the best relationships are the ones where you aren't punished for thought crimes :3

also, in my experience there isn't anything you can tell somebody to fix their trust/jealousy issues.

I can't say what it's like to be a parent, but I can say what it's like to have been a teenage kid.

You complain about everything. Your parents. Your school. Your friends. Everything that doesn't go your way in your life seems like an unprecedented tragedy of galactic proportions. You're emotional -- when you're happy you're freakin' giddy, and when you're mad all sense of proportion goes out the window, and you let fly with everything you've got.

I'm old enough now to see why that's hard for anyone to handle. I'm old enough now to realize a lot of it was petty childishness, and most of the rest was the kinds of overwrought emotional responses that seem to be common to most teenagers.

Like I've said, I don't know what it's like being a parent, but I'm sure the bit where she said she wouldn't be there to take care of him when he's old probably hurt him a lot more than he's willing to admit. And I'm just as sure she doesn't really mean it.

Growing up isn't easy. I can honestly say I think the first 15 years of my life were a lot harder than the last 15 years of my life. But it's a big adjustment going from complete dependency to being independent. It's a big adjustment going from having your life strictly controlled by someone who knows you and loves you, to going out into a world that's controlled by people who are indifferent, uncompromising and mechanical with how they'll impose limits on you.

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here, and say that it seems unlikely to me her behavior improve because of this. His daughter will not be complaining less. His daughter will not be swearing less. I wouldn't even be surprised if she fights back, stops doing chores, starts swearing to her dad's face, or maybe even runs away.

Maybe I'm just projecting my own childhood onto other people, but that's how I reacted when my parents tried to ground me for thought crimes.

I guess it's a little dangerous letting your kids read 1984 when they're teenagers. The world of Big Brother and your life as a teenager start seeming scarily similar.

Oh critics say something...well they must be right...make crimes harder to prosecute...yeah must be true. Please present some evidence for your claims.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-29/local/me-25875_1_hate-crime-cases

Also I disagree it's Orwellian unless it's the powerful subjugating the weak with thought crimes. When it's a law for protecting the weak and minorities, I don't agree. Just doesn't make sense unless the scales are balanced.

What's more powerful than government and its badly written, randomly-enforced laws?


----

Here is the simplest way I can think of to describe it. @quantumushroom

Say some teenagers spray paint their names on one side of a Mosque and a neo-nazi group spray paints 'death to all Muslims' on the other side. Is there a difference between these crimes? Is there a difference in intent? Absolutely. The teenagers have committed vandalism. The neo-nazis have committed both vandalism and a targeted act of terrorism against a group of people.

Attacking someone because of their sexual orientation is both battery and a calculated act of terrorism against a group of people.

You don't have to agree with it, but do you at least get the distinction?

I'm aware of the difference, however, if someone hands out flyers and holds a sign saying "Exterminate all left-handed albinos", that is protected speech. What the 'hate crime' lobby is saying is, if the same individual spray paints this message on a wall that is not his property, he is to be punished both for vandalism AND the message; the latter would then be punishment of thoughtcrime.

---

The idea is that the crime is politically motivated. It is their status within society that is being targeted not themselves as individuals. What makes it a hate crime is the likelihood of it triggering others to do the same in a way that a non-politically motivated instance of crime would not.

You are smart enough to know this already QM.

Per my previous excellent examples, we can only make assumptions as to the intent of a criminal. Do you seriously think some violent teenaged punk targeting a weaker target has political motivations? How do you prove it? You cannot. A much more plausible but equally unknowable motive is that this school does not swiftly punish offenders for committing acts of violence.


Changing tracks slightly, this video is also an excellent example of how you cannot expect government to save your bacon and watch over you all the time. Every feminine-acting boy--indeed, every picked-on youth--must decide for himself at some point, though he may not like training, whether it would be worthwhile to learn rudimentary boxing or martial arts, or at the very least, how to take a punch. Krav maga on youtube: 25K videos.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Orwellian "hate crimes" are total bullsh1te. Does it matter why some thug attacks an innocent? Maybe he hated the logo on the victim's jacket. Maybe earlier he saw the victim had a large amount of cash and attacked him to steal it under the guise of bullying. Not only are hate crimes unconstitutional, as critics point out, they make crimes harder to prosecute.
Punish the crime, not what is the assumed motive.


Oh critics say something...well they must be right...make crimes harder to prosecute...yeah must be true. Please present some evidence for your claims.

Also I disagree it's Orwellian unless it's the powerful subjugating the weak with thought crimes. When it's a law for protecting the weak and minorities, I don't agree. Just doesn't make sense unless the scales are balanced.

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

I don't know what I would or wouldn't do regarding Adam and Eve. I'm not God, and have no idea what He was weighing on the scales. What I am trying to get you to understand is that although we are born in a corrupted world, because of Adam and Eve, we all still have the same chance as Adam and Eve to get it right. So, although we are born in a less ideal world than the paradise they had, we still have a chance which is equal to the pre-fall state of things. We're all still presented with the same choice He offered them, to obey His law, or to try it our own way, with the exact same consequences.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

How do you propose that criminals should be handled? Should they get a good talking to and sign a paper promising never to do it again? How should a murder be handled, for instance, if someone is clearly guilty?

The sins that you will stand before God for will be your own. You haven't been punished yet, and it won't be for the crimes of Adam, it will be for the crimes of hpqp.

Now there hasn't been a human being who has ever lived who has not broken Gods laws. That isn't the point. It is not so much sinners that get punished, it is unrepentant sinners who love evil who get punished. God forgives sins, but not wicked people. Your crime isn't not loving God so much as it is loving evil more than God. You see, if you knew who God was you would understand that all the good things that have happened in your life came from Him. You don't know how God loves you, or the ways He has shown it to you. You only see this sad characterization you have of God from your uninformed ideas about who He is supposed to be. You've never understand your practical, experiential relationship with Him because you are spiritually blind. God takes care of everyone, the good and the bad. Every good gift is from the Father of lights. You actually do have love for God but you give the credit to other things.

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

God doesn't create rules to boss His creatures around. If God wanted to rule over His creatures in that way, He would be sitting on a throne on Earth right now and we'd all be groveling before Him. He creates rules because He knows good and evil. He knows which behaviors lead to death and corruption, and which lead to life and perfection. The rules are for our benefit.

Gods rules aren't hard to live by. Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, dont worship other gods, dont make idols, dont lust, dont covet, dont blasphemy and honor your mother and father. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Here is the one you have a problem with: Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your spirit and all your strength.

What you hate about God is His authority. You enjoy breaking some of those commandments and you resent that you would ever be held accountable for doing so. You enjoy your autonomy to sin. So you refuse to follow that greatest commandment, to love God. You have all sorts of excuses why not, but the real reason is, you don't want to stop living life the way you do. You love your sin more than the truth. So you hate God and work dilligently to suppress the truth. Look at your profile on this site..a lot of your work is anti-religious, and specifically anti-christian.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

I believe your question centered on the blasphemy challenge, that since you made a little video saying you denied the Holy Spirit that you had committed the unforgivable sin and could never be saved. That's what I was disputing.

At the time, I thought blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was simply rejecting the Holy Spirit by denying Christ while you were a Christian. Since then, I have found that isn't the case. I have frequently sensed the presence of the Spirit in ex-christians, which confused me for a bit until I realized that although they were done with Christ, Christ wasn't done with them. Meaning, if you ever had the Spirit, nothing that you do will necessarily force Him to leave. Basically, when you believe in Jesus, you receive eternal life, not conditional life, so you could not commit an eternal sin.. The concensus is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn't possible today, that it was only possible specifically against Jesus Himself, when people suggested His power came from demons.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?

I don't believe in predestination for all believers, although I do believe God does have plans for specific people, like His prophets for example.

Also, what is this nonsense of God approving of serial child rape? That is patently false. As far as murder, God has used people to execute His sovereign will. That isn't murder. Under the law, the penalty of sin is death. So, His judgement was lawful.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry
Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.
And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:
1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.
2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?
3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."
3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.
4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.
5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?
Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif"> )
As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:
Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.
p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

@shinyblurry

Can you really blame me for being suspicious that a probie named "shinyblurry", posting a shiny and blurry video with a title stating so seriously "God DOES exist!", but which contained nothing but a pathetic argument from personal experience, was not trying to stir the pot (of a rather atheistic-leaning site) in a trollish manner? But you're right, you're not a troll, you're a fundagelical. I'm not sure which one is less flattering.

And no, there really is no debating you intelligently. Just look at your answer to my questions above:

1. You didn't answer whether you'd condemn someone's children for their parents' crime. All you did was spout the usual christian creed about fall/redemption, with which I am perfectly familiar.

2. You make numerous assumptions about me, and then base your sorry excuse for an argument on them. No, I'm NOT fine with "humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans", and even if I was, it is nothing like an all-powerful, supposedly all-benevolent being punishing all humanity for the "crime" of two people (and for eternity on top of it). And how in hell can you equate "serious crimes" (I imagine mass murder or serial child rape... oh wait, God condones those), with not loving and believing in a hypothetic being? Thought crime much?

3. Your "Think about it this way" paragraph is a long convoluted way of rephrasing the "mafia boss" tactic that I had already mentioned, also known as coercion. "It's your choice, you don't like the don, you don't respect his authority, fine, you don't have to pay protection money. He's your friend, you know, the whole neighbourhood's friend, but it's okay, it's your choice, friend. He's not going to force you to pay up. ...just don't be surprised when your bistro catches fire and your wife falls off a balcony."

3. Another assumption about me: "I don't like God". WRONG, I don't believe in god(s); what I don't like is people indoctrinating their kids with lies and fear about supernatural non-entities, killing/hating/preaching at others, keeping science and moral progress back, basing laws and morals on the thoughts of tribal desert-dwellers, etc etc.

4. If you can't see the internal incoherence of your 2nd point (about the HS) than you are absolutely lost logic-wise. And before saying "you're avoiding the issue!!!", I'm not, the dilemma I posed remained completely unanswered, my question remains the same, scroll up if you've forgotten it.

5. I'm guessing that your scripture quoting is a way of say - without committing yourself to it - that those who aren't chosen are going to hell.... including all those who are simply not christian?


Yes, I "ran away" from the "debate", in order to retain my sanity and occupy my time more productively. (only reason why I'm answering you now is 'cause I'm procrastinating something I don't feel like doing... mmm, idleness is such a lovely workshop, I wonder whose is it? )


As for "you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.", let me simply quote yours truly:

Preach on, brotherman. It's a sick kind of irony to do the very same thing you're accusing someone else of doing, especially whilst doing said accusing.

p.s.: Satan says "Hi"

@NetRunner

Re: No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.

That’s already been done Hoss, centuries ago. You can dissect it and come up with terms like “positive liberty” all you want, but it serves no purpose but to undermine liberty as a whole. Property is an extension of life. If you deny the right of protection of property, then you’re also denying the right to protect one’s life.

Re: Just FYI, "freedom is slavery" is exactly what this video is saying. "Property is freedom" translates to "Absolute authority over other people when they're on my property...is freedom".

False. More hyperbole?

Re: Why should there have to be a victim?

How else is there a crime?

Re: Who decides what natural rights are?

No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

Re: I'm not talking about a thought crime, I'm talking about putting a sign in your store window saying "Whites only".
Would a law making that practice illegal be pro- or anti-liberty?

It’s none of my concern who a private individual decides to discriminate against. It’s their loss if they’re running a business. And it's some other business’ gain. Why would you want to reward a bigot by forcing him to do business with someone he doesn’t want to? And why would an individual want to do business with someone who is bigoted against them anyway? Outlawing an individual's choice to discriminate is not going to stop discrimination and only serves to remove the economic punishment one would receive by doing so. People have free choice. You don't have the right to not be offended.

Re: Honestly, this seems like a bit of progress. How did I enter into an agreement with the city/county? Is it only the city/county, or is it also the state/nation I entered into agreement with?

You entered the agreement when you bought your house and paid property taxes. I don’t claim that our land property system is consistent with liberty. Just like our tax system isn’t, nor our currency system. So you’re wasting your time trying to find fault with our property systems as a critique against the concept of property itself.

Re: If that's how you explain away authority, then who is ever exercising authority? Not the city/county/state/federal government -- they're exercising their rights as property owners and signatories to a contract.

I’m not explaining away anything. You’re trying to dismiss the notion of liberty by using “real world” circumstances where liberty is violated. The law is supposed to be the authority. And the law comes from the individual’s natural right to self defense.

>> ^marbles:

You’re trying to argue semantics now. Liberty is always going to be liberty;

No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.

The result is that people usually find out that the concept they were absolutely positively certain they understood is actually a lot more fuzzy and ill-defined than they originally thought.

Well, at least if they're open minded enough to actually set aside preconceptions and conceits, and try to apply some critical thinking to the topic...

>> ^marbles:
And like I previously mentioned, modern “conceptions” of liberty only serve to advance a statist agenda. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Just FYI, "freedom is slavery" is exactly what this video is saying. "Property is freedom" translates to "Absolute authority over other people when they're on my property...is freedom".

As for ignorance is strength, you seem pretty ignorant of the philosophy of the left, and you seem to think this gives you some sort of strength. I guess it keeps your mind uncluttered with ideas you "know" are wrong, even though you don't know what they actually are...

>> ^marbles:
Re: What puts a check on a property owner's actions? And when is it legitimate to check a property owner's actions? Is it a short list (no damage to other people's property, no stealing, and no fraud), or is it a list too long to comprehensively state?
For there to be a crime, there has to be victim. There is a list called statutory laws. Statutes are supposed to be grounded in violations of natural rights.

Why should there have to be a victim? Who decides what natural rights are?

Personally my favorite natural right is the divine right of kings. My second favorite is primae noctis.

For some reason, the ACLU doesn't help me get those recognized in law, the statist fuckers. Always trying to keep me from exercising my freedom.

>> ^marbles:
Re: For example, should there be a legal constraint on racial discrimination?
Are you suggesting you can change the way people think, by making certain thoughts illegal?

I'm not talking about a thought crime, I'm talking about putting a sign in your store window saying "Whites only".

Would a law making that practice illegal be pro- or anti-liberty?

>> ^marbles:
Re: Again, this is an attempt to assert a definition that doesn't apply in the real world. I own my house. I also have a mortgage on it, so the bank has a level of authority over my house. I also have to pay property taxes on it, and follow the local laws. Yet it's still my property.
Which is to say, the definition of the word "property" doesn't include anything about it being property if and only if I'm the only one who gets any say of any kind about what's done with it.
You gave the bank authority over your house as a security on your mortgage. You also entered into an agreement with your city/county concerning taxes/laws and what services you would receive from the city/county. This is a property system that can be rife with fraud and corruption.


Honestly, this seems like a bit of progress. How did I enter into an agreement with the city/county? Is it only the city/county, or is it also the state/nation I entered into agreement with?

If that's how you explain away authority, then who is ever exercising authority? Not the city/county/state/federal government -- they're exercising their rights as property owners and signatories to a contract.

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime".

Wow, this Hitchens sounds like a smart guy! Anyways, it's certainly possible I was cribbing from something (or several things) I've seen or heard, but I wasn't doing so consciously. This is all well-trodden ground, clearly, and I don't expect to leave any real footprints.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Perhaps I can be more clear. Christ existing is obviously a necessary condition for Christianity to be true - but it's not sufficient. I suppose some people might say "Oh, Christ never existed so Christianity isn't true", but I don't think anyone's doing that here - and that's why I thought it was an odd thing to bring up. I think most non-Christian people here would say something more like "Jesus probably existed, and probably said more or less the same stuff that's in the Bible - but he didn't do miracles, isn't the Son of God, and didn't come back from the dead".

Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive?

This martyr argument is another one you come back to, but surely with any reflection you understand why it isn't convincing. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on martyrs - there's been plenty of, for example, Muslims who've chosen to die for their beliefs in a great variety of circumstances, sometimes very pro-active ones. But even if Christianity has the most (or most spectacular martyrs), certainly there are many people who've died for all sorts of causes: religious, secular, or personal.

While it certainly says Christianity is a powerful idea that so many have died for it, I don't think an idea has to be true to prompt this level of conviction.

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

Maher has a lifestyle that he doesn't want to be judged for. Much like most of the people here on the sift. The people with the biggest mouths about God are the ones with the most to hide.


I'm glad you mention this as it's important. A lot of people think religion works through fear or love or something - but this, this here is it: shame is the fuel that powers religion. If someone can convince you that they know the truth, but that you are limited by your secret sins - even your thought crimes - then they have power over you forever. You, yourself, will always know exactly how unworthy you are, while you can't know their sins in nearly the same way.

Religion failing you? Your fault. God failing you? Your fault. Doubts? Your fault. Your reason? Always suspect. Leader? Always right, because he has the clear channel.

There's a reason every religion moves towards shame. It works. The ancient Jews had trouble because their rules were almost all outward. People could actually comply with them nearly completely. So they had to expand the rules out again and again, hedging and hedging until everyone was brought back in non-compliance (as that's the space where religion works best).

Christianity solved this problem by focusing on thought crime, and crimes of attitude. Were you really giving that gift in the proper spirit? Did your thoughts stray morally for a moment? These are brilliant - the perfect, impossible to comply with rules. Each person is thus locked in a tidy prison where they believe that everyone else is more righteous (and thus "gets it", because they don't have secret sins like you do), and thus those people (or their text) should be trusted over reason. If you wanted to refute their ideas, your first step would have to be to live perfectly (impossible, and also requires tremendous further investment in the religion to attempt). And you don't have to pound it in directly: the best way to make someone feel shame is to praise the congregation; furthering the implication that everyone is in on the secret but you. If you can, get testimonials.

Again, you want everyone to put up a front that they're "in on it", that they see the emperor's clothes. It's the "everyone else" that keeps everyone going. Nobody wants to break first.

But if you want to see this technique refined to its most pure, and it's most directed, look at Scientology. Watch videos where Scientology leaders are questioned. Their response is often "What's your crime?", with the implication being that it's your secret crimes that prevent you from understanding Scientology (or, especially, make you hate it). And, in Scientology's case, they have an extra twist of the knife: if you're a member, they likely know your "secret crimes" because you told them in some session. The Catholics had something similar going with confession, but they didn't have the same panache.

So, sb, I wonder what your response would be to a Scientologist - maybe one who said your religious experiences are the result of impious Thetans trying to deceive you (maybe you got some wacky Jesus Thetans actually talking to you, who knows)? Really, you'd understand if you went through a few sessions. And all your misunderstandings - the reasons you think Scientology is wrong - are a result of your pride in your own position, the extent to which Christianity faintly mirrors the real truth of Scientology, and how all your secret crimes (which we can all agree you have - it's guaranteed by the Bible, and most other books of religion) distort your thinking. Oh, and how all the psychologists have tried to stop Scientology and hurt its members. PS: don't go to a psychologist for help. Or your family.

That should all sound familiar. Most religions work about the same way. And how do you counter that? You can't directly - because the well is completely poisoned.

And it's the same from idealogues of every stripe and sort. According to someone who loves "Agile Programming", a failed Agile Programming project is the result of not being Agile enough. The opposite idealogue believes the project failed because the spec going in lacked details. Christianity not working for you? Doesn't make sense? You're not Christian enough, or else Jesus would be talking to you (or not, depending on denomination).

Why are you doubting? Because your doubt has pushed out faith. Cant' have faith if you doubt, can't get revelation without faith. You gotta get rid of that doubt man.

End result: you're wrong, we're right, shut up. And tell your friends.

But I suppose all this means I have a secret crime. You tell me, I wonder, is my secret crime a Christian secret crime, a Scientology secret crime, or a crime against Islam? So many things I'll never understand without changing my life first to be able to understand...

Committing thought crimes again, are we? Officials from the Ministry of Love will be here shortly to "talk" to you about it.

@shinyblurry

The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material.

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted?

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

@xxovercastxx

I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

Apparently, if the other Universes had different physics, it would be impossible to detect them anyway. So to me it's a fairly useless supposition. So, just one Universe and nothing but the material.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

Time and space had a beginning at the big bang, so really it would always be impossible to measure it. The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material. It's creation ex nihilo..IE, creation from nothing. Which funnily enough happens to uniquely support the judeo-christian belief.

How does something from from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing..So therefore, if time and space had a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space which created it. These have always been identified as Gods attributes, of existing outside of time and space in an eternal continuim with no beginning or end. Isn't a transcendent creator necessitated here?

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted? Without an independent existence from the body, IE the soul, this seems to be the conclusion you're left with.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness. In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

Well, you could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false. And if the Universe was simulated, the question is meaningless..but point taken..the better question is..Was the Universe deliberately Created by supreme being?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, I'll bite. Since you don't want to discuss what the bible says, I'll delve into your world. Do you believe there is only one Universe, many Universes or infinite Universes? Do you only believe in material reality, or do you think there could be other dimensions or planes of existence that transcend it? Basically, what is your cosmology/model of reality? How do you think consciousness works? Do you believe in morality and how do you determine what it is?


I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.