Glenn Beck and a call for religious rebirth

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

In OTHER WORDS (aka mine) there seem to be more elitist Athieists showing hate towards ALL religions, wanting to take away the right of freedom of religion in the US. They aren't letting people believe what they want to believe. Do you directly want to take down all the religions? Maybe, no one could ever know but you're self, however there are so many atheists out there under the guise of "dont make amerika xian amg," just so they can erase all religions.

I think that taking away freedom of religion would be wrong. I don't want to take away religions, I think people should believe in what they want to believe. I will debate about religion with religious people if they want to, but usually it never leads to anything, I don't want to force people into non-believing. But, I do hope that eventually the world would become more atheistic. I want this to occur naturally over many years as we keep learning more about the world around us and teach it to others. I don't have problems with religious people, but I do have problems with religious/or non religious people who think their views are superior to others.

 

So you wouldn't have a problem with me believing in a god that tells me to blow up buildings and kill babies and eat them?

 

Cause thats my religion, you better respect it!

 

^ I hope you're not referring to Muslims there.

 

But you have a point - we need to draw the line on what is "culture" and what is just [bleeped] up. (Not saying anything we've discussed it that, though)

[Zygimantas]

In OTHER WORDS (aka mine) there seem to be more elitist Athieists showing hate towards ALL religions, wanting to take away the right of freedom of religion in the US. They aren't letting people believe what they want to believe. Do you directly want to take down all the religions? Maybe, no one could ever know but you're self, however there are so many atheists out there under the guise of "dont make amerika xian amg," just so they can erase all religions.

I think that taking away freedom of religion would be wrong. I don't want to take away religions, I think people should believe in what they want to believe. I will debate about religion with religious people if they want to, but usually it never leads to anything, I don't want to force people into non-believing. But, I do hope that eventually the world would become more atheistic. I want this to occur naturally over many years as we keep learning more about the world around us and teach it to others. I don't have problems with religious people, but I do have problems with religious/or non religious people who think their views are superior to others.

 

oh I get it. You want religion gone. Just like I said, but not tomorrow, next week.

 

I want the world to be what the world wants to be. I'm Christian, and so I believe the world is going to be ultimately ending up as non Christian.

Well of course I would want it gone, or as Kirby said I would wish that all people would have the same beliefs. Even if you believe that the world will eventually become non-christian, you probably want the world to be more Christian and less Atheist. Nothing wrong with that, just because you want something to happen does not mean that you are going to force it on people. I'm not going to walk around trying to force people into atheism.

[Saru Inc]

In OTHER WORDS (aka mine) there seem to be more elitist Athieists showing hate towards ALL religions, wanting to take away the right of freedom of religion in the US. They aren't letting people believe what they want to believe. Do you directly want to take down all the religions? Maybe, no one could ever know but you're self, however there are so many atheists out there under the guise of "dont make amerika xian amg," just so they can erase all religions.

I think that taking away freedom of religion would be wrong. I don't want to take away religions, I think people should believe in what they want to believe. I will debate about religion with religious people if they want to, but usually it never leads to anything, I don't want to force people into non-believing. But, I do hope that eventually the world would become more atheistic. I want this to occur naturally over many years as we keep learning more about the world around us and teach it to others. I don't have problems with religious people, but I do have problems with religious/or non religious people who think their views are superior to others.

 

So you wouldn't have a problem with me believing in a god that tells me to blow up buildings and kill babies and eat them?

 

Cause thats my religion, you better respect it!

 

Once again, the extremes. I really dislike it when people go on about "welll if Jesus can be god so can a bowl of spaghetti!" it's not about the semantics of a logical debate, it's about defacing and attempting to humiliate said user. Many satanic cults are banned for the ritual sacrifices that incur therein. And just like Muslims and Christian terrorist are not allowed.

 

 

Edit: to God's above post: ok, I agree.

[Zygimantas]

In OTHER WORDS (aka mine) there seem to be more elitist Athieists showing hate towards ALL religions, wanting to take away the right of freedom of religion in the US. They aren't letting people believe what they want to believe. Do you directly want to take down all the religions? Maybe, no one could ever know but you're self, however there are so many atheists out there under the guise of "dont make amerika xian amg," just so they can erase all religions.

I think that taking away freedom of religion would be wrong. I don't want to take away religions, I think people should believe in what they want to believe. I will debate about religion with religious people if they want to, but usually it never leads to anything, I don't want to force people into non-believing. But, I do hope that eventually the world would become more atheistic. I want this to occur naturally over many years as we keep learning more about the world around us and teach it to others. I don't have problems with religious people, but I do have problems with religious/or non religious people who think their views are superior to others.

 

So you wouldn't have a problem with me believing in a god that tells me to blow up buildings and kill babies and eat them?

 

Cause thats my religion, you better respect it!

My policy: Believe in whatever you want to believe in and do whatever you want to do with your life but within the boundaries of not hurting other people.

[Saru Inc]

^^ EXACTLY MY BELIEFS. no trolling. and thinking it over, I understand your POV more now God.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Once again, the extremes. I really dislike it when people go on about "welll if Jesus can be god so can a bowl of spaghetti!" it's not about the semantics of a logical debate, it's about defacing and attempting to humiliate said user.

 

Well I'm pretty sure that what you said would be pretty humiliating to anyone who does believe in the FSM (flying spaghetti monster). Why is your jesus any more important than the FSM?

[Saru Inc]

 

Once again, the extremes. I really dislike it when people go on about "welll if Jesus can be god so can a bowl of spaghetti!" it's not about the semantics of a logical debate, it's about defacing and attempting to humiliate said user.

 

Well I'm pretty sure that what you said would be pretty humiliating to anyone who does believe in the FSM (flying spaghetti monster). Why is your jesus any more important than the FSM?

 

 

Why is your FSM more important than my Jesus?

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Once again, the extremes. I really dislike it when people go on about "welll if Jesus can be god so can a bowl of spaghetti!" it's not about the semantics of a logical debate, it's about defacing and attempting to humiliate said user.

 

Well I'm pretty sure that what you said would be pretty humiliating to anyone who does believe in the FSM (flying spaghetti monster). Why is your jesus any more important than the FSM?

 

Why is your FSM more important than my Jesus?

 

I asked you the question based on the statement you made...I don't think the FSM is more important than jesus, or any other magical being. I think they're all equally pointless.

 

My policy: Believe in whatever you want to believe in and do whatever you want to do with your life but within the boundaries of not hurting other people.

 

But my religion says that when I eat the babies, I am saving their soul and delivering them into the highest ring of heaven. So how am I hurting them?

[Saru Inc]

 

Once again, the extremes. I really dislike it when people go on about "welll if Jesus can be god so can a bowl of spaghetti!" it's not about the semantics of a logical debate, it's about defacing and attempting to humiliate said user.

 

Well I'm pretty sure that what you said would be pretty humiliating to anyone who does believe in the FSM (flying spaghetti monster). Why is your jesus any more important than the FSM?

 

Why is your FSM more important than my Jesus?

 

I asked you the question based on the statement you made...I don't think the FSM is more important than jesus, or any other magical being. I think they're all equally pointless.

 

My policy: Believe in whatever you want to believe in and do whatever you want to do with your life but within the boundaries of not hurting other people.

 

But my religion says that when I eat the babies, I am saving their soul and delivering them into the highest ring of heaven. So how am I hurting them?

 

 

But you do care, problem is, you'll never admit it. And so you figure if you focus on the fact that I admit that I care, some sort or pseudo weakness I suppose, no one will notice you do care.

 

 

@2nd point: Errr.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

 

But you do care, problem is, you'll never admit it. And so you figure if you focus on the fact that I admit that I care, some sort or pseudo weakness I suppose, no one will notice you do care.

 

 

I honestly can't even interpret what the hell you are trying to say here. So you either need to re-write it before I can respond to you, or I guess the conversation stops there.

 

I care about what? And what won't I admit? I can't figure out what you're talking about.

[Zygimantas]

 

My policy: Believe in whatever you want to believe in and do whatever you want to do with your life but within the boundaries of not hurting other people.

 

But my religion says that when I eat the babies, I am saving their soul and delivering them into the highest ring of heaven. So how am I hurting them?

Because I don't care about what happens in a proposed afterlife. My policy refers strictly to the world, universe and the dimension that we are in now. By eating them you are hurting them here. What happens to them after you do that is insignificant unless you can prove it scientifically.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

My policy: Believe in whatever you want to believe in and do whatever you want to do with your life but within the boundaries of not hurting other people.

 

But my religion says that when I eat the babies, I am saving their soul and delivering them into the highest ring of heaven. So how am I hurting them?

Because I don't care about what happens in a proposed afterlife. My policy refers strictly to the world, universe and the dimension that we are in now. By eating them you are hurting them here. What happens to them after you do that is insignificant unless you can prove it scientifically.

 

My religious belief is that the babies feel pleasure instead of pain during the sacrifical ceremonies. However I should warn you, it does look like they are in pain. But I have a 5000 year old book that states otherwise.

[Zygimantas]

 

My policy: Believe in whatever you want to believe in and do whatever you want to do with your life but within the boundaries of not hurting other people.

 

But my religion says that when I eat the babies, I am saving their soul and delivering them into the highest ring of heaven. So how am I hurting them?

Because I don't care about what happens in a proposed afterlife. My policy refers strictly to the world, universe and the dimension that we are in now. By eating them you are hurting them here. What happens to them after you do that is insignificant unless you can prove it scientifically.

 

My religious belief is that the babies feel pleasure instead of pain during the sacrifical ceremonies. However I should warn you, it does look like they are in pain. But I have a 5000 year old book that states otherwise.

Insignificant unless you can prove it scientifically.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Insignificant unless you can prove it scientifically.

 

Why do I have to prove it scientifically when other religions are exempt from this?

[Zygimantas]

 

Insignificant unless you can prove it scientifically.

 

Why do I have to prove it scientifically when other religions are exempt from this?

I think you missed my point. You should be able to believe in your religion without any proof and suffer no consequences for your choice, but when you begin to harm others with it then you lose that freedom.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Insignificant unless you can prove it scientifically.

 

Why do I have to prove it scientifically when other religions are exempt from this?

I think you missed my point. You should be able to believe in your religion without any proof and suffer no consequences for your choice, but when you begin to harm others with it then you lose that freedom.

 

I didn't miss your point. Any type of religion harms people. Millions of babies are being born into households and being indoctrinated with irrational beliefs about the world. Female babies in the middle east are being harmed with very painful "female circumcision" operations.

 

Also, I would consider it harmful to the intellectual thought process to teach children that it is okay to blindly hold on to beliefs that have no evidence. Maybe it isn't killing them and resulting in their eaten corpses, but I truly feel sorry for kids who are being encouraged to reject the teachings of biology.

 

I don't see why it is harmless to encourage stubornness in people.

[jasignhagj]

Wow. This pisses me off. So here's a series of easy to reference points.

 

1. Glenn beck is an idiot. There is no debating this. It is a fact. Birds fly, sun shines, grass grows, scout hurts people, and Glenn beck spews bigoted [cabbage] like a goddamn garden hose.

 

2. The very idea of giving speeches on the steps of the Lincoln memorial shows just how ignorant these people are. I can't even fathom the angle they were going for. "let's compare a bunch of fools who hardly know what they're talking about to the civil rights movement" doesnt exactly strike me as intelligent.

 

Sent from my iPod, excuse the spelling.

I agree. Glen Beck is either and idiot, or the worlds most successful troll. My bets are on the first one.

[Saru Inc]

 

 

But you do care, problem is, you'll never admit it. And so you figure if you focus on the fact that I admit that I care, some sort or pseudo weakness I suppose, no one will notice you do care.

 

 

I honestly can't even interpret what the hell you are trying to say here. So you either need to re-write it before I can respond to you, or I guess the conversation stops there.

 

I care about what? And what won't I admit? I can't figure out what you're talking about.

 

Well if you don't care, why are you getting so worked up? :huh:

 

Point being, though slightly unrelated, is that your spaghetti monster is the exact same as my Jesus. Atheism is a religion, people with brains don't deny it, science, could be said, is your "God." However, the Spaghetti monster is your attack on other Gods. You try to invalidate our God with your spaghetti monster, then call Religions petty because they fight over stupid little Gods. Only to not realize you are doing the same thing, whether you admit to it or not.

[BlindBaker]

It'd be ideal if everybody on earth was of the same religion, but I think that this is the wrong way to go about trying to make it happen. (It will never happen, so any way is the wrong way about trying to make it happen.)

 

I wish I had more to post :mellow:

Even if it did happen, we'd find a way to split ourselves up. I mean, look what happened to Christianity.

 

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Well if you don't care, why are you getting so worked up? :huh:

I wasn't saying I dont care, I was saying that I did not understand your writing. I didnt know what I was supposedly caring or not caring about

Point being, though slightly unrelated, is that your spaghetti monster is the exact same as my Jesus. Atheism is a religion, people with brains don't deny it, science, could be said, is your "God." However, the Spaghetti monster is your attack on other Gods. You try to invalidate our God with your spaghetti monster, then call Religions petty because they fight over stupid little Gods. Only to not realize you are doing the same thing, whether you admit to it or not.

 

How is athiesm a religion? Actually by definition it is a lack of religion. I do not believe in anything. I observe facts and make logical deductions about the nature of reality. My views about the world are not fixed and I hold no "beliefs" or "faiths". Right now, I have concluded that evolution was the process that brought humans into existance, but if new evidence emerged then my views would change.

 

Religion is a belief in one thing, a belief based on faith and not on evidence. It is irrational, and illogical. Atheism is not a religion, it is not a belief, and it is not a faith in anything.

[Saru Inc]

 

Well if you don't care, why are you getting so worked up? :huh:

I wasn't saying I dont care, I was saying that I did not understand your writing. I didnt know what I was supposedly caring or not caring about

Point being, though slightly unrelated, is that your spaghetti monster is the exact same as my Jesus. Atheism is a religion, people with brains don't deny it, science, could be said, is your "God." However, the Spaghetti monster is your attack on other Gods. You try to invalidate our God with your spaghetti monster, then call Religions petty because they fight over stupid little Gods. Only to not realize you are doing the same thing, whether you admit to it or not.

 

How is athiesm a religion? Actually by definition it is a lack of religion. I do not believe in anything. I observe facts and make logical deductions about the nature of reality. My views about the world are not fixed and I hold no "beliefs" or "faiths". Right now, I have concluded that evolution was the process that brought humans into existance, but if new evidence emerged then my views would change.

 

Religion is a belief in one thing, a belief based on faith and not on evidence. It is irrational, and illogical. Atheism is not a religion, it is not a belief, and it is not a faith in anything.

 

 

You don't understand logic, and that's the one thing that sticks out. Also, it's irrational to try and rationalize an irrational world.

 

Second, Atheism is a religion, however Atheists won't admit it, because let's face it. Religoin is for illogical ppls@!

[Myweponsg00d]

 

 

You don't understand logic, and that's the one thing that sticks out. Also, it's irrational to try and rationalize an irrational world.

 

Second, Atheism is a religion, however Atheists won't admit it, because let's face it. Religoin is for illogical ppls@!

 

But I asked you, HOW is it a religion? What makes it a religion? You can't just make a statement and use it without anything to support your statement.

 

If we are allowed to just make statements then I can just say "You are wrong"

 

But please...what makes atheism a religion? Where is the faith? How am I religious, when the word A-THEISM means WITHOUT THEISM

[Zygimantas]

 

Insignificant unless you can prove it scientifically.

 

Why do I have to prove it scientifically when other religions are exempt from this?

I think you missed my point. You should be able to believe in your religion without any proof and suffer no consequences for your choice, but when you begin to harm others with it then you lose that freedom.

 

I didn't miss your point. Any type of religion harms people. Millions of babies are being born into households and being indoctrinated with irrational beliefs about the world. Female babies in the middle east are being harmed with very painful "female circumcision" operations.

 

Also, I would consider it harmful to the intellectual thought process to teach children that it is okay to blindly hold on to beliefs that have no evidence. Maybe it isn't killing them and resulting in their eaten corpses, but I truly feel sorry for kids who are being encouraged to reject the teachings of biology.

 

I don't see why it is harmless to encourage stubornness in people.

I dislike it when religion causes harm with no logical reason other then religion for doing so, I am against those female circumcisions.

 

I knew that this question about my "policy" regarding indirect harm will eventually come into play.

The things you listed are why I hope that eventually people would turn away from religion, and we actually are, the percentage of atheists in the world now has certainly increased over what it was 100 years ago. Hopefully as time goes on more people can learn about the scientific views regarding life and existence, and as science continues to develop it should eventually overcome the religions that are not developing.

 

That being said, we can't "force" anything. We don't need any wars to be fought over theist and atheist views in the future and we certainly don't want theists to think about atheists in the same way that a lot of atheists think about theists which is, " they are ignorant and are trying to convert us". Maybe more theists would change their mind about religion if more atheists showed that they are open-minded and respect other opinions. This in turn would make theists appear to be much less "stubborn".

 

I can see a Christian having the exact views you have but just flipped. He would argue that atheists brainwash their children into science and encourage them to reject god.

 

In the end religious views become nothing more then opinions. Even if it seems to be irrational, irrationality is relative to the person.

 

We can not do anything about theists raising theists, I believe that they have the right. With the goal being to avoid unnecessary conflicts, theists can only hope for atheists to change and atheists can only hope for theists to change.

[Dupin]

[spoiler=TLDR]

 

Well if you don't care, why are you getting so worked up? :huh:

I wasn't saying I dont care, I was saying that I did not understand your writing. I didnt know what I was supposedly caring or not caring about

Point being, though slightly unrelated, is that your spaghetti monster is the exact same as my Jesus. Atheism is a religion, people with brains don't deny it, science, could be said, is your "God." However, the Spaghetti monster is your attack on other Gods. You try to invalidate our God with your spaghetti monster, then call Religions petty because they fight over stupid little Gods. Only to not realize you are doing the same thing, whether you admit to it or not.

 

How is athiesm a religion? Actually by definition it is a lack of religion. I do not believe in anything. I observe facts and make logical deductions about the nature of reality. My views about the world are not fixed and I hold no "beliefs" or "faiths". Right now, I have concluded that evolution was the process that brought humans into existance, but if new evidence emerged then my views would change.

 

Religion is a belief in one thing, a belief based on faith and not on evidence. It is irrational, and illogical. Atheism is not a religion, it is not a belief, and it is not a faith in anything.

 

 

You don't understand logic, and that's the one thing that sticks out. Also, it's irrational to try and rationalize an irrational world.

 

Second, Atheism is a religion, however Atheists won't admit it, because let's face it. Religoin is for illogical ppls@!

 

 

 

I actually agree with Saruman for once here.

 

Proof for religion lies in the fact that one trusts one's parents/priests/other religious influence. One cannot prove all the stuff in the Bible happened. One believes it based on what one is told.

 

Proof for evolution lies in the fact that one trusts a bunch of theoreticians and scientists. You did not unearth any fossils. Your proof lies in the fact that you trust the reasoning of other people. Atheism is a result of believing in evolution.

 

Given the facts that we have, atheism seems more logical. However, we cannot prove the accuracy of these facts. The truth is that we are blindly defending a developing theory, which could easily be different in 100 years.

 

Religion is the older of two fallacies.

 

 

Also, it's irrational to try and rationalize an irrational world.

Ah! But to make an irrational decision based on said irrationality would be doubly irrational.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

 

I can see a Christian having the exact views you have but just flipped. He would argue that atheists brainwash their children into science and encourage them to reject god.

 

But atheism is not a rejection of the idea of a god, it is the embrace of anything that is supported by evidence. If an intelligent designer or god was scientifically proven to exist, atheists would not blindly reject his existence. There is no brainwashing, there is brain freeing. A christian raised child can believe in one version of what they believe about the universe. An atheist child can believe in anything that has the most convincing evidence.

 

In the end religious views become nothing more then opinions. Even if it seems to be irrational, irrationality is relative to the person.

Are you talking about morality? Or views about how the world/universe came to exist? If it has to deal with how the universe came to be, there most certainly is an objective way to determine if something is rational or irrational. If you are speaking of moral beliefs then I might have to agree that there is no way to objectively say that one moral system is more rational than others. Some philosophers would disagree though. But I am not a philosopher, so I dont really know what to say about that.

We can not do anything about theists raising theists, I believe that they have the right. With the goal being to avoid unnecessary conflicts, theists can only hope for atheists to change and atheists can only hope for theists to change.

 

Do you believe that people have the right to tell their children that since they are Republicans that the children must be Republicans? Do you think that people who dropped out of high school should force their kids to drop out? Do you think vegetarian parents should force their children to be vegetarians? Should football players force their children to be football players?