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

[Blarg]

I don't know about the "wanting to be the guy that," but I definitely do want to see both sides badly enough that I'm willing to consider any argument, be it weak or nearly perfected.


I get so many productive questions and let my mind think off about all these things soooo much, it honestly baffles me that people can see such thinking as counter-productive.

Some sides/arguments are just so poor that they don't deserve much more than a mental consideration (they don't deserve to be mentioned in a 'debate'). Not all arguments are created equal and the actual truth doesn't necessarily mean it is in the middle of the 2 sides.

Something else that you seem to do is that I get the idea that you think the other person(s) haven't considered a certain aspect of their argument and then you try to show the shallowness of what they said but end up underestimating the extent to which their side is backed up. I will give an example that is only slightly on topic. If you were debating someone on evolution you would think that they haven't properly thought of the other sides arguments so you bring up irreducible complexity thinking it is something they haven't considered. The problem is that the person defending evolution already knows about I.C and knows of the several ways that I.C fails to weaken the position of evolution. It's like you think step 2 in thinking stumps them when there are still steps 3 and 4 which go even deeper. This seemed to be the case when talking about the 'odds' or something like that of the universe existing.

[Plow]

Annnnd it's back to atheists being mad at their parents.

He really doesnt change. You should apply for Fox news.

Hey Plow guess what:

You dont like organized religion.

I dont like organized religion.

You dont believe any current definition of god is corrent.

I dont believe any current definition of god is correct.

The difference comes when you start altering the word god to mean "something you cant explain that is the driving force behind life and everything good". You are really just taking the judeo-christian version of god and refitting it to something that you agree with more. You arent "more enlightened" or "more tolerant", you are just another theist using the same tired god of the gaps idea to answer all of your questions.

You're too fucking ignorant, and apparently outright lacking the intellect to *EVER* grasp this, but you're flat out wrong.

There's nothing more I can say to show you this. I have literally showed you concepts that I understand and still see as amazing. *YOU* are the one attempting to determine "where," or "what" a being you specifically believe does not exist is.

You are literally attempting to make your own spaghetti monster, repeatedly, and then accusing me of believing it.

Perhaps if you weren't too fucking stupid to do anything more than memorize, you could have gone into abstract studies as well.

Hey look, I can throw random unrelated insults into my arguments as well!

As for "youz hates religious people kzzz", I already stated I dont even talk to my theist friends about religion, hence why I enjoy talking about it online. Unfortunately, people like you find it intolerant to even question their dogma. YOU DARE QUESTION THEISM!!??! Why cant you just let them believe neo!?

Again, you are projecting yourself onto me, because that's what you truly hate and want to rid yourself of. You are the one saying anyone that doubts your belief is stupid, quite literally.

You are the one screaming at the top of your lungs, "YOU DARE QUESTION ATHEISM?!"


I've never spent a single moment on these forums trying to convince you to believe anything I believe, only to help understand. You, meanwhile, stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I HATE YOU DAD NANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" whenever someone who disagrees with you makes a valid point.

Seriously, what do theist have to lose by hearing the other side of the story?

Absoltuely nothing.

Is it really that offensive to have someone debate and argue that your theory may be wrong?

Nope, not in the least.

Did it not occur to you that a person would have to attack/deconstruct that theory to debate it?

Common sense is common. At least, you would think so.


Unfortunately, what you're doing does not qualify as any of the above.


If you go carrying pictures of Chariman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.

Spoiler: show

And really, drop the parents bit, it is getting embarrasing at this point. Perhaps if you had a better relationship with your parents you wouldnt have flunked out of engineering school and knocked up your girlfriend =/.

No perhaps about it, if I'd given them the credit they deserved as humans, and trusted their extensive warnings that taking her with me when I moved to school at 17 was a bad idea, etc., the pregnancy would never have happened.

Such a hard life Plow, such a hard life. But a miracle it is right?

If you saw the look on my child's adoptive mother's face, a brilliant hardworking woman who wanted a child more than anything, but was unable to have one, at the moment we handed her a son, I'm willing to bet you'd have considered it quite a miracle indeed.

[Neosutra]

And Neo, I'm far from Plow's best friend or anything, but what does his level of success in engineering school have to do with this topic?

He started making claims a few pages back about having expertise in hard science meant very little in relation to social sciences, and that he (as a sophmore in poli-sci) not only knew more about the subjects of advanced physics, but could develop better explanations of -any- field given with google alone. He is so naive that he believes a solid understanding (which is required to properly explain something) is the same as google search, and 15 minutes of internet scanning is the same as 10 years of advanced research.

The continued relation to his poli-sci degree is mostly just a mock of his claim of brilliance and vast knowledge/expertise, along with his infallable communication skills, all the while finishing the post with "and I swapped to poli-sci after flunking out of mechanical engineering when I got my girl pregnant".

He is a real genius among men.

And plow: A mother looking into a baby's eyes isnt a miracle. We've been through this: Miracles are not "common occurances" that are just nice to happen. That isnt the fucking definition of a miracle. You cant just "will" the definition to change.

[Plow]

No, neo, you're just too stupid to understand that there are sciences other than physics, and to argue that you know quantitatively more about all science because you are a physicist, is far beyond foolish.


Just like pretty much everything else you think is all fine and dandy when you do it, and take terrible offense to whenever anyone else even implies the possibility of equality.

[Plow]

Also, you're incredibly far beyond stupid for thinking someone that can get accepted into a mechanical engineering major at 16 is going to fail out of the studies that cover the shit high school teachers couldn't keep up with, forcing him on to college in the first place.


You see, there's a difference between the analysis I make of you, and what you're attempting to make of me.

My analysis has a background of experience examining your thinking.

Yours is you being a douchebag and trying to toss out any insult you can think of from what little you're able to actually get from me, which is pretty damn near literally nothing beyond what I tell you directly and how you adapt it to your crazy douchebaggery.

[Neosutra]

OH LOL! Your analysis of me is based on experience and a detailed examination of my thinking, and mine is silly slander. GOTCHA. Oh, and your analysis is dead wrong =/. Sorry to break it to ya champ.

I didnt say there was only Physics, but you are very naive to believe any advanced degree in hard science doesnt also yield a wide variety of other areas. I quite enjoy psycology, sociology, and politics. I find them to be very interesting and revealing areas of study. Having an advanced degree in hard science doesnt mean you know nothing about philosophy. You would be hard pressed to find a physicist that isnt a philosopher.

Physicists ARE philosophers/sociologist, we just approach the research/problems from different angles.

The difference between a philosopher and a physicist is that the physicist has the tools to back their ideas on the universe up (and usually has a job).

[Plow]

Some sides/arguments are just so poor that they don't deserve much more than a mental consideration (they don't deserve to be mentioned in a 'debate'). Not all arguments are created equal and the actual truth doesn't necessarily mean it is in the middle of the 2 sides.

And sometimes they do deserve more than a mental consideration.

And sometimes there don't have to be "sides" at all.

I just want to understand things, as thoroughly as possible. If that means being the "bad guy" sometimes, especially in something as trivial as random conversation, so be it.

Something else that you seem to do is that I get the idea that you think the other person(s) haven't considered a certain aspect of their argument and then you try to show the shallowness of what they said but end up underestimating the extent to which their side is backed up. I will give an example that is only slightly on topic. If you were debating someone on evolution you would think that they haven't properly thought of the other sides arguments so you bring up irreducible complexity thinking it is something they haven't considered. The problem is that the person defending evolution already knows about I.C and knows of the several ways that I.C fails to weaken the position of evolution. It's like you think step 2 in thinking stumps them when there are still steps 3 and 4 which go even deeper. This seemed to be the case when talking about the 'odds' or something like that of the universe existing.

I just don't know what to say. I've spent multiple pages now explaining that I'm not assuming people don't know certain things about reality.

Why, exactly, if something is perfectly explainable, can it still not be amazing, beautiful, miraculous, Godlike, whatever you want to label it?


You're literally like the 10th or more person that has come in and posted about how *I'm* supposedly creating this definition of God, to fill in gaps, simply because neo is making the claim over and over so much, people somehow decide I must've done it somewhere for him to be going that crazy with it.

[Neosutra]

Why, exactly, if something is perfectly explainable, can it still not be amazing, beautiful, miraculous, Godlike, whatever you want to label it?

Because that is against the very definition of miraculous/godlike.

You are STILL confusing miraculous for "nice".

Just say "nice" and we can agree. "nice things happen all the time". "it is nice that the universe supports life". Those are correct statements. The others are not.

And how can you say you arent playing the god of the gaps card when one of your first responses in this thread was the "cant I see god in the complexity of everything, in the symmetry". You have been arguing that you see miracles and "god" in everything wonderful. That IS the god of gaps lol.

[Plow]

OH LOL! Your analysis of me is based on experience and a detailed examination of my thinking,

Yes. I have repeatedly given you analysis of why you're acting the way you are, and detected extremely early on the issues with the parents and the religion, which you've only continued to reinforce the strength of.

The fact that you consider the pointing out of your religious upbringing an insult just reinforces it even further.

and mine is silly slander.

Yes, you impetuous douche, me telling you that I had to leave college when my girlfriend got pregnant, and you therefore claiming "LOL U FLUNKED OUT," is stupid asshole shit of the absolute highest degree.


It's actually hilarious though, considering how for 10 pages I've been challenging you to test my intelligence, and you've been running away the whole time.

GOTCHA. Oh, and your analysis is dead wrong =/. Sorry to break it to ya champ.

Nah, I'm quite certain it's not. As is everyone else around.

I didnt say there was only Physics, but you are very naive to believe any advanced degree in hard science doesnt also yield a wide variety of other areas. I quite enjoy psycology, sociology, and politics. I find them to be very interesting and revealing areas of study. Having an advanced degree in hard science doesnt mean you know nothing about philosophy. You would be hard pressed to find a physicist that isnt a philosopher.

Physicists ARE philosophers/sociologist, we just approach the research/problems from different angles.

And you are a fucking worthless scientist for convincing yourself that you grasp all subjects and are approaching all problems better than anyone because you study a certain field.

The difference between a philosopher and a physicist is that the physicist has the tools to back their ideas on the universe up (and usually has a job).

Again, it's really quite pointless to talk to you when your sole goal is to convince yourself that you're superior to everyone.

[Neosutra]

Im the one that grasps all subjects when you are the one that claimed you can explain any field perfectly with 15 minutes and google? You STILL dont get how stupid that sounds? Do you have ANY clue how naive that is?

Really? REALLY?

And just because I had a religious upbringing doesnt mean I hate my parents or derive hatred of religion from them. Most atheists were once theist, so you arent sherlock holmes for assuming I come from theist background, especially when my "Faith and Reason" thread OPENED with me stating my background and motives.

If you had read or even remembered that, you sould see that my distaste for religion goes specifically from the attack on knowledge and science and most specifically for the "sin" if giving mankind an answer to questions we dont have right answers for yet, robbing us of the greatest gift we have as a species: Our curiousity.

You are wrong about me, you are wrong about just about every scientific concept you have posted here, and you are deeply troubled if you dont think you are mirroring the "intolerance" you see in me. You are arguing just as bad that your way of thinking is superior, you just happen to think your's is the more enlightened one (which turns out to be incorrect).

[Tyche]

Just out of curiosity Neo, do you apply any theoretical research into your job or is most or all of your work simply derivative? You can't compare a philosopher to a physicist and say that a physicist has the tools to back it up when there's an entire branch of physics that is completely theoretical. I suppose, in theoretical physics, there is an aspect of critical thinking whereas applied physics would be largely derivative. I just really don't get your comparisons to a philosopher/sociologist.

[melbufrauma]

figured this thread would go places

[Plow]

Because that is against the very definition of miraculous/godlike.

You are STILL confusing miraculous for "nice".

Just say "nice" and we can agree. "nice things happen all the time". "it is nice that the universe supports life". Those are correct statements. The others are not.

What if someone's definition of God is as simple as "good." What if they believe "good" is the omnipotent presence of God.

Are you going to break down "good" into a physical embodiment of the spaghetti monster you hate, so that you can attack the idea of "good"?

And how can you say you arent playing the god of the gaps card when one of your first responses in this thread was the "cant I see god in the complexity of everything, in the symmetry". You have been arguing that you see miracles and "god" in everything wonderful. That IS the god of gaps lol.

Because I'm not saying I believe anything. I've given like 2 posts ever that show anything about what I really believe--

And one of them you literally didn't even realize I'd posted, and went on insulting me on the "basis" that I hadn't answered questions about my beliefs because you didn't read the damn thread.

I'm really not sure if I believe in God. Or heaven and hell, etc...

A few posts later:

And finally: Lets play the personal game! Do YOU believe that heaven exists Plow, and that the only way to heaven is through jesus?

And still you have the gall to tell me I'm not sitting here watching you stick your fingers in your ears and scream NANANAN CAN'T HEAR YOU!

[Blarg]

And sometimes they do deserve more than a mental consideration.

And sometimes there don't have to be "sides" at all.

I just want to understand things, as thoroughly as possible. If that means being the "bad guy" sometimes, especially in something as trivial as random conversation, so be it.




I just don't know what to say. I've spent multiple pages now explaining that I'm not assuming people don't know certain things about reality.

Why, exactly, if something is perfectly explainable, can it still not be amazing, beautiful, miraculous, Godlike, whatever you want to label it?


You're literally like the 10th or more person that has come in and posted about how *I'm* supposedly creating this definition of God, to fill in gaps, simply because neo is making the claim over and over so much, people somehow decide I must've done it somewhere for him to be going that crazy with it.

I didn't say you were creating a definition of god.

You do seem to be trying to show the limitations of someones side with arguments that are shallow. Yes there may be something about the universe that is a good argument for god but, upon inspection, the arguments you have brought up aren't them. Perhaps it would be best for you to not even present an argument for the theist case and just leave it at saying 'there could be a good argument'.

I do think you are far too loose with your definition of miraculous though that topic seems to have passed. It is like someone claiming that it's contradictory for an atheist to say 'god damn it' or 'oh god'. Sometimes the words used to describe something are more for convenience/habit rather than actual definition. (talking about how people claim many things are miracles when if pressed for their actual feelings about it would just say it was impressive)

[Tyche]

figured this thread would go places

Came damn close to locking it when plow started name calling and neo started ranting about Plow's education. It's getting absurd.

[Neosutra]

Just out of curiosity Neo, do you apply any theoretical research into your job or is most or all of your work simply derivative? You can't compare a philosopher to a physicist and say that a physicist has the tools to back it up when there's an entire branch of physics that is completely theoretical. I suppose, in theoretical physics, there is an aspect of critical thinking whereas applied physics would be largely derivative. I just really don't get your comparisons to a philosopher/sociologist.

I would say that theoretical physics is still bounded by experiment and your "toolbox", as your models are still based on observation and experiment. I wasnt really stating that physics was philosophy itself, but merely that the people in it are asking the same questions, and looking for answers in a more analytical way than pure conjecture. More so that scientists are usually the ones looking up at the sky asking "what if", just like the philosophers.

[Beckwin]

frankly I think plow just likes to pretend he considers all views so that he can tell himself how enlightened and curious he thinks he is.

[Tyche]

I would say that theoretical physics is still bounded by experiment and your "toolbox", as your models are still based on observation and experiment. I wasnt really stating that physics was philosophy itself, but merely that the people in it are asking the same questions, and looking for answers in a more analytical way than pure conjecture. More so that scientists are usually the ones looking up at the sky asking "what if", just like the philosophers.

Which was really my point from the get-go. Sociologists will still be bound by pre-existing social conditions when they formulate a hypothesis. They, as much as a theoretical physicist, are constrained by "tools" and use these tools. It's just that the tools themselves are completely different. Where one tool is mathematical certainty and the other is a history of social conventions.

[Neosutra]

Im not sure the tools are really that different Tyche. History and Social conventions are really just data points. Any good thesis I have read on human behavior has pretty exhaustive studies and statistical representations to validate their points.

Ive even seen some pretty hefty mathematics in several more advanced sociology theories. And to suggest physics is based on mathematical certainty is to forget that most of our current models of quantum mechanics are based on the idea of uncertainty.

Then again, I think we may be agreeing with each other, just expressing it in different ways.

[Plow]

Im the one that grasps all subjects when you are the one that claimed you can explain any field perfectly with 15 minutes and google? You STILL dont get how stupid that sounds? Do you have ANY clue how naive that is?

Really? REALLY?

I never said perfectly.

I said better than you.

It's you that decided "Well, if he's doing it better than me, he's doing it perfectly, because I'm as close as you can get!

And just because I had a religious upbringing doesnt mean I hate my parents or derive hatred of religion from them.

Never said it had to mean that. Just that in your case, the 2 are heavily related.

Most atheists were once theist

My turn to put words in your mouth.

You're accepting the idea that a baby can look at its mother, understand that it cares for and nurtures them, and consider it a form of God.

Because no, despite your massive self absorption, most atheists are not people that used to believe and then decided they didn't. Unless you're accepting concepts of God you don't want to argue about.

, so you arent sherlock holmes for assuming I come from theist background, especially when my "Faith and Reason" thread OPENED with me stating my background and motives.

Didn't read that thread.

However, your only argument to deny the analysis I've given have been either building the strawman that I'm supposedly saying all atheists hate their parents, or just a plain old "nuh uh."

If you had read or even remembered that, you sould see that my distaste for religion goes specifically from the attack on knowledge and science and most specifically for the "sin" if giving mankind an answer to questions we dont have right answers for yet, robbing us of the greatest gift we have as a species: Our curiousity.

Again, as stated repeatedly, your problem is with the people responsible for certain sects of organized religion, not with religion itself.

You are wrong about me, you are wrong about just about every scientific concept you have posted here,

I dare you to find a scientific concept I've posted about here and been completely wrong about.

And wanna know how well I can analyze you?

Spoiler: show

Your immediate thought upon reading that was "LOL HE THINKS HE'S PERFECT AND ALL KNOWING!", because you think you are personally.

Meanwhile, the reality is I'm calling you out on an entirely bullshit claim. I'm not posting about scientific concepts other than in 1-2 places, and detailed a quality understanding, and can continue to demonstrate that knowledge quite easily, in the minimal places where I did.

and you are deeply troubled if you dont think you are mirroring the "intolerance" you see in me.

Again, this is your self projection-- you are trying to make the argument that someone should or should not believe certain ways.

I am arguing that it is ok for people to believe things I may or may not believe myself.

You are arguing just as bad that your way of thinking is superior,

No, I am arguing that advocating the elimination of free thought is a terrible thing to do. It doesn't matter if it's grounded in science or religion, telling people how to think is wrong.

That, however, I will argue is a superior approach to one of "my way of thinking is the only way with any reason."

you just happen to think your's is the more enlightened one (which turns out to be incorrect).

It's "enlightenment" now to think that being a judgmental asshole is bad?

Not only that, but it's wrong?

Wow.