Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ya, because insulting people randomly gives you strength?No, you’re still a weenie who need a religion crutch.Apparently. But now I am strong.Because you’re a weak individual.Good thing I am neither.It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
And you're still an emotional cripple trying to make yourself be something you can't be, are not designed by nature to be. Again, you have my sympathy, because you are so much less than you could be, and you can't even see it.
Where is the proof that we are accountable to an invisible being?Why would one have to be accountable to god?If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.
So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?
So maybe you are trying to say something else.
If God exists, then one would be accountable to Him because He made the universe and everything in it, including you.
Therefore, the post is saying that people choose not to believe in God because they do not wish to be accountable for their actions.
I don’t believe it would. There is no tax on gifts less than 10k. People would still give.Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors
I didn't know we were keeping it alive.
I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.
How do you know there's only one god?I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s trueIf no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.
So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?
So maybe you are trying to say something else.
In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.
Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.
Yes, lots of Christians are liberals. No argument there.There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.
Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.
Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon
I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.
I hear a lot of people say that conservatives want to oppose their religion on them but I don’t see that. What I do see are citizens exercising their civic rights in a secular society.
No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement.
And lastly the vast majority of militant atheists are liberals.
"No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement."
There are elements of the evangelical community called DOMINIONSTS. They actually exist. They believe they should have dominion over the country, the government and the people. Newt Gingrich said (back in the 1990s) "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our religious beliefs and see to it that they can never be changed again". Mike Pence said "I am a christian first, a conservative second, and a republican third"....Never mentioned his patriotism. If he has any.
Because you are emotionally stunted and the truth scare you you can't admit the truth.
Keep trying!
So nobody goes to churches so they're closing even with tax exempt status. Good plan.So you're saying that only poor people (or is it cheap people?) go to church?Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors
I didn't know we were keeping it alive.
I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.
No, she's saying that taxing churches, which by definition are non-profit, would end up wiping many churches out of existence.
Churches need to save up for the inevitable sex crime payouts.I don’t believe it would. There is no tax on gifts less than 10k. People would still give.Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.Should we let it die on it's own? That's another question best answered after We, The People stop propping it up with tax favors
I didn't know we were keeping it alive.
I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.
Yeah, but taxing the church would have the result that the church wouldn't get to keep what they give.
And if people couldn't deduct it on their taxes as a charitable donation, some wouldn't give, or would give less.
Next time you go to church, look around, it's a bunch of simpletons, like you.Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.
I just heard, "I need atheism to make me feel smart, because I have nothing else."
It must suck to have to work so hard at feeling smart. I wouldn't know, having been ACTUALLY smart my whole life. You have my sympathy.
The US is "One nation under god". How's that working out?You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.
Yes, we can look at our society, drifting aimlessly with no moral underpinnings to anchor it, and see the results of all these pseudo-smart people and their God-substitutes.
You live in fear of your god. I feel sorry for you. Almost.It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.
I look around at the world and can't help but think we could stand for a lot more people to feel guilty more often.
As for fear, I cannot begin to count the number of ways your worldview is scarier than mine. The fact that you think Christians live in fear just goes to prove you neither know nor interact with Christians, and that you really don't understand the concept of fear very well.
The truth is that humans are built to need to believe in something larger than themselves. If it's not religion, it's going to be "look how much smarter I am than the primitives around me".
Typically it's both
Nope. Maybe that's typical of people YOU know
Why would one have to be accountable to god?If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.
So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?
So maybe you are trying to say something else.
If God exists, then one would be accountable to Him because He made the universe and everything in it, including you.
Therefore, the post is saying that people choose not to believe in God because they do not wish to be accountable for their actions.
Thanks for proving my point.Next time you go to church, look around, it's a bunch of simpletons, like you.Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.
I just heard, "I need atheism to make me feel smart, because I have nothing else."
It must suck to have to work so hard at feeling smart. I wouldn't know, having been ACTUALLY smart my whole life. You have my sympathy.
Next ime you go near a mirror, look in it, and ask yourself what grounds you have for feeling intellectually superior to anyone.
Literally the only claim you have, or have ever had, to being smart is "Well, I think religion is stupid, because that's what all the smart people think."
Even among the religiophobes, you make the most vapid, nonsensical arguments. If you're looking to criticize and shame my religious beliefs on the basis of intelligence, you have the wrong target and you are DEFINITELY the wrong person to be aiming.
And where are THEY getting it from?
The really short answer is through enculturation, which in most human societies involves learning aspects of culture we describe as religious. The point of that exchange with ding (as I said to him) is not to deny the importance of traditional religious institutions, it was to point out that it's not only the kinds of religious organizations with which we are familiar that can serve that function within a society, and of course the "religious" aspects of various cultures are highly variable and different from each other, which illustrates the point.
Also, “in god we trust”. Doing ok yet?The US is "One nation under god". How's that working out?You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.
Yes, we can look at our society, drifting aimlessly with no moral underpinnings to anchor it, and see the results of all these pseudo-smart people and their God-substitutes.
See above, re: vapid and nonsensical.
That’s not my philosophy, too bad for you. You just attack people because you need to deflect away from having to respond properly. Because you have nothing.You live in fear of your god. I feel sorry for you. Almost.It's better than being guilty and afraid all the time.You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.
I look around at the world and can't help but think we could stand for a lot more people to feel guilty more often.
As for fear, I cannot begin to count the number of ways your worldview is scarier than mine. The fact that you think Christians live in fear just goes to prove you neither know nor interact with Christians, and that you really don't understand the concept of fear very well.
No, I don't. YOU live in fear of my God, and my beliefs, and your own inadequacy. I feel very sorry for you. If you shared my beliefs, you might someday become a good enough person to actually feel compassion, rather than just "almost". As it is, your horrifying philosophy of "The ideal state is to be utterly self-contained" continues to cripple your development as a person. I feel sorry for you for that, as well.
The short answer conveniently ignores the fact that "enculturation" basically means "developing in a society steeped in Judeo-Christian teachings, and pretending we could have invented it all on our own".
You know what I think is funny? Conservatives show they are capable of seeing the similarities between two entirely different things like religion and science, but they can't see the similarities between Hillary using private emails and Ivanka doing the exact same thing.Science is not a “belief system” but a process and methodology for seeking an objective reality.
I agree that science is a set of principles relating to epistemology, but I think it's also clear that we use the word in multiple ways which go beyond this. So I might say that science is all of these:
- An epistemology. By which I mean that "science" is the word we use to describe a particular philosophy about what distinguishes knowledge from non-knowledge, and what kinds of justifications can reasonably legitimate propositions about the world in order to say that we "know" those propositions are true (i.e. empiricism)
- A diverse collection of methodologies and methods applied to different domains. What makes methods and methodologies "scientific" is the attempt to make them harmonious with the epistemological basis of the philosophy of science.
- A somewhat vague way of referring to a set of social institutions, including universities, research organizations (like CERN), government agencies (NASA), and professional organizations (like the APA or the AMA)
- An even vaguer way of referring to some modern secular worldviews for which scientific epistemology and institutions are central, as well as the body of knowledge associated with them.
Taken altogether, I think one can understand what kind of comparison a person is making when they describe a certain scientific worldview as "religious", although I also agree it's too reductive, typically too pejorative, and isn't always completely clear. But if you think about traditional religious belief and practice incorporating both social institutions and and beliefs about the world, along with some epistemological principles which are thought to legitimize both of those, then you can see how scientific epistemology also serves to legitimize various scientific social institutions and beliefs about the world, along with some forms of ethics.
Additionally, in practice we place a certain amount of trust in those institutions and processes without being able to dutifully and individually apply NDT's principles in every case, because no one has enough time to do so on every possible scientific topic. It's not surprising to me that people compare that trust with the trust others have in traditional religious institutions or organizations.
It seems to me that when religious folks attack atheists as treating science as a religion the mistake they are making is not so much that there is no comparison, but in thinking that because there's a comparison that there is also some exact equivalence in epistemological validity or trustworthiness. So my response is not "science isn't religion!" but more like pointing out that a certain scientific ethos does serve a similar role (in part) to traditional religion, but opposition to some religious organizations/institutions doesn't constitute a rejection of the need for something to serve that role (i.e. we're not treating science and religion hypocritically), and within that specific context science has a lot of advantages which justify the trust we place in it.
It is a slippery slope that should be traversed with caution.Fair enough.Hmmm... which one do you think is more far reaching in terms of numbers?
I imagine someone could argue that public education plays a role that's similar in scope to organized religion in the contemporary US, but I don't know, and in any case you're changing the subject. If you'd said that organized religion currently plays the single largest role in teaching social values then I would have agreed with you. Instead you said that only organized religion could play such a role, which is different.
But the argument of many is that religion is bad. That just isn’t the case.
Well, I think THAT depends on the religion. But no, religion per se isn't.
