Glenn Beck and a call for religious rebirth

[Dupin]

 

 

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?

You keep stumbling up against my point. Where did you get this "leading theory"? You certainly didn't deduce it for yourself. You are trusting the theoreticians and scientists the same way theists trust their priests. When a new piece of solid evidence is unearthed, the theists will say "oh God was speaking metaphorically" and you will say "I never said my ideas were the only possible solution". You are both wrong and you both refuse to admit that what you are saying could be complete bullcrap.

[obfuscator]

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.

So, there was nothing, and then something happened to that nothing for no reason, somehow making everything. Real solid theory.

[Harakiri]

My favorite part is that Al Sharpton couldn't keep his stupid nose out of Beck's rally and had to have a march/rally of his own to complain.

 

So we had three major idiots in DC yesterday:

-Al Sharpton

-Glenn Beck

-Sarah Palin

[Nenga]

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.

200 years have passed huh. Ok no more freedoms, time to kill woman and children in the street if they arn't Christan. Stick the men in camps having them work to provide food, water, electricity, etc. Ever wanted to cuss out a support guy over the phone helping you with a problem? Well now you can, it's even encouraged, they're second class citizens now that 200 years have passed!

 

THINK before you type something out.

[Aiel]

 

 

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?

You keep stumbling up against my point. Where did you get this "leading theory"? You certainly didn't deduce it for yourself. You are trusting the theoreticians and scientists the same way theists trust their priests. When a new piece of solid evidence is unearthed, the theists will say "oh God was speaking metaphorically" and you will say "I never said my ideas were the only possible solution". You are both wrong and you both refuse to admit that what you are saying could be complete bullcrap.

there's a reason its called a "theory" and not a "fact." If new evidence became available that showed otherwise, the theory would fall from popularity as it would no longer be supported by scientific evidence.

[magekillr]

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.

200 years have passed huh. Ok no more freedoms, time to kill woman and children in the street if they arn't Christan. Stick the men in camps having them work to provide food, water, electricity, etc. Ever wanted to cuss out a support guy over the phone helping you with a problem? Well now you can, it's even encouraged, they're second class citizens now that 200 years have passed!

 

THINK before you type something out.

 

He/she did think before typing it, you're the one who didn't understand his/her point. The point being made is that a lot of the Constitution is largely irrelevant in today's society, and there's a certain truth to that. As time goes on, governments and society progress and change. In many ways, parts of the document are outdated; amendments like the second one and the tenth one, although the tenth is mostly just misunderstood by a lot of people who argue that the federal government has stepped on the states. The electoral college is also very outdated, and some argue that we should abolish the Senate completely because it's undemocratic. The House was expected to be the most powerful part of the government, but slowly the Senate and the Presidency are becoming far more powerful.

 

However, I largely believe their intentions are irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they intended, it was 200 years ago, and they weren't Gods Among Men.

 

What I find most ironic about people like Beck who claim to love the Constitution is that people like Beck would have been AGAINST the Constitution during the Continental Congresses.

 

The Tea Partiers obviously have no true knowledge or understanding of the history of the United States and the Constitution. While it is true that their intellectual inspiration can be traced back to the days of the Founding, it is manifestly not true that the Founders are their inspiration. Their heroes properly should be those who opposed the Constitution, the anti-Federalists.

 

Alexander Hamilton and the other Founders are their intellectual enemies, not their intellectual forebears.

[Maulmachine]

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.

Yeah, stupid treaties, always outlining words and idieas that aren't part of our narrative. I mean come on, it's just a piece of paper drafted by one of the most important founding fathers, who cares? Now, who do you mean by "we" are we talking about Madagascar? International forum, mate. The United States is not founded on Christianity, it's founded on freedom to believe whatever you want.

 

The lost amendments? I'm extraordinarily confused by this comment. What lost amendment?

[Dupin]

Maulmachine, Andvari was being sarcastic.

 

My favorite part is that Al Sharpton couldn't keep his stupid nose out of Beck's rally and had to have a march/rally of his own to complain.

 

So we had three major idiots in DC yesterday:

-Al Sharpton

-Glenn Beck

-Sarah Palin

There were a few more than three.

[Saru Inc]

 

What I find most ironic about people like Beck who claim to love the Constitution is that people like Beck would have been AGAINST the Constitution during the Continental Congresses.

 

 

 

Actually, very true.

[TTanT]

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.

Yeah, stupid treaties, always outlining words and idieas that aren't part of our narrative. I mean come on, it's just a piece of paper drafted by one of the most important founding fathers, who cares? Now, who do you mean by "we" are we talking about Madagascar? International forum, mate. The United States is not founded on Christianity, it's founded on freedom to believe whatever you want.

 

The lost amendments? I'm extraordinarily confused by this comment. What lost amendment?

Maul, let me make his post more clear:

 

[sarcasm]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.[/sarcasm]

[Alg]

Lost amendments? I smell a Dan Brown novel...

[Nenga]

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.

200 years have passed huh. Ok no more freedoms, time to kill woman and children in the street if they arn't Christan. Stick the men in camps having them work to provide food, water, electricity, etc. Ever wanted to cuss out a support guy over the phone helping you with a problem? Well now you can, it's even encouraged, they're second class citizens now that 200 years have passed!

 

THINK before you type something out.

 

He/she did think before typing it, you're the one who didn't understand his/her point. The point being made is that a lot of the Constitution is largely irrelevant in today's society, and there's a certain truth to that. As time goes on, governments and society progress and change. In many ways, parts of the document are outdated; amendments like the second one and the tenth one, although the tenth is mostly just misunderstood by a lot of people who argue that the federal government has stepped on the states. The electoral college is also very outdated, and some argue that we should abolish the Senate completely because it's undemocratic. The House was expected to be the most powerful part of the government, but slowly the Senate and the Presidency are becoming far more powerful.

 

Besides specifically mentioning the thing about the right to bear arms, it only said it's been 200 years since it all was passed. Unless you're specific people will interrupt messages how it sounds to them. He/she mentioned all of it, so I assumed he/she meant all of it.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

You keep stumbling up against my point. Where did you get this "leading theory"? You certainly didn't deduce it for yourself. You are trusting the theoreticians and scientists the same way theists trust their priests.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. It would be POSSIBLE for me to go see the evidence for any scientific theory. It would be impossible to see any evidence for religion. Relying on people for communication is different from having a faith in something that has no supportive evidence. The evidence is there, and I have actually seen plenty of the fossils in the smithsonian

When a new piece of solid evidence is unearthed, the theists will say "oh God was speaking metaphorically" and you will say "I never said my ideas were the only possible solution". You are both wrong and you both refuse to admit that what you are saying could be complete bullcrap.

That is false. No good scientist would ever pretend that he or she is all-knowing about the truth behind any phenomenon. I am an evolutionist, but I would never ever say that evolution is, without a shred of a doubt, a 100% proven fact. I also would say the same thing about the existence of unicorns, garden gnomes, and vampires. Science admits that its theories could be incorrect. We dont pretend that we are all-knowing and then try to cover it up after the fact. Scientists do not think that the leading theories ARE correct, we just advance knowledge and live our lives based on the pretense that the leading theories are LIKELY correct. We don't just sit around, figure stuff out, and then pretend that our theories are infallible.

 

So, there was nothing, and then something happened to that nothing for no reason, somehow making everything. Real solid theory.

 

Yes, the "theory" for what happened before the big bang is not a good theory. There is NO theory at the moment. Why? Because there is no evidence. There will never be a good theory unless we can gather strong evidence.

[Harakiri]

Maulmachine, Andvari was being sarcastic.

 

My favorite part is that Al Sharpton couldn't keep his stupid nose out of Beck's rally and had to have a march/rally of his own to complain.

 

So we had three major idiots in DC yesterday:

-Al Sharpton

-Glenn Beck

-Sarah Palin

There were a few more than three.

 

Well, I can't rightly count Obama because he is there everyday. I just meant visitors. Though I guess some of the Beck fans can be counted too.

[obfuscator]

 

So, there was nothing, and then something happened to that nothing for no reason, somehow making everything. Real solid theory.

 

Yes, the "theory" for what happened before the big bang is not a good theory. There is NO theory at the moment. Why? Because there is no evidence. There will never be a good theory unless we can gather strong evidence.

Yet you seem more inclined to believe this fact-less theory than the existence of a God...

[Myweponsg00d]

 

So, there was nothing, and then something happened to that nothing for no reason, somehow making everything. Real solid theory.

 

Yes, the "theory" for what happened before the big bang is not a good theory. There is NO theory at the moment. Why? Because there is no evidence. There will never be a good theory unless we can gather strong evidence.

Yet you seem more inclined to believe this fact-less theory than the existence of a God...

 

I dont believe a factless theory. There is NO theory. I have no comment on what happened before the big bang, because nobody knows yet what happened before the big bang. The current scientific view on the matter is that we are not yet able to comment on what happened before the big bang, because we have no evidence.

 

Why is it smarter to pretend that you have knowledge than to admit we can't yet figure it out?

 

Also I've said it before, but god doesn't answer any questions. Why does that god exist? When did he come about? The suggestion of a god raises more questions than it answers. It is a terrible solution to the problem.

 

It is smarter to say "I can't solve this problem yet" then to say "I'll solve this problem!" and create an idea that arises an infinite number of complications.

[Nenga]

 

So, there was nothing, and then something happened to that nothing for no reason, somehow making everything. Real solid theory.

 

Yes, the "theory" for what happened before the big bang is not a good theory. There is NO theory at the moment. Why? Because there is no evidence. There will never be a good theory unless we can gather strong evidence.

Yet you seem more inclined to believe this fact-less theory than the existence of a God...

The existence of a god is the same fact-less theory, this time we're just making up a name.

[Saru Inc]

 

So, there was nothing, and then something happened to that nothing for no reason, somehow making everything. Real solid theory.

 

Yes, the "theory" for what happened before the big bang is not a good theory. There is NO theory at the moment. Why? Because there is no evidence. There will never be a good theory unless we can gather strong evidence.

Yet you seem more inclined to believe this fact-less theory than the existence of a God...

 

I dont believe a factless theory. There is NO theory. I have no comment on what happened before the big bang, because nobody knows yet what happened before the big bang. The current scientific view on the matter is that we are not yet able to comment on what happened before the big bang, because we have no evidence.

 

Why is it smarter to pretend that you have knowledge than to admit we can't yet figure it out?

 

Also I've said it before, but god doesn't answer any questions. Why does that god exist? When did he come about? The suggestion of a god raises more questions than it answers. It is a terrible solution to the problem.

 

It is smarter to say "I can't solve this problem yet" then to say "I'll solve this problem!" and create an idea that arises an infinite number of complications.

 

 

Wanna know whats cool.

 

The Christian's version of Genesis explains the Big Bang before Scientists did. Which means the Scientists are biased. Throw away all those facts, they're just opinions now. Also, as stated previously, trolling aside, you simply don't understand nor appreciate Religion. And thats what it boils down to with you and Magekillr.

[magekillr]

What do we not understand about it? Also, what is there to appreciate?

[Myweponsg00d]

Wanna know whats cool.

 

The Christian's version of Genesis explains the Big Bang before Scientists did. Which means the Scientists are biased. Throw away all those facts, they're just opinions now.

I dont understand what the hell you are talking about here. Perhaps some specificity would help you

Also, as stated previously, trolling aside, you simply don't understand nor appreciate Religion. And thats what it boils down to with you and Magekillr.

Again it is impossible to understand you unless you have anything more specific to say. Otherwise I could simply say "You simply dont understand or appreciate atheism" You need to elaborate on your points.

[Alg]

One side can't comprehend the other either way. They're just too different. On one end you have a group that approaches things as a group and takes its knowledge from one source, on the other you have a movement that stresses the individual and takes its knowledge from another source. The former has an unchanging book with guides to moral situations mixed with stories of good and evil, the latter has an eternally changing conglomerate of observations that tries as hard as it can to remove itself from the human factor.

 

The only similarity is that they often organize in order to hate the other side together, without thinking about why. And they both tend to be pretty condescending to everyone that isn't a part of their little group.

[obfuscator]

What do we not understand about it? Also, what is there to appreciate?

That last sentence basically sums up the fact that you don't understand it :lol:

[The Dark Lord]

Eh, science and religion are really just two different schools of thought. You can't try to use either in order to try to justify your views concerning both of them. End of story. The Roman Catholic church tried that and failed miserably while at the same time creating the bastard child of science known as scholasticism.

 

Truth is relative and goes against the point of science anyway, so if you wanna find the truth, jump off of a bridge and see if you respawn in heaven. No, not really, but you get what I mean.

[Myweponsg00d]

Eh, science and religion are really just two different schools of thought. You can't try to use either in order to try to justify your views concerning both of them. End of story.

 

Why? Why are they seperate?

 

If religion tries to tell me that my physical world was created by some magical being who pooped me out some day, why can I not examine my physical world and try to find evidence that supports the occurance?

 

Religion is not a school of thought, it is a school of un-thought. If you were religious, and actually spent your time thinking instead of just blindly following, I dont think youd be religious for very long.

 

That last sentence basically sums up the fact that you don't understand it

Okay, even if that is the case, I'd still be curious what the answer to the question is. WHAT is there to appreciate?

[Saru Inc]

Wanna know whats cool.

 

The Christian's version of Genesis explains the Big Bang before Scientists did. Which means the Scientists are biased. Throw away all those facts, they're just opinions now.

I dont understand what the hell you are talking about here. Perhaps some specificity would help you

Also, as stated previously, trolling aside, you simply don't understand nor appreciate Religion. And thats what it boils down to with you and Magekillr.

Again it is impossible to understand you unless you have anything more specific to say. Otherwise I could simply say "You simply dont understand or appreciate atheism" You need to elaborate on your points.

 

Ok, the "trolling aside" comment implied the first sentence was sarcasm.

 

And the reason I don't bother elucidating on my points is because I know it will make no difference. When people of the opposing sides post something, I may post something stupid like "atheists r nerds L" but that doesn't mean I didn't comprehend, and digest the post. I've actually become significantly more liberal since I joined this forum, but whenever I post a point I invest all this energy into explaining, people make these replies like they only read the first 3 words.

 

Ok: In the first quote I was while making a joke, also saying in Genesis the 7 day week of creation explains the creation of the world via the Big Bang theory. Almost exactly. So I was implying they just stole the idea of the big bang/evolution from the bible.

 

On the 2nd part:

When I say appreciate, I don't mean appreciate in the sense of being thankful. But in the sense of... I guess you could say understanding Religion's place in the world, both good and bad of it. Your take on it seems very one sided, which is why I say you don't fully understand it. Religion has brought so much good into the world, and you don't even care. You try to dissect it, and compare it to effigies of Humanism in an attempt to degrade it. And the very idea that you can compare any serious religion to the spaghetti monster shows you don't know what it's like to be Religious. The clincher is, you don't even have to be religious to know how they feel, surprisingly. If you can show me you do know, (based upon your replies/arguments) I'll eat my words, every last morsel.