Religious broadcaster builds $4M home despite layoffs at his ministry

[Plow]

This is just an interpretation of the story. You can make the life of Stalin into a positive moral allegory if you try hard enough. I think my reading of the story is much more accurate than yours from a biblical standpoint.

Did it occur to you what you just said?

You just said that your interpretation that "humanity is evil" is the message is "more accurate" than the interpretation that "humans make mistakes, and that's ok."

Like... do you understand not only the implications of interpreting the story as "you're all bad people," and how that will effect your view of religion in general, but the fact that you're literally just plain attempting to establish your *OPINION* as superior?

How much more ironic can you get here, really?

Furthermore, you can teach your children that it's OK to make mistakes without telling them a story about gruesome murder.

Religion =/= Mel Gibson, thanks.

Obviously I don't know you. And you don't know me. It could be that I've had a lot more experience with people of varying faiths and varying convictions, and that the pull of your religious affiliation keeps you running in a circle of like-minded people. I don't know. I run into people like you occasionally, but it's nowhere near a majority. Generally people only make the allegory argument when their supernatural beliefs are refuted by science, or they retreat to the fallback position of "I just believe". It's rare that I run into someone who accepts that the bible is fiction from the get go, even if they have reason to believe they can best me with the same tired fallacies.

People that take the bible completely literally drive horse and buggies, don't use running water, etc., I know, a ton of them live within 30 mins to an hour of my house.

The fundamentalists that aren't so literal, but are still fucking crazy, are around here, too. And, even in Kansas, they are the minority, choosing for the most part to separate themselves into small communities outside the major cities.

It's a simple vocal minority situation, you don't hear about or from people like me because I don't go around trying to argue for or against religion at every possible opportunity like people such as Neo, or people such as Fred Phelps.

I'm quite vocal as it is, standing up when people try to attack beliefs needlessly, there are plenty of people that won't even bother to attempt to reason with the kind of idiocy present here.

Soo...you admit you hold completely irrational beliefs with no basis in reality, and you believe that this a way to be a good person?

I don't feel it irrational at all to believe we don't just cease to exist when our bodies die. I also don't believe rather you believe in afterlife or not determines rather you're a good person or not, although it may sway your decisions one way or another.

There are extremely, extremely strong arguments about why the probability that god exists is as near as can be to zero, even with the origin of the origin, so to speak, being "unknown."

Such as what?

What is your definition of God?

What about religions that don't believe there's a God?

I'm sorry, stating that "there are extremely strong arguments" is not an argument in and of itself.

Don't confuse counter-intuitive with irrational. Irrational would be believing in quantum mechanics just because you think it helps you be a better person, rather than the fact that it is ridiculously accurate in its predictions.

...

You really don't understand irrationality in math?

You are right about the difference between us. I cannot accept a system of belief that leads to murder, deceit, ignorance, and exploitation almost as a matter of course. I have too much compassion for others than to allow them to be mistreated in this way just because they derive some kind of "comfort" from it. I do not accept the idea that I have to live and let be as people try to shove their beliefs down my throat either with good intentions or under threat of violence because of their irrational fear of the supernatural. The fact that some good takes place under its banner, when that good would take place anyway without it, does not convince me that relativism is the correct response.

Ok, if you're going to say that I'm trying to argue that religion is good because it lets me hate black people and justify it to myself, you're just turning into eternity and neo, and that just destroys any value this thread did have.

[Neosutra]

It's a simple vocal minority situation, you don't hear about or from people like me because I don't go around trying to argue for or against religion at every possible opportunity like people such as Neo, or people such as Fred Phelps. .

The rest of what you said was pretty retarded, but I got a nice laugh at the above comment.

Look in the mirror pal, you are in these threads as much (if not more) than me.

Or perhaps you are just mad at your parents?

edit: And Ill add a bit:



What is your definition of God? : There is no definition for god, the theist god is undefinable. Because defining it makes it testable and easily debunked. Theists hide god in this little cave of "unquestioning, undefining, all faith", and leave him there for fear for being exposed as fraud.

What about religions that don't believe there's a God?: Theories of the supernatural that suggest events/afterlifes/spirtual happenings w/o evidence are no better or difference than a normal theist that belives in Titan or Zues.

As for "extremely strong arguments": We can go with the "complete lack of all evidence to support this theory" as being the main evidence. Knowledge of solar system formations, evidence on big gang cosmology, massive evidence in evolution, complete lack of any documentation of actual miracles, complete lack of any affect from prayer (been tested formaly by the mayo clinic, etc etc. Alleya didnt post the arguements because it gets tiring explaining them to you, just to have you side step them and ignore the response.

[Plow]

When was the last time you saw me start a thread?


hint: it was 2+ years ago and it was about Outkast


I dare you to find me insulting non religious people in general, and no, pointing out your personal flaws is not a reflection of my opinions on all of atheism, no matter how much you want to convince yourself all atheists are as ridiculous and stereotypical of teenage rebellion as yourself.

[Neosutra]

Oh ok, it doesnt matter if every other response in a thread is from you, as long as you dont make the title.

Gotcha. You arent participating in this thread (or any other religious or political thread), unless you start the thread yourself.

Now I can go back to ignoring you, since you arent actually participating in this debate.

[Plow]

Oh, I see, participating in other debates means I'm running around starting arguments about it and flinging insults at every opportunity, just like you and Fred Phelps.

[Plow]

Because, you know, I start discussions with questions like "how can people not be religious?"

And then try to claim people that respond to my question are starting shit.

[Neosutra]

Dude, you have nearly twice the posts in this thread than I do, and I can pull an insult out of 90% of them. How much of a fucking hypocrit are you?

[onestopshopcheappills]

I don't feel it irrational at all to believe we don't just cease to exist when our bodies die.

You don't feel that it is completely irrational to believe that, after we die and all brain activity has ceased, an intangible quantity belonging to us (a "soul") will exist in a similarly intangible place for eternity?

[Plow]

You don't feel that it is completely irrational to believe that, after we die and all brain activity has ceased, an intangible quantity belonging to us (a "soul") will exist in a similarly intangible place for eternity?

I believe it would be completely irrational to think we actually know.

[Neosutra]

I believe it would be completely irrational to think we actually know.

1. Give at last 20 seconds between posting, it is hard to keep up with that level of pure spam.

2. You dont think we actually know what? We know the brain dies. We know that active nueral activity is what makes thought. We know that no other physical activity occurs after death in the brain..

So you are saying that it isnt irrational to believe there is an extra UNTESTABLE magical force that somehow maps your nueral patterns onto another UNTESTABLE magical body that goes into another UNTESTABLE dimension to live after death?

That isnt irrational? REALLY?

[onestopshopcheappills]

I believe it would be completely irrational to think we actually know.

When the processes that allow us to sense the world around us stop, wouldn't the natural conclusion be that all perception stops with it?

[Neosutra]

You didnt know that your camera keeps recording, even when you destroy it Onestop?

Your computer keeps processing, even if it is vaporized.

Your car keeps running, even if you remove the engine.

Your Bike still rolls, even without wheels.

And the humam keeps on living, even without a body.

Yep. Not irrational at all.

[EternityEnd]

Rocks have souls, too, man. Stop discrimination.

[Sgtpayne]

Neo, I remember someone saying you were a physics-type guy. Am I totally not remembering that right?

[Plow]

What is your definition of God? : There is no definition for god, the theist god is undefinable. Because defining it makes it testable and easily debunked. Theists hide god in this little cave of "unquestioning, undefining, all faith", and leave him there for fear for being exposed as fraud.

This is one of the more valid points I've ever seen you make.

However, if you're going to disprove something, you need to define it.

Choosing to not define it because those who disbelieve will simply bring about another definition is the antithesis of science.

You of all people should understand that challenging what you think you know, and continuing to experiment to prove it in front of all possible scenarios is what makes science credible. If you want to attack a certain definition of God, you need to provide that definition.

What about religions that don't believe there's a God?: Theories of the supernatural that suggest events/afterlifes/spirtual happenings w/o evidence are no better or difference than a normal theist that belives in Titan or Zues.

They sure were a couple weeks ago, until you figured out that Buddhism contains many of the concepts you disagree with, and therefore stopped trying to argue how great it is in comparison to other religions.

Please, tell me, what is credible evidence of an afterlife, and what experimentation have you done to prove or disprove it?

As for "extremely strong arguments": We can go with the "complete lack of all evidence to support this theory" as being the main evidence. Knowledge of solar system formations, evidence on big gang cosmology, massive evidence in evolution, complete lack of any documentation of actual miracles

Billions of events have occurred throughout history that could be considered miracles.

We can't even effectively define matter or mass without exception, how can we define complex concepts like "miracle"?

It's quite a miracle to me that the universe even functions, let alone sustains life, being a massive exploding ball of shit and all. Let alone that the physics of it allow it to maintain other massive, deadly exploding balls of deadly shit that actually allow life to exist.


Why is your example of "seeing God in the wonders of math and physics" superior to "seeing God in the lost child that finds his way home?"

And why would you think a person couldn't see both?

complete lack of any affect from prayer (been tested formaly by the mayo clinic, etc etc.

I really want to see formal testing of prayer. Please, sauce.

Alleya didnt post the arguements because it gets tiring explaining them to you, just to have you side step them and ignore the response.

I hope you realize, statements like this coming from people like you are exactly why Day loves these threads so much.

[Plow]

You didnt know that your camera keeps recording, even when you destroy it Onestop?

Your computer keeps processing, even if it is vaporized.

Your car keeps running, even if you remove the engine.

Your Bike still rolls, even without wheels.

And the humam keeps on living, even without a body.

Yep. Not irrational at all.

Does your computer stop being a computer because you stop providing electricity?

Is the data not on your hard drive while your computer is off?

Does matter, or energy cease to exist?


You're right, it's completely irrational to believe that the end of one process is the beginning of another.

When the processes that allow us to sense the world around us stop, wouldn't the natural conclusion be that all perception stops with it?

And wouldn't the natural conclusion that when your brain rests, it becomes less active, seem more logical than the reality?

Again, as I've pointed out repeatedly, people who treat science as a religion should be more aware than any that you can't just say, "well that's the logical assumption" and call it a day.

[bigrougabagel]

Back to the main point of this thread. Yes, he is a mega turdball. Who cares if its not against the rules, or hes not required to. By taking up a position like a pastor of a church, one takes on certain responsibilities, and those generally dont include living in luxury while members of your congregation struggle with basic essentials. Twisted people do live in this world and it is a hell of a lot easier to kick them when they're high and mighty religuloids that fall and fall hard.

I think a better point to this article is that power corrupts. Any and all forms of people, be it religious, political, hell even he fucking dweeb that got promoted to assistant manager. You think youre getting off early tonight? fuck that, clean the fryers. why? because im the assistant manager bitch. Any time any one person has control over anything for an extended period of time, they begin to feel entitled to more and more. Imagine being this guy. You're on national TV every weekend broadcast to hundreds of (thousands?) or people, everyone admires you, fawns over you, you get the best seat in any house... of course he is going to pull some shit like this. And knowing this type of person, he is probably charismatic enough to pull it off, and still walk into his church every morning with a shit eatin grin on his face. And he will get that same grin back, why? because he has the power. People notice power and are drawn to it, they want a piece of it themselves.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are many positions of immutable power in this nation. Clergy, senators, sheriffs, judges, state governers of south carolina. All of these positions of power eventually will lead to someone banging an argentine woman or stealing funds for the DARE campaign to spend on hookers and blow in a night club in vegas. I guess what im trying to say is, fuck mitch mcconnell.

[Jer]

I may be completely off base here, and be missing information (such as does he have a lucrative side-job?) but I do not see how he could spend $4M on building a home while his ministry is pinching pennies. Yes, it may be his personal money as somebody pointed out. Where did it come from? His job? Next thing you know the federal government is going to be bailing out televangelists who ran their finances into the ground while giving themselves raises.

[Neosutra]

To the post above Plows, yes I am a Physicist in RL (worked on computational nueral science for a while, but moved into particle physics before changing industries recently for some more money. Im also a CPT in the army (guard now), and am going back to afghan in 2 months.

This is one of the more valid points I've ever seen you make.

However, if you're going to disprove something, you need to define it.

Choosing to not define it because those who disbelieve will simply bring about another definition is the antithesis of science.

You of all people should understand that challenging what you think you know, and continuing to experiment to prove it in front of all possible scenarios is what makes science credible. If you want to attack a certain definition of God, you need to provide that definition.

That is the problem, there is no definition of god, people inherently label it as undefinable. Give me a definition and I will decontruct it.

Please, tell me, what is credible evidence of an afterlife, and what experimentation have you done to prove or disprove it?

It isnt my responsibility to test every hypothesis presented, at least until they have some evidence to allow them to move to the next step in the scientific method. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis of an afterlife, so there are no experiments for me to run. The burden of proof lay with the person making the outlandish claim. That would be your burn (in case you didnt pick that up). What evidence do you have of an afterlife? Oh? None? Great, then drop it and move on with your life.

Billions of events have occurred throughout history that could be considered miracles.

Exageration. Do you have a counter that dings everytime a miracle is performed... Even though not one of them is recorded, filmed, peer reviewed, or backed up by even a shred of evidence... Hell, big foot has more evidence than "miracles".

We can't even effectively define matter or mass without exception, how can we define complex concepts like "miracle"?

Because no physicist is presenting a model for mass and anything beyond the standard model that isnt based on current evidence and/or isnt bounded by current observation. This analogy is very poor, we have no evidence for ANY miracles, yet we have evidence of mass through observation and many leading theories that may explain physics in these areas.

It's quite a miracle to me that the universe even functions, let alone sustains life, being a massive exploding ball of shit and all. Let alone that the physics of it allow it to maintain other massive, deadly exploding balls of deadly shit that actually allow life to exist.

Oh, so when you say miracle here, you actually mean "biological life statistically forming in areas where the proper chemicals occur and temperatures allow, and in no way violating entropy or physics"? Since when do miracles just mean "things that are bound to happen"? This is really a silly argument.

Why is your example of "seeing God in the wonders of math and physics" superior to "seeing God in the lost child that finds his way home?"

I dont see god in the wonders of math and physics, because there is no god, and there certaintly isnt a god that shows it's evidence via math and physics. And really.. a lost child? "Well, little tommy found his way home, must of have been a super powerful ultra hulk being that pushed him in this direction!".

I really want to see formal testing of prayer. Please, sauce.

Power of prayer flunks an unusual test - Heart health- msnbc.com

In before "you cant test god bro".

I hope you realize, statements like this coming from people like you are exactly why Day loves these threads so much.

This is getting a bit tedious, your questions havent evolved past the first thread you posted in so long ago, and your understanding of atheism, theism, and general physics are borderline insulting. Put a little thought into the next post, especially if you epect me to take the time to dissect each one and answer each rediculous point.

[onestopshopcheappills]

And wouldn't the natural conclusion that when your brain rests, it becomes less active, seem more logical than the reality?

More intuitive, yes, but not logical, as we know how the brain actually works.

Is it absurd to suggest that there is absolutely no possibility for an afterlife to exist? Of course, but it is just as insensible to adhere to any particular concept of an afterlife, or 'god.' I could come up with a dozen alternate (and untestable) theories as to what happens to us after death, and none of them would be worth the paper they're written on, either. For the sake of simplicity alone, why complicate things?