Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Charismatic Chaos
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 531 (514915)
07-13-2009 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2009 9:22 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Hyroglyphx writes:
...but there have been some amazingly heinous things done in the name of science too.
Seriously? I don't recall many slaughters headed by "Science Wills It!" but hey, whatever. I advocate refraining from teaching and believing lies when the truth functions just as well without deception. Society has no qualms about outlawing con men who cheat the unwary, but when the con man wears a robe and silly hat it somehow becomes acceptable?
Hyroglyphx writes:
This is the problem with people like Harris and Dawkins and possibly you. They are so busy pointing fingers and patting each other the back that they can't realize their own hypocrisy. While they condemn fundamentalism, they're so consumed by it they can't realize that they're every bit as fundamental as the one's they excoriate.
Aww, I'm so sorry. Explain again why requesting people to tell the truth and not attempt to control their fellow man through deception became a position of dangerous fundamentalism? Explain again why accountability and explanation for your own actions is so much more dangerous than passing it off to a non-existent entity. And finally, why do you assume that I blame all the worlds ills on religion? I blame the ills of the world that are caused by religion on religion, and that is a strong enough argument to knock it the heck off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 07-14-2009 1:44 PM Phage0070 has replied
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2009 4:40 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 107 of 531 (514967)
07-14-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phage0070
07-13-2009 10:53 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
hyro writes:
...but there have been some amazingly heinous things done in the name of science too.
phage writes:
Seriously? I don't recall many slaughters headed by "Science Wills It!" but hey, whatever.
I agree that "in the name" of science, nothing has been done. But because of scientific advancements, humans have had the capability to destroy massive amounts of people. Which we have done. Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind...
I would say that most religious atrocities are similar in that because of the belief in God, scriptures were written, and humans have used it's power to destroy massive amounts of people. But in both cases I would say that the atrocities were done in the name of ideologies.
but when the con man wears a robe and silly hat it somehow becomes acceptable?
As opposed to suits and titles like "president" or "CEO"...?
I blame the ills of the world that are caused by religion on religion, and that is a strong enough argument to knock it the heck off.
The problem, as I personally see it, is that people still hold these insitutions to be relevant to their lives. Just as people hold government as an institution that is relevant to their lives.
So just as we could not "knock the head off" of government because a few are deceptive, abusive, manipulative, etc, religions will not fall either for those same reasons.
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Phage0070, posted 07-13-2009 10:53 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 4:20 PM onifre has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 108 of 531 (514983)
07-14-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2009 9:22 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Hi Hyroglyphx
Stalin, in the name of atheism, slaughtered millions...
"In the name of atheism"? Hmmm. Care to show supporting evidence?
thanks,
d
Edited by dronester, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 531 (514991)
07-14-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
07-14-2009 1:44 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
onifre writes:
I agree that "in the name" of science, nothing has been done. But because of scientific advancements, humans have had the capability to destroy massive amounts of people.
Pfft! (insert scoffing sounds here) Opposable thumbs enabled the deaths of more people than anything, and yet I don't hear you accusing them. This, I hope, is because nobody goes "I have thumbs, therefore I must smash this other dude's head in!" On the other hand, they do go "I have a God, and he says it is a good idea to smash this other dude's head in!" The means to do something and the motive to do something are quite different concepts.
onifre writes:
As opposed to suits and titles like "president" or "CEO"...?
I will be happy to tell Bernie Madoff that what he did was totally acceptable.
Oh, were you trying to make a point in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
onifre writes:
So just as we could not "knock the head off" of government because...
I did not mistype, it is "knock it the heck off", as in "cut it the hell out". I have no illusions that religion is going to vanish overnight, through force or otherwise. The goal still stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 07-14-2009 1:44 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 07-15-2009 9:46 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 531 (514997)
07-14-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phage0070
07-13-2009 10:53 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
I advocate refraining from teaching and believing lies when the truth functions just as well without deception. Society has no qualms about outlawing con men who cheat the unwary, but when the con man wears a robe and silly hat it somehow becomes acceptable?
Religions have their own governing body with its own set of morals. Excommunication usually takes care of the men of the cloth that go astray. If it doesn't and it is a law enforcement or civil matter, there are avenues to take care of that too. No need to do anything drastic.
I'm simply stating that the premise doesn't follow the desired outcome. You want to outlaw religion unilaterally because something bad might happen as a result. Doesn't that strike you in the least bit fascist?
Besides for every bad thing that comes about because of religion, it could easily be said that 3 times as much philanthropy comes as a direct result of it. It's unfair to categorically demonize all of religion just like it is unfair to categorically demonize all of atheism or whatever else some religious zealots do.
Believe me when I say that if this conversation was in reverse and some fundy was suggesting that atheism be destroyed I'd be making the same arguments.
Explain again why requesting people to tell the truth and not attempt to control their fellow man through deception became a position of dangerous fundamentalism? Explain again why accountability and explanation for your own actions is so much more dangerous than passing it off to a non-existent entity.
Because suggesting and outlawing or eradicating are two very different things.
why do you assume that I blame all the worlds ills on religion? I blame the ills of the world that are caused by religion on religion, and that is a strong enough argument to knock it the heck off.
Religion is an extremely broad topic. Some discretion is definitely in order. Have Buddhists been swindling you or knocking on your door at all hours of the evening?
I happen to find the Bill of Rights an important facet of society, at least in America, as I'm unsure where you reside. While I myself am not religious, I have the freedom to be non-religious or I have the freedom to change my mind at any time. Why shouldn't my fellow citizens be allowed to practice their religion in the manner befitting to them as long as it doesn't harm people?
The way you are making it sound is that all religion and everyone who is religious are all deceitful deviants who feast on the hearts of babies at night.
I'm just asking for a little discretion here.
At least consider the danger and the backlash that most certainly would occur should we actually outlaw religion. Do you honestly believe people are just going to sit idly by? Do you think they really will submit to your will quietly or will it cause massive upheaval? Think about it.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Phage0070, posted 07-13-2009 10:53 PM Phage0070 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 111 of 531 (515068)
07-15-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 4:20 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
The means to do something and the motive to do something are quite different concepts.
This is what my post is saying, perhaps not quote mining one specific part of it, but rather understanding the post as a whole, would have revealed that.
The motive is not the ideology, the motive is independent of it. The belief in a God is not what causes such henious acts, it's the people who manipulate it and use it to their advantage - just as the belief in certain political ideologies does the same.
You said this:
Phage writes:
I advocate refraining from teaching and believing lies when the truth functions just as well without deception.
This not only applies to certain religions but it applies to politics, and I would add, anything that humans take part in. The point being that religion should not be signaled out as the cause of human destruction when political ideologies have caused greater atrocities. In both cases it's not the belief so much as the people within each institution.
Good government can help, equally, good religious groups can and do help many people.
Oh, were you trying to make a point in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Yes. My point was that con men don't just wear robes and funny hats, they usually wear suits and have titles like CEO.
Your point about religious con men is correct, but the bigger influence in peoples lives, at least in Western cultures, is government and each parties fundamental beliefs about social issues. Why fight religion or even be concerned with it, religion has nothing to do with it. It's the people in the religious groups, just as it's the people in the political groups.
People suck and they ruin everything that was pure and beneficial.
I did not mistype, it is "knock it the heck off", as in "cut it the hell out". I have no illusions that religion is going to vanish overnight, through force or otherwise. The goal still stands.
You did not mistype, I misread. My bad.
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 4:20 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 10:34 AM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 112 of 531 (515079)
07-15-2009 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by onifre
07-15-2009 9:46 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Hey Oni. How's life?
The motive is not the ideology, the motive is independent of it. The belief in a God is not what causes such henious acts, it's the people who manipulate it and use it to their advantage - just as the belief in certain political ideologies does the same.
I suspect that many religious ideologies do in fact inherently breed destructive motives. Many seem to be founded very much on a "them and us" basis that all but inevitably results in the "true believers" (of watever flavour) railing against the "infidels". Resulting in destructive consequences for humanity at large.
Oni writes:
This not only applies to certain religions but it applies to politics, and I would add, anything that humans take part in. The point being that religion should not be signaled out as the cause of human destruction when political ideologies have caused greater atrocities. In both cases it's not the belief so much as the people within each institution.
All true...but...(there had to be a but didn't there )
Political ideologies can be debated and argued on the basis of reason, pragmatism, cause and effect etc. etc. They can incorporate compromise and even, in theory at least, refutation and subsequent modification. In the long term whole political ideologies can even arguably be tested and overturned. History, both ancient and modern, can teach us much about the different political approaches available to us today. Whether we choose to learn these lessons or take this more rational approach to political ideologies and allegiances in practise is another question. The fact is that we (i.e. humans) all too often don't. But it is in principle possible to take this more rational approach to political differences of opinion.
Religious differences, on the other hand, cannot even in principle be resolved. Conflicting matters of faith will always inevitably boil down to "I'm right". "No, I am right". "I know that I am right". "But I know that I am right" etc. etc. In the case of religious differences the best that can be hoped for is tolerance and that tends to be fairly precarious given the inherently divisive nature and exceptionally strong emotional aspects of faith based thinking.
Why fight religion or even be concerned with it, religion has nothing to do with it. It's the people in the religious groups, just as it's the people in the political groups.
In any practical sense I think I agree entirely with what you are saying here. However I would argue that faith based pursuits, like religion, are inherently divisive whilst political differences, at least in theory, should be able to be resolved without recourse to simple assertion that ones beliefs are inerrant and the use of force to trample on anyone who disagrees.
But, as you suggest, I suspect that human nature dictates that ANY ideology or human pursuit, whether faith based or otherwise, will result in divisiveness and the beliefs of one "tribe" being forcefully imposed on others against their will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 07-15-2009 9:46 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by onifre, posted 07-15-2009 1:16 PM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 113 of 531 (515120)
07-15-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Straggler
07-15-2009 10:34 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Hey Straggler, good to see you back in the forum. All is well on this side of the pond.
Hope all is well with you and your family.
I suspect that many religious ideologies do in fact inherently breed destructive motives.
I can agree with that, having accepted that the currently held ideologies of said religions have already been described within their individual scriptures/tenets. However, this is part of human influence within the religion itself.
If we take these scriptures and ascribe them some godly characteristic or devinity then those of faith will not question the motive behind the laws/dogmas/etc. But this again is human influence within the religion itself.
That is why I stated that it's the people, whether we're talking about the authors of the scriptures or the current high ranking clergymen, who present the fundamental hatred in the scriptures for their individual benefit. They basically take the fact that humans are prone to belief and use that to their advantage by writing scriptures that as you say "seem to be founded very much on a "them and us" basis that all but inevitably results in the "true believers" (of watever flavour) railing against the "infidels"."
To me this seems the same as what governments do. People have a natural sense of law and order in their social interaction within their individual communities. They also seem to have a loyalty to their "own". Knowing this about people is essential when preparing for a political movement and designing a political ideology. It is what people like Lenin, Hitler and Castro have done. Equally, it's the same as what the writers of the Koran, OT and NT have done.
They manipulate human beings. they pray on their weaknesses and take advantage of them for their own gain.
All true...but...(there had to be a but didn't there )
If there wasn't I'd say who are you and what did you do to Straggler?
Political ideologies can be debated and argued on the basis of reason, pragmatism, cause and effect etc. etc. They can incorporate compromise and even, in theory at least, refutation and subsequent modification. In the long term whole political ideologies can even arguably be tested and overturned. History, both ancient and modern, can teach us much about the different political approaches available to us today.
But I think the same approach can be done for religions. In fact, here at EvC many have claimed to have been "changed" from their held beliefs with arguments from a logical and rational perspective. Off the top of my head I believe Rahvin and Cavediver fit this description. So it's not uncommon to argue someone away from their religious ideologies. The argument may be different than how one would argue against a political ideology, but the results are the same in that the person eventually can see the errors in their ideology.
But it is in principle possible to take this more rational approach to political differences of opinion.
I think currently it's the same for religious beliefs. In fact, Dawkins on his website has testimonies from converters who were changed with simple, rational arguments. They may still believe in God, but don't hold to any religious affiliation and if they do, it's more for tradition than anything else. Also there is the change from a literal interpretation of scriptutres to a more metaphoric interpretation. This too can change the fundamental ideology of the religion in question.
Religious differences, on the other hand, cannot even in principle be resolved. Conflicting matters of faith will always inevitably boil down to "I'm right". "No, I am right". "I know that I am right". "But I know that I am right" etc. etc.
This I can agree with. If it's two opposing religious ideologies jockeying for position as to who has it right, yes, neither side will usually give up their held beliefs. But I don't think it's the same between religious beliefs vs atheism. I believe the person holding to an atheistic PoV can, in theory, argue from a rational and logical position and, as we have seen here on EvC and on Dawkins website, cause people to drop their previously held beliefs, if only to take a more agnostic belief or moderate stance.
But, as you suggest, I suspect that human nature dictates that ANY ideology or human pursuit, whether faith based or otherwise, will result in divisiveness and the beliefs of one "tribe" being forcefully imposed on others against their will.
I think we agree for the most part. And yes, this seem to be the crux of the issue. People tend to affiliate themselves into political and religious ideologies and close themselves off to rational arguments.
In the past, say 500 years ago, religion for the most part could not be argued with logic, science, rational thinking, etc. where as political ideologies always could. I think this has to do with scriptures being ascribe some godly devinity that can't be questioned. Political ideologies have no such devine idol (unless you consider Obama as the first )
But I think currently times have changed. People can be argued out of their religious ideologies in the same way that you can argue someone out of their political ideologies. And I will use the current rise in atheism and the many secular countries that have begun to sprout throughout the world as my evidence.
Given that it has been possible to rationally argue someone away from their fundamental beliefs of hatred or divisiveness, I think in the future we won't see an end to religion, because honestly I don't feel there has to be, I think we'll see a more moderate position and eventually we'll see secular religions (if that makes any sense).
My over-all point is that we can argue the person out of their motive because motive, in religious scriptures, were ascribed by people.
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 10:34 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 4:28 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 114 of 531 (515130)
07-15-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by onifre
07-15-2009 1:16 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Yep. Good post Oni.
Oni writes:
Hey Straggler, good to see you back in the forum. All is well on this side of the pond. Hope all is well with you and your family.
Cheers!! Was away in Paris for a bit which was fun but not easy with the little fella in tow. More recently been working at the London Olympic site. Been too busy for EvC participation. But things back to normal now.
But I think the same approach can be done for religions. In fact, here at EvC many have claimed to have been "changed" from their held beliefs with arguments from a logical and rational perspective. Off the top of my head I believe Rahvin and Cavediver fit this description. So it's not uncommon to argue someone away from their religious ideologies. The argument may be different than how one would argue against a political ideology, but the results are the same in that the person eventually can see the errors in their ideology.
I think the difference is that people come to realise that faith itself is not a sufficiant basis on which to rationally subscribe to a particular ideology. Abandoning the particular faith based ideology in question itself is secondary to this realisation. This is subtly different from being swayed away from a particular political ideology by means of reasoned argument that an alternative political ideology or form of thinking leads to superior practical results.
As long as faith in a particular ideology remains part of the equation it is impossible to reason people out of that ideology. Religious ideologies are inherently reliant on faith. Political ideologies, at least in theory, are not.
My over-all point is that we can argue the person out of their motive because motive, in religious scriptures, were ascribed by people.
You are right. The differences I am trying to express above are so subtle and of such little consequence in any practical sense that they can be completely ignored.
I guess I just could not bear the thought of agreeing 100% without at least attempting to find some small point of potential disagreement

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by onifre, posted 07-15-2009 1:16 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 07-16-2009 12:27 AM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 115 of 531 (515167)
07-16-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Straggler
07-15-2009 4:28 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Cheers!! Was away in Paris for a bit which was fun but not easy with the little fella in tow. More recently been working at the London Olympic site. Been too busy for EvC participation. But things back to normal now.
That's sounds great, hope you had a lot of fun. I've never been to that side of the Atlantic, hopefully soon. And yea, I know about the struggles with little ones. I've done Disney during the summer in Florida with the kids - not fun.
But things back to normal now.
Yea, I see the old arguments have been brought back to life.
I think the difference is that people come to realise that faith itself is not a sufficiant basis on which to rationally subscribe to a particular ideology. Abandoning the particular faith based ideology in question itself is secondary to this realisation. This is subtly different from being swayed away from a particular political ideology by means of reasoned argument that an alternative political ideology or form of thinking leads to superior practical results.
Fair enough. Faith is the hardest thing to overcome. I've never had it so I wouldn't know, but it does seem that "letting go" is quite a hard accomplishment.
That is a clear difference between letting go of a religious ideology vs a political one. In that sense I agree with you.
As long as faith in a particular ideology remains part of the equation it is impossible to reason people out of that ideology. Religious ideologies are inherently reliant on faith. Political ideologies, at least in theory, are not.
I agree. But I also see government as the secular controlling institution and therefore does not need to have faith as a means of coercion - governments are established with armies.
Religions spread this way, but are a different avenue of control - (control of the human mind) - and thus has to use other tactics. - Like inventing a god that watches everything you do.
That is where I see the seperation, in their individual agendas.
I guess I just could not bear the thought of agreeing 100% without at least attempting to find some small point of potential disagreement
- As can't I.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2009 4:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 07-16-2009 5:35 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 117 by Phat, posted 07-21-2009 1:13 AM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 116 of 531 (515182)
07-16-2009 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by onifre
07-16-2009 12:27 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
I agree.
Oni writes:
Yea, I see the old arguments have been brought back to life.
C'mon! You didn't really think I had abandoned that one did you? It appears that RAZD and I are on speaking terms again too. Life is peachy!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 07-16-2009 12:27 AM onifre has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 117 of 531 (515757)
07-21-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by onifre
07-16-2009 12:27 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Onifre writes:
Faith is the hardest thing to overcome. I've never had it so I wouldn't know, but it does seem that "letting go" is quite a hard accomplishment.
Yet it does not seem to be that hard to let go of all rationality.
Observe:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 07-16-2009 12:27 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Brian, posted 07-21-2009 3:31 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 119 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 1:49 PM Phat has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 118 of 531 (515772)
07-21-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Phat
07-21-2009 1:13 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Poor b*stards.
The second one reminds me of that scene in the Blues Brothers when Jake gets his mission from God, and a timely reminder that uncles should never dance at weddings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Phat, posted 07-21-2009 1:13 AM Phat has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 119 of 531 (515817)
07-21-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Phat
07-21-2009 1:13 AM


Re: What IS Christianity?
Yet it does not seem to be that hard to let go of all rationality.
That's pretty sad.
Have you ever heard of: Marjoe Gortner
quote:
In the late 1960s, Marjoe suffered a crisis of conscience in particular about the threats of damnation he felt compelled to weave into his sermons and resolved to make one final tour, this time on film. Under the pretense of making a documentary detailing a viable ministry, Marjoe assembled a documentary film crew to follow him around revival meetings in California, Texas, and Michigan during 1971. Unbeknownst to everyone else involved including, at one point, his father Marjoe gave "backstage" interviews to the filmmakers in between sermons and revivals, explaining intimate details of how he and other ministers operated. After sermons, the filmmakers were invited back to Marjoe's hotel room to tape him counting the money he collected during the day. The resulting film, Marjoe, won the 1972 Academy Award for best documentary.
Here's an excerpt from the film, which you can find in its entirety on youtube:
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Phat, posted 07-21-2009 1:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Rahvin, posted 07-21-2009 2:27 PM onifre has replied
 Message 124 by Phat, posted 07-22-2009 10:50 AM onifre has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 120 of 531 (515820)
07-21-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by onifre
07-21-2009 1:49 PM


Re: What IS Christianity?
I've seen that - it's pretty eye-opening. I also enjoyed the exposure of Popoff by James "The Amazing" Randi.
Popoff used to have his wife communicating with him via a radio earpiece. She would feed him information about several of his audience members. He'd "miraculously" know their full names, address, and ailment, having never met them...because they'd filled out "prayer cards" with that information before the "services," which his wife had in-hand. Randi simply came in with a radio scanner and recorded Mrs. Popoff's transmissions, and played it overlapping a recording of the event on the Late Show with Carson on national television. Popoff was ruined.
Until recently. He's back. With the exact same fraud that he was caught in 20 years ago. He's made millions...again.
I'd provide YouTube links, but work prevents me from doing so. Perhaps I'll edit some in when I get home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 1:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 3:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024