NationStates Jolt Archive

Eh?I have, indeed, used the term "libruhl", but i'm not sure i've proper occasion to use it as yet. Haven't heard the "safe word" yet.

I would like to say a few things:

This is why I'm advocating, as a conservative Christian and a person who believes in freedom of speech, a temporary moratorium on religious threads for a while.

Thank you.
:(
you mean I can't force feed Paganism down anyones throat now ? :p

It is a chosen delusion. There is no way that a healthy brain can harbor a mind that believes in the biblical god. And that has nothing to do with anybody's atheism at all.

Healthy brains can be hopeful for something, healthy brains can have something to hold onto to comfort them. Why should this be any different?

I would be interested to know just what you think Christians should be doing.

This is what they're doing...

A vicar was asked to preside over a secular wedding service, imagine his surprise when he discovered (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/religion.civilliberties)...

"The law will not permit the use of any wording, readings or music which may have religious connotations at a civil marriage."

It gets worse...

I had heard about this bonkers state of affairs before - of a couple who were banned from having a CD of Robbie Williams singing Angels at their wedding because it was too religious - but this was my first run-in with the secular culture police.

I left the wedding grumbling to myself about secular control-freakery, all pumped up to write something fierce about the way the secular has turned into a campaign for the systematic eradication of all religion from the public sphere.

Yup, those dirty atheists refuse to allow any religious references in civil wedding...

...or do they?

But I had got this one all wrong. There is no secular plot - indeed, the truth is almost the reverse. In 2005, the government published a consultation document on proposed changes to the current guidelines. "The religious organisations who responded were unanimous that no readings from religious texts should be allowed, even if they did not directly refer to the deity."

Nothing we haven't seen before...

In 1401, Henry IV passed a law that forbade ordinary people owning a Bible. Those caught were burnt at the stake.

Luckily, good sense prevailed...

The Reformation did away with this - the Bible was to be available for all and did not require a priest in order to show people how it must be understood.

As the vicar himself says...

So, the reason you can't mention God in a civil ceremony is because the churches won't allow it. If there is any control-freakery here, it is from church authorities acting as though the Bible were their property and that they alone have the wisdom and responsibility for interpreting God. Members of the public can't be trusted to understand the Bible on their own or to use it respectfully. Just think - horror of horrors - what if a gay couple were to want a Bible reading at their civil partnership? Here, then, is the real scandal behind the prohibition of religious readings in civil ceremonies. It's all about monopolising the divine.

It's more about the Church's desire to control its people that to actually discuss the meaning of belief.

Healthy brains can be hopeful for something, healthy brains can have something to hold onto to comfort them. Why should this be any different?Because believing in something that you know is not true is a sign of mental degradation. The clash between faith and fact has been decided already. The history that the bible creates for Jews and Judaism is inaccurate at best. The history of theology claimed within it is simply inexistent. So what is the point in adhering to it? There is no hope in a lie. Ever.

Because believing in something that you know is not true is a sign of mental degradation. The clash between faith and fact has been decided already. The history that the bible creates for Jews and Judaism is inaccurate at best. The history of theology claimed within it is simply inexistent. So what is the point in adhering to it? There is no hope in a lie. Ever.

I still think that some people that hold religious beliefs really do need them. Some people just can't deal with being nothing, completely insignificant, their entire lives over and forgotten in a fraction of an instant in the grand scheme of things. Others just need someone to talk to.

I still think that some people that hold religious beliefs really do need them. Some people just can't deal with being nothing, completely insignificant, their entire lives over and forgotten in a fraction of an instant in the grand scheme of things. Others just need someone to talk to.
And others, like myself, view it as a generally good moral code and feel that it's as good an answer as any to why.

I still think that some people that hold religious beliefs really do need them. Some people just can't deal with being nothing, completely insignificant, their entire lives over and forgotten in a fraction of an instant in the grand scheme of things. Others just need someone to talk to.One-way talk is just a fantasy.

And others, like myself, view it as a generally good moral code and feel that it's as good an answer as any to why.How is "submit to god or else..." a good moral code? And why would you need a fabricated god for morals? Don't you have morals in yourself?

The Reformation did away with this - the Bible was to be available for all and did not require a priest in order to show people how it must be understood.

That was probably a mistake. ;)

How is "submit to god or else..." a good moral code?

You're generalising, there are posts in this very thread that show that.

How is "submit to god or else..." a good moral code? And why would you need a fabricated god for morals? Don't you have morals in yourself?

Silly goose. He wasn't talking about the "submit to god or else" morals. He was talking about the "burn the cities of the homosexuals to the ground" morals, and the "sleep with your father for no apparent reason" morals.

Silly goose. He wasn't talking about the "submit to god or else" morals. He was talking about the "burn the cities of the homosexuals to the ground" morals, and the "sleep with your father for no apparent reason" morals.

No fool, you only know whether it's right to burn [not sure why you put 'the cities of' here] homosexuals to the ground if you've submitted to God's infinite wisdom, as interpreted by the priest who's screwing you first born son.

If you don't submit, you can't believe the orders.

Submit first, burn later.

No fool, you only know whether it's right to burn [not sure why you put 'the cities of' here] homosexuals to the ground if you've submitted to God's infinite wisdom, as interpreted by the priest who's screwing you first born son.

If you don't submit, you can't believe the orders.

Submit first, burn later.

(I was referring specifically to Sodom and Gomorrah.)

So if I were to burn all the various sinners the Bible advocates burning (or chopping, in the absence of burnables (or stoning in the absence of choppers (or smothering in the absence of stones (etc)))) I would actually be doing wrong, or at best kind of average, until I submitted to God and He told me to burn/chop/stone/smother them?
Religion is starting to sound very bureaucratic. We'll be sending memos back and forth to the Kingdom next…
hang on a minute…

Anybody else think that christians are being bashed by almost everyone?

Perish the thought that I would EVER bash the feeble minded!

Silly goose. He wasn't talking about the "submit to god or else" morals. He was talking about the "burn the cities of the homosexuals to the ground" morals, and the "sleep with your father for no apparent reason" morals.
I was going for the love your neighbor as you love yourself, turn the other cheek, judge not lest you be judged bit actually.

I was going for the love your neighbor as you love yourself, turn the other cheek, judge not lest you be judged bit actually.

There are a few people that have posted in this thread on both sides that should be taking notes on this.

I was going for the love your neighbor as you love yourself, turn the other cheek, judge not lest you be judged bit actually.

Yeah, I think something like that was in there too.

Edit(!): I think it's kind of silly to claim you've based your moral code on said book, all the while patently ignoring large parts of it.

There are a few people that have posted in this thread on both sides that should be taking notes on this.
What? People on NSG pay attention to moderates making sense in a religious thread? Perish the thought!

I LOVE this thread! It's totally hilarious! :D

I was going for the love your neighbor as you love yourself, turn the other cheek, judge not lest you be judged bit actually.

Why do you consider those good morals ? Because Jesus/God says so, or because you used Bible-independent reasoning that has led you to that conclusion ?

Why do you consider those good morals ? Because Jesus/God says so, or because you used Bible-independent reasoning that has led you to that conclusion ?
If the second - why be Christian ? The God bit is not necessary and even counterproductive in that case.

If the first, WHY ARE YOU NOT BURNING THE HOMOSEXUALS YOU HERETIC!

If the first, WHY ARE YOU NOT BURNING THE HOMOSEXUALS YOU HERETIC!

Saving fossil fuels ?

I was going for the love your neighbor as you love yourself, turn the other cheek, judge not lest you be judged bit actually.and the entire rest of the book? how god acts and how those who act in his name act?? elijah?

Saving fossil fuels ?

Well, one of my original posts on the matter suggests chopping, stoning, or smothering as alternatives.
I understand corners must be cut because of the rising oil prices.

Why do you consider those good morals ? Because Jesus/God says so, or because you used Bible-independent reasoning that has led you to that conclusion ?
Both. The reasoning looks like this.

1. Do I consider the ideals expressed by Jesus to be good? Yes. Love your neighbor, do not judge, give to the poor, turn the other cheek, etc. Grind them all together and you pretty much get the golden rule.

Checking the golden rule for moral application leads me to this: According to genetics, there is less than 20 billionth of a percentile difference between various so called races of humans. For all intents and purposes, we are all the same. Thus, it is logical to assume that a fellow human has, broadly speaking of course, the same needs and wants as myself. Also broadly speaking, that same human would dislike or be hurt by the same things as myself.

Therefore, I like myself right? Yes.
I want other to treat me well right? Yes.
I do not want others to hurt me right? Yes.
Since everyone is pretty much the same, does that not mean that I should treat others then in the same way I wish to be treated? Yes.

Is that not what Jesus said with love your neighbor as you would love yourself? Why, yes, I believe it does.

Sounds then like a good moral philosophy and role model to follow for me then.

Both. The reasoning looks like this.

1. Do I consider the ideals expressed by Jesus to be good? Yes. Love your neighbor, do not judge, give to the poor, turn the other cheek, etc. Grind them all together and you pretty much get the golden rule.

Checking the golden rule for moral application leads me to this: According to genetics, there is less than 20 billionth of a percentile difference between various so called races of humans. For all intents and purposes, we are all the same. Thus, it is logical to assume that a fellow human has, broadly speaking of course, the same needs and wants as myself. Also broadly speaking, that same human would dislike or be hurt by the same things as myself.

Therefore, I like myself right? Yes.
I want other to treat me well right? Yes.
I do not want others to hurt me right? Yes.
Since everyone is pretty much the same, does that not mean that I should treat others then in the same way I wish to be treated? Yes.

Is that not what Jesus said with love your neighbor as you would love yourself? Why, yes, I believe it does.

Sounds then like a good moral philosophy and role model to follow for me then.

So.. if this philosophy would not have been proposed by Jesus, but by say... Brian of Nazareth, you would still adhere to it ? The whole "it was said by the son of God" bit is entirely irrelevant ?

LOL! Christianity vs the World? Perfect. There are more Christians on this world than any OTHER RELIGION. 1.1 billion Catholics ALONE, thats not including all the other thousands of sects of Christianity. So, no, if anything its the world vs Islam, since everyone hates them mainly because of ignorance.

Second, yeah, Atheists account what, 0.003% of the US Population? And what, 0.005 of the World Population, maybe more, but I'm quite sure that its less than 5% in total. So, what would be the 5% of 6 billion? Surely its a lot smaller than the 2 billion+ Christians in the world. So, don't blame Atheists picking on you, because Christianity as a whole has done a LOT more to Atheists than the other way around.

" Oh no! They want to remove the word God from our Motto! HEATHENS!!!" Yes, and our Constitution doesn't have a thing along the lines of freedom of religion and separation of church and state...

So.. if this philosophy would not have been proposed by Jesus, but by say... Brian of Nazareth, you would still adhere to it ? The whole "it was said by the son of God" bit is entirely irrelevant ?
Yes and no. Good advice is good advice, no matter who said it, but of course everyone does give more credence to certain people of course.

*snip*

QFT

And no UB it dosen't.

And you don't think Christianity has a special status in the West? Pah. You are either blind or willfully ignoring the truth.

Maybe a bit of both or maybe I live in a western country that doesn't have the same hang ups and allows people to go about their business unlike in the US.

And some of the examples you mentioned are either not special treatment or are somewhat incorrect. As I don't have time to go through each one at the moment I won't but if I do get time in the near future then I will and it would be interesting to see what you say. But if you think that was the message of the Life of Brian you didn't watch it very well did you, it was a satrical look against the many Palestine groups who are fighting against the 'invaders' but end up fighting amongst themselves. I also believe it was banned in some places because it was seen as against the life of Jesus, not what you claimed.

Maybe because Christian morals influence politics more in America than most Western nations, because apparently "separation of church and state" is an ambiguous phrase that can be interpreted as "this is the law because the bible says so."

Even if this is true and I'm not saying it is and I'm not saying it is not it still proves my point in regards to what I posted.

LOL! Christianity vs the World? Perfect. There are more Christians on this world than any OTHER RELIGION. 1.1 billion Catholics ALONE, thats not including all the other thousands of sects of Christianity. So, no, if anything its the world vs Islam, since everyone hates them mainly because of ignorance.

Yeah I can tell you haven't heard of Tryanny by Minority. And no I am not saying that is what is happening, just pointing out that using that logic is flawed. I would agree with you in the case of the World vs. Islam, but I think it is ignorance and arrogance from both sides.

To quote Groucho Marx, "Whatever it is, I'm against it!"

As a Christian, I have no qualms whatsoever for Atheists, or just about anyone else, coming into power as long as the ideal of freedom for and from religion is followed to a T. In fact, I would rather representatives of all kinds are in power, let us indeed have over a thousand voices competing, because we have more than a thousand different views on things and they all need a chance to be heard in the open for people to decide upon.
As a polytheist animist, I agree. And as a person who believes that democracy is the least bad of all flawed governmental systems, I'd also like to make sure we have a good mix of left and right, conservative, moderate and radical, too. It's called voting a mixed ticket, and I personally consider it vital to a healthy democracy.

Kiddie Gloves? Where are you from? obviously not the US

Bah what a nonsense. Please let us have list of this bashing.

Oh UB can be used as an example for a some of things wrong with some Atheists. It's always fun to see some of the threads with moderate, reasoned, opinions by some of the Atheists come crashing down their ears with the entrance of UB. It gives me a warm feeling to note then that not all the idiots are Christian.
UB is one of the reasons I think the perceived anti-Christian bias of NSG is an illusion. I think there really are only a few Christian-bashers on this forum, but they, like UB, post so often in so many threads that it seems like there are more of them. Have you ever watched dolphins swimming along really fast? They pop in and out of the water so fast it can seem like there are lots of them, when there's really only a few. I think the Christian-bashers on NSG are kind of like that. Everywhere you look there are these bashing posts, but they're really only by the same few posters, maybe under a few names.

This is what they're doing...

A vicar was asked to preside over a secular wedding service, imagine his surprise when he discovered (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/16/religion.civilliberties)...



<snip>



It's more about the Church's desire to control its people that to actually discuss the meaning of belief.
Well, all my personal biases are grounded in my inherent cynicism, and they all tend to boil down to the cynical notion (purely my own personal belief) that, when you strip away all the yak and chatter and propaganda and window-dressing, the vast majority of controversies are really about power and ego. Nothing more or less. Those really are twin forces that drive much of the world.

And if one's ego requires that one be sacrificed just like one's god was, and if the people one has cast in the role of villains in one's personal psychodrama do not cooperate with the sacrificing, well, one is just going to have find some way to make them do it, isn't one? And if they can't be made to do it for real, then they must be made to look as if they are doing it. Otherwise, how is one going to be "Christ-like" if no one else will agree to nail one to a cross, even figuratively?

(Of course, a non-egomaniac who did not want to literally be like a god would realize you don't have to suffer like Christ to be like Christ, but whatever. We have better luck explaining such things to cats than to some people.)

UB is one of the reasons I think the perceived anti-Christian bias of NSG is an illusion. I think there really are only a few Christian-bashers on this forum, but they, like UB, post so often in so many threads that it seems like there are more of them. Have you ever watched dolphins swimming along really fast? They pop in and out of the water so fast it can seem like there are lots of them, when there's really only a few. I think the Christian-bashers on NSG are kind of like that. Everywhere you look there are these bashing posts, but they're really only by the same few posters, maybe under a few names.

It's not that NSG is anti-Christian - it's just that some of the posters are.

Heck, we have an anti of one sort or another for every belief system you can name.

It's not that NSG is anti-Christian - it's just that some of the posters are.

Heck, we have an anti of one sort or another for every belief system you can name.
Absolutely true, but check the OP. He believes Christianity is being bashed by "almost everyone." He is not the only professed Christian to express such a belief here (in this thread).

Because believing in something that you know is not true is a sign of mental degradation.

Loads of psychologists believe that faith is natural and healthy for humans, regardless of whether it is true or not, read some Jung why don't you.

I think that some people may have the idea that if they troll using big words and without using obscenities it's not trolling. This is not the case!

United Beleriand, you have a looong list of warnings for trolling. You have been banned for it twice. The last time was nine days ago, and you were banned for a week. So you were allowed back two days ago and now you return to the same old song, specifically in saying that religious people are insane. If you don't respond to warning and you don't respond to banning, we'll just have to up the ante and see if you respond to deletion. Le sigh.

~ Tsar the Mod
"My father chastised you with whips, but I shall chastise you with scorpions"

and the entire rest of the book? how god acts and how those who act in his name act?? elijah?

Jesus spent a great deal of time putting the other Jews in their place.
He was constantly at odds with the priests of his day, and his views on how to live life were clearly very different from theirs. He was considered extremely controversial and even blasphemous. One can put faith in the gospels, while maintaining a healthy air of skepticism about the very different Old Testament.
For myself, I find a great deal of the Old Testament to be very very non-Christian.

Loads of psychologists believe that faith is natural and healthy for humans, regardless of whether it is true or not, read some Jung why don't you.Faith is a flight from reality. There is just no point in pretending that something exists for which there is no proof, evidence, or even indication, and which by its very nature is irrational. And if you just want to use faith as a therapy, then there is still no need for religion, rites, churches, or dubious morals dictating politics.

Faith is a flight from reality. There is just no point in pretending that something exists for which there is no proof, evidence, or even indication, and which by its very nature is irrational. And if you just want to use faith as a therapy, then there is still no need for religion, rites, churches, or dubious morals dictating politics.

Ohhh I strongly disagree. We all do it, and there are plenty of reasons, and reasonable well thought out ones why we do.

Faith is a flight from reality. There is just no point in pretending that something exists for which there is no proof, evidence, or even indication, and which by its very nature is irrational.

Actually, as I said, there can be many points, for many psychologists it can be healthy and satisfies psychological urges, I don't know why you have to put so much importance on rationalism.


And if you just want to use faith as a therapy, then there is still no need for religion, rites, churches, or dubious morals dictating politics.

That's a separate issue, but I don't see any problem what soever with people discussing their religion in communities like Church, but I DO see a problem with religion getting mixed up with politics, as does everyone on here.

I think that some people may have the idea that if they troll using big words and without using obscenities it's not trolling. This is not the case!

United Beleriand, you have a looong list of warnings for trolling. You have been banned for it twice. The last time was nine days ago, and you were banned for a week. So you were allowed back two days ago and now you return to the same old song, specifically in saying that religious people are insane. If you don't respond to warning and you don't respond to banning, we'll just have to up the ante and see if you respond to deletion. Le sigh.

~ Tsar the Mod
"My father chastised you with whips, but I shall chastise you with scorpions"
Please prove that believing in Yhvh is rational and reasonable, i.e. the result of deduction performed by a sane brain and mind. Especially in the internet age where all information about the issue is available to everyone. If you can't, I am likely right.
My assumption is in fact that truly religious abrahamics have either a severe lack of critical thinking or are just too lazy to do the mental work. I mean, we put folks into asylums who hear voices and see things and believe in ghosts and spirits, but how are believers different from that? Only because faith has been institutionalized it is not more acceptable to me than other states of delusion.
And this is not trolling, this is a view into reality.

Please prove that believing in Yhvh is rational and reasonable, i.e. the result of deduction performed by a sane brain and mind. Especially in the internet age where all information about the issue is available to everyone. If you can't, I am likely right.
My assumption is in fact that truly religious abrahamics have either a severe lack of critical thinking or are just too lazy to do the mental work. I mean, we put folks into asylums who hear voices and see things and believe in ghosts and spirits, but how are believers different from that? Only because faith has been institutionalized it is not more acceptable to me than other states of delusion.
And this is not trolling, this is a view into reality.

Oh please, stop pretending to be a psychologist. There are many, many, many differences between schizophrenia and other diseases and religious beliefs, research makes this plainly obvious. And I could have sworn you apparently have faith in some ancient God of some sort, how is that any different?

Jesus spent a great deal of time putting the other Jews in their place.
He was constantly at odds with the priests of his day, and his views on how to live life were clearly very different from theirs. He was considered extremely controversial and even blasphemous. One can put faith in the gospels, while maintaining a healthy air of skepticism about the very different Old Testament.
For myself, I find a great deal of the Old Testament to be very very non-Christian.Of course, because it's all Jewish. :rolleyes:
However, it is the selfsame god that the OT and NT depict. And in his transfiguration Jesus creates the continuity between his own teachings and those of his god's. Moses and Elijah are the defining figures of a Judaism who demand complete submission to Yhvh (and both figures have non-believers killed en masse), and it is exactly those figures who accompany Jesus in his revelation of his true nature to Peter, James, and John.

Oh please, stop pretending to be a psychologist. There are many, many, many differences between schizophrenia and other diseases and religious beliefs, research makes this plainly obvious. And I could have sworn you apparently have faith in some ancient God of some sort, how is that any different?

UB has unshakeable faith in Not God.

Oh please, stop pretending to be a psychologist. There are many, many, many differences between schizophrenia and other diseases and religious beliefs, research makes this plainly obvious. And I could have sworn you apparently have faith in some ancient God of some sort, how is that any different?I do not have faith in any gods. Faith is a fundamentally flawed concept.

I do not have faith in any gods. Faith is a fundamentally flawed concept.

I could have sworn that you had faith in some Norse God or something, that's why you refused to extend the "there is no biblical God" to "there is no God".

Oh please, stop pretending to be a psychologist. There are many, many, many differences between schizophrenia and other diseases and religious beliefs, research makes this plainly obvious.

Intruiging :) Can you reference some of this research ?

I could have sworn that you had faith in some Norse God or something, that's why you refused to extend the "there is no biblical God" to "there is no God"."there is no God" is GnI's ex-signature

I was going for the love your neighbor as you love yourself, turn the other cheek, judge not lest you be judged bit actually.

I don't see what relevance moral guidance has to historical truth. If I say "Racism is bad, sexism is bad, be nice to people. Oh, by the way, I can sell you London Bridge for a fiver if you're interested" then the my admirable moral sentiments don't make my extraordinary fact claim any more believable, and agreeing with the former does not lead to believing the latter. Similarly, I don't see how liking the ethic (apparently) taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount has any relevance to belief in whether it really happened or not, and it certainly shouldn't lead to belief that he rose from the dead.

Intruiging :) Can you reference some of this research ?

Not on me, wikiing psychology of religion supports me on what many contemporary psychologists view about religion however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion#Religion_and_health

Nevertheless, even the most out spoken critics and psychologists like Freud do not actually describe religion as insanity, he only dislikes it because it limits yourself and this authoritative figure you create (God) that is associated with a father figure that limits your freedom as a child, and he believes sometimes the limits imposed by this authoritative figure are too extreme. However you have to realise that he views conscience in the same way, it does not really exist and is entirely man made, yet he believes it to be a useful tool.

The only notable psychologist who has described certain aspects of religion, but really only intense religious experience as far as I understand, as neurotic is William James, and yet I believe he was even religious himself.

The only notable psychologist who has described certain aspects of religion, but really only intense religious experience as far as I understand, as neurotic is William James, and yet I believe he was even religious himself.

I thought intense religious experiences, like epiphanies, have been proven to be caused by a type of epileptic seizure ?
Of course, that we as mere humans can artificially induce them does not
mean there is no God behind the naturally occurring ones.

*is now going to read your linkies*

I still think that some people that hold religious beliefs really do need them. Some people just can't deal with being nothing, completely insignificant, their entire lives over and forgotten in a fraction of an instant in the grand scheme of things. Others just need someone to talk to.

You know, I tend to see this kind of statement as being far more insulting to the religious than my usual style of telling them they're wrong :p. I don't think religious people are stupid and I don't think I'm exceptional or somehow mentally stronger for being able to live a happy life without religion. Atheism (or at least, the lack of formalised religion as opposed to naive anthropomorphism) is the natural state to which a child would gravitate if they weren't introduced to the concept of religion.

I thought intense religious experiences, like epiphanies, have been proven to be caused by a type of epileptic seizure ?
Of course, that we as mere humans can artificially induce them does not
mean there is no God behind the naturally occurring ones.

*is now going to read your linkies*

I only gave one link and its only a vague snippet of from wiki nothing conclusive.

I've never seen it been described generally as an epileptic seizure only in specific cases may that be the case but loads of stuff can cause religious experience and not nessecerally anything unhealthy, no more unhealthy than taking hallucinogens which can produce a similar type of numinous, euphoric experience. Basically, your brain is more than capable of making itself 'high'.

I only gave one link and its only a vague snippet of from wiki nothing conclusive.

But wiki is in the nice habit of citing its sources.

But wiki is in the nice habit of citing its sources.

Well there you go then. :cool:

Sorry that we speak the truth. Wow getting a little defensive here aren't we!

Ahem. The truth? Surely that is you "bashing" ever single other religion ever. Admittedly religious truth is subjective but you can't impose your beliefs on everyone else and expect no-one to stand up and say "I disagree."

I don't see what relevance moral guidance has to historical truth. If I say "Racism is bad, sexism is bad, be nice to people. Oh, by the way, I can sell you London Bridge for a fiver if you're interested" then the my admirable moral sentiments don't make my extraordinary fact claim any more believable, and agreeing with the former does not lead to believing the latter. Similarly, I don't see how liking the ethic (apparently) taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount has any relevance to belief in whether it really happened or not, and it certainly shouldn't lead to belief that he rose from the dead.

But religion isn't about historical truth: it's about beliefs.

Please prove that believing in Yhvh is rational and reasonable, i.e. the result of deduction performed by a sane brain and mind. Especially in the internet age where all information about the issue is available to everyone. If you can't, I am likely right.

Wake up call. You're making the claim (essentially that belief in god is 'insane'), it is you who has to prove it.

Especially in the internet age where all information about the issue is avilable to everyone. It should be easy for you to find the psychological research that concludes that people who believe in god or gods are insane.

If you can't, you're likely wrong since you can't back up your silly claim. That's how this whole burden of proof thing really works. (We don't have to prove to you that people who aren't proven insane are sane.)

My assumption is in fact that truly religious abrahamics have either a severe lack of critical thinking or are just too lazy to do the mental work.

Wait, you were saying they weren't sane, now you're saying they're stupid. Which is it? Both? Why not just add "...and they're poopy-heads too!" for all the meaning you're giving out here.

I mean, we put folks into asylums who hear voices and see things and believe in ghosts and spirits

Oh we do? Tell me just which asylum I would get put in, and who would put me in it, if I declared I believe in ghosts right now.

People get put in psychiatric institutions because they exhibit symptoms of mental disorder. Not for believing in God. Why is this? Because belief in God is not a symptom of a mental disorder, despite your completely unsupported claims.

You're going to, I'm afraid, have to refer to completely imaginary psychology in order to show a psychological backing for your claims.

Which is amusingly not unlike referring to imaginary deities.

im sorry i have never believed in a god and probably never will, unless of course i meet him in person, but that dosnt make me a bad person. Cos to me, christianity especially sounds a bit sketchy and has a really violent historical track record

I could have sworn that you had faith in some Norse God or something, that's why you refused to extend the "there is no biblical God" to "there is no God".

He has, in the past, claimed to not be an atheist, to be an atheist, and to worship various Sumerian deities. I think the conclusion should be obvious.

He has, in the past, claimed to not be an atheist, to be an atheist, and to worship various Sumerian deities. I think the conclusion should be obvious.

He's really several different people, in the style of Whispering Legs/Deep Kimchi/Eve Online/Remote Observer/Hotwives.

Of course, because it's all Jewish. :rolleyes:

Yes, that was the faith Jesus was surrounded by. The Jews were the ones he was correcting. I don't understand your statement.
There were, however, Gentiles, to whom Jesus was kind. I cite this as evidence that intolerance of other religions is not a tenet of Christianity.

However, it is the selfsame god that the OT and NT depict.

In the Old Testament, God sees wickedness and kills everybody. In the New Testament, God sees wickedness and forgives.
Let's see... what else...
Oh right. Old Testament: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." New Testament: "Turn the other cheek."
Old Testament: "If a virgin is betrothed to a man, and lies with another man, she shall be stoned to death." New Testament: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
God was a vengeful, angry sumbitch in Part 1, but in Part 2 he turned a new leaf. When the trilogy's complete, we'll see what he's like...

And in his transfiguration Jesus creates the continuity between his own teachings and those of his god's. Moses and Elijah are the defining figures of a Judaism who demand complete submission to Yhvh (and both figures have non-believers killed en masse), and it is exactly those figures who accompany Jesus in his revelation of his true nature to Peter, James, and John.

True, giving yourself over to God is a major part of both the Old and New Testament.
I have no problem with that idea. I do have problems with other things in the Old Testament, but most of these things are contradicted by Jesus's teachings.

He's really several different people, in the style of Whispering Legs/Deep Kimchi/Eve Online/Remote Observer/Hotwives.

Close.

Religion as such does indeed not necessarily clash with science. However, Christianity does.

Now that isn't necessarily true. It's all about perspective. If I, as a Catholic, were to say that since God created man at the same time as He created the universe because that's what it says in the Bible, I would be looking at my religion in a literal, non-scientific view.

However, I am smart enough to realize that the Bible is not to be taken literally. It is all about symbolism. The stories aren't what matter, its the lessons to be learned from the Bible.

For example, the number "666".

The fundamentalist would say that since the Bible says the number of the Beast is "666", anyone who has a large number of connections with that number must be the Beast.

However, the intelligent would recall that "666" was a code number for Nero, the Emperor of Rome, created by using an ancient form of numerology. (On that note, the last time Christians were truly persecuted was probably Roman times.)

Also, I am what you would consider a practicing Catholic. I attend Mass and believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I also believe God created the universe. But, before you say I am a foolish creationist, you should also know I also believe in evolution.

I believe God created the universe with evolution built in about 10 billion years ago or whenever the scientists say it began.

Right there, I reconciled my religion with science.

I believe God created the universe with evolution built in about 10 billion years ago or whenever the scientists say it began.

Right there, I reconciled my religion with science.

Nope. A keypoint from the scientific theory of evolution is that evolution has no ultimate goal or direction. Your view does - unless of course you do not consider us humans special.

Nope. A keypoint from the scientific theory of evolution is that evolution has no ultimate goal or direction. Your view does - unless of course you do not consider us humans special.

True.

Still, I at least believe in a form of evolution.

I don't see why science and Christianity must be in complete opposition to each other. There is always room for reconciliation between the two.

In the Old Testament, God sees wickedness and kills everybody. In the New Testament, God sees wickedness and forgives.
Let's see... what else...
Oh right. Old Testament: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." New Testament: "Turn the other cheek."

How does that fit in with the fact that the New Testament introduced the concept of Hell, which is absent from the Jewish scriptures (with the exception of a few arguable instances in late writings).


Old Testament: "If a virgin is betrothed to a man, and lies with another man, she shall be stoned to death." New Testament: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The so called 'Adulterer Periscope' in John is generally agreed to be a later interpolation: it's missing from all the earliest manuscripts.

However, I am smart enough to realize that the Bible is not to be taken literally. It is all about symbolism. The stories aren't what matter, its the lessons to be learned from the Bible.

So presumably the non-literalist meaning to be found in the first chapters of Genesis would be:

-Eve's creation from Adam's rib shows that women are inferior and subservient to men

-the story of Eve and the apple shows that women are gullible, sinful and will go astray if their menfolk don't keep them on a tight leash

etc.

Frankly the non-literalistic version is even more morally reprehensible.

Nope. A keypoint from the scientific theory of evolution is that evolution has no ultimate goal or direction. Your view does - unless of course you do not consider us humans special.

You are wrong my friend. Evolution says nothing about goal. That is different from say there is no goal. Evolution, as a science, is objective, not subjective. Therefore it is foolish to say science is against religion, or against anything for that matter.

Nevertheless, since we are talking about "goal," does any Christian announce that he/she knows what the goal, or plan, or direction, that God intends for an individual or for the world is?

BTW, does anyone know Immanuel Kant? I am somewhat a Kant-ist. Kant says there is no way you can prove or disprove the existence of God since it is beyond what your five senses can sense; and all practical/scientific proofs are based on the information provided by the five senses. But it is practical necessary to believe in God (not necessary the Christian God) since God equals the idea of happiness and morality.

You are wrong my friend. Evolution says nothing about goal. That is different from say there is no goal.

Evolution most certainly doesn't have an end goal. A key part of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis is the idea of natural selection and genetic drift acting as mechanisms for change in allele frequency in a population (which is a textbook definition of evolution). These operate based on the immediate effects which particular genes have on the genomes ability to proliferate, not on some future goal (this is why Dawkins described Evolution as a 'blind watchmaker'). Evolution can't look ahead and say "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if this organism had wings! I'll start altering the physiology so wings can be grafted on later". The prerequisites for wings must come about through natural selection and genetic drift in their own right.

Evolution, as a science, is objective, not subjective. Therefore it is foolish to say science is against religion, or against anything for that matter.

Actually basic abductive reasoning/Bayesian probabilities show that Evolution is evidence for atheism. Observe:

The Abductive Approach:
-If Atheism is true then we'd expect to discover a naturalistic explanation for the existence of complex life.
-Evolution has been discovered and is a naturalistic explanation for the existence of complex life.
-Therefore Evolution is evidence for Atheism.

The Bayesian Approach:
-Take the prior probability of religion being true (call the truth of religion 'G' and the probability of it being true P(G))
-Observe a naturalistic explanation for the existence of complex life (E).
-Multiply G by R, where R is the probability of observing E given G divided by the probability of observing E given not-G (the former must be lower than the latter, because given G there's a possibility that life was created without recourse to a natural mechanism, so P(E|G)/P(E|~G)<1)
-Since P(E|G)/P(E|~G)<1, it follows that multiplying P(G) by it must result in a probability which is lower than P(G)
-Therefore Evolution is evidence against religion.

The Abductive Approach:
-If Atheism is true then we'd expect to discover a naturalistic explanation for the existence of complex life.
-Evolution has been discovered and is a naturalistic explanation for the existence of complex life.
-Therefore Evolution is evidence for Atheism.

The Bayesian Approach:
-Take the prior probability of religion being true (call the truth of religion 'G' and the probability of it being true P(G))
-Observe a naturalistic explanation for the existence of complex life (E).
-Multiply G by R, where R is the probability of observing E given G divided by the probability of observing E given not-G (the former must be lower than the latter, because given G there's a possibility that life was created without recourse to a natural mechanism, so P(E|G)/P(E|~G)<1)
-Since P(E|G)/P(E|~G)<1, it follows that multiplying P(G) by it must result in a probability which is lower than P(G)
-Therefore Evolution is evidence against religion.

That could only possibly be evidence against a designer God and not a prime mover or other type of deity, and that's ignoring the fact that its based on the infallibility of sense perception and the scientific method, which of course could all be bullshit and our perceptions could be totally unrealistic.

So presumably the non-literalist meaning to be found in the first chapters of Genesis would be:

-Eve's creation from Adam's rib shows that women are inferior and subservient to men

-the story of Eve and the apple shows that women are gullible, sinful and will go astray if their menfolk don't keep them on a tight leash

etc.

Frankly the non-literalistic version is even more morally reprehensible.

Surely you don't really think this is what the non literalistic version says? Or are you just plain stupid?

Eve's creation from the rib actually places women as equal to man because it is from the middle of his body. If Eve had been made from a foot bone than women would be inferior to man, if she had been made with a bone from the head she would be superior to man. The fact that she was made from the rib is meant to show that both men and women are equal. It doesn't matter if this is how people actually acted as to think that people follow everything their holy books say and act in what was intended doesn't deny the original meaning. Of course how does the joke go, Why did God create Eve after Adam? Because you need a rough draft to create a masterpiece.

As for the second story, that too is wrong, I think it is more of a story along the lines of Pandora and her box. Maybe this isn't correct but with my tongue firmly in my cheek women do cause a lot of misery to men.

Faith is a fundamentally flawed concept.

That's not true I have faith in my police force to work to the best of their ability. I also have faith that my son will clean his room today. I also have faith in the Mods on these forums to be fair in their dealings with troublemakers. Why must people always think that faith is exclusive to religion.

Please prove that believing in Yhvh is rational and reasonable, i.e. the result of deduction performed by a sane brain and mind.
Happily:p1. I cannot explain all the phenomena in the universe around me using current scientific knowledge.
p2. I cannot explain my conciousness using current scientific knowledge.
p3. An all powerful, all knowing god would account for many universal phenomena and the problem of conciousness.
p4. There exists no evidence to refute an all powerful, all knowing god.
c1. Therefore, I believe an all powerful, all knowing god exists.


You and I may both agree that some of the premises in the above argument are faulty, but we cannot deny that it is a rational argument; one of a sane mind.

Great thinkers throughout the ages have constructed perfectly rational and reasonable arguments far more complicated and nuanced than the above; to deny their rationality is to deny the rationality of (just to mention some of those in the Western Christian tradition) Anselm, Aquinas, Grotius, Descartes, Liebniz, Locke, Berkeley, Bacon and many, many others.

Once again, we may disagree with these thinkers, but to deny their rationality is, well, completely irrational.

My assumption is in fact that truly religious abrahamics have either a severe lack of critical thinking or are just too lazy to do the mental work.
Not only is your assumption flawed, it belittles you.

He's really several different people, in the style of Whispering Legs/Deep Kimchi/Eve Online/Remote Observer/Hotwives.Ooooh, i miss that guy! He's fun.

I think that some people may have the idea that if they troll using big words and without using obscenities it's not trolling. This is not the case!

United Beleriand, you have a looong list of warnings for trolling. You have been banned for it twice. The last time was nine days ago, and you were banned for a week. So you were allowed back two days ago and now you return to the same old song, specifically in saying that religious people are insane. If you don't respond to warning and you don't respond to banning, we'll just have to up the ante and see if you respond to deletion. Le sigh.

~ Tsar the Mod
"My father chastised you with whips, but I shall chastise you with scorpions"

Much as I hate to be seen siding with UB... what's actually wrong with suggesting that religion is a psychological condition? To those without 'faith', it does seem kind of crazy to place faith in something you can't really see, hear or interact with (in any 'real' - by which I mean, I guess, verifiable or measurable). And, I'd imagine to a lot of those with faith, the idea of 'denying' god(s) must seem somewhere between crazy and obstinate... no?

Science has shown that you can duplicate 'religious' experiences, inducing 'miraculous' states of mind by direct stimulation of (parts of) the brain. While it doesn't 'prove' religious fervour to be delusion, it must certainly go some way to allowing that 'religious-ness' could be (abberant?) brain function?

Of course - by the same token, 'religious-ness' could be the 'normal' function, and lack of faith the abberation.

I don't really see how you can 'punish' someone just for suggesting it. (Either way).

EDIT: Heh... but apparently you can.

[QUOTE=Bloodlusty Barbarism;13772513]In the Old Testament, God sees wickedness and kills everybody. In the New Testament, God sees wickedness and forgives.
Let's see... what else...
Oh right. Old Testament: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." New Testament: "Turn the other cheek."
Old Testament: "If a virgin is betrothed to a man, and lies with another man, she shall be stoned to death." New Testament: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
God was a vengeful, angry sumbitch in Part 1, but in Part 2 he turned a new leaf. When the trilogy's complete, we'll see what he's like...[QUOTE]

I get a little confused about that as well. And I don't have the answers, but here's the little bit of insight I have into it.
Yeah, the old and new testaments seem to contradict each other. The Old testament is based on working your faith to the level which a perfect God would demand. ie. You have to earn your salvation. And if you don't earn it, or not in time, or aren't interested...God isn't forgiving.
And then in the new testament, its all about forgiveness. Primarily, your salvation is now based on faith, and not on works.
But if you look back to the beginning of the bible, Abraham wasn't under the law. He was accepted by God, by faith. Its almost like its come the full circle. The Israelites didn't live under the law, until they asked for it from Moses. All this time, God had been asking for relationship with them and they were scared to...they asked Moses for the law instead. Its almost like God went, you want rules? I'll give you some rules...chew on that. You want to see me as scary? No problems.
But throughout the Old Testament, people prayed for a Messiah. They all wanted someone to get rid of the law and bring them back into relationship with God. And in the New Testament, God does that. God never seems scary when he's being written about by someone who has experienced his grace I guess.

Happily:p1. I cannot explain all the phenomena in the universe around me using current scientific knowledge.
p2. I cannot explain my conciousness using current scientific knowledge.
p3. An all powerful, all knowing god would account for many universal phenomena and the problem of conciousness.
p4. There exists no evidence to refute an all powerful, all knowing god.
c1. Therefore, I believe an all powerful, all knowing god exists.


You and I may both agree that some of the premises in the above argument are faulty, but we cannot deny that it is a rational argument; one of a sane mind.

Hmm. I am unconvinced that clearly faulty premises and sane reasoning do not bite eachother. p3 for instance is an incorrect claim - saying "god did it" just moves the problem, it does not offer any ultimate explanations.

It is like answering "where is my car" with "someone stole it" - it does not actually answer the question asked. It gets even worse if people change it to "I have not witnessed it, but the only possible answer is that a swarthy man of 1m70 walking with a cane stole it exactly 6400 minutes ago through the use of Harry Potters magical wand that opens every lock, and then flew to Hogwarts with it" - and seriously believe that is the only right answer (and continue to believe that after the car is found in the next street, where the owner suddenly remembered he actually parked).

Anybody else think that christians are being bashed by almost everyone?

Oh for fuck's sake. You're not being persecuted. You folks practically run the damn country. And then you get all hurt when the rest of us express our irritation at the fact that your religion gets so much favoritism. Cry me a fucking river and then build a bridge and get over it. The world is not out to get you.

Just UB is.

Oh for fuck's sake. You're not being persecuted. You folks practically run the damn country. And then you get all hurt when the rest of us express our irritation at the fact that your religion gets so much favoritism. Cry me a fucking river and then build a bridge and get over it. The world is not out to get you.

Just UB is.

I'll pray for you when I go to mass tommorrow.

Oh for fuck's sake. You're not being persecuted. You folks practically run the damn country. And then you get all hurt when the rest of us express our irritation at the fact that your religion gets so much favoritism. Cry me a fucking river and then build a bridge and get over it. The world is not out to get you.

Just UB is.

Here's the problem. There are an awful lot of people out there, and on this forum it's painfully obvious, who are doing a good deal more than simply 'expressing irritation.' If that were all there was to it, then there'd be no problem.

Do you know how old it gets to be accused for the umpteenth time how you have some kind of sinister agenda to overrun our secular Government with a theocracy... (Paranoia much?)

NEWSFLASH: Christians are NOT a new addition to US Politics. We've been around since day 1. If we haven't turned this country into a theocracy by now, rest assured, it's not going to happen.

What I find most interesting is how often people who would normally not be unkind to each other suddenly gleefully rush headlong into the most creative caricatures of Christian theology, using the most insulting possible terms, and when called out for it they do one of two things:

1)React with a "Who, me?" response as if they'd never say something unkind, they're just being 'objective!' (This on the tail of a flying spaghetti monster analogy.)
2)Justify it, as if it's perfectly acceptable to insult Christians because, after all, the Crusades!

Please.

Here's the problem. There are an awful lot of people out there, and on this forum it's painfully obvious, who are doing a good deal more than simply 'expressing irritation.' If that were all there was to it, then there'd be no problem.

Do you know how old it gets to be accused for the umpteenth time how you have some kind of sinister agenda to overrun our secular Government with a theocracy... (Paranoia much?)

NEWSFLASH: Christians are NOT a new addition to US Politics. We've been around since day 1. If we haven't turned this country into a theocracy by now, rest assured, it's not going to happen.

What I find most interesting is how often people who would normally not be unkind to each other suddenly gleefully rush headlong into the most creative caricatures of Christian theology, using the most insulting possible terms, and when called out for it they do one of two things:

1)React with a "Who, me?" response as if they'd never say something unkind, they're just being 'objective!' (This on the tail of a flying spaghetti monster analogy.)
2)Justify it, as if it's perfectly acceptable to insult Christians because, after all, the Crusades!

Please.

Yea, too bad you guys never tell the fundies to shut the fuck up and stop spewing everywhere. There'd be a lot more sympathy for Christians, or any other religion in general if they actually stood up against the radicals.

Yea, too bad you guys never tell the fundies to shut the fuck up and stop spewing everywhere. There'd be a lot more sympathy for Christians, or any other religion in general if they actually stood up against the radicals.

First of all, just for the sake of clarity, we DO. I do not find it surprising that most people don't notice.

Second, the last time someone made an argument like that around here, demanding that Muslims do something to stop the fundamentalists, they were shouted down as religious bigots and racists. Funny how I suspect nobody will censure you for saying that about Christians.

And finally, we do not require your sympathy. We don't want it. What I'd like to see is for people to either show a little consistency where their treatment of Christians is concerned, or drop the facade where they pretend that they're not doing anything wrong.

Much as I hate to be seen siding with UB... what's actually wrong with suggesting that religion is a psychological condition? To those without 'faith', it does seem kind of crazy to place faith in something you can't really see, hear or interact with (in any 'real' - by which I mean, I guess, verifiable or measurable). And, I'd imagine to a lot of those with faith, the idea of 'denying' god(s) must seem somewhere between crazy and obstinate... no?

Science has shown that you can duplicate 'religious' experiences, inducing 'miraculous' states of mind by direct stimulation of (parts of) the brain. While it doesn't 'prove' religious fervour to be delusion, it must certainly go some way to allowing that 'religious-ness' could be (abberant?) brain function?

Of course - by the same token, 'religious-ness' could be the 'normal' function, and lack of faith the abberation.

I don't really see how you can 'punish' someone just for suggesting it. (Either way).

EDIT: Heh... but apparently you can.

When people say "that's crazy", they don't actually mean it in the context that they think they are literally insane.

First of all, just for the sake of clarity, we DO. I do not find it surprising that most people don't notice.

Try harder then. The public relations issue is YOUR problem. Your image. Yours to defend - no matter how annoying, frustrating and unfair that is.

Welcome to the real world.

Second, the last time someone made an argument like that around here, demanding that Muslims do something to stop the fundamentalists, they were shouted down as religious bigots and racists.

I was ? Must have blocked that out...

Funny how I suspect nobody will censure you for saying that about Christians.

*shrug*. I agree with it for all groups.

And finally, we do not require your sympathy. We don't want it. What I'd like to see is for people to either show a little consistency where their treatment of Christians is concerned, or drop the facade where they pretend that they're not doing anything wrong.
Fair enough.

First of all, just for the sake of clarity, we DO. I do not find it surprising that most people don't notice.

Second, the last time someone made an argument like that around here, demanding that Muslims do something to stop the fundamentalists, they were shouted down as religious bigots and racists. Funny how I suspect nobody will censure you for saying that about Christians.

And finally, we do not require your sympathy. We don't want it. What I'd like to see is for people to either show a little consistency where their treatment of Christians is concerned, or drop the facade where they pretend that they're not doing anything wrong.

You bitched about getting flak for it in your previous post and now you don't want sympathy?

And we're talking about Christians. We weren't talking about others, although I did include them as well, if you bothered to read my whole post.
Would you like me to say it about the Muslims too? Sure. Muslims should make it goddamn clear they do not support the terrorists. Beyond sending condemnations from their mosques.

I'd like to see some remarks from moderate Catholics, or Protestants, please, about not voting solely on the abortion issue, or the gay issue. Please.

I know the Pope did, but his message wasn't well publicised. So who else has?

Much as I hate to be seen siding with UB... what's actually wrong with suggesting that religion is a psychological condition? To those without 'faith', it does seem kind of crazy to place faith in something you can't really see, hear or interact with (in any 'real' - by which I mean, I guess, verifiable or measurable). And, I'd imagine to a lot of those with faith, the idea of 'denying' god(s) must seem somewhere between crazy and obstinate... no?

Science has shown that you can duplicate 'religious' experiences, inducing 'miraculous' states of mind by direct stimulation of (parts of) the brain. While it doesn't 'prove' religious fervour to be delusion, it must certainly go some way to allowing that 'religious-ness' could be (abberant?) brain function?

Of course - by the same token, 'religious-ness' could be the 'normal' function, and lack of faith the abberation.

I don't really see how you can 'punish' someone just for suggesting it. (Either way).

EDIT: Heh... but apparently you can.
A) What's wrong with suggesting that anyone who has an opinion about anything they cannot know for sure is mentally ill? You yourself have pointed out, rightly, in the past that the existence of god(s) is unprovable, either positively or negatively. So if to atheists, faith in god(s) who cannot be shown to exist seems crazy, then why shouldn't it similarly seem crazy to people of faith if some non-believers not only lack faith but actively declare that there is no such thing as a god? How can they possibly know there isn't? Yet they insist it is so with the force of fact on the grounds that no one can prove otherwise, exactly as people of faith do. Well, there is no definitive proof that we're right about the age of the universe, either, but how many god-rejecters accept that without question? Some people believe fervently in one scientific theory of the origin of the universe and others believe fervently in another, yet neither can actually prove their case. Are they all nuts, too, or only some of them? Shall we all just run around calling people we think are wrong about things crazy?

B) Science has shown that we can reproduce lots of effects in a laboratory. What of it? All that shows is that there is a physiological aspect to ecstasy and visions, which any anthropologist could have told you for the last 100 years, nearly. Now persuade us that the stimuli used in the lab are the only stimuli that make the brain produce those effects -- or at least account for all possible things that could stimulate such a response. Because until you do that, you cannot say that you know for certain that such responses in the brain are caused only by laboratory stimuli or abnormal brain activity. If you tap your knee in the right spot, your leg will move. That isn't proof that there is no other stimulus that will move your leg.

C) You are clearly unaware that it is possible to stimulate "miraculous" experiences in oneself consciously, without need for any external stimuli, chemical or otherwise. I am talking about the physiological experiences of ecstasy and visions. It's not very easy, but anyone can learn to do it. I know because I've done it, and I know other people who have as well, and no one has ever suggested that I display any symptoms of mental illness, nor have I ever been diagnosed with any physiological brain abnormalities. If any normal, healthy person can learn to generate such experiences, then clearly such experiences must be the products of normal brain activity, not abnormal activity, since normal brains are capable of producing them at will.

D) You should also be more careful in your use of language. "Delusion" is a very specific symptom of mental illness. You do not have the right information to know whether any given person of faith is delusional or not. You do not know, for instance, all the possible stimuli that could cause the experiences the person reports; nor do you know whether there is or is not such a thing as god(s); nor do you know that god(s) could not be the stimulus that causes such experiences; nor do you know the quality of the person's belief (how literal or figurative or metaphorical it is); plus you do not know anything about the person other than that they hold these beliefs and/or report these experiences. Lacking all that information, any argument that faith = insanity is an argument from a position of ignorance.

E) Finally, you should know as well as anyone that UB is nothing but a troll and a flamer with a good vocabulary. He clogs up good conversations by dominating threads with tons of pointless bitchy posts that add nothing to the debate. In addition, when he does make an actual argument, it's always the same argument, and it's logic is always fatally flawed. I ignore UB as much as possible, and I feel bad everytime I see posters get roped in by him. I'll shed no tears for UB. I could stand to have a few religion threads where I don't have to skip through pages and pages of his junk.

First of all, just for the sake of clarity, we DO. I do not find it surprising that most people don't notice.

Second, the last time someone made an argument like that around here, demanding that Muslims do something to stop the fundamentalists, they were shouted down as religious bigots and racists. Funny how I suspect nobody will censure you for saying that about Christians.
Guess again. I have often seen people get called for lumping all Christians in with the fundamentalist extremists, and in fact, I've often been the one doing the censuring. I may not like you personally, NB, but that doesn't mean I don't stand up for fairness for Christians. After all, I do try to treat them as I would have them treat me.

And finally, we do not require your sympathy. We don't want it. What I'd like to see is for people to either show a little consistency where their treatment of Christians is concerned, or drop the facade where they pretend that they're not doing anything wrong.
Don't worry, NB, I feel no sympathy for you at all, but again, that's just about you, not Christians in general. :p

Try harder then. The public relations issue is YOUR problem. Your image. Yours to defend - no matter how annoying, frustrating and unfair that is.

Welcome to the real world.


If only people would receive it objectively. Just look at how people respond in a thread like this one.

"I think Christians are treated unfairly."

Response:

"Nooo Christians are evil oppressors who want to take over! Just wait a moment while I whip out my factually inaccurate yet accepted as canon pacman graph! I'll simultaneously argue that Christians are NOT picked on out of one side of my mouth and out of the other side of my mouth I'll argue that they deserve it!"


I was ? Must have blocked that out...


I guess so.


*shrug*. I agree with it for all groups.


Good. Consistency points, if true.


Fair enough.

Thanks. Although it seems someone else missed the point on that one below:

You bitched about getting flak for it in your previous post and now you don't want sympathy?


Read it again:


And finally, we do not require your sympathy. We don't want it. What I'd like to see is for people to either show a little consistency where their treatment of Christians is concerned, or drop the facade where they pretend that they're not doing anything wrong.


And we're talking about Christians. We weren't talking about others, although I did include them as well, if you bothered to read my whole post.
Would you like me to say it about the Muslims too? Sure. Muslims should make it goddamn clear they do not support the terrorists. Beyond sending condemnations from their mosques.

Are you suggesting that there are an equivalent number of threads and posts out there dealing with other religions?

Even Kat the Mod has started a thread just on the overabundance of Christian threads on here (And whether that's the intent or not, they ALL turn into Christian-bashes.)


I'd like to see some remarks from moderate Catholics, or Protestants, please, about not voting solely on the abortion issue, or the gay issue. Please.


What do you want them to say?


I know the Pope did, but his message wasn't well publicised. So who else has?

Who else has what?

Guess again. I have often seen people get called for lumping all Christians in with the fundamentalist extremists, and in fact, I've often been the one doing the censuring. I may not like you personally, NB, but that doesn't mean I don't stand up for fairness for Christians. After all, I do try to treat them as I would have them treat me.


Good.

(*note: You don't know me well enough to like or dislike me, but that's alright too.)


Don't worry, NB, I feel no sympathy for you at all, but again, that's just about you, not Christians in general. :p

I wouldn't have it any other way.

And I don't say that to be confrontational. I say it because at the end of the day, I gain more benefit from my religion than you can know, so it would hardly be appropriate to feel sympathy for me.

Yea and what gets on my nerves is us christians aren't doing anything. We stand back and watch atheists rise into power!!!

TRUE Christian faith is not compelling, but courteous, if someone wants to believe in God, let them, if someone doesn't, let them. If you try to force unbelief or belief on anyone you'll get backlash and generally be a bad christian.

Evolution most certainly doesn't have an end goal....The prerequisites for wings must come about through natural selection and genetic drift in their own right.

The theory of evolution implies that there is no end goal. The observed facts of evolution imply that there is a general trend toward more complex beings capable of higher levels of experience. If we are trying to integrate a belief in god with a belief in evolution, we would simply have to claim that god works through the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift in order to spur the evolutionary engine.

Actually basic abductive reasoning/Bayesian probabilities show that Evolution is evidence for atheism....

And the anthropic cosmological principle of Barrow (http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho17.htm)implies that evolution as we know it would be highly improbable without a designer god.

Several contemporary theologians have proposed various models of integration focusing on Jesus as the 'goal' of evolution (http://books.google.ca/books?id=p1BdWMDCfeoC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=jesus+is+the+goal+of+evolution&source=web&ots=e9e9N7MLas&sig=-HNMQXRFz6ObPw74PJ2jGRCQk-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result). Obviously, it is possible to have a rational world view that integrates Christianity and evolution.

The theory of evolution implies that there is no end goal. The observed facts of evolution imply that there is a general trend toward more complex beings capable of higher levels of experience. If we are trying to integrate a belief in god with a belief in evolution, we would simply have to claim that god works through the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift in order to spur the evolutionary engine.



And the anthropic cosmological principle of Barrow (http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho17.htm)implies that evolution as we know it would be highly improbable without a designer god.

Several contemporary theologians have proposed various models of integration focusing on Jesus as the 'goal' of evolution (http://books.google.ca/books?id=p1BdWMDCfeoC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=jesus+is+the+goal+of+evolution&source=web&ots=e9e9N7MLas&sig=-HNMQXRFz6ObPw74PJ2jGRCQk-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result). Obviously, it is possible to have a rational world view that integrates Christianity and evolution.

True! It's stupid for any Christian to deny any blatantly proven fact.
I'm not so sure that Jesus was the intended result of ALL creation, I think Jesus was FOR creation, otherwise common sense goes outside the window.

Good.

(*note: You don't know me well enough to like or dislike me, but that's alright too.)
I can only work with the information I have. So since I only know the NSG you, it is that version of you that I dislike. Obviously, I know nothing of any other version of you, but being aware that you might be kind to kids and dogs in the real word, doesn't change how your NSG persona makes me feel. So, defining "you" and "me" as the NSG versions of you and me, I think it's fair (and obvious) to say we don't get along very well.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

And I don't say that to be confrontational. I say it because at the end of the day, I gain more benefit from my religion than you can know, so it would hardly be appropriate to feel sympathy for me.
Your religion has nothing to do with how I feel about you. I'm glad that you enjoy it.

Okay let's put this into a rational case for belief then- You need believability, logic and evidence.

I see it's believable, there's enough logic in the theory and.. Where's the evidence?

Okay let's put this into a rational case for belief then- You need believability, logic and evidence.

I see it's believable, there's enough logic in the theory and.. Where's the evidence?

I don't think that's a rational case for belief. Rather it is a rational case for knowledge. If you claim to know something, then you should be able to show the evidence of it. But if you just claim to believe something, then why should you have to meet such a standard?

EDIT: Also, I think people rely too much on logic in this matter, as if logic is a test for truth. In fact, logic is just a system of thought that can be applied to anything. It doesn't test for truth, it tests for consistent structure. Even a flat-out lie can be entirely logical -- actually a good lie has to be. And even paranoid schizophrenics can construct entire logical "explanations" for their delusions, none of which are accurate descriptions of what they are experiencing. A logical construction does not mean that a belief is rational.

I can only work with the information I have. So since I only know the NSG you, it is that version of you that I dislike. Obviously, I know nothing of any other version of you, but being aware that you might be kind to kids and dogs in the real word, doesn't change how your NSG persona makes me feel. So, defining "you" and "me" as the NSG versions of you and me, I think it's fair (and obvious) to say we don't get along very well.


Fair enough.


Your religion has nothing to do with how I feel about you. I'm glad that you enjoy it.

Likewise.

I don't think that's a rational case for belief. Rather it is a rational case for knowledge. If you claim to know something, then you should be able to show the evidence of it. But if you just claim to believe something, then why should you have to meet such a standard?

EDIT: Also, I think people rely too much on logic in this matter, as if logic is a test for truth. In fact, logic is just a system of thought that can be applied to anything. It doesn't test for truth, it tests for consistent structure. Even a flat-out lie can be entirely logical -- actually a good lie has to be. And even paranoid schizophrenics can construct entire logical "explanations" for their delusions, none of which are accurate descriptions of what they are experiencing. A logical construction does not mean that a belief is rational.

Well said.

I don't think that's a rational case for belief. Rather it is a rational case for knowledge. If you claim to know something, then you should be able to show the evidence of it. But if you just claim to believe something, then why should you have to meet such a standard?

Belief is not Science, other wise it'd be called Science. Or maybe at least Scilief.

I don't think that's a rational case for belief. Rather it is a rational case for knowledge. If you claim to know something, then you should be able to show the evidence of it. But if you just claim to believe something, then why should you have to meet such a standard?

EDIT: Also, I think people rely too much on logic in this matter, as if logic is a test for truth. In fact, logic is just a system of thought that can be applied to anything. It doesn't test for truth, it tests for consistent structure. Even a flat-out lie can be entirely logical -- actually a good lie has to be. And even paranoid schizophrenics can construct entire logical "explanations" for their delusions, none of which are true.

That doesn't make sense to me, maybe it makes me a realist that I can't believe something without evidence.

That doesn't make sense to me, maybe it makes me a realist that I can't believe something without evidence.

Can't, or won't?

-snip-


You're the one not showing consistency. You complained about it. But you don't want sympathy.

We were talking about Christians, and then you brought up Muslims. When I start to follow your point on Muslims you start talking about Christians.

I never suggested anything of the sort. I was happy to talk about Christians only, and why shouldn't they receive more attention, since they make up the vast majority of the religious in any country.

You said earlier that somehow you do get ignored, when you preach moderation. So let's see some of the articles? The speeches, the works to preach, moderation that you say makes you different from the fundies you talk about disagreeing with.

You try being consistent.

You're the one not showing consistency. You complained about it. But you don't want sympathy.

So in your mind, the only reason to speak out is to gain sympathy?

Interesting.


We were talking about Christians, and then you brought up Muslims. When I start to follow your point on Muslims you start talking about Christians.


I made no point about Muslims. I made a statement regarding their relative treatment to Christians on the forum. At no time did I switch topics.


I never suggested anything of the sort. I was happy to talk about Christians only, and why shouldn't they receive more attention, since they make up the vast majority of the religious in any country.

Any country? Are you sure you want to go with that?


You said earlier that somehow you do get ignored, when you preach moderation. So let's see some of the articles? The speeches, the works to preach, moderation that you say makes you different from the fundies you talk about disagreeing with.


Just keep your eyes open awhile and you'll see it for yourself. It's not my job to do the legwork for a newb.


You try being consistent.
:rolleyes:

Belief is not Science, other wise it'd be called Science. Or maybe at least Scilief.
Exactly.

That doesn't make sense to me, maybe it makes me a realist that I can't believe something without evidence.
I'm a realist. I realistically acknowledge the limits of my knowledge, as well as the limits of such things as logic and evidence, and that is why I do not hold religion to the same standards as science, nor belief to the same standards as fact.

To me, the inability to believe something without evidence would make a person literal-minded, not necessarily a realist.

Actually, I often doubt whether people who say they are not able to believe things without evidence are really telling the whole truth (even if they think they are). There are millions of things people believe every day without the slightest evidence. Most such things are quite small, but still. First, there are all the things we simply assume about the future based on patterns of the past. We may say that we have believability and logic to support such beliefs, but we certainly don't have evidence, unless you believe in fortunetelling or that past performance is a guarantee of future performance. Then there are all the things we simply imagine -- all the gaps in our knowledge that our imaginations fill in for us, most of which assumptions will never be fully tested or questioned unless we choose to conduct experiments about them.

I'm reminded of something Neil Gaiman said in a recent lecture about literature and writing. He was talking about the interactive relationship between writer and reader, how much content of a novel is actually generated by the reader, and he told us how he remembered a passage from a book he'd read a long time ago. He remembered the detailed description of a night scene, the stars in the sky, the weather, the characters' view of an army encampment in the distance. Then he re-read the book and found that none of those details were actually in it. His imagination had supplied all of that. But before he re-read it, if he had described the book to someone else, he would have sworn that those descriptions were in it, in full and sincere, logical and plausible, belief that it was so.

I'm reminded of something Neil Gaiman said in a recent lecture about literature and writing.

Rub it in why don'tcha?

Rub it in why don'tcha?

Hey, man, you told me you had another ticket. Why didn't you come?

EDIT: I'll buy you the DVD for your birthday.

Oh for fuck's sake. You're not being persecuted. You folks practically run the damn country.

You mean it's not the Jews?

Christians are not persecuted in the old classic meaning of the term. There is no large scale organized movement to deprive them of their rights. They are not driven from their homes and denied employment- except in Academia.

But on the other hand, they are the only group currently considered fair game for condescension, ridicule, and insult by the "intellectual" class and by the media. Especially if the group is narrowed to mean "white, rural, Appalachian or Southern". The hillbilly is the last refuge of ethnic insults. You can show them on TV, dumb, inbred, missing teeth, bare feet; try to pawn off a stereotype so offensive on any other group, there will be howls of racism. It's ok for the hillbillies, though, you see, they're all from West Virginia and not smart enough to hire lawyers, right?

The buried assumptions are a movie/tv stereotype: You show a character who is deeply spiritual, but a poor rural farmer in the Southwest. Make the character an American Indian, and he's a font of deep wisdom. Exact same character as a white Christian, he's an ignorant, intolerant old boob. On TV it's a standard: the deeper the southern/rural accent, the dumber the character. Remember Dukes of Hazzard, where the ignorant mayor and sherrif somehow had accents that made the heroic mountain boys seem, by comparison, like they had gone to a Connecticut prep school? You can even ridicule hillbillies on children's shows- shows that go to great lengths to heap respect and awe on every other ethnic group are in effect telling kids: it's ok to mock these guys cuz they really are stupid! I don't know how they did October Sky, the true story of a West Virginian kid becoming a rocket scientist, I guess the exception proves the rule.

Is it a reaction against Christians? I don't know. Maybe it was a post-Vietnam reaction against Mayberry, with a new crop of suburban intellectual elitists writing shows and revolting against the image of a white, male Christian with a gun and authority actually being the sensible guy and solving the problems. But wherever it came from, it's real. Appalachian culture is open to insult in the media like no other group. Heck, even Obama nailed them.


So, persecution, not really, ethnic stereotyping and degrading insults, routinely.

If only people would receive it objectively.

Again: welcome to the real world. People don't. You can have two dozen priests being reasonable, but the media attention and focus is going to be on the fruitcake.

Such is life. It is frustrating, saddening and so on - but one has to deal with it.

Again: welcome to the real world. People don't. You can have two dozen priests being reasonable, but the media attention and focus is going to be on the fruitcake.

Such is life. It is frustrating, saddening and so on - but one has to deal with it.

Also more people like fruitcake than like priests.

It is frustrating, saddening and so on - but one has to deal with it.


You have obviously eaten a fruitcake or two. You describe them perfectly, and I agree completely.

Better to just re-wrap the damn thing and send it out next Christmas.

Again: welcome to the real world. People don't. You can have two dozen priests being reasonable, but the media attention and focus is going to be on the fruitcake.

Such is life. It is frustrating, saddening and so on - but one has to deal with it.

Which is fine. What I have an issue with is the way people make excuses and pretend it isn't there. People who are otherwise intelligent, rational and see themselves as objective.

You mean it's not the Jews?

Christians are not persecuted in the old classic meaning of the term. There is no large scale organized movement to deprive them of their rights. They are not driven from their homes and denied employment- except in Academia.

But on the other hand, they are the only group currently considered fair game for condescension, ridicule, and insult by the "intellectual" class and by the media. Especially if the group is narrowed to mean "white, rural, Appalachian or Southern". The hillbilly is the last refuge of ethnic insults. You can show them on TV, dumb, inbred, missing teeth, bare feet; try to pawn off a stereotype so offensive on any other group, there will be howls of racism. It's ok for the hillbillies, though, you see, they're all from West Virginia and not smart enough to hire lawyers, right?

The buried assumptions are a movie/tv stereotype: You show a character who is deeply spiritual, but a poor rural farmer in the Southwest. Make the character an American Indian, and he's a font of deep wisdom. Exact same character as a white Christian, he's an ignorant, intolerant old boob. On TV it's a standard: the deeper the southern/rural accent, the dumber the character. Remember Dukes of Hazzard, where the ignorant mayor and sherrif somehow had accents that made the heroic mountain boys seem, by comparison, like they had gone to a Connecticut prep school? You can even ridicule hillbillies on children's shows- shows that go to great lengths to heap respect and awe on every other ethnic group are in effect telling kids: it's ok to mock these guys cuz they really are stupid! I don't know how they did October Sky, the true story of a West Virginian kid becoming a rocket scientist, I guess the exception proves the rule.

Is it a reaction against Christians? I don't know. Maybe it was a post-Vietnam reaction against Mayberry, with a new crop of suburban intellectual elitists writing shows and revolting against the image of a white, male Christian with a gun and authority actually being the sensible guy and solving the problems. But wherever it came from, it's real. Appalachian culture is open to insult in the media like no other group. Heck, even Obama nailed them.


So, persecution, not really, ethnic stereotyping and degrading insults, routinely.

You said it way better than I could have.

<snip>

So, persecution, not really, ethnic stereotyping and degrading insults, routinely.

Well said, and... welcome to the club.

If anything annoys me about the complaints of Christians that they are being picked on or ridiculed, it is when they also claim that they are being singled out or that they are the only ones. It is true that popular entertainment, which creates social images, is rife with ignorant and insulting stereotypes, but from my experience, it has started to look a bit more like this recently:

When the overall theme is Christian, then you get shows about troubled people seeking redemption with the direct intercession of an angel, shown on a popular cable network and starring actors like Holly Hunter.

When the overall theme is my religious belief -- polytheist, animist -- then it's a horror show about monsters and evil people, starring television starlets who make fun of it all.

Yeah, even when you're being stereotyped, it still pays to be the majority, or so it seems to me. People like me have been putting up with that kind of shit forever, but so far, we've never had a Hollywood A-lister misrepresent us. (EDIT: On television. Legends like Jack Nicholson and Cher, Susan Sarandon and Michele Pfeiffer, etc, do an admirable job of making us look ridiculous in movies.)

You mean it's not the Jews?

Christians are not persecuted in the old classic meaning of the term. There is no large scale organized movement to deprive them of their rights. They are not driven from their homes and denied employment- except in Academia.

But on the other hand, they are the only group currently considered fair game for condescension, ridicule, and insult by the "intellectual" class and by the media. Especially if the group is narrowed to mean "white, rural, Appalachian or Southern". The hillbilly is the last refuge of ethnic insults. You can show them on TV, dumb, inbred, missing teeth, bare feet; try to pawn off a stereotype so offensive on any other group, there will be howls of racism. It's ok for the hillbillies, though, you see, they're all from West Virginia and not smart enough to hire lawyers, right?

The buried assumptions are a movie/tv stereotype: You show a character who is deeply spiritual, but a poor rural farmer in the Southwest. Make the character an American Indian, and he's a font of deep wisdom. Exact same character as a white Christian, he's an ignorant, intolerant old boob. On TV it's a standard: the deeper the southern/rural accent, the dumber the character. Remember Dukes of Hazzard, where the ignorant mayor and sherrif somehow had accents that made the heroic mountain boys seem, by comparison, like they had gone to a Connecticut prep school? You can even ridicule hillbillies on children's shows- shows that go to great lengths to heap respect and awe on every other ethnic group are in effect telling kids: it's ok to mock these guys cuz they really are stupid! I don't know how they did October Sky, the true story of a West Virginian kid becoming a rocket scientist, I guess the exception proves the rule.

Is it a reaction against Christians? I don't know. Maybe it was a post-Vietnam reaction against Mayberry, with a new crop of suburban intellectual elitists writing shows and revolting against the image of a white, male Christian with a gun and authority actually being the sensible guy and solving the problems. But wherever it came from, it's real. Appalachian culture is open to insult in the media like no other group. Heck, even Obama nailed them.


So, persecution, not really, ethnic stereotyping and degrading insults, routinely.

I'm not sure how you go from "Christians vs The World" to hillbillies are treated disgustingly in the media (even if you are correct).

I'm also not sure how it i relevant

Can't, or won't?

Heh. We've encountered this dichotomy before.

The idea that the Atheist 'choses' to not believe in god... it's an interesting idea, but I (for one - and I don't claim to be able to speak for EVERY Atheisst) cannot 'choose' what I believe.

I don't believe in ghosts - not because I don't 'want' to - but because I've never seen an evidence compelling enough to make me remove it from the 'just a story' category.

I don't believe in fairies - same reason.

I don't believe in angels of vampires fior the same reason - and those things are some of my favourite concepts/motifs... so I actually kinda DO 'want to' believe in them - but there's just not an evidence that lets me.

And, gods.... again, just no evidence good enough.

But it leads me to an interesting thought - it implies you CHOOSE to believe in your god? By that token, you should, easily, be able to choose NOT to, yeah? Just for a hour or so, by way of experiment?

Anybody else think that christians are being bashed by almost everyone?

From a global perspective, Christians aren't in the majority, so I guess you could say they're being 'bashed' by everybody.

However, seeing as I hate the word 'bash', I won't offer you any sympathy.

Seriously though, given that Christian values form the basis of many legal systems across the Western world, I can't imagine how you could consider yourselves to be persecuted against.

But it leads me to an interesting thought - it implies you CHOOSE to believe in your god? By that token, you should, easily, be able to choose NOT to, yeah? Just for a hour or so, by way of experiment?


It's a good experiment and one that I think if performed will vinidcate you stance on the matter.

Although I do belive that SOME, things you certianly can choose to belive or not. You can change an aspect of your phyche for example, through your own will.

Heh. We've encountered this dichotomy before.

The idea that the Atheist 'choses' to not believe in god... it's an interesting idea, but I (for one - and I don't claim to be able to speak for EVERY Atheisst) cannot 'choose' what I believe.

I don't believe in ghosts - not because I don't 'want' to - but because I've never seen an evidence compelling enough to make me remove it from the 'just a story' category.

I don't believe in fairies - same reason.

I don't believe in angels of vampires fior the same reason - and those things are some of my favourite concepts/motifs... so I actually kinda DO 'want to' believe in them - but there's just not an evidence that lets me.

And, gods.... again, just no evidence good enough.

But it leads me to an interesting thought - it implies you CHOOSE to believe in your god? By that token, you should, easily, be able to choose NOT to, yeah? Just for a hour or so, by way of experiment?

I think every person who has a TRUE conversion experience must go through that process. They have to put themselves in the position of starting at the baseline that there's no God, and then think it through to see if it makes sense to them.

It made very little sense to me, and I did it for a lot longer than an hour. (This was during a time when I was no longer a believer in Catholic Doctrine but I hadn't yet been impressed enough by Mormon Doctrine to believe it either. I spent a lot of time pondering and investigating everything from pagan systems to atheism.)

A) What's wrong with suggesting that anyone who has an opinion about anything they cannot know for sure is mentally ill?


Good question.


You yourself have pointed out, rightly, in the past that the existence of god(s) is unprovable, either positively or negatively. So if to atheists, faith in god(s) who cannot be shown to exist seems crazy, then why shouldn't it similarly seem crazy to people of faith if some non-believers not only lack faith but actively declare that there is no such thing as a god?


Okay. That's in my post, too.


How can they possibly know there isn't? Yet they insist it is so with the force of fact on the grounds that no one can prove otherwise, exactly as people of faith do. Well, there is no definitive proof that we're right about the age of the universe, either, but how many god-rejecters accept that without question?


I've no idea. But, if we're allowing that any basesless faith could be a sign of abberant processes, then that jumps right on the list with the rest.


Some people believe fervently in one scientific theory of the origin of the universe and others believe fervently in another, yet neither can actually prove their case. Are they all nuts, too, or only some of them? Shall we all just run around calling people we think are wrong about things crazy?


Maybe. I'm not going to exclude the ide that almost everyone could be 'broken' to some extent.


B) Science has shown that we can reproduce lots of effects in a laboratory. What of it? All that shows is that there is a physiological aspect to ecstasy and visions, which any anthropologist could have told you for the last 100 years, nearly.


Okay. And - given that we know this - why are we expected to instantly dsmiss it in every realworld application?


Now persuade us that the stimuli used in the lab are the only stimuli that make the brain produce those effects


I don't need to. If I can show that sometimes, ships sink because of rocks, I don't have to show that EVERY ship was holed by torpedoes, to question the cause of a sunken ship.


...or at least account for all possible things that could stimulate such a response. Because until you do that, you cannot say that you know for certain...


Again, I don't have to. I'm not claiming anything for certain. I'm saying - might it not be that 'religious-ness' could be a kind of 'crazy'?


...that such responses in the brain are caused only by laboratory stimuli or abnormal brain activity. If you tap your knee in the right spot, your leg will move. That isn't proof that there is no other stimulus that will move your leg.


A better example might be the Galvani experiment with the electrical current and the kicky froglegs. Since we're talking about direct electrical stimulation of neural material, etc.


C) You are clearly unaware that it is possible to stimulate "miraculous" experiences in oneself consciously,


Not at all. WHy would you think that?


...without need for any external stimuli, chemical or otherwise. I am talking about the physiological experiences of ecstasy and visions. It's not very easy, but anyone can learn to do it. I know because I've done it, and I know other people who have as well, and no one has ever suggested that I display any symptoms of mental illness,


Which people would have done so? Who is 'there' when you do it?


...nor have I ever been diagnosed with any physiological brain abnormalities.


Which would be irrelevent if the abberation can be temporary, yes?


If any normal, healthy person can learn to generate such experiences, then clearly such experiences must be the products of normal brain activity, not abnormal activity, since normal brains are capable of producing them at will.


But, don't normally? So - an abberant effect that 'normal' brains can accomplish, but conventionally don't?


D) You should also be more careful in your use of language. "Delusion" is a very specific symptom of mental illness. You do not have the right information to know whether any given person of faith is delusional or not.


Okay. But I do have the 'right information' to question whether or not it is possible that religious experience can be delusional.


You do not know, for instance, all the possible stimuli that could cause the experiences the person reports; nor do you know whether there is or is not such a thing as god(s); nor do you know that god(s) could not be the stimulus that causes such experiences; nor do you know the quality of the person's belief (how literal or figurative or metaphorical it is); plus you do not know anything about the person other than that they hold these beliefs and/or report these experiences.


Okay. I don't need to know "all the possible stimuli that could cause the experiences the person reports" to question whether someone who thinks 'god' is telling them to kill people might be crazy, either.

Hell, 'god' could be telling them to kill people, right?


Lacking all that information, any argument that faith = insanity is an argument from a position of ignorance.


But, the argument that faith could be insanity?

Anyway - I disagree. As long as 'faith' could be a form of insanity, I think it's not beyond the realms of acceptability for peope to say it. In this thread, alone, the 'religious' arguments have been allowed to stand with much less evidence - 'none', in fact.


E) Finally, you should know as well as anyone that UB is nothing but a troll and a flamer with a good vocabulary. He clogs up good conversations by dominating threads with tons of pointless bitchy posts that add nothing to the debate. In addition, when he does make an actual argument, it's always the same argument, and it's logic is always fatally flawed. I ignore UB as much as possible, and I feel bad everytime I see posters get roped in by him. I'll shed no tears for UB. I could stand to have a few religion threads where I don't have to skip through pages and pages of his junk.

I agree that UB flames and trolls. I don't think that invalidates every argument he might make. I actually kind of like the balance of people of different opinions and orientations... different levels of involvement and 'faith', if you will. I might not agree with what a person says... etc. In fact - didn't you say something a lot like that recently, about what makes up good 'democracy'?

I'm thinking this will have to become a thread in it's own right if it progresses much further.

It's a good experiment and one that I think if performed will vinidcate you stance on the matter.

Although I do belive that SOME, things you certianly can choose to belive or not. You can change an aspect of your phyche for example, through your own will.

I'm not sure. I think you can change aspects about yourself at a very base level (like overcoming crippling shyness, or obsessive behaviour, for example) by turning the brain on itself - so to speak - but I'm not sure if you can change the fundamental level of 'evidence' that your own, particular, brain requires to reach conclusions.

Like... no matter how good the programming, you can never overcome the capacity of your RAM... or something....?

I'm not sure how you go from "Christians vs The World" to hillbillies are treated disgustingly in the media (even if you are correct).

I'm also not sure how it i relevant


Only because the Southern/Appalachian rural white culture very strongly overlaps fundamentalist Christianity in the USA, thereby making it a workable stand in. And it is generally considered that way-when an American says "I think the Christianity has too much influence in politics", he or she is talking about the presumed links between fundamentalist Christianity and the Republican party, not people like Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton, both of whom are presumably Christian and have some level of political influence.

If you are talking about racism and prejudice, the canary in the coal mine is always the cultural exemplar of the community, the young black urban male with the NWA shirt and the doo-rag, the black hat wearing orthodox Jew, the rural white Christian. They will always get hit long before the guy (who might be any of the above) living in the mid size suburban home and wearing dockers.

And the fact is, if you correlate Southern/Appalachian White culture with issues like belief in Creationism, support for Evangelism, etc, there's a huge overlap, making one a good stand in for the other.

Which is why you will never hear:

"Boy!"
"Yes, Paw?"
"When you done finish yer chores, you git ta studyin fer yer Bar Mitzver, y'hear?"

I think every person who has a TRUE


That sounds like a preparatory fallacy being pulled from it's box.


...conversion experience must go through that process. They have to put themselves in the position of starting at the baseline that there's no God, and then think it through to see if it makes sense to them.

It made very little sense to me, and I did it for a lot longer than an hour. (This was during a time when I was no longer a believer in Catholic Doctrine but I hadn't yet been impressed enough by Mormon Doctrine to believe it either. I spent a lot of time pondering and investigating everything from pagan systems to atheism.)

Okay. Challenge extended, then. Choose not to believe in 'god(s)' for an hour. I've tried to believe, and I just can't make it happen... but that could just be me.

You accept the challenge?

Only because the Southern/Appalachian rural white culture very strongly overlaps fundamentalist Christianity in the USA, thereby making it a workable stand in. And it is generally considered that way-when an American says "I think the Christianity has too much influence in politics", he or she is talking about the presumed links between fundamentalist Christianity and the Republican party, not people like Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton, both of whom are presumably Christian and have some level of political influence.

If you are talking about racism and prejudice, the canary in the coal mine is always the cultural exemplar of the community, the young black urban male with the NWA shirt and the doo-rag, the black hat wearing orthodox Jew, the rural white Christian. They will always get hit long before the guy (who might be any of the above) living in the mid size suburban home and wearing dockers.

And the fact is, if you correlate Southern/Appalachian White culture with issues like belief in Creationism, support for Evangelism, etc, there's a huge overlap, making one a good stand in for the other.

Which is why you will never hear:

"Boy!"
"Yes, Paw?"
"When you done finish yer chores, you git ta studyin fer yer Bar Mitzver, y'hear?"

Hmm, obviously coming from Britain means I don't have a US-centric attitude. When I think "Christian" I don't think "Hillbilly" or even "Bible Belt."

However, I still don't think it is fair to assume that hillbilly and bible belt are the exemplars of christian culture in the popular imagination. Seems like equivocation and a cheap way to score points to me, especially when you try and tie it to racial discrimination.

But maybe that is just me.

God damn it, why is the persecution complex so strong in Christianity? Christianity gets special treatment in our society, so stop playing the god damn victim for once.
Well, when we introduce a greeat theory into science, atheist "scientist" bash it down.

Well, when we introduce a greeat theory into science, atheist "scientist" bash it down.

1) The 'great theory' thing has yet to happen.

2) You don't have to be an atheist to reject poor science.

Well, when we introduce a greeat theory into science, atheist "scientist" bash it down.

Scientists bash every hypothesis down. That is their job - and the core of the scientific method.

The problem is that the religious do not like the whole falsification idea.

Hmm, obviously coming from Britain means I don't have a US-centric attitude. When I think "Christian" I don't think "Hillbilly" or even "Bible Belt."

However, I still don't think it is fair to assume that hillbilly and bible belt are the exemplars of christian culture in the popular imagination. Seems like equivocation and a cheap way to score points to me, especially when you try and tie it to racial discrimination.

But maybe that is just me.

Probably not just you. Does Britain have an equivalent to a Bible Belt? A specific sub-culture that is strongly associated with fundamentalist Christianity? Without it, the connection might not be as strong. Here, it is strong. Every American knows what a TV preacher sounds like, and not a one of them has a New England accent.

God damn it, why is the persecution complex so strong in Christianity? Christianity gets special treatment in our society, so stop playing the god damn victim for once.

There seems to be a trend in this threads:

Christian: "We're the victims."
Non-Christian: "No you're not. You are favored by society. We're the real victims!"
Christian: "No you're not, because..."
Non-Christian: "That's silly, because..."
...ad infinitum

Here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, none of the upper-middle class, educated, politically active members of NSG are victims! Maybe, as the intelligentsia we all seem to be a part of, we are, in fact, quite powerful.

Probably not just you. Does Britain have an equivalent to a Bible Belt? A specific sub-culture that is strongly associated with fundamentalist Christianity? Without it, the connection might not be as strong. Here, it is strong. Every American knows what a TV preacher sounds like, and not a one of them has a New England accent.

It isn't tied to a particular geographic area. I think it is seen more as a sort of class thing to a certain extent. It is hard to describe.

It isn't tied to a particular geographic area. I think it is seen more as a sort of class thing to a certain extent. It is hard to describe.


In that case, if there is generalized anti-Christian ridicule in the UK, as there certainly is in the US, then it would lack the cultural/ethnic overtones that it does here.

Prejudice is always something rooted in local culture. You really can't discuss a particular ethnic prejudice without being something-centric. You can have a Pakistani explain to you why Pastuns are stupid, but outside of his cultural focus it will make no sense. Inside, it really makes no sense either, but at least it will become more apparent how it fits into his world-view. So, the regular mockery of Christianity on American television and movies isn't a world vs the Christians thing, and makes no sense when viewed from that perspective, it is strictly a phenomenon of American culture.

The world is far too big to have a consensus opinion on a subject like "Are we anti-Christian?" anyway. Survey 100 Koreans and 100 Saudis and the responses will graph completely differently.

Hmm. I am unconvinced that clearly faulty premises and sane reasoning do not bite eachother. p3 for instance is an incorrect claim - saying "god did it" just moves the problem, it does not offer any ultimate explanations.
Sure, I'd quite agree. But the argument is still rational; it still constructs a conclusion from premises, even if you and I would say that those premises and conclusion are false.


I think people rely too much on logic in this matter, as if logic is a test for truth. In fact, logic is just a system of thought that can be applied to anything. It doesn't test for truth, it tests for consistent structure.
Exactly.

An interesting example I heard recently was the rationale behind Chinese maps placing China at the centre. The word 'China' literally means 'centre country', so a priori China is the centre of the world; indeed the centre of the universe. Logic isn't going to help you get out of that particular mess, and neither will it help folks like UB who incorrectly claim that Christianity is 'illogical', 'irrational', 'insane' and the like. It can be entirely rational and logical without being true.

Even a flat-out lie can be entirely logical -- actually a good lie has to be.
Highlighting the difference between a lie (which relies on a knowledge of truth) and bullshit (which has no interest in truth or falsity whatsoever). If you're interested, a lovely little book that discusses this is Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit.

And even paranoid schizophrenics can construct entire logical "explanations" for their delusions, none of which are accurate descriptions of what they are experiencing. A logical construction does not mean that a belief is rational.
I think we're in danger of splitting the term 'rational' here, for I would say that a belief that is logically constructed and justified can be called 'rational' even if it is wildly untrue. What isn't rational in the case of the schizophrenic (and, perhaps, the religious believer) is the acceptance of 'evidence' which few else would accept.

Although it may be rational, once you believe the voice in your head is God, to do God's will and kill loads of people, it isn't rational to accept the voice in your head in the first place.

Good question.

Okay. That's in my post, too.

I've no idea. But, if we're allowing that any basesless faith could be a sign of abberant processes, then that jumps right on the list with the rest.
A) Define "baseless" in this context.

B) "We" are allowing no such thing. In fact, it is exactly the point of contention.

Maybe. I'm not going to exclude the ide that almost everyone could be 'broken' to some extent.
That's a cop-out.

Okay. And - given that we know this - why are we expected to instantly dsmiss it in every realworld application?
Who asked you to? Not me, certainly. I am only asking you not to stretch it to try to make it explain things it doesn't actually refer to.

I don't need to. If I can show that sometimes, ships sink because of rocks, I don't have to show that EVERY ship was holed by torpedoes, to question the cause of a sunken ship.
You do if you are asserting that sinking is a sign of being struck by a torpedo.

There is a difference between saying some religious people are mentally ill and religious belief is a sign of mental illness.

Again, I don't have to. I'm not claiming anything for certain. I'm saying - might it not be that 'religious-ness' could be a kind of 'crazy'?
Another cop-out, rather akin to "hey, I'm just saying that being poor could be a kind of choice for lazy people."

A better example might be the Galvani experiment with the electrical current and the kicky froglegs. Since we're talking about direct electrical stimulation of neural material, etc.
Distinction without a difference. *makes note not to pepper posts with illustrative examples when talking to nitpickers*

Not at all. WHy would you think that?
I don't know, your apparent lack of understanding about the subject seemed to suggest it.

Which people would have done so? Who is 'there' when you do it?

Which would be irrelevent if the abberation can be temporary, yes?

But, don't normally? So - an abberant effect that 'normal' brains can accomplish, but conventionally don't?
What, is it your contention that it could be "temporary insanity"? Maybe the kind that comes and goes to suit your convenience in talking about it?

I ask because I wonder why you seem to be conflating "unusual" with "aberrant"? If you think the words are interchangeable, does that mean that if I usually go to one store for my groceries, but on one day I go to a different store to get something my usual store doesn't carry, that means I have exhibited a mental aberration in grocery shopping?

Okay. But I do have the 'right information' to question whether or not it is possible that religious experience can be delusional.
You have no information on which to base any informed question. Naturally, you are free to ask any uninformed question you like. But if you are being honest about it, you would ask your question, get your answer and then shut up -- not continue insisting that you have a good reason to keep asking whether religious people might be crazy.

Okay. I don't need to know "all the possible stimuli that could cause the experiences the person reports" to question whether someone who thinks 'god' is telling them to kill people might be crazy, either.

Hell, 'god' could be telling them to kill people, right?
What are we discussing here, GnI, religious people or murderers or crazy people? Do you draw any distinctions between those groups at all, or are you attempting to conflate them for the sake of defending UB's BS?

But, the argument that faith could be insanity?
Is not an argument. It is bait.

Anyway - I disagree. As long as 'faith' could be a form of insanity, I think it's not beyond the realms of acceptability for peope to say it. In this thread, alone, the 'religious' arguments have been allowed to stand with much less evidence - 'none', in fact.
And there's the hook the bait is hung on. So in other words, you are merely claiming a right to indirectly insult religious people because you think they are wrong about something and you don't want to hear them talk about it.

I agree that UB flames and trolls. I don't think that invalidates every argument he might make. I actually kind of like the balance of people of different opinions and orientations... different levels of involvement and 'faith', if you will. I might not agree with what a person says... etc. In fact - didn't you say something a lot like that recently, about what makes up good 'democracy'?

I'm thinking this will have to become a thread in it's own right if it progresses much further.
UB's trolling and flaming are NOT what invalidates his arguments. It is his illogic and lack of factual accuracy that invalidates his arguments, completely independently of his obnoxiousness. The fact that you have spent this much time defending his practice of "suggesting" that religion is a sign of insanity makes me think that you are more supportive of his flaming than his arguments, and that makes me sad.

It reminds me of a line from Pope (the poet, not the pontiff) in which he described someone's tactics in putting others down: "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer / and without sneering, teach the rest to sneer / Willing to wound, yet afraid to strike / just hint a fault and hesitate dislike." That is what I think you are doing with your "but I'm just asking if it's possible they're crazy?" act.

I have just started enjoying UB's absence. I am not going to welcome you stepping up to carry on his work. I have absolutely no intention of letting this progress further. If you want to become UB's pitch-flamer, I will ignore you as I ignored him, but I won't feel good about it.

Sure, I'd quite agree. But the argument is still rational; it still constructs a conclusion from premises, even if you and I would say that those premises and conclusion are false.



Exactly.

An interesting example I heard recently was the rationale behind Chinese maps placing China at the centre. The word 'China' literally means 'centre country', so a priori China is the centre of the world; indeed the centre of the universe. Logic isn't going to help you get out of that particular mess, and neither will it help folks like UB who incorrectly claim that Christianity is 'illogical', 'irrational', 'insane' and the like. It can be entirely rational and logical without being true.


Highlighting the difference between a lie (which relies on a knowledge of truth) and bullshit (which has no interest in truth or falsity whatsoever). If you're interested, a lovely little book that discusses this is Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit.
My favorite "little black book." ;) I keep it handy whenever I'm on NSG.

I think we're in danger of splitting the term 'rational' here, for I would say that a belief that is logically constructed and justified can be called 'rational' even if it is wildly untrue. What isn't rational in the case of the schizophrenic (and, perhaps, the religious believer) is the acceptance of 'evidence' which few else would accept.

Although it may be rational, once you believe the voice in your head is God, to do God's will and kill loads of people, it isn't rational to accept the voice in your head in the first place.
A finely split hair, but a legitimate one.

Sure, I'd quite agree. But the argument is still rational; it still constructs a conclusion from premises, even if you and I would say that those premises and conclusion are false.

Actually I object to the actual logic used. Something like "We cannot explain everything, violets are blue, blue paint is made by designers, therefor I believe in a designer God" is not a rational reasoning chain.

Aside - even if this problem was not present, would the person who persists in following this rationale, even after the flaws in the premises were pointed out, be rational ?

My favorite "little black book." ;) I keep it handy whenever I'm on NSG.
I had a sneaky suspicion you might have already read it...

A finely split hair, but a legitimate one.
Pedantry is an art form, my friend. ;)

That sounds like a preparatory fallacy being pulled from it's box.


Way to dodge.


Okay. Challenge extended, then. Choose not to believe in 'god(s)' for an hour. I've tried to believe, and I just can't make it happen... but that could just be me.

You accept the challenge?

Why? I just said I've already done that.

Actually I object to the actual logic used. Something like "We cannot explain everything, violets are blue, blue paint is made by designers, therefor I believe in a designer God" is not a rational reasoning chain.
No, but I don't think that's analogous to the argument I presented above. Anyway, as I've already said, there are far more complicated and nuanced arguments for a supreme being.

Aside - even if this problem was not present, would the person who persists in following this rationale, even after the flaws in the premises were pointed out, be rational ?
No, in the sense that they wouldn't be disregarding provable false evidence. However, no-one has disproved the existence of a supreme being, and I don't think we're ever going to; logic doesn't work in this manner.

It doesn't affect my status as an atheist though.

There seems to be a trend in this threads:

Christian: "We're the victims."
Non-Christian: "No you're not. You are favored by society. We're the real victims!"
Christian: "No you're not, because..."
Non-Christian: "That's silly, because..."
...ad infinitum

Here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, none of the upper-middle class, educated, politically active members of NSG are victims! Maybe, as the intelligentsia we all seem to be a part of, we are, in fact, quite powerful.

Well, I wouldn't say I'm much of a victim compared to lower class, uneducated people, sure. After all, I am educated, (somewhat) intelligent, and able to afford to go to a good university, even if it means taking a couple thousand dollars in debt.

However, I don't see how anybody can deny that 1) Christianity has a special place in our society and any criticism of it goes against the norm, or that 2) nonreligious people are treated worse than religious people, especially Christians, all other factors being equal.
In the US, almost half the country would flat-out refuse to vote for an atheist candidate who agreed with with their political views and was well qualified for the job.

Sure, people criticize Christian extremists, but that's true for extremists in general. And, on that topic, it's easier for an atheist to be labeled an extremist than it is for a theist. For theists to be extremist, they pretty much have to call for a theocracy. For an atheist? They just have to say "Religion is irrational and it is my opinion that it has a negative impact on society. Perhaps we should apply the same intellectual standards to religion as we do to every other idea out there."

Sure, I'm not horribly persecuted as an atheist or anything. But let's just say that I typically choose to avoid revealing that fact to people until I know them a bit better and can accurately judge whether or not they will be bigots about it. (And, in some cases, I think that some people I know that accept it would not have were they not already friends with me. They wouldn't have really wanted to associate with me if I was an atheist at first, but once we're already friends, well... friendship isn't something to lightly give up.)

Indeed, I fairly often get reactions like: "What?! You're an ATHEIST? But you're a pretty good, moral and all-around half-decent guy. I'd never have suspected it!"

Yeah. Because we atheists are normally such horrible people. We rape babies and sacrifice the hearts of live puppies to Satan (who we don't believe exists) all while spreading AIDS to orphans.

Yeah, you may think it sounds ridiculous, but... given the frequency with which I get the amazed "but you seem like a good guy!" comments, it seems that most theists really DO think that about atheists.

No, in the sense that they wouldn't be disregarding provable false evidence. However, no-one has disproved the existence of a supreme being, and I don't think we're ever going to; logic doesn't work in this manner.

Not a supreme being - no. But most peoples believes are far more detailed than "a supreme being exists and created everything". Those details can often be examined. Famous examples debated ad nauseam on these forums are of course Genesis and the global flood. A literal belief in those is simply not supported by the evidence we have - is in fact for all practical purposes proven wrong.

And yet many literalists and fans of ID continue to exist. Is this rational ?

And yet many literalists and fans of ID continue to exist. Is this rational ?
Of course not.

But these literalists represent (globally) a small percentage of Christians, and an even smaller percentage of religious believers. The core belief in a supreme being or group of supernatural beings who created the universe is still present and not at threat from logic or science.

Of course not.

But these literalists represent (globally) a small percentage of Christians, and an even smaller percentage of religious believers. The core belief in a supreme being or group of supernatural beings who created the universe is still present and not at threat from logic or science.

But again: most believers believe much more than just the "core" belief. Exodus. Jesus actually existing as a real person. Him being resurrected. Events from the Bible (Qu'ran etc.) actually happening.

Things that can all be examined more closely - but aren't by the overwhelming majority. In fact, such investigations are considered insults (especially if they contradict the belief).

In essence when belief and reality conflict, reality is supposed to be wrong. That irks me.

Two thousand years of oppression and the unrestricted slaughter of 'heathens', and you're crying because a handful of people don't want to see the cross in their schools and for once you can't burn them at the stake for it?

Come on. Get real. There's a reason why Christianity has a stigma of forcing it's religion on people.

Not a supreme being - no. But most peoples believes are far more detailed than "a supreme being exists and created everything". Those details can often be examined. Famous examples debated ad nauseam on these forums are of course Genesis and the global flood. A literal belief in those is simply not supported by the evidence we have - is in fact for all practical purposes proven wrong.

And yet many literalists and fans of ID continue to exist. Is this rational ?
Just as logic can be applied to anything, so can irrationality. The existence of irrational people attaching themselves to this or that detail of a belief system is not proof that the system as a whole is an irrational construct. If dogs have fleas, it does not follow that fleas come from dogs. If you want to show something about fleas, you have to talk about fleas. If you want to show that religion is irrational, then you have to talk about religion. If you talk about believers, then you are talking about people, not ideas -- and remember the people could have been nuts before they ever got close to the religion; indeed they could be just as nuts about science as they are about religion.

If you want to show that religion is irrational, then you have to talk about religion. If you talk about believers, then you are talking about people, not ideas

Religion is a construct made by people. Leaving the people out of it is silly.

But again: most believers believe much more than just the "core" belief. Exodus. Jesus actually existing as a real person. Him being resurrected. Events from the Bible (Qu'ran etc.) actually happening.

Things that can all be examined more closely - but aren't by the overwhelming majority. In fact, such investigations are considered insults (especially if they contradict the belief).

In essence when belief and reality conflict, reality is supposed to be wrong. That irks me.
It irks me too, but it is hardly a defining hallmark of religion. I have a hard time thinking of a system of thought that doesn't suffer from that, from some people.

Religion is a construct made by people. Leaving the people out of it is silly.
So, is it your contention then that dogs do make fleas?

In other words, where do you think the irrationality comes from, the thought or the thinker? Do you think religion is an irrational construct, or do you think people who hold religious beliefs are irrational people?

If the latter, then did religion make them irrational, or were they nuts before they found god?

If the former, then why do you think it is irrational -- because of a fundamental flaw in its construction, or because of the way irrational people interpret and use it, or what?

There seems to be a trend in this threads:

Christian: "We're the victims."
Non-Christian: "No you're not. You are favored by society. We're the real victims!"
Christian: "No you're not, because..."
Non-Christian: "That's silly, because..."
...ad infinitum

Here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, none of the upper-middle class, educated, politically active members of NSG are victims! Maybe, as the intelligentsia we all seem to be a part of, we are, in fact, quite powerful.

Even within the celebrated few, there can still be some that are at the mercy of others. Example: Christian theology determines the bulk of the laws under which the Atheist lives... see?

So, is it your contention then that dogs do make fleas?

No. Fleas can even exist independent of dogs. The are not created by the dogs.
However -without hosts flees cannot exist.

Religion otoh is actually created by its followers.

In other words, where do you think the irrationality comes from, the thought or the thinker?

Both.

Do you think religion is an irrational construct, or do you think people who hold religious beliefs are irrational people?

Neither per se. Unnecessary simplification.

In essence when belief and reality conflict, reality is supposed to be wrong. That irks me.

Sometimes. I had a theology prof once who said there are two reactions from religious people when their idea of the divine and reality seem to conflict. One is to reevaluate reality to match with what they think about the divine. The other is to reevaluate their idea of the divine to match with reality.

I think the latter choice is generally, if not always, the better way to go.

No. Fleas can even exist independent of dogs. The are not created by the dogs.
However -without hosts flees cannot exist.

Religion otoh is actually created by its followers.
So is philosophy. If there are irrational adherents to, oh, say, humanism, does that make humanism an irrational construct? How does being created by its followers support the assertion that the construct is inherently irrational?


Both.

Neither per se. Unnecessary simplification.
So elaborate on it, then.

Way to dodge.


Not at all - you started talking about 'real' conversion experiences, and that's the precursor to a 'no-real scotsman' argument marching in this direction.

Anyone who presents conflicting evidence, you'll just trot out "well, yours wasn't a real conversion".

No dodge at all.


Why? I just said I've already done that.

You're arguing that - in order to become a Mormon, you actually CHOSE to stop believeing in God? I thought you said you were losing your faith in Catholicism - I didn't realise you were implying it had gotten old, and you just opted out.

Sometimes. I had a theology prof once who said there are two reactions from religious people when their idea of the divine and reality seem to conflict. One is to reevaluate reality to match with what they think about the divine. The other is to reevaluate their idea of the divine to match with reality.

I think the latter choice is generally, if not always, the better way to go.
^^This. It is my view that the latter choice is a rational one, and if there are religious people who do it, then that suggests that irrationality and religion are not necessarily connected.

A) Define "baseless" in this context.

B) "We" are allowing no such thing. In fact, it is exactly the point of contention.


That's a cop-out.


Who asked you to? Not me, certainly. I am only asking you not to stretch it to try to make it explain things it doesn't actually refer to.


You do if you are asserting that sinking is a sign of being struck by a torpedo.

There is a difference between saying some religious people are mentally ill and religious belief is a sign of mental illness.


Another cop-out, rather akin to "hey, I'm just saying that being poor could be a kind of choice for lazy people."


Distinction without a difference. *makes note not to pepper posts with illustrative examples when talking to nitpickers*


I don't know, your apparent lack of understanding about the subject seemed to suggest it.


What, is it your contention that it could be "temporary insanity"? Maybe the kind that comes and goes to suit your convenience in talking about it?

I ask because I wonder why you seem to be conflating "unusual" with "aberrant"? If you think the words are interchangeable, does that mean that if I usually go to one store for my groceries, but on one day I go to a different store to get something my usual store doesn't carry, that means I have exhibited a mental aberration in grocery shopping?


You have no information on which to base any informed question. Naturally, you are free to ask any uninformed question you like. But if you are being honest about it, you would ask your question, get your answer and then shut up -- not continue insisting that you have a good reason to keep asking whether religious people might be crazy.


What are we discussing here, GnI, religious people or murderers or crazy people? Do you draw any distinctions between those groups at all, or are you attempting to conflate them for the sake of defending UB's BS?


Is not an argument. It is bait.


And there's the hook the bait is hung on. So in other words, you are merely claiming a right to indirectly insult religious people because you think they are wrong about something and you don't want to hear them talk about it.


UB's trolling and flaming are NOT what invalidates his arguments. It is his illogic and lack of factual accuracy that invalidates his arguments, completely independently of his obnoxiousness. The fact that you have spent this much time defending his practice of "suggesting" that religion is a sign of insanity makes me think that you are more supportive of his flaming than his arguments, and that makes me sad.

It reminds me of a line from Pope (the poet, not the pontiff) in which he described someone's tactics in putting others down: "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer / and without sneering, teach the rest to sneer / Willing to wound, yet afraid to strike / just hint a fault and hesitate dislike." That is what I think you are doing with your "but I'm just asking if it's possible they're crazy?" act.

I have just started enjoying UB's absence. I am not going to welcome you stepping up to carry on his work. I have absolutely no intention of letting this progress further. If you want to become UB's pitch-flamer, I will ignore you as I ignored him, but I won't feel good about it.

I'm busy right now, but this prompts me to think a dedicated thread might be a good idea. I can't properly adress your responses without this becoming way off topic, and way too much of a hijack.

You're not normally this... angry... I get the feeling you don't like me siding with anything UB says... even if he might be right.

But again: most believers believe much more than just the "core" belief. Exodus. Jesus actually existing as a real person. Him being resurrected. Events from the Bible (Qu'ran etc.) actually happening.
But these events cannot be disproved in the same manner that Terra being created 7,000 years ago can be disproved. I'm not saying they are true, but that going down the route of historical accuracy, when we're talking about a period where historical sources are few and far between, isn't the route I'd take if I was discussing the validity of anything but a few religious beliefs.

In essence when belief and reality conflict, reality is supposed to be wrong. That irks me.
As it should.

But, although it is an undeniably slow and begrudging process, the vast majority of religious thought isn't totally against adapting religion to current scientific arguments. Indeed, the a vast majority of the Western tradition of philosophical thought is about meshing the dominant scientific and religious beliefs of the time.

Moreover, religions such as Hinduism positively revel in morphing older religious belief into one more compatible with the world around us and our updated knowledge of it.

I'm busy right now, but this prompts me to think a dedicated thread might be a good idea. I can't properly adress your responses without this becoming way off topic, and way too much of a hijack.
Just what would be the topic of such a thread -- a private dispute between me and you about a deleted troll? Oooh, fun, but I might be otherwise engaged. I might have to wash some socks or something.

You're not normally this... angry... I get the feeling you don't like me siding with anything UB says... even if he might be right.
My feelings about UB have nothing to do with why I'm annoyed with you. He is gone, so he no longer matters. You are the person I'm dealing with now. What I'm annoyed with you about is YOUR choice to perpetuate his insults while disingenuously trying to act like they're not insults at all. It is deeply hurtful to me when someone I had been used to respecting turns around and shows such disrespect to me and insults me in such a low, cheap manner.

If you really intend to own UB's notion that religion is a sign of mental illness, feel free to do so, but don't expect me to play your game any more than I played his.

One would have to expect some ill feelings when trying to spread word of something claimed to be the one truth.

It implies the ways people have been living their lives is incorrect.

I get a little confused about that as well. And I don't have the answers, but here's the little bit of insight I have into it.
Yeah, the old and new testaments seem to contradict each other. The Old testament is based on working your faith to the level which a perfect God would demand. ie. You have to earn your salvation. And if you don't earn it, or not in time, or aren't interested...God isn't forgiving.
And then in the new testament, its all about forgiveness. Primarily, your salvation is now based on faith, and not on works.
But if you look back to the beginning of the bible, Abraham wasn't under the law. He was accepted by God, by faith. Its almost like its come the full circle. The Israelites didn't live under the law, until they asked for it from Moses. All this time, God had been asking for relationship with them and they were scared to...they asked Moses for the law instead. Its almost like God went, you want rules? I'll give you some rules...chew on that. You want to see me as scary? No problems.
But throughout the Old Testament, people prayed for a Messiah. They all wanted someone to get rid of the law and bring them back into relationship with God. And in the New Testament, God does that. God never seems scary when he's being written about by someone who has experienced his grace I guess.

Those are some interesting ideas... by the way, I wasn't trying to disprove the Bible's message by pointing out the contradictions in it. I know some people do that.
I think that Israel had some skewed ideas (I believe a large part of the Old Testament is human law, not divinely-inspired, and that most of the famous stories therein are folklore). After enough time on their own, Jesus showed up and helped set the record straight on what God wanted.

Not at all - you started talking about 'real' conversion experiences, and that's the precursor to a 'no-real scotsman' argument marching in this direction.

Anyone who presents conflicting evidence, you'll just trot out "well, yours wasn't a real conversion".

No dodge at all.


How is that a 'no true Scotsman' when the issue isn't to prove whether the conversion in question is real or not? The issue is on the (temporary) acceptance of atheism.

You've misunderstood my meaning.

I used the phrase 'true conversion' as a way to separate that out from people who convert for reasons other than honest spirituality. It is my opinion that a person cannot have such an experience without having truly looked at the alternatives.


You're arguing that - in order to become a Mormon, you actually CHOSE to stop believeing in God? I thought you said you were losing your faith in Catholicism - I didn't realise you were implying it had gotten old, and you just opted out.

I'm arguing that a necessary step in searching for the truth is to examine all possibilities HONESTLY and OPENLY and one of those possibilities was the possibility of no God.

I didn't opt out of Catholicism because it 'got old.' I gradually pulled away as it made less and less sense to me in terms of its worldview and theology.

I have just started enjoying UB's absence. I am not going to welcome you stepping up to carry on his work. I have absolutely no intention of letting this progress further. If you want to become UB's pitch-flamer, I will ignore you as I ignored him, but I won't feel good about it.

Did UB get banned?

(I know he was suspended last week, but did something else happen since he's been back?)

Did UB get banned?

(I know he was suspended last week, but did something else happen since he's been back?)

He's been deleted for saying that Christians are a wacky bunch, and not the good kind of wacky.

He's been deleting for saying that Christians are a wacky bunch, and not the good kind of wacky.

Ahh thanks.

I saw the suspension last week but I missed the latest.

Ahh thanks.

I saw the suspension last week but I missed the latest.

It's all in this thread, go back a few pages and you'll see me and him arguing about whether religious people are truly insane or not (the reason he got deleted).

It's all in this thread, go back a few pages and you'll see me and him arguing about whether religious people are truly insane or not (the reason he got deleted).

Yeah I saw... I guess the reason I didn't realize it was that even after Tsarine indicated a banning was imminent, UB continued to post for a couple more pages so I thought it had just been a warning...

I'm arguing that a necessary step in searching for the truth is to examine all possibilities HONESTLY and OPENLY and one of those possibilities was the possibility of no God.

I didn't opt out of Catholicism because it 'got old.' I gradually pulled away as it made less and less sense to me in terms of its worldview and theology.

Examining all possibilities is not the same as believing them all, is it?

And - you say it made less and less sense... wouldn't that mean you stopped believing THAT theology, but NOT by choice?

I've honestly and openly examined just about every theological angle I can encounter, but I've yet to find something convincing enough that I can 'believe' it. I certainly can't CHOOSE to do so.

Examining all possibilities is not the same as believing them all, is it?

That would depend on the process.


And - you say it made less and less sense... wouldn't that mean you stopped believing THAT theology, but NOT by choice?


Sure it was by choice. If I had found atheism appealing I could very well have buried my head in the sand and ignored all information to the contrary.

But then, that would be lying to myself.


I've honestly and openly examined just about every theological angle I can encounter, but I've yet to find something convincing enough that I can 'believe' it. I certainly can't CHOOSE to do so.

Ok.

Sure it was by choice. If I had found atheism appealing I could very well have buried my head in the sand and ignored all information to the contrary.

But then, that would be lying to myself.

That is interesting. I've "tried" to believe things I didn't think were true before, but I found I simply could not.

I have to ask-- if you feel that you can force yourself to ignore evidence against your opinion, how can you be sure you haven't done this with your Mormon beliefs?

Just what would be the topic of such a thread -- a private dispute between me and you about a deleted troll? Oooh, fun, but I might be otherwise engaged. I might have to wash some socks or something.


The point would be something, probably, about whether religious-ness could be some kind of insanity. Or, indeed, the converse - which you seem to be ignoring that I mentioned.


My feelings about UB have nothing to do with why I'm annoyed with you. He is gone, so he no longer matters. You are the person I'm dealing with now. What I'm annoyed with you about is YOUR choice to perpetuate his insults while disingenuously trying to act like they're not insults at all.


I don't think I'm insulting anyone. I've postulated that - given certain evidences, is it really that unreasonable to argue that 'religious-ness' is an abberant psychology? I've also argued that the opposite is true, and that 'atheism' could be the abberant psychology, but that keeps getting overlooked.

(Much like the time I suggested that there might be no true 'homosexuals' OR 'heterosexuals' (but some kind of spectrum)... and I got attacked for 'gay-bashing'...)


It is deeply hurtful to me when someone I had been used to respecting turns around and shows such disrespect to me and insults me in such a low, cheap manner.


I'm not disrespecting you, or insulting you. Indeed, it's not 'about' you, it's about looking at the psychology of 'faith' (or lack of it). I saw a study a while back that suggested, by modern standards, being happy is actually an abberant mental state. That's perhaps a comment on our times, but hardly an insult?

I absolutely respect you, and a number of other persons of faith - but I don't see why this should be such a sacred cow. Again - I've argued it both ways, either faith OR lack could be abberant, could be 'insanity'.

I don't see it as unreasonable to discuss it.


If you really intend to own UB's notion that religion is a sign of mental illness, feel free to do so, but don't expect me to play your game any more than I played his.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm not saying IT IS, I'm just not sure why it deserves to be swept straight from the table, unconsidered.

That would depend on the process.


A little help here?

So - you mean, when you considered all these alternatives - you actually believed ALL the alternatives? You 'believed' in Buddha, Allah, Zeus, etc...?


Sure it was by choice. If I had found atheism appealing I could very well have buried my head in the sand and ignored all information to the contrary.


I wonder if you mean something different by belief.

When I found myself no longer a 'christian', I was intrigued by several other options... I read heavily around the Koran, I looked deeper into my father's (Roman Catholic) faith, I found myself drawn to several of the 'ancient' faiths. I found Catholicism very appealing - I loved all the ritual, the cool jargon, and the background material - but I couldn't believe it. I'm still enamoured of the fluidity of the Egyptian pantheon, but I can't believe it.

I'm still gathering information, today. Every day, day on day. And yet, I'm not believing. Choosing to be open to ideas, doesn't seem to equate to choosing to be able to believe.

That is interesting. I've "tried" to believe things I didn't think were true before, but I found I simply could not.

I have to ask-- if you feel that you can force yourself to ignore evidence against your opinion, how can you be sure you haven't done this with your Mormon beliefs?

That's a good question.

How can someone who believes you CAN 'choose' to believe, be sure they aren't just 'believing' something because they've made themselves do it?

I can't help but think Neo is missing what I'm saying.

That is interesting. I've "tried" to believe things I didn't think were true before, but I found I simply could not.

I have to ask-- if you feel that you can force yourself to ignore evidence against your opinion, how can you be sure you haven't done this with your Mormon beliefs?

Maybe I'm not understanding your question properly but it comes across to me as question begging...

If I tried to make myself believe in atheism but found that I could not maintain it, then why should I question what I believe now, when there has been no need to force myself to accept anything?

If I tried to make myself believe in atheism but found that I could not maintain it, then why should I question what I believe now, when there has been no need to force myself to accept anything?

You 'tried to make' yourself believe, but couldn't maintain it?

Doesn't that, then, mean - you can't 'choose' to believe?

A little help here?

So - you mean, when you considered all these alternatives - you actually believed ALL the alternatives? You 'believed' in Buddha, Allah, Zeus, etc...?


Not ALL in the sense that I never compiled a checklist of every world religion and went down it.

But in the sense that the ones that made the most sense to me then yes, on some level I accepted them as true and explored them over a period of time.


I wonder if you mean something different by belief.


It's possible that you and I have different perspectives on that word.


When I found myself no longer a 'christian', I was intrigued by several other options... I read heavily around the Koran, I looked deeper into my father's (Roman Catholic) faith, I found myself drawn to several of the 'ancient' faiths. I found Catholicism very appealing - I loved all the ritual, the cool jargon, and the background material - but I couldn't believe it. I'm still enamoured of the fluidity of the Egyptian pantheon, but I can't believe it.

I'm still gathering information, today. Every day, day on day. And yet, I'm not believing. Choosing to be open to ideas, doesn't seem to equate to choosing to be able to believe.

True.

You 'tried to make' yourself believe, but couldn't maintain it?

Doesn't that, then, mean - you can't 'choose' to believe?

No, it means I refused to delude myself.

Plenty of people out there believe what they do only because of a healthy dose of self-deception.

No, it means I refused to delude myself.

Plenty of people out there believe what they do only because of a healthy dose of self-deception.

Now, there you've said a mouthful....

We're now arguing that most (many?) 'believers' aren't really 'believers' at all, they're kidding themselves?

You say you 'refused to delude' yourself.... well, doesn't that, then, mean - you didn't believe? It suggests you knew it wasn't 'true'... which - to my way of understanding - just doesn't reconcile with saying you 'believed' it.

(Curious - you just invoked 'delusion', which almost got me crucified half a page back).

But in the sense that the ones that made the most sense to me then yes, on some level I accepted them as true and explored them over a period of time.


I can do a thought-experiment where I accept the axioms as true, for the sake of argument - and then play around in that scenario... seeing how it changes the shape of the world, looking for the points where it confirms or conflicts with my reality.

I can't actually convince myself the axioms ARE true... and, to be honest... if I could, I don't know how I'd 'get back'...?

Although this has dissolved into a religious debate, I do have a statement about the original question.


Perhaps the reason for resentment against Christianity, both in formerly Christian lands and lands where Christianity was brought by force, has its roots in history.


I'm sure you know the history I'm speaking of. Not only were native cultures exterminated by arrogant nations who saw them as offering no insight, and only needing to see the "light" of the trinity; but natural-born Christians lived in societies where the Church gave divine right to indifferent monarchs, whose subjects were damned to an unfortunate life of plowing fields until age 35, when they died and went to (heaven).

With the emancipation of the class that used to make up the serfs that were so vehemently subjugated (today's "middle" class), you end up with a mass of people who really don't care for religion all that much.

As far as the rest of the world, Colonialism really didn't help the face of Christianity abroad, especially after they had exterminated or enslaved all the natives.

Did UB get banned?

(I know he was suspended last week, but did something else happen since he's been back?)

It's earlier in this thread. I'm sure he'll be back. I was hoping to enjoy the silence while it lasted.

(Curious - you just invoked 'delusion', which almost got me crucified half a page back).

Almost? Too bad. When you miraculously returned to the thread three days later we could have started a new faith...

Almost? Too bad. When you miraculously returned to the thread three pages later we could have started a new faith...

Fixed. In keeping with the Forum Resurrection theme.

The point would be something, probably, about whether religious-ness could be some kind of insanity. Or, indeed, the converse - which you seem to be ignoring that I mentioned.
So, then I was right. You just want to make a whole thread about the topic that got UB deleted -- and rightly so, imo. Count me out.

I don't think I'm insulting anyone.
Despite the evidence that I do in fact feel insulted by your words, which I think I indicated pretty clearly? How nice to have vague doubts raised about my sanity and have my feelings entirely discounted at the same time.

I've postulated that - given certain evidences, is it really that unreasonable to argue that 'religious-ness' is an abberant psychology?
And I have explained why I think it is unreasonable.

I've also argued that the opposite is true, and that 'atheism' could be the abberant psychology, but that keeps getting overlooked.
It's true that I am less than interested in your half-assed little disclaimers.

(Much like the time I suggested that there might be no true 'homosexuals' OR 'heterosexuals' (but some kind of spectrum)... and I got attacked for 'gay-bashing'...)
Many of the specific arguments launched against you on that one were a bit over the top, but on the other hand, your original argument was pretty much bullshit to begin with, so in my view, you did deserve to get your head bitten off that time. I read that thread, by the way, though I didn't post in it.


I'm not disrespecting you, or insulting you. Indeed, it's not 'about' you,
When a person says you have done something that offended them, and you did not mean to offend them, the standard response is to apologize for having given offense and then to stop doing the thing that gave offense, i.e. find another way to make your point. Not to keep repeating it while denying that you're insulting or disrespecting the person who just told you how you're making them feel.

it's about looking at the psychology of 'faith' (or lack of it). I saw a study a while back that suggested, by modern standards, being happy is actually an abberant mental state. That's perhaps a comment on our times, but hardly an insult?
I was not aware that you are a psychologist and thus qualified to discuss the topic the way you are trying to.

I absolutely respect you, and a number of other persons of faith - but I don't see why this should be such a sacred cow. Again - I've argued it both ways, either faith OR lack could be abberant, could be 'insanity'.
So, what you're saying is that you have been wasting all our time with pointless drivel of the same value as announcing that it could be either raining or not raining outside, depending on the weather? Now I'm even more annoyed with you.

I don't see it as unreasonable to discuss it.
Obviously you don't, but I'm afraid your opinions are starting to mean less and less to me by the minute.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm not saying IT IS, I'm just not sure why it deserves to be swept straight from the table, unconsidered.
Well, you know what? You go out and get that psychotherapy license, and just as soon as I have any reason to think you know jack shit about sanity or insanity, I'll sit and listen to you pointlessly muse about it. How's that?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13774065&postcount=362

QFT

Although this has dissolved into a religious debate, I do have a statement about the original question.


Perhaps the reason for resentment against Christianity, both in formerly Christian lands and lands where Christianity was brought by force, has its roots in history.


I'm sure you know the history I'm speaking of. Not only were native cultures exterminated by arrogant nations who saw them as offering no insight, and only needing to see the "light" of the trinity; but natural-born Christians lived in societies where the Church gave divine right to indifferent monarchs, whose subjects were damned to an unfortunate life of plowing fields until age 35, when they died and went to (heaven).

With the emancipation of the class that used to make up the serfs that were so vehemently subjugated (today's "middle" class), you end up with a mass of people who really don't care for religion all that much.

As far as the rest of the world, Colonialism really didn't help the face of Christianity abroad, especially after they had exterminated or enslaved all the natives.

On the other hand, though, the last part of your comment doesn't quite make sense today, where at least in the Catholic Church, the largest and fastest-growing communities of practicing Catholics are in former colonial countries in the third world. The first part does make some sense. The fastest-shrinking communities in the Church are in the former colonizers, France and Spain especially.

Ahh thanks.

I saw the suspension last week but I missed the latest.
And what kind of legacy did s/he leave? Nary even a link to the coveted "website".

Not really but that's just me. Most people in my town are Christians.
Seems like a lot of atheist have this really annoying condescending tone. Then you have those crazy christian who push their religion on everyone i somewhat think deserve to be bashed.
I'm christian, but i refrain from pushing it onto people, also i find that atheist complain a lot when you talk about your religion at all so i try not to but then they turn around and they will bash your religion for hours.

Cohenn;13776818']Not really but that's just me. Most people in my town are Christians.
Seems like a lot of atheist have this really annoying condescending tone. Then you have those crazy christian who push their religion on everyone i somewhat think deserve to be bashed.
I'm christian, but i refrain from pushing it onto people, also i find that atheist complain a lot when you talk about your religion at all so i try not to but then they turn around and they will bash your religion for hours.

Actually, I disagree. People don't seem to understand there's a difference between criticizing the zealots and bashing the religion itself. People frequently use the actions of the former to justify the latter.

Not that I condone religious people pushing others into their belief, but these people are out there doing what they think is in your best interest. It's not generally malice, they just don't realize how it comes across. By bashing and insulting them, you only reinforce their preconceived notions about non-Christians. What these people need is a clue, and there are constructive ways of achieving that which don't require people to act like assholes.

Firstly, please show us an example of a western political leader banning Christmas lights (as opposed to referring to them as 'holiday lights' or deciding that funding Christmas decorations was not a responsible use of government money).

Secondly, please show that the leader in question was motivated by Atheism.

I'm genuinely interested to see if you can answer the first challenge, let alone the second.I'm not interested in playing staring contests with you, m'kay? It's just something I heard on the news, and quite frankly, I am too damn lazy to look it up, especially since I meant to use it as a broad example of how both sides can be stupid and both exaggerate facts and events, idiotically.

What's wrong with criticizing someone's religion? It's an idea, and is open to criticism, like communism, national socialism, islam, secular humanism etc. When you start saying it's not okay to criticize an idea because it's your 'beliefs' then you're just finding an excuse not to think.

So, then I was right. You just want to make a whole thread about the topic that got UB deleted...

Nope. I said if I delved much deeper it should have it's own thread. I think this has gone far enough in here, and I don't think you're going to be willing to debate it in it's own thread, so I'm just going to have to let this slide. I wish it could have been on more amicable terms, since the apparent loss of respect is only one way.

Actually, I disagree. People don't seem to understand there's a difference between criticizing the zealots and bashing the religion itself. People frequently use the actions of the former to justify the latter.
I've seen this cut both ways.

I've seen real religion bashers latch onto any example of extremism or abuse and try to apply it to a whole religion, as if the WBC represents all of Christianity or every priest is a sex offender, or as if just being Muslim makes a person pro-terrorism.

On the other hand, I've seen at least as many examples of religious people denouncing any criticism, no matter how mild, of their dogma, politics or history as "bashing" or responding to any complaint about extremism in their church as if they are being accused of being the extremists themselves.

Isn't there something in Christianity about removing the plank from one's own eye before pointing out the mote in one's neighobor's? Something like that?

Not that I condone religious people pushing others into their belief, but these people are out there doing what they think is in your best interest. It's not generally malice, they just don't realize how it comes across. By bashing and insulting them, you only reinforce their preconceived notions about non-Christians. What these people need is a clue, and there are constructive ways of achieving that which don't require people to act like assholes.
So now it's my responsibility to put up with their unsolicited and unwanted intrusions on my life with patience and grace and somehow teach them the best way for them to sell me their religion, which I'm not interested in anyway? No, actually, I think it's their church's job to teach them how to evangelize, and it's their parents' job to teach them basic manners. I am neither of those, and it is not my responsibility to help them in anyway with anything.

I think of evangelists a little like the way the Dalai Lama thinks of mosquitos. I saw an interview with him once, in which he was asked jokingly whether he would swat a mosquito that was biting him -- you know, because of the Buddhist rule against killing. He said he'd ignore the first bite, but if the bug came back he would not swat it, but neither would he just let it suck itself silly off him. He'd wave or blow it away the second time, and if it came back a third time, he might flick it off. Because, yes, they are annoying, and being a Buddhist doesn't mean you have to put up with just anything or give every other creature anything they might demand. That's how I think of anyone who is trying to get my attention, interrupt my day and train of thought, just so they can try to sell me something I wasn't shopping for -- ignore, wave off, flick, in that order. I really don't care why they want to talk to me or how nifty they think their product is or how much they think I might need it -- just like I really don't care how hungry a given mosquito might be.

What's wrong with criticizing someone's religion? It's an idea, and is open to criticism, like communism, national socialism, islam, secular humanism etc. When you start saying it's not okay to criticize an idea because it's your 'beliefs' then you're just finding an excuse not to think.
Agreed.

I've seen this cut both ways.

I've seen real religion bashers latch onto any example of extremism or abuse and try to apply it to a whole religion, as if the WBC represents all of Christianity or every priest is a sex offender, or as if just being Muslim makes a person pro-terrorism.

On the other hand, I've seen at least as many examples of religious people denouncing any criticism, no matter how mild, of their dogma, politics or history as "bashing" or responding to any complaint about extremism in their church as if they are being accused of being the extremists themselves.

Isn't there something in Christianity about removing the plank from one's own eye before pointing out the mote in one's neighobor's? Something like that?


Indeed there is. That's exactly why the people you refer to who go batshit over the slightest criticism are equally wrong. IMHO when people react that way it's because the criticism is exposing some uncomfortable truth that they don't know how to deal with, so they overreact.


So now it's my responsibility to put up with their unsolicited and unwanted intrusions on my life with patience and grace and somehow teach them the best way for them to sell me their religion, which I'm not interested in anyway? No, actually, I think it's their church's job to teach them how to evangelize, and it's their parents' job to teach them basic manners. I am neither of those, and it is not my responsibility to help them in anyway with anything.


Actually on some level it is, if you want progress to be made. Obviously if someone's trying to ram their religion down your throat then you can't expect their church to straighten them out--hell, that's probably where it originated to begin with.

On the other hand, trying to get them out of the mold isn't a way of instructing them in how to convert you. It's a way of getting them to understand that not everybody thinks alike, and that they're not doing any good by being so aggressive. This is NOT how Jesus behaved and they dishonor their own religion. Do this, and everybody wins. They get a clue, you lose an annoyance, and hopefully prevent others from being put off by this business in the future.


I think of evangelists a little like the way the Dalai Lama thinks of mosquitos. I saw an interview with him once, in which he was asked jokingly whether he would swat a mosquito that was biting him -- you know, because of the Buddhist rule against killing. He said he'd ignore the first bite, but if the bug came back he would not swat it, but neither would he just let it suck itself silly off him. He'd wave or blow it away the second time, and if it came back a third time, he might flick it off. Because, yes, they are annoying, and being a Buddhist doesn't mean you have to put up with just anything or give every other creature anything they might demand. That's how I think of anyone who is trying to get my attention, interrupt my day and train of thought, just so they can try to sell me something I wasn't shopping for -- ignore, wave off, flick, in that order. I really don't care why they want to talk to me or how nifty they think their product is or how much they think I might need it -- just like I really don't care how hungry a given mosquito might be.

But now we're talking about something different. You seem to be talking about missionaries as well, whereas I'm referring only to the zealots who try to force-convert people, whether they be family members, friends, strangers off the street or whatever... The ones who truly do try to cram their beliefs down people's throats and give the religion bashers material and an excuse to paint us all with the same broad brush. (Missionaries were covered at length in another thread recently.)

Indeed there is. That's exactly why the people you refer to who go batshit over the slightest criticism are equally wrong. IMHO when people react that way it's because the criticism is exposing some uncomfortable truth that they don't know how to deal with, so they overreact.
So, to be sure I understand you, you're saying that when Christians respond to general criticism of Christian churches for being, oh, say, active in politics (such as criticisms of Catholic churches that threaten to excommunicate people for voting a certain way) by declaring a broad anti-Christian bias and that they are being attacked and bashed, that means that the political criticism has exposed an uncomfortable truth about their church that they don't know how to deal with?

Actually on some level it is, if you want progress to be made. Obviously if someone's trying to ram their religion down your throat then you can't expect their church to straighten them out--hell, that's probably where it originated to begin with.
Progress towards what?

The only progress I want to make is towards getting through my day without interruption. How is interrupting my day to deal with them going to progress me towards that goal?

If you mean progress towards world peace, they can easily accomplish that by leaving me alone, just as I leave them alone -- which, trust me, I do. Good fences make good neighbors, after all, and silence truly is golden.

On the other hand, trying to get them out of the mold isn't a way of instructing them in how to convert you. It's a way of getting them to understand that not everybody thinks alike, and that they're not doing any good by being so aggressive. This is NOT how Jesus behaved and they dishonor their own religion. Do this, and everybody wins. They get a clue, you lose an annoyance, and hopefully prevent others from being put off by this business in the future.
What? Huh? What does "trying to get them out of the mold isn't a way of instructing them in how to convert you" mean? Just what do you expect me to do with these pests beside keep walking when they try to stop me on the street? Why do I have to try to get them out of anything I didn't put them into in the first place?

But now we're talking about something different. You seem to be talking about missionaries as well, whereas I'm referring only to the zealots who try to force-convert people, whether they be family members, friends, strangers off the street or whatever... The ones who truly do try to cram their beliefs down people's throats and give the religion bashers material and an excuse to paint us all with the same broad brush. (Missionaries were covered at length in another thread recently.)
I don't like unsolicited sales pitches regardless of whether the pitch is hard or soft. The hawker can be smiling or threatening, asking or telling, it makes no difference to me. They are all talking out of turn, and addressing me without permission. The only difference in how I react to a run-of-the-mill missionary buttonholing people with his clipboard and "true message" and the zealot on the street threatening me with damnation if I don't obey immediately is that I may be less likely to flip the missionary the bird as I walk by him without stopping -- depending on how in my way he put himself.

EDIT: Actually, I'm unlikely to flip the bird at most people, with the exception of Boston drivers who don't know what a stop sign is. The only time I flipped the bird at a religion salesman in the past 10 years was at a Scientologist who was working a certain subway entrance and tried to buttonhole me three times in one day, so that was an ignore - wave off- flick situation, literally. But I have been known often to walk through people who would not make room for me to walk around them. The point is, random hawkers on the street don't get to claim my attention, period.

I don't like unsolicited sales pitches regardless of whether the pitch is hard or soft. The hawker can be smiling or threatening, asking or telling, it makes no difference to me. They are all talking out of turn, and addressing me without permission. The only difference in how I react to a run-of-the-mill missionary buttonholing people with his clipboard and "true message" and the zealot on the street threatening me with damnation if I don't obey immediately is that I may be less likely to flip the missionary the bird as I walk by him without stopping -- depending on how in my way he put himself.

See, this is why I don't like missionaries, door to door converters, etc. Not because they’re pushing their religion on me, but because they’re pushing on me. They interrupt my time, they enter into my space uninvited, unwelcome, and unbidden. I didn’t ask for them, I didn’t seek them out. My reaction to those on my doorstop trying to sell me jesus is the same as those trying to sell me tires. If I wanted it, I’d know where to find you, I’ll come to you.

Until then, you are an intruder in my space, in my home, in my life and in my time. Why should I respect you?

See, this is why I don't like missionaries, door to door converters, etc. Not because they’re pushing their religion on me, but because they’re pushing on me. They interrupt my time, they enter into my space uninvited, unwelcome, and unbidden. I didn’t ask for them, I didn’t seek them out. My reaction to those on my doorstop trying to sell me jesus is the same as those trying to sell me tires. If I wanted it, I’d know where to find you, I’ll come to you.

Until then, you are an intruder in my space, in my home, in my life and in my time. Why should I respect you?

Exactly.

So, to be sure I understand you, you're saying that when Christians respond to general criticism of Christian churches for being, oh, say, active in politics (such as criticisms of Catholic churches that threaten to excommunicate people for voting a certain way) by declaring a broad anti-Christian bias and that they are being attacked and bashed, that means that the political criticism has exposed an uncomfortable truth about their church that they don't know how to deal with?


Not exactly. I'm talking about the people who, like I said, go batshit over the slightest criticism, however mild or whatever the subject. It's because it hits a nerve and they don't know how to react to it so they just start yelling.

There's nothing wrong with simply responding to criticism. It's when they do it in an irrational way that is a problem.


Progress towards what?


Achieving a mutual understanding.


The only progress I want to make is towards getting through my day without interruption. How is interrupting my day to deal with them going to progress me towards that goal?


What about zealots you encounter in, say, Internet forums like this one? From time to time we see somebody who can't get out of the "Read the Bible or you're going to Hell" mold.


If you mean progress towards world peace, they can easily accomplish that by leaving me alone, just as I leave them alone -- which, trust me, I do. Good fences make good neighbors, after all, and silence truly is golden.


Well if they were doing that, we wouldn't be having the discussion.


What? Huh? What does "trying to get them out of the mold isn't a way of instructing them in how to convert you" mean? Just what do you expect me to do with these pests beside keep walking when they try to stop me on the street? Why do I have to try to get them out of anything I didn't put them into in the first place?


Side effect of living in a society. People gt in each other's way. There's a constructive way to react and there's a not-constructive way. Guess which one leads to less stress?


I don't like unsolicited sales pitches regardless of whether the pitch is hard or soft. The hawker can be smiling or threatening, asking or telling, it makes no difference to me. They are all talking out of turn, and addressing me without permission. The only difference in how I react to a run-of-the-mill missionary buttonholing people with his clipboard and "true message" and the zealot on the street threatening me with damnation if I don't obey immediately is that I may be less likely to flip the missionary the bird as I walk by him without stopping -- depending on how in my way he put himself.


Ok.


EDIT: Actually, I'm unlikely to flip the bird at most people, with the exception of Boston drivers who don't know what a stop sign is. The only time I flipped the bird at a religion salesman in the past 10 years was at a Scientologist who was working a certain subway entrance and tried to buttonhole me three times in one day, so that was an ignore - wave off- flick situation, literally. But I have been known often to walk through people who would not make room for me to walk around them. The point is, random hawkers on the street don't get to claim my attention, period.

What do you mean by 'buttonholing?'

Not exactly. I'm talking about the people who, like I said, go batshit over the slightest criticism, however mild or whatever the subject. It's because it hits a nerve and they don't know how to react to it so they just start yelling.

There's nothing wrong with simply responding to criticism. It's when they do it in an irrational way that is a problem.
I think responding to criticism of a political tactic by claiming a broad-based anti-Christian bias in general is an irrational -- or, rather, an unreasonable response.


Achieving a mutual understanding.
Why do we need a mutual understanding? Why can't they just leave me alone? Why do I need to know, let alone understand, anything about them, or they about me?

What about zealots you encounter in, say, Internet forums like this one? From time to time we see somebody who can't get out of the "Read the Bible or you're going to Hell" mold.
That's what the ignore list is for.

Well if they were doing that, we wouldn't be having the discussion.
Precisely!

Side effect of living in a society. People gt in each other's way. There's a constructive way to react and there's a not-constructive way. Guess which one leads to less stress?
The one that involves me not being made aware of them.


Ok.

What do you mean by 'buttonholing?'
Sorry, it's an old-fashioned expression. To buttonhole someone is to kind of snag and hold their attention in an impromptu way, like they're just passing by and you snag them and don't let them go while you talk to them. You ever notice on a man's suit, that little buttonhole on one of the lapels? It refers to that, and to an image from my grandparents' time of some kind of pest getting up in your face close enough to hook you and hold you by that buttonhole.

I think responding to criticism of a political tactic by claiming a broad-based anti-Christian bias in general is an irrational -- or, rather, an unreasonable response.


It can be, do you have a specific example in mind?


Why do we need a mutual understanding? Why can't they just leave me alone? Why do I need to know, let alone understand, anything about them, or they about me?


Community.


That's what the ignore list is for.


Meh. I never ignore anybody. I'd hate to inadvertently miss out on hearing something useful. You never know.


The one that involves me not being made aware of them.


But that's not very realistic, is it?


Sorry, it's an old-fashioned expression. To buttonhole someone is to kind of snag and hold their attention in an impromptu way, like they're just passing by and you snag them and don't let them go while you talk to them. You ever notice on a man's suit, that little buttonhole on one of the lapels? It refers to that, and to an image from my grandparents' time of some kind of pest getting up in your face close enough to hook you and hold you by that buttonhole.

Ahhh thank you. I'd never heard that one before now.

It can be, do you have a specific example in mind?
Why do you need a specific example? You do not disagree that such overreaction exists, right? So, do you want to go over every instance in the media for the past whatever time period to see if it is or is not such an overreaction? I made a general statement, just like you did. What more needs to be said, if you agree that Christians are just as prone to such overreaction as others?

Community.
I don't know about you, but I grew up in New York City, a "community" of several million people. Somehow, we all managed to get through our days, often in uncomfortably intimate physical proximity to each other, without actually having to live our lives in each other's back pockets -- meaning we really didn't have to participate in our neighbor's lives in order to be their neighbors. I do not need to know anything about my neighbors' religion, just as they don't need to know anything about mine, and we can still all be part of the same community. The same community of people who mind their own business.


Meh. I never ignore anybody. I'd hate to inadvertently miss out on hearing something useful. You never know.
I wish you would ignore me.

But that's not very realistic, is it?
See two paragraphs above. It's entirely realistic. I manage to live most of my life that way.

Ahhh thank you. I'd never heard that one before now.

Surely you don't really think this is what the non literalistic version says? Or are you just plain stupid?

Nice flaming, pity you don't have an argument.

Eve's creation from the rib actually places women as equal to man because it is from the middle of his body. If Eve had been made from a foot bone than women would be inferior to man, if she had been made with a bone from the head she would be superior to man. The fact that she was made from the rib is meant to show that both men and women are equal.

No, creating them at the same time would have indicated equality. Even was created from Adam to be subordinate to him. The meaning is obvious. If it had said a bone in the head you would have claimed that this indicated mental equality etc. It's also worth noting that some scholars believe that 'rib' was used as euphemism for 'penis bone', but I'm sure someone as obviously brilliant as yourself was already aware of that...

It doesn't matter if this is how people actually acted as to think that people follow everything their holy books say and act in what was intended doesn't deny the original meaning. Of course how does the joke go, Why did God create Eve after Adam? Because you need a rough draft to create a masterpiece.

So you basically admit that most theologians agreed with my metaphorical reading until very recently? And yet you still presume to call me stupid. I'd be insulted if you weren't so contradictary.

As for the second story, that too is wrong, I think it is more of a story along the lines of Pandora and her box.

So you call me stupid for my interpretations and then... erm... agree with me? Pandora's Box is a profoundly misogynistic tale. The Ancient Greeks were hardly noted for their egalitarianism and the story of a woman ignoring her husbands advice and being led astray when he leaves the house, leading to the unleashing of evil on the world is so blatantly sexist I've astounded you think it supports your argument.

That could only possibly be evidence against a designer God and not a prime mover or other type of deity,

It's still evidence against a prime mover on the grounds that a deity powerful enough to kick start the Universe could have chosen to create life instantly if they so wished.

and that's ignoring the fact that its based on the infallibility of sense perception and the scientific method, which of course could all be bullshit and our perceptions could be totally unrealistic.

Infallibility? No. The only assumption is that our senses can give us reliable information about the real world most of the time, and if that's not true then we can't know anything and we might as well give up. Extreme scepticism may be an interesting thought experiment, but it's not really relevant unless you want to deny that we can gain any knowledge at all.

The theory of evolution implies that there is no end goal. The observed facts of evolution imply that there is a general trend toward more complex beings capable of higher levels of experience.

Not at all, except for the general 'trend' that when you start with replicators less sophisticated than a modern bacterium there's only really one way to go in terms of complexity...

The idea that there's a universal trend towards complexity and intelligence is simply naive anthropocentrism: the most 'successful' creatures on the planet would probably be micro-organisms and beetles, neither of which are noted for their intelligence. We're merely smart aberrations from the general trend, in which intelligence is not usually worth the required investment of energy.

If we are trying to integrate a belief in god with a belief in evolution, we would simply have to claim that god works through the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift in order to spur the evolutionary engine.

Are you suggesting a form of Intelligent Design, or simply that a divine force kickstarted the Universe and left it to run from there? My argument still works perfectly well against the second position.

And the anthropic cosmological principle of Barrow (http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho17.htm)implies that evolution as we know it would be highly improbable without a designer god.

Let's not get off topic too quickly: do you agree that the existence of a naturalistic origin of life is evidence for naturalism (regardless of whether you think it's extremely weak evidence or not)?

Several contemporary theologians have proposed various models of integration focusing on Jesus as the 'goal' of evolution (http://books.google.ca/books?id=p1BdWMDCfeoC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=jesus+is+the+goal+of+evolution&source=web&ots=e9e9N7MLas&sig=-HNMQXRFz6ObPw74PJ2jGRCQk-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result).

I don't see how this has any relevance to my argument at all since I never said that the two were incompatible, merely that a naturalistic origin of life is necessarily predicted by naturalism but not by supernaturalism.

Obviously, it is possible to have a rational world view that integrates Christianity and evolution.

Did I say it wasn't? That may or may not be my position (and whether or not it is sometimes varies from day to day) but how is that relevant to the argument I'm making?

It's still evidence against a prime mover on the grounds that a deity powerful enough to kick start the Universe could have chosen to create life instantly if they so wished.


Not necessarily, there are an infinite amount of possibilities concerning what God is capable of, so in the big picture this evidence has little effect on disproving God.


Infallibility? No. The only assumption is that our senses can give us reliable information about the real world most of the time, and if that's not true then we can't know anything and we might as well give up. Extreme scepticism may be an interesting thought experiment, but it's not really relevant unless you want to deny that we can gain any knowledge at all.

It need not be reliable or not reliable, again it could be an infinite amount of possibilities in between that, from reliable all the time, to reliable half the time, to reliable none of the time. We can gain knowledge as long as you assume the basic premise of our sense perceptions reliable, but if you do not make such an assumption then perhaps I may indeed take an anti-realist approach and say you cannot know for certain at all.

It's still evidence against a prime mover on the grounds that a deity powerful enough to kick start the Universe could have chosen to create life instantly if they so wished.

Bold mine.

What if they didn't "so wish"?

No, creating them at the same time would have indicated equality. Even was created from Adam to be subordinate to him. The meaning is obvious. If it had said a bone in the head you would have claimed that this indicated mental equality etc. It's also worth noting that some scholars believe that 'rib' was used as euphemism for 'penis bone', but I'm sure someone as obviously brilliant as yourself was already aware of that...

Well if that is the way you wish to interpret it to try and help support your agument then by all means go ahead, your wrong but go ahead anyway. And no I wouldn't have claimed that either, what do you think I would have claimed if the Bible had said a bone from the foot, I am so egar to find out.

So you basically admit that most theologians agreed with my metaphorical reading until very recently? And yet you still presume to call me stupid. I'd be insulted if you weren't so contradictary.

No it is not what I am saying at all, what I am saying is their was an original meaning to the book, people refused to listen to that section or warp it to advance their own ideals a bit like what you are doing now.

So you call me stupid for my interpretations and then... erm... agree with me? Pandora's Box is a profoundly misogynistic tale. The Ancient Greeks were hardly noted for their egalitarianism and the story of a woman ignoring her husbands advice and being led astray when he leaves the house, leading to the unleashing of evil on the world is so blatantly sexist I've astounded you think it supports your argument.

Umm no, I never said I agreed with you you said that women need to be kept on a tight leash, I am saying the story in the Bible and the story of Pandora's box goes along the same lines as women brought pain and suffering into the world do you see the difference? And while it may be sexist it does support my argument that you were wrong in your interpretation of the story.

Why do you need a specific example? You do not disagree that such overreaction exists, right? So, do you want to go over every instance in the media for the past whatever time period to see if it is or is not such an overreaction? I made a general statement, just like you did. What more needs to be said, if you agree that Christians are just as prone to such overreaction as others?


I only asked for an example for the sake of understanding what you meant. It was not a challenge. Relax.


I don't know about you, but I grew up in New York City, a "community" of several million people. Somehow, we all managed to get through our days, often in uncomfortably intimate physical proximity to each other, without actually having to live our lives in each other's back pockets -- meaning we really didn't have to participate in our neighbor's lives in order to be their neighbors. I do not need to know anything about my neighbors' religion, just as they don't need to know anything about mine, and we can still all be part of the same community. The same community of people who mind their own business.

New York isn't exactly known for its harmonious sense of community.

Maybe that makes it ideal for your purposes. (Not a snarky comment.)


I wish you would ignore me.


No you don't. Without me you'd get bored.:p


See two paragraphs above. It's entirely realistic. I manage to live most of my life that way.

No offense, but I feel sorry for you regarding that.

Well if that is the way you wish to interpret it to try and help support your agument then by all means go ahead, your wrong but go ahead anyway. And no I wouldn't have claimed that either, what do you think I would have claimed if the Bible had said a bone from the foot, I am so egar to find out.



No it is not what I am saying at all, what I am saying is their was an original meaning to the book, people refused to listen to that section or warp it to advance their own ideals a bit like what you are doing now.



Umm no, I never said I agreed with you you said that women need to be kept on a tight leash, I am saying the story in the Bible and the story of Pandora's box goes along the same lines as women brought pain and suffering into the world do you see the difference? And while it may be sexist it does support my argument that you were wrong in your interpretation of the story.
1)read up that was in the flipping news paper recently! It IS a valid interpretation and ill find it for you if you want me too.

2)Meaning is entirely different from person to person . . . .Ask ANYONE. there is no objective meaning to anything.

3)wow . . .do you really believe that? I'v met hundred's if not thousands of women who are (at least by what I'v seen here.) much more responsible and smarter than you . . . .I think YOU might be the one that needs to be kept on a leash

3)wow . . .do you really believe that? I'v met hundred's if not thousands of women who are (at least by what I'v seen here.) much more responsible and smarter than you . . . .I think YOU might be the one that needs to be kept on a leash

As much as I hate that argument, you know all about me don't you Dawoad :rolleyes: And no I do not really believe that women have caused all the problems in the world, if you read my first post I did say that my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I said that, it was intended as a joke.

Which newspaper was flipping?

What's wrong with criticizing someone's religion? It's an idea, and is open to criticism, like communism, national socialism, islam, secular humanism etc. When you start saying it's not okay to criticize an idea because it's your 'beliefs' then you're just finding an excuse not to think.Thoroughly, utterly agreed.
*bows*

I have, indeed, used the term "libruhl", but i'm not sure i've proper occasion to use it as yet. Haven't heard the "safe word" yet.

Is it "socialism"? :P

What? People on NSG pay attention to moderates making sense in a religious thread? Perish the thought!

What's a mod-er-ate? :confused:

Even if this is true and I'm not saying it is and I'm not saying it is not it still proves my point in regards to what I posted.

10 points to the person that deciphers that first.

Ooooh, i miss that guy! He's fun.

Miss? You've been hanging out in the wrong threads then...

Belief is not Science, other wise it'd be called Science. Or maybe at least Scilief.

I am SO starting Scilief!

You guys are all now officially heretics.

I'm reminded of something Neil Gaiman said in a recent lecture about literature and writing.

Oh my god, you've got lecture hall with Neil Gaiman??? Or was it just a traveling lecture?? Does it matter?? *faints with jealousy*

You're arguing that - in order to become a Mormon, you actually CHOSE to stop believeing in God? I thought you said you were losing your faith in Catholicism - I didn't realise you were implying it had gotten old, and you just opted out.

Well, you've gotta have a backup.

He's been deleted for saying that Christians are a wacky bunch, and not the good kind of wacky.

Or the kinky kind.

What's wrong with criticizing someone's religion? It's an idea, and is open to criticism, like communism, national socialism, islam, secular humanism etc. When you start saying it's not okay to criticize an idea because it's your 'beliefs' then you're just finding an excuse not to think.

This x 100. Dead on.

Well if that is the way you wish to interpret it to try and help support your agument then by all means go ahead, your wrong but go ahead anyway.
...
No it is not what I am saying at all, what I am saying is their was an original meaning to the book, people refused to listen to that section or warp it to advance their own ideals a bit like what you are doing now.

I'm not a Christian, so I can't make any solid claims, but I don't think it's up to you to tell people what the "right" interpretation of the bible is. It's been under debate for a pretty long time. If there was one universally acknowledged interpretation, I bet we'd've heard of it.



Whew! That was exhausting.

Is it "socialism"? :P I suppose given the concept of "medicine", it would be ...
weirdly enough, it's like one of those passcodes you have to enter to send an email to yourself from some of the newswebsites, all wobbly and cryptic, and rarely the same thing twice. :p

Miss? You've been hanging out in the wrong threads then...I guess i have. I've been steering clear of the politics ones that focus too much on the current petitioners. *shrug*

You guys are all now officially heretics.Been there, done that, burned the bra. :)

Or the kinky kind.Reminds me of the premiere of Moral Orel.
I don't think it's up to you to tell people what the "right" interpretation of the bible is. It's been under debate for a pretty long time. If there was one universally acknowledged interpretation, I bet we'd've heard of it.This may be the new safe word! *bows*

weirdly enough, it's like one of those passcodes you have to enter to send an email to yourself from some of the newswebsites, all wobbly and cryptic, and rarely the same thing twice. :p

I never get those right the first time. I'm sure bots have a much higher success rate than I do. :(

This may be the new safe word! *bows*

It was the patronizing tone, wasn't it? I know, I need to not be that liberal, but I am snarky at heart.

I never get those right the first time. I'm sure bots have a much higher success rate than I do. :( They irk me a little, since i'm usually doing that during my lunch at work, and don't have a lot of time. :(

It was the patronizing tone, wasn't it? I know, I need to not be that liberal, but I am snarky at heart.Do as thou wilt shalt be the whole of the law. :)

But on the other hand, they are the only group currently considered fair game for condescension, ridicule, and insult by the "intellectual" class and by the media. Especially if the group is narrowed to mean "white, rural, Appalachian or Southern". The hillbilly is the last refuge of ethnic insults. You can show them on TV, dumb, inbred, missing teeth, bare feet; try to pawn off a stereotype so offensive on any other group, there will be howls of racism. It's ok for the hillbillies, though, you see, they're all from West Virginia and not smart enough to hire lawyers, right?
Not all Christians are dumb rednecks. I ridicule many groups. I don't ridicule idiot hillbillies for being Christians, I ridicule them for being idiot hillbillies. I would ridicule them just as much if they were muslims or atheist (Islam is a religion I dislike as much as Christianity).

So no, Christians are not the only religious group it's okay to criticize, and Christian =/= retarded redneck. And seeing as how the rest of your post was built from that false premise, there's nothing more to say here.

Here's the problem. There are an awful lot of people out there, and on this forum it's painfully obvious, who are doing a good deal more than simply 'expressing irritation.' If that were all there was to it, then there'd be no problem.

Do you know how old it gets to be accused for the umpteenth time how you have some kind of sinister agenda to overrun our secular Government with a theocracy... (Paranoia much?)

NEWSFLASH: Christians are NOT a new addition to US Politics. We've been around since day 1. If we haven't turned this country into a theocracy by now, rest assured, it's not going to happen.

What I find most interesting is how often people who would normally not be unkind to each other suddenly gleefully rush headlong into the most creative caricatures of Christian theology, using the most insulting possible terms, and when called out for it they do one of two things:

1)React with a "Who, me?" response as if they'd never say something unkind, they're just being 'objective!' (This on the tail of a flying spaghetti monster analogy.)
2)Justify it, as if it's perfectly acceptable to insult Christians because, after all, the Crusades!

Please.

Arrogant atheists annoy me, too. But it's an internet forum. By nature it's a cesspit. Plus, Christianity isn't the only religion picked on. Most of the aforementioned arrogant atheists speak as if having any religious beliefs at all were some sort of sign of mental instability. Christianity only has a higher profile because it has a lot of adherents, and thus more influence on society.

But it's an internet forum. By nature it's a cesspit.Sigworthy.

Arrogant atheists annoy me, too. But it's an internet forum. By nature it's a cesspit. Plus, Christianity isn't the only religion picked on. Most of the aforementioned arrogant atheists speak as if having any religious beliefs at all were some sort of sign of mental instability. Christianity only has a higher profile because it has a lot of adherents, and thus more influence on society.

Good point, and quite honestly ANY religious bigotry sickens me, but the tendency around here is toward Christianity so that's the one we discuss most often.

Like I said what I feel more than anything is disappointment. I have found a bunch of people for whom I develop a decent amount of respect who then just pitch that out the window when they go from intelligent posts to some idiotic and self gratifying rant on Christianity.

1) Right to freedom of worship means you can believe what you will.

2) Right to freedom of speech means I am allowed to ridicule as I please.

One important thing to note, however: Christians control EVERYTHING in the Western world, and alot in the East. If anyone is constantly bashed it is the atheists, agnostics, and nontheists (ignostics, skeptics, freethinkers, noncognitivists, etc). These groups are the least trusted groups in the U.S., even behind gays and Muslims, which are both distrusted and even hated by the general populace in America (not saying it's right to do so, that's just how many Americans think, as evidenced by the fierce opposition to gay rights and the attacks on Obama's "Muslim" heritage). And the general populace is...Christian. So stop bawing just because someone makes a couple jokes.

I only asked for an example for the sake of understanding what you meant. It was not a challenge. Relax.
Then I already gave you an example. An example of criticism of some US Catholic churches threatening to excommunicate parishioners if they voted for certain candidates in the last few elections, which public criticisms were met by counter-charges of a bias against religion that sought to disenfranchise religious people from politics, which was kind of ironic, and which also was often not leveled by the Catholic churches themselves but by certain extremist fundamentalist Protestant figures such as Pat Robertson and other such preachers. This occurred especially during the 2004 election when Catholic churches threatened damnation against any Catholics who voted for John Kerry. Surely you haven't forgotten about it. It was all over the news, and minor incidents of the same sort of reactions pop up in the news all the time. Just last week an unnamed Catholic priest was criticised because he refused communion to some politician who supports one of Obama's policies -- the priest was unnamed because the politician in question asked that he not be, perhaps to avoid a repeat of the 2004 nonsense. I can't remember off-hand which pol it was.

New York isn't exactly known for its harmonious sense of community.
A common misconception. New York is no different from any other very large city. In fact, I loved it there. I only left for economic reasons, and I wish I could go back. The only things about NYC I don't miss are the cockroaches.

Here's the truth about NYC: The city is its own little country of tight-knit communities of people who recognize, accept and watch out for each other. There are residential neighborhoods, transit neighborhoods, shopping neighborhoods, work neighborhoods, and New Yorkers being creatures of habit, a person will be a recognized member of all the ones they frequent sufficiently. "Neighbor" is a special class of relationship in NYC that is highly valued because it implies a certain level of trust and loyalty, even though it is not, technically, a personal relationship. A good neighbor is someone who will know if there's something wrong with your apartment, who will call the cops for you, who knows your kids and your pets, your hours of coming and going, who can be trusted to take in your mail for you when you go away, who will notice if you change your habits or appearance, who will be the people the police talk to to trace you if you go missing. But a neighbor is not someone who knows your religion, or your extended family, or what books you read, etc, etc. That's what a friend is, not a neighbor.

Maybe that makes it ideal for your purposes. (Not a snarky comment.)
Yes, it is ideal for the purpose of living peaceably among strangers. It is ideal for getting through a day with minimum interference, because everyone around one is equally respecting each other's personal privacy, despite the crowding, and mutally not unnecessarily obstructing each other's paths in going about their daily business. It is perfect for the purpose of demonstrating that people can share space comfortably while still minding their own business and not poking into other people's. And for proving that you can be connected to your neighbors, be peripherally aware of them, often to a very deep extent, without having to stop what you are doing to listen to them talk about something that has nothing to do with you.


No you don't. Without me you'd get bored.:p
Yes, actually, I really do, and no, actually, I really wouldn't.

No offense, but I feel sorry for you regarding that.
And this is why I wish it.

<snip>

Oh my god, you've got lecture hall with Neil Gaiman??? Or was it just a traveling lecture?? Does it matter?? *faints with jealousy*

<snip>

He was the inaugural speaker launching a new lecture series at MIT:

http://cms.mit.edu/juliusschwartz/speakers.html

Then I already gave you an example. An example of criticism of some US Catholic churches threatening to excommunicate parishioners if they voted for certain candidates in the last few elections, which public criticisms were met by counter-charges of a bias against religion that sought to disenfranchise religious people from politics, which was kind of ironic, and which also was often not leveled by the Catholic churches themselves but by certain extremist fundamentalist Protestant figures such as Pat Robertson and other such preachers. This occurred especially during the 2004 election when Catholic churches threatened damnation against any Catholics who voted for John Kerry. Surely you haven't forgotten about it. It was all over the news, and minor incidents of the same sort of reactions pop up in the news all the time. Just last week an unnamed Catholic priest was criticised because he refused communion to some politician who supports one of Obama's policies -- the priest was unnamed because the politician in question asked that he not be, perhaps to avoid a repeat of the 2004 nonsense. I can't remember off-hand which pol it was.


I do remember during the 2004 election that there was some question of Kerry's standing within the Catholic church as a result of his pro-choice stance, but (And maybe it's because I didn't watch the news enough) I didn't hear much in the way of the Church threatening to excommunicate its members. That strikes me as strange, although by the time I reached adulthood my participation in the Catholic Church was minimal, and my current church doesn't put its nose in the voting booth with us.

Do you know of any other examples? I was thinking more along lines of the smaller community churches that aren't part of a worldwide organization. (No biggie, just wondering.)


A common misconception. New York is no different from any other very large city. In fact, I loved it there. I only left for economic reasons, and I wish I could go back. The only things about NYC I don't miss are the cockroaches.
<snip>


I'll have to take your word for it.


Yes, it is ideal for the purpose of living peaceably among strangers. It is ideal for getting through a day with minimum interference, because everyone around one is equally respecting each other's personal privacy, despite the crowding, and mutally not unnecessarily obstructing each other's paths in going about their daily business. It is perfect for the purpose of demonstrating that people can share space comfortably while still minding their own business and not poking into other people's. And for proving that you can be connected to your neighbors, be peripherally aware of them, often to a very deep extent, without having to stop what you are doing to listen to them talk about something that has nothing to do with you.


So then, by way of clarification, you wouldn't consider a sidewalk preacher to be a nuisance, however vehemently he might be preaching?


And this is why I wish it.

Duly noted.

Bold mine.

What if they didn't "so wish"?

Then they could have created the Universe through naturalistic means?

My argument isn't that a naturalistic explanation for life is incompatible with theism, but that it is the necessary prediction of naturalism and only a possible prediction of theism (for the sake of simplicity I'm leaving out the possibility of a naturalistic mechanism existing which we are incapable of observing, which would mean that naturalism would not lead to the necessary observation of such a mechanism). It follows that the existence of Evolution is more likely the truth of naturalism than it is given the truth of theism, which in Bayesian terms makes the observation evidence for naturalism.

This isn't necessarily strong evidence depending on the different probabilities assigned to 'Evolution given Naturalism' and 'Evolution given Theism' and it's not really meaningful to try and quantify the second value beyond saying that it must be lower than the first.

Not necessarily, there are an infinite amount of possibilities concerning what God is capable of,

And if a single one of those possibilities allows for divine creation then my argument still works.

so in the big picture this evidence has little effect on disproving God.

We can't say how significant this evidence is without pulling numbers out of thin air, but the point I'm arguing is that Evolution is evidence for naturalism, however weak that evidence may be, and that the doctrine of Non-Overlapping Magisteria is nonsense.

It need not be reliable or not reliable, again it could be an infinite amount of possibilities in between that, from reliable all the time, to reliable half the time, to reliable none of the time. We can gain knowledge as long as you assume the basic premise of our sense perceptions reliable, but if you do not make such an assumption then perhaps I may indeed take an anti-realist approach and say you cannot know for certain at all.

Right, if we assume that our senses are reliable (and they seem to be) then my argument works and we can gain knowledge. The anti-realist approach leads to solipsism and ignorance. If our senses are useless then I'm happy to agree that my argument is void, but it works otherwise.

I do remember during the 2004 election that there was some question of Kerry's standing within the Catholic church as a result of his pro-choice stance, but (And maybe it's because I didn't watch the news enough) I didn't hear much in the way of the Church threatening to excommunicate its members. That strikes me as strange, although by the time I reached adulthood my participation in the Catholic Church was minimal, and my current church doesn't put its nose in the voting booth with us.

Do you know of any other examples? I was thinking more along lines of the smaller community churches that aren't part of a worldwide organization. (No biggie, just wondering.)

If it's no biggie, then I don't feel like looking it up today. As I specifically stated, it was SOME Catholic churches doing that, not THE Catholic church. And the people who bitched about the criticism of it were, apparently, just pouncing on the criticism to push their claims that liberals hate religion. As I said, they weren't even Catholics themselves. So unless you are disagreeing with me that overreation of this kind occurs among some Christians just as it does among some non-Christians, then there is really nothing for me to prove here and no need to go digging through years-old news stories.

EDIT: Maybe I'll do it later. Someday. Maybe. To link to all the various old news will take a while, and my time is not that open this week/end.

So then, by way of clarification, you wouldn't consider a sidewalk preacher to be a nuisance, however vehemently he might be preaching?
Hello, First Amendment, nice to meet you. He can do whatever he likes, as long as he doesn't get in my face about it. The preacher yelling and predicting on his street corner is just part of the general chorus of hawkers, prophets, vocal lunatics, and peddlars of whatever, as well as all the other personal dramas acting themselves out all around me. It's all just background noise until either (A) I hear something that interests me and I stop to listen, or (B) the person tries to target me personally, to make me pay attention to him whether I want to or not.

Well if that is the way you wish to interpret it to try and help support your agument then by all means go ahead, your wrong but go ahead anyway. And no I wouldn't have claimed that either, what do you think I would have claimed if the Bible had said a bone from the foot, I am so egar to find out.

Probably that it indicated that man and woman walk together equally upon the same earth. How should I know? It's ridiculously malleable and to claim that the use of a rib bone is somehow a sign of equally is ludicrous, especially since it misses the key points of woman's creation (that she was created second, that she was created from a part of him rather than in her own right and that she was created for his benefit (Gen 2:18) and then only when it turned out that none of the existing animals would do...). Of course, you'd have to be stupid, and probably warped, to see the obvious implications therein. :rolleyes:

No it is not what I am saying at all, what I am saying is their was an original meaning to the book, people refused to listen to that section or warp it to advance their own ideals a bit like what you are doing now.

Bullshit: I don't need to warp anything, the misogyny of the Bible speaks for itself. Apparently you think that you have some kind of mystic access to the meaning of Genesis and understand what the authors meant better than they did themselves, since there are no indications that ancient Judah treated women as equals to men (quite the opposite in fact).

The real irony here is that if anyone's warping the text here it's yourself, claiming that it isn't meant to be taken as a literal description of the Earth's creation.

Umm no, I never said I agreed with you you said that women need to be kept on a tight leash, I am saying the story in the Bible and the story of Pandora's box goes along the same lines as women brought pain and suffering into the world do you see the difference? And while it may be sexist it does support my argument that you were wrong in your interpretation of the story.

Apparently you're not very familiar with either of the two stories we're discussing. In Greek mythology, woman (through Pandora) was created especially as a punishment for man, gifted with beauty by Athena, taught deception by Hermes etc. (hence the name: 'All-gifted'). Despite being told never to open the box, she did so anyway, unleashing evil on the world (some early versions are even worse, implying that she deliberately unleashed evil on the world as part of her nature). Obviously the message is that women are unreliable, a source of wickedness and are not to be trusted.

The fact that you cite Pandora as a counter-example to claims of misogyny is hilarious.

Now, let's move on to the story of Eve. I said:

the story of Eve and the apple shows that women are gullible, sinful and will go astray if their menfolk don't keep them on a tight leash

Gullible: fooled by the serpent (notice that the serpent doesn't trick Adam personally, but that he is led astray by Eve...)
Sinful: took the lead in disobeying God and encourage her husband to do the same
Will go astray if not kept on a tight leash: fairly obvious really, her actions led to the fall of man because she persuaded Adam to eat the fruit as well

The misogyny is palpable.

Sigworthy.

Why, thank you. :)

The real irony here is that if anyone's warping the text here it's yourself, claiming that it isn't meant to be taken as a literal description of the Earth's creation.

When you consider the fact that it's back-to-back with another rather different version of Creation, I'd say it's hard to argue that the Adam and Eve story was meant to be literal at all.

But I wouldn't argue that the Adam and Eve story isn't misogynistic. Much of the point of the story as it is told seems to be that all the rest of creation - including woman - was made for man.

I much prefer the sentiments in the priestly account, in which it appears that humankind - male and female together - was meant to be the steward of the rest of creation.

If it's no biggie, then I don't feel like looking it up today. As I specifically stated, it was SOME Catholic churches doing that, not THE Catholic church. And the people who bitched about the criticism of it were, apparently, just pouncing on the criticism to push their claims that liberals hate religion. As I said, they weren't even Catholics themselves. So unless you are disagreeing with me that overreation of this kind occurs among some Christians just as it does among some non-Christians, then there is really nothing for me to prove here and no need to go digging through years-old news stories.

I understand completely. If, on a weekend, I find myself bored enough to log onto NSG then something has gone wrong. ;)


EDIT: Maybe I'll do it later. Someday. Maybe. To link to all the various old news will take a while, and my time is not that open this week/end.


That's alright I was just curious. If it's worth all that I can just Google it.


Hello, First Amendment, nice to meet you. He can do whatever he likes, as long as he doesn't get in my face about it. The preacher yelling and predicting on his street corner is just part of the general chorus of hawkers, prophets, vocal lunatics, and peddlars of whatever, as well as all the other personal dramas acting themselves out all around me. It's all just background noise until either (A) I hear something that interests me and I stop to listen, or (B) the person tries to target me personally, to make me pay attention to him whether I want to or not.

Ok cool. I've actually seen people with a much more draconian point of view and while I didn't think you were like that, I wanted to be sure my memory hasn't started failing me yet.

And if a single one of those possibilities allows for divine creation then my argument still works.


Yes but again all you've done is taken one away from infinity, which would still give you infinity, see where I'm going with this?


We can't say how significant this evidence is without pulling numbers out of thin air, but the point I'm arguing is that Evolution is evidence for naturalism, however weak that evidence may be, and that the doctrine of Non-Overlapping Magisteria is nonsense.


Well it is evidence, but it does not disprove it.


Right, if we assume that our senses are reliable (and they seem to be) then my argument works and we can gain knowledge. The anti-realist approach leads to solipsism and ignorance. If our senses are useless then I'm happy to agree that my argument is void, but it works otherwise.

Just because you're an anti-realist does not mean you have to give up on science, I don't mind (assuming I am an anti-realist, which I'm not sure I really am) making the assumption that our perceptions are reliable and thus accepting scientific hypothesis, even though I know it will never be 100% verified.

I'm new and I didn't think I'd see so many smart and stubborn people, :headbang:
anyway I'm Christian, though not some bible thumper, or some redneck.
so here's my 2 cents
I believe in god in the same way as Ben Franklin, that god built reality, I ask you how a truly omnipotent, and enlightened being thinks.
We have no Idea.
I say I'm Christian, because I believe Christ came down died, so we all get into heaven. so try to be like him, make the world a better place, even if it means sacrificing yourself to do so.
the rest is open to debate, and I don't care.
Never follow those who scream "I KNOZ DA WILL O GOD, or DO WHAT I SEZ OR GO TO HELL" they appear in every sect of every faith. These are the same loons that had him crucified in the first place for thinking different. (True the templers were jewish at the time, because that was the dominant faith in the area, and the Romans were the muscle)

I don't think it that I am Christian that makes people jump to conclusions. It's a touchy subject people want to avoid, if I was to walk up to sombody on the street and say "Hi I'm Jewish" or "hi I'm Muslim" or any other faith they would assume I'm nuts. Same goes for Christianity, doctrine don't mean much to me. the factlike bible was the stories people used to explain the world around them. but the philosophy that is supposed to represent, love your neighbor, don't kill people, keep god in your heart, try to follow his example. These are good things and should not be ignored.

but those who claim to be atheists, and I don't mean those lacking faith, I mean those who annoy, put down, or mock those with faith as stupid and childish. (Don't believe me they have a website, Americaathiests.com) are no better, they treat athiesim as a faith unto itself, not a lack thereof. those are the people that annoy me. if we lived in they middle ages when the catholic church was at it's zenith, these guys would have been inquisitors.

So don't bother arguing doctrine. all your doing is bashing your head into a brick wall, besides god wouldn't want his children killing each other over him.
he strikes me as a Shepard, a guide, and if you smack your sheep to keep them in line, they just run off.

Probably that it indicated that man and woman walk together equally upon the same earth. How should I know? It's ridiculously malleable and to claim that the use of a rib bone is somehow a sign of equally is ludicrous, especially since it misses the key points of woman's creation (that she was created second, that she was created from a part of him rather than in her own right and that she was created for his benefit (Gen 2:18) and then only when it turned out that none of the existing animals would do...). Of course, you'd have to be stupid, and probably warped, to see the obvious implications therein. :rolleyes:


Don't forget that she was created after Lilith got kicked out for wanting to be Adam's equal.

Don't forget that she was created after Lilith got kicked out for wanting to be Adam's equal.

Though to be fair, it's widely suspected the concept of Lilith was a fabrication made in the 13th century AD, from a few lines here and there from the Old Testament.

Anybody else think that christians are being bashed by almost everyone?

"You're all going to hell, and if you keep letting gays get married you'll get AIDS, and your evolution is wrong!"

"Your beliefs do not affect our reality, and we believe you are wrong."

"STOP BASHING US."

Yes but again all you've done is taken one away from infinity, which would still give you infinity, see where I'm going with this?

Well it is evidence, but it does not disprove it.

...

You do realise that this is what I've been saying from the very beginning, right?

Just because you're an anti-realist does not mean you have to give up on science, I don't mind (assuming I am an anti-realist, which I'm not sure I really am) making the assumption that our perceptions are reliable and thus accepting scientific hypothesis, even though I know it will never be 100% verified.

And you won't find any scientists claiming to absolutely prove anything outside of mathematics. I honestly fail to see what your argument is: are you saying that because we can't be 100% sure that Evolution's true we can't draw any conclusions from it?

When you consider the fact that it's back-to-back with another rather different version of Creation, I'd say it's hard to argue that the Adam and Eve story was meant to be literal at all.

Well, when it was written it wasn't back to back with another story: most scholars regard J and E as being the first sources, with P coming later.

But I wouldn't argue that the Adam and Eve story isn't misogynistic. Much of the point of the story as it is told seems to be that all the rest of creation - including woman - was made for man.

Agreed.

I much prefer the sentiments in the priestly account, in which it appears that humankind - male and female together - was meant to be the steward of the rest of creation.

Agreed again. I'd never thought about it before, but it seems strange that P's account is so much more egalitarian than J's since J is usually seen as the source most sympathetic towards women (to the extent that "he's" sometimes been identified as a woman). Perhaps P was relying on the author being familiar enough with the original story to fill in the gaps, but this doesn't seem likely as many of P's writings seem to be written in reaction to JE and to alter details which the Priest took exception to. Dammit! You're making me think now! :p

Though to be fair, it's widely suspected the concept of Lilith was a fabrication made in the 13th century AD, from a few lines here and there from the Old Testament.
When again was that church meeting where it was defined which books are part of the bible and thus divine and which are not? Must have been way before the split into catholics and orthodox. (What I want to say: the whole bible, OT and NT, are fabricated)

Not all Christians are dumb rednecks. I ridicule many groups. I don't ridicule idiot hillbillies for being Christians, I ridicule them for being idiot hillbillies. I would ridicule them just as much if they were muslims or atheist (Islam is a religion I dislike as much as Christianity).

So no, Christians are not the only religious group it's okay to criticize, and Christian =/= retarded redneck. And seeing as how the rest of your post was built from that false premise, there's nothing more to say here.

So sorry, I didn't realize this thread was centered around you!

What you believe, and what you do, and who you choose to insult, is irrelevant. Deal with it.

I'm talking about the popular mass market media. If any other ethnic group was portrayed in the same general manner as white southern/appalachian christians, there'd be hell to pay.

Watch some TV.

You fail.

And your remark about you being an equal opportunity hater is wonderful, (and irrelevant) I'll be sure to pass it along, next time I find a synagogue in backwoods Tennessee, that you hate them too.

Anybody else think that christians are being bashed by almost everyone?This crap again. Christians seem to have a persecution complex. I've just got a couple of things to say.
1) Are you really being bashed if folks ask for proof of your beliefs and you present the Bible and aren't taken seriously? I'm sure every other group with unsubstantiated claims expects to be asked for more backup than their own publication.
2)Quit trying to foist your silly rules on the rest of us. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, fine. But don't expect that nonbelievers have to take it seriously.Saying you can't always have your way is not persecution.

When again was that church meeting where it was defined which books are part of the bible and thus divine and which are not? Must have been way before the split into catholics and orthodox. (What I want to say: the whole bible, OT and NT, are fabricated)

Heh, it's not quite as simple as that. The OT was formalised at Alexandria in the second century BC IIRC in the form of the Septuagint. While the New Testament was officially defined relatively late, we have evidence that the four Gospels were probably agreed upon by the end of the second century AD (as evidenced by Irenaeus's Against Heresies) although most Christian groups were still open to the validity of other Gospels provided they didn't contradict teachings found in the main four. It could be argued that there's never really been a definition of the books in the Bible: Protestants and Catholics disagree on the inclusion of certain texts to this day (Wisdom of Solomon for example), and during the reformation people like Luther removed books which are usually considered to be central to the NT like Revelations and James.

This is all a horrible over-simplification of course. :D

What do you guys expect. Having the biggest population of followers in the world, you guys are bound to be bashed. Plus, based on previous things you guys did to other people and religions, I say you guys deserve to be based.

What do you guys expect. Having the biggest population of followers in the world, you guys are bound to be bashed.

This is true.

Plus, based on previous things you guys did to other people and religions, I say you guys deserve to be based.

Oh? Tell me, what have I done to other people and religions that I should be bashed for?

I don't think Christians are bashed nessecarily, but we are often persecuted. It's funny because so many people claim that Christians are the narrow minded ones, but in my experience witnessing to people of other faiths (especially atheists- not bashing, I used to be one) THEY themselves are the ones not willing to see the other point of view and often get very defensive. I know this feeling very well because I did the same thing. Christianity hits a nerve because most people lose their faith in God due to pain in life. When a Christian brings this up, the pain comes flooding back and therefore closing their minds.

Etheldredastan;13783485']I don't think Christians are bashed nessecarily, but we are often persecuted. It's funny because so many people claim that Christians are the narrow minded ones, but in my experience witnessing to people of other faiths (especially atheists- not bashing, I used to be one) THEY themselves are the ones not willing to see the other point of view and often get very defensive. I know this feeling very well because I did the same thing. Christianity hits a nerve because most people lose their faith in God due to pain in life. When a Christian brings this up, the pain comes flooding back and therefore closing their minds.

Most of the atheists I know became such for very different reasons; for example, the fact that many of Christianity's root beliefs and myths originated in local pagan religions and folk tales.

Anybody else think that christians are being bashed by almost everyone?

I so desperately wanted to ignore this thread, but I just had to ask...

How can the religion that reigns supreme in the militarily most powerful nation in the world, that is also the religion with the largest following in the world, possibly be regarded as being "bashed by almost everyone"???

Probably that it indicated that man and woman walk together equally upon the same earth. How should I know? It's ridiculously malleable and to claim that the use of a rib bone is somehow a sign of equally is ludicrous, especially since it misses the key points of woman's creation (that she was created second, that she was created from a part of him rather than in her own right and that she was created for his benefit (Gen 2:18) and then only when it turned out that none of the existing animals would do...). Of course, you'd have to be stupid, and probably warped, to see the obvious implications therein. :rolleyes:

Bullshit: I don't need to warp anything, the misogyny of the Bible speaks for itself. Apparently you think that you have some kind of mystic access to the meaning of Genesis and understand what the authors meant better than they did themselves, since there are no indications that ancient Judah treated women as equals to men (quite the opposite in fact).

The real irony here is that if anyone's warping the text here it's yourself, claiming that it isn't meant to be taken as a literal description of the Earth's creation.

Of course I must be wrong because you must have this mystic access to the meaning of the second creation story rather than how you have interpreted it. Well if you wish to believe that it is literal then you are more than welcome to it.

Apparently you're not very familiar with either of the two stories we're discussing. In Greek mythology, woman (through Pandora) was created especially as a punishment for man, gifted with beauty by Athena, taught deception by Hermes etc. (hence the name: 'All-gifted'). Despite being told never to open the box, she did so anyway, unleashing evil on the world (some early versions are even worse, implying that she deliberately unleashed evil on the world as part of her nature). Obviously the message is that women are unreliable, a source of wickedness and are not to be trusted.

The fact that you cite Pandora as a counter-example to claims of misogyny is hilarious.

Of course if you had bothered to remember my first post you would know I said it was similar to the story of Pandora, so obviously I am not using it as a counter example. You did acknowledge that I said it was similar because you went on to say that I agreed with you. Obvious isn't it I would say that it is more obvious that women are the source of evil in the world and bring hardship onto men (the reason why the Gods created her in the first place).

Now, let's move on to the story of Eve. I said:

Gullible: fooled by the serpent (notice that the serpent doesn't trick Adam personally, but that he is led astray by Eve...)
Sinful: took the lead in disobeying God and encourage her husband to do the same
Will go astray if not kept on a tight leash: fairly obvious really, her actions led to the fall of man because she persuaded Adam to eat the fruit as well

The misogyny is palpable.

Yes this story really teaches you to hate all women. But as I originally said the two stories are quite similar, you did acknowledge this in the original post.

I so desperately wanted to ignore this thread, but I just had to ask...

How can the religion that reigns supreme in the militarily most powerful nation in the world, that is also the religion with the largest following in the world, possibly be regarded as being "bashed by almost everyone"???

Never herad of tryanny by minority?

10 points to the person that deciphers that first.

Do I get the 10 points if I decipher it? :D

I'm not a Christian, so I can't make any solid claims, but I don't think it's up to you to tell people what the "right" interpretation of the bible is. It's been under debate for a pretty long time. If there was one universally acknowledged interpretation, I bet we'd've heard of it.

No I suppose I shouldn't I was showing how that may not be actual interpretation that Agenda07 claims, however, I showed another interpretation one which I believe in on the second creation story.

In answer to Abdju's questions: the less reasonable followers of dominant religious systems have the tendency to think they're being persecuted as soon as the societies they're a part of has evolved enough to prohibit said followers of the previously mentioned dominant religious systems from happily persecuting, tormenting and murdering those who hold different opinions. Hence this thread. If more members of this forum were of the Muslim persuasion, we would probably have an Islamic version of this thread (and many, many other threads!) as well.