organizations are entirely religion's fault. If people weren't blindly following their preacher, they'd be blindly following the local village idiot, or blindly their President (or, as in the case of George W. Bush, both). My view on this is that power has a tendency to corrupt; that organizations (whether they be religions, corporations, or nation-states) have a tendency to demand blind obedience; and that there are many people who will willing close their eyes and follow others blindly in order to feel even the smallest sense of security.

In your post, you accused me of downplaying the bad stuff, but I'm going to turn that argument around and suggest that you are in fact downplaying the good stuff that religion has to offer. For every example that you might choose to offer, say the Inquisition or the 9/11 terror attacks, that supposedly show why religion needs to go I can offer you a historical counter-example like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi as to why religion is crucially important. I think such arguments based on history would end in a draw. But let's go beyond historical arguments. Let's talk about the effect of ordinary people's lives--getting people to donate to charity, volunteer in their communities, help and support each other. What about the drug addicts who find that religion gives them the strength they need to break their addiction, or the prisoners who use the support system religion affords to turn their lives around? Religion inspires ordinary people to lead better, more positive lives much more often than it inspires people to go out and, say, shoot abortion doctors. The problem is, the good stories are too mundane don't make the evening news, so mostly they are anecdotal. The empirical evidence we do have, though, shows religious people live longer, happier, and healthier lives overall.

Sorry for the long post. To sum things up, I do believe that the world needs more religion as I've defined it above. It sounds to me like your main problem with religion is in fact with organized religion and its tendency to steer towards dogma and blind obedience. I actually share your feelings to some extent--as I said above, if an organization is promoting intolerance or hatred, or is imposing its will by force then I think certainly it should be dealt with swiftly and critically. If there's one thing I hope you take away from our discussions on this topic, I suppose it is that religion as a concept is much larger than just organized religion; that it can be immensely healing and an immensely beneficial force in the world. And I would really hope that you would never dismiss someone's views because they happen to be religious. It seems to me that one of the biggest problems facing the world today is that people don't listen to each other--we don't even make the effort to see the other person's point of view.

I, for my part, throughout this dialogue have tried to put myself in your shoes and see things as you do. My goal is not to make you a "religious" person, but simply, I suppose, to further the dialogue a bit and even clarify my own thoughts on the matter by putting them down in words. Thanks for being a willing discussion partner in the process.

Hi again, I know its been some time, but I've been really busy with my real-life stuff lately, but I wanted to give a reply to your last reply. Since your post was somewhat longish, I've extracted some quotes, but keep in mind I have read and considered your entire text.

"You seem to blame religion for people's tendencies to want simple answers and to blindly follow authority, but I blame human nature for that."

Well, let me put it this way: I blame human nature for the existence of religion

"I think you'd see a lot more of the positive things that religion can bring to both individuals and society(...) If believing in something supernatural helps people take that message to heart, I'm not convinced it is such a bad thing."
Does religion really "bring" the good stuff, tho? Thats what I'm questioning, really. God would have to have been pretty darn sadistic to make more than one religion, so i think we can agree that atleast all except one religion is manmade. It is the thinking apes first and (in my opinion) worst attempt at understanding, and putting in order, the world around them. Morality is also a human construct, so is science, so is money, so is reason, community, logic, laws, politics etc. Its all man-made, and theres nothing wrong with man-made constructs, or, at least, there doesnt have to be. One of the problems of religion tho, is that it acts like a parasite on all these other constructs and concepts, and you seem eager to give it as much credit as possible whenever something goes right, and exempt it from any blame whenever something goes wrong. Take its affiliation with politics, for instance, and compare it to philosophy. How many advances in politics have been made because of religion, how often has religion been the deciding factor for GOOD whenever there is a shift in the moral zeitgeist.

No, the vast majority religious people are not blind dogmatists, but thats hardly anything religion should get credit for, is it? It's not the ayatollahs or the priests or the bibles or the qurans that are pushing to make people think for themselves, is it? Why should it? after all, religion is born out of revelation and dogma, and it depends on FAITH for it's survival. Its very existence depends on its followers ability to restrain their use of critical thinking.

The fact that religion can make otherwise extremely smart people believe claims that are indistinguishable to fairytales is yet another example of how religion manages to make exceptions for itself, by making it acceptible behaviour to brainwash children and excluding itself from rational discourse. It then goes on to hijack morality, compassion and love to claim as its own, while accepting no blame for the countless times it has done nothing but making a mockery out of all such concepts.

The truth is that we can do fine without religion. in fact, strike that, we can do better without religion, and history is a testament to this fact. Religion has proved to be an utterly unreliable source for knowledge about everything:

Creationists are mad to take its claims about nature and history seriously
Literalists are mad to take its claims about morality and law seriously
Conservatives are mad to take its claims about sexuality and abortion seriously
Moderates are mad to cherrypick and distort its claims about nature, history,morality,law,sexuality and abortion, And I would be mad to take them seriously

>> ^SDGundamX:

Except then you'd still have the nationalist extremists, the political party extremists, the ethnic/tribal extremists, and all the other extremists out there too. Going to ban nations next? How about political parties? Ethnicities too? Religion doesn't cause extremism anymore than those other things do. Religion is neither the cause of nor an effect of stupidity. You said it yourself--certain people target other less educated people and use them to further their own ends. It's happened since the dawn of humankind. In the U.S. we call it "the political process." I don't see how banishing religion is going to solve that problem. I think education and more open communication among all people will help though.
>> ^ForgedReality:

This is part of the reason why I think all religion needs to be abolished. It's time we grew out of childish fancies, but we just have too many stupid idiots on the planet still. We haven't figured out how to evolve that out of our DNA yet. Until people learn to think for themselves, we will always have religious extremists, and idiot presidents.


True. But look at all the religious idiots blindly following other religious idiots simply because they have that one thing in common. I think it would be a step in the right direction, not to say that it would cure all ails.