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

[Plow]

except I'm not, I specifically toed that line and stopped, because I'm not willing to place "faith" in "anything I don't understand"

[kuronosan]

Since we are on a topic, don't you love how that series portrays religion? There were two, I think, Evan and Bruce?

Here is the plot line.

You got these two guys, or are, oh, just too BUSY with their BUSY lives to believe in God! But ho ho ho, God has a plan for them! AND it's hilarious!

Personally, I wanna burn the script writers at the stake. Publicly.

I think it's hilarious how they portray religion... although the first movie did more to be progressive than the travesty that was the second movie.

The second movie was made for no particular reason and completely changed the character of Evan.

Then again, most sequels do that anyway just to make money. In the writing world, we call that shitty writing.

[guartz]

except I'm not, I specifically toed that line and stopped, because I'm not willing to place "faith" in "anything I don't understand"

Listen, this is an age old philosophical debate that's been settled. The term to google is justified truth.

[guartz]

I think it's hilarious how they portray religion... although the first movie did more to be progressive than the travesty that was the second movie.

The second movie was made for no particular reason and completely changed the character of Evan.

Then again, most sequels do that anyway just to make money. In the writing world, we call that shitty writing.

"We", as in, you script write?

[Plow]

Listen, this is an age old philosophical debate that's been settled. The term to google is justified truth.

That would be to assume I'm asserting truths.

I'm not the one doing so.

[Plow]

I don't think coincidences mean what you think it does. I think you're conflating improbability with the existence of god and miracles.

You're missing the entire point of what I'm saying.

I'm trying to state that a person's view of God does not have to be "whatever we don't understand." I've given examples, challenges, etc., to prove that a person can understand something, and still find it to be Godly.

And yet, again and again and again, I'm accused of claiming that if we don't understand something, it must be God.

It's just one of the multitude of straw men being thrown up by neo.

You're also proposing the argument from design,

Again, I'm not proposing an argument on the existence of God.

If you people could get it through your heads that the strawman of me supposedly being a religious person trying to convince you God is real is absolutely your own construction, perhaps this conversation could actually get somewhere.

which, like others have said, is our way of thinking things are perfect because we're only capable of observing them. If you could see infrared light in addition to the visible spectrum you'd say the same thing. In fact, you would probably say the same thing if it were impossible for your brain to perceive light atall yet still proclaim your senses of smell and touch to be the most perfectly designed senses ever, how would you know the existence of a sense of sight to be better than what you have when evolution has quite obviously decided for us that it is more beneficial than our sense of smell.

This is exactly what the *other side* of the argument is doing. They're literally bordering upon the statement that if we can't perceive something, it does not exist. Hence the fact that related paradoxes have been brought up.


Again, my entire point is that it's absurd to claim you have the perfect worldview, regardless of how strongly you believe in your own. It doesn't matter if you're a crazy fundamentalist bigot or a crazy anti-belief bigot, it's still bigotry.

Where you're ascribing a "reason" to an unknowable god, others would prefer to investigate the natural basis for the reason things exist.

At this point I'm just giving up, because you're literally telling me I'm making an argument I clearly stated was not a point I'm trying to imply, and explained how what I'm saying differs from what you're claiming I believe, 20 minutes before your post.

Just more of the same shit.

[kuronosan]

"We", as in, you script write?

We as in the general we.

Fuck sake dude, do you just enjoy trolling or are you really that anal about what people say?

[Day]

plow is winning btw

[guartz]

Plow, maybe there is something we don't understand yet that makes you wrong and the scientists right.

Pretty ballsy of you stating that they are wrong, since they could be right.

[Neosutra]

plow is winning btw

Sticking your head in the sand and chanting that your team is winning over and over doesnt make it truth. Especially when they are getting their asses handed to them.

The fact remains that Plow has done nothing in this thread but:

1. Change the definition of miracle to be "anything nice that happens".

2. State that "existance itself suggests there is a god".

Plow can reword it every which way he wants, and back out when he is called on it ("oh I didnt say that there was a god.. just suggest there might be!"), but the truth remains that all he has done is reword his definitions every time people call him on the inconsistancies.

You see, the problem is Plow: You dont have any evidence or supporting arguments to justify saying that the universe forming in this way is "a rare occurance". Nor do you have an adequate knowledge of universal/galactic/solarsystem formation to suggest that events were somehow "serendipitously pushed" to force the correct conditions for life.

It is an easy trap to fall into if you dont know much about the subject, but the fact remains that biological life is nothing more then a bioproduct of billions of years of higher order elements attempting to find the best equilibrium. If conditions had been different when this solar system was forming, then life wouldnt have been here, and Plow wouldnt be staring up going "maybe zues made all of this!". Instead there would be a Plow on a planet 40 million light years away doing the same thing, saying "wow, this is just too much coincidence that Im on this planet alive!".

Existance itself in NO way suggests there is or may be a god. Only mankind suggests this, via archaic attatchments to outdated theologies.

As for Miracles, change the word to "nice things", and Ill agree that "nice things" happen every day. Actual Miracles however, (as in divine interventions or EXTREMELY rare coincidences.. which by definition dont happen billions of times), are a very weak part of your argument, as there is no documented evidence for anything of this nature.

You wont and cant win the argument "for god" Plow, the only thing you have a chance of defending well enough to justify a stale mate is the debate on wether mankind corrupts religion to do bad things, or wether it is the inherent destructive psycosis of "faith" that lends mankind to such travisties.

[Beckwin]

I like how uncertainty and unknown explanations for known phenomena all the sudden get to be called "god".

idk why plow is so butthurt by atheism when the only defensible label for a reasonable version of his stance is probably Deism, not theism. not to say at all that deism jives with atheism, but it's just much more socially and probably scientifically/logically tolerable compared to theism.




edit: neo, day kinda trolls by giving approval to trolls/lame posters.

[Seraph]

Neo, I'm hurt. I thought I was the dumbest person you had ever encountered, not whoever the current person you are fighting with is...


Q_Q

[Maxxthepenguin]

idk why plow is so butthurt by atheism when the only defensible label for a reasonable version of his stance is probably Deism, not theism.

So explain to me why Neo is so butthurt that a person who lives religiously exists and wants to discuss it?

Neo, I'm hurt. I thought I was the dumbest person you had ever encountered, not whoever the current person you are fighting with is...


Q_Q

Neo is better than everyone, don't you understand?

[Beckwin]

because religion contradicts science/rational thought in addition to being a tool of social/political control and repression? it also falls apart in a scientific or logical discussion, so continuing to hammer away with a point so futile is bound to annoy someone.

plow is either extremely dense, confused, or flat out just trying to push neo's buttons in every thread when it gets to these sort of existential/big question issues. plow's stated beliefs/outlook don't really give him any reason to defend theism in these contexts, yet he does. he's either logically deficient or just trolling; I'd accept either or both as an answer.

[Maxxthepenguin]

because religion contradicts science/rational thought in addition to being a tool of social/political control and repression? it also falls apart in a scientific or logical discussion, so continuing to hammer away with a point so futile is bound to annoy someone.

plow is either extremely dense, confused, or flat out just trying to push neo's buttons in every thread when it gets to these sort of existential/big question issues. plow's stated beliefs/outlook don't really give him any reason to defend theism in these contexts, yet he does. he's either logically deficient or just trolling; I'd accept either or both as an answer.

Neo's buttons are pre-pushed. In any case, I haven't followed the conversation closely because I don't particularly like either person, so I might be wrong, but it seems like Plow is at least trying to mostly be respectful while Neo is doing his thing and being a hateful ass because he is so damn much better than any theist. I'm not sure what should be so hateful about somebody discussing his own personal views, even if the person he's discussing them with is 100% sure that everything Plow believes is wrong. I don't see Plow saying that science suxxx and that it shouldn't be taught. Maybe I missed that, but I just don't see him trying to make Neo out to be such a criminal like that. Neo is instead going all O'Reilly on Plow's ass.

[kuronosan]

I just think it's funny that any time a religious discussion comes to these boards it's always lolreligion but nobody ever says lolscience.

Don't you think it equally intolerant to berate people based on religious belief as it is to berate people based on atheistic belief?

[Day]

I just think it's funny that any time a religious discussion comes to these boards it's always lolreligion but nobody ever says lolscience.

Don't you think it equally intolerant to berate people based on religious belief as it is to berate people based on atheistic belief?

This. I don't know why anyone would expect to have their beliefs respected when showing such a blatant disrespect for any belief that is not their own.

[Beckwin]

I believe blacks and jews are inferior and don't deserve to live; respect my views. don't be intolerant.

[Day]

Your beliefs have no immediate impact on me, so that's cool. Nice comparison of religon to racism as well, not many could have pulled that off.

[Ezek]

You know how we look back on people who lived in ancient or medieval times and wonder how they ever lived without modern medicine, transportation, laws, etc?

People centuries from now are going to wonder how, in a time of scientific enlightenment, we ever lived in a time where people actually followed religions.

This thread should have ended on the very first page.

I love how any thread (on any type of forum) that even attempts to discuss anything regarding politics, religion, pro-life/choice, or proposition 8 instantly end up as a massive shitstorm.