Trade Your Bible For Porn

An anonymous reader writes "Atheist students at the University of Texas at San Antonio announced that any student over the age of 18 will receive pornographic materials if they trade in religious materials. From the article: 'Leaders of this atheist campaign allege that porn is no worse than what's written in religious texts. A university spokesman says that this controversial cause is completely legal, though he admits a majority of the students on campus do not agree with it.'"

Comments

Stunts

[pudge]

I find that people who feel the need to perform stunts like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "cause." Yes, we get it, you hate the Bible. But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."

So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.

Done. For chrissake, every dictionary definition of dogma even says it's a synonym for religious doctrine. How can that not make sense?

it's easy to rattle off many, many rational religious people throughout history

Who said anything about rational? Any sane person is rational to some degree. The phrase is 'reasoned with'. You can't reason with people who exclude evidence because some book tells them to exclude it.

They don't want rational argument

We know only about this present escapade, not about any previous efforts they may or may not have made. You may be willing to judge them out of ignorant assumptions in absentia, but that only makes you unreasonable and subjective, the worst foundation from which to make judgement. Unless you can point me to evidence that this group has done nothing else, made no other efforts, then I reject the validity of your judgement.

Re:Stunts

[Conorflan]

Stupid? Absolutely.

Nonetheless, I did find it funny however skewed and distorted their logic was.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Oh and just a little clue for you ... all of Protestantism was BASED ON the notion that religious doctrine CAN and SHOULD be questioned, and subject to examination (that was one of the primary bases of the theses, if I may school you via rhyme). The Apostle Paul himself told us to subject all teachings, including his own, to examination. To claim all religious doctrine, including Christian doctrine, is dogma denies a couple thousand years of Christian teachings to the contrary.

Of course, many Christians ARE dogmatic. No doubt there. But only someone truly ignorant on the subject, or maliciously dishonest, would say it is a reflection of the nature of Christian doctrine itself.

Re:Stunts

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, you win. He'll never be able to argue against your ironclad "incorrect" argument.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

There is no strawman. You made no argument besides 'nuh UH!' It is not possible to create a similar but deliberately weaker argument than that for the purpose of deliberately dismantling it. You clearly don't know what a strawman is.

I'll grant that there may be some dictionaries that do not list religious doctrine as one of the definitions of dogma. So, in a absolute sense, yes, not 'every' dictionary, but that is simply deliberate obtuseness on your part about a rhetorical device. Most dictionaries of the English language have the aforementioned as part of the definition, including but not limited to: Random House Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition; Cambridge Dictionary of American English; etc. Stop being disingenuous.

And now the ethnocentrism comes out. Where previously we were talking about religion, suddenly we're talking about Christianity. Of course, why wouldn't we, after all, Christianity is the exception, it's not like all those other religions. Pardon me while I roll my eyes so hard they could put a smooth surface on fresh asphalt.

You want to play that game? Fine. The resurrection of Christ. All Christians must believe it, and the only evidence for it is in religious text, all scientific evidence to the contrary is ignored. That is the very essence of the denotation of dogma.

I think you're being deliberately dense about the difference between rational and reasonable. Do you notice how those are both adjectives? They are not the same word. You don't know much about the definitions, much less connotations, of words do you? A rational person connects causes to effects, learns from experience, etc. etc. A reasonable person is one who is objective, less closed-minded. These are connotations of context. If you just say 'reason' out of nowhere it does not have the same feeling or background of meaning (connotation) as when you talk of 'reasonable people'. In this sense, to use the language fully, it is necessary to look beyond the straight definitions of rational vs. reasonable.

You're incapable of demonstrating a single thing in the Bible that tells anyone to exclude any evidence. You're just inventing something that doesn't exist.

2 Peter 3:5. If you don't believe in creation, you're wrong.
Galatians 1:8. If anybody says something different from the Bible, they are cursed.
2 Corinthians 10:5. This one is so good, it can speak for itself:

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

If that's not clear enough I don't know what is.

That's what YOU were doing to "religious people." I was just playing along in the game you started.

Key word there is ignorant. I know a lot about history and where religion fits into it, including Christianity. I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery, etc. etc. What I said is you don't know anything about these people beyond this story. Until you do, your judgement is weaker than my judgement of religion.

Also, 'judgement' is an accepted alternate spelling. But you wouldn't know that, since you have some strange aversion to dictionaries.

Re:Stunts

[CyberBill]

To quote YOURSELF: "But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring."

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Duh, religions revolve around stunts. For example "look, I'll be sooo alive after I'm dead, promise" or "there's totally a hand of %INSERT CHOSEN DEITY% here"

That's just a - clumsy, I give you that - effort to work on the level of religions; perhaps exploit unsecurity of few people in the way religions do.

Re:Stunts

[trurl7]

Well...yes and no...

Yes, Protestantism is based on questioning your faith. But somehow, you don't find many ex-Protestants-turned-atheists at revival meetings, do you? The "questioning" is not earnest inquiry: suppose you do wind up rejecting the Bible for the badly cribbed ramblings of sunstroke-addled "prophets" (and the occasional self-serving insertion such as Deuteronomy) that it really is. You're not going to be welcomed back into the fold. The truth is that the "questioning" in faith is like teenage girls going to a bar on the slightly sleazy side of town to feel like a risk-taker: technically true, but no one's actually expecting anything to happen.

If your questioning gets you to a re-affirmed belief, then you've "succeeded". If it turns you away you're an evil heretic and need to be burned. (And before anyone says anything, yes, the Protestants did burn people. For one among many examples, look up the Calvinists).

So no, his claim is correct.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

I suspect they are just venting off a bit for their own amusement at the expense of Bible worshipping folks; I don't know how they have it daily, but you know...sometimes having a little laugh is all that remains.

Still, not very productive or sensible...

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

religious people are dogmatic by design

That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.

You really don't know that religions are built around certain dogmas?...

That quote from House implies something obvious which you're trying not to see, "...reasoned with in the matters of religion". Religions obviously require suspension of disbelief, accepting things which are supposedly above reason (which too often leeches over to other areas, unfortunatelly)...you want to tell me you don't know that?

See, rational arguments simply don't work; not against something which in vast, vast majority of cases was simply embedded since earliest years, around what people build large part of social life, continually reinforcing themselves in absolutist value of it.
Yes, I'd say that this stunt is not very productive. But the way of arguing doesn't work; only exploiting...as happened numerous time when one faith replaces another...again, again, again, and again.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Well...yes and no...

Yes, Protestantism is based on questioning your faith.

So you mean "yes and yes." :-) That was my point.

But somehow, you don't find many ex-Protestants-turned-atheists at revival meetings, do you?

Not many, no. I don't go to revival meetings. But I have met people who were Protestants, became atheists, and then became Protestants again. Yes. It is rare, true, but mostly because it is rare to find ANYONE who has one set of beliefs, then changes, and then changes back. You also don't often find atheists-turned-Protestants who then become atheists again. But they do exist, in both directions.

The "questioning" is not earnest inquiry

Utterly false. You're just making that up. You shouldn't do that. In fact, I've never met a Christian that I've known well who has NOT undergone a "crisis of faith" that led to earnest inquiry. You've got it completely backward.

for the badly cribbed ramblings of sunstroke-addled "prophets" (and the occasional self-serving insertion such as Deuteronomy) that it really is

Again, you shouldn't make up such stupid things. It just hurts your argument. You can't back up any of that.

You're not going to be welcomed back into the fold.

False. You lose. In fact, that is precisely what happens.

If your questioning gets you to a re-affirmed belief, then you've "succeeded". If it turns you away you're an evil heretic and need to be burned.

Again, false. In my experience, people pray for you and if you do come back, it is with open arms.

Now, granted, some people (and some sects) will burn you. People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing. What a shock. No one implied otherwise. But for every Fred Phelps there's many more Billy Grahams.

So no, his claim is correct.

Based on what? You provided no evidence beyond assertions that don't actually work out in the real world.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

You really don't know that religions are built around certain dogmas?

If by dogma you mean things that cannot be questioned or are not backed by any evidence, then you're wrong.

Religions obviously require suspension of disbelief

So does everything else, outside of, perhaps, pure mathematics. Irrelevant.

accepting things which are supposedly above reason

False. They are above our CAPACITY to reason, which is not the same thing. Most people accept the Big Bang and other things that are above their capacity to reason, as well, by the way.

you want to tell me you don't know that?

I am telling you that it is false.

As I said to the other commenter: I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

They question the doctrine except for questioning the notion that Protestantism / Christanity is ultimatelly correct and any incosistencies are simply a limit of our understanding. Everything else just follows from that. Every BS can follow from that.

And you really argue that what vast majority of Christians stand for is NOT what Christanity ultimatelly represents? Really?

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

See, you're doing it. Twisting points, "this is just stupid", "that's false", "few examples I saw/didn't saw settle the matter", "Bible itself is correct, some/most just lack understanding"

Anything goes...

PS. It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute :)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

The latter of course. Only those who agree with us can understand those things.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Heh, OK, that was funny. I hope it was intended as such. :-)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Allright, now it's clear that you don't even know the basics of faith. It's specifically about believing in things without evidence - any serious preacher will agree with that.

You...you seem to managed to convince yourself that it's all simply a fact (too unsecure otherwise?), apparently up to a paint of ridiculously treating, say, science on the same terms. Whatever we'll say won't change your mind obviously, but consider this: what of an accomplishment would that be?

Thos things are above YOU CAPACITY, to reason.

You really don't see anything in general Christian doctrine not backed by evidence?... wow...just...wow.

How I'm glad that I don't meet people like you..at all, it would seem (even though I live in a place that's officialy 95+% Christian)

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

See, you're doing it. Twisting points, "this is just stupid", "that's false", "few examples I saw/didn't saw settle the matter", "Bible itself is correct, some/most just lack understanding"

Sigh. Let's go through this one at a time.

First, I twisted no points, that I can see. If I did, point it out and we can discuss it. But either way, twisting points is not related to dogma. People on all sides of EVERY issue twist points; that doesn't make their argument dogma.

And if something is false or stupid, it's not dogma to say so ... it's true. Perhaps you're implying that I think that merely saying so makes it true, but that is incorrect.

As to the "examples" thing ... you made a blanket statement. I pointed out that it doesn't always hold true ... therefore, loigically, it is not true. This is basic logic, and not in any way related to dogma.

As to the latter claim about the Bible being true and people lacking understanding ... I never made such a claim. I pointed out the fact that you were wrong in your characterization of the Bible, but far from being dogmatic about it, I explicitly gave you the opportunity to back it up.

It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute :)

I never did that, or anything like it.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

They question the doctrine except for questioning the notion that Protestantism / Christanity is ultimatelly correct

False. This is questioned all the time.

And you really argue that what vast majority of Christians stand for is NOT what Christanity ultimatelly represents?

I cannot answer that unless you describe what YOU think Christianity "ultimately represents." If you mean that what it "ultimately represents" is that it is "ultimately correct," then ... of course Christians stand for that. But how does standing for something mean you don't ever question it? That makes no sense.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

The text can be seen as using a potentially ambiguous antecedent. As with most claims of 'out of context!' it really can't be settled unless you can read ancient Greek.

Re:Stunts

[trurl7]

Perhaps my use of "earnest inquiry" was unclear. To be precise - it is not the case that Protestantism welcomes a full, unreserved examination of faith, when such examination leads to its rejection. That, were the questioner to reject the faith, his ex-brothers/sisters would rejoice for him and affirm his choice. As you said, they would "pray for him". To me, that says they disagree with his choice. Perhaps they won't stone him/her to death (we hope). But the (approved) goal of the questioning is to come to a stronger faith (as you said "with open arms"), not to embrace its rejection. Were such openness really embraced, Protestantism would be one of the most liberal ideologies on the planet - yet the impression I have of the various Baptist, Episcopalian, Born-Again, etc.. variations is that they don't exactly welcome the "exit strategy".

And to be clear, the "welcomed back into the fold" referred specifically to someone who had rejected the faith, not re-found it. (Of course they welcome the stray sheep back! No one's quite as much a zealot as a repentant heretic).

Now, as to the Bible's provenance...hoo boy.
Read Ecclesiastes. If the person who wrote that wasn't suffering from heatstroke, I don't know what medical criteria to use. (Ok ok, I am being hyperbolic, but read the text: you can see the Old Testament "prophet" wandering around, pointing a finger, his eyes standing out, and screaming "you're all filthy sinners! repent!")

As to Deuteronomy, I am exactly on the money. The Deuteronomy text was conveniently "found" in a cave, right around the time Josiah was carrying out his religious reforms. And wouldn't you know it - this "discovered" volume just happened to reaffirm what the good king's reforms were all about. Ain't that just convenient. Clearly, it's a divine sign! Hallelujah! (The discovery as well as the attendant discussion on heat- and hunger- induced hallucinations is detailed in Sagan's "Demon Haunted World").

Genesis. Cosmogeny, theogeny and The Fall. If modern copyright/IP law existed back in the heady days of Moses, the Bible would've been sued into oblivion by the RTAME (Religious Text Association of the Middle East) for blatantly plagiarizing such elements as light from darkness/great flood/garden of eden/fall of man/angels/the 7 fat/7 lean cow story, etc.. I doubt Moses could build a fair use case.

I could go on with the Old Testament, but I think I've made my point. Oh, and the New Testament: to quote a favorite author of mine "There is not a single middle eastern religion where a virgin did not give birth to a god". Specifically a god that comes from a line of kings, is born to a virgin, has no adolescence, does his work for 3 years, heals the sick, raises the dead, and dies on a hill, to rise again 3 days later. The kindest thing you can say about the Bible is that it is unoriginal. To say that, except a bunch of re-iterated "savior coming forth" text, the Bible justifies intolerance, genocide, murder, territorial conquest, etc., with the occasional softcore poetry thrown in for good measure would be alot closer to the mark.

When you argue for a "rational" argument on the basis of this text, or of rational people believing in it...well, I'm not sure how to categorize that except through snarky medical Latin.

So lose? I think not. Your move :)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute :)

I never did that, or anything like it.

You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above. I quote:

Now, granted, some people (and some sects) will burn you. People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing. What a shock. No one implied otherwise. But for every Fred Phelps there's many more Billy Grahams.

You denied something which you wrote just moments ago. Which is quite good testament to validity of the rest of what you write. Not because you're inherently incapable of seeing such flaws, but because you trained yourself not to see them. You choose not to realise how blatant lack of coherency you display.

Which is sad. Though understable. Remember, there's a high chance that many people you argue with were similarly brainwashed to you; I know I was. I know how you feel about all of this. You don't know how I feel.

Now consider...I really know both sides. I can choose. You don't know what to choose from, you convinced yourself it's too scary.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Allright, now it's clear that you don't even know the basics of faith.

That's my line to you.

It's specifically about believing in things without evidence

False.

any serious preacher will agree with that.

False. On the contrary, any serious preacher will call that simplistic and inaccurate.

Perhaps you don't know the difference between proof, and evidence?

you seem to managed to convince yourself that it's all simply a fact

Nothing I said remotely implied this. Again, stop making things up. It hurts your argument.

You really don't see anything in general Christian doctrine not backed by evidence?

Do you? Cite it. If you think it's so obvious, why can you not do it?

(The answer is unfortunately obvious.)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

This is claimed to be questioned. By worshippers. That's a different thing than actually questioning.

As for the second part, you misunderstood my point - which is that, ultimatelly, what a very large portion of worshippers think (or, say, actions consistantly seen together with certain faith) is ultimatelly also what that religion represents; not only what it claims to represent.

Re:Stunts

[clone53421]

Allright, now it's clear that you don't even know the basics of faith. It's specifically about believing in things without evidence - any serious preacher will agree with that.

“Allright”, let’s set this straight: Faith is specifically about believing in things without proof.

Come back when you’ve learned the difference between what you just said and what I just said.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above.

No, I did not. You're very confused. Your quote only shows me saying that there's both good and bad in religion, not trying to -- as you falsely claimed -- attribute everything good to religion. Nor did I even state or imply that anyone should be thanked, as you, again, falsely claimed.

I did the first, part, yes: I said, "ahh, but that's just human nature." But I never said that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."

You denied something which you wrote just moments ago.

You clearly saw something in what I wrote that literally was not there, in any form.

similarly brainwashed to you

Again -- you don't seem to understand this -- making things up doesn't help you. Really, it doesn't.

I can choose.

I did choose. And I can choose again if I am convinced that I am wrong. And I am open to convincing. None of you appears to be up to the task.

Don't feel bad: it's not that you are bad at this (although you are), it's that you don't have good arguments on your side.

Re:Stunts

[clone53421]

If your “sense” only makes sense to people who already agree with you, you might want to rethink how sensible your position actually is.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Seems we have a different understanding or experience of what "serious preacher" means. That might explain why religion in my place is so...efficient (95+ % uner one monolithic faith, in an EU country with proper liberties)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Again, one liners conveying obvious truth (plus...do you have to resolve to cut'n'paste between different posts? Automata much?);

You and I know know perfectly well that you will accept no example of lack of evidence. You rerouted around that possibility long ago.

Sad, really; not only another mind wasted - discussion with you isn't even very usefull to me, not revelaing any new mechanism.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Your hopes deceived you yet again.

Re:Stunts

[clone53421]

Yes, it seems your understanding or experience of what “serious preacher” means is what I’d consider a lazy and shallow one (both intellectually and in terms of leadership). They don’t like to be questioned, so they tell their followers to believe things without evidence. That is dogma, and is not faith.

A “serious preacher” is exactly the opposite.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

If "serious" preachers at your place must rely on evidence for people to follow, their faith is quite shallow, superficial.

Which I don't mind actually...

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

it is not the case that Protestantism welcomes a full, unreserved examination of faith, when such examination leads to its rejection

False.

That, were the questioner to reject the faith, his ex-brothers/sisters would rejoice for him and affirm his choice.

Obviously, we'd disagree with it. That is not the same as not fully welcoming the process that led to it. Those are two obviously separate things.

As you said, they would "pray for him". To me, that says they disagree with his choice.

You're not arguing against anything I've said. Of course, as I said, we would disagree with the choice. But it IS a choice, and MUST be a choice, and without a full and honest examination, there cannot be a choice. Therefore, we do promote such examinations.

the (approved) goal of the questioning is to come to a stronger faith (as you said "with open arms"), not to embrace its rejection

No, the goal is to make sure you really believe it. If you reject it, then you were never really convinced in the first place, and it's better to explicitly reject it now than to go on living a lie. Yes, the result on the other side is stronger faith, but the goal is to verify that faith (or lack of it).

yet the impression I have of the various Baptist, Episcopalian, Born-Again, etc.. variations is that they don't exactly welcome the "exit strategy".

The church I go to (Baptist) certainly does not want anyone to reject Christianity, but it absolutely welcomes people to honestly examine their faith, and if they at the end reject it, then they reject it.

Granted, some churches don't work that way. I couldn't even guess at the numbers. But in my experience, which is vast (but limited, of course), most churches do. But even if it is a small number, it still refutes the blanket claims made by you and others to the contrary.

And to be clear, the "welcomed back into the fold" referred specifically to someone who had rejected the faith, not re-found it.

Then I don't understand how you could be using the phrase. "The fold," to me, refers to the Body of Christ. If you're not a member, then you're not in the fold, so ... it makes no sense to welcome someone back into it.

If you mean welcome back to visit and have some coffee at a prayer meeting, then yes, that happens too. It's uncomfortable, but it goes both ways: can you see an ex-atheist being welcomed like that to an atheist meeting?

Hell, if an atheist were honestly thinking "maybe there really is a God who sent his Son Jesus ... I am not convinced, but I want to learn more," he'd be excoriated by a majority of the atheists I run into in discussions like this.

you can see the Old Testament "prophet" wandering around, pointing a finger, his eyes standing out, and screaming "you're all filthy sinners! repent!"

He wrote the book, you know, later, in retrospect. Your implication implied otherwise.

wouldn't you know it - this "discovered" volume just happened to reaffirm what the good king's reforms were all about. Ain't that just convenient.

You're committing the question-begging fallacy. You know that, right? At the WORST CASE, you assume that God couldn't (or wouldn't) have made it happen just like that, intentionally.

I mean, I am not saying you're wrong. You could be right. We don't know. I am saying you're wrong to assert it as fact.

Genesis. Cosmogeny, theogeny and The Fall. If modern copyright/IP law existed back in the heady days of Moses, the Bible would've been sued into oblivion by the RTAME (Religious Text Association of the Middle East) for blatantly plagiarizing such elements as light from darkness/great flood/garden of eden/fall of man/angels/the 7 fat/7 lean cow story, etc.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

You and I know know perfectly well that you will accept no example of lack of evidence.

What I know perfectly well is that you have not provided one, and, given this comment, apparently you believe, as I do, that you are incapable of providing one.

Sad, really

What's sad is that you are feigning disappointment in me for being better at this than you are.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

This is claimed to be questioned.

It is questioned. All the time.

That's a different thing than actually questioning.

Fine, I'll bite: what evidence would you accept that it is actually questioned?

It seems to me you ONLY believe it is not actually questioned because you falsely believe that if it WERE actually questioned, then there would be more atheists.

ultimatelly, what a very large portion of worshippers think (or, say, actions consistantly seen together with certain faith) is ultimatelly also what that religion represents; not only what it claims to represent.

What you said was, "And you really argue that what vast majority of Christians stand for is NOT what Christanity ultimatelly represents?" I am still confused as to what you mean by this.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Look, I get it, you don't see that there. You don't have to prove it to me again and again; I understand (again, also because once I was in such state as you are now). You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity. Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir... (and even if, certainly only "some sects")

You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I understand.

And please...you choose? I also thought that I choose when I was like you. But it's, if I might use such a term ;p , a diabolic self deceit.

Really, stop the line with demanding arguments (again, I know how you now). It's just that, saying it, demanding it. But you're closed to them; you choose to, you need to be (you were shaped to need that). That's why arguments don't work, not because they are weak.

But there a things which work, I can assure you that :) (too bad thi place is not very conductive to them - simply because they're about exploiting the same flaws of human mind which religions exploit; and text exchange on a web forum is not a where they thrive)

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

If "serious" preachers at your place must rely on evidence for people to follow, their faith is quite shallow, superficial.

Nonsense.

What it means, on the contrary, is that we have significant scholarship, including for the layperson, to dig deep into the Bible, to uncover the evidence.

There's a popular book series by Lee Strobel, for example, called The Case for Christ. It goes through (at a high, lay, level) the evidence for the existence of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the historical reliability of the Bible we have today, and so on.

At universities we have departments devoted to apologetics, the philosophical examination of Christian and religious belief.

I learned Koine Greek, myself, so I can actually go in and examine the text.

Far from being shallow, it engages us to engage in a lifelong intellectual pursuit of the facts, wherever they may lead.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

It is questioned. All the time.

Again, that's just a claim.

Fine, I'll bite: what evidence would you accept that it is actually questioned?

It seems to me you ONLY believe it is not actually questioned because you falsely believe that if it WERE actually questioned, then there would be more atheists.

Yes, that's what you to think. But it's not the case.

Let me paint it this way: what role this supposed questioning plays in emergence, continuing existence or daily life of religions? Or is it simply tackled on? Ignored byvast majority of the faithfull? (which, again, represents what the religions is about)

At best I might grant you it is actually questioned if you agree that "masses" and those who, as you claim, question dogmas...actually follow quite different religions.

(that also stems from what I was claryfying, that religions are not about what their PR claims but about actions and opinions of worshippers en masse)

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

I think it is a group of idealists merely trying to persuade people away from the irrational and towards the more rational.

But they are doing it VIA irrationality, which makes them look stupid.

Proselytizing atheism is certainly more rational than religious evangelists trying to convert non-Christians to their cause with government subsidies.

Which is illegal in this country, so irrelevant to the discussion.

This is less of a stunt than, for example, the Southern Baptists trying to Save Jews by conversion (Ref: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcon.htm, http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07c/baptist_messianic.html, et al).

You're not making any sense. The act of trying to convert Jews to Christianity is not, in itself, a stunt at all.

No one is talking about this because the atheists are trying to convert people; it's the fact that they are doing a silly stunt that is at issue. Almost every group -- religious and otherwise -- proselytizes. Simply noting that a group proselytizes doesn't have a bearing on whether or not they engage in stunts to any degree.

the [atheist bigots] up here don't get any government funding or tax subsidies like the religious bigots do.

There, I fixed it for you.

And again, in the U.S., they get no subsidies or funding either, not for proselytizing. They can get tax-exempt status if they agree to not do certain things, but so can an atheist group. Far from being a subsidy, it's an expression of the First Amendment: it's difficult to reconcile that a church should be free from government involvement while taxing it. Now, you could, of course, tax the churches just as you would tax anyone else ... but if you do THAT, then you have no justification for giving government money to a non-religious charity, but NOT giving it to a religious one.

Long ago it was decided it's easier just to keep them separate.

The thing is that religious EVANGELISM IS BIGOTRY.

False.

It is people saying that you are not "saved" or good because of your beliefs or lack of beliefs.

So when Martin Luther King Jr. tried to convince people to NOT be bigots, he was being a bigot?

Sorry, you're not making sense. Bigotry is more than just saying "you're wrong."

Atheism is highly rational in the sense that it rejects this religious bigotry.

No, it doesn't. By your own definition: atheists OFTEN tell people they are not good because of their beliefs.

People like me get pretty god-damned pissed off at hypocrites and zealots telling us how immoral we are.

While I agree this sort of evangelism is wrong, frankly, this is more YOUR problem than theirs. You live in a pluralistic society, where people are free to express their opinions, and you just need to get over it.

just about the one thing most religious people have in common is their (outward) disdain for sex and sexuality

Nonsense. There is a disdain for extramarital sex, and for graphic public displays of sex, but that's not the same thing. As to the public displays of sex, just like you think I should keep my religion in your home or church, I think you should keep your sexuality in your home or ... club or whatever. As to the extramarital sex, well, ask any spouse of any famous person who's got in trouble for having an affair, and ask them if they are just expressing a sense of "sexual oppression."

Ironic, since that's the thing that usually gets these religious nuts in (legal) trouble. The people who protest too much are usually the ones to watch out for.

Nonsense. People said that afte

Re:Stunts

[trurl7]

Your rational points are well made. About things like limits of applicability. I was with you until you seriously suggested the possibility that an actual, real God intentionally placed a revelation scroll into the ground for Josiah to find as affirmation of his program. That's when you jumped the shark for me.

I must ask, tremulously: do you truly believe that? That such a story can be considered a rational part of an argument?

You are correct in so far as I can not claim to know for a fact that this could not have happened. It's the "anything is possible at the rainbow end of the probability curve" appeal, but fine, have at it. But are you really trying to introduce that into a discussion? In earnest? Forgive my shock - I had thought that religious rationalists, however far the term can go, would at least have some reality filters. I suppose I've yet to encounter an actual literalist argument.

I will grant that you may be making an argument, but if, indeed, you are defending such a position, then I'm afraid I'll have to insist on the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and perpetual motion. Also tolerant fundamentalists of any religion.

And as to being welcomed back into the fold...back in my Sunday school days, I read in a catechism book that "of course Christ works with everyone, but especially with Catholics". That's the day I walked out and never came back. Something similar applies here.

I fear I am too naive: all along I've thought that the religious folks were just putting one over on us, that they really were rational, human beings, and were just engaged in a drawn-out elaborate prank. Oh wait...I see what you're doing here... :)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Cute, another obvious "truths" to you :) (hey, I mean you no ill - whatever you need to feel comfortable woth your so called "choices")

I believe it's impossible to provide something which will satisfy you, in your current state. That's quite a difference. Something would have to shake you for any argumentation to work (that's how religions exploit you BTW, creating or feeding on mystical experiences (birth, death))

But how nice and modest you are, a model "Christian" :) Better than me obviously. Are you possibly an Ubermensch? :)

(though TBH I did found some slightly intruguing aspect, you proved usefull after all; too bad you could be so much more for humanity)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Great, kudos to you.

Now give me a coherent explanation why you ignore 99+ % of religious texts that exist in the world. Why your "evidence" stemming from study of only one religious text, one mythology, is not just claiming to search for evidence; just reinforcing what you want to believe.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Let me paint it this way: what role this supposed questioning plays in emergence, continuing existence or daily life of religions?

To ensure your faith is real.

Ignored byvast majority of the faithfull?

Nope. Again, I've never met a Christian who has not undergone such an examination.

(which, again, represents what the religions is about)

The religion is about ... questioning? Not-questioning? I don't get what you are trying to say.

At best I might grant you it is actually questioned if you agree that "masses" and those who, as you claim, question dogmas...actually follow quite different religions.

I don't care what you will grant me. I care what is true. Yes, some people don't question, but I don't know any such people.

There are people who won't -- due in part to fear and so on -- question as far as others will, but this is usually because they are simply not equipped to do so. And good for them: it's stupid to try to evaluate arguments against your beliefs if you are not prepared to evaluate them.

For example (not looking for an argument here in this, just using as an example of how people process knowledge and arguments), I could talk about our physical laws and what they say about the First Cause, the spark that set off the Big Bang. I can argue -- and understand! -- the case that to follow the laws of physics as we know them, the First Cause must have been one that was from a sentience, because a decision had to be made to set off the Big Bang, and before the Big Bang, there were no events, therefore no time, therefore no state changes to cause the Big Bang in the first place.

Now, to someone who is an atheist, but doesn't understand the scientific and philosophical reasons why I make all these claims, they might be convinced that I am right. But why SHOULD they be convinced, if they don't understand it? That's hardly fair.

In the same way, I don't expect all Christians to open themselves up to examination of every minute aspect of Christianity ... the point is honest examination, and you can't honestly examine something on grounds that you don't understand.

So there are some people who will examine anything. There are others who will know their limitations and limit their examinations to grounds they can comprehend. There are others who won't examine at all.

That's how people work.

(that also stems from what I was claryfying, that religions are not about what their PR claims but about actions and opinions of worshippers en masse)

What you think is "en masse" most likely is not.

There's far more Billy Grahams than Fred Phelps in Christianity. The Fred Phelpses just get more press.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Sad for you.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Look, I get it, you don't see that there.

It literally isn't there.

I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.

You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity.

Can you really not read simple English? I explicitly stated that I was attributing their failings to their human nature, but that it was the second part of your assertion -- "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank" -- that I was not engaging in.

Your job at this point would be to show that I ever claimed that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank." You can't do that.

Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir

What is your evidence that they do? If you were right, then we would expect to see more violence from religion than without it, but we don't see that at all. By far, more murders were committed by explicitly atheistic regimes than religious ones in the 20th century.

You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I understand.

I understand you're a tool.

And please...you choose? I also thought that I choose when I was like you. But it's, if I might use such a term ;p , a diabolic self deceit.

No, that's your department. You deluded yourself into thinking that everyone else thinks like you do: that because you had deluded yourself into being religious, therefore I do the same. This is obviously self-refuting, however: if I thought just like you do -- as your argument assumes -- then I would be an atheist now.

Really, stop the line with demanding arguments

No. As long as you make assertions, I will -- following the rules of logic you pretend to follow, but, in fact, disdain -- demand that you back them up.

But you're closed to them

You have no evidence of this. All you have are examples of POOR arguments you gave that I logically refuted ... refuted so entirely that you didn't even attempt to rebut. You transparently pretend that because I refuted your arguments, that I am therefore closed to them.

You realize that everyone sees through that, right?

That's why arguments don't work, not because they are weak.

Yes, the rejoinder of the person without any arguments. We've seen it before.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

But every faith tries to do that. Every faith is "real".

I met only a few Christians which seriously tried to examine their faith BTW; I don't agree with their conclusion, but I respect them fully. They are not a cowards unable to accept that they simply believe in certain things...and that's the end of it.

PS. And you're trying to see more in this one thing I was trying to convey few times. It's just a about a simple question. Is what religions only claim about themselves representative of them? Or do you have to primarilly look at their actions, effects, beliefs of typical worshipper?

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

give me a coherent explanation why you ignore 99+ % of religious texts that exist in the world

I don't ignore them.

Why your "evidence" stemming from study of only one religious text, one mythology, is not just claiming to search for evidence; just reinforcing what you want to believe.

And you don't search for things to reinforce what YOU believe? Pull the other one.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

I believe it's impossible to provide something which will satisfy you, in your current state.

No one's buying it. You simply cannot provide it. This isn't about me, except insofar as I know the Bible and philosophy better than you, so I am effective at shooting down your weak arguments.

But how nice and modest you are, a model "Christian" :) Better than me obviously.

Better than you at the fundamentals of this discussion, yes. It's not about modesty or humility, it's an obvious fact based on the evidence at hand. I am not a fan of Sidney Crosby, but he's a much better hockey player than I am. This is not humility for me to say so.

Sometimes I tell people I am better than them at something, for various reasons. Often it is to encourage them to do better.

In your case, we both know I am better at this than you, and I am doing it to call you on your transparent bullshit. You're pretending that I am unwilling or incapable of seeing the evidence for what it is, as an excuse to not provide the evidence. We both know you simply cannot provide any evidence that you can actually defend against me. It's not that I am unwilling to examine it, it's that you cannot defend it.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

No, I try not to search for things to reinforce what I believe; it's possible I don't do that. Anyway, there's hardly anything from what I "believe" which falls under things that even need any evidence to speak of (in that I am similar to people I would call true faithfull; the scope of things in which we believe is completelly different of course)

Anf of course you ignore them; have you studied extensivelly Finnish Paganism, for only one example? Or (throw in 500 another ones here)?

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

It literally isn't there.

I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.

:)

And that sums you up. It doesn't really matter to you what happened, what was written...the only thing matters is what's currently inside your mind; what suits you. And that's it. That's your idea of winning. Twisting words along the way (you really want to convince yourself that I said I think like you do now? Fine, have it your way :) ), claiming you use logic...

You just made a wonderfull explanation of what religion is, BTW. Too bad you might not realise that ever...

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

I was with you until you seriously suggested the possibility that an actual, real God intentionally placed a revelation scroll into the ground for Josiah to find as affirmation of his program.

I didn't. I asserted, rather, that for you to exclude the possibility is fallacious. Which it is.

do you truly believe that? That such a story can be considered a rational part of an argument?

My belief is irrelevant (and I actually have none on this particular point; I've never thought much about it and I don't care how it happened). My point is that assuming it did not happen that way is irrational.

As many atheist philosophers have noted, "if God, anything." They say this to concede the notion that if you believe in God, then anything is possible, so it's silly to get bogged down in whether or not something could have happened (such as the resurrection of Christ) or was likely to have happened (that God timed the finding of the scrolls to Josiah's coming).

To say something didn't happen because it is unlikely, as a means to showing that the Bible is wrong or flawed, is irrational. It's assuming the argument: that God doesn't exist, or wouldn't have done that sort of thing.

And as to being welcomed back into the fold...back in my Sunday school days, I read in a catechism book that "of course Christ works with everyone, but especially with Catholics".

I don't know what that means and cannot comment on it. I'd have to see the exact text, in context.

I fear I am too naive: all along I've thought that the religious folks were just putting one over on us, that they really were rational, human beings, and were just engaged in a drawn-out elaborate prank. Oh wait...I see what you're doing here... :)

You're doing it again ... question-begging, assuming that there's something irrational about religion. There's not.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

No, I try not to search for things to reinforce what I believe; it's possible I don't do that.

Your proven fallacious cherry-picking of the Bible argues that you do.

Anyway, there's hardly anything from what I "believe" which falls under things that even need any evidence to speak of

If you believe there IS NO God, then that needs a lot of evidence. And there's very little. If you simply believe God may exist, but cannot be proven or demonstrated in any way, that's different, of course. It depends on what sort of atheist you are.

Anf of course you ignore them

False. As you conflated "evidence" with "proof," you also conflate "ignore" with "understand." By your standard, you ignore most of the Bible, since you don't know most of it. Heck, you ignore most knowledge of ALL kinds.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

You fail to comprehend what I wrote, that you have safety mechanisms against any argumentation.

"Cheating" similarly to how religions do won't work here, the medium is too limited; but tricks, exploiting certain "flaws" does work, I can assure you that :) (well, you sorta know that already, by the simple fact how you are caught by them...)

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

But every faith tries to do that. Every faith is "real".

Your attempt to turn this into Christianity vs. other religions is pointless. I never said anything against any other religions.

I met only a few Christians which seriously tried to examine their faith BTW

You probably don't know very many Christians, then.

They are not a cowards unable to accept that they simply believe in certain things...and that's the end of it.

I do not accept that, because it isn't true. And I am not a coward, obviously, as I am willing to lay every belief I have out on the table for examination and argument by all (especially myself).

you're trying to see more in this one thing I was trying to convey few times

No. I just didn't UNDERSTAND what you were saying.

Is what religions only claim about themselves representative of them? Or do you have to primarilly look at their actions, effects, beliefs of typical worshipper?

So you're implying that Christians are not really questioning Christianity? If so, you're wrong.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

And that sums you up. It doesn't really matter to you what happened, what was written...the only thing matters is what's currently inside your mind; what suits you.

Except, of course, you're lying, because I never said it, and you cannot quote me saying it.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but you keep asserting I said something I clearly never said, even after I pointed out that fact. So you come back and say I said HALF of what you accused me of (the half I already agreed I had said) but you leave out the OTHER HALF of what you accused me of (the half I have been denying I said).

So, it comes right down to it: you're lying.

You accuse me of saying "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank," but it's not true. And when I assert the fact that I didn't say it -- a fact so obviously true you don't even attempt to prove otherwise -- you twist that into me being deluded and deceptive.

I don't know why you decided to be so dishonest and malicious, but it speaks very poorly for you.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

You fail to comprehend what I wrote, that you have safety mechanisms against any argumentation.

And how do you distinguish my "safety mechanisms" from, you know, actual arguments?

You cannot, of course. You just don't like the fact that you cannot provide any decent arguments, and so you're lying to cover it up.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

I see, you think we're on Crusade here :)

What's the matter, do you really have to dismiss comparisions with other faiths and how real they claim they are? So insecure?

In case you didn't notice (wonder why...) - the story is about "religious texts", not just the Bible. And my points are quite general (though obviously in response to yours will touch on Christianity more often; but they are nowehre exclusive to it)

I'd say I know quite many Christians; in a country where there's officially 95+ % of them that's quite easy.

Again, it's only what you claim to be true/not true. Let's try another approach: get random religious text (of random religion) and defend it equally well. If your "arguments" stemming from Bible are solid, you should be able to give just as solid arguments for any other text, right?

And no, that's not what I was implying there; but I see how you cannot understand it. Seems to be one of the basic differences between us - you accept religions for they claim to be. I accept them for what they are; how they interact with the world at large.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

In no place I cherry-picked the Bible. But it's understandable you might see all of that as an attack on your "special" text.

And why yes, I do not say that there is "no god"; from my point of view that's at least highly unlikely, and furthermore (if he exists) useless. But...you give an evidence for the non-existance of Swarog, which your faith requires. And thousands of other gods. Go ahead.

And good one, it's rare to see so devoted one as you are (I might get from this discussion quite a bt after all; don't you just love it that you ptovide me with usefull information about your kind? :) ). Now I'm ignorant of, well...pretty much everything, it seems. FYI, stemming from the place I live in, it;'s quite likely I've had far more religious education than you do... (at least proportionally)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Cute. I posted the quote right there :)

But of course, I'm lying, I'm stupid, I'm the scurge of gods children...don't you get hard while fighting me on a holly quest?

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

do you really have to dismiss comparisions with other faiths and how real they claim they are?

Being completely off-topic the discussion between the two of us, by the rules of logic, yes, I do.

get random religious text

No. That is a non sequitur fallacy.

And no, that's not what I was implying there

Then I still don't understand your question, because you have not explained it well.

you accept religions for they claim to be

False.

I accept them for what they are

False.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Again, you fail at understanding the issue (but really, I'm totally serious here - that's not your fault; you're a victim of certain societal realities against which there's very little defense)

Psychological safet mechanisms aren't in the field of arguments at all; you proposition of distinguishing on from the other is nonsensical.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Yes, no, yes, no...you know, I have an idea; why don't use binary next time? :)

Though I must admit, there's another cute thing - you seem to claim that having the nerve to not discuss only what and how you the discussion should progress is somehow...illogical. :)

Very reveling in regards to your logic. Very typical for certain kinds of people.

Re:Stunts

[zapakh]

I find that people who feel the need to perform stunts like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "cause." Yes, we get it, you hate the Bible. But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring.

I find that people who feel the need to write a post like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "thesis." Yes, we get it, you are superior to everyone. But you have no actual arguments for it beyond your pretentious attitude, and you're annoying.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

I find that people who feel the need to write a post like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way

Huh. You don't get out much.

Re:Stunts

[zapakh]

Huh. You don't get out much.

Excellent management of your forum persona.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

In no place I cherry-picked the Bible.

To take the one example I responded directly to: you took that to mean that Paul was telling people to ignore evidence, when in that book (and all of his writings, essentially) he emphasized to people that they SHOULD examine the evidence.

That sort of obviously out-of-context interpretation you did is what we colloquially refer to as "cherry-picking."

But it's understandable you might see all of that as an attack on your "special" text.

Shrug. You obviously misinterpreted the passage by taking it out of context (and by using a bad translation, but that is not necessarily your fault).

from my point of view that's at least highly unlikely, and furthermore (if he exists) useless

"Highly unlikely" is a valid opinion, but not an objective or seriously defensible one, without a huge amount of question-begging. As to "useless," that is entirely based on the question-begging fallacy, and is therefore itself a useless claim.

you give an evidence for the non-existance of Swarog, which your faith requires

Once again you admit you know nothing about Christianity. Good job.

Now I'm ignorant of, well...pretty much everything, it seems.

No, just most of things you've discussed here.

FYI, stemming from the place I live in, it;'s quite likely I've had far more religious education than you do... (at least proportionally)

In terms of time spent, I can't say. In terms of other religions, I can't say. In terms of level of education about Christianity, there's no doubt I have had far more education in the subject than you. Either that, or you never paid attention or have forgotten it all.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Again, you fail at understanding the issue

You have failed to describe any issue.

Psychological safet mechanisms aren't in the field of arguments at all

You didn't answer the question. Don't feel bad: you cannot answer the question without betraying the fact that you cannot provide the evidence I asked for.

you proposition of distinguishing on from the other is nonsensical.

Don't be an idiot. I provided an argument. You responded that it was NOT an argument, but, rather a safety mechanism. I simply asked how you can distinguish the one from the other. You can't do it.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Cute. I posted the quote right there :)

A quote which, in no way whatsoever, demonstrated me implying that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."

You're lying.

I defy you to point to where in the quote I implied that. I certainly implied that some Christians do some good. But there's no implication beyond that ... and worse, you said I explicitly STATED it, and you cannot point to it.

You're lying.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

And you prove the point, thanks!

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

You're more damaged than I thought. You're confusing me with another poster; take a deep breath and reread whole discussion, trying to notice this time who says who.

In regards to res of your post, I wonder if you really think you'll get far with "no, I'm right because I say so!" :). I mean, sure, that's the standard religious practice...but one would think you'd at least try not to show it so directly. Unless you're so lost by now... (or...endule me, actually have the guts to clarify why you think you're not incoherent; other then the customary "because I say so" of course)

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

I know you think I'm lying (for some reason...hey, maybe I'm a Satan sidekick). This being your response to what anybode can clearly is in quote below is the whole point by now...

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

You're more damaged than I thought.

What you think is irrelevant; since you're a liar, what you say about what you think is even less relevant.

Until you can own up to your lies, what you say means nothing at all.

In regards to res of your post, I wonder if you really think you'll get far with "no, I'm right because I say so!"

More lies. I never said anything like that.

Is it hard work being so dishonest?

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Duopoly I desribed is a fairly basic (yet often neglected, especially by worshippers) issue. Not an issue even, just a simple observation. If you would stop dismissing it, you would be able (I am sure you are fundamentally able to do that) to see the simple non-issue (really; it was quite secondary to everything)

Also, since you have rather lax approach to what constitutes an evidence and disregard for arguments which you don't like...well, I didn;t expect you to see that this is just part of your safety mechanisms.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Brilliant! :D Now you seem to claim that Slashdot discussion system lies in regards to poster names (above their posts...) it shows to you. Hm, or maybe Slashdot admins are on the dark side?...really, perhaps you should consider that.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

your ad-hom attack

One good fallacy deserves another. I have no qualms about responding to intentional non sequiturs with ad hominems.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

I know you think I'm lying

And I clearly demonstrated it.

This being your response to what anybode can clearly is in quote below is the whole point by now...

Yes, in the quote, which shows me saying that SOME Christians do SOME good things. And you've perpetually lied about it, describing it as me saying EVERYTHING good is because of religious people.

You're not just lying: you're a liar.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Duopoly I desribed

You didn't describe it. You merely asserted it. Stop lying.

If you would stop dismissing it

You provided no evidence, so yes, it was dismissed.

Also, since you have rather lax approach to what constitutes an evidence

You're a liar.

and disregard for arguments which you don't like

You're a liar.

this is just part of your safety mechanisms.

You're a liar.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

you seem to claim that Slashdot discussion system lies in regards to poster names

You're a liar.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

And I clearly demonstrated it.

I know you think you did :). Thing is, you hold critique of your mythology to some curious "standards". Mind you, they are enough for you...the rest can just see at the quoues. In full, not what you, sic, cherry-picked or tried to somehow bend to fit later.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

A witch!!!

Re:Stunts

[zapakh]

I.. you... damn, what were we talking about?

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

And you're so fabulously great, a true Christian if I ever saw one.

No, seriously, I adore folks like you; not spoiling anything...well, you're usefull :)

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Nothing in particular. I was snarky with them, you returned the favor to me, and around it went.

Re:Stunts

[zapakh]

Man, I feel like a douche. Sorry :(

Re:Stunts

[thoughtfulbloke]

Dont hand in a bible, hand in a copy of the illustrated Karma Sutra.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

That just might confuse them.

Re:Stunts

[Smurf]

As I said to the other commenter: I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.

Pudge, English is not my native language so I guess that's why I fail to understand what you mean by that. It seems to me that all of the cornerstones of Christianity (and any other religion, for that matter) fit that description precisely.

In the case of Christianity examples of such basic concepts would include:

• The Trinity. There is only one God, but he has three completely separate manifestations: the Father (the concept of God that we share with Jews and Muslims), the Son (Jesus, a human being), and the Holy Spirit (who's difference with the Father isn't completely clear to me). The concept of Jesus as God is incontrovertible to all Christians AFAIK, even though in the Gospels he seen praying in several occasions (to himself?) and while on the cross he says “Father, Father, Why Have You Forsaken Me?” and "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".
• The death and resurrection of Jesus, and his ascension to heaven. Jesus later appears to his disciples on a few occasions.
• Christ's second coming and the Day of Judgement. Even though if he already appeared several times to his disciples, that wouldn't be his second coming but his sixth or more.
• The concept of heaven and hell (and in some cases purgatory). We are all supposed to end in one of those places either when we die or after Judgment Day.
• The concept of Communion. A ritualistic re-creation of the Last Supper where we metaphorically eat and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus. This is, in turn, supposed to be a metaphor but it is attributed special powers that others with the view as "magical".
• The concept of a soul independent from the body. The concept of Satan, angels (messengers), and other mythological creatures inherited from the Jews. The miracles performed by Jesus and some other select characters. The direct verbal communication of God (the Father) with select characters in both Testaments.

And I could go on and on, ad infinitum. It seems to me that most of the above is believed by the vast majority of Christians with no other evidence than "if it's written in the Bible then it has to be true".

As I said, I'm probably misunderstanding what you said due to the language barrier, so I would greatly appreciate your input.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

It seems to me that most of the above is believed by the vast majority of Christians with no other evidence than "if it's written in the Bible then it has to be true".

Evidence does not have to be extrabiblical to be valid evidence. In the same way, the accused is allowed to plead his own case in court. I am not sure if you think otherwise, but just to clarify this up front.

As such, there's a difference between "it's written in the Bible" and "it's argued convincingly in the Bible." You seem to lump it all into the former, when often, it's the latter. Note that "evidence" obviously includes good philosophical argument.

Now, I am going to up front dispense up front with the notion that anything in Christianity is "not subject to examination." Everything is. Period. No exceptions.

As to the evidence:

• The Trinity.

This is argued convincingly by Paul and others, and demonstrated through more ancient texts by Matthew and others, showing that the prophecies have been made manifest in Jesus Christ. Yes, Jesus prayed to himself, in the form of God the Father. When God became flesh, he emptied himself of many of his attributes (such as ominpotence and omniscience), and could not rely on his own power as man ... just as we cannot (which is the whole point).

The difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit is simple and obvious: the Father -- who is the God we mostly see in the Old Testament -- is not one we can commune with directly. Just as Jesus came to Earth as a man to relate to us physically, the Holy Spirit dwells within us to relate to our spirits.

My point all along has not been that there is scientific proof of any of this, but that the Bible does not ask us to simply believe it: rather, it presents a case and asks us to examine it.

• The death and resurrection of Jesus, and his ascension to heaven.

This has significant evidence for it, perhaps the most well-attested to evidence of any event in the New Testament. The text itself makes the case. Note that the first three gospels (plus Acts) were written while most of the people who witnessed the events -- including Jesus' appearance to 500 people after his resurrection -- and if there was a significant question about whether it happened, it's very unlikely that the gospels would have survived, as the 500 people would have raised questions about the accounts.

That's not to say it really happened, of course, but they certainly believed what they saw was the risen Christ. Not proof, but evidence.

Similarly, many of Jesus' disciples were martyred. Why would they give their lives preaching that Jesus was God, died and was raised from the dead, if they didn't believe it? And they were, apparently, there to see him raised from the dead.

Again: it's not that it happened, but that these are historical figures who almost surely had firsthand knowledge, who believed that it happened.

• Christ's second coming and the Day of Judgement.

Obviously, this is prophecy, and hasn't happened yet. But -- obviously -- if everything else in the Bible is true, that in itself is evidence that future prophecies are true.

Even though if he already appeared several times to his disciples, that wouldn't be his second coming but his sixth or more.

To say so seems like you are being deliberately obtuse. I hope not. But obviously the reference to "second coming" is in the fact that he has come to Earth once, that he went back to heaven (as described , and that he will return a second time. It's not about numbers of appearances.

• The concept of heaven and hell

The Bible doesn't actually describe hell as a place, except through analogy. Hell is described as "eternal death," where "death" means "separ

Re:Stunts

[conureman]

They don't want rational argument, so they do stupid things like this.
Flamewars FTW!

Re:Stunts

[clone53421]

Don’t make me repeat myself.

Re:Stunts

[ffreeloader]

Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."

So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.

I'd just like to point out something about your post. You are assuming everyone starts with the same underlying assumptions that you do. Thus anyone who disagrees with you is irrational, according to your logic.

The point is that people with your beliefs often refuse to acknowledge much of what you believe to be true is taken on faith. You have faith that everything you believe about evolution is true. Why do I say faith? Because evolution and things such as the non-existence of God have never been conclusively proven.

Anything that has not been proven conclusively, such as 2 + 2 = 4, is believed to be true by starting with certain assumptions, and assuming/believing/having_faith_in those assumptions. I watched a Nova program on PBS a while back in which one of the scientists interviewed estimated that the current total sum of knowledge about the universe that scientists now know is estimated to be maybe 1% of what is possible to be known. I would posit that calling anyone irrational for openly accepting something by faith when your side dogmatically denies any existence of God on the basis of knowing about 1% of what can be known about the universe is basing that dogmatic belief in faith. Faith that further knowledge about the universe will not prove anything in the assumptions now believed about the universe in the scientific community to not be true. I'd say that's a huge leap of faith, as knowing 1% of any subject has never been a guarantee that the 1% is totally correct and does not include anything that will be proven false in the future. In fact, this has been proven true over, and over, and over again by the scentific community.

That makes calling anyone honest enough to openly state that they live by faith irrational an exercise in self-condemnation.

Re:Stunts

[denobug]

It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."

Same can be said about atheist proponent. Some of of them could not be reasoned with to share with the "why" people choose to believe there is a God. They don't respect your stance on believing in God. They just want to make a point and show their positions are superior than others. They are no better or no worse than the religious zealot in any religion, be Christianity, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindoism.

I need to make it clear that I am a Christian and I SUPPORT the use of any scientific tools for new scientific discoveries, so long as it is ethical determined by the respective field (no I'm not going to dictate what is "ethical" for the doctors when I'm not an expert in medical field, although I can tell you very clearly what is ethical and what is just plain wrong in my field of work). Any true believer of God can tell you (including me) that we belive in the existence of God not because it is easy to believe in. In fact we were not won over by clever arguments. Rather it is through our life experience we choose to belive that there is a God, and the God we believe in (i.e. choosing a religion). In fact one of my cousins who was raised in an atheist family choose to believe in God and attending church services regularly overseas, which there are no peer pressure to join a church, you have to want to do it youself.

So what am I saying here? The point I'm trying to make is that at least there are some of us Christian believers respect and value our scientific educations (and training) a great deal. But that does not make us less of a beliver. What it does however is to see through the folley of both religious and atheist zealot whose sole concern is to propel their own philosiphy and has no true concerns for the wellfare of others around them.

Lastly, I think House is real smart and funny! I love the show. But you have to admit that you want to choke him a occassionally (mentally) if he is your co-worker for being a world class jerk...

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

An argument is not a strawman just because you believe it to be false.

Correct. A straw man is something completely different. It is not about whether the argument is false, but whether the argument is falsely attributed to someone. In this case, the graphic falsely attributed the view to religion that all outside evidence should be ignored. It's a textbook strawman argument.

Try reading a web site on logical fallacies to familiarize yourself with them. HTH! HAND!

Re:Stunts

[denobug]

Hey pudge nice job trying to have a discussion here on religion with lots fo Christian bashers. You put up a valiant effort.

I think however God intends the Christian believe to be a very personal expeience and therefore you can't really win any heart and soul though arguments of religious doctorine. If that was the case Paul would have won the argument and convert the entire Roman Empire in his own lifetime. Heck why were so many Christian has to suffer the persecution since day one of the Christianity?

To be a Christian is to believe it from the HEART. Not in the mind. I personally don't see any reason to get in deeper into the "Is there a God and are you stupid enough to believe in God" argument (it really boils down to that if you know what I mean). No one is going to change their position except everyone are more pissed-off after the arguments and we lose our ears to listen to conerns truely worthy of our time.

Again I reallly think you are very brave to stand up for what you believe in and attempting to do the impossible to foster a discussion in a rather dis-advantaged position. In fact slashdot is probaly not the best channel to discuss religion in general (excpet we have this article talking about trading Bible for p0rn). I probably should have also send this post in private to you, as what was taught in the Bible. However I hope you would understand that my little effort to show others an aspect of Christianity we lived by daily through demonstration and not just arguments on paper. And we value the principles more by living it than by proping it up and make others abide by it.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Linda Lovelace (Deep Throat) said ...

I don't care.

The Bible is shoddy poorly written history

False. You obviously don't know anything about the Bible.

as a guide for living just look at the results of the Conservative Right.

You make an obviously fallacious argument there on several levels. King David was a man after God's own heart, and he murdered a man to steal his wife (whom he had adultery with). You really think that the Bible is intended to actually make people good, when King David himself did such things? You obviously don't know anything about the Bible.

Sex is the fundamental Human Act without it we get no more humans.

And neither the Bible, nor the Conservative Right, looks down on sex at all. You obviously don't know anything about the Bible.

We need vastly more sex and far less murder on TV

You're being completely illogical. Because sex is a fundamental human act ... therefore we need to have it on TV? How does that make ANY sense? It is because sex is placed so HIGHLY and RESPECTED so much by many Christians, that they don't want it displayed in public. It is that casual public display of sex that degrades sex, in the minds of most people. I doubt you have any cogent argument that most people are wrong about this.

Porn is the ultimate free market product.

No one cares, because it has nothing to do with the argument. You could also make the argument that murder-for-hire is the ultimate free market product, using your exact same argument.

I think Porn Stars are sexual athletes and should be allowed into the Olympics

If you really believe this, then you're an idiot. Shrug.

Trade your Bibles in, get some porn, your spouse and a bottle of red wine and enjoy what God gave you!

What does porn have to do with that equation? Unless you can't get it up without porn ... ?

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

God intends the Christian believe to be a very personal expeience and therefore you can't really win any heart and soul though arguments of religious doctorine

I never attempted to. I did not offer a single argument that the Bible is true. My goal was never to bring anyone to Christ, directly, through anything I said. I have a completely different goal here: to defend the reasonableness of Christianity, not to prove Christianity.

This is important for many reasons. For starters, it helps existing Christians who are struggling in their faith, but it also opens the door for non-Christians who may have been fooled into believing that Christianity is irrational.

No one is going to change their position

In a good debate or discussion, no one SHOULD change their position. The point is to be able to see things differently, not to change your mind. Changing your mind comes later after reflection and internalization.

except everyone are more pissed-off after the arguments

Good. People who get pissed off by what I say are either going to think twice the next time they try to spout their lies, or they are going to think twice about what was actually said and maybe grow to accept that Christianity is not as irrational as they thought.

we lose our ears to listen to conerns truely worthy of our time

I can think of nothing more worthy than defending the reasonableness of the Gospel. Can you?

slashdot is probaly not the best channel to discuss religion in general

Every place is the best place to discuss religion.

Re:Stunts

[juasko]

Hey what book says me to exclude what? I like science, I'm still one you would consider dogmatic. What is science to you? Is it a way of telling the truth about our environment? If you answer is yes, then be very carefull you're easelly mislead. If your answer is no, why is it so, is it due to you found the true nature of science, or because you are greately mislead? Sicense is all about making models that explains our environment. In some instances we get an exact match and the model might be the real thing. However that is very seldome the case. Good examples of thise kind of models are the laws of Newton, the theories of Einstein etc etc. This include evolution theory too. It's nothing but an modell of how we expect it to work/behave/act/whatever, it's still a model. Even if evolution theory would one day become a modell that actually is tha shit, that is being a full explanation of how different species evolve, that it one day can be read as an manual in creating new specimen acording to a known perpouse. Well then it would be much closer to the truth than it is now. However I clasify evolution theory/theories as Newtowninan physics. We can use it to for catalogin specimen, we can use it our efforts of having an evolving AI (yes that is artificiall intelligense I refer to). And for sure we find other usefull ares where we can apply the theories of evolution. But those who have to point out that the evolution theory "the truth and the only truth" makes me just as sick as most ignorant religios people. Just because they are as ignorat. If you actually view the question "is without a cause" vs "is causeed by" objectively. The only real argument that an evolutionist has is that there is no proof of a beeing that started the whole "shabong", and let me add "scientific" proof of such being. For me myself I have found proof of matematical presision even insde the theories of evolution. I don't agree 100% with the evolution theory, but i can view it for what it is, a model how different specimen relate to each other "and/or" evolved. (I'm tryin to be fully objective in my resoning here that is why i state "and/or") Well back to the math behind it. I have found to many coinsidenses of mathematical presision in all living and non living things, in our environment (includes universe and beyond if necessary), to be abel conclude that there would not be a mastermind behind it. Just take the event we call BigBang (Well big boom is not proven but that's most likely how it begun). What law made the bigbang explode and to beem out energy in every direction that would become our universe. To me acording to our science the scientific laws of physics was created at that instace when big bang went of. But if that is true Big Bang would never had happend as the physical laws behind it where not available. We could philosyphy about universes inside universes with their own set of physical laws. However we still need that first event of a first universe with laws of physics or what ever to contain what ever it contains! And the laws where needed before that big bang. All the science, all the math, everything upon earth, under it and above of earth manifest matematical and physical laws. And I (mark I) can't se that anything of this around us can be without a cause. Whatever that cause is it's by something/someone intelligent enough to laugh at our Newtowninan, Einsteinian, quantumian, stringia/membraneian physics and theories. That is my rational conclusion. What is your rational conclusion? Evolution theory = No God? By the way do you expect the universe to inhabite life forms at other places than on earth. Have you then actually calculated the statisical veiw point. I have found that statistically our universe is too small to actually have life at other places. Yes you read it correct our uiverce is way too small. There are not enough places in the universe with enough matter with enough low radiation with enough planets of right size and temperature to support life and suport the events of evolution, that there this could have taken place at 2 locations in our Universe. It's statistically impossible. -But then statistics lies! One question, do you find me Dogmatic after reading this? I hope not as I havent mentioned one thing based on faith.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

Internecine wars are infrequently caused by different texts (though that has happened in the case of the Gnostics and Mormons etc.) but rather caused by different interpretations of one text (the Bible specifically is a schizophrenic mess that alternately approves/confirms and denounces/denies the same things all the time). Just because some people prefer to interpret text A as dogma B and others as dogma C does not negate that the text is still treated dogmatically.

And believe me I don't think of religious people monolithically in terms of education or intellect. C.S. Lewis is not on the same plane as Tammy Faye Bakker.

However, you're making a crucial mistake by trying to put reason into a box and saying 'well, it makes sense inside the box, so therefore it makes sense period'. Reality doesn't work that way. I can imagine a system with all kinds of backwards abstractions, I can say 'in this building up means down' and then say 'I'm going upstairs' while going to the basement. That may make sense in the system as I've designed it, but to the objective person looking from the outside in, that's irrational nonsense. If the assumptions you talk about cannot be rationally understood first, whatever 'reasoning' proceeds from irrational assumptions is systematically abstracted nonsense.

Re:Stunts

[Cyberllama]

All definitions I've ever seen of dogma imply that the belief is not subject to examination, or isn't backed up by any evidence. I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.

Could you name one that is? Forget the "subject to examination", for now. Name one Christian doctrine that is "backed up by evidence." Isn't the idea of "evidence" sort of anathema to the very idea of "faith"? If you have evidence, then there's no need for faith. Please keep in mind that the Bible is evidence of anything by itself . . .

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

You make assumptions as well, including the very common one that atheism is a belief or faith, whereas it is the lack of such, and secondly that atheists are absolute (which would require belief/faith or insanity). Most intelligent 'atheists' aren't going to say "I know for a fact that there is no god." Even Richard Dawkins says that is further than he is willing to go. I and many others will simply say (in different ways) "I have seen no credible evidence for the existence of god, so even if a god or gods exist there is no precedent to any thinking that they should be actively considered important in a rational model of reality." This is frequently confused with agnosticism, to which it is similar in that it doesn't decide whether god(s) exist, but it actively assumes that they either don't or are not important. This is sometimes called 'weak atheism'.

You seem to have a perverted view of science vs. faith. Science is about reproducible effects to confirm or deny hypothetical models of physical behavior. You can conduct controlled, reproducible experiments about evolutionary processes. The same cannot be said of the resurrection. That is why the latter must be taken on faith. I don't have faith about anything in the material world, because I can test physical things, and these tests will either happen one way or another over and over and over (assuming proper controls). There's no faith there. If something cannot be explained within the current hypothesis, you don't invent an explanation for that an then just accept it. That would be faith. Instead, you come up with a new model, test and test and test again until it makes sense.

In a sense, nothing can be 'proven' about the physical world, but that doesn't mean that accepting metaphysical and/or supernatural intervention is the superior way to explain the gaps in understanding about phenomena.

It's really Occam's razor. People of faith look at the gaps in knowledge and say 'God did it!' When you ask them how, they will say 'I don't know, he's just God.' Whereas a person who lacks faith will say about gaps in knowledge simply, 'I don't know.'

In the end, both people don't know, but the person of faith additionally accepts the invention of things they cannot test. That is where they are irrational. There is nothing irrational about just not knowing, or accepting reproducible, controlled tests as the best possible model for understanding reality (effectively facts, even if absolute facts are not possible).

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah, I'm sorry, I can't have a productive discussion with somebody who doesn't know how to organize their thoughts into paragraphs. Just looking at that makes me cringe.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

The key phrase in all of this is just what you say, "Some of them". Being a jerk does not proceed (in most cases) from a chosen faith or non-faith, and only a jerk would refuse to give somebody enough respect to at least hear what they have to say. That does not mean that anybody is obligated to accept anything they do not wish to accept.

In fact we were not won over by clever arguments.

Because you exclude contradictory evidence, which makes you unreasonable. Conversely, a non-religious person MUST accept, integrate, and adapt to contradictory evidence or they too would be denying reason.

some of us Christian believers respect and value our scientific educations (and training) a great deal. But that does not make us less of a beliver.

If you do accept science over the Bible, it does make you less of a Christian. That Bible is either divinely revealed by God or written by men. If the latter, it should have no precedence over any other books, if the former, it should be perfect and have no flaws. However, there are scientific flaws in the Bible. Sticking to the New Testament to avoid the 'Old Testament doesn't count because Christ fulfilled it' argument (which is bunk too):

1 Corinthians 15:36 says only dead seeds germinate, where in fact a seed must be alive in order to germinate.

Matthew 27:45-53 claims that supernatural darkness occurred after the death of Christ, and an earthquake killed tons of people, but the amazing events are recorded nowhere outside of the gospels.

Not to mention the many times where things like epilepsy and deaf-mutes are blamed on possession by demons/devils/evil spirits instead of the real medical causes.

Re:Stunts

[SadButTrue]

I never attempted to. I did not offer a single argument that the Bible is true. My goal was never to bring anyone to Christ, directly, through anything I said. I have a completely different goal here: to defend the reasonableness of Christianity, not to prove Christianity.

This is important for many reasons. For starters, it helps existing Christians who are struggling in their faith, but it also opens the door for non-Christians who may have been fooled into believing that Christianity is irrational.

Sorry, I hate to contribute to a dog pile...

If we assume religion (did you mean just Christianity?) is reasonable (assume you didn't mean rational?) then what, in your opinion, is unreasonable. I mean that as a real question. Do you have an example of something you think is unreasonable?

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

Ah, I see, it's about constant repetition of evidence. How quaint.

Re:Stunts

[clone53421]

Fuck off.

NONE of the definitions say “without evidence”, and definition 2b(1) specifically is:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Is that adequate “evidence” that your definition of “faith” is bullshit?

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

If we assume religion (did you mean just Christianity?) is reasonable

I was not asking anyone to assume anything, and I specified only Christianity. I did not exclude any religions, but I was only talking about the one.

what, in your opinion, is unreasonable

For starters: saying that a belief in God is irrational just because you believe God's existence is unlikely, is unreasonable.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Name one Christian doctrine that is "backed up by evidence."

I mentioned several in the other comments in this thread. One example: Jesus was witnessed by 500 people post-resurrection, and many of those people were alive when the gospels were written, and could have -- but didn't apparently, as there's no record of it -- denied that the gospels were accurate reflections of what they saw.

Is this proof? Nope. Evidence? Of course.

Isn't the idea of "evidence" sort of anathema to the very idea of "faith"? If you have evidence, then there's no need for faith.

Absolutely not. It's a very common misconception (mostly among people who don't have faith), but it is completely wrong. Faith is related to lack of PROOF, not lack of EVIDENCE. Indeed, the New Testament is filled with examples of people believing, and having faith, as the result of evidence. Paul talked often about proving himself to the churches he wrote letters to, and about the churches testing him and others based on the evidence before them.

Please keep in mind that the Bible is evidence of anything by itself . . .

Also false. That's like saying that I can't argue my own case before a court of law. Granted, external evidence is helpful, but I can make arguments in my favor apart from external evidence, and those arguments are, themselves, evidence.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

this is their way of trying to draw attention to one *specific* argument against it

Yes, a straw man argument.

I think the point was "The bible has smutty content, but everybody has a blind spot for it."

Almost everyone recognizes a difference between adult content and porn. Only a fool would seriously try to equate the two. The latter is explicitly to facilitate sexual arousal. That is why it exists. No part of the Bible has this as its goal (not even Song of Solomon).

I don't think atheists really even "hate" the bible

Not all do, surely. Many, many do.

I think they just hate the way it's shoved in their face all the time by people who mostly have no clue as to 80% of it's content

So it's better for THEM to shove THEIR equally ignorant views about the Bible in THEIR faces? Yawn.

If you wanted to make a *faithful* movie version of all the Bible's content, you'd get, at best, an "R" rating

Yes, of course. So? No one ever said the Bible was a children's story. It's about humanity and all of its flaws, which is an obviously very adult subject. "The Passion of the Christ," which was a very good movie, was rated R. And I have no problem with that, nor does anyone else I know.

It is sort of shocking that people let their children read it . . .

Not at all. Again, you're pretending that porn and adult content are the same thing, or that movies and books are the same thing. Or both. A book explaining that David had sex with Bathsheba or that Adam walked around with his ding-dong hanging down (apologies to JoCo) is wildly different for many people -- and almost all kids -- than a movie that graphically depicts them.

Again, "The Passion of the Christ" was a very realistic portrayal, and as such, was rated R. But this is very different from reading a book that describes -- without graphic detail -- the same events, which easily could be rated PG.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

How quiant...you should be also really looking at different pages in Merriam Webster (and why only there) though. Not only those about "faith"; also "evidence", "evidenced". Without that you're picking what suits you and might just as well be even dialect specific...

The funny thing about evidence as pillar of faith is that it means different things to differet people (too bad I don't drink cofee or tea generally, I could have looked at dregs right now); it's, as I've said, quite shallow if youe preachers can't help themselves but rely on it. It's about belief in validity of "evidence".

Plsu...prove that your understanding of the word "evidence" is appropriate.

Re:Stunts

[clone53421]

Read the definitions of “evidence” yourself. It’s quite clear that many forms of “evidence” do not, in fact, furnish “proof”.

Re:Stunts

[Jhon]

I'll add to the dog pile...

Something that is unreasonable: 2+2=5. Anything that axiomatic and provably false and claimed to be true. Or vice versa.

Science is not axiomatic. It' is a process, not a definition.

Just on the surface, religions have had a rich history with humanity -- and appear pretty much with every culture. One might say it's an ignorant culture making up their "religion" trying to come to grips with a world that appears random -- to give it some meaning and to find their place in the world.

That is a reasonable theory...

On the flip side, let me give you a Hindu parable that was shared with me many years ago...

A poor man (Sudra) sought out the local wise man (Bhraman). The poor man asks "Where is God?" The wise man replied "Oh. His up there on top of that mountain." The poor man was happy! "How do I get there?", he asked. The wise man said, "All roads lead to the top of the mountain -- some are easy to travel, and may even take you away from the mountain, but they will eventually turn you back. These easy roads will take you a long time to reach the mountaintop. Other roads are very hard to travel, with rocks and thistles -- those paths will get you there much much sooner". And so the poor man went on his way, confident he will eventually find God.

What I took from that, when it was told to me, is that ALL of us are on a religious path (if we accept it or not) because we *ALL* want to understand our place in the universe and, apologies to D. Adams, have the ultimate question answered.

So -- is it unreasonable to believe in something outside the physical world? I don't think so.

Let me ask you something -- have you ever done some -- that AS you are doing it you feel "this is wrong -- I shouldn't be doing this"? My take away from experiences like that is it's God nudging me in one direction or another. This idea goes way back. Plato documents Socrates discussing his daemon that he claimed to hear only when he was about to make a mistake.

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

...and many still do; that's the whole point. Prove why you picking yours is fine while me picking mine is not.

Nvm that it probably also largely stems from differences between sects we're most familiar with, their approach to what even "faith" is - but I thought that goes without saying. You don't operate under absolutist assumption here, do you? (as a sidenote - sects I'm familiar with actually form significant majority of Christianity ;p (and btw are quite tolerable in certain things; accepting evolution and all that...))
Or outright lingustic subtleties (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis anyone?)

Re:Stunts

[Cyberllama]

I mentioned several in the other comments in this thread. One example: Jesus was witnessed by 500 people post-resurrection, and many of those people were alive when the gospels were written, and could have -- but didn't apparently, as there's no record of it -- denied that the gospels were accurate reflections of what they saw.

Is this proof? Nope. Evidence? Of course.

For this to be evidence you have to *assume* that Jesus Christ is a real historical figure and that the events surrounding his life as depicted in the Bible were true. These 2 things alone are huge leaps of faith. How do you know there were 500 people present at the time of his resurrection? Because the bible tells you so? The Romans kept great records, and we don't have any roman records of Jesus -- his execution or otherwise.

The only record of this story at all is the gospels themselves. If it is a fictional story, then how can fictional characters write records objecting to the authenticity of their own story? This makes no sense as evidence of anything.

There is, in fact, almost no historical writings from the first century AD that confirm the existence of Jesus in *any* form -- god or otherwise. There are two popular ones, but one is strongly suspect to be a forgery added by a monk transcribing the original several centuries after the author's death.

Now, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I am not suggesting Jesus did not exist (nor I am acknowledging that he did). The lack of records is hardly enough to suggest that he did not exist. But that being said, you can't really use the same lack of records as evidence that he did.

[quote]Absolutely not. It's a very common misconception (mostly among people who don't have faith), but it is completely wrong. Faith is related to lack of PROOF, not lack of EVIDENCE. Indeed, the New Testament is filled with examples of people believing, and having faith, as the result of evidence. Paul talked often about proving himself to the churches he wrote letters to, and about the churches testing him and others based on the evidence before them.[/quote]

I would disagree. There's proof of very few things in life. I don't think you can say that you have to take *everything* for which there is not absolute proof on faith. There's no proof of gravity, for instance. That doesn't mean I take gravity's existence on *faith*. I require significant evidence. Perhaps you mean to say that Faith is the lack of "overwhelming" evidence . . .

[quote]Also false. That's like saying that I can't argue my own case before a court of law. Granted, external evidence is helpful, but I can make arguments in my favor apart from external evidence, and those arguments are, themselves, evidence.[/quote]

If this were a court of law, the Bible would be hearsay and inadmissible as evidence -- with good reason. You may choose to adhere to a lesser standard of what qualifies as evidence, if you wish -- but please do so with the knowledge that anecdotes of apocryphal origin are simply not *compelling* as evidence in a rational setting.

Here's my bottom line:

Believe whatever you want -- that's my motto. I'm not posting here to try to dissuade you from your own beliefs. I'm perfectly happy for you to go on believing whatever makes you happy on the basis of any evidence you find compelling -- even if I find your evidence to be so weak as to be non-existent.

However, you have to understand that there are quite a few people in the world who are *not* happy to allow people to believe as they see fit and make it their mission to harass, belittle, and persecute those who do not share their beliefs. In this country, Christians are sadly very often guilty of that. It's not surprising, therefore, that *some* atheists would react harshly to that and become unnecessarily vocal about their beliefs.

There are people all over the country who would not hesitate to admit to being gay -- but wouldn't dream of telling friends or fami

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

I love watching fanatics argue, each pointing out the (potential) flaws in the others logic while failing to recognize the (potential) flaws in their own logic.

Of course, you are incapable of pointing out those supposed flaws.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

For this to be evidence you have to *assume* that Jesus Christ is a real historical figure and that the events surrounding his life as depicted in the Bible were true.

False.

These 2 things alone are huge leaps of faith.

Not remotely. We have historically significant extrabiblical evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure; in fact, almost no scholar of any stripe denies that he existed, and that he was crucified for professing to be the Messiah.

And as to whether the events were true ... that is completely irrelevant to the point here. It's about what is attested to, and how well, and whether people believed it, and so on, that matters.

How do you know there were 500 people present at the time of his resurrection? Because the bible tells you so?

I explained this to you in the previous comment.

The Romans kept great records, and we don't have any roman records of Jesus -- his execution or otherwise.

Jewish historian Josephus mentioned Jesus, as did the Roman historians Pliny the Younger, Tactius, and Suetonius.

The only record of this story at all is the gospels themselves.

Josephus, in fact, explicitly referenced the Christian belief of Jesus' resurrection. (You made reference -- I presume, from the context -- to the belief that Josephus' words were altered later, but you ignore the mainstream scholars' view of what those original words were, which explicitly referenced the belief of Christians that Jesus rose from the dead, before any supposed alterations.)

If this were a court of law ...

History is not a court of law. By a court of law, almost everything before the last thousands years would be inadmissable as evidence. You're giving a nonsensical argument.

anecdotes of apocryphal origin are simply not *compelling* as evidence in a rational setting

You are saying the Bible is of apocryphal origin? Really? Maybe you don't know what "apocryphal" means? There is no book from antiquity that has less questionable authenticity than the New Testament. All serious scholars agree that the New Testament, in its current form that we have today, is better than 99 percent pure (compared to its original writing). We have complete copies of the New Testament dating from just a couple hundred years of their original writing, which by antiquity standards is extremely strong, not to mention thousands of copies over hundreds of years that have remarkably strong agreement with the oldest copies.

If the Bible is not admissable as evidence, then no book from antiquity is.

I'm not posting here to try to dissuade you from your own beliefs. I'm perfectly happy for you ...

I honestly couldn't care less what you are posting for, or what makes you happy. No offense.

However, you have to understand that there are quite a few people in the world who are *not* happy to allow people to believe as they see fit and make it their mission to harass, belittle, and persecute those who do not share their beliefs.

Yes, and some of those people are atheists, such as the ones in question in this story.

Re:Stunts

[Cyberllama]

I could go point by point in my response, but I've been down that road before. There's no benefit to it. You clearly have your own beliefs and they are clearly not what I would consider to be based on solid intellectual footing.

You clearly have confused, quite intentionally because it suits you, "biblical scholars" with "historians". Biblical Scholars are the least credible people when it comes to the authenticity and historical accuracy of the Bible. They are, quite simply, biased. They have created bodies of work which you have decided are credible despite very thin actual evidence supporting them.

And I believe it is you who does not know what the word apocryphal means. For starters, I don't know where you got the "99% pure" idea from. But even if that were the case, apocryphal merely means we don't know who *actually* wrote it. Authorship on most books of the Bible has been traditionally ascribed to specific individuals who in many cases we know for a fact did NOT write those books. For instance, Moses did not write Genesis -- that can be proven. Even most of the gospels were likely written after the deaths of their namesakes.

At any rate, the atheists in this story are not being particularly obnoxious, in the grand scheme of things. They are not knocking on doors or belittling others. They are merely a reaction to the general oppression they feel in society. For you to judge them harshly is, frankly, unfair.

Of all the arguing we've done here, I've really only cared to persuade you on that one particular issue -- but I imagine your disposition is such that I couldn't persuade you that the sky was blue. With that in mind, I'll let the matter rest here.

Re:Stunts

[Jhon]

In this country, Christians are sadly very often guilty of that. It's not surprising, therefore, that *some* atheists would react harshly to that and become unnecessarily vocal about their beliefs.

"Christians are ... very often"? The "guilt" of which you speak and suggest is done by most Christians is actually perpetrated by a minority. Those who have far too much zeal in their beliefs. Like the Atheists in this thread. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheists here. Or the Atheist here.

Don't try to justify what these whackjobs have done because you feel religious whackjobs have done it on the other side. Condemn it and move on!

Re:Stunts

[xous]

Second, we have eyewitnesses who independently testified to the event, outside of the religious texts. And perhaps more to the same point, those religious texts (aside from the Gospel of John) were floating around the area while the eyewitnesses who say the saw the risen Christ were mostly still alive: standard historical analysis methods tell us that it is extremely unlikely that the gospels would have survived if a large number of people (around 500 people) would have been around as eyewitnesses to deny the events contained therein.

Proof that a story survived does not mean that it is accurate. First of all people would need know of these events to be able to deny them. At the time few people could read let alone write.

I'd respond to your other statements but you provide absolutely no supporting evidence for most if not all your claims.

On the whole I find the whole thing terribly amusing. I spent most of my childhood with Christians attempting "convert" or force me into accepting their belief system. They don't seem to like it much when someone else rocks the boat the other way.

Re:Stunts

[RockDoctor]

It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."

I don't know who Dr house is, but the way I've heard it expressed before is "you can't reason someone out of a position that they did not arrive at by reasoning."
I don't have a citation for that though.
Edit : WikiQuote hints that it's Dean Swift, but they don't have a source for it. It does have the sound of a Swift-ism.

Re:Stunts

[clone53421]

...and many still do; that's the whole point. Prove why you picking yours is fine while me picking mine is not.

...do I need to spell it out?

Faith is accepting something without proof. Not (necessarily) without evidence: you can have evidence. Obviously, if you have evidence but not proof, you only have the sort of evidence that supports but does not conclusively prove what you believe. QED.

If you do have proof for your belief, it isn’t faith. It’s a fact.

If you have no evidence for your belief, it is one type of faith, but not the kind you should have. It is blind faith.

Any preacher who demands blind faith from people is intellectually dishonest. But any preacher will ask you to have a certain level of faith.

Re:Stunts

[DuckDodgers]

Agreed. If you can read http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ and still believe in the Bible, you are beyond reason. There is more logic and especially more mercy and internal consistency in stories of Santa Claus than the intolerant, slavery-promoting, sexist, inconsistent, genocidal torturer worshiped by the Jews and the Christians. If you can read, say, the Book of Genesis, the Book of Joshua, and the Book of Revelations and not conclude your deity is a vicious maniac, you lack the ability to reason.

Re:Stunts

[ffreeloader]

What I see here, and in many other places, is total condemnation of people of faith based on "not knowing". It's a "you're stupid to believe that and I'll prove you're irrational to believe that, and yes, evolution is true and God does not exist", when it's based on nothing more than "not knowing".

I call that pretty self-incriminating behavior because by your sides own definitions you're not supposed to accept anything as believable unless you can know you have enough evidence to back your position. And what are you doing? You're basing your condemnation and attitude of superiority on having 1% of the data. No rational person, by your definition of rational, would even begin to say they have enough evidence to make up their mind about anything on 1% of the data.

So, what's left? Faith is what's left to both sides. Like I said, condemning people of faith as irrational is an exercise in self-condemnation.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

I could go point by point in my response

... and I'd rebut each of your points once again.

You clearly have your own beliefs and they are clearly not what I would consider to be based on solid intellectual footing.

... and you can't back that up with arguments based on, you know, intellectual footing.

You clearly have confused, quite intentionally because it suits you, "biblical scholars" with "historians".

OK. So in your opnion, Sir Frederic Kenyon, the former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, is not a historian.

Again: you don't know what you are talking about. You could say Kenyon is biased, but you can't say he isn't a historian; that said, so what if they are biased? What matters is the arguments they make and the evidence they have, which is extremely strong. Indeed, nothing I've asserted is even controversial among most scholars: it's merely the analysis of the facts that is at issue most of the time.

They have created bodies of work which you have decided are credible despite very thin actual evidence supporting them.

Far from it. You simply don't know what you're talking about, which frees you to pretend that there's no actual evidence. You don't address my points because you're both incapable of doing so, and because if you try, I'll provide all the evidence necessary to prove you wrong.

For starters, I don't know where you got the "99% pure" idea from.

The aforementioned Sir Kenyon. Actually, he said 99.9%. Other scholars have said that, at worst, it is 98.33% pure.

But even if that were the case, apocryphal merely means we don't know who *actually* wrote it.

Just for clarification, there's several definitions. You're using one of the minor ones. In talk of the Bible, "apocryphal" means something else entirely: books that are not canonical. You certainly didn't mean that since we are discussing the canon, so I guessed you were using the -- by far -- most relevant definition to this discussion, whether the books we have today are authentic.

Frankly, the authorship of most of the Bible is irrelevant, except for some of the letters, especially those from Paul, but also a few others. So I didn't guess that was your point, since it's mostly an uninteresting point in this context.

That said, for most of the Bible, we know better who wrote it than we do who wrote ANY OTHER book from antiquity.

Authorship on most books of the Bible has been traditionally ascribed to specific individuals who in many cases we know for a fact did NOT write those books.

For the New Testament, which is the direct context here since we're talking about Christ and so on, the overwhelming evidence is in favor of the traditional authorship attributions. And where it's not known with very high certainty, we don't pretend we know (such as with the book of Hebrews).

For instance, Moses did not write Genesis -- that can be proven.

False. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. It's true he didn't likely write the actual text we have today, but that's irrelevant, since at the time, the books were not written down, but passed down orally. But even if you are right that he didn't write it, in fact, you can't prove it.

Even most of the gospels were likely written after the deaths of their namesakes.

False. You're making that up. Luke was almost certainly written by Luke, and there's no evidence to suggest Mark was not written by Mark. There's some healthy skepticism about the authorship of Matthew and John, but there's little-to-no theological significance to the authorship of either, so it's irrelevant.

At any rate, the atheists in this story are not being particularly obnoxious

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Proof that a story survived does not mean that it is accurate.

I will reword your sentence to make it more obviously relevant to the discussion: Proof that a story survived [is not proof] that it is accurate

This is true. But we're not talking about proof, we're talking about evidence.

First of all people would need know of these events to be able to deny them.

There's no question the events were widely known.

At the time few people could read let alone write.

That argument has absolutely no relevance to this discussion.

I'd respond to your other statements but you provide absolutely no supporting evidence for most if not all your claims.

Shrug. All of them have evidence. I could write a book, or just point you to books. If you have a question on any of these obviously well-supported claims, ask it.

On the whole I find the whole thing terribly amusing. I spent most of my childhood with Christians attempting "convert" or force me into accepting their belief system.

I don't care. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

They don't seem to like it much when someone else rocks the boat the other way.

I don't like it when people, of whatever philosophy, are obnoxious ... especially when they presume themselves superior while making a point of their ignorance.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

I see we share the same favorite resource. It's the express train to apostasy, all aboard!

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sorry, you either believe the Bible or you don't. How could these verses be right otherwise? How could man be perfected through imperfection?

John 10:35 also says that scripture cannot be broken, and if it is to be used as a measure for judging people (as Paul says it should be), must it not be perfect in order to be just?

And if you discard these things and hold that the Bible was imperfectly written by men, what make it so much better than all the other imperfect books? Why run your life by it, judge others by it, treat it as infallible if it is fallible?

Re:Stunts

[sznupi]

I guess I need to spell it out...

Yes, people who I would call serious preachers (and faithfull too of course) might point out many, many examples of so called evidence (I don't have to repeat them here, you know the drill). But then...they will say something like "...I believe that in those things we see a manifestation of my deity". I can fully accept and respect that, even if I don't agree with it. That somebody knows what's he's doing at least.

What many people are doing is quite different however - pointing at "evidence" in their need of confirmation...treating it as proof - yes that's not faith. But it's what they do. It's the meaning of evidence which they use. Blind one, if you like.

Re:Stunts

[clone53421]

Ok. I’m ok with that.

However this:

people who I would call serious preachers (and faithfull too of course) might point out many, many examples of so called evidence (I don't have to repeat them here, you know the drill). But then...they will say something like "...I believe that in those things we see a manifestation of my deity". I can fully accept and respect that, even if I don't agree with it.

does not agree with your initial statement, with which I disagreed:

faith [is] specifically about believing in things without evidence - any serious preacher will agree with that.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

What I see here, and in many other places, is total condemnation of people of faith based on "not knowing". It's a "you're stupid to believe that and I'll prove you're irrational to believe that, and yes, evolution is true and God does not exist", when it's based on nothing more than "not knowing".

Either you're not reading what I'm saying, not understanding it, or deliberately ignoring it. So I'll repeat it again, with emphasis:

In the end, both people don't know, but the person of faith additionally accepts the invention of things they cannot test. That is where they are irrational. There is nothing irrational about just not knowing , or accepting reproducible, controlled tests as the best possible model for understanding reality (effectively facts, even if absolute facts are not possible).

Your argument that science is synonymous with faith and cannot be trusted by rational people due to what remains unknown is ludicrous and absurd. Science is the process by which the unknown is uncovered and becomes known. Just because there are limits to human knowledge does not invalidate or falsify that knowledge. In fact, all it does is encourage rational people to keep asking questions, keep probing, keep testing, keep adding to that knowledge at all times and in all possible ways because that will make the picture clearer, the framework more solid, and everything more useful. The only thing that invalidates or falsifies knowledge is MORE KNOWLEDGE, not untestable inventions. And when that earlier knowledge is replaced by greater understanding, it doesn't mean the previous understanding was faith, it means the previous understanding was incomplete.

Lack of understanding is not faith. I can see how a religious person would have that attitude, as they cannot understand except by faith the things they must take on faith. Newtonian physics vs. relativistic physics is not faith 1 vs. faith 2 where some follow the dogma of 1 and others the dogma of 2, because it is provable that 1 is a more complete explanation of physical observations than 2. If you try to teach a child both, and he doesn't understand relativistic physics, that doesn't mean he lacks faith, he simply doesn't understand. That doesn't mean relativistic physics is an invalid concept. (Insofar as it is the best possible explanation of observable behavior at this time.)

Knowledge is not about absolutes. Only a Sith thinks in terms of absolutes. If you wait for perfection, you'll be waiting a long time, and if you invent an abstraction of perfection to fill the gap, you've failed. Humanity cannot imagine/conceive perfection unless humanity itself is perfect (because that imagination/conception would have to exist within the structure of the human mind, which if it were not perfect would be impossible).

No, it is better to rely on a testable, verifiable 1% while admitting you don't know the rest than to just throw up your hands and say, 'screw the testable, verifiable physical world, all the unknowns mean I can't trust the knowns, so I'm just going to believe in this invention because it sounds cool.'

Re:Stunts

[SadButTrue]

Sorry, I wasn't looking for clarification of your quoted statement. I was looking for another example. That is, given the belief in god is reasonable, what, if anything, can be considered unreasonable?

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Sorry, I wasn't looking for clarification of your quoted statement. I was looking for another example. That is, given the belief in god is reasonable, what, if anything, can be considered unreasonable?

Why do you need ANOTHER example? Shrug. Fine: a belief that 2+2=5 is unreasonable.

Re:Stunts

[Vanderhoth]

If a dictionaries isn't an authoritative sources for the definitions of words, what is? I'm pretty sure when I was growing up if there was a word I couldn't spell right or didn't understand I was told to look it up in the dictionary. How did you find a words meaning?

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

If a dictionaries isn't an authoritative sources for the definitions of words, what is?

There isn't any. That's now how language works. Dictionaries describe usage; they do not prescribe usage. Definitions change as the culture changes them, and dictionaries cannot be used to tell anyone that a definition is wrong.

A GOOD dictionary -- and they are few -- can tell people that a definition is standard or nonstandard, but not that it is wrong.

Re:Stunts

[SadButTrue]

While it is certainly wrong (given a linear numbering system) I don't see how there is any reason involved in it a all.

I understand that you are dodging the question, and that is fine. You shouldn't feel compelled to answer at all.

I am asking for an example of an explanation for something that you would consider unreasonable given the context of the supernatural as reasonable. For example, one of your employees calls out because they have been abducted by aliens, from their car, on the freeway. Reasonable?

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

...You're an idiot.

Shrug. You're the one who doesn't understand how language works.

Re:Stunts

[NotBornYesterday]

I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery

On the facts? Your facts are incomplete, since you do not include the positive aspects of religion, including the community support that churches provide, etc. etc. Cherry-picking facts to suit your bias is the same as lying, and reveals your own lack of rationality. As far as knowing a lot of history, I'd suggest you reread some of it. You will find society shapes religion as much if not more than religion shapes society, and that much of the violence and persecution attributed to religious zeal is more political and/or tribal in nature than religious. Also, the worst atrocities in history took place at the command of avowed atheists, such as Stalin and Mao. Should the world judge atheists by the examples of those? Or is it perhaps wrong to judge groups of people based on the actions of others?

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

The creation of dogma is a conscious, willful process, also known as 'design'. Yes, it's a product of evolution insofar as the designers biologically evolved, but conscious choices only effect biological evolution in very small ways (you make a mistake that gets you killed before you can reproduce, for example) that only have recognizable effects cumulatively (at which point the conscious aspect becomes irrelevant).

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

While it is certainly wrong (given a linear numbering system) I don't see how there is any reason involved in it a all.

It's all reason. That is literally all it is. The question of what 2+2 is, and is not, is entirely about reason.

you are dodging the question

Absolutely not. If you want a more specific answer, you should ask a more specific question. I really have no idea what you're trying to get at.

I am asking for an example of an explanation for something that you would consider unreasonable given the context of the supernatural as reasonable.

I did not presume you meant in the context of the supernatural. Fine: one example an unreasonable view would be something that is literally impossible, such as a god that can make 2+2=5.

For example, one of your employees calls out because they have been abducted by aliens, from their car, on the freeway. Reasonable?

If it really happened, then of course it's reasonable. I hope you're not saying it's not possible.

However, of course, if it didn't happen, or if there's no reason to believe it did, then it's most likely not reasonable.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Btw. this one statement caught my eye...

"By far, more murders were committed by explicitly atheistic regimes than religious ones in the 20th century"

Could you please expand on that? Are you referring to military, or something smaller in scope? I'm trying to identify if religion (or lack of) has anything to do with it...

I am referring to the mass murders by the regimes of the USSR and China, responsible for somewhere between 75 million and 100 million human deaths combined.

I would say atheism played a role in two ways: first, in that because atheism is itself an ideology, these fascist regimes were set on wiping out any ideologies that posed a threat. This is not unique to atheism, of course, but it's distinctly different from having a regime that has no ideology.

Second, in that because it was an atheist regime, as opposed to an explicitly pacifist ideology (such as some branches of Christianity or Buddhism, for example), there was no restraining factor within the ideology itself. But again, this is not unique to atheism.

Re:Stunts

[SadButTrue]

While it is certainly wrong (given a linear numbering system) I don't see how there is any reason involved in it a all.

It's all reason. That is literally all it is. The question of what 2+2 is, and is not, is entirely about reason.

I really hate to quote definitions because of the natural uncertainty in language. But I can not stress enough that math contains no "reason" or "reasoning" or "logic" all of which are at the heart of what we are talking about. You claim that religion, Christianity in particular, is a reasonable conclusion to draw from our existence. How we define our counting numbers has no relevance.

define: reason;
a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion

I am asking for an example of an explanation for something that you would consider unreasonable given the context of the supernatural as reasonable.

I did not presume you meant in the context of the supernatural. Fine: one example an unreasonable view would be something that is literally impossible, such as a god that can make 2+2=5.

So the god that existed forever and a few thousand years ago created space and time is incapable of altering the fundamental structure of numbers (that she created)?

For example, one of your employees calls out because they have been abducted by aliens, from their car, on the freeway. Reasonable?

If it really happened, then of course it's reasonable. I hope you're not saying it's not possible.

However, of course, if it didn't happen, or if there's no reason to believe it did, then it's most likely not reasonable.

Perfect. Now of course the problem is you only have their word to go on. Reasonable?

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

The fundamental difference between the injustices of the religious and the injustices of atheists is simple. There is no 'Bible' of atheism. Stalin and Mao killed a lot of people because of who they were as individuals, not because an atheist 'Bible' told them to do it.

If we examine misogyny for instance, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 tells women to sit down and shut up, and that they should never teach men, but their inferiority should not cause them despair because having children is their redeeming function. Judaic law is worse, as in Leviticus 12:2-5 women are considered unclean after childbirth, and twice as unclean if they give birth to girls. Islam treats women as property that can even be inherited (but only if the women are lewd) per Nisa 4:19.

However since atheism is only lack of a belief, and not a specific system for doing anything, it cannot be intrinsically misogynistic like any of those religions. If an atheist decides to also be a misogynist, that's simply his decision, not a prerequisite to being a 'proper atheist' in the sense that a revealed scripture must be followed to be a 'proper' Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

I can not stress enough that math contains no "reason" or "reasoning" or "logic"

Stress all you like, but you're wrong. That is literally ALL that math IS.

So the god that existed forever and a few thousand years ago created space and time is incapable of altering the fundamental structure of numbers (that she created)?

There's no "structure" to numbers. It's a universal and unalterable principle. If you have two of something, and then you have two more, you now have four. The symbols we use are, of course, irrelevant: these are simply universal and unalterable principles.

You're free to disagree, but I doubt you're going to solve the problem of universals here.

Perfect. Now of course the problem is you only have their word to go on. Reasonable?

Nope. I -- of course -- have MUCH more than their word to go on. Think about it a bit more. I have context, in all sorts of ways: history, tradition, current scientific knowledge, what I know about the person making the claim, and much more.

Re:Stunts

[tecnico.hitos]

Key word there is ignorant. I know a lot about history and where religion fits into it, including Christianity. I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery, etc. etc. What I said is you don't know anything about these people beyond this story. Until you do, your judgement is weaker than my judgement of religion

Did these things happen because of religion or religion just was used as mean of promoting this?

I'm not against religion, but I am against organizations that manipulate people for their own benefit. Those two are not the same and the second, which is the actual problem, doesn't happen exclusively because of religion.

Re:Stunts

[Cyberllama]

Yeah, see, your problem is that *I* am the one citing facts and using actual arguments. *You* are the one who is ignoring arguments backed by evidence, backpedalling away from them with the transparent "well you wouldn't accept a good argument anyway."

The first 2 posts I gave you plenty of good facts and actual arguments and your response was simply "false". You have a clear blindspot, and I simply realized it wasn't productive to argue with someone who was not going to be persuaded by anything short of divine intervention.

In your head, you're using facts and I'm not. What the heck? You continually take my facts, and respond with "false" or simply ignore them entirely. Meanwhile, your facts consist of vague declarations about "scholars". In only ONE instance have you actually cited a single name -- and that was after I realized that this clearly wasn't going down a productive avenue.

The third, valid response to your argument's is simply to point out that they are entirely tangential to anything of substance. This discussion was never, or was never meant to be, an argument over religion. You continue to try to draw it in that direction -- and I simply am not interested.

From every point of view of which I can conceive, offering to trade porn for bibles, does not count as "belittling people". They simply are trying to draw attention to the fact that people who subscribe to biblical beliefs often share puritanical values which, if strictly enforced, would have them ban the bible itself for some of its content.

To me, no reasonable person construes this as "belittling others". Obnoxious? Well I obviously don't think it is, but that's somewhat within the eye of the beholder. But when I point out that they are belittling no one, you say "false".

Whatever. We don't share a common reality, so we can't have this discussion. It's that simple.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

The first 2 posts I gave you plenty of good facts and actual arguments and your response was simply "false".

You're lying. For example, the first "fact" you cited was "we don't have any roman records of Jesus." This was proven false (Tactius, et al). The second was "The only record of this story at all is the gospels themselves," but I noted that Josephus mentioned it.

Futher, you're lying that I simply responded to ANY facts or actual arguments you offered with 'simply "false."' Not a one. I did that only to your claim that the atheists were not belittling to others and that I am being unfair in judging them harshly. Neither of these is a fact, or an actual argument: they are mere assertions of your opinion.

The only other thing I responded 'simply "false"' with was your claim, For this to be evidence you have to *assume* that Jesus Christ is a real historical figure and that the events surrounding his life as depicted in the Bible were true. But that is not a fact, it's an opinion; and further, I did back this up in the next paragraph.

If your lies are so transparent, why bother telling them?

You have a clear blindspot

Back at you.

In your head, you're using facts and I'm not.

Shrug. You were wrong in those two facts, and in most others. You asserted that I was not referring to "historians," that "historians" wouldn't back up what I said. I proved that false. You claimed that it can be "proven" that Gensis was not written by Moses; I said this was false, but, of course, I can't prove a negative: it's up to you to prove (but you cannot). You claimed that "most of the gospels were likely written after the deaths of their namesakes," when it is generally accepted that at least half of them were not, and scholars are split on the other half.

You continually take my facts, and respond with "false" or simply ignore them entirely.

Nope. I responded with ACTUAL facts, which you were incapable of rebutting, and there wasn't a single one I responded 'simply "false"' to. I know of no fact I ignored; if you bring it to my attention, I can consider it, but I went over your points pretty thoroughly.

Meanwhile, your facts consist of vague declarations about "scholars".

I was FAR less vague than YOU were with your similar assertions, so you're just criticizing yourself here.

In only ONE instance have you actually cited a single name

And in NONE did YOU cite a single name. Not that I mind, since I am familiar enough with the literature that I don't need names, and I am familiar enough with how fallacies work that I don't care who says what, but, rather, I care about what is said. But for you to attack me for not providing more than one name, when you've provided none, is transparently hypocritical.

The third, valid response to your argument's is simply to point out that they are entirely tangential to anything of substance.

False.

This discussion was never, or was never meant to be, an argument over religion. You continue to try to draw it in that direction

False. I did no such thing. I discussed the historicity of the New Testament with you, and not religion. You're the one who kept conflating the two, such as with your (proven) ignorant statement about the "historians" versus "bible scholars."

and I simply am not interested.

Shrug. Blame yourself. I answered the questions you asked, and addressed the points you brought up,. and rebutted the "facts" you cited.

From every point of view of which I can conceive, offering to trade porn for bibles, does not count as "belittling people".

So? Why do you think this has anything to do with what I have said? Think a little bit more, please. Do yourself,

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

What you describe is antitheism, not atheism

False.

Re:Stunts

[hotfireball]

2 Peter 3:5. If you don't believe in creation, you're wrong.

Hence believing in a Big Bang theory must be a right thing then, because probably we see it every day a hurricane, that moves over a garbage place, accidentally assembles Boeing 747... So how is your belief differs from their belief, if you can not prove yourself either?

Galatians 1:8. If anybody says something different from the Bible, they are cursed.

Is it like "my Linux is better your Windows" thing?

2 Corinthians 10:5. This one is so good, it can speak for itself

That's apply to the Slashdot community as well, including you.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

I take misogyny as an example in a different post on this topic. You can see that is specifically defined and consequently integral if you are truly trying to 'walk the talk' of a given text. And while misogyny is not exclusive to religion, at least in the examples I cite it is a prerequisite for religion, whereas the same is not true of atheism.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

You're missing the point. Pudge was arguing that Christianity does not require that contradictory evidence be discounted. I am not saying that if creation is wrong (which I have not even actively asserted except by extension that if there is no god then there can be no creation) that makes evolution/abiogenesis/big-bang theory correct by default. That would be nonsense. What I say is that evolution/abiogenesis/big-bang theory are more rational because they are based on observations and verifiable, reproducible tests.

Also, trying to discredit the big-bang theory by saying aircraft are not assembled by hurricanes is as absurdly weak as the 9/11 truthers who light a fire between two cinder blocks vertically separated by metal and claim that is conclusive proof that it would have been impossible for the steel beams of the twin towers to melt within a solid firestorm accelerated by jet fuel. By your logic, creation is false because nobody has ever seen anything created from nothing.

If the universe as we know it effectively began through the destabilization of a unbelievably massive singularity, that's a condition that has never existed since. Obviously, all the material in the universe has expanded to its current state, so the conditions don't exist for a similarly sized singularity to destabilize again. The theory is simply based on our understanding of physical laws and the reverse extrapolation of the currently observed behavior of material.

My 'belief' in so far as I believe my own eyes when I look at the astronomical data is different from creationism in that it is based on observable phenomena. As I said before, nobody has ever seen a 'divine creation', but you would choose to believe this imaginative invention over the known fact that material in the universe is expanding in certain directions at certain rates, and if it were possible to run time backwards all that material would be at a common point. You want to believe a fabrication, I look at evidence and draw a rational conclusion. If new evidence arises that disproves the hypothesis (as there is an upstart theory that rather than a singularity the universe is a sort of emission from a zero entropy plane caused by quantum mechanical uncertainty) I will summarily discard it. The rational mind does not marry itself to ideas in the face of contradictory evidence.

All your other comments are puerile, and I expect I'm wasting my time detailing all this to you.

Re:Stunts

[tecnico.hitos]

Religions change as the world changes. To exactly "walk the talk" of an ancient text is hardly feasible, even more if the text comes from different sources and goes through several translations. Their orientations often have cultural particularities from the age and place they are from.

I doesn't mean the orientations can't be used though. With interpretation and contextualization, good messages are not difficult to find. Good priests should help common people to get those messages, and good followers should try to interpretate by themselves too.

Religions are very subjective. Usually that's the reason ill-inclined people derive bad and selfish things from them.

Being raised as a christian, I can say the Bible is filled with things I believe to be wrong. I do not consider myself less religious because of this. I can also say if you don't take everything literally, almost everything from the Gospels is good. I use christianity as an example, because it is the religion I am most familiar with.

Re:Stunts

[NotBornYesterday]

There is no 'Bible' of atheism.

So? That's irrelevant. You judged modern Christians by the acts of historical Christians. I simply did the same with atheists, while simultaneously pointing out that the worst atrocities in the world are certainly not the fault of religion or its followers.

Quoting outmoded snippets of the Bible and Koran doesn't prove your case either. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, how long have nuns been teaching in Catholic schools? Like I said, religion tends to reflect the culture of the tribe it exists in. You are getting hung up on writings that likely had some practical historical roots a couple thousand years ago in a tribe far different from the modern "tribes" you or I are members of today.

Re:Stunts

[paxcoder]

Ok, *I*'ll search for it for you:
"A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet."

In case you still don't understand: "Ferrari" is not a synonym for "car".

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

If religion changes as the world changes, what is the point? That's a completely secular attitude, and antithetical to Christian doctrine that believers are supposed to be separated from the world (per 2 Corinthians 6:17).

Abrahamic religion is not compatible with relativism. The whole point of the divine in Abrahamic religions is that it is an immutable, unchanging, rock-solid foundation to which everything else is relative, and by following it and not the capricious material world and society you can attain righteousness. It is completely irrational to think that X act is sin to an eternal immutable God in the year 100, but X act is A-OK to the same God in the year 2100. Either X act is a sin against God's moral law, or it isn't. Period. Forever.*

If you say that any given contemporary society decides morality, you are placing the authority of right and wrong with society instead of God. That makes you clearly a weaker Christian, if Christian you could still even be called. I myself was a Christian from age 3 to 17, during which I was required to study the Bible five days a week for NINE YEARS (and 3rd party Biblical criticisms, ugh). I'm not just some jackass pulling things I don't really understand from SAB (though it is a great resource).

It is unnatural and unreasonable to raise up a single book and say 'everything in here is right' and the human spirit bridles against it. Of course you want to look at it and say 'well X in the Bible is good and Y in the Bible is bad.' However, here you have just become secular. That's what I do with all books. I decide what's right and wrong in all of them, trying to synthesize the best and use them productively. I get to do that because I am secular. I decide. If you are a Christian, God decides. It is up to God to say what is right or wrong, sinful or righteous, not you, not your priest or pastor, and sure as hell not 'contemporary society.'

Where does interpretation and translation come into this? Sects. Catholics, Gnostics, Copts, Lutherans, Unitarians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc. etc. on and on. Each believes they know the 'real' meaning. Some are more tolerant than others of competing interpretations, but sectarianism by and large does not deny the primacy of scripture. Sects are affected by social change, but as I mentioned earlier, (the Judeo-Christian idea of) God is not. Which sect is closest to the ideal I don't care, but it is an absolute, because the moral law of God must be absolute. Otherwise judgement day would be pretty retarded:

'Alright, who's next. Bob Dingo, you committed X and are damned for it.' Bob says, 'Hey, wait a minute, you just judged Bill over there, he did that, but he was damned for something else!' God says, 'Oh, well, yes, but you see you did it the 1920 in the US, and he did it in the year 2020 in the UK. Didn't you know sin was relative to social conditions? Guess I forgot to tell the apostles that, terribly sorry, enjoy hell, next.'

If you want to make the primary decisions about right and wrong in your life, be secular. If you want to abdicate those primary decisions to God, be religious.

*The exception being Christ's fulfillment of Judaic Law, but that was something God said would happen from the beginning of sin (which is itself a violation of the concept, but religion isn't rational), and it is understood to be a one off. So until Christ comes back and says different, the New Testament is absolute and immutable as a moral code and defines sin vs. righteousness.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

Since I'm having essentially the same debate with another person, and he got the link post last time, I will refer you here for the primary argument and make only a few minor additional statements tailored to your point.

It most certainly is not irrelevant. People are being killed every year because radicals claim they are following religious doctrine because their group's interpretation is that they should kill people. Nobody can say atheism tells them to do anything, because atheism is only a lack of belief, it contains no system for action. It doesn't tell anybody to do anything. You can say these religious radicals are getting it wrong, but that doesn't make the catalyst go away, that catalyst is ambiguous doctrine given authority by the concept of divine inspiration.

The religious nutjobs who carried out the 9/11 attacks did so because it was what they believed their religion directly indicated they should do. Mao didn't kill people because he was an atheist, but for completely different, politically-motivated reasons. I'm not judging people on historical acts, I'm judging people on their historical motivations, because without motivation there is no act. It's just not a valid comparison. One, religion, is a cause, the other, atheism, is not. The end.

Re:Stunts

[Jhon]

You're a nut job.

And you post this attack as an anonymous coward because....?

Anything supernatural in any way is bullshit.

You just want to believe.

I don't "want" to believe. I do believe. Want implies can't or don't.

You want to believe everyone is like you.

In many ways, everyone *IS* like me. And in many ways, they are not. I'm not sure where you got that BLANKET statement about me from my post -- but I'd say it says more about you than it does about me.

I'm not. I don't believe in your God.

It's no skin off my nose. And I won't call you a nut job either.

I have a conscience that doesn't talk to me but let's me judge right from wrong using a thought process, "would I want this to happen to me?"

That's one aspect of a conscience... And if you re-read your statement, it's not unreasonable to say your "thought process" is talking to you. You in fact used quotes to note what was said.

To believe in anything supernatural is a lie.

That's one particular belief system you've expressed. It's certainly not the only one.

You can believe all the lies you want but in the end we'll both die and it won't make a difference.

I'll say the same of you. Let's compare notes when we cash in our chips.

Re:Stunts

[Cyberllama]

Oh for god sake. How is this hard for you? I'm fully aware of all the crap you keep bringing up. I was smart enough to realize, after your first post, that you knew what you were talking about and must know the same stuff I did. Since you knew that stuff, and came to a different conclusion, I realized this argument could never be productive. Why are you slow on this realization? You don't strike me as stupid. A bit of a zealot? Perhaps, but probably not stupid.

Listen. You try to bait me into "proving" that Moses could not have written Genesis. I could give you the 10 standard points on that from the Age of Reason (there's like half a chapter on it), but I suspect you're familiar enough with Paine to come right back with the standard rebuttals to those points to which I'd come back with the rebuttals to those rebuttals.

You would say that it was initially written by him, but transcribers after his death changed the place names to their modern equivalents to keep it modern. And I would point out if transcribers can change things on whim like that, then how can you claim the book is 99% pure. We'd probably end arguing about the epic of Gilgamesh at some point.

Here's the thing there, it won't get us anywhere. I'm guessing the reason you have figured this out yet is because you're simply too arrogant to realize that I might already know all the crap you keep throwing at me.

Yes, I'm familiar with Frederic Kenyon, C.S. Lewis, Immanuel Kant, Newton or whatever other Biblical Scholar you want to bring into the discussion. The thing is this: They were all BIBLICAL SCHOLARS. That means they started with the conclusion, that the bible is fact, and worked backwards to find facts to support their conclusion.

I realize the Bible is not science, but surely you can understand how flawed this approach is and recognize that anytime you start with the conclusion and work backwards, no mater how silly your conclusion is, you will ALWAYS find "facts" to support your conclusion.

And Yes, I'm also familiar with a the handful of Christ references you dug up, well like 3 of them anyways, and all of them are of disputed Authenticity particularly the one from Jospehus Flavius -- which is, to my way of thinking, very obviously a total forgery (in as much as it sticks out like a sore thumb and makes no sense) whereas the others are much harder to say.

Do you really want to have a lengthy discussion on each one of these and possible reasons as to why Tacticus might have given Pontius Pilate the wrong title?

Well here's the thing, I don't. It's obvious to me where this is going (nowhere, fast) and it would be obvious to you too if you weren't so arrogant as to assume you had knowledge on the subject that I didn't already have. The but fact is, we both have the facts and both drew very different conclusions and there's not going to be any chance of some shocking new revelation that's going to change my mind or yours. So let's cut our losses.

You're right, I'm running away from this argument. Not because I'm going to lose, but because everybody is going to lose.

Re:Stunts

[tecnico.hitos]

As I said before, ancient texts have particularities from their age and place. With this I meant that they are not purely laws of the divinity. Not only that, but they may contain misinterpretations and biases of their originators, which are human.

It seems you were taught to follow the teachings of the Bible as literally as possible. That would explain why you seem to think less of someone who doesn't. It also may be the reason why you seem to have an aversion towards religions.

Re:Stunts

[pudgetest]

How is this hard for you?

Not at all.

I'm fully aware of all the crap you keep bringing up.

So why did you lie about what I said?

Since you knew that stuff, and came to a different conclusion, I realized this argument could never be productive.

That's an irrational conclusion. Perhaps you engage in arguments only to convince people to agree with your conclusions; I do not.

You try to bait me into "proving" that Moses could not have written Genesis.

Bullshit. You made an irrational claim you cannot back up. I simply challenged you to back it up, and instead of admitting you can't, you lied about me and pretended that I could not be reasoned with.

I could give you the 10 standard points on that from the Age of Reason

Except, of course, that Paine proved nothing. I didn't ask for points or arguments, I asked for PROOF, that you said you had. But you don't.

You would say that it was initially written by him ...

I would say it COULD have been, and that you cannot PROVE otherwise. Which is true. So why not just admit your error?

how can you claim the book is 99% pure

I never did. What I said -- I won't trouble you to look up my comment -- was, "All serious scholars agree that the New Testament, in its current form that we have today, is better than 99 percent pure." As you well know, I hope, Genesis is not in the New Testament.

Here's the thing there, it won't get us anywhere.

If you want to remain ignorant, then yes, you'll never get anywhere. I am giving you facts you don't understand, which I've already pointed out and backed up, and which you dishonestly referred to as saying 'simply "false."'

The only thing keeping us from "getting anywhere" is your dishonesty.

Yes, I'm familiar with Frederic Kenyon

Not well enough to recognize that he was a scientist and historian first. You dishonestly dismiss his work as that of a "biblical scholar," and pretend that he reached his conclusion first. How petty of you, especially when on THIS subject -- the purity of the New Testament -- it is the ANTI-Christians who are the ones who are left out in the cold of the mainstream views. They are the ones, such as the Jesus Seminar members, who explicitly gather to drum up evidence against the Bible (using the most extraordinarily weak methodology imaginable), putting their bias front and center.

Again: you can play these fallacious games of questioning motives, but what matters is what was said, and what backs it up. You cannot argue against the evidence, so you lie about what I said and ignore what the scholars say because of perceived "bias."

It's dishonest.

I realize the Bible is not science

But analysis of it IS science, to a large degree, and much of that science argues against your claims. Again: you attack motives instead of sticking to the facts. It's dishonest.

And Yes, I'm also familiar with a the handful of Christ references you dug up, well like 3 of them anyways, and all of them are of disputed Authenticity particularly the one from Jospehus Flavius

You're lying. The one from Josephus is the ONLY one with disputed authenticity, and MOST scholars today believe that the original Josephus work DID mention Jesus, but just using different language. As I already said, and as you -- true to your form -- ignored.

The but fact is, we both have the facts ...

Except that none of mine has been rebutted, and all of yours have been rebutted. And so you dishonestly pretend that the discussion itself is fruitless, when you find that your arguments are falling down.

there's not

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Just one more word for now:

You're the one who is having a hard time here.

There's really only three responses for you to have.

One is that you are wrong and I am right.

Another is to actually back up your points instead of lying about what both of us say.

The last is to bow out gracefully, saying you would just prefer not to have the discussion.

Instead, you do the opposite of all of these: you continue to assert I am wrong, while not backing up ANY of your points, and lying about what both of us have said, and then instead of bowing out you continue to argue, while inventing bullshit reasons why you're bowing out, which you aren't doing.

Seriously, grow a pair.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

If the Bible is so anachronistic, misinterpreted, misinterpretable, and biased, why base your life on it? Why are the human authors of the Bible the ones who are given credence as divinely inspired, but not the author(s) of the Quran, the Vedas, the Eddur, the Avesta, etc. etc.?

Also, you haven't answered how a relative doctrine can be used as a foundation for moral law. Is sin relative or absolute? How is either just?

Re:Stunts

[hotfireball]

Of course, all my arguments are puerile and you just the smartest person on the World, hands down. Fine. It is also well-known fact that on Slashdot if one is asking for some actual evidence and proof of abiogenesis, then he is considered a troll, idiot and a complete moron. But I am fine, I was born in a Soviet Union, so I know folks like you very well. I am trained, don't worry. ;-)

Thus, if you say that "evolution/abiogenesis/big-bang theory are more rational because they are based on observations and verifiable, reproducible tests", then please show me some reproducibles, like chaos creates an order. Like at least solve a classic, trivial, pettifogging chicken/egg problem at the first.Disclaimer: please don't offer me to look at crystals and snow flakes. Show here something, that actually makes sense, like complete random chaos can suddenly create something well structured and well designed at its all architecture. Don't forget to show a world progress (since this is *evolution*, right?), hence explain how thousands years ago folks could cut a high density stones in Mexico for their pyramids, using a... what... stone or a hammers?.. Well, I am not going detailed, because you will anyway reject all this things, asking "what this I am talking about?" -- I understand you anyway, please forgive my stupid brain, you who is very smart. :-)

There is a saying, that if you put a million monkeys in front of typewriter, they will write a great story. But reading a Slashdot, I feel exactly the opposite... So if you unable to show me anything I've asked just now, then yeah, please don't waste your time, detailing all this "wisdom" to me. :-)

Anyway, peace. Take care.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

It occurred to me a little later how fundamentally incompatible cultural relativism is with even the broadest strokes of the New Testament. Do you fail to realize the whole point of books like Romans, Ephesians, 1&2 Corinthians, etc.? It's Paul saying to each local society, 'I don't care what your society accepts, this is the way you will run your church, this is the way you must act in order to be good Christian.' And don't give me any crap about how the given doctrine is localized. It's like federal law and the Supreme Court, if a case regarding federal law from Chicago comes before the Supreme Court, their ruling doesn't apply to just Chicago, but how that federal law applies to the whole nation. Rule once, apply everywhere.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

Also, this.

Re:Stunts

[tecnico.hitos]

What someone believes and why is something personal. There is no way I can give an universal answer, or an answer that works for you for that matter. Personally, believe in the divinity because it makes much more sense for me to think that the universe was created than to think that the universe just happens to exist and have such specific rules.

It is very natural that a relative doctrine would be used as a foundation for moral law, since a specific act should not be judged the same in different situations e.g. beating someone without reason or beating someone as self defense.

The problem in most of these discussions is that people believe to have the truth, including atheists. As far as I know, people just have their (dis)beliefs, including me.

Re:Stunts

[tecnico.hitos]

It's Paul saying[...]

Yes, it is.

Re:Stunts

[ffreeloader]

No, I'm not arguing that science is synonymous with faith. If you're taking that from what I've said, you're reading that into it from your basic assumptions of what you THINK I'm going to say.

I'm saying the acceptance of things like evolution and the non-existence of God as fact on the basis of 1% of the data is basing that acceptance on faith in an assumption. Why? Because assumptions drawn from the initial 1% of the data of any large study are not a reliable indicator of the final analysis. If you disagree with that analysis say why.

Now, if things such as evolution are not taken as fact then they shouldn't be taught in school as if they are. And, people who base their life on the "rationality" of science should never think they are so sure about it that they can mock anyone else's beliefs. But, that is not what we see on an every day basis is it.... We see exactly the opposite. Anyone who doesn't accept evolution as fact is mocked, derided, etc.... Anyone who believes in God is mocked, called irrational, etc.... And, it's done on nothing more than a belief that the final result science will come up with is never going to be different than the assumptions drawn from the first 1% of the data.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

It's bad enough when Christians won't even think about everything outside the Bible, but when you cherry pick the things from the Bible that you choose to believe or disbelieve, you're unreachable. You have crafted your own reality for your own comfort, and probably only years of work could bring you to sanity. I am not the one to do it.

Re:Stunts

[tecnico.hitos]

It's bad enough when Christians won't even think about everything outside the Bible, but when you cherry pick the things from the Bible that you choose to believe or disbelieve, you're unreachable.

Are you saying it is bad when christians won't think outside the Bible, but when they do it is worse? By unreachable, do you mean you can't make me see the "truth"?

Be aware the stance you take is not very different from that of some religious people, who push their religious views on others and vilify different views.

I say that the only purely rational religious position is agnosticism. It may be easy to disprove many writings on ancient texts, but it is impossible to deny the possibility of existence of the divinity altogether. Any different position requires some amount of (dis)belief.

If you don't like religions, try to see them as just cultural manifestations. If you feel the need to oppose, do so against the specific groups/people which are being actually harmful. Do not begin a personal war against other people just because they happen to have a different belief, no good would come from that.

Best. Idea. Ever.

[ElectricTurtle]

Makes me wish I hadn't discarded all my extra Bibles...

I wonder if they would do this mail-order style?

In any case, I wholly support this awesome idea.

Re:Best. Idea. Ever.

[AliasMarlowe]

Makes me wish I hadn't discarded all my extra Bibles...

Contact the Gideon society. Offer to distribute a crate load of bibles to help convert the heathens at the university...

Re:Best. Idea. Ever.

[ElectricTurtle]

I must have a poverty of imagination, as you have made the best idea ever even better.

Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

All too often fundamental athiest and religious folks resort to attacking other people's ideas or the so called "opposing side" rather than preach the merits of thier view point. This is a sad stunt and no better than some of the shocking things some fundamental religious folks have resorted to (murders aside, which both sides have done btw).

I don't see any difference between these crazy fundamental athiests and crazy religious folks, both are trying to push thier ideas on someone else.

Re:Fail

[Qzukk]

If it was actually doing something USEFUL like protesting censorship or whatever, it'd be a perfectly cromulent stunt. This is just attention whoring.

We aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at you

[spun]

Thanks, pudge. There's nothing I quite enjoy more than watching you get smacked down repeatedly, only to come back swinging with arguments that work only in your own mind. I bet you think you're winning this argument, don't you? Hilarious.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Tim4444]

Is religion so meaningless to you that would extend its definition to include any arbitrary group of people that may or may not have read books by a particular author? If you support education and read Green Eggs and Ham as a kid are you in the Church of Dr. Seuss? Should these "religions" get the same tax breaks we extend to more established religions? I advocate that people read the Bibles they so proudly wave around. That doesn't mean I'm part of any sort of religion myself.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Bakkster]

Is religion so meaningless to you that would extend its definition to include any arbitrary group of people that may or may not have read books by a particular author?

I said essentially. It's obviously not a religion.

However, Dawkin's form of 'militant atheism' shares many traits with the very religions he rails against. Particularly, his very hard-line claim that his is the Only True Way (capitalization mine). Did he start a religion? Not really. Is he as Dogmatic, radical, and evangelistic as some religions? Absolutely.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but I find it very interesting that religious people are threatened by it.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Tim4444]

Is he as Dogmatic, radical, and evangelistic as some religions? Absolutely.

Really? Which religions? Dawkins never trained any suicide bombers; he never tortured people in an Inquisition; he never launched a Crusade; he never advocated ostracizing people from their communities who don't agree with him; he never started any political parties; he never put "in Dawkins we trust" in the pledge or on the money of any nation; he never lobbied any nation to engrave excerpts from his writings on their military hardware; he never even organized any camps where parents could send their children to memorize passages from his books. Is there such a religion that does none of these things? He does advocate that you think critically about ideas presented to you and demand proof for people's conclusions. If you call this radical, certainly Christianity, just to pick a religion at random, is far more radical.

There's an old story about a child who claimed that a certain emperor who marched through the streets of his town was not wearing any clothes. I could be wrong, but I think that the child did not also wish to be emperor - he just wanted to point out that the emperor was not wearing any clothes.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Tim4444]

sexual assault on a child is sometimes less damaging than teaching a child to follow Christianity

Interesting proposition considering that the Catholic Church does both. I believe Dawkins never actually said that as such, but rather made an insensitive comment about "the Church's real child abuse" or something to that effect. Still, is he more vile than the people actually abusing children or the institution that protects the abusers?

Dawkins is just one voice among many. Attempts to use him to brand a single unified atheist movement are more a result of his detractors than the efforts of the people he has come to represent - willingly or unwillingly. BTW, you can no more do a disservice to atheism, that is "not religious," than you can do a disservice to "not small" or "not a number" or "not bowling" or "not evil." Asserting anything at all about a "not" when nothing else is known about it is complete nonsense. Perhaps you mean Dawkins is doing a disservice to British people, or the scientific community, or to advocates for the separation of church and state, or to humanists, or to people who simply refuse to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.

People could be forgiven for not understanding much of philosophy.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Tim4444]

simply consider a vile person to be avoided

good idea - for those who can identify what is vile

Re:We aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah I really like the 'all the dictionaries are wrong, I am the one true arbiter of the meaning of words for all humanity!' argument. I'm really wondering if I should even bother... I mean it's like arm wrestling a toddler.

Scrolling through how this is spiralling as large as it is, I'm probably going to pass. This guy obviously has a lot more time than I do...

Re:It might just be me, but...

[pudge]

simply consider a vile person to be avoided

good idea - for those who can identify what is vile

Shrug. You saw the quote.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[zapakh]

Thank goodness, because Dawkins DID assert that sexual assault on a child is sometimes less damaging than teaching a child to follow Christianity.

The comparison is apt.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[pudge]

The comparison is apt.

If you're an idiot.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[plasticsquirrel]

Buddhism, Daoism, Jainism, Shintoism, etc.

The world is a lot bigger than the three major abrahamic religions in the west. Sometimes I imagine that the angry atheist Slashdot postings about religion, are addressed against Jainism or Shintoism. They don't make very much sense in that context, and it's obvious then how much this is an issue of western culture. Especially for people acting in reaction against the evangelical Christianity in America. If you go to some other places in the world, these things just don't make very much sense. For example, would anyone ever become angry about Shingon Buddhism? Or the native Bon Religion of Tibet?

What bothers me ...

[Qbertino]

What bothers me is the term 'religion' becoming synonymous with the term 'confession'.

I can be a perfectly reasonable person, even an atheist or agnostic, and still be religious, accepting the concept of religion as an optimised means of using formalised liturgy as a method for mental and spiritual advancement. And I can even choose a stronger formalised confession as my means of exercising my chosen religion. However, the problems start when I try to superimpose my confession upon others. That's when things turn south and where crackpottery and fanatism starts.

I'd wish for more reasonable people to make that distinction and see the difference, as that's the only way to gain inroads in healing the crackpots and fanatics - whatever their confession may be (materialism included).

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Tim4444]

Buddhism does one better than put your kids in a camp, they take them to live in a monastery where they get their heads shaved and parade around in church robes - somewhat more radical than anything Dawkins has proposed.

would anyone ever become angry about Shingon Buddhism

The history of China shows quite the backlash against Buddhism in general. When Buddhism started taking over culturally, the resistance was also far more radical than anything Dawkins proposes.

The Jains do have a legitimate claim to peace and non violence and like their hindu neighbors generally are not evangelical (the people I've met in my travels have confirmed that). However, like the Hindus, the Jains also build large temples devoted to their beliefs, which IMHO is still at least one step more radical than anything Dawkins has ever proposed.

You would have done better to cite Japanese ancestor worship. At least their ancestors did exist at one point, unlike the the gods of other religions.

Re:We aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at

[spun]

That pretty well describes pudge's fallback argument, and he has to fall back to it every single time, lol.

It's more like mud wrestling a pig. Afterwords, you feel dirty but the pig is happy.

I guess sex sells

[smadasam]

As a University of Texas - San Antonio graduate, this makes me sad we people try to tare down others beliefs.

Re:I guess sex sells

[ElectricTurtle]

It makes me sad that an alleged university graduate cannot construct even one grammatically correct or properly spelled sentence. You're a disgrace.

Re:Well, it's because it's never positive.

[internettoughguy]

. It's rare that you see an atheist try to open up people with how much better their lives are with atheism without having to in some way degrade or insult theist thought.

But that's the point isn't it, atheism isn't concerned with improving anyones life, it's just concerned with what it's adherents consider bald fact (strong atheists), or lack of evidence existence of god(s) (weak). It's not nice, not self-affirming, and certainly not heartwarming, that's what "humanism" was invented for.

Re:Well, it's because it's never positive.

[Valdrax]

But that's the point isn't it, atheism isn't concerned with improving anyones life, it's just concerned with what it's adherents consider bald fact (strong atheists), or lack of evidence existence of god(s) (weak). It's not nice, not self-affirming, and certainly not heartwarming, that's what "humanism" was invented for.

Well, it's true that atheism in and of itself is nothing more than a belief that God doesn't exist (almost always) coupled with a belief in a lack of any afterlife or supernatural forces, but that's not necessarily the end result of such a belief, and atheism doesn't have to be negative.

As you point out, there's humanism. There are also a host of other beliefs that can dovetail quite nicely with a lack of belief in God that could be considered to have a positive message. One example would be a belief that we have to treat the life we have now with greater importance since it's all we have.

But no one spend time on that half of the equation. It's all about a pissing contest to prove that you're right with no direction on what to do with yourself if you accept those beliefs. That's why I'm never impressed with evangelical atheists. People of other faiths, I can respect. Quiet atheists who just get on with their lives, I can respect. People who have nothing more than a desire to tear down other people's beliefs, I can't.

Re:Well, it's because it's never positive.

[ElectricTurtle]

Atheism isn't a system. It's a lack of belief, that is all. It won't 'improve' anything except where the negatives of religion are concerned. That is why atheists have little else to say besides 'religion sucks', because that is the only relevant thing to a lack of belief. If you you agree that a religious system of belief is net negative, then by dumping it you are 'improved', but beyond that it's just up to you to live your life. Atheism doesn't lay out any kind of 'path to happiness' because it is not a process, not a system.