Slashdot Mirror
Global Christianity and the Rise of the Cellphone
Hugh Pickens writes "Alan Jacobs writes in the Atlantic about Every Tribe Every Nation, an organization whose mission is to produce and disseminate Bibles in readable mobile-ready texts for hundreds of languages including Norsk, Potawatomie, Bahasa Indonesia, and Hawai'i Pidgin as the old missionary impulse is being turned towards some extremely difficult technical challenges. The Bible is a large, complicated text containing three quarters of a million words and the typesetting is quite complex because of the wide range of literature types found in scripture and the need for several types of note. 'For all the issues that are still to be solved, ETEN is trying to do things that the world's biggest tech companies haven't cracked yet, such as rendering minority languages correctly on mobile devices,' says Mark Howe. 'There's a unity among Bible translators and publishers that stands in stark contrast to the fractured, fratricidal smartphone industry.' But once these technical challenges are met, it won't be only Bibles only that people can get on their mobile devices, but whole new textual worlds."
True but at least it gives them the drive to solve a knotty problem.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
More fanfic.
Porn and religion, both a drain on society, but leaders in advancing technology to bring content to the masses.
Well, yes. but I do not think that is actually a good thing, all things considered. For example, the crusades required a lot of drive but are among the most evil human undertakings ever.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I wonder how short a religious text could theoretically be, while still sustainably self-replicating between hosts. (i.e. religious believers). Much of the bible is akin to junk DNA.
Bible translation is usually the one taking the big step of documenting a new language and defining a character set for it. So really, this isn't new.
Do you mean "nutty problem"?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Apparently it takes a whole lot of persuasion to give people the idea that they should be nice to each other and share, and then most people get lost in the details. Sad indeed.
Crowd: OMG 4000 dudes 7 loaves 2 fish
Jesus: Lotsa food now LOL
Crowd: WTFBBQ!
Once the language barrier has been overcome, let's hope 'On the Origin of Species' is translated. After all, if you're going to use science and technology, you might as well go all the way.
They're not all going to solve it. One of theirs, chosen by the clouds, will fix it - how else can a population of mystics have cellphones to begin with? It was the will of the gods. In the meantime they will probably be denouncing science and technology with text messaging.
"You would thing that people would be able do away with these historic and completely ridiculous ideas by now."
Many people in the world still do not have anywhere near a first world living standard. Where poverty and desperation exists so does religion. You'd all do well to see the following video on human reasoning... Human reasoning does not work as the enlightenment thought it did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Blah. Even though there is no god, etc., the Bible is still one of the most important texts if you want to understand Western culture and philosophy. Refusing to learn about ideas because they are wrong is simply a more vain and self-glorifying form of anti-intellectualism.
"There's a unity among Bible translators and publishers that stands in stark contrast to the fractured, fratricidal smartphone industry."
Which is really and odd statement considering how many different versions their are, sure one might be able to say what 60-80% are version X, but still major fractions happen over the translations.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
We all know LaTeX allows you to focus on the content and magically comes up with beautiful layouts. I mean the single best page layouts are always in the looks-the-same LaTeX format! And it's so intuitive to use!
putting a book into the local language and sending an army to kill people - quite a comparison.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Karen Armstrong in one of her TED talks put forth an idea that all religions should concentrate on the Golden Rule - the rule that Confucius created 3,000 years ago. Compassion. Orthopraxy as opposed to orthodoxy.
We should all act like a compassionate person instead of worrying about how others believe and if they believe "correctly" - which is lost on pretty much every practitioner of the religions of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
As opposed to the Muslims who conquered Palestine, North Africa, Iberia, Persia, Mesopotamia and southeastern Europe?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I really want to read a million-word document on my cell phone screen! Maybe reading the Bible while I'm driving will sort of cancel out, karma wise, sort of...
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
The GP didn't say a single damn thing about Muslims, for or against. He simply used an example from the Christian world to make a point about what these Christians are doing - far more relevant than you jumping on at the first opportunity to make a barely salient point about Muslims. What's your beef?
...but will it fit in 50 interstellar trucks?
Just because there are more morons out there with a different Book does not excuse these here at all.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You're supposed to worship it. For most of its existence, only a selected few could read it anyway. At least Christians can now RTFM, and think a bit about what's in there now. Instead of having someone else tell them what to think about what's in there.
Although, it's inherent in religions of all stripes to tend to stray on the dogmatic side. Although all these indigenous folks can now read the Bible, who knows if they can understand what's in there. I don't think the authors of the Bible even knew themselves.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
When the summary is written in English it's stupid to then slap a non-English word in it. "Norsk" translates to "Norwegian."
How will we ever conquer those mindless savages from across the galaxy?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Just take your time.
The intention of the project has little to do with what's in the bible (except, of course, the thing about turning all nations into Jesus' disciples). As for readability, that's your opinion, and you've already established the fact that you're anti-intellectual, and therefore by your own intent an idiot. It really isn't that challenging to read. Also, it's a compendium of various texts, not an "effort to write a book".
There's a unity among Bible translators and publishers that stands in stark contrast to the fractured, fratricidal smartphone industry.
Also, alas, in stark contrast to the fractured and occasionally literally fratricidal world of their theological paymasters.
so anything with religious motivation is bad no matter what they do?
that seems as narrow and short sighted as the other way of taking it.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Gutenburg missed out on selling trinkets to Catholics, invented the "mobile type" printing press, printed a bible because it was safe, and ended up helping to destroy the Christian induced sociopathic environment Europe had fallen into by making knowledge easily distributable. Now a Christian organization wants to use the new and improved method of distributing knowledge to translate a bible in languages with currently unsupported types in an attempt to endoctrinate them.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
You would thing that people would be able do away with these historic and completely ridiculous ideas by now. Instead they are still stuck in the dark ages, but now with shiny new technology. Really sad.
What's sad is that Christians have something you will never have. Christians have something to look forward to. They do not fear death and instead, welcome it. They know what life is all about and never spend a moment wondering what is next or what the point is. Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death. They look forward to meeting friends and family and feel their presense throughout life. Their only fear is that they may not be good enough to enter paradise so they spend their lives trying to do good things for their fellow man and being honorable, honest people throughout their life. Material possessions mean nothing more than what they can be used for to better the lives of others, although the Bible is full of stories about people who did great things with nothing.
On the other hand no matter how much money you make how successful you are in life, you will die and that will be the end of it for you. You will go through life wondering what the point of it all is and why it's all worth it. When you lose loved ones, they are gone forever and you know that you will never be able to spend time with them again. No matter how hard you work, how many possessions you acquire, or accomplishments you achieve, you will end up being a bloated, rotting carcus, just like everyone else, and nothing more. The final chapter of your life involves is about compost.
Even if Christians are wrong, so what? Sure, they'll end up as worm food just like you, but in the mean time, they achieve an inner peace that you will never know and spend their lives trying to better humanity. What's the harm in that? Even after reading an article about Christians pushing tech that will benefit everyone, all you can do is insult them.
The sad part is not only that you will never know these things, but also that you are bitter against those that do.
(Of course, I'm talking about true Christians here, not the negative stereotype you've formed in your head from that one TV preacher you saw on Sunday morning saw after an all night bender, or the horrible stories you heard the news. I'm talking about people like Tim Tebow's parents who give their lives to serve others.)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
How much of the King James Bible was lost in translation to English. It's odd that certain languages don't have words for certain concepts and so in translation, something is lost.
The Bible we read today is the result of the Council of Nicea, and several other alignment efforts over time.
But I strongly suggest we all read the ENTIRETY of the texts within the Bible. Because only then do the outright inconsistencies and lies become evident.
(coming across Gibraltor of course).
This is well known among the educated academic community to have been one of the main reasons that the Catholic Church went on the Crusades. Justifies it? No. Makes your Christians seem less crazy? Yeah.
Well, yes. but I do not think that is actually a good thing, all things considered. For example, the crusades required a lot of drive but are among the most evil human undertakings ever.
You mean the same Crusades where a group of people tried to regain access to the Holy Land after it was cut off? What do you think the Muslims would do if Israel cut off access to the "Dome of the Rock"? Would you blame them? When they attack Israel, would you call it "among the most evil human undertakings ever"?
From the wiki page on Crusades:
The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by the Pope and the Catholic Church, with the main goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the expansion into Anatolia of Muslim Seljuk Turks who had cut off access to Jerusalem.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
He is afraid of brown people?
After coming home from a hard-day's work on a Friday evening, I noticed something awful on Slashdot - Beside those already awful Facebook, Twitter, and G+ icons was a flag icon.
"Mother of God," I thought, and many of you thought the same when you first saw it, instantly knowing what it meant.
First, a little background - Slashdot(then known as Chips and Dips) was initiated by pseudonym Commander Taco in 1997. It was later augmented by pseudonym Hemos and the whole thing became Slashdot. By the way, what was to become one of the foremost discussion sites for science and technology was started by a religious twig and a fat fuck*
* there's a joke there, we're gonna get to it...
Yes, not that joke, but another joke, was that the some of the perceived online proponents of science news were actually Hopeless religious lunatics! And, like CommanderTaco and Hemos, I joined and spewed the filth internalized by priest rape without mentioning the dirty little secret. Not only were the two founders deeply religious, they had a preference for PERL(which, of course, is written and directed by an evangelical lunatic). Larry Wall had raped the two himself while on a religious mission to a Michigan dildo store, and they both gobbled his wholey language (among his other things) down and asked for seconds.
There's a joke here, too - Slashdot considers itself a bastion of free speech.
It prided itself for not deleting any comment, unless the circumstances were so dire that they threatened its own existence. They rightly publicised their first monumental loss, against the church of Scientology. Now it wants to "flag posts." For what? Reporting to homeland security? Flagging is not in the FAQ.
Historically, even though the moderators acted as the Basij,(to quote another Slashdot reader from years ago) charasmatic trolls could not be silenced. Now, with the flag icon, Slashdot has gone full censorship.
If their awful flagging cannot be destroyed by asking or pleading, it must be destroyed by trolling. Citizens - please flag every high-scoring comment you can, and offer a technical explanation why that comment should be flagged. When your comments disappear because of some jackass who doesn't agree with you, attack the advertisers next. Contact their advertising or PR department and say, " I was trying to say online how great your products were, but Slashdot's censorship system prevented others from seeing my comment. " Flood their advertisers with those comments until those awful flag icons disappear entirely and Slashdot releases a statement regretting the use of flags.
Oh, that joke you were wondering about. Hemos is now skinny and Commander Taco is now fat. And the Jew Timothy and his overlords at the JIDF are still in charge of Slashdot.
the system architecture is largely the same, only difference being in the words chosen in presentation of the stories. Minor UI differences.
Umm what? The the most evil undertaking ever? I am sorry that is complete and utter BS. There have been far more evil deeds done. I will grant you the Crusades were not very 'Christian' but they were no more evil than any other way. Also its worth pointing out that popular idea the Christian powers started it is wrong, Islam had been spread to those areas mostly by force years before, if anything the Crusades were a counter attack.
Do you think war for the cause of national security is necessarily evil?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
the effort to bring better and more convenient communications to people everywhere, particularly in obscure languages that might otherwise die off - although we are losing languages on a regular basis.
I am saddened to hear that all this effort is being directed merely to bring a monotheistic religion like Christianity - likely the cause of more human misery than any other individual concept in history - to an ever widening audience. Its like building a tool to spread ignorance...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
What a sad life you must lead if you truly believe that a man cannot find his own purpose and happiness.
It's just as with every other business: one needs to reach the customers, potentially solving some technical challenges on the way there.
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
The King James? The Eastern Orthodox? The Coptic? Hebrew? Syriac? Which apocrypha will be in or out? Will they charge extra for those? Get back to me on that, willya?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
In a sense, yes. If you are logically minded, you know that from false premises, one can prove anything. Someone who is driven to do stuff for bad reasons can do good an evil.
But you have no guarantee. So in some sense, it would be better if there were no drive: that way, you needn't worry that next time, instead of typesetting, it'll be bombs.
No excuses from me; just counteracting the mass fallacy that only the Crusaders were Teh Evil and that the Muslims were a bunch of Little Miss Innocents.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
If only organized or 'enforced' religion would be stamped out once and for all, as quickly as free thinking individuality and is being stamped out, we could then get on with disposing of greed and paranoia next too, as long as people are 'taught' dogma, and taught to obey, things will remain as screwed up as they patently are.
Organized religion has no place in a no-BS, progressive society, it only serves to ingratiate those involved, keep the political status quo, .. because it seems rather obvious, (to me) that its not working.lets stop perpetuating the myth eh ?
it holds and draws some people backwards, willingly, and confines thinking and keeps people passing the buck,. This god-shaped mindset, so apparent in many humans, should likely be filled perhaps *not* from an external source. like, er.. *someone else's ideas*
Disseminating these 'texts' does seem rather, to be blindly contributing to the whole damn mess in the first place. ..
but i guess i shouldn't expect any better from them
Unfortunately, religion also flourishes in parts of the developed world -- I'm looking at you USA. It is a bug in the human brain. Fortunately, brains are plastic, and it can be cured.
But the point is that although despair is a substrate on which religion can flourish, it is not necessary. Nor is religion necessary to have comfort and empathy. It is a mental illness, and should be treated as such.
...A nice piece of fiction, but I wouldn't want to live my life by it.
The Muslims are barely salient to the crusades?
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I always find this particular statement perplexing. Apparently it's the Atheists who fear death, yet it's the Christian (amongst others) who need to make up stories about an ever lasting afterlife to make themselves feel better about the fact that people die. Why would you pretend that people "live on" if you're not afraid of death?
No. Why do you believe that I would? Why do you even think that I spend any significant life pondering such philosophical questions? There is no point to life. Life just is. Now that's a concept that Christians do find scary!
Yes, and? Fairy tales about them living up in the clouds might make you feel better, but it doesn't change anything: people die.
What's sad is that Christians have something you will never have. Christians have something to look forward to. They do not fear death and instead, welcome it. They know what life is all about and never spend a moment wondering what is next or what the point is. Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death. They look forward to meeting friends and family and feel their presense throughout life. Their only fear is that they may not be good enough to enter paradise so they spend their lives trying to do good things for their fellow man and being honorable, honest people throughout their life. Material possessions mean nothing more than what they can be used for to better the lives of others, although the Bible is full of stories about people who did great things with nothing.
Oh come on! That's what it says in the marketing material, but in truth most Christians do fear death. They live lives full of guilt, uncertainty and self-hatred and direct that outwardly in an effort to make everybody else feel as shitty as they do.
On the other hand no matter how much money you make how successful you are in life, you will die and that will be the end of it for you. You will go through life wondering what the point of it all is and why it's all worth it. When you lose loved ones, they are gone forever and you know that you will never be able to spend time with them again. No matter how hard you work, how many possessions you acquire, or accomplishments you achieve, you will end up being a bloated, rotting carcus, just like everyone else, and nothing more. The final chapter of your life involves is about compost.
Again, a load of evangelical crap. As an enlightened rational actor in society, you realise that your legacy is what you do with your time, so you try to make the world a better place for the next generation. Yeah, when you are die that's it, but at least you can die happy knowing you did your best, unafraid of the judgement of Gods.
Bible translators have also given us XeTeX, which is now an important part of the TeX ecosystem. And a bunch of useful (and good looking!) fonts: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=FontDownloads
Don't need or want your sympathy.
HaHa: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death.
I've met a lot of "Christians" over they years whose only concern was being seen to be conforming to their social group's (church friends) idea of "good" (i.e. dogmatic, small-minded, selfish and ignorant) in order to be accepted by that social group, many of whom were labouring under the misapprehension that what they were doing was Christian.
You won't catch me spending eternity in the company of these people.
Stick Men
I find it ridiculous that the "scientific" or perhaps even self-proclaimed "enlightened" mindset on Christianity is that it all boils down to the crusades. It is no different than saying since Hitler or Stalin were atheists that all atheism boils down to genocide and will for all time.
I find it ridiculous that the "scientific" or perhaps even self-proclaimed "enlightened" mindset on Christianity is that it all boils down to the crusades. It is no different than saying since Hitler or Stalin were atheists that all atheism boils down to genocide and will for all time. (I know this is a repost... didn't realize I wasn't logged in)
- it is insulting that you think (against evidence, I might add) that atheists cannot have peace of mind. After all, Buddhism is an atheist philosophy, and peace of mind is their trademark.
- It is insulting that you think people do good things just because they are afraid of the great CCTV in the sky. People do good things for their own sake.
- It is insulting that you believe one cannot have any other hope in life than the afterlife. I am a scientist, and my research will live after me, so will my memory in my friends' minds. A writer's books will survive him. And artist's works. The good you do while alive. If you need materially motivated pretexts to do good, there it is.
You should live your life to the fullest, in awe of the universe, precisely because you will return to dust and nothingness. But knowing, because of the immense privilege we have of living now, that we exist because a generation of stars formed, aged and went nova so we could exist as carbon-based lifeforms. We exist because every single one of our ancestors, for four billion years, did no fail to reproduce. We stand half-way to the death of our star, and the beings which will see it die will be as far from us that we are from the first unicellular organism.
You, on the other hand revel in bronze age mythology.
I'll spare you comments about the "no true Scotsman" fallacy you committed in your last paragraph.
No, the thing can be good while the motivation is bad. Religious motivation is always a bad idea even if it sometimes results in good things, because when it results in good things, it does so by accident.
There are good reasons to do good things that don't require one to suspend critical faculties.
Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death.
I've met a lot of "Christians" over they years whose only concern was being seen to be conforming to their social group's (church friends) idea of "good" (i.e. dogmatic, small-minded, selfish and ignorant) in order to be accepted by that social group, many of whom were labouring under the misapprehension that what they were doing was Christian.
You won't catch me spending eternity in the company of these people.
These people aren't doing it right. Do doctors hang out with other doctors or do they seek out the sick?
Don't assume that all Christians are like the few you've met. Don't assume that all Christians are only out to help their own little community. Rather than picking examples of those that fit what you already believed, open your eyes a bit and find a Christian based organization that does not fit your preconceived mold. You would think that something the size of the Salvation Army would help form your opinion of a group more so than Mark in accounting.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
so anything with deceitful motivation is bad no matter what they do?
so anything with spiteful motivation is bad no matter what they do?
so anything with racist motivation is bad no matter what they do?
so anything with murderous motivation is bad no matter what they do?
I'm reminded of the old moral teaser: If you could go back in time to before Hitler went into politics, and you had the opportunity to murder him, should you? Maybe murder isn't always bad?
(Godwin smodwin.)
Religion is bad, even when there is a coincident good.
You would thing that people would be able do away with these historic and completely ridiculous ideas by now. Instead they are still stuck in the dark ages, but now with shiny new technology. Really sad.
"Historic and completely ridiculous ideas", are you sure ? Do you mean that it is ridiculous to be surprised or even "enlightened" by the fact that there is something (i.e. the universe, and you, consciously speaking about the fact that you exist in a universe that exists, unexpectedly or not), instead of nothing (i.e. a situation that would have been far more probable, at least to me) ?
I don't understand the problem.
The bible at its core is just words. It does not matter what font you use, it does not matter what size or format you use.
It is like all other books, or even most websites.
They talk about notes, but that is a single special case that seem like you could solve in an afternoon.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
What is sad is that those who are on a perpetual narcotic high have something you will never have. They do not fear death, or anything for that matter. They don't feel pain and are not sad as long as they are high. On the other hand you are completely vulnerable to these things with your reliance on this "reality" thing.
What is sad is that babies and the seriously mentally challenged have something you will never have. They can't understand how bad things are so they don't fear the future, but you with your superior ability to think are completely vulnerable to this.
What is really sad is that this type of argument can get modded "insightful".
They do not fear death and instead, welcome it.
On the contrary, they're scared as hell (pun intended). They fear death so much that they invented heaven.
You will go through life wondering what the point of it all is
Nope, why wonder about such a question? Why should there be a point? And more importantly, why would you rather believe an invented one than accepting it's about as silly as wondering about the smell of an inch?
Even after reading an article about Christians pushing tech that will benefit everyone, all you can do is insult them.
The reason xians are being mocked and insulted here is that they're not doing it for the benefit of everyone, but to shove their propaganda down our throats.
Restore access.... Or control? Don't get that shit twisted.
are doing? My my. It sounds as if you almost think the crusades are still going on. Care to explain? Maybe blame a few jews... i mean zionists... for good measure?
So basically the plague, virus, the neurological parasite has just mutated and found a new path to spread through... I really hope there are enough people with immunity (Intelligence), to ensure that at least a few of us remain and the world will not be engulfed by this... putrid disease that is religion.
As opposed to the Muslims who conquered Palestine, North Africa, Iberia, Persia, Mesopotamia and southeastern Europe?
It sounds like the poster was giving the crusades as an example of religion being bad, not christianity per se.
So that wouldn't be "as opposed to the Muslims who..." but "somewhat like the muslims who..."
Do you wear a seat belt?
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
In a sense, yes. If you are logically minded, you know that from false premises, one can prove anything.
So if you take the false premise that God does not exist, you can prove anything?
Bear in mind that the theists are just as strong in their beliefs as the atheists, but neither can prove their belief either way and must rely on faith.
You mean the same Crusades where a group of people tried to regain access to the Holy Land after it was cut off? What do you think the Muslims would do if Israel cut off access to the "Dome of the Rock"? Would you blame them? When they attack Israel, would you call it "among the most evil human undertakings ever"?
Shit like this is just adding weight to the argument that religion is bad. Fighting over something with mumbo-jumbo significance is crazy.
Tim Tebow's family isn't exactly the best example of nice and friendly Christians. Their son did a commercial for Focus on the Family, a hate group!
Oh wait, I forgot... It's okay for you guys to hate gay people. (Although I'm still looking for the verse where Jesus told you to go out there and hate teh gays and deny them basic civil rights.)
I also love your "outreach" to Africa teaching them that the homosexuals must die. Like in Uganda where they've been working on that fun "kill the gays" law. Which was inspired and supported by US Christian groups.
These hate groups aren't even that "fringe", they all got invited to CPAC 2012. (The "white nationalist" racists got invited there too btw..) All of the Republicans hang out with them and give them validity.
All actions have good and bad consequences. The fact that there may be some good consequences does not excuse a bad motivation.
Reality is depressing and delusions makes people happy. Did I misunderstand?
Would killing Hitler have made things better or worse? Ever played red alert? :)
We'd still have a paranoid dictator with an enormous army in the east Europe + a (probably) extremely weak Germany utterly incapable of defending itself.
You would think that something the size of the Salvation Army would help form your opinion of a group more so than Mark in accounting.
Oh, it has. The Salvation Army shows me that Christians think it's okay to spread hate about a specific group of God-created individuals (ie., gays and women who would dare to make their own perfectly legal decisions regarding reproductive health) if you help a group of homeless people who think similarly to you (or are at least willing to go through the motions for a hot meal).
Sorry, I'm pretty sure Jesus said "Love thy neighbor," not "Love thy neighbor unless he's a fag or uses contraceptives." I'll start taking it seriously when you do.
What's sad is that Christians have something you will never have.
No, what's sad is Christians who are so deluded by their faith that they cannot imagine what life would be like without it, and so they make up stories about how horrible life must be in order to convince themselves that they made the right choice.
The truth is that I know I have to treasure what I have right now, because eventually I won't be here any more. I have to do my best to leave the world a better place than when I entered it, and I will (hopefully) live on by being fondly remembered for the impact I had on the world and people around me. I don't have to fear not being good enough to enter any "paradise" because I know that's just a fable, and I can do more than my life than spend it trying to appease some invisible omnipotent friend.
I'm not bitter at the ideal, "true" Christian who acts like you described. They sound like nice people. I'm bitter at the real kinds of Christians who actually exist -- the ones who use technology to spread their doctrine of fear and ignorance, tell nonbelievers how horrible they are, and try to use the government to enforce laws that are solely based on their ancient religious texts.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
I find it ridiculous that the "scientific" or perhaps even self-proclaimed "enlightened" mindset on Christianity is that it all boils down to the crusades. It is no different than saying since Hitler or Stalin were atheists that all atheism boils down to genocide and will for all time.
Hitler and Stalin didn't do what they did in the name of atheism. Atheism isn't an organised group doing things in it's name. It's just the lack of a particular kind of superstition.
The Crusades were certainly done by organised groups of christians acting in the name of christianity.
You would thing that people would be able do away with these historic and completely ridiculous ideas by now. Instead they are still stuck in the dark ages, but now with shiny new technology. Really sad.
Is it ridiculous to think humanity needs, like a child, to learn from something higher (his "parents", i.e. the "why I am existing", which is a spiritual question), on how to achieve happiness (check history & the news for insights) ? Forbid a child to eat too much sweeties, he won't understand first (he's like "eating sweeties is so sweet, this is a very pleasant experience, it cannot be bad for me !"). Rules and advices probably seem very awkward and stupid from the child's point of view.
Right, because being openly discriminatory in hiring and assistance practices is a shining example of laying aside dogman and helping everyone. You've really enjoyed that Kool-Aid, haven't you?
When all is done, they'll have made one book accessible to the tiny number of people who are literate only in these minority languages.
If instead they taught people to read a major language they'd be opened to a whole world of ideas.
It's no use arguing with inflammatory rhetoric like that. Just downmod GP -1 troll and move on.
As opposed to the Muslims who conquered Palestine, North Africa, Iberia, Persia, Mesopotamia and southeastern Europe?
The Muslim Empire was successful in part because they were more tolerant than the rulers they replaced. The Jews in Spain had more rights under Muslim rule than under the Visigoths.
The existence of gods is undecidable. Therefore using it to justify anything is dodgy. Note that using the non-existence of gods is just as dodgy.
You should justify your actions by some reason wholly outside the realm of theogonies. And therefore religion is useless to guide human actions.
I further claim it is harmful. Because it uses an undecidable (and unlikely) premise which is not necessarily shared by all the recipients of the actions.
It's just the lack of a particular kind of superstition.
Or more like a belief in a slightly different superstition. You can spot the people who really believe in atheism and want to evangelise it as much as possible.
Here's a great way to troll atheists - get them to try to prove that Richard Dawkins exists.
Exactly - wow, another radicalised agnostic! I thought I was the only one!
You can't prove it either way. You've just got to wait until the ride stops, and see what happens.
It's entirely possible to "give [one's life] to serve others" without perpetuating a dangerous culture. The problem with even the type of Christians you cite is that after adhering to their worldview, they can't be happy with simply having it as their own meaning in life. They actively use it as a weapon against anyone they deem as "different". It's the single most convenient way to justify conflict or discrimination ever invented by man.
I'm sure you'll dismiss this charge as "not what the overall organization is about", but before you do so, I encourage you to consider that a movement is no more than the sum of its parts, regardless of its stated objectives. There's a larger percentage than you're apparently comfortable with acknowledging who would gladly trade someone else's freedom for preservation of their own moral comfort and/or superiority.
This is nothing more than self-righteous fanaticism. Anyone working to perpetuate the organization without understanding that this is what it enables and produces is dangerously naive. That includes you.
Not "as opposed to" but "very similarly to".
I wish I had mod points for you, sir or madam.
"And, no, the Bible is basically unreadable and it is very hard to interpret what is in there"
Ah, but you are not supposed to *interpret* it - just *believe* it is the truth. Other more capable individuals will interpret it.
Yea, The idea of a God who loves you enough to die for you in spite of your destructiveness is so ridiculous.
The Crusades were certainly done by organised groups of christians acting in the name of christianity.
Yes. That's why there is a difference between religion / politics (humans trying to take control over other humans, using one of the most subtle kind of manipulation) and faith / spirituality (higher-order ideas that free the human from his unnecessary lower-level problems, and allows achieving meaningfulness, enlightenment, love and peace, at least at personal level, which is a good start, I believe). Humans often tend to pervert good things (whatever the good thing is) in order to achieve domination over others.
For example, the crusades required a lot of drive but are among the most evil human undertakings ever.
You must be smoking some serious stuff. The Crusades? That amateurish, badly organized and to a significant degree self-destructive (Constantinople, 1204) movement that in 200 years managed to pull of a few years total of violent fighting (if at all) and a few conquered cities (many of them just bought off rather then won by siege)?
After learning a bit about crusades, I came to the conclusion that the only dark spot in the crusading movement was the sack of Jerusalem with the concomitant bloodshed; the rest of the crusading event being little more than a farce.
Now, had you mentioned the Muslim conquest of India, that would have been a different thing. With a single expedition, Mahmoud of Ghazni enclaved half a million Indians, leaving tens of thousands dead. That was just a single incident during the centuries of the conflict at the western borders of India. As far as I know, the total death toll during the 1400 years of Muslims attacking Hindus from the west is not far from reaching the insane mark of 100,000,000 deaths. And you talk about the Crusades? Wow. Just...wow.
"Among the most evil undertakings?" No, not even close. Regarding the number of lives destroyed, the crusades pale in comparison even when compared to such seemingly mundane things as car accidents caused by drunks, lenient subprime mortgage policies and IRS tax forms.
Ezekiel 23:20
Obsessed with events hundreds of years ago but clueless/indifferent to Islam's inherent violent tendencies now.
I suspect we will start heaing about Christians being murdered in Islamic countries because they have the Bible on their cell phone.
Maybe the Crusades should have completed the job.
One would think the detractors of theism might view it as slightly less ridiculous given the wealth of intelligent and otherwise skeptical minds who've been believers. That's not to say it's true, per se; just that "completely ridiculous" might not be the most apt way to describe it. Or, if you insist, it means perfectly reasonable and intelligent people can somehow accommodate holding "completely ridiculous" beliefs while deriving emotional/psychological benefit from them.
Hello Godwin.
Or more like a belief in a slightly different superstition. You can spot the people who really believe in atheism and want to evangelise it as much as possible.
No, atheism isn't a a belief, it's the lack of one. And atheists who spend time trying to convince others are few and far between. Most are just not concerned with what others believe at all. Of all the atheists I know, and that's quite a lot, I'm the one most likely to join in an argument about it. But that's more that I like an argument. There are no group meetings. There's nothing to join.
Those with religion like to imagine atheism is just another religion. I'm not sure whether it's a desire to drag everyone down to their own level, or because they habitually make tenuous connections, and something ending in "ism" sounds like it might be a religion.
Here's a great way to troll atheists - get them to try to prove that Richard Dawkins exists.
You've never trolled an atheist with that in your life. It doesn't even start to have the makings of a workable troll theme.
The problems come when some Christians decide that the 'souls' of people are more important then their 'worldly' well being. And it strangely very rarely applies to their own personal well being.
For example the Church in my country is very active in collecting donations from the faithful. After every mass a person will go among the people with a collection plate, while the priest preaches about the importance of charity or something similar. Many poor people, that can barely survive on what they have still give money, since NOT giving is seen as a sin (at least by the priests). Meanwhile the Church has enough money that their leaders live in castles and mansions.
Another example is Africa and AIDS. There is nothing wrong with preaching abstinence. What is wrong is preaching that condoms are wrong, even in cases where one person is infected. But why bother with people's health? If they die, they'll go to heaven. Why try to make their earthly lives better or longer?
Keeping in mind that the shiny device already comes with its own religion.
But I prefer to call myself an atheist. Because I lead my life as though no gods existed, as opposed to leading my life as though they might exist. So from the point of view of an external observer, I am not affected by the existence of gods, and therefore I am not and indication of their existence, nor of belief in their existence.
The idea is that to me, something exists if it is observed to have an effect on the universe. Since the effects beliefs in deities cannot be observed from my actions, I am, for the observer, an atheist. Does it make sense?
What's sad is that Christians have something you will never have. Christians have something to look forward to. They do not fear death and instead, welcome it. They know what life is all about and never spend a moment wondering what is next or what the point is.
So do people who believe in Santa Claus and the fucking Tooth Fairy. Guess what? THEY'RE FULL OF SHIT TOO.
I look forward to the day when people who run around announcing that their invisible friend in the sky will reward them after death just as long as they kill them some homos and deny evolution are given the mental health care they desperately need.
In a sense, yes. If you are logically minded, you know that from false premises, one can prove anything. Someone who is driven to do stuff for bad reasons can do good an evil.
You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.
-- G. K. Chesterton
Allot of the people sent were (Already criminals) sent with a promise of a pardon by the pope should they die in battle.
The Children's Crusade was very weird. (Don't think that was planned by the Church).
Overall they didn't actually do that well either.
First could be called a win.
Third was probably a draw.
The rest were lost.
The Saracens were just as bad.
Norsk? I'm glad people are finally trying to teach those Norwegians about Christianity. /sarcasm
A knotty problem? which problem is that? the problem that no one asked for bibles in those countries where people are going? The problem that no one asked to be converted? the problem that no one gives a crap about their superstitious ideas and religioun? Indeed... that is a knotty problem that requires us to start brainwashing immediately.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Humans are nothing more than a species of animal. Many animals are territorial, and those that are fight their own species for those territories. And those that are also social, fight together for their territories.
This isn't anything to do with a tendency for humans to pervert anything. It's just a behaviour strategy that's brought success to particular genes in DNA.
Nation states, racial differences, religion and sports, provide the human species with groups to identify with in order to pursue these instinctive territorial battles.
This is only true if the nature of God is to not reveal himself. The bible depicts a God who has taken the trouble to real himself to his creation, and to confirm his nature by intervention in history. The question is decidable. Simply saying it is undecidable (in this case) is intellectual laziness designed to promote a specific outcome. An energetic approach to the problem would identify an approach to solution, test the approach for validity against the available evidence, and conclude the question in accordance withe the available evidence.
Another ancillary effort would be to identify the differences between religions. Non-judicial killing is forbidden to the Christian, and required of the Muslim (2:191-193). To equate the two is incorrect.
I've read Slashdot for a few years now, and every once in a while I see articles posted that directly or indirectly refer to Christianity. And every single time, it ends up being a sounding board for the Slashdot "community" to boast about how proudly atheistic they are and criticize the few Christians Slashdotters that give their point of view. I'm a devout Christian, and I can't quite fully express how saddened I am to see some of these comments. For someone to mock my faith, a faith that I've seen work miracles in people's lives and help them go from a place of pain and destruction to a place of life and peace, is something that literally makes me shake with sadness. Were the Crusades not very Christian-like at times? You betcha. Modern Christians don't condone many of the acts that were committed "in the name of" Christianity hundreds of years ago. If you see anyone killing someone else in the name of Christ, they're not true Christ-followers. So do NOT lump us all together. It's like blaming the existence of nuclear weapons on every physicist that ever lived. It's not a fair accusation. (I know somebody's going to comment on that statement and bash it somehow - so go right ahead, prove to yourself that you're not reading this comment for your own benefit, but rather just to find ways to knock down a Christian). Secondly, some of you have made comments about how the Bible doesn't apply to modern day or that it's too cryptic for us (or even its original authors) to understand. Is this difficult to understand? "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:34) Does this next verse have no applicability to the present day? "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need." (Ephesians 4:28) Or just read the book of Proverbs (which is even in the Old Testament) and you'll find a slew of practical advice for living a better, more fulfilling life. Sure, a lot of the Bible is a historical record of the Jewish and Christian people living in the Middle East for a period of a few thousand years, and not every law in Leviticus applies to us today. But the Bible isn't a story, it's a living history, and real churches are not museums for the saints, but hospitals for the sick. Before you make comments on the Bible, make sure you've read it; you don't lend youself much credibility by scoffing at it without having actually explored it. I wasn't always a Christian, and I explored other religious texts before settling on the Bible. The conclusion I came to was that it offers something that no other 'religion' offered. Rather than having to 'change' before we can become 'right' with God, we become right with God (through simply asking for it) and letting God's love change us. Have you ever felt that life is more than just about technology, physics, inventions, etc? Don't you ever get tired of reading news articles every day about the current size of transistors, Apple's patent wars, or funding for space programs? I sure do. If that's all that life is about, then that's pretty scary. I have to believe that life is about helping people in a real and tangible way, TODAY; building up others in our community who aren't as fortunate as us, and not just speculating about how we can make cooler stuff out of silicon. Seriously - many of us live in cities where people are outside, homeless, starving, and dying every day, and yet you feel comfortable sitting back with your $4.50 Lattes and criticizing Christianity, the single largest organization today that is trying to help the real problems of real people at this very minute. If that's the kind of community that Slashdot is, then I'm done. I'd rather go make a difference in this world than read about occasionally interesting tech news.
That's quite a pile a strawmen you have there. Sounds like you are just as fanatical as you accuse others of being
Well, anti-thiests, those that believe there is no god, not those that don't have a belief that there is a god (there is a difference, it isn't a dichotomy, with the third state being the lack of care or interest to form an opinion either way), might be a minority, but they are a very vocal one.
I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion, but I encounter anti-thiests pushing bigotry and anti-religion on a weekly basis on the internet (between facebook and this/other sites).
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
From what I've seen I'd say the unity among Bible translators is probably similar to that among scientists. There aren't a lot of people who are qualified to do a first-rate job of it, and they're very intelligent, and thus they tend to realize that they don't always have all the answers.
Now, unity among denominations and churches is an entirely different matter. It takes a far different skillset to get people to pay to listen to you go on for an hour about whatever you're feeling concerned about. The people in power here tend to be much more political and ideological, and they tend not to be so humble about the limits of their knowledge (if they were humble they wouldn't sound so convincing behind a pulplit and people wouldn't pay to listen to them).
Of course, some of this depends on what you call a Bible translation. Anybody can grab their denomination's favorite existing English translation and modernize the words or do a literal translation into another language they happen to know, and thus the general sense of academic liberalism doesn't apply. By translation I am referring more to creating a rendition of the text of the Bible that conveys in the best way possible the intended meaning of the original authors. That requires strong knowledge of the original languages, good historical context, good language skills in the target language, and strong skills in textual criticism (trying to figure out what the original authors wrote in the first place, translations aside).
Sorry, no. It was the will of an inventor at Motorola that gave them the cell phone, and a bunch of engineers dedicated to the idea that there are absolutes in the universe that can be found and manipulated to create a working machine. It was also a lot more engineers who took the idea from the realm of Star Trek and put it in your pocket, cheaply.
What does said book say you are to do to non-virgin females, slaves, or kids who speak against their parents? How many examples of genocide does that book contain? Hell it includes the complete destruction of most life on the planet because someone got upset as well as instructions to kill "witches" It really isn't that good of a book in the first place when taken as a whole.
Ever said prayers at school, weddings, funeral? Not answered a door to the Mormons or a Jehovahs Witness?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I care. I think they should be able to make the decision about the bible for themselves, not have it made for them by someone named Foofoobar. The bible translation teams also have the side effect of generating an infrastructure that can then be used for creating a written culture and tradition where none existed before, and allows the uniqueness of a culture to be captured and preserved in written form.
I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion, but I encounter anti-thiests pushing bigotry and anti-religion on a weekly basis on the internet (between facebook and this/other sites).
If you are from the USA, you are heavily sheltered. They come to my house. They bother my children in public. They infest the local schools. If you haven't had SOMEONE pushing Christianity on you, then you are either a Christian who is already in the club, or you are part of a vanishingly small group of people.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
At that time the Bible was NOT in the vernacular but was kept secret behind a foreign language by those in power in Church and only disseminated and interpreted in such a way as to meet their needs. Of people such as these, Christ said "You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." That is the reason the Church started executing people who began the work of translation.
So the contents of a Book that has not been read by the people cannot be blamed.
But also, the Crusades, tough tainted with political motivation and self interest, were a response to the Islamic conquests that were going on at the time. It seems to be forgotten that the Christian church existed in North Africa for several hundred years. The obliteration of Christianity from North Africa was more recent history for them than it is for us.
"Of course, I'm talking about true Christians here,"
The only true christians are the fundementals as they follow the bible to the letter and don't try to spin out the "shit". The "true christians you want are the ones that are on their way to being secular as they've dismissed the bad stuff of the old testament
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Aside from getting cultural references, which are often obvious from context, what compelling reason would one have for reading the bible?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
What do you think the Muslims would do if Israel cut off access to the "Dome of the Rock"? Would you blame them? When they attack Israel, would you call it "among the most evil human undertakings ever"?
Yes, I'd blame them. That's a perfect example of the harmful influence of religion. If it weren't for ridiculous superstitions that scrap of desert would be as worthless as any other scrap of desert. If you're willing to kill people because of ancient mythology, then absolutely I'm willing to call it evil. Most evil ever? Depends on the scale of the atrocity.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You talk like to blind person stating that since the colour red cannot be seen, it has no meaning.
(Of course, I'm talking about true Christians here, not the negative stereotype you've formed in your head from that one TV preacher you saw on Sunday morning saw after an all night bender, or the horrible stories you heard the news. I'm talking about people like Tim Tebow's parents who give their lives to serve others.)
The whole bit is just stupid, but this part stuck out like a sore thumb. First, No True Scotsman. Second, I love how you put forward Tebow's parents, who, if I am not mistaken, spent their time trying to convert one type of Christian to another. Bravo.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
There's no one perfect way to translate the Bible. Compromises always have to be made in making translation choices, and different translations make different decisions based on the intended audience etc. of the translation. Take a look at Dao de jing translations and you'll see that there are plenty again, each with different aims for translation and thus slightly different results.
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
The crusades were in their own way an example of the "good" in Christianity. A thousand years prior, Roman culture would have just plundered the Middle East for mercantilist gain, and felt no real need for an excuse. Christians felt like they needed an excuse, because Latin Christianity in the person of St. Augustine had stated very clear rules for when a Christian could morally participate in a war (the so-called "Just War Theory") and "plunder" wasn't on the list. Also, you seem to be proceeding on the assumption that Islam posed no real threat to Europe, and that a "flanking campaign" was illegitimate. The reality, if you go back and read the writings of people like Bernard of Clairvaux, is that they (a) felt that by attacking the Byzantines, the Muslims had attacked them (b) were acutely conscious of the fact that Byzantium might fall and that they would then have no buffer from the Saracens and (c) they were scared to death of Muslim aggression because Muslims had already conquered chunks of formerly "Christian" territory (i.e. Spain.)
The whole crusades as a criticism of Christianity thing simply doesn't hold up to much scrutiny, but that doesn't stop devotees by proxy of Bertrand Russell from repeating it to the point of nausea. What I wish such people would do is actually learn some real history and stop flapping their gums until they do.
Sources: Ph.D. in New Testament and early Christianity, active interest in subsequent church history.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
No, atheists don't have to prove anything and don't have to rely on faith. Atheism isn't a religion, it is the absence of religion. Religion is the absence of reason.
Unlike the faithful, atheists are generally open-minded people. If someone shows up and proves they are God (however they would manage that) the atheists will turn religious.
Both reason and faith have made huge contributions to human history, both good and bad, however, only reason has proven itself to be a way to get things done.
Prayer has proven itself to be a crappy way to get anything done, yet the faithful continue to try to use it. One popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results (the only thing that has ever demonstrated different results to me after doing the same thing over and over is the Windows operating system). Isn't that what the "faithful" do when they pray?
Science and engineering have proven themselves to be very reliable ways of getting things done. If something else comes along and proves itself better, here I feel safe in speaking for most atheists, we'll change teams in an instant.
Wouldn't it be easier just to figure out how to give them smallpox over the phone? It's just about as useful.
Well said. The only thing I would add is that we need to hold the sack of Jerusalem within its historical context. By the standards of the day, it was bloody but by no means unprecedented.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Well, anti-thiests, those that believe there is no god, not those that don't have a belief that there is a god
That's atheism and agnosticism. Atheism isn't short for anti-theism. "a" as a prefix means without. So atheism is "without a belief in god(s)", not "opposed to the belief in gods".
The distinction between atheists and agnostics is very fine. The atheist says "I have no belief in the flying spaghetti monster" and the agnostic says "it's not possible to now for certain whether there is a flying spaghetti monster". Both think people who run their lives based on a belief that there is a flying spaghetti monster are pretty stupid. Either may also be actively opposed to flying spaghetti monsterism because of the bad effect it has on society, but that's not implied in either of the terms "atheist' or "agnostic".
I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion
Where do you live? Have you never passed a church with an evangelical poster outside it?
Are you a Christian? If so how did that come about? The most common method is parents pushing it on their children, indoctrination usually starting in the first few days of life with a "baptism" ceremony, claiming the person for christianity before the person is even able to think for themselves.
Very often its pushed in schools, on TV, on the radio. Atheism doesn't tend to have schools or TV channels and radio stations and programs. (Perhaps there's the odd exception to prove the rule.)
Superstition kills and maims opposing cultures. It's quite a weapon.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Don't do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."
"Help people find their way" vs. "Just leave people alone to find their own way" is a gigantic tar-baby of a philosophical discussion all by itself.
I was raised in a Catholic household, and went to Catholic school growing up, so I know the comfort and sense of community that religion can bring, it can be a powerful and spiritual feeling. That being said, if you look into the history of Christianity, it is extremely hard to accept that there is anything 'divine' or 'real' about it. The creation myths are rooted in Abrahamic tradition, the Holy days (Easter, Christmas) are rooted in pagan traditions... Jesus wasn't even considered a deity until 300 years after his death at the council of Nicaea.
I agree with you that Religion can bring a serious sense of comfort to people, I have witnessed my devoutly religious Irish family members get through the death of a loved one with remarkable strength, because they actually believe that their loved ones are floating in heaven with the angels. Although this comfort is nice in a way, it is firmly rooted in delusion, and that's where the problem lies.
If some group of people have wacky believes, but those believes give those people comfort and they're not hurting anyone, then I can't really object... I believe they should have the freedom to believe what they want. Now when your cult (Christianity) is so big that it actually does hurt other people, with outdated ideas about contraception, homosexuals, morality etc, then I do have a problem with it. Christian theology DOES influence non-Christians, whether you'd like to admit that or not.
So to you, and other religious folks out there... please feel free to believe whatever you want, but please respect that many of us see your beliefs as man-made delusion, and want no part of it influencing our laws or way of life in any way. As a former Christian, what worries me most about religious people is the break down in critical thinking and acceptance of "faith" with no proof. Religion doesn't teach you to think, it teaches you to follow... it always has and always will.
Right. It's a belief. Same as you might have a belief that you are not the Napoleon.
Or that the world is not flat.
Or maybe it's just that your brain lacks the parts which are responsible for logic.
Buddhism believes in gods. It inherited the entire Vedic pantheon. See, for example, the Avatamsaka Sutra where Buddha ascends to Mt. Sumeru to speak with Indra and his buddies. Sure, Buddhism believes that the gods are stuck in samsara, and the Buddha-nature is higher than them, but it has 2500 years of belief in supernatural forces.
How is Christians' motivations to do good works for the reward of heaven any different than Buddhists' attempts at right action in order to end the cycle of rebirth?
Thank God I live in a country where I can follow the dictates of my own conscience. If believers are so unenlightened there are places you can go. Starting with North Korea.
Stay negative.
Nowadays in the Middle East we have the bizarre situation that many countries have governments imposed, ultimately, by the victors of WW1 (and still being defended by them), being opposed by relatively democratic Muslim insurgents with the support of the EU and limited support by the US. All of the warring forces claim to believe the teachings of the same book, but with a range of more or less optional add ons (Mishnah, NT,the Fathers, the Qu'ran, Book of Mormon). At the end of the day, and I write this as someone who very nearly ended up ordained, there isn't anything to choose between any of them in terms of good or evil.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No: it's exactly the other way around. One would think that with all this technology, people could be assed to get around to making the wide world of tech available to people who currently have little or no way to access it, but instead it's the Christians using the technology to make the Gospel available to them. Irony at its finest.
Do you have a reading problem?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Yes, for its time the Kingdom of Granada was a success. Arts and sciences were encouraged, the status of women was relatively high (a Jewish prayer book with feminine pronouns was discovered there some years ago), and the Muslim rulers tolerated (rather than encouraged) other religions. But I suggest it was a relatively small beacon of light in a dark world, more like Switzerland than part of an empire.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Well, quite obvious "God does not exist" is the default assumption. You need to prove the contrary. Oops, you cannot. But this is not about whether God does exist, that question has been answered quite a while ago. This is about what people do that are infected with a meme of the religion type.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
So if you take the false premise that God does not exist, you can prove anything?
Bear in mind that the theists are just as strong in their beliefs as the atheists, but neither can prove their belief either way and must rely on faith.
The idea that atheists have some sort of "faith" or "belief" that there is no God is a divide by zero function.
What is that with so many fundamentalists? A lack of belief in something does not mean belief in something. Who gets down on their knees every day and prays to "no god" that they profess to not believe in? Who builds a house of worship where people go to have a ceremony every week to something that they believe that they don't believe in?
Imagine someone standing on a street corner, handing out pamphlets that say that there is no God. So they convince someone that there isn't. So the convertor now asks the convert to pray with him.......... to what?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
To know where a lot of western civilization ideas come from? To compare and challenge what a lot of "christian" preachers and politicians claim that it says? A lot of the junk conservative politicians tell "christian" masses in the US would go nowhere if those same masses had good understanding of the Bible. There's lot of interesting stuff in there. In the book of Samuel, you can find a passage where a nation which had laws, judges and teachers (and a God), gets tired of it and wants something more fun; they go like "oh the nations around us have powerful kings, it would be so cool to have one", and they get told "look, if you get a king, he will take your sons and daughters as servants for himself, he will send them to fight useless wars, etc..." And the nation tells the prophet "whatever, we want a king". A few pages later things get awry for them. There's lot of stuff like that, politics, ideology, morality, economics... And just like the above example, a lot of stuff to confront "manifest destiny" "it's God will that we rule by the sword" politics.
Atheism in a nutshell.
Thanks.
Dampening reason is a must-have feature for every meme of the religion type, as otherwise it will be exterminated quickly by those it wishes to infect. This is a normal evolutionary process. Everything that reduces or prevents the spreading of the meme makes it less fit compared to others and these other memes then take over the mints of those to weak to resist.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Interesting stance. So you have removed yourself from the equation entirely. I guess my question would be... what if you are wrong? If the Christian who believes in God and tries to live a moral life acting in kindness towards his neighbours is wrong, when he dies he finds he goes nowhere after death but has lived a good moral life while here on earth. If the atheist is wrong, though he may have lived a moral life, he will still have to stand before God and explain his unbelief. As for proof... look around at nature. Can you honestly believe it was all an accident? A random chance due to some atoms rattling around until they got in the right order?
I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion ...
I don't believe you. Look in the bedside table in your hotel room, and you'll find a Gideon Bible. Watch a TV show, and you'll hear someone wishing someone else, "God speed." Answer the door bell on any Saturday morning, and you'll find Mormon missionaries. Congress starts every session with a prayer, and you need to profess Xtianity to even get elected.
You're either lying, or you're as thick as a brick. Infidels ("unbelievers") don't do any of that sort of thing. We don't much care what mythical sky-thingies you believe in as it's none of our business. You should think the same of us. We wish.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Their only concern is how to be the best human being possible to ensure a pleasureable eternity after death.
I'd have way more sympathy for Christians, Muslims etc.. if they weren't just acting in self interest like everybody else and dressing it up as divine inspiration.
What really racks me off about them is the implicit assumption that *only* true believers have any worth.
It's my conviction ( see I'm a believer too! ) that way more good has been done to way more people by Atheists or Agnostics than was ever done by the hordes of Monks, Nuns, Preachers and Zealots that clutter the earth. If they really can't wait for the afterlife, they should check out early and leave this life to sane people who can enjoy it while it lasts!
Nothing to counteract here. Evil scum do not get less or more evil depending on who they fight in my book.
Sounded to me like an excuse though, you might want to work a bit on the wording.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I'll spare you comments about the "no true Scotsman" fallacy you committed in your last paragraph.
Scotsman: Someone from Scotland.
Christian: Someone who follows Jesus, or closer to the original ethymology, a little Christ.
So there's no fallacy there. Being a christian is not being part of a club or being born in a christian family or something like that. Just like being a pacifist. You wouldnt claim that saying that someone who carpet bombs people is not a true pacifist is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Same deal here.
Why yes, as a matter of fact, he was. For future reference, anyone who mentions the Crusades is probably referring to Crusades AGAINST MUSLIMS. And in case you're so exceptionally dense that you still missed the point, primarily because the Muslims had conquered Palestine, North Africa, Iberia, Persia, Mesopotamia and southeastern Europe.
The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the expansion into Anatolia of Muslim Seljuk Turks who had cut off access to Jerusalem...
101 Bible Contradictions http://www.pcworld.com/appguide/app.html?id=530862&expand=false
you've already established the fact that you're anti-intellectual
What? What does that even mean? Are you saying that someone who doesn't want to learn about the same things as you do is "anti-intellectual"?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
What you just described above sounds more like agnosticism.
in about ten years there will be more protestants then Christians...its nearly neck n neck now. ....
GEE mister pope what ya doing to gt them doing it to make more christians....OH RIGHT they got a nazi pope
that will do it...
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god due to lack of evidence. You're shifting the burden of proof.
You talk like to blind person stating that since the colour red cannot be seen, it has no meaning.
You can demonstrate to a blind person that a certain wavelength of light, measurable by scientific equipment, can be filtered and that it has different effects upon both manmade and biological sensors. Thus even a blind person can understand and verify the existence of the color red, even if they may not understand the ramifications of how it is perceived by others.
Going back to Kung fu-tse would be a step backwards, one that the neocons like - which is why they claim to support "compassionate Conservatism" and oppose what they call "socialism", which involves the New Testament demand to love your neighbour.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Christians have something to look forward to. They do not fear death and instead, welcome it.
After having a rather awful childhood I became seriously depressed when I was about 25 years old. My outlook on life then was that it had all been a big unhappy waste, and I had no idea how to improve things. What pulled me through was the idea that there is no afterlife, my life is all I have, and if I wanted my existence to have any meaning at all my only option was to hang on and somehow make things better. It took me five years of fighting to get through that, but it worked. I'm not sure I would still be here had I believed in an afterlife.
Christianity has a solution for that, of course: you will have a terrible afterlife if you take your own life. Turn the promise into a threat if it starts to look too appealing. No thanks, I prefer my own reason for still being alive.
To know where a lot of western civilization ideas come from?
No need to go to the source, since it was extensively quoted in the very ideas you mention.
To compare and challenge what a lot of "christian" preachers and politicians claim that it says?
Why did you put christian in quotes? And who cares what they say? I don't need to read the Qur'an to reject fatwas. I don't need to read the bible to reject the latest junk from the 700 Club or Rick Santorum.
A lot of the junk conservative politicians tell "christian" masses in the US would go nowhere if those same masses had good understanding of the Bible.
Like what?
There's lot of interesting stuff in there. In the book of Samuel, you can find a passage where a nation which had laws, judges and teachers (and a God), gets tired of it and wants something more fun; they go like "oh the nations around us have powerful kings, it would be so cool to have one", and they get told "look, if you get a king, he will take your sons and daughters as servants for himself, he will send them to fight useless wars, etc..." And the nation tells the prophet "whatever, we want a king". A few pages later things get awry for them.
I think your succinct distillation is far superior to the original.
There's lot of stuff like that, politics, ideology, morality, economics... And just like the above example, a lot of stuff to confront "manifest destiny" "it's God will that we rule by the sword" politics.
Dude, have you not read it? There is PLENTY in there to support those politics. Do you not remember the bit in the beginning, for example, where that loving god sent his chosen people on a rape, pillage and murder rampage through the "promised land?"
But, then, I suppose that the fact that I knew that supports your view, doesn't it? I would say that there is one good reason to read the bible: to be able to expose it for the steaming pile of evil it really is.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Quick comment. If it wasn't for the Protestant Christian missionary zeal for having people "read the bible", we wouldn't have the literacy rates that we maintain today. Hawaii went from a land without a written language to a literacy rate of 80% in 40 years after the missionaries devised(literacy in either newly created Hawaiin or English). Literacy is a valuable skill for any society that is being exported at an exponential rate by people for FREE because of their religious beliefs. This isn't just handing out some loaves of bread to starving people, rather it is a dramatic and rapid modernization of a country.
I used to be an Atheist who maintained that religion was misguided. I am still an Atheist, but I don't discourage religion anymore. I would suggest a book like "The Evolution of God" to explain my viewpoint. Basically, religion has always existed and will probably always exist. It is a corollary of the existence of society, and it constantly evolves. Just like anything that 'evolves', it isn't always 'good'. Sometimes the result is downright evil(Jihadists).
Anyway, while I can fully understand your desire to dismiss these missionaries as misguided idiots...I wish you would remember that some very bright people have been religious. It isn't a case of them being uneducated or of a lower mental acuity than you. Their religion stumbles forward and sometimes does some great good, and at other times some great evil. It is just a component of the existence of society, like technology. Industrialization was wonderful, but it also destroyed the environment. People who hold the Industrial Revolution as "purely evil" are just as misguided as those who hold these religious missionaries as people who have "historic and completely ridiculous ideas".
Who builds a house of worship where people go to have a ceremony every week to something that they believe that they don't believe in?
Get out more often. When people have common interests they tend to make a big fuzz about it and get together. Imagining a higher power is not a requirement to for a gathering. Building a large buildings and covering them in gold isn't either.
In Germany we have all kinds of festivals and holidays that have nothing to do with religion.
How is that a false premise? All scientific proofs, arguments, evidence cannot show the existence of a deity and as akhams ravor clearly states, the simplest explanation is often the clearest solution. Religion is self proving and therefore self defeating. Science at least is object in its puruit of truth so it can find real answers whereas religious has no ability to be objective; at the end of the day if they find god does not exist, god will STILL exist.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
To me Christianity is more the symptom of problems that exists in other domains (politics, business, etc). The problems are dogma, ignorance, and strong beliefs with insufficient evidence. This leads to and has lead to all sorts of problems. Just to name a few from a very large list:
1) Discrimination against races or homosexuality
2) The belief that if you don't believe what I believe, that you are a lesser person and will be damned to eternal torture.
3) Homeopathy and even more dangerous forms of pseudoscientific "alternative medicine"
4) Cults, and cult like governments (think Stalin, Hitler, etc).
5) Terrorism (you too can get 72 virgins!)
If a large group of people found inner peace in believing in Santa Clause, but at the same time believed that anyone who didn't couldn't be trusted (Athiests are the least trusted demographic in the USA), this would cause significant division and ultimately is a threat to the moral fabric of society.
You can, undoubtedly, find religious people who are morally progressive and do not pay much attention to their holy books (or at least the bad parts), but if you put aside personal bias, I'm afraid that what you'll find is that they're in the minority. When considering the entire population though, one could spend much more time detailing the dangers of dogmatism, ignorance, and credulity.
There is no benign superstition.
You mean the same Crusades where a group of people tried to regain access to the Holy Land after it was cut off?
Your post, and the way this whole thread has gone is a perfect example of one great big problem with religion.
What in the bloody blue blazing hell are people doing arguing about something that took place a long long time ago? And using it to justify something today?
Hopelessly violent, they are. Pity that we all use God to justify our own evil.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Your concept is a bit flawed. Political positions are equally untenable, however they are frequently used to justify important and drastic actions.
Religion also exists for the explicit purpose of motivating human actions. There is not a religion in existence that does not advocate for specific human actions. The fact that you cannot prove the validity of any of these religions is irrelevant.
While I can understand your argument that people only use empirical information to reach rational conclusions and act rationally without bias....this is not human. Humans may be the most biased actors in the world. We currently live in a society that exists in a constant state of political debate between two sides which both base their arguments on emotion rather than evidence. We exist in an economy that rewards actors based on the importance of their actions rather than the actual skill(i.e. Mutual Fund managers make millions, but are no better than a weighted equation at selecting stocks). We have almost no capacity to analyse long-term risk and have a severe loss aversion even in the simplest of scenarios. While it might be nice to hope that we all would act without irrational bias, until you can "walk the walk", I suggest you avoid "talking the talk".
If the Christian who believes in God and tries to live a moral life acting in kindness towards his neighbours is wrong, when he dies he finds he goes nowhere after death but has lived a good moral life while here on earth.
And if he's spent a large proportion of his life trying to convert people? Or if he's lived a less moral life due to his religion, for example by participating in a holy war, or by helping spread AIDS by preaching against the use of condoms in Africa?
If the atheist is wrong, though he may have lived a moral life, he will still have to stand before God and explain his unbelief.
And this belief is entirely possible to justify rationally. If God does exist and is not capable of being swayed by rational argument, then you're fucked anyway. If God doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter. If God does exist and is rational, then he will accept that atheism is a rational position. You act as if the only two choices Christianity and atheism. This is the flaw in Pascal's wager. There are at more than two religions that say that you will go to some form of hell if you don't belong to them. Each one has exactly the same amount of verifiable evidence for them (i.e. none). If one is true and you believe the wrong one, you go to hell. If one is true and you don't believe either, you still go to hell. You maybe gain slightly on the odds, but some religions (including the abrahamic religions) regard worshiping a false god as being worse than worshiping no god, so even that's a bit of a stretch.
If a Christian dies and discovers that the Valkyries come to take dead people off to feast with Odin, do you really think that the fact that he believed in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient deity will be something the Valkyrie will care about?
As for proof... look around at nature. Can you honestly believe it was all an accident? A random chance due to some atoms rattling around until they got in the right order?
The only kind of person who can't believe this is someone who has absolutely no concept of how big the universe is and how long it took. It took billions of years for life to form on this planet. This galaxy contains about 300 billion stars, of which several billion (extrapolating from our current observations) are likely to have planets sufficiently like ours that conditions similar to those where life arose here will occur. There are about 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe (probably more outside of this sphere), and it's entirely possible that there are other universes. Do you really think it unlikely that given about 10 billion years on around a quintillion stars, it is unlikely for complex life to evolve even once? Keep in mind the anthropic principle (in summary, emergent life will always observe its surroundings to be suitable for life because otherwise life would not have emerged). If there is a 0.000000000000000001 probability of life like ours (i.e. DNA based) emerging on a planet like ours somewhere in the universe each year, then you'd expect it to be happening on a very regular basis.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
fyi, bible does not have much about western culture and philosoply.
assuming this is utter idiocrazy.
every thing about bible is Middle Eastern, West Asian, a bit African.
Only few cases where Rome ruled them arises.
Christianity is nothing except an Asian religion kidnapped by Roman West. The same westerners killed Chirst. Who were the real killers of Jesus ?
Wrong. That would be nihilism. You will not find many nihilists, they tend to suicide early on. However, thanks for bringing it up, what you just said is the BIG LIE perpetrated by religion, namely that without it there is nothing. As an atheist, let me assure you that is far from the truth. Ethics are still something that requires a lot of contemplation. Joy of life is to be had. Goals can be set and reached and insights can be gained. Actually, being an atheist is a bit like being a believer, but with less limits and without some stupid fairy-tales to self-indoctrinate yourself with.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Bear in mind that the theists are just as strong in their beliefs as the atheists, but neither can prove their belief either way and must rely on faith.
But atheists are not trying to prove that gods do not exist. They simply lack belief in the existence of gods. If we lay out the interesting options in doxastic logic they are:
1. p:G - a person has belief in the existence of gods
2. p:~G - a person has belief in the non-existence of gods
3. ~p:G - a person lacks belief in the existence of gods
Of these, the first probably does not exist since the majority of believers either believe only in a single or a particular panoply of gods. They are making an ontological commitment and they have a burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of the particular god or gods they believe in.
The second sentence is probably fairly rare. Again they are making an ontological commitment and must demonstrate that no god exists. Since it is impossible to prove an open-ended negative like this they are in a difficult position (what about the god that the sentient gas bags of an unnamed planet in IOK-1 worship).
The third is the majority atheist position. It doesn't make an ontological commitment, it is merely sceptical of the evidence that believers supposedly have for the existence of the particular deities they worship.
I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion, but I encounter anti-thiests pushing bigotry and anti-religion on a weekly basis on the internet (between facebook and this/other sites).
What? I HAD to pray at the beginning of the school day. I could not recieve instruction that remotely touched upon evolution - can you imagine agtting through high school without ever hearing the word "dinosaur". My schooling was controlled by some pretty fundamental Christians.
I've had Jehovah's Witnesses show up at the door many times wanting to talk. You cannot walk downtown in my city without someone handing you pamphlets or someone yelling at you to repent and accept Jesus.
Seriously, the idea that you have never been approached by Christians who are witnessing for the Lord is mind boggling and leaves me very skeptical, because they are commanded to witness.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
His point about Muslims is irrelevant, because the original point is that the Christians crusades are an example of people doing bad things in the name of religion. The fact that Muslims also did bad things in the name of religion is not a counter argument.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
No, a "Christian" is one who self-identifies as believing in Christ. They typically also claim to follow sets of (selected) teachings. But there is no test of behaviour other than belief in Christ to be Christian. Therefore, claiming a Christian which is also a violent arsehole is not a real Christian is committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
If anyone not following all precepts of their faith is not of their faith, let me tell you this: there are no believers.
I think your succinct distillation is far superior to the original.
How would you know without reading the original? That's the point.
Dude, have you not read it? There is PLENTY in there to support those politics. Do you not remember the bit in the beginning, for example, where that loving god sent his chosen people on a rape, pillage and murder rampage through the "promised land?"
Rape, are you sure? Read again. They were banned of any sexual relations with the people that was there. And does it says that anyone can claim to have heard God? It doesn't set any tests to any so called "prophet"? Nor penalties? And does Jesus and his disciples leave *any* room for anyone to do such a thing ever again?
But, then, I suppose that the fact that I knew that supports your view, doesn't it? I would say that there is one good reason to read the bible: to be able to expose it for the steaming pile of evil it really is.
Yes, that's the point. In favor or against, you need to read the source in order to inteligently discuss it. This is a problem with our current education, and not just with the Bible but with all source material. It seems we now "know" that people are too dumb to read the bible, Plato, Burke, the Constitution, etc... Some centuries ago, that was not "known" and people would read and discuss such stuff and discuss it at school. It's true that you don't need to read what someone claims is source material for their ideas in order to accept or reject them, but you do need to if you are to engage in intelligent discussion. I don't think there's much of a chance for democracies without that.
Old School : Jesus wept.
Today: OMG!!! SAN2RUM SI SURGNG OVER MARICA!!1!1!! OMG J3SUS FOR DA WIN!
!111!1!11!1!1111! WTF LOL
Before we have a conclusive theory of consciousness, the question of whether death is the end is entirely unresolved. Such a theory is not even on the horizon. Von Neumann called consciousness an "extra physical phenomenon", and that may be the best we get. Not that it would be a problem at all.
I am an atheist, but I have absolutely no problem considering part of me to be immortal. No need for a God or some moronic stories in there anywhere.
Of course religions like to claim that unbelievers all think there is no meaning in life or that death is the end. But that is just marketing bullshit.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Ok, I should have distinguished between the various flavours of Buddhism. But the point remains: ending the cycle of rebirths is not a carrot-and-stick kind of motivation. Rather, it is a path of self-improvement leading to obliteration. Believing in rebirth is in essence different from believing in a god, though: one is the belief in a process, and the other is the belief in an agent.
" I have to do my best to leave the world a better place than when I entered it.."
Why? Whether you cure cancer or kill millions of people the end is the same. The heat death of the universe is inevitable. Any idea of a lasting effect that you can have or a purpose to do good is simply an illusion. In the end nothing you, Hitler, or Mother Teresa did matters one bit.
You won't catch me spending eternity in the company of these people.
Good point. Unfortunately, if I stipulate this here is not my first incarnation, then it looks like that is exactly what is going to happen.
Of course you cannot ever deduce something from a sample size of one and at least this life memory is a thing of the body (which most definitely is gone after death) and access to possibly older memories is not available.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Reality is depressing and delusions makes people happy. Did I misunderstand?
Works for many, but less so in modern times. And you can be quite satisfied with your life and see reality too.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Your argument is that because humans are dumb and irrational, we need religion to coerce them into behaving? This is perhaps the saddest and most cynical belief in the need for religion there is. And it doesn't even work:
- religion can be used to make people do horrible things
- religion can be used to make good people do horrible things
- choosing a religious justification over a rational one is better because?
No, people ought to do things for the right reason, and strive towards finding out why things ought to be done. And when they do, tell others. I am pretty certain that the why of things is never "because god told me".
Well, actually I believe in reincarnation, just without all the religious bullshit around it. So, no, being an atheist does not mean believing death is the end. Although this is one of the lies that religious people like to spread in order to make their "faith" more appealing. Still, some atheists do believe so, but they would generally be called "materialists" and some even "nihilists".
But I dare say with all the fear and religion seems to bring with it, I live quite a lot better without it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The Saracens were just as bad.
Cf. "The lengthy Siege of Antioch began in October 1097 and endured until June 1098. Once inside the city, as was standard military practice when an enemy had refused to surrender,[22] the Crusaders massacred the Muslim inhabitants, destroyed mosques and pillaged the city." [Crusades], and Saladin.
I believe there's a world of difference between the two. I wish modern Islam/Muslims had even a shred of Saladin in them. Hell, I wish xtians had too. I don't see that xtians have much improved from his time. I sense a trend that appears to affect both sides since then: determined, blind ignorance.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Yes, but to an atheist, you can show him a mainliner opium addict being cured of his addiction, but it makes no difference. You can show him a person who was cured of one leg being shorter than another, but he remains blind. You can show him a person who was healed of rage, but the atheist denies it.
It takes faith to be an atheist.
My father was an agnostic physicist, until one of his friends' leg was cured (2nd case above), and the wife of another departmental physicist was healed of MS paralysis. After that, he had to pick between "agnostic" and "agnostic, but believes). He documented everything, but in the end became "agnostic but believes." After 50-odd years of mostly being agnostic-atheist, he's now a Christian, praise God. We'd been praying for him.
His atheist friends ignored it.
That's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. For the atheist, it is an article of faith that there must be no other god, for the atheist himself wants to be that god, and in the end, all that denies him is a threat to his existence.
That is, until perchance he recognizes that fact, repents his illogical stance, and realizes that there *is* a God, and comes to know that God.
Thank you, I actually think I'd prefer the dark ages to a Nazi prison, a Hutu-Tutsi extermination campaign, a UN-enforced peace with all the weapons reduction on one side, Leninist/Stalinist communist rule, and whatever our own atheists want to force us into here and now, today.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Rape, are you sure? Read again. They were banned of any sexual relations with the people that was there.
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. - Numbers 31:17-18
Unless you think the taking virgin slaves for concubines is somehow consensual sex, then, yes, that's rape.
And does it says that anyone can claim to have heard God? It doesn't set any tests to any so called "prophet"? Nor penalties? And does Jesus and his disciples leave *any* room for anyone to do such a thing ever again?
I have no clue what you are talking about here. Please clarify.
It's true that you don't need to read what someone claims is source material for their ideas in order to accept or reject them, but you do need to if you are to engage in intelligent discussion. I don't think there's much of a chance for democracies without that.
I concede the point, if it is put this way: when faced with a monolithic, religious cultural force like Christianity, it is prudent to know their source books in order to attack them more successfully.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concetrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.My Mother had taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.
(Nikola Tesla Quote)
Sure, so when the next time comes where a political decision is about to influence a decision I'll just tell you that unicorns don't like that, so it shouldn't be done.
And you can't prove unicorns aren't real. Do not offend my sensibilities.
Repeat after me: Atheism is not (existential) nihilism. Atheism is the absence of religion, not any other ideas of how existence may work.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
As a mystic you are totally ignorant of the purpose of the Bible and ALL other scriptures / "holy books."
What the Bible is NOT:
Is NOT historical accurate. While it has _some_ basis in history, only an idiot would read it literally.
e.g.
* There are numerous geological and astronomical proof that the earth is a few billion years old.
* Why is every day of the 7 days of creation called good except day 2?
* Why are there two contradictory stories of what day man was made?
* Why would a (sadist) God take 40 days to destroy almost living thing when he could do it in a second?
* How the hell does long hair give you strength?
* If he loves everything why does he tell a certain group of people to "kill every man, woman, and child?"
* As a "parent" why would he kill his son? How does this "magically" transfer and remove consequences for something you haven't even done yet?
The strength of Atheism is that it rejects these stupidities.
In fact, the bible was _intentionally_ designed to be contradictory so that you could NOT read it literally but the mind is forced to go: "Wait a minute! There are 2 creation stories here! What is the _deeper_ meaning behind this?"
What the Bible IS:
It is a (badly written & edited) textbook for spiritual kindergarten. Unfortunately, too many are able to separate the "intent" from the "literalism." and move on to advanced classes.
Let's start with an example.
As a child your parents most likely told you go to bed by a certain time. As you got older you were allowed to stay up later and later. Why? Because as a child you were not a) aware of the consequences of staying up late, b) not responsible, c) didn't have enough experience to exercise good judgment when you should or should not stay up late. As you grew up and as an adult you could decide for yourself "when it was too late" / "time for bed"
The Old Testament contains out-dated concepts such as slavery because AT THAT time, people could not understand radical concepts such as freedom. Hell, look how long it took in America for Blacks to be treated as first class citizens! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
The bible contains _3_ levels of truth. Literal, Allegorical, and Spiritual.
The ignorance of you and Atheism is that it tosses the baby out with the bath water; it assumes that there is only 1 level -- the literal -- and that the rest contains nothing worthwhile.
Whether a _story_ is LITERALLY true or not is completely irrelevantif you grok the MORAL INTENT.
The 10 commandments come almost directly from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Does that mean that the "Do not kill others" is a bad idea and that plagiarized ideas should be rejected? Of course not. Jesus _summarized_ the _entire_ Old Testament with 2 intents:
The modern cliche is
with is just a paraphrase of of
Only by _doing_ the literal can you come to understand the spiritual. THIS is what you are missing.
The christian missionaries, while misguided, are at least living their religion. How are you living yours? By condemning what you don't understand? So what is YOUR philosophy that we can APPLY to make a world a better place?
No, a "Christian" is one who self-identifies as believing in Christ. They typically also claim to follow sets of (selected) teachings. But there is no test of behaviour other than belief in Christ to be Christian
"You will know them by their fruits" "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." So no, a christian is someone who follows Christ. Someone who claims to be a christian is, a priori, just that.
There have been all kinds of morons in history. And many have later been utilized to push one ideology or the other.
Side note: Your sentence does not even make sense at all, because gods are immortal, hence cannot die. But I see your effective intelligence has rotted away a long time ago.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Yes. You are correct. The Inquisition was much more evil.
Check out the torture implements the Christian priests came up with for that one. Will make your skin crawl.
Religion IS evil. Get over it.
No, quite the opposite. I'm saying someone who wants to do away with a certain kind of knowledge just because it doesn't interest him is anti-intellectual and a champion of idiocy.
I don't know how your rant got modded up. Look up the words "atheist" and "agnostic" in a dictionary. One could say that atheists are the absence of reason because their beliefs are not based on proofs.
Okay, I disagree with the fundamentals of your example, but let's let that go with a real example.
Columbus wanted to fund another crusade. He got to America, sent back word that the Indians were animals, and got back an answer from the Church, "well, with animals, you don't have to provide rights."
So within 20 years, other missionaries started sending back word, "you have made a terrible mistake", and the Vatican then pushed through a treaty between all European nations that Indians could not be eaten, they had to be paid for their work, they had to be paid for their land -- and the rightful owner had to be paid, not paying Quonset for Alopin's land (or bribing the chief).
At which point Columbus, who had previously been blinded by greed, and had begun the eventual extermination of natives on the Dominican/Haitian island, repented his stance, and fought it ... only to be hauled back to Spain and thrown into prison for the rest of his life.
*** now that is key **. Because the key item is that he did repent, whether the final results reflected that or not. He repented at great cost to himself -- though the cost to the Indians of him not repenting sooner was far greater.
But also, your understanding of belief is flawed. Belief isn't a head thing -- it is what you invest yourself in. To understand it, you need to understand that the Hebrew concept of a student wasn't someone who learned to think the thought or talk the talk, but was rather someone who practiced walking the walk. That is why the word "martyr" actually means "witness". They believe it enough to die for it -- they walk the walk.
Finally: For me, the thing about probabilities is what cinches it in my mind. Not only the Biblical historical events -- but also all that has happened since then, defies probability based on our understanding of the universe, unless you posit that the Bible is correct, in which case probability is affirmed. I don't mean that life came to be on our planet. I have no way of judging the probability of that -- so talking about probability there is nonsense. I mean, when you go to a charismatic revival, and someone you know, who was lame since a child, with leg bones that are different lengths, being healed there and then, permanently. That's the kind of probability that we *do* understand, and it doesn't happen in the doctor's office that way. But at the charismatic prayer meetings, it does happen that way, and the Bible affirms that it does, too. When people pray for the prayers of saints, or go to Lourdes, then too, it does happen that way. Not always, but according to what is promised, it does.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Let me second GP that the bible is difficult to interpret. Someone with no knowledge of Christian religions would never guess, based on reading the bible, what they are actually like. Huge swaths of the bible are ignored or reinterpreted, and only certain smallish portions (e.g. the gospels) actually reflect the doctrine of modern religions.
After learning a bit about crusades, I came to the conclusion that the only dark spot in the crusading movement was the sack of Jerusalem ...
Though I don't disagree with the gist of your post, I do think you need to read a bit more about the Crusades to know what you're talking about: they were indeed pretty damned horrifically messy.:
Once inside the city, as was standard military practice when an enemy had refused to surrender, the Crusaders massacred the Muslim inhabitants, destroyed mosques and pillaged the city.
Praise $deity we're not living in those times.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Unless you think the taking virgin slaves for concubines is somehow consensual sex, then, yes, that's rape.
(altough people choosing who they marry is something historically uncommon). good point.
And does it says that anyone can claim to have heard God? It doesn't set any tests to any so called "prophet"? Nor penalties? And does Jesus and his disciples leave *any* room for anyone to do such a thing ever again?
I have no clue what you are talking about here. Please clarify.
It means that the Bible does establish tests for anyone claiming to be a prophet and bringing "new word of God" . Tests such as "does 100% of what he predicts become true", "does he glorify God" etc... and the penalty in OT times was stoning. (Yeah, Harold Camping had it good, if he had lived at 1000 bc he would have been more careful with his "end of the world next week" junk). In new testament times (present) there is no room for "new revelation". All the important stuff to be revealed before the second coming is revealed, and what we dont know, well too bad. The new testament establishes what Christians are to do, and how we are to do it. We are told to carry the word of His kingdom to the last reaches of the earth. But we are told how to do it and how not to do it. "for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh ", "love thy enemies", "love thy neighbor", and all that. There's no room for shortcuts like "well, if we support bombing this or that country that could pave the road for this or that" nor anything like that.
I concede the point, if it is put this way: when faced with a monolithic, religious cultural force like Christianity, it is prudent to know their source books in order to attack them more successfully.
Monolithic? Really? The diversity of ideas and thoughts in Christianity is huge. Right wing, left wing (really really left wing, like liberation theology), hierarchical structures, democratic structures, anarchic structures, etc...
"You would thing that people would be able do away with these historic and completely ridiculous ideas by now. Instead they are still stuck in the dark ages, but now with shiny new technology. Really sad."
Speak for yourself. I'm more worried about people who--whether it's religion, politics, apple vs windows, etc--believe they are The Enlightened Ones and denigrate large groups of people who have differing world views from them. Tolerance and being able to coexist with people who have different views is a crucial element of having a free, open, and thriving society. I'd say that judging and generalizing large groups of people for their beliefs is more dark age-ish than being religious.
Eh, this sounds loosely based on the anime "Eden of the East"... and the company within that anime that makes the "Eden" system. It's really cool, though. :)
What if I prayed that God will make your life miserable, so that you will have something affect you. It would stop when you accept Jesus as your savior. Assuming I did such a thing and it worked (and God agreed to do it), God would be affecting you, but you would chalk it up to "bad luck", even if God gave you numerous opportunities to accept Jesus, because you would maintain that you don't want your life affected by gods (and thereby would refuse to accept Jesus), even though your life already would be affected by God to a great extent.
So, what you are really saying is that you have a completely closed mind to religious ideas, whether they exist or not and whether they are currently affecting you or not. Regardless of what may be reality, you live in a world where you refuse to believe certain potentially uncomfortable realities.
BTW, I'll actually pray FOR you, that God will bless you and that he would open your mind to see that he is real.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Is your desire for life to have meaning really much more advanced than their Bronze Age mythology? Living life to its fullest, and hope have no real value because everything you do will be erased by time. Your research may live on, books may survive the author, and artists’ works may last, the good you do while alive may have long lasting ripple effects, perhaps for millennia but the universe will end. It may end in heat death, or cold death, or big crunch; however it ends everything you do will be erased, and over the vast expanse of time even contributions that last for millennia are entirely meaningless. At best we can make meaningless contributions to improve the lives of other meaningless creatures. I don’t have any value, purpose or meaning, I just am. In a moment (perhaps another 40-50 years from now) I will no longer be.
Re: "Do doctors hang out with other doctors or do they seek out the sick"
This nicely sums up the problem I have with christianity: The presumption that the non-christians are damaged and must be fixed.
HaHa: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
There's no point in life *given to us*. Instead we make it for ourselves. Religion tells you the point of life is a test to pass through the gates of heaven.
Personally I felt like religion was subtracting value from my life. Anything I do on Earth doesn't matter, my goal is to get to heaven, since I will spend an infinite amount more time there. I could work at a mediocre job, volunteer at charities, give a bit to the church, and spend lots of time praying and thanking God. I could lead a good Christian life, but never amount to very much.
As an atheist, I had to assign meaning to my own life. I want to make Earth a better place. I need to go be the best person I can be: work hard and find areas where I can have an impact. There's no afterlife so I need to make my mark while I'm here. I don't need to spend hours each week thinking about God's greatness or worrying about whether I'm interpreting the bible correctly (e.g. is it ok to be gay? have an abortion? masturbate?). My money goes straight to charity instead of the church. I don't participate in the brainwashing that has created so much anti-science culture here in America.
I can give my life meaning without the baggage of religion.
Umm... up until the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, all our oldest copies of the old testament Bible are in that secret vernacular language that is known as "ancient Persian", and that *was* the language of the vernacular. The second oldest copies are in that secret vernacular language that is known as "Greek", also the language of the vernacular: most Romans also wrote Greek at the time. The dead sea scrolls are written in an Aramaic vernacular, but we have most of our copies of the Old Testament in Greek, because Alexander the Great was impressed enough by the Jewish scribes that he staffed the Great Library with 70 of them, to translate everything important into Greek.
But for the record, the dead sea scrolls also confirm the translations of the Bible.
And yes, back when electronic calculators were new and super-expensive (just as with computers, later), physics departments did keep them chained so as not to be stolen. Likewise, back in the Dark Ages, when Bibles were new and super-expensive, churches did keep them chained so as not to be stolen. But they were readable, and available. And they were available in the language that was universally taught to those who could read: Latin. Latin was taught as opposed to the 1000 different vernacular languages, because that was the language of diplomacy, and therefore of culture. It was the one language that you could always be sure that *someone* nearby would understand.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
>The existence of gods is undecidable. Therefore using it to justify anything is dodgy. Note that using the non-existence of gods is just as dodgy.
Occam's Razor is dodgy? Yeah, right.
.... the smell of a religious debate (or is that debauchery) in the morning.... it smells like, a clusterfuck.
Whatever merits, whenever, and where ever.... i simply had to comment on something i found particularly amusing in the leading: "There's a unity among Bible translators and publishers that stands in stark contrast to the fractured, fratricidal smartphone industry."
Seriously?
New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, King James Bible, International Standard Version, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, GOD'S WORD Translation, King James 2000 Bible, American King James Version, American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, Weymouth New Testament, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation.......and on.... and on..... and on.....
Seriously?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
If God would have wanted that speakers of Potawotomie, Norwegian, Indonesian or Hawaiian Pidgin, He would have used their languages. The message of the Bible is reserved to speakers of Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and some parts are for Koine Greek speakers.
The rest of you are not invited. Party crashers!
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
But it matters now.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
That still implies that something is only worthwhile only if it was observed by someone and that's clearly not the case.
Instead of talking about what we know right now, let's talk about the past. The fact that atoms could not be seen or proven to exist in any way in the distant past had no bearing whatsoever on their reality nor on their importance to the rest of the universe. They existed since the beginning of the universe for billions of years, entirely without our observation.
The fact is that should God or some other supernatural force exist, by definition, there is no reason to believe that they or any of their actions are forced to be available for your observation. Their non-falsifiable status makes them an impossible subject for scientific inquiry. Of course, this is not really very controversial.
Still, it seems to me that people are considering the non-falsifiable case of deities to be a weakness of theism, when it is actually quite the opposite, it is a limitation of the scientific method and observation. In this case, the fact that you cannot perceive something is a limitation of yourself, not of whatever deity, or even of any theory of a deity that is out there.
I admit, in the end, you have to choose something to guide your actions. If you want to say that observations or science or whatever does, that's your choice, but while it may be no worse than postulating an invisible, all-powerful deity, it's really no better.
I suspect we will start heaing about Christians being murdered in Islamic countries because they have the Bible on their cell phone.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Xtians who've accepted Yahweh/God/Jesus as their saviour believe they're going to Heaven, and life here is just a stop over on the way to that.
Maybe the Crusades should have completed the job.
Maybe the Muslims should have completed the job, and wiped Xtianity from the face of the Earth. Maybe Islam would have remained the enlightened society it once was, if it didn't have to deal with homocidal/suicidal Xtians sticking their noses in where they weren't welcome.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Then let's use the case of someone who lived in the past assuming that since atoms could not be seen, that they also have no meaning.
If anything is clear from science, it's that observation is not required for something to exist. We have ample proof of at least that much.
Apart from the fact that you've confused nihilism with atheism, you've also managed to confuse "life" with "being alive".
There is no purpose to you or I being here. None at all. No higher being doing it for a reason. No reason at all. Biologically, life just is. Why do you find that so scary?
I am not a hard man to convince. I just demand proof. Material or logical. If a double blind study showed that prayer had an effect on outcomes, I would consider that compelling -- there has been such studies, and they turned out negative.
If there is a deity, and they are so good at hiding themselves that they littered the universe with alternative (perfectly consistent and plausible) explanations to their existence, and yet demanded belief on pain of eternal damnation, I would consider it my duty, as a thinking human, to stand up to them. Because that makes them a cosmic-sized douchebag.
Have gnu, will travel.
There are many billions of years between now and the heat death of the universe. In the (very) long term, I agree, there is no hope nor justification for doing anything. Except if you think that in the mean time, real joy and suffering can occur, and that the first ought to be maximised and the later minimised.
Maybe I enjoy seeing people happy, and that is enough for me to "do good"? The point is that meaning comes from within each of us. It is not bestowed upon us by a superior power.
I've read Slashdot for a few years now, and every once in a while I see articles posted that directly or indirectly refer to Christianity. And every single time, it ends up being a sounding board for the Slashdot "community" to boast about how proudly atheistic they are and criticize the few Christians Slashdotters that give their point of view.
I'm a devout Christian, and I can't quite fully express how saddened I am to see some of these comments. For someone to mock my faith, a faith that I've seen work miracles in people's lives and help them go from a place of pain and destruction to a place of life and peace, is something that literally makes me shake with sadness.
Were the Crusades not very Christian-like at times? You betcha. Modern Christians don't condone many of the acts that were committed "in the name of" Christianity hundreds of years ago. If you see anyone killing someone else in the name of Christ, they're not true Christ-followers. So do NOT lump us all together. It's like blaming the existence of nuclear weapons on every physicist that ever lived. It's not a fair accusation. (I know somebody's going to comment on that statement and bash it somehow - so go right ahead, prove to yourself that you're not reading this comment for your own benefit, but rather just to find ways to knock down a Christian).
Secondly, some of you have made comments about how the Bible doesn't apply to modern day or that it's too cryptic for us (or even its original authors) to understand. Is this difficult to understand? "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:34) Does this next verse have no applicability to the present day?
Or, "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need." (Ephesians 4:28)
Or just read the book of Proverbs (which is even in the Old Testament) and you'll find a slew of practical advice for living a better, more fulfilling life.
Sure, a lot of the Bible is a historical record of the Jewish and Christian people living in the Middle East for a period of a few thousand years, and not every law in Leviticus applies to us today. But the Bible isn't a story, it's a living history, and real churches are not museums for the saints, but hospitals for the sick. Before you make comments on the Bible, make sure you've read it; you don't lend yourself much credibility by scoffing at it without having actually explored it.
I wasn't always a Christian, and I explored other religious texts before settling on the Bible. The conclusion I came to was that it offers something that no other 'religion' offered. Rather than having to 'change' before we can become 'right' with God, we become right with God (through simply asking for it) and letting God's love change us.
Have you ever felt that life is more than just about technology, physics, inventions, etc? Don't you ever get tired of reading news articles every day about the current size of transistors, Apple's patent wars, or funding for space programs? I sure do. If that's all that life is about, then that's pretty scary. I have to believe that life is about helping people in a real and tangible way, TODAY; building up others in our community who aren't as fortunate as us, and not just speculating about how we can make cooler stuff out of silicon.
Seriously - many of us live in cities where people are outside, homeless, starving, and dying every day, and yet you feel comfortable sitting back with your $4.50 Lattes and criticizing Christianity, the single largest organization today that is trying to help the real problems of real people at this very minute. If that's the kind of community that Slashdot is, then I'm done. I'd rather go make a difference in this world than read about occasionally interesting tech news.
Check your premises.
You seem to be under the impression that your ideas and thinking are something new. The dark ages were caused by people like you running the Roman Empire who were so preoccupied with partying and other self-indulges that they no longer had any clue what was going on. You are most likely a city dweller like me but I used to live on a farm so I could grow my own food and live of the land whereas you would be completely helpless much like the Romans who depended on foreign mercenaries.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Actually, something which is not observed by anyone -- where observed means "has effects in the material world" -- by definition cannot be worthwhile. It is as perfectly neutral to the balance of anything as nothing at all.
it is insulting that you think (against evidence, I might add) that atheists cannot have peace of mind. After all, Buddhism is an atheist philosophy, and peace of mind is their trademark
It is not an atheistic philosophy, in the sense that it argues for a lot of unsubstantiated stuff like any other religion. How many athiests do you know follow the Buddhist philosophy?
- It is insulting that you think people do good things just because they are afraid of the great CCTV in the sky. People do good things for their own sake.
That is noble. But if a 'CCTV in sky' is causing people to stop them from murdering their peer and stealing their wealth, I will take it. If an idea is causing more happiness than sorrow, it should be allowed to exist, even if it is false. For all our science, we cannot prove that over the span of human existance, religion has caused more unhappiness than happiness because of the problem of measuring of happiness. We may feel differently, but cannot know for sure.
Yes, but to an atheist, you can show him a mainliner opium addict being cured of his addiction, but it makes no difference. You can show him a person who was cured of one leg being shorter than another, but he remains blind. You can show him a person who was healed of rage, but the atheist denies it.
Maybe you misunderstand my example. I showed that even a blind person can perceive a wavelength of light using equipment, and observe effects of that wavelength of light, experimenting to perceive differences of that wavelength from others.
What you've mentioned is observing results, which one can tie through experimentation, perhaps, to belief, but not to that actual existence of any god. Can you, through experimentation show that belief in a particular god (as opposed to one of many religions) has positive effects? Can you demonstrate that the god of that religion exists? Can you show scientifically that the effects are derived from the god through hypothesis and experimentation?
It takes faith to be an atheist.
Not really. The null hypothesis cannot be proved. A scientist or logical person does not just believe everything by default. Do you believe there are tiny goblins in your ears that hide if anyone looks? Do you not believe that because you have faith, or do you have another reason?
That's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. For the atheist, it is an article of faith that there must be no other god, for the atheist himself wants to be that god, and in the end, all that denies him is a threat to his existence.
I could just as easily redefine a christian as, "someone who has an article of faith that not only is there a god, but his name is 'Jeebus' and he will give us dinosaurs some day". Thus you are not a christian. If you insist on redefining generic words it is impossible to have a rational discourse. An atheist is a person who has no belief in a god. That is all.
Until someone documents scientific evidence of a god, belief in a god is not rational. That's fine and we all believe irrational things, but don't deceive yourself about it or try to paint others with a desperate equivocation. And before you try to cite anecdotes as evidence, I mean real, scientific experimentation that would disprove the hypothesis, and is repeatable and stands up to methodological and logical scrutiny. Please apply some logical rigor here.
I was thoroughly taught the eevils of the Crusaders, but not a peep of the conquerors the Crusaders were trying to kick out, so I feel a bit of duty to present "the rest of the story".
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Yes. You are correct. The Inquisition was much more evil.
Check out the torture implements the Christian priests came up with for that one. Will make your skin crawl.
Religion IS evil. Get over it.
People are evil if they are left to their own devices. Get over it. Chinese water torture, water boarding, electrocution and injection of "truth" drugs are all examples of what modern civil governments employ in interrogation.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
And if they did not pay the Jizya?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Then let's use the case of someone who lived in the past assuming that since atoms could not be seen, that they also have no meaning. If anything is clear from science, it's that observation is not required for something to exist. We have ample proof of at least that much.
There are indeed lots of things we can't directly observe with our eyes that are supported by scientific evidence. That doesn't mean there is not scientific evidence and that's the difference here. There is scientific evidence for the existence of atoms and as soon as we started forming hypothesis about atoms and experimenting to provide evidence for or against the hypothesis, belief in atoms ceased to be an irrational belief and became a rational one founded on evidence. As soon as you form a hypothesis about the existence of some god, then perform a repeatable experiment that would falsify that hypothesis, belief in said god also becomes a rational belief. We've had a couple thousand years so far and no one has managed it. Good luck.
Northern Crusades.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Unlike the faithful, atheists are generally open-minded people. If someone shows up and proves they are God (however they would manage that) the atheists will turn religious.
Not necessarily, in the full sense of the word. I mean, if you proved to me that the biblical god exists, he would remain (as seen in his own book) a genocidal sick fuck. He'd never get any respect from me.
While I accept the proposition that there is nothing that strongly suggests that the universe was created, there is equally nothing to suggest that it wasn't created either. The size of the universe or probability of life in the universe, has zero bearing on whether it was an accident or not, since there is no reason that this situation could not have been constructed by an entity of sufficient ability for their own purposes.
And if he's spent a large proportion of his life trying to convert people? Or if he's lived a less moral life due to his religion, for example by participating in a holy war, or by helping spread AIDS by preaching against the use of condoms in Africa?
This sort of example is spurious. In the sense of the Crusades, you are suggesting that the actual actions of adherents to a religion represents the final effect that the religion would have or promote. In reality, there is no part of Christianity that favors war as a solution to anything. The Crusades were a bunch of people who decided to have a war and say it was because God said so. I could just as soon call a Crusade and say it was because it would please the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that would be a similar leap of logic.
In other words, the Crusades were executed by people who *missed the point* of their religion. I keep wondering why people keep bringing that up as an actual argument. It's not like atheism has generated people who stop having wars, so the logic escapes me.
As for spreading AIDS by not allowing condoms... that's plain silly. You don't require condoms to prevent AIDS. Heck, in Africa, the problem isn't even with sex, it's that AIDS has gotten into even the blood supply. No condom would save you from that.
Now you might be right that condoms may help with avoiding infection *if* you there was no way to avoid having an infected partner, and you chose to have sex, and if the condom worked properly, but honestly, if you actually do follow the outlined religion, you would:
a) not be having sex with multiple partners
b) you'd wait to get married, which would give you sufficient time to determine if your partner was infected or not and
c) since you stuck to one partner, you would have a better chance of not getting infected.
While it is possible to choose badly and manage to end up with a cheater, the fact is that on average, that plan alone would be enough to eventually cut AIDS and any other STD transmission levels down to below epidemic levels.
In effect, you're cutting on a group that is simply consistently advocating their position, and that position would actually help the very problem you are blaming them for to boot. You just don't like the fact that in order for the benefit to seen, you actually have to follow the whole program.
Lots of religiously motivated things are good, and they remain good despite the religious motivation. The problem is that religious thinking only leads to good things by accident, and can be used to justify the most horrible evil. Religious thinking means faith, ignoring evidence, reliance on authority, and belief in the completely implausible. This means that if a holy book says you should do X, even if X causes pain and suffering on a huge scale and is obviously evil to any rational person, the religious person is not swayed by any argument and persists in the evil beliefs and actions.
Religion give you BAD reason to believe some good things. Modern secular humanism that has arisen since the enlightenment, and the scientific method, gives you good reason to believe both facts about the world, and the answers to moral questions.
Most modern christians cherry pick the good from the bible using the same rational and reasoning as atheists. It is generally wrong to harm people who's actions are not harming anyone. Thus, most "moderate" christians no longer want to burn witches, kill disrespectful children, stone to death neighbours who do not observe the sabbath, or sell their daughters into slavery.
All the supposed good that comes from religions can come from secular sources without the many downsides.
Anarchists never rule
Atheists do NOT rely on faith. The religious persist in many beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Atheists on the other hand would belief in god if there was strong evidence for his existence. Since this evidence is completely lacking the rational person is generally an atheist.
Look up Russell's Teapot to see another example of the fallacy of thinking being an atheist requires faith.
Anarchists never rule
The existence of gods is undecidable. Therefore using it to justify anything is dodgy. Note that using the non-existence of gods is just as dodgy.
You should justify your actions by some reason wholly outside the realm of theogonies. And therefore religion is useless to guide human actions.
I further claim it is harmful. Because it uses an undecidable (and unlikely) premise which is not necessarily shared by all the recipients of the actions.
Many thing are not believable, however if you believe in God you will find that you will change."This is what the Lord says: 'Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in this I delight." (Jeremiah 9:23-24)
Strive to Know Him Better!
Its odd how all these miracle cures are not documented by anyone credible, but always some friend of a friend heard about it. There is not one well documented case of "miracle cures" that could not be explained by the bodies normal healing and immune system.
Lets take Lourdes as an example. Out of the millions of people who have visited there is not one case of a limb regenerating. Only disease that is known to go into remission on its own is every "cured".
Anarchists never rule
So you are saying the god you beleive in is a petty, spiteful, bully?
Anarchists never rule
First you use Pascal's Wager (belief has no down side and huge up side). All the time and energy of dedicating your life to a mistaken idea is somehow not seen as a down side. And then for the up side, don't you have to have chosen correctly among the many many religions to get the benefits?
Then you use the emptiest of arguments (look at nature, that must be god's doing). Through the scientific method, we have learned an awful lot about how things have evolved to the point we're at now. And if you want to resolve the pesky questions of origins of life and the universe by postulating a god, you're merely replacing those questions with the even bigger question of god's origin.
Sure. But in covering more positive aspects of history you probably heard more about christian people than muslim people too. If you live in the western world most of your history will be about the exploits of western world people. Good and bad.
The existence of gods is undecidable. Therefore using it to justify anything is dodgy. Note that using the non-existence of gods is just as dodgy.
You should justify your actions by some reason wholly outside the realm of theogonies. And therefore religion is useless to guide human actions.
I further claim it is harmful. Because it uses an undecidable (and unlikely) premise which is not necessarily shared by all the recipients of the actions.
Many thing are not believable, however if you believe in God you will find that you will change."This is what the Lord says: 'Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in this I delight." (Jeremiah 9:23-24)
Strive to Know Him Better!
We are divine, but we live in a human experience. You cannot cut off or rationalize separation from the human experience to reach the divine one. We must embrace all of the experience so that we can know wholeness. That includes ups and downs and the full range of emotions, including anger and sadness. Only through embracing and feeling these "negative" emotions can we eventually rise above them to where we know only the peace and joy of God.
What makes you think I must fear death because I don't believe in an afterlife? I no more fear death than I fear the time before I was born. I am not sad that I do not have childish delusions. I am sad that you need these childish stories to sustain you when the real life we live now, here on earth, should be all it takes to want to lead a good, just, caring, and fufilling life.
If christians truly believe in an afterlife and heaven, why don't they all go there now? Why so sad at funerals? Could there be some doubt in their minds?
Anarchists never rule
Everyone seems to define their terms differently, but in my experience, most atheists reserve some sliver of possibility that god exists. We think it's very unlikely, so we say we don't believe it.
I just said more tolerant, not equal.
Deism: Atheism with purpose.
Replying to undo a mod. >.
Most people I know couldn't point to Afghanistan on a map, and we're actively sending Americans there. Expecting people to be adequately familiar with the geopolitics of the 11th century is a pretty tall order. Be glad some people can participate in the discussion at all and use it as an opportunity to teach them something.
Also, I'm not yet convinced your examples are of "good" in Christianity. Using Papal blessings and indulgences to muster campaigns against the Muslims doesn't strike me as legitimately moral just because there were some (apparently genuine) military concerns. A little more detail on your perspective would be interesting though.
It is when the "bad things" are in response to a Muslim invasion.
The Muslims conquered most of the Xian world including the religion's most important holy sites.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Then your comment is meaningless, since "more" can be anything from a zepto-zepto- zepto-percent greater to a zetta-zetta-zetta-percent greater.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"Just war theory" was Aquinas, no?
But I'm interested in how you don't think the crusades argument against Christianity is invalid. Please expound.
There was a Christian empire in North Africa that was tolerant. It was however, non-trinitarian, and was conquered by the trinitarian armies of the Eastern Roman Empire.
So what you're advocating is that we live like hypocrite cowards in case the Christian god actually exists and is a shitty little bully how condemns good people just because they didn't believe in him?
Fuck that shit.
Dilbert RSS feed
I admit, in the end, you have to choose something to guide your actions. If you want to say that observations or science or whatever does, that's your choice, but while it may be no worse than postulating an invisible, all-powerful deity, it's really no better.
Yes, it is. Because the deity option leads is either filled with dogma and therefore fanaticism or with hypocrisy.
Dilbert RSS feed
As I have to repeat in each religious thread, they're orthogonal: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
Me, and most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists.
Dilbert RSS feed
Atheism is a philosophy. A religion is basically a philosophy that involves belief in a deity.
Most people can understand more than black and white.
You're attempting to state that atheism is some sort of default condition that everyone else has to prove to you is wrong. Of course, that is the heart of the matter, isn't it? People aren't born Christians or Muslims, perhaps, but they aren't born atheists either. And as far as what is "natural" for humans to end up with by simply following their instincts and nature, we already know what the results are: both religionists and atheists, but frankly, more religionists.
That doesn't prove or disprove anything, of course. I can convince a child that I am Tarzan, King of the Apes if I work at it. The only facts that I am aware of then are that:
Proving the existence of a deity is impossible, unless they reveal themselves somehow
Disproving the existence of a deity is also impossible, as there is no situation we can force them to be observable if they choose not to be
In short, there is no real default position unless a (theoretical) deity steps in and collapses the uncertainty.
One might be able to argue that faith is not required if one just doesn't think about the problem and goes about their lives without making some sort of assertion. You might also argue that atheists can be like this, and therefore do not require faith.
However, one may also argue that this is impossible in a world where you are confronted with assertions and actions based on those assertions every day. For example, you may not care if someone wants to construct a gigantic cross in space by capturing and carving out an asteroid, but you might object to the cost of something like that and prefer it be spent on something more interesting to you, like a gigantic ball of twine.
While you might consider it "reasonable" to not spend money on something with no utility, like a gigantic cross in space, that is only because you have faith that your position is correct (ie. no God). The only way you can prove your utility argument without recourse to a religious argument like "Jesus wouldn't want a huge cross in space while people are starving", is if you frankly state that there is no God, and a cross in space gets you absolutely nothing. And you can't prove that argument logically either, ergo you need to expend faith in your position because you are asserting your faith that there is no utility in that giant cross.
Aside from all of that, I get that atheists consider the "atheists have faith too" argument to sound more like a tit for tat rebuttal, but it does make the point that faith isn't a dirty word. Faith is required for humans to function as we do, religious or not. Pure "Reason" is not sufficient, and it may be as much of a myth as any deity is.
Here is an excellent website for anyone interested to know more about the difference between genuine christianity and counterfeit christianity.
Google: "notes from a retired preacher"
But how much more tolerant were the Muslims of non-Jizya-paying infidels than the Crusaders were of "others"?
A little, a lot, somewhere in between? It really does matter, and just the simple word "more" doesn't come close to indicating which shade of grey.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Beside those already awful Facebook, Twitter, and G+ icons was a flag icon.
If you move your mouse' arrow way to the right, outside the body of the comment, all of them except for the flag disappear.
As for the rest of what you wrote, ?!?!?!? Maybe reddit is more your speed?
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins." -- Paul Dirac
Paul said it best. Let's move on, please.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between christians and trolls. Like right now.
... ie. the "why I am existing", which is a spiritual question ...
Not to me, it isn't. That's a philosophical question, and as religion and spirituality are primitive and backward forms of philosophy, they're not likely to get anywhere near close to answering questions like that.
However, you go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe. It's no skin off my nose.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
No, it sounds like atheism. Belief in theistic god(s) = theism. No belief in theistic god(s) = atheism. Clear enough?
http://jhayeshappyheretic.blogspot.com/2001/06/there-is-no-such-thing-as-agnostic.html
Well Hitler was innocent until he started the genocide, so killing him early would be equal to murdering an innocent man and denying him a trial.
In the short run, it could save millions. But it could backfire:
- First, we would become a society that condones killing innocent people. Where do we draw the line now? Do we only kill innocent people when they'll kill a million others in the future? When they kill a hundred? Ten? A single person? Do we start killing people who will accidentally cause the death of others in the future? Do we allow the killing of innocent people for research, in order to save more lives? Do we lock up people who will commit other crimes in the future, such as theft? How do we prove beyond reasonable doubt that somebody will commit a crime, when the accused himself doesn't even know he will commit one - after all we need to be sure only the guilty are killed and the system isn't abused. What if we are not sure somebody will kill someone else - what if there's only an 80% chance they will? Do we still kill them? Most of the time you'll save a life, but 2 out of 10 people you kill would never have killed anyone.
Would you want to live in a world like that? Would you feel safe and be confident that you'd never be killed without a warning, for the greater good? Deciding where we draw the line is arbitrary. Today we draw it at killing one innocent to save 1000 of his future victims, tomorrow we draw it at killing a hundred innocents to cure cancer. Much safer to say "No killing of innocent people, period!".
- Second, there's no guarantee killing Hitler would have prevented the genocide. Some historians believe somebody else would have done it, because Hitler wasn't exactly unique. There was room for only one Führer so it was him, but if he had left the seat vacant somebody else would likely have taken it. So do we kill an innocent man because he might commit a crime in the future, when his death won't prevent that crime?
- Third, maybe Hitler's genocide killed somebody who would have killed many more people than him. If Hitler killed 10 Million but the genocide saved 1 Billion, then following your logic Hitler is actually a good guy and the genocide was the right thing to do.
- Fourth, what about using other solutions when possible? If we had known what Hitler would do, killing him would not even have been necessary, we could have stopped him peacefully. We may not even have been required to lock him up somewhere, we could have made him see a therapist.
It would have been nice to save Hitler's victims, but the ends don't always justify the means and so, doing something bad for a good cause isn't a viable solution. In fact the holocaust occurred thanks through logic like yours actually - "the end justify the means" and "the law can be arbitrary".
Anyway, intentions matter most than actions. A jerk is a jerk, even if they do some good by accident. A good person may do bad by mistake, but if it's not intentional then you can still rely trust that person. And if a good person makes mistakes frequently, you can train or educate them so that they make less mistakes. On the other hand, you can hardly train a jerk to stop acting like a jerk.
And just because some good comes out of something, doesn't make the whole thing good.
Truth be told I'm not really surprised that a Christian or other religious person would care about acts more than intentions. It's typical of religion to teach people "do as your god wants, even if you don't want to".
I'll tell you what, if your god is real, I have a better chance of going to heaven than you have. That's because I truly am a good person - I help others because I like it, not because I feel forced to do it or because I expect a reward.
Your god would laugh at you, call you a hypocrite and send you to hell. Then he'd open the gates of heaven for me and tell me "Dude, I know you didn't believe in me, but thanks for using the reason I gave you, for being honest, and for becoming the kind of person I wanted all
But something tells me that killing non-virgins on their wedding night isn't a moral thing to do...
Watch out there. What you just said is considered "racist" by many, you must respect their culture.
Science can extend our life span. I'll live to be 200. By then, there will be a way to make me live 500. Then 1000. Then... forever.
Pretty sure Science will also resurrect people some day. If nature can create it, science could reproduce it. I'm optimistic. I'm not sad, unhappy, depressed or anything. And I'd rather live in the real world than to believe in false things just because it makes me feel better. I'm glad you've found your happiness but don't tell me I'm miserable.
Also, most Christians I know who put lots of efforts into acting nice frequently fail to act nice. Because they don't ask themselves what's right and wrong, what's good and bad. They do as they are told. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, so they bash gays. Not all Christians do this, but a lot do. Personally, I ask myself if homosexuality really is wrong, and if it is, why. If I conclude that it's not wrong, yet god says it is, then I conclude that god is evil and instead of bending to him, I'm willing to fight back, even if this means going to hell. I'll die a hundred times and suffer a million centuries before I give up. I'm determined like that.
I'd rather be around honest people who don't hide how they feel, even if they are all jerks, rather than people who would help me even though they really don't want to and they hate me.
Umm, no.
Every reformed addict has something that stops them using. Ain't it ain't no evil sky goblin.
They stop because they want to (or sometimes because they're forced to). What the hell does any God have to do with it? I don't require faith to believe that God didn't do it, I actually have faith in humanity and science to cure illness, to save trapped people, to help them recover after being trapped in the wilderness, to have search and rescue squads.
If anything, God causes cancer in people, causes car crashes and fires and flood. Then it's up to us, the human race, to try and help others. We've got this nasty, sadistic, foul bastard of a God inflicting cruelty on us all. Thank g.. uh, us, for the science and progress to minimise his inhuman destruction. I hate your nasty God.
But what about the Fourth Crusade when the Byzantines themselves were attacked and Constantinople - the richest city in Christendom - was sacked, looted and raped by the western Crusaders? It was so awful, shameful and painful that 800 years later Pope John Paul II thought it necessary to apologize for it. There was nothing "good" about that one.
Oh, it has. The Salvation Army shows me that Christians think it's okay to spread hate about a specific group of God-created individuals (ie., gays [wikipedia.org] and women who would dare to make their own perfectly legal decisions regarding reproductive health [wikipedia.org]) if you help a group of homeless people who think similarly to you (or are at least willing to go through the motions for a hot meal).
The Salvation Army has nothing against helping gays. They just won't hire them. I know you would love nothing more than to force Christian organizations to hire people who they don't want to, but the fact is, they LEGALLY (since you brought it up) don't have to. I'm sure it would warm your heart to walk into a church office and see it filled with gays and transvestites who sit around all day and smirk at the doctrine being taught, and asking people who come in, "Do you really believe this crap?", but that's not going to happen.
As for life, from your own source:
"The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and considers each person to be of infinite value and each life a gift from God to be cherished, nurtured and redeemed. Human life is sacred because it is made in the image of God and has an eternal destiny. (Genesis 1:27) Sacredness is not conferred, nor can it be taken away by human agreement."
Really? You're mad because the Salvation Army values human life? Seriously? That's your complaint? Do you think that human life has no value? I think that this speaks more ill of you than the Salvation Army.
Maybe you were going for abortion or something. Let me inform you that Christians consider unborn people to be people. People are human. So let's do the math here; People are human. Human life is sacred. Fetuses are human. The lives of fetuses are sacred. Why is that so hard to understand? I understand that you may not view an unborn human being as a human being, but Christians don't feel you are qualified to make that call. We are sorry you feel that way, but the second that people starting deeming other people as non-human or sub-human, bad things happen. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Oh, by the way, The Salvation Army is NOT against contraception. From their own site:
However, it is recognised that many married couples will find it necessary to limit the number of their children for reasons of health, economics and other factors; any such decision, including the contraceptive means to be used, should be taken responsibly and where necessary under medical advice.
... but something tells me you won't be hating them any less, even though you are wrong about some of your reasons for hating them.
Sorry, I'm pretty sure Jesus said "Love thy neighbor," not "Love thy neighbor unless he's a fag or uses contraceptives." I'll start taking it seriously when you do.
Christians don't hate "fags" (your word, not mine), at least they are not supposed to. I know there are some groups out there that would lead you to believe that. They are wrong. But assuming that a single church from Kansas can make you think that all Christians hate homosexuals, then wouldn't it be fair to assume that all white people hate homosexuals? I did see several white people in sheets speaking out against homosexuality. I've seen groups of black people speaking out against homosexuality as well. The nation of Islam is a fine example. It's made up of black, non-Christians. So, can I assume that all blacks are against homosexuality as well? Don't even get me started on Muslims. They tend to hang homosexuals, but you go ahead and hate on Christians.
But, yes, it's true that Christians are against homosexuality. No, it's NOT true that Christians are against homosexuals. Christianity is one of the most "gay-friendly" religions out there, but don't let that stop you from bashing them for being against the act.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Right, because being openly discriminatory in hiring and assistance practices is a shining example of laying aside dogman and helping everyone. You've really enjoyed that Kool-Aid, haven't you?
Do you have an example of the Salvation Army refusing to help someone because they are gay or for other discriminatory reasons? Hiring is one thing. Being and old fat guy, I can never be a Hooter's waitress. Does that mean that Hooter's is discriminating against me? Do you think the NAACP should be forced to hire Klan members? Does it bother you that there are no white members of the Black Caucus?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
In an other whole new textual world...
Superstition kills and maims opposing cultures. It's quite a weapon.
I agree. We should stop forcing small nations to give up carbon fuels in the name of "global warming". It's damaging their economies.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
This would be cool - except these Biblical scholars use OLD translations or New translations funded (ironically) by the NRA (such as the NIV) - and which are quite innacurate and the result of more politics than a desire for some higher truth. There are some excellent scholar translations out there (published outside of the USA where the politics makes truth unacceptable) and these would actually totally alter theological discussions were they used.
However Since they show no interest in the truth - this is no different to the other content owners trying to hang on to an old business model.
As opposed to the Muslims who conquered Palestine, North Africa, Iberia, Persia, Mesopotamia and southeastern Europe?
The Muslim Empire was successful in part because they were more tolerant than the rulers they replaced. The Jews in Spain had more rights under Muslim rule than under the Visigoths.
Spain was the exception to the rule, and the fabled tolerance there has been exaggerated. Tolerance as a conquered people is a relative thing.. Islamic armies rather ruthlessly killed off competing faiths and languages wherever they went. Do you think the reason North Africa is Arabic-speaking and Muslim today is because the Caliphate said "pretty-please"? North Africa was a center of Christian thought and culture for centuries... St. Thomas Aquinas was North African, and most of North Africa spoke Coptic or Berber... before the followers of Mohammad moved in. With the exception of the Indian Ocean-Western Pacific Muslim civilizations (such as present day Malaysia), virtually everywhere Islam spread it did so by the sword. The South Asian Muslims were the only large groups that actually converted voluntarily, because of cultural contacts via trade routes from Arab merchants. Turkey, southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and North Africa were all conquered.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
You can't prove it either way.
That's not true at all. You can never prove a negative. You can't prove the non-existence of something without examining everything in existence, which isn't feasible. There is no known method to arrive at a proof God doesn't exist. Mathematically there's a number of subtleties here, which make sure that such tricks as asking which rule applies to "not not God exists" don't change the nature of the question.
Proving something doesn't exist in a limited, qualified set is of course possible, and is an entirely different problem. But we don't know a mathematically rigorous definition of the "set" of possibilities that we actually live in. We don't even have an intuitive definition that's useful imho.
Proving God exists, however, is simple : just make him show his face. Point a telescope at his living room ... you get the point.
Incidentally, I also believe that it wouldn't matter to atheists at all if God proved his existence. They are not unbelievers because they really care about the intricacies of what can be logically proved or not, or they would have the same problem with nearly every science (anything that can't be expresses in a proven-to-be-consistent logic system. If you really care about mathematically correct proof, you'd be a climate-change-denier for example. Hell, you'd be denying that physics itself works at all, since it most definitely can't stand up to a mathematical standard of proof). Atheists, and agnosts mostly are unbelievers because they hate the social customs involved (eg. because it is somewhat at odds with their dating life, real or imagined dating life I mean), or because it's popular in their neighbourhood.
Proof that God exists would make hardly any atheists change their mind. It doesn't solve the "real" problem they have with religion : that it provides a set of rules they (think, in most cases) they can short-cut without consequences.
scientific developments and technology to disseminate ignorance and world view of the bronze age herdsmen who knew all the secrets of the universe because a burning bush revealed it to them. Seems like a worthy project.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
People aren't born Christians or Muslims, perhaps, but they aren't born atheists either.
Um, yes they are. Try this mental experiment. And since I appear to be responding to theist, let me be clear: Do not do this. Do not try this. It is not real.
Raise a child isolated from any knowledge of religion, zero exposure. What you do think this human would do if at age 30 you plopped down a bible in front of him and had him read it? Do you seriously think he'd "wow what have I been missing? I've always known this to be true.". No, it wouldn't.
it does make the point that faith isn't a dirty word.
Bullshit. Faith is horrible weapon of bigotry, violence, and ignorance. Keep your playthings at home, and don't take them out when company comes over.
argument that people only use empirical information to reach rational conclusions and act rationally without bias...
This is not just "not human". Acting rationally is surprisingly tough. We can't find the "rational" actions a chess player should take in the general case with entire datacenters, to say nothing of moronically simple games like Go, or google plus' flood-it.
And if no human can rationally play a stupidly simple game of chess (because they can't beat the datacenters which are known to be flawed), what makes anyone think rational responses are possible for huge open-ended problems like life ? Life is vastly more complex than chess (mine includes a lot of chess games, proving the point at least in my case), and includes dozens of problems chess players do not face. Incomplete information for one. Limited economic resources. Vast number of players interacting, which is where the fun game "but does he know I know he knows I know ?" comes from. The list goes on and on and on.
Every piece of evidence implies god does not exist - so therefore he doesn't.
Name one such piece of evidence ? One.
Do you believe in Zeus? Thor? Horus? And why not? Onus of proof is always on the side that claims to posses the knowledge of existence of something. Atheism means simply that: not-theism, because there is no evidence that any kind of god exists, let alone a personal one that interferes in lives of people, cares what you eat and on what days, who you sleep with and in what position, and who stops the sun in its motion around the earth :D so that certain people in the bible can finish their work etc.
In fact, we have plenty of evidence that religion and personal gods are man made. The mere fact there are competing religions (so different they are all damning each other to hell) all claiming to posses the truth and the word of one divine creator of the universe is exactly what you would expect to see if religions were man made (and they are not just man made, they are man, as in with penis, made).
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
When god cures an amputee we'll talk. No one is denying the power of delusion. People have been willing to die for their deluded beliefs ever since we evolved enough to have them.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
But I prefer to call myself an atheist. Because I lead my life as though no gods existed,
In other words, you're atheism has exactly nothing to do with whether or not you believe in Gods.
The idea is that to me, something exists if it is observed to have an effect on the universe.
Okay, by that standard, all religions' Gods, by virtue of their existence in minds and books, exist. So does Batman. Which of course reinforces my first point about the origin of your convictions.
Btw : I don't mind anything about how you live your life. Feel free to do as you please. But a bit more honesty about your motivations might be nice.
Right, they really wanted to go and defend Byzantium. That's why during the First Crusade, the crusaders first action was to massacre the Jews in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#Attacks_on_Jews_in_the_Rhineland.
What do you think the Muslims would do if Israel cut off access to the "Dome of the Rock"? Would you blame them? When they attack Israel, would you call it "among the most evil human undertakings ever"?
Yes, I'd blame them. That's a perfect example of the harmful influence of religion. If it weren't for ridiculous superstitions that scrap of desert would be as worthless as any other scrap of desert. If you're willing to kill people because of ancient mythology, then absolutely I'm willing to call it evil. Most evil ever? Depends on the scale of the atrocity.
But doesn't the problem also include the Israeli's religious attachment to the same lands? If the Israeli's, the victims of the hypothetical acts you characterize as evil, believed the acts were evil for the same reasons you do, would simply pack their things, and move somewhere else. In the scheme of places with religious significance to humans, I think that particular acre, and surrounds, pretty much rank at the top. The only reason a sane tribe would try to live in that particular spot, is _due to the religious significance_. That, or one hell of a penchant for trolling other religious believers.
I'm a christian, though one without tremendous faith in my ability to interpret, or even be informed correctly about such geo-spatial correlations subject to translational errors and bitrot as those in question here. I.e. I'm pretty sure the LDS folks have radically different beliefs about those geo-spatial correlations. As such, I'm really pretty content that, amongst our global ecosystem of dog-eat-dog humanity, that the people with such religious passion and fervor have a kind of arena over there to duke it out. I suppose that's got the same flavor of cynicism as the belief that after 9/11, there was no way a U.S. leader could have possibly controlled the irrational backlash of domestic vengeance against a strategically disasterous amount of collateral damage in the middle east. I.e, God only knows what the gitmo and abu ghraib perpetrators would have done domestically if the wars hadn't been started. I dunno, random thoughts that have been percolating in one Christian's head for a decade. Maybe more access to street fighter 4, and other virtual combat might be enough to vent the rage to kill that I suspect all of us have burning within us, in a world where we haven't a choice but to fight and kill for food, and sadly, other material items.
Since religions are the definition of "good" and "horrible" your statement makes no real sense. There are no real moral standards outside of religions, and the examples you give (war bad, rational justification good, people are essentially moral beings, ...) are distinctly Christian in nature. A rational actor would not agree with you, since he would make a cost-benefit analysis on every action and refuse to say any act is inherently bad, it depends on the result (statements like "docter mangele saved lots of lives on balance, and so he was a good human being" would not be controversial to a rational actor, they would simply be calculated and decided upon. This specific statement would probably pass munster).
I hope you see the problem. "Right reason", "good", "horrible", are relative concepts that depend on your religion and/or ideology. For a muslim 9/11 was "good", for everyone else it was "horrible". The same is true for countless other things and for every other religion, political persuasion and ideology. Have you really never seen a communist claim that Stalin never executed anyone, or only those that deserved it ? How do you interpret statements like that ?
"....hey were scared to death of Muslim aggression because Muslims had already conquered chunks of formerly "Christian" territory (i.e. Spain.)..."
At the time of the second crusade, much of Spain was already reconquered
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1100/index.html
Christinity, like Judaism, was tolerated during most of the muslim reign of iberia. Not the same after 1492...
Wait what? I don't believe in gods, which makes me an atheist. And that has nothing to do with my being an atheist? You make no sense.
I absolutely agree that there are a lot of translations (English in particular has a wealth of them). In general though there are good reasons. A translation project is no small undertaking, and not generally done without reason. From my research over the last few years (I'm writing bible software, and reviewing translations for a church to use in their pews), the major reasons for separate translations are as follows:
.
* Philosophy of Communication: translations exist on a sliding scale between "formal equivalence" (word-for-word) and "dynamic equivalence" (thought-for-thought). This is the reason that the ESV and KJV (more formal-equivalence) use the technical theological word "propitiation" in Romans 3:25, whereas the NIV (more dynamic-equivalence) uses the phrase "sacrifice of atonement". Both have their place, and are preferred in different contexts.
* Evolution of Language Usage: as great as the KJV was for its time (1611), it may confuse many people if modern English translations rendered James 2:3 as "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing". The ESV instead says "and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing".
* Disagreement over Manuscript Significance: Some people regard what has been called the "majority text" as the true critical text of the original new testament. Therefore, they prefer English translations based on this text (generally the KJV, but also including the WEB and EMT) rather than translations based on other critical greek texts (e.g. Wescott-Hort, Nestle-Aland). The reasons for this dispute are fairly involved. A good book, summarising academia on the topic for the lay person, is D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate
* Ideological Preference: Some people do seem to stand by the KJV through thick and thin, as though it were a matter of faithfulness to God, without much in the way of actual rational arguments why it is a better translation. This may also include a sentimental desire to remain connected to the history of christendom.
These are generally not bad reasons to create a new translation. Now, some of the arguments do become petty (particularly under the Ideological Preference heading). But generally, translators have good reasons for thinking that more people will understand the content of the Bible much better, because another translation is made available that attempts to communicate the same ideas to a slightly different demographic.
Censorship is the opposite of education. If neo-darwinism were defensible, people would not need to try and censor ID.
Thank you for illustrating the moral vacuum that is religious morals. You might want to reflect on your assertions that all that is Christian is good, and that all Muslims find the attack of the 11th of September 2001 good. Thus proving that a Christian finding 9/11 good is a Muslim.
As an exercise, find a ( Christian ) preacher who found 9/11 good. It is surprisingly easy.
You are an idiot.
Yes, but to an atheist, you can show him a mainliner opium addict being cured of his addiction, but it makes no difference. You can show him a person who was cured of one leg being shorter than another, but he remains blind. You can show him a person who was healed of rage, but the atheist denies it.
It takes faith to be an atheist.
My father was an agnostic physicist, until one of his friends' leg was cured (2nd case above), and the wife of another departmental physicist was healed of MS paralysis. After that, he had to pick between "agnostic" and "agnostic, but believes). He documented everything, but in the end became "agnostic but believes." After 50-odd years of mostly being agnostic-atheist, he's now a Christian, praise God. We'd been praying for him.
His atheist friends ignored it.
That's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. For the atheist, it is an article of faith that there must be no other god, for the atheist himself wants to be that god, and in the end, all that denies him is a threat to his existence.
That is, until perchance he recognizes that fact, repents his illogical stance, and realizes that there *is* a God, and comes to know that God.
Thank you, I actually think I'd prefer the dark ages to a Nazi prison, a Hutu-Tutsi extermination campaign, a UN-enforced peace with all the weapons reduction on one side, Leninist/Stalinist communist rule, and whatever our own atheists want to force us into here and now, today.
Case #1 - Explainable through human willpower and coercion through peer pressure and guilty conscience.
Case #2 - I am not a doctor, but how come "god" never regrows children's limbs blown off by land mines? The human body does have the ability to a certain extent to heal itself, and I would not claim MY god/preacher/witch doctor healed someone until all other avenues of known medical science are investigated and ruled out.
Case # 3 - see above.
For you to claim Atheists want to be god is ludicrous. We are all atheists when it comes to other people's religions. Some of us just go one "god" further. I assume you do not adhere to Islam, Zoroastrianism, voodoo or thunder god worship. Is the possible reason for this that you do not find the evidence convincing enough?
You trot out Nazi's, Communists and tribal differences. You blame atheism for the last 100 years of death and destruction.For argument's sake, say I accept this explanation. Please enlighten us on the cause of the previous 50,000 - 200,000 years of carnage and bloodshed that happened before Atheism was widely adopted by groups of people. Ethnic and religious division maybe?
Please bring more to the table when you want to win an argument, your "evidence" will not convince anyone - religious or not - if they have half an education and have taken the time to think critically.
Yes, killing them over tangible items is much better and less evil. Oil, minerals, muscle, emotions etc...(oops, last one was not tangible, but the US still does it, and not for religions sake.)
Don't worry though, once religion is removed from the equation, and I have no doubt this will eventually happen as so many are now rabid for it, then you will see some real atrocities. Then there will be no holding of anyone being accountable to a higher power, morals will be a flavor of the month, ethics merely a word. This list goes on and on. This of course assumes God is in fact mythical, because if that presumption is wrong....we are in for one WILD time. lol.
The US should just ban religion outright in their country, then you can let us all know how that works out for you. I know atheists are not exclusive to the US, but I suspect most of the biggest mouths rich with ignorance come from there. Yelling over a crowd is basically all you have left.
I was with you until you went from the knowable...
The funny thing about agnosticism is that while it's possible in theory, it appears too counter to human nature to not take a side, so that in practice there's only atheists who put on the facade of such.
The flaw in your first argument is assuming that the particular brand of morality you were born into is the only correct way to live. Most such moralities require the killing several of my friends for having feelings for other men, which I don't find to be "acting in kindness towards my neighbors".
Nature was created by Nyx. Your little seven day story is completely implausible given this far better bedtime story.
As for Pascal's Wager, it's woefully out of date, and the clear moral choice is not to be a fundamentalist of any faith, especially Christian.
Seriously- we've heard all this nonsense before. You do not have a new argument that holds up to doubt and logic so just give up and live your silly superstitious life in peace.
All unestablished, and unestablishable. That is, all are religious beliefs, taken on faith without any real foundation.
A working definition of atheists is people who bray the most about how rational they are, but ironically are the worst offenders in crimes against reason.
Your father missed out on several fantastic opportunities, and instead of using the experience to better himself, and very possibly the rest of the world, he decided to believe in the god of the gaps. That's the saddest story I've heard all week. :(
Instead of finding out why his friend's leg grew, he decided that he didn't want to think about it. It's possible that there were other similar cases out there, and if he had researched them, his knowledge would have grown. It's also possible that he could have studied his friend, and discovered (part of) the mechanism that allows legs to grow, helping out lots of people whose legs aren't quite the right length. Instead, he did the most intellectually lazy thing he could have done.
The fact that people don't know everything is not evidence that god exists. Finding a situation where something you didn't think was possible happens should be used as an opportunity for growth, rather than simply attributing it to a deity.
As for your father, I hope he's doing well. There are some good reasons to believe in Christianity, I just don't think that the god of the gaps is one of them. Neither do most theologians.
Now you might be right that condoms may help with avoiding infection *if* you there was no way to avoid having an infected partner, and you chose to have sex, and if the condom worked properly, but honestly, if you actually do follow the outlined religion, you would:
a) not be having sex with multiple partners
b) you'd wait to get married, which would give you sufficient time to determine if your partner was infected or not and
c) since you stuck to one partner, you would have a better chance of not getting infected.
While it is possible to choose badly and manage to end up with a cheater, the fact is that on average, that plan alone would be enough to eventually cut AIDS and any other STD transmission levels down to below epidemic levels.
IF? IF?!! GODDAMNIT YOU RELIGIOUS ASSHOLES ARE FUCKING ANNOYING!
Everyone wants sex, multiple partners is normal, and waiting for marriage is not. Even your "Christian" kids know this! It's not Africans who refuse to use condoms. It's RETARDED CHRISTIANS WHO REFUSE TO LET THEM HAVE ACCESS, putting requirements on all kinds of aid that requires the restriction of condoms. George fucking Bush among many others.
Africans are not Christians unless they want to be such. As many as not are Muslim, because Christians lost the fucking indoctrination war there. Stop forcing them to live by your idiotic ideas.
I take your point, but assuming that there must be a conclusive theory of consciousness is begging the question of whether consciousness is scientifically valid in the first place.
Consciousness is a useful philosophical concept, but there is little reason to resort to unsubstantiated metaphysical explanations for the existence of the mind, when there is plenty of evidence of a practical biochemical explanation.
I do wish people would stop this revisionist bullshit that Hitler wasn't a christian. He most certainly was christian, and that religion motivated much of what he did.
Many years ago, when I was doing my undergraduate degree, there was a group on the University campus that called themselves "Free Thinkers". They had regular meetings, handed out pamphlets, etc., etc. Everything they did was to proselytize how foolish Christianity was. That was the whole aim of all their meetings, every pamphlet they issued, all their talks and discussions and film nights - "Christianity doesn't make sense".
In fairness, they claimed to be against ALL religions.
Depending on where in the world it was, that might be the most sensible target of a political group. Anywhere where laws and administration are unduly influenced by religious beliefs.
What then is the point of life? Define the purpose of life in such a way that it does NOT differ from all other creatures, for you are just like all other creatures. The moment you define the point of HUMAN life differently from all other creatures, you have created your own god (mankind).
Your life as an Atheist has no different purpose than that of a bug. It is to live, spread your DNA and then die. Anything more is you making your god after your image.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Well...yes. Apparently we're in agreement. Well done you!
Ever said prayers at school, weddings, funeral?
Only because everyone else was doing it, and it would have been a breach of decorum to do otherwise.
Not answered a door to the Mormons or a Jehovahs Witness?
No, never. I've always welcomed them into my home. I don't agree with their reiligious views and no doubt they don't agree with mine. I don't care, though, if someone is standing wet and cold on my doorstep having been turned away from every door in the street I will invite them in and feed them tea and scones until they feel a bit better and they've dried out and warmed up a little, because it's the *right thing to do*.
It does make sense, but I still think you're over-thinking the problem.
Let's look at it this way. I will do whatever I can to help my neighbour, and not be a dick, because I don't want those around me to think I am a dick. I don't care about some otherworldly reward in the afterlife, particularly.
If it turns out that when I die (and that much *is* certain) that there is an afterlife and God in this afterlife thinks I've been a dick in this earthly life, then clearly there is going to be a problem. Now, consider this - I am Scottish, and therefore descended from a potent brew of the most warlike races humanity has known. If you help me, I will help you. If you stay out of my way, I will stay out of your way. If you oppose me, I will crush you utterly and bury you in my garden under a small fruit tree, like all the rest. Yes, even if you are God.
Of course, if you look at my posting history you'll see a surprising number of "+5 Troll" mods. I am a notorious Internet troll. I might be kidding.
But - I might not be kidding. Any deity want to take that chance?
So you admit your life is pointless? How sad.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That's a nice strawman.
All the guy meant was that theists can't prove there is a god, and atheists can't prove there is not a god, and so both are the same sort of rigid idealogue who is convinced of his own correctness.
But, yes, it's true that Christians are against homosexuality. No, it's NOT true that Christians are against homosexuals. Christianity is one of the most "gay-friendly" religions out there
I can just ignore most of that post, but wow, really? First of all, there are many Christians who have no problem with homosexuality (unless you're going to make the argument "no true Christian accepts homosexuality!", in which case apparently you're the sole authority of what "Christian" means and there's no point in even making that argument, because you could just change it at will).
Second, saying "I hate who you are but don't have anything against you" is feel-good double-talk. I guarantee you that no gay person will ever say, "Well, I know you think I'm going to be tortured eternally, you think I'm an abomination, and you want to use the law to prevent me from being with who I love, but that's all ok because you say you're not against me." That's bullshit.
And finally... Christianity is "gay-friendly"? Seriously? How many religions can you name that condemn homosexuality as much as modern Christianity does? Can you name any non-Abrahamic religions?
but don't let that stop you from bashing them for being against the act.
Of course it doesn't. The problem here is that there's nothing wrong with the act, either. You deserve to be bashed just as much as if you said that eating shellfish or wearing clothing made from mixed-blend fibers was an abomination.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
To say that the elimination of religion (atheism) was not a major motivating force for either man... both of whom were to be viewed as gods by their societies seems a vast overstatement.
I sincerely hope that there is enough rational thought out there that people recognize the difference between acts done in the name of Christ and what Christ himself taught. People given too much power do horrible things. It doesn't matter much what their theological underpinnings are.
If there is a god, and it is as much of an arsehole as they make it to be, you won't be alone in trying to bury him. Count me in :)
The biggest problem Christianity has is market fragmentation. The existence of different sects only proves that it can't survive in a modern world against the iCult.
Absolutely correct. If the intolerant atheists hadn't dragged the crusades into this subject, we might actually be discussing the original story, which is that dissemination of the bible is a difficult and interesting technological feat.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
I appreciate it's not easy to get the translations for some languages onto devices that don't properly support UTF character sets, but if they support UTF properly with the full symbol set, then as far as I'm aware it covers 98% or more of the languages used on the planet.
Whining about the "difficulties" of typesetting different styles used by the Bibles is disingenuous and pathetic. It is no harder to specify the format of a fragment of a Psalm song than it is to format a paragraph of plain text if you're using any kind of half-assed layout description language and a decent text processor. That's what such products do -- automate layout management.
I agree there may be some languages which aren't well served by such tools, in particular anything which uses a pictographic form such as original Chinese vs. Simplified, but even the Chinese themselves don't use the Original Chinese forms much any more.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You've slandered the Romans, I'm afraid. Even at their most expansionist, they insisted that their wars have a strong moral underpinning, based on the idea of self-defense and/or defense of an ally. Each new war was passionately debated in those terms in the Roman republic. Not that they weren't sometimes (often? always?) hypocritical in their moralizing and warmaking, just like the Crusaders and modern Americans were and are. Gibbon had his famous sarcastic quip about the Romans and their moralizing, that they "conquered the world in self-defense." But, hypocrisy acknowledged, St. Augustine wasn't working from a blank slate when he codified things for Christians.
Predictably, you fail to perceive the disparity in your words.
What justification do you have for hating the behavior of another person when that behavior has no effect on you, your family, or society? Before you say it, "perpetuating the behavior" or "making it seem acceptable" are not valid, since they're corollaries to the original argument. That is, you must specify why it's bad to perpetuate or accept the behavior before you can claim so.
For instance, I can say that murder is bad because it takes away from another his ability to live. I have actively affected the life of someone else.
So what does that leave? Because some god said so? Because you think you're entitled to not be grossed out by someone else's actions? And how do you justify enforcing either of those things in the context of a society that emphasizes freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?
Is to teach them Hebrew and Aramaic so they can finally read the book for themselves and stop digesting the propaganda translations they're being given.
No, he admitted that the point to his life (all of ours, really) is to contribute to the propagation of his species. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Why does there even need to be a point? Am I allowed to decide my own purpose rather than having one forced on me?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
You can demonstrate to a blind person that a certain wavelength of light, measurable by scientific equipment, can be filtered and that it has different effects upon both manmade and biological sensors. Thus even a blind person can understand and verify the existence of the color red, even if they may not understand the ramifications of how it is perceived by others.
Not even! Without being able to SEE it, you could not demonstrate ANY of that. You could, at best, hand the blind person the equipment and tell him or her what it did, but he or she would have to simply take your word for it that it wasn't all an elaborate hoax you'd created. This button turns on the light, which registers on that photocell, which sounds this buzzer - except the button could just as easily sound the buzzer directly - except this filter, here, blocks red light, when you hold it there, and then the buzzer doesn't sound - except I could have another switch that I'm using to trick you - etc. etc. etc.
Atheism isn't a religion, it is the absence of religion.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Religion is the absence of reason.
Oh, look at the atheist! He thinks he gets to define what religion is! Isn't that cute!
Unlike the faithful, atheists are generally open-minded people. If someone shows up and proves they are God (however they would manage that) the atheists will turn religious.
B-u-l-l. There is absolutely nothing anyone could do to prove to an atheist that God exists. Atheism requires a fundamental belief that there is no supernatural; only natural. If everything is explainable by natural causes, including events whose natural causes are unknown but presumed to exist, then nothing is sufficient to prove the supernatural because it is assumed to have a natural cause which is yet unknown.
Google is your friend: https://www.google.com/?q=salvation+army+turns+away+gays None of what you wrote changes the fact that you named an organization as working for the betterment of all that actively discriminates against a substantial portion of society. For examples of their "work" toward refusing to assist gays, look at any of the results in the above search. The rest of what you wrote is bullshit justification and ignoring the argument. You don't work at Hooters because the goals of a Hooters employee include being eye-candy for patrons. You can't claim that the Salvation Army is primarily a service organization if they maintain an active policy to discriminate against employing gays and lesbians. Why would it be a problem for them to have a gay or lesbian individual on staff unless they were pushing dogma? Supposedly the goals of the organization are to provide service for the less fortunate. Is a homosexual somehow less capable of performing this duty? Why or why not? Does this sound like the Christianity you've portrayed? It's exactly this kind of closed-minded bigotry and the willingness to accept it from people like you that makes the rest of the civilized world look at Christians as hypocrites or worse.
"reproductive health" being code for killing inconveient babies
If a Christian dies and discovers that the Valkyries come to take dead people off to feast with Odin, do you really think that the fact that he believed in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient deity will be something the Valkyrie will care about?
That's why they had Crusades, just in case!
That's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. For the atheist, it is an article of faith that there must be no other god
You're plainly wrong, and merely consulting a dictionary proves that. It's true that "belief in no god" is classified as agnostic, but so is "don't believe there is a god", and the second statement is not an article of faith, but a rejection of faith outright.
Agnostic, on the other hand, believes that it is impossible to know either way - so it is also an article of faith.
Thank you, I actually think I'd prefer the dark ages to a Nazi prison, a Hutu-Tutsi extermination campaign, a UN-enforced peace with all the weapons reduction on one side, Leninist/Stalinist communist rule, and whatever our own atheists want to force us into here and now, today.
Yes, because those are the only two choices that you get, and secular humanism never existed or had a large number of adherents.
I'm surprised that is a problem for you. Next time one asks, just tell him that you are the initiated member of the Church of Satan, that usually cuts the talk real short.
Ain't no living Christians then - I think they've fed the last one to the lions a couple millennia ago.
reproductive health being code for killing inconvenient babies.
OK, from KDE user to KDE user: let's ditch all the sects and religions and historical/political mumbo jumbo. Religion is more about politics and government than science. Let's apply the scientific method to this statement: "15 000 000 000 years ago, the universe started expanding and cooling down. Hydrogen formed, and lumps of hydrogen condensed to form stars. In the stars, all the elements up to iron were formed. This first generation of stars died, and some of them went nova, thus filling the universe with all the elements we see today. We are made of the stuff of dead stars, 10 000 000 000 years in the making."
Then to this one: "And the mountain of Sinai was smoking, all of it, because The-Ever-Living came down on it in fire. And its smoke went up like the smoke of a furnace; and the mountain quaked exceedingly. And it happened while the sound of the ram's horn was sounding, and becoming very strong, Moses spoke. And God answered him by a voice."
Take Occam's razor:
For one, 20th century mainstream science [aka. sanctioned to be taught in public schools; sanctioned by whom? by the political/religious?/ leaders of the day] pulls billions of years to match the CMB radiation and similarly measured [more or less distant] observations. The former statement is a THEORY and, like any theory, it is debatable [last time i checked there were about 14 or 12 billion years, nothing directly measured].
For two: The Exodus happens in 1447 BC [debatable historic date, nonetheless, +/- a decade or two, give or take]. Thousands of real people, on a sunny day, in the middle of a desert, witness a Stargate-like landing on Mount Sinai [artificial thunders, lightnings, strange sounds, jets of fire, etc.]. This wasn't a unique event, as the ancient history of Israel is quite rich in what we'd call "close encounters of the third-kind."
From the two statements above, which is more likely to stand as real? The proposed 15bn theory or the historical encounter? The idea or the registered and witnessed event?
That's a nice strawman.
All the guy meant was that theists can't prove there is a god, and atheists can't prove there is not a god, and so both are the same sort of rigid idealogue who is convinced of his own correctness.
So you missed the point too. Atheism is, as the GP said, a state of not believing in a god. Not in believing that a god's non-existence can be proven.
As far as I know, the total death toll during the 1400 years of Muslims attacking Hindus from the west is not far from reaching the insane mark of 100,000,000
Cite? That sounds like bullshit to me & can't find a credible source for it anywhere.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
My life is pointless. My life is not meaningless.
Do you need to believe you're a unique and special snowflake to get out of bed in the morning? Does the idea of being an accident of nature who just happened to rise to the top, just one in 70 billion of us, bother you? Yet you call me sad? Christians are such egotists!
According to wikipedia, the complete bible was available in "Norsk" (that's Norwegian for "Norwegian") in 1930, and it has been available in Danish (readable by any literate Norwegian at the time) since 1550. We're even lutheranian protestand christian by constitution, god damn it..
That shouldn't be modded "flamebait", but superstition is strong.
The proper attitude for modern man to superstition and witch doctors should be utter, bottomless scorn and contempt. Religion is now an obstacle to the progress of man and of human rights. It is ALL "Taliban", either "Taliban Lite" or "By the Book" Fundamentalist versions.
Religion is fine for some aborigine with a bone in his nose BECAUSE HE KNOWS NOTHING ELSE and only has what has been told him to work with.
No reader here has that excuse.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"so anything with religious motivation is bad no matter what they do?"
Anything done with religious motivation has BAD MOTIVATION.
Secular analogy:
We may enjoy driving on the Autobahn, but we shouldn't forget who built them and why.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
But doesn't the problem also include the Israeli's religious attachment to the same lands?
Absolutely. Israelis and Palestinians have both acted inexcusably, for inexcusable reasons. Whatever happens over there, we shouldn't be involved in it at all.
I.e, God only knows what the gitmo and abu ghraib perpetrators would have done domestically if the wars hadn't been started.
Well, they probably wouldn't have killed over a hundred thousand civilians you sick fuck.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Wait what? I don't believe in gods, which makes me an atheist. And that has nothing to do with my being an atheist? You make no sense.
And why is this :
The idea is that to me, something exists if it is observed to have an effect on the universe.
God obviously does have many observable effects on the world. The bible would be one, our society, science, Christmas, ... These are real effects whether "God" is a real god or a figment of some Roman's imagination 2000 years ago. So this claim of yours doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It is logically inconsistent.
If this is true, your standard for proof of existence is not even satisfied by empiricism ("we believe what we can observe", which is a very stringent standard that isn't sufficient for so-called statistical sciences like medicine or climate science, because we can't (repeatably) see the climate change in response to stimuli and we cannot repeatably cure patients ("every patient is different") or even reliably make them sick).
Since you claim a pure motivation motivated by rationality and, it must be that you feel compelled by relatively obscure mathematical arguments to believe or not believe something, and you refuse to accept the limits of empiricism (that you can't prove a negative, which is necessary to make the step from agnost to atheist). Since you claim it is your concerns about this that lead you to disbelieve, surely you can agree that you must apply this to everything. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocrite.
The list of non-empiricist sciences (the only ones, therefore, that you can accept the conclusions and existence of) : First order logic, constructivist second-order logic ... that all, folks ! (btw: an additional subtlety is that neither of these sciences claims anything exists, the empty set is a solution to both theories)
List of empiricist sciences (that you cannot accept by your own rules) : math (excluding the two tiny above-mentioned domains), physics, chemistry, medicine, ...
If you truly believed as you do, because of the proof issues, that means you cannot believe in any kind of science.
But this makes me think your motivation, the real one, is simply :
But I prefer to call myself an atheist. Because I lead my life as though no gods existed,
You simply want to lead that life.
I'm sorry, what makes you think that I believe in the antagonist of your fairy tale just because I don't believe in the protagonist?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
You might want to think a bit more deeply about what is evidence in science.
You might also want to consider that:
- you have no idea about how my life is lived
- you have no idea about what my motivations are for doing the things I do which you do not know
- you clearly are unable to distinguish god-as-a-concept from god-as-a-physical-reality from context (and god-as-a-concept is not a cause, the cause is humans, it is a post hoc justification)
- you do not understand medicine (which is not a science -- biology is)
- you do not understand climate science (which is wholly unlike medicine)
you other postings also labelled you as either a troll or a bigot. I give people the benefit of doubt, so I think you are a bigot. But there is always the hope that you are a troll.
Please re-read my post again. I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm just telling you a simple and straightforward way to get rid of unwanted attention when it comes to Christian (and Mormon) missionaries. If you keep telling them you're an atheist, they see it as an invitation to preach. But tell them you're a practicing satanist, and they suddenly start being more worried about their own soul.
Pardon while I laugh.
There probably are, but if you're wanting to write notes in them, it'd be kind of rude to use the church copies when you have one of your own you can freely write in.
Because you have painted yourself into a corner where even if you were to see the effects of an actual God you could not accept them.
You can demonstrate to a blind person that a certain wavelength of light, measurable by scientific equipment, can be filtered and that it has different effects upon both manmade and biological sensors. Thus even a blind person can understand and verify the existence of the color red, even if they may not understand the ramifications of how it is perceived by others.
Not even! Without being able to SEE it, you could not demonstrate ANY of that.
You clearly don't know any blind people. They are not as helpless as you seem to imagine. Blind people can set up gear by feel and they can certainly operate much computerized gear using braille boards, screen readers, etc. They don't need a person (and more importantly any specific person) to set up an experiment for them. They can order parts online, stick a red laser in front of a sensor/filter/etc.
Missing the point, you are. Read the post to which I responded. Read my post, carefully. See the irony in the activities of these self labelled "free thinkers"?
"You might want to think a bit more deeply about what is evidence in science."
Well I've only followed philosophy of science for 2 years. I'm sure there's things I'm missing.
If you don't agree with the empiricist view of evidence in science (a repeatable experiment) why don't you just say flat out what you consider "scientific evidence". The mere fact that you assume there is some unified view on "evidence" does not bode well for a good answer, of course.
The empiricist view is widely followed, but it has the problem that almost nothing that is taken as proof in things like climate science or medicine is considered acceptable as proof (both work with statistical proof, and when you dig down it boils down to "this usually happens, so it must be true". Sometimes they tried a million times and they only got 50 different answers. For climate science or medicine that would be absurdly strong proof, far stronger than they usually get. For physics that would be laughably weak, unless this is a consistent result, but will probably be considered interesting (mostly the 50 weird answers will be considered interesting though, you would need an explanation for every value). For mathematics it would not justify looking at the result at all)
It gets worse. The mere fact that someone thought it up is considered proof of it's existence in the humanities. For them, Batman exists, and they will study him.
This is all very reasonable
It's mot really sad. It's really dangerous. This is the same crowd that invented the Kill The Gays bill in Uganda and through the promotion of Cretinism, er i mean Creationism, has laid the intellectual and cultural grouondwork for denying global warming. Christians are dangerous fanatics with a dangerous set of ideas and the determination and financing to implement those ideas. So it's not sop much that' it's "sad"; it would be sad if a few scattered people still subscribed to a Bronze Age view of reality. It's terrifying and its a call to arms against the spread of this disease to China and Africa and elsewhere.
The thing you are missing is the notion of theory in science. If I make a million observations and get only 50 different answers AND I can formulate a theory about how I got those answers AND the theory is well supported by other observations (themselves for example evidence of the mechanisms postulated) then I'd say this is pretty compelling, because those 50 different observations are really one.
In climate science, you make observations, but also work within thermodynamics and fluid mechanics and geology and biology etc. You formulate models which are then either validated or not.
In the case of physics, for example the current search of the Higgs boson, they are getting many different "answers". But they work within a theory which describes all different manners of decay. So they can coalesce those "answers" into really only one.
Medicine does not work like that. They indeed do stuff and then get results and based on the fact that results seem consistent, decide that a given cure is working. This is not science, because there is no theory -- sometimes there is but in medicine, more often than not, there isn't. Statistics are, however, pretty powerful, and give a measure of confidence in the validity of the observations. Because there is no theory, it is usually impossible to make a prediction about the efficiency of a given cure before testing it.
There is no Theory behind God-as-a-physical-reality nor is there any evidence. Its existence is therefore unproven, unprovable, and ultimately irrelevant. It is absurd to base you behaviour on this postulate.
Where did you study philosophy of science, may I ask?
See the irony in the activities of these self labelled "free thinkers"?
No.
We're on Slashdot, we don't even have to stretch to find the obvious analogy. Have you noticed that those of the "free software" movement are opposed to proprietary software. That.
Of course free thinkers are opposed to religion, because religion is the antithesis of free thinking.
Agreed. I had always assumed this is what Yeats meant in this part of his poem "The Second Coming"
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." -- William Butler Yeats
Ah, I see, and apologize for my off the cuff response. That, indeed, is a good idea :)
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I could argue that the "good" is in itself an evil. At the end of the day wars of aggression are fought for economic and political reasons, "justice" is just part of the propaganda - an excuse is easy to find once you've decided on the action. There may well have been good strategic reasons for the Crusades, just as there may have been for more recent wars in that region of the world - but those aren't the reasons given to the men sent off to fight and die, or to the populace left behind to struggle to survive while they pray for the safe return of their loved ones, because frankly it's not very inspiring to face those sorts of losses for the enrichment or long-term viability of the empire.
Now look at it from the point of view of the illiterate foot soldier sent off to war. Let's suppose he's basically a decent man, no saint, but he considers "goodness" a virtue and strives to embrace it. I think that's probably true of most people. However, at a minimum he'll still have to raid the local farms for food since this is before the advent of modern logistics, and he'll know what a hardship that is, but it has to be done. And once you're doing that it's not going to be long before the bad apples in the bunch start talking of having a little fun with the farmer's daughter as long as they're there... and well it's a situation that's going to slide downhill and test a man's resolve, especially as the campaign drags on and you spend the days killing for king and country while watching your compatriots die alongside you, and your nights cold and alone begging God to let you survive this nightmare so you can return home. It won't be a question of if you cross the line, but of how often and how far.
Now given the situation, what's the effect going to be of telling this soldier that he's not just doing this in service to his king, but that he's doing God's work in a land of soulless infidels? Especially since this man likely *believes* what the priests are telling him? It may help morale considerably, but it's *not* going to make him more merciful and restrained in his excesses.
In fact even the morale boost could be considered a net evil in that it improves the soldier's survival and efficiency - and thus makes the war cheaper and more profitable for those in power, allowing it to go on longer, and reducing the disincentives against the next one.
There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?
-Robert A. Heinlein
(oddly, my A.C.-posting CAPTCHA was " outgrown"... coincidence? I wonder...."
Since we're discussing science and religion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-xpVueJyjwc
BTW except for the part about God creating the heavens and the earth, your scientific timeline of creation tracks Genesis 1:2-32 although with 3000 years of filling in the details.
They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, Who eat up my people as they eat bread, And do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, For God is with the generation of the righteous. You shame the counsel of the poor, But the Lord is his refuge. (Psalm 14:1-6)
That would be the Norwegian word for "Norwegian," Mr. Jacobs.
the koran
Huh, I guess the choice to convert or die is a choice too??? In India during the Moghel rule non muslims had to pay a special tax.
It's a really bad analogy.
Of course free thinkers are opposed to religion, because religion is the antithesis of free thinking.
One, nonsense, and two, I'm not talking about religion.
It's a really bad analogy.
And yet you don't say why. I suggest you think it's a bad analogy because it doesn't help your case.
One, nonsense, and two, I'm not talking about religion.
Now that's mighty odd, since you were talking about Christianity, which is a religion. And then you said "In fairness, they claimed to be against ALL religions." It's pretty difficult to now claim you weren't talking about religion.
I like that. Seriously. It may just be my mood at the moment, but that struck me as really quite profound. Thank you for making my evening better.
I never made a decision for them. You are making a decison for them when you force it down their throat by installing it on their phone. You make a decision for people when you shove it in their mailbox, or put a pamphlet on their car. Now you make that decision to put in on their phone. I merely say 'let people come to their own conclusions on their own and ask their own questions'. You seem to think people need to have every religion shoved in their face.
Isn't atheism/agnosticism/secular humanism an answer too? in which case. why are you shoving all this other nonsense in their face? They already have a conclusion and you are assuming you need to force yours on them.It is best to assume your anser is right for you and let others come to their own PERSONAL answer.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Anyone who actually paid attention in logic classes knows that this is only true in classical logic. Most logics do not have this property, most notably intuitionistic logics and paraconsistent logics.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I applaud their efforts, translations of the Bible lead to reading , and reading leads to enlightenment which leads to right action, and the decline of fanatics.
I was just thinking this morning that the ereader may well be one of the most influential inventions ever.
Banned books as physical copies are very easy to control--as electronic copies the can be disseminated at the speed of light,,,or physically transported on a single 1cm^2 chip from which an unlimited number of copies can disperse.
Secrecy supports tyranny--by single individuals and by whole populations.
Knowledge destroys tyrants, free dissemination, liberates people's minds so that slaves will learn of their slavery and take back their natural liberty--as only they can, as slaves must free themselves. But liberation cannot happen to a people who already see themselves as free--blinded to the chains which bind them..
Before you can break your bonds, you must first acknowledge their existence
The very best slaves are those who are ignorant of their lot. Reading kills ignorance, knowledge destroys superstition and religion.
Says the AC.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Your problem is not my problem. Different from you I am not afraid of death and my mind is clear. Incidentally, to be really exact, I am not an atheist, I am post-religion. Once you have understood what religion truly is, the question of for or against goes away. You cannot be for or against an infectious mental sickness, the question does not apply.
And clearly the meaning of life is a very individual thing that everybody needs to figure out for him or herself. While I am not sure whether the human race is quite so special as it likes to think, I personally am special as in I am the person I am fully responsible for. And I firmly believe that no adherence to any twisted code will change that. The responsibility for my own actions will always be fully mine.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Why do you insist on defining a singular standard of truth ? Let me tell you : it doesn't work. As you say most sciences don't work with theories. So here's your argument :
a) no validated theory of God-as-a-physical-reality exists ...)
b) no theories exist at all for medicine (and climate science, and results of applied statistics in general, and
And you believe that God does not exist. I'm sure you agree that medicine and it's cures do exist, and are valid science.
This very discussion is a physical reality caused by God's existence (even independent of what you call the "physical reality of God").
There's other problems :
But they work within a theory which describes all different manners of decay. So they can coalesce those "answers" into really only one.
Cute, but this is a standard that would not be sufficient for a mathematician. So there's a lot of different standards of "truth" that don't even have all that much in common.
A mathematical truth is essentially any non-contradicting statement.
A physicist's truth is any repeatable result of an experiment, and theories constructed from that. The caveat being that those theories are considered "lesser truth" (e.g. the observations of Jupiter's moons and the speed-of-light tests in Chicago are much more "true" than the special theory of relativity that they spawned). The theorys are merely stop-gap measures valid until a contravening datapoint is found, at which point we switch to new theories (and we have impossible datapoints for pretty much any physical theory. We know QCD is wrong, we know general relativity is wrong, and we know the standard model is wrong : they contradict eachother and relativity has this extremely annoying way of always getting the right answer, while simultaneously being the theory which describes the least). But they're the best theories at the moment for most datapoints). But the real truth are the experimental results.
A climate scientist's truth is like a doctor's truth : it is essentially nothing more than something that seems to have happened and direct deductions from those (non-repeatable) "facts". Facts is between apostrophes since even the facts are relatively bad measurement results (5% is a pretty normal error range for a weather station outside of "the west", at sea there's bigger error margins still, as we don't even have stationary stations there). E.g. "the earth is heating up" or "this person got sick due to such-and-such bacterium". Sure there are indications that this has happened, but you can't repeat the experiment, and there is a large (compared to physics) chance that it is in fact something completely different (see the denialist websites for a million -somewhat less likely- theories) (an example from medicine would be that 2 viral infections peaking at different times are nearly indistinguishable from a bacterial infection, yet they're fundamentally different things)
When you go up the ladder from math to things like the humanities, ever bigger problems are tolerated :
In math you have the "spawn of Godel", and the result of the "choice" disaster, which limit math enormously. Essentially there are fundamental unsolved (and unsolvable) problems with natural numbers, and everything based on them. We just don't know what to do about those problems, and we don't want to do away with natural numbers entirely, even if there's small problems with them.
In physics. First you have all the problems we ignore in maths. On top of that we essentially don't know the rules of the universe. So we're not working from first principles into useful laws, rather the reverse. We also have many assumptions that are entirely unproven (e.g. the all-important japanese electron assumption which essentially states that all distinct phenomena react in the same way no matter where, when or how they occur. Needless to say, this is a huge assumption. Also there's the basic assumption that a simple unde
Still saw nothing in the Google search link you posted where the Salvation Army refused to give help to homosexuals. Everything in the search dealt with the Salvation Army refusing to hire homosexuals or offer benefits to same sex couples.
I have never seen or heard of any story about a poor gay couple that had their house destroyed by some sort of disaster who was turned away when seeking help from the Salvation Army. When you can provide a direct link, I'll gladly take a look.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"I don't believe in the existence of God" is not the same as "I believe in the non-existence of God". The same way that "I don't know it is" is not the same as "I know it isn't". It depends on where you put the negation, either on the verb, or on the noun. If you negate the verb, you are assuming no position. If you negate the noun, you are taking a side.
Contrary to what the author in that link wrote, there is such a thing as agnosticism, and she is one.
I've never been approached by Christians pushing religion
I was once told, to my face, on a train station platform, that the necklaces I was wearing (a Celtic cross and a rune stone) meant that I was "worshipping a false god and would go to hell". She was very nice about it, but there you go.
I've also had Jehova's witnesses knock on my door, on occasion I've been stopped in the street and invited to talk about religion, I've seen people standing in the street with a megaphone proselytizing at passers by, I've even been approached in a pub by someone from a group meeting in a room upstairs inviting us to join them.
That's ignoring the references in popular culture - movies and music especially contain numerous references to Christianity, God, etc, the evangelical pastors and groups, etc.
On the other hand, I've never had an atheist approach me and push their non-belief on me. (And it's not like I have "atheist" tattooed on my forehead, although I am one)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
No need to go so far back in time.
Following doesnt mean perfection. And I've seen a few around that really, really walk the walk. Me and some friends filmed a documentary about this guy from my church, a philosophy doctor, who founded a big public university at the beginning of the 70s. The guy had been in high places in some international ecummenic organizations in Europe, but came back to Argentina, founded that university, and when Chile had its coup de etat and Pinochet started killing people, this guy, who was kind of left wing (very left wing for US standards) started organizing the escape of many (thousands) Chilean refugees into Argentina. The means of escape, housing, even jobs for them. In a time in which this country was hugely polarized along ideological lines the guy would hire right wing and left wing teachers for the Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Then came the Argentinian coup de etat (1976) and he was told he was in danger. He stayed and organized the escape of many people from Argentina. His last sermon at church was at december 1976. He returned home from a church party on New Year's eve 1977, and a few hours later a "grupo de tareas" kidnapped him. He got killed at some point in early 1977. The guys name was Mauricio Amilcar Lopez. Just one of many christians who live, rejoice and die by the gospel.
Read carefully. Medicine does work but is not science. Biology is a science, but only indirectly leads to medicine -- though it is slowly changing: eventually, medicine might become another engineering branch. Right now, it is an art.
Theories are not mostly correct. They are correct, within their domain of validity, for every single measure. Every last one of them.
Sometimes, they get superseded, then they become understood as a simplification of some larger theory (when one can be found). This is what happened to Newton's theory of gravitation, which got superseded by general relativity.
QCD and GR are both theories, in that they are perfectly correct for every measure, to the limit of our instruments. Same goes for evolution. Sometimes, even though we do not know the superseding theory, we can know that our knowledge is incomplete. In the case of quantum mechanics and relativity, we know this to be the case, because they cannot be extended to each other's realms of validity. Within their realms, however, every single observation ever made matches the theory.
You might be interested to know that thermodynamics is derived from quantum mechanics, and is understood as its limit for large enough numbers of particles.
All of this is completely orthogonal to the existence or non-existence of gods, for which there is no evidence, no theory, not even a reasonable hypothesis. If you are so sure it exists, why cannot you show me a single material proof of its existence? Why do you insist I should believe on the basis of nothing, and how would that make me a better person?
I disagree with your assessment. I think you completely missed that he *did* find out why his friend's leg grew. It was because of a gracious act by God, in response to prayer.
Moreover, he documented the description, which involved the leg shooting out longer than the other, then slowly relaxing back to an equal length.
It kindof changes your world view.
Or let me try another one that happened after my father became a believer. It was my great aunt Keim who married a German (of that name). He got MRSA, and was dying, here in the US. According to the doctors, his organs were shutting down. Anyhow, my great aunt was staying with him, and she described, all of a sudden, hearing voices in German, praying for him. At that same time, halfway around the world (in Germany) his family and their charismatic church were praying for him, in German. Within 24 hours, his organs turned back on, and he walked out of the hospital, cured. I don't think you can call it "believing in the god of gaps", when my father -- in his analysis -- says, 'it appears that when Jesus said, when two or more are gathered in my name, there I will be', and yet was also there healing him, that therefore the prayer group was also there with him.'
It isn't about the god of gaps. It is rather more like a student in High School Chemistry class. If the teacher teaches something about how things work, and you believe him because he tends to be right, especially when you see he is right, and your experiments or study at that point is simply to duplicate the experiment, then you aren't just believing in a teacher of gaps. You are learning about how things probably are, from those who have been there, done that, ahead of you.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Your disbelief is an answer. I encourage you to translate your disbelief into languages that have no written form. I will then use your translation (to the extant possible) to create a Bible in that language. Oh. There isn't an organization in Atheism that translates Hitchens into new languages? why are you behind us Christians? could it be that Atheism is a parasitic idea that can only survive where there is some one else to do the heavy lifting?
Yes, the anonymous person is accusing the person who calls himself "Archangel Michael" of being an egotist. That seems perfectly reasonable. Am I missing something?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
That's a good example, one that is nice and easy to shove into a nice, very tidy, small box. But it still breaks down pretty fast if you try to apply it to other theories. Newton's theory can be thought of as a simplification (ie. leaving out terms) of special relativity, but neither theory can be understood as simplifications of general relativity, which starts from a vastly different starting point. There is no way to leave out terms out of general relativity and end up with newtonian gravitation. You can create "sub-worlds" in special relativity where Newton's laws nearly apply. But that is more a property of a very uniform environment, like the surface of a planet. It's basically stating that "these laws + this massive structure surrounding all possible experiments might make you think that Newton applies". It is not possible to create a non-trivial universe containing special relativity (ie. non-empty, more than a trivial amount of matter) where Newton's laws apply everywhere. It is not possible to create a world where general relativity applies where newton's laws also (even nearly) apply.
So how does that work in your view ?
Furthermore we have measurements where relativity can clearly be shown not to apply. The most well-known example would be entanglement, with FTL effects. In general relativity that effect is equal to time travel, which is explicitly excluded as a possibility. By contrast, the standard model says gravity shouldn't exist (it says the graviton should have no effect during interactions, to be precise).
So these theories are directly contradictory, in some cases relativity clearly takes precedence over standard model/quantum theory, in other cases it's plain to see relativity is wrong and quantum theory is right. How does that work in your view ? I'm sure you agree both theories are in wide use.
Both cases are tested using huge labs. If relativity is correct, computer chips cannot work, because the voltages they use shouldn't be able to flip the transistors. If quantum theory is correct there cannot be any planet in orbit around ... well anything at all, really. Matter wouldn't even come together to form planets at all.
And how do you deal with the theory of architecture ? Which plainly states that the world isn't even newtonian. That theory is in wide use all over the world, and is taught to thousands of students as the correct way to look at buildings.
You might be interested to know that thermodynamics is derived from quantum mechanics, and is understood as its limit for large enough numbers of particles.
Start of thermodynamics : 1650 ... let's be extremely flexible here and use the date for the "ultraviolet catastrophe" : 1911 (in reality the first date where people were really convinced of quantum theory is probably when the first atomic test turned out to work : so July 16, 1945 would probably be a more correct date. That was the point when people like Einstein and Feynman really became convinced of the correctness of quantum theory. Up until then it was mostly "interesting equations you have there" stage. Or at least, that's what his book says)
Start of quantum theory
You really seem to like the idea of time travel.
Within their realms, however, every single observation ever made matches the theory.
Really, so how do the myriad of FTL effects fit into relativity ? Relativity, as an idea, collapses as soon as you have any kind of FTL effects. And, pray tell, how do you explain any form of space phenomena (like earth-sun in orbits) with the standard model ? How do you explain that there is any non-trivial amount of matter sticking together in the first place ?
Both are pretty common measurements these days, both are measurements that can be calculated by the respective theories (in trivial ways, I might add, but don't worry, there's also plenty of difficult problems). And in both cases the prediction of the theory doesn't ma
geodesics in suitably chosen space-time curvatures are ellipses, parabola, straight lines or hyperbola. Just like Newton said. Except he did not know about curved space-time.
in the same way, once we knew about quantum mechanics, we could obtain the results of thermodynamics from looking at large collection of individual atoms.
There is no theory of architecture. There are civil engineering building codes, which, outside the US are mostly derived from Newtonian (and Hookean, and Timoshenkan) first principles. But believe me, it's all classical.
idle speculation on my part: I think we'll find that from an extension of quantum theory, you can get general relativity as a special case of something larger. What I'm saying is that I suspect that of QT and GR, GR will have to go. But I really don't know that.
TL;DR
Epistemology is not substitute for maths to understand what is science.
Who builds a house of worship where people go to have a ceremony every week to something that they believe that they don't believe in?
Get out more often. When people have common interests they tend to make a big fuzz about it and get together. Imagining a higher power is not a requirement to for a gathering. Building a large buildings and covering them in gold isn't either.
In Germany we have all kinds of festivals and holidays that have nothing to do with religion.
I get out often enough. The aspect of faith in religion is that if you behave a certain way, if you do all the right things as required, you will be rewarded in some manner. And for most people of religious faith, with the exception of Evangelicals, that reward is after you shift your mortal coil.
I belong to an Amateur radio club. We get together at least once a week. We don't pray to a Proton, Electron and holy Ion. We get together and discuss stuff technology, science, radio, and sometimes politics and even the odd foray into religion.
I've belonged to other clubs, we have meetings, and it's pretty much the same. No where in this are we invoking some unseen being to intervene on our behalf for Amateur radio, or astronomy, nor do we think that some one will do.
Regardless, my point is that all buildings aside, a person that does not professes faith in a deity is not professing faith that there is no deity. It's not professing anything at all.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That's a nice strawman.
All the guy meant was that theists can't prove there is a god, and atheists can't prove there is not a god, and so both are the same sort of rigid idealogue who is convinced of his own correctness.
Whoa, The idea that an atheist outlook is somehow rigid is just not logical. There are many "things" in this world that I don't believe in. I don't believe in magic, I don't believe in telekinesis, I don't believe in many things. But that doesn't mean I have some sort of "faith in that lack of belief. There are many things unknown to me, and some of those things I might not believe in if I knew about them. Some I might. So now where is the rigid ideology in that? If I don't believe that there is a deity, and I don't believe in something I don't even know about, that would require belief in the deity so that I could not believe in the deity in order to be a faith bases outlook.
That might be hard to parse, but the short summary is that a lack of something is not something. Nothing cannot be something. Faith is something. Not having faith is not something. Not having faith is not faith.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You're deviating from the point. The point we're discussing is not the exact semantics of specific theories, just the different standards of truth used for various theories.
I repeat, "truth" means : ...) - anything that can be thought of (it still varies quite a lot here)
maths - anything consistent with itself (e.g. a ring in which 1+1 = 0 exists (ie. "1-bit binary, or Z2"), and this is most definitely a true statement in said ring)
physics - experiments + theories found to be consistent with these experiments (or best alternative, if no 100% consistent available)
medicine - anything that seems to work in large numbers of people, often ignoring essential statistical laws (mostly "assuming" things to be independent when this is obviously wrong)
humanities (whether language, philosophy, literature, history,
These standards of truth used in different sciences are different, and they don't agree with one another (sometimes within a single science this can happen too, like the standard model - relativity example, although they mostly differ in which observations/experiments they consider authorative and which ones they ignore). The statement "God is a physical reality" matches quite a few of these standards. (certainly in humanities you can't possibly deny it anymore, and even in physics standards it's pretty easy to go there. In maths the answer is not actually known, despite a *lot* of searching)
What that means exactly ... good question.