Glenn Beck and a call for religious rebirth

[Saru Inc]

[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.

 

True. I guess irrationality is relative then >.> Or maybe I'm just irrational.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

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.

 

Are you saying that there is somebody who CAN prove it? Like that the priests are analogous to "scientists" of religion? If so, I would like to see the evidence that they based their conclusions on.

 

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.

I have been to the museum and seen fossils. If I wanted to, I could track down the scientific work on the fossils. I could become a paleontologist and fully observe the evidence for myself.

 

No matter what I did, I could not see any evidence for god.

 

Believing the work of thousands of scientists who consistently document and publicly display evidence (that you are free to observe) is far different from believing in something that has literally no evidence for it.

 

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.

 

What do you mean we cannot prove it? Technically you cannot prove anything. There is a significant difference between firmly believing that your theory is bulletproof vs. living your life based on a theory that is extremely probable. Atheism is not a faith that our current theories of the universe are 100% descriptive. Atheists are in favor of whichever theory has the most compelling evidence.

 

Most atheists will not tell you that they think there absolutely is 100% no god. But these people would also probably say that there is an equal probability that there are gnomes in their garden, or unicorns in the forest.

[Saru Inc]

It's really the same coin. It just depends on fate's flip, which side you land. In absence of knowledge, I submit God. In absence of knowledge, you submit the knowledge to come. Neither makes us any less of a part of coin, we're just different sides.

[Myweponsg00d]

It's really the same coin. It just depends on fate's flip, which side you land. In absence of knowledge, I submit God. In absence of knowledge, you submit the knowledge to come. Neither makes us any less of a part of coin, we're just different sides.

 

No good scientist would say that they know that science will eventually explain everything about the universe. Scientists do not have a faith that science will eventually explain everything.

 

Also, there is an enormous problem with submitting god for absence of knowledge. What about the god then? Where did he come from? Why did he want to make us? Where does he get his power? Why did he choose to make the universe so damn big? The "god hypothesis" rises more questions than it answers.

 

So in absence of knowledge, your solution leads to even more questions. You replace one unknown with an unknown that can never be known. Science submits an unknown that may eventually be known if we discover enough evidence. Religion, basically, is giving up on knowing.

[Saru Inc]

Who made God? The [bleep]? Isn't the point being God has always existed? Besides, Religion doesn't impose that we will know everything. Any good religious person could tell you that ;0 You seein the similarities yet?

[Giordano]

Who made God? The [bleep]? Isn't the point being God has always existed? Besides, Religion doesn't impose that we will know everything. Any good religious person could tell you that ;0 You seein the similarities yet?

No, the point is Ivan has always existed, who then made Chuck Norris, which in turn made God, which in turn made us.

 

Ignorant fools.

[Saru Inc]

Damn. Oh well, there's always wiccanism.

 

 

im go to bed

[Dupin]

Also, there is an enormous problem with submitting god for absence of knowledge. What about the god then? Where did he come from? Why did he want to make us? Where does he get his power? Why did he choose to make the universe so damn big? The "god hypothesis" rises more questions than it answers.

 

And where, may I ask, did your "Big Bang" come from? Niether philosophy can explain the origins of the universe, and that is the bottom line. Sure, someday we'll know more about the Big Bang, but who's to say we won't have a visitation from Heaven? Besides, of course, us logical atheists and our bulletproof faith.

 

Your atheism is just as much of a leap of faith as Saruman's strange non-homosexual-hating Christianity.

[jasignhagj]

I find the history of religion funny. First we had the Egyptians and Hindus who had thousands of gods to explain everything. Then we got a bit smarter, and only needed a few dozen gods to explain things. Finally, someone decided that it was just easier to have one god that covered everything, so once we figured out how something actually worked, we could just say "god made it that way".

[Zygimantas]

 

 

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.

A Christian could say that the one thing the child believes in is the one and only truth, so believing in anything else is not needed. This statement does not seem very logical to me and probably to you as well, but it may seem logical to others.

 

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.

Yes, I am talking about morality.

 

There is no such thing as a definite "right" or "wrong" when it comes to morals, they are opinion oriented.

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?

I don't think they should do this, but they have the right to do so until the child can think for themselves. But when children have reached a certain age (could be anywhere from 12-15 on average) when they can logically form their own opinions, then they have the right to do so and disagree with what their parents tell them if it seems illogical. Independence in one's beliefs, thoughts, morals and virtues should be had by everyone after they are old enough to understand what the hell is going on.

[BLaSpHeMy]

This is....Sad...

300K people rallying for smaller government and less morons in office? Yup. I like it. I really find it dumb, however, that you think that (almost) everyone protesting the Ground Zero Mosque is Christian, and the only factor is they are Christian. Maybe they don't want to disrespect everyone who died? I'm sure if you had a relative who died there, you would be a little less inclined to let them build a religious site for the same religion as the people who FLEW A PLANE INTO A BUILDING.

 

Firstly its not a mosque its a community centre with just a place to worship

secondly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

and finally the religion it self is not to blame but the people

Im a muslim..but does not mean im plotting and scheming evil plans

[superson]

This is....Sad...

300K people rallying for smaller government and less morons in office? Yup. I like it. I really find it dumb, however, that you think that (almost) everyone protesting the Ground Zero Mosque is Christian, and the only factor is they are Christian. Maybe they don't want to disrespect everyone who died? I'm sure if you had a relative who died there, you would be a little less inclined to let them build a religious site for the same religion as the people who FLEW A PLANE INTO A BUILDING.

 

Firstly its not a mosque its a community centre with just a place to worship

secondly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

and finally the religion it self is not to blame but the people

Im a muslim..but does not mean im plotting and scheming evil plans

 

Actually reputable sources would not disagree that 40-45% of you harbors evil thoughts about America.

 

It's scientific.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

And where, may I ask, did your "Big Bang" come from? Niether philosophy can explain the origins of the universe, and that is the bottom line. Sure, someday we'll know more about the Big Bang, but who's to say we won't have a visitation from Heaven? Besides, of course, us logical atheists and our bulletproof faith.

 

Your atheism is just as much of a leap of faith as Saruman's strange non-homosexual-hating Christianity.

 

There is no leap of faith. The big bang does not claim to answer all questions. We do not have a theory that currently describes what was "outside" the big bang. It might be something, it might be nothing. Nobody knows and nobody claims to know. We have no blind faith that the big bang existed. We don't think that there absolutely IS something outside of the big bang, and we don't have faith that there isn't.

 

We support the theories that currently have the most supporting evidence. There is currently no evidence to tell us what happened before the big bang, thus scientists would probably tell you that they have no theory.

 

Any more brain busters?

[Hawks]

Why do you people care so much about random people spewing *anything* about *anything*? If they're in the opposition to the majority of the forum, it gets posted, people get angry and call the instigator an idiot/troll. If it's not, it might get posted, people will go 'lol' and go on with their merry lives.

 

I could care less that it's Glenn Beck. He's only the organizer of the people. If someone else decided to do it, it would have happened. I watch Fox News but don't pay much attention to the random talk show people on it.

 

What this truly shows is that a large number of Americans are angry with this idea of building a mosque at ground zero, and rightfully so. They have a right to be angry and protest as much as the muslims have a right to build the thing. That's the beauty of the Constitution and its amendments. I personally believe that it would be just as 'wrong' to put a Christian church in that building as it would to put an Islamic mosque. I also believe that the majority of America does not feel that way and could care less if they built a church there, but is angry that they're even thinking of putting a mosque there.

 

Whatever. I'm agnostic and libertarian. Smaller government is almost always better.

[Nenga]

This is....Sad...

300K people rallying for smaller government and less morons in office? Yup. I like it. I really find it dumb, however, that you think that (almost) everyone protesting the Ground Zero Mosque is Christian, and the only factor is they are Christian. Maybe they don't want to disrespect everyone who died? I'm sure if you had a relative who died there, you would be a little less inclined to let them build a religious site for the same religion as the people who FLEW A PLANE INTO A BUILDING.

 

Firstly its not a mosque its a community centre with just a place to worship

secondly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

and finally the religion it self is not to blame but the people

Im a muslim..but does not mean im plotting and scheming evil plans

 

Actually reputable sources would not disagree that 40-45% of you harbors evil thoughts about America.

 

It's scientific.

It's bull, that's what it is.

 

If someone said he killed someone in the name of god, do you blame Christianity? No? Then why do you blame Islam when someone says they murdered someone in the name of Allah?

Actually reputable sources would not disagree that 40-45% of you harbors evil thoughts about America

that shows right there that you consider all of Islam, regular people and extremist factions, to be one and the same. Nice job, fail troll is fail, gtfo, the usual crap.

[obfuscator]

I think he was being sarcastic...

[magekillr]

Lol, what I find ironic is that this audacious clown and his Caribou Barbie sidekick had the nerve to yell about the mosque, and here they are, on the anniversary of MLK's I Have a Dream Speech to "reclaim" the Civil Rights Movement. These people would have all been Southern Democrats if this was back during the Civil Rights Movement. Everything MLK stands for is the opposite of what Palin and Beck preach. Few know this today because every side likes to try and claim MLK (the Republicans list all sorts of anarchists and socialists on their website who "were famous Republicans" thinking people will be ignorant of ideology...people like Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass), but MLK didn't just preach for an end to segregation and racism, he called for social democracy and an equal opportunity for all.

 

And one day we must ask the question, Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society.

~MLK, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 1967

 

In any case, Beck's a huckster, plain and simple. If spreading liberal ideology made him more money, he'd do that.

[The Dark Lord]

Silly Republicans. Socialism is for socialists.

[danny_boy_94]

 

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.

 

So tell me, what is your 'logical deduction' of how the universe came to be?

[magekillr]

 

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.

 

So tell me, what is your 'logical deduction' of how the universe came to be?

 

We don't know. The funny thing is, oh high and mighty one, neither do you. So cool beans, we're on the same field. "Goddidit" doesn't help and only leads to more questions.

 

However, there is some speculation that there are multiple universes, and when two collide, a new one is created or something like that. This is of course speculation, though.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

 

So tell me, what is your 'logical deduction' of how the universe came to be?

 

What do you mean MY logical deduction? I have not done any work on cosmology, as I have only an undergraduate degree in physics.

 

The big bang is, of course, the leading theory of what happened at the beginning of the universe. Is that what you are asking?

 

Or are you asking what happened before the big bang? If that is your question then I would have to say that there is currently not enough evidence to make a rational conclusion at this time. If there is any evidence, I haven't heard of it. The last I heard, scientists suggest that the universe originated out of a singularity (similar to what a black hole is presumed to be). However I do not think there is any current theory for where this singularity came from, or whether indeed we can even say what it would mean for it to "come from" anything, since the phrase "come from" suggests an order of events. This wouldn't really make any sense, if what we call "time" actually started with the big bang.

[Zygimantas]

[hide]

 

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.

 

So tell me, what is your 'logical deduction' of how the universe came to be?

 

We don't know. The funny thing is, oh high and mighty one, neither do you. So cool beans, we're on the same field. "Goddidit" doesn't help and only leads to more questions.

 

However, there is some speculation that there are multiple universes, and when two collide, a new one is created or something like that. This is of course speculation, though.

[/hide]

Of course even if that was true, the question would eventually come to "So how did universes form before there were any?" Our brains are used to thinking that every effect has a cause. But with every cause comes a cause of the cause. So it would be logical to think that there is no origin to how everything came to be, instead existence of our universe (or universes if you would like to believe that) was caused by an infinite amount of different causes that led to effects that led to different causes. Of course when we think of this our mind naturally says " Well then, what caused the infinite causes", but we know that an infinite amount does not have a beginning or end. Basically, this whole thing about origins is just mind boggling.

[Maulmachine]

Whenever Glen Beck talks about religion and the founding fathers I always get a kick out of it. He ignores the Treaty of Tripoli.

 

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, Article 11: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

 

Articulated by John Adams.

[The Dark Lord]

But dude, the Treaty of Tripoli was just a treaty. Who gives a [bleep] about treaties, right?

 

It's like how evolution was just a theory.

 

The constitution says that we are a Christian nation. It's part of the lost amendments.

[Myweponsg00d]

I really hate using old legislation as any sort of proof though...sure it might enhance the secularism debate, but it just gives them the right then to use the second ammendment as evidence in other debates...

 

I don't think any ammendments or treaties should be held onto blindly. 200 years have passed since all that legislation was passed, and society has changed drastically with the invention of the telephone, airplane, internet, nuclear arms, etc. I mean back then, the right to bear arms meant that people could have a pistol that held single rounds and had poor accuracy at even 10-20 yards. Now, it means I can own basically a friggn sniper rifle. I really doubt that the founding fathers would have wanted such deadly technology so widely available.

 

Though, it is interesting that 200 years ago, we made this country separated from religion, even though the ammount of evidence for the origin of man, earth, the sun, and the universe was miniscule/non-existant. Now we have solid theories for all of this, and people are trying to RAISE the power of the christian faith.

 

F that.