[TheWastelander]

(11-02-2014 01:20 PM)redbeard Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 01:18 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 11:55 AM)redbeard Wrote:  

Modern, American, Christian churches are terrible. The only ones that promote good values are small Southern Baptist/Pentacostal churches, but those go way too overboard with brick and mortar beliefs.

Until a church starts promoting men to be alpha males and for women to get back to the kitchen, I will not be a regular at a church.

Dalrock is a great writer about the modern church, values, feminism, etc.

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/...esnt-wait/

He has some great posts breaking down modern church practices.

His major issue is about how the church is now promoting divorce. I wholeheartedly agree.

Whats a 'brick and mortar' belief? I attend a southern baptist church and the only negative I see is that they are suspicious of outsiders.

I meant "fire and brimstone." My mistake.


You know the type..."go to church or you're going to hell."

I've never heard that in a church.

I have heard stuff along the lines of 'unless you believe in Jesus Christ you're going to hell.'

Which is a true statement.

Churches that try to sugarcoat that are not doing anyone any favors. That's the core tenet of Christianity, after all. Either you faithfully believe Christ sacrificed himself for mankind's sins, was buried, and rose again or you don't.

Christians want to save people from hell.

[Slim Shady]

[This is a long post and I could probably write a small book on the subject. I don't discuss really any "evils" of religion, that's more to the story certainly. I'll deal with this on a purely mathematical level]

I have gone through many transformations in my thoughts and beliefs on religion, and have eventually come to certain clarity on one thing:

Religion is the final and biggest blue pill belief. I am saddened that some very smart people continue to believe in this stuff, or even behave as if it were consequential in any way.

The biggest reason religion works? FEAR.

As I have stated before, the correct belief [yes there is one, no matter how patronizing and ironic that sounds] is to be agnostic. We have no proof of the existence of God, and certainly all evidence points to the fact that God has never interfered in the Universe even if he does exist. I don't mean necessarily a Christian God or w/e here. I mean it in any sense of some "supernatural" being.

But what does "supernatural" mean? That which surpasses nature, that which contradicts it. What is Nature/natural? Nature is the set of laws that we have observed are ALWAYS, without any exception, followed in the Universe. It is better to not think of "things" and "objects" and "beings". These are all just different permutations, combinations, and interactions of certain elementary particles and fields. Nature is just allowable interactions of these particles and fields.

So if you are saying something is "supernatural", then it goes against the very basic laws of the universe. The laws, I repeat, that have NEVER failed. These laws in fact are immutable and inextricable from the very objects and events they describe. An event can not stand separate from the laws of the universe, because changing the law changes the event itself. Therefore a supernatural phenomenon can not actually exist! There is no such thing because anything that actually happens is a part of nature itself and thus the natural laws must be able to describe it with enough cleverness.

Now, we have come so far in our understanding of the Universe that we in fact have one single equation [a " Universal Lagrangian"] that can describes the entire Universe. An equation that fits on one line that can describe the universe at any point, at any time since a fraction of a second after the big bang. This one equation can be reduced to every single other equation of physics or chemistry you have ever heard of. One equation to rule them all.

What does that mean? That science and the scientific method are correct. If we can condense everything to one "equation of everything", then we know that we are consistently describing the Universe, and that it is indeed based on a consistent rule book. We know for certain that these rules are never interfered with.

Therefore any sort of prayer and religion has ZERO effect on the way the Universe will behave. Your religion will get you nowhere, and it is a bad use of your time.

So we know that no God interferes with the Universe - EVER. But can or does he exist?If we have a consistent equation for Universal behavior for all time, does that not prove that God in fact does not exist?

Well we do not know what happened for the first very tiny fraction after the big bang, right before inflation. Could the Big Bang have been the only active working of God? Since we do not know for sure, I will say it leaves a small unlikely window open for God's work. However we are coming ever closer to figuring out what happened here, and it is more of a problem of recreating high enough energy densities than anything. I wrote a paper on the proof needed to prove Inflation theory -> the SMOKING GUN FOR THE BIG BANG. Last March, that proof was collected by the Planck satellite. Every year we come closer to the truth.

So say God does exist. The where does he live? What is his body? The problem occurs that such a supernatural being would have to live in the Universe, and that would have to show up as data that violates the known laws of the universe. But God is not an observed entity. You might argue that just because you can not see him, that does not mean he does not exist. He works in mysterious ways. For starters, that is just a great rhetorical technique to keep unsure people in the dark. But even otherwise, the burden of proof is always on the person making the conjecture that something exists. The burden is not on the disprover. If you come to me with actual proof that god exists, and it baffles me how many people do not even know what real proof means, then I will believe you completely. I am just after the truth, I have no agenda.

To understand how you might think something Godly has happened, you must understand basic statistics. This is hard for people to fathom unless they have studied math, but I am wiling to elaborate if you request it.

The universe works on randomness. But WAIT! Didn't you just say it is all neat and explained by one law?

Yes. But the fundamental rules are governed by Quantum Mechanics, which is statistical in nature. The most basic law of the universe is not Gravity or Newton's second law. It is the 2nd law of Thermodynamics: Entropy must always increase.

Statistical and Thermal physics rules supreme. And this creates a lot of randomness. But even though Quantum mechanics is statistical in nature, it does not mean we are shooting arrows in the dark. It is in fact the most precise and exact science out there. This may seem paradoxical, but what it means is that our theories state that QM gives different "random" answers different times, but this randomness can be predicted over many trials. Any when we deal with our actions, that is trillions and trillions of Quantum interactions happening at once, so we need not worry about sample size. This gives you the FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF THE UNIVERSE:

RANDOMNESS IS AN INHERENT PART OF THE UNIVERSE!

This is the most difficult thing for people to understand. Randomness is built into the laws of nature. If you think about it, that should at first be terrifying to you. This is why people refuse to let go of religion. They are also afraid that if there is a God, small chance that it is, he is going to punish them for behaving badly. Now I'd rather have my kicks on a 99.9% bet than live like a weasel for a .1% chance. That is some pussy shit if I ever saw any.

The true red pill state is to embrace this randomness. "The future's uncertain and the end is always near" so "I don't know what's gonna happen man but I want to have my kicks before this whole shithouse goes up in flames"

Realize that all that is there in life is what is here and now and live accordingly. Or take that .1% chance, but realize that you still don;t know which religion is right, or even that the God who exists gives a DAMN about what you do. OR maybe God is real, but the afterlife, and souls, and reincarnation, a karma are not. Well then you're truly fucked.

[Slim Shady]

Now if you read through that post, you can tell that I'm not like the fashionable atheists. Personally I consider myself a conservative [though libertarian conservative] but I am tired of the right talking about bullshit religious tenants that are not only bad policy and completely moronic, but also lose them intelligent voters.

The leftist atheists do it because they want freedom from consequence. I on the other hand believe that freeing oneself from religion allows you to take the ultimate responsibility for your actions. Now I don't always take the "right path", but I certainly know what it is, and when I stray, I take responsibility for what happens. But there has been too much loss of life, too much persecution, and too much ignorance created by religion and spirituality for me to let people just believe these things casually either. I'm not contradicting my libertarian views here. In some matters there is opinion, and on other matters there is one truth. This is one such matter, and I have laid out some of that up there.

[infowarrior1]

(11-03-2014 12:21 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 01:20 PM)redbeard Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 01:18 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(11-02-2014 11:55 AM)redbeard Wrote:  

Modern, American, Christian churches are terrible. The only ones that promote good values are small Southern Baptist/Pentacostal churches, but those go way too overboard with brick and mortar beliefs.

Until a church starts promoting men to be alpha males and for women to get back to the kitchen, I will not be a regular at a church.

Dalrock is a great writer about the modern church, values, feminism, etc.

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/...esnt-wait/

He has some great posts breaking down modern church practices.

His major issue is about how the church is now promoting divorce. I wholeheartedly agree.

Whats a 'brick and mortar' belief? I attend a southern baptist church and the only negative I see is that they are suspicious of outsiders.

I meant "fire and brimstone." My mistake.


You know the type..."go to church or you're going to hell."

I've never heard that in a church.

I have heard stuff along the lines of 'unless you believe in Jesus Christ you're going to hell.'

Which is a true statement.

Churches that try to sugarcoat that are not doing anyone any favors. That's the core tenet of Christianity, after all. Either you faithfully believe Christ sacrificed himself for mankind's sins, was buried, and rose again or you don't.

Christians want to save people from hell.

Which is why its so important to verify if it is true. It is either a horrible lie used to manipulate people into joining or a horrifying truth. Likewise there are great promises for those who believe which is either too good to be true or a reality for those who believe.

[Ricky Rose]

Rejected the idea of a creator God some time ago. Studied all religions and have stuck to Buddhist philosophy for years now. Reading Buddha's biography and teachings for the first time struck a very strong chord with me and I see him as the greatest genius of all time.

[Pride male]

I used to believe in God and Jesus until I read Kenneth Humphries book Jesus Did Not Exist. A must read for anyone seeking the truth about Jesus. Also youtube videos by Darkmatter 2525 cleared everything for me.

[Deluge]

I asked a Methodist minister I know once what he considers to be the key test of whether someone is actually a Christian or not. He said if you don't believe that Christ was resurrected from the dead, you cannot be a Christian, no if's or butts about it.

We can talk about all the positive impact's religion has on society and individual well-being, but if believing that isn't the ultimate blue-pill I don't know what is.

Jesus was hardly the first Jew who called himself the Messiah and got killed for trying to lead a rebellion against the Romans.

[infowarrior1]

(11-03-2014 02:17 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

I used to believe in God and Jesus until I read Kenneth Humphries book Jesus Did Not Exist. A must read for anyone seeking the truth about Jesus. Also youtube videos by Darkmatter 2525 cleared everything for me.

[Mage]

I am not religious, but I am always accounting for the probability that God exists, not in the sense mainstream religions paint his being trough.

My current understanding is God is the reason behind natural law. I try to study and live according to natural law, but this doesn't oblige me to participate in any rituals or social practices if it isn't advantageous to me.

[lskdfjldsf]

I would suggest listening to Ravi Zacharias (tons of videos on YouTube) or others within Christian apologetics. The purpose of the discipline is to rationally justify Christianity from a scientific perspective, while exploring the deeper moral and philosophical implications through the application of logic and reason.

The video below is long and exhaustive, but it perfectly summarizes contemporary religious thought and dissects the cultural forces at play since the 1960's. Even if you exclude religion, it's a fantastic red pill video and explains how we've lost our sense of morality and purpose in the West.

To see a more concise example of the apologetics, there's a quick video below where Ravi Zacharias responds to a student questioning how a just God could condemn atheists to hell.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

All religions are fairy tales.

Strictly speaking, I am an agnostic but as far as the beliefs of all of earth's religions are concerned, I am an atheist.

The universe may have had a creator, but that creator speaks the language of mathematics, cosmology and quantum field theory, not the language of the Vedas, Bible, Torah, etc.

[infowarrior1]

(11-03-2014 02:29 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I asked a Methodist minister I know once what he considers to be the key test of whether someone is actually a Christian or not. He said if you don't believe that Christ was resurrected from the dead, you cannot be a Christian, no if's or butts about it.

We can talk about all the positive impact's religion has on society and individual well-being, but if believing that isn't the ultimate blue-pill I don't know what is.

Jesus was hardly the first Jew who called himself the Messiah and got killed for trying to lead a rebellion against the Romans.

[bojangles]

I'm agnostic, I believe that the polytheistic religions before the advent of Christianity have some sort of truths in them.

[The Beast1]

I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

[MY DETROIT PLAYAS]

Nope. Spiritual

[Deluge]

(11-03-2014 09:15 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

Talk about a false equivalency. If you believe in a higher power, the onus is entirely on you to prove that it exists not on atheists to prove that it doesn't exist, there's just no comparison. You wouldn't ask somebody to prove that Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster don't exist for example. That said, trying to convince people there is no higher power like Richard Dawkins and co. do is destined to fail, you can't beat the forces of natural selection. Even today the proportion of people who aren't religious is shrinking due to higher growth rates in the Third World.

[Dr. Howard]

(11-03-2014 01:42 AM)Ricky Rose Wrote:  

Rejected the idea of a creator God some time ago. Studied all religions and have stuck to Buddhist philosophy for years now. Reading Buddha's biography and teachings for the first time struck a very strong chord with me and I see him as the greatest genius of all time.

Buddhist and Zen writings are great. I am a christian but my first thoughts about spirituality were via Buddhist writings. I think Buddhism has a greater appeal to 'thinking' types because it approaches spirituality from a 'riddle me this' approach that is like unlocking a puzzle where Christianity recruits with a less subtle club of straight up faith which can be hard to swallow if you are someone that is looking for a more complex "why" answer.

[Mage]

(11-03-2014 09:34 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:15 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

Talk about a false equivalency. If you believe in a higher power, the onus is entirely on you to prove that it exists not on atheists to prove that it doesn't exist, there's just no comparison. You wouldn't ask somebody to prove that Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster don't exist for example. That said, trying to convince people there is no higher power like Richard Dawkins and co. do is destined to fail, you can't beat the forces of natural selection. Even today the proportion of people who aren't religious is shrinking due to higher growth rates in the Third World.

Problem with this argument is that atheists cannot leave a blank space in where the theists place God. All atheists place something else there - most commonly a belief that human reason separated from morality can explain and achieve happiness and prosperity much better then God, which is false and the decline of western civilization proves that.

[TigerMandingo]

I can't call myself religious per se, but I've become more accepting of religious thought over the years. This could be the result of taking the redpill and seeing the zeal and hatred of the atheist crowd.

[The Beast1]

(11-03-2014 09:34 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:15 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

Talk about a false equivalency. If you believe in a higher power, the onus is entirely on you to prove that it exists not on atheists to prove that it doesn't exist, there's just no comparison. You wouldn't ask somebody to prove that Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster don't exist for example. That said, trying to convince people there is no higher power like Richard Dawkins and co. do is destined to fail, you can't beat the forces of natural selection. Even today the proportion of people who aren't religious is shrinking due to higher growth rates in the Third World.

The onus is on both sides to prove or disprove what they believe. Regardless neither side is making any ground on that.

(11-03-2014 09:57 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:34 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 09:15 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

Talk about a false equivalency. If you believe in a higher power, the onus is entirely on you to prove that it exists not on atheists to prove that it doesn't exist, there's just no comparison. You wouldn't ask somebody to prove that Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster don't exist for example. That said, trying to convince people there is no higher power like Richard Dawkins and co. do is destined to fail, you can't beat the forces of natural selection. Even today the proportion of people who aren't religious is shrinking due to higher growth rates in the Third World.

Problem with this argument is that atheists cannot leave a blank space in where the theists place God. All atheists place something else there - most commonly a belief that human reason separated from morality can explain and achieve happiness and prosperity much better then God, which is false and the decline of western civilization proves that.

Precisely, give me a devote Christian and a staunch atheist and put them side by side.

You get one person completely in love with their indulgences and another who more or less moderately engages in his or her pleasures and pain.

It's ironic, the same evolutionary processes that atheists eat up forget that those forces act on them as well. They don't get married and have kids. Bill Maher is a good example of this. He is an individual who will not be passing on his ideals to his future children.

[TheWastelander]

(11-03-2014 02:29 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I asked a Methodist minister I know once what he considers to be the key test of whether someone is actually a Christian or not. He said if you don't believe that Christ was resurrected from the dead, you cannot be a Christian, no if's or butts about it.

We can talk about all the positive impact's religion has on society and individual well-being, but if believing that isn't the ultimate blue-pill I don't know what is.

Jesus was hardly the first Jew who called himself the Messiah and got killed for trying to lead a rebellion against the Romans.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" doesn't sound like something someone "leading a rebellion against the Romans" would say.

[TheWastelander]

(11-03-2014 09:15 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

I love atheists.

To be an atheist, you have to have the same level of belief that a theist has to have. You can't prove or disprove that some deity exists.

I disagree. It's easy to be an atheist.

You just shout "God doesn't exist because science!" and you're accepted into the big giant secularist cultural marxist hugbox where you can fight the evil hetero white men and their religion, but oddly you must remain silent about other religions because to talk about them would be intolerant. See the treatment Dawkins and Harris have gotten as of late when they started being more critical of Islam.

Atheism today has gone beyond skepticism or non-belief. I can accept it for those reasons because I was one precisely because I was skeptical about the existence of God. I just think you're wrong about that.

However, the atheist movement is now solidly part of the cultural marxist/SJW crowd who want to eliminate Christianity so they can have gays everywhere, trannies, and all other sorts of freakish perversions on display so there will be more reprobates, more societal decay, and more people going to hell.

See Atheism+

[Deluge]

(11-03-2014 10:39 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 02:29 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I asked a Methodist minister I know once what he considers to be the key test of whether someone is actually a Christian or not. He said if you don't believe that Christ was resurrected from the dead, you cannot be a Christian, no if's or butts about it.

We can talk about all the positive impact's religion has on society and individual well-being, but if believing that isn't the ultimate blue-pill I don't know what is.

Jesus was hardly the first Jew who called himself the Messiah and got killed for trying to lead a rebellion against the Romans.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" doesn't sound like something someone "leading a rebellion against the Romans" would say.

Of course it does, you need to consider the context in which it was said. Jesus had been asked whether he thought the Jews should pay taxes to the Romans. Remind you of anything?



People are taught that Jesus was crucified along with thieves, but the scripture actually says he was crucified with bandits. The term bandit did not mean thief at the time but a rebel, someone who committed treason against the state. Crucifixion was a punishment reserved almost exclusively by Rome for committing treason against the state. Treasonous Jews were put on crosses to show the others what happens you rebel against Rome.

The entire idea of the Messiah in the 1st century was that someone would come and cast out the Romans to return the promised land of Israel to the Jews, after all to be the Messiah is to be the successor of King David, to bring in the Kingdom of God was not just a religious statement but a political one, by definition it meant removing Roman rule over the Jews. The religious and the political struggles of the Jews of the time were intertwined, what Jesus said had real political consequences.

Once again Jesus was hardly the only Jew to call himself the Messiah. Roman Palestine of Jesus's era was a tumultuous place to be, the Jews rebelled multiple times, and each time the leaders were executed for their rebellion much like Jesus was. In fact a massive revolt occurred just 30 years after Jesus died that engulfed the entire region into long lasting war that was probably the most important event in Jewish history from then up until the Holocaust. Any Jews reading will recognize this as the war that resulted in the Romans destroying the Temple.

[TheWastelander]

(11-03-2014 10:59 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 10:39 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 02:29 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

I asked a Methodist minister I know once what he considers to be the key test of whether someone is actually a Christian or not. He said if you don't believe that Christ was resurrected from the dead, you cannot be a Christian, no if's or butts about it.

We can talk about all the positive impact's religion has on society and individual well-being, but if believing that isn't the ultimate blue-pill I don't know what is.

Jesus was hardly the first Jew who called himself the Messiah and got killed for trying to lead a rebellion against the Romans.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" doesn't sound like something someone "leading a rebellion against the Romans" would say.

Of course it does, you need to consider the context in which it was said. Jesus had been asked whether he thought the Jews should pay taxes to the Romans. Remind you of anything?



People are taught that Jesus was crucified along with thieves, but the scripture actually says he was crucified with bandits. The term bandit did not mean thief at the time but a rebel, someone who committed treason against the state. Crucifixion was a punishment reserved almost exclusively by Rome for committing treason against the state.

The entire idea of the Messiah in the 1st century was that someone would come and cast out the Romans to return the promised land of Israel to the Jews, after all to be the Messiah is to be the successor of King David, to bring in the Kingdom of God was not just a religious statement but a political one, by definition it meant removing Roman rule over the Jews. The religious and the political struggles of the Jews of the time were intertwined, what Jesus said had real political consequences.

Once again Jesus was hardly the only Jew to call himself the Messiah. Roman Palestine of Jesus's era was a tumultuous place to be, the Jews rebelled multiple times, and each time the leaders were executed for their rebellion much like Jesus was. In fact a massive revolt occurred just 30 years after Jesus died that engulfed the entire region into long lasting war that was probably the most important event in Jewish history from then up until the Holocaust. Any Jews reading will recognize this as the war that resulted in the Romans destroying the Temple.

The problem with this theory is that there is little documentation to support what you allege.

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2011/...g-against/

[Deluge]

First of all, you and your link have misunderstood the context of "Render unto Caesar". Jesus was being baited into publicly giving treasonous answers that would surely have him executed, this in the scripture itself. He couldn't say outright to the High Priests (who were colluding with Rome) and their spies that the Romans have no right to Jewish taxes (an idea popular among Jews at the time, it was the reason the First Jewish-Roman war even started). By saying "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" he got away with implying that the Romans have no right to Jewish taxes without getting himself executed. The implication was Jewish taxes are God's, not Caesar's. Jesus was only asked this question in the first place because his enemies knew he opposed paying taxes to Rome, all of the Gospels that contain the "Render unto Caesar" story are consistent on this.

Also there's plenty of evidence, do some investigating on what I've written. We don't know a lot about Jesus outside the Gospels (which were written many decades after he died) but we know plenty about the historical context of his time and place. Crucifixion was reserved for rebels. Jesus proclaimed to be the Messiah and and wanted to bring about the Kingdom of God, by definition that constitutes rebellion against Rome. Also, according to the Gospels the Romans sent a cohort of troops after Jesus when he was hiding out in the forest (the Garden of Gethsemane). A cohort, is five hundred Roman soldiers. Join the dots.