NationStates Jolt Archive

what christians do you think havent heard those passages many many times?

There is hearing, and there is listening. And actually, you would be surprised.

Yes, but every individual is different, some may struggle with one thing, and others another. Not that it compares in any way, but some people feel the need to compulsively steal, that does not make it Ok.

You are running away from my point, and you know it. If this 'decision' is indeed a conscious one, then one would expect sexuality to be alot less static than it is in reality, because conscious choices can be changed and if what you say is true then sexuality wouldn't be as 'set in stone' as it really is.

But if the decision is unconscious, and if sexuality is decided without the conscious decision of the individual (around the time when they start to notice girls or guys) then that would mean in strictest terms the 'choice' you refer to does not exist, and thus your 'God' is punishing people over nothing they can consciously decide.

I could go on like this forever, but the fact is that your theories are full of holes.

There is hearing, and there is listening. And actually, you would be surprised.

i know you are under seige on different topics but try to keep up

you claimed that if only people READ THE BIBLE INDEPENDANTLY they would change the world.

pretty much every christian has heard that passage about love, its read in church, its read in a hefty percentage of christian weddings. reading it at home would make no difference.

Yes but I do not beleive you are born so, I discriminate against a Homosexual just as much as I discriminate against a gossip. You do not give a gossip your valuable information. I know it doesn't compare but I can't think of another example.

So people who are kicked out of their homes, attacked, ect, choose to be? I am sorry, but bullshit. I honestly think you are confusing sexual acts with sexual attraction.

They still have the right to have sex, marry, and adopt with the opposite sex.

So you support the continuation of gender discrimination in certain areas?

Interesting.

They get to look on both sides for "the one".....the rest of us are stuck with one side or the other. Odds are in their favor. Lucky.

You know what? Even if it was, what does it matter? Why should anyone be treated poorly in any way for something that doesn't matter in the slightest?

They shouldn't be treated poorly, but i do beleive it is wrong.

We have a problem of family in America, whether it be, divorce, separation, disfunctionality (yes i made that word up), it disrupts social order, which springs chaos.

It is unnatural (more chaos).

And it distorts gender roles. There are more reasons ofcourse, but I'm only using my limited knowledge.

Funnily enough, I have been reading the 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State', you should probably give it a look.

Sorry guys, forums moving too slow now i'm off for now.

They shouldn't be treated poorly, but i do beleive it is wrong.

treating them as less because of something they had no say in is treating them poorly.

We have a problem of family in America, whether it be, divorce, separation, disfunctionality (yes i made that word up), it disrupts social order, which springs chaos.
Them damn gays.....except it homosexuals really had no role in breaking up families....well except for the ones that the kid was kicked out because his/her sexuality and it cause to much tension in those who were left....

It is unnatural (more chaos).

1) homosexuality occurs in nature. therefor it is natural.

2) Natural does not mean good and unnatural does not mean bad. After all cancer is natural and computers are not.

And it distorts gender roles. There are more reasons ofcourse, but I'm only using my limited knowledge.

Gender roles? like what? women being barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen rather than educated and out in the workforce? A man should not be a stay at home dad? Little johnny shouldn't touch a barbie unless it is to make little amy cry?

It is unnatural (more chaos).


Homosexuality is not unnatural. It has been observed in most higher vertebrates. Know what is unnatural? The Internet. So unless you want to be a massive hypocrite, you should probably never post here again. Just sayin'.

Ironically enough, half the reason 'gender roles' have been so prevalent in past society was just because you had an uptight Christian population who didn't want to see anything that might make them feel uncomfortable.

They are because they don't have any respect by the non-christians.

So at what point were you equally attracted to men and women and you made the choice to be attracted only to one?

At what point did you decide what your reaction to male and female pheremones would be?

You know I think all people are naturally bi

The gays are yet to find someone of the opposite gender sexually attractive but that is not to say they won't

And the straights are yet to find someone sexually attractive of the same gender, but that is not to say they won't

So there is no such thing as homosexuality and heterosexuality just bisexuality.

Ironically enough, half the reason 'gender roles' have been so prevalent in past society was just because you had an uptight Christian population who didn't want to see anything that might make them feel uncomfortable.

Well done Andaras not only did you post it in the wrong thread I think you are looking for the I have a gay agenda thread, but I suppose these roles have never been in any other society have they?

You know I think all people are naturally bi

The gays are yet to find someone of the opposite gender sexually attractive but that is not to say they won't

And the straights are yet to find someone sexually attractive of the same gender, but that is not to say they won't

So there is no such thing as homosexuality and heterosexuality just bisexuality.

I also think like that.

Well done Andaras not only did you post it in the wrong thread I think you are looking for the I have a gay agenda thread, but I suppose these roles have never been in any other society have they?

When did I say they weren't? Moreover my point is that reactionary mindsets and beliefs breed gender roles and a rigid society.

When did I say they weren't? Moreover my point is that reactionary mindsets and beliefs breed gender roles and a rigid society.

Well you should have said that rather than making special mention to Christianity after all there are plenty of societies that don't have Christianity yet the same mindset has evolved.

When did I say they weren't? Moreover my point is that reactionary mindsets and beliefs breed gender roles and a rigid society.

That doesn't just apply to religious beliefs. It can apply to any strongly set belief.

Irony at its finest.

Your comments on this subjects are begging verses, but i don't want you to subject that to you. Let's just say that if most "Christians" read the bible independently the world would be a very different place.
Thank you for sparing me. Skipping through whole paragraphs and pages can be tiring. But I don't understand why asking you a list of specific questions about your experiences in New York should prompt a Bible reading rather than just some answers.

Ok, if you insist. A friend of mine, in a joking manner, told this girl that I'm a Christian and that I think homosexuality is wrong (Im not getting into that debate, it is like any other sin, gays aren't demon spawn). So she gathers her friends and verbally attacks me. Very loudly lol.

So it was a case of a classmate being a fool over a difference of opinion, and then you made up and became friends. And that is an example of Christians having a hard time living in New York... how?

One more time.

I don't beleive they have no control over it.

I don't beleive it is genetic.

I don't beleive it is a mental disorder.

I beleive it is a choice.
Do you also believe that it is your place to judge them, rather than your god's?

So it was a case of a classmate being a fool over a difference of opinion, and then you made up and became friends. And that is an example of Christians having a hard time living in New York... how?

Afterwards her and her friends tied Pantalunis to a burning cross and showered him with cow's blood from one of their pagan ritual sacrifices.

NY is a brutal place.

They shouldn't be treated poorly, but i do beleive it is wrong.

We have a problem of family in America, whether it be, divorce, separation, disfunctionality (yes i made that word up), it disrupts social order, which springs chaos.

It is unnatural (more chaos).

And it distorts gender roles. There are more reasons ofcourse, but I'm only using my limited knowledge.
So in other words, it's not just the lives of gays you want to control and force into conformity with your own personal beliefs, it is everyone. Gays must conform to your rules, and so must hetero women and men. We all have to act out the little roles you assign to us because you know better than us what's "natural" or "order." Yeah, um, I really don't think you're going to have much luck with that.

Afterwards her and her friends tied Pantalunis to a burning cross and showered him with cow's blood from one of their pagan ritual sacrifices.

NY is a brutal place.
Pfft. The blood doused the fire, didn't it? I mean, Pantalunis is here typing, right? So obviously, it wasn't as brutal as it could have been. ;)

There are a few reasons I will never respect Christianity, but the main thing that set me off was this book I received from a Japanese Jehovah's Witness called "Young People Ask: Answers that Work - Volume 2". One of the chapters is called "How can I avoid homosexuality?" I was quite offended by this seeing as my older sister is lesbian. This cult has attempted to pull my family apart.

Oh no, of course not. I love christians what with their imposing their religion upon me, constantly reminding me i'll go to hell if I don't accept jesus, waging long campaigns to gets laws that back their belief system but go against forming a 'free' society...no thats all fine so I just sit back and say nothing -.-

You could not have said it any better

There are a few reasons I will never respect Christianity, but the main thing that set me off was this book I received from a Japanese Jehovah's Witness called "Young People Ask: Answers that Work - Volume 2". One of the chapters is called "How can I avoid homosexuality?" I was quite offended by this seeing as my older sister is lesbian. This cult has attempted to pull my family apart.

Yes because the beliefs of one denomination means it is the same for all denominations :rolleyes:

Yes because the beliefs of one denomination means it is the same for all denominations :rolleyes:

out of all the versions of christianity, how many actually accept homosexuality and don't think of it as a sin?

out of all the versions of christianity, how many actually accept homosexuality and don't think of it as a sin?

Your point? I know the Anglicans do

Your point? I know the Anglicans do

Actually the Anglican church is divided on the issue to the point they are considering a split into 2 separate churches. Don't believe me? A Google search on Anglican split will turn up dozens of news articles about it.

Actually the Anglican church is divided on the issue to the point they are considering a split into 2 separate churches. Don't believe me? A Google search on Anglican split will turn up dozens of news articles about it.

Who said I don't believe you and I have read plenty of news articles on it already, and doesn't this prove my point that not all Christians and Christianity will promote this, after all that book may have been done by a group of people from one parish or maybe not connected officially with the teachings of the church as a whole.

And in regards to the spilt, the Anglican church would support it, the new church wouldn't support it.

The fact is all religions are just as bad. They all think they are right and everyone else is wrong and try to force their opinions (yes that's right opinions, not facts) on everyone else and persecute those they don't agree with. The only reason Christians specifically may get more criticism is most western countries have more Christian influence than from other religions, you get the status you pay the price. You want to be left alone? Try extending the rest of the world the same courtesy. As long as you push your opinions on others you will be resented for it. I don't tell you who you are allowed to marry or what you are allowed to think or believe, kindly return the favour.

The fact is all religions are just as bad. They all think they are right and everyone else is wrong and try to force their opinions (yes that's right opinions, not facts) on everyone else and persecute those they don't agree with.

Got some evidence of that happening in the past 20 years in the western world?

All religions bad? I see we have a new guy touting the same old arguments, and telling us their opinions (yes that's right opinions, not facts) to all of us. The same could be said for all people who express their opinion on any topic, and will attempt to force their opinion on to them, the fact that you agree with a certain opinion such as the one you are expressing now seems to make it alright in your eyes even though it contradicts what you are saying, and yes in some aspects churches do this as well, it seems we are All as bad as each other.

Got some evidence of that happening in the past 20 years in the western world?

You're kidding, right?

You're kidding, right?

No I would really like to see recent persecution in western worlds, if only to see how bad it apparently is

No I would really like to see recent persecution in western worlds, if only to see how bad it apparently is

I can answer this with one word:

Scientology. :)

I can answer this with one word:

Scientology. :)

By them or against them ;)

By them or against them ;)

Exactly. :)

Exactly. :)

Indeed

Your point? I know the Anglicans do

It isn't exactly painting with a broad brush when there are very few (Anglicans and United are the only ones I can think of) churches that accept homosexuality.

Got some evidence of that happening in the past 20 years in the western world?

All religions bad? I see we have a new guy touting the same old arguments, and telling us their opinions (yes that's right opinions, not facts) to all of us. The same could be said for all people who express their opinion on any topic, and will attempt to force their opinion on to them, the fact that you agree with a certain opinion such as the one you are expressing now seems to make it alright in your eyes even though it contradicts what you are saying, and yes in some aspects churches do this as well, it seems we are All as bad as each other.

I'm not trying to push my opinions on anyone I'm stating them in an open and appropriate forum in response to the subject at hand. I am not forcing you to do anything or attempting to push legislation to force my opinions on you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express it in a forum where opinions are being sought. What is wrong about religion is they brainwash, indoctrinate, declare holy wars, persecute, push religious agendas in legislation and schools and generally just make a pain in the ass of themselves while making everyone else miserable.

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

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/akegata/SuccessfulTrollisSuccessful.jpg

While in many cases I agree, I wouldn't say that Christians are inherently bad for discussing religion. On this forum, for example, I've had good discussions with several Christians, such as Dempublicents1 (and others).



I know you weren't talking about me, but --
I do realize religion is about faith, not evidence. This is precisely my problem with it. I think beliefs should be held based on evidence, reason, and objectivity.

Fair enough xD
Then religion is not for you.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/akegata/SuccessfulTrollisSuccessful.jpg

Given there are nearly 800 posts in this thread now, I agree wholeheartedly...

What is wrong about religion is they brainwash, indoctrinate, declare holy wars, persecute, push religious agendas in legislation and schools and generally just make a pain in the ass of themselves while making everyone else miserable.

All religious people do so?

Barry claims to be a widow, Barry is a man, therefore Barry is not a widow. That's... proving something wrong. Yes it's tautology, but then maths is often just incredibly complex tautology.

I totally posted this in the wrong thread.

treating them as less because of something they had no say in is treating them poorly.

They do, because we do live in a democracy

Them damn gays.....except it homosexuals really had no role in breaking up families....well except for the ones that the kid was kicked out because his/her sexuality and it cause to much tension in those who were left....

There are many reasons. Including that.

1) homosexuality occurs in nature. therefor it is natural.

2) Natural does not mean good and unnatural does not mean bad. After all cancer is natural and computers are not.

Number 1 is debatable.

Gender roles? like what? women being barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen rather than educated and out in the workforce? A man should not be a stay at home dad? Little johnny shouldn't touch a barbie unless it is to make little amy cry?

No. Not at all.

Do you also believe that it is your place to judge them, rather than your god's?

No. I never said anything about judgments.

Thank you for sparing me. Skipping through whole paragraphs and pages can be tiring. But I don't understand why asking you a list of specific questions about your experiences in New York should prompt a Bible reading rather than just some answers.

Because the bible is the Word of God, whom Christians should adhere too, your saying there is no way to tell a Christian from anyone else, the bible says differently.

I'm not trying to push my opinions on anyone I'm stating them in an open and appropriate forum in response to the subject at hand. I am not forcing you to do anything or attempting to push legislation to force my opinions on you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express it in a forum where opinions are being sought. What is wrong about religion is they brainwash, indoctrinate, declare holy wars, persecute, push religious agendas in legislation and schools and generally just make a pain in the ass of themselves while making everyone else miserable.

You know i used to be boggled by people calling me brainwashed because i read the bible and formed my beliefs before i went to church, and i would call everyone else brainwashed because of all the media the expose themselves too and adhere too. I then realized that everyone is brainwashed, just by different things, there are seldom original ideas. ;)

Holy wars and persecution are done with the excuse of religion, I have yet to find a religous text that says "Kill and you will be rewarded". A matter of fact in the middle ages (crusades) most people could not read. So the catholic church was like, umm... yeah, the bible says.... kill Muslims and Jews.... and retake Jerusalem... And ever one was pretty much like, oh... alright. It is really more politics then you'd think. If there was no religion, people would still squabble... it's human nature. And if you EVER see a Christian persecuting anyone, you tell him to read his bible more.

As for the religous agenda's that is just not fair, everyone needs to except that people think differently then them.

There are many reasons. Including that.

You're arguing that homosexuals break up families because their relatives kick them out?

Are you next going to argue that dead people are murderers because someone else killed them?

Number 1 is debatable.

No, it really isn't.

You know i used to be boggled by people calling me brainwashed because i read the bible and formed my beliefs before i went to church, and i would call everyone else brainwashed because of all the media the expose themselves too


So, your defence is... everyone else is brainwashed too? For real?


Holy wars and persecution are done with the excuse of religion, I have yet to find a religous text that says "Kill and you will be rewarded".

I guess you never got as far as the book of Joshua, then.

Oh, or.... Exodus 22:18 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'.

Just for example.

I'm not trying to push my opinions on anyone I'm stating them in an open and appropriate forum in response to the subject at hand. I am not forcing you to do anything or attempting to push legislation to force my opinions on you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express it in a forum where opinions are being sought. What is wrong about religion is they brainwash, indoctrinate, declare holy wars, persecute, push religious agendas in legislation and schools and generally just make a pain in the ass of themselves while making everyone else miserable.

Except when other peoples opinions disagree with your opinions.

What is wrong about religion is they brainwash, indoctrinate, declare holy wars, persecute, push religious agendas in legislation and schools and generally just make a pain in the ass of themselves while making everyone else miserable.

If you say so, but hey as long as your ideas and beliefs and agenda on any topic are the ones being legislated and placed in schools that's alright I suppose.

Number 1 is debatable.

No, it isn't. It has been observed in nature, so you can't really say "it does not occur in nature."

Because the bible is the Word of God, whom Christians should adhere too, your saying there is no way to tell a Christian from anyone else, the bible says differently.
I agree! Let's use the Bible's method to identify True Christians(tm). Now to prove that you're a Christian, I've got this nice mix of rat poison, Drano, and even some McDonald's (!!!) for you to try. If you really are a true Christian, it won't harm you at all.

You're arguing that homosexuals break up families because their relatives kick them out?

Are you next going to argue that dead people are murderers because someone else killed them?

Really, it is strikingly like when people try to blame rape victims for "dressing like sluts," isn't it?

really cause we seem to be targeted.

I'm a Christian... so take this however you want.

Christians are bashed, yes. Why? Because they deserve it. They are hypocritical, sinful, and just pure dumb. Most Christians are 100% pure blind faith. They couldn't defend their values for shit. And, they are the first to jump on gays, women, blacks, etc. Not to mention that most of the Christian world is the poorly-educated class who totally screws up society by voting in people like Bush. Additionally, Christians can't get over their overwhelming love for greed. They wouldn't support a welfare program if their best friend was about to die without it. While the Christian message is clearly one of love, compassion, and self-sacrifice, Christians seem to be the first to line up to throw their neighbor under the bus for their own good.

No, it isn't. It has been observed in nature, so you can't really say "it does not occur in nature."

See, this is where the stupid theist always gets everything wrong. Homosexuality is MOST LIKELY genetic/natural. I don't know why Christians feel the need to debate that. Do you think people are born as pathological liars? Yes! No one would debate the opposite! Fact is, we are BORN with sin. So, it would make sense that God made homosexuals.

Also, let's get this clear... homosexuality in itself is not condemned by the Bible. Homosexual SEX is a different story, but homosexuality is NOT condemned by any verse in the Bible. Leviticus, Romans, 1 Cor... all about sodomy/gay-sex.

Not to mention, gay sex is just as forgivable a sin as lying! Therefore, Christians should treat homosexuals with the same respect as they treat heterosexuals.

They do, because we do live in a democracy

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about voting.



There are many reasons. Including that.

except even in my example the homosexual had no role really in breaking up the family, unless you think existing is a good enough reason to place blame.



Number 1 is debatable.

.....no it isn't. Try searching lesbian monkeys in Japan. Some people use them to attack darwinian evolution as female monkeys will actually pass over male partners for other females constantly.



No. Not at all.

Then what?

The horse is long dead, yet I see the flogging continues.

KP1;13799513']Not to mention, gay sex is just as forgivable a sin as lying! Therefore, Christians should treat homosexuals with the same respect as they treat heterosexuals.

Not entirely. Gay sex is an abomination, while lying is equivalent to worshipping Satan. The sinful nature of lying however is often conveniently forgotten.

KP1;13799513']Also, let's get this clear... homosexuality in itself is not condemned by the Bible. Homosexual SEX is a different story, but homosexuality is NOT condemned by any verse in the Bible. Leviticus, Romans, 1 Cor... all about sodomy/gay-sex.


Just for the record, Corinthians is about male temple prostitutes, not homosexual sex. The KJV mistranslated it. Leviticus is arguable as well.

Gay storks make good parents:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1853621.html

One more time.

I don't beleive they have no control over it.

I don't beleive it is genetic.

I don't beleive it is a mental disorder.

I beleive it is a choice.
You are talking about what does and does not happen in my own head. I am the person who actually knows, absolutely directly. I am not committed to any particular theory of how it came to be that I am the way I am, but I can tell you, absolutely, that the "choice" theory is false. That is not a question of "belief": I KNOW.

You are talking about what does and does not happen in my own head. I am the person who actually knows, absolutely directly. I am not committed to any particular theory of how it came to be that I am the way I am, but I can tell you, absolutely, that the "choice" theory is false. That is not a question of "belief": I KNOW.

Please. Don't let reality get in the way of his beliefs.

Please. Don't let reality get in the way of his beliefs.

Indeed. Choice, genetic or whatever - it does not even matter.
Nothing wrong with having a few gays around. Having the whole human race being gay would of course be not that good for the human race - but hey. The same is true of doctors. A few of them around is good, everyone being one is not. If only because we need plumbers, carpenters and so on as well.

No. I never said anything about judgments.
No, you just acted judgmentally.

Because the bible is the Word of God, whom Christians should adhere too, your saying there is no way to tell a Christian from anyone else, the bible says differently.
When did I say anything about not being able to tell Christians apart from anyone else? What I said was that you have not shown me any evidence of Christians being given a hard time in NY. You claimed that it was hard to be a Christian and live in NY and that Christianity is "a plague" in NY. I asked you for some evidence of that. You have not given it. I realize finally that you are never going to. I believe this is because no such evidence exists because your claim is false.

I'm glad to finally have that cleared up.

Alright, this is kinda funny XD

But seeing as there's always need for, well, intervention, I might as well "intervene" :D

Alright, here's an example of some crazy persecution, Pakistan is comtemplating whether to implement the death sentence for anybody who converts to Christianity. A tad harsh don't you think? Another is, that in Iraq, militants are (or were till about the Surge I think) threatening Iraqi Christians to convert (or revert XD) to Islam or die....and the list goes on for intolerance, ect.

To the Atheists bash religion thing, they do because they're atheist for one, and (they primarily bash christianity for being the biggest, I think) because it sorta nips at them (people don't like to hear they're wrong, which is why things tend to...explode between to disagreeing groups of people) and there's bad blood there (A while back, atheists were stuck in jail in England XD). So....basically it's more because they A) Don't like hearing they're wrong (like normal people) and B) Think they're right, that they can't be wrong and religion is stupid and illogical (Hmmm...pretty much yep)

(Also lulz, Atheists always seem to get mad when people question their beliefs, but that's only what I've seen so far XD)

Now, to address the persecution thing, Jesus said that you'd know you were doing it right if you were being persecuted, but that he'd provide and keep you safe (In the end they can't really get you and kill you for good, so when you get persecuted, think that and you'll be fine). It's all worth the big prize ain't it?


And...that's basically all I can say right now. Laterz

This thread still exists?

Just for the record, Corinthians is about male temple prostitutes, not homosexual sex. The KJV mistranslated it. Leviticus is arguable as well.

I'm well aware of this argument. However, it is based on very little historical evidence and it has been consistently shot down by biblical historians.

Anyways, even if all that is true and every one of the 17 verses about homosexuality in the Bible happens to be about something else besides gay sex, I can still argue my case.

1. FACT: Marriage was intended by God to be between a man and woman. (According to the Bible)
2. FACT: Sex outside of marriage is fornication. Fornication is called sinful throughout the Bible.

Hence, gay sex would have to be fornication, and would be sinful. Anyways, there are many ways to argue it.

KP1;13800255']I'm well aware of this argument. However, it is based on very little historical evidence and it has been consistently shot down by biblical historians.

Anyways, even if all that is true and every one of the 17 verses about homosexuality in the Bible happens to be about something else besides gay sex, I can still argue my case.

1. FACT: Marriage was intended by God to be between a man and woman. (According to the Bible)
2. FACT: Sex outside of marriage is fornication. Fornication is called sinful throughout the Bible.

Hence, gay sex would have to be fornication, and would be sinful. Anyways, there are many ways to argue it.

yes gay sex outside of marriage is sinful. but given how consistently straight sex occurs outside of marriage, whats the big deal?

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

Umm, Christians seem to bash others. If you don't believe in God you'll burn. Pay for your sins and you won't go to Hell... Yeah, Christians bash others... It's not the other way around, and it will NEVER be the other way around...

Umm, Christians seem to bash others. If you don't believe in God you'll burn. Pay for your sins and you won't go to Hell... Yeah, Christians bash others... It's not the other way around, and it will NEVER be the other way around...

You forgot the traditional first post machine gun smily

I do not think that Christians are bashed. Like in football matches a person thinks that the referee is supporting the other team, but it is not like that. No one should ever receive 'special treatment' because of his/her religious beliefs.

Umm, Christians seem to bash others. If you don't believe in God you'll burn. Pay for your sins and you won't go to Hell... Yeah, Christians bash others... It's not the other way around, and it will NEVER be the other way around...

They are not the beliefs bashing others. They are people. But I liked your style:)

Well, just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay....like people doing drugs, which happens a lot, and people dropping out of school, which also happens a lot. So...as said earlier, it doesn't make anything less bad just because it happens often. Fornification (as described above) is no exception. 'Nuff said.

Well, just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay....like people doing drugs, which happens a lot, and people dropping out of school, which also happens a lot. So...as said earlier, it doesn't make anything less bad just because it happens often. Fornification (as described above) is no exception. 'Nuff said.

use the "quote" button when replying to someone so they can be sure that you are responding to them.

im not saying that fornication is OK, im saying that straight fornication is far more common than gay fornication and no one is going apeshit over its occurance.

if one allowed gay lovers to marry, there would be no reason not to dis those who fornicate no matter who its done with.

use the "quote" button when replying to someone so they can be sure that you are responding to them.

im not saying that fornication is OK, im saying that straight fornication is far more common than gay fornication and no one is going apeshit over its occurance.

if one allowed gay lovers to marry, there would be no reason not to dis those who fornicate no matter who its done with.


Yeah, didn't notice that till now. As you can see I haven't posted much, thanks :D

And lulz XD

Yeah, didn't notice that till now. As you can see I haven't posted much, thanks :D

And lulz XD

welcome to nationstates general!

KP1;13800255']I'm well aware of this argument. However, it is based on very little historical evidence and it has been consistently shot down by biblical historians.

Not Corinthians. I've yet to see a single Biblical scholar who translates arsenokoites as anything but "male temple prostitutes".

All religious people do so?

Of course not. There are lots of religious people who don't push their opinions down other people's throats and are generally nice people. Sadly the extreme cases are the ones that act as the "face" of any group. Thus while majority of christians most likely people even the most anti-christian atheist could live in peace with, the minority brand the rest. This holds true for all groups, really.

For example, my views on christianity are colored by certain fanatic I had in my high school (or some such, finnish education system is quite different from the english/american ones, to the names don't really match that well...) who was quick to judge atheists and even most christians of less extreme views to hell for not being "true christians". Most of our religion classes turned into debates on religious issues between the fanatic and random classmates, usually 5-6 people debating againts her.

Oh and yes: We do have religion classes in Finland in public schools for christians that consist of christian church history as well short introductions to all the major religions. Non-christians (and christians whose parents so choose) have their own class I don't know much about personally, more centered about learning about the other options, both religious and non-religious.. Thankfully the teacher was openminded enough to allow us to debate freely and at most said what her opinion on the matter was, without enforcing anything on us.

Hmm... I think I got lost in writing wall of text. To summarise: The more visible (and usually more extreme) members of any group are the ones that act as the "face" of the group. No matter what group.

Because the bible is the Word of God, whom Christians should adhere too, your saying there is no way to tell a Christian from anyone else, the bible says differently.

Bible says a lot of things. Then again the bible is so full of contradictions and inconsistencies that I can't help but wonder how anyone who has actually read it can still be christian... Not to mention racism and outright horrible things committed by so-called God.

But each to their own. I try to keep open mind, even if it is admittedly quite hard at times. I have hard time at times juggling between my reverence of tolerance and intolerance of what I personally consider stupid. Thus I end up being horrible hypocrite at times :p

Because the bible is the Word of God, whom Christians should adhere too, your saying there is no way to tell a Christian from anyone else, the bible says differently.

Sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor, yet?

Of course not. There are lots of religious people who don't push their opinions down other people's throats and are generally nice people.

Then it is incorrect to say:

What is wrong about religion is they brainwash, indoctrinate, declare holy wars, persecute, push religious agendas in legislation and schools and generally just make a pain in the ass of themselves while making everyone else miserable.

If there are religious people who do not do this, then it is not inherently a problem in religion. Your problem isn't even with religion itself. It's with the actions of some practitioners.

Sadly the extreme cases are the ones that act as the "face" of any group. Thus while majority of christians most likely people even the most anti-christian atheist could live in peace with, the minority brand the rest. This holds true for all groups, really.

So you want me to excuse you for basing your viewpoint of a very large group on the actions of a few because you say that it always happens?

Hmm... I think I got lost in writing wall of text. To summarise: The more visible (and usually more extreme) members of any group are the ones that act as the "face" of the group. No matter what group.

Of course, an intelligent human being who knows this can look beyond them and choose not to stereotype based on the extreme members of a group, right?

The horse is long dead, yet I see the flogging continues.

well you see...sometimes it twitches....

well you see...sometimes it twitches....

Hey, I am impressed by the quanitity and quality of sadonecrobestiality displayed. Awesome just doesn't quite cover it.

Then it is incorrect to say:

What is wrong about religion is they brainwash, indoctrinate, declare holy wars, persecute, push religious agendas in legislation and schools and generally just make a pain in the ass of themselves while making everyone else miserable.

If there are religious people who do not do this, then it is not inherently a problem in religion. Your problem isn't even with religion itself. It's with the actions of some practitioners.

Mixed response here. Practicioners are the "body" of religion. Even if all the practicioners of the religion do not practice said things, they are - more or less - willing part of the system that does by staying in the group or not speaking againts it.

When practicioners of a religion have tendency to commit such acts, it becomes a problem with the religion itself.

Besides, accepting a fellow practicioner's act is just few steps away from doing it yourself.

Of course, christianity itself is so diverse and shattered one hardly should talk about it as if it was single religion anymore :rolleyes:

So you want me to excuse you for basing your viewpoint of a very large group on the actions of a few because you say that it always happens?

And now you are putting words into my mouth - I'm not the one who wrote the indented part in your post. Besides, I was merely noting how the world works. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying that it happens.

Besides, when talking about groups, you talk of stereotypes. You can't really talk about a large group without using any stereotypes. Obviously stereotypes most likely won't fit any particular member of the group perfectly, but pieces of the stereotype fit most. Or that's the intention anyway...

Of course, an intelligent human being who knows this can look beyond them and choose not to stereotype based on the extreme members of a group, right?

Intelligent human being can look beyond the stereotype if he so chooses. But it's much easier to not bother and just judge other people, no?

The horse is long dead, yet I see the flogging continues.

well you see...sometimes it twitches....

Hey, I am impressed by the quanitity and quality of sadonecrobestiality displayed. Awesome just doesn't quite cover it.

Well, wouldn't it be worse - not to mention cruel, sadistic and most certainly againts some people's ethics - to bring a new horse to flog?

Well, wouldn't it be worse - not to mention cruel, sadistic and most certainly againts some people's ethics - to bring a new horse to flog?

I think well let the xtians bring another horse, after all, they are the one allegedley being bashed. Anyway, as was pointed out, the old one is still twitching.

They are not the beliefs bashing others. They are people. But I liked your style:)

are you serious???? Christians don't bash people??? um lets see . . .galileo ring any bells? how bout the inquisition, or witches? though thats more suppression and mindless killing. . . . but still.

are you serious???? Christians don't bash people??? um lets see . . .galileo ring any bells? how bout the inquisition, or witches? though thats more suppression and mindless killing. . . . but still.

Oh please. As if a history of 2000 years of oppression, genocide, wars, suppression of knowledge and so on by the main churches say anything about the Faith. Thinking the two are somehow linked is silly. The Bible proably even says so !

Oh please. As if a history of 2000 years of oppression, genocide, wars, suppression of knowledge and so on by the main churches say anything about the Faith. Thinking the two are somehow linked is silly. The Bible proably even says so !

right! drat forgot about that . . . .*goes off to rewrite "a friendly history for Christians"*

Oh please. As if a history of 2000 years of oppression, genocide, wars, suppression of knowledge and so on by the main churches say anything about the Faith. Thinking the two are somehow linked is silly. The Bible proably even says so !

I believe the argument is something along the line of: "That was, like, before our generation and so it can't happen in like, in our times! Christianity is all about peace and love and like that kind of stuff." In other words, they don't need to rewrite history, they just forget about it.

Some even go as far as to say that the people committing the atrocities "weren't true christians", and as such it's "not christianity that is to blame but the individuals who did it". Then there are always the people who blame it all on catholic church and say that their flavor of christianity had nothing to do with it.

The list goes on. Ironically the same people are usually quick to point every atrocity in history of islam...

This thread still exists?

It's not going to die if you keep posting in it.

yes gay sex outside of marriage is sinful. but given how consistently straight sex occurs outside of marriage, whats the big deal?

Just to throw a spanner in the works that sounds a lot like 'well everybody else is doing it why can't I"

Just to throw a spanner in the works that sounds a lot like 'well everybody else is doing it why can't I"

The point is, the bigots are hypocrites, because they rarely make the same fuss about straight fornication as they do gay marriage. Fornication, sure, is a sin, but it won't single-handedly be responsible for the destruction of human civilization like gay marriage will.

Fornication, sure, is a sin, but it won't single-handedly be responsible for the destruction of human civilization like gay marriage will.
You remind me of Mother Theresa when she said abortion and contraception would be cause of global wars.

Lesson: Overdramatic right-wing Christians with too much ice and too much time is a bad combination.

Hint: Lay off the ice.

Just to throw a spanner in the works that sounds a lot like 'well everybody else is doing it why can't I"

You do realize that the anti-fornication (gay or straight) rule only applies to people who follow a religion that contains that rule, right?

This is what people mean when they complain about some Christians trying to foist their beliefs onto others. It would be perfectly okay, in my opinion, for Christians to say that Christians are not allowed to fornicate (have sex outside of marriage), or even that Christians are not allowed to have certain kinds of sex, according to the rules Christians agree to follow when they call themselves Christian.

But how precisely do those rules apply to people who don't call themselves Christian? So where, precisely, do some Christians get off making moral pronouncements about the behavior of non-Christians? I am thinking of the kinds of Christians who make blanket statements against homosexuality or against non-marital sex or against divorce, etc. They seem to want to forget that their rules don't apply to people who are not members of their club. In fact, those who push for legislation to turn their religion into law seem quite directly to want to force others to adhere to their religion even if we don't believe in it. Why is that, I wonder?

In fact, those who push for legislation to turn their religion into law seem quite directly to want to force others to adhere to their religion even if we don't believe in it. Why is that, I wonder?

Because their religion only knows only three kinds of people: Christians, heathens and those who serve Satan. The heathens are supposed to be converted, and the last ones burned on stakes.

In less dramatic words: They believe everyone is either christian, should be converted to be christian or people whose opinions don't matter because their opinions are opinions of Satan.

In all honesty, why shouldn't a bunch of people who believe in fairy tales be ridiculed?

Stop complaining. Atheists went through far worse than you're going through right now when the church had control of europe.

In all honesty, why shouldn't a bunch of people who believe in fairy tales be ridiculed?

Stop complaining. Atheists went through far worse than you're going through right now when the church had control of europe.

That is because this 'Christianity' is a mental disorder, some of it's symptoms may include:

1. persecution complex
2. extreme paranoia (usually culminating in bizarre conspiracy theories relating to Atheists and scientists)
3. the 'Jesus group' phenomenon (usually passing after teenage years)
4. extreme intolerance of anyone who doesn't share your mental disorder

Take a regular dose of reality twice a day for a week to recover from this treatable malady. Remember, if symptoms persist please see your doctor.

That is because this 'Christianity' is a mental disorder, some of it's symptoms may include:

1. persecution complex
2. extreme paranoia (usually culminating in bizarre conspiracy theories relating to Atheists and scientists)
3. the 'Jesus group' phenomenon (usually passing after teenage years)
4. extreme intolerance of anyone who doesn't share your mental disorder

Take a regular dose of reality twice a day for a week to recover from this treatable malady. Remember, if symptoms persist please see your doctor.

Yes - All Christians are the same, share the same outlook and are really the same person duplicated thousands of times :rollseyes:

The myriads of demoninations and seemingly opposing viewpoints on numerous topics mean nothing?

Please, if anything you are proving the Christians that do think there is a "persecution complex" right. What are you doing if not persecuting Christians? As it stands you are proving them right in their belief. Please take your hate elsewhere it's not wanted here.

You remind me of Mother Theresa when she said abortion and contraception would be cause of global wars.

Lesson: Overdramatic right-wing Christians with too much ice and too much time is a bad combination.

Hint: Lay off the ice.

I didn't say I agreed with the position; I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Christian Right. Learn2Context.

Just to throw a spanner in the works that sounds a lot like 'well everybody else is doing it why can't I"

it may well be. if the pulpits are not full of preachers railing against straight pre marital sex and how those who do it are going to burn in hell, how is it so much worse to be having gay sex?

or maybe its better thought of as a "log in your eye" problem.

You do realize that the anti-fornication (gay or straight) rule only applies to people who follow a religion that contains that rule, right?

Yes I do realise that, as I said chuck a spanner in the works, and look at it a different way as to what I said

In fact, those who push for legislation to turn their religion into law seem quite directly to want to force others to adhere to their religion even if we don't believe in it. Why is that, I wonder?

Why? Also it is more of a case of them wanting their beliefs as law something which everybody does even you, it may not be religious beliefs but they are still beliefs.

That is because this 'Christianity' is a mental disorder, some of it's symptoms may include:

1. persecution complex
2. extreme paranoia (usually culminating in bizarre conspiracy theories relating to Atheists and scientists)
3. the 'Jesus group' phenomenon (usually passing after teenage years)
4. extreme intolerance of anyone who doesn't share your mental disorder

Take a regular dose of reality twice a day for a week to recover from this treatable malady. Remember, if symptoms persist please see your doctor.

1,2 and 4 the same could be said of washed up communists who are still drowning their sorrows over the fall of the USSR and decide to support the Socialist Alliance. 3 would be the same but more the idealist stage where they think that their ideas will change the world and everybody will be happy then they get to an age usually after passing teenage years and they know that those ideas are whack you, however, have yet to come to this conclusion really you need some help.

Because their religion only knows only three kinds of people: Christians, heathens and those who serve Satan. The heathens are supposed to be converted, and the last ones burned on stakes.

In less dramatic words: They believe everyone is either christian, should be converted to be christian or people whose opinions don't matter because their opinions are opinions of Satan.

So you know nothing either next!

What really gets me mad is that just the right-wing Christians are imposing christian ideals on others. mainly, we are very open to other religions, but when the far right says one outlandish thing it drags all Christians into it. really people, think before you speak. also, other religions have a right to be legitimate as you do, and other religions get bashings because of the far-right also

Hmmm... the way I see it... Christians only impose their beliefs on others because they believe that they are right. Now think about it. Christians want to tell others that what they are doing is wrong. Why? To try to save them from eternal damnation, and give them eternal life. Christians aren't trying to be rude, and I don't see how it could be considered evil. (Besides the Crusades, obviously.) I'm not sure if this is even relevant, but that's what I got so far.

Hmmm... the way I see it... Christians only impose their beliefs on others because they believe that they are right. Now think about it. Christians want to tell others that what they are doing is wrong. Why? To try to save them from eternal damnation, and give them eternal life. Christians aren't trying to be rude, and I don't see how it could be considered evil. (Besides the Crusades, obviously.) I'm not sure if this is even relevant, but that's what I got so far.

Do you believe the ends justify the means ?

Example: is it ok to lie/deceive to convert people ?

As a Russian Orthodox, I get to interact with a culture that's seen some fairly worrying extremes of religiosity and atheism over the last century, and....

What a silly thread.

The OP is silly, most of the responses are silly, and I poke my tongue out at all of you in a gesture of supreme silliness.

Christians are not being persecuted, at least not in the industrialised west that most NSG posters live in. Perhaps the OP lives in Kandahar, but I doubt it.

Neither are atheists (being persecuted).

'Christians' are no more a homogenous block holding to identical belief structures than are 'atheists' or ebil muzlems.

Gay men and lesbian women will no more destroy the world than will Alexy II of Moscow's next liturgy. And my gay friends no more object to the icons on my piano than I object to their subscription to Attitude (actually, I rather like leafing through the advice pages).

American fundamentalist evangelicals and arch-Dawkinsites strike me as both being as equally intolerant as each other. Both can be described as bible-bashers (in very different way), and frankly you all deserve each other. You'll excuse the rest of us for (mostly) ignoring all of you when you're not screaming shrilly at each other.

Do you believe the ends justify the means ?

Example: is it ok to lie/deceive to convert people ?

OK? Hell, it's SOP.

Do you believe the ends justify the means ?

Example: is it ok to lie/deceive to convert people ?

Wait, are you saying that Christians lie to convert people to Christianity? Because if they thought they were lying, they wouldn't really be Christian, and that kinda doesn't work with what I said.

But to answer your question, if there was a way to lie to someone, and still get them to believe Christianity and not the lie you told (is that possible?), then yes.

Because their religion only knows only three kinds of people: Christians, heathens and those who serve Satan. The heathens are supposed to be converted, and the last ones burned on stakes.

In less dramatic words: They believe everyone is either christian, should be converted to be christian or people whose opinions don't matter because their opinions are opinions of Satan.
I knew that, actually. ;)

Though to be more accurate, I knew that some Christians think that, though I personally believe that there is a larger group of people who do it to gain social/political power for themselves, something which has nothing to do with religion; if there were no such thing as religion, such people would find something else to use to lord it over others. And I believe the largest group of all give it no thought whatsoever.

Yes I do realise that, as I said chuck a spanner in the works, and look at it a different way as to what I said



Why? Also it is more of a case of them wanting their beliefs as law something which everybody does even you, it may not be religious beliefs but they are still beliefs.
I do not want my religious beliefs to be law. The only belief that I have that I would like to see be the universal law of the land is the belief that every individual has the right to determine their own destiny. Other than that, I'm willing to negotiate everything on a case by case basis. I'm not as lazy or as impatient as some people who just want a universal rule book to come all at once in a convenient package. I am also willing to let other people get their own way sometimes because, egotistical as I am, I don't want the whole world to revolve around me.

Wait, are you saying that Christians lie to convert people to Christianity? Because if they thought they were lying, they wouldn't really be Christian, and that kinda doesn't work with what I said.

But to answer your question, if there was a way to lie to someone, and still get them to believe Christianity and not the lie you told (is that possible?), then yes.

I guess I was right.

Hmmm... the way I see it... Christians only impose their beliefs on others because they believe that they are right. Now think about it. Christians want to tell others that what they are doing is wrong. Why? To try to save them from eternal damnation, and give them eternal life. Christians aren't trying to be rude, and I don't see how it could be considered evil. (Besides the Crusades, obviously.) I'm not sure if this is even relevant, but that's what I got so far.
It's not evil. It's annoying and impolite. Those are sort of worse, in my opinion, because they are harder to get rid of. You know, if something is evil, you can just eradicate it and be done, but if someone is just being annoyingly impolite, well, one is desperate to be rid of them, but one feels that eradicating them would be an overreaction. So, annoyance becomes a greater burden on life than actual evil because you have to spend more time figuring out how to deal with and, thus, being annoyed by it.

American fundamentalist evangelicals and arch-Dawkinsites strike me as both being as equally intolerant as each other.

Let's compare Dawkins' 'militant' atheism to various Christian groups:

-Many Christian groups, fundamentalist or otherwise, like to get megaphones and shout at people in public places, knock on their doors at all hours or pester them to take leaflets.
-Dawkins writes books and opinion pieces, and once made a documentary on religion. I've never seen an atheist going door-to-door or 'preaching' in a public place.

-Fundamentalism say that the Bible is factually true and if the Bible comes into conflict with reality them reality is in the wrong (read Answers in Genesis's Statement of Faith if you don't believe me, you'll find similar statements for most fundamentalist colleges)
-Dawkins is a scientist and speaks out strongly in favour of the scientific method and against dogmatism.

-In the UK, mandating prayer and preaching in schools is considered to be the 'moderate' position; many schools give privileged access to the children of religious parents. Lobby groups in the US are pushing to get prayer and Creationism into public schools.
-Dawkins doesn't want schools to indoctrinate children with atheism, he just wants schools to be neutral.

-Many Christian groups, even supposedly moderate ones, demand a privileged status in shaping government policy. Senior Anglican bishops are automatically awarded places in the House of Lords in the UK.
-Dawkins argues for fairness and against privileged access to politicians.

Those are just a few points off the top of my head.

Both can be described as bible-bashers (in very different way), and frankly you all deserve each other.

What is the atheist bible? Which book are atheists required to revere as infallible? Are we expected to accept The Selfish Gene uncritically, or deny the possibility of error in Sagan's Demon Haunted World?

Calling Dawkins (or any but a very few atheists) 'fundamentalist' is a ridiculous distortion of the word.

<snip>

But don't you see?! Dawkins says that perhaps we should question faith's specially privileged place in society and that we should apply to religious ideas the the same critical reasoning we apply to other ideas! *gasp* Fundamentalist militant!

<snip>

Calling Dawkins (or any but a very few atheists) 'fundamentalist' is a ridiculous distortion of the word.
Well, I feel a little motivated to point out that, like some fundamentalists, Dawkins is also often pugnacious, hostile, supercilious, self-righteous, annoying and pompous, making him just as unpopular with me as some fundamentalists. And there is no denying that his bias against religion is just as strong as a fundamentalist's bias in favor of religion. :)

It's not evil. It's annoying and impolite. Those are sort of worse, in my opinion, because they are harder to get rid of. You know, if something is evil, you can just eradicate it and be done, but if someone is just being annoyingly impolite, well, one is desperate to be rid of them, but one feels that eradicating them would be an overreaction. So, annoyance becomes a greater burden on life than actual evil because you have to spend more time figuring out how to deal with and, thus, being annoyed by it.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Everyone who asks will receive. The one who searches will find, and for the one who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew 7:7-8

Although the Bible calls it persistence, hey, whatever it takes.

But don't you see?! Dawkins says that perhaps we should question faith's specially privileged place in society and that we should apply to religious ideas the the same critical reasoning we apply to other ideas! *gasp* Fundamentalist militant!
While I agree that no religion should enjoy a "privileged" place in society, I hold that Dawkins is wrong about the kinds of rationalist standards he thinks should be applied to religion. He is just as wrong about that as creationists are wrong in thinking religion can stand in for science.

Well, I feel a little motivated to point out that, like some fundamentalists, Dawkins is also often pugnacious, hostile, supercilious, self-righteous, annoying and pompous, making him just as unpopular with me as some fundamentalists. And there is no denying that his bias against religion is just as strong as a fundamentalist's bias in favor of religion. :)

Those who are at Dawkins's level of extremity, but are religious, aren't viewed as fundamentalists. To be a fundamentalist religionist, you have to say things like "death to unbelievers" or "I'll laugh when teh fagz burn in hell," or actively pursue a theocracy.

To be a "fundamentalist" atheist, you have to say "I think faith is irrational and often harmful."

A bit of an imbalance, no?

But don't you see?! Dawkins says that perhaps we should question faith's specially privileged place in society and that we should apply to religious ideas the the same critical reasoning we apply to other ideas! *gasp* Fundamentalist militant!

Zing! :D

I think I've pointed it out before, but:

To be called a Militant Christian you have to blow up an abortion clinic or murder a homosexual.
To be called a Militant Muslim you have to blow yourself up or saw the head of an unbeliever.
To be called a Militant Atheist you have to write a book suggesting that religion's wrong or ask the government to stop discriminating against you in the provision of public services.

Come the revolution, everyone who uses the term will be shot, as will everyone who drops chewing gum on the pavement or thinks the Eurovision contest is a showcase for great music.

Zing! :D

I think I've pointed it out before, but:

To be called a Militant Christian you have to blow up an abortion clinic or murder a homosexual.
To be called a Militant Muslim you have to blow yourself up or saw the head of an unbeliever.
To be called a Militant Atheist you have to write a book suggesting that religion's wrong or ask the government to stop discriminating against you in the provision of public services.

Come the revolution, everyone who uses the term will be shot, as will everyone who drops chewing gum on the pavement or thinks the Eurovision contest is a showcase for great music.

Indeed. The inconsistency really annoys me, and it is so widespread.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Everyone who asks will receive. The one who searches will find, and for the one who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew 7:7-8

Although the Bible calls it persistence, hey, whatever it takes.
So, in addition to advocating dishonesty (lying to achieve conversion), you also advocate rude and intrusive behavior, although you would prefer to call it something other than rude. I see. Nice vision you create of Christians as ill-mannered liars. I'm sure the other believers appreciate your help.

And, you can tell your friend Matthew that no matter how hard he seeks, he will not find any interest in his message in me. No matter how hard he knocks, my door will not be opened to him. No matter how pleadingly he asks, he cannot have my time or attention. I am busy with other things, or to quote a different source: "You can't have me. I'm taken. By me."

You get ridiculed alot because of the super fundamentalists. It has to do with your preachy nature. If you push your ideas down people's throats youw ill be ridiculed. It doesn't help that it is primarily christians that try to refute things that are generally accepted by the majority of the world as fact (read "evolution"). it is mostly christians that are trying to teach creationism in school as science even though there is o science to back it up. If you are going to try to teach something that isn't science in a science class just because the alternative doesnt jive with your creation story (one of them anyways, because genesis contains 2 stories if you read carefully enough and this was shown to me by a chrisitan minister with a PHD in christian theology), the yes, people will ock you. and Stop whining because it isnt just christians. Scientologists get WAAAAAY more crap than you.granted, they are insane but then againt, most religions have, as a central core of their being, at least one imaginary friend so.... The reason that lately christians get mocked is the evolution thing. Stop claiming that just because something has not been proven by darwinism, it is automatically proof of creationism and people may stop mocking you. just because the box is not red, it doesnt automatically mean it is blue. maybe it is purple. you get what i mean.

While I agree that no religion should enjoy a "privileged" place in society, I hold that Dawkins is wrong about the kinds of rationalist standards he thinks should be applied to religion. He is just as wrong about that as creationists are wrong in thinking religion can stand in for science.

But why should we not apply critical reasoning to ideas that happen to be about religion? When people say "prayer works," that can be empirically examined. You could, for example, test to see if prayer improves the chances of people recovering from surgery. (It doesn't, by the way-- and this was a study run by a pro-prayer organization, so you can't claim bias.)

Really, the only form of religion that you can say can't be critically examined on the evidence is an incredibly vague deism, but that's not what people are usually talking about when they say religion should be exempt from thought.

So, in addition to advocating dishonesty (lying to achieve conversion), you also advocate rude and intrusive behavior, although you would prefer to call it something other than rude. I see. Nice vision you create of Christians as ill-mannered liars. I'm sure the other believers appreciate your help.

And, you can tell your friend Matthew that no matter how hard he seeks, he will not find any interest in his message in me. No matter how hard he knocks, my door will not be opened to him. No matter how pleadingly he asks, he cannot have my time or attention. I am busy with other things, or to quote a different source: "You can't have me. I'm taken. By me."

Hmmm.... wait, did I ever say I was a Christian? No, I don't think I did. I suppose you got lucky, since I am, but next time, don't assume so much. And if you're degrading to mud-flinging, there's no point to me really staying with this thread. The idea I'm trying to say it, which is worse? Telling a lie/ being annoying, or allowing another person to be eternally damned to hell? A sin can be forgiven, a damned soul, however, can not be saved.

Sorry, but you got me rather steamed. (I've always wanted to say that.:D)

Those who are at Dawkins's level of extremity, but are religious, aren't viewed as fundamentalists. To be a fundamentalist religionist, you have to say things like "death to unbelievers" or "I'll laugh when teh fagz burn in hell," or actively pursue a theocracy.

To be a "fundamentalist" atheist, you have to say "I think faith is irrational and often harmful."

A bit of an imbalance, no?
Imbalance? Not so much. False dichotomy? Yeah, maybe a bit more of that.

See, I told you specifically what criteria cause me to dislike Dawkins, i.e. that I judge Dawkins by his own behavior. You come back with some criterion of your own that has more to do with what some extremist fundamentalists think of Dawkins than with what Dawkins actually does. How does that have anything to do with what I said? Do you expect me to excuse Dawkins' intolerance because of the existence of other people's intolerance? Is it the old "well, they're worse and they started it anyway" argument?

What is the atheist bible? Which book are atheists required to revere as infallible?

You too are a silly person.

I wasn't claiming that militant atheists have their own 'bible'. I was playing on the fact that 'bashing' can have two separate meanings here, the commonly understood one, and an ironic opposite. Note my original quote 'Both can be described as bible-bashers (in a very different way)' (though I seem to have left out the indefinite article in my original post - my mistake).

Fundamentalist Christians 'bible bash' in the sense that they bash on and on about how every word should be taken literally.

Dawkensites 'bible bash' in that they bash the idea that any part of the bible should be taken literally.

See - bashing can, ironically, potentially denote support for and opposition to the concept under discussion depending on how you use the word.

And I still think you both deserve each other.

Hmmm.... wait, did I ever say I was a Christian? No, I don't think I did. I suppose you got lucky, since I am, but next time, don't assume so much. And if you're degrading to mud-flinging, there's no point to me really staying with this thread. The idea I'm trying to say it, which is worse? Telling a lie/ being annoying, or allowing another person to be eternally damned to hell? A sin can be forgiven, a damned soul, however, can not be saved.

Sorry, but you got me rather steamed. (I've always wanted to say that.:D)

You cited the Bible as an authoritative source...
Hate to break it to you, but non Christians don't think the Bible is the word of God.

It's funny, as a side note, how so many Christians can't understand that. They quote the Bible to get people to convert, clearly too stupid to realize that if people accepted the Bible as true, they'd already be Christians.

Wait, are you saying that Christians lie to convert people to Christianity?

Of course. Though admittedly halftruths, implications and carefully leaving out certain facts are used far, far more often than outright lies. However, those seem to form a corepart of the converters arsenal.

Because if they thought they were lying, they wouldn't really be Christian, and that kinda doesn't work with what I said.

Why not ? If a Christian believes saving other peoples souls is more important than being truthful, isn't that noble ?

But to answer your question, if there was a way to lie to someone, and still get them to believe Christianity and not the lie you told (is that possible?), then yes.

Many people would disagree.

Imbalance? Not so much. False dichotomy? Yeah, maybe a bit more of that.

See, I told you specifically what criteria cause me to dislike Dawkins, i.e. that I judge Dawkins by his own behavior. You come back with some criterion of your own that has more to do with what some extremist fundamentalists think of Dawkins than with what Dawkins actually does. How does that have anything to do with what I said? Do you expect me to excuse Dawkins' intolerance because of the existence of other people's intolerance? Is it the old "well, they're worse and they started it anyway" argument?

Well, I suppose it was more of a general point-- societally, it takes much, much less to be a fundamentalist or militant atheist than it does to be a fundamentalist or militant theist. I commented on it because you did compare him to them in a manner that, to me, seemed to imply "well, he is kinda like a fundamentalist when you think about it."

Well, I feel a little motivated to point out that, like some fundamentalists, Dawkins is also often pugnacious,

How so?

hostile,

To what?

supercilious,

My impression of his has always been of a charming man, and this impression has been born out in his behaviour in both of his documentaries.

self-righteous,

By explicitly admitting that he might be wrong? ;)

annoying

Rather subjective, what is it he does that annoys you?

and pompous, making him just as unpopular with me as some fundamentalists.

As with supercilious, this isn't an impression I've personally had of him.

And whatever you may think of him, there's no denying that he's had more impact that whole generations of hand-wringing, softly-softly types.

And there is no denying that his bias against religion is just as strong as a fundamentalist's bias in favor of religion. :)

Dawkins has explicitly stated that he might be wrong about God and would be willing to change his mind if presented with evidence; one of the Fundamentals or Fundamentalism is the inerrancy of the Bible.

Hmmm.... wait, did I ever say I was a Christian?
When did I say you were a Christian?

No, I don't think I did. I suppose you got lucky, since I am, but next time, don't assume so much.
A) I didn't, and B) why not, if it's such a safe bet?

And if you're degrading to mud-flinging, there's no point to me really staying with this thread.
It's not mud-flinging if it's true. Did you or did you not say in this very thread that it is okay to lie to gain conversion so long as you can construct the lie in such a way that the converted ends up believing in the religion rather than the lie? And as part of that, did you or did you not say it is okay to lie?

And when I declared that evangelism is annoying, did you or did you not respond with a Bible quote that you seemed to think encouraged the kind of behavior that I said was annoying?

The idea I'm trying to say it, which is worse? Telling a lie/ being annoying, or allowing another person to be eternally damned to hell? A sin can be forgiven, a damned soul, however, can not be saved.
Which is worse depends on what side of the conversation you're on. If you're the evangelist, then I guess you would think that I should put up with being annoyed by you in order to allow you to save me from the horrible fate you think lies before me. However, if you're me then you don't believe in the existence of that horrible fate, and therefore there is zero reason for me to put up with being annoyed by you. And if you were me, the unbeliever, you would also believe that real annoyance is worse than a mythical hell.

Sorry, but you got me rather steamed. (I've always wanted to say that.:D)
Glad to help out. I'm sure I'll be able to provide you with many more opportunities, as long as you don't go running away from threads every time they don't go your way.

You too are a silly person.

I wasn't claiming that militant atheists have their own 'bible'. I was playing on the fact that 'bashing' can have two separate meanings here, the commonly understood one, and an ironic opposite. Note my original quote 'Both can be described as bible-bashers (in a very different way)' (though I seem to have left out the indefinite article in my original post - my mistake).

Fundamentalist Christians 'bible bash' in the sense that they bash on and on about how every word should be taken literally.

Dawkensites 'bible bash' in that they bash the idea that any part of the bible should be taken literally.

See - bashing can, ironically, potentially denote support for and opposition to the concept under discussion depending on how you use the word.

And I still think you both deserve each other.

Since 'bible bashing' is idiomatic your meaning isn't clear. You're still wrong however :p:

"Dawkensites 'bible bash' in that they bash the idea that any part of the bible should be taken literally."

Ironically enough, atheists (there's no such thing as a Dawkinsite) are often the ones saying that parts of the Bible were intended to be taken literally. For example:

Atheist: The Bible so utterly wrong about the origins of life and the universe?
Liberal Christian: Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally!
Atheist: Yes it was because... etc.

If you're suggesting that Atheists reject the idea of any part of the Bible being accurate then you're wrong again. Most atheists would agree that the history of Israel given in the Bible is largely factual from soon after Solomon onwards, and most would accept significant parts of the Gospels and Acts as being historically accurate.

By explicitly admitting that he might be wrong? ;)

Of course. Saying that "I do not know" is a better answer than the one the opposition (e.g. Christians) have is a tad bit upsetting for some ;)

Ironically enough, atheists (there's no such thing as a Dawkinsite) are often the ones saying that parts of the Bible were intended to be taken literally. For example:

Atheist: The Bible so utterly wrong about the origins of life and the universe?
Liberal Christian: Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally!
Atheist: Yes it was because... etc.


And more often than not they're wrong, particularly with Genesis. Even a basic understanding of ancient Hebrew poetic language will demonstrate that Genesis was not intended to be taken literally, at least in the way we use the word. (I could go on about the difference between how we see literal truth and how a number of ancient cultures saw literal truth, but it's rather dull and I don't feel like looking up sources right now.)

A catholic priest is a seven years student in theology matters, specially in Roman Canons.
An important biblical point is "study with faith".
Studying without faith is Jansenism (Blaise Pascal), he believed you should have faith after prayers en studies.

Any priest self ordained feels great when making the assumption he understands better then you any religious text or point of history or philosophy.

Christianity is not the Catholics the vast majority of the Christian world, but not the rulers.

The world can be against the Christian easily but have some difficulty to bully the Roman Catholic Church. They are a too large group with many lobbies under their control.

The world has only the hope to fight these Christians who assume to possess the word and to dictate a middle aged ethics or to make you believe an old man invented the earth and the sky just to make the human monster happy on a crappy planet.

The world of Christianity then could be against many Christian who should be a dangerous as some long black bearded imams or other integrist of any religion.

By the way I'm a Buddhist and do not understand all of these christianities.

So you know nothing either next!

Aww, masterful debating skills at work! Now would you please

a) show me how I "know nothing"
b) show me how christian who lives by the bible is different
c) actually debate the point instead of dodging it

Oh well, I'll be back in 5-6 hours to check if you had anything to answer.

And more often than not they're wrong, particularly with Genesis. Even a basic understanding of ancient Hebrew poetic language will demonstrate that Genesis was not intended to be taken literally, at least in the way we use the word. (I could go on about the difference between how we see literal truth and how a number of ancient cultures saw literal truth, but it's rather dull and I don't feel like looking up sources right now.)

Please do. I'd be interesting in hearing about the difference, at the very least in a new thread once you're up for it.

Please do. I'd be interesting in hearing about the difference, at the very least in a new thread once you're up for it.

What is basically boils down to is that many, if not all, ancient cultures did not distinguish between literal and metaphorical truths. Take, for example, the panther as depicted in bestiaries. It's a metaphor for Jesus. It is not, however, a real animal, and as far as I can find scholars did not view it as such. But the story of the panther presented a truth, and thus it was classified with real creatures. That there wasn't a literal panther walking around scaring away dragons with its sweet breath didn't matter.

I'm not very good at explaining this, am I?

Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Hebrews didn't distinguish between literal and metaphorical truth either. I personally haven't seen any evidence that such a differentiation is anything more than a relatively modern conceit. (Conceit being used here as a value-neutral word, of course.)

I'm going to go see if I can track down any sources so I can explain this better.

Okay, I don't even know where to begin looking and a quick search on all my ideas turned up nothing. Take it with a grain of salt. Actually, buy one of those giant boxes of salt and take it with that.

While I agree that no religion should enjoy a "privileged" place in society, I hold that Dawkins is wrong about the kinds of rationalist standards he thinks should be applied to religion. He is just as wrong about that as creationists are wrong in thinking religion can stand in for science.
I don't really understand how there can be any objection to the idea that religion should be subjected to exactly the same standards of rational examination as everything else - in fact, it's the part of Dawkins' position that resonates most strongly with my own.
Dawkins is also often pugnacious, hostile, supercilious, self-righteous, annoying and pompous
Yeah, it's a little unfortunate.

His hostility I can understand, since it's his stated goal to break through the mindset - specifically in the UK - that continues to afford religious views some form of extra weight, and which treats all forms of religion as being somehow immune to criticism, and he obviously feels that a combative approach is required.

The self-righteousness, superciliousness and pomposity that you perceive in him are, I believe, born of his manner of speaking. I can't decide whether it's a result of his decades as an academic or his boarding school upbringing, but I can see where you're coming from... it can be annoying.

But why should we not apply critical reasoning to ideas that happen to be about religion? When people say "prayer works," that can be empirically examined. You could, for example, test to see if prayer improves the chances of people recovering from surgery. (It doesn't, by the way-- and this was a study run by a pro-prayer organization, so you can't claim bias.)

Really, the only form of religion that you can say can't be critically examined on the evidence is an incredibly vague deism, but that's not what people are usually talking about when they say religion should be exempt from thought.
Well, this is more of a philosophical or theological discussion and, thus, perhaps a little too off topic for this thread, but my position is that any claim that religion has "real" (meaning scientifically measurable or demonstrable) effects on the material world is based on a faulty understanding of what religion is and what it is for.

Claims that "prayer works" -- as in making seeds sprout faster or curing diseases miraculously -- are false because religious prayer is an expression of hope or desire, not a magic spell that is supposed to rearrange physics to the will of the one praying. When you make novenas or prayer circles to make beans sprout or sway an election or win a contest or whatever, you are completely missing the point of prayer, which is to make one momentarily aware of a feeling of connectedness to something mystical, like a god.

Similarly, tests of claims of the efficacy of prayer can easily prove that prayer can't make beans sprout. Such tests could easily prove that a Dodge Dart can't be used to crochet lace doilies, too. How about testing it for what it's actually for, eh? And tell me, how would you propose to test whether prayer can successfully create in the religious individual a conscious experience of whatever it is they believe in?

What I'm trying to say is that scientific standards are not appropriate for religion because they do not refer to what religion actually does. So those non-religious people who denounce religion because it does not adhere to scientific standards are just as off base as those religious people who claim that their religion does have scientific validity. Science and religion are two different ways of experiencing life, and they cannot be used to measure each other. When people try to use them that way, they both fail.

Well, I suppose it was more of a general point-- societally, it takes much, much less to be a fundamentalist or militant atheist than it does to be a fundamentalist or militant theist. I commented on it because you did compare him to them in a manner that, to me, seemed to imply "well, he is kinda like a fundamentalist when you think about it."
Yes, that is exactly what I was saying. I said it based on my own comparison of his public behavior and the tone of his statements to public behavior and tone of some fundamentalists. I do not judge him by what his other critics say about him.

How so?
In the way that he frames his arguments, in his books and in his public statements in the media when he goes about promoting his books. He frames his arguments in such a way as to provoke religious people.

To what?
Religion.

My impression of his has always been of a charming man, and this impression has been born out in his behaviour in both of his documentaries.
Charm is in the eye of the beholder. I find him uncharming.

By explicitly admitting that he might be wrong? ;)
He says he might be wrong in a manner that causes me to doubt that he sincerely thinks he might be.

Rather subjective, what is it he does that annoys you?
I already told you what he does that annoys me. You just finishing challenging every word of my list. You know what else annoys me? People who pretend they didn't just read something.

As with supercilious, this isn't an impression I've personally had of him.
As with the charm, my impression of him is different.

And whatever you may think of him, there's no denying that he's had more impact that whole generations of hand-wringing, softly-softly types.
Indeed. He has managed more than any other recent athiest to contribute significantly to the war of words between the religious and the non-religious. He has managed give extremist fundamentalists an easy and inviting target to use against all who oppose their social agendas, so that we spend as much time having to clarify our positions as actually presenting them. He has managed very handily to raise the controversy noise in the media while lowering the thoughtfulness of the public discourse on this topic. And he has been more successful than any other atheist I can think of in making a celebrity of himself.

He's a brilliant man and all, but with this religion schtick of his, I see him as just another ego-tripping issue-vulture. We have too many of those buzzing around these days.

Dawkins has explicitly stated that he might be wrong about God and would be willing to change his mind if presented with evidence; one of the Fundamentals or Fundamentalism is the inerrancy of the Bible.
A false concession, easy to make since he knows perfectly well that the criteria for proof he demands can never be met by religion. The kind of evidence he seeks would require religion to be science, and thus, he is just saying he'd believe in religion if it were science. In other words, he'll see things the way religious people do as soon as they start seeing things as he does.

Of course. Saying that "I do not know" is a better answer than the one the opposition (e.g. Christians) have is a tad bit upsetting for some ;)

You know, I've noticed a very popular fear-- perhaps a bit more pronounced among the religious-- of "I don't know."

I don't understand it. I like "I don't know." To me, "I don't know" is a wonderful chance to try to learn and grow! The adventure of discovery and exploration! I wish there were more things that I didn't know so I would have something interesting to investigate and think about. :)

A false concession, easy to make since he knows perfectly well that the criteria for proof he demands can never be met by religion. The kind of evidence he seeks would require religion to be science, and thus, he is just saying he'd believe in religion if it were science. In other words, he'll see things the way religious people do as soon as they start seeing things as he does.

Yes - it was a brilliant reversal of the stance of many believers :)

What is basically boils down to is that many, if not all, ancient cultures did not distinguish between literal and metaphorical truths. Take, for example, the panther as depicted in bestiaries. It's a metaphor for Jesus. It is not, however, a real animal, and as far as I can find scholars did not view it as such. But the story of the panther presented a truth, and thus it was classified with real creatures. That there wasn't a literal panther walking around scaring away dragons with its sweet breath didn't matter.

I'm not very good at explaining this, am I?

Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Hebrews didn't distinguish between literal and metaphorical truth either. I personally haven't seen any evidence that such a differentiation is anything more than a relatively modern conceit. (Conceit being used here as a value-neutral word, of course.)

I'm going to go see if I can track down any sources so I can explain this better.

Okay, I don't even know where to begin looking and a quick search on all my ideas turned up nothing. Take it with a grain of salt. Actually, buy one of those giant boxes of salt and take it with that.
I get it, and I agree with your point entirely.

I don't really understand how there can be any objection to the idea that religion should be subjected to exactly the same standards of rational examination as everything else - in fact, it's the part of Dawkins' position that resonates most strongly with my own.
In my post 890, I tried (probably unsuccessfully) to explain why I object to it. Also, see Cthulu's post about literal versus metaphorical truths.

Yeah, it's a little unfortunate.

His hostility I can understand, since it's his stated goal to break through the mindset - specifically in the UK - that continues to afford religious views some form of extra weight, and which treats all forms of religion as being somehow immune to criticism, and he obviously feels that a combative approach is required.
Yes, he does obviously think that, but I think he is wrong. I think it is not the most constructive or effective approach.

The self-righteousness, superciliousness and pomposity that you perceive in him are, I believe, born of his manner of speaking. I can't decide whether it's a result of his decades as an academic or his boarding school upbringing, but I can see where you're coming from... it can be annoying.
At the risk of being dismissed as the revealed acolyte of ultimate evil, I majored in advertising design in art school, and I apply the principles of advertising to just about everything (sometimes just for fun). I can assure you that, if Dawkins wants to influence how people thinks, he needs to work on his presentation. And I can also tell you that there are other people similarly trying to influence public opinion away from religiosity who heartily wish he would lose the power of speech or at least develop a fear of cameras and microphones.

Yes - it was a brilliant reversal of the stance of many believers :)
Two dogs yapping at each other at the same volume =/= brilliance, in my opinion.

Two dogs yapping at each other at the same volume =/= brilliance, in my opinion.

Using someones own reasoning against them is ;)

So, in addition to advocating dishonesty (lying to achieve conversion), you also advocate rude and intrusive behavior, although you would prefer to call it something other than rude. I see. Nice vision you create of Christians as ill-mannered liars. I'm sure the other believers appreciate your help.

And, you can tell your friend Matthew that no matter how hard he seeks, he will not find any interest in his message in me. No matter how hard he knocks, my door will not be opened to him. No matter how pleadingly he asks, he cannot have my time or attention. I am busy with other things, or to quote a different source: "You can't have me. I'm taken. By me."

That Bible verse he/she quoted was taken way out of context anyway.

But you're right, by using it that way he's not helping our case. Bah.

You know, I've noticed a very popular fear-- perhaps a bit more pronounced among the religious-- of "I don't know."

I don't understand it. I like "I don't know." To me, "I don't know" is a wonderful chance to try to learn and grow! The adventure of discovery and exploration! I wish there were more things that I didn't know so I would have something interesting to investigate and think about. :)
It's a big universe. I'm sure you can find plenty of things you don't know. What was it that other poster said about "seek and ye shall find"? :p

Using someones own reasoning against them is ;)
And my point is that he is not reasoning with them. He is provoking them.

Also, I am not as convinced as you that he knows he's doing the same thing as his opponents.

You know, I've noticed a very popular fear-- perhaps a bit more pronounced among the religious-- of "I don't know."

I don't understand it. I like "I don't know." To me, "I don't know" is a wonderful chance to try to learn and grow! The adventure of discovery and exploration! I wish there were more things that I didn't know so I would have something interesting to investigate and think about. :)

Agreed.

I think the problem is that in a debate environment like this, saying "I don't know" is to invite ridicule more often than not. Kinda tragic.

It's a big universe. I'm sure you can find plenty of things you don't know. What was it that other poster said about "seek and ye shall find"? :p

Oh, I already do. But the more the merrier. :D

That Bible verse he/she quoted was taken way out of context anyway.
Yeah, I thought so.

But you're right, by using it that way he's not helping our case. Bah.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Everyone who asks will receive. The one who searches will find, and for the one who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew 7:7-8

Although the Bible calls it persistence, hey, whatever it takes.

Talrania, that verse is about God's reassurance that prayer will be answered. This isn't an endorsement of being a pushy missionary. Consider it along with James 1:5:


If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

If only people were moderates like me...

I stand by my belief that an omnipotent, omniscient and genevolent god doesn't exist....

But you don't need to throw that in people' faces....

People can believe what they want to.... up untill they start doing stupid things because of it.....

And then they get the same treatment as would someone who wasn't religous; It's that simple

May as well complain about how some media companies play all Muslims as being insane religous fanatics.... they're not but some people see it as being that way....

What is basically boils down to is that many, if not all, ancient cultures did not distinguish between literal and metaphorical truths. Take, for example, the panther as depicted in bestiaries. It's a metaphor for Jesus. It is not, however, a real animal, and as far as I can find scholars did not view it as such. But the story of the panther presented a truth, and thus it was classified with real creatures. That there wasn't a literal panther walking around scaring away dragons with its sweet breath didn't matter.

I'm not very good at explaining this, am I?

Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Hebrews didn't distinguish between literal and metaphorical truth either. I personally haven't seen any evidence that such a differentiation is anything more than a relatively modern conceit. (Conceit being used here as a value-neutral word, of course.)

I'm going to go see if I can track down any sources so I can explain this better.

Okay, I don't even know where to begin looking and a quick search on all my ideas turned up nothing. Take it with a grain of salt. Actually, buy one of those giant boxes of salt and take it with that.

I think my main difficulty in this is not understanding the metaphor about the panther. It's one I haven't heard before. Other than that, I think I get the idea of what you're saying, that the concept of something needing to be physically in existence in order to be treated as existing wasn't a concept much considered in ancient cultures.

Am I way off the mark?

And my point is that he is not reasoning with them. He is provoking them.

Or showing the opposition the sillyness of their arguments through reversal.

Also, I am not as convinced as you that he knows he's doing the same thing as his opponents.

If not, he is an idiot.

I think my main difficulty in this is not understanding the metaphor about the panther. It's one I haven't heard before. Other than that, I think I get the idea of what you're saying, that the concept of something needing to be physically in existence in order to be treated as existing wasn't a concept much considered in ancient cultures.

Am I way off the mark?

That's basically it. Here's the story of the panther. (http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast79.htm) I've read a longer one somewhere, but I don't recall where.

That's basically it. Here's the story of the panther. (http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast79.htm) I've read a longer one somewhere, but I don't recall where.

Well that's silly...but I get what you're saying now.

Talrania, that verse is about God's reassurance that prayer will be answered. This isn't an endorsement of being a pushy missionary. Consider it along with James 1:5:

Someone here has sense! xD

If only people were moderates like me...

I stand by my belief that an omnipotent, omniscient and genevolent god doesn't exist....

But you don't need to throw that in people' faces....

People can believe what they want to.... up untill they start doing stupid things because of it.....

And then they get the same treatment as would someone who wasn't religous; It's that simple

May as well complain about how some media companies play all Muslims as being insane religous fanatics.... they're not but some people see it as being that way....
Amen!
What these zealots don't realise is that God (if he does exist) invented free will, if he wanted everyone to follow him that much he'd use Godly mind control, surely?
It's a pity only zealots get noticed and everyone then thinks of them when they think of said group, glad you pointed that out, I get annoyed when people assume I am one of those freaky converting people. Also, I have lots of Muslim friends, not one of them have any desire to "kill heathens", they explained "Jihad" is the most wrongly used term today:
Lesser Jihad is a FAIR WAR (no innocents killed) against outside forces who Actively Seek To Destroy Islam, keeping in mind it is only to be used against other Muslims who seek to Destroy it's Values.
Greater Jihad is an internal struggle against yourself to better yourself spiritually.

Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it tell Muslims to take up arms and kill anyone who does not follow their religion.

In the way that he frames his arguments, in his books and in his public statements in the media when he goes about promoting his books. He frames his arguments in such a way as to provoke religious people.

Rubbish. Dawkins' tone would be considered mild if it was directed at anything but religion; in my experience, most of the people who claim to find his tone offensive haven't even read his books...

Anyone who argues for atheism will be accused of being aggressive and militant by religious leaders because they've learnt it's an effective tactic. Take Dennett: his Breaking the Spell tries so hard to be understanding and non-confrontational that it almost verges on being patronising, with the tone of an endlessly patient teacher trying to persuade a stubborn toddler "Yes, I'm sure your scripture is the one true word of God, but Tommy says that about his too. Why don't we discuss this reasonably and try to come to some sort of consensus?" and yet he's frequently accused of militancy!

Religion.

So he doesn't like religion, so what? Given the current political situation in the UK why on Earth would you expect an atheist to be anything but hostile to religion?

Charm is in the eye of the beholder. I find him uncharming.

May I ask which of his books you've read and which of his documentaries you've seen?

He says he might be wrong in a manner that causes me to doubt that he sincerely thinks he might be.

If he doesn't really think he might be then why on Earth would he explicitly give a spectrum of atheisms/theisms in his book and place himself at number six, while saying (I quote) "I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, , but I include it for symmetry with category 1". In other words, he doesn't see 100% in atheism as a serious possibility. If your dislike of him is based on a niggling suspicion that he's lying about what he really thinks then you've either got access to some information that I'd be very interested to see or you're being deliberately unreasonable.

I already told you what he does that annoys me. You just finishing challenging every word of my list. You know what else annoys me? People who pretend they didn't just read something.

Am I to blame for your poor communication skills? You give a list of reasons why you don't like Dawkins, and slip "because he's annoying" into the middle of it. The obvious conclusion that anyone would draw from reading that is that there's something about him which annoys you other than what you've already listed, otherwise what's the point of adding it? It'd be like saying "I don't like him because he smells and I don't like him".

Indeed. He has managed more than any other recent athiest to contribute significantly to the war of words between the religious and the non-religious.

He's managed to re enervate the debate on the role of religion in politics, drawn attention to the increasing influence of religious pressure groups and encouraged more people to openly identify as atheist and to oppose religious power grabs.

He has managed give extremist fundamentalists an easy and inviting target to use against all who oppose their social agendas,

They've been comparing their opponents to Hitler and Stalin for years, do you really think a mild mannered evolutionary biologist will add to their arsenal much?

so that we spend as much time having to clarify our positions as actually presenting them.

Dawkins sets out the atheist position very clearly in the God Delusion (as you'd know if you'd read it), the fact that people choose not to read it and instead believe the dishonest distortions of it presented by religious polemicists is hardly his fault, no?

He has managed very handily to raise the controversy noise in the media while lowering the thoughtfulness of the public discourse on this topic.

I don't see any decrease in public thoughfulness, if anything he's increased it by challenging the views which previously prevailed such as "faith is a virtue", "religion is a good thing to teach children, even if it isn't true" and "there's nothing wrong with identifying children with their parents religion". What decrease in thoughtfulness have you seen?

Stoking a controversy is the first step of any campaign: the very worst thing that can happen is have people thinking something isn't an issue. He's making people realise that religious privilege is not a non-issue and that it's not something which should just be ignored.

And he has been more successful than any other atheist I can think of in making a celebrity of himself.

Atheism needs a few prominent proponents to counter religious leaders, I don't see the problem.

A false concession, easy to make since he knows perfectly well that the criteria for proof he demands can never be met by religion. The kind of evidence he seeks would require religion to be science, and thus, he is just saying he'd believe in religion if it were science. In other words, he'll see things the way religious people do as soon as they start seeing things as he does.

God could easily supply enough evidence by turning up in person...

Besides, if religion's going to make fact claims like science then it should expect to be held to the same standards as science; is this so unreasonable?

That's basically it. Here's the story of the panther. (http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast79.htm) I've read a longer one somewhere, but I don't recall where.

Pliny the Elder described the panther as an allegory for Jesus rather than as a real creature? ;) Surely a better reading of the evidence would be that Christians took a pre-existing literal belief in the existence of the panther and added allegorical overtones to it?

Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it tell Muslims to take up arms and kill anyone who does not follow their religion.

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Sucks to be a Christian or a Jew it seems...

To avoid being accused of taking it out of context:

9:28 O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

Pliny the Elder described the panther as an allegory for Jesus rather than as a real creature? ;) Surely a better reading of the evidence would be that Christians took a pre-existing literal belief in the existence of the panther and added allegorical overtones to it?

Pliny's panther is significantly different from later depictions of the panther. While ideas were certainly drawn from Pliny, declaring it to be the same thing would be erroneous. And just because Pliny wrote about it doesn't mean a literal belief existed. He wrote as much to make a point as he did to collect knowledge.

Pliny's panther is significantly different from later depictions of the panther. While ideas were certainly drawn from Pliny, declaring it to be the same thing would be erroneous.

Certainly, but the fact that the creature is first documented by a pagan writer seems to me to undermine the 'metaphorical over literal' idea. Don't get me wrong: I don't doubt that writers describing the panther did so with allegorical intent (just as I don't doubt that the authors of Genesis had allegorical intent), what I do take issue with is the idea that because they presented it with a moral undertone they didn't also believe it to be literally true (and the same applies to the authors of Genesis).

And just because Pliny wrote about it doesn't mean a literal belief existed. He wrote as much to make a point as he did to collect knowledge.

Most Classical authors wrote to make a point, but just because Herodotus's account of the war with Persia has allegorical elements (contrasting the unity of the Greeks when fighting to Persians to their contemporary squabbling for example, or critiquing Greek imperialism through contrasts with Persia) that isn't to say that he didn't believe the war to have happened! I don't see any reason to doubt that Pliny genuinely believed in the existence of panthers, whatever additional 'meanings' he tacked onto that belief.

Anyone who argues for atheism will be accused of being aggressive and militant by religious leaders because they've learnt it's an effective tactic. Take Dennett: his Breaking the Spell tries so hard to be understanding and non-confrontational that it almost verges on being patronising, with the tone of an endlessly patient teacher trying to persuade a stubborn toddler "Yes, I'm sure your scripture is the one true word of God, but Tommy says that about his too. Why don't we discuss this reasonably and try to come to some sort of consensus?" and yet he's frequently accused of militancy!

to be fair, i could see how someone might mistake his keeping of his pimp hand strong for militancy...

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7199/le50b3a030b9d4db89e713ffh6.th.jpg (http://img178.imageshack.us/my.php?image=le50b3a030b9d4db89e713ffh6.jpg)

Rubbish. Dawkins' tone would be considered mild if it was directed at anything but religion; in my experience, most of the people who claim to find his tone offensive haven't even read his books...
I am talking about the man himself, in his personal presentation of himself in the media.

Anyone who argues for atheism will be accused of being aggressive and militant by religious leaders because they've learnt it's an effective tactic.
So?

Take Dennett: his Breaking the Spell tries so hard to be understanding and non-confrontational that it almost verges on being patronising, with the tone of an endlessly patient teacher trying to persuade a stubborn toddler "Yes, I'm sure your scripture is the one true word of God, but Tommy says that about his too. Why don't we discuss this reasonably and try to come to some sort of consensus?" and yet he's frequently accused of militancy!
So, in your opinion, you think talking down to people as if they are little children is a friendly approach?


So he doesn't like religion, so what? Given the current political situation in the UK why on Earth would you expect an atheist to be anything but hostile to religion?
I would expect people who appeal to reason to behave reasonably.

May I ask which of his books you've read and which of his documentaries you've seen?
No, you may not because you are talking down to me and because you are making it quite clear that you (A) approve of conflict between atheism and religion, and (B) are a fan of Dawkins intent on defending him no matter what, even to the point of misrepresenting what I originally said (I have never critiqued his books or movies), and (C) because I have no intention of letting this devolve into a personal fight over my personal opinion of a writer of opinions.

If he doesn't really think he might be then why on Earth would he explicitly give a spectrum of atheisms/theisms in his book and place himself at number six, while saying (I quote) "I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, , but I include it for symmetry with category 1". In other words, he doesn't see 100% in atheism as a serious possibility. If your dislike of him is based on a niggling suspicion that he's lying about what he really thinks then you've either got access to some information that I'd be very interested to see or you're being deliberately unreasonable.
No, you missed my point. I have already stated my point several times. I do not believe it would help much to state it again.

Am I to blame for your poor communication skills?
Personal insult is always a good tactic.

You give a list of reasons why you don't like Dawkins, and slip "because he's annoying" into the middle of it. The obvious conclusion that anyone would draw from reading that is that there's something about him which annoys you other than what you've already listed, otherwise what's the point of adding it? It'd be like saying "I don't like him because he smells and I don't like him".
I told you what I meant.

He's managed to re enervate the debate on the role of religion in politics, drawn attention to the increasing influence of religious pressure groups and encouraged more people to openly identify as atheist and to oppose religious power grabs.
Did the UK really need him to do all those things? Was no one else doing it?

Also, I think you meant "reenergize" or reinvigorate."

They've been comparing their opponents to Hitler and Stalin for years, do you really think a mild mannered evolutionary biologist will add to their arsenal much?
They are not the only Godwiners in the world.

Dawkins sets out the atheist position very clearly in the God Delusion (as you'd know if you'd read it), the fact that people choose not to read it and instead believe the dishonest distortions of it presented by religious polemicists is hardly his fault, no?
You evidently enjoy the way in which he sets out the atheist position. Apparently, you enjoy it so much that you will not allow anyone else to not enjoy it.

I don't see any decrease in public thoughfulness, if anything he's increased it by challenging the views which previously prevailed such as "faith is a virtue", "religion is a good thing to teach children, even if it isn't true" and "there's nothing wrong with identifying children with their parents religion". What decrease in thoughtfulness have you seen?
You must remember that I am in the US. I see a ton of decrease in thoughtfulness, which trust me, is very surprising. Years ago, I thought it had gotten as dumb as it could, but every few days, the US media top themselves. You want to see dumb? Next time Dawkins puts out a book, go watch him do a promotional junket in the US, and thrill to the spectacle of him answering stupid questions with broad, shallow generalizations.

Stoking a controversy is the first step of any campaign: the very worst thing that can happen is have people thinking something isn't an issue. He's making people realise that religious privilege is not a non-issue and that it's not something which should just be ignored.
So this means that you do, in fact, seek conflict with religious people, rather than peaceful co-existence? So, the OP would be right, if "almost everyone" just meant you?

Atheism needs a few prominent proponents to counter religious leaders, I don't see the problem.
Look, this is just my personal hang-up and it has nothing to do with either atheism or religion, but I have a problem with "prominent proponents" in general. When I want opinions, I ask for them. When I'm not asking, I believe proponents should be seen and not heard. I don't care what Dawkins thinks, just like I don't care what Pat Robertson thinks. I've heard the opinions of both of them. It has been a while since either added anything new to their positions. I'm tired of both of them.

God could easily supply enough evidence by turning up in person...

Besides, if religion's going to make fact claims like science then it should expect to be held to the same standards as science; is this so unreasonable?
Yes, it is, if only because it conveniently ignores the part where I said that religion has no business making factual claims like science.

Certainly, but the fact that the creature is first documented by a pagan writer seems to me to undermine the 'metaphorical over literal' idea. Don't get me wrong: I don't doubt that writers describing the panther did so with allegorical intent (just as I don't doubt that the authors of Genesis had allegorical intent), what I do take issue with is the idea that because they presented it with a moral undertone they didn't also believe it to be literally true (and the same applies to the authors of Genesis).



Most Classical authors wrote to make a point, but just because Herodotus's account of the war with Persia has allegorical elements (contrasting the unity of the Greeks when fighting to Persians to their contemporary squabbling for example, or critiquing Greek imperialism through contrasts with Persia) that isn't to say that he didn't believe the war to have happened! I don't see any reason to doubt that Pliny genuinely believed in the existence of panthers, whatever additional 'meanings' he tacked onto that belief.
I think Cthulu's point was not that Pliny thought panthers were mythical beasts, but that he knew perfectly well that when he used panthers (or anything else) as an allegorical metaphor, he was writing fiction. But in his time, reading audiences did not demand such strict delineation between fact and fiction, or between observational writing and philosophical writing. Both pure reporting of observation and philosophy were equally considered "truth," and therefore would often be presented together, in the same way. Only in those days, only the least educated were confused by that.

Mixed response here. Practicioners are the "body" of religion. Even if all the practicioners of the religion do not practice said things, they are - more or less - willing part of the system that does by staying in the group or not speaking againts it.

When "staying in the group" simply means "continuing to live by one's own beliefs", it's hardly something that implies any kind of willingness to be compared to people who act in a rude fashion.

Note that, "religion" does not equate to "organized religion".

Of course, christianity itself is so diverse and shattered one hardly should talk about it as if it was single religion anymore :rolleyes:

In truth, one never could. There were periods of time when various church leaders went around trying to eradicate all differences in belief, but there has never been an actual time when Christianity was truly uniform.

And now you are putting words into my mouth - I'm not the one who wrote the indented part in your post. Besides, I was merely noting how the world works. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying that it happens.

Noted. I apologize. Your response was several pages later and I thought you were the same person.

Besides, when talking about groups, you talk of stereotypes. You can't really talk about a large group without using any stereotypes. Obviously stereotypes most likely won't fit any particular member of the group perfectly, but pieces of the stereotype fit most. Or that's the intention anyway...

But, with the "loud people become the face" description you gave, you end up most often with cases in which the stereotypes fit only a minority of members of the group.

Intelligent human being can look beyond the stereotype if he so chooses. But it's much easier to not bother and just judge other people, no?

*shrug* Ignorance usually is the easy way out. Personally, I find it annoying.

When "staying in the group" simply means "continuing to live by one's own beliefs", it's hardly something that implies any kind of willingness to be compared to people who act in a rude fashion.

Note that, "religion" does not equate to "organized religion".

Noted.

In truth, one never could. There were periods of time when various church leaders went around trying to eradicate all differences in belief, but there has never been an actual time when Christianity was truly uniform.

Hmm, to be honest I've never been too interested in history of christianity beyond the major world-affecting happenings such as crusades.

Noted. I apologize. Your response was several pages later and I thought you were the same person.

Apology accepted :p

But, with the "loud people become the face" description you gave, you end up most often with cases in which the stereotypes fit only a minority of members of the group.

True. That's why I said that if you silently accept them you aren't too far from doing what they do: If you let them represent you by staying silent, they end up being what the world sees your group as.

Modern time example: People think, as proven by the "zomg teh moslemz" threads/comments, that either majority or part of islamic nations/people support the terrorists either directly or indirectly, while I find it hard anyone outside the extreme fundamentalists would do so. As the muslim nations aren't openly renouncing them (or if they are, it's not getting any media attention - frightening thought) and their engine of hate, people are more likely to believe they support the terrorists.

*shrug* Ignorance usually is the easy way out. Personally, I find it annoying.

"Ignorance is bliss" as they say.

I am talking about the man himself, in his personal presentation of himself in the media.

and the media doesn't distort anyones image at all . . . not the media . . .not FOX!!!! I trust them!!! *goes a little mad* *takes dried frog pills* "ahhhh much better"

So?


so you call practically every outspoken atheist militant . . .so its a falsehood . . .so your hypocrites so?


So, in your opinion, you think talking down to people as if they are little children is a friendly approach?


He was trying to make a point. . .effectively I thought and anythings better than burning someone and/or attempting to isolate them from society and/or Damning them



I would expect people who appeal to reason to behave reasonably.


hmmmm so define reasonably. He's acted quite reasonably as far as I';m concerned. Seen a problem and tried to deal with it using all forms of media


No, you may not because you are talking down to me and because you are making it quite clear that you (A) approve of conflict between atheism and religion, and (B) are a fan of Dawkins intent on defending him no matter what, even to the point of misrepresenting what I originally said (I have never critiqued his books or movies), and (C) because I have no intention of letting this devolve into a personal fight over my personal opinion of a writer of opinions.


(a) and you don't? (b)so? and he/she didn't misrepresent anything . . . .its a question!!!! (c) what? WHA???? how does that answer the question??? in fact did you read the question? he/she asked which of his works you had seen/read. I'm starting to think you haven't actually read his stuff (personally a fan of the god delusion


No, you missed my point. I have already stated my point several times. I do not believe it would help much to state it again.


what was your point (im ignoring the last part)


Personal insult is always a good tactic.


congrats on keeping your arguments pretty clean I'm impressed. (honestly no sarcasm there)



I told you what I meant.

actually you more criticized him for brining it up . . .but w/e just drop that one


Did the UK really need him to do all those things? Was no one else doing it?


Also, I think you meant "reenergize" or reinvigorate."

actually it did and nope, no one was. (i could be wrong I just can't think of anyone off the top of my head)


They are not the only Godwiners in the world.

huh? I don't understand . . . .


You evidently enjoy the way in which he sets out the atheist position. Apparently, you enjoy it so much that you will not allow anyone else to not enjoy it.

not his/her point. He/she was saying that the church and the "religious right" did not enjoy the book (possibly because it brought some nasty little truths to light) and did not, in fact, like it so much that they will not allow anyone else to dislike it



You must remember that I am in the US. I see a ton of decrease in thoughtfulness, which trust me, is very surprising. Years ago, I thought it had gotten as dumb as it could, but every few days, the US media top themselves. You want to see dumb? Next time Dawkins puts out a book, go watch him do a promotional junket in the US, and thrill to the spectacle of him answering stupid questions with broad, shallow generalizations.

I'm in Canada. You want to see dumb I suggest you take a look at your president. There are MANY factors outside of Dawkins that are decreasing thoughtfulness and I would suggest you actually go out and read one of his books before you suggest that he is increasing it. And when I say read I don't mean a summary by a neo-conservative religious nut.


So this means that you do, in fact, seek conflict with religious people, rather than peaceful co-existence? So, the OP would be right, if "almost everyone" just meant you?

Controversy=/= Conflict=/=Bashing
this is conflict. Bashing would be me saying that all religious people are small minded idiots who can't see the real world WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE



Look, this is just my personal hang-up and it has nothing to do with either atheism or religion, but I have a problem with "prominent proponents" in general. When I want opinions, I ask for them. When I'm not asking, I believe proponents should be seen and not heard. I don't care what Dawkins thinks, just like I don't care what Pat Robertson thinks. I've heard the opinions of both of them. It has been a while since either added anything new to their positions. I'm tired of both of them.

agreeeeeed lol no my opinion though! that I can hear all day lmao


Yes, it is, if only because it conveniently ignores the part where I said that religion has no business making factual claims like science.
But it does anyway and so WHEN it does it must be held to the same standards that science is.

Did the UK really need him to do all those things? Was no one else doing it?
Nobody else was doing it from the kind of platform that his academic credentials provided him. In fact, go back a little over 10 years into the dark, pre-mass-Internet-use world of the UK in the early 90s and there were little to no strongly aired atheist views in our media. There was the occasional sounding off by the odd individual on a chat show (Peter Ustinov springs to mind) but they were very much the exception. The closest that our TV channels (there were only 4 national channels in those days) got to airing overtly atheist material was showing Life of Brian.

It's this institutionalised marginalisation of the atheist world-view that prevailed in the past (and whether it was deliberate or simply born of habit and tradition is, frankly, irrelevant) that got the likes of Dawkins so riled in the first place. He sees no reason that religious leaders should be given free access to the nation's media unchallenged, and no reason that what they have to say should be allowed to go unchallenged when they hold forth.

There are those who think that Dawkins could (and should) try to put his message across a little more reasonably. However, as someone else pointed out further up the thread there are already people who are taking this tack (e.g. Dennett), and yet they attract exactly the same criticism as Dawkins, Hitchens et al. With few exceptions it's the substance of the complaints that people are attacking, not just the way they're being said. It flies in the face of the way that I like to go about things but perhaps Dawkins is right, and polemic is the way to go.

True. That's why I said that if you silently accept them you aren't too far from doing what they do: If you let them represent you by staying silent, they end up being what the world sees your group as.

Unfortunately, you don't even have to stay silent. You just have to be less interesting and thus get less media attention. =)

Modern time example: People think, as proven by the "zomg teh moslemz" threads/comments, that either majority or part of islamic nations/people support the terrorists either directly or indirectly, while I find it hard anyone outside the extreme fundamentalists would do so. As the muslim nations aren't openly renouncing them (or if they are, it's not getting any media attention - frightening thought) and their engine of hate, people are more likely to believe they support the terrorists.

Plenty of Imans have openly renounced terrorism. A lot of the national governments have not, but then again they often seem to be run by extremists.

The real problem here is a matter of what the media finds interesting. Hundreds of people throwing rocks and calling for beheadings because of newspaper cartoons are interesting. The millions of people who simply went about their daily lives are not. Imans calling for jihad are interesting. Imans condemning it less so.

Thus, the loud annoying people get the most attention and the vast majority are chastised for not being loud and annoying enough.

and the media doesn't distort anyones image at all . . . not the media . . .not FOX!!!! I trust them!!! *goes a little mad* *takes dried frog pills* "ahhhh much better"
Huh? (A) I watch a man talk. I make a judgment based on his behavior. What does FOX have to do with that? (B) I don't watch FOX. (C) I think you need to lay off the dried frogs.

so you call practically every outspoken atheist militant . . .so its a falsehood . . .so your hypocrites so?
Huh? Kindly quote where I called every outspoken atheist a militant. In fact, kindly quote where I called only Dawkins a militant.

He was trying to make a point. . .effectively I thought and anythings better than burning someone and/or attempting to isolate them from society and/or Damning them
And I said that I thought he made his point ineffectively.

hmmmm so define reasonably. He's acted quite reasonably as far as I';m concerned. Seen a problem and tried to deal with it using all forms of media
I already explained in other posts why I think Dawkins in behaving unreasonably. If you are going to jump into a conversation late, it would be worth your while to read the history of it.

(a) and you don't? (b)so? and he/she didn't misrepresent anything . . . .its a question!!!! (c) what? WHA???? how does that answer the question??? in fact did you read the question? he/she asked which of his works you had seen/read. I'm starting to think you haven't actually read his stuff (personally a fan of the god delusion
I'm happy that you like his books. I said that I have not critiqued his books, so why do I have to talk about them? I am not criticizing his atheism. I am criticizing him.

what was your point (im ignoring the last part)
And apparently ignoring all the parts before, too. Like I said, if you're going to join the convo late, you really should read what the people in it have already posted. That is where you will find my point.

congrats on keeping your arguments pretty clean I'm impressed. (honestly no sarcasm there)
Thanks, I guess.

actually you more criticized him for brining it up . . .but w/e just drop that one
I told him what I meant in an earlier post.

actually it did and nope, no one was. (i could be wrong I just can't think of anyone off the top of my head)
Well, if that is so, then it explains his existence, but I have to tell you, he is far from the only one representing the atheist view in the US, and he does not go over as well here as he perhaps does in the UK. A cultural difference, perhaps.

huh? I don't understand . . . .
Religious people are not the only ones who compare their critics to the Nazis.

not his/her point. He/she was saying that the church and the "religious right" did not enjoy the book (possibly because it brought some nasty little truths to light) and did not, in fact, like it so much that they will not allow anyone else to dislike it
Huh? They didn't like it so much that they won't allow anyone else to dislike it? Too? They want the exclusive right to dislike it?

I'm in Canada. You want to see dumb I suggest you take a look at your president. There are MANY factors outside of Dawkins that are decreasing thoughtfulness and I would suggest you actually go out and read one of his books before you suggest that he is increasing it. And when I say read I don't mean a summary by a neo-conservative religious nut.
You want to see pissed off? Suggest even for a minute that I don't think George Bush is the worst thing that has ever happened to or been done by my country. Go ahead, assume all Americans are Busheviks. Just rip that fucking scab off and see how I react. And when you're done with totally alienating me for no reason in that way, kindly show me where I even suggested that Dawkins is the sole problem with American public discourse in general.

Controversy=/= Conflict=/=Bashing
this is conflict. Bashing would be me saying that all religious people are small minded idiots who can't see the real world WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE
Show me where I used the word bashing. I said it was conflict, which you just agreed with.

agreeeeeed lol no my opinion though! that I can hear all day lmao
Seriously, lay off the dried frogs.

But it does anyway and so WHEN it does it must be held to the same standards that science is.
WHEN religion makes a claim to scientific factuality, THEN science can be used to prove it wrong about that claim. Science CANNOT be used to prove a religious belief false as a belief, however. Science can prove that the Earth is older than 6000 years. Science cannot prove that god(s) is/are a false construct or that faith is irrational because they are not scientific constructs and science has no way to address them.

Nobody else was doing it from the kind of platform that his academic credentials provided him. In fact, go back a little over 10 years into the dark, pre-mass-Internet-use world of the UK in the early 90s and there were little to no strongly aired atheist views in our media. There was the occasional sounding off by the odd individual on a chat show (Peter Ustinov springs to mind) but they were very much the exception. The closest that our TV channels (there were only 4 national channels in those days) got to airing overtly atheist material was showing Life of Brian.

It's this institutionalised marginalisation of the atheist world-view that prevailed in the past (and whether it was deliberate or simply born of habit and tradition is, frankly, irrelevant) that got the likes of Dawkins so riled in the first place. He sees no reason that religious leaders should be given free access to the nation's media unchallenged, and no reason that what they have to say should be allowed to go unchallenged when they hold forth.

There are those who think that Dawkins could (and should) try to put his message across a little more reasonably. However, as someone else pointed out further up the thread there are already people who are taking this tack (e.g. Dennett), and yet they attract exactly the same criticism as Dawkins, Hitchens et al. With few exceptions it's the substance of the complaints that people are attacking, not just the way they're being said. It flies in the face of the way that I like to go about things but perhaps Dawkins is right, and polemic is the way to go.
Well, I can sympathize. My point of view, which is neither Christian nor atheist, is continually marginalized and even ridiculed -- and on occasion, even demonized -- in the US.

And I enjoy a good polemic now and then. They are a bracing tonic when used judiciously. I have nothing against polemics per se. This is the reason why I have refused to critique Dawkins' books. The man has a right to say what he likes in whatever way he likes. I have a right not to like it, but I have no right and would never presume to blame him for saying it.

My objection to him is that I personally believe his polemics to be ineffectual because they are off-putting. They may have more and better effect in the UK, but in the US, they go over like a lead balloon. This whole side argument started because one person declared that Christian fundamentalists are, essentially, more obnoxious than Dawkins. In the interest of balance, I merely pointed out that, to me, Dawkins is just as obnoxious as some fundamentalists and for similar reasons, which have more to do with their style than their message. My point was that obnoxiousness is often in the eye of the beholder, so a defense of Dawkins on the grounds that he is not obnoxious is a weak one, if one doesn't know the mind of the person one is talking to. One poster finds him charming. Another poster finds him obnoxious. The opinions of each are meaningful only to themselves and will not serve to change the mind of the other.

I think Cthulu's point was not that Pliny thought panthers were mythical beasts, but that he knew perfectly well that when he used panthers (or anything else) as an allegorical metaphor, he was writing fiction. But in his time, reading audiences did not demand such strict delineation between fact and fiction, or between observational writing and philosophical writing. Both pure reporting of observation and philosophy were equally considered "truth," and therefore would often be presented together, in the same way. Only in those days, only the least educated were confused by that.

I've already agreed that Classical authors didn't maintain a strict separation between fact and fiction giving Herodotus as an example, but the original point of discussion was whether the authors of Genesis believed in the factual truth of their stories (irrespective of whether they also attached allegorical meaning to the tales).

I don't want to get into an in depth discussion about Dawkins' character so if you've no objections I'll snip a lot of this:

So, in your opinion, you think talking down to people as if they are little children is a friendly approach?

I didn't say anything like that:

Take Dennett: his Breaking the Spell tries so hard to be understanding and non-confrontational that it almost verges on being patronising, with the tone of an endlessly patient teacher trying to persuade a stubborn toddler "Yes, I'm sure your scripture is the one true word of God, but Tommy says that about his too. Why don't we discuss this reasonably and try to come to some sort of consensus?" and yet he's frequently accused of militancy!

Firstly, note that I said it almost verges on being patronising, not that it actually was.

Secondly, the point was that however non-confrontational an atheist writer tries to be they'll still be accused of militancy because they're being held to an unjust standard. You may be able to make a case for Hitchens or Harris being 'militant', but using the word to describe Dawkins or Dennett distorts the word's meaning.

I would expect people who appeal to reason to behave reasonably.

And I'd say that, in the current political situation, it's eminently reasonable for an atheist to be hostile towards religion.

No, you may not because you are talking down to me

If that's your impression then I apologise, but it was a genuine question based on past observations that many of the loudest critics of Dawkins have little familiarity with his work.

[you] are a fan of Dawkins intent on defending him no matter what, even to the point of misrepresenting what I originally said (I have never critiqued his books or movies)

I certainly wouldn't defend him 'no matter what', and I've criticised his books and arguments in the past when I disagree with them. My question about which books you've read has nothing to do with misrepresentation, only an honest curiousity as to where you got your impressions from.

No, you missed my point. I have already stated my point several times. I do not believe it would help much to state it again.

Your point being that you think he's lying about his beliefs?

Personal insult is always a good tactic.

I told you what I meant.

And I'm explaining why I originally misunderstood you, responding to your accusations of being disingenious "You know what else annoys me? People who pretend they haven't read something."

Did the UK really need him to do all those things? Was no one else doing it?

Nobody prominent, no. Terry Sanderson is the only other name which springs to mind and he's doesn't get much press.

You evidently enjoy the way in which he sets out the atheist position. Apparently, you enjoy it so much that you will not allow anyone else to not enjoy it.

Eh? I have no problem with the people who read the God Delusion and disliked it if they can give good reasons for it, but I've encountered many people who've told me how awful it is without reading it and I don't have any time for them.

So this means that you do, in fact, seek conflict with religious people, rather than peaceful co-existence? So, the OP would be right, if "almost everyone" just meant you?

I'd be more than happy with peaceful co-existence, but it has to be on equal terms. How do we get there? By challenging religious privilege! I don't seek conflict with religious people per se, only with those who negatively affect me (either through political campaigning or through persistent proseltysing).

Yes, it is, if only because it conveniently ignores the part where I said that religion has no business making factual claims like science.

Which is an odd definition since it would exclude Christianity, Islam and Judaism from the catergory of religion.

I've already agreed that Classical authors didn't maintain a strict separation between fact and fiction giving Herodotus as an example, but the original point of discussion was whether the authors of Genesis believed in the factual truth of their stories (irrespective of whether they also attached allegorical meaning to the tales).
And the point is that it does not matter whether they literally believed the events happened or not. Just like it does not matter whether Pliny knew there was really such a beast as a panther when he told his allegorical story featuring a panther. There are two different kinds of truth at work in such stories, and they are not mutually interdependent. Pliny's panther story could be entirely wrong about panthers but entirely correct about the philosophical point he was making. Since the point of the story was the allegory, it does not matter to the truth of the story if Pliny knew or didn't know he was not accurately describing panthers. If the philosophical point was correct, the inaccuracies about panthers would not invalidate it.

Likewise with Genesis, it does not matter whether the authors believed the events really happened or knew they were writing fiction. The purpose of the story is to introduce a god-concept and establish a relationship between humans and that god. The exact same story could have been written using any sequence of events, including the modern scientific one if it had existed at the time. For the purpose of the story, all such things are mere set-dressing.

As has been pointed out, historically, Bible literalism as a doctrine is a relatively recent invention. Lots of uneducated people, who did not have access to whatever real knowledge about the natural world was available in their time, did take the Bible literally, but it can equally be said of any other religion and about non-religious people that they have believed things that were wrong because they had inaccurate information. Humans base their beliefs on the information they have. If the only information they have is the Bible, is it any wonder they believe it? But only a few churches have ever tried to control information to such an extent that they establish a doctrine of rejecting real natural history in favor of the Bible.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the authors of Genesis took it literally, but plenty of indirect evidence that suggests it is likely that they did not.

And the point is that it does not matter whether they literally believed the events happened or not. Just like it does not matter whether Pliny knew there was really such a beast as a panther when he told his allegorical story featuring a panther.

Pliny's intentions most certainly do matter when we're analysing his writings to distinguish fact from fiction, and if Genesis was written with the intention of providing a factual account of origins then its failure casts doubts on the authority of the rest of the Bible, no?

There are two different kinds of truth at work in such stories, and they are not mutually interdependent. Pliny's panther story could be entirely wrong about panthers but entirely correct about the philosophical point he was making.

Incidentally, what philosophical point do you think he's making in his description?

Panthers are light-colored but have small spots like eyes. Their wonderful smell attracts all four-footed creatures, but the savagery of their heads frightens the creatures away. Therefore, to catch prey, panthers hide their heads as their smell attracts the prey animals within reach. Some people say that panthers have a mark on their shoulder that resembles a crescent moon. Panthers occur most frequently in Africa and Syria.

Since the point of the story was the allegory, it does not matter to the truth of the story if Pliny knew or didn't know he was not accurately describing panthers. If the philosophical point was correct, the inaccuracies about panthers would not invalidate it.

Likewise with Genesis, it does not matter whether the authors believed the events really happened or knew they were writing fiction. The purpose of the story is to introduce a god-concept and establish a relationship between humans and that god. The exact same story could have been written using any sequence of events, including the modern scientific one if it had existed at the time. For the purpose of the story, all such things are mere set-dressing.

As has been pointed out, historically, Bible literalism as a doctrine is a relatively recent invention. Lots of uneducated people, who did not have access to whatever real knowledge about the natural world was available in their time, did take the Bible literally, but it can equally be said of any other religion and about non-religious people that they have believed things that were wrong because they had inaccurate information. Humans base their beliefs on the information they have. If the only information they have is the Bible, is it any wonder they believe it? But only a few churches have ever tried to control information to such an extent that they establish a doctrine of rejecting real natural history in favor of the Bible.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the authors of Genesis took it literally, but plenty of indirect evidence that suggests it is likely that they did not.

Seriously? How many Christian and Jewish writers in antiquity can you think of who denied the literal existence of Adam? How about Abraham?

Josephus mentions the philosophical overtones of Genesis in his Antiquities, but he still reports the stories as literal history.

Augustine in noted for his liberal interpretation of Genesis, but he still believed in the giants described therein and suggested that the existence of large fossils (which he took to be the bones of giants) were sufficient to persuade sceptics, so apparently even he believed in the literal truth of the story.

Early geologists were sure that their work would tie into the Flood and the Bible and philosophers were burnt by the Church for proposing that men came from apes. Belief in a literal creation is by no means a modern belief.

I don't want to get into an in depth discussion about Dawkins' character so if you've no objections I'll snip a lot of this:
If I was a worshipper of the God of Abraham, I'd thank him for it.


I didn't say anything like that:



Firstly, note that I said it almost verges on being patronising, not that it actually was.
I'm sorry, but that reads to me like a weaseling attempt to soften the hit. It's still a hit.

Secondly, the point was that however non-confrontational an atheist writer tries to be they'll still be accused of militancy because they're being held to an unjust standard. You may be able to make a case for Hitchens or Harris being 'militant', but using the word to describe Dawkins or Dennett distorts the word's meaning.
And as I asked you once before, so? As in, so what? All I have to do is exist to be called anti-Christian, a threat to American society, even demonic. What do I care what such yapping dogs say? The opinions of idiots do not interest me, and I do not let them dictate my public image. Actually, I tell a sort-of lie -- I really love it when my enemies insult me, almost as much as I love it when I make that vein in their temples start to throb.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see why it should bother some atheists so much if people they don't respect verbally attack them. I would think that would indicate that the atheist message is effective. It is no reason to get all defensive and upset. Even less is it a reason to respond in the way they say you will. There is no reason to let your enemies dictate the rules you will play by.

And I'd say that, in the current political situation, it's eminently reasonable for an atheist to be hostile towards religion.
To me, that is a very sad situation to be in. To me, that is just adopting the same unreasoning and bigoted mindset as the people you oppose, and it shuts off many possible avenues of progress. I do not believe that we defeat our enemies by becoming them.


If that's your impression then I apologise, but it was a genuine question based on past observations that many of the loudest critics of Dawkins have little familiarity with his work.
If you are person who lives by reason and a connection to reality, I would think you would know that relying too much on assumptions and presumptions is never a good idea.

I certainly wouldn't defend him 'no matter what', and I've criticised his books and arguments in the past when I disagree with them. My question about which books you've read has nothing to do with misrepresentation, only an honest curiousity as to where you got your impressions from.
As I have told you more than once (honestly, being forced to repeat myself is my single biggest pet peeve in NSG), I got my impressions from observing the man himself in public engagements.

Your point being that you think he's lying about his beliefs?
No. My point being that I think he is lying about his willingness to change those beliefs, because his criteria for accepting religious beliefs would be for them to become scientific fact. In other words, he would not be changing his mind at all. Religion would have to change to suit him.

And I'm explaining why I originally misunderstood you, responding to your accusations of being disingenious "You know what else annoys me? People who pretend they haven't read something."



Nobody prominent, no. Terry Sanderson is the only other name which springs to mind and he's doesn't get much press.
Others have pointed that out to me, and in response I have felt sorrow for the UK that that is the case. I went on to point out that it is not the case in the US, and perhaps that is one reason why Dawkins is received differently in the US than in the UK.

Eh? I have no problem with the people who read the God Delusion and disliked it if they can give good reasons for it, but I've encountered many people who've told me how awful it is without reading it and I don't have any time for them.
I refer you to what I wrote to Longhaul (on the assumption that you have not read it):
originally posted by ME
And I enjoy a good polemic now and then. They are a bracing tonic when used judiciously. I have nothing against polemics per se. This is the reason why I have refused to critique Dawkins' books. The man has a right to say what he likes in whatever way he likes. I have a right not to like it, but I have no right and would never presume to blame him for saying it.


I'd be more than happy with peaceful co-existence, but it has to be on equal terms. How do we get there? By challenging religious privilege! I don't seek conflict with religious people per se, only with those who negatively affect me (either through political campaigning or through persistent proseltysing).
You think you can achieve peace by confrontation? I think you might be wrong about that.

I live in a country where potential confrontation surrounds me every day. I exercise my rights, live my life openly, and get my way in most things, yet I do not engage in confrontation or conflict with those who would oppose me. I do often get the feeling that my potential opponents are frustrated by this, but so what? It's not my job to give them what they want, so I do not give them the fight they are looking for. I handle them in other ways.

Oh, and as for "persistent proselytizing," being an American who believes in the Revolution, I support free speech and freedom of religion for all people. Therefore, they may preach and proselytize all they like. What they may not do is make me listen to them, because I have and will exercise the same rights as they. But it does not bother me in the least if they sell their product to each other or to anyone else or to the squirrels in the park.

Which is an odd definition since it would exclude Christianity, Islam and Judaism from the catergory of religion.
A) My statement was not a definition of religion.

B) Your remark is so incorrect, it sounds like it is based on nothing but prejudice against Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

I'm sorry, but that reads to me like a weaseling attempt to soften the hit. It's still a hit.

'Almost verges on' is very different to 'is'.

And as I asked you once before, so? As in, so what? All I have to do is exist to be called anti-Christian, a threat to American society, even demonic. What do I care what such yapping dogs say? The opinions of idiots do not interest me, and I do not let them dictate my public image. Actually, I tell a sort-of lie -- I really love it when my enemies insult me, almost as much as I love it when I make that vein in their temples start to throb.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see why it should bother some atheists so much if people they don't respect verbally attack them. I would think that would indicate that the atheist message is effective. It is no reason to get all defensive and upset. Even less is it a reason to respond in the way they say you will. There is no reason to let your enemies dictate the rules you will play by.

My point being that it's unfair to accuse Dawkins of coming over in an aggressive manner since he's only perceived as such due to prejudice against atheism.

To me, that is a very sad situation to be in. To me, that is just adopting the same unreasoning and bigoted mindset as the people you oppose, and it shuts off many possible avenues of progress. I do not believe that we defeat our enemies by becoming them.

Silly insults and equivocation.

If you are person who lives by reason and a connection to reality, I would think you would know that relying too much on assumptions and presumptions is never a good idea.

Which is why I attempted to make a more informed judgement by, erm, asking you? Rather than assume that you would be the same I asked you politely which of his books you'd read and which of his documentaries you'd seen, at which point you refused to answer.

As I have told you more than once (honestly, being forced to repeat myself is my single biggest pet peeve in NSG),

When would these multiple occasions be? You may have implied that you'd seen him live, but you certainly never said that this was the sole basis for your impressions of him (since you refused to say whether you'd read his books).

I got my impressions from observing the man himself in public engagements.

No. My point being that I think he is lying about his willingness to change those beliefs, because his criteria for accepting religious beliefs would be for them to become scientific fact. In other words, he would not be changing his mind at all. Religion would have to change to suit him.

Most major religions make fact claims, "becoming science" has nothing to do with it.

Others have pointed that out to me, and in response I have felt sorrow for the UK that that is the case. I went on to point out that it is not the case in the US, and perhaps that is one reason why Dawkins is received differently in the US than in the UK.


I refer you to what I wrote to Longhaul (on the assumption that you have not read it):

What does accepting free speech have to do with not criticising something? Voltaire was a passionate defender of free speech but that mean he never criticised anyone...

You think you can achieve peace by confrontation? I think you might be wrong about that.

Did you miss the part about "it has to be on equal terms"? We need confrontation to gain equality, and then we can have peace.

Oh, and as for "persistent proselytizing," being an American who believes in the Revolution, I support free speech and freedom of religion for all people. Therefore, they may preach and proselytize all they like. What they may not do is make me listen to them, because I have and will exercise the same rights as they. But it does not bother me in the least if they sell their product to each other or to anyone else or to the squirrels in the park.

Nice strawman: I fully support the right to free speech.


t has to be on equal termsA) My statement was not a definition of religion.

B) Your remark is so incorrect, it sounds like it is based on nothing but prejudice against Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Prejudice? Bullshit. Christianity believes in the physical ressurection of Jesus, that is a fact claim.

You think you can achieve peace by confrontation?

yes. and provided that the goal of justice and equality is achieved, it would be a qualitatively better peace than the 'peace' of cowering in the shadows. this is obvious.

Pliny's intentions most certainly do matter when we're analysing his writings to distinguish fact from fiction, and if Genesis was written with the intention of providing a factual account of origins then its failure casts doubts on the authority of the rest of the Bible, no?
So you first claim to have agreed with Cthulu's point and now you get it completely wrong.

WE apply a standard to Pliny's writings that simply did not exist in Pliny's time. WE make a distinction between fact and fiction that simply did not exist in Pliny's time. So OUR notions of the effect of Pliny's intentions on the meaning of his writing mean nothing in actual reference to Pliny because our notions are created (A) in a context of intellectual construction utterly alien to Pliny and (B) without access to Pliny to ask him what his intentions actually were beyond merely the "writing of an allegory." So all of this means that our interpretations of Pliny are meaningful only to us and tell us nothing at all about what Pliny meant by his story nor about how his contemporary readers understood the story.

Second, where has it been established that the purpose of Genesis was to provide a factual account of origins? Hm? Are you the owner of some ground-shaking ancient document written by one of the authors of the book in which he says that is its purpose? I notice that, in order to promote your speculation of what Genesis is for, you competely ignored my explanation of what Genesis is for. By the way, my explanation is one that has been put forward by numerous religious scholars over the past 50 years, both theologists and non-religious experts on comparative religion. It's not something I just pulled out of my own ass.

Incidentally, what philosophical point do you think he's making in his description?
Who cares?

Seriously? How many Christian and Jewish writers in antiquity can you think of who denied the literal existence of Adam? How about Abraham?
Oh, and now you know the minds of ancient Christians and Jews, enough to know they were so different from their pagan contemporaries?

And what about Abraham?

Josephus mentions the philosophical overtones of Genesis in his Antiquities, but he still reports the stories as literal history.
Again, last time I'm going to say this, it does not matter if he thought it really happened. The POINT of the story was the mystical and philsophical content. If the story had been told about Julius Caesar himself and could have been proven in Josephus's own time to have been fiction, it would still not change the part of the story that was considered the important "truth," which is NOT the part that was believed to be fact.

Augustine in noted for his liberal interpretation of Genesis, but he still believed in the giants described therein and suggested that the existence of large fossils (which he took to be the bones of giants) were sufficient to persuade sceptics, so apparently even he believed in the literal truth of the story.

Early geologists were sure that their work would tie into the Flood and the Bible and philosophers were burnt by the Church for proposing that men came from apes. Belief in a literal creation is by no means a modern belief.
You are arguing that the story is supposed to be history and that since it isn't, that makes the whole story worthless.

It is pointed out to you that claims of fact are not the point or purpose of the story so lack of them does not actually change the worth of the story. You do not address that argument, you merely ignore it.

It is pointed out to you that ancient writers and readers made a different kind of distinction between fact and fiction than we do today and that, by their standards, it was okay to present fiction as if it was true, even if they knew it technically wasn't, IF factual truth was not the kind of truth they were looking for. You claim to accept that point but continue to try to judge the ancients by modern standards.

You further make assumptions about what ancient people believed on the basis of just a few ancient sources. Even though those sources are today accepted as authoritative about certain points of religion, only a fool would claim they are general representatives of what the ancients thought. There were a lot of ancients, you know. They weren't a hive mind, and they didn't all read the exact same books.

And as for "giant bones," are you under the impression that Augustine believed in giants only because they were mentioned in the Bible? Dinosaur bones were believed to be the bones of giant people or monsters for countless generations before Augustine and before Christianity. Whole temples enshrined such bones in ancient Greece, and there were even ancient travel guides telling tourists where to go see them. Apparently, existence of giants was considered common knowledge in the ancient world, because, you know, look at the bones! Were they going to deny the existence of huge honking bones, some of which looked like modern human bones, only giant (the legs, which were often all that survived intact)? The belief in giants had nothing at all to do with religion of any kind, but it did have to do with perfectly reasonable people interpreting the limited data available to them. Are you going to declare that religion is invalid because the ancients did not find enough complete dinosaur skeletons to reconstruct whole animals? Does that mean that all of paleontology is invalidated because, for so many years, scientists were putting the wrong head on the brontosaurus's body? Seriously, judging the validity of religion based on incorrect non-religious ideas about nature is like judging the validity of cancer research based on some people's inability to understand rotissary baseball.

'Almost verges on' is very different to 'is'.
Yes, it's way more sarcastic, in some contexts.

My point being that it's unfair to accuse Dawkins of coming over in an aggressive manner since he's only perceived as such due to prejudice against atheism.
Ah, I understand now. You just assumed that when I said I found Dawkins aggressive and annoying it was because I'm prejudiced against atheism. I see. And you know that I'm prejudiced against atheism how, exactly?

The fact is, I am NOT prejudiced against atheism at all. In fact, although I am not an atheist myself (I am a polytheist, arguably the polar opposite of an atheist), I much prefer my government to adopt an atheistic, secularist stance in regards to law and public policy.

My point in stating my opinion of Dawkins was precisely to show that one does not have to be a fundamentalist Christian to dislike him. I see now that point was lost on you due to your own prejudice that only those who are prejudiced against atheism could possibly dislike Dawkins.

Silly insults and equivocation.
"Insults"? Are you saying that, when fundamentalists cop an attitude towards you, it is prejudice, but when you cop the same attitude towards them, it is not, and that suggesting otherwise is just an insult?

"Equivocation"? How is it equivocation? My stance is firm. We do not defeat our enemies by becoming them, i.e. acting like them. What's equivocal about that?

Which is why I attempted to make a more informed judgement by, erm, asking you? Rather than assume that you would be the same I asked you politely which of his books you'd read and which of his documentaries you'd seen, at which point you refused to answer.
How many times to do I have to tell you why I am not going to answer that question before you stop harping on it as if it has anything to do with what I actually said about Dawkins?

When would these multiple occasions be? You may have implied that you'd seen him live, but you certainly never said that this was the sole basis for your impressions of him (since you refused to say whether you'd read his books).
Sigh. Yes, I did say that it was sole basis for my impressions of him. I have said it at least three times, so far.

Most major religions make fact claims, "becoming science" has nothing to do with it.
So? As I already said (and you are really getting on my nerves with the repetitiveness of your arguments), when they make claims of fact, science can prove those claims wrong. But when they make claims of religion, science cannot prove anything about such claims at all.

Prejudice? Bullshit. Christianity believes in the physical ressurection of Jesus, that is a fact claim.
See the Pliny / alegory/metaphor versus fact argument for my answer to that.

EDIT: Due to quote errors, I missed responding to your groundless claim that I accused you of not supporting free speech. Kindly understand this:

1) When I talk about myself, I am not talking about you. I said I held a certain opinion towards proselytizers because of my personal belief in free speech. That has precisely nothing to do with you.

2) I explained why I refuse to talk about Dawkins books. Please find a way to cope with that refusal because it's not going to change. (To be entirely honest, you are starting to remind me a little of those proselytizers who keep pushing me to read the Bible as if (a) I haven't and (b) if only I would, then I'd immediately see the wonderfulness of it. Do you think that I must not have read Dawkins or else I'd be in complete agreement with you about what a charming person he is? The truth is I agree with many of his arguments, but I still think he is an obnoxious, annoying jerk. And no, I am not going to start parsing out his books with you now. Period.)

You cited the Bible as an authoritative source...
Hate to break it to you, but non Christians don't think the Bible is the word of God.

It's funny, as a side note, how so many Christians can't understand that. They quote the Bible to get people to convert, clearly too stupid to realize that if people accepted the Bible as true, they'd already be Christians.

... Ok, I could have just been defending Christians using their own doctrine to justify Christians' actions, but yeah., you got me on a technicality. So, what about the rest of the stuff I said?

When did I say you were a Christian?


A) I didn't, and B) why not, if it's such a safe bet?


It's not mud-flinging if it's true. Did you or did you not say in this very thread that it is okay to lie to gain conversion so long as you can construct the lie in such a way that the converted ends up believing in the religion rather than the lie? And as part of that, did you or did you not say it is okay to lie?

And when I declared that evangelism is annoying, did you or did you not respond with a Bible quote that you seemed to think encouraged the kind of behavior that I said was annoying?


Which is worse depends on what side of the conversation you're on. If you're the evangelist, then I guess you would think that I should put up with being annoyed by you in order to allow you to save me from the horrible fate you think lies before me. However, if you're me then you don't believe in the existence of that horrible fate, and therefore there is zero reason for me to put up with being annoyed by you. And if you were me, the unbeliever, you would also believe that real annoyance is worse than a mythical hell.


Glad to help out. I'm sure I'll be able to provide you with many more opportunities, as long as you don't go running away from threads every time they don't go your way.

Ok, first off, it's mud-flinging if its designed to infuriate the other person. Yes, I said it was ok to lie, but I already explained that. As for the different sides of the conversation... yes, you are right. It does depend on the point of view. Christians are just trying to change the other person's point of view. And thanks for helping. Although just because I don't sit at my computer all day, doesn't mean I'm running away. It just means I'm busy.

Of course. Though admittedly halftruths, implications and carefully leaving out certain facts are used far, far more often than outright lies. However, those seem to form a corepart of the converters arsenal.



Why not ? If a Christian believes saving other peoples souls is more important than being truthful, isn't that noble ?



Many people would disagree.

First, ok, if it seems that way to you. I guess we just know different Christians.

Second, yes, I suppose that it would be. The point I was getting at is that how is it possible for a Christian to preach the Word of God, while lying, and also be a Christian? If they thought they were lying, they couldn't believe what they were saying, the Word of God, and therefore not be Christian.

Third, that's what NationStates is for, isn't it? :p

Talrania, that verse is about God's reassurance that prayer will be answered. This isn't an endorsement of being a pushy missionary. Consider it along with James 1:5:

Yes, that is true... and I'm not trying to argue with you, but God's Word was made to be applicable to our lives, so I thought it seemed relevant. Although I suppose it was a little misplaced....

Ok, first off, it's mud-flinging if its designed to infuriate the other person.
I am not responsible for you taking internet debates personally.

Yes, I said it was ok to lie, but I already explained that.
And in my view, a lie is a lie and person who lies is a liar, no matter why they do it. I happen to think the majority of evangelists do not tell lies to get their way. In fact, many of them seem to think that lying is wrong.

As for the different sides of the conversation... yes, you are right. It does depend on the point of view. Christians are just trying to change the other person's point of view.
I feel sorry for them. It must be hard to go through one's whole day failing over and over.

And thanks for helping. Although just because I don't sit at my computer all day, doesn't mean I'm running away. It just means I'm busy.
You said you would find it hard to continue posting. That's what I was talking about. I wasn't sitting here all that time waiting for you to come back, either.

First, ok, if it seems that way to you. I guess we just know different Christians.

Possibly. But it is telling that the deceivers are the ones that get airtime. Take the Vatican (condoms with tiny holes anyone ?). Or the ID movement. President Bush. All the people posting on NS general that the USA is a Christian nation ;)

The point I was getting at is that how is it possible for a Christian to preach the Word of God, while lying, and also be a Christian? If they thought they were lying, they couldn't believe what they were saying, the Word of God, and therefore not be Christian.

Depends on the lie. If a Christian would for instance claim the historicity of Jesus is not disputed, that it is 100% certain he existed, that Christian would be lying.
However, it would be a lie that does not contradict his/her faith.

I am not responsible for you taking internet debates personally.


And in my view, a lie is a lie and person who lies is a liar, no matter why they do it. I happen to think the majority of evangelists do not tell lies to get their way. In fact, many of them seem to think that lying is wrong.


I feel sorry for them. It must be hard to go through one's whole day failing over and over.


You said you would find it hard to continue posting. That's what I was talking about. I wasn't sitting here all that time waiting for you to come back, either.

Sorry. What I meant was that it seemed it was meant to make me mad, but in truth it didn't.

You are right about the lying, 100%. It just seems to me, anyway, that lying is a better alternative to condemning somebody else to hell.

And yes, it is hard to be a Christian. But it is worth it for the chance of somebody listening, to save just one more person.

And sorry. I don't remember saying I would find it hard to continue posting, but I probably did. My bad.

Possibly. But it is telling that the deceivers are the ones that get airtime. Take the Vatican (condoms with tiny holes anyone ?). Or the ID movement. President Bush. All the people posting on NS general that the USA is a Christian nation ;)



Depends on the lie. If a Christian would for instance claim the historicity of Jesus is not disputed, that it is 100% certain he existed, that Christian would be lying.
However, it would be a lie that does not contradict his/her faith.

Maybe. But I suppose I'm not one to judge who is lying and who isn't. I'll admit, the Vatican does have its problems. (I'm not Catholic, by the way.) And even though the USA started out Christian, you are right, it isn't a Christian nation anymore. But it still has Christian roots which show themselves every once in a while. :D At least where I live.

Well, Christians believe 100% that Jesus existed. So they could say that and think it to be true. They couldn't argue that there are people, and evidence, that show contradictory, but they can say that they believe 100% that he existed.

Well, Christians believe 100% that Jesus existed. So they could say that and think it to be true. They couldn't argue that there are people, and evidence, that show contradictory, but they can say that they believe 100% that he existed.

Very good point. But I don't think all Christians believe that he existed 100%.

Very good point. But I don't think all Christians believe that he existed 100%.

That's definitely possible. I'm not sure how, to be honest, since Christianity is based on him, but maybe.

And thank you.

It's not the world against Christianity, it's the World versus religion, full stop.
Any suggestions on how to deal with the problem ?:cool:

It's not the world against Christianity, it's the World versus religion, full stop.
Any suggestions on how to deal with the problem ?:cool:

Nothing easier. Let everyone in the world choose to mind their own business and stay out of other people's private concerns. Presto! "Versus" situation gone.

Of course, the one thing that would solve a whole host of the world's problems is the one thing that it seems the majority of people will simply refuse to do.

I am not anti-christianity, or in fact anti-religion, as far as I'm concerned it's good for people to beleive in something. I beleive in a higher plane of existence, though what form it would take I really don't know. I also believe that there must be something after death.

However, I have had several running with both Catholics and Muslims due to my sexuality (me being gay), because they believe it's wrong.

Despite our obviously different views, I have many Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist... friends, because we all learn to accept one another for who we are.

And yes, it is hard to be a Christian. how so?

how so?

Sometimes, when Christians try to use the law to force others to live up to their standards (you see, if they force others to do it, then they don't have to themselves because God rewards them with a free ride to whatever they want in airport restrooms), those people say no!!!

CHRISTIANS ARE SO OPPRESSED!

how so?

Talk to Muravyets about it. He said it must be hard to be a Christian, always preaching, when it seems like no one will listen. I just agreed.

Talk to Muravyets about it. He said it must be hard to be a Christian, always preaching, when it seems like no one will listen. I just agreed.

"We go through all the trouble of forcing our beliefs down their throats, and do our level best to turn this country into a theocracy out of the kindness of our hearts, and this is how they repay us!"

BTW, Muravyets is a she.

Talk to Muravyets about it. He said it must be hard to be a Christian, always preaching, when it seems like no one will listen. I just agreed.
She didn't say anything about "seems." She said she felt sorry for Christians living a life of daily failure. I was also being sarcastic. I don't feel really feel sorry for Christians. It's not like they're forced to do things they fail at.

BTW, Muravyets is a she.

Sorry, I didn't know, I just kinda used the generic masculine pronoun. I'm somewhat weird like that when it comes to English. ;)

She didn't say anything about "seems." She said she felt sorry for Christians living a life of daily failure. I was also being sarcastic. I don't feel really feel sorry for Christians. It's not like they're forced to do things they fail at.

I thought I had picked up a hint of sarcasm. But I just think that it is true because of that, that it is hard to be a Christian when no one listens anymore.

I thought I had picked up a hint of sarcasm. But I just think that it is true because of that, that it is hard to be a Christian when no one listens anymore.
Well, the thing that I think makes that really sad is that so many people -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- suggest ways in which to deal with that, but they are always ignored.* It almost seems as if those Christians who feel that life is hard because no one listens to them don't really want to be listened to, don't want their lives to be less hard, or else they might take some of the suggestions of how to make it easier.

*You can find examples right here in this very thread...somewhere.

Well, the thing that I think makes that really sad is that so many people -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- suggest ways in which to deal with that, but they are always ignored.* It almost seems as if those Christians who feel that life is hard because no one listens to them don't really want to be listened to, don't want their lives to be less hard, or else they might take some of the suggestions of how to make it easier.

*You can find examples right here in this very thread...somewhere.

I could see that... everybody loves a pity party, I suppose. But how could it be easier? Aside from not trying as hard to convert others. I don't need an example, if you don't want. But I'm not sure what advice could help.

I could see that... everybody loves a pity party, I suppose. But how could it be easier? Aside from not trying as hard to convert others. I don't need an example, if you don't want. But I'm not sure what advice could help.
I would advise you to read the thread rather than ask me, because I am conversion-proof, and I detest evangelism, and never give so much as the time of day to god-peddlars of any kind or brand. I have more than enough gods on my docket already. I don't need to add other people's. Also, I am far more motivated to make my own life easier rather than anyone else's, and for me that would mean other people wouldn't talk to me at all without permission, much less try to pitch their religion to me. Silence is golden, after all.

I hope the world wins. Also, Christians are not oppressed, they do the oppressing. Religion does oppressing. Also, it's damn near impossible for a minority to oppress a majority without military supremacy or something like that.

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.

You annoy me. Get out of my sight. Tucker, Christians are going to get victimized. The Bible says we will. No matter what nuts like the one I quoted or others on this thread say ignore them. We get the prize in the long run. ;)

So Christianity is like a lottery? Sounds reasonable. You might end up in Heaven, but Hell is far more likely.

You annoy me. Get out of my sight. Tucker, Christians are going to get victimized. The Bible says we will. No matter what nuts like the one I quoted or others on this thread say ignore them. We get the prize in the long run. ;)

Ha! Misguided fool. Open your eyes, while you still can. "Nuts", you say? Isn't a little offensive for the Bible? Oh, right, it legitimizes slavery. Do you know how many innocent people have been killed because of your arrogant "religion"? You get out of my sight. Or shall you have me tortured to death for not believing what you say? Please, sit down and stop talking before you hurt your tiny brain.

I could see that... everybody loves a pity party, I suppose. But how could it be easier? Aside from not trying as hard to convert others. I don't need an example, if you don't want. But I'm not sure what advice could help.

Be silent! The only pity party I see in the world, are those who say religion is oppressing people. Look its not our fault people don't convert. The Holy Spirit does the converting we just place the knowledge in people's heads. The fact is people make the choice we don't force them. We work pretty dang hard over seas in places like Africa where entire villages are being converted because they have the heart to listen to us and God unlike most Americans.

Yuuzhaun Vong, you could be a recurring character in South Park! Mind you, I'm not entirely certain if that's supposed to be a compliment...

Be silent! The only pity party I see in the world, are those who say religion is oppressing people. Look its not our fault people don't convert. The Holy Spirit does the converting we just place the knowledge in people's heads. The fact is people make the choice we don't force them. We work pretty dang hard over seas in places like Africa where entire villages are being converted because they have the heart to listen to us and God unlike most Americans.

Note to those who aren't aware: In the Star Wars Expanded Universe, the Yuuzhan Vong are a race of genocidal maniacs responsible for the deaths of countless trillions. In other words, he may not be expressing beliefs he holds.

Note to those who aren't aware: In the Star Wars Expanded Universe, the Yuuzhan Vong are a race of genocidal maniacs responsible for the deaths of countless trillions. In other words, he may not be expressing beliefs he holds.

Hahahaha!!! Nice!

how so?

Because whether you believe it or not, Satan tempts Christians with things he wouldn't use on non-Christians. Non-Christians he doesn't need to tempt so much because they are blind and he knows it and laughs at their ignorance. However we Christians are harder so he throws harder stuff our way.

Here is a verse you might take into consideration before you start bashing us again. Look around you and you will see that Bible prophesy is the only prophesy in the world that are coming true right now and science has proved it, though they won't go on FOX News to admit it:

"Everything is permissible"-but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"-but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising the questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it" 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

You see Christians must think of others, not themselves. You tell me if an Environmentalist would say, "Eat anything sold in the meat market...". For they are corrupt. Sure its good to take care of the environment, but they won't let us drill for oil and they say animal rights as even to humans. God values your life above all things. He loves you and cares about you, but he will not stand for your blasphemy against his people, both Israel and the Church. You and I both know that there are lazy Christians, but we are all sinners and we can't all be perfect. The Bible says that everyman falls short of the Glory of God. Only Jesus Christ saves us from our sins. And he does not wish that any man perish in hell. But unfortunately, those who reject Christ are bound to that fate. What you don't realize is that any sin can be forgiven if you have accepted Jesus. All except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus says, "If they blasphemy against the Son of Man (Jesus) they will be forgiven. But if they blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, they will not be forgiven."

Hahahaha!!! Nice!

I won't take that as an insult. Yes I chose the Yuuzhan Vong because of their strength and determination. But, mind you they were religious zealots. I tweaked their race to make them serve Christianity. Besides I don't care if you have anything against me or my religion. Only the Muslim religion kills because the Koran tells them to hundreds of times. You guys might not understand now but you will soon.;)

I would advise you to read the thread rather than ask me, because I am conversion-proof, and I detest evangelism, and never give so much as the time of day to god-peddlars of any kind or brand. I have more than enough gods on my docket already. I don't need to add other people's. Also, I am far more motivated to make my own life easier rather than anyone else's, and for me that would mean other people wouldn't talk to me at all without permission, much less try to pitch their religion to me. Silence is golden, after all.

No, thats fine. I said that you don't need to show me any examples. I was just also saying I couldn't find anything myself. It was more of an FYI.

Note to those who aren't aware: In the Star Wars Expanded Universe, the Yuuzhan Vong are a race of genocidal maniacs responsible for the deaths of countless trillions. In other words, he may not be expressing beliefs he holds.

What do we have here? Oh yes a complete moron who has graced our presence like a pimple on the face of the universe. Keep in mind I have no problem poping you!

Who are you referring to, Saiyan Dominance? CthulhuFhtagn or alleged Jesus freak Yuuzhaun Vong?

I won't take that as an insult. Yes I chose the Yuuzhan Vong because of their strength and determination. But, mind you they were religious zealots. I tweaked their race to make them serve Christianity. Besides I don't care if you have anything against me or my religion. Only the Muslim religion kills because the Koran tells them to hundreds of times. You guys might not understand now but you will soon.;)

Thats right Yuuzhaun. Forget whatever they say to you. They're guilty of RPing the deaths of millions as well. So they have no right to speak. Plus you seem to be a good person despite what the might say. Im a Christian too so I know how it feels!:D

Be silent! The only pity party I see in the world, are those who say religion is oppressing people. Look its not our fault people don't convert. The Holy Spirit does the converting we just place the knowledge in people's heads. The fact is people make the choice we don't force them. We work pretty dang hard over seas in places like Africa where entire villages are being converted because they have the heart to listen to us and God unlike most Americans.

I guess I didn't state it very clearly, but what I was trying to say is that there are many false prophets, and even real ones, claiming to be Christian in the world who use the pity card to get people on their sides. Christians don't need to be pitied. After all, we are the ones who will be saved.

I guess I didn't state it very clearly, but what I was trying to say is that there are many false prophets, and even real ones, claiming to be Christian in the world who use the pity card to get people on their sides. Christians don't need to be pitied. After all, we are the ones who will be saved.

Thanks you are right. I completly agree with you.

I guess I didn't state it very clearly, but what I was trying to say is that there are many false prophets, and even real ones, claiming to be Christian in the world who use the pity card to get people on their sides. Christians don't need to be pitied. After all, we are the ones who will be saved.

Oh my apologies. Your right I'm sorry.

So another group of people trying to bash Christians huh? Well to be blunt we win! I've read the end of the Book!:cool:

Who are you referring to, Saiyan Dominance? CthulhuFhtagn or alleged Jesus freak Yuuzhaun Vong?

CthulhuFhtagn. I know Yuuzhaun Vong in real life. He is a very active Christian. So back off. You know nothing. This is NationStates, its imaginary (I know its amazing isn't it?) so your allowed to be whatever race you feel like.

Hey I am a 15 year old kid trying to have some fun as my favorite Star Wars alien race. You guys are adults. What can I do but prove what I believe in?:(

Okies, who let the fundies out of their cages? It's going to take forever to get them back in there again :rolleyes:

Okies, who let the fundies out of their cages? It's going to take forever to get them back in there again :rolleyes:

Get back in your own dang cage like a good monkey!!! I can't stand morons like you!!! Stop picking on kids, or shall we take this over to International Incidents and see who ends up in the cage?!:mad:

Get back in your own dang cage like a good monkey!!! I can't stand morons like you!!! Stop picking on kids, or shall we take this over to International Incidents and see who ends up in the cage?!:mad:

:rolleyes:

Thanks you are right. I completly agree with you.

Thank you.

Oh my apologies. Your right I'm sorry.

And thank you.

Hey I am a 15 year old kid trying to have some fun as my favorite Star Wars alien race. You guys are adults. What can I do but prove what I believe in?:(

Not all of us are adults. :D

And even those who are... everybody has to grow older, but growing up is optional. :p

:rolleyes:

You... I cannot and will not be dishonored by...you! Go to the International Incidents cause Im going to obliterate you!:mad:

Not all of us are adults. :D

And even those who are... everybody has to grow older, but growing up is optional. :p

I guess your right.

I guess your right.

Eh... I try.

Because whether you believe it or not, Satan tempts Christians with things he wouldn't use on non-Christians. Non-Christians he doesn't need to tempt so much because they are blind and he knows it and laughs at their ignorance. However we Christians are harder so he throws harder stuff our way.

Here is a verse you might take into consideration before you start bashing us again. Look around you and you will see that Bible prophesy is the only prophesy in the world that are coming true right now and science has proved it, though they won't go on FOX News to admit it:

"Everything is permissible"-but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"-but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising the questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it" 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

You see Christians must think of others, not themselves. You tell me if an Environmentalist would say, "Eat anything sold in the meat market...". For they are corrupt. Sure its good to take care of the environment, but they won't let us drill for oil and they say animal rights as even to humans. God values your life above all things. He loves you and cares about you, but he will not stand for your blasphemy against his people, both Israel and the Church. You and I both know that there are lazy Christians, but we are all sinners and we can't all be perfect. The Bible says that everyman falls short of the Glory of God. Only Jesus Christ saves us from our sins. And he does not wish that any man perish in hell. But unfortunately, those who reject Christ are bound to that fate. What you don't realize is that any sin can be forgiven if you have accepted Jesus. All except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus says, "If they blasphemy against the Son of Man (Jesus) they will be forgiven. But if they blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, they will not be forgiven."

not only can i not figure out the point you are making but when i looked up your bible verse all i found was a discussion of the eucharist

23 For the tradition I received from the Lord and also handed on to you is that on the night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread,
24 and after he had given thanks, he broke it, and he said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'
25 And in the same way, with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.'
26 Whenever you eat this bread, then, and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Therefore anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.

Eh... I try.

I guess its time to grow up and accept that not all of them like us.

not only can i not figure out the point you are making but when i looked up your bible verse all i found was a discussion of the eucharist

23 For the tradition I received from the Lord and also handed on to you is that on the night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread,
24 and after he had given thanks, he broke it, and he said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'
25 And in the same way, with the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.'
26 Whenever you eat this bread, then, and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Therefore anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.

Uh... wrong book! Look in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 23-27

I guess its time to grow up and accept that not all of them like us.

...I'm not saying I'm smarter than them.... unless you are talking about being Christian?

Uh... wrong book! Look in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 23-27

maybe there is some glitch in my online bible.

got a link?

Uh... wrong book! Look in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 23-27

Uhhh... Ashmoria has it right.

I used an actual paper bible.

Oh sorry try chapter 10. I just checked again and your right. Check Chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians.

Uh... wrong book! Look in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 verse 23-27

and while youre doing that, perhaps you would also consider restating your point from that post. i really didnt understand what you were trying to say and that is far more important than a bible verse mix up.

Oh sorry try chapter 10.

Be silent! The only pity party I see in the world, are those who say religion is oppressing people. Look its not our fault people don't convert. The Holy Spirit does the converting we just place the knowledge in people's heads. The fact is people make the choice we don't force them. We work pretty dang hard over seas in places like Africa where entire villages are being converted because they have the heart to listen to us and God unlike most Americans.

This may be the single most arrogant thing I've seen a fundie troll ever post on this forum in the three years I've been here. It IS your fault that people reject your perversion of the Scripture (and the intolerenace and hatred you people spew IS a perversion of Jesus' message whether you choose to acknowledge it or not). It is not the words of Jesus that many here are rejecting; it is this overweening arrogance that we reject. I have yet to meet a single evangelical that I believe has anyone's best interests at heart other than their own. I don't buy for one second that you wish to "save me". Everything I see evangelicals say, whether on TV, in print, or on this forum, shows them to be interested in one thing and one thing only -- control over how others act and think. I don't care if you're only 15; you're old enough to have learned to respect others. If you haven't learned that, then either your parents were derelict in their duty to help you become a useful member of society or you have rejected the lesson in favor of the feeling of power that casting derision upon others gives you. You are NOT an "oppressed minority" in this country; on the contrary, you collectively hold an inordinate amount of power for your numbers. And before you think to point out that I am not being respectful to you, I am well aware of that. You have shown yourself to not be worthy of respect. I suggest you grow up some before you engage in this sort of thing again, young man.

Look would everyone just leave him alone!! Gosh! Try and help him out already!:headbang:

This may be the single most arrogant thing I've seen a fundie troll ever post on this forum in the three years I've been here. It IS your fault that people reject your perversion of the Scripture (and the intolerenace and hatred you people spew IS a perversion of Jesus' message whether you choose to acknowledge it or not). It is not the words of Jesus that many here are rejecting; it is this overweening arrogance that we reject. I have yet to meet a single evangelical that I believe has anyone's best interests at heart other than their own. I don't buy for one second that you wish to "save me". Everything I see evangelicals say, whether on TV, in print, or on this forum, shows them to be interested in one thing and one thing only -- control over how others act and think. I don't care if you're only 15; you're old enough to have learned to respect others. If you haven't learned that, then either your parents were derelict in their duty to help you become a useful member of society or you have rejected the lesson in favor of the feeling of power that casting derision upon others gives you. You are NOT an "oppressed minority" in this country; on the contrary, you collectively hold an inordinate amount of power for your numbers. And before you think to point out that I am not being respectful to you, I am well aware of that. You have shown yourself to not be worthy of respect. I suggest you grow up some before you engage in this sort of thing again, young man.

SHUT UP! :mad:

SHUT UP! :mad:

no. And watch your tone of voice. I will not engage in a flame war with you, don't try it.

Im not one to follow Saiyan in to battle all that often but if you guys are going to spew a kid then Saiyan Im right there with you!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/KeepOnTruckin'.jpg/400px-KeepOnTruckin'.jpg