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

[Neosutra]

What makes me crazy? Religion is a disease comment, or Jesus is worse than Hitler? Or do they sum up to make a wack ball of insanity? Each comment was shock value obviously, but I backed up what I meant with both. I would characterize religion as more of a mental psychosis than a disease however. And would state that a more true account would be "more people have died in the name of jesus than hitler".

And your description of yourself is atheistic, as you dont believe in any gods what so ever. Simply leaving the option as "open" doesnt make you an agnostic, it just makes you an open minded atheist. I assure you, given actualy peer reviewed evidence for god, any atheist would change their opinion, just as you would.

[kuronosan]

What makes me crazy? Religion is a disease comment, or Jesus is worse than Hitler? Or do they sum up to make a wack ball of insanity? Each comment was shock value obviously, but I backed up what I meant with both. I would characterize religion as more of a mental psychosis than a disease however. And would state that a more true account would be "more people have died in the name of jesus than hitler".

And your description of yourself is atheistic, as you dont believe in any gods what so ever. Simply leaving the option as "open" doesnt make you an agnostic, it just makes you an open minded atheist. I assure you, given actualy peer reviewed evidence for god, any atheist would change their opinion, just as you would.

Religion is not a disease anymore than homosexuality is. Intolerance, however, seems to be contagious.

Do you really think Jesus, assuming he did exist as a prophet or voice of a religious movement, knew that his actions were going to cause everything it did?

[Neosutra]

Religion is not a disease anymore than homosexuality is. Intolerance, however, seems to be contagious.

Do you really think Jesus, assuming he did exist as a prophet or voice of a religious movement, knew that his actions were going to cause everything it did?

There is a difference between intollerance of gays, and intollerance of unreasonable assumptions in decision making processes. No one is saying that religious people are "less worthy" or abnormal, or (though statistics would say otherwise) less intelligent. However, debating what is factual and valid for our species to hold up as evidential based on our current models is a responsiblity of all scientists.

Maybe it was you, or someone else, but there were no less than 5 posts in this thread detailing the biological factors of homosexuality, that it was indeed not a choice. Religion however, is a choice. It is a decision that is based on a system of beliefs, a system of beliefs that effect the society around them. It is not intollerent to examine and argue the validity (or lack of validity) of these beliefs.

The analogy is inaccurate.

Additionally, not that I am advocating jesus ever living, I didnt say Jesus was responsible for all of those deaths, I said "deaths in his name". Good intentions carry little weight when examining an idealogy that resulted in millions of deaths of the last 2000 years.

[Day]

You're forgetting all the people who have died in the name of science.

(There's a billion punchlines here)

[kuronosan]

There is a difference between intollerance of gays, and intollerance of unreasonable assumptions in decision making processes. No one is saying that religious people are "less worthy" or abnormal, or (though statistics would say otherwise) less intelligent. However, debating what is factual and valid for our species to hold up as evidential based on our current models is a responsiblity of all scientists.

Maybe it was you, or someone else, but there were no less than 5 posts in this thread detailing the biological factors of homosexuality, that it was indeed not a choice. Religion however, is a choice. It is a decision that is based on a system of beliefs, a system of beliefs that effect the society around them. It is not intollerent to examine and argue the validity (or lack of validity) of these beliefs.

The analogy is inaccurate.

Additionally, not that I am advocating jesus ever living, I didnt say Jesus was responsible for all of those deaths, I said "deaths in his name". Good intentions carry little weight when examining an idealogy that resulted in millions of deaths of the last 2000 years.

Well, even still, there is a biological reason for the existence of religion. The human brain exists to make sense of the world to maintain homeostasis. Whatever it cannot explain it paints as the supernatural to prevent the brain from becoming overloaded. Hence, it's entirely possible that Jesus did exist, and that he did all sorts of things in the name of good faith and living well and whatever God there is. Therefore, religion definitely exists.

In the realm of scientific understanding, it's really a matter of how it exists and for what purpose it exists. If you can believe that without God or Jesus (or anyone else, just so Firas doesn't bust a nut) you can achieve the same state of peace and happiness that religion offers, then you should be free to think and feel that way.

If you believe that the only path to peace and happiness is Jesus and God (and anyone else, Firas) then you should have a right to think and feel that way so long as it does not infringe on the beliefs and rights of others.

That's where religion is flawed. It fundamentally forces man to create inequalities in order to maintain a balance.

[EternityEnd]

Neo, you realize I was being sarcastic when I said you were crazy, right?

And no, I'm an agnostic atheist, sorry. Organized religion is an outdated load of fiction designed to comfort humans when they lacked knowledge. Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are outdated concepts designed to control the masses. I also don't believe there's a God, currently.

However, it would be the height of hubris for us to claim that the concept of a higher power-- or multiple higher powers, though I don't necessarily mean "gods"-- is impossible. We know embarrassingly little about the universe; so little that we haven't even discovered life outside our planet. Does that mean life outside Earth doesn't exist? No, it's impossible for there not to be life anywhere else in the universe. It's too vast.

[Neosutra]

I also don't believe there's a God, currently.

Not going to force a label on you or tell you what you believe, and neither do I want to get into another definition discussion, but the above quote is pretty much exactly atheism. Merely stating that we dont know if higher beings exist doesnt really mean anything as far as a belief system goes. I am open to "higher beings" existing. I just have heart burn when people state those beings DO exist, and are responsible for the mysteries of the universe.

And to kuro, I would disagree that religion is a biological component of mankind's desire to answer questions, that is a bit of a stretch. Curosity to find the answers may be a result of our biological neural development, but assigning any poor answers we get along the way as "inherent" to that development is a bit flawed. And we already discussed the "as long as it doesnt affect anyone else" as being unrealistic in any real world situation.

[Plow]

I took the uneducated fuck the wrong way.

I love bg, lol, I want to sig this.

so "abnormal" behavior should be looked down upon and kicked? ok
What is normal? It's one of the most subjective terms in language. Normal as in most popular? then it's abnormal. Normal as in natural? homosexuality certainly is natural. Normal as in wanted? I don't think anyone would want to be gay because of bigoted pricks like yourself telling them they are fuckwads and don't deserve equality.

I don't even know why people want to be "logiced" into accepting homosexuality. It should be perfectly acceptable whether science says its natural, behavioral, for martians, etc.

I'm going to do my damnedest to stay out of the homosexuality discussion, but there's a couple things I think need to be said.

Believing that something is abnormal doesn't mean it should be looked down upon and kicked.

As far as being born gay... this is just purely a personal thought, not even going into any actual beliefs/testing/etc. on the subject-- if I were gay, I don't think I'd want to believe I was born that way. I'd much rather believe it was a product of my environment than to believe I evolved in a way that would direct me to remove myself from the gene pool.

Check mate:

{Spoilering done by me to preserve frames}

Spoiler: show

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stribution.png

Above obviously, is the percentage of Muslims by country.

Below is the education levels of each country.

Spoiler: show

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._2007_2008.PNG

(Dark green = high education, Deep red = low education, yellow = medium, Brown = medium/low.)

Weird, it is almost as if the most uneducated countries are the ones that are most Islamic.

Odd.

Just as an aside-- there's also a pretty clear correlation through the middle east (barring Iraq, the constant war has been just terrible for their development), of oil per capita to education levels. (not the highest in the world by any means, but compared to the rest of the area around them)

lol


There's also a pretty clear line of convergence between equatorial heat and a lack of education. Interesting, never really noticed how strong that was before.

I love it when uncompromising people argue.

My favorite is when they attack you for attempting to compromise.

But Newton spent the later years of his life flailing about trying to prove that the trinity of gods in the prevailing theology of his culture was wrong. This is a total waste of time for one of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen.

This is an interesting point to make, when you consider that one of the participants is a physicist who believes he may be on the brink of Einstein level (if not higher) scientific advancement.

Consider that, and how fantastic the progress will be if he's right, knowing how much his beliefs on religion and the idea of a God seem to help motivate him.

Science is not and should not, therefore, be done with any attribution to god, even the most religious top scientists (and there are still exceptional scientists who hold to very fundamentalist viewpoints) concede that their experiments are materialistic in nature and provide materialistic explanations for the universe. If they don't do that, I assure you they're wrong or not being intellectually honest. Heck, there are great biologists out there still who believe in young earth creationism, and the idea that through evolution a god has constructed a "soul" for humans alone.

I disagree with the idea that hypothesis, at least, shouldn't allow for some room for religious motivation. As long as your beliefs aren't leading you to draw incorrect conclusions (especially intentionally), I don't think there is any really unacceptable reason to experiment, only moral standards for said experiments. The effect you personally may have on the results is the main reason peer review is so important, it doesn't matter if the cause is incorrect methodology or "God is real and I r prove it with amazing ham sandwich!" The beauty of belief is that just like science, it's susceptible to being proved wrong. The problem is the same as well, when people refuse to allow being proved wrong.

But their theological musings are divorced from the reality they observe and report through experiment, and one day like Newton, history may consider their philosophical efforts to be inconsequential.

Or, if Neo's right, his philosophical efforts could result in the greatest scientific advancement in the history of mankind.



And, finally, you guys know I'm not trying to align myself with Firas's beliefs, but I think he made kind of a good point that needs to be clarified:

your colorful maps show that more uneducated people have more faith in God...and what im trying to prove to you that this is wrong, when im showing you a very much educated civilization yet very very strong in their faith in God, how is that possible if your reports says otherwise?

Keep in mind here the statements he made in that same post about "times when the Muslims will be the ignorant ones."

I believe the point he's attempting to make here is that there was a time when the Muslims were among the most well educated, and greatest producers of scientific progress in the world. This is evidence that simply because you can show a correlation between education levels and beliefs that leans one way right now, does not mean it has always been, or will always be true.

Sociology =/= mathematics, heh. It just uses it.

[guartz]

I know a good experiment that can prove or disprove the notion of God.

This is how it's gonna go, to prove, once and for all, whether God is a man-made concept or there is actually merit to the idea.

Isolate a good amount of people from the population, say on an island. Make sure you ostracize people young enough to know nothing of the world as it is.

Wait, say, 20 years. Go back for them, and when you bring them back, if they start talking about one true God or Jesus, or Allah then you know God is very real.

[Neosutra]

Im not sure how you can make the claim that religion can motivate without hindering and use Newton as an example when the very statement was that he wasted the 2nd half of his life persuing these external religious areas.

I dont really see any evidence that his spiritual beliefs lead him to calculus, but we can see clear evidence that his spiritual beliefs led him away from discovering anything else.

People keep mentioning this "non negative effecting" beliefs system. A system where people only derive motivation and suffer none of the inherent concequences of mystism. The two really do go hand and hand. You can get high all you want, but dont think you can escape the munchies afterwards. There is no free lunch.

[Plow]

You don't view your anti-religious sentiments as any kind of motivation towards your progress?

[guartz]

Neo, God had indirect benefit on philosophers and logicians. Academic philosophy sprang leaps and bounds during the enlightenment period as philosophers attempted to prove or disprove God, as it were.

The guy you quote, Descartes, spent the better part of his career working on the subject, and his ideas shaped academia thoughts very deeply. Of course, his conclusion was that to believe in god you have to disbelief everything you hear and see, since it was a trick by a demon.

[Neosutra]

You don't view your anti-religious sentiments as any kind of motivation towards your progress?

As much as not believing in Santa Clause motivated my work.

[Day]

I bet they thought they world was flat one time. Silly scientists.

[Tristam]

This is an interesting point to make, when you consider that one of the participants is a physicist who believes he may be on the brink of Einstein level (if not higher) scientific advancement.

Consider that, and how fantastic the progress will be if he's right, knowing how much his beliefs on religion and the idea of a God seem to help motivate him.


I disagree with the idea that hypothesis, at least, shouldn't allow for some room for religious motivation. As long as your beliefs aren't leading you to draw incorrect conclusions (especially intentionally), I don't think there is any really unacceptable reason to experiment, only moral standards for said experiments. The effect you personally may have on the results is the main reason peer review is so important, it doesn't matter if the cause is incorrect methodology or "God is real and I r prove it with amazing ham sandwich!" The beauty of belief is that just like science, it's susceptible to being proved wrong. The problem is the same as well, when people refuse to allow being proved wrong.

For the Newton thing, it wasn't that he was necessarily trying to disprove God, he just had such a conviction that his particular idea of god was the correct one that it dominated his thinking. I just think it's an interesting idea that had he been an atheist, he might have been freed to pursue other goals. Of course he may have simply devoted more time to his alchemy, which ended up being just as useless. The idea of a triune god certainly isn't something characteristic of all religions, and there's probably more to the story of Newton's heresy, but I've yet to read a very comprehensive biography on him.

I don't know for sure that an atheistic society would be more conducive to a scientific establishment, as the generation of such an institution requires a great deal of resources, education, and expertise. Very few governments have the necessary resources to support a productive scientific elite, and fewer still are the governments in history that have those resources and have been secular. Most of those things are secondary to the main expectations of government, which include stability, defense, etc. Here in America we have a pervasive religious right, yet we remain the mecca for science in the industrialized world (side note: India and China are progressing very very fast in this regard). I hold only that a secular government is definitely more conducive to science in general, if for no other reason than to protect educational institutions from the vocal minority(or majority?) and create an environment where diversity and productivity are encouraged. This is the reason why the undermining of the government by the religious right worries me, especially when it affects education.

I do think that if one starts from a religious premise when conducting science, you're starting from somewhere that doesn't add anything to your real-world conclusion, even if you eventually arrive at the correct one. At best, you are starting out with a jump sideways in thought, and at some point you may eventually wrestle with a conclusion that doesn't fit with your worldview. Most people can restructure their though to allow for science to coexist with their theology, but the worst case scenario is that science loses that wrestling match, which sadly happens with some frequency for people who specifically get Ph.Ds and end up as science saboteurs with the eventual goal of teaching at a place like liberty university.

[Demosthenes11]

I'm going to do my damnedest to stay out of the homosexuality discussion, but there's a couple things I think need to be said.

Believing that something is abnormal doesn't mean it should be looked down upon and kicked.

As far as being born gay... this is just purely a personal thought, not even going into any actual beliefs/testing/etc. on the subject-- if I were gay, I don't think I'd want to believe I was born that way. I'd much rather believe it was a product of my environment than to believe I evolved in a way that would direct me to remove myself from the gene pool.

I was more referring to all the posts he has made about how homos need to die and are scum of the earth (in one form or another)

[Faris]

I believe the point he's attempting to make here is that there was a time when the Muslims were among the most well educated, and greatest producers of scientific progress in the world. This is evidence that simply because you can show a correlation between education levels and beliefs that leans one way right now, does not mean it has always been, or will always be true.

oh wow he understands me!

[Faris]

I was more referring to all the posts he has made about how homos need to die and are scum of the earth (in one form or another)

oh yea those posts, quote one for me please cus it gives me pleasure to read them again^^

[Demosthenes11]

stop being gay firas, accept it

[Neosutra]

oh yea those posts, quote one for me please cus it gives me pleasure to read them again^^

I'll just assume you go along the hard line interpretation of the Quran:

"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" (26:165-166).

"Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!" (27:55).

"For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." (7:81). "And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!" (7:84). "He said: "O my Lord! help Thou me against people who do mischief!"" (29:30).

But I'm curious Firas, what do you think a proper punishment for homosexual acts should be?