NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an extension of the Anti-Christianism threads going around.

I just got the new Playboy and it has a short article entitled "Who Needs Religious Moderation," and it is basically an article that says that we shouldn't respect a person's religious views. If I can find the whole article I will post it, as it is, here is an excerpt:

"Nothing is more sacred than facts. Where we have reason, we don't need faith. Where we have no reason, we have lost both our connection to this world and to one another. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in the halls of power. We should respect a person's desire for a better life in this world, not his certainty that one awaits him in the next."

I figured this should stir some debate.

Edit: In a twist of logic that I can't begin to understand it is followed up by an interview with Toby Keith.

Why would you purchase such a judaic rag?

This is an extension of the Anti-Christianism threads going around.

I just got the new Playboy and it has a short article entitled "Who Needs Religious Moderation," and it is basically an article that says that we shouldn't respect a person's religious views. If I can find the whole article I will post it, as it is, here is an excerpt:

"Nothing is more sacred than facts. Where we have reason, we don't need faith. Where we have no reason, we have lost both our connection to this world and to one another. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in the halls of power. We should respect a person's desire for a better life in this world, not his certainty that one awaits him in the next."

I figured this should stir some debate.

Edit: In a twist of logic that I can't begin to understand it is followed up by an interview with Toby Keith.

I'm not really interested in this article. But if you could send me the rest of the magazine, it would be greatly appreciated. ;)

Of course people's religious reviews should be respected, and not just the Christian's views. There's a fine line between respecting and agreeing.

Why would you purchase such a judaic rag?

Naked women...or should I say tasteful nudes.

Why would you purchase such a judaic rag?

The whole point of the article was that religious moderation allow for this type of view to be justified.

Religious moderates tend to agree with the basis for the views of lunatics like DF, but just don't agree with how far they take them. So in a way they justify the views but not the actions.

There's a fine line between respecting and agreeing.

I always thought that was a chasm.

I'm not really interested in this article. But if you could send me the rest of the magazine, it would be greatly appreciated. ;)

Of course people's religious reviews should be respected, and not just the Christian's views. There's a fine line between respecting and agreeing.

I'll go ahead and scan and post the magazine for all of you guys, and some of you gals as well. ;)

I always thought that was a chasm.

Respecting= Not saying "your religion sucks, you're wrong...", and allowing someone to hold their beliefs.

Agreeing= Saying that a religion is correct.

Respecting= Not saying "your religion sucks, you're wrong...", and allowing someone to hold their beliefs.

Agreeing= Saying that a religion is correct.

Which implies to you that it's a fine line?

Which implies to you that it's a fine line?

Yes.

Respecting= Not saying "your religion sucks, you're wrong...", and allowing someone to hold their beliefs.

Agreeing= Saying that a religion is correct.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that 99%-100% of all religious views are wrong. Anyone who thinks that you can form a clear, literal view of what God wants or even is from the bible is wrong.

and why would you want to respect all religious views? Most are just stupid! I don't care what any persons religious prohibitions are if they dont want to eat pork or if they think the pope should wear a tiara...its fine by me...but when they get into my business or lets say they think they are serving god by pumping poison gas into a subway..."F" toleration, I have no respect anybody who wishes to impose thier religion or thier delusion on another...none...

Respecting= Not saying "your religion sucks, you're wrong...", and allowing someone to hold their beliefs.

Agreeing= Saying that a religion is correct.

Uhhhh...

Respect - as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary

treat with consideration, refrain from offending (a person, feelings, etc)

Agree - as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary

hold the same opinion


Just because you believe in Christianity (for example) does not mean that you automatically think that all other religions are wrong...

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that 99%-100% of all religious views are wrong. Anyone who thinks that you can form a clear, literal view of what God wants or even is from the bible is wrong.

So the entire Christian church is wrong? I highly doubt they are wrong about everything.

and why would you want to respect all religious views? Most are just stupid!

I quit reading here.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that 99%-100% of all religious views are wrong. Anyone who thinks that you can form a clear, literal view of what God wants or even is from the bible is wrong.

That is such a troll comment

So the entire Christian church is wrong? I highly doubt they are wrong about everything.

I am not talking about ethical views, I am talking about spiritual and theological matters.

There is no reason to respect religious ethical views, as they are devoid of reason and rely on tradition, more than a conscious effort to understand the situation and all parties involved. And as for the spiritual and theological views, there is no reason to respect them, because we have no idea if they are right.

Let me ask this:

Why should I respect the views of someone who was told how to think?

That is such a troll comment

Uhh....no. That's just his view, which he has a right to express.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that 99%-100% of all religious views are wrong. Anyone who thinks that you can form a clear, literal view of what God wants or even is from the bible is wrong.

Perhaps you would like to explain why? You cant just post something like that without support for it. And anyway, what is "Wrong" is only what is proveable to be wrong. Since faith does not require proof ergo you cannot say a faith is wrong.

It was phrased in such a way that it was meant to deliberately anger.

That is such a troll comment

I don't troll.

No human being could possibly understand the nature of a creator, that means that I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that your, or anyone's, view of what God is, or what God wants is wrong.

Like it or not, you are taking as big of a shot in the dark as everyone else. And a lot of people have got to be wrong.

I am not talking about ethical views, I am talking about spiritual and theological matters.

There is no reason to respect religious ethical views, as they are devoid of reason and rely on tradition, more than a conscious effort to understand the situation and all parties involved. And as for the spiritual and theological views, there is no reason to respect them, because we have no idea if they are right.

Let me ask this:

Why should I respect the views of someone who was told how to think?

How are ethical views devoid of reason? So, not murdering, not commit adultery, etc., are devoid of reason?

Nobody is necesarily *told* how to think, because everyone has their own religious views. It's a hghily personal thing. Take me, for example. I consider myself a Christian, believe in the same principles, but I disagree with the church sometimes.

Why should I respect the views of someone who was told how to think?

Excuse me, I was not told 'how to think'. I was brought up as a member of the Christian faith, was baptised and christened. At 13 I made the choice myself to be confirmed into the Church - which I did so of my own free will.

I have not been told how to think by anyone, thank you very much.

I quit reading here.

I dare you...I double dog dare you to name one religion that does not believe in sort sort of absudity....

Perhaps you would like to explain why? You cant just post something like that without support for it. And anyway, what is "Wrong" is only what is proveable to be wrong. Since faith does not require proof ergo you cannot say a faith is wrong.

I don't have proof that it is wrong, but I have very strong reason to assume that it isn't right.

The bible was written by men, men cannot possibly comprehend the nature of God or God's actions. Therefore, any translation of the desires of God by men cannot possibly be correct.

I am not talking about ethical views, I am talking about spiritual and theological matters.

There is no reason to respect religious ethical views, as they are devoid of reason and rely on tradition, more than a conscious effort to understand the situation and all parties involved. And as for the spiritual and theological views, there is no reason to respect them, because we have no idea if they are right.

Let me ask this:

Why should I respect the views of someone who was told how to think?

Because they can see something you cant. They have what is known in the English landguage as "Faith". The Dictionary.com defines faith as

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

The Bible says something simmilar

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"
Hebrews 11:1

To have faith requires in my opinion (and I know others) a great strength of will and charachter. The ability to say "I cant prove it but I know it to be true". Also the one thing about faith that many people seem to ignore is that you cant disprove it either. The statement "God exists" cannot be proven or disproven certianly. You can say there is a lack of proof, but that in itself is not an arguement.

That is such a troll comment

No a troll comment would have been "All Catholics like raping little boys."

His was an opinion and he has the right to express it.

I don't have proof that it is wrong, but I have very strong reason to assume that it isn't right.

The bible was written by men, men cannot possibly comprehend the nature of God or God's actions. Therefore, any translation of the desires of God by men cannot possibly be correct.

Can it be 100% correct? No. Can it be along the same lines as what God wants? Possibly. You're right, though. We are humans, much less complex than a God, so we cannot begin to comprehend as to what he is like.

How are ethical views devoid of reason? So, not murdering, not commit adultery, etc., are devoid of reason?

Nobody is necesarily *told* how to think, because everyone has their own religious views. It's a hghily personal thing. Take me, for example. I consider myself a Christian, believe in the same principles, but I disagree with the church sometimes.

Then I applaud you, but would like to point out that the instances where you chose to disagree with the church were instances where the church disagreed with your reason, and the instances where you agree with the church are when the views of the church align with your reason. Therefore, you don't need the church.

Excuse me, I was not told 'how to think'. I was brought up as a member of the Christian faith, was baptised and christened. At 13 I made the choice myself to be confirmed into the Church - which I did so of my own free will.

I have not been told how to think by anyone, thank you very much.

Okay, so you never went to church before you made the choice.

And there is a reason why 13 year olds aren't allowed to vote, drink, smoke, or drive, and it is very applicable to your choice to be confirmed into the church.

I don't have proof that it is wrong, but I have very strong reason to assume that it isn't right.

The bible was written by men, men cannot possibly comprehend the nature of God or God's actions. Therefore, any translation of the desires of God by men cannot possibly be correct.

Bah. The only way one can assert that, "any translation of the desires of God by men cannot possibly be correct" is if you believe that human nature is intrinsically flawed, and therefore anything produced by a human will be flawed. Otherwise, you just have to admit that it is extremely unlikely that somebody was lucky enough to be right about God.

No human being could possibly understand the nature of a creator


I don't claim to understand the nature of my God - I merely accept that He is who He is.

We all create God in our own image.

Vittos - It may not be what you believe, but that doesn't make it wrong.

That's the thing about faith...if you don't have it, you can't understand it. And if you do, no explanation is necessary. If you can explain everything, what's left to believe in?

There's a difference between respecting the spiritual beliefs of other cultures and embracing them yourself - but you still should respect what other people believe.

Then I applaud you, but would like to point out that the instances where you chose to disagree with the church were instances where the church disagreed with your reason, and the instances where you agree with the church are when the views of the church align with your reason. Therefore, you don't need the church.

Yes and no. Going to church makes you as much christian as standing in a garage makes you a mechanic. You've got to know what you are doing. To me, church is where there a people who share the same general beliefs as I do, people who are willing to comfort me and give me support. So, yes, I need the church. Especially mine.

Therefore, you don't need the church.

No one here claimed you "need" the church. People go to church (or at least this is the case for me) because it is helpful and supportive to you to be surrounded by like minded people, particulaly in a religion. And it helps you lead your life as you intend to do so by reminding people of certian principles and ideals that Christianity holds up.

Because they can see something you cant. They have what is known in the English landguage as "Faith". The Dictionary.com defines faith as

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

The Bible says something simmilar

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"
Hebrews 11:1

To have faith requires in my opinion (and I know others) a great strength of will and charachter. The ability to say "I cant prove it but I know it to be true". Also the one thing about faith that many people seem to ignore is that you cant disprove it either. The statement "God exists" cannot be proven or disproven certianly. You can say there is a lack of proof, but that in itself is not an arguement.

Why should I respect something that requires absolutely no logic. Reason is the only thing that you and I have in common mentally. So if your view has no reason to it, how can I possibly understand it or respect it?

Faith itself requires no strength of character, the willingness to act upon it, and stand up for it does. But that goes for beliefs that involve reason as well.

Faith itself requires no strength of character, the willingness to act upon it, and stand up for it does. But that goes for beliefs that involve reason as well.

Its far eaiser to stand up and defend something with reason and logic behind it because you know it to be true. Its far harder to do the same about something which you can never be ceritain of. Would you not agree.

And there is a reason why 13 year olds aren't allowed to vote, drink, smoke, or drive, and it is very applicable to your choice to be confirmed into the church.

I'm 17 now...I can legally smoke, have sex, drive and gamble. (And by the way, in England, you can smoke from any age...you're just now allowed to buy cigarettes until you are 16.)

I still go to church regularly and enjoy the services...have I been brainwashed? No.

Bah. The only way one can assert that, "any translation of the desires of God by men cannot possibly be correct" is if you believe that human nature is intrinsically flawed, and therefore anything produced by a human will be flawed. Otherwise, you just have to admit that it is extremely unlikely that somebody was lucky enough to be right about God.

We are sinners so we must be intrinsically flawed.

How do you know which view is the correct view of God? Answer: You don't.

That means you have to form your own spiritual views and desires for yourself. You don't need religion to do that, only reason.

Its far eaiser to stand up and defend something with reason and logic behind it because you know it to be true. Its far harder to do the same about something which you can never be ceritain of. Would you not agree.

Standing up for and defending stuff you can not be certain of is not courageous...its just stupid....but then there is a fine line between courage and stupidity

I don't claim to understand the nature of my God - I merely accept that He is who He is.

We all create God in our own image.

Vittos - It may not be what you believe, but that doesn't make it wrong.

That's the thing about faith...if you don't have it, you can't understand it. And if you do, no explanation is necessary. If you can explain everything, what's left to believe in?

There's a difference between respecting the spiritual beliefs of other cultures and embracing them yourself - but you still should respect what other people believe.

I can't respect the RELIGIOUS views of someone who says:

"And if you do, no explanation is necessary."

That is the very nature of being told what to think.

Edit: I made sure to add the word Religious in there, as any view that you performed a reasonable investigation of and formulated your own thoughts on is perfectly admirable.

One of my favourite quotes regarding faith...

"I know to Starfleet, the Prophets are nothing more than wormhole aliens. But to me, their gods. I can’t prove it, then again I don’t have to, because my faith in them is enough. Just as Weyoun’s faith in you....was enough for him.”

Its far eaiser to stand up and defend something with reason and logic behind it because you know it to be true. Its far harder to do the same about something which you can never be ceritain of. Would you not agree.

No, if you stand up for something you simply assume to be true, you disrespect yourself, and all those who actually made an attempt to understand.

That means you have to form your own spiritual views and desires for yourself. You don't need religion to do that, only reason.

Where does you "Reason" come from? Back in the 10th Century it was "Reasonable" if you lived in Scandinavia to get into big ships and go looking for another country and killing everyone you found there. Now that is considered "Unreasonable". What is and isnt "reasonable" by your logic is depenednt on these factors. Where you live (continent, country, city etc), what era your living in and who you are (race, gender, class etc). My point being that "Reason" is much less rigid than you seem to think. Please bear in mind that what is "Reasonable" now will be completely alien in a few decades, maybe less.

I can't respect the RELIGIOUS views of someone who says:

"And if you do, no explanation is necessary."

That is the very nature of being told what to think.

Edit: I made sure to add the word Religious in there, as any view that you performed a reasonable investigation of and formulated your own thoughts on is perfectly admirable.

My belief in God is enough for me, I don't need any explanation to tell me whether he exists or not. To me - he exists. And it can be argued that as long as one person believes something to be true then, for them, it is.

Vittos - Whilst I don't agree with any point you've raised, I can respect your point of view and am not going to attempt to change your mind. All I ask in return is that you respect my point of view in so far as you cannot declare that millions upon millions of people (in various different faiths) are wrong.

In your opinion, maybe so. But just because it is your opinion just not make it true.

Please respect that.

I'm 17 now...I can legally smoke, have sex, drive and gamble. (And by the way, in England, you can smoke from any age...you're just now allowed to buy cigarettes until you are 16.)

I still go to church regularly and enjoy the services...have I been brainwashed? No.

Let me begin by saying that someone can reasonably postulate that there is a supreme being, I don't consider it to be a correct assumption, but you can come to that conclusion as a result of reason.

I would also like to say that knowing one is brainwashed eliminates the possibility of being brainwashed.

I went to a church service in which my brother and sister sang songs entitled "My God is an Awesome God," and "Jesus is my Best Friend." They are collectively 6 and 9.

To have faith requires in my opinion (and I know others) a great strength of will and charachter. Not in my opinion. The ability to say "I cant prove it but I know it to be true".Sure you can say that but it makes absolutely no sense. Also the one thing about faith that many people seem to ignore is that you cant disprove it either. The statement "God exists" cannot be proven or disproven certianly. You can say there is a lack of proof, but that in itself is not an arguement. Using your logic, every story, fantasy ever thought up must be assumed true as no one can prove otherwise. I guess theists always come back to this faith argument as it's the only one you really have.
There is no evidence whatsoever (let alone proof!) for the existence of the supernatural.

No, if you stand up for something you simply assume to be true, you disrespect yourself, and all those who actually made an attempt to understand.

I put it to you that very few people just "assume" their religion to be true. They question it and they search it all the time. You have to question it to understand it more fully. Non Christians often assume that if you poke even very weakly into Christianity that it all falls down around itself, but acctually it doesnt. It answers all the questions put to it as best it can. Obviously like any faith, it cannot answer everything because we are not God.

And you did not answer my question. Is it not more difficult (requiring a greater strength of charachter) to defend something you cannot have a complete understanding of than it is to defend something completely logical and reasonable?

Where does you "Reason" come from? Back in the 10th Century it was "Reasonable" if you lived in Scandinavia to get into big ships and go looking for another country and killing everyone you found there. Now that is considered "Unreasonable". What is and isnt "reasonable" by your logic is depenednt on these factors. Where you live (continent, country, city etc), what era your living in and who you are (race, gender, class etc). My point being that "Reason" is much less rigid than you seem to think. Please bear in mind that what is "Reasonable" now will be completely alien in a few decades, maybe less.

Reason is the process of learning all of the factors one can and finding the most probable solution.

Religion is not a good way of doing that.

Using your logic, every story, fantasy ever thought up must be assumed true as no one can prove otherwise.


Since most stories talk of events that have not happened (Since they describe worlds that the authors know are untrue) then it is proveable.


I guess theists always come back to this faith argument as it's the only one you really have.
There is no evidence whatsoever (let alone proof!) for the existence of the supernatural.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there is no supernautral. Both Atheisim and Christianity require a level of faith. Since you are not certian.

My belief in God is enough for me, I don't need any explanation to tell me whether he exists or not. To me - he exists. And it can be argued that as long as one person believes something to be true then, for them, it is.

So what you are saying is that truth is relative....that basically if someone beleives that they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in the after-life if they strap a bomb to themselves and blow up some Israeli kids...it must be true because they beleive it is...at least truth for them?

We are sinners so we must be intrinsically flawed.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

How do you know which view is the correct view of God? Answer: You don't.

That means you have to form your own spiritual views and desires for yourself. You don't need religion to do that, only reason.

Not relevant to my point.

Mandatory atheism? No thanks.

(I am an atheist, BTW)

Of course people's religious reviews should be respected, and not just the Christian's views. There's a fine line between respecting and agreeing.
I agree. Religious freedom is something that everyone should have.

My belief in God is enough for me, I don't need any explanation to tell me whether he exists or not. To me - he exists. And it can be argued that as long as one person believes something to be true then, for them, it is.

Vittos - Whilst I don't agree with any point you've raised, I can respect your point of view and am not going to attempt to change your mind. All I ask in return is that you respect my point of view in so far as you cannot declare that millions upon millions of people (in various different faiths) are wrong.

In your opinion, maybe so. But just because it is your opinion just not make it true.

Please respect that.

I will respect your ability to believe what you want to believe, I, however, will not respect the belief. Note that it is not an indictment on you as a person, as I have many Christian friends, but I cannot respect their beliefs.

And if faith is all you need, I guess you can deal with that.

Reason is the process of learning all of the factors one can and finding the most probable solution.

Religion is not a good way of doing that.

You completely missed my point. In 10th century Scandinavia they would have done the following "learning of factors"

"People are living on an Island that is not ours"

Therefore their solution was

"We must kill them all now"

Hence Viking raids. Basicly. Reason fluctuates. Please accpet that.

This was in Playboy? *blink*

I put it to you that very few people just "assume" their religion to be true. They question it and they search it all the time. You have to question it to understand it more fully. Non Christians often assume that if you poke even very weakly into Christianity that it all falls down around itself, but acctually it doesnt. It answers all the questions put to it as best it can. Obviously like any faith, it cannot answer everything because we are not God.

I have quite heavily poked at Christianity, and received the old, we have faith and that doesn't need reason argument. And that wouldn't work in any other discussion ever. Next time you argue for or against a political candidate, say I have faith that he is the best candidate, and that is all I need, and see how many people you convince.

And you did not answer my question. Is it not more difficult (requiring a greater strength of charachter) to defend something you cannot have a complete understanding of than it is to defend something completely logical and reasonable?

If you consider foolhardy stubbornness a character strength it is.

Reason is the process of learning all of the factors one can and finding the most probable solution.


Here's a piece of what I call "Christian logic". While you cant prove any of what it says true barr the Bible, it does make sense.

1. Man is created and sins

2. The sin disrupts the relationship between man and God

3. The sin creates a cycle since sin = death. Thus something is needed to break the cycle

4. Jesus acomplishes this. He does not sin but dies. Ergo the cycle is broken and it is possible to have the same relationship with God as was before.

Christian logic. Wages of sin = death. The sin-death cycle. Something was needed to break that and Jesus provided that. Jesus had no sin but died. So even if you dont believe in Jesus or in who he was or what he did, you can see the logic.

I have quite heavily poked at Christianity, and received the old, we have faith and that doesn't need reason argument. .

Fine, ask me a question. I wont be able to answer today as I am going to bed but I will answer tommorow.

You completely missed my point. In 10th century Scandinavia they would have done the following "learning of factors"

"People are living on an Island that is not ours"

Therefore their solution was

"We must kill them all now"

Hence Viking raids. Basicly. Reason fluctuates. Please accpet that.

I would surmise that their solution was not very reasonable, and I have no respect for their actions either.

Does the bible fluctuate, are they adding amendments to it?

If not, your argument doesn't quite help your side either.

Mandatory atheism? No thanks.

(I am an atheist, BTW)


I agree. Religious freedom is something that everyone should have.

I am not promoting mandatory atheism.

Freedom of religion, and respect of religion are different things. Neo Nazis are free to believe whatever they want, we are not obligated to respect them.

I would surmise that their solution was not very reasonable, and I have no respect for their actions either.


Your missing the point. Had you lived with them, and at their time you WOULD have thought it reasonable. Please try and understand that "reason" is reletive to the society you are living in and what time you are living in.


Does the bible fluctuate, are they adding amendments to it?

If not, your argument doesn't quite help your side either.

My arguemnt is that while "reason" changes throught time, the Bible is constant. Which should you be listening to more?

Here's a piece of what I call "Christian logic". While you cant prove any of what it says true barr the Bible, it does make sense.

1. Man is created and sins

2. The sin disrupts the relationship between man and God

3. The sin creates a cycle since sin = death. Thus something is needed to break the cycle

4. Jesus acomplishes this. He does not sin but dies. Ergo the cycle is broken and it is possible to have the same relationship with God as was before.

Christian logic. Wages of sin = death. The sin-death cycle. Something was needed to break that and Jesus provided that. Jesus had no sin but died. So even if you dont believe in Jesus or in who he was or what he did, you can see the logic.

You are basing this logic on illogical assumptions

My arguemnt is that while "reason" changes throught time, the Bible is constant. Which should you be listening to more?

Ah. Constancy. An over-rated quality. My assertion that grass is red would be wrong even if written down and passed on forever.

Here's a piece of what I call "Christian logic". While you cant prove any of what it says true barr the Bible, it does make sense.

1. Man is created and sins

2. The sin disrupts the relationship between man and God

3. The sin creates a cycle since sin = death. Thus something is needed to break the cycle

4. Jesus acomplishes this. He does not sin but dies. Ergo the cycle is broken and it is possible to have the same relationship with God as was before.

Christian logic. Wages of sin = death. The sin-death cycle. Something was needed to break that and Jesus provided that. Jesus had no sin but died. So even if you dont believe in Jesus or in who he was or what he did, you can see the logic.

There is absolutely no reason to that. The process makes reasonable sense, but for the process to happen, you must assume that the Christian God exists, that man was created by God, that God cares about the plight of man, and that Jesus was the son of God sent to save mankind. Those are some very, very large assumptions.

Now if you can reasonably show that you have formulated a view on your own as to those four assumptions are more viable to alternative possibilities I will respect your beliefs.

You are basing this logic on illogical assumptions

We base logic on illogical assumptions, too, ironically enough. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. NC's logic is still flawed.

You completely missed my point. In 10th century Scandinavia they would have done the following "learning of factors"

"People are living on an Island that is not ours"

Therefore their solution was

"We must kill them all now"

Hence Viking raids. Basicly. Reason fluctuates. Please accpet that.

Actually, they went out primarily to steal stuff. Killing everybody would have been counterproductive, as they'd eventually run out of people to raid.

Your missing the point. Had you lived with them, and at their time you WOULD have thought it reasonable. Please try and understand that "reason" is reletive to the society you are living in and what time you are living in.



My arguemnt is that while "reason" changes throught time, the Bible is constant. Which should you be listening to more?

Reason does not fluctuate, knowledge does.

The fact that the bible does not fluctuate to incorporate reason is the main reason I can't respect it.

Since most stories talk of events that have not happened (Since they describe worlds that the authors know are untrue) then it is proveable.For the sake of brevety, let's assume this statement is true. Then you must assume every supernatural explanation of an event that happened in a place that exists must be just as likely to be true as your supernatural explanation.



There is no evidence whatsoever that there is no supernautral. Both Atheisim and Christianity require a level of faith. Since you are not certian.No. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. If you have evidence, faith is no longer necessary. Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is a far cry from faith. I have no problem telling a kid (when they ask) that there isn't a Santa Claus even though I can't prove it. I can't prove I was here five minutes ago. There could have been some god that just put me here and made it seem that way.

Reason does not fluctuate, knowledge does.

The fact that the bible does not fluctuate to incorporate reason is the main reason I can't respect it.

Heh. You don't respect a book primarily because it can't fluctuate to incorporate reason. That is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read on this forum. :D

Reason does not fluctuate, knowledge does.

The fact that the bible does not fluctuate to incorporate reason is the main reason I can't respect it.

What is considered reasonable fluxuates quite readily.

Heh. You don't respect a book primarily because it can't fluctuate to incorporate reason. That is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read on this forum. :D

You know what I mean.

Christians treat the bible as a constitution of sorts, but they don't treat it as a living document.

Let me add that the Bible is not a book in the traditional sense, it was written over a long period of time with many different people making contributions.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there is no supernautral.

Just because you don't accept the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there.

What is considered reasonable fluxuates quite readily.

The process of reason does not change, only the factors that influence reason.

You know what I mean.

Yes. But what you said was quite different from what you meant, and very funny to boot!

Christians treat the bible as a constitution of sorts, but they don't treat it as a living document.

Some Christians do treat the bible as a living document. I'm one of them.

Let me add that the Bible is not a book in the traditional sense, it was written over a long period of time with many different people making contributions.

I know. I'm quite familiar with the nature of the Bible. I just thought your statement was amusing as worded. I suppose it annoys you when people treat figurative statements as literal statements. ;)

I suppose it annoys you when people treat figurative statements as literal statements. ;)

No, just you, jerk. ;)

No, just you, jerk. ;)

I thought you only hated Andaluciae? ;)

The process of reason does not change, only the factors that influence reason.

Expecting humans to be logical is a seriously flawed concept. At best, we can simulate it for short periods of time. But not very well.

I thought you only hated Andaluciae? ;)

Well now you are off the Christmas card list as well.

I will have to say that for a theological debate, we have managed to conduct it quite well. We even managed to chase off Defensor Fedei, or whatever his name is. Bravo.

Expecting humans to be logical is a seriously flawed concept. At best, we can simulate it for short periods of time. But not very well.

I can't disagree with you.

Just because you don't accept the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there.

Indeed, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Well now you are off the Christmas card list as well.

Damn. I guess I'll just have to miss out. :(

I will have to say that for a theological debate, we have managed to conduct it quite well. We even managed to chase off Defensor Fedei, or whatever his name is. Bravo.

I'm actually a bit surprised at that. One would think that with all the talk about the bible (that judaic book) he would have been posting constantly.

Damn. I guess I'll just have to miss out. :(

And I include pictures, too. Take that. :p


I'm actually a bit surprised at that. One would think that with all the talk about the bible (that judaic book) he would have been posting constantly.

Hopefully he died. :blank stare so you can't tell if I'm joking:

My particular faith is in the thought that if "GOD" made us in his image thus we are divine. I choose to explore my own divinity, to better understand and come to terms with my creator. Understanding what is around us and within us is much more important to my faith than in praying and hoping for a better deal in the afterlife. what you have is what you get. other than that we have no assurances about anything in this world because to one persons perspective nothing can be proven, and to anothers if it happened once it will happen again. Logic and reason only go as far as you are willing to take them, this also applies to faith. imho. my 2 cents.

Once again, this was in PLAYBOY?! wtf? :confused:

Once again, this was in PLAYBOY?! wtf? :confused:

Yes, the articles in Playboy are usually very politically motivated. Also very liberal.

It also includes an article by Gore Vidal on the reputations of Jefferson and Hamilton.

Yes, the articles in Playboy are usually very politically motivated. Also very liberal.

It also includes an article by Gore Vidal on the reputations of Jefferson and Hamilton.


oi..it's a weird world when porno starts getting political...

oi..it's a weird world when porno starts getting political...

It's not porn, it's a gentleman's magazine. :p

oi..it's a weird world when porno starts getting political...
you should pick up the recent Hustler...

It's not porn, it's a gentleman's magazine. :p


oo I love sarcasm. ^_^

Its far eaiser to stand up and defend something with reason and logic behind it because you know it to be true. Its far harder to do the same about something which you can never be ceritain of. Would you not agree.

No. If one uses logic and reason one must be open to other points of view, and constantly re-evaluate the situation as new information is presented. That being said, there are many who claim to argue from 'logic' when they stopped using logic long ago and as such their position is now one of blind insistance rather than on reached using true reason and logic. But using true reason and logic is harder because it requires such evalution.

To stand up for something in which you can't be certain is (in positive terms) to have faith. When it is a faith matter it is easy to stand up for because of you *know* you can't be certain, therefore you don't have to even *admit* the possibility that you could be wrong, as someone who truly uses logic and reasoning must *always* do.

Now it is harder to verbally argue or prove things from a point of faith because it is just that - faith- and *proof* requires logic and reason.

My arguemnt is that while "reason" changes throught time, the Bible is constant. Which should you be listening to more?

The Hindu Vedas are older *and* constant. Why aren't you listening to those? Hmmmm?

(not saying that you should, but Christianity isn't the only constant. There are a lot of religion books that claim to be constant, even though the behaviour of the followers of those books seems to change a lot over the course of history. saying the bible is constant gives it no more validity than any of the other religions, many but not all of which declare the other constant books to be wrong.)

The Hindu Vedas are older *and* constant. Why aren't you listening to those? Hmmmm?

(not saying that you should, but Christianity isn't the only constant. There are a lot of religion books that claim to be constant, even though the behaviour of the followers of those books seems to change a lot over the course of history. saying the bible is constant gives it no more validity than any of the other religions, many but not all of which declare the other constant books to be wrong.)

I didnt claim it got more validty than other religions, just that it had more validity than "Reason"

I didnt claim it got more validty than other religions, just that it had more validity than "Reason"


I dont understand how something like faith, beleiving in something you have no evidence of, can be more valid than reason and science.

This is an extension of the Anti-Christianism threads going around.

I just got the new Playboy and it has a short article entitled "Who Needs Religious Moderation," and it is basically an article that says that we shouldn't respect a person's religious views. If I can find the whole article I will post it, as it is, here is an excerpt:

"Nothing is more sacred than facts. Where we have reason, we don't need faith. Where we have no reason, we have lost both our connection to this world and to one another. People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in the halls of power. We should respect a person's desire for a better life in this world, not his certainty that one awaits him in the next."

I figured this should stir some debate.

Edit: In a twist of logic that I can't begin to understand it is followed up by an interview with Toby Keith.
i love Playboy :). what a great article that was!

i love Playboy :). what a great article that was!

My favorite part is how he quotes playboy for a discussion on religion

LOL

that is freaking hilarious.

Vittos, the point you are still missing is that you can respect one's religious views without agreeing with them. By not trashing their religion, and accepting that they believe what they belive is respecting their right to their own belief. You don't have to agree with them to do that.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that 99%-100% of all religious views are wrong. Anyone who thinks that you can form a clear, literal view of what God wants or even is from the bible is wrong.

How about this... I am going to go out on a limb here and say that 75% of religious view are correct. It is not up to me to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong. I agree with the second sentence. No one can form that literal view, so why does that have to be a negative to everyone? Can God not be different things to different people? Or is that too much for the Almighty?

Whoa Vittos, I've never seen you piss so many people off! What happened to the mellow Vittos?
But Christians, really, stop moaning.
You've pissed off half the country in the last election. You got what you wanted.
Now live with the backlash. It's not going away anytime soon, be sure.

I dont understand how something like faith, beleiving in something you have no evidence of, can be more valid than reason and science.

Because "reason" and "science" are ever fluctuating. Where as religon stays the same throught.

Ah. Constancy. An over-rated quality. My assertion that grass is red would be wrong even if written down and passed on forever.


That's flip-flopping! You can't send mixed messages!

Originally Posted by Tokataur
I dont understand how something like faith, beleiving in something you have no evidence of, can be more valid than reason and science.Because "reason" and "science" are ever fluctuating. Where as religon stays the same throught.What's that saying about consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds? And by the way, that's a huge fallacy. Christianity has undergone huge changes since its inception 2000 years ago. Read the works of the early church fathers and compare them to modern theology (a word invented by Peter Abelard in the 1100s, by the way) and you'll see huge differences.

What's that saying about consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds? And by the way, that's a huge fallacy. Christianity has undergone huge changes since its inception 2000 years ago. Read the works of the early church fathers and compare them to modern theology (a word invented by Peter Abelard in the 1100s, by the way) and you'll see huge differences.

The basic message of the Bible runs core throught.

Adam and Eve created by God

They sined

God later sends his son to die to remove sin from man

His son teaches them how to live the life that God wanted

There may be changes in the various ways that parts have been interpreted but the core message runs throught.

The basic message of the Bible runs core throught.

Adam and Eve created by God

They sined

God later sends his son to die to remove sin from man

His son teaches them how to live the life that God wanted

There may be changes in the various ways that parts have been interpreted but the core message runs throught.
So the idea that the core message of a religion--a core message that is repeated in most, if not all of the creation myths in all cultures--remains unchanged gives it validity? Again, I disagree. Consistency isn't enough.

Vittos, the point you are still missing is that you can respect one's religious views without agreeing with them. By not trashing their religion, and accepting that they believe what they belive is respecting their right to their own belief. You don't have to agree with them to do that.

I am not missing that point. The point is, I don't have to respect them to tolerate them either.

You can believe whatever you want, but when you ask for me to respect your views, maybe you should come up with a little more evidence and or reason behind your views.

So the idea that the core message of a religion--a core message that is repeated in most, if not all of the creation myths in all cultures--remains unchanged gives it validity? Again, I disagree. Consistency isn't enough.

I didnt say it gave it validity, just that it made more sense than "society" which will be unrecognisable in 10 years time from what it is now. I didnt say consistancy made religion "true" I just said it made it a better source for a lifestyle and moral code than does society.

How about this... I am going to go out on a limb here and say that 75% of religious view are correct. It is not up to me to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong. I agree with the second sentence. No one can form that literal view, so why does that have to be a negative to everyone? Can God not be different things to different people? Or is that too much for the Almighty?

The "Almighty" can be everything, nothing, whatever he wants to be. The only thing I know for certain is that if he does exist, he exists entirely beyond any human comprehension. If you want me to say, "You know what, you are probably right," you had better to come to me with more than a book and a spirit. Otherwise, like everybody else, you are most likely wrong.

Whoa Vittos, I've never seen you piss so many people off! What happened to the mellow Vittos?
But Christians, really, stop moaning.
You've pissed off half the country in the last election. You got what you wanted.
Now live with the backlash. It's not going away anytime soon, be sure.

I am stirring up shit, but hopefully I am not pissing anyone off.

For some reason, I have got a wild agnostic thing going as of late. That article kind of just set me off.

The "Almighty" can be everything, nothing, whatever he wants to be. The only thing I know for certain is that if he does exist, he exists entirely beyond any human comprehension. If you want me to say, "You know what, you are probably right," you had better to come to me with more than a book and a spirit. Otherwise, like everybody else, you are most likely wrong.

The Bible provides the best picture for what God is like. A father to the human race. I fail to see why you cant understand that.

- A father will teach his children (The Bible, Jesus)
- A father will provide for his children (mana etc)
- A father will let his children go whatever path they chose (free will)

There are many other descriptions I could go into.

I didnt say it gave it validity, just that it made more sense than "society" which will be unrecognisable in 10 years time from what it is now.

Do you seriously think society will unravel in 10 years? Why?

I didnt say consistancy made religion "true" I just said it made it a better source for a lifestyle and moral code than does society.

How can strict adherence to 1000-5000 year old advice be more true than reason?

You've pissed off half the country in the last election. You got what you wanted.
Now live with the backlash. It's not going away anytime soon, be sure.

1) Do not assume that everyone on NS is American. "The country" could be anywhere. I myself am British.

2) Do not assume that every Christian voted for Bush because you dont know.

So the entire Christian church is wrong? I highly doubt they are wrong about everything.


Really? Name one thing that they are right about.

The Bible provides the best picture for what God is like. A father to the human race. I fail to see why you cant understand that.

- A father will teach his children (The Bible, Jesus)
- A father will provide for his children (mana etc)
- A father will let his children go whatever path they chose (free will)

There are many other descriptions I could go into.

I fail to see why you don't understand that the bible was written by men concerning an incomprehensible being, and thus cannot possibly be correct, at best it can only be taken as a series of myths that are open for interpretation.

Also

- The father has done an awful poor job of providing for his children.
- The free will conundrum is the single most blaring contradiction in the bible.

Do you seriously think society will unravel in 10 years? Why?


I dont think it will "Unravel", just that it will be very diffrent to now.


How can strict adherence to 1000-5000 year old advice be more true than reason?

Because if you look at the Bible you will see how accurate it is today. "Reason" will change in 10 years or so and so trusting it could mean self contridiction.

- The father has done an awful poor job of providing for his children.


God never said he give everyone everything they needed all the time


- The free will conundrum is the single most blaring contradiction in the bible.

Rearly, kindly explain yourself further.

Really? Name one thing that they are right about.

A man called Jesus existed 2000 years ago in Israel and died on a cross.

A man called Jesus existed 2000 years ago in Israel and died on a cross.

So did a bunch of other people. Your point?

So did a bunch of other people. Your point?

Just that it was one thing that they got right. And also consider this, the Gospels were all written within the lifespans of those who saw Jesus and knew what he did. So when they saw it they didnt go "oh thats rubbish" and ignore it. They knew it was true.

I dont think it will "Unravel", just that it will be very diffrent to now.

Because if you look at the Bible you will see how accurate it is today. "Reason" will change in 10 years or so and so trusting it could mean self contridiction.

What is so accurate about it? The ancient mythology that has never been proven? I don't know how you can say that it is accurate.

God never said he give everyone everything they needed all the time


Making sure people have what they need is generally what I consider providing for.

Rearly, kindly explain yourself further.

It is impossible for anything to possess omnipotence and omniscience and for anything else to have any power whatsoever, and that negates free will.

The Bible provides the best picture for what God is like. A father to the human race. I fail to see why you cant understand that.

I can understand it fine, the problem is not one of understanding. The problem is that my experience has not shown God to be particularly father-like. Anyway, I don't think that the problem is God, belief, or faith, I think that the problem is religion. All religions are essentially the same, there is no doctrinal reason why more people are Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim than, say, Seikh; it is all history and economics. Christian dogma makes about as much sense as Greek mythology; I've played RPG's with systems of belief as viable as Catholicism. In this day and age there are only three ways to follow a religion: a) become a fundamentalist in reaction to the encroachment of the bourgeoisie on all traditional values, b) become nominally religious but basically live your life as if you only believe in money, or c) rationalize your religion in the face of science and your hippie social conscince to the point that you don't believe in anything anymore (i.e. unitarian universalists, "agnostics", wiccans).

There are many other descriptions I could go into.

Well, don't hold yourself back. I'm sure that we would all benefit greatly from your further "descriptions".

Just that it was one thing that they got right. And also consider this, the Gospels were all written within the lifespans of those who saw Jesus and knew what he did. So when they saw it they didnt go "oh thats rubbish" and ignore it. They knew it was true.

That is debateable, as there is evidence that they were written in the very late 1st century or early 2nd century.

And to the person who complained that I was trolling with this thread, you are an ass, thank you very little.

How's that for trolling.

That is debateable, as there is evidence that they were written in the very late 1st century or early 2nd century.

Errm, Marks gospel (the earliest) was written in (even most conservative estamtes) 50-60 AD.

Just that it was one thing that they got right. And also consider this, the Gospels were all written within the lifespans of those who saw Jesus and knew what he did. So when they saw it they didnt go "oh thats rubbish" and ignore it. They knew it was true.

Mind you that people in that particular time period drank heavily on a regular basis, and knew nothing of lead poisoning. Hallucinations were NOT uncommon. Just an odd thought.

I can understand it fine, the problem is not one of understanding. The problem is that my experience has not shown God to be particularly father-like. Anyway, I don't think that the problem is God, belief, or faith, I think that the problem is religion. All religions are essentially the same, there is no doctrinal reason why more people are Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim than, say, Seikh; it is all history and economics. Christian dogma makes about as much sense as Greek mythology; I've played RPG's with systems of belief as viable as Catholicism. In this day and age there are only three ways to follow a religion: a) become a fundamentalist in reaction to the encroachment of the bourgeoisie on all traditional values, b) become nominally religious but basically live your life as if you only believe in money, or c) rationalize your religion in the face of science and your hippie social conscince to the point that you don't believe in anything anymore (i.e. unitarian universalists, "agnostics", wiccans).



Well, don't hold yourself back. I'm sure that we would all benefit greatly from your further "descriptions".


Contrary to popular belief, Wiccans do believe in something.

Just that it was one thing that they got right. And also consider this, the Gospels were all written within the lifespans of those who saw Jesus and knew what he did. So when they saw it they didnt go "oh thats rubbish" and ignore it. They knew it was true.

Who knew what was true? When the fathers of the church were putting the new testament together they were very selective, putting in only those gospels that agreed with their personal beliefs, leaving out everything they didn't like. And what they did put in is extremely contradictory.

The only reason Christianity seems so relevant is because our society was created by Christians. We have a new religion now, it's called consumerism. Christianity doesn't stand a chance; the market has already been penetrated, it is currently being co-opted and soon it will completely dissapear

Mind you that people in that particular time period drank heavily on a regular basis, and knew nothing of lead poisoning. Hallucinations were NOT uncommon. Just an odd thought.

Everyone is not going to halucinate the same thing at the same time are they

Contrary to popular belief, Wiccans do believe in something.

Sure, why not? If that's what you think. The UU's and the agnostics would say the same.

Referring back to the original post, I think I can understand what they're getting at in the magazine. They're not really arguing that people don't have a right to hold their own religious beliefs.

It's that those beliefs shouldn't have a direct effect on your life. This is an interesting concept because it questions about the nature of censorship in modern society. For example, I live in Great Britain and as some of you may or may not know, the history of censorship in the media here (especially with regard to sex and nudity) has been extremely strict.

Now if the definition of morality/ethics used to rate those films has a religious basis, should those beliefs be respected in forming standards of censorship for adults?

I say adults as it is obvious that there will always have to exist standards of censorship to shield children from adult content.

Moving back to the idea of a religious morality used as a marker for censorship I'll give you a hypothetical situation (I state hypothetical as I personally have little idea as to how this issue was tackled by censors, but it should help to illustrate what I'm talking about).

Say sometime in the past, the 60's or 70's a film was made that introduced the idea of gay pornography to the world. Christians around the world may well strongly protest about such a film, not only does it have explicit scenes of sex (bad enough), but now scenes of same sex have been introduced. "Disgusting" some might say, "Immoral" others and so an institution such as the BBfC refuses to give the film a certificate based on the objections that this film "promotes" homosexuality from a religious right viewpoint.

Now I know this is a loaded scenario, its got sex in it in the first place, and I'm trying to get my head round the issue myself, thats why I'm talking about it:P

Sooooo what do you all think? Opposition from people to levels of sex violence and pretty much everything in the media has always been quite strongly opposed by people with strong religious background. Now with the introduction of technology such as the internet and pay per view should such people or any people have any say over what is acceptable for you to watch in the privacy of your own home?

Sure, why not? If that's what you think. The UU's and the agnostics would say the same.

I'm almost insulted by that, because I AM Wiccan. I believe in a higher power, but I don't believe in assigning a gender to it. To me, that just humanizes the immaterial, kind of corrupting it.

Referring back to the original post, I think I can understand what they're getting at in the magazine. They're not really arguing that people don't have a right to hold their own religious beliefs.

It's that those beliefs shouldn't have a direct effect on your life. This is an interesting concept because it questions about the nature of censorship in modern society. For example, I live in Great Britain and as some of you may or may not know, the history of censorship in the media here (especially with regard to sex and nudity) has been extremely strict.

Now if the definition of morality/ethics used to rate those films has a religious basis, should those beliefs be respected in forming standards of censorship for adults?

I say adults as it is obvious that there will always have to exist standards of censorship to shield children from adult content.

Moving back to the idea of a religious morality used as a marker for censorship I'll give you a hypothetical situation (I state hypothetical as I personally have little idea as to how this issue was tackled by censors, but it should help to illustrate what I'm talking about).

Say sometime in the past, the 60's or 70's a film was made that introduced the idea of gay pornography to the world. Christians around the world may well strongly protest about such a film, not only does it have explicit scenes of sex (bad enough), but now scenes of same sex have been introduced. "Disgusting" some might say, "Immoral" others and so an institution such as the BBfC refuses to give the film a certificate based on the objections that this film "promotes" homosexuality from a religious right viewpoint.

Now I know this is a loaded scenario, its got sex in it in the first place, and I'm trying to get my head round the issue myself, thats why I'm talking about it:P

Sooooo what do you all think? Opposition from people to levels of sex violence and pretty much everything in the media has always been quite strongly opposed by people with strong religious background. Now with the introduction of technology such as the internet and pay per view should such people or any people have any say over what is acceptable for you to watch in the privacy of your own home?

Kind of a rambling post, but I think I understand what you are getting at.

My answer is no, unless you can come up with empirical evidence that some action can be harmful to people there is no reason to ban it. Religious values cannot be respected as viable reasons to censor anything.

It is impossible for anything to possess omnipotence and omniscience and for anything else to have any power whatsoever, and that negates free will.

Rearly? Why's that? (I think I know what you are getting at but I would like to hear it in your own words)

Rearly? Why's that? (I think I know what you are getting at but I would like to hear it in your own words)

First, for God to be omniscient he must know the future, which means the future must be set, thus your life would be predetermined, and therefore you would have no free will.

Secondly, for God to be omnipotent he would have full power over the individual, and that would lead for the actions of the individual to be an extension of the will of God.

I am sure that you just asked me so you could use the mind-shattering reason buster that you have used a million times in this argument, but since I have also heard this before, I will wade into it.