I said I don't have a problem with religious people that don't hurt others, he says that doesn't happen in reality.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus (Video)
- Thread starter Dunk#7
- Start date
- Status
I said I don't have a problem with religious people that don't hurt others, he says that doesn't happen in reality.
Your Excellency
Banned
Sorry, I meant to say that it's rare for religious people not to apply their beliefs to the way they live. And therein lies the problem. When religious people vote and judge on the basis of beliefs, they have a habit of hurting humankind as a whole. Usually it's the 3-on-1 case: religious people practise 3 good beliefs (eg giving to the poor) for every 1 bad belief (not tolerating gay people), vs a normal person who would just practise the 3 good beliefs. Of course, the atheists never have to brag about about the good things they do because they're not doing it for an ideology or to impress the magic man in the sky, they're doing it selflessly out of the goodness of their hearts.
I never really understood why President Bartlet was religious, y'know. I know he had a very religious upbringing, and identified with the church and grew up wanting to be a priest, but at some point didn't he think "this is all a load of malarkey, isn't it?".
Lionheart1337
Member
It's just unfortunate that some feel the need to cling to these false mechanisms for comfort. Cocaine also provides great comfort when in turmoil I`m told. Doesn't mean you should grab for the pipe. I find it is always better to cling, if you're going to, to something tangible rather than fake and oblivious, detrimental -- to the things that are real. When a loved one dies, I take comfort in other people in my immediate surrounding, not the old guy in the sky.
I find beauty and comfort in science. When I analyze religion now, I can't even imagine how I could take comfort in such things like heaven and hell, and having an omnipotent supervisor. Just like children humanity must grow up. We don't need to believe in the magical juju. I find comfort and beauty in knowing how insignificant I am in this universe, that my "soul" will not be dragged into eternity where I will enjoy bliss completely indifferent to those condemned to burn for eternity, but rather relinquished and truly put to rest. It's weird implying that certain people NEED it. It's kind of a double standard where you place your uber-rational and intelligent atheist self above others. As if to say only the mentally weak peasants need religion.
Of course a world without religion =/= a utopian world. But I think it's a step in the right direction looking at the track record. Religion has managed to do some good but at this point it's dead flesh and it needs to be shed. It was humanity's "first attempt" at many things like morality and science and as such it's completely antiquated and detrimental to the future of our species. Can we at least be secular? Can we at least remove any bearing that religion has on something politics? I don't believe humanity needs it anymore, if we ever did. We can still be good to each other and kind without believing things that have no evidence. We would have never made it to religion in the first place had we needed it as a moral compass. All signs show that the desire to do good is innate.
BruiserBear
Banned
Without the Internet it's very unlikely I'd be an atheist. At least at my current age.
The Internet has taught me so much, via Wikipedia, religious debate videos on YouTube, science videos on YouTube, etc.
Knowledge is the enemy of religion. I don't mean this as an insult to any believer when I say this, but the higher you go on the knowledge ladder the less likely you are to be religious.
Now I don't mean "I know a guy at church and he's really smart".
I mean smart as in a person who understands the depth of humankind's scientific knowledge. That means they understand why evolution is no longer a "theory", and is basically a fact. Just like we understand it's a fact the earth is round. They understand the enormity of the universe, and just how tiny, random, and unimportant our solar system really is. I mean smart as in a person who understands human psychology, and how it's evolutionary beneficial for humans to gravitate towards religion. A person who has some understanding of human history and religion's role in it.
You'll rarely, if ever, find a person who understands all of that, and still has a belief in religion. So if you never want to know the truth about the world as it is, don't go digging deep on any of those topics I just mentioned, because you will almost certainly lose your belief in religion.
So why are there so many religious people around the world? Just stop and ask yourself how many people in the world have an understanding of all the things I just mentioned.
Your Excellency
Banned
Cocaine is awesome except for the low you get after. We need science to invent some sort of long-lasting cocaine which doesn't make you feel like crap after 20 mins.
Your Excellency
Banned
Didn't Jesus want to lead a cult obssesed by death, claiming the last judgement would arrive within his or his apostles lives?
cutmeamango
Banned
Bartlet? Why not Einstein, Planck, Leimatre. (that Lionheart1337 even posted last page)
I'll just say that both of you appear to have 'problems' with how human beings function, and think such problems are due religion (or even abrahamic faith alone, it seems). I'd gladly try to expand the thought if asked.
BruiserBear
Banned
I think he was trying to make a joke about Bartlett?
Also, I have no idea what you're referring to as "problems".
The whole point of the video was for people to debate his views. And they're not only commonly expressed, but completely self-contradictory. Your word choice shows your overbearing ignorance to this.
Oppo
Member
I had a somewhat similar, but much toned-down conversation like this with two religious folks who happened to knock on my door. I didn't invite them in or anything but I did chat on the porch for a few minutes.
It basically went like:
Them: "So what do you think of Jesus?"
Me: "Oh, I liked what I read of him. Seemed like a really great guy. Good lessons."
Them: "Great! So let us read you this part from the Bible..."
Me:" Oh no thanks. That book has been retranslated too many times, I don't hold much stock in it."
They were totally confused. Thanked me and hoofed it. I was being honest but somehow you can't separate the two.
It basically went like:
Them: "So what do you think of Jesus?"
Me: "Oh, I liked what I read of him. Seemed like a really great guy. Good lessons."
Them: "Great! So let us read you this part from the Bible..."
Me:" Oh no thanks. That book has been retranslated too many times, I don't hold much stock in it."
They were totally confused. Thanked me and hoofed it. I was being honest but somehow you can't separate the two.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
If I'm understanding your post correctly, you've just said I'm wrong, and then proceeded to restate my exact point. So I'll start over:
Do you agree or disagree with the original poster's stance that the field of Neuroscience has reached relative agreement that "free will," in the larger intellectual sense you mentioned (not the smaller, neuron-level mechanisms), does not exist?
From your post you seem to disagree, as do I. If so, I'm not sure what your argument is other than that it's philosophers who argue it rather than neuroscientists themselves. This wasn't the point I was trying to make anyway.
The point I was trying to make is to say that even if the researchers themselves aren't sitting around debating it, though I'd say that many still do, there is certainly not anywhere near unanimous agreement that human free will does not exist.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I don't get it, isn't Christianity a religion?
Is this one of those deep emo poems I just don't get?
Is this one of those deep emo poems I just don't get?
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
it's a really shallow emo poem with rhymes that are the equivalent of LFO's "summergirls"
Atramental
Banned
I hope Evid3nc3, another YouTube atheist, makes a response video.
I think most of GAF (religious and non-religious) will like his style/approach over TAA's.
He already made a comment on the "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus" video but I can't see it in its entirety.
Here's one of his videos as an example of his approach.
I think most of GAF (religious and non-religious) will like his style/approach over TAA's.
He already made a comment on the "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus" video but I can't see it in its entirety.
Here's one of his videos as an example of his approach.
As someone who was raised in Christian schooling from Kindergarten through senior year of High School, the modern Christian church (schools I attended were Baptist and non-denominational) are so far removed from Christ's message, it's depressing. I mean that literally, when you spend thirteen years learning Christ's message, which includes such stunners as loving EVERYONE, including your enemies, and never ever acting in anger or malice, and then contrast that with fiery old men yelling about how gays need to be shipped off to Europe "with all the other fags" and every Muslim is a child rapist and murderer, it's hard not to come out of that with a skewed view on things.
I've tried my damndest to keep my faith, and I've done a well enough job for the most part, but I'm still on a now three-years-and-counting search for a new congregation that isn't the same tired old rhetoric I was raised on (last attended Church regularly in January 2009). Last church I was a member of was during the elections in 2008, when prop 8 was going through here in California. You have no idea how maddening and ultimately saddening it is to be taught that Christ taught us above all to love, and so far to that end that we should love our ENEMIES. Our goddamn enemies, the people that want to kill us and see us wiped out, but then told that gays are an abomination and deserve no sympathy or well-intent. It was doubly depressing that the preacher of this particular church actually was a very loving guy and harbored no ill-will towards anyone, gay or not, but the older congregation and church council still managed to shoehorn that nonsense into his sermons, whether by having him spout as much as he would, or having a council member come up and speak about "the big vote," which in church doesn't refer to the man running our fucking country, but the soonest law being passed to further limit the rights of people that don't agree with a handful of verses in the bible.
I really didn't intend this post to be come a rant, but well... yeah.
I've tried my damndest to keep my faith, and I've done a well enough job for the most part, but I'm still on a now three-years-and-counting search for a new congregation that isn't the same tired old rhetoric I was raised on (last attended Church regularly in January 2009). Last church I was a member of was during the elections in 2008, when prop 8 was going through here in California. You have no idea how maddening and ultimately saddening it is to be taught that Christ taught us above all to love, and so far to that end that we should love our ENEMIES. Our goddamn enemies, the people that want to kill us and see us wiped out, but then told that gays are an abomination and deserve no sympathy or well-intent. It was doubly depressing that the preacher of this particular church actually was a very loving guy and harbored no ill-will towards anyone, gay or not, but the older congregation and church council still managed to shoehorn that nonsense into his sermons, whether by having him spout as much as he would, or having a council member come up and speak about "the big vote," which in church doesn't refer to the man running our fucking country, but the soonest law being passed to further limit the rights of people that don't agree with a handful of verses in the bible.
I really didn't intend this post to be come a rant, but well... yeah.
I'm saying that free will in the traditional colloquial sense has been completely fucking wrecked. It's not even worthy of debate at this point.
Because that traditional notion... the idea of the spirit and soul and whatever shit... it just has no grounding in the science. Literally no grounding. Nothing. Which is fair enough, given the inherently unexaminable nature of dualistic claims. But the neuroscience is by the day uncovering more and more explanations for the complexity of the brain and relating that to actual concrete behaviour. Still a long way to go before we can map out everything fully - the brain is called the most complex thing in the universe for good reason after all... but as far as notions of dualism; the spirit and soul... traditionally ideas that have been bedfellows with ideas of free will... those ideas have simply evaporated from the field.
But it's not because it's been argued at length by neuroscientists... it's because the evidence doesn't *begin* to support the old dualistic paradigm, while ampling reinforcing the materially monistic paradigm... i.e. that our neural structure *is* sufficiently complex to allow for the kinds of complex emergent behaviour seen in all manners of intelligent beings, including of course humans.
I don't doubt for the second the ability of human beings... even the really 'smart' ones to hold multiple incongruent pieces of information in their heads... indeed, much of my understanding of human behaviour arises from this simple fact; but by and large, any that have thought about it for a moment will reach a similar conclusion - no evidence for dualism (allowing for free will), massive and growing body of compelling evidence from multiple fields on the monistic interpretation of the mind (incompatible/incoherent with the concept of free will).
He's one of the few atheist Youtube personalities I know and like; I also like QualiaSoup, ProfMTH (his generally deal with Biblical inconsistencies in a way that most of the other atheist channels I've come across don't), and NonStampCollector.
OttomanScribe
Member
This is a testable claim, and when it comes to education, you are wrong. When it comes to knowledge, the higher you go in education, the more likely you are to be an Anglican or a Jew iirc.
Mortrialus
Banned
This depends on what you mean by education. Regarding natural scientists, his statement is true for the most part.
Eh... you're kinda right in the specifics, but in spirit, totally wrong.
As you become more scientifically minded and more knowledgeable of the natural world - you're less likely to be religious. General population > science teachers > scientists > NIS scientists (scientific elite).
In education terms, if you pit religious against not religious, the not religious are on average more highly educated.
If you're going to do a more fine grain kind of grouping, then it's probably only fair to group non-religious into smaller specific groups as well.
Yeah, anglicans/protestants and jews are pretty smart. Their sub-culture focuses on educational efficacy as well as hard work and humility... so those positive traits are going to positively contribute to their education for sure.
But if you're comparing those groups... then you gotta compare them to sub non religious groups as well... like freethinkers and secular humanists.
I personally haven't seen data on those latter two groups; but my guess is, they're probably the most highly educated sub-group out of the lot. (But it is a bit complicated by the fact that freethinkers and secular humanists are largely overlapping)... further complicated by the fact that not all free thinkers are atheist (although the vast majority that would self identify as one are)...)
You sound a hell of a lot better than some religious people who tacitly endorse such bigotry by just saying that it's inevitable and making no effort to get away from it. For that, you have this non-believer's gratitude.
OttomanScribe
Member
Naturally if you take the entire world, there will be large groups who are wealthy, and larger groups who are not. The levels of education will correlate to that wealth. Thus the point becomes rather moot. As the central point is wealth, as that is what defines education. Belief system thus seems more likely to be reflective, rather than causal, unless one is arguing that it is causal of wealth, which is a hard argument to make.
I initially thought this was going to be a reference to Ghandi or Jefferson. But nope, it's a contradictory "I hate religion, except for mine" which is actually much more toxic than what moderate Christians or other believers think of other beliefs. Seems to be a scripted advertisement funded by some religious group attempting to speak the language of young people (lol) with some pseudo rap.
It's one thing to dislike organized religion and it's corruption, but it's another to claim to hate religion, but love your church (organized religion).
It's one thing to dislike organized religion and it's corruption, but it's another to claim to hate religion, but love your church (organized religion).
So... you're saying wealthier = less religious?
... I'm kinda making the argument that more educated on the natural world and critical thinking = less religious.
I'm sure there are correlations between wealth and education (in fact, I know there are), just as there are with beliefs and education... which would by associative property alone indicate that there is a correlation between wealth and beliefs...
But none of that really provides causal directionality. And certainly doesn't negate the point that more educated on natural world and critical thinking = less religious... which is a point been made, because we're saying that as you better understand the world/universe as it actually is, the less likely you are to conclude that it's due to god.
Is that kinda the obfuscatory tactic you were trying to go for? Because I'm otherwise kinda at a loss as to why you'd start talking about wealth so suddenly.
I dont need his vicarious redemption over something I never did and never had control over.
Also eternal punishment is the most sicken thing one could threaten. Its complete overkill and makes God look like a monster rather than the omnibenevolent being he is suppose to be (but clearly isnt).
OttomanScribe
Member
Kind of. I'm pointing out that in general it is faulty logic.
Education will always be related to wealth, so arguing that the inherent conclusion of education stats is that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious (and importantly that this is a meaningful thing) really shows nothing at all.
It ends up being a moot point. One could point out that the more educated one is... in Saudi Arabia, the more likely one is to be a Wahhabi. That doesn't score some point for Wahhabism. The problem here is two pronged: the more educated you are the more likely you are to be religious, just Jewish rather than Catholic, and even if it was shown that the more educated you are the more likely you are to be an atheist, that doesn't really prove anything either way.
As wealth is extremely relevant to the equation, it could merely show that atheists are better at accruing wealth through immoral means (I'm not saying this) as it would the point you are arguing.
I feel like the whole line of argument is to commonly brought up, and is consistently a waste of time.
It is at the end of the day an argument from authority.
What? I'm an engineer, I understand all of those things, and I'm a Biblical Christian.
Problem?
I can empathize with this, really. Thankfully I've found a Christian community that is very loving and encouraging to pretty much every kind of person from all sorts of walks of life that I've observed them (us) come across. I pray you find yours.
But wealth and its correlation with education and certainly it's tenuous association with unscrupulous method of acqusition is completely irrelevant to the point been made.
Which is - the better you understand the natural world and critical thinking, the less likely you are to be religious. Indeed, they're obfuscatory strawmen as far as this conversation goes.
The only point that does hold any water is that it is an argument from authority. It is - but pointing out that fallacy doesn't automatically make it irrelevant (as it can do with other fallacies). Particularly as the authority in question (i.e. knowledge of natural universe and critical thinking) is an important measure of efficacy as it relates to the discussion of natural universe and supernatural beings.
It's just an angle of argument... we can go back to whatever else you guys were talking about. I was prattling on about monism/dualism again, because pretty much everything regarding spirit/mind reduces to that anyway.
Atramental
Banned
He isnt even the origin of the golden rule. He is the origin of the turn the other cheek philosophy though, afaik.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Yeah, the golden rule had been around a long time. Jesus took it to another level with this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 5:43-48&version=ESV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 6:27-36&version=ESV
If you don't believe in the afterlife and rewards for such things, it doesn't make any sense. That's why people say it is otherworldly, because a person who truly acts like that draws attention to their convictions of the existence of a heavenly realm.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 5:43-48&version=ESV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 6:27-36&version=ESV
If you don't believe in the afterlife and rewards for such things, it doesn't make any sense. That's why people say it is otherworldly, because a person who truly acts like that draws attention to their convictions of the existence of a heavenly realm.
Count Dookkake
Member
Never read the bible?
Atramental
Banned
A "Biblical Christian" who doesn't read their Bible.
How typical.
Love your enemies.
Hate your family.
And people wonder why I think Jesus sounds like a lunatic...
Holy shit.
GhaleonQ
Member
Ooo, now your exegesis sucks. Love God more than anything (see: the binding of Isaac). Love those you hate, those you love, and yourself the way God tells you you should. Both of these feed each other.
On-topic, this is 1 reason why the video doesn't work. The church is an apparatus to help both of these things happen. Granted, when it doesn't do those things, Christians ought to change that. Even if I disagree with a change, the spirit of change is something everyone should have. However, Christians are also told to reinforce it, since it's the Holy Spirit's presence on Earth. Loving God is not religion, but it is the explanatory method (Christians believe) God chose for how to love Him. To hate religion is to hate God's commands.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
You're correct. I oversimplified for the sake of convenience. Apologies.
MorisUkunRasik
Member
I'm an atheist, to get that out of the way. But I find his, 'Love your enemies' to be one of the decent things he preached, I actually find it to be quite beautiful. Somewhat of an ancient MLK idea of hate breeds more hate. He just loses all the stock he built up when he goes "..ok now that you can tolerate the worst the planet has to offer, kill yo daddy if he contradicts or tries to prevent you from being Christian, yo mamma too and your sisters and brothers."
Yea, Jesus you can go suck a dick. Imagine if MLK said that shit? "We must not extend a fist to our oppressors, but open arms. We should kill our families if they think otherwise....hey where y'all going?"
I would assume that you are correct about the mathematical relationship between religion and education, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything or at least not what you are trying to make it prove.
There are plenty of people out there that are highly educated that have a pretty deep understanding of the topics you mentioned previously. There are also plenty of backwoods atheists out there.
It stands to reason that once a person is given more information and more choices that a larger percentage of them will venture in different directions. This concept does not say anything about what are the correct pieces of information and choices.
I personally graduated high school with a 4.2 GPA and finished college cum laude in electrical engineering with a minor in mathematics. Looking to go back and get a masters in business. If it is so obvious that with education comes atheists how do you explain those that are well-educated, but can still defend and back up their faith?
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
It was a nice poem, but the premise still didn't convince me.
He says he doesn't like religion, but he loves Christianity. Basically if you don't believe in his version of Christianity, then he hates it.
This guy reminds me of girls that I meet that get upset when I tell them I'm agnostic. They always say they want a man who believes in God, but what they really mean is they want a man who believes in their God, because me believing Ra and Horus are the true supreme deities always gets a WTF out of them.
He says he doesn't like religion, but he loves Christianity. Basically if you don't believe in his version of Christianity, then he hates it.
This guy reminds me of girls that I meet that get upset when I tell them I'm agnostic. They always say they want a man who believes in God, but what they really mean is they want a man who believes in their God, because me believing Ra and Horus are the true supreme deities always gets a WTF out of them.
GhaleonQ
Member
So, you're saying that he would have come out against the American Civil War. Great. Also, calling Barry Goldwater fans racist fascists seems a bit odd in retrospect, though I understand the fears of regression he had at the time. But that's off-topic.
On-topic: Yeshua > Martin. DEAL.
Are we supposed to hate or not?
Luke 14:26 and 1 John 3:15
You must hate - (Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."
You must not hate - (1 John 3:15) - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."
In Luke 14:26, Jesus is drawing a comparison of importance by exaggerating a relationship. He is saying that it is far more important to love Him than anyone else, including your own parents. Of course, He is not telling people to hate their parents. He is saying that by comparison to Him, you must love Him more than all else.
In 1 John 3:15, John is writing to the church about abiding in the love of Christ. In fact, in 1 John, the word "abide" occurs 16 times in the NASB and the apostle continually refers to abiding in Christ (1 John 2:4,24,28; 3:6,24, etc.).
Therefore, we see that a true Christian will love the Lord Jesus supremely and in so doing he will not abide in hatred towards his brother.
- Status