A few years ago my bro saw and did some things in Iraq that weigh on his mind heavily. Religious folk have their "answers" and communities to help deal with the realities of warfare, what do we have?
A liberated mind is helpful but there is value in community. Especially if you come from a religious family, are surrounded by people who tell you that you are going to Hell and get shot at for a living.
I believe "contradiction in terms" seriously applies here. The chaplin who is giving spiritual comfort to our soldiers by definition has to have a belief in God. Do atheists believe that man (in the generic sense, not a reference to gender) has a soul? And if so did God imbue man with a living soul, or was this also a wonder of evolution?!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of the law of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species is going to survive (be "selected'). That's all that natural selection is! It's a passive process in nature. Read my popular Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions of stars agree to get out of each other's way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," "Origin of Life Deception by Evolutionists," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. There are no fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator!
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
I dont think a single person commenting on this fucken video has ever been on the frontline. After years of war your mind needs Padres or a sense of God cause thats the only thing driving your will to survive some of the shit we go through. Doesnt matter if you dont believe in God once you have seen death you will believe in living and thats the basis for faith.
@cmfic36 LoL. FYI who is that stupid to take DFP in a foxhole in the modern age where the ground you walk on is IED infected.
Doesnt matter how hardcore atheist you think you are. just like them all they convert, cause once you hear the sound of bullets pass your ear and in the face of death they pray.
Theres a saying in the infantry, There are no atheists in foxholes. Every AJ has heard it and i know without a doubt you have never seen combat
@Herc2770 I was playing on the old adage, sire. You know, the one that you just used at the end of your response? I'm glad you know me so well, and I'm glad you're as certain about my history as you are the (fraudulent) history of the Buy-bull. Good day to you, oh great psychic one.
@wowamonn Keep pulling yourself. By the time you supposedly went to baghdad in 04 it had already fallen in 03. my point is in situations like a fire fight, your athiest man next to you prays he will live. theirs nothing wrong with that and ive seen it happen all the time. I never tried to prove i was right because i understood the situation. Im sick of wanna be's trying to speak of other veterns + AJ's especially in thier fakes like you.
@Herc2770 Where in my statment did I say I went to Baghdad? The cities I mentioned are west of Baghdad slick near the lakes I bet you you dont know what I am talking about do you? Ever Heard of TQ? Marine Base near Harbinaya? My POINT as an Athiest I did not pray to any god when I was involved in Operations in Iraq. Atheist exists and god worshippers like yourself are a dying breed so get use to it.
@wowamonn Heres a history lesson for you chump, they have been saying we were a dying religion since the crucifiction. The Roman empire tried to outlaw us, The Catholic church persecuted us and killed many, Muslims are still trying to, Neo-Dawnismthink they can do the job and Athiests think they can bury us. All together you all hate us.
Jesus said 2000 yrs ago,
Mathew 10:22-All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
@Herc2770 You do understand that when Atheists say we do not believe in gods that includes all religons right? and not just christians. Also just because we say there are no gods does not equate to hatred of its followers we just dont believe in gods. Now the problem is that god worshippers have to provide evidence for the existance for thier gods and as far as I can remember they have not.
@wowamonn Your crowed ridicule us and persecute us all over the world. You know thats true, there are hundreds of videos and comments that are down right hateful insults and you think that some of us are going to sit back why you rubbish the goals of our beliefs. I have yet seen evidence that there is no creator of the universe at all just assumptions. How is it that the universe has a point of creation yet no creator, The Big Bang being the affect yet no cause. Wheres the logic in that?
@Herc2770 Really? christians are persecuted around the world by Atheists? And your saying that christians do not ridicule Atheists are others of another faith? Let me ask you this since I am an Athiest and I do not believe in your god where am I going after I die? Where did your god come from? has she always existed? living outside of space and time? When were the angels created and did they exist before the Universe came into existance?
@wowamonn When you die you will return from the earth you came. You are not trying to go to heaven nor will i think you are going to hell, cause you will only recieve what you are trying to obtain. God is everlating to everlasting, Are you laughing yet? Good. your mind cannot comprehind what it refuses to accept. The Angels are servants of god in heaven and were appointed during the moment of creation. Time and Space are products of our world, not Gods. Now answer my questions in the last one
@wowamonn When i mean by our world it means our universe with in, if you were spiritual man you would understand. Matter, Time, Space + Energy are ingredients of our world. Before they existed God was eternal. For he is not a product of this world he is not governed by them. Its funny how you asked a question n i give u an answer for your curiousity and understanding. but my own questions you have not answered.
Or maybe you lack the understanding to answer them.
@wowamonn Num man. The Physical is our world. The Universe as a whole cannot fit inside our planet, i never said that. Im sorry if u dont understand spiritual terms.The Universe is our world. It is around us and with in us. We are apart of our planet and it a part of the universe, we are all one product yet individual. God is not part of the design. A Tailor is not a Suit. Questions in 4th reply brother 4rm bottom.
@Herc2770 I recommend you read a book called Lost Christianties by Bart Ehrman its not meant to take you away from your religon, but it helps you appreciate the roots of it your beliefs.
@wowamonn Answer my question. You want to debate me about this issue ive kindly answered your questions. So man up and i want to know why you believe theres no god. Im curious about your understanding as an atheist. And what made you come to this conclusion. So once again answer my questions. And i recommend Luke.
I think Atheist chaplains is a bad idea, but ONLY because of the meaning that "Chaplain" is associated with. - A specific Atheist adviser to give piece of mind would be great. - Think about it, where the soldiers may go, currently they are liable to be outweighed by Religious; that must be daunting and could effect their work. - I think Atheism needs to stop worrying about things that might make it seem like a religion. - I think Atheists need some reminders to be proud in this world sometimes.
I suspect our inability to agree even on the definitions of atheism agnosticism and what religion IS would definitely be something we have in common with religion. That is why there are so many. Defining atheism as a religion is a mistake however because if you define a lack of belief in anything, as atheism is in god, as a religion then all things are religions, a belief in anything becomes by reason religion. Religion is the "providence" of spirituality and god, not just a belief in anything.
@Jaspian Rather than do that lets reframe the argument. Lets say i accept your posture that religion includes things that are not supernatural, then a belief is a positive, religion is what you believe in not what you don't beleive in. Theism is not a religion, atheism is not a religion, a theist is most likely religious (see one key aspect of religion is importance + ritual). By that token i might concede that atheism isn't my 'religion' but "scientific naturalism " would be. Happier now?
@mattshark100 Believing that something does not exist is a belief. No belief means no opinion either way... that's agnosticism. If I were to tell you that I don't think the earth is a sphere, I'd like you to go on the record right now that that isn't a belief.
Once again you generalize - ritual is not important to religion. Despite Richard Dawkin's false assertion that Einstein was an atheist, he-self described as being religious but against organized religion. Personal religion has no ritual.
Religion has defining characteristics which atheism does not have. Philosophy of life = no, defined rules = no, specific eschatology= no, allows us to understand our existence = definitely no. Atheism itself is none of these things ie not a religion. Atheism also has multiple meanings and a sliding scale from strong to weak which probably encompasses agnostics too, it's not black and white and it simply isn't a religion. You can be an atheist and an agnostic and be religious however.
@mattshark100 I don't think your definition of religion is sufficiently broad to actually encompass all of the beliefs that people would categorize as "religion", and clearly you think my definition is too broad because it encompasses Atheism. But I'd say you should look at Atheism more skeptically and see it for what it really is. And I do think it has a philosophy of life inherently - as Atheism assumes no afterlife, and no judgement - which has serious ramifications on how people live life.
@Jaspian Hey looks like i lied about not posting.
It does indeed have ramifications but remember the bible and religion are not responsible for our moral code, if they are then that would imply divinity which neither an agnostic or an atheist can agree with by definition. People lived their life a certain way well before religion came on the scene i'd guess, but i find the most important thing is the idea that religious people actually NEED religion to control their impulses.
@mattshark100 Religious beliefs influence a society's culture, and culture influences everyone in a society regardless of religion. You can see this in the fact that most Atheists celebrate Christmas, but in a more-generic secularized form. Similarly, one could argue that killing and stealing are frowned upon by Atheists because they accept these cultural overtones... but those cultural overtones exist in the first place because of religion.
Really? Is killing and stealing frowned on due principally to religion, i don't see how you could possibly back that up any more than my assertation now that killing and stealing are frowned upon for humanist reasons. Because killing and stealing is not useful to groups of humans living in social groups. I would actually say that religion adds nothing to an aversion to killing and stealing and in fact AIDS individuals in justifying death outside their social group.
@mattshark100 Did you even read the second part of my response? You basically just repeated what I said with my "Morality is most likely an evolutionary process" point.
What I am saying is that Religion tends to be sort-of a preservator of tradition by taking things a society learns and freezing it in doctrine. It is not common sense notion to a caveman that thievery is bad for society. Its common sense to us because we grew up in a culture that frowns upon theft.
@Jaspian The part where you say "cultural overtones exist in the first place because of religion"? I ignored it because it is uncertain, the cultural overtones may exist in the second place because of religion, the first place is social groupings. Preservation of social ideals may not be the place of religion, it can be held through philosophy, for example, which allows us to be ethical without actually bothering to believe or disbelieve in any gods, although some would argue that..and do...
@mattshark100 Culture may exist independently of religion, but yes, I'd say many cultural overtones exist presently because of religion. Religion is sort-of a preserver of tradition, including moral values. We can see this today in the form of "God Hates Fags" protest signs at gay weddings and parades. But that's not to say that ALL of the moral traditions that religion reinforces are bad. Most of them today seem like common sense, but only because the west has followed them for 2000+ years.
@mattshark100 Also... your notion that philosophy passes morality is a little naive... since (outside of The West) there is little or no philosophy that isn't tied to religion. And some of it is contrarian, such as Nietzsche and Machiavelli.
I'm not saying that you can't be ethical and atheistic. I am saying that if you lived in a purely atheist society that was never influenced by religion, your moral values would likely be very different.
Well, that could well be true, although we have no way of assigning a value (such as "likely") to it since we only live in this reality and not the alternate reality where religion does not exist.
@mattshark100 Well... unless you believe in absolute morality, which means some kind of ethical truth in the universe, and therefore a "god", a purely atheist society would only have the same ethical values as our own society by chance, and probably wouldn't retain those morals.
Where I think its different is that the traditions of religion make ethics and morals more immutable. I think there would be more "experimentation" with moral standards without a religious vessel at its core FBOFW.
@Jaspian We would experiment more, probably. It is experimentation which has allowed social freedoms to flourish. Religion's stability is an illusion, it changes with society over the years, women get rights, slaves go free. Are these things morally right, society decides, not religion. Things like eugenics are just as likely to occur under a religious guise as an atheist one. Atheisms moral landscape is no worse than religions, they are from the same source, humanity.
@mattshark100 That sentiment is terribly naive. Not all social experimentation is like "allowing freedoms to flourish", especially around science, which has advanced to a level that's arguably bad for the human race. Embryonic Stem cells, Eugenics, Human Experimentation, Transhumanism, Orbital Supercolliders ... you must draw the line somewhere. And I do think that Eugenics is more likely in a morally malleable culture without absolutes.
@mattshark100 Keep in mind what we discussed earlier - if morals are not dictated by God, they were probably dictated by an evolutionary process... e.g. - societies that frowned upon killing and stealing were more likely to survive. Religion merely serves to solidify that moral base... but that doesn't make that moral base bad. In fact, that moral base was vital to the founding of a civilization. So just throwing bits of it away willy-nilly is likely to end very badly.
@mattshark100 ... that's not to say Religion defines morality. More likely, morality is an evolutionary process. Those cultures that penalize murder and theft were more likely to succeed, and then this knowledge was institutionalized in religion, similar to Jewish law forbidding circumcision of males who's mother bleeds (hemophilia) or eating pork (parasites). The pork thing is interesting because its vestigial, but tradition/religion is so powerful that people still follow it.
Thanks for the conversation it was thought worthy, but we will not agree so i'm not going to post any further on it. Let me ask you a final question just for you. Isn't agnosticism the BELIEF that knowing whether god exists or not is unknowable and does that therefore mean that agnosticism is a religion by your definition? You take that on faith because if god turns up tomorrow then it is provable, so you don't know if it is unprovable and if you believe it is then you are religious?
@mattshark100 No, agnosticism is not a belief. I suppose you could believe that proving or disproving the existence of god is unknowable, but the majority of agnostics that I talk to either think that (a) the jury is still out on the whole "god" thing, or at least neither side has provided sufficient proof to their claims... I think this is what responsible scientists should be, since its rooted in objectivity and skepticism... or (b) people who just don't think about it or care either way.
Luv ya Penn, but Atheism is a religion, and the comparison to not collecting stamps is wrong. Nobody goes around extolling the virtues of not collecting stamps, putting up billboards and having non-collector podcasts. There is no non-collector movement with non-collector leaders as a de-facto clergy.
Religion is "Belief based on faith rather than fact". Dawkins admits disproving god is impossible. Therefore Agnosticism isn't religion, but Atheism is, because its faith in the existence of no god.
Atheism isn't the "faith in the existence of NO God" Atheism is the REJECTION of "belief based on faith in God". If actual facts existed for God then atheists would probably be religious. Atheists 'believe' all sorts of things, but the existance of God is met with skepticism due to lack of empirical evidence.
@mattshark100 Rejection of A necessitates belief in A'. And since you admit that the existence of A is unprovable, the existence of A' is also unprovable, therefore if A is religion, A' is also religion. Sorry - Atheism is a religion. Notice that the word is "atheist" and not "areligionist", and Atheists are not "skeptics". Atheists, by definition, believe that god doesn't exist. The "skeptics" as you call them are agnostics, who admit they don't know, but might lean one way or another.
@mattshark100 Lets break it down logically. Religion is belief in something on faith rather than fact, and faith is trust without evidence to warrant it.
Prove to me that there is no god. If you can't (and you can't), that means atheists have faith in the existence of no god. If that is their belief system, then they have a religion.
And A does necessitate a'. As an example: You find me one thing that is neither a car, nor not-a-car. Good luck. :P
Whilst I appreciate your point, it is merely somantics, your definition of atheism is the most narrow possible definition of the term atheist. An atheist being someone without a belief of any god. Atheism is not faith in the existance of no god as "no god" as an objective item can not exist, take a baby, a baby is an atheist by definition, but a baby is not an atheist because it believes there is no god, a baby is an atheist because it does not believe in anything.
Whilst I appreciate your point, it is merely somantics, your definition of atheism is the most narrow possible definition of the term atheist. Look up your definition of what religion is, where is the supernatural. Atheism is not faith in the existance of no god as "no god" as an objective item can not exist, take a baby, a baby is an atheist by definition, but a baby is not an atheist because it believes there is no god, a baby is an atheist because it does not believe in anything.
@mattshark100 No, a baby is agnostic because it does not believe that god does not exist. It doesn't even have a concept of god or no-god. Atheism requires belief, and that belief is in something that cannot be proven, and therefore is accepted on faith, which makes it a religion.
Thus, a baby is born agnostic - pure & undecided... Usually for the parents to corrupt shortly thereafter, one way or the other. But if you want to get technical, babies are actually born believing in god. (sorry)
Importantly you seem to think any set of beliefs qualifies as a religion, but religion is by definition anything supernatural which atheists do not deal with. By definition religion requires a belief in something devine or spiritual, by definition religion requires these facets which atheism by definition does not have. You believe the world is round therefore you must belong to roundism. Further more, on topic, there is no doctrine inherent to religion anatheist chaplain can follow
@mattshark100 You seem to have skipped over an important facet of the definition... which I've used continually throughout this argument, so I suspect you did it intentionally... Religion is belief based on FAITH, which is acceptance without objective evidence. There is no religion of roundism because the spherical shape of the earth is verifiable.
You've also made the mistake to include doctrine spirituality and supernaturalism.... all may be typical of religion, but none are required.
@mattshark100 Besides... one could argue that atheists do have doctrine - Richard Dawkins, among others. They certainly treat him as if he were their messiah....
@mattshark100 You see... we're hard-wired to be religious. Religious people say that its evidence of God, but I suspect that its because we're social creatures, and there's an evolutionary benefit to being accepted in society, and there's a social benefit to solidarity by group identity and culture. I suspect this is why humans all over the world all developed religions. Also, we have a tendency to anthropomorphize. See: the guy who kicks his car when the radiator bursts.
@Tanis1Lionheart That's not a 1:1 comparison. Racism is a specific belief. Fighting racism is also a specific belief. So what you are actually talking about with this comparison are opinions on race and how differences ought to be handled, in which case, both racism and aracism are both such opinions.
So if you are against racism, you by-definition have an opinion on race. Much like if you don't believe in god, by-definition, you are accepting that notion on faith because no evidence exists.
Atheists do have chaplains they are called psychiatrists. The only thing that I have a problem is when chaplains try to convert. As for chaplains to perform last rights and and solace for survivors who deal with guilt and horror I am OK here is my tax money job well done. But it is wrong to call combat chaplains hypocritical they care for the beliefs off all soldiers sometimes under gun/shell fire. That takes conviction and more courage than I have and they do it for many denominations.
Wouldn't psychological counsillors fill the niche of "atheist chaplains"?
Insomuch as to provide "spiritual/mental upkeep" (can't quite figure out the correct term in english, in finnish it would be "sielun terveydenhoito"), that is. Not to promote any certain dogma.
What the fuck is an "atheist chaplain". What creed would said individual represent. Technically, the Dalai Lama is an atheist. He has said in interviews that he does not believe in a god, and could not be persuaded to. Is he our chaplain.NO, of course not. He is not a skeptic, a freethinker, a naturalist, or a rationalist, like people who call themselves atheists almost always are. And what do these people have to preach, "think critically, always question, be rational" thats it. Chaplain?!
@PennPoint The dysfunction is comical: that the epitome of atheism today, at least for vast majority of those who claim to be, is the open, often obnoxiously boisterous congregation around the subject. Rather than how It should be "expressed," true to its form by definition; inaction akin to your example of inactivity(2:43.) I have not concluded as to the "why" of this. Does the religious contrast force a preemptive need for expression? An egotistical desire that needs to be appeased?
Chaplins are simply unconstitutional. There shouldn't be taxpayer dollars spent on chaplins. Churches pay no taxes, so if they want chaplins provided to service members (completely fine by me), they should have enough funds to do so on their own dime.
They have secular counselors, the problem with that is that the ones they have are psychologists and psychiatrists, which you don't want to go to because it's a permanent mark on your record, and you're less likely to get promoted. Another aspect is that Chaplains are responsible for morale, and often have a role in planning events for the troops, and atheists want someone who will understand their viewpoint going into planning a morale boosting event, without assuming Religion.
As a soldier, I spent a lot of time with our anglican chaplain. He very candidly explained that whlst he was available for direct support of people's faith-needs, his primary objective was to ensure that any soldier who came to him remained suitably indoctrinated with the notion that killing in the name of the State was morally correct and their role was rightious.
marriage is about more then tax breaks penn. it has 2 do with custody, next of kin, burial authority, will execution, etc. there are many reasons y what comes with marriage should b available 2 all who r in love.
Wrong... The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., "eternal love").
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world; and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
Tteaching matrimony is a sacrament gives to a religious clergy the power to judge the lawfulness of marriages and ecclesiastical censure for divorce.
Government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.
@SirWinstoneChurchill y not's my question? its an unfair relationship but as long as its consensual and the idiots r of age? y not let them subjugate themselves? I believe in stupid personal choices, like eatin cheeseburgers every day and dying by 50. less stupid people 2 feed.
The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., "eternal love").
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world; and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
Chaplains in the military, in general, or so much more than a religious provider. They are like an alternate counselor who you can go to with problems; one who is least likely to end your career because of something too. I think the idea behind this is so that atheists have someone to go to to talk about what's bothering them without feeeling they'll be pressured by the chaplains already there. Though, I've gone to talk to the chaplain before and religion wasn't even discussed.
@SgtLeroy2609 That sums up what I was going to say. It's fairly daunting to go speak to someone to help deal with your problems and feel like you'll disrespect them by starting out the dialog with, "I know your a Chaplain of 'x' faith, but I'm an atheist. I really need to talk to someone confidentially about 'y.'"
Since Chaplains are more than just folks who hold service and tend/enlarge their respective flocks, the place exists for atheist chaplaincy. Everything but the faith, works for me.
Thank you. Your "speechless" comment about the military says more about your respect for them than those who shout their support. The only louder support for the military are those wearing the uniform. Again, thank you. ( Yes. I am prior service. )
Wow someone else that get's it! It is so rare to hear someone with my views on rights, marriage or otherwise. There should be no bonus to be in any group over another by business or government (insurance, taxes, gay, minority, etc.).
Chaplains are more of a council rather than a priest. While many of their duties are religious in nature, any service member, of any faith or lack thereof, can talk to any chaplain about damn near anything. I don't support religion in our military, but I think a lot of our men and women see a lot of fucked up stuff and they might need someone to help them parse it through.
@Mr500sheetsofpaper then the military should employ company shrinks. I don't care how good a chaplain may be he's not as qualified as a trained psychologist to help people deal with the "fucked up stuff" they see.
Seriously, I agree. I think it may be hard to have a professional psychiatrist to go to a warzone. Chaplains are part of the deployed unit. Chaplains live and work with the soldiers. For whatever reason the US Armed Forces chaplains are okay with going into a warzone unarmed.
I just think too many people are missing the forrest for the trees on this topic. Chaplains are there to help, not to proselytize.
I am an atheist and initially I was thinking that getting rid of all military religious staff was good, however, what about confidential and sensitive military work, do we really want to give them their freedom of religion by sending in non-military religious workers? I would better trust military than non in that case. I still don't know exactly how I feel about the subject.
Our soldiers are not always on US territory when they're overseas. If our women want to wear bikinis on base, that's fine, but when they walk off base, they are now visitors on foreign territory, and subject to their laws. Should our women tourists be able to wear bikinis in flagrant violation of their laws? If so, then should they be able to flagrantly violate our laws while visiting here?
@puellanivis American soldiers serving in foreign countries are not governed by that country's laws. They are governed by a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which is negotiated between our government and the foreign government. This is why female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia can drive while Saudi women cannot. In theory we could push for the right of our troops to wear bikinis while negotiating the SOFA.
@CassesVultus So... this SOFA is totally and unilaterally defined by the United States, and enforced by our own police force? Or oh wait, this SOFA is a bilateral law of US law and foreign law, and off base their forces act as the police force, and on base, our forces act as the police force. So... again... we define along with them which foreign laws our forces are subject to, and which ones they have a special exception to. So, how are our forces not subject to that country's laws?
@puellanivis The SOFA is negotiated between the US and the foreign government. Typically it says that criminal issues relating to US forces (or US contractors) will be treated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and not by local laws. This is why when US contractors in Iraq illegally killed civilians they were tried in US courts and not Iraqi courts despite Iraqi objections. The US has tremendous leverage in negotiating a SOFA since they usually need us more than we need them.
@CassesVultus I didn't say that they would be tried by local courts, I said that the local forces act as police outside of the base. The fact that the foreign country acknowledges that our troops will be subject to the UCMJ rather than their local laws is in fact according to their local laws, as the SOFA is a local law. Without their consent to the SOFA our troops would be subject to their local laws...
When I was in field training, on Sundays if I didn't go to church, I was expected to stay in the barracks and clean. An 'atheist chaplain' (wink, nudge) would've been nice.
I wound up making the rounds of the different services offered and stuck with the one where I could do the most reading in the back row (catholic).
The damn Mormons got special privileges- they were gone for like 6 hours while we were cleaning and doing pushups.
"have a copy of Hitchens' book with you." That is probably the highest compliment I could ever imagine and I believe he merits that personal honor for many reasons.
well Penn they don't let the military woman wear a burqa either. I think the only way to provide religious equality is to keep it separate from anything military. Its not as if they demand it when not in uniform.
@ioneipp Do you honestly think someone is going to read this and all the sudden want to convert? By stating this claim that someone is going to hell, you're not changing any minds. People are just going to think you're an asshole. If you really want to change someones mind, try having an intellectual non-judgmental conversation with an exchange of questions...also be nice kid.
I know you are just trolling because you suck but it is the followers of Jesus Christ who institutionally rape children, So its really the religious who don't know what morals are, thanks for trying.
Hard point of history, most religion was spread by force, it will take a long time for atheism to spread by peace and polite conversation. Hopefully it will.
I will say that things that are different aren't about being PC for the sake of being PC. Our soldiers have to not just fight a war, but build relations with locals as well. We're not the brutes Hollywood playts us up to be. Yeah we "should" have the right to be American, but what does that REALLY get us if it drives a bigger wedge between the cultures? Soldiers give a lot of their rights to be sodiers. This is just part of the job.
Penn It's not about forcing our military women to conform to the rules of the country. They are not allowed to wear anything, but PT's (military exercise uniform) or a Uniform ANYWHERE while deployed. That goes for men too. The ONLY time that changes is during physical training and then it just can't be overly exposing. Thing is. It's like that in the states as well when they go to the field. It's not overly different.
My wife is deployed in Afghanistan right now and there are no rules about wearing religious neckalaces. You just can't wear it outside your uniform, which is the same in the states as well. It's not a part of the uniform, but it's ok as long as you wear it tucked in. As for shirts they can wear short sleeved, but not sleeveless.
I was in the Arny and my wife is now and I don't think that Chaplains have to actually perform the other religions ceremonies. Maybe as some kind of "emergency," but I think the most they are required is to be able to help setup a service allow them time and space for worship and help them get supplies for the service. A christian Chaplain would not take the place of the High Priest or Priestess for wicca, but give them time and space to do their service and provide supplies to do it.
There are plenty of atheists in religious positions. It's just a job. They get paid, they buy things. Is it immoral in my eyes, yes, but it merely an employment position. Like its been for thousands of years and it isn't going away anytime soon.
But yeah, the idea of having a non-believer practice religious acts and rites is just wrong. So wrong, cause if you're religious you should at least be able to get service from a religious person.
It's so, I don't know. It's beyond my understanding that they'd do that.
While I don't agree with the title, I'm all behind the idea itself. Its as important for non religous people(especially those serving in the army) to have someone they can go to in confidence about any of the problems they have, as it is for the religious.
So, basically a designated atheist councilor giving support to atheists within the military? Go for it, just give him a different name, or name them after wolves or something.
"I am Grey Wolf Heichekov, and I will assist you in psychological support."
Athiest Chaplain is definitely an Oxymoron, Chaplains cater to Religion of whatever denomination so an Atheist would have to be an Anti-Chaplain, as a Veteran we used to have Church Parades ,so perhaps now they could have Athiest Parades, as an Athiest, if I was in a Muslim Country I,d wear a Cross just to piss them off , BTW don,t forget the World ends next week ! so anybody waiting to be Raptured I,m available to take your Property and anything else you want to leave behind !
@unoffended its a method of talking out your problems without having any problems relayed to your commanding officer, or being subject to apologetics. While there are psychiatrists available, what you say to them is not confidential, and any big problems will be relayed to commanding officers. Chaplains offer a similar service as a psychiatrist in terms of someone you can just talk to, but using them as a resource is more confidential, and offering a secular option allows atheists to use them.
A few years ago my bro saw and did some things in Iraq that weigh on his mind heavily. Religious folk have their "answers" and communities to help deal with the realities of warfare, what do we have?
A liberated mind is helpful but there is value in community. Especially if you come from a religious family, are surrounded by people who tell you that you are going to Hell and get shot at for a living.
ShinobuHarvester 1 day ago
army chaplains a re retarded, its a complete contradiction of atheism.
if you are an atheist, you have no faith and therefore do not need some asshole in a dress
to bless you before you can go to heaven, which you also don't believe in.
how about we replace that poster boy for futility with a psychiatrist who specializes in PTHD...
Whisper6911 1 week ago
contract, yes i like tht for gays, ma-ridge for straights
ThePhil909 1 month ago in playlist Season 2
I believe "contradiction in terms" seriously applies here. The chaplin who is giving spiritual comfort to our soldiers by definition has to have a belief in God. Do atheists believe that man (in the generic sense, not a reference to gender) has a soul? And if so did God imbue man with a living soul, or was this also a wonder of evolution?!
tenhirankei 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate 1
Praise belongs to God, the Lord of all Being, 2
the All-merciful, the All-compassionate, 3
the Master of the Day of Doom. 4
Thee only we serve; to Thee alone we pray for succour. 5
Guide us in the straight path, 6
the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those against whom Thou art wrathful, nor of those who are astray. 7
for more information type this in google "thedeenshow"
akeello 4 months ago
Mogley 52 is a dick piss off.
mattshark100 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of the law of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, then that species is going to survive (be "selected'). That's all that natural selection is! It's a passive process in nature. Read my popular Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions of stars agree to get out of each other's way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE DOESN'T EXPLAIN AWAY GOD: Natural laws may explain how an airplane or living cell works, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of either. Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select," not produce. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN HAPPEN BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Read my popular Internet articles, "How Forensic Science Refutes Atheism," "Origin of Life Deception by Evolutionists," "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth."
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. There are no fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
Just to let everyone know, Rock Beyond Belief is back on.
armytimes . com /news/2011/08/ap-army-oks-atheism-concert-bragg-080811/
MortisCityHC 6 months ago
so...uhh...instead of enjoying the same things as everyone else, you fuck everyone over so we all suffer? Nice.
ThatWierdoAsianGuy 6 months ago
Atheistism is a joke.
I dont think a single person commenting on this fucken video has ever been on the frontline. After years of war your mind needs Padres or a sense of God cause thats the only thing driving your will to survive some of the shit we go through. Doesnt matter if you dont believe in God once you have seen death you will believe in living and thats the basis for faith.
Herc2770 7 months ago
@Herc2770 "Atheistism"? And FYI, buddy - I never prayed in my foxhole. Have a nice day.
cmfic36 7 months ago
@cmfic36 LoL. FYI who is that stupid to take DFP in a foxhole in the modern age where the ground you walk on is IED infected.
Doesnt matter how hardcore atheist you think you are. just like them all they convert, cause once you hear the sound of bullets pass your ear and in the face of death they pray.
Theres a saying in the infantry, There are no atheists in foxholes. Every AJ has heard it and i know without a doubt you have never seen combat
Herc2770 7 months ago
@Herc2770 I was playing on the old adage, sire. You know, the one that you just used at the end of your response? I'm glad you know me so well, and I'm glad you're as certain about my history as you are the (fraudulent) history of the Buy-bull. Good day to you, oh great psychic one.
cmfic36 7 months ago
@Herc2770 I took part in operations in Najaf, Ramadi, Fallujah '04 did not pray or believe in a god thus proving your hypothosis wrong.
wowamonn 7 months ago
@wowamonn Keep pulling yourself. By the time you supposedly went to baghdad in 04 it had already fallen in 03. my point is in situations like a fire fight, your athiest man next to you prays he will live. theirs nothing wrong with that and ive seen it happen all the time. I never tried to prove i was right because i understood the situation. Im sick of wanna be's trying to speak of other veterns + AJ's especially in thier fakes like you.
Shame.
Herc2770 7 months ago
@Herc2770 Where in my statment did I say I went to Baghdad? The cities I mentioned are west of Baghdad slick near the lakes I bet you you dont know what I am talking about do you? Ever Heard of TQ? Marine Base near Harbinaya? My POINT as an Athiest I did not pray to any god when I was involved in Operations in Iraq. Atheist exists and god worshippers like yourself are a dying breed so get use to it.
wowamonn 7 months ago
@wowamonn Heres a history lesson for you chump, they have been saying we were a dying religion since the crucifiction. The Roman empire tried to outlaw us, The Catholic church persecuted us and killed many, Muslims are still trying to, Neo-Dawnismthink they can do the job and Athiests think they can bury us. All together you all hate us.
Jesus said 2000 yrs ago,
Mathew 10:22-All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
AND HISTORY HAS PROVEN HIM RIGHT.
Herc2770 7 months ago
@Herc2770 You do understand that when Atheists say we do not believe in gods that includes all religons right? and not just christians. Also just because we say there are no gods does not equate to hatred of its followers we just dont believe in gods. Now the problem is that god worshippers have to provide evidence for the existance for thier gods and as far as I can remember they have not.
wowamonn 7 months ago
@wowamonn Your crowed ridicule us and persecute us all over the world. You know thats true, there are hundreds of videos and comments that are down right hateful insults and you think that some of us are going to sit back why you rubbish the goals of our beliefs. I have yet seen evidence that there is no creator of the universe at all just assumptions. How is it that the universe has a point of creation yet no creator, The Big Bang being the affect yet no cause. Wheres the logic in that?
Herc2770 7 months ago
@Herc2770 Really? christians are persecuted around the world by Atheists? And your saying that christians do not ridicule Atheists are others of another faith? Let me ask you this since I am an Athiest and I do not believe in your god where am I going after I die? Where did your god come from? has she always existed? living outside of space and time? When were the angels created and did they exist before the Universe came into existance?
wowamonn 7 months ago
@wowamonn When you die you will return from the earth you came. You are not trying to go to heaven nor will i think you are going to hell, cause you will only recieve what you are trying to obtain. God is everlating to everlasting, Are you laughing yet? Good. your mind cannot comprehind what it refuses to accept. The Angels are servants of god in heaven and were appointed during the moment of creation. Time and Space are products of our world, not Gods. Now answer my questions in the last one
Herc2770 7 months ago
@Herc2770 " Time and Space are products of our world "
Can you please explain how time and space are products of our world when time and space exist outside the confines of our planet.
"God is everlating to everlasting"
Really? I thought life cannot exist without a creator or do rules do not appy to gods?
"Good. your mind cannot comprehind what it refuses to accept. "
You mean to accept the exitance of gods without proof right?
wowamonn 7 months ago
@wowamonn When i mean by our world it means our universe with in, if you were spiritual man you would understand. Matter, Time, Space + Energy are ingredients of our world. Before they existed God was eternal. For he is not a product of this world he is not governed by them. Its funny how you asked a question n i give u an answer for your curiousity and understanding. but my own questions you have not answered.
Or maybe you lack the understanding to answer them.
Herc2770 7 months ago
@Herc2770 How can the Universe be contained in our planet? What questions have you asked?
wowamonn 7 months ago
@wowamonn Num man. The Physical is our world. The Universe as a whole cannot fit inside our planet, i never said that. Im sorry if u dont understand spiritual terms.The Universe is our world. It is around us and with in us. We are apart of our planet and it a part of the universe, we are all one product yet individual. God is not part of the design. A Tailor is not a Suit. Questions in 4th reply brother 4rm bottom.
Cant wait 4 Cpt America release.
Herc2770 7 months ago
@Herc2770 I recommend you read a book called Lost Christianties by Bart Ehrman its not meant to take you away from your religon, but it helps you appreciate the roots of it your beliefs.
wowamonn 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wowamonn Answer my question. You want to debate me about this issue ive kindly answered your questions. So man up and i want to know why you believe theres no god. Im curious about your understanding as an atheist. And what made you come to this conclusion. So once again answer my questions. And i recommend Luke.
Herc2770 7 months ago
To me atheist is a religion, if they don't want to be a religion then they should become agnostics.
And I agree with the marriage things, definition of marriage should not exist. Let consenting adults do what ever they want in contracts.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 7 months ago
Atheist chaplain? What does that even mean? A non-poker playing soccer field?
sensur1 7 months ago
I think Atheist chaplains is a bad idea, but ONLY because of the meaning that "Chaplain" is associated with. - A specific Atheist adviser to give piece of mind would be great. - Think about it, where the soldiers may go, currently they are liable to be outweighed by Religious; that must be daunting and could effect their work. - I think Atheism needs to stop worrying about things that might make it seem like a religion. - I think Atheists need some reminders to be proud in this world sometimes.
GilesHellier 7 months ago
I suspect our inability to agree even on the definitions of atheism agnosticism and what religion IS would definitely be something we have in common with religion. That is why there are so many. Defining atheism as a religion is a mistake however because if you define a lack of belief in anything, as atheism is in god, as a religion then all things are religions, a belief in anything becomes by reason religion. Religion is the "providence" of spirituality and god, not just a belief in anything.
mattshark100 8 months ago
@mattshark100 Okay... answer me this. Do you believe that god does not exist?
Jaspian 8 months ago
@Jaspian Rather than do that lets reframe the argument. Lets say i accept your posture that religion includes things that are not supernatural, then a belief is a positive, religion is what you believe in not what you don't beleive in. Theism is not a religion, atheism is not a religion, a theist is most likely religious (see one key aspect of religion is importance + ritual). By that token i might concede that atheism isn't my 'religion' but "scientific naturalism " would be. Happier now?
mattshark100 8 months ago
@mattshark100 Believing that something does not exist is a belief. No belief means no opinion either way... that's agnosticism. If I were to tell you that I don't think the earth is a sphere, I'd like you to go on the record right now that that isn't a belief.
Once again you generalize - ritual is not important to religion. Despite Richard Dawkin's false assertion that Einstein was an atheist, he-self described as being religious but against organized religion. Personal religion has no ritual.
Jaspian 8 months ago
@Jaspian
Religion has defining characteristics which atheism does not have. Philosophy of life = no, defined rules = no, specific eschatology= no, allows us to understand our existence = definitely no. Atheism itself is none of these things ie not a religion. Atheism also has multiple meanings and a sliding scale from strong to weak which probably encompasses agnostics too, it's not black and white and it simply isn't a religion. You can be an atheist and an agnostic and be religious however.
mattshark100 8 months ago
@mattshark100 I don't think your definition of religion is sufficiently broad to actually encompass all of the beliefs that people would categorize as "religion", and clearly you think my definition is too broad because it encompasses Atheism. But I'd say you should look at Atheism more skeptically and see it for what it really is. And I do think it has a philosophy of life inherently - as Atheism assumes no afterlife, and no judgement - which has serious ramifications on how people live life.
Jaspian 8 months ago
@Jaspian Hey looks like i lied about not posting.
It does indeed have ramifications but remember the bible and religion are not responsible for our moral code, if they are then that would imply divinity which neither an agnostic or an atheist can agree with by definition. People lived their life a certain way well before religion came on the scene i'd guess, but i find the most important thing is the idea that religious people actually NEED religion to control their impulses.
mattshark100 8 months ago
@mattshark100 Religious beliefs influence a society's culture, and culture influences everyone in a society regardless of religion. You can see this in the fact that most Atheists celebrate Christmas, but in a more-generic secularized form. Similarly, one could argue that killing and stealing are frowned upon by Atheists because they accept these cultural overtones... but those cultural overtones exist in the first place because of religion.
Jaspian 6 months ago
@Jaspian
Really? Is killing and stealing frowned on due principally to religion, i don't see how you could possibly back that up any more than my assertation now that killing and stealing are frowned upon for humanist reasons. Because killing and stealing is not useful to groups of humans living in social groups. I would actually say that religion adds nothing to an aversion to killing and stealing and in fact AIDS individuals in justifying death outside their social group.
mattshark100 6 months ago
@mattshark100 Did you even read the second part of my response? You basically just repeated what I said with my "Morality is most likely an evolutionary process" point.
What I am saying is that Religion tends to be sort-of a preservator of tradition by taking things a society learns and freezing it in doctrine. It is not common sense notion to a caveman that thievery is bad for society. Its common sense to us because we grew up in a culture that frowns upon theft.
Jaspian 6 months ago
@Jaspian The part where you say "cultural overtones exist in the first place because of religion"? I ignored it because it is uncertain, the cultural overtones may exist in the second place because of religion, the first place is social groupings. Preservation of social ideals may not be the place of religion, it can be held through philosophy, for example, which allows us to be ethical without actually bothering to believe or disbelieve in any gods, although some would argue that..and do...
mattshark100 5 months ago
@mattshark100 Culture may exist independently of religion, but yes, I'd say many cultural overtones exist presently because of religion. Religion is sort-of a preserver of tradition, including moral values. We can see this today in the form of "God Hates Fags" protest signs at gay weddings and parades. But that's not to say that ALL of the moral traditions that religion reinforces are bad. Most of them today seem like common sense, but only because the west has followed them for 2000+ years.
Jaspian 5 months ago
@mattshark100 Also... your notion that philosophy passes morality is a little naive... since (outside of The West) there is little or no philosophy that isn't tied to religion. And some of it is contrarian, such as Nietzsche and Machiavelli.
I'm not saying that you can't be ethical and atheistic. I am saying that if you lived in a purely atheist society that was never influenced by religion, your moral values would likely be very different.
Jaspian 5 months ago
@Jaspian
Well, that could well be true, although we have no way of assigning a value (such as "likely") to it since we only live in this reality and not the alternate reality where religion does not exist.
mattshark100 5 months ago
@mattshark100 Well... unless you believe in absolute morality, which means some kind of ethical truth in the universe, and therefore a "god", a purely atheist society would only have the same ethical values as our own society by chance, and probably wouldn't retain those morals.
Where I think its different is that the traditions of religion make ethics and morals more immutable. I think there would be more "experimentation" with moral standards without a religious vessel at its core FBOFW.
Jaspian 5 months ago
@Jaspian We would experiment more, probably. It is experimentation which has allowed social freedoms to flourish. Religion's stability is an illusion, it changes with society over the years, women get rights, slaves go free. Are these things morally right, society decides, not religion. Things like eugenics are just as likely to occur under a religious guise as an atheist one. Atheisms moral landscape is no worse than religions, they are from the same source, humanity.
mattshark100 5 months ago
@mattshark100 That sentiment is terribly naive. Not all social experimentation is like "allowing freedoms to flourish", especially around science, which has advanced to a level that's arguably bad for the human race. Embryonic Stem cells, Eugenics, Human Experimentation, Transhumanism, Orbital Supercolliders ... you must draw the line somewhere. And I do think that Eugenics is more likely in a morally malleable culture without absolutes.
Jaspian 5 months ago
@mattshark100 Keep in mind what we discussed earlier - if morals are not dictated by God, they were probably dictated by an evolutionary process... e.g. - societies that frowned upon killing and stealing were more likely to survive. Religion merely serves to solidify that moral base... but that doesn't make that moral base bad. In fact, that moral base was vital to the founding of a civilization. So just throwing bits of it away willy-nilly is likely to end very badly.
Jaspian 5 months ago
@mattshark100 ... that's not to say Religion defines morality. More likely, morality is an evolutionary process. Those cultures that penalize murder and theft were more likely to succeed, and then this knowledge was institutionalized in religion, similar to Jewish law forbidding circumcision of males who's mother bleeds (hemophilia) or eating pork (parasites). The pork thing is interesting because its vestigial, but tradition/religion is so powerful that people still follow it.
Jaspian 6 months ago
@Jaspian
Thanks for the conversation it was thought worthy, but we will not agree so i'm not going to post any further on it. Let me ask you a final question just for you. Isn't agnosticism the BELIEF that knowing whether god exists or not is unknowable and does that therefore mean that agnosticism is a religion by your definition? You take that on faith because if god turns up tomorrow then it is provable, so you don't know if it is unprovable and if you believe it is then you are religious?
mattshark100 8 months ago
@mattshark100 No, agnosticism is not a belief. I suppose you could believe that proving or disproving the existence of god is unknowable, but the majority of agnostics that I talk to either think that (a) the jury is still out on the whole "god" thing, or at least neither side has provided sufficient proof to their claims... I think this is what responsible scientists should be, since its rooted in objectivity and skepticism... or (b) people who just don't think about it or care either way.
Jaspian 8 months ago
Great video Penn, loved what you said about gay marriages!
BMFWB1 8 months ago
I think most Atheists would agree to being in some ways pantheists instead, look it up.
drpeppa2357 8 months ago
Luv ya Penn, but Atheism is a religion, and the comparison to not collecting stamps is wrong. Nobody goes around extolling the virtues of not collecting stamps, putting up billboards and having non-collector podcasts. There is no non-collector movement with non-collector leaders as a de-facto clergy.
Religion is "Belief based on faith rather than fact". Dawkins admits disproving god is impossible. Therefore Agnosticism isn't religion, but Atheism is, because its faith in the existence of no god.
Jaspian 9 months ago
@Jaspian
Atheism isn't the "faith in the existence of NO God" Atheism is the REJECTION of "belief based on faith in God". If actual facts existed for God then atheists would probably be religious. Atheists 'believe' all sorts of things, but the existance of God is met with skepticism due to lack of empirical evidence.
mattshark100 9 months ago
@mattshark100 Rejection of A necessitates belief in A'. And since you admit that the existence of A is unprovable, the existence of A' is also unprovable, therefore if A is religion, A' is also religion. Sorry - Atheism is a religion. Notice that the word is "atheist" and not "areligionist", and Atheists are not "skeptics". Atheists, by definition, believe that god doesn't exist. The "skeptics" as you call them are agnostics, who admit they don't know, but might lean one way or another.
Jaspian 9 months ago
@Jaspian so I hear bald is now a hair color.
Tanis1Lionheart 9 months ago
@Tanis1Lionheart Bald is hair style.
Jaspian 9 months ago
@Jaspian Your definition of atheism is incorrect for starters and your argument lacks substance as A does not in fact require a'
mattshark100 8 months ago
@mattshark100 Lets break it down logically. Religion is belief in something on faith rather than fact, and faith is trust without evidence to warrant it.
Prove to me that there is no god. If you can't (and you can't), that means atheists have faith in the existence of no god. If that is their belief system, then they have a religion.
And A does necessitate a'. As an example: You find me one thing that is neither a car, nor not-a-car. Good luck. :P
Jaspian 8 months ago
@Jaspian
Whilst I appreciate your point, it is merely somantics, your definition of atheism is the most narrow possible definition of the term atheist. An atheist being someone without a belief of any god. Atheism is not faith in the existance of no god as "no god" as an objective item can not exist, take a baby, a baby is an atheist by definition, but a baby is not an atheist because it believes there is no god, a baby is an atheist because it does not believe in anything.
mattshark100 8 months ago
@Jaspian
Whilst I appreciate your point, it is merely somantics, your definition of atheism is the most narrow possible definition of the term atheist. Look up your definition of what religion is, where is the supernatural. Atheism is not faith in the existance of no god as "no god" as an objective item can not exist, take a baby, a baby is an atheist by definition, but a baby is not an atheist because it believes there is no god, a baby is an atheist because it does not believe in anything.
mattshark100 8 months ago
@mattshark100 No, a baby is agnostic because it does not believe that god does not exist. It doesn't even have a concept of god or no-god. Atheism requires belief, and that belief is in something that cannot be proven, and therefore is accepted on faith, which makes it a religion.
Thus, a baby is born agnostic - pure & undecided... Usually for the parents to corrupt shortly thereafter, one way or the other. But if you want to get technical, babies are actually born believing in god. (sorry)
Jaspian 8 months ago
@Jaspian
Importantly you seem to think any set of beliefs qualifies as a religion, but religion is by definition anything supernatural which atheists do not deal with. By definition religion requires a belief in something devine or spiritual, by definition religion requires these facets which atheism by definition does not have. You believe the world is round therefore you must belong to roundism. Further more, on topic, there is no doctrine inherent to religion anatheist chaplain can follow
mattshark100 8 months ago
@mattshark100 You seem to have skipped over an important facet of the definition... which I've used continually throughout this argument, so I suspect you did it intentionally... Religion is belief based on FAITH, which is acceptance without objective evidence. There is no religion of roundism because the spherical shape of the earth is verifiable.
You've also made the mistake to include doctrine spirituality and supernaturalism.... all may be typical of religion, but none are required.
Jaspian 8 months ago
@mattshark100 Besides... one could argue that atheists do have doctrine - Richard Dawkins, among others. They certainly treat him as if he were their messiah....
Jaspian 8 months ago
@mattshark100 You see... we're hard-wired to be religious. Religious people say that its evidence of God, but I suspect that its because we're social creatures, and there's an evolutionary benefit to being accepted in society, and there's a social benefit to solidarity by group identity and culture. I suspect this is why humans all over the world all developed religions. Also, we have a tendency to anthropomorphize. See: the guy who kicks his car when the radiator bursts.
Jaspian 8 months ago
@Jaspian are those who fight racism with billboards and podcasts and organized moments a form of racism in of themselves?
Tanis1Lionheart 9 months ago
@Tanis1Lionheart That's not a 1:1 comparison. Racism is a specific belief. Fighting racism is also a specific belief. So what you are actually talking about with this comparison are opinions on race and how differences ought to be handled, in which case, both racism and aracism are both such opinions.
So if you are against racism, you by-definition have an opinion on race. Much like if you don't believe in god, by-definition, you are accepting that notion on faith because no evidence exists.
Jaspian 9 months ago
Atheists do have chaplains they are called psychiatrists. The only thing that I have a problem is when chaplains try to convert. As for chaplains to perform last rights and and solace for survivors who deal with guilt and horror I am OK here is my tax money job well done. But it is wrong to call combat chaplains hypocritical they care for the beliefs off all soldiers sometimes under gun/shell fire. That takes conviction and more courage than I have and they do it for many denominations.
MGergel 9 months ago
Wouldn't psychological counsillors fill the niche of "atheist chaplains"?
Insomuch as to provide "spiritual/mental upkeep" (can't quite figure out the correct term in english, in finnish it would be "sielun terveydenhoito"), that is. Not to promote any certain dogma.
Tounushi 9 months ago
What the fuck is an "atheist chaplain". What creed would said individual represent. Technically, the Dalai Lama is an atheist. He has said in interviews that he does not believe in a god, and could not be persuaded to. Is he our chaplain.NO, of course not. He is not a skeptic, a freethinker, a naturalist, or a rationalist, like people who call themselves atheists almost always are. And what do these people have to preach, "think critically, always question, be rational" thats it. Chaplain?!
SocialAnathema 9 months ago
@PennPoint The dysfunction is comical: that the epitome of atheism today, at least for vast majority of those who claim to be, is the open, often obnoxiously boisterous congregation around the subject. Rather than how It should be "expressed," true to its form by definition; inaction akin to your example of inactivity(2:43.) I have not concluded as to the "why" of this. Does the religious contrast force a preemptive need for expression? An egotistical desire that needs to be appeased?
..X..
Xonegod 9 months ago
There are enough atheists in the army to be represented but not this way. They already have atheist concerts and atheist groups on certain bases.
endthedisease 9 months ago 6
How can something have 100 and half characters?
PolitcalIslam 9 months ago
@PolitcalIslam
obvious troll trap is obvious.
Tounushi 9 months ago
@Tounushi No, really, how can something have 100 and half characters?
PolitcalIslam 9 months ago
@PolitcalIslam
hundred-and-a-half. 150. one hundred and half-a-hundred. 100 + 50.
clear enough?
Quirks of language, sometimes can be tricky. e.g. in finnish the english "one-and-a-half" would be "half-of-a-2nd"
Tounushi 9 months ago
@Tounushi Arabic is so much cuter.
PolitcalIslam 9 months ago
@PolitcalIslam
What sort of numeric quirks does it have?
Tounushi 9 months ago
@Tounushi None, it's so easy.
PolitcalIslam 9 months ago
Mormons are the "real whackjobs", Penn? All the stuff in the regular bible is ok? LOL
GATFOCT 9 months ago
Chaplins are simply unconstitutional. There shouldn't be taxpayer dollars spent on chaplins. Churches pay no taxes, so if they want chaplins provided to service members (completely fine by me), they should have enough funds to do so on their own dime.
GATFOCT 9 months ago
So what is an Athiest Chaplain? Just like an Athiest who reassure other Athiests and maybe organises events. I like the idea.
ronoc9 9 months ago
They have secular counselors, the problem with that is that the ones they have are psychologists and psychiatrists, which you don't want to go to because it's a permanent mark on your record, and you're less likely to get promoted. Another aspect is that Chaplains are responsible for morale, and often have a role in planning events for the troops, and atheists want someone who will understand their viewpoint going into planning a morale boosting event, without assuming Religion.
I3rigand 9 months ago
This is just going to inflame the notion that Atheism is a religion. How about having secular councelors?
nett103 9 months ago
As a soldier, I spent a lot of time with our anglican chaplain. He very candidly explained that whlst he was available for direct support of people's faith-needs, his primary objective was to ensure that any soldier who came to him remained suitably indoctrinated with the notion that killing in the name of the State was morally correct and their role was rightious.
Original50 9 months ago
marriage is about more then tax breaks penn. it has 2 do with custody, next of kin, burial authority, will execution, etc. there are many reasons y what comes with marriage should b available 2 all who r in love.
cruelbusiness1984 9 months ago
@cruelbusiness1984
Wrong... The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., "eternal love").
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world; and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
SirWinstoneChurchill 9 months ago
Tteaching matrimony is a sacrament gives to a religious clergy the power to judge the lawfulness of marriages and ecclesiastical censure for divorce.
Government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses.
Polygamy?
SirWinstoneChurchill 9 months ago
@SirWinstoneChurchill y not's my question? its an unfair relationship but as long as its consensual and the idiots r of age? y not let them subjugate themselves? I believe in stupid personal choices, like eatin cheeseburgers every day and dying by 50. less stupid people 2 feed.
cruelbusiness1984 9 months ago
@cruelbusiness1984
The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., "eternal love").
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, or absolute resurrection from the dead, as inmates of the world; and to the end only to receive condign punishment for their contumacy of monogamy as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature.
SirWinstoneChurchill 9 months ago
Atheist Army Chaplains = religious faggotry
SirWinstoneChurchill 9 months ago
Right on!
TadRaunch 9 months ago
What's the point of an atheist chaplain?
KenMacMillan 9 months ago
I spent plenty of time in the army, and I can tell you that the only thing they ever consider are compromises that fuck everyone.
MultiUniv3rsal 9 months ago 4
Chaplains in the military, in general, or so much more than a religious provider. They are like an alternate counselor who you can go to with problems; one who is least likely to end your career because of something too. I think the idea behind this is so that atheists have someone to go to to talk about what's bothering them without feeeling they'll be pressured by the chaplains already there. Though, I've gone to talk to the chaplain before and religion wasn't even discussed.
SgtLeroy2609 9 months ago 2
@SgtLeroy2609 That sums up what I was going to say. It's fairly daunting to go speak to someone to help deal with your problems and feel like you'll disrespect them by starting out the dialog with, "I know your a Chaplain of 'x' faith, but I'm an atheist. I really need to talk to someone confidentially about 'y.'"
Since Chaplains are more than just folks who hold service and tend/enlarge their respective flocks, the place exists for atheist chaplaincy. Everything but the faith, works for me.
SmokedTails 9 months ago
@pennpoint
Thank you. Your "speechless" comment about the military says more about your respect for them than those who shout their support. The only louder support for the military are those wearing the uniform. Again, thank you. ( Yes. I am prior service. )
screwypuppy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@screwypuppy
atheist chaplains = religious faggotry
SirWinstoneChurchill 9 months ago
" Atheist Chaplin " = oxymoron?
komododr 9 months ago
@komododr
atheist chaplains = religious faggotry
think about that...
SirWinstoneChurchill 9 months ago
Let's make it simple and take the fairy tales OUT of the military so our troops can focus on their job.
SubconsciousGatherer 9 months ago 2
Wow someone else that get's it! It is so rare to hear someone with my views on rights, marriage or otherwise. There should be no bonus to be in any group over another by business or government (insurance, taxes, gay, minority, etc.).
RickyDLV 9 months ago
You can't contract with animals or things. They can't comprehend, agree or consent to provisions.
SisyphusRedeemed 9 months ago 2
religion is like a penis. it okay to have one, and to be proud of it, however its not okay to take it out in public or try shoving it down my throat.
thesageofohio 9 months ago
Chaplains are more of a council rather than a priest. While many of their duties are religious in nature, any service member, of any faith or lack thereof, can talk to any chaplain about damn near anything. I don't support religion in our military, but I think a lot of our men and women see a lot of fucked up stuff and they might need someone to help them parse it through.
Mr500sheetsofpaper 9 months ago
@Mr500sheetsofpaper then the military should employ company shrinks. I don't care how good a chaplain may be he's not as qualified as a trained psychologist to help people deal with the "fucked up stuff" they see.
bach421 9 months ago
@bach421 Great idea! Now implement it.
Seriously, I agree. I think it may be hard to have a professional psychiatrist to go to a warzone. Chaplains are part of the deployed unit. Chaplains live and work with the soldiers. For whatever reason the US Armed Forces chaplains are okay with going into a warzone unarmed.
I just think too many people are missing the forrest for the trees on this topic. Chaplains are there to help, not to proselytize.
Mr500sheetsofpaper 9 months ago
No one knows 100% how life was created or what happens when you die. Anyone who proclaims they know the truth is a bullshiter.
HumanBornFree 9 months ago
I am an atheist and initially I was thinking that getting rid of all military religious staff was good, however, what about confidential and sensitive military work, do we really want to give them their freedom of religion by sending in non-military religious workers? I would better trust military than non in that case. I still don't know exactly how I feel about the subject.
Horseinthefog 9 months ago
if you dont believe in god just shut the fuck up and live
agentprice2 9 months ago
Our soldiers are not always on US territory when they're overseas. If our women want to wear bikinis on base, that's fine, but when they walk off base, they are now visitors on foreign territory, and subject to their laws. Should our women tourists be able to wear bikinis in flagrant violation of their laws? If so, then should they be able to flagrantly violate our laws while visiting here?
puellanivis 9 months ago
@puellanivis American soldiers serving in foreign countries are not governed by that country's laws. They are governed by a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which is negotiated between our government and the foreign government. This is why female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia can drive while Saudi women cannot. In theory we could push for the right of our troops to wear bikinis while negotiating the SOFA.
CassesVultus 9 months ago
@CassesVultus So... this SOFA is totally and unilaterally defined by the United States, and enforced by our own police force? Or oh wait, this SOFA is a bilateral law of US law and foreign law, and off base their forces act as the police force, and on base, our forces act as the police force. So... again... we define along with them which foreign laws our forces are subject to, and which ones they have a special exception to. So, how are our forces not subject to that country's laws?
puellanivis 9 months ago
@puellanivis The SOFA is negotiated between the US and the foreign government. Typically it says that criminal issues relating to US forces (or US contractors) will be treated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and not by local laws. This is why when US contractors in Iraq illegally killed civilians they were tried in US courts and not Iraqi courts despite Iraqi objections. The US has tremendous leverage in negotiating a SOFA since they usually need us more than we need them.
CassesVultus 9 months ago
@CassesVultus I didn't say that they would be tried by local courts, I said that the local forces act as police outside of the base. The fact that the foreign country acknowledges that our troops will be subject to the UCMJ rather than their local laws is in fact according to their local laws, as the SOFA is a local law. Without their consent to the SOFA our troops would be subject to their local laws...
puellanivis 9 months ago
When I was in field training, on Sundays if I didn't go to church, I was expected to stay in the barracks and clean. An 'atheist chaplain' (wink, nudge) would've been nice.
I wound up making the rounds of the different services offered and stuck with the one where I could do the most reading in the back row (catholic).
The damn Mormons got special privileges- they were gone for like 6 hours while we were cleaning and doing pushups.
blurglide 9 months ago
I am a religious Jew so I usually disagree with all your religious views and comments. But this pennpoint I really liked and agree with.
yehudalindowmagician 9 months ago
"have a copy of Hitchens' book with you." That is probably the highest compliment I could ever imagine and I believe he merits that personal honor for many reasons.
bunsinspace 9 months ago
well Penn they don't let the military woman wear a burqa either. I think the only way to provide religious equality is to keep it separate from anything military. Its not as if they demand it when not in uniform.
Hexdoll 9 months ago
Atheists have no morals. You are all going to HELL!!!. Pray to Jesus Christ and hope God have mercy on your souls.
ioneipp 9 months ago
@ioneipp Do you honestly think someone is going to read this and all the sudden want to convert? By stating this claim that someone is going to hell, you're not changing any minds. People are just going to think you're an asshole. If you really want to change someones mind, try having an intellectual non-judgmental conversation with an exchange of questions...also be nice kid.
MrSocialandPolitical 9 months ago
@ioneipp
I know you are just trolling because you suck but it is the followers of Jesus Christ who institutionally rape children, So its really the religious who don't know what morals are, thanks for trying.
Hexdoll 9 months ago
Hard point of history, most religion was spread by force, it will take a long time for atheism to spread by peace and polite conversation. Hopefully it will.
johnmonk66 9 months ago
I will say that things that are different aren't about being PC for the sake of being PC. Our soldiers have to not just fight a war, but build relations with locals as well. We're not the brutes Hollywood playts us up to be. Yeah we "should" have the right to be American, but what does that REALLY get us if it drives a bigger wedge between the cultures? Soldiers give a lot of their rights to be sodiers. This is just part of the job.
Thayer79 9 months ago
Penn It's not about forcing our military women to conform to the rules of the country. They are not allowed to wear anything, but PT's (military exercise uniform) or a Uniform ANYWHERE while deployed. That goes for men too. The ONLY time that changes is during physical training and then it just can't be overly exposing. Thing is. It's like that in the states as well when they go to the field. It's not overly different.
Thayer79 9 months ago
My wife is deployed in Afghanistan right now and there are no rules about wearing religious neckalaces. You just can't wear it outside your uniform, which is the same in the states as well. It's not a part of the uniform, but it's ok as long as you wear it tucked in. As for shirts they can wear short sleeved, but not sleeveless.
Thayer79 9 months ago
I was in the Arny and my wife is now and I don't think that Chaplains have to actually perform the other religions ceremonies. Maybe as some kind of "emergency," but I think the most they are required is to be able to help setup a service allow them time and space for worship and help them get supplies for the service. A christian Chaplain would not take the place of the High Priest or Priestess for wicca, but give them time and space to do their service and provide supplies to do it.
Thayer79 9 months ago
There are plenty of atheists in religious positions. It's just a job. They get paid, they buy things. Is it immoral in my eyes, yes, but it merely an employment position. Like its been for thousands of years and it isn't going away anytime soon.
FaganRoberts 9 months ago
I hadn't heard about that.
But yeah, the idea of having a non-believer practice religious acts and rites is just wrong. So wrong, cause if you're religious you should at least be able to get service from a religious person.
It's so, I don't know. It's beyond my understanding that they'd do that.
kassemir 9 months ago
While I don't agree with the title, I'm all behind the idea itself. Its as important for non religous people(especially those serving in the army) to have someone they can go to in confidence about any of the problems they have, as it is for the religious.
Pervyable 9 months ago
So, basically a designated atheist councilor giving support to atheists within the military? Go for it, just give him a different name, or name them after wolves or something.
"I am Grey Wolf Heichekov, and I will assist you in psychological support."
phocjame 9 months ago
Why suggest an "Atheist Chaplain," when there's already psychologist, psychiatrists, and therapists?
Theists are so fucking stupid, fearful, and superstitious. It's sad how tightly they cling to their mythologies.
TheOtherSide100 9 months ago
Athiest Chaplain is definitely an Oxymoron, Chaplains cater to Religion of whatever denomination so an Atheist would have to be an Anti-Chaplain, as a Veteran we used to have Church Parades ,so perhaps now they could have Athiest Parades, as an Athiest, if I was in a Muslim Country I,d wear a Cross just to piss them off , BTW don,t forget the World ends next week ! so anybody waiting to be Raptured I,m available to take your Property and anything else you want to leave behind !
brogs60 9 months ago
Wait, what would an atheist chaplain do? Just remind you that there is no god once a week?
crackeddoutt 9 months ago
Atheist Chaplain.. isn't that an oxymoron?
Is atheism now a religion?
theoriginalKland 9 months ago
What the fuck does an atheist need a chaplain for?
unoffended 9 months ago
@unoffended its a method of talking out your problems without having any problems relayed to your commanding officer, or being subject to apologetics. While there are psychiatrists available, what you say to them is not confidential, and any big problems will be relayed to commanding officers. Chaplains offer a similar service as a psychiatrist in terms of someone you can just talk to, but using them as a resource is more confidential, and offering a secular option allows atheists to use them.
tbshawk 9 months ago
@tbshawk Don't call it a chaplain just call it an atheist confidant. Religious terms do not need to be applied to atheists.
unoffended 9 months ago
an atheist chaplain would be the easiest job in the world !!! I'd sign up right away :D
anteracmacash 9 months ago
according to South Park, Scot is a canadian and a dick
anteracmacash 9 months ago