Every time I argue religion, I find one more reason not to believe it. For example, until today, I'd never questioned these rules, or "consequences", as SB prefers to call them. If God made everything, then he made those consequences too, right, a fact which holds its own logical consequences for supporters. I suppose in the end none of it matters since he's already made up his mind, despite agreeing elsewhere that if I found a single inconsistency in the Bible that he'd renounce his faith.>> ^KnivesOut:

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.

It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.

Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

>> ^KnivesOut:

It is... because your imaginary friend said so? Care to extrapolate a bit?>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes it is



I don't believe the Almighty has spoken on the matter, but since it is an arbitrary definition, I will arbitrarily declare that Pluto is indeed a planet. It has three moons, an atmosphere, and 75 years of precedent. I also support the original Draft Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI: Definition of a Planet that was presented at the IAU Planet Definition Committee in August of 2006:

A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

Pluto qualifies as a planet according to this definition. And if this complicates matter because of bodies like Eris Sedna, Pluto should simply be granted an exemption.

It is... because your imaginary friend said so? Care to extrapolate a bit?>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes it is

You don't have to believe in imaginary friends or secret places in the sky to know that Samwise is still around. Not in the same form, but it's a simple fact that he left his mark on everything and everyone he ever touched (in more ways than one, I imagine). That can't be undone, in the very same way that matter and energy (and information, according to my own recent theorizing) can't be destroyed, only changed.

I know all too well that doesn't replace what's missing, but it's worth thinking about.


[edit] tl;dr: what UsesProzac said.

What about little kids who believe in imaginary friends? Do you beat them too?

Better yet, what about the adults who believe in imaginary friends?

This way of thinking is simply a misdirection from the original purpose of sex. It is designed for one man and one woman, who are married and committed for life. Sex in the marriage bed is sacred; everywhere else it is vulgar and leads to the aberrant behavior and thought life we see being espoused in this video.

Yes, as you have noted, it is systemic in all cultures, because this is a fallen world populated by fallen people. Satans version of sex is whenever, whereever, with whoever, and this is the mindset that men are programmed with from birth. Yes, it is natural for men to feel this way, because that is the way of the world. It is not the way of God. You have to learn the way of God because we are all born spiritually dead, with the flesh at war with the spirit at all times. It is natural for us to sin, and self-control is alien to this nature. No one knows how bad the human heart really is, but Hitler gave us a good demonstration.

I agree with you, religion is no cure for anything. That has nothing to do with Jesus. You either know Him or you don't, regardless of what you call yourself. Many people who claim to know Christ only have a religion, and no actual relationship with Him. You cannot overcome sin without the Holy Spirit. Those who don't know Christ only have the amount of self-control that God has graced them with.

Spiritually, the principle is garbage in, garbage out. There is a war in the mind, and when you open the door to something, it comes in, stakes out territory, and builds itself a stronghold. Unfortunately, there are many Christians living in sin and so they are spiritually compromised. The enemy has conquered them and exerts great influence over their lives. You can't wage an effective warfare when the front line of the battle is on your doorstep.

You are in a spiritual war whether you realize it or not. Every day a battle is being waged for your soul. You have been captured, and taken deep into enemy territory..and many soldiers have breeched enemy lines to come and set you free. They have set the key right in front of your cell, and have done everything they can to get your attention, but you refuse to leave; you prefer your slavery. You are satisified with a carrot on a stick. Always seeking, never finding. Temporary pleasure, no lasting peace. The oasis never being dispelled, despite the mouthful of sand. Bread and circuses. I pray for you, that you would see the bars my friend.


>> ^messenger:
"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.
You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.
Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

"This degenerate culture?" You mean, every human culture? Men, in general, deep down, feel this way. And, like O'Neal points out, men and women are naturally programmed to think and feel differently about sex. It's in our nature -- or if you prefer, it's the way God intended. If men thought about sex the same way that women do, there wouldn't have been enough sex happening to propagate the species. And if women were as casual about sex as men are, then we wouldn't have secure enough families to raise a successful child. It's the balance of nature. We need both men's huge sex drive and women's preference for lifelong bonding for survival as a species. Men who don't want sex and women who don't want family stability didn't have children who survived, and that's why there's so few of either type around now.

You can't stop men's sex drive, not even with religion. Evidence? The more religious/conservative neighbourhoods of Istanbul (where I live) are the ones with the most sexual assaults on the street. In my liberal neighbourhood just 15 minutes away, a woman can go get bread at 2 am. Want something closer to home? The more conservative states are the ones where men consume the most porn per capita. Utah is #1! And in the extreme, among professions where sex is forbidden (meaning Catholic priests only), there's a massive problem with child rape. You, SB, may be a shining knight following the path of the Lord, but those around you pretending to be pious are getting fiddly -- either with themselves or with non-consenting victims -- when you're not looking.

Yet again, it makes more sense that nature is as nature is, which makes more sense than saying some things are your imaginary friend's will, and others are the result of our "degenerate" or "fallen" state.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^spoco2:
He had great delivery, I'll give him that. But things like this, and moreso his interview on WTF, show that he had a fucked up view of women and men's relationships to them. He really had a view of women that they were, at heart, out to get men, out to make us unhappy... he seemed like he was never really going to be comfortable to be in a proper relationship with a woman.
Which is/was sad.

This is an accurate portrayal of the way that men, who see women as means to an end, namely their own sexual gratification, do think. I think it's rather stereotypical of this degenerate culture, actually..

I feel like this film is more complicated than just an anti commercialist screed. Ed Norton's nameless character chooses an extremely handsome, charming and fashionable movie star to be the vessel for his anti-commercial, anti-corporate persona. Is this done on purpose to suggest some kind of internal contradiction? Also, his group eventually becomes a fascist and violent paramilitary operation. In the end, the narrator kills off his imaginary friend. So what are we to make of Tyler Durden? To me, the film feels like it's also about ego, masculinity, extremism, growing up, the need to belong and the intoxicating effects of power, as seen through the eyes of a cheerfully misanthropic Chuck Palaniuk. Whatever Palaniuk and Fincher's intentions were, I do love this movie. I bet the book would clear some of this up for me. Anyone who has read the book want to address these issues?

@SDGundamX

I don't know where you get your info from, but Dawkins, as well as most atheists (myself included) are absolutely FOR teaching children about religion. The operative word, as you yourself seem to understand (as you use it in your argument) is "about". Compare:

"Son, there is an all-powerful man in space that will torture you forever if you don't do what his book says, and reward you if you do."

"Son, some people believe that there is... . Other people believe... None of their supernatural claims are supported by evidence, btw."

See the difference?

As for studies, I don't know if there are any (I would personally love to see the correlation of strong religious beliefs and the propensity to adhere to conspiracy theories for example), but one need no studies to understand that believing in the supernatural truth claims of religion demands a divorce from rational and evidence-based knowledge.

What does religious belief bring to the table then? Don't say morals/ethics: half of what they teach is horrible, and the other half have no basis in the religious beliefs, but can be explained scientifically. You may say religion is a vehicule for moral teachings, but it's an outdated and superfluous one at best, a counterproductive one at worst. Most of the times it boils down to waiving a supernatural stick and carrot (as all good tyrants do) instead of having people learn to think for themselves.

The only "original" thing religious belief brings is supernatural truth claims, which are at best meaningless speculation ("God gives life meaning", whatever that means), at worst irrational and dangerous ("the AntiChrist will rise when the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, bringing the end of the world").

No one is arguing against meditation or introspection btw. If you feel like talking to imaginary friends in order to do so, fine. Just don't force vulnerable kids to believe your imaginary friends actually exist.

As for Bahai being an example of a harmless religion, pick again. Sure, their doctrine is a little more "peace and love" than most of its monotheistic brothers, but homosexuality/"adultery" are still forbidden, and you're still taught to believe in and pray to an invisible sky-daddy, with all the irrational logical fallacies that go with it, and their inevitable clash with science and critical thinking.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:
[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.



Your objections are reasonable only if you make the following assumptions:

1) That teaching your children about your religion is the same as indoctrination (it isn't, though I know Dawkins proclaims that it is)
2) That "indoctrination" will, the majority of the time, result in adults who are incapable of rational/critical thought (cite me some studies that show this and you might persuade me its true; I suppose in a closed society in which a single religion permeated every aspect of daily life including work and education this might actually be plausible)
3) That making political or ethical choices based on a religion is always a bad thing (it might be... or it might not be--depends on the situation; Hitchens's story of the time a Muslim taxi driver went to great lengths to return the wallet Hitchens had left in his taxi precisely because he felt his religion required him to do so is one counter-example).
4) That all religions are anti-rational, misogynistic, totalitarian, and hateful (they aren't; check out Baha'i as just one counter-example)

@NetRunner, in reply to your comment, made the astute point that atheism does not "preclude dogma, bigotry, or hatred." In that same vein I would add it doesn't preclude irrationality either, though there seem to be no end these days of atheists--including yourself--insinuating that somehow atheists are more rational than their religious counterparts (for more on the fallibility of atheists in the areas of reason and logic, I recommend these interesting websites, all by the same author--an atheist for over 40 years):

The Reasoning Atheist
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 1
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 2

My point is that atheism has gone beyond a mere denial of the existence of a deity or deities and become for many people a type of worldview. And for those people, this worldview is as hostile to criticism and as capable of gross logic fails/critical thinking errors as the most fundamentalist of religions. That's one reason why I wholeheartedly agree with Netrunner that time is better spent arguing with people about what is moral or immoral than to waste time aggressively attacking people who--in many case--will actually agree with you about what is moral/immoral (just not for the same reasons that you have).

I guess it mostly has to do with how you were raised. I grew up with one semi-religious parent, and one Dawkins-style atheist parent. They never "indoctrinated" me about religion. If I asked questions, they'd answer, but they'd mostly say "I believe X, but you need to make up your own mind about things".

I would say that on most days I don't spend much time worrying about God. But I do understand spirituality. I do understand the religious mode of thinking, and prayer, and trying to commune with a supreme being. It's not in and of itself a bad thing -- all the dogma, the judgment, the hate, that's not an intrinsic component of it.

And there's nothing about atheism that precludes dogma, or bigotry, or hate, either.

I just like to be specific about what I don't like. I've got no beef with people who want to believe in God, it's the people who say "God told me to hate X" that I've got a beef with.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.

If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.


_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:

[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.

@Jinx

I don't think using the WBC as an advert for atheism would really work out.

Pretty much everyone hates them, including mainstream catholics and Fox News. Using them as some sort of example of why it's bad to believe in a god would surely fail because when push comes to shove, I don't really think the WBC give a flying fuck what god thinks. Their hatred of homosexuality is their only religion. It's far too easy for mainstream catholics to distance themslves from WBC-nutbaggery.

You want to promote Atheism? Stop being douchebags with stupid billboard signs and just...be the better person. That's all you really need to do. Demonstrate on a daily basis that Catholics can't claim the moral high ground as they often think they can.

I've lost count of how many time's I've seen supposedly "moral" Christians do despicable things. They're the ones that came up with the 10 commandments, but they're the ones that seem to have a hard time actually following it. Hell, come up with an Atheist 10 Commandments. 10 basic rules of living a life that positively contributes to society that doesn't involve getting on your knees and praying to an imaginary friend. Really shouldn't be that hard. Do what religion refuses to do and periodically update and revise these rules to get rid of outdated and obsolete ideas and inject new truths into it.

Religion isn't inherently good or bad..It's what you do with religion that is good or bad.

I agree with Shepppard, the title is misleading. It should read something like 'Batshit crazy idiots think imaginary friend better than medicine for sick children'.