Very interesting...

Wow, it was a three part movie, only the first part was in regards to religion. The second was the sequel to "loose change", "unfastened coins" anyone? It seemed to do a good job at not repeating what loose change already covered. A few quotes from the film but other than that... Part 3 is what interested me the most. It had to do with banking institutions and their way of locking every citizen of the United States of America into permanent debt from the day they made their first dollar. Central banking institutions, undercover plots to unite the world under one government which I admit are not entirely unfounded. Overall parts 1 and 3 are best. If you've seen loose change and weren't impressed, don't bother with part 2, it has some new stuff, but it is pretty much loose change all over again. Though the JFK part at the end of part 2 was interesting.

 

Very good read. Many good points are made. The most important one being that even if this religious stuff held any validity, it is still quite obviously not working in the hands of man. Why pursue an idea that has proven itself not only ineffective, but destructive? Why can't we just return religion to its roots: Appreciation, NOT divination of the sun and all of the different spins cultures of the past put on it.

Little do modern Christians know, (sorry, just using the prominent religion) they are putting their own spin on Christianity. The "scientific" tidbits (Creation museums for example) theologists use to force a connection with a god to the natural universe, the way the term "God" can be renewed and re-written over and over by slapping it on top of the peak of mankind's knowledge, simply finding explanations that are harmonious to the order of things and confirming with those speculations that a god is present. These are modern day spins on Christianity as it struggles to appear valid against the growing awareness of a natural universe. Something that has been going on since Thales of Miletos made the first accurate prediction of a solar eclipse. It seems however, that a peak has been reached. The debate on a massive scale, not just within the posts here, has crossed from plausability, to being based on faith. The ultimate brick wall to intellectual discussion by any medium, debate or otherwise. It is no longer a discussion in pursuit of finding what *is* true, it is of what the believer *wants* to be true. A fairytale. God should not lack evidence. It is simply the fact that the "evidence" for his existence has been debunked (A universe built in 7 days specifically for the sake of Earth. Earth built on pillars, heaven being a dome surrounding the flat, 6000 year old earth. etc) that Christians granted God immunity to logic. This substitution of logic for faith is in fact a faith defense mechanism created by those who didn't want to face a world without a god in it. It is quite the impermeable defense too. The only one who can defeat it is the believer themselves. Just as the person in the article managed.

A much more meaningful "awakening" if you ask me.

 

Kaikou, I appreciate your point of view. In fact you articulate my point of view better the I can. Time and education will eventually debunk blind faith. Either that, or the zealots will just take up arms and blast us into submission. It isn't like that hasn't happened before.

 

Man, I almost think if something like that happens again it may be good for humanity. People would finally get a real world perspective of what religion causes. Of course a crusade/jihad/holy war in this day and age would probably snuff out mankind completely. A ticking time bomb...

 

I am zealous in my faith in Jesus Christ, but I promise I won't "blast [you] into submission".

Please remember that not all of those who claim Christ as Savior are religious. You guys are getting a little carried away.

 

And thats why it is so dangerous. Christianity takes it a step further by empowering its followers with some kind of divine connection that guides them personally. It isn't morally wrong if you are convinced it is God's will. Even killing. All in the name of God.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean one can believe the story of Jesus in its entirety and at the same time not be religious? To believe in Jesus requires you believe the whole shebang does it not? Last I checked, all believers in Jesus are religious. Christians/Catholics to be precise.

 

I wasn't talking about Mani. Mani is apparently a very zealous religious person, and that's fine. So long as he doesn't go and try to impose his belief on the rest of us by trying to ban abortion or stem cell research or the like on the grounds of religious morality. Unfortunately, "live and let live" religious people such as him are rare. I was talking about those that think they have some kind of tie to a higher authority, and thus by proxy, they do as well. Killing of course is an extreme example, but far from unfounded.

What does it sound like I am preaching exactly? I'm not trying to sell you a God, and I know more than anybody here that I can never "win" this kind of argument. But if I spurred the slightest desire to take a step back and think about things, especially alternate possibilities to the origins of our universe other than the supernatural old man in the sky theory, then I'm satisfied. Hell, even just to ponder the thought that maybe religion got it wrong would be a great start, there's just too much evidence to keep ignoring it. That should become more clear as time goes on.

I apologize if I came off as shoving things down your throat. Though I'm completely in the dark about when/what I was preaching about. I suppose debate can be considered a form of preaching... I won't play mind games with you though, or perform mental gymnastics with what I say. Two tactics commonly used in religious preaching. It's a lot easier to make up a story when it isn't bound by logic afterall.

The fact that so many people are so very unaware of the similarities of messiahs, and how they all link with ancient astrology, yet still believe something to be unique about Jesus and Christianity is living proof of just how unfounded their beliefs are. I wonder if in 2150, when we cross from the age of pisces into the age of aquarius, the absence of the fabled "doomsday" Christ believers speak of will convince some people that they were wrong? I say this because the Rapture is simply the transition from one astrological "age" to the next. The current age, pisces, is a fish. The sign for Jesus is also a fish... Hmm. All references to Jesus' second coming are all misinterpretations (badly) of the next "age" on the astrological calendar. Just as Moses got angry at his disciples for worshiping a golden calf when the age of taurus had already ended and the age of aries had begun.

Seriously, how many know all of this stuff and still see their religion as special? It's a form of denial disguised as faith if you ask me.

 

LOL. Nice Asp.
Extremists are bad. In all instances. If we all keep the the middle of whatever political/religious groups we are in, things would be much calmer. Power and influence don't come from being moderate about anything.

 

Alright, I'm bored, so I'm going to continue this thread, even if I'm just talking to myself.

I agree extremists are a bad thing because they generally have a confirmation bias. Usually because pondering evidence against the existence of their god/belief is an undesireable thing, and quite often considered mortal sin.hat enabled them to have this "divine experience" however? Odds are they believed in the asserted god in the first place. How did they come to this decision though? It varies among theists, but mostly through indoctrination. And thus, since they believe the god is real, they feel their experience was real. Assumptions on top of more assumptions that are all based on if one has decided to reject baseless claims or accept them. I've been following a debate where a Mormon has been trying to assert that his Joseph Smith prophet was divinely inspired when he dispensed information that ended up being beneficial. Information about living healthily that the scientific community was already well aware of at the time of this "prophet". Things like "do not use tobacco or alcohol". Divinely inspired? Maybe to the uneducated and ignorant. People were well aware that both substances had negative effects on health. This particular Mormon however, completely ignores/avoids this evidence because if the prophet was wrong, how much more of Mormonism, the lifelong practice of this believer, could be wrong as well?

Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing. It can lead even the most intellectual minds astray, especially when coupled with indoctrination at early ages. If a child grows up around adults that are convinced that a god is real, odds are the child will adopt this belief and eventually forfeit the need for evidence supporting the claim (I just know in my heart that god exists), or create confirmation bias stories that do support it. (see below) In my 21 years of life, 6 in which were spent in a damn bible school, not once have I heard of, or experienced something that cannot be explained without a god. I've heard plenty of stories mind you, such as when the Theist says Mary survived heart surgery because they prayed for her and their god answered their prayer and made Mary all better again. They will also use this example to reinforce that their belief is true. Which is a severe confirmation bias. I say she survived it because she just did. Many people do. I could cite the prayer study that was conducted but I'm sure everyone has probably already heard of it.

Now, here's where I think a lot of religious people get confused with atheists. Theists assert God is a very real presence in their universe, but they generally cannot prove it unless you are willing to believe it at face value, which is not proof, it is suspension of disbelief, faith. When the atheist rejects what they believe as fact, it unnerves them. They wonder "why oh why does he not believe in god? How can they not see god's infinite greatness?" When they have already forgotten that in order to get to the belief system they are currently at, they had to accept a rather baseless assumption at some point that gods can exist. Simply having faith in something does not make it real. Atheists wait patiently for some kind of valid argument, but are bombarded with confirmation bias stories such as the one above and must spend eternity explaining to covered ears why a god wasn't necessary for the outcome. This leads to a rather nasty generalization that theists have been using against atheists lately.

The golden statement of atheism that many theists cannot/want not grasp is that atheists do not *seek* to disbelieve gods, as many theists believe. The theists' proposed concept of "god" to an atheist is irrational and silly, thus rejected. Period. The term "God" and all that it implies originates from the theist, and is in no way applicable to reality in our minds. An imaginative fiction. It is like trying to convince us that 1 + 1 = 7,164,065,875. Surely it is possible to believe 1 + 1 = 7,164,065,875, but it'll take a leap of faith. The kicker is that even though one can believe with every fiber of their existence that 1 + 1 = 7,164,065,875, it doesn't make it any more true. Nor does it make it any more plausable to those that understand, not believe, that 1 + 1 = 2. I feel this is where theists and atheists reach a wall. Theists have provided a definition that atheists dismiss entirely. It doesn't sit well with the theist, so they continue to impose it as if it is reality for all to accept. Or so it would seem.

 

one out of every ten people is a sociopath. Sometimes these people become repeat murderers or what we classically think of as psychopaths, sometimes they become what we classically think of as anti-social people who spend considerable time in prison throughout their life.

Often they become involved in religion or politics and are quite successful because they are so good at manipulating, persuading, talking people out of their money, getting people to do things, playing on guilt. THESE are the people you don't want in leadership positions in your religion. These are the people who cloud the real spiritual issues with an agenda.

How do you always keep your mind clear, focused, keep yourself pointed in the truest direction when we're constantly being hit with the false, the persuasive manipulations. I struggle with this.

The culture in the United States admires sociopaths. We don't recognize the selfless.

 

Sociopaths look for positions of power Om. You see them in the office. You see them in politics. You can pick them out easily because they don't play well with others. They don't like sharing the shovel in the sandbox.

 

I say they're not as easy to pick out as you say. admittedly, some are! The axe murderers are fairly simple to pick out because of the axe dripping blood and all.

 

I would submit then that their views are somehow confused with those laid forth in the 'manual' of what they believe. I find that many people have a view of Christians that includes having alot of rules and damning people to hell and the like. These stereotypes are, unfortunately, in many circumstances true. The guide we use for life, the Bible, was inspired and laid out by a perfect being, and we even got a short chance to see what the perfect life looked like from Jesus. Unfortunately this is interpreted by humans which are far from perfect.

Looking to Christians to provide an example of Christianity, while good in theory, will only lead to bitter disappointment due to the sinful nature of the flesh. I profess to be a Christian, I believe in Jesus, yet I have a problem with pornography and lust. So do thousands of other Christian men. Being a Christian is in no way a public statement of perfection or that you are some moral authority. There are a few people who might be 'closer' then others, but not a single one of them is without sin in one form or another.

This also goes for large establishments within the Christian faith. Many churches embrace ideologies and 'rules' that are to be found nowhere in the Bible. An example is Westboro Baptist Church. They are the ones that go around and protest Soldier's funerals and all sorts of other events with signs that say "God Hates Fags." Their basis is in the Old Testament verse of Leviticus 18:22 which states "Man shall not lie with man as if with a woman, it is an abomination." This verse is very true, it is a sin to be a homosexual. But they miss an important part of the Bible in that Jesus died for ALL sins, not just those of straight white suburbanites or whatever other stereotype one's mind may assign to a Christian. Jesus loves a homosexual just as much as he does the pope. But because this 'church' does this, alot of people think this is some sort of 'Christian Policy' that we all adhere to when that isn't the case.

I assert the same with any Christian that attempts to "blast [you] into submission." I've found no evidence that we are to hit people over the heads with our Bibles until they cave, my studying always leads to the conclusion that we're to love everyone as Jesus did.

I try and try, but those people who talk on a cellphone while they drive are so darn HARD to love...

Just a few of my thoughts on that subject.

 

It is quite obvious that most church establishments use the bible to advance their own agendas. My aunt goes to a church that has weekly sessions with a financial specialist that gets together with you and decides how much money you make should go to the church. About 30%. My aunt struggles from paycheck to paycheck, and this church wants 30% in exchange for a ticket to heaven. Absolutely sick. Sadly she buys into it.

The homosexuality issue is an interesting one. My question is, if this Christian god is perfect, benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, why then did he seed the idea of "laying with another man" in the first place if it was to be seen as a bad thing? Couldn't he have simply made humans incapable of thoughts of homosexuality? He obviously knew that homosexuals would exist, indeed he had to have created the idea of homosexuality itself, and if all that god says and does is "good", how did homosexuality become bad? Why set those homosexuals up to be treated like that and even killed in his (loving) name, only to end up somewhere in hell for all their troubles? The bible says this as quoted by Blazt. However he left out the part where it says "their blood is on their own hands", implying that no sin will result in you killing them. This isn't some crazy fundie interpretation, this is cold, hard, biblical instruction. Unless it was simply stating that homosexuals literally walked around with their own blood on their hands...? So why have Christians chosen to ignore one "word of god (tm)" over others? And not just about homosexuality. Who here does work on Sundays? And no "I'm human, thus imperfect" stuff because that's a commandment and being an imperfect human doesn't justify ignoring commandments. Why does the "word of god (tm)" change so drastically as society evolves when it stems from one, unchanging book claiming to be perfect? (Except for any of the parts that humans misinterpreted thus are not words of god of course...brilliant cover. Especially when even Christians can't agree among each other what is and isn't misinterpreted)

Christianity died a long time ago. New religions spawned from its death and continue to do so. Though most people in the U.S. claim to be Christian, their actual ideologies are so vastly different. I submit that religion, specifically religion with western influence, without the knowledge of the subscribers, has become a very individualistic practice. Religion is what *you* the believer want it to be. Or what your church leader wants it to be. God is a girl to some, a guy to others, genderless to others. Personal preference I suppose. So long as the story of Jesus remains intact, (They have to agree with *something* to call themselves Christians, maybe this is why so much emphasis is put on accepting Jesus as savior being the only requisite for entry to heaven, to keep it simple) they are free to interpret the "word of god (tm)" however they please, and it is immediately divine truth inspired by this god being. A human idea becomes divine...again. Pick and choose which little tidbits of "god's word (tm)" one will or will not observe. This might be why we see about 100 different denominations of Christianity. Lets compare that to a very similar, but eastern influenced religion, Islam.

Islamic denominations:

Sunni
Shi'a Islam
Sufism
Ahmadiyya (which I believe stems into 2 subcategories)

Christian denominations:

Too many to list, go here

How did so many denominations explode from a western religion versus an eastern religion? Well, for starters the middle east isn't exactly an economical power house. Education levels, quality of living, all of these factors are significantly worse than the average U.S. citizen. You won't find large gatherings of people with fistfuls of cash ready to be thrown at god (i.e the pastor's new sports car) in exchange for access to heaven in the middle east, but you will here. The money is definitely more easily made from Christianity. The uneducated are much more willing to accept fanciful god claims at face value versus comparing the ideas to their educated understanding of things. Why do you think religious associations here concentrate on children? I'll never forget the day I went with a friend to pick his little sister up from bible school (that sunday school for children thing) to find her in tears crying that she was a sinner and didn't want to go to hell. Sick. Repulsive. The english dictionary doesn't have severe enough words to describe how I felt.

Lastly, just for kicks, assuming there was a Christian god, what makes someone think their Christian denomination is the "right interpretation of god's word (tm)" among the countless others? Faith? Or did they pray one day for something and it came true thus confirming this specific denomination is the right one since god showed them favor by granting them their wish/prayer?