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

[Neosutra]

It is the liberal media's fault.

[Neosutra]

I think I found where Plow got his statistics and falling atheism from:

World Religious Statistics Summary

A place that references its sources from the "Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia".

Labels the non religious as 11% agnostic and 2.3% "radical atheists". And attributes a decline in atheism to the fall of communism lol. As if the fall of the USSR signaled a massive big tent revival in the old country. Then goes into Islam only beating Christianity because they breed more. He later added that atheism and agnostism could eventually rise again if industrialized countries started to increase.. Seems his statistics are a bit old, as recent polls showed a much higher percentage of americans labeling themselves as atheist/agnostic this last year, as a backlash to the increasing movement by the religious right over the last decade.

As for Plow, I dont blame him for his prejudice, after all: Atheists are hated more than gays, muslims, and all other groups put together.

Atheists Hated More than Gays, Muslims, All Other Groups

It just makes me smile to see Plow try and play the agnostic card, when he argues the theistic prejudice against atheist like a rabbid dog. It's cute really.

Sticking feathers up your butt doesnt make you a bird Plow, and changing your definition of god doesnt make you an agnostic. Even if you feel cool saying the word.

I liked one part of the link I posted, as it is relevant to one of Plow's other crazy threads:

Here are the percentages of people who say that torture is never justified:

26% Catholics
31% White Protestant
31% White evangelical
41% Secular
32% Overall Population

Here are the numbers who think that torture is often justified:

21% Catholics
15% White Protestant
13% White evangelical
10% Secular
15% Overall Population

Wonder where Plow falls in there...

[Sgtpayne]

If that's all that they use them for is the morals and do not subscribe to the mythological aspects of a diety, then they aren't followers of that religion.

Sorry I'm a little late on this, I only check the forums a couple times a day. I'm not sure I understand this. Since I believe that the Bible is a guide, and not fact, I'm not a follower of Christianity? I need a little clarification here, I feel like I'm missing a rather large point that could change my view.

The original church functioned without a Bible of any sort, the new testament was completed and canonized for some 300-400 years, and not used widely for some time after that. If the church is alive and functioning without the Bible, how is the membership in the religion dictated by it?

Just a quick question too:

For those of you who have gone on in whatever fields you choose, whether it be math or science, or whatever. As I have learned more and more, explanations for how things have worked really haven't I guess turned my life upside down or anything. I can accept a lot of what is being discovered and taught, even if I can't directly observe it. The one thing that sticks with me though, is the perfection with which the world works. Nothing seems to happen without a reason, and things can be duplicated over and over with the right conditions. In a broad sweeping statement (that probably isn't necessarily true, but close), everything happens for a reason, and always happens the way it should. The problem is, we don't always know why it happens.

When you look at the system as a whole, realize the complexity, and perfection of it all, don't you sometimes feel like there is something bigger at work? Don't get me wrong, I see errors in this thinking as well, but doesn't mean I don't still intuitively feel it. I mean, if we have a system (God) governing a system (the universe), and that's the way things work, shouldn't God have a supersystem as well? But in that same vein, what DOES govern our system? I dunno, just random thought for the day. Hopefully someone has some perspective for me on this, because I haven't found any really good thought on it yet.

[bigrougabagel]

Labels the non religious as 11% agnostic and 2.3% "radical atheists". And attributes a decline in atheism to the fall of communism lol. As if the fall of the USSR signaled a massive big tent revival in the old country.

This is fairly accurate as to what happened after the fall of the soviet union. Religion in any form was persecuted because the government wanted godlike worship to be reserved for their leader. Most russians at the time if they practiced their underground religion were christian orthodox. Now that one is no longer a criminal for openly proclaiming their faith in christianity, more people are engaging it. So, during the comunist rule you had several million people who were oppressed and claimed atheism because the state said so. Now that they have their freedom of religion, more are coming back to churchs and that is going to swing your statistics a little bit. There was a great article about it in NG a few months back.

[Neosutra]

I see what you are saying Sgtpayne, and basically you are stating what Plow is arguing, just alot more elegantly.

The perspective you are detailing is called the " Argument From Design".

The origin of the Argument by Design is a feeling that the existence of something as incredibly intricate as, say, a human is so improbable that surely it can't have come about by chance; that surely there must be some external intelligence directing things so that humans come from the chaos deliberately.

But if human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence of a mind capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with conscious beings must be immeasurably more unlikely? The approach used to argue in favor of the existence of a creator can be turned around and applied to the Creationist position.

This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?" but with the addition of spiraling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time," explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end.

The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.

Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).

Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.

In the end, I like the analogy of the puddle of water: If you poured water into a hole, then left the water alone (and if water could talk >.>), the water may ask itself "wow, I fit just right into this hole, it must have been made just for me!", when in reality the water just fits the hole it can. Humanity makes the same mistake: Humans look up and say "wow this universe was made just for me! I couldnt have existed any other way, it is so amazing", when in reality we exist as a biproduct of these random chaotic physical formations, and not the physical formations existing just for us.

It really all goes back to placing a more complex creator in the place of the unexplainable "wonderful creation". If it was serendipitous that our existence and our universe is around, then it is even more unlikely that a more complex system (god) existed before it.

[Sgtpayne]

That's what I was looking for, thanks.

I have yet to read Hawkings' stuff yet. I keep running across a lot of his ideas, but it always seems to be some watered down explanation of what he actually wrote. Guess I'll just have to go check it out and see it for myself.

Don't get me confused with believing in the ideas I'm asking about, I merely seek clarification. I don't think anything was actually 'created.' I look at a lot of interpretations as symbolism, rather than fact. If you were to explain something complex to someone (ie how the world came to be) I would think you would use analogies or comparisons to already understood material, and I think that manuscripts from the beginning of time until today use that method. The problem I see is most people take what they see with their eyes as fast, with little thought to how it could possibly be true.

People tend to throw around words like 'miracle' and 'creation' like they are what their definitions claim them to be, supernatural. I see it more as a 'it's a mystery, and cannot currently be explained.' I don't know, maybe I'm a heretic or a blasphemer for saying what I'm saying according to some, but I don't see how trying to rationalize or interpret things differently than the norm makes someone evil. I think a good example of that was the heliocentric theory, and what the church thought of that. The church has long been afraid of the truth undermining their beliefs, but if you interpret beliefs as having basis in truth, and expressed in symbol form, seems like you would embrace learning rather than condemning it, since it would end up clarifying a lot of things.

Maybe I'm just more middle of the road, borrowing from both sides of the fence, and trying to find a bridge. Honestly, I think that would be fascinating to be able to link the two, making one understanding help explain the other understanding. Maybe it's all just wishful thinking as well, who knows?

[Penthesilea]

Sorry I'm a little late on this, I only check the forums a couple times a day. I'm not sure I understand this. Since I believe that the Bible is a guide, and not fact, I'm not a follower of Christianity? I need a little clarification here, I feel like I'm missing a rather large point that could change my view.

The original church functioned without a Bible of any sort, the new testament was completed and canonized for some 300-400 years, and not used widely for some time after that. If the church is alive and functioning without the Bible, how is the membership in the religion dictated by it?

I didn't read what you posted about that guy, but the comment I replied to made it seem as if the guy in your article only walked away with the moral meaning behind the stories, and not fanciful ideas of how the world was created, that Jesus was an iteration of god in human form, etc. How now is he considered a Christian, yet I am not considered Christian?

[Neosutra]

Well Sgtpayne, I would say a bridge between the two is wishful thinking. Faith by definition, is the antithesis of reason.

And if "god" is to be kept in Plow's box of undefinable mystery, then science will in no way lead to an explanation of this diety, but instead continue on its path of removing the necessity of god completely.

[Faris]

BG: a community for atheist homosexuals.

they show you the light, you dumb god-believing extremists.

[Mizango]

lol

[Demosthenes11]

BG: a community for atheist homosexuals.

they show you the light, you dumb god-believing extremists.

firas: the most level-headed person on BG
"I'll blow you up if you draw my god!"

[Neosutra]

Atheist homosexuals that are mad at their parents Firas. Get it straight.

Oh, how is the mountains stopping earthquakes theory working out for ya? Still no inconsistancies in the Koran? I need to send you the cartoon I saw this weekend of Muhammed giving Buddha a BJ, as you were the first person I thought of.

[Sgtpayne]

You guys are terrible, lol.

I guess I missed something said about you, Penthesilea. I'm pretty sure I'm the one that people were referring to believing that a lot of religious documents are moral guides, done with symbolism to impart meaning, rather than a document of facts. Not to say all are, many are historical in nature, meant to document the councils and things that the church has held. Did someone make a comparison between these thoughts and your own? I guess I better look back, because I missed it if someone did.

I would agree with your definition of faith Neo, there is no logic behind faith. It's more about intuition (my view anyway), a feeling. The thing is though, I don't see faith as a staple of belief. If I look at the supporting documentation for something and look at all the supporting evidence, do a little critical thinking, and then decide for myself, I just don't see where faith is needed, whether it faith in God or faith in the 'thing that holds atoms together.'

Your 'box of undefinable mystery' analogy is true to a point. This is another thing that I have tried to work on. The church (well the orthodox one anyway, I haven't been able to study past the schism yet with any sort of deep meaning) believes that some things are 'mysteries', and beyond comprehension by man. These include the trinity (god being 3 in 1), Jesus being fully man and fully divine, and marriage the idea of two people becoming one. The doctrine behind this stuff is pretty amazing, but it lacks conviction. There is nothing definable in anything that anyone has used to explain it. When it comes down to actually stating something is true, it seems like I get to 'it's a mystery' and that's as far as you ever get when you ask more and more pointed questions. It's frustrating for me since I really do like the idea of a method of proving something is true. If God created a perfect universe, where everything follows laws to the letter, why can't the fusing of souls (whether marriage or trinity or whatever) be explained? It kind of goes back to what you were saying about it being magic. Eh maybe, I'll scare the shit out of my priest and ask him point blank when I get the chance for you.

[Neosutra]

Would be an interesting conversation with your priest to say the least.

[Andarvi]

Ahh yes, the argument of design. I remember it being used on me in my freshman of Catholic school along with the arguments of creation and movement. They were the catalyst of my actually questioning everything I had always been told.

[Effluo]

I will impart great wisdom upon all of you: Jesus was an Alien... Mary seeing an angel then getting pregrant, yea, bright light was the UFOs takin her up, then impregnating her. She had a half alien/half human hybrid baby, that's why Jesus could walk on water, turn water into wine, etc. When Jesus was crucified, the aliens couldn't let humanity find out he was a hybrid, so they had to come get him. But, rather than just snatch him up, they brought him back to life and let him be resurrected for the people. When he went upon the mount to ascend, the bright light that shone down was actually the teleporter taking Jesus back to the mothership.

We were created by aliens seeding the planet with DNA, that's why there's always been some type of UFO picture, symbol, etc in archeolgical finds... They had to see how things were going after we killed the alien overlord.

/tinfoilhat

[Neosutra]

The funny part is Effluo, that story is less crazy than the story behind Scientology, or Mormonism for that matter.

[Andarvi]

I will impart great wisdom upon all of you: Jesus was an Alien... Mary seeing an angel then getting pregrant, yea, bright light was the UFOs takin her up, then impregnating her. She had a half alien/half human hybrid baby, that's why Jesus could walk on water, turn water into wine, etc. When Jesus was crucified, the aliens couldn't let humanity find out he was a hybrid, so they had to come get him. But, rather than just snatch him up, they brought him back to life and let him be resurrected for the people. When he went upon the mount to ascend, the bright light that shone down was actually the teleporter taking Jesus back to the mothership.

We were created by aliens seeding the planet with DNA, that's why there's always been some type of UFO picture, symbol, etc in archeolgical finds... They had to see how things were going after we killed the alien overlord.

/tinfoilhat

I am speechless at how cool this story is and how I have never heard it told quite like this. Brilliant.

[Plow]

Atheist countries falling?

Jesus titty fucking christ, you are the biggest closet theist I have ever met.

I never argued against agnostism, I argued agaisnt YOUR specific definitions of god (or lack there of). You are the one that perverted the word agnostism/atheism, and misrepresented "god" and "miracles" to be trivial terms you use to describe every day actions.

Keep trying to generalize me as attacking everyone that is a theist, when I am specifically attacking YOUR words and YOUR casual dismissal of reality when you debate.

Miracles are not common place. It is not a miracle when a baby smiles.

God is not "anything nice that happens". That isnt what the word "god" means. If you want to pull your god back to some mysterious force that explains the wonders of the universe then admit you are just playing the god of the gaps and move on.

You desperately try to play the agnostic in this thread, but you cant quite pull it off, because your seemingly DEVOTE christianity shows through in every post. You dodged this last time I asked it, when you gave your biography of your beliefs, but:

Do you believe jesus existed, was the son of god, a prophet, or a just a nice guy? And I want a direct answer to this.

As for your "challenge Ive been running from for 10 pages". There is no challenge. There is nothing you can prove by plagiarising someone else's work off google. The fact that you STILL dont get that a mastery of any hard science (especially particle physics) doesnt happen in 15 minutes (and yes you do need to understand these fields to explain them), is beyond insulting to me and should be a HUGE embarrasment to yourself. Unfortunately you just dont get how stupid you look every time you say this, so Ill let you keep thinking you are calling me out. Why is it always the idiots like you that breed, and breed young.

How did I know that calling neo out on the facts supported by social sciences, which he's trying to claim an understanding of while being dead wrong, would result in more Fred Phelps-ism?


Also, how did I know that he'd dodge the entire rest of the post?

[Zilong]

I had something like that in mind, but with more advanced nanomachines that activates and rejuvenate him in 72 hours.