AF Religion Guidelines

[HU&W]

There might be a reason they're poor...a fool and his money....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Osteen#Personal_life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creflo_Dollar#Finances

lol. Great examples of "religion"

[Day Man]

lol. Great examples of "religion"

Sure, these guys are probably outliers. Here's another. But we'll never really know because religious organizations are exempt from disclosing financial statements. Funny how that works!

Would you rather talk about the Catholic church and their approx net worth? Church of Scientology (I agree these guys are a little more out there)? Mormon Church?

[Mark1]

Turns out that's exactly what Jesus predicted...funny how that works.

Matthew 11:25-26 - At that time Jesus said, I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.

Funny because there's no possible motivation for the humans who concocted the scriptures to attempt to assign positive value to the willful ignorance that allows the religious institution to thrive?

The greatest scam ever sold is necessarily a crafty, artful, amazing thing. In that, religion holds significant cultural value...but that doesn't make it any less of a con.

[HeloDude]

SLC has a higher crime rate than Boston. (per 2012 data)

https://www.city-data.com/city-compare/?city_left=Salt+Lake+City%2C+UT&city_right=Boston%2C+MA

So now we're comparing city by city? His entire argument was to compare states to states. Massachusetts' violent crime rate is just over 400/100K people while Utah is just over 200/100K people (per FBI crime stats in 2013 listed below). So using his arguement style, statistically the non-religious of MA are 2x more than likely to commit a violence crime against me if I visit compared to the religious (mostly Mormon) folks in UT.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2012-2013.xls

And according Gallup, Utah has the most frequent church attendance:

https://www.gallup.com/poll/181601/frequent-church-attendance-highest-utah-lowest-vermont.aspx

As for our progressive friend, Mark1, I agree that all of these arguments are silly as I'm not aware that 'religious affiliation' is reported when someone commits a crime. However, racial status is, and it's overwhelmingly that a black or hispanic person is more likley to commit a crime than a white person is...and Asians are less likely than whites (all that Asian privilege I suppose). So yes, I'm no fan of the south in that it sucks for many reasons--petsonally I never want to live there again outside the AF, mainly due to the summer weather. But the main reason the south has a higher crime rate is because of the south's percentage of population that is made up of minorities and which demographics have higher percentages of being more likely to commit a crime. Religion has nothing to do with it. I have a feeling that North Dakota is more religious than California, yet which one has a higher crime rate?

Funny because there's no possible motivation for the humans who concocted the scriptures to attempt to assign positive value to the willful ignorance that allows the religious institution to thrive?

The greatest scam ever sold is necessarily a crafty, artful, amazing thing. In that, religion holds significant cultural value...but that doesn't make it any less of a con.

Then don't follow religion, problem solved. And if you don't like politicians making laws/policy based on religion (I know I don't), then vote Libertarian. Progressives also love to use religion to gain support for their progressives policies, more government welfare is one example. I can't stand statists, regardless of which ideology they support. Just like those on the right who want to ban gay marriage, prostitution, etc all because of 'religion'. I could care what religion a person does or does not subscribe to, just stay out of my life.

[Day Man]

So now we're comparing city by city? His entire argument was to compare states to states. Massachusetts' violent crime rate is just over 400/100K people while Utah is just over 200/100K people (per FBI crime stats in 2013 listed below). So using his arguement style, statistically the non-religious of MA are 2x more than likely to commit a violence crime against me if I visit compared to the religious (mostly Mormon) folks in UT.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2012-2013.xls

I noticed you left the property crime stats out...was that because Utah was 2,950.4/100,000 and Mass was 2,051.2/100,000?

[HeloDude]

I noticed you left the property crime stats out...was that because Utah was 2,950.4/100,000 and Mass was 2,051.2/100,000?

Personally I'm more concerned about violent crime, but there is nothing invalid with your point. Or with the point that I'm more likely to be murdered in Massachusetts than in Utah. I'm also more likely to be murdered in California than I am in Texas. But seriously, explain to me again how more religious equates to more crime?

I've never understood why non-religious people had a problem with religious people. If they don't care, then, wait for it...why care?

[Mark1]

Then don't follow religion, problem solved. And if you don't like politicians making laws/policy based on religion (I know I don't), then vote Libertarian.

I rarely vote for candidates as I will not vote for the lesser of two evils, and with very few exceptions 'evil' is all that's offered, regardless of party. As Penn Jillette would say, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil". So in general I just vote on legislation and omit the candidates. I know of the Jillette quote because I'm staunchly libertarian (not the party, just philosophically). So when I vote on legislation (or candidates in rare instances) it's always with libertarian ideals in mind. Pretty progressive of me, huh HeloDude? Yeah, I'd bone Hilary Clinton real good if given the chance. I love her for her mind. You've certainly got my number.

Anyway, I fully support the right of anybody to practice any religion they like, as long as it doesn't affect me. That is not to say that I don't simultaneously wish that they might abandon their fairy tales in favor of logic and reason because it makes for a better existence for everyone. And especially that they would stop brainwashing their kids (strategically at ages where they can't think critically for themselves). Of course, religion would cease to exist rapidly if they didn't do the churches bidding in brainwashing their children, as almost nobody decides that religion is the answer as an adult for obvious reasons.

When 70% of the population bases their actions on delusions it's impossible that that doesn't have an impact on everybody else...thus simply not following religion doesn't exactly solve the problem as you state. So, I'm happy to see the pace of erosion of the institution increasing.

[Day Man]

Personally I'm more concerned about violent crime, but there is nothing invalid with your point. Or with the point that I'm more likely to be murdered in Massachusetts than in Utah. I'm also more likely to be murdered in California than I am in Texas. But seriously, explain to me again how more religious equates to more crime?

I am too.

I never said religion equates to more crime; I was just challenging your tongue-in-cheek assertion that Utah was a crime-free safe-zone.

[HeloDude]

When 70% of the population bases their actions on delusions it's impossible that that doesn't have an impact on everybody else...thus simply not following religion doesn't exactly solve the problem as you state. So, I'm happy to see the pace of erosion of the institution increasing.

Again, that's just you opinion. And of course it's perfectly your right to have it, but it doesn't change that it is still an opinion. Regardless of your opinion, are you suggesting that good has never come out of people because they were trying to follow the guidelines of their religion? Are you also suggesting that people can not see past their own religious views, say in the field of science? Many scientists, including Father George Lemaitre would have disagreed with you (just one example). I think you are just so against religion that your bias overwhelms you from seeing what positives have come from people trying to follow a certain set of guidelines adhering to their faith. And just in case you want to point all the horrible things that people have also done in the name of religion (which are valid points), I would point to Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung as examples of atheists not doing the best things in their life (Timothy McVeigh being a very recent example).

As for progressive vs non-progressive...when you stop defending progressive ideology/actions (the religion issue is not one of them by the way), then I'll stop calling you a progressive.

[HeloDude]

Helo,

3. There are studies showing the most and least prosperous countries in the world. The most prosperous answered that RELIGION was overwhelmingly not an important part of their daily life. The least prosperous answered that it was. You're free to interpret that data however you like..... obviously there are lots of variables at play. My interpretation is that religion (any religion) isn't required for prosperity, and that there's a high likelihood that it in fact hinders it. TT acused me of conflating various other world religions with Christianity in the south, but I'm pretty sure he's the one that did that.

Are you suggesting that the US was not a 'religious' country in the late 1800's and early/mid 1900's? My point being that I can remember learning that the US experienced quite a bit of prosperity during that time...if religion is so bad, then how did this happen? The problem with you and Mark1 isn't that you make the argument that religion isn't needed for success, prosperity, etc (I never said that it was), however, you continue to make arguments that, by itself, religion hinders this properity and success...and history does not agree with you.

Again, you guys are anti-religion and think people adhering to religious guidelines are stupid. No problem, that's your opinion. But you discount the facts of what has actually been done by people, who happen to adhere to a certain faith, which makes your entire irrelevant in my opinion.

[Guest]

The US has been a country of many religions. Most importantly, it's been one that embraces freedom of religion and a secular government. That's in large part what brought about our prosperity, unlike other countries/theocracies that haven't emancipated themselves from that struggle. They squander their potential and waste enormous amounts of time and resources as a consequence.

America has not been nearly as peaceful and understanding of religion as we now experience it. Our historic track record is not much better than many other first-world countries. But the fact that we were just slightly better at tolerance and that we had a unifying war for independence brought us to our current level.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?all

In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in 1620. The Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious dissidents arrived at their shining city upon a hill, as their governor John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the same, coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which everyone was free to practice his or her own faith.

The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth.

[Learjetter]

Funny because there's no possible motivation for the humans who concocted the scriptures to attempt to assign positive value to the willful ignorance that allows the religious institution to thrive?

The greatest scam ever sold is necessarily a crafty, artful, amazing thing. In that, religion holds significant cultural value...but that doesn't make it any less of a con.

Matthew 16:23

[ARIs 'R' Us]

Matthew 16:23

Well said. I'm happy to be called ignorant and delusional all day by my peers on the internet, since it doesn't happen anywhere else.

Based on the fact that we're both on baseops.net, HLF, I'd wager that we have had similar experiences and success in this world. By your definition, all of us religious folk have been able to do it while devoting part of our time to a delusion, while you've been freed from that burden. I'm not sure whether that supports your claim...

[Mark1]

Matthew 16:23

Acts 3:23

You should get started. ISIS has a head start on you.

[Homestar]

[Day Man]

Ezekiel 23:20

Edit: What science?

Edited May 15, 2015 by day man

[HeloDude]

If someone is trying to preach/convert you, and you don't want anything to do with it, then I totally get your annoyance and for wanting to be left alone in that arena. If you don't want politicians making laws/policy based on their religion, then I totally get it as well (I don't want that either). Outside of those two points, why do you care so much? I've already proven to you that religion by itself doesn't make someone less successful, doesn't by itself cause more crime, doesnt by itself make a country more weak or less prosperous, etc. Likewise I have never said that religion is necessary to be successful, have less crime, etc. So once again, why do you care so much? I might think it's silly for someone to spend hundreds of dollars an hour to talk to someone about their feelings, but hey, that's their time and money.

[Mark1]

Speaking of reason, you seem to be a bit agitated for someone who had earlier proclaimed himself successful and winning at the game of life. If you are successful and happy, then you must have been unimpeded by those who have different beliefs. If you are constantly aggravated by those who are trying to convert you, it would stand to reason that you aren't entirely happy or successful and would spend your time addressing your grievances with those people. If you have problems with legislation related to religion, it would be logical to assume you would be vastly more successful addressing your concerns with legislators or groups responsible for lobbying for it.

What does make perfect sense is that you've recently jumped on the online atheistic bandwagon with countless other Facebookers and Redditors and are spouting condescension and ridicule at the general public just to engage in idle debate without using the reason and logic you seem ardently in support of. Is it not logical that coupling a plea for reason and logic with ridicule and intolerance is an instant turn off for most people? Is it unreasonable to assume everyone should know that the appeal of an argument that requires a disrespectful tone and condescension isn't a great alternative for those who have a religious belief? If I were a religious person, and I'm not, and you made your case for atheism by calling my beliefs fairy tales, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself. :)

Referring to scripture as fairy tale and faith as delusion is dealing with reality. It's not a proactive effort to offend. Anybody who is offended by that is too far gone to worry about. The change will be a generational one, and hopefully that person's offspring will be slightly less likely to give in to indoctrination because the world around them finds the alternative acceptable (as evidenced by people being unapologetic about rejecting religion).

When a growing minority deals in reality, it creates an environment that is more and more uncomfortable for faith to exist in, and over time that will support a shift in thinking. The church knows this as it did everything it could to create an uncomfortable environment for non-believers for a long time, because it appeals to the human desire to conform/belong (albeit through more aggressive means like burning people alive). Now the shoe is increasingly on the other foot, except there is no entity organizing the shift in culture that makes faith uncomfortable.

And of course I'm sure several people would be happy to drop some bible verses on you to show that Jesus predicted this challenge to faith...so that's indisputable confirmation of the scripture being the infallible word of god. Dig your heels in.

[Homestar]

[Ram]

I can imagine that the most difficult thing about being an atheist vegan who Crossfits would be trying to decide what to post on my FaceBook wall THAT hour of the day.

[O Face]

Holy Fuk you're ill feelings toward religion are causing you to draw the conclusion you were hoping for from your statistics. Your google research could just as easily "prove" that hot weather, or the prevalence of Waffle Houses, or Nascar attendance also leads to a higher crime rate in the south. You should knock out a statistics class or two before your next research project.

[Mark1]

I don't converse in talking points, let alone somebody else's. I'm only vaguely aware of what Reddit is and as far as I remember have never visited it. I never have, and never will, have a Facebook account. Do you? If so, you are a terrible, annoying, progressive, yoga loving vegan hipster who takes selfies while they crossfit...apparently. What was that you were saying about speaking in broad generalities?

A system of non-belief is inherently negative, and negative people aren't that appealing.

That's an incredibly tired argument that resonates only with people who have never experienced anything other than what they were brought up on. You should know that since you're not religious, but maybe you're just a very self aware exception to the rule that sees yourself as inherently negative.

I know that he's recently found significant popularity so I hesitate to mention him lest I be branded a bandwagoner, but I defy you to watch an interview with Neil Degrasse Tyson and tell me he has an inherently negative perspective on life.

You want a narrowly focused counter-argument to faith? Here: The foundational tale behind the Mormon faith suggests that indigenous North American peoples were a transplanted Jewish tribe that traveled here by boat, and therefore their descendants should have DNA in that lineage. Modern DNA testing has shown that not to be the case, and that indigenous American's originated exactly from where every other anthropological indicator says they did - Northern Asia. How does a Mormon rectify that in their head? Well, the church goes to great lengths to ensure they never know that, but if they stumble upon it, it usually ends up with "god changed the evidence to test your faith" or some such nonsense. You can't trust science in this one instance despite the fact that you trust it every time you use your cellphone or toss your child over your head and don't expect them to fly off into the vacuum of space. What can a logical argument possibly accomplish with a person willing to swill that down? Very little. So you change the environment by refusing to allow that stuff to go unabated and wait. Over time, as joe1234 mentioned, it becomes more acceptable to call that kind of thought out for what it is.

And let me be clear. Mormonism is no more or less crazy than any other religion out there, this is just an easy example to demonstrate how futile it is to 'convert' individuals with directed logical argument.

I'd prefer that the people in this world put in the position to decide when to launch enough nuclear warheads to destroy the Earth multiple times over not base their actions on this kind of thing, but that's just me. And yes, I am aware that sadly I'm in the minority.

[sputnik]

I read a bit of Christopher Hitchens and enjoyed it for a variety of reasons, not least of which was that he was very humorous. However, at a certain point, I could summarize his thesis as religion is idiotic, and consequently all religious people are morons. My conflict was that I had (and have) many friends who are exceedingly well educated, very intelligent by any measure, and also devout. His thesis failed observationally.

I would suggest to you that calling people idiots for their beliefs is a poor way of convincing anyone of anything other than the fact that you're a prick. Just a thought.

If you've any familiarity with history, you'll know folks have been confidently predicting the end of religion for centuries. Perhaps it will happen this time, but perhaps historical perspective is worthy of consideration.

Final thought, what many people--including myself--find particularly annoying about the religious is the propensity of some to engage in unwanted aggressive proselytizing. Which, despite your apparent proud atheism, is exactly what you are doing

[TreeA10]

So you look down upon those of faith, particularly those in the southern states......well, bless your heart.

[Duck]

Final thought, what many people--including myself--find particularly annoying about the religious is the propensity of some to engage in unwanted aggressive proselytizing. Which, despite your apparent proud atheism, is exactly what you are doing

Shack.