preach on!!!

i mean, tell it like it is.

It's videos like this that make me yearn for a religion free world within my lifetime.

Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen.

Would it really be genocide to wipe out those who refuse to use their brains? I suppose it would... ::sigh::

Hey...we do seem to be having an overpopulation problem. Lets just hear this guy out.

I wonder how he would have reacted if it were his pastor relaying a message from god to kill his kids.

>> ^Hybrid:

It's videos like this that make me yearn for a religion free world within my lifetime.
Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen.


How about you stop generalizing every religion and every religious person based on the few religious nuts. You do know that there are generally sincere, loving people who are very spiritual that are 1) sane, and 2) want to help people? There's even a few such examples sifted here.

>> ^maximillian:

>> ^Hybrid:
It's videos like this that make me yearn for a religion free world within my lifetime.
Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen.

How about you stop generalizing every religion and every religious person based on the few religious nuts. You do know that there are generally sincere, loving people who are very spiritual that are 1) sane, and 2) want to help people? There's even a few such examples sifted here.


Those sincere and loving people would still be sincere and loving in a religion-free world, whereas the fundie crazies, the jihadists, etc, would not.

@Hybrid, don't be so pessimist!

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


People find strength through religion, and I think that's fantastic due to the fact that it motivates people to go beyond what they think they can accomplish. I have no problem with religion! Just, please, don't ever, EVER, impose your views onto someone else.

My biggest problem with religion is its imposition on others. People have the right to choose what they believe in for themselves.

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


Your personal justifications are no deal maker; people will help others out of empathy, vanity, expectance of reciprocity, etc., with or without religion. All religion does is have an authority figure tell you you must be a certain way otherwise you will be tortured forever and not go to an imaginary wonderful place.

The same results of "salvation" as you call it can be found by reading philosophy and/or working on one's ethics and self esteem; no need to have "faith" or believe in the supernatural for any of that.

WTF is up with the WalMart brand flaming dice T-shirt?

The video/discussion was great and deserves an upvote however.

Religion certainly has its good points (charity, helping others) and bad points (manipulation of followers, excessive trust in the views of authority figures). There are also many things, both good and bad, that are often mistakenly attributed to religion (like morality or stupidity).

Personally, I'm all for helping others and striving to be a good person, but I am very uncomfortable with any belief structure that promotes the existence of people or things that cannot be observed or tested. When people are convinced that their views and beliefs should not require reproducible evidence then they can be more easily manipulated by those they trust by "faith".

I know of a few religious people who accept all of science, but still believe in particular events beyond death. I do not believe those after-life views are founded in anything other than a personal desire for it to be true, but at least they aren't rejecting conclusions tested by many based on the writings of a few.

I do think a world where religion isn't needed would be a better place, but if it happened now it still wouldn't keep people from believing all kinds of crazy stuff. I see religion as more of an effect of human ignorance than the direct cause of it.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

People find strength through religion, and I think that's fantastic due to the fact that it motivates people to go beyond what they think they can accomplish. I have no problem with religion! Just, please, don't ever, EVER, impose your views onto someone else.
My biggest problem with religion is its imposition on others. People have the right to choose what they believe in for themselves.

I agree with you. I don't share my faith with someone unless it would be welcomed. I am not a Bible basher. That is a complete turn off even to me.

The only reason why I chimed in here is because I am tired of people saying religion is a complete waste. Sorry, I completely disagree. This forum is not the place to go into why though.

So to those who disagree with me, how about you simply say, "I don't agree" then mind your own business. I will do the same for you.

I read a great quote the other day, not sure where it came from but I like it.
"When you understand why you reject all other gods, then you will understand why I reject yours."

@maximillian Participating in a debate (one of the many reasons I enjoy videosift) is all about challenging other people's beliefs/stances, i.e. not just minding one's own business. Saying "I dis/agree, period" is a debate-killer. I do apologise, however, if you felt that my comments were a personal attack against you, which they were not; it's all about questioning ideas/beliefs, not demeaning people out of pure malice.

@Psychologic While religion surely resulted from human ignorance and fear (of inexplicable natural phenomena and human mortality), it is know one of the sole ideological "perpetuators" (i.e. causes) of ignorance, intolerance, immorality, hate and stupidity.

*quality insanity

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

This is one of those things where a believer would say and do anything they believe their god told them to do that comes really close to mental illness in my opinion so much so that if the person themselves doesn't question it...they are probably mentally ill.

However, I am not so far removed from belief that I can't say that there isn't the possibility that a person or maybe a group of people could experience the will of something greater than themselves. Allowing a person or group of people to survive or do something where the odds would say they should have died/failed.

It's just when it comes to willfully harming yourself (not putting yourself in harms way but actually hurting yourself because something/someone says to) or purposefully harming another under the command of a "god" is the line that keeps me from religions. You have every right to protect yourself and others, but when you move into murderous rampage/thuggery is where you lose for sure. There's obviously other things I have issues with when it comes to belief and religions, but killing "in the name of _________________" is a big issue and has a long history of being used to justify many things.

I understand why this thinking exists...it's an easy way to erase your culpability and an easy fundamental to fall back on it. But it's falls dangerously close to "They die because _________ is/are better." Where the blank is I, whites, americans, christians, etc.

We help out of natural instincts too. If I am on fire, I want someone to help because of self preservation. Same with you.

And religion was created by man and woman, hatered was created by man and woman... they would survive without each other.

The bigger question is whether you should be institutionalized if you think you are hearing voices...

Would I kill you if you were trying to kill your child because God said so? Yes.

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


So before you did it because you wanted to hear people praise you for your good works, and now you do it because you want an invisible man to think your a good person for your good works. So nothings changed, just the source of your affirmation. Doing good works shouldn't require ANY source of affirmation other than your own. You do them because you want to do them, not for love from people, god, or anyone else. Don't lessen yourself or your works by giving them a reason for being done. Do it because its the right thing to do, end of story.

What else can you say if you are absolutely convinced there is an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god? If such a being tells you to do something, it must be right. How you would know they told you to do so is another matter entirely.

^ Also, I say that if you are absolutely convinced that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god who has "a plan for everybody" (how many times have you heard that?) then why on earth aren't they CELEBRATING when bad things happen...you got raped yesterday? YES! God must have something really special in mind for you, let's celebrate!!!!

Tough question though.

If "God" appeared to you in such a way as you knew it WAS "God", an omniscient and omnipresent almighty unanswerable power, and you KNEW that you weren't imagining or hallucinating, would you kill your child if that "God" told you to?

Could be an ultimate test of faith, could be an ultimate test of morality.

>> ^rebuilder:
an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god?

Those words constitute an oxymoron at the most basic level. An omniscient, omnipotent god can be either non-existant or malevolent...the state of the world itself makes it obvious that he could not be benevolent.

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


Ummm... selfISH is bad, selfLESS is good. Big difference.


Just sayin'

>> ^dannym3141:

Tough question though.
If "God" appeared to you in such a way as you knew it WAS "God", an omniscient and omnipresent almighty unanswerable power, and you KNEW that you weren't imagining or hallucinating, would you kill your child if that "God" told you to?
Could be an ultimate test of faith, could be an ultimate test of morality.


Test of morality. I suppose you could say faith if you wanted to present the idea of faith that "god" knows what he's doing, but then I would have a lot more questions about why *I* had to be the one doing the killing when a supposedly omnipotent being could just have him keel over. No moral person should ever obey an order to murder a child in cold blood no matter who's authority it was on. If this supposed authority wants it done so badly they can bloody well do it themselves with everything in my power standing in their way.

What I find most confusing about this is that these guys feel strongly enough about their opinions that they've gone out and gotten lights, cameras, mics, custom chyrons, and apparently built a chroma-key studio. Then they produced this & seem to have gone through whatever steps necessary to get on public access.

Then what do they key in on the green screen? The Windows stock desktop image Red Desert Moon. What?!? Oh, but they added the date in Arial Bold, so I guess they really made it their own.

Baffling.

>> ^Stormsinger:

An omniscient, omnipotent god can be either non-existant or malevolent...the state of the world itself makes it obvious that he could not be benevolent.


@Stormsinger, let's leave the sweeping generalised assumptions stated as fact to the christians. There is nothing to prevent there being an omnipotent, omniscient "God" from being benevolent, and about a hundred explanations about the state of the world that i could think of that would result in this world under such a "God".

@RadHazG, the statement that s/he's an omnipresent, omniscient almighty and unanswerable power requires that s/he does always know what s/he's doing. The questions you present ARE the questions that indicate a test of faith. S/He knows what s/he's doing, s/he could write the child out of existance altogether, but the question is will you trust her/him and just do what s/he says and trust that there is a plan?

You've figured out the fundamental elements of the question, but you went no way towards an answer. At the moment i don't trust in mere faith, however if i was presented with such a "God", then i'd be in a position to rethink that - which is the question i presented. I could change the question to "Which would win, your faith or your morals?" But i will accept that, to some, doing "God"'s bidding in our imaginary situation would BE a moral act.

Does that help you understand the question? It was meant to make you think, "Wow, if i met God tomorrow, and it really WAS God, how easy would it be to change your nature and trust in faith to this being who knows and has a plan for everything?"

I introduced no sweeping generalized assumptions. Those are inherent in the words you chose to use.

1) An omniscient god knows every bad thing that happens.

2) An omnipotent god could ameliorate those things if he wished.

3) I think it's glaringly obvious that plenty of bad things happen to non-bad people...just think how many little kids die of diseases and accidents.

4) So, if he knows this happens and chooses not to help, I don't see how it's possible to call him benevolent.

I somehow doubt that any one of your "hundred explanations" would stand up to even a cursory examination.
>> ^dannym3141:

@Stormsinger, let's leave the sweeping generalised assumptions stated as fact to the christians. There is nothing to prevent there being an omnipotent, omniscient "God" from being benevolent, and about a hundred explanations about the state of the world that i could think of that would result in this world under such a "God".

@Stormsinger^

That's twice you've used the word "obvious" in a supporting point of an argument you claim isn't an assumption. And you've also used "i don't see how" as another supporting point.

That alone is enough to show that what you're saying is an assumption. However i'll humour you and continue.

Humans observe wildlife, and we see "bad" things happening to "non-bad" animals, yet we don't interfere. Would you call this a benevolent act, or would you 'assume' once more that this is a malevolent act? It's a benevolent one because we have a policy of no interference because we don't always realise the full effects of our actions. In history we may have interefered and caused bad things to happen later down the line. But perhaps to a gazelle, we are malevolent, they can't understand otherwise. Their nature 'assumes' otherwise - you're much like the gazelle.

Perhaps in the past, "God" interfered with humans and it didn't work out. Perhaps, like the matrix, humans couldn't cope with a life that didn't have imperfections.

I suggest an image of "God" sat invisible watching every little innocent girl dying of horrible diseases, crying for her, yet knowing that to interfere would be to break a cardinal rule s/he made from the beginning of creation - FREE WILL, i shall not intere because i will then interfere with everything.

Perhaps "God" is sat above, watching cancer eat an innocent and kind man, but knowing that whilst the man did nothing wrong other than exist, neither did the cancer do anything wrong but to exist. Another reason why humans don't interfere in the animal kingdom. We consider that our own kind is above the animal kingdom, so we interfere if a human is in trouble. Yet who is to say that's how "God" sees it?

I'm not gonna list off the remaining 96 explanations.

Just for the record, i'm not religious. However if you're going to argue against religion, at least adhere to logic and afford them a luxury they don't afford us.

^

Wow, if religion were sold with your concept of God, no one would buy it.