NationStates Jolt Archive

No, I maintain that every US president has been Christian, as has every Veep. I maintain that every US Congress, and every Supreme Court, has been overwhelmingly dominated by Christians. I maintain that every major media outlet is dominated by Christians, both at the level of management and at the level of production. I maintain that US industry is overwhelmingly dominated by Christians. I maintain that the overwhelming majority of US retail establishments are owned and opperated by Christians.

[And I humbly maintain that if Christians still feel like they aren't controlling enough of the national discourse at this point, then they're probably never going to be satisfied anyhow.]

This does not mean that we have a theocracy, since our system of law is (at least nominally) still secular. What it means is that our (nominally secular) government is overwhelmingly dominated by Christians. That's one of the cool things about the US system of government; you can have leaders who belong to a particular religion, but the government itself does not automatically become a theocracy.
I think that was the biggest pwnage in the 2004 debates. Bush said something to the effect that he opposes abortion and would reverse Roe v. Wade if given the oppurtunity. John Kerry says, "I'm Catholic, I abhor abortion. But I'm not being voted into office so that I can sign my religious beliefs into law." Owned.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid9.htm

The opening paragraph contains blatant misinformation, claiming that only a flood could possibly cause fossilization.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

For something that is supposed to be "science", there seems to be a plethora of opinion pieces and very, very little peer-reviewed science.

http://www.icr.org/article/1066/

This article seems to have a problem with abiogenesis, not with evolution.


Someone slaps your right cheek with their left hand (the second-most ultimate insult, do you know what the left hand was used for?). You turn the other cheek to him, so that he may BACKHAND you with his left hand (the ultimate insult). What Jesus was saying is that you respond to violence with humility and non-violence. That's what I was taught in bible study.

You were taught wrong - although you are right about non-violence.

Think about who Jesus was primarily talking to - the downtrodden. The only way to hit someone who was "below" you in station was to backhand them. Slapping them with a forward motion or punching them, in Jesus' society, was to make a statement that they were equal to you - and could thus fight back. Slaves, women, lower class citizens were backhanded by those above them - and retaliation would most likely lead to death. Meanwhile, use of the left hand for just about anything was strictly forbidden by the society. Touching another with it at all would be looked down upon, if not actually punished.

As such, one would be hit on the right cheek with the right hand - as a hit would most likley be a backhand. Turning your left cheek to the assailant would force their hand. They cannot hit you with their left hand. This leaves them to either leave off hitting you altogether, or to slap you with the right hand - making a statement that you are equal to them.

Follow the passage further. The next statement Christ makes is that if someone takes you to court for your outer garment (common if you could not repay your debts), you should give them your inner garment as well. Of course, to understand this, we must understand that the society at the time did not consider nudity to be shameful for the person who was nude. Instead, those who saw the nude person were to be shamed. Thus, by removing your inner garment in court, you would be shaming the person who had taken all that you own, the court who had allowed it, etc.....

The third is that, should a soldier have you carry his pack a mile, you should carry it two instead. Again, we must understand the society of the time. A Roman soldier could have someone in the land carry their pack for exactly one mile, and no further. A person who continued to carry it past that single mile would place the soldier in a position to be punished - probably making him think twice before forcing another to carry it again.


The message in this entire passage is one of passive resistance. Stand up to those who oppress you, but do so non-violently. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi (although I doubt Ghandi got it from NT passages) were the epitomy of following this instruction.

I think that was the biggest pwnage in the 2004 debates. Bush said something to the effect that he opposes abortion and would reverse Roe v. Wade if given the oppurtunity. John Kerry says, "I'm Catholic, I abhor abortion. But I'm not being voted into office so that I can sign my religious beliefs into law." Owned.

Unfortunately, many voters seem to think that, "I won't force my beliefs on others," means, "I'm a flip-flopper who doesn't really believe anything."

Unfortunately, many voters seem to think that, "I won't force my beliefs on others," means, "I'm a flip-flopper who doesn't really believe anything."


No, thats becuase hats exactly what Bush and Karl Rove accused him of being, and instead of defending himself, Kerry ignored it, and came off as weak-seeming to the american people....and it cost him the election.

Unfortunately, many voters seem to think that, "I won't force my beliefs on others," means, "I'm a flip-flopper who doesn't really believe anything."
Yeah, I'm a left-leaning Libertarian, so of course I salivated like Pavlov's dog at a candidate suggesting that individual rights were more important than societal morals, but such things are not meant to be. *Sigh* There's always 2008…

Yeah, I'm a left-leaning Libertarian, so of course I salivated like Pavlov's dog at a candidate suggesting that individual rights were more important than societal morals, but such things are not meant to be. *Sigh* There's always 2008…

My fiance as an atheist, and that was the one statement throughout the campaign that made him consider registering to vote.

That is microevolution, whihc I already acknowledged. It wasn't change from one species to another entirely different species.
The theory of evolution does not predict that one species will change into another totally different species all at once. If we saw one species suddenly become another species, evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble.

Evolutionary theory doesn't make any real distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." They're the same thing, it's just that "microevolution" describes the process as observed during a certain time frame. "Macroevolution" is the exact same thing as "microevolution," it simply refers to the process as observed over a much longer time frame.

Thus, if you agree that microevolution occurs, you're going to have a very hard time arguing that macroevolution doesn't occur. Unless you want to claim that the process of evolution only persists for a certain range of time, and then magically shuts down all by itself.

Unfortunately, many voters seem to think that, "I won't force my beliefs on others," means, "I'm a flip-flopper who doesn't really believe anything."
I don't think that's it. I think many voters WANT a candidate who will force his values onto others, as long as that candidate shares their values. They didn't want Kerry because Kerry wouldn't advance their agenda at the expense of the Constitution.

Not that I was ever a Kerry fan, mind you, I just think that most people who opposed him did so for totally the wrong reasons.

I don't think that's it. I think many voters WANT a candidate who will force his values onto others, as long as that candidate shares their values. They didn't want Kerry because Kerry wouldn't advance their agenda at the expense of the Constitution.

Not that I was ever a Kerry fan, mind you, I just think that most people who opposed him did so for totally the wrong reasons.

I wasn't a big Kerry fan either. He just seemed better than the alternative....

=(

Evolutionary theory has never claimed that one species would change to another "entirely different species." The theory is that, over time, lots of small changes add up to a large enough difference to cause speciation. There is no huge jump involved.
It's really odd to me how many Creationists say that they oppose evolution because they don't believe one species will suddenly "turn into" another, or because they know that "a dog will never turn into a cat," or things of that nature. The events are not remotely what evolutionary theory predicts, and if they occured we would potentially have to scrap much of evolutionary theory as we know it.

In other words, it sounds to me like a lot of Creationists agree with the predictions of evolutionary theory, yet they believe that their agreement itself is grounds for NOT believing evolutionary theory.

Odd.

I wasn't a big Kerry fan either. He just seemed better than the alternative....

=(
That's what really sucked about that election: all these people opposed Kerry for the wrong reasons, and I wanted to explain to them why they were off base, but I could never manage to work up the enthusiasm because I didn't particularly support him anyhow.

Man, that was a crappy election.

I say the Dems should run on a "Kill All Humans" platform for the next election. They're already going to be accused of being baby-killers who want all Americans to be wiped out by the Islamunists due to their hatred of freedom, so why not just cut to the chase? At least it will make for some entertaining interviews.

"So, Candidate-(D), how do YOU plan to balance the budget?"
"Well Tom, I plan to kill all humans. Without any humans around to bitch about the numbers, I can unilaterally declare the budget balanced."
"Hmm, I see. So you're saying you consider accountants to be human, then?"

It's really odd to me how many Creationists say that they oppose evolution because they don't believe one species will suddenly "turn into" another, or because they know that "a dog will never turn into a cat," or things of that nature. The events are not remotely what evolutionary theory predicts, and if they occured we would potentially have to scrap much of evolutionary theory as we know it.

In other words, it sounds to me like a lot of Creationists agree with the predictions of evolutionary theory, yet they believe that their agreement itself is grounds for NOT believing evolutionary theory.

Odd.

I think it is more that your average person (Creationist or not) has some very real misconceptions as to what exactly evolutionary theory predicts. I've seen people trying to support evolutionary theory that quite obviously don't have any better understanding of it than your average Creationist. Creationists like Kent Hovind play off of the misconceptions and lack of knowledge of the average person, so that what they say really does sound convincing (even nearly took me in, when I was younger and hadn't had much by way of science education). I see the same thing in all manner of things concerned with science, from global warming to stem cell research (especially stem cell research).

But when it boils right down to it, I haven't seen much at all of an argument against evolutionary theory that didn't boil down to, "I have this misunderstanding about the theory that doesn't fit with this other theory...." You would think that people would give scientists a little more credit in their own field. Look people, if evolutionary theory actually contradicted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, one or the other (most likely evolution) would have been thrown out by now. If evolutionary theory really were talking about cats turning into dogs, scientists would find it ridiculous too! And so on....

I think it is more that your average person (Creationist or not) has some very real misconceptions as to what exactly evolutionary theory predicts. I've seen people trying to support evolutionary theory that quite obviously don't have any better understanding of it than your average Creationist.

Yeah, that bugs the crap out of me.

Science isn't about writing down the right answer. It's about the PROCESS.

It's like how Pat Robertson recently decided he believes in global warming...because we're having a heat wave. No, no, NO! By itself, this hot summer is not evidence of anything. If you decide you believe in global warming simply because we're seeing record heat, then the next time we have record cold temperatures you're going to start blathering about a new Ice Age on its way.


Creationists like Kent Hovind play off of the misconceptions and lack of knowledge of the average person, so that what they say really does sound convincing (even nearly took me in, when I was younger and hadn't had much by way of science education). I see the same thing in all manner of things concerned with science, from global warming to stem cell research (especially stem cell research).

But when it boils right down to it, I haven't seen much at all of an argument against evolutionary theory that didn't boil down to, "I have this misunderstanding about the theory that doesn't fit with this other theory...." You would think that people would give scientists a little more credit in their own field. Look people, if evolutionary theory actually contradicted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, one or the other (most likely evolution) would have been thrown out by now. If evolutionary theory really were talking about cats turning into dogs, scientists would find it ridiculous too! And so on....
Indeed!

Some of my favourite people are christian. The beliefs by themselves are pretty harmless, but a significant number of the people who follow (and distribute) them are bad.

Whats wrong with Christianity?

Using superstition to guide your life.

Using superstition to guide your life.

What does that have to do with Christianity?

Looking over various definitions of Christianity, I find:

A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/superstition


And thus far, I fail to see how Christianity really meets any of these things.

What does that have to do with Christianity?

Looking over various definitions of Christianity, I find:

A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition
Like believing that praying will do something.


1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/superstition
Which is the entire back-philosophy of xerdom. Fear of the unknown (death), trust in magic (god), false conception of causation (goddidit).

Like believing that praying will do something.

Of course it does, just as talking to my mother about a problem does something, just as meditating on an issue will do something.

Which is the entire back-philosophy of xerdom. Fear of the unknown (death), trust in magic (god), false conception of causation (goddidit).

Fear of the unknown has nothing whatsoever to do with my religion. I don't equate God with magic, nor do most people who use the term - which generally relates to human beings harnessing supernatural powers. And you would be hard pressed to prove that God doesn't do things, and thus cannot really claim that any such conception is false.

So, I'll ask again. How does Christianity fall under "superstition"?

Of course it does, just as talking to my mother about a problem does something, just as meditating on an issue will do something.
No, prayer does exactly nothing.


Fear of the unknown has nothing whatsoever to do with my religion.
Mmmmhhmmm, which is why you have no rites about death and such, right? No supplication to god because of it, right?


I don't equate God with magic, nor do most people who use the term
So what? That your god is a magic space pixie cannot be refuted.


And you would be hard pressed to prove that God doesn't do things, and thus cannot really claim that any such conception is false.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof and argument from ignorance AND begging the question.


So, I'll ask again. How does Christianity fall under "superstition"?
I already answered.

No, prayer does exactly nothing.

Don't study much psychology, do you?

Mmmmhhmmm, which is why you have no rites about death and such, right? No supplication to god because of it, right?

I have no real "rites" at all, although I do observe some traditions simply because they serve as reminders.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "supplication to god because of it." Are you claiming that I must pray to God for death, or because of death, or to avoid death? Death is merely a part of life.

So what? That your god is a magic space pixie cannot be refuted.

What exactly is a magic space pixie and what does it have to do with Christianity?

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof and argument from ignorance AND begging the question.

Wrong. I'm not shifting the burden of proof. You claimed that something was false. In order to make that claim, you must demonstrate it to be false. Otherwise, you have no reason to state that it is false. All I have done is ask you to back up your claims.

I already answered.

So you have no actual reasons then. Just a bunch of blathering on and on with your own personal biases, none of which have jack to do with my religion. Gotcha.

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

I don't like it at all, but, I dunno. I got asked why I don't like religion so much and I realised I didn't know the answer to that question, DO YOU?

But I nearly got in a fist fight with the guy who asked me that, and then he told me that nobody loved me, then I asked him whether he thought God loved him. And he said yes.

I was just like, what the hell? Just how can you believe that.

And another guy in my class keeps trying to get me to go to his youth group and its getting scary because now another guy in the form above me is doing the same thing. They pay tythes and everything. It scares me how you can believe this and just how stupid humans all are.

Fist of all, that guy you got in a fist fight with this over, he sounds like an idiot. Am I right in assuming he claims to be a christian? If that's true (and I appologize if it isn't) then he is certainly not acting like what I believe a Christian should.

Also, I wanted to point out that I don't think it's stupid to believe in Christ. I know people who are very intelegent who have questioned God, the Bible, and other such things, and found them to be something that they have complete faith in.

Have you ever heard the saying "God, save me from your followers!"? I think its insane to browbeat people over the head and try to make them believe something. In my oppinion, if someone wants to pay tythes and go to youth group and church, its just as much their buisness as what any other person wants to do with their money and spare time. Everyone should be free to believe whatever they want. They shouldn't try to force it on you or "scare" you with it, just like no one should say no one loves you. If they want to invite someone to youthgroup, all fine and good, but they don't need to try and force you. One, maybe two friendly, no obligation invites, and then let it go.

I am a Christian, and I do believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. I recognize that their are contradictions in the Bible, and sometimes I ask and get answers, and sometimes I just leave it up to God. Part of being Christian is believing that non-Christians are going to hell. But the way most people go about trying to "save" someone often just scares them away from the "crazy christians." I know that Christianity can sound kinda tough, in the sense of 'belive or go to hell' and I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, but if you have any other questions or even rants against Chirstianity, feel free to bug me with them!;)

Nothing's wrong with Christianity. Believe what you want. I just think some religions are flawed/hypocritical.

Back to what is fundamentally wrong with Christianity:

It, like any other religion, provides the coercive power of divine punishment to support the coercive power of temporal punishment. Religion provides a codified rationalization for already existing prejudices of the temporal power in society. If you don't conform to the religious leader's standard of life, he threatents you with divine punishment if he cannot use temporal coercion to change your opinion.

It's a problem that is fundmental to all religions. Christianity is no different, it by luck of the draw has been more sucessful in the past few centuries at protelyzing its prejudices.

Don't study much psychology, do you?
I have; prayer does nothing.


I have no real "rites" at all, although I do observe some traditions simply because they serve as reminders.
Prayer is a rite.


And I'm not sure what you mean by "supplication to god because of it."
Asking god to guide you through it.


Are you claiming that I must pray to God for death, or because of death, or to avoid death? Death is merely a part of life.
Yet you have the notion of belief in jesus so that you can attain everlasting life. Sorta that whole John 3:16 thing, y'know.


What exactly is a magic space pixie and what does it have to do with Christianity?
Magic space pixie = god.



Wrong. I'm not shifting the burden of proof.
Yes you are. You're the one claiming god is doing things. Ergo, you get to prove it.


So you have no actual reasons then.
Other than the ones I've listed and you've responded to. Mayhaps you might want to stop being so defensive about your silly death-cult.

Other than the ones I've listed and you've responded to. Mayhaps you might want to stop being so defensive about your silly death-cult.

Calling Christianity a "silly death cult" is only going to make him more defensive on the subject.

BTW, have you ever heard of "Last Thursdayism?" Its parody belief that the universe was created last Thursday and that all memories from before that time are illusions. This Thursday, the universe is suppossedly destroyed and begins anew, and the cycle repeats.

"Last Thursdayism," like Christianity, is un-falsifiable, meaning that it cannot be proven false by any evidence. People who follow religious beliefs fall back to the unfalsability of their faith whenever they cannot win a battle of reason.

Whats wrong with Christianity?


Waking up early to get drug to a big stone house with a guy hung up on the wall ?:eek:

Christians don't blow themselves up to get to heaven.

Find an inaccuracy in the Bible and I'll listen. Until then....

But they act like maniacs. Talking to imaginary friends, starting wars in the name of said imaginary friend....that sort of thing.
Children at camps start wars?

Waking up early to get drug to a big stone house with a guy hung up on the wall ?:eek:

Good one. We can't forget that at Catholic mass, the devotees "eat" the body of the poor guy nailed to the wall and "drink" his blood as part of the daily ritual.

Calling Christianity a "silly death cult" is only going to make him more defensive on the subject.
I don't see how; it IS a silly death-cult.


BTW, have you ever heard of "Last Thursdayism?"
With Queen Maeuve, yes.

Have you ever heard of the Church of the Subgenius?

Christians don't blow themselves up to get to heaven.

Find an inaccuracy in the Bible and I'll listen. Until then....
You're not going to like this:

Creation order differs from Gen 1 to Gen 2 (Gen 1: animals then man, Gen 2: man then animals). No, Gen 2 is not a retelling of Gen 1. They are separate creation stories (one is Yawhist, the other Elohist).

Bats aren't birds. Hares don't chew cud. Insects do not have 4 legs. Dove's blood does not cure leprosy (all in Leviticus, IIRC).

Jericho was abandoned at the supposed time of the Israelite conquest.

Would you like some more, or do you have more than enough to go rabid-foaming-ballistic with?

I don't see how; it IS a silly death-cult.

But to a believer, it isn't just a silly death cult. Reason and religious faith are incompatible, especially when labels start being flung around.

With Queen Maeuve, yes.

Have you ever heard of the Church of the Subgenius?

No I haven't. What is it about?

Don't study much psychology, do you?
That's exactly why it's superstition. You are given peace of mind because you feel as though your problems, needs, and wants are no longer *just* your own. It gives you comfort to share your thoughts and feelings with your god.

Also, perhaps when you looked up 'superstition' on dictionary.reference.com, you just missed a line in your copy, but there is a third definition supplied:

c. Idolatry.
Looking that up, we find that the definition of idolatry is:
1. Worship of idols.
2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.

In other words...religion. No, no, I'm not jumping to conclusions or anything: Scroll down the page juuuuuuuust a little bit and you see this sweet little morsel:

Idolatry.

idolatry n 1: religious zeal; willingness to serve God [syn: devotion, veneration, cultism]

The mythbustercution rests.


I have no real "rites" at all, although I do observe some traditions simply because they serve as reminders.
...observing traditions isn't ritualistic? Please. I just closed the dictionary.com tab. Please don't make me open it again.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "supplication to god because of it." Are you claiming that I must pray to God for death, or because of death, or to avoid death? Death is merely a part of life.
BAAWAKnights' wording was less than adequate, perhaps, so I will attempt to reconcile the concept poorly rendered:
Death is an unknown. We all have theories on what comes after death. Some of us have strong beliefs. There is no real way to know in life, as a documentable FACT, what comes after death - stories of close encounters are all we have to go on, and those are sketchy by anyone's standards.

Funerals are rites of death. A funeral is a way for the living to say good-bye to the departed and wish that s/he goes on to a pleasant afterlife. Burial rituals predate monotheism, but that in no way negates the simple fact that modern funerals are by their very nature religious rituals. Yes, I am aware that not every funeral includes ________ religion's approved by <insert name of deity here> ritual, and that is because one family is Christian, one family is Islamic, one family is Taoist, one family is Atheistic, etc. Let's not get started on how you have to have a god to have a religion, either. Atheism is as much a religion as any you can pull out of your yamaka.

Supplication to God comes into play when you speak of Christian (and this thread IS about Christianity) funerals.

There. All better! :D


What exactly is a magic space pixie and what does it have to do with Christianity?
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The 'heavens' are interpreted as being the nighttime sky - astronomy wasn't even a twinkle in Copernicus' eye back then, so how would the ancients know that the stars were giant balls of fire further away than anything they could possibly imagine?

A pixie is a magical creature.
God is a magical creature.
Space is the absence of matter.
A void is devoid (har har) of matter.


Wrong. I'm not shifting the burden of proof. You claimed that something was false. In order to make that claim, you must demonstrate it to be false. Otherwise, you have no reason to state that it is false. All I have done is ask you to back up your claims.
Uhm, the burden of proof doesn't fall on the one disproving something unless it's already an established fact. The burden of proof falls on YOUR shoulders, because there is no evidence outside of personal insecurity to suggest the existence of a sentient, omnipotent, omnipresent being. Doctors usually call that kind of belief 'paranoid schizophrenia', but hey, use whatever word you like. Christianity is certainly easier on the mouth and YES I JUST BASHED YOUR RELIGION. But after holding back so many times on my previous paragraphs I felt I deserved a little tap. Onward.


So you have no actual reasons then. Just a bunch of blathering on and on with your own personal biases, none of which have jack to do with my religion. Gotcha.
Now that's just not fair. You did the exact same thing he did - you presented all of your arguments to the above quotes, and then commented at the end. His arguments were what you asked for - reasons that Christianity falls under 'superstition'. He commented, in response to that, that his arguments were those reasons...and you fire back at him 'Oh well, since I got in the last word I guess that means you don't have anything to say after all...YEAH! WHAT, BITCH! YEAH! YEAH!'.

How very childish.

EDIT: Missed a quote tag, fixed.

But to a believer, it isn't just a silly death cult. Reason and religious faith are incompatible, especially when labels start being flung around.
DING DING DING DING! We have a winner, Bob!

You have possibly said the most profound thing since this thread was shat out of that teenager's acne-ridden ass.

Reason and religious faith are incompatible.

God, that is awesome.

Now, let's all take this to heart. Let us breathe deeply of the sweet, sweet aroma of truth. Let us turn back the flagon of wisdom and slake our thirsts; let us stop arguing about how religion might just have a basis of fact because there is a distinct lack of logic (and physics) in it.

Historical references are found in any old book. Ancient minds believed the world was flat; they also believed a swarm of locusts was a miracle.

Do I get a prize?

But to a believer, it isn't just a silly death cult.
Tis their problem.


No I haven't. What is it about?
What isn't it about is the better question. But, for the moment, imagine if Weird Al created a parody religion rather than did parody songs. That's whatcha get with the Church of the Subgenius. It count among its members Mark Mothersbaugh (formerly of Devo) and Matt Groenig (creator of The Simpsons).

If you want a religion that encourages weirdness and tells you up-front that it's just a load of bullshit, then the Church of the Subgenius is for you.

http://www.subgenius.com

Do I get a prize?
Knowing that you have just undermined every argument in this thread should be enough, no? Even mine! And that was one big post!

I really didn't think it was that profound when I posted it. That's just more or less my train of though whenever I have to deal with religious nuts.

I suppose I should probably join the Church of the Subgenius, saves me the time of deducing for my self that it's all a load of BS.

Oh, check this out, too. It's called "Pastafarianism" Another great joke religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Back to what is fundamentally wrong with Christianity:

It, like any other religion, provides the coercive power of divine punishment to support the coercive power of temporal punishment. Religion provides a codified rationalization for already existing prejudices of the temporal power in society. If you don't conform to the religious leader's standard of life, he threatents you with divine punishment if he cannot use temporal coercion to change your opinion.

It's a problem that is fundmental to all religions. Christianity is no different, it by luck of the draw has been more sucessful in the past few centuries at protelyzing its prejudices.


You seem to think that religion cannot exist without religious leaders and organization. I beg to differ. A person does not need a religious leader to give them their religious views. And without deference to a religious leader, it would be rather difficult for such a leader to use religion as a control, would it not?

Find an inaccuracy in the Bible and I'll listen. Until then....

Well, just off the top of my head...

The concept of monotheism is directly contradicted by John 10:34 "Jesus answered 'It is written in your law that God said 'I said, you are gods.' This scripture called those people gods who received God's message, and scripture is always true."

Equally, the concept of God as a wholly good being is directly contradicted by Isaiah 45:7, in which he states "I am the Lord and there is none else, I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil, I, Lord, do all these things."

Technically, these aren't inaccuracies per se: rather, they're internal contradictions, which is probably worse.

I love the Flying Spaghetti monster. I was first introduced to it from a speech and debate student who had seen it used in a debate about intelegent design. Here's another website about it.

http://www.venganza.org/

And another religous site that I particularly like is:

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

Oh yeah, and the above site...if your are extreemly pro-Bush--you've been warned. I found it interesting. I'm not claiming it's true, or false for that matter.

I have; prayer does nothing.

According to psychology, it does. At the very least, prayer is a comfort to the person praying - whether any deity is actually involved or not.

Prayer is a rite.

Not based on any definition I know:

1 a : a prescribed form or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony b : the ceremonial practices of a church or group of churches
2 : a ceremonial act or action <initiation rites>
3 : a division of the Christian church using a distinctive liturgy

Nope.

Asking god to guide you through it.

Through death?

Yet you have the notion of belief in jesus so that you can attain everlasting life. Sorta that whole John 3:16 thing, y'know.

Everlasting life is a part of the belief. It is far from being the reason for it.

Magic space pixie = god.

Oh, I see. Funny, I've never heard that description of god. Tell me, what religion do you follow?

Yes you are. You're the one claiming god is doing things. Ergo, you get to prove it.

Wrong. I made no such claim. I believe that to be the case, but I have made no attempt to assert it or to prove it. You, on the other hand, claimed that Christianity is based on something false - the idea that God does things. You made the claim. Back it up, or let it drop.

Other than the ones I've listed and you've responded to. Mayhaps you might want to stop being so defensive about your silly death-cult.

The ones that I have shown to be pretty much non-applicable to my religion?

Meanwhile, if you don't want people to take offense at your words, you might stop trying to offend.

Also, perhaps when you looked up 'superstition' on dictionary.reference.com, you just missed a line in your copy, but there is a third definition supplied:

You know, I even supplied the link. I didn't look it up on "dictionary.reference.com." I copied the definition intact from dictionary.com.

c. Idolatry.
Looking that up, we find that the definition of idolatry is:
1. Worship of idols.
2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.

In other words...religion. No, no, I'm not jumping to conclusions or anything: Scroll down the page juuuuuuuust a little bit and you see this sweet little morsel:

Idolatry.

idolatry n 1: religious zeal; willingness to serve God [syn: devotion, veneration, cultism]

The mythbustercution rests.

You know, if you have to abstract it out that much, you can probably guarrantee that nobody uses it that way.

...observing traditions isn't ritualistic? Please. I just closed the dictionary.com tab. Please don't make me open it again.

Not necessarily, no. Nor does "ritualistic" equate to "rites".

Funerals are rites of death. A funeral is a way for the living to say good-bye to the departed and wish that s/he goes on to a pleasant afterlife.

I would argue that a funeral is merely a way to say good-bye to the departed - to let go of them. And religion is hardly a necessity for a funeral.

Uhm, the burden of proof doesn't fall on the one disproving something unless it's already an established fact.

The burden of proof falls on anyone making an absolute statement, and BAAWAKnights is the only one thus far who has done so. I have made no absolute statements. BK, on the other hand, made an absolute statement that any belief that God does something is false. Unless BK can back up that statement with evidence, it is completely useless.

If I were making an absolute statement that God exists or does anything and attempting to argue that point, then there would be a burden of proof on me. As it lies, however, the only person making a statement one way or the other is BK, and he adamantly refuses to back it up (most likely because he cannot).

The burden of proof falls on YOUR shoulders,

How can it, when I am not trying to convince you of anything? If I am not trying to prove anything, there is no burden of proof. I have not made any absolute statement that there is a god, nor do I expect you to believe that there is. My beliefs are my own and they are based in my own personal experience. Without somehow allowing you to live my life, my evidence cannot be shared.

Now that's just not fair. You did the exact same thing he did - you presented all of your arguments to the above quotes, and then commented at the end. His arguments were what you asked for - reasons that Christianity falls under 'superstition'. He commented, in response to that, that his arguments were those reasons...

And since I had dispelled each argument, that means that there are no reasons. It's pretty clear that BK's reason for using that word is, "OMFG, I HATE RELIGION!!! RELIGION IS THE SUXOR AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS TEH STOOPID!" (This is really only a slight exaggeration, especially if you've been in any conversations with BK before).

I, on the other hand, have no problem with those who disagree with me. I recognize that we each choose one side of this axiom or the other based on our own personal experiences. Without living your experiences, I cannot say whether or not I would have come to the same conclusion as you, and vice versa.

How very childish.

I'm not the one insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who disagrees with me, but somehow, *I'm* the childish one?

Reason and religious faith are incompatible.

Incorrect. Reason is applied to religion, and those who use reason are often religious. If they were incompatible, that would be rather impossible.

Ah, and I missed this:


That's exactly why it's superstition. You are given peace of mind because you feel as though your problems, needs, and wants are no longer *just* your own. It gives you comfort to share your thoughts and feelings with your god.

It gives me comfort to share my thoughts and feelings with my mother. Does that mean that doing so is superstition?

It gives me comfort to share my thoughts and feelings with my mother. Does that mean that doing so is superstition?


It is if no one can see, hear, or speak to your mother.

I love the Flying Spaghetti monster. I was first introduced to it from a speech and debate student who had seen it used in a debate about intelegent design. Here's another website about it.

http://www.venganza.org/

And another religous site that I particularly like is:

http://www.bushisantichrist.com/

Oh yeah, and the above site...if your are extreemly pro-Bush--you've been warned. I found it interesting. I'm not claiming it's true, or false for that matter.

ROFLMAO @ 2

Exhibit #9: The latest Antichrist Poll Results are in: According to the latest results of a non-partisan online poll, 55% of the public now firmly believes that George W Bush IS in fact the The Antichrist! Wow! That's over half of the public, and a far higher percentage than with any other person. Even Osama Bin Laden came in at only 1%. It seems like the word is finally getting out.
WTF????? How can people believe such crap?
*is very disturbed*

The hand sign is what it is - a sign of the devil, and I know very well what George W Bush has done, which is why I'm trying to get the word out. BTW: the next Bush family reunion is scheduled to meet in HELL.
*snickers*
Very strange, a crackpot fundie Christian who hates George Bush...

a crackpot fundie Christian who hates George Bush...


BZZZZT!

What is an oxymoron?

Ok..
I'll take "Bush is also Nazi", for 200 Alex.

No, prayer does exactly nothing.

Hey, religious people! Look at this...BOTTLE IS GOING TO DEFEND THE POWER OF PRAYER!!!

Prayer does do something. Prayer can perform many of the same functions as meditation or introspection, and can do so by providing people with a means of distancing themselves from a problem they've been wrestling with; think about how your problems sometimes seem different when you tell somebody else about them. They "sound different" than when you were ruminating about them to yourself. Prayer provides you with somebody to talk to, and without any fear that the person is going to say something mean back. Whether or not you think this is a valuable function, it's still a function of prayer...pray is doing something.

But even if you want to toss aside the "psychological" elements of prayer, you still have to acknowledge the physiological reality of the placebo effect. A lot of people can experience actual pain relief if given a sugar pill that they really believe is medicine; similarly, a lot of people can experience actual pain relief via prayer, if they really believe that prayer has the power to help them. The placebo effect is very misunderstood, and often gets exagerated or underestimated, but it certainly should not be overlooked.

Hey, religious people! Look at this...BOTTLE IS GOING TO DEFEND THE POWER OF PRAYER!!!




Im SO not going to forget this.

Incorrect. Reason is applied to religion, and those who use reason are often religious. If they were incompatible, that would be rather impossible.

Careful, Dem. Lots of "reasonable" people have believed in very unreasonable things across human history. It is quite possible for an otherwise-reasoning person to have blindspots. It is also possible to apply "reason" to certain elements of a topic, without actually "reasoning" the full topic itself.

I keep using racism as an example, and I'm sorry about that, but it's just so handy:

Lots of otherwise-reasonable people have been racists. Lots of racists have many "reasoned" arguments within the context of their racism. Once racism is assumed, it is possible to reason your way to all sorts of conclusions based on the initial premise. None of this tells us anything about whether or not racism itself is "reasonable" or sound.

What's wrong with Christianity?

Christians.

Specifically, the members of the American Religious Right who have hijacked the religion and turned it into a nationalistic, militaristic, materialistic, ultra-capitalistic and fear and hate-drive vision of America to be imposed on the rest of the world (read: "those heathen").

Careful, Dem. Lots of "reasonable" people have believed in very unreasonable things across human history. It is quite possible for an otherwise-reasoning person to have blindspots. It is also possible to apply "reason" to certain elements of a topic, without actually "reasoning" the full topic itself.

I keep using racism as an example, and I'm sorry about that, but it's just so handy:

Lots of otherwise-reasonable people have been racists. Lots of racists have many "reasoned" arguments within the context of their racism. Once racism is assumed, it is possible to reason your way to all sorts of conclusions based on the initial premise. None of this tells us anything about whether or not racism itself is "reasonable" or sound.
I don't think that anyone can agree that faith in God is reasonable, but like you said reasonable people can have unreasonable beliefs (or whatever you know what you said) I think the thing (although I just woke up) is that I get annoyed when people say that the religious are unable to reason at all, and most of the time they follow that by saying "it's because you are stupid", that's what annoys me.

I can understand fully that most people don't understand why I believe in God, I don't understand how someone can say I am intelligent though, until they find that out and then all of the sudden I am stupid, brainwashed, and unable to reason. ;)

According to psychology, it does.
Even according to psychology, it does nothing.


Not based on any definition I know:
Then you clearly don't know the definition.


1 a : a prescribed form or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony b : the ceremonial practices of a church or group of churches
2 : a ceremonial act or action <initiation rites>
3 : a division of the Christian church using a distinctive liturgy

Nope.
Yeppers.


Through death?
Yes. Shepherd you through death. Keep you safe. Guide you to heaven. Otherwise, why pray for forgiveness and such?


Everlasting life is a part of the belief. It is far from being the reason for it.
'Tis the only reason! The entire belief structure is based on "believe in jesus and have everlasting life in heaven or else you will burn/not be with god/etc". That is the FUNDAMENTAL tenet.


Oh, I see. Funny, I've never heard that description of god.
That's because you actually think there is a god and don't want to understand the real nature of gods. However, when you take an objective look, you find that god is nothing more than some magic space pixie, granting wishes and doing miracles.


Wrong. I made no such claim.
Wrong, you made the claim. I, OTOH, made no claim at all. Unless you'd like to fucking quote me.


The ones that I have shown to be pretty much non-applicable to my religion?
Oh, you mean all none of them.


Meanwhile, if you don't want people to take offense at your words, you might stop trying to offend.
I'm not trying to offend. What I write is what your religion is. If you are offended, then you might want to not have such stupid beliefs.


You know, I even supplied the link. I didn't look it up on "dictionary.reference.com." I copied the definition intact from dictionary.com.
Yes, and you still missed it.


You know, if you have to abstract it out that much, you can probably guarrantee that nobody uses it that way.
Actually, everyone does. Theists use it on OTHER PEOPLE'S religions. But not their own. It's quite a double-standard.


The burden of proof falls on anyone making an absolute statement, and BAAWAKnights is the only one thus far who has done so.
Liar. I have made no such statements.


If I were making an absolute statement that God exists or does anything and attempting to argue that point,
Which you did.


How can it, when I am not trying to convince you of anything?
But you are.


And since I had dispelled each argument,
But you didn't.

Incorrect. Reason is applied to religion,
And when that happens, the person becomes an atheist.

Hey, religious people! Look at this...BOTTLE IS GOING TO DEFEND THE POWER OF PRAYER!!!

Prayer does do something.
No, it does absolutely nothing.


Prayer can perform many of the same functions as meditation or introspection, and can do so by providing people with a means of distancing themselves from a problem they've been wrestling with;
That's still doing nothing.

What's wrong with Christianity?

Christians.

Specifically, the members of the American Religious Right who have hijacked the religion and turned it into a nationalistic, militaristic, materialistic, ultra-capitalistic and fear and hate-drive vision of America to be imposed on the rest of the world (read: "those heathen").
Actually, they are making it theo-fascist, not ultra-capitalist. There's a huge difference, especially since fascism is a flavor of socialism.

No, it does absolutely nothing.

That's still doing nothing.
If you choose to believe that thinking = nothing, or that human emotions are nothing, then that's mostly just a matter of your personal philosophy. Nihilism is in fashion again, I believe, so you'll have no shortage of followers. :)

However, if you choose to believe that the placebo effect does not exist, then I strongly suggest you not try to convince yourself (or anybody else) that you are significantly different from the superstitious. You are deciding that empirical reality is inconvenient or distasteful, and therefore you will refuse to believe in it. That's your business, of course, just don't waste time being a hypocrite about it.

I don't think that anyone can agree that faith in God is reasonable, but like you said reasonable people can have unreasonable beliefs (or whatever you know what you said) I think the thing (although I just woke up) is that I get annoyed when people say that the religious are unable to reason at all, and most of the time they follow that by saying "it's because you are stupid", that's what annoys me.

I can understand fully that most people don't understand why I believe in God, I don't understand how someone can say I am intelligent though, until they find that out and then all of the sudden I am stupid, brainwashed, and unable to reason. ;)
If I read you right, then we agree. God-belief is not "reasonable," but it is perfectly possible for a person to hold the "unreasonable" belief in God while still being capable of applying reason in many other areas of their life.

If I read you right, then we agree. God-belief is not "reasonable," but it is perfectly possible for a person to hold the "unreasonable" belief in God while still being capable of applying reason in many other areas of their life.
yes exactly.

No, it does absolutely nothing.



That's still doing nothing.
You would be a horrible statistician lol

Even if prayer is a subset of the placebo effect, that effect in itself is proven over and over and over again every time we do a study.

If you choose to believe that thinking = nothing, or that human emotions are nothing, then that's mostly just a matter of your personal philosophy.
No. I just know that if I pray or millions of others do, nothing happens. So I know that it's not the act of praying or the prayer itself that does anything. It's the desire to have something happen that does it, not the prayer itself or the act of praying.

If you find that to be rather inconvenient--that's not my problem.

You would be a horrible statistician lol
Actually, I wouldn't. I know not use non causa/pro causa fallacies.

Actually, I wouldn't. I know not use non causa/pro causa fallacies.
Though that does not make up for your apparent ability to just ignore the effect all togeather.

Though that does not make up for your apparent ability to just ignore the effect all togeather.
Since I'm doing no such thing.....

Actually, they are making it theo-fascist, not ultra-capitalist. There's a huge difference, especially since fascism is a flavor of socialism.

No - the point was (I believe) that the modern version does seem to be pretty ultra-capitalistic - with churches being run as business ventures, with the Catholic church being one of the biggest financial machines on the planet, with 'evangelism' being so frequently associated now with maneymaking and charlatanism... the Snake Oil Salesmen of the 21st century... with the capitalisation of holy festivals.

For a 'Christian' nation, the US has an unhealthy angle on ideas like personal wealth and charity.

No. I just know that if I pray or millions of others do, nothing happens. So I know that it's not the act of praying or the prayer itself that does anything. It's the desire to have something happen that does it, not the prayer itself or the act of praying.

If you find that to be rather inconvenient--that's not my problem.

An assertion you can't prove, my friend.

I'm inclined to agree - I think 'prayer' is largely positive thinking... but the thing is, as a scientist, I can't state as a 'truth' that prayer does nothing... I can just say that there are other, possible, explanations.

Even according to psychology, it does nothing.

I have taken a psychology of religion class. Prayer, as well as meditation, does have an effect. It is almost as if the walls to the unconscious become permeable.

Careful, Dem. Lots of "reasonable" people have believed in very unreasonable things across human history. It is quite possible for an otherwise-reasoning person to have blindspots. It is also possible to apply "reason" to certain elements of a topic, without actually "reasoning" the full topic itself.

I keep using racism as an example, and I'm sorry about that, but it's just so handy:

Lots of otherwise-reasonable people have been racists. Lots of racists have many "reasoned" arguments within the context of their racism. Once racism is assumed, it is possible to reason your way to all sorts of conclusions based on the initial premise. None of this tells us anything about whether or not racism itself is "reasonable" or sound.

The difference, of course, is that the "reasoned" arguments used to support racism can be empirically disproven - as they are based in a premise that can be empirically disproven.

The belief in the existence or non-existence of God, on the other hand, from an empirical point of view, is simply an axiomatic statement. Empirically, it can be neither proven nor disproven. Thus, in any discussion of the issue, something other than empiricism must be used. Hence the reason that I talk about the personal experiences of any given person. Our personal experiences will lead us (even possibly through reason *gasp*) to come to a conclusion on this issue (even if that conclusion is a "no conclusion").


Even according to psychology, it does nothing.

As Bottle has pointed out, you are patently incorrect.

Then you clearly don't know the definition.

I posted it, my dear.

Nope.
Yeppers.

I am not a church or group of churches, now, am I? Prayer certainly can be ceremonial (ie. recitation of the Lord's prayer in many services), but, in my case, it is not.

Yes. Shepherd you through death. Keep you safe. Guide you to heaven. Otherwise, why pray for forgiveness and such?

Why ask anyone for forgiveness? Why repent of wrongdoing at all?

'Tis the only reason! The entire belief structure is based on "believe in jesus and have everlasting life in heaven or else you will burn/not be with god/etc". That is the FUNDAMENTAL tenet.

The fact that you think you define my religion is laughable. The entire belief structure is based upon love. Pure and simple. The teachings of Christ were based in love. Others have pushed for a more carrot-stick mentality, but that is not the basis of my religion.

That's because you actually think there is a god and don't want to understand the real nature of gods. However, when you take an objective look, you find that god is nothing more than some magic space pixie, granting wishes and doing miracles.

LOL. "Anyone who doesn't come to the exact same conclusion as me simply can't be objective." Yes, go ahead, tell me what I think some more. Everyone can see how ridiculous that is.

Wrong, you made the claim. I, OTOH, made no claim at all. Unless you'd like to fucking quote me.

Ok, will do:


Which is the entire back-philosophy of xerdom. Fear of the unknown (death), trust in magic (god), false conception of causation (goddidit).

You claimed that a particular conception - the idea that God did something - is false. That, my dear, is a claim. If you would like to withdraw it, by all means, go ahead.

Oh, you mean all none of them.

Well, since you are hell-bent on thinking that you personally define my religion, you obviously aren't going to listen to what my religion actually says.

You are really no better than the people who come into a thread on evolutionary theory and claim that "Evolutionary theory says that dogs turn into cats, therefore it is wrong." You are making all sorts of false claims about my religion - thinking that you and your ideas define it - so that you can then disprove it.

I'm not trying to offend.

Really? So insulting people and their intelligence isn't meant to offend? You were actually just trying to be nice, eh?

What I write is what your religion is.

No, it isn't, and the fact that you think you define my religion is ridiculous in the extreme.

BK: "You believe this."
Me: "No, actually, I don't."
BK: "YES YOU DO. If you don't, I don't have an argument, so you do."
Me: "Riiiiiiiight...."

Actually, everyone does. Theists use it on OTHER PEOPLE'S religions. But not their own. It's quite a double-standard.

I don't. So obviously, theists don't do any such thing, although some certainly do.

Liar. I have made no such statements.

I quoted you above. It would seem that you are the liar, my dear. If you are going to make a claim that something is false, you should be able to back that statement up.

Which you did.

Really? When?

But you are.

I am?!?!?!?! This is news to me. Tell me, at what point have I tried to convince you of God's existence? I'll wait for your answer......

Oh wait! I haven't!

But I'm sure you'll try and tell me my own religion, my own motivations, and what I am and am not saying once again. After all, you can't possibly be rational in these arguments and, you know, realize that you don't define the thoughts of other human beings.

I have taken a psychology of religion class. Prayer, as well as meditation, does have an effect. It is almost as if the walls to the unconscious become permeable.
No, prayer has no effect at all. It's only the belief that it has an effect which has an effect.

The difference, of course, is that the "reasoned" arguments used to support racism can be empirically disproven - as they are based in a premise that can be empirically disproven.


The belief in the existence or non-existence of God, on the other hand, from an empirical point of view, is simply an axiomatic statement.
No it isn't. It's a begged question.


As Bottle has pointed out, you are patently incorrect.
As I demonstrated, I'm patently correct, since the entire thing relies on a non causa/pro causa fallacy.



I posted it, my dear.
Doesn't mean you've read it, which clearly you haven't.


I am not a church or group of churches, now, am I?
Irrelevant.


Prayer certainly can be ceremonial (ie. recitation of the Lord's prayer in many services), but, in my case, it is not.
All prayer is.


Why ask anyone for forgiveness? Why repent of wrongdoing at all?
Shifting the scene fallacy.


The fact that you think you define my religion is laughable.
I don't think that. I just let you xers define it and show how idiotic it is.


The entire belief structure is based upon love.
Bullshit. It's based on a fear of death and belief that god will save you and rule over you. You might have been able to delude yourself into believing that your religion is based on love, but the history and writings of your religion shows that it clearly is NOT based upon love at all.


Pure and simple. The teachings of Christ were based in love.
So telling people to either let god rule over them or they should be slaughtered (Lk 19:13-27) is based on love? That's a leap of Orwellian proportions. What's next--going to tell me that freedom is slavery?


Others have pushed for a more carrot-stick mentality, but that is not the basis of my religion.
John 3:16, remember?


LOL. "Anyone who doesn't come to the exact same conclusion as me simply can't be objective."
Strawman.

Keep using fallacies. Makes it easier and easier for me to annihilate your arguments.


Ok, will do:

You claimed that a particular conception - the idea that God did something - is false. That, my dear, is a claim.
No, my dear, it is not. If you would like to demonstrate that god does things, by all means: do it. Now.


Well, since you are hell-bent on thinking that you personally define my religion,
I'm not. But if you want to lie and delude yourself into believing that, I won't stop you. You won't be correct, but I won't stop you from going off and pouting because your religion has been exposed for the bronze-age myth that it is.


You are really no better than the people who come into a thread on evolutionary theory and claim that "Evolutionary theory says that dogs turn into cats, therefore it is wrong."
Actually, I'm much better than they, because I actually use your religion against you. Fancy that.


Really? So insulting people and their intelligence isn't meant to offend?
I haven't insulted anyone.


No, it isn't, and the fact that you think you define my religion is ridiculous in the extreme.
Why must you continue to lie? I don't define your religion. I use the definitions provided by xers.


BK: "You believe this."
Me: "No, actually, I don't."
So you don't believe that jesus is the only way to heaven, in spite of John 3:16? I think your god will be VERY angry with you.


I don't.
Your words betray you. I know you'd like to believe that you're above it, but clearly you aren't applying the same set of standards to your own religion. And that's just tough that it hurts you to be told that. Not. My. Damned. Problem.


I quoted you above.
Yes you did. Now where's the claim?


Really? When?
The same place I made my claim, if we are to believe your lie.


I am?!?!?!?!
Yes.


This is news to me. Tell me, at what point have I tried to convince you of God's existence?
This entire series of exchanges.

But, you just keep believing that your war-faith-and-hate based religion is really about love and peace. I'll leave you to your psychotic delusions.

'Tis the only reason! The entire belief structure is based on "believe in jesus and have everlasting life in heaven or else you will burn/not be with god/etc". That is the FUNDAMENTAL tenet.



That is quite likely the most fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING that occurs even in Christian circles themselves, let alone others.

The belief structure is based on bringing about the "kingdom of God" (which Jesus explains repeatedly in teachings and in parable form) here on Earth. It is "at hand" not some pie in the sky, die to get there thing.

No. I just know that if I pray or millions of others do, nothing happens.

Perhaps prayer does not do anything when you do it. Perhaps there are millions of people who feel as you do, and prayer does nothing for them. None of this establishes that prayer itself does nothing for anybody.

For many people, prayer produces measurable effects. If you choose to disbelieve in the empirical evidence that has been collected on this subject, then that's your business.


So I know that it's not the act of praying or the prayer itself that does anything. It's the desire to have something happen that does it, not the prayer itself or the act of praying.

Incorrect. There are many people who do not experience the measurable effects of prayer unless they engage in prayer. The underlying desires are, obviously, a critical component, but for many people the prayer is also a required step.


If you find that to be rather inconvenient--that's not my problem.
Well, as a matter of fact, I do find it "inconvenient" that some people require prayer to achieve the effects that have been observed. I would vastly prefer that people be able to obtain those effects without engaging in superstition. However, my personal feelings on the subject don't change the empirical reality: prayer does produce some quantifiable effects for certain people.

I'm inclined to agree - I think 'prayer' is largely positive thinking... but the thing is, as a scientist, I can't state as a 'truth' that prayer does nothing... I can just say that there are other, possible, explanations.
But that's just it: "positive thinking" has power, and prayer is a means of engaging in "positive thinking." It's not the only means, and it's not like prayer has some special magic that cannot be accessed through any other means, but it's one way of attaining a given set of results.

Some people cannot "believe" in any other means, and therefore prayer is the only way they can attain many of the results from focused "positive thinking." Other people don't believe in prayer, so it's not gonna do a damn thing for them.

Prayer does have effects, though these effects are often misunderstood or misrepresented for a variety of reasons. The "power of positive thinking" may sound campy and stupid, but it refers to a geniune set of phenomena that have been well-documented in the medical and psychological communities. Prayer is one form of this.

Doesn't mean you've read it, which clearly you haven't.

Yes, actually, I have, which is quite clear, considering that I've shown time and time again how you've misused it.

Irrelevant.

You aren't even trying to be honest, are you? Let's look at your bolded definition:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
1 a : a prescribed form or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony b : the ceremonial practices of a church or group of churches
2 : a ceremonial act or action <initiation rites>
3 : a division of the Christian church using a distinctive liturgy


If I am neither a church nor a group of churches, then my prayer is not a rite under this definition. It's pretty damn relevant.

All prayer is.

If that were true, you would be able to demonstrate it as such. Of course, you haven't.

Shifting the scene fallacy.

It isn't a fallacy at all. If there is a reason to ask for forgiveness of wrongdoing, then there is a reason to do so.

I don't think that. I just let you xers define it and show how idiotic it is.

And yet you won't let me define it at all. Every time I point out your misconceptions about my beliefs, you yell that I am lying or that I don't believe that at all.

You really should at least *try* to be at least at *little bit* honest.

Bullshit. It's based on a fear of death and belief that god will save you and rule over you. You might have been able to delude yourself into believing that your religion is based on love, but the history and writings of your religion shows that it clearly is NOT based upon love at all.

The history of my religion can only be found within my own life. There is certainly a history of other people with some similar beliefs - as well as many dissimilar beliefs. But my religion is just that - my own. That's the interesting thing about religion - no two people have exactly the same religion. The only way to find out about a particular person's religion is to *gasp* ask them about it.

And, once again, despite just having told me that you don't seek to define my religion, you are once again arguing with me about what I believe.

So telling people to either let god rule over them or they should be slaughtered (Lk 19:13-27) is based on love?

You don't understand the meaning of the word "parable", do you?

John 3:16, remember?

Indeed. Of course, John 3:16 doesn't demonstrate that the basis of my religion is a carrot-stick mentality. In fact, it quite clearly points to what I have already said, that my religion is based in love. It even begins with such a statement.

Strawman.

Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. After all, I'm not the one trying to tell you what you believe, am I?

No, my dear, it is not. If you would like to demonstrate that god does things, by all means: do it. Now.

Wow! You aren't even trying at this point! If I say, "This statement is false," that is a claim, whether you like it or not.

Meanwhile, I don't want to demonstrate that god does things. I have already made it clear that it is not my intention to make that claim. I simply want you to back up your statements - something you either cannot or will not do.

I'm not. But if you want to lie and delude yourself into believing that, I won't stop you. You won't be correct, but I won't stop you from going off and pouting because your religion has been exposed for the bronze-age myth that it is.

Really? So when I say, "I believe X," and you immediately reply with, "No you don't, you believe Y," that isn't you trying to define my religion?

Actually, I'm much better than they, because I actually use your religion against you. Fancy that.

No, you don't. You use someone else's religion (or a misconception thereof), assume it is mine (even though it is not), and then try to apply it to me. The only way you can determine what *my* religion is, is to ask me - something you have yet to do.

Why must you continue to lie? I don't define your religion. I use the definitions provided by xers.

My dear, every Christian will give you a different definition, just as every Jew will give you a different definition of Judaism, every Muslim will give you a different definition of Islam, every Buddhist will give you a different definition of Buddhism, and, hell, every atheist will give you a different definition of what it means to be an atheist. Religion is a personal belief - and as such can only be defined by the believer.

This fact is actually the main difficulty in the study of religiosity. Sociologists have realized that, while you might be able to group various beliefs into categories, no two believers, when you really talk to them, actually believe the same thing. And no two atheists come to atheism from quite the same viewpoint. It's this crazy part of being human, rather than being a borg.

So you don't believe that jesus is the only way to heaven, in spite of John 3:16? I think your god will be VERY angry with you.

I think that Jesus is the only way to heaven. I don't claim to know how many paths to Jesus there are, or to have the "perfect" path figured out, or that a person must call Jesus by name to, in fact, be following Him. In fact, to do so would be to claim my own infallibility, which would be ludicrous.

Your words betray you. I know you'd like to believe that you're above it, but clearly you aren't applying the same set of standards to your own religion. And that's just tough that it hurts you to be told that. Not. My. Damned. Problem.

Demonstrate any point at which I have denigrated anothers' religion or called it "superstition". At that point, you can make this claim. Otherwise, you'll have to take me at my word. I do apply the same standards to all religion. I think that all religion (including my own) contains truth. I also think that all religion (including my own) contains errors. The only way to correct those errors is to keep examining and questioning.

This entire series of exchanges.

Now BK, reading can't possibly be that difficult for you. At no point have I attempted to convince you that God exists. I have simply corrected your numerous misconceptions about my own personal beliefs. I have made no attempt to convince you that my beliefs are correct, and I have pointed out more than once that I would not attempt to do so.

You are the only one making a blanket claim that you think everyone must believe. I, on the other hand, recognize that personal beliefs are just that - personal.

But, you just keep believing that your war-faith-and-hate based religion is really about love and peace. I'll leave you to your psychotic delusions.

Didn't you say you weren't trying to define my religion? If you aren't trying to do so, why do you keep doing it?

Perhaps prayer does not do anything when you do it. Perhaps there are millions of people who feel as you do, and prayer does nothing for them. None of this establishes that prayer itself does nothing for anybody.

For many people, prayer produces measurable effects. If you choose to disbelieve in the empirical evidence that has been collected on this subject, then that's your business.
You mean like the Mayo Clinic study (http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2001-rst/921.html) showing no significant difference between those prayed for and those not prayed for?

Anyway, to say that prayer does something for a person is a non causa/pro causa fallacy.


Incorrect. There are many people who do not experience the measurable effects of prayer unless they engage in prayer. The underlying desires are, obviously, a critical component, but for many people the prayer is also a required step.
Just part of the ritual, like a kid magician saying "abracadabra". Was it the "abracadabra" which did anything? No.


Well, as a matter of fact, I do find it "inconvenient" that some people require prayer to achieve the effects that have been observed.
And that is demonstrably caused by the prayer? No.

You mean like the Mayo Clinic study (http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2001-rst/921.html) showing no significant difference between those prayed for and those not prayed for?

What was that about a "Shifting the scene fallacy."?

Bottle was quite clearly talking about the effect of prayer on the person who is praying, not on others.

Yes, actually, I have, which is quite clear, considering that I've shown time and time again how you've misused it.
But you haven't, which means you've lied yet again.


You aren't even trying to be honest, are you?
So says the person lying about me.


If I am neither a church nor a group of churches, then my prayer is not a rite under this definition.
False.


If that were true, you would be able to demonstrate it as such. .
It has been.


It isn't a fallacy at all.
Of course it is. In the first case, the scope was limited to some deity. In your response, you're making it universal. Scope-shift fallacy.

Try again.


And yet you won't let me define it at all.
I do. However, I just point out all the inconsistencies between what you say and the writings of your religion, s'all. Far be it for you to actually be consistent!


You really should at least *try* to be at least at *little bit* honest.
Pot. Kettle. Black.


The history of my religion can only be found within my own life.
So the bible does not contain part of the history of your religion? The writings of the church founders do not contain part of the history of your religion?

You might want to be honest. Lying only hurts you.


You don't understand the meaning of the word "parable", do you?
I do. The King is god. You don't understand the meaning of the word "metaphor", do you?


Indeed. Of course, John 3:16 doesn't demonstrate that the basis of my religion is a carrot-stick mentality.
Of course it does. The carrot offered is eternal life. And the stick is belief in jesus. How much more dishonest are you going to be?


Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. After all, I'm not the one trying to tell you what you believe, am I?
And I'm not trying to tell you what you believe. I'm just showing you what's written.

Unless, of course, you just pick-and-choose what you want to believe out of the bible, like a normal salad-bar-xer. In which case my point about you having a double-standard applies. Either way: you're fucked.


Wow! You aren't even trying at this point!
Liar.


Meanwhile, I don't want to demonstrate that god does things.
Then don't try to shift the burden of proof.


Really? So when I say, "I believe X," and you immediately reply with, "No you don't, you believe Y," that isn't you trying to define my religion?
No, because I'm not doing that. I'm just showing you what's written in the bible. I fail to see how that's me telling you what you believe. After all, it's your holy book, right? Part of your religion, right?


No, you don't.
Yes I do.


You use someone else's religion
You're not an xer?


(or a misconception thereof),
Now you're saying that the bible is a misconception.


My dear, every Christian will give you a different definition,
My dear, they will all have the same fundamentals. Unless, of course, you'd like to dispute that all xers believe that there is a god! Would you like to dispute that? How about all xers believing that jesus is the son of god--would you like to dispute that? How about all xers believing that jesus died for our sins--would you like to dispute that?


I think that Jesus is the only way to heaven.
As do all xers. It's a fundamental (core) belief. So I'm correct when I say that I can use universals confined to the xers to describe what all xers believe.


I don't claim to know how many paths to Jesus there are, or to have the "perfect" path figured out, or that a person must call Jesus by name to, in fact, be following Him. In fact, to do so would be to claim my own infallibility, which would be ludicrous.
The bible is quite clear that there is but one path. For you to not know that tells me how ignorant you are of your own religion.


Demonstrate any point at which I have denigrated anothers' religion or called it "superstition".
My dear, I never claimed you did, much to your chagrin, as you will see. I simply am pointing out that you're not looking at your religion with a critical eye. You're going at it from your preconceived notions and not allowing an objective stance. You've got a double-standard.


Now BK, reading can't possibly be that difficult for you.
As opposed to how difficult it is for you.


At no point have I attempted to convince you that God exists.
And at no point did I make the claim that you said I did. Fancy that.


Didn't you say you weren't trying to define my religion? If you aren't trying to do so, why do you keep doing it?
Because I don't.

What was that about a "Shifting the scene fallacy."?
What about it?


Bottle was quite clearly talking about the effect of prayer on the person who is praying, not on others.
And I addressed that too. So there's no fallacy.

Try again when you learn how to properly communicate.

That is quite likely the most fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING that occurs even in Christian circles themselves, let alone others.
Nope. Jn 3:16 is quite clear.

Unless, of course, Jn 3:16 does not read "For god loved the world so much that he gave his only son so that those who believe in him will have eternal life."

I always thought that it did. Maybe you have some different translation of the bible wherein Jn 3:16 has something completely different.


The belief structure is based on bringing about the "kingdom of God" (which Jesus explains repeatedly in teachings and in parable form) here on Earth. It is "at hand" not some pie in the sky, die to get there thing.
That's what it might have been originally, but it has since mutated into what I stated.

No, prayer has no effect at all. It's only the belief that it has an effect which has an effect.

Well if you dont believe that it has an effect you arent going to pray. They go hand-in-hand.

?

Got that many many years ago from a fundy, aparently back when they lived in the garden of eden every animial on earth was vegitarian . ..

See, the sharp pointy teeth are for stripping plant material down,

Beleive it our not, THAT was his exact argument . . .

I've actually run across people who believe that women have one more rib than men do. I shit you not.

What is this "higher level" that you speak of?


Higher level is generaly considered to be 15th to 20th, unless you have the Epic Level Handbook . . . :D

Don't forget that the turtle stands on a big rock. Ancient Chinese belief, for those who don't know

I thought the turtle stood on another turtle, and thus it was "Turtles all the way down".

Have you heard of the nylon bug?

The what now?

Christians don't blow themselves up to get to heaven.

Find an inaccuracy in the Bible and I'll listen. Until then....

How about the MULTIPLE mistranslations, the most famous of which is that a verse of Exodes should read "Thou shall not suffer a POISONER to live.

So says the person lying about me.

If you'd like to demonstrate a single lie I've told, I'll be happy to apologize for it.

False.

Ok, so the definition doesn't have to apply for the definition to apply? That makes perfect sense!

Of course it is. In the first case, the scope was limited to some deity. In your response, you're making it universal. Scope-shift fallacy.

I'm simply pointing out that the reasons are largely the same.

I do. However, I just point out all the inconsistencies between what you say and the writings of your religion, s'all. Far be it for you to actually be consistent!

What I say is what I believe. The writings associated with my religion were written by other people - who didn't share my life experiences, my studies, or all of the beliefs that I hold.

The Bible, written by fallible men - as we are all fallible - contains its own inconsistencies. If my beliefs were not inconsistent with some of it, there would be a problem.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I have been nothing but honest, my dear.

So the bible does not contain part of the history of your religion? The writings of the church founders do not contain part of the history of your religion?

You might want to be honest. Lying only hurts you.

I'm not lying. My personal religion is just that - my personal religion. As such, its history begins and ends with me. There is a history associated with those who held beliefs that can be categorized with mine. There is a history associated with the church and its founders. I examine that history and those writings much as I examine the history and writings of other religions, much as I examine the writings on religion today. I do not, however, need someone else to tell me what I believe. I define that for myself.

I do. The King is god. You don't understand the meaning of the word "metaphor", do you?

And yet you miss the point of the story, or, at the very least, pull something very different out of it. The use of kings, slaves, and death are constructs - couching the lesson in a framework that the listeners would understand. The point, however, is that you should take what you are given and improve upon it. Anyone who does not make such an effort is worthy of nothing.

Of course it does. The carrot offered is eternal life. And the stick is belief in jesus. How much more dishonest are you going to be?

No, what it says to me (as an overall message - obviously you can glean anything from single sentences) is that God loved the people of the world, and sent Christ so that we might turn to God in love (rather than fear), so that we might be brought to God in that love.

Meanwhile, are you really suggesting that "belief in Christ" is considered a punishment in Christian thought, or are you unaware of the meaning of "carrot-stick mentality"?

And once again, you accuse me of dishonesty when I am simply telling you what I believe. It doesn't get much more honest than that. The fact that you would attempt to apply your own interpretations (heavily couched in your own negative biases) to my beliefs is laughable. My beliefs are my own - not yours.

And I'm not trying to tell you what you believe. I'm just showing you what's written.

You are telling me the way that you interpret what is written by others. What does that have to do with my beliefs?

Unless, of course, you just pick-and-choose what you want to believe out of the bible, like a normal salad-bar-xer. In which case my point about you having a double-standard applies. Either way: you're fucked.

It isn't a matter of "picking and choosing," any more than I am "picking and choosing" what conclusions to draw from biology when there are various explanations or interpretations of data.

Then don't try to shift the burden of proof.

My dear, it is you who are doing so. You made a claim that you refuse to back up. I, on the other hand, have made no blanket claims. Thus, I have no "burden of proof."

You're not an xer?

I am a Christian, but that doesn't mean that I believe exactly what all other, or even a single other, Christian believes.

You really need to get over this idea that any religious grouping is homogeneous.

Now you're saying that the bible is a misconception.

No, my dear, I am saying that you have misconceptions about the beliefs of others.

My dear, they will all have the same fundamentals. Unless, of course, you'd like to dispute that all xers believe that there is a god! Would you like to dispute that? How about all xers believing that jesus is the son of god--would you like to dispute that? How about all xers believing that jesus died for our sins--would you like to dispute that?

Ever heard of the Abelardian view of atonement? Read up on it. The "Christ died for our sins," viewpoint comes out of Augustine and the Anselmian view of atonement - which was adopted by the Catholic Church and is thus rather prevalent. Interestingly enough, the Anselmian view came out of the already well-developed system of penance - something that many Christians today don't recognize. Of course, most people aren't aware that the idea of atonement they hear most came directly out of that system.

Of course, Christian thought on these matters has never been homogeneous. There are those who consider themselves Chrisitan because they follow the teachings of Christ, but do not think that Christ was divine at all. Some don't even believe that the divine exists.

So yes, I will dispute all of these things. There are those who consider themselves Christian by virtue of following Christ's teachings, but do not believe in God. There are those who do not believe that Christ himself was divine. There are those who view atonement in a different light than, "Christ died for our sins." That you do not know these things reveals that you haven't studied it very closely.

As do all xers. It's a fundamental (core) belief. So I'm correct when I say that I can use universals confined to the xers to describe what all xers believe.

Wrong. There are Christians who believe that Christ is the best way to heaven, but that others will get there as well. And many of us disagree on just what the statement means. I, for instance, believe that people can find Christ without using that name or ever hearing of Christianity.

The bible is quite clear that there is but one path. For you to not know that tells me how ignorant you are of your own religion.

Once again, you are trying to tell me what my religion is. Why do you keep trying to claim that you are not?

Meanwhile, if there were only one path, then there would only be one person who could ever follow it. Every human being follows a different path. We all search in different ways.

My dear, I never claimed you did, much to your chagrin, as you will see. I simply am pointing out that you're not looking at your religion with a critical eye. You're going at it from your preconceived notions and not allowing an objective stance. You've got a double-standard.

You don't even know what my religion is. All you keep doing is trying to push the viewpoints of others, as well as your own interpretations of the viewpoints of others, in my face and say, "Explain this!" I don't have to explain the religion of others to you to be critical of my own. And, in fact, looking at it with a critical eye is pretty much all I do. To do anything else would be to lose faith altogether.

And at no point did I make the claim that you said I did. Fancy that.

And you say I'm a liar?


This is news to me. Tell me, at what point have I tried to convince you of God's existence?
This entire series of exchanges.

So, you didn't type that? It just magically appeared in your post?

Because I don't.

Oh?

For you to not know that tells me how ignorant you are of your own religion.

Hmmmm.......

Tis their problem.



What isn't it about is the better question. But, for the moment, imagine if Weird Al created a parody religion rather than did parody songs. That's whatcha get with the Church of the Subgenius. It count among its members Mark Mothersbaugh (formerly of Devo) and Matt Groenig (creator of The Simpsons).

If you want a religion that encourages weirdness and tells you up-front that it's just a load of bullshit, then the Church of the Subgenius is for you.

http://www.subgenius.com

See I prefer Discordianisim for that.

Higher level is generaly considered to be 15th to 20th, unless you have the Epic Level Handbook . . . :D

Hehe. Epic games suck.


The what now?

Nylon bug. Don't remember if it is a bacteria or a protozoa, but it is a single-celled creature that derives sustenance from degrading nylon - a synthetic man-made product. Fairly recent development (unless you want to believe that this creature was just sitting around waiting for nylon).

Primarily, it ought to be noted that Christianity, if adhered to in either a fundamentalist, or interpretive sense, is thoroughly malign. It serves to perpetuate a moral code and institutional perception designed, and thus suited, to an embattled state two millenia previously. Whilst it must be conceded that the more altruistic of Christian tenets, notably the ten commandments, are of merit, much of the peripheral obligations are anachronistic twaddle designed for first century Judea.

It is evident that Christianity compels and inspires millions to lead an altruistic, charitable existence, however it also serves to impede any genuine progress in either a social, or scientific sense, given the preponderence of Christians in government.

What about it?

And I addressed that too. So there's no fallacy.

Try again when you learn how to properly communicate.
If you say something, and absolutely nobody understands you, it is wisest to at least consider the possibility that the communication problem is due to something at your end.

I have not seen you address the points I've raised, other than to say "Nuh-uh" many different times. You stated "prayer does nothing." I pointed out that prayer often does something, and that this something has been empirically measured many many times. I am not aware of anything you have said in response to this, other than to repeat that "prayer does nothing." Can you please clarify?

Nylon bug. Don't remember if it is a bacteria or a protozoa, but it is a single-celled creature that derives sustenance from degrading nylon - a synthetic man-made product. Fairly recent development (unless you want to believe that this creature was just sitting around waiting for nylon).

I seem to recall scientists were trying to engeneer such a thing, are we sure it didn't just escape a lab somewhere?

If you say something, and absolutely nobody understands you, it is wisest to at least consider the possibility that the communication problem is due to something at your end.
But people do understand me.


I have not seen you address the points I've raised,
Then you haven't been reading.

The insistance on converting people (individual Christians and even a few churches may not be doing this but according to your holy book you are suposed to) and the insistance that their god is the only one who exists.

You mean like the Mayo Clinic study (http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2001-rst/921.html) showing no significant difference between those prayed for and those not prayed for?

Um, that's not at all what I'm talking about.

The placebo effect doesn't work on ME if YOU take the sugar pill while I know nothing about it. It also doesn't work if YOU take the pill on my behalf.


Anyway, to say that prayer does something for a person is a non causa/pro causa fallacy.

It is extremely arrogant of you to assume that the many researchers who have studied the placebo effect were ALL unaware of one of the most fundamental falacies known to humankind. It is even more arrogant of you to assume that all the scientists who have read their work were equally ignorant.

The many studies on the subject of placebo and prayer are all specifically designed to test whether or not the observed effect is due to the hypothesized cause. The entire point of the research is to provide evidence that this is NOT a non causa/pro causa fallacy.

If you want to believe that every single researcher who has studied this is 1) grossly incompetant, 2) irretrievably stupid, or 3) fundamentally corrupt...then you're still screwed because the data speak for themselves.


Just part of the ritual, like a kid magician saying "abracadabra". Was it the "abracadabra" which did anything? No.

In the case of the classical placebo effect, is it the sugar pill which actually alleviates the pain? Well, the sugar isn't a pain-killer, yet you aren't going to see the effect unless you administer the pill. The presence of the pill is required for the effect to be observed; likewise, in the case of prayer as placebo, the observed effect will not be seen unless the prayer occurs.

It is, of course, the human brain which gives prayer any power that it might have. Just as the brain can give a sugar pill the power to relieve pain. So? By your reasoning, no psychoactive substances ever do anything, because the power of those treatments is governed by the brain's response.


And that is demonstrably caused by the prayer? No.
Actually, yes. The placebo effect has been measured in individuals who believe in prayer.

Individuals who do not believe in prayer do not show this effect, of course, just like individuals who don't believe in the power of oral pain killers will not display the classical placebo effect if given an oral placebo.

But people do understand me.

Then you haven't been reading.
I have read what you posted. If you feel that I have misunderstood something, please indicate it specifically. Simply saying, "You don't understand" over and over will not accomplish anything.

If you'd like to demonstrate a single lie I've told, I'll be happy to apologize for it.
I already have.


Ok, so the definition doesn't have to apply for the definition to apply?
But it does apply. For instance, when people say "The Roman Catholic Church", do they always mean the physical building? No. They mean the sect of xerdom that is Catholic.

Poor you.


I'm simply pointing out that the reasons are largely the same.
I'm simply pointing out that in order to ask forgiveness from some magic space pixie, that magic space pixie must exist. We clearly can see if humans exist.


What I say is what I believe. The writings associated with my religion were written by other people - who didn't share my life experiences, my studies, or all of the beliefs that I hold.
But they do, as you've admitted. Remember: the only way to heaven is through jesus. That's part of your religion. Part of what's been written of it.


The Bible, written by fallible men - as we are all fallible - contains its own inconsistencies. If my beliefs were not inconsistent with some of it, there would be a problem.
Then the question becomes why are certain parts of your belief inconsistent with it, given that you necessarily have no objective standard by which to say "I will not believe this part".


I have been nothing but honest, my dear.
No my dear, you have not.


I'm not lying.
You are.


My personal religion is just that - my personal religion.
Then you're not an xer, since it is not a personal religion.


And yet you miss the point of the story, or, at the very least, pull something very different out of it.
Nope. The point of the story is that use what god gives you and let god rule over you or be put to death.

Anyone who doesn't get that out of it hasn't read it.


No, what it says to me (as an overall message - obviously you can glean anything from single sentences) is that God loved the people of the world, and sent Christ so that we might turn to God in love (rather than fear), so that we might be brought to God in that love.
Then why offer eternal life? Sounds like you're trying to downplay what's written.


Meanwhile, are you really suggesting that "belief in Christ" is considered a punishment in Christian thought, or are you unaware of the meaning of "carrot-stick mentality"?
I believe you are unaware of it. It's "carrot-on-a-stick". Leading a donkey around with a carrot attached to a stick.


And once again, you accuse me of dishonesty when I am simply telling you what I believe.
I'm simply telling you what your book states. You denied that it states what it does. That makes you dishonest.


You are telling me the way that you interpret what is written by others.
No, I'm telling you what is written, not my interpretation.


It isn't a matter of "picking and choosing,"
Bullshit.


My dear, it is you who are doing so.
My dear, I am not.


You made a claim that you refuse to back up.
Once again, you lie.


I am a Christian, but that doesn't mean that I believe exactly what all other, or even a single other, Christian believes.
But you have fundamental (core) beliefs that you all share. For instance, I doubt that you'd say that there is an xer out there who does not believe that there is a god!


You really need to get over this idea that any religious grouping is homogeneous.
You really need to stop creating strawmen.


No, my dear, I am saying that you have misconceptions about the beliefs of others.
But, my dear, I do not.


Ever heard of the Abelardian view of atonement?
Yes. And even he believed that jesus' act was part of the atonement process.


Now it seems to us that we have been justified by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God in this way: through this unique act of grace manifested to us--in that his Son has taken upon himself our nature and preserved therein in teaching us by word and example even unto death--he has more fully bound us to himself by love; with the result that our hearts should be enkindled by such a gift of divine grace, and true charity should not now shrink from enduring anything for him

Betcha didn't think about that, didja?


Of course, Christian thought on these matters has never been homogeneous.
As near homogenous as makes no ends, especially given the propensity of the early churches to do all sorts of nasty things to "heretics".


There are those who consider themselves Chrisitan because they follow the teachings of Christ, but do not think that Christ was divine at all. Some don't even believe that the divine exists.
Then they are atheists, since divine is of, relating to, or proceeding from god.


So yes, I will dispute all of these things. There are those who consider themselves Christian by virtue of following Christ's teachings, but do not believe in God. There are those who do not believe that Christ himself was divine. There are those who view atonement in a different light than, "Christ died for our sins." That you do not know these things reveals that you haven't studied it very closely.
Rather, I demonstrated how you haven't.


Wrong.
Wrong. There are fundamental beliefs common to all xers.


There are Christians who believe that Christ is the best way to heaven, but that others will get there as well. And many of us disagree on just what the statement means. I, for instance, believe that people can find Christ without using that name or ever hearing of Christianity.
Which is self-contradictory nonsense. No wonder you're fucked up.


Once again, you are trying to tell me what my religion is.
Once again, you lie.


Meanwhile, if there were only one path, then there would only be one person who could ever follow it.
Non sequitur.


You don't even know what my religion is.
You've told me: you're an xer.


And you say I'm a liar?
Yes.


So, you didn't type that? It just magically appeared in your post?
Hmmmmm?

I have read what you posted. If you feel that I have misunderstood something, please indicate it specifically.
If you feel that you don't understand something, feel free to point it out.

I already have.

Somebody says, "You haven't shown X." You reply simply, "Yes I have." Can you see how this will waste everybody's time (including yours)? Instead, why not save everybody (including yourself) a whole lot of time, and simply post the quote for where you showed X.

I haven't seen you indicate a lie on Dem's part. If you, or anybody else, would care to point it out, then I'd be more than willing to grant you 10 coolness points for your troubles.

I have read what you posted. If you feel that I have misunderstood something, please indicate it specifically. Simply saying, "You don't understand" over and over will not accomplish anything.

I think that sometimes, people can have an overblown view of their belief system. Even science. There are quite a few myths about the nature of science that a lot of non-scientists seem to believe.

While science answers many questions, and has a rigorous system for verification, there are many questions that it cannot answer, and will never answer (I'm thinking Godel here). Depending on the scientific subject, all of the theory and evidence is based on a set of axioms, postulates, and ideas adhered to by "faith".

Religion is not in the same league as science, but it has its own uses and its own value to quite a few people.

Knights seems to be the kind of person who, after hearing that aerodynamic studies prove that a bee cannot support its own weight in flight, refuses to acknowledge the presence of flying bees.

If you feel that you don't understand something, feel free to point it out.
You said, "Prayer does nothing." I have provided examples of things which prayer does, including making note of the fact that the placebo effect has been observed in individuals who believe in prayer and who attempt to use it to "self-medicate." You continue to repeat that "prayer does nothing," and you assert that you have proven your case. Please clarify how you have done so.

Um, that's not at all what I'm talking about.
Um, I didn't say it was. It was simply an example of prayer having no affect.


The placebo effect doesn't work on ME if YOU take the sugar pill while I know nothing about it. It also doesn't work if YOU take the pill on my behalf.
And?


It is extremely arrogant of you to assume that the many researchers who have studied the placebo effect were ALL unaware of one of the most fundamental falacies known to humankind.
It's extremely dishonest of you to say that I assume that.


The many studies on the subject of placebo and prayer are all specifically designed to test whether or not the observed effect is due to the hypothesized cause. The entire point of the research is to provide evidence that this is NOT a non causa/pro causa fallacy.
However, the research has shown that it is just a non causa/pro causa fallacy. Prayer has no effect, period. It's only the belief that something will happen which does anything. As I said: I can pray and nothing will happen. Others can pray and nothing will happen. So clearly, IT CAN'T BE PRAYER WHICH HAS THE EFFECT!

I don't know how much more clear that can be made.


In the case of the classical placebo effect, is it the sugar pill which actually alleviates the pain? Well, the sugar isn't a pain-killer, yet you aren't going to see the effect unless you administer the pill. The presence of the pill is required for the effect to be observed; likewise, in the case of prayer as placebo, the observed effect will not be seen unless the prayer occurs.
Yet it's not the prayer which does anything.


It is, of course, the human brain which gives prayer any power that it might have. Just as the brain can give a sugar pill the power to relieve pain. So? By your reasoning, no psychoactive substances ever do anything, because the power of those treatments is governed by the brain's response.
False. Psychoactive substances alter brain chemistry in a measurable way.


Actually, yes. The placebo effect has been measured in individuals who believe in prayer.
Yet in those who don't, nothing happens. Ergo, it's not prayer that does anything.

It's quite simple, really.

Somebody says, "You haven't shown X." You reply simply, "Yes I have." Can you see how this will waste everybody's time (including yours)?
No. I don't mollycoddle people. They have fingers. They can move the mouse and click on things.

I think that sometimes, people can have an overblown view of their belief system. Even science. There are quite a few myths about the nature of science that a lot of non-scientists seem to believe.

While science answers many questions, and has a rigorous system for verification, there are many questions that it cannot answer, and will never answer (I'm thinking Godel here). Depending on the scientific subject, all of the theory and evidence is based on a set of axioms, postulates, and ideas adhered to by "faith".

Religion is not in the same league as science, but it has its own uses and its own value to quite a few people.

Knights seems to be the kind of person who, after hearing that aerodynamic studies prove that a bee cannot support its own weight in flight, refuses to acknowledge the presence of flying bees.

As somebody who believing in cleaning my own house before criticizing another person's housekeeping, believe me...I'm greatly troubled by the type of behavior you describe. As I said earlier on this thread, science is about understanding the process, not just having the "right" answer. If you reach the "right" answer for all the wrong reasons, that's not good science.

Knights seems to be the kind of person who, after hearing that aerodynamic studies prove that a bee cannot support its own weight in flight, refuses to acknowledge the presence of flying bees.
Except I'm not that type of person at all.

You said, "Prayer does nothing." I have provided examples of things which prayer does,
No, you've provided examples where the belief in the efficacy of prayer did something.

Remember: strip it to the fundamentals. Therein you will find the truth.

See I prefer Discordianisim for that.
Feh! Double feh! You will burn in Slacklessness trying not to praise "BOB"!

As somebody who believing in cleaning my own house before criticizing another person's housekeeping, believe me...I'm greatly troubled by the type of behavior you describe. As I said earlier on this thread, science is about understanding the process, not just having the "right" answer. If you reach the "right" answer for all the wrong reasons, that's not good science.

Probably the best comment on science:

http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

Um, I didn't say it was. It was simply an example of prayer having no affect.

So? That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

The placebo effect does not fix bicycles. Does this mean the placebo effect does not exist?


And?

And, therefore, the study you provided is not relevant to what I was talking about.


It's extremely dishonest of you to say that I assume that.

I don't see what other explanation there can be. You seem to feel that you can simply state that prayer placebo is a on causa/pro causa fallacy, and that will wipe away all the research that has been done on the subject.


However, the research has shown that it is just a non causa/pro causa fallacy.

Please provide evidence for the assertion that the placebo effect is a non causa/pro causa fallacy.


Prayer has no effect, period. It's only the belief that something will happen which does anything. As I said: I can pray and nothing will happen. Others can pray and nothing will happen. So clearly, IT CAN'T BE PRAYER WHICH HAS THE EFFECT!

I can eat a sugar pill and nothing will happen. Others can eat a sugar pill and nothing will happen. Does this disprove the existence of the placebo effect, as observed using sugar pills?


Yet it's not the prayer which does anything.

Well, depending on how you look at it, aspirin doesn't do anything. If I


False. Psychoactive substances alter brain chemistry in a measurable way.

So does the placebo effect. And so does prayer.

I actually was lucky enough to observe an MRI trial where they monitored the brain waves of a yogi who was engaged in meditative prayer. In his case, the physiological effect of prayer was indistinguishable from the effect of administering a moderate dose of benzodiazepine.


Yet in those who don't, nothing happens. Ergo, it's not prayer that does anything.

It's quite simple, really.
There are some people who do not show any response to the drug Prozac. Does this mean that Prozac does nothing?

No, you've provided examples where the belief in the efficacy of prayer did something.

Incorrect. For those individuals who believe in the power of prayer, there is no observed placebo effect unless the prayer is administered. The prayer is necessary, but not sufficient, for the observed effect. The belief is necessary, but not sufficient, for the observed effect.

You can think of it kind of like the "cocktail" of drugs that is often used to treat HIV+ individuals; one of the medications alone will not produce the desired results, but the desired results require that all the medications be taken. Each one is necessary, but not sufficient, for the desired result.


Remember: strip it to the fundamentals. Therein you will find the truth.
In a way, you're right: I did not realize that the fundamental problem was that you were unclear on the concept of "necessary, but not sufficient." I will be more careful in the future. Thanks!

So? That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
In a way, it does.


The placebo effect does not fix bicycles. Does this mean the placebo effect does not exist?
Ummm...are you assuming that I think the placebo effect does not exist?


And, therefore, the study you provided is not relevant to what I was talking about.
It has some relevance.


I don't see what other explanation there can be.
Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy.


You seem to feel that you can simply state that prayer placebo is a on causa/pro causa fallacy, and that will wipe away all the research that has been done on the subject.
But I don't feel that way. However, I know that if something doesn't cause something else, to say that it does is the non causa/pro causa fallacy.


Please provide evidence for the assertion that the placebo effect is a non causa/pro causa fallacy.
Please provide evidence that I asserted that the placebo effect is a non causa/pro causa fallacy.


I can eat a sugar pill and nothing will happen. Others can eat a sugar pill and nothing will happen. Does this disprove the existence of the placebo effect, as observed using sugar pills?
Are you still assuming that I say that the placebo effect doesn't exist? tsk-tsk.


Well, depending on how you look at it, aspirin doesn't do anything.
Actually, it can be shown that it does have a measurably chemical change.


So does the placebo effect. And so does prayer.
No. Prayer does nothing. It's the belief that it does do something which causes it.


I actually was lucky enough to observe an MRI trial where they monitored the brain waves of a yogi who was engaged in meditative prayer. In his case, the physiological effect of prayer was indistinguishable from the effect of administering a moderate dose of benzodiazepine.[/qote]
No, it was just the belief that it did something.


[QUOTE=Bottle]There are some people who do not show any response to the drug Prozac. Does this mean that Prozac does nothing?
Why do you use such false analogies?

Incorrect.
No, it's quite correct.


For those individuals who believe in the power of prayer, there is no observed placebo effect unless the prayer is administered.
Thus demonstrating that I'm correct.

Next time you want to admit that I'm correct, just come out and say it.

Incorrect. For those individuals who believe in the power of prayer, there is no observed placebo effect unless the prayer is administered. The prayer is necessary, but not sufficient, for the observed effect. The belief is necessary, but not sufficient, for the observed effect.

You can think of it kind of like the "cocktail" of drugs that is often used to treat HIV+ individuals; one of the medications alone will not produce the desired results, but the desired results require that all the medications be taken. Each one is necessary, but not sufficient, for the desired result.

I remember when I got my vasectomy, I found out that not only was I extremely resistant to the effects of xylocaine being used as a local anesthetic, but my nerves were in slightly different locations. This caused a lot of problems in trying to numb the area.

The surgeon in this case had performed over 23,000 vasectomies. He said that no matter how many times you see the inside of the human body, it's never like the book - there is ALWAYS variation.

I happen to agree with him - it's why drugs have variable effects depending on who takes them, and why the placebo effect is stronger in some people than in others.

I tend to view our biology and biochemistry as a continuum instead of as disjointed systems. Our genetics, our environment, and our psychology all affect one another, and create variation. So just because I get injected at a particular site with xylocaine, it doesn't mean I'm going to get numb - anywhere.

Looky! A religious topic that's almost completely turned into a semantics debate! Amazing!

Primarily, it ought to be noted that Christianity, if adhered to in either a fundamentalist, or interpretive sense, is thoroughly malign.

Any religion adhered to in a fundamentalist sense (at least by the general sociological use of the term) is a problem. Although I'm not sure what's wrong with an interpretive sense.

Whilst it must be conceded that the more altruistic of Christian tenets, notably the ten commandments, are of merit, much of the peripheral obligations are anachronistic twaddle designed for first century Judea.

Even the lessons specifically designed for the time can be applied to today. Take, for instance, the "turn the other cheek" passage, which refers to various forms of passive resistance. In today's world, the specific examples used wouldn't work, as our society is very different. However, MLK, Jr. found quite a few ways to apply that lesson to his own struggles...

It is evident that Christianity compels and inspires millions to lead an altruistic, charitable existence, however it also serves to impede any genuine progress in either a social, or scientific sense, given the preponderence of Christians in government.

There is nothing inherent in Chrisitanity that impedes progress in either of these areas. I, for one, am both a Christian and a scientist. While I certainly wish that my current project was moving along faster, I can pretty definitively state that it isn't my religion that is keeping it from doing so.

The insistance on converting people (individual Christians and even a few churches may not be doing this but according to your holy book you are suposed to) and the insistance that their god is the only one who exists.

"Converting" has taken on quite a negative context - often due to those who attempted to "convert by the sword," as if that is even possible. Anyone who is convinced of a particular philosophy will feel that others should agree. But "conversion" need not refer to evangelizing. It could simply be sitting down, having a friendly discussion, and ending up agreeing with something you have never thought of before.

As for the insistence that theirs is the only god who exists, that is going to come with any monotheistic viewpoint. If there is only one god, then obviously only one god can exist. Of course, this viewpoint does not impede the idea that others may view that god in a very different light...


I already have.

Where, exactly? I have seen you claim that every other statement is a lie, but you have yet to demonstrate a single one.

But it does apply. For instance, when people say "The Roman Catholic Church", do they always mean the physical building? No. They mean the sect of xerdom that is Catholic.

Of course, I am not a member of any given sect or denomination. So there is still a problem.

But they do, as you've admitted. Remember: the only way to heaven is through jesus. That's part of your religion. Part of what's been written of it.

Once again, you demonstrate a severe lack of reading comprehension. The fact that I share a single belief with someone does not mean that I share all of their beliefs. I bet, if we tried hard enough, you and I could find something that we both agree on. Does that mean that you are a Christian?

Then the question becomes why are certain parts of your belief inconsistent with it, given that you necessarily have no objective standard by which to say "I will not believe this part".

I do have standards. I simply recognize that, as with morality, they might be different from the standards of others.

Of course, the idea of having no "objective" standard rests upon your assumption that God does not exist. Since that is your assumption - one that you cannot support - it is hardly a necessity.

No my dear, you have not.

Yes, I have. You just don't like what I'm saying.

Then you're not an xer, since it is not a personal religion.

Every religion is a personal religion. I do find it funny, however, that you now seek to define religion for a huge group of people. It was funny enough when you were trying to define what I believe. Now you are trying to define what all Christians believe?

Nope. The point of the story is that use what god gives you and let god rule over you or be put to death.

Anyone who doesn't get that out of it hasn't read it.

LOL! I bet you did wonderfully in literature classes.

BK: "The author meant 'X' by this passage."
Teacher: "Why do you say that?"
BK: "If you don't agree with me, you simply haven't read it."
Teacher: "hmmmmm....... F."

Then why offer eternal life? Sounds like you're trying to downplay what's written.

Eternal life is the presence of God.

I believe you are unaware of it. It's "carrot-on-a-stick". Leading a donkey around with a carrot attached to a stick.[

Wrong. That would be "carrot on a stick." The carrot-stick mentality, on the other hand, involves both a carrot and a stick. The carrot represents a reward. The stick represents punishment.

I'm simply telling you what your book states. You denied that it states what it does. That makes you dishonest.

I didn't deny any such thing. I offered another interpretation - as can be done with just about any writing other than technical writing.

Meanwhile, the very fact that you assume I take the entire Bible as rote truth demonstrates that you know nothing about my beliefs.

No, I'm telling you what is written, not my interpretation.

The only way to only tell me what is written is to simply quote it and leave it at that. The minute you start getting into the "point" of a given passage, you have strayed into interpretation. Believe it or not BK, you are no more infallible than I.

Once again, you lie.

So you never said that the idea that "Goddidit" is a false conception? Would you like me to quote you again?

Apparently, "lie" in your vernacular means, "Make an accurate statement that BK would like to forget is true."

But you have fundamental (core) beliefs that you all share. For instance, I doubt that you'd say that there is an xer out there who does not believe that there is a god!

Any philosohpical grouping will share some sort of fundamental basis. Otherwise, there would be no reason to group them.

Of course, I have already pointed out that there are those who consider themselves Christians who do not believe in a God. They simply believe that Christ's teachings contain truth that should be followed.

The core fundamental of Christianity is that all Christians revere and attempt to follow the teachings of Christ. We don't all agree on what those teachings were or the details surrounding them.

But, my dear, I do not.

You clearly do, since you keep stating patent falsehoods about my beliefs.

Yes. And even he believed that jesus' act was part of the atonement process.

Indeed, but not in the way that those who repeat that "Christ died for our sins," do. The method is quite different.

Betcha didn't think about that, didja?

Actually, that is precisely what I was thinking about.

As near homogenous as makes no ends, especially given the propensity of the early churches to do all sorts of nasty things to "heretics".

The very early churches had no heretics. It was only after a few in power decided that the heterogeneity of beliefs was a problem that they began to try and define "heretics."

Then they are atheists, since divine is of, relating to, or proceeding from god.

Fancy that! You can be an atheist and a Christian!

Rather, I demonstrated how you haven't.

You've demonstrated that I don't know the facts that you denied even existed?

Wrong. There are fundamental beliefs common to all xers.

There you go trying to define the beliefs of others, yet again.

Which is self-contradictory nonsense. No wonder you're fucked up.

No, it isn't. If I say that I believe you can follow the scientific method without calling it that, is that self-contradictory? No, it just means that you can follow a given method without ever knowing that others refer to it as the "scientific method."

Once again, you lie.

You're right. You haven't claimed that I am lying every time you decide that I don't believe what I believe.

Non sequitur.

Not at all. Every human being follows a different path. If there were only one possible "right" path, then only one person could ever find it.

You've told me: you're an xer.

Being a Christian gives you one basic idea: that I follow the teachings of Christ. It tells you nothing else about what I believe, although you would like to attach all sorts of preconceptions you have onto me.

Hmmmmm?

Are you claiming you didn't say it? Or are you going to admit that you point-blank lied in your last post?

No, it's quite correct.

Do you need me to clarify the "necessary, but not sufficient" concept further?


Thus demonstrating that I'm correct.

Next time you want to admit that I'm correct, just come out and say it.
It's like arguing with a wind-up doll. :)

Where, exactly? I have seen you claim that every other statement is a lie, but you have yet to demonstrate a single one.
But I have.


Of course, I am not a member of any given sect or denomination.
Ah, so you're not an xer. So you lied to me.


Once again, you demonstrate a severe lack of reading comprehension.
Pot. Kettle. Black.


The fact that I share a single belief with someone does not mean that I share all of their beliefs.
Did I say that you did? NO!

Yet another lie from you.


I do have standards. I simply recognize that, as with morality, they might be different from the standards of others.

Of course, the idea of having no "objective" standard rests upon your assumption that God does not exist.
That's not an assumption; that's an a priori conclusion.


Yes, I have. You just don't like what I'm saying.
No, you've not.


Every religion is a personal religion.
No.


I do find it funny, however, that you now seek to define religion for a huge group of people.
I don't.

Yet another lie from you.


LOL! I bet you did wonderfully in literature classes.
I did.


Eternal life is the presence of God.
The carrot.


Wrong. That would be "carrot on a stick."
Yes.


The carrot-stick mentality,
Is the same thing.


I didn't deny any such thing.
Bullshit.


I offered another interpretation
Which denied the words as written. It's like saying "George W. Bush is the President of the United States" means "I like fish".


Meanwhile, the very fact that you assume I take the entire Bible as rote truth demonstrates that you know nothing about my beliefs.
Meanwhile, I don't assume that. Another lie from you.


The only way to only tell me what is written is to simply quote it and leave it at that.
No.


The minute you start getting into the "point" of a given passage, you have strayed into interpretation.
Nope.


So you never said that the idea that "Goddidit" is a false conception?
That's not a claim. That's an a priori conclusion.


Apparently, "lie" in your vernacular means, "Make an accurate statement that BK would like to forget is true."
Yet another lie from you.


Any philosohpical grouping will share some sort of fundamental basis. Otherwise, there would be no reason to group them.
Then you'll never again claim that I can't make statements about all xers. Good.


Of course, I have already pointed out that there are those who consider themselves Christians who do not believe in a God.
Then they are atheists, for all xers must believe in a god.


The core fundamental of Christianity is that all Christians revere and attempt to follow the teachings of Christ.
There's more than that. They believe there is a god and that jesus was his only son, sent to die for our sins.


You clearly do, since you keep stating patent falsehoods about my beliefs.
But I don't.


Indeed, but not in the way that those who repeat that "Christ died for our sins," do. The method is quite different.
Yet it's still there.


Actually, that is precisely what I was thinking about.
Sure it was, just like you were thinking about fish right now.


The very early churches had no heretics. It was only after a few in power decided that the heterogeneity of beliefs was a problem that they began to try and define "heretics."
And?


Fancy that! You can be an atheist and a Christian!
No, you cannot be.


You've demonstrated that I don't know the facts that you denied even existed?
That doesn't parse.


There you go trying to define the beliefs of others, yet again.
There you go lying again.


No, it isn't.
Of course it's self-contradictory nonsense.


If I say that I believe you can follow the scientific method without calling it that,
Which isn't what you're doing with your beliefs, so you've created a false analogy.


You're right. You haven't claimed that I am lying every time you decide that I don't believe what I believe.
But I don't do that. So you've lied yet again.


Not at all. Every human being follows a different path. If there were only one possible "right" path, then only one person could ever find it.
Non sequitur.


Being a Christian gives you one basic idea: that I follow the teachings of Christ.
And that there is a god and jesus was his only son.


Are you claiming you didn't say it? Or are you going to admit that you point-blank lied in your last post?
Hmmmmm?

Do you need me to clarify the "necessary, but not sufficient" concept further?
Why? You're only going to demonstrate--yet again--that I'm correct.

In a way, it does.

Please outline the way in which it does, specifically.


Ummm...are you assuming that I think the placebo effect does not exist?

You appear to have stated as much. If you do not feel that you have done so, please clarify (be specific).


It has some relevance.

Please explain how (specifically).


Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy.

My cat's name is Mittens.


But I don't feel that way. However, I know that if something doesn't cause something else, to say that it does is the non causa/pro causa fallacy.

That is true; if something doesn't cause something else, to say that it does is the non causa/pro causa fallacy. However, if something does cause something else, saying that it does so is not a non causa/pro causa fallacy. Can you see how this works?


Please provide evidence that I asserted that the placebo effect is a non causa/pro causa fallacy.

I dunno, I don't think I should "mollycoddle" you. You have fingers and can click, right?


Actually, it can be shown that it does have a measurably chemical change.

Just as prayer has been shown to cause measurable changes in the brains of numerous subjects.


No. Prayer does nothing. It's the belief that it does do something which causes it.
Again, this is the "necessary but not sufficient" concept. Merely believing in the power of prayer does not produce the effect in question. Both the belief AND the prayer are required.


No, it was just the belief that it did something.

The yogi believed that meditation "does something" before, after, and during the MRI trial. It was only when he proceded to enter his prayer state that the changes were observed.

For somebody who is so fond of referencing the non causa/pro causa fallacy, you certainly do use it a lot.

Why? You're only going to demonstrate--yet again--that I'm correct.
Okay, let's put it to a vote: do I keep poking him with the sharp stick of reality to make him dance about for our entertainment, or shall I be uncharacteristically merciful and spare him the embarassment?

Okay, let's put it to a vote: do I keep poking him with the sharp stick of reality to make him dance about for our entertainment, or shall I be uncharacteristically merciful and spare him the embarassment?
I would say stick, but the dancing isn't very entertaining. You'll get a one line "no" and that will be his response.

Please outline the way in which it does, specifically.
That prayer has no means of actually accomplishing anything.


You appear to have stated as much.
No, I do not appear to have stated as much. If you feel that I have, please clarify (be specific).


Please explain how (specifically).
See above.


My cat's name is Mittens.
How wonderful. I just took a picture of one of my cats in my sink. Rather cute. Would you like to see it?


That is true; if something doesn't cause something else, to say that it does is the non causa/pro causa fallacy. However, if something does cause something else, saying that it does so is not a non causa/pro causa fallacy. Can you see how this works?
Yes, and it has been demonstrated that prayer itself doesn't do anything. It's the belief that it does something that actually is the cause. But you are stuck on your silly little belief.


I dunno, I don't think I should "mollycoddle" you. You have fingers and can click, right?
So can you. So get to it.


Just as prayer has been shown to cause measurable changes in the brains of numerous subjects.
But it hasn't.


Again, this is the "necessary but not sufficient" concept.
And?


The yogi believed that meditation "does something" before, after, and during the MRI trial. It was only when he proceded to enter his prayer state that the changes were observed.
So what you're saying is that the belief does something and prayer doesn't. Gotcha.


For somebody who is so fond of referencing the non causa/pro causa fallacy, you certainly do use it a lot.
Except that I never do.

Okay, let's put it to a vote: do I keep poking him with the sharp stick of reality to make him dance about for our entertainment, or shall I be uncharacteristically merciful and spare him the embarassment?
You can do whatever you like, but you'll only end up embarrassing yourself.

I would say stick, but the dancing isn't very entertaining. You'll get a one line "no" and that will be his response.
Yeah, believe it or not I'm actually getting a bit bored. Most of my pet trolls will do more than one trick...maybe I should go find one of them to play with.

Yeah, believe it or not I'm actually getting a bit bored. Most of my pet trolls will do more than one trick...maybe I should go find one of them to play with.
Awwwww....poor you. You've got nothing left, so you have to try to insult me. Poor you.

But I do appreciate your total and unconditional concession of my points. It's been a pleasure.

Jesus Rules!

Hellz Yeah!

Jesus Rules!

Hellz Yeah!
And, sadly, this actually raises the level of discourse currently underway on this thread...

Yeah, believe it or not I'm actually getting a bit bored. Most of my pet trolls will do more than one trick...maybe I should go find one of them to play with.

I'm beginning to think the same thing.

Reminds me a bit of this:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

Jesus Rules!

Hellz Yeah!

Doh, Jesus Rulez! With a Z!

=)

And, sadly, this actually raises the level of discourse currently underway on this thread...
You've only yourself to blame for that.

I'm beginning to think the same thing.

Reminds me a bit of this:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
Let's just break it down very simply, and then leave it at that:

The placebo effect is a measurable phenomenon. It is reasonable to say that the placebo effect is "something." Prayer has been repeatedly demonstrated to produce the placebo effect in certain patients. It is therefore reasonable to say that prayer can do "something." Because prayer can do something, it is not reasonable to say that "prayer does nothing."

The End. :D

You've only yourself to blame for that.
So's your face!

Let's just break it down very simply, and then leave it at that:

The placebo effect is a measurable phenomenon. It is reasonable to say that the placebo effect is "something." Prayer has been repeatedly demonstrated to produce the placebo effect in certain patients. It is therefore reasonable to say that prayer can do "something." Because prayer can do something, it is not reasonable to say that "prayer does nothing."

The End. :D

No it isn't! You liar!

I like cheese!

((Hey, this is kinda fun))

No it isn't! You liar!

I already explained why you're the liar. I'm not about to mollycoddle you by pointing out the many ways in which I'm right.


I like cheese!

I have already conclusively demonstrated that cheese cannot be liked by you.


((Hey, this is kinda fun))
I do not have fun, therefore fun does not exist. You're a doodiehead.

Awwwww....poor you. You've got nothing left, so you have to try to insult me. Poor you.

But I do appreciate your total and unconditional concession of my points. It's been a pleasure.
It's impossible to argue against someone whose concept of debate is completely different to your own. Whether or not either of you are right, further discussion between you is pointless and, to be blunt, boring to the reader.

It's impossible to argue against someone whose concept of debate is completely different to your own. Whether or not either of you are right, further discussion between you is pointless and, to be blunt, boring to the reader.
Yer mom is boring to the reader!

(Really, I think I'm getting better results with this method!)

Yer mom is boring to the reader!

Yeah, well you're a stupid head! And you smell!

But I do appreciate your total and unconditional concession of my points. It's been a pleasure.
Too bad YOU already totally and unconditionally conceded MY points, to the power of infinity times infinity with no backsies!

Yer mom is boring to the reader!

(Really, I think I'm getting better results with this method!)
No, I think you'll find that your mom is boring to the reader. Seriously, do some research before you spout tripe like that.

(... Okay, that's enough of that from me.)

So's your face!
*yawn*

Too bad YOU already totally and unconditionally conceded MY points, to the power of infinity times infinity with no backsies!
*yawn*

You just continue to demonstrate your childish ways.

It's impossible to argue against someone whose concept of debate is completely different to your own.
If I had something to debate, rather than silly bullshit from people who want to argue semantics....

Let's just break it down very simply, and then leave it at that:

The placebo effect is a measurable phenomenon. It is reasonable to say that the placebo effect is "something." Prayer has been repeatedly demonstrated to produce the placebo effect in certain patients.
But not all. Therefore, it is wholly unreasonable to say that prayer does something. We must instead look for something more basic. And that is what you've failed to grasp.

But that's just it: "positive thinking" has power, and prayer is a means of engaging in "positive thinking." It's not the only means, and it's not like prayer has some special magic that cannot be accessed through any other means, but it's one way of attaining a given set of results.

Some people cannot "believe" in any other means, and therefore prayer is the only way they can attain many of the results from focused "positive thinking." Other people don't believe in prayer, so it's not gonna do a damn thing for them.

Prayer does have effects, though these effects are often misunderstood or misrepresented for a variety of reasons. The "power of positive thinking" may sound campy and stupid, but it refers to a geniune set of phenomena that have been well-documented in the medical and psychological communities. Prayer is one form of this.

Indeed - I have seen trials that heavily supported the efficacy of prayer... a number of them. Some showed that it didn't matter who-or-what the prayer was directed to, or the belief paradigm of the praying individual. I have seen other studies that suggest minimal correlation between prayer and effect.

What I have to accept, then - as a scientist - is that the jury is out on this subject - but that the evidence suggests there IS 'power in prayer'...

As you say - that doesn't speak to the specifics of any religion, or to the interventionist powers of any entity... but it does suggest that the mechanism is not as easily disposed of as SOME would like it to be.

I already explained why you're the liar. I'm not about to mollycoddle you by pointing out the many ways in which I'm right.

No you didn't.

I have already conclusively demonstrated that cheese cannot be liked by you.

Liar! All debaters like cheese!

I do not have fun, therefore fun does not exist. You're a doodiehead.

I didn't say anything about fun! You're just a liar!

Indeed - I have seen trials that heavily supported the efficacy of prayer... a number of them. Some showed that it didn't matter who-or-what the prayer was directed to, or the belief paradigm of the praying individual. I have seen other studies that suggest minimal correlation between prayer and effect.

What I have to accept, then - as a scientist - is that the jury is out on this subject - but that the evidence suggests there IS 'power in prayer'...

As you say - that doesn't speak to the specifics of any religion, or to the interventionist powers of any entity... but it does suggest that the mechanism is not as easily disposed of as SOME would like it to be.

Grave, your silly rationality has no place here. =)

Grave, your silly rationality has no place here. =)

I know. I'm sorry.

I must stop allowing my judgement to be influenced by whether or not the evidence supports it...

I know. I'm sorry.

I must stop allowing my judgement to be influenced by whether or not the evidence supports it...

Indeed. Cheese is the only answer.

You seem to think that religion cannot exist without religious leaders and organization. I beg to differ. A person does not need a religious leader to give them their religious views. And without deference to a religious leader, it would be rather difficult for such a leader to use religion as a control, would it not?

Religions are founded by leaders. In every single case of the founding of a religion, there was some prophet claiming special knowledge from the gods or God, and using people's insecurity to attract followers. In every single case, a preisthood is formed in order to do the interpreting of religion. All religions have leaders, they are nescesary for its formation and are nescesary to keep people from challenging the accepted religious dogma.

Religions are founded by leaders.

Philosophies are founded by people too, but others add to them, change them, etc.

In every single case of the founding of a religion, there was some prophet claiming special knowledge from the gods or God, and using people's insecurity to attract followers. In every single case, a preisthood is formed in order to do the interpreting of religion. All religions have leaders, they are nescesary for its formation and are nescesary to keep people from challenging the accepted religious dogma.

Anyone who doesn't challenge "accepted religious dogma" is not religious at all. They are simply following other human beings. The fact that the priesthood of a given religion often tries to suppress such questioning is a large part of what is wrong with organized religion.

Edit: Religious wasn't the best word to use there. It would have been better to say, that such a person has no faith in God. They may very well be religious, I suppose, although the object of their worship would ultimately be the person who they place their faith in.

There's nothing "wrong" with Christianity. Well no more or less than what's wrong with any and every other religion. Anyone who says different is either an idiot or religious.

Indeed - I have seen trials that heavily supported the efficacy of prayer... a number of them. Some showed that it didn't matter who-or-what the prayer was directed to, or the belief paradigm of the praying individual. I have seen other studies that suggest minimal correlation between prayer and effect.

What I have to accept, then - as a scientist - is that the jury is out on this subject - but that the evidence suggests there IS 'power in prayer'...

As you say - that doesn't speak to the specifics of any religion, or to the interventionist powers of any entity... but it does suggest that the mechanism is not as easily disposed of as SOME would like it to be.

Which of course brings us to the idea of belief. Is your prayer being answered because some divine being is listening, or is it being answered because you believe that your prayer is being answered? I can't remember the name of the philosopher who discussed this idea, might have been Hegel but I'm not sure, How things occur not because of an outside force acting upon them, but because we believe in the course of events that must be. There was an example about a billard ball going into a hole, not because of any particular physical constraint, but because the shooter believed that the ball would go into the hole if it the right way.

This brings up the whole idea of latent psyonics and massed belief affecting how things are. An interesting idea to be sure.

Anyway, Christianity itself is not flawed, or at least no more than any other religion. It is the human aspect that brings flaws to it. (Fanatic, zealots and fundementalists)

Anyone who doesn't challenge "accepted religious dogma" is not religious at all. They are simply following other human beings. The fact that the priesthood of a given religion often tries to suppress such questioning is a large part of what is wrong with organized religion.

Religious faiths are un-falsifiable. They can in no way be proven false by evidence. Because of that, religions are not based on reason. They are based on a blind acceptance of ideas that there is no way to prove or disprove. All religions inherently degenerate into dogmatic cults. Take Christianity. Historically, the only thing that can be proven is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere around 20 C.E. Anything beyond that must be taken on faith. All of the gospels in the Christian Bible were written almost a century after Jesus' alleged death (i say alleged because there is no way to prove or disprove that it happened). Every single word in the Bible cannot be accepted by anthing other than blind faith. The same is true for all religions. Reason and faith are incompatible oppossites.

Reason and faith are incompatible oppossites.


I guess that's why science and math are based on postulates and axioms that are mere assumptions that are unprovable.

Try having a discussion of geometry without postulates. It will be a short class.

I guess that's why science and math are based on postulates and axioms that are mere assumptions that are unprovable.

Try having a discussion of geometry without postulates. It will be a short class.
And how does that relate to reason and faith?

Religious faiths are un-falsifiable. They can in no way be proven false by evidence. Because of that, religions are not based on reason. They are based on a blind acceptance of ideas that there is no way to prove or disprove. All religions inherently degenerate into dogmatic cults. Take Christianity. Historically, the only thing that can be proven is that Jesus lived in Palestine somewhere around 20 C.E. Anything beyond that must be taken on faith. All of the gospels in the Christian Bible were written almost a century after Jesus' alleged death (i say alleged because there is no way to prove or disprove that it happened). Every single word in the Bible cannot be accepted by anthing other than blind faith. The same is true for all religions. Reason and faith are incompatible oppossites.
even that has to be taken on faith. there is no contemporary writing from 20AD that verifies the existance of the jesus of the bible. even with the earliest epistles, the earlier they are the fewer references there are to an actual man.

Religious faiths are un-falsifiable.

Empirically, yes. Of course, most of philosophy is empirically unfalsifiable. The thing that makes science special among all philosophies is its reliance on the empirical and the falsifiable.

They can in no way be proven false by evidence. Because of that, religions are not based on reason.

All evidence is not empirical. In order to convince someone else of something, I would agree that empirical evidence is necessary. However, to reason something for yourself, all you need is your own personal experience.

All religions inherently degenerate into dogmatic cults.

How can a personal religion that is tied only to one person "degenerate into" a "dogmatic cult"?

Reason and faith are incompatible oppossites.

Hardly. One cannot truly have faith without reason. Any belief which has not been critically examined by the person is not actually a belief that is their own.

Empirically, yes. Of course, most of philosophy is empirically unfalsifiable. The thing that makes science special among all philosophies is its reliance on the empirical and the falsifiable.
The hard sciences, you mean. The a priori sciences don't need it.


Hardly. One cannot truly have faith without reason. Any belief which has not been critically examined by the person is not actually a belief that is their own.
Variant on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The hard sciences, you mean. The a priori sciences don't need it.

No.

Variant on the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Liar.

I guess that's why science and math are based on postulates and axioms that are mere assumptions that are unprovable.

Try having a discussion of geometry without postulates. It will be a short class.
Postulates in mathematics are conceptual conventions; not unquestioned assumptions. 1+1=2 because that is what we have defined 1, +, = and 2 to mean. Sure, you could come up with entirely different postulates if you wanted, but communicating any deductions made in this way would be very difficult, given that you'd need to start from base principles for each calculation if you wanted anyone to understand what you were doing.

No.
Yes.


Liar.
Liar.

You're only hurting yourself.

Yes.

Liar.

Liar.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You're only hurting yourself.

No I'm not. Liar.

No you didn't.

Did so!


Liar! All debaters like cheese!

There is no cheese! Learn to read, noob!


I didn't say anything about fun! You're just a liar!
I didn't say anything about you saying anything about fun!

(We need a whole thread of this. That is, a thread that is INTENDED to be full of this. Because it's fun as hell.)

Liar.
Liar.

The difference between you and me is that I actually know what I'm talking about. You, OTOH, don't. So don't think you can compete.

Liar.

You're only hurting yourself.
Actually, he had a point on that one. One does not believe without holding an idea to be true; therefore, the idea in question must have undergone examination. Whether that's quite what he meant is another question, of course, but it's not necessarily a contradiction to the essence of belief to say that it cannot deny analysis.

Wow, quadruple negative. Neat.

Yes.

Liar.

You're only hurting yourself.

Liar.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

No I'm not. Liar.

Name calling is not going to get this discussion anywhere.

Name calling is not going to get this discussion anywhere.
On the contrary; name-calling is this discussion.

Actually, he had a point on that one. One does not believe without holding an idea to be true; therefore, the idea in question must have undergone examination.
No, I've known people who just accept the silliest of things without question. They're called "theists". They never actually examined the ideas; they just accepted them uncritically.

Name calling is not going to get this discussion anywhere.
Is it supposed to go somewhere with that one? I'm not seeing how.

I guess that's why science and math are based on postulates and axioms that are mere assumptions that are unprovable.

Try having a discussion of geometry without postulates. It will be a short class.
As a scientist, I will freely admit that I require certain assumptions in order to do science.

For one thing, I require the assumption that our perceptions in some way reflect the reality of our universe. Anybody who has seen The Matrix can see why this is important.

For another thing, I require the assumption of materialism, at least to a certain degree. I require that we assume there is a natural world, and that the natural world can be explained via natural means. The moment non-natural forces enter the picture, I can no longer do science. For instance, I can test the action of gravity through a variety of natural experiments. However, if we assume the existence of magical pixies who can invisibly control all matter, then there is no way for me to test gravity using natural means because any results I get could be due to the intervention of the magical pixies.

The thing is, we can't really test these assumptions. We can't actually test the law of cause and effect.

This is all the sort of thing you kick around with your dorm mates when you're a natural science major and you've got a bag of good weed. For extra bonus annoying conversation, find somebody who's majoring in physics and minoring in philosophy.

Name calling is not going to get this discussion anywhere.
That's just the sort of thing a butthead would say.

No, I've known people who just accept the silliest of things without question. They're called "theists". They never actually examined the ideas; they just accepted them uncritically.
But how can they believe if they don't know? To believe something is to hold it to be true; surely you cannot hold something to be true that you have never even read, heard or thought of?

That's just the sort of thing a butthead would say.

hehehehe, you said butt!!!!!!

That's what this thread's turned into, that is (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1870009673790677729&q=history+today)

No, I've known people who just accept the silliest of things without question. They're called "theists". They never actually examined the ideas; they just accepted them uncritically.
isn't it kinda arrogant of you to assume that just because my critical reasoning didn't end up the same place yours did (assuming you did think about it) that it's wrong?

isn't it kinda arrogant of you to assume that just because my critical reasoning didn't end up the same place yours did (assuming you did think about it) that it's wrong?
Well, let's be careful, here. We agreed, earlier in the thread, the God-belief isn't something you're going to reach through "reason" in the classical sense. "Critical thinking" isn't going to lead you to assume the existence of God, any more than it's going to lead you to assume the existence of magical invisible unicorns. The whole point of the "leap of faith" is that you are leaping over a gap in your "reason."

The thing is, critical thinking is also not going to get you to a point where you can conclusively assert there is no God. Mostly because "God" is a term that nobody has bothered to define conclusively, and it's pretty impossible to disprove the existence of something you can't even define.

The difference between you and me is that I actually know what I'm talking about. You, OTOH, don't. So don't think you can compete.

Why do you keep lying?


Name calling is not going to get this discussion anywhere.

Of course not. But BK has been quite clear that he doesn't want the discussion to go anywhere. Thus, some of us decided to deal with him on his own terms.


This is all the sort of thing you kick around with your dorm mates when you're a natural science major and you've got a bag of good weed.

*frown* The people I smoked weed with never wanted to discuss the philosophy of science. They were mostly drama geeks. =)

For extra bonus annoying conversation, find somebody who's majoring in physics and minoring in philosophy.

Just get someone who is majoring in physics high. I'm pretty sure that would be enough. LOL.

But how can they believe if they don't know?
Knowledge is a special type of belief. But belief by itself doesn't have to be knowledge unless you want to make it some meta-statement like "you know that you believe".


To believe something is to hold it to be true;
You can hold true that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the moon is made of green cheese. However, neither of those cases constitutes knowledge.

The thing is, critical thinking is also not going to get you to a point where you can conclusively assert there is no God. Mostly because "God" is a term that nobody has bothered to define conclusively, and it's pretty impossible to disprove the existence of something you can't even define.
There is no universal definition, yes. However, it is certainly the case that each individual develops their own vague understanding of what they hold the term God to mean. Surely, not only do we arrive at our own definition of God by means of critical analysis but also derive our opinions on the state of that God we have defined by similar means?

isn't it kinda arrogant of you to assume that just because my critical reasoning didn't end up the same place yours did (assuming you did think about it) that it's wrong?
Would it be arrogant of me to assume that just because someone's supposed critical reasoning ended them up at 2 + 2 = 5 that they would be wrong?

You can hold true that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the moon is made of green cheese. However, neither of those cases constitutes knowledge.

Kind of like the invisible pink unicorn.

Nope. Jn 3:16 is quite clear.

Unless, of course, Jn 3:16 does not read "For god loved the world so much that he gave his only son so that those who believe in him will have eternal life."

I always thought that it did. Maybe you have some different translation of the bible wherein Jn 3:16 has something completely different.


That doesn't make it a fundamental tenet of Chrisitianity.
It's a favourite scripture of some and often quoted, to be sure, but it is very much NOT the central message of the teachings of Jesus/Christ/Yeshua/Messiah.


That's what it might have been originally, but it has since mutated into what I stated.

What others may have mutated it into is the problem.
The foundational tenets of Christianity must come from what it was originally.

Why do you keep lying?
The question actually is to you.


Of course not. But BK has been quite clear that he doesn't want the discussion to go anywhere.
But I did.


Thus, some of us decided to deal with him on his own terms.
But you're not. You're stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because your methods didn't work.

Kind of like the invisible pink unicorn.
Don't tell me that you're a minion of the Purple Oyster of Doom (piss be unto him).

That doesn't make it a fundamental tenet of Chrisitianity.
So the nearly 2,000 years of it being the prominent message of xerdom doesn't make it a fundamental tenet?


It's a favourite scripture of some and often quoted, to be sure, but it is very much NOT the central message of the teachings of Jesus/Christ/Yeshua/Messiah.
Didn't jesus say that he is the only way to the father?


What others may have mutated it into is the problem.
The foundational tenets of Christianity must come from what it was originally.
Which really is about salvation.

Don't tell me that you're a minion of the Purple Oyster of Doom (piss be unto him).

No, I worship my neighbors deified soap dish. Praise be unto Soapy, Genocider of One-Cellular Life.

There is no universal definition, yes. However, it is certainly the case that each individual develops their own vague understanding of what they hold the term God to mean. Surely, not only do we arrive at our own definition of God by means of critical analysis but also derive our opinions on the state of that God we have defined by similar means?
I think it would be a mistake to say that you arrive at the above-mentioned conclusions via "critical thinking." That's far too simplistic.

I think an individual's vision of God is going to be a lot like their vision of beauty. Their cultural and societal context will play a part. Their upbringing and experiences throughout their life will play a part, as will the values that are modeled for them by the people they encounter. Their individual personality will play a part. And their conscious mind will play its part as well.

There can be a lot of similarities between people's standards of beauty, but I've yet to meet two people who had exactly the same idea of what is beautiful and what is not. Same goes for God.

The question actually is to you.

No, it wasn't.

But I did.

No, you didn't.

But you're not.

Yes, I am.

You're stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum because your methods didn't work.

Liar.

No, I worship my neighbors deified soap dish. Praise be unto Soapy, Genocider of One-Cellular Life.
On an evolutionary note, it's been suggested that one of the reasons we're seeing antibiotic resistant strains of certain bacteria is soap with antibiotics in it.

I think it would be a mistake to say that you arrive at the above-mentioned conclusions via "critical thinking." That's far too simplistic.

I think an individual's vision of God is going to be a lot like their vision of beauty. Their cultural and societal context will play a part. Their upbringing and experiences throughout their life will play a part, as will the values that are modeled for them by the people they encounter. Their individual personality will play a part. And their conscious mind will play its part as well.

There can be a lot of similarities between people's standards of beauty, but I've yet to meet two people who had exactly the same idea of what is beautiful and what is not. Same goes for God.

Indeed, as our cultural and societal influence will play a part in pretty much any viewpoint. Of course, we can critically examine their influence - to a point. We cannot rid ourselves of it, and thus cannot test to what extent it affects our conclusions, but we can examine it. In fact, I think one of the best ways to examine such effects is to discuss things with someone who came from a different cultrual or societal background.

No, it wasn't.
No, you didn't.
Yes, I am.
Liar.
What a wonderful tantrum. Would you like to have your diaper changed?

On an evolutionary note, it's been suggested that one of the reasons we're seeing antibiotic resistant strains of certain bacteria is soap with antibiotics in it.

Evolution is the devils work ! That is proof ! :eek:

*frown* The people I smoked weed with never wanted to discuss the philosophy of science. They were mostly drama geeks. =)

The drama geeks at my school are a bunch of drunks. :P

On an evolutionary note, it's been suggested that one of the reasons we're seeing antibiotic resistant strains of certain bacteria is soap with antibiotics in it.

Any deity that people worship has to be able to destroy humanity. Hence why I worship the soap dish... it will be are end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Convert now or fall forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its easy to pretend to be a religioius fanatic... no reasoning need be involved.

Evolution is the devils work ! That is proof ! :eek:
Nonono, you have to say it correctly. Watch:

"Evilooshuns r from Satin!"

See? Makes all the difference.

Indeed, as our cultural and societal influence will play a part in pretty much any viewpoint. Of course, we can critically examine their influence - to a point. We cannot rid ourselves of it, and thus cannot test to what extent it affects our conclusions, but we can examine it. In fact, I think one of the best ways to examine such effects is to discuss things with someone who came from a different cultrual or societal background.
It has always been patently obvious to me that "God" is subjective, just as beauty or goodness or love are subjective. Religion tends to annoy me largely because most religions try to paint some objective picture of God that all people are supposed to share in, and (to me) this seems as silly and arbitrary as expecting all people to share the same favorite flavor of ice cream.

Well, let's be careful, here. We agreed, earlier in the thread, the God-belief isn't something you're going to reach through "reason" in the classical sense. "Critical thinking" isn't going to lead you to assume the existence of God, any more than it's going to lead you to assume the existence of magical invisible unicorns. The whole point of the "leap of faith" is that you are leaping over a gap in your "reason."

The thing is, critical thinking is also not going to get you to a point where you can conclusively assert there is no God. Mostly because "God" is a term that nobody has bothered to define conclusively, and it's pretty impossible to disprove the existence of something you can't even define.
true.

I just would like to get away from the connotation that my personal faith is something that was force fed me at a multi-level marketing meeting, that all the flashy presentation has made me void of any critical thought, that my beliefs are left unexamined because BAAWA decided that religious people are stupid.

Nonono, you have to say it correctly. Watch:

"Evilooshuns r from Satin!"

See? Makes all the difference.

No, no. You need to add a "HEATHENS! INFIDELS" to the begining.

What a wonderful tantrum.

No, it isn't.

Would you like to have your diaper changed?

When did I say anything about diapers? Why are you lying?

true.

I just would like to get away from the connotation that my personal faith is something that was force fed me at a multi-level marketing meeting, that all the flashy presentation has made me void of any critical thought, that my beliefs are left unexamined because BAAWA decided that religious people are stupid.
Then you're getting away from your strawman. Good.

No, it isn't.
When did I say anything about diapers? Why are you lying?
What a wonderful tantrum. You should seriously do something about your diapers; a rash is not something you should take lightly.

No, no. You need to add a "HEATHENS! INFIDELS" to the begining.
That tends to come a little later, actually.

It has always been patently obvious to me that "God" is subjective, just as beauty or goodness or love are subjective. Religion tends to annoy me largely because most religions try to paint some objective picture of God that all people are supposed to share in, and (to me) this seems as silly and arbitrary as expecting all people to share the same favorite flavor of ice cream.

It's amazing how much we can both agree and disagree. I also think that the idea that we are all supposed to share in some specified idea of God is pretty silly. We all reach belief in the existence or non-existence of God (or lack of belief either way) through our own pathways. The idea that any two of us would end up with the same conception is, well, silly. And the idea that you (or anyone else) should accept my conception just because I say so is equally silly.

Then you're getting away from your strawman. Good.
I don't deal in strawmen, you must have me confused with someone else.

I don't deal in strawmen, you must have me confused with someone else.
Is your handle here "Smunkeeville"? If so, then I'm talking to the right person.

What a wonderful tantrum.

You're the one throwing a tantrum.

You should seriously do something about your diapers; a rash is not something you should take lightly.

I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say about me bounces off of me and sticks to you!

I don't deal in strawmen, you must have me confused with someone else.

Anything that doesn't completely agree with BK is quite obviously some form of fallacy. I think he has a random generator that he just throws at you in between "liar" and "no" or "yes."

Is your handle here "Smunkeeville"? If so, then I'm talking to the right person.
oh.......wait, I remember you, pre-Knights, *checks* yes, you were on my ignore list.....

what strawman? hmm?

You can hold true that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the moon is made of green cheese. However, neither of those cases constitutes knowledge.
If you don't at least have some understanding of what 2, +, =, 5, moon, green or cheese are, how can you believe the above to be true? How can you genuinely think that the moon is green without knowing what green is, never mind having never heard the word green before?

I might not know very much, but one thing I do know is that I don't know what I don't know. A tautology that may be, but if I do not know it, it has no conceptual existence to me. In order for me to have opinion either way about something, it must first be given some form within my own understanding; be that as little as a name or as much as a physical and conscious interaction.

Knowledge is a special type of belief. But belief by itself doesn't have to be knowledge unless you want to make it some meta-statement like "you know that you believe".
That wasn't what I was implying, no. And you're right; belief itself doesn't have to be knowledge. However, it is impossible to hold a belief without some sort of awareness of the concept or thing you believe in, and in order to have that, you must first engage in some (even if limited) form of analysis and evaluation.

It's amazing how much we can both agree and disagree. I also think that the idea that we are all supposed to share in some specified idea of God is pretty silly.
Just like it's silly to share in some specified idea of what the Moon is or what oxygen is.

Unless, of course, one is willing to admit that god is solely in one's mind. In which case that's perfectly fine.

true.

I just would like to get away from the connotation that my personal faith is something that was force fed me at a multi-level marketing meeting, that all the flashy presentation has made me void of any critical thought, that my beliefs are left unexamined because BAAWA decided that religious people are stupid.
I think it is foolish to assume that all religious people are religious because they were "brainwashed" into it. I think it is also silly to assume that religious people are religious because they are stupid, or gullible, or do not think critically.

And I say this as somebody who would love to help build a world in which people don't choose to be superstitious. From my point of view, the reason it's silly to make those assumptions about religious people is that such assumptions are counterproductive. If I want to build a world where nobody wants to be superstitious, I need to examine why people choose to be superstitious to begin with. It won't help me to make a bunch of assumptions about their motives and then simply proceed based on assumption alone.

You're the one throwing a tantrum.
I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say about me bounces off of me and sticks to you!
What a wonderful tantrum. I'll bet that rash is really starting to hurt.

That wasn't what I was implying, no. And you're right; belief itself doesn't have to be knowledge. However, it is impossible to hold a belief without some sort of awareness of the concept or thing you believe in, and in order to have that, you must first engage in some (even if limited) form of analysis and evaluation.
wait is this one of those a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square type of things..........

oh.......wait, I remember you, pre-Knights, *checks* yes, you were on my ignore list.....
Is that supposed to mean anything?


what strawman? hmm?
I just would like to get away from the connotation that my personal faith is something that was force fed me at a multi-level marketing meeting, that all the flashy presentation has made me void of any critical thought, that my beliefs are left unexamined because BAAWA decided that religious people are stupid.
That one.

Anything that doesn't completely agree with BK is quite obviously some form of fallacy.
Prove it.

Oh wait--you can't. That's just your way of throwing a tantrum.

What a wonderful tantrum.

No, it isn't.

I'll bet that rash is really starting to hurt.

You're the one talking about a rash. Is it itchy?

Prove it.

I already did.

Oh wait--you can't.

If you can't read what I wrote, that's your problem.

That's just your way of throwing a tantrum.

Liar.

If you don't at least have some understanding of what 2, +, =, 5, moon, green or cheese are, how can you believe the above to be true?
No theist understands what god is, yet they certainly believe that it is true that there is a god.


How can you genuinely think that the moon is green without knowing what green is, never mind having never heard the word green before?
Now you're going off on a different lane.


That wasn't what I was implying, no. And you're right; belief itself doesn't have to be knowledge. However, it is impossible to hold a belief without some sort of awareness of the concept or thing you believe in, and in order to have that, you must first engage in some (even if limited) form of analysis and evaluation.
Not at all. No theist has ever bothered to evaluate or analyze the term "god". It's deliberately fuzzy. Without form. It's just a catch-all term without any substance.

That one.
oh, you mean my perception that you think that my personal religious opinion has not been examined at all?



true.

I just would like to get away from the connotation that my personal faith is something that was force fed me at a multi-level marketing meeting, that all the flashy presentation has made me void of any critical thought, that my beliefs are left unexamined because BAAWA decided that religious people are stupid.
Then you're getting away from your strawman. Good.

now where is the original strawman?

No, it isn't.
What a wonderful tantrum. I'll bet that rash is burning something fierce. Here's some Desitin to help.

oh, you mean my perception that you think that my personal religious opinion has not been examined at all?
Your claim of that.


now where is the original strawman?
What you just read. Don't go all denial on me.

Your claim of that.
my claim of my own perception?



What you just read. Don't go all denial on me.
HA! you are fun! so my original strawman is my statement where you say I am coming away from my original strawman?!

"the schnozzberrys taste like schnozzberrys!"

Just like it's silly to share in some specified idea of what the Moon is or what oxygen is.

Shifting the scene fallacy.


What a wonderful tantrum. I'll bet that rash is burning something fierce. Here's some Desitin to help.

Why do you keep lying?

HA! you are fun! so my original strawman is my statement where you say I am coming away from my original strawman?!

"the schnozzberrys taste like schnozzberrys!"
Hey, we've already established that empirically-based data on the placebo effect is a falacy, and that disagreement = tantrum, and that reasoning means agreeing with an internet troll, so why the hell not just add a totally new defintion of "straw man," while we're at it!

my claim of my own perception?

He didn't say that. Why are you such a liar?

HA! you are fun! so my original strawman is my statement where you say I am coming away from my original strawman?!

Non sequitur.

"the schnozzberrys taste like schnozzberrys!"

MMMM, yummy.


You know, I think I'm really getting the hang of this.

So the nearly 2,000 years of it being the prominent message of xerdom doesn't make it a fundamental tenet?


Nope, it doesn't make it a fundamental tenet.

It hasn't even been the prominent message for 2000 years, although given the human condition, it has always been pretty popular.

The message is meant to change us HERE, NOW, not just prepare us for some la-dee-da place after we die. Anyone that pays attention to where the Christ put his time and effort in his teachings can see that he was far more concerned with making the "kingdom" HERE, not in "heaven".


Didn't jesus say that he is the only way to the father?

Why, yes he did.
"No one comes to the Father but by me" being the most popular english translation.
We note though that he did not even say, "no one gets into Heaven" or "no one has salvation". He spoke of coming to the father, which evokes more of a coming to know God motif. So, concievablely, and in fact, very likely given the language used, you could find a place in heaven or have salvation, but if you want to really get to know God, Jesus, as his son, is the only path to do so, everything else is just guess work.


Which really is about salvation.

Nope, but salvation does have a part to play in it.

He didn't say that. Why are you such a liar?
because I am a sinner, we all are, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ his son!!!! REPENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Non sequitur.
you live in America now, speak American!



MMMM, yummy.
yep, and you can't have none, na-na-na


You know, I think I'm really getting the hang of this.
me too!

No theist understands what god is, yet they certainly believe that it is true that there is a god.

Now you're going off on a different lane.
Consider it the lane I was originally trying to go down, and felt like taking a shortcut to, which is entirely true.

Some sort of prior awareness exists before any opinion on truth is formed. This is belief; knowledge of existence, without necessarily knowledge of the precise nature of that existence.

God exists conceptually, just like Green, Sour, Square, the FSM, Cave Trolls, Elves and Destiny exist conceptually. Awareness of the concept is knowledge, albeit very trivial knowledge, and knowledge that is vital for opinion regarding the subject, regardless of how little else you might know about the nature of the concept.

How we come by that knowledge is, I propose, either that we make it up or that someone else tells us; imagination or social intake. In either case, we must first process it, whether by sensory perception or creativity run rampant, and in either case, some sort of analysis takes place.

my claim of my own perception?
Your claim of my position.


HA! you are fun!
You're the one who wrote it.

Why, yes he did.
"No one comes to the Father but by me" being the most popular english translation.
We note though that he did not even say, "no one gets into Heaven" or "no one has salvation". He spoke of coming to the father, which evokes more of a coming to know God motif. So, concievablely, and in fact, very likely given the language used, you could find a place in heaven or have salvation, but if you want to really get to know God, Jesus, as his son, is the only path to do so, everything else is just guess work.

Ahh, the promise of salvation... for a price. You are sure to be saved... if you do what I say. I think that the verse in question is the both most abusable and the most abused part of the bible. It sets up the religious leader in a place of power, claiming special knowledge from God.

Shifting the scene fallacy.
Why do you keep lying?
What a wonderful tantrum. I can just see you stomping your feet.

because I am a sinner, we all are, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ his son!!!! REPENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow! How unthinking of you! =)

Alright, home time for me. You guys have fun with the BK.

Hey, we've already established that empirically-based data on the placebo effect is a falacy,
We did? When did we do that?

Oh that's right--we only did that in your mind. Poor you.

Nope, it doesn't make it a fundamental tenet.
Yet it is. It's part of the message, and a basic part at that. It's a fundamental tenet.


It hasn't even been the prominent message for 2000 years, although given the human condition, it has always been pretty popular.
So the entire history of xerdom hasn't been about salvation and belief in eternal life through jesus?


Why, yes he did.
"No one comes to the Father but by me" being the most popular english translation.
We note though that he did not even say, "no one gets into Heaven" or "no one has salvation". He spoke of coming to the father, which evokes more of a coming to know God motif.
Where in the world do you come up with that? It's not even implied by the text.

Your claim of my position.
I didn't claim anymore than the connotation of your words.



You're the one who wrote it.
I AM FUN?! cool:cool:

Wow! How unthinking of you! =)

Alright, home time for me. You guys have fun with the BK.
seriously it's the first thing that came to mind.

oh, and gotta go too.

Consider it the lane I was originally trying to go down, and felt like taking a shortcut to, which is entirely true.

Some sort of prior awareness exists before any opinion on truth is formed. This is belief; knowledge of existence, without necessarily knowledge of the precise nature of that existence.

God exists conceptually, just like Green, Sour, Square, the FSM, Cave Trolls, Elves and Destiny exist conceptually. Awareness of the concept is knowledge, albeit very trivial knowledge, and knowledge that is vital for opinion regarding the subject, regardless of how little else you might know about the nature of the concept.
Then it's just meta-knowledge.


How we come by that knowledge is, I propose, either that we make it up or that someone else tells us; imagination or social intake. In either case, we must first process it, whether by sensory perception or creativity run rampant, and in either case, some sort of analysis takes place.
I can say with much certainty that when one believes in something so utterly self-contradictory/without coherent definition as god, then no analysis has taken place.

No, really, what the hell is wrong with it?

I don't like it at all, but, I dunno. I got asked why I don't like religion so much and I realised I didn't know the answer to that question, DO YOU?

But I nearly got in a fist fight with the guy who asked me that, and then he told me that nobody loved me, then I asked him whether he thought God loved him. And he said yes.

I was just like, what the hell? Just how can you believe that.

And another guy in my class keeps trying to get me to go to his youth group and its getting scary because now another guy in the form above me is doing the same thing. They pay tythes and everything. It scares me how you can believe this and just how stupid humans all are.

Religon is best thought of as "magic". I have seen no evidence of it working. I have seen no evidence that would imply some kindly god figure, or any interventionist deity. As a result, I say its all bollocks.

I didn't claim anymore than the connotation of your words.
My words neither connoted nor denoted what you claimed they did.

Then it's just meta-knowledge.
True, though meta-knowledge is still knowledge, and fills the fundamental gap between ignorance and incorrectness.

I can say with much certainty that when one believes in something so utterly self-contradictory/without coherent definition as god, then no analysis has taken place.
I guess we're coming full circle here. I don't think there is such a thing as a concept without definition; rather, each individual defines god relative to what they have seen, heard or understood of other people's concepts of it and occasionally with their own personal spin on what it is.

This definition, however self-contradictory, is formed from the constant influx of words, phrases, images and emotions that are thrown at us on a daily basis. It might be subconscious, but to even hold this definition requires that the mind has plucked out that which it deems to be relevant and used it as part of its conceptual engineering. What is analysis if not the part-by-part evaluation and assembly of the concept?

True, though meta-knowledge is still knowledge, and fills the fundamental gap between ignorance and incorrectness.
Eh.


I guess we're coming full circle here. I don't think there is such a thing as a concept without definition; rather, each individual defines god relative to what they have seen, heard or understood of other people's concepts of it and occasionally with their own personal spin on what it is.
But they still don't have a valid definition. It's just a bunch of words thrown together like purple green dream sail post dog spelling. They can't tell you what it really means. They can say "oh, god is the creator of the universe" (which begs the question) or "god is infinite" (via negativa, which doesn't work) or "god is love" (which is an emotion) or some other nonsense. But at no point do they have a valid definition.


This definition, however self-contradictory, is formed from the constant influx of words, phrases, images and emotions that are thrown at us on a daily basis. It might be subconscious, but to even hold this definition requires that the mind has plucked out that which it deems to be relevant and used it as part of its conceptual engineering. What is analysis if not the part-by-part evaluation and assembly of the concept?
The concept isn't evaluated, though. More fuzz is continually added, but that doesn't mean it's been evaluated.

But they still don't have a valid definition. It's just a bunch of words thrown together like purple green dream sail post dog spelling. They can't tell you what it really means. They can say "oh, god is the creator of the universe" (which begs the question) or "god is infinite" (via negativa, which doesn't work) or "god is love" (which is an emotion) or some other nonsense. But at no point do they have a valid definition.
If the concept is simply a mesh of different stories and ideas into a single personification then so be it; that is its definition. The fault is in articulating that idea rather than its actual definition.

The concept isn't evaluated, though. More fuzz is continually added, but that doesn't mean it's been evaluated.
Why not? The fact that any sense has been made of it at all implies that, at some point, the mind must have evaluated it relative to the individual. The evaluation might be far from complete, yes, but I think we would be overestimating the link between mind and environment somewhat to say that concepts can be directly implanted into thought process without some sort of intermediate comprehension stage.

If the concept is simply a mesh of different stories and ideas into a single personification then so be it; that is its definition. The fault is in articulating that idea rather than its actual definition.
A definition has to make some sort of sense.


Why not?
Because it's just like adding a rubber band to a ball of string. It's just there. But if it were analyzed, one of these things would not be like the others. And it's clear from the fact that no one is even able to properly define god that it hasn't been analyzed by those proposing it.


The fact that any sense has been made of it at all implies that, at some point, the mind must have evaluated it relative to the individual. The evaluation might be far from complete, yes, but I think we would be overestimating the link between mind and environment somewhat to say that concepts can be directly implanted into thought process without some sort of intermediate comprehension stage.
Never underestimate the power of self-deception.

Ahh, the promise of salvation... for a price. You are sure to be saved... if you do what I say. I think that the verse in question is the both most abusable and the most abused part of the bible. It sets up the religious leader in a place of power, claiming special knowledge from God.

It's not about being saved, that's quite the opposite of what I posted.

A definition has to make some sort of sense.
And to the individual, it does. It could be something as simple as the string and rubber bands. It's when people start waxing lyrical about the significance of the rubber bands and the tragic history of the string, or the analogies of the bands with other social perspectives etc. etc. that we, as observers, lose sight of the underlying definitions they're trying to establish. That fault is not with the idea or with the listener but with the way the ideas have been put across.

Because it's just like adding a rubber band to a ball of string. It's just there. But if it were analyzed, one of these things would not be like the others.
Ah, we're getting on to conceptual systemity now! It must be said that this is one area of the philosophy of the System I haven't really properly looked at, and I appreciate the chance to do so! I'll have to make do with a short query while I think about this one for a bit. I guess it's a bit of a cop-out, but the notion of idea systems is quite a difficult one to formalise into definition itself (ironically).

Adding a rubber band to a ball of string changes the definition of the whole. What's wrong with simply saying "Okay, so let's add this bit on top" and dealing with the consequences of that on the nature of the object you're describing?

People do this very frequently with other people. New bits of information concerning the identity of the individual filter in all the time and we register them, make sense of them and append them to our overall view of who they are. The interaction and coexistence of these nibbles of data, even contradicting ones, serve some purpose in providing us with our picture of that person and, to all intents and purposes, act as our personal definition for them as conceptual entities.

Never underestimate the power of self-deception.
*Shrug*

I'll accept that people may look at ideas in such a way as to gloss over details by means of artistic abstraction, though I wouldn't have called that deception as such. Perhaps I place too much trust in the mind. However, I am a mind, so I think such trust is probably reasonably placed.

There are so many threads about "disproving" christianity. Why does everyone try so hard to "disprove" or "discredit it?

And to the individual, it does.
If it does, it's only because it's not been examined. When it's examined, it makes no sense. Trying to blame the method of communication is just a cop-out.


Ah, we're getting on to conceptual systemity now! It must be said that this is one area of the philosophy of the System I haven't really properly looked at, and I appreciate the chance to do so! I'll have to make do with a short query while I think about this one for a bit. I guess it's a bit of a cop-out, but the notion of idea systems is quite a difficult one to formalise into definition itself (ironically).

Adding a rubber band to a ball of string changes the definition of the whole. What's wrong with simply saying "Okay, so let's add this bit on top" and dealing with the consequences of that on the nature of the object you're describing?
Because they don't deal with the consequences of it. They just add it and that's that. No consequences. No thought. It's just there.

Yet it is. It's part of the message, and a basic part at that. It's a fundamental tenet.



It is a part of it, sure.
It is not a basic part, nor a fundamental tenet.

Demonstrating love to one another, now that is basic and a fundamental tenet. So basic that it is supposed to be the mark of a follower of Christ, "You will know them by their love"


So the entire history of xerdom hasn't been about salvation and belief in eternal life through jesus?


It's always played a part, a part in the past ~150 years much more than it deserves, but that is not what is has been about.


Where in the world do you come up with that? It's not even implied by the text.

I come up with it by reading the text. Try it.
Our modern bias always seems to want Jesus to be talking about heaven and our escape from this life instead of winning over this life to the kingdom of God.
Probably because it is so much easier for people to sit back and believe that big brother Jesus did all the work so we can sit back and ride His coat tails out of here rather than working with him to build a new kingdom.

There are so many threads about "disproving" christianity. Why does everyone try so hard to "disprove" or "discredit it?
They don't.

It is a part of it, sure.
It is not a basic part, nor a fundamental tenet.
Certainly is.


Demonstrating love to one another, now that is basic and a fundamental tenet. So basic that it is supposed to be the mark of a follower of Christ, "You will know them by their love"
And a follower of christ is supposed to believe that jesus is the only way to the father.


It's always played a part, a part in the past ~150 years much more than it deserves, but that is not what is has been about.
Certainly has throughout the history of xerdom. And especially with 1 Cor 15:12-58.

I'd think that something so necessary that Paul talks about (since much of xerdom is from Paul) is quite fundamental.



I come up with it by reading the text. Try it.
I have.


Our modern bias always seems to want Jesus to be talking about heaven and our escape from this life instead of winning over this life to the kingdom of God.
No, that's pretty much what he said.

Certainly is.


You have enough playmates in that game already, I'll pass thanks.



Certainly has throughout the history of xerdom. And especially with 1 Cor 15:12-58.

I'd think that something so necessary that Paul talks about (since much of xerdom is from Paul) is quite fundamental.


Paul mentioning it does not make it 'fundamental'. I haven't denied it is part of the Christian faith, I challenged the idea that it is the foundation.
In the very same letter, Paul discourages the faithful in Corinth not to engage in lawsuits (1 Cor. 6) but no one considers a ban on lawsuits to be a basic tenet of christianity.

If you wish to see where Paul's first letter to Corinth intersects the Teacher's message, 1 Cor. 13 is a much better place to look.