@shinyblurry

You brought up my atheism and then started defining it. I'm telling you you're defining it wrong. It's really on you to do the minimum research and Google "weak atheism" to find the definition before telling me I'm wrong.

About the apple pie and logic. You're twisting words around and not following logic at all. According to formal logic, the logical opposite of "I believe apple pie tastes good", is, "It is not the case that I believe apple pie tastes good." A person who didn't know if apple pie tasted good would be justified in making that statement. So, it is not the case that I believe God exists.

If you really didn't know, you wouldn't believe *or* disbelieve in God. You would be neutral to the existence of God.

Not taking a firm 100% stance doesn't entail I have no opinion or guesses one way or the other. I may be suspending judgement until I feel I have sufficient evidence. My best guess is that the Biblical God doesn't exist. You still haven't given me a strong statement that I could possibly provide proof for. Find my words, quote them to me, and ask me to prove them. Don't just go claiming that I've taken a negative position.

First, you presume that all spiritual experience is a trick of the mind.

I certainly do not presume that. What I presume is that a. there are other people who have numinous experiences, b. they associate them with different religions, and c. they are just as sure they're real an accurate as you are. Do you disagree with any of those presumptions? I conclude logically from that that these people cannot all be correct in their interpretation. From that I conclude that it's possible you are one such person.

My faith isn't based on feelings, it is based on the action of God in my life. Many times I did not have the feelings, but God provided the evidence.

Could you tell me what this evidence was besides the communication in your head that told you he's controlling every atom?

God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and there are certain things only He can do.

Name three things that only God can do. How do you know no other entities can do those things?

Ask Jesus to throw you a bone. Say to Him, Jesus, if you are real I will serve you. Please show me evidence that you are who you say you are. If you are sincere about serving Him, I have no doubt He will respond. He said knock and the door will open.

Been there, done that. Didn't work. Everybody in my family grew up with very strong faith. We prayed, went to church, sang in the choir, served as altar boys, did the readings, donated, attended Sunday school, received the Sacraments, studied the bible at home, and discussed the nature of God. My sister worked for a Christian organization. But none of us ever received any kind of signal that we were on the right track. Two of my sisters lost faith and left the church, then I did, then my other sister. My parents also slowed their attendance and even stopped going for a while. I've talked with them about it, and they varyingly say either they don't really believe any more, but the ritual feels good; or that it's "the right thing" to go to church. So, where was Jesus for my whole family? My parents have both given over 70 years to Jesus with not a peep back. I was faithful from birth until I noticed that I had never ever felt Jesus's presence and wondered if it was all fake. I don't remember what or how I asked, but I did ask Jesus to show himself. And that was when I actually believed in him. He didn't show himself, so I gradually lost faith, became comfortable with my lack of faith, and left the church.

How is it that abortion is a sacrament to the left, yet when one person devalues another person by saying they should have been aborted, the left has a hissy fit?

How do we know how much value a person has if they are not allowed to be born?

How unfair is abortion? how selfish do you have to be to end your child's life? Has anyone ever looked at the long term effect? Yes, they have and it appears that people aborting this children suffer a higher incidence of cancer.

But regardless, if saying someone should not be aborted, why does this only apply to someone already living?

Yes, people who believe they are right believe they are right and get angry about it when others tell them they are wrong. These are neither the defining characteristics of religion nor atheism, but a part of the human condition. You're confusing your own stereotypes of religious people and dogmatists with what religion and theistic dogma really are, which is exactly what atheism isn't.

I lack belief in any god or religion, therefore I'm atheist. If you notice anything that atheists often have in common, that's causation (certain arguments which we hear from each other) or coincidence (anger and hate because we're human). Anything else is your own projection.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck.

Actually, most of the responses to shiny were funny, eloquent and well reasoned. Although I will agree that a few were just rude.

The reaction basically proves that some atheists can be assholes. Big surprise. However, there is an "atheist dogma" that insists on vitriol. I will also say that many theists don't share their religions blind adherence to despicable or ridiculous positions. People are people, theist or atheist and there will always be good or bad people in both groups.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

You're either really ignorant or being totally disingenuous. Frankly, neither would surprise me. Instead of making bullshit statements, how about you back them up with some "basic reality"? You cannot confuse the personal beliefs or ideologies of individual atheists with the concept itself, even if a large percentage of atheists happen to share them. BTW, it's "catechism".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants.

Hang on, Obama is at war with religion while at the same time passing laws and pushing agendas based on religious belief?

At least, you're consistently inconsistent... carry on...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.


I assume you're referring to Obama saying that Jesus wants people to pay higher taxes? Well, aside from the fact that that is entirely consistent with the teachings of Christ (don't remember Christ ever encouraging anyone to go to war or benefit the rich), frankly we have better things to do than criticise Obama when he's doing what we want. Personally, I don't really have a problem with (most of) the moral teachings of Jesus. I would prefer a president that bases his decisions on rationale, but since that will never happen I will settle for one that doesn't claim that god told him to kill arabs or fix gays or whatever.

And that's the crux of the issue. Many people "on the left" (nothing to do with atheism, you'll note) are disenfranchised with Obama. They wanted a progressive, but got a centre-right politician. But they're also realists. They look at Obama, and then look at the alternatives (when only one of your candidates accepts scientific reality and lost and the least insane of the rest is a young earth creationist who wants to repeal the civil rights act, you know you have problems), and they go "best of a bad lot"

More insane, inaccurate, dishohnest ravings from another silly brainwashed cunt. Atheism has none of these things.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants. Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

The blunted point of this video: religion is about faithfully following and constraining curiosity, while science is about aggressively questioning and holding nothing sacred.

Science is also about atheistic materialism. The idea of the supernatural cause is rejected apriori:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

Religion itself serves no purpose. Going to church, partaking in sacraments, putting on a public face of piety, these are the dead works of men. The heart of Christianity is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, to know God intimately and experientially. It is not religion but relationship.

A point I would add is that in human societies there may be a time and a place for each, but they will still each question the value of the other.

At the outset, they were friends to one another. The idea of an orderly Universe based on universal laws is a Christian idea, and so is the idea that we can suss out those ideas by investigating secondary causes. Science really got its start in Christian europe. Though they are portrayed as rivals now, it is truly a false dichotomy. I think John Lennox explains this best:



What we should be talking about then is the individual common ground, in your own head, between these two things. You describe a more Unitarian God, responsible for creating/upholding the laws of a changing Universe, and nothing else. I might describe a God with far less impact or far greater impact on human lives here on Earth (...or hundreds of Gods along a God power-spectrum). I might also specify some particular stories about how I know my God to be the true God.

At their essence, I don't think there is any conflict. Religion tells us about who the Creator is while science tries to explain how He did it. The bible isn't a book about science, although it contains some scientific principles. It is a book that describes what God wants from us, why He created us. Science shows us His marvels, it tells us why the stars shine so brightly, it reveals their secret power.

The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith.

On the other side is Science, where neither bullshit nor treasured dogma are valued once proven wrong. Your world is composed of atoms, which we've taken pictures of, and we've landed robots on another planet... but where we wonder what the meaning of any of this is, and how long its going to be before we screw it up.

The idea that science is an objective enterprise is a myth. This isn't about the best evidence.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

Max Planck

If you want to challenge the status quo, you need the support of the status quo. It's a closed system. You're not getting any grants or getting published unless you're towing the line on the conventional wisdom of the day. Check out some of the finds that modern science conveniently ignores..



Evidence starts around 10:00 or so

Also check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Exploding-Myth-Conventional-Wisdom-Scientific/dp/1904275303

>> ^bamdrew:

>> ^lantern53:

Make fun of Christians...so brave.

Well considering they normally outnumber us 10:1 and have a history of violence against non-believers, yes, it takes a little guts.

But that's not what's happening in this video so shut your pie sacramental bread hole.

on top of all that is the time and effort spent trying to make sure you do everything correctly and just trying learn how to do it in the first place. my time costs $70/hr. i've probably spent $1000 worth of my time this week alone trying to learn how to be a good accountant and financial advisor.

now i'm going to start my own religion and make tax evasion one of its prime tenants. but, we will burn the works of ayn rand and forbid anyone from "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps". we shall instead study the writings of vonnegut, devote ourselves to the history of radical anarchist movements of the 20th century, forbid sexual repression and of course, we will love our bodies and never think them sinful or imperfect. instead of taking the sacrament, we will rub each others backs and necks and shoulders and legs. the power of touch will be > than the power of prayer. and we will look at the teachings of new age healers with great skepticism, despite what we may or may not have in common with them. hallelujah. amen.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yeah, I noticed that when I was self-employed (read that as being a freelancer), my taxes went way up. I now owe back taxes. It becomes difficult to remain solvent. It's like the high taxes are there to discourage people from competing with the larger companies, and I've almost caved multiple times and gone back to working for corporations. I shudder to think.

And then there's the problem of where your money is spent. It's not locally generally. A lot of it goes to wars and death. I'd much rather spend locally and help those I have a chance of encountering daily.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
being self-employed may or may not be turning me into a libertarian. i feel like i'd rather take 20% of my income and just hand it over directly to my elderly neighbors than send it to the pilfering sociopaths in washington. ... i'm currently researching the best ways to commit tax evasion.

A Christian is someone who follows Christ and the true church is the body of Christ. This means that all the different denominations are false divisions in the body. This doesn't mean they don't have any Christians, it just means that the church is not a human institution..the catholics for example, most of what they do is not biblical, and is in fact blasphemy. There is no such thing as a pope, or nuns, or monks or priests in the bible. Neither are there sacraments. The conception of the virgin mary and the immaculate conception are both unbiblical and blasphemous. The same with bowing to statues, the worship of Mary, and confession. The catholic church is rife with apostacy. Does this mean no catholic is saved? I wouldn't say that..I don't limit God. I would say though that if I were catholic I wouldn't be confident of my salvation.

I wasn't "indoctrinated". I grew up agnostic, without any religion. I was a strict materialist who would have fit right in with many of the sifters here. I can understand the perspective of someone who can't see a spiritual reality because that used to be my perspective. I probably would have scoffed at this video too, but it would have been from the depths of ignorance. I have direct knowledge that there is a demonic host controlled by Satan who runs this world and is bent on seperating every soul on Earth from Jesus Christ. I have dealt directly with evil spirits, spoken to them directly, and have been directly deceived by them. This girl, whatever her history is, is/was possessed..of that there is no doubt.

Science is great, but this is spiritual warfare. You may not understand it, but you live in harmony with this world system and thus passively support the objectives of the enemy. Everytime you're arguing against Christ, you are doing Satans work for him. The world itself isn't frightening..

matthew 10:28

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. If you're a jew, you should know that much.
>> ^G-bar:
First, It is stated in the video that she had had this "possession" for a long time, and her medieval parents were taking her to those voodoo sessions for quite some time. This hints that the girl could be suffering from a minor mental illness and/or autism, which the parents are either too dumb or too religious to realize. Making her do things against her will over and over again might make her go completely crazy.
Second, If catholics are not the real Christians, who is? what are you shiny? how can you justify your own belief as the correct one?
And to sum it up, you throw every possible scientific measures against evolution, and now this? come on shiny, let go of your childhood indoctrination. Use your own eyes to see the world and you will see it is not as frightening as they told u it would be.

Find myself in a church for weddings and funerals, and the occasional baptism. Even though I'm not a member, I often get in line to take the sacrament if I'm feeling peckish. /trollface

Also, Orthodox wine does have its uses for those long, monotonous sermons... get a little buzzed and stare at the pretty stained-glass murals and ideograms on the ceiling to pass the time.

From Google Video: For further research of the claims made in this video, AstroTheology & Shamanism: Thousands of years ago, in the pre monarchic era, sacred plants and other entheogenic substances highly respected for their ability to bring forth the divine, Yahweh, God, The Great Spirit, etc., by the many cultures who used them.

Often the entire tribe or community would partake in the entheogenic rites and rituals. These rites were often used an initiation into adulthood, for healing, to help guide the community in the decision process, and to bring the direct religious experience to anyone seeking it. In the pre literate world, the knowledge of psychedelic sacraments, as well as fertility rites and astronomical knowledge surrounding the sun, stars, and zodiac, known as astrotheology, were anthropomorphized into a character or a deity; consequently, their stories & practices could easily be passed down for generations. Weather changes over millennia caused environmental changes that altered the availability of foods and plant sacraments.

If a tribe lost its shamanic El-der (El - God), all of the tribe's knowledge of their plant sacraments as well as astronomical knowledge would be lost. The Church’s inquisitions extracted this sacred knowledge from the local Shamans, who were then exterminated.

I think kitty's next treat better be a sacramental wafer because it's clearly possessed.

Thankfully we have laws that separate church and state.

We need a law separating church and marriage. Because I have yet to find one couple that treats their marriage as a holy sacrament.

I'm never 'inflammatory'. I'm always reasonable. The only thing I ever do is calmly and rationally make a point which other people choose to be inflammatory against. I myself rarely (if ever) make an argument personal. I'll strongly make my case, and I'm not afraid to point out hypocrisy and bigotry when I see it.

In this case, we have a bunch of people in this thread that are Mormon bashing. They claim it is 'official church policy' to cut off family members. All I have done is clearly state the facts. It is not official church policy to do anything of the sort, and anyone who IS doing such things is either (A) not LDS at all or (B) not a very good practicioner of thier faith. I fail to see how such an argument could possibly be 'inflammatory' except to a person who is bigoted and has an axe to grind.

seen your posts elsewhere

M'eh - if you find the prolix nature of my text to cumbersome or weighty to digest then feel free to move on. Addressing an issue requires thought. I am not a flippant, unthinking debator who is satisfied with simply making unsupported, profane accusations and calling it an 'argument'.

the whole point of the meeting (since the church's early days) is to allow the congregation their opportunity to be heard

From my understanding, it is also not considered a place for free-wheeling political arguments or discourse. Sunday worship services are places where people come to be uplifted, share faith building experiences, or otherwise console & strengthen each other. It is not the place to get up and tell everyone how much you think everyone sucks, or how great your new car is, or whatever crap you have dribbling out your mind. People going 'off topic' like that shouldn't be surprised to have the mic cut & the bishop tug at their sleeve to take it off-line.

Their website says that LDS meetings have 3 divisions of an hour each. The meeting he got up in looks like their first one where they take their sacraments. That's not the spot for his little stunt. There's Sunday School meeting where church doctrines get discussed, and another one they call 'priesthood' or 'relief society' where men & women get split up. If he had something to get off his chest, then Sunday School or Priesthood was the place for it. Not a meeting with children and youth. Ideally, this kind of discussion is more logically done with a Bishop in private. The fact that he lined up a cameraman and had his whole speech written out proves he wasn't making a heart-felt confession. He was out for attention.