Christian Thread [Archive] - Page 18 - Tactics Arena Community Forums

uniquinous

08-22-2009, 11:42 PM

Here's a test of whether a Christian is actually a literalist or not. In Matthew 5.40 Jesus says if anyone wants to take your coat from you, give them your cloak also. So if you ever meet a Christian who claims to be a literalist, ask them to send you their coat. If they don't send you their coat + cloak then they aren't a Biblical literalist. Please do this with the self-acclaimed Biblical literalists you know, and don't tell me that you accept their claims of taking the Bible as factual truth until you've accumulated a substantial collection of donated clothing.And I have pointed out several times in this thread that Jesus preaches that one should give away all of their wealth and possessions to the poor, yet Christians tend not to do that. (I'm using this to negate the "but people don't have cloaks" thing). Despite that fact, those same people still BELIEVE the bible is literal.

Similarly, most smokers believe the surgeon general when he warns them SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH. You are restricting ACTION and BELIEF as equivalent, when they are not. I don't believe it will rain tomorrow, but I'm going to carry an umbrella anyway. I believe community service is a wonderful thing but I don't have time right now. I believe I should clean my room now, but I also believe it can wait another day. Action does NOT define all belief, but *may* define belief, or belief of what beliefs can be disregarded.

So yes, they *can* believe the bible is literal, and still disregard moral teachings. (that aside, the "facts" are generally accepted as "truth") Look at Christianity compared to Judaic interpretation of the Old Testament. Jesus never ate pork in his life, because he was Jewish and that's what the bible told him. Suddenly Jesus dies, someone else who never knew him had a dream where Jesus said swine were swell, and all Old Testament rules were negated. People do things to suit themselves.

Biblical literalism is SO FAR from the reason we have gay marriage and evolution debates, Jeh. Oh? And what are the driving reasons against gay marriage and evolution? Cuz as far as I can tell, it's literal bible interpretation and the underlying "morals" transposed to the non-literal-reading Christian community. I'm interested to hear what you believe the cause is.

The reason I'd prefer you tell me why you disagree with the statement, if you do, is simply because that would allow me to narrow the space of time and place in which I have to make my argument.I too would like to know how you reached that conclusion. Perhaps you should point out the "turning point" the caused the switch at the 20th century? In the meantime, I will contact a historian friend of mine to clarify this one.

Mithrandir

08-22-2009, 11:46 PM

The reason I'd prefer you tell me why you disagree with the statement, if you do, is simply because that would allow me to narrow the space of time and place in which I have to make my argument. I think I could make a fairly convincing argument from start to finish, but it would take a lot of work, since there are a whole lot of sects of Christianity, and divergent opinions even within sects. If we agree on some starting basis that would greatly reduce the necessary work. There is no point in demonstrating what is already agreed upon by all relevant participants.

I'm afraid I won't be able to narrow down your work much. I am no church historian, and I don't have any examples on hand to cite that would contradict your claim. However, I have read thousands of pages of early church history and theology, including the many of the most influential works from the most important theologians of that period. I have never read anything that made me believe any of them took the bible as anything other than literal. The only exception I can think of is Origen, who was a heretic. So I should say, I can't think of anything that indicates that any orthodox Christian theologian of that time period believed the bible wasn't strictly literal.

I have also read a great deal of the development of Christian theology in the middle ages. I have read a good chunk of Anselm and a few lesser theologians, but primarily I have read about 600 pages of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae (without doubt one of the most influential works in the history of the church). I have never gotten the impression that Aquinas believed the bible was anything other than something to be taken literally.

My reading of the reformation period of the church is less broad, but at least it does include the most important figures in that time: Luther and Calvin. I have read a good chunk of Luther, not as much as I'd have liked, but I have read all of Calvin's Institutes. I have never gotten the impression that either one of them believed the bible was intended as anything other than literal.

That's about where my church history stops I'm afraid. I'm reading John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards soon, but I haven't gotten there yet. At this point, I couldn't tell you much about the church from 1700-1900. However, I generally think I have a pretty strong understanding of the development of Christian ideas in the last two thousand years, and I cannot remember a shred of evidence for your assertion outside of denounced heretics.

Of course, if the evidence does exist and I have somehow missed it, I very much want to know, because that would make for one heck of a blind spot in my understanding. This is certainly a possibility, but with the amount of work that I have done in this area, I'm more inclined to think that you're wrong.

Realist

08-23-2009, 12:03 AM

And I have pointed out several times in this thread that Jesus preaches that one should give away all of their wealth and possessions to the poor, yet Christians tend not to do that. (I'm using this to negate the "but people don't have cloaks" thing). Despite that fact, those same people still BELIEVE the bible is literal.

As I told Jehut, without a mind-reading device, our best evidence of how people believe is how they act. Since Christians do not act as if they believe in the truth of the moral precepts in the Bible, it is difficult to believe that they accept the truth of other statements it contains. If you bring me a mind-reading device, I'd be happy to switch over to that method as more reliable.

Similarly, most smokers believe the surgeon general when he warns them SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH.

And they are so addicted to smoking that it doesn't matter sufficiently to them. But this is actually a pretty bad example. Anti-smoking campaigns based on education work very well. Far fewer people smoke now than before the information came out. It's pretty clear that when people believe things, it really does tend to change their actions.

Oh? And what are the driving reasons against gay marriage and evolution? Cuz as far as I can tell, it's literal bible interpretation

Nowhere in the Bible says "thou shalt not gay marry." But a better example is abortion--because nowhere in the Bible is abortion indicated to be sinful, yet there is no stronger crusade by the literalists. So if the fundies really driven by actual literalism, why is abortion such an obsession?

I'm interested to hear what you believe the cause is.

Fundie Christianity is a reactionary cultural movement acting against various liberal social trends. They are against evolution because it goes against their favored self-conception of humanity's place in the world. They are against gay marriage because they find homosexuality icky, for much the same reason people used to be against mixed-racial marriage.

I too would like to know how you reached that conclusion. Perhaps you should point out the "turning point" the caused the switch at the 20th century?

A reaction against Darwinism, liberalism, feminism, sexual liberation, communism, and other "radical" ideas which became popular around the beginning of the previous century.

uniquinous

08-23-2009, 12:41 AM

As I told Jehut, without a mind-reading device, our best evidence of how people believe is how they act.No. Our best method of knowing what people believe is to ask them. Let's take the Christian who doesn't go to church, doesn't really celebrate Christian holidays, but claims they are Christian. I double doggy dare you to tell that person, that despite their Christian upbringing, and despite their own belief they are Christian, they're really agnostic.

Furthermore, you're still not separating the "factual" form the "moral". The bible has both, and can say "Noah had 2 of every animal on his ark" (to be taken as a historical "fact"), as well as "thou shalt not covet your neighbor's /stats", which is a commandment that can potentially be broken. You can break every principle in the book and still believe the "history" to be accurate.

And they are so addicted to smoking that it doesn't matter sufficiently to them. Wait wait wait... so you're saying that they can BELIEVE smoking is bad for them, yet disregard it because of some overlying pressure or pleasure that pushes them to continue with those actions anyway? I fail to see how that was a bad example, as it appears you just proved my point while dismissing it with hand waiving.

Every smoker in the United States KNOWS it's bad for them. They believe it. Earlier education does prevent people from starting, but those who already smoke still know it's bad for them. Can you really claim smokers don't realize this? This is a yes or no, not an amount of education.

It should come as no surprise to you, then, that those who spend more time reading and "learning" the bible similarly have higher adherence to the morals. They're "more educated" and similarly disregard their "education" less.

Nowhere in the Bible says "thou shalt not gay marry." But a better example is abortion--because nowhere in the Bible is abortion indicated to be sinful, yet there is no stronger crusade by the literalists. So if the fundies really driven by actual literalism, why is abortion such an obsession?No, it says a man laying with another man is an abomination. Leviticus 18. And yes, the King James bible does indicate abortion to be sinful, though this is actually a mistranslation from the Hebrew, which is why Judaism and Christianity believe a fetus gains its soul at different times. I can get into the details when I'm more awake if you are interested. I can't seem to remember the verse offhand, but it deals with the morals surrounding saving a mothers life if it in danger due to childbirth, and what is or is not acceptable.

Based on the fact that the bible can be interpreted (but how does that mesh with literal?! topic unto itself...) to denounce homosexuality and abortion, it has been the major driving force (or perhaps scapegoat). Now whether it was cause or excuse, it's still the thing that allowed the debates to begin and continue.

Realist

08-23-2009, 02:54 AM

Mith,

Just to pick an arbitrary starting point, let's consider interpretations of Genesis 1. Augustine was fairly insistent that one needn't take the "literal" view of Gen 1 that the seven "days" of creation were actually days as we understand them and that it all could have been created instantaneously (see, his Literal Meaning of Genesis ch. 17-18). Aquinus agrees with Augustine (see this link--I can't find it in context online) (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt49.html#FN_4) that the more apparently literal interpretation is likely the inferior one, and, quite relevantly to modern times, that accepting the "literal" meaning of the text (of sequential rather than simulataneous creation) is problematic because it contradicts our knowledge of the world. This interpretation would not be welcome in a fundamentalist Church today, and indeed the idea embraced by both Aquinus and Augustine that if a literal interpretations contradicts known science it should be dropped would be strongly rejected by the modern fundamentalist movement.

I could talk about Calvin and Luther as well; I have things to say about them, but I'll have to go back to the primary sources to write a sufficient argument and I am too tired to do so at the moment. So I'll save it for later.

Realist

08-23-2009, 03:21 AM

No. Our best method of knowing what people believe is to ask them.

No, it's not. People lie or are mistaken about their beliefs all the time for all sorts of reasons. It's very easy to tell this if you look at, for example, political polls. Slightly different wording can produce massively different results. On issues of religion and politics, most people have a very poor grasp of what they believe, and are not very good at describing their actual beliefs in a proficient manner. Many people will claim to be biblical literalists but reject particular beliefs which clearly follow from a stance of biblical literalism.

Let's take the Christian who doesn't go to church, doesn't really celebrate Christian holidays, but claims they are Christian. I double doggy dare you to tell that person, that despite their Christian upbringing, and despite their own belief they are Christian, they're really agnostic.

Um, I never claimed as such. I suspect most people who claim to be Christian are actually Christian. I'm just pretty sure they aren't Biblical literalists.

You can break every principle in the book and still believe the "history" to be accurate.

If you believe the entire book is accurate, including the punishments for acting against its rules, then you will definitely act according to the ways it says. Jail time is an extremely strong incentive for people to not act criminally. Yet the difference between reward and punishment presented in the bible, the NT in particular, is vastly greater than the difference between jail and freedom. So if you believe in the literal Bible, you will surely act as much as possible in accordance with its rules.

Wait wait wait... so you're saying that they can BELIEVE smoking is bad for them, yet disregard it because of some overlying pressure or pleasure that pushes them to continue with those actions anyway?

Um, yeah? This isn't that hard to understand. If God tells you to do something, you do it. If the surgeon general tells you something is bad for you, you weigh the health costs against the pleasure you get from your addiction and make a decision.

The point, again, is not that there is perfect correlation between belief and action: like I said, show me a mind reader and I will abandon this method! The point is that correlation is quite strong. Information on positive and negative incentives to actions will tend to change people's actions, in aggregate. The impact of many of the words of the Bible, including the one I cited earlier about coats and cloaks, appear to have essentially zero impact on people's actions, which strongly implies a lack of belief in the literal truth of the Bible.

It should come as no surprise to you, then, that those who spend more time reading and "learning" the bible similarly have higher adherence to the morals.

I see very little evidence for this.

No, it says a man laying with another man is an abomination. Leviticus 18.

Voided by the NT. Else, if you include the Levitican laws, my argument is much stronger than it already is.

And yes, the King James bible does indicate abortion to be sinful, though this is actually a mistranslation from the Hebrew, which is why Judaism and Christianity believe a fetus gains its soul at different times. I can get into the details when I'm more awake if you are interested.

I am aware of the passage. It is irrelevant to the modern abortion debate--the "pro-lifers" don't even cite it much.

Based on the fact that the bible can be interpreted (but how does that mesh with literal?! topic unto itself...) to denounce homosexuality and abortion, it has been the major driving force (or perhaps scapegoat). Now whether it was cause or excuse, it's still the thing that allowed the debates to begin and continue.

That's a different issue. It is quite possible that people who dislike homosexuals and abortion for other reasons cling to the Christian fundamentalist movement because it gives them justification (and a likeminded group) for their beliefs. But that supports my point, not yours--because the affection of these people for Biblical literalism extends only so far as it supports the viewpoints they already hold.

Edit:

Here's another version of my argument above. Also in Matthew 5 Jesus says no divorce except in cases of adultery. Yet, evangelical Christians actually divorce more than the general population (google for the study). You might expect that there are some marriages which are so horrible that evangelicals are willing to face hell to get out of them, so the evangelical divorce rate shouldn't be zero even if they're all Biblical literalists. But surely the Bible should have at least some effect on the divorce rate if they are taking it as fact!

Jehutyv.2.0

08-23-2009, 06:09 AM

I'm saying that there is no individual on Earth who, if presented with a series of propositions the set of which is the entire Bible, would honestly assent to each and every one. Sure, some people believe in "creationism"--the creationism invented by 20th century fundies with only slightly more Biblical basis than evolution itself. That doesn't mean they take the actual creation story literally!
So because they believe in the creation story, they don't believe in the creation story. Great.
Biblical literalism is SO FAR from the reason we have gay marriage and evolution debates, Jeh. Did you read the part of my post where I said that it didn't have to do with biblical literalism? You know, like, the very first sentence?
Either way, whether not people interpret every word of the Bible as fact or not (I have yet to find a person who thinks Noah's Ark is factual rather than an allegory, and I know hundreds of very adamant Christians), the fact that people are inherent hypocrites, like you said, is a reasonable answer to your earlier question.

I've met people who think the Grand Canyon was created by "the flood." People are dumb.

Mithrandir

08-23-2009, 06:42 AM

[Augustine and Aquinas’] interpretation [of Genesis 1] would not be welcome in a fundamentalist Church today, and indeed the idea embraced by both Aquinus and Augustine that if a literal interpretations contradicts known science it should be dropped would be strongly rejected by the modern fundamentalist movement.
Well, this was helpful in that it clarified your reasoning a bit. Of course, you don’t know what you call the modern fundamentalist movement half as well as I do, as I’ve spent my whole life in it. I have had dozens of conversations/arguments about how to interpret Genesis 1 with other “fundies” that think Noah was a real man who brought real animals on a real ark in a real world-wide flood. There is an interesting argument to be had on the topic, but it really is not an issue of biblical literalism as I understand it anyway.

If biblical literalism means the utter rejection of any context or genre in which the person spoke, then sure, Augustine and Aquinas weren’t literalists. But of course, if you’re going to ignore all context and genre, you’re obviously a fool. Ecclesiastes for instance, starts with a statement that all is vanity, among other things. But if you read Ecclesiastes as a whole with any common sense, it is obvious that the author is setting up a foil, arguing that all is vanity without God, roughly speaking. It has been about six months since I have read it, but that’s the basic idea. Rational Christians (I know, oxymoron in your opinion) can believe that Noah took animals on an ark, and also believe a variety of things about Genesis 1, and believe that all is not in fact vanity.

If your argument is that you have to ignore all context and genre in order to be a literalist of any kind, and all that is necessary to believe Noah took animals on an ark, then that’s obviously ad hoc, insulting and stupid. If your beef in the first place was with stupid and poorly educated Christians that take the face value of everything they read and don’t think about it, you have my utmost sympathies.

By the way, I have had a great deal of interaction with the fundie pro-lifers, including many well known, high-placed people in the movement, and those that are Christians generally justify their pro-life views on the grounds that the bible says human beings shouldn’t kill each other, and then make scientific and philosophic arguments that the fetus qualifies as a human being that should not be killed. Obviously, there are exceptions, and obviously there are plenty of obnoxious and/or irrational people in any movement.

Either way, whether not people interpret every word of the Bible as fact or not (I have yet to find a person who thinks Noah's Ark is factual rather than an allegory, and I know hundreds of very adamant Christians),
*waves* Nice to meet you. Most Christians I have talked to about Noah’s Ark believe it is factual and not allegorical.

Hoolwath

08-23-2009, 07:02 AM

This thread is amusing, I will definitely check it out when I have more time. I bet I will find out it is one of those where you can't just sit back and watch when I do.

Memory of Light

08-23-2009, 07:20 AM

i love when M&M(mith and meat) contradict each other.

Anarchy_United

08-23-2009, 07:49 AM

If people were asked, do you think they are more or less likely to overstate their involvement in charitable works? If you say, more, doesn't that indictate that people are not a very reliable source if you just ask them. Or if you ask a smoker how often they smoke, people tend to give answers that they feel other people want them to give.

Wizzy'

08-23-2009, 07:52 AM

A lot of Christian archaeology teams have "found" all sorts of fun stuff over the years.

You don't think it's strange that they have found animal bones and a boat on top of a mountain?

I'm not saying there isn't a logical explanation for it, just strange.

Jehutyv.2.0

08-23-2009, 07:54 AM

You don't think it's strange that they have found animal bones and a boat on top of a mountain?

I'm not saying there isn't a logical explanation for it, just strange.
Meat's point is that they didn't actually find them, which is correct.

Wizzy'

08-23-2009, 07:55 AM

Meat's point is that they didn't actually find them, which is correct.

oh.
alrighty then.

uniquinous

08-23-2009, 10:32 AM

Augustine was fairly insistent that one needn't take the "literal" view of Gen 1 that the seven "days" of creation were actually days as we understand them and that it all could have been created instantaneously (see, his Literal Meaning of Genesis ch. 17-18). Aquinus agrees with Augustine (see this link--I can't find it in context online) (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt49.html#FN_4) that the more apparently literal interpretation is likely the inferior one, and, quite relevantly to modern times, that accepting the "literal" meaning of the text (of sequential rather than simulataneous creation) is problematic because it contradicts our knowledge of the world. This interpretation would not be welcome in a fundamentalist Church today
This, too, is also a translation problem. Someone else mentioned the point of the "epoch". You seem to be considering people as robotic, whereby there can only be one "literal" interpretation (and yet you have also pointed to variation in translation...)

I suspect most people who claim to be Christian are actually Christian. I'm just pretty sure they aren't Biblical literalists.But if they don't perform Christian ritual, doesn't that mean by your logic that they are agnostic because their actions are more meaningful than their claim of belief? You went from "only actions determine" to "I suspect most...". Well?

If you believe the entire book is accurate, including the punishments for acting against its rules, then you will definitely act according to the ways it says. Jail time is an extremely strong incentive for people to not act criminally. Yet the difference between reward and punishment presented in the bible, the NT in particular, is vastly greater than the difference between jail and freedom. Let's explore that further. Does no one commit a crime because of the "extremely strong incentive"? More importantly, if they commit a crime is it because they don't believe in the law? Of course these answers are obvious, but let's make it a sliding scale instead of yes/no. Does it happen with smaller law violations (speeding) as well as larger ones (murder)? So despite the spectrum, no matter how bad the negative incentive, people still act against the law, believing such laws exist. Why?

OK so then you make the claim that since the negative incentive of the bible is much stronger, it would drop this disconnected belief/behavior to zero. Not only is that unsubstantiated conjecture, but it is also shortsighted as it misses one of the LARGEST aspects of Christianity: repentance of sin.

In many ways, the biblical negative incentive is much lighter than the legal incentive, as there are no immediate ramifications, and the eternal ones can be removed at a later time.

Um, yeah? This isn't that hard to understand. If God tells you to do something, you do it. If the surgeon general tells you something is bad for you, you weigh the health costs against the pleasure you get from your addiction and make a decision.Again, you seem to be treating people as infallible robots, when Jehuty already mentioned we are hypocrites. Did you never disobey your father as a young child? The underlying theme is that you can disobey "father" and he won't abandon you.

The impact of many of the words of the Bible, including the one I cited earlier about coats and cloaks, appear to have essentially zero impact on people's actions, which strongly implies a lack of belief in the literal truth of the Bible.No, it shows lack of education in their own religion; it shows hypocrisy; it shows that people overlook rules they feel ought not be in place (while still believing that rule *is* in place).

But despite all of this, you still have not separated the idea between "history" and "rules". Even *IF* you were to gain your mind reading ability and prove that a Christian flat out doesn't believe their deity wants them to give up their cloak, they can still believe Noah had an arc. Rules change. "History" doesn't.

As Jehuty mentioned, people in this very thread have said they believe the Grand Canyon was made by the flood. I have literally done the math to prove them wrong (the water would have needed to move so fast in those 40 days, Noah would be floating around the world like several times per day). And I too have pointed out their hypocrisy in believing it while ignoring the "give your possessions to the poor" thing. Neither swayed him from believing the flood was real. How do you explain that?

I am aware of the passage. It is irrelevant to the modern abortion debate--the "pro-lifers" don't even cite it much.That's because religious nuts at some point realized that the secular world is not swayed by biblical citation. I agree with you that people just don't like progressive change, but if the biblical ties weren't there, either 1) people would need a new scapegoat, or 2) the debate wouldn't exist to the degree it does. And this is especially true of evolution.

But that supports my point, not yours--because the affection of these people for Biblical literalism extends only so far as it supports the viewpoints they already hold.Perhaps you don't realize that IS my point. You have continually viewed people as robots, acting on an IF-THEN statement. You see the "IF" is caused by the "THEN" and think "that logic doesn't work", bringing you to the conclusion that they don't really believe.

I see that system, realizing that such a religious belief depends on an all-or-nothing mindset (either it's all true, or none of it's true), so that the affection of these people to Biblical literalism may have been first created only as far as it supported the viewpoints they already hold, but that they can't use it without everything else.

When I go to the library to get a book, I don't want to have to return it. Yet I agree to that rule, because doing so gets me what I want. That is the cause of the disconnect we see: they didn't necessarily *want* to believe everything else going in, but they're stuck with it once they pass the all-or-none threshold. And yes, it is people fooling themselves into believing something, which is what produces the disconnect, but doesn't make the belief any less real. Go to a psych ward sometime, and you'll find people who convinced themselves they are string beans. Logic doesn't work on insanity.

A-99

08-23-2009, 12:30 PM

On Realist/Jeh's argument, I would say that I have met just as many Christians who believe the old testament as literal teachings and canon, and just as many who believe that the old testament is merely metaphors and concepts to help humans live out lives. I don't think you can subjugate 'all christians' in one field or another just as you cannot subjugate all atheists to interpret the bible the same way (as seen with Uniq vs Realist vs Jeh).

However, I think that pretty much all Christians would agree that they believe everything in the New Testament actually happened. Again though, many teachings and sayings have a deeper purpose behind it than simply 'give your cloak to the fellow man'. The bible's preachings go much deeper than that.

meat.eater

08-23-2009, 01:22 PM

Did you read the part of my post where I said that it didn't have to do with biblical literalism? You know, like, the very first sentence?

"I'm arguing that they believe things in the bible are fact. That's why we have this nonsense about gay marriage and evolution clogging our legal system"

Either I read exactly what you said or you fail at English language conventionality.

I've met people who think the Grand Canyon was created by "the flood." People are dumb.

I also live in the Northwest, where our most fervent Christians are considered Christian-light to a lot of others, so this doesn't really surprise me.

Realist

08-23-2009, 06:05 PM

So because they believe in the creation story, they don't believe in the creation story. Great.

Um, no. If you have any interest in actual conversation, reread my post and respond to what I actually said. What's gotten into you Jeh? Normally you have a fairly good grasp of nuance.

Realist

08-23-2009, 06:31 PM

If biblical literalism means the utter rejection of any context or genre in which the person spoke, then sure, Augustine and Aquinas weren’t literalists.

That is not my argument. I think one could make that argument--because there are Christians today who do deny any context or genre in certain passages when it suits their purposes in the name of Biblical literalism, and I think that is a 20th century idea--but it's a weaker argument than my own. Augustine/Aquinus are not taking the passages in their clear context, they are essentially imposing their own view on how god should act onto the story and thus changing its clear meaning. There is no straightforward way of reading Gen. 1 as saying that everything was created at the same time rather than sequentially, yet that is the view held as most probable by Augustine and Aquinas (a view, by the way, that people who are further on the road to literalism, like Calvin, strongly oppose).

Ecclesiastes for instance, starts with a statement that all is vanity, among other things. But if you read Ecclesiastes as a whole with any common sense, it is obvious that the author is setting up a foil, arguing that all is vanity without God, roughly speaking.

No, actually that's not obvious at all. I have common sense and that's not my reading. I think that's actually a pretty awkward interpretaion, and I'm not sure how you got that out of the text.

Realist

08-23-2009, 06:47 PM

This, too, is also a translation problem. Someone else mentioned the point of the "epoch".

This is silly. From the beginning of recorded interpretation, everyone has interpreted the literal meaning of Genesis as talking about days, not "epochs." Don't put too much stock on people who claim to have come up with some new translation that makes an old story more awkward but slightly more scinetifically or theologically acceptable.

Let's explore that further.

You're thinking far too deeply about this. If people truly believed the Bible was the literally true word of god, they would be strongly influenced by what it literally said, just like I would if god appeared right now and told me to do something. People aren't much influenced by the literal meaning of the Bible, therefore they don't take it literally.

No, it shows lack of education in their own religion; it shows hypocrisy; it shows that people overlook rules they feel ought not be in place (while still believing that rule *is* in place).

You're making 100 excuses. But why do you reject the much simpler explanation? It's not like its unknown for people to lie to themselves about their own beliefs. And you know what? Believing literally in the Bible is really silly, and most humans aren't up to it.

As Jehuty mentioned, people in this very thread have said they believe the Grand Canyon was made by the flood. I have literally done the math to prove them wrong (the water would have needed to move so fast in those 40 days, Noah would be floating around the world like several times per day). And I too have pointed out their hypocrisy in believing it while ignoring the "give your possessions to the poor" thing. Neither swayed him from believing the flood was real. How do you explain that?

There are strong cultural and psychological barriers. I'm willing to explain in more detail if you at least admit the possibility!

That's because religious nuts at some point realized that the secular world is not swayed by biblical citation.

No, the reason is that it's an ambiguous passage and there really isn't much Biblical evidence that abortion is a bad thing.

I see that system, realizing that such a religious belief depends on an all-or-nothing mindset (either it's all true, or none of it's true), so that the affection of these people to Biblical literalism may have been first created only as far as it supported the viewpoints they already hold, but that they can't use it without everything else.

Nah. I bet most people who claim to be Biblical literalists don't haven't even read the whole Bible. Many who I've talked to haven't.\

uniquinous

08-23-2009, 07:46 PM

You're making 100 excuses. But why do you reject the much simpler explanation? It's not like its unknown for people to lie to themselves about their own beliefs. And you know what? Believing literally in the Bible is really silly, and most humans aren't up to it.I see 100 people reacting in 100 different methods and manners. I see that some are truly convinced the bible is a factual historic document, some who believe the bible is the word of their deity, some who follow none of it but convince themselves it's all true, some who (your claim) don't believe it at all but claim they do. You see a glass that's half full and point to the empty space (the moral parts) as proof they don't believe. I point to the filled half (the historic parts). But at the end of the day, I see 100 different views - some rational, many bordering psychosis, all different - and you see 99 excuses plus one logical outcome. It's not a logical situation.

There are strong cultural and psychological barriers. I'm willing to explain in more detail if you at least admit the possibility!Let's hear these cultural and psychological barriers. I can think of a few, but none that extend into independent online activism.

No, the reason is that it's an ambiguous passage and there really isn't much Biblical evidence that abortion is a bad thing.ambiguous?

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely ... if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21

I dunno how you interpret that, but to me it looks like any "strike" or "struggle" that is done that causes injury to the fetus should be done to the person doing the damage. Then of course there is the mixing (this is the long shot) between the mistranslated verse that says life begins at conception with all the verses that say you can't take life.

Look, I'm not arguing that these clearly are anti-abortion, but surely you see how these aren't the longshots you claim it to be.

Abortion aside, you have continually ignored the evolution side of things. There is just no way to claim the bible is ambiguous or vague on that topic (which again shows the difference between the moral side, and the historic side).

Nah. I bet most people who claim to be Biblical literalists don't haven't even read the whole Bible. Many who I've talked to haven't.\I haven't read all of US law... have you? Yet we both still agree to abide by the law.

But again, your supposition is based completely on your own life experiences, still assuming people are trying to be logical. I really think we see the issue pretty similarly, but I just think people are crazy (among 100 other "excuses"), where you think they're just lying.

Jehutyv.2.0

08-23-2009, 09:11 PM

Um, no. If you have any interest in actual conversation, reread my post and respond to what I actually said. What's gotten into you Jeh? Normally you have a fairly good grasp of nuance.
I'm gonna be honest with you: I'm pretty jetlagged from my trip back from Japan.

Hugh Junit

08-23-2009, 09:12 PM

Nah. I bet most people who claim to be Biblical literalists don't haven't even read the whole Bible. Many who I've talked to haven't.\

I would say there's almost no denying this, but would you deny that most people who call themselves "Christians" believe that Jesus Christ was actually god in the form of a man, or the "son of god". Do they believe in the biblical stories of the miracles he performed? Do you think most believe in the virgin birth and that Christ actually rose from the grave and appeared to Mary Magdalene and the ten disciples and others?
These things are the cornerstones of the Christian faith, but they are each just as impossible as the story of creation in Genesis or the story of the great flood. Impossible, unless someone truly believes in the existance of god, a creator, and likewise believes that anything is possible.
A person doesn't have to read the entire bible to believe these things, these things that are the foundation of Christianity. And you're right, I don't think most people who believe them have. But I do believe most self-proclaimed Christians believe that they happened.
I remember sitting in an Easter church service once and listening to the minister deliver a sermon about ( obviously ) the ressurection. He said that if the remains of Jesus Christ's physical body were ever found ( not that they could be identified, but hypothetically ) then he would "bulldoze this church to the ground", because everything he had spent his entire life believing and teaching would be a lie.
This was a long time ago, but I still remember how absurd I thought the message was. I also remember how almost everyone else in the building was nodding and mumbling approval and whispering "amen".
I suppose if there were genuine bible literalists, then there should be a lot more one-eyed, one-handed, coatless Christians walking around, but I also think it's logical to say that a person who does believe that Jesus was the savior of mankind who walked the earth spreading a message of love and forgiveness didn't literally want people to disfigure themselves for having moments of weakness. I would think, even for a true believer, it's logical to assume that Jesus was being metaphorical, especially since he said all sins are forgiven through him.
Besides, coats are freakin' expensive!

uniquinous

08-23-2009, 09:47 PM

I remember sitting in an Easter church service once and listening to the minister deliver a sermon about ( obviously ) the ressurection. He said that if the remains of Jesus Christ's physical body were ever found...

I see where you're going with this and I completely agree. If we found the remains, we could take the DNA and clone him, using frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps, and then create an island amusement safari named Jessassus Park, where families can see him in his natural habitat alongside velociraptors. Don't worry it's perfectly safe. We have the ultimate savior should anything go wrong.

Hugh Junit

08-23-2009, 09:56 PM

I see where you're going with this and I completely agree. If we found the remains, we could take the DNA and clone him, using frog DNA to fill in the missing gaps, and then create an island amusement safari named Jessassus Park, where families can see him in his natural habitat alongside velociraptors. Don't worry it's perfectly safe. We have the ultimate savior should anything go wrong.

Can I get an AMEN!!
:)

Hey1001

08-23-2009, 10:23 PM

Haven't posted here for years, and I come back and it is still pretty much the same discussion. Must conclude that there is no right answer to the religion question.

Kyir

08-23-2009, 10:57 PM

Haven't posted here for years, and I come back and it is still pretty much the same discussion. Must conclude that there is no right answer to the religion question.

Oh man.

What insight.

Please teach me.

Realist

08-25-2009, 02:23 PM

I would say there's almost no denying this, but would you deny that most people who call themselves "Christians" believe that Jesus Christ was actually god in the form of a man, or the "son of god".

Look. If God appeared to me this moment and told me that the Bible was his word, the first thing I would do is read it through carefully and follow everything it said to the best of my ability. Yet, Christians claim to already believe that, but most of them 1) don't even read it, 2) if they do read it, don't follow it (it's not like they just make small error, either, most are practically following a different religion). The simple and most reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is that they don't believe that the Bible is actually from God. They might believe weaker things; they might believe that charismatic preacher knows what he is talking about and it would be a bad idea to, say, commit adultery because of it. But even that isn't really the case--Christians divorce, have premarital sex, commit adultery just as much as the general population. So no, I don't think they believe Jesus Christ was actually god in the form of man (itself an extrabiblical idea).

If someone tells you constantly that the believe something, but never act as if they do, eventually you should stop trusting them.

Madars

08-25-2009, 02:26 PM

Look. If God appeared to me this moment and told me that the Bible was his word, the first thing I would do is read it through carefully and follow everything it said to the best of my ability. Yet, Christians claim to already believe that, but most of them 1) don't even read it, 2) if they do read it, don't follow it (it's not like they just make small error, either, most are practically following a different religion). The simple and most reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is that they don't believe that the Bible is actually from God. They might believe weaker things; they might believe that charismatic preacher knows what he is talking about and it would be a bad idea to, say, commit adultery because of it. But even that isn't really the case--Christians divorce, have premarital sex, commit adultery just as much as the general population. So no, I don't think they believe Jesus Christ was actually god in the form of man (itself an extrabiblical idea).

If someone tells you constantly that the believe something, but never act as if they do, eventually you should stop trusting them.

That's exactly what the the Devil would say! :eek: We found the anti-christ!

Terps rock

08-25-2009, 02:31 PM

Has anyone seen Religulous?
At one point this guy talks about god being in different forms kind of like water.
Where he can be solid, liquid or gas. Such as Creator, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Thought that was a pretty interesting perspective.

bdog1321

08-25-2009, 02:37 PM

Realist deleted Madars' thread, therefore confirming him as the anti-christ.

Realist

08-25-2009, 02:39 PM

Realist deleted Madars' thread, therefore confirming him as the anti-christ.

I can't let it get out.

Oops.

FreddyAdu23

08-25-2009, 07:05 PM

Religulous was a good movie, im on his side, WE DO NOT KNOW.

If someone gives me prove im willing to accept it, but others no way. Science FTW.

Terps rock

08-28-2009, 10:28 PM

http://img.yawoot.com/c17306a724eee6d713da1d7589d4fbf7.jpg

Terps rock

09-23-2009, 05:33 PM

http://www.walkinginsquares.com/comics/wis_TheArk.png

uniquinous

09-23-2009, 07:10 PM

Look. If God appeared to me this moment and told me that the Bible was his word, the first thing I would do is read it through carefully and follow everything it said to the best of my ability. Yet, Christians claim to already believe that, but most of them 1) don't even read it, 2) if they do read it, don't follow it (it's not like they just make small error, either, most are practically following a different religion). The simple and most reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is that they don't believe that the Bible is actually from God. They might believe weaker things; they might believe that charismatic preacher knows what he is talking about and it would be a bad idea to, say, commit adultery because of it. But even that isn't really the case--Christians divorce, have premarital sex, commit adultery just as much as the general population. So no, I don't think they believe Jesus Christ was actually god in the form of man (itself an extrabiblical idea).

If someone tells you constantly that the believe something, but never act as if they do, eventually you should stop trusting them.
the most reasonable explanation, eh? because... people always follow reason?

how about the most human reason?

Lemme give a different example. Studies have shown that exercise is good for you, as is a balanced diet free from fried or overly fatty foods - everything in moderation. Now Realist, tell me - how often do you exercise? How often does the average American (guess). What about diet habits? Do people simply not believe that diet and exercise will keep them healthy? Do they desire to be unhealthy? After all, that would similarly be the "most reasonable explanation", eh?

The Professor?

09-23-2009, 11:39 PM

Bad example. People don't exercise because they are fat and lazy. Or at least lazy.

Realist

09-24-2009, 12:11 AM

People weigh the costs and benefits of exercise, and by some sort of calculation, determine how much they will do. If you believed that not just a statistically increased probability of a few years of life but heavenly eternity were in balance, you'd exercise a lot more. The whole point about God telling you to do something, if you really believe it him, is that the whole cost and benefits analysis goes out the window, the difference in benefits and costs being so great.

uniquinous

09-24-2009, 08:39 AM

Whoeversmeltit

09-24-2009, 12:34 PM

Realist

09-24-2009, 01:36 PM

Sounds like Pascal's Wager

Nah. The problem with Pascal's wager is there is no way of knowing what God wants. If God comes and tells you to do something then there's no wager involved, of course you do it.

Realist

09-24-2009, 01:37 PM

i think, if heavenly eternity were in the mix, people would assume they can just do more when they're older, believing all would be forgiven.

the cost benefit of being told to do something from the bible is exactly the same. It's not "do everything to the letter or you go to hell". It's "do most of this stuff, and if you stray, repent and get forgiveness at some later point in time, then do more good stuff, and you still go to heaven"

I highly doubt that would be your reaction if you really believed the Bible was God's word. Still, even under such a scenario, things like actually reading the text and at least knowing what they say would seem to be important goals, but they aren't to the vast majority of self-proclaimed Christians.

The Butcher

09-24-2009, 02:22 PM

Realist

09-24-2009, 02:34 PM

It's unfair to judge Christianity as a religion by the bad example of some or many of it's members.

I'm not judging Christianity as a religion. It's kind of hard to understand my and uniq's argument without going back and reading a few pages. :) The point is just that most Christians, I would say essentially all Christians, don't actually believe the Bible to be God's word. That is not meant to be a negative judgment of either Christianity or individual Christians, it's just reality; the Christian story is an incredible one and very difficult to believe.

The Butcher

09-24-2009, 02:39 PM

I'm not judging Christianity as a religion. It's kind of hard to understand my and uniq's argument without going back and reading a few pages. :) The point is just that most Christians, I would say essentially all Christians, don't actually believe the Bible to be God's word. That is not meant to be a negative judgment of either Christianity or individual Christians, it's just reality; the Christian story is an incredible one and very difficult to believe.

My mistake.

Good points.

uniquinous

09-24-2009, 02:39 PM

I highly doubt that would be your reaction if you really believed the Bible was God's word. Still, even under such a scenario, things like actually reading the text and at least knowing what they say would seem to be important goals, but they aren't to the vast majority of self-proclaimed Christians.

also something they can do later.

the moral of the story here is: people are lazy. They know what they *should* do based on their beliefs, whether it is focusing on the belief that diet and exercise keep you healthy, the belief that studying for an exam will get you better grades, the belief that recycling is good for the planet, or the belief that following the bible is good for the soul. Do you not have friends that wait till the last minute to both read the details of and then complete a homework assignment? They could have read the details up front, but no - they wait till the last minute for that too.

Given the chance to push something off because there are no immediate consequences, people absolutely will.

So, how often do you exercise, Realist? :)

The Butcher

09-24-2009, 02:41 PM

also something they can do later.

the moral of the story here is: people are lazy. They know what they *should* do based on their beliefs, whether it is focusing on the belief that diet and exercise keep you healthy, the belief that studying for an exam will get you better grades, the belief that recycling is good for the planet, or the belief that following the bible is good for the soul. Do you not have friends that wait till the last minute to both read the details of and then complete a homework assignment? They could have read the details up front, but no - they wait till the last minute for that too.

Given the chance to push something off because there are no immediate consequences, people absolutely will.

Man uni.. i felt like u were in my brain with this post.. im a little creeped out atm.

Realist

09-24-2009, 02:52 PM

uniq, so your opposition, then, is to question whether long-term incentives work at all, no matter how extreme? Kind of a weird thought for someone who spent what, how many years training for your profession? :) But then we should expect at least that adherence to Biblical standards would increase with age, and that really doesn't seem to be the case, so I don't think your explanation works. Moreover, God's word would seem to be relevant not just in the long term, but in the short term scale too (it's God after all, God is always relevant); and even just out of curiosity I would want to know what God wanted, if I actually thought he spoke to the world. Wouldn't you also?

Whoeversmeltit

09-24-2009, 04:42 PM

Nah. The problem with Pascal's wager is there is no way of knowing what God wants. If God comes and tells you to do something then there's no wager involved, of course you do it.
More specificly, your argument sounds like Pascal's wager in terms of probalistic cost/benefit analysis involving the belief in the exsistence of God. Of course Pascal believed in God so you are likely to dismiss him, but his theory was influential on the practice of probalistic cost/benefit analysis.

Match Strike

09-24-2009, 04:46 PM

People weigh the costs and behttp://tacticsarena.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1739614nefits of exercise, and by some sort of calculation, determine how much they will do. If you believed that not just a statistically increased probability of a few years of life but heavenly eternity were in balance, you'd exercise a lot more. The whole point about God telling you to do something, if you really believe it him, is that the whole cost and benefits analysis goes out the window, the difference in benefits and costs being so great.

You're giving people too much credit for logically determining their course of action. Every study done on this shows that it is not the case. Our decisions are based on less tangible notions such as instinct. Instincts that were formed in response to an environment that no longer exists.

This is why science process is so hard for so many people to grasp (and hard for even scientists to implement) and also why lassez faire economics don't really work, fundamentally (because it assumes among other things that people make rational choices). Come on man, you should know better ;)

Oh, also why Pascal was wrong :)

uniquinous

09-24-2009, 08:10 PM

Man uni.. i felt like u were in my brain with this post.. im a little creeped out atm.Ever see the movie Being John Malkovich? Well Butcher... I found a little door. Guess where it leads!

uniq, so your opposition, then, is to question whether long-term incentives work at all, no matter how extreme? Kind of a weird thought for someone who spent what, how many years training for your profession? :) But then we should expect at least that adherence to Biblical standards would increase with age, and that really doesn't seem to be the case, so I don't think your explanation works. Moreover, God's word would seem to be relevant not just in the long term, but in the short term scale too (it's God after all, God is always relevant); and even just out of curiosity I would want to know what God wanted, if I actually thought he spoke to the world. Wouldn't you also?

It's not about incentives, it's about consequences. People like doing the bare minimum on things for a reason - it's not about reaching high goals, so much as barely scraping buy without needing to suffer the consequences.

Also, it's wrong of you to compare my personal choices to those that we're discussing. Am I not allowed to practice one idea and observe another? Just google adherence/compliance and find out why it's even an issue. People have no problem forgetting or ignoring the things that will keep them healthy. And this doesn't mean that one would expect people to follow the rules as they get older. After all, there's always tomorrow, right? And after decades of putting it off, it becomes exceedingly easy to continue.

We are a nation of obesity: people who will eat better tomorrow; start exercising tomorrow; stop smoking tomorrow; see the doctor tomorrow; start taking those pills tomorrow. But that double glazed donut? Oh no - we're not puttin that one off one more moment.

So why is it that you expect this trend which runs rampant to somehow change with respect to someone's soul if people will endure physical pain and illness? After all, they could always start reading the bible tomorrow; start practicing their religion tomorrow; go see the priest tomorrow; get saved tomorrow...

Realist

09-25-2009, 12:43 AM

You're giving people too much credit for logically determining their course of action. Every study done on this shows that it is not the case. Our decisions are based on less tangible notions such as instinct. Instincts that were formed in response to an environment that no longer exists.

This is why science process is so hard for so many people to grasp (and hard for even scientists to implement) and also why lassez faire economics don't really work, fundamentally (because it assumes among other things that people make rational choices). Come on man, you should know better ;)

Oh, also why Pascal was wrong :)

One needn't believe in perfect correspondence between belief and action to believe that they are correlated, and the lack of the latter belief would make human behavior impossible to understand. If belief has no effect on action then there would be no deterrence effect of jails, no incentive effects of money, etc. etc. etc. etc. I don't see how you can understand society like that at all. I also don't see how all you people are willing to deny this obvious fact about human behavior to defend people's belief in an absurd story (though perhaps you have other motivations).

Reasoning based on observation and experience and knowledge and acting on that reasoning is so core to being human that perhaps there is a tendency to forget about it and focus only on the times when this pattern appears to break. But, usually it doesn't break, and when it does, it is only partial. I continue to hold that if God appeared to you this moment and told you that the Bible was actually his word, and you had no doubt that it was him or of his power or "goodness", you would read it, try to understand its clear meaning, and behave according to that meaning by a good measure of your ability. Perhaps you would fail sometimes, but there would be an honest attempt. This is human nature when our goals are so clearly set before us.

But no Christians do this. Essentially zero. The effect of the Bible's teachings appear to be zero. There is no difference in divorce,adultery, or premarital sex, and only a small difference even in things like abortion! There is no other motivating factor of any substantial strength that has so little effect. I guarantee that if divorcees were fined $1000, by the normal law of demand, people would have less of them. I guarantee you that if divorcees were fined $10,000, not to be collected until 10 years later, people would have less of them. But God telling you explicitly that it is wrong (and that it will bring you to hellfire!) seems to have no effect. There is no other explanation than that the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians do not believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Realist

09-25-2009, 01:12 AM

uniq, education campaigns vastly reduced smoking in the US once it was determined that smoking lead to disease. This completely contradicts your absolutist and cynical understanding of human nature. Smoking has great short term benefits and great long term costs, yet education is pretty effective against it. And lung cancer, as horrible as it is, is something that even in smokers tends to kill people at 65 who might otherwise die at 75. This motivates 20 year old to stop smoking, but none appear strongly motivated about changing their actions now based on some much greater difference in consequences after they die at 75.

Whoeversmeltit

09-25-2009, 07:21 AM

One needn't believe in perfect correspondence between belief and action to believe that they are correlated, and the lack of the latter belief would make human behavior impossible to understand. If belief has no effect on action then there would be no deterrence effect of jails, no incentive effects of money, etc. etc. etc. etc. I don't see how you can understand society like that at all. I also don't see how all you people are willing to deny this obvious fact about human behavior to defend people's belief in an absurd story (though perhaps you have other motivations).

Reasoning based on observation and experience and knowledge and acting on that reasoning is so core to being human that perhaps there is a tendency to forget about it and focus only on the times when this pattern appears to break. But, usually it doesn't break, and when it does, it is only partial. I continue to hold that if God appeared to you this moment and told you that the Bible was actually his word, and you had no doubt that it was him or of his power or "goodness", you would read it, try to understand its clear meaning, and behave according to that meaning by a good measure of your ability. Perhaps you would fail sometimes, but there would be an honest attempt. This is human nature when our goals are so clearly set before us.

But no Christians do this. Essentially zero. The effect of the Bible's teachings appear to be zero. There is no difference in divorce,adultery, or premarital sex, and only a small difference even in things like abortion! There is no other motivating factor of any substantial strength that has so little effect. I guarantee that if divorcees were fined $1000, by the normal law of demand, people would have less of them. I guarantee you that if divorcees were fined $10,000, not to be collected until 10 years later, people would have less of them. But God telling you explicitly that it is wrong (and that it will bring you to hellfire!) seems to have no effect. There is no other explanation than that the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians do not believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Most Christian's are not biblical literalists and understand that the Bible was written and edited by men claimed to be inspired by God. However, the effect of Biblical teachings is not zero. See Christian charities, food pantries, shelters and hospitals designed to "love thy neighbor."

One could easily argue that many such charities are the net product of sin and a guilty conscious.

Christians are often reminded (rather grimly at times) of their sins, and understand that sins are reminders of the need to reconcile with God. The church serves as a device for reconciliation through confession and encouragement of good acts. Divorce and adultery and other such sins (set aside murder) are part of the universe and ex post are reminders of short comings and the need to do better (see charities . . or even monks who mindfully make great beer ;) ).

You would make an angry God.

Realist

09-25-2009, 09:51 AM

Whoeversmeltit

09-25-2009, 10:24 AM

It's not about being a biblical literalist. Biblical literalism makes no sense; there are times when the Bible is clearly being metaphorical or allegorical in context. It's about 1) reading the text 2) believing its clear meaning to the best of your ability and 3) following it to some measure of your ability. I hold that virtually anyone who believed it to be the word of god would take those three steps.

Add 4) recognizing sin and attempting to make up for it.

People fall short and sin all the time. Liberals and Literalists alike. Christianity's power is not in pointing out where people fail, but allowing for reconciliation after the fall.

Failing to live up to Biblical standards does not mean that the Christian does not believe that the Good Book is the Word of God. The main message of Christianity is about reconciliation. Augstine, Aquinas and other have argued that the real power of the commmandments kick in after falling short of them. Because most do fall short, the real question becomes what does the Christian do ex post? The answer and the essence of Christianity is reconciliation and forgiveness.

The very start of Christianity is orginal sin, the excile from the Garden. Our lives on earth become full as Christians by recognizing sin and attempting reconciliation.

Calling out Christian's as biblical non-believers for failing to live up to biblical standards is a hollow critique as it ignores reconciliation and thus misses the essence of Christianity..

Realist

09-25-2009, 10:33 AM

Failing to live up to Biblical standards does not mean that the Christian does not believe that the Good Book is the Word of God.

No, not even trying means that Christians don't believe it to be the word of god. I know you're smart enough to get my point, why are you arguing strawmen?

The main message of Christianity is about reconciliation. Augstine, Aquinas and other have argued that the real power of the commmandments kick in after falling short of them. Because most do fall short, the real question becomes what does the Christian do ex post? The answer and the essence of Christianity is reconciliation and forgiveness.

The very start of Christianity is orginal sin, the excile from the Garden. Our lives on earth become full as Christians by recognizing sin and attempting reconciliation.

You prove my point, of course. Augustine and Aquinas were extrabiblical individuals and original sin is an extrabiblical doctrine. If you really believed the Bible to be the word of god, you would read it carefully and see whether A+A were actually correct in their interpretation. But it's them you cite, and not the text.

Calling out Christian's as biblical non-believers for failing to live up to biblical standards is a hollow critique as it ignores reconciliation and thus the essence of Christianity..

Did you even read my post? It's not a "critique" at all.

Why does someone as rational as you on economic issues become a full-blown absurdist when it comes to religion?

Whoeversmeltit

09-25-2009, 10:55 AM

No, not even trying means that Christians don't believe it to be the word of god. I know you're smart enough to get my point, why are you arguing strawmen?

You prove my point, of course. Augustine and Aquinas were extrabiblical individuals and original sin is an extrabiblical doctrine. If you really believed the Bible to be the word of god, you would read it carefully and see whether A+A were actually correct in their interpretation. But it's them you cite, and not the text.

Did you even read my post? It's not a "critique" at all.

Why does someone as rational as you on economic issues become a full-blown absurdist when it comes to religion?

Augustine and Aquinas are Saints and considered expert Biblical interpreters by many many people.

Christianity IS ABOUT FALLNG SHORT AND RECONCILIATION. See the Garden of Eden and Christs reconcilation IN THE BIBLE. If a Christian falls short of biblical teachings due to forgetfulness or weakness, then they have put themselves in with good company, namely ADAM and EVE. The message of Christianity is to reconcile after the fall. You only look to the fall and say, ha! must not be christian then! What a bunch of absurd hypycrits! That you don't see this means to me you don't understand the essense of Christianity.

This is not some absurdists view point that requires putting reason aside or constructing straw men arguments. Its the basic tenant of Christianity. I am pointing out the Biblical story of the Garden to make a point becasue you are calling out people for not following the Bible. Do I believe that that the Garden was a real place? No I do not. But I do believe that there is a deaper and much more powerful meaning than the literal interpretation. The Garden is the seen of original sin and Jesus is the final reconciling act. Do I believe that Jesus was divine? Yes, in the same way all living things are except he was a buddha as well and his death on the cross was assigned the significance of self-sacrifice as a way to reconcile with God.

Self sacrifce after failing in attempt to reconcile and make up for the failure - no absurd stuff! Pretty basic stuff to live by. DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEVING ABSURD THINGS TO LIVE BY. If one have half a brain they realize that the Bible is a metaphor. The ten commandments are there to point out the shortcomings not to do away with them.

This all basic stuff. Yet you are stuck on pointing out sin period and then calling Christianity absurd. Yet you don't get it in the first place.

Realist

09-25-2009, 01:30 PM

Sainthood is also extrabiblical.

Christianity IS ABOUT FALLNG SHORT AND RECONCILIATION. See the Garden of Eden and Christs reconcilation IN THE BIBLE.

Explain. The Garden of Eden is just about falling.

If a Christian falls short of biblical teachings due to forgetfulness or weakness, then they have put themselves in with good company, namely ADAM and EVE. The message of Christianity is to reconcile after the fall. You only look to the fall and say, ha! must not be christian then! What a bunch of absurd hypycrits!

Nope. My message is essentially positive--that even the most silly sounding fundamentalists, when it comes down to it, acts as a rationalist and thinks about the world using his or her human facility of reason and observation. This is an optimistic view of human nature--I see good where people present themselves as idiots. I never labeled anyone a hypocrite, nor did I call them non-Christian.

Do you think, when Jesus says that divorce = adultery and will bring you to hell, that he's just kidding? That he really means divorce is ok as long as you "reconcile" after? This isn't a matter of literalism--it's just a matter of taking the text in its own context and clear meaning, and not inventing new meanings because you prefer them. And the clear meaning of the words is that divorce is wrong. And if I thought God thought divorce was wrong, it would discourage me from doing it. It's really not that complicated.

Self sacrifce after failing in attempt to reconcile and make up for the failure - no absurd stuff! Pretty basic stuff to live by. DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEVING ABSURD THINGS TO LIVE BY.

It's also irrelevant to the conversation at hand. I'm sure you have some great demon you're arguing against who believes things just opposite of you, but he's not me, nor can I see him anywhere.

If one have half a brain they realize that the Bible is a metaphor. The ten commandments are there to point out the shortcomings not to do away with them.

Um, nope. Leviticus looks very similar to other mideastern law codes, which were definitely not metaphors. So, no, a lot of the Bible was clearly meant as a literal law code for a certain population of people. And literal descriptions of actual priestly rituals which were probably actually carried out (supposedly Samaritans still carry out some of them today).

This all basic stuff.

lol. yes, your belief that jesus was a "buddha" is basic stuff-basic stuff that 5 other people in the world believe. Come on man, you have some weird mishmash religion in your head that you think is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS and for whatever reason you see me as the opponent of that right now, but I'm not. As I said, I'm making a completely technical, psychological, academic point. Lots of "basic stuff" is wrong, anyways.

Whoeversmeltit

09-25-2009, 01:41 PM

Sainthood is also extrabiblical.

Explain. The Garden of Eden is just about falling.

Nope. My message is essentially positive--that even the most silly sounding fundamentalists, when it comes down to it, acts as a rationalist and thinks about the world using his or her human facility of reason and observation. This is an optimistic view of human nature--I see good where people present themselves as idiots. I never labeled anyone a hypocrite, nor did I call them non-Christian.

Do you think, when Jesus says that divorce = adultery and will bring you to hell, that he's just kidding? That he really means divorce is ok as long as you "reconcile" after? This isn't a matter of literalism--it's just a matter of taking the text in its own context and clear meaning, and not inventing new meanings because you prefer them. And the clear meaning of the words is that divorce is wrong. And if I thought God thought divorce was wrong, it would discourage me from doing it. It's really not that complicated.

It's also irrelevant to the conversation at hand. I'm sure you have some great demon you're arguing against who believes things just opposite of you, but he's not me, nor can I see him anywhere.

Um, nope. Leviticus looks very similar to other mideastern law codes, which were definitely not metaphors. So, no, a lot of the Bible was clearly meant as a literal law code for a certain population of people. And literal descriptions of actual priestly rituals which were probably actually carried out (supposedly Samaritans still carry out some of them today).

lol. yes, your belief that jesus was a "buddha" is basic stuff-basic stuff that 5 other people in the world believe. Come on man, you have some weird mishmash religion in your head that you think is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS and for whatever reason you see me as the opponent of that right now, but I'm not. As I said, I'm making a completely technical, psychological, academic point. Lots of "basic stuff" is wrong, anyways.

Christianity is a mechanism for reconciliation with God. Reconciliation presupposes original sin. Christians sin and disobey Biblical teachings all the time. And yet they are still Chrstians because they still have a chance to reconcile with God. This chance is made possible via Christ.

Christians fail and then are given the chance to reconcile. Again you only are looking at the sin part. You don't get it.

Realist

09-25-2009, 01:55 PM

Christianity is a mechanism for reconciliation with God. Reconciliation presupposes original sin. Christians sin and disobey Biblical teachings all the time. And yet they are still Chrstians because they still have a chance to reconcile with God. This chance is made possible via Christ.

Christians fail and then are given the chance to reconcile. Again you only are looking at the sin part. You don't get it.

You obviously completely misunderstand my point, as you did the last 10 times we discussed religion. You're like RG on global warming, you just refuse to get it no matter how many times I say it clear as possible.

Yet, I try again, hoping that this time, maybe, reason will get through to you. Maybe if I use bold? I'm not making a religious argument. I don't care about sin. My argument is extremely simple. If you believe that God doesn't like something, then you will try, maybe not succeed, but try, to do less of it. But there is no evidence that Christians as a class actually do this; that is, Christians don't use the Bible to find out what God doesn't like and then try not to do it. Therefore, they don't believe the Bible is the direct word of god. Reconciliation through Jesus is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

Whoeversmeltit

09-25-2009, 02:14 PM

You obviously completely misunderstand my point, as you did the last 10 times we discussed religion. You're like RG on global warming, you just refuse to get it no matter how many times I say it clear as possible.

Yet, I try again, hoping that this time, maybe, reason will get through to you. Maybe if I use bold? I'm not making a religious argument. I don't care about sin. My argument is extremely simple. If you believe that God doesn't like something, then you will try, maybe not succeed, but try, to do less of it. But there is no evidence that Christians as a class actually do this; that is, Christians don't use the Bible to find out what God doesn't like and then try not to do it. Therefore, they don't believe the Bible is the direct word of god. Reconciliation through Jesus is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

I GET YOUR STUPID POINT. Its just so stupid that I will not agree with it.

First, that you think Christ is irrelevant to the conversation about Christians' belief in God's desire based on Biblical text is retarded. Have you heard of the New Testament? Your stupid point seems to dismiss it as a relevant part of the Bible. How convenient for you. It allows you to say completely retarded things like how Christ is irrelevant to a convo about Christians failing to follow the Bible. This is telling because the only way your main point holds water is if the New Testament does not exist. Sorry to inform you that it does.

Next your main point is stupid because it is incomplete. You are only looking at sin. Sin which in your example sounds like, "trying do do less of that which God does not approve of" and then failing a that. Guess what, humans are weak and forgetful . . .just like Adam and Eve. But, CHRISTIANS ARE DEFINED BY THEIR RECONCILIATION PROCESS AFTER THEY SIN. If not, then they are not Christians. Christianity is a process that goes from sin to reconciliation. To ignore reconciliation as relevant means you depart from discussing Christianity.

Don't lump me in with RG. And last time we talked religion you proved nothing either so quit patting yourself on the back.

I find your smug tone laughable considering how stupid your point is.

Realist

09-25-2009, 02:27 PM

First, that you think Christ is irrelevant to the conversation about Christians' belief in God's desire based on Biblical text is retarded.

Never said that, RG. I only cited the New Testament until you started talking about the 10 commandments as a metaphor--my main example has been Jesus talking about divorce. Reread my earlier posts.

Next your main point is stupid because it is incomplete. You are only looking at sin. Sin which in your example sounds like, "trying do do less of that which God does not approve of" and then failing a that

Failing is one thing. Not trying is another. I've said this 100 times.

Don't lump me in with RG.

Why not? Completely ignoring nuance in the other person's argument, changing the subject and introducing non-sequitors and strawmen, these are all RG-tactics.

I find your smug tone laughable considering how stupid your point is.

If it's so stupid, you should try addressing it for once and ending it. Unlike you and RG, I won't continue to argue something once it has been shown to be false.

Whoeversmeltit

09-25-2009, 02:40 PM

Never said that, RG. I only cited the New Testament until you started talking about the 10 commandments as a metaphor--my main example has been Jesus talking about divorce. Reread my earlier posts.

Failing is one thing. Not trying is another. I've said this 100 times.

Why not? Completely ignoring nuance in the other person's argument, changing the subject and introducing non-sequitors and strawmen, these are all RG-tactics.

If it's so stupid, you should try addressing it for once and ending it. Unlike you and RG, I won't continue to argue something once it has been shown to be false.

Sinning (aka "failing to do less of that which God disapproves of") is not the end of the process for a Christian and does not signal lack of belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Truly one would act differently if God would manifest, but we talking about belief. Christians sin and then have a chance to reconcile. The process does not end at the sinning. If true belief in the Bible exists then there is chance for reconciliation via the New Testament. THat I have to point this out to you as such is so tiresome and goes to show that you really don't know what you are talking about. Don't blame me that point is lame and don't lump me in with others because of it. To ignore reconciliation and just claim non-belief in the Bible at the moment of sin IS FALSE BECAUSE DOING SO REQUIRES IGNORANCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, which seems to not be a problem for you.

meat.eater

09-25-2009, 02:54 PM

Ultimately sinning and reconciliation have nothing to do with Realist's point. Realist is saying that attempting to not sin (reconciliation is entirely negated if sin isn't even an issue--stop bringing it up) has very little value to Christians.

If what Realist was saying was false, Christians would always try to follow the word of God, and then sinning, and subsequently reconciliation, would never happen. But there is no evidence of this, which is why he's asserting the argument that Christians do not take the Bible as fact. He's not even saying "Christians fail at being Christians because they sin" which is what you're taking out of this; he's not making an argument about faith at all: he's making an argument entirely about humanity.

You're choosing to believe that every time a Christian sins they "fail" at being a good believer until they reconcile. Realist is saying that the notion of "not failing" (by your definition) isn't even apparent to Christians, it's just part of the process of what they do. If the notion of "not failing" were apparent to Christians, they would be trying much harder not to fail, of which there is no support for. So they probably don't follow the direct word of God.

Realist

09-25-2009, 02:55 PM

Sinning (aka "failing to do less of that which God disapproves of") is not the end of the process for a Christian and does not signal lack of belief that the Bible is the Word of God.

This is where we disagree. If my mom gave me advice that I didn't fully understand but I trusted her wisdom and experience, I would try to actively follow it and it would affect my behavior. I don't see how you can argue, psychologically, that people truly believe in something, yet it has no influence on their behavior until the point of reconciliation for failure to act on this belief. Now, the only way we are going to resolve this is to resort to non-religious analogues, since we clearly disagree on the religious case. What other situation is there in which a class of people has a strong belief about what they should do, and yet there is no significant effect of this belief on whether or not that class of people takes that action? uniq already gave the smoking example, which I think I demolished pretty effectively. So do you have a better example?
To ignore reconciliation and just claim non-belief in the Bible at the moment of sin IS FALSE BECAUSE DOING SO REQUIRES IGNORANCE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, which seems to not be a problem for you.

Keep in mind that the argument I'm making is statistical--that is, it's not that one person sins once therefore they can't believe in the Bible, it's that Christians as a class do not appear to be affected by the words of the Bible in ways that make them act closer (as a group, in a statistically significant sense) to how the Bible says to act. This is where nuance comes in. Quantitative thinking is another thing RG doesn't understand, I hope you have better abilities.

Whoeversmeltit

09-25-2009, 03:17 PM

This is where we disagree. If my mom gave me advice that I didn't fully understand but I trusted her wisdom and experience, I would try to actively follow it and it would affect my behavior. I don't see how you can argue, psychologically, that people truly believe in something, yet it has no influence on their behavior until the point of reconciliation for failure to act on this belief. Now, the only way we are going to resolve this is to resort to non-religious analogues, since we clearly disagree on the religious case. What other situation is there in which a class of people has a strong belief about what they should do, and yet there is no significant effect of this belief on whether or not that class of people takes that action? uniq already gave the smoking example, which I think I demolished pretty effectively. So do you have a better example?

Keep in mind that the argument I'm making is statistical--that is, it's not that one person sins once therefore they can't believe in the Bible, it's that Christians as a class do not appear to be affected by the words of the Bible in ways that make them act closer (as a group, in a statistically significant sense) to how the Bible says to act. This is where nuance comes in. Quantitative thinking is another thing RG doesn't understand, I hope you have better abilities.

Christians can believe in the Bible and fail to act on it and still believe that the Bible is the Word of God because people are forgetful and weak and the teachings of God are difficult to live up to even if you trust in God. That failure does not translate into lack of belief. In a way that failure is the launching point for reconciliation. With out the fall there is no getting up. Christians get up via confession and good acts. If you want a list of Christian good acts go look them up. The list of Christian hospital world wide is endless. Sure some of this is pure benevolence, but I'd argue that most are trying to make up for past sins. So I would say that Christians are indeed offered increased incentives (relative to pure belief ex ante sin) to act closer to how the Bible says to act AFTER THEY SIN by the promise of reconciliation. This is where nuance comes in that you don;t seem to grasp. Perhaps you don't have the quantitative skill necessary to count the number of Christian charities and hospitals on the planet.

But i hope you have the ability to use reason and count them up yourself as evidence of statistically significant group behavior.

Further, Christians do not hold that sinning means lack of belief. Lack of belief would classify the sin not as a sin but as something else entirely. A sin needs to be reconciled - this is a Christian belief as well. In your example you only consider beliefs ex ante sin. To you, ex post there is only psycological inconsistency. To Christian sinning takes place due to weakness or fogetfullness but not due to a loss of belief. Ex post, the Christian still believes and now has a powerful reminder of the need to do good in the world. Again, see hospitals and charities as a product of this.

You seem intent on debasing Christians as psychologically inconsistent. I would argue that real motivation comes after the sin and not before, especially for true believers. That is because Christians are in a world that is full of sin and are subject to human weakness as is anyone else. Yes they try to hold a difficult standard, and they fall over and over again. But belief is evident in that they keep getting up over and over again, count the hospitals if you don't believe me.

Realist

09-25-2009, 04:19 PM

Christians can believe in the Bible and fail to act on it and still believe that the Bible is the Word of God because people are forgetful and weak and the teachings of God are difficult to live up to even if you trust in God.

I'll (temporarily) grant you that point, but Christians as a population should still respond to what the Bible says to do in a detectable way, if they really believe the Bible as the word of god, even if we can point to individual cases where someone might not follow what they truly believed to be the word of god for individual reasons. The case of smoking is again analogous. I am sure that many people really truly believe that smoking is harmful to their health, yet remain smokers. Yet, there is no question that the population of smokers declined when the revelations about the health effects came up, because beliefs do have consequences. This method--of using population response as proxy for factors which are impossible to measure on an individual level--is the basis for all science other than the most straightforward physics and chemistry, and is the only way to address the question we are discussing at present.

But i hope you have the ability to use reason and count them up yourself as evidence of statistically significant group behavior.

The failure of this argument is that I never deny that Christians are affected by their religion. Christianity has many good and reasonable ideas which normal people do not reject. But, once can accept this without accepting that the entire book is the word of god. The relevant test of whether you believe a large book is whether you believe the most absurd parts of that book, or the parts which most go against how you would like to act. It is not very interesting to point out that Christians believe the easy stuff.

You seem intent on debasing Christians as psychologically inconsistent.

It's really not meant to be a debasement. Few people are honest or consistent about their beliefs. It is helpful to recognize this. For me, the question is mostly academic.

Whoeversmeltit

09-25-2009, 05:12 PM

I'll (temporarily) grant you that point, but Christians as a population should still respond to what the Bible says to do in a detectable way, if they really believe the Bible as the word of god, even if we can point to individual cases where someone might not follow what they truly believed to be the word of god for individual reasons. The case of smoking is again analogous. I am sure that many people really truly believe that smoking is harmful to their health, yet remain smokers. Yet, there is no question that the population of smokers declined when the revelations about the health effects came up, because beliefs do have consequences. This method--of using population response as proxy for factors which are impossible to measure on an individual level--is the basis for all science other than the most straightforward physics and chemistry, and is the only way to address the question we are discussing at present.

The failure of this argument is that I never deny that Christians are affected by their religion. Christianity has many good and reasonable ideas which normal people do not reject. But, once can accept this without accepting that the entire book is the word of god. The relevant test of whether you believe a large book is whether you believe the most absurd parts of that book, or the parts which most go against how you would like to act. It is not very interesting to point out that Christians believe the easy stuff.

It's really not meant to be a debasement. Few people are honest or consistent about their beliefs. It is helpful to recognize this. For me, the question is mostly academic.

Its obvious that you have no idea what the Good News is and its not my fault. Without consistency of belief there can be no reconciliation. The believer sins and recognizes the need to reconcile. I see consistency here. It would be inconsistent if the believer sinned and did not recognize the act. the church, prayer and the Bible are there to remind the believer in cases of forgetfulness or weakness. The remedy is reconciliation. This rememdy is available only if one believes. You don;t seem to see the totality of the process. You can only nick pick the steps along the way via what you call inconsistency. You have none of the poet in you because you do not see beauty in the sublime, you see the verse and miss the rhyme. I find you very intelligent but completely tone deaf to the beauty and power of religion. Some are able to not believe but grant the believer room to to search. You have no such grace. You seem focuesed only on the fall and don;t see it as a precurser and primer for the rise. Religion helps me to undertand people better, to explore you own failings and search for the ability to rise and forgive others for theirs. Again, you seems stuck on the failures. I think this is more a refelction of you and not the religion.

Realist

09-25-2009, 05:50 PM

I don't know who you're arguing against, RG, but it's certaintly not me, because that post of yours has absolutely zero to do with the one you're quoting. "Tone deaf to the beauty and power of religion" WTF? Did you not hear that the point I'm making is a purely academic one? We can discuss the "beauty and power of religion" if you'd like (though maybe not, if religion clouds your analytical abilities as much as it seems to) but it doesn't relate to the discussion at hand, which is really about how to measure and detect people's beliefs from behavior.

uniquinous

09-27-2009, 10:39 AM

hey what happened to my response? bah! i hate when I hit "preview" instead of submit.

basically, it just asked why you believe people don't go to the doctor or take medication they believe will keep them healthy. why they endure pain and illness instead of going to who they know will help them.

why don't people do the things they believe in otherwise?

TheSilverRider

11-17-2009, 11:07 AM

The Cheat

11-17-2009, 11:46 AM

why was this bumped?

/facepalm

TheSilverRider

11-21-2009, 07:40 PM

why was this bumped?

/facepalm

Less of a bump, more of a TSR has been ridiculously busy the last like year and had some time on his hand and wanted to pick things back up. I love the discussion in this thread.

Ächilles

11-21-2009, 08:08 PM

I just can't dig any sort of baseless empirical claim.

TheSilverRider

11-23-2009, 01:39 AM

I just can't dig any sort of baseless empirical claim.

Cant "dig" it? Okay.

Give me an example and ill discuss it with you.

Kyir

11-23-2009, 01:23 PM

Cant "dig" it? Okay.

Give me an example and ill discuss it with you.

What part of not digging it do you not understand?

He is not of the state of mind involving holes in the ground, and the movement of material that was previously occupying the space that is now empty.

uniquinous

11-23-2009, 01:30 PM

you want to deny proven science more? k, you start I'll catch up

Ächilles

11-23-2009, 03:47 PM

Cant "dig" it? Okay.

Give me an example and ill discuss it with you.

I did cite the example.

I just can't dig any sort of baseless empirical claim.

The Cheat

11-23-2009, 04:54 PM

Less of a bump, more of a TSR has been ridiculously busy the last like year and had some time on his hand and wanted to pick things back up. I love the discussion in this thread.

No one else likes it.
you want to deny proven science more? k, you start I'll catch up

This.

TheSilverRider

11-23-2009, 04:54 PM

you want to deny proven science more? k, you start I'll catch up

Thats just it, I am not quite sure where exactly to start. I am not quite sure where we left off or who was last...

Realist

11-23-2009, 05:03 PM

The Cheat

11-23-2009, 05:05 PM

uniquinous

11-23-2009, 05:09 PM

we're gonna need a really big hat...

The Cheat

11-23-2009, 05:13 PM

http://bp3.blogger.com/_p6TqhBe7UlU/R9yuLhvTQeI/AAAAAAAAEGw/PBsKAY6_hMw/s320/Mac2.jpg

IceNineKills

11-23-2009, 05:16 PM

There is no god.

The Cheat

11-23-2009, 05:17 PM

There is no god except Walken.

Yep.

Anarchy_United

11-23-2009, 06:43 PM

Yep.

Bah, don't demean Walken in such a manner.

The Cheat

11-23-2009, 07:36 PM

Bah, don't demean Walken in such a manner.

I wasn't.

I was telling the truth.

TheSilverRider

11-24-2009, 10:13 PM

Why don't you just pick one correct, proven scientific fact that you disagree with due to some words in a 2000 year old book? We can go from there. If there are too many proven scientific facts that contradict your superstitions to choose easily, just pick one randomly out of a hat.

With such preconceived conditions, what point is there to debating anything? I am not trying to change your life view, rather, simply trying to get you to give something else a chance. If you could 100% beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt prove the Bible wrong, I would understand, but you have yet to do so. Therefore I would just ask that you be open to what it has to say and WHY so many believe what it has to say.

Realist

11-24-2009, 10:22 PM

With such preconceived conditions, what point is there to debating anything?

There is very little point in debating proven facts. There is great utility in mocking foolishness, however.

The Cheat

11-24-2009, 10:53 PM

There is very little point in debating proven facts. There is great utility in mocking foolishness, however.

This.

There are MANY things proven to be wrong with the Bible.

TheSilverRider

12-02-2009, 02:43 PM

There is very little point in debating proven facts. There is great utility in mocking foolishness, however.

Such arrogance. I dont understand it, and I do not know why you think it is merited. I have never done anything similar in any of my discussions to this point. Therefore, I do not know why you would want to degrade your own intelligence level by doing so.

This.

There are MANY things proven to be wrong with the Bible.

Blanket statements with nothing behind them. Maybe your basing this off of my responses in the past, but I would hope not. If I accepted that as an adequate answer before, I apologize. Simply stating "There are MANY things proven to be wrong with the Bible." and not even stating one of them seems a bit ridiculous does it not? If there are so many things PROVEN to be wrong with the bible, then it would be incredibly easy to simply tag one on there, but you decided not to. Blanket statements like that do nothing for the discussion and do not help it progress in any way. Give an example, prove your point, don't just say it and expect everyone to accept it as fact.

The Cheat

12-02-2009, 02:54 PM

Whoeversmeltit

12-02-2009, 03:49 PM

Thats just it, I am not quite sure where exactly to start. I am not quite sure where we left off or who was last...

Why don't you start with Mark 10:27? With men all things are impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

That should tell you all you need to know about discussing your religion here.

burnout-278

12-02-2009, 05:15 PM

Read the sig

MokoToko

12-02-2009, 06:25 PM

You want to talk about your faith? Fine. Have it and have fun. Just don't do it in a public setting.

If they want to talk about it in thread on a public forum, then who are you to tell them otherwise?

If you don't want to argue/talk about religion then why even come into this thread?

-realist- Can you at least acknowledge the idea that religion gives people something that science cannot. What can you say about the comfort people get From believing in god?

Realist

12-02-2009, 07:01 PM

-realist- Can you at least acknowledge the idea that religion gives people something that science cannot. What can you say about the comfort people get From believing in god?

I don't care if people want to believe in imaginary things. Well, I'm interested in it and fascinated by the behavior, but I'm not bothered either way by the silly things people believe for comfort, whatever (obviously not all people need religion to provide comfort). If your imaginary beliefs cause you to deny science, however, you will look very foolish and ignorant to those of us who know something about the world. That's just reality.

MokoToko

12-02-2009, 07:41 PM

If you don't care what people believe in (outside of interest in behaviour) then why come into this thread and mock them?

Realist

12-02-2009, 07:53 PM

If you don't care what people believe in (outside of interest in behaviour) then why come into this thread and mock them?

I don't mock people's beliefs if they stick to matters of faith. If they make statements of (intended) fact, denying what has clearly been demonstrated to be true, then I will mock them, not because their stupid ideas are based on religion, but just because their ideas are stupid.

I have never once said someone shouldn't be a Christian though, or anything like that.

MokoToko

12-02-2009, 08:05 PM

I realize that, I never meant insinuate otherwise.

My meaning is, if someone is making such stupid statements, which you are absolutely sure are stupid, then what purpose is there to mock them?

I could understand trying to show them why their statements are stupid, but just telling them they are dumb has next to no benefit.

uniquinous

12-02-2009, 09:09 PM

-realist- Can you at least acknowledge the idea that religion gives people something that science cannot.
So does heroine. So does having a child. So does winning the lotto. What's your point?

Take the patient with chronic pain who can't seem to find relief by any doctor. However, they feel better when they take some obscure chinese herb. Now it could be some real effect on their pain, or it could be the placebo effect, or they could just be completely bonkers. Should doctors start prescribing that herbal supplement if it's already been thoroughly shown to be completely useless? More importantly: should anyone tell this person to stop taking it because of that?

Religion is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is when religious fanatics attempt to push their unfounded and/or disproved beliefs onto others. The largest societal impacts religion has had on history have been a suppression of seeking evidence-based truth (science) and human equality.

stem cell research
gay marriage
evolution
sex ed
abortion
right to death
(and these are just American issues)

These arguments tend to be ended with
-"here's the evidence that firmly supports this idea"
-"I'll pray for you"

If you want to use the crazy pills because it makes you feel better, go ahead. Just don't start prescribing it upon others.

3000 stat

12-02-2009, 09:39 PM

"Should doctors start prescribing that herbal supplement if it's already been thoroughly shown to be completely useless?"
Yes, it works for them
"More importantly: should anyone tell this person to stop taking it because of that?"
No, it works for them.

"stem cell research
gay marriage
evolution
sex ed
abortion
right to death
(and these are just American issues)

These arguments tend to be ended with
-"here's the evidence that firmly supports this idea"
-"I'll pray for you"

Although I support all those issues and definantly believe in evolution, spouting blanket statements suggesting all christians are socially conservative and not educated enough to accept evolution doesn't strengthen your stance at all. Actually the majority of christians I know are open-minded to these issues and say they hate the bad rap they get from a select few extreamists.

The only problem is when large churches pump money into politics where the honestly is no place for them. For example, I'm from maine a few churches in towns near by raised alot of money to support voting against allowing same sex marraige, and acting like everyone who went to that church shared there view. Even though the majority were for gay marriage and alot of people stopped going completly. So basicly the problem isn't with being a christian but with a few corrupt churches.

uniquinous

12-02-2009, 10:54 PM

"Should doctors start prescribing that herbal supplement if it's already been thoroughly shown to be completely useless?"
Yes, it works for themThis was in regards to other people. Should doctors start recommending this alternative treatment to everyone? Well, no, not if evidence shows it is useless to the general population.

suggesting all christians are socially conservative and not educated enough to accept evolution doesn't strengthen your stance at all.Please point out where I suggested that.

The problem is when religious fanatics attempt to push their unfounded and/or disproved beliefs onto others.The only problem is when large churches pump money into politics where the honestly is no place for them.
Glad you agree with the main point I made.

Realist

12-02-2009, 11:25 PM

My meaning is, if someone is making such stupid statements, which you are absolutely sure are stupid, then what purpose is there to mock them?

Because such stupidity has negative social and individual consequences.

CRX687

12-02-2009, 11:37 PM

Take the patient with chronic pain who can't seem to find relief by any doctor. However, they feel better when they take some obscure chinese herb. Now it could be some real effect on their pain, or it could be the placebo effect, or they could just be completely bonkers. Should doctors start prescribing that herbal supplement if it's already been thoroughly shown to be completely useless? More importantly: should anyone tell this person to stop taking it because of that?

Just a subpoint, I would say the doctor should (and real ones actually do) because there is a huge difference between placebo and useless. The brain and one's mental state and beliefs play a significant role in most pain cases and the placebo effect can heal just as well, if not better, than actual physical or chemical treatments in some cases. Remember the belief of being treated can affect body systems that you cannot consciously control (ie, blood pressure) and that is a large step above useless.

While you can argue there are alternatives, the key is still convincing the patient that alternative is better than what they're currently using, which is a challenge in an of itself. This is, of course, assuming all non-placebo treatments have been exhausted.

3000 stat

12-02-2009, 11:39 PM

stem cell research
gay marriage
evolution
sex ed
abortion
right to death
(and these are just American issues)

These arguments tend to be ended with
-"here's the evidence that firmly supports this idea"
-"I'll pray for you"

This definantly suggest a conection between religious people and being opposed to these ideas.

This is a silly thing to waste energy arguing over the internet though, If I mis-understood your post I'm sorry.

MokoToko

12-03-2009, 02:02 AM

uniq： my point is that religion does have real benefits to many people.

Real: if your purpose is to correct those problems (on an Internet forum) then immediately telling someone they are ridiculously ignorant of the truth (as true as it may be) will put them on the defensive. doesn't seem like an effcient method.

uniquinous

12-03-2009, 02:14 AM

While you can argue there are alternatives, the key is still convincing the patient that alternative is better than what they're currently using, which is a challenge in an of itself. This is, of course, assuming all non-placebo treatments have been exhausted.If the only benefit is placebo, then you can get that with "non-placebo" for serious treatments. If the patient just needs any pill, the one that works for most people happens to be pill. Recommending random herbs, especially when they have found to be useless in the overall population, is generally not a good idea.

This definantly suggest a conection between religious people and being opposed to these ideas.No, it suggests a connection between religious fanatics who ignore evidence for unsubstantiated blind faith and being opposed to... the ideas they're arguing against.

uniq： my point is that religion does have real benefits to many people.
so does heroine. so does having a child. so does winning the lotto. I'm sorry to grill you like this but... again, what's your point?

MokoToko

12-03-2009, 02:18 AM

Uniq: well, I guess if we were in the heroin, child bearing or lotto thread and people were saying how terrible they were, then I would point out that all three have real benefits to many people. Seeing as we are in the christian thread...

uniquinous

12-03-2009, 02:25 AM

ok but the two main points that are being made are
1) recommending (or worse yet, forcing) an intervention that works well for one person onto others based on limited personal experience and not supported by any evidence should be avoided
2) just because an intervention happens to have a benefit does not mean it is beneficial, as the negative aspects of it can create an overall bad setup and outcome.

MokoToko

12-03-2009, 02:35 AM

I'll agree with both of those ideas. People shouldn't be forced into religion.

If the benefits of something don't outweigh the negative aspects then it isn't a benefit to society.

I don't admit that religions benefits are outweighed by the negative aspects.

TheSilverRider

12-03-2009, 08:38 AM

I have taken two courses on the Bible, seen many history programs, and read several articles that prove my "blanket" statement.

It has been my experience that "debates" like this is pointless. One side there are people like me who look at the historical proof and other like you look only at the "proof" of things.

Both sides have good points and bad flaws. But one thing is for sure, neither side ever backs down and no one ever "wins."

You either have faith or you don't. Simple enough. I have danced this dance many times in the past and I'd rather not get back into it again.

You want to talk about your faith? Fine. Have it and have fun. Just don't do it in a public setting.

Final point: The Bible does have some intersting things to say. But to take it as 100% fact, that is just silly.

I am no atheist (not sure what I am anymore) but I find myself getting more and more annoyed with religion as I grow older.

Interesting points and I am actually excited to read some of that. The simple fact that you acknowledge that the Bible has valid points and that BOTH have "flaws" makes me happy. You are the very first person here to acknowledge that the "proven, set in stone, concrete, fact science method" has faults. But I must disagree with your point that the Bible has faults. You "addressed" the issue of your blanket statement but did not "fix" it as you still gave no specific examples.

I agree that "debates" here are pointless, in a way. Nobody is ever going to completely transfer their beliefs based on things said here (barring a miracle), but that is not to say it does not makes certain people think. I have received several PM's about this thread and people asking more questions about it in a private setting. Maybe this discussion isn't for you, but for someone else? And someone seeing what we are writing makes them think about what is going to happen to them after they die?

As for the section in red.....i couldnt disagree more. What kind of faith is a faith that you cant talk about in a public setting? That would hardly be faith at all now would it? Maybe our definitions of faith are completely different, but I do not see how that is faith.

Final point: The Bible does have some intersting things to say. But to take it as 100% fact, that is just silly.

Again, a blanket statement of sorts. You give no merit to why it is silly, you just state that it is. Why is it silly to take it as 100% fact if it has yet to be proven wrong? If it has prophecies that are being fulfilled?

I removed the last picture due to the fact that it was completely pointless.

ok but the two main points that are being made are
1) recommending (or worse yet, forcing) an intervention that works well for one person onto others based on limited personal experience and not supported by any evidence should be avoided
2) just because an intervention happens to have a benefit does not mean it is beneficial, as the negative aspects of it can create an overall bad setup and outcome.

Interesting points uniq, and welcome back. I would like to address these points if you dont mind.

1) If you recall (in my younger, very incredibly naive days), I started this thread as a place for Christians to come together and talk about verses and such. I dont quite remember exacly, but it was in no way "forcing" my religion on anyone. I am sorry if you feel attacked by having this thread on this forum, but you never were forced to be here or even click on the topic. So if your talking about here, that does not apply.

Now, as for elsewhere in the world, I would like you to give specific examples. If someone says something that I dont agree with about my faith, sure, I will defend it. Just like if someone said your car was a v6 when it really was a v8 hemi, sure, you would correct them. Does that mean your forcing everyone to get a v8 hemi? No. Your stating your engine and correcting people if they describe it or define it incorrectly. Make sense? If you feel pressured by what I believe, I am not really sure that is my fault, but rest assured my intention here is in no way to "force" the Bible upon you. Rather, I would like to see thought given to the points made here that we might have an educated discussion about what we each believe and have FAITH in.

2) I would love to see your list of "negative aspects" of the Bible. What are negative aspects or the "side-effects" if you will (staying with the medication theme) of the Bible. If it is beneficial to some, couldnt it be beneficial to all? Why or why not? If in the news they announced a drug that came out that would increase your lifespan by 10 years guaranteed, free, and absolutely ZERO side-effects, wouldnt you try it? Why or why not?

I do feel silly staying with this analogy of medicine and all, seems to change things a bit. Basically, what I am trying to say, is if the Bible required everyone to chop off their right arm to be saved and go to heaven after they die, I would understand the negative aspects there. Or if after believing in the Bible it requires you to never own anything and live in poverty and die of starvation to go to heaven then fine, obvious negative aspects. But it does none of those. It simply requires a request for forgiveness. It shows that all have sinned, need Christ, He died for us to go to heaven sinless, spend eternity with him. No negatives.

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Romans 6:23a "...The wages of sin is death..."

Romans 6:23b "...But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 5:8, "God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us!"

Romans 10:13 "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved!"

Romans 10:9,10 "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

The Cheat

12-03-2009, 09:49 AM

. But I must disagree with your point that the Bible has faults.

Why is it silly to take it as 100% fact if it has yet to be proven wrong? If it has prophecies that are being fulfilled?

I couldn't find a facepalm picture epic enough.

I take it that you are saying there is NO faults in the book at all. You kidding me?
I spent a year of college in religon classes, taught by a professor who has been a preacher for 50 years and the entire class was pointing out the faults of the bible by looking at it histoically and logically (ex Paul who ever he was, didn't write as much of the New Test as people credit him with). He did tell us that the Bible still has good advice but to take it 100% as a perfect book? Crazy.

The Bible wasn't a fax from God. Man wrote it. Period. As a history major, I have studied how the Chruch as changed the meaning of several things over time.

Ex: Coffee used to be "evil" since it came from Muslims. Then a pope tried it, liked it, and then said it would be ok to drink coffee so long as he "blessed" the beans.

In the Old Test, it says it is ok to go outside and stone a woman. If the Bible is 100% fact, why don't people do this today?

Ex: Paul wrote that marrage was good and men should rule over women etc. Funny thing: he was never married as far as we know.

Next point: The Bible says that none of the disciples were married or had families. Does that mean they NEVER married or had families? Of course they probably did. But since it wasn't mentioned that does mean they never hooked up with some one?

Many of the "christain" ideas were created in like of the Pagan ideas being destroyed. Chruch services on SUNday (the day of worship to the sun), Christmas, Dec 25 is a Roman Pagan festival.

Jesus would not have been born on Dec 25 or in the winter. More than likely he would have been born something around march.

There are no historical documents that ever mention Jesus. There are no documents that mention a census/tax call (the reason Mary and Joseph went to Bethlaham *sp*).

Many translations over time change the true meaning of certain words.

Unless you want to be like these people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_conservative_bible

Is science 100% perfect? No. Is faith 100% perfect? No.

If you have faith, fine. No problem with that. But to go around and deny that faith (ANY FAITH) has any faults? That is just plain stupid.

Like I said, it has been a few years since I studied this stuff. If you want to learn more, read a book by Bart Ehrman.

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

Oh and most of the creation stories (the garden, Noah's ark, the flood) are myths that predate the Bible being written. Those myths came from a much older time period.

I am no expert on this subject and I'd personally do not want to get involved in this again. If faith makes you happy, great. Power to you. i got no issue with that.

But to say that faith, the bible and whatnot is 100% perfect? Come on man...

uniquinous

12-03-2009, 10:34 AM

ah TSR, once again you use large stretches of the imagination to pull forth points which were never made, twisting what was actually said to defend against a straw man argument.

1) No where did I say that creating a thread to discuss your ideas, nor defending religious ideas you felt were incorrect was forcing your religion on others. I have pointed out several times in these recent posts how people force their beliefs through law and politics. Scroll up and read the list of ethical debates that have recently been impeded by religion in the US.

2) Ignorance. Flat out hindrance to society. Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's just say that there happened to be a group that believed using any type of automobile could deteriorate a person's soul over time. OK, no issue if they want to avoid that transport. What if a law was passed in your city that banned all cars and paved roads? What would you be thinking?

A-99

12-03-2009, 10:41 AM

OK, no issue if they want to avoid that transport. What if a law was passed in your city that banned all cars and paved roads? What would you be thinking?

Lol, I'm not going to argue for or against either of you guys but this analogy is pretty bad.

uniquinous

12-03-2009, 10:53 AM

Yes, it is, for a reason. thanks for your contribution to the thread

A-99

12-03-2009, 10:58 AM

No I mean that your entire analogy is flawed. Assuming the one would get have the authority to pass a law to ban cars is pretty foolish as their whole life would have been dramatically dependent on cars. Everything they did and everyone they met would have had been based on technology.

TheSilverRider

12-03-2009, 11:42 AM

Great response. I enjoy these conversations and I enjoyed reading your response. Sorry for my statement earlier, I am not sure why i said the Bible has faults as i dont believe it does. Anyway, lets break this down and I will respond to each thing separately.

I couldn't find a facepalm picture epic enough.

I take it that you are saying there is NO faults in the book at all. You kidding me?
I spent a year of college in religon classes, taught by a professor who has been a preacher for 50 years and the entire class was pointing out the faults of the bible by looking at it histoically and logically (ex Paul who ever he was, didn't write as much of the New Test as people credit him with). He did tell us that the Bible still has good advice but to take it 100% as a perfect book? Crazy.

I do take it 100% as a "perfect" book as you will. I see no fault in it, and I see it predicts the future. I see that inspired men of God wrote it and it has in it what God wants us to know.

The Bible wasn't a fax from God. Man wrote it. Period. As a history major, I have studied how the Chruch as changed the meaning of several things over time.

Ex: Coffee used to be "evil" since it came from Muslims. Then a pope tried it, liked it, and then said it would be ok to drink coffee so long as he "blessed" the beans.

Of course its not. Never said that it was. Man did write it, your correct. We see that in the fact that Luke's writings are much different from the other scholars who penned the Bible simply because he was a doctor and his writings were as such. That said, these men were inspired by God (God breathed) to write what they wrote. They were not making this up on their own.

2 Tim 3:16
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

Secondly, dont equate my belief's to the pope. The pope is a self elected, leader who completely manipulates the Bible for his benefit. I am not Catholic. In any way, shape or form. I am a Christian (as distorted as that term is today) a Biblicist if you will. I believe in the Bible, and Jesus Christ the Son of God.

In the Old Test, it says it is ok to go outside and stone a woman. If the Bible is 100% fact, why don't people do this today?

Ex: Paul wrote that marrage was good and men should rule over women etc. Funny thing: he was never married as far as we know.

This is the age old argument against the Bible. I honestly am tired of it, but time and time and time and time again the #1 reason for people debasing the Bible is because of what is written in the Old Testament and why aren't we doing those things today. And again, I will tell you that is part of the old law that was done away with when Christ did his work on the cross to pay for our sins.

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; (NASB)

Rom 6:14-15 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! (NASB)

Next point: The Bible says that none of the disciples were married or had families. Does that mean they NEVER married or had families? Of course they probably did. But since it wasn't mentioned that does mean they never hooked up with some one?

Many of the "christain" ideas were created in like of the Pagan ideas being destroyed. Chruch services on SUNday (the day of worship to the sun), Christmas, Dec 25 is a Roman Pagan festival.

I do not know enough about Sunday to know why we have church on that day, but I do know in the Bible times it was on Saturday (day of rest) to take to worship the creator. As for CHRISTmas, December 25 is not recognized as the day of Christ's birth. Ask any knowledgeable believer, we know its not the actual day of his birth, but we choose that day to celebrate it.

Jesus would not have been born on Dec 25 or in the winter. More than likely he would have been born something around march.

True.

There are no historical documents that ever mention Jesus. There are no documents that mention a census/tax call (the reason Mary and Joseph went to Bethlaham *sp*).

Pretty sure the Biblical texts mention him several times and those are historical documents are they not?

Many translations over time change the true meaning of certain words.

Unless you want to be like these people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_conservative_bible

I believe this is to an extent true. I do however, know that my God is sovereign and will preserve his Word as he sees fit. I have FAITH in Him to do so.

Is science 100% perfect? No. Is faith 100% perfect? No.

Faith can be 100% perfect depending on what you place that faith in. If you place it in something that is based on a written document that has yet to be proven wrong, then I would say you have a pretty darn good chance.

If you have faith, fine. No problem with that. But to go around and deny that faith (ANY FAITH) has any faults? That is just plain stupid.

Like I stated before, what kind of faith is that? How about this, when you sit down in a chair, you have faith that that chair is going to hold your weight and you will be able to sit in it comfortably without any problems. Now, that is 100% faith. No doubt about it. Are you saying, that I need to sit down in the chair fully knowing that at any moment it may collapse or move or break? And the entire time im sitting I should be wondering if it will hold me? No. Same thing. Faith in God and the Bible is an undying faith, an unwavering faith, a "perfect" faith if you will in that I believe 100% for it to be true. And essentially, that equates to TRUE faith.

Like I said, it has been a few years since I studied this stuff. If you want to learn more, read a book by Bart Ehrman.

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

I appreciate you acknowledging that it has been a while and your not an expert and I would be right there with you to acknowledge the exact same thing. I am no expert on the matter, but I do know what i believe. I will definitely look into that book and see what it has to say.

Oh and most of the creation stories (the garden, Noah's ark, the flood) are myths that predate the Bible being written. Those myths came from a much older time period.

Here ya went again with the blanket statements. They are not myths, science does point to a large flood explaining the formations we have today. The continents can fit together very well signifying that it could have been one land mass that was the garden before the flood, blah blah blah, it goes on. Dont blanket statement things.

I am no expert on this subject and I'd personally do not want to get involved in this again. If faith makes you happy, great. Power to you. i got no issue with that.

But to say that faith, the bible and whatnot is 100% perfect? Come on man...

Refer to above about the expert thing. Faith does make me happy, because it fills the hole inside me. I dont search for anything anymore, I dont look for something to fufill because Jesus already does that in me. I know where I'm going after I die, do you? Are you sure? How do you know?

TheSilverRider

12-03-2009, 11:50 AM

Sorry for double post, its too long....

ah TSR, once again you use large stretches of the imagination to pull forth points which were never made, twisting what was actually said to defend against a straw man argument.

1) No where did I say that creating a thread to discuss your ideas, nor defending religious ideas you felt were incorrect was forcing your religion on others. I have pointed out several times in these recent posts how people force their beliefs through law and politics. Scroll up and read the list of ethical debates that have recently been impeded by religion in the US.

2) Ignorance. Flat out hindrance to society. Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's just say that there happened to be a group that believed using any type of automobile could deteriorate a person's soul over time. OK, no issue if they want to avoid that transport. What if a law was passed in your city that banned all cars and paved roads? What would you be thinking?

Uniq, I am a little disappointed with the presuppositions you have about my posts and I hope you will give them more merit in the future.

1) I never said you stated I or my belief's were attacking you. Those "ethical" debates are things that we believe are wrong and sure we will speak up against them. This is America, we have that right. If we believe abortion is murder, do we not have the right to say so and protest? If we believe that there is no such thing as a "gay gene" and homosexuality is wrong because the Bible and God directly say so, do we not have a right to protest it and say that we believe its wrong? This is America, we are free, free to express our beliefs. Now if you feel pressured by that, im sorry again, I really dont think thats my issue.

2) No "lets just say" is necessary here Uniq. There are plenty of things like that. There called cults. Do they last? Sure. Somewhere far far away in places nobody knows about with fanatics that are crazy as it is. Something like that belief would not last due to the society that we live in. Do you not see why that makes Christianity and the Bible so special? You almost prove a point for me on this one. Christianity has stood the test of time and culture change and all of the above because it does not require such outrageous things such as that. My belief requires no such ignorance as you speak. Rather, being very observant of our surrounding and taking EVERYTHING back to the Bible and God's Word and Jesus' example to us and how they weight out.

Also, I am not quite sure how "ignorance" is a negative to society or a "side-effect". If people are ignorant of like holding open a door for women as a common courtesy thats one thing, but what exactly are you deeming ignorance? It almost seems that you are declaring that everyone who does not agree with your list of "ethical debates" and take your side on it is ignorant? and as such, needs to rethink their world view? Woah, I would be extremely careful there uniq, you are treading on incredibly pompous and prideful ground.

The Cheat

12-03-2009, 11:54 AM

In the realm of history, the Bible is not considered to be a Historical document.

I meant that no source outside of the Bible mentions Jesus at all.

TheSilverRider

12-03-2009, 12:01 PM

In the realm of history, the Bible is not considered to be a Historical document.

I meant that no source outside of the Bible mentions Jesus at all.

"In the realm of history".....

I dont really know how to respond to that. Of course the bible is considered a historical document? I think even uniq would attest to that. The debated part is whether or not God wrote it. I believe he inspired men to write it, other people just think men wrote it. I dont really understand where you determine the entire realm of history and what is or is not considered historical...

Most notably Josephus and Tacitus. Pilot wrote some letters too.

I found a Yahoo question that might interest you...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080612050321AAp9n9I

GetMeABook

12-03-2009, 12:26 PM

"In the realm of history".....

I dont really know how to respond to that. Of course the bible is considered a historical document? I think even uniq would attest to that. The debated part is whether or not God wrote it. I believe he inspired men to write it, other people just think men wrote it. I dont really understand where you determine the entire realm of history and what is or is not considered historical...

Most notably Josephus and Tacitus. Pilot wrote some letters too.

I found a Yahoo question that might interest you...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080612050321AAp9n9I

indeed if you scroll down its quite interesting how that yahoo answers question totally debunks your statement and how the writings you are referring to were debunked as forgeries or have only minimal credibility.

next time actually learn about the things you are saying and please be sure to look at more than yahoo answers before making an argument by ethos.

thanks a lot.

Whoeversmeltit

12-03-2009, 01:48 PM

Serge

12-03-2009, 02:43 PM

"In the realm of history".....

I dont really know how to respond to that. Of course the bible is considered a historical document? I think even uniq would attest to that. The debated part is whether or not God wrote it. I believe he inspired men to write it, other people just think men wrote it. I dont really understand where you determine the entire realm of history and what is or is not considered historical...

Most notably Josephus and Tacitus. Pilot wrote some letters too.

I found a Yahoo question that might interest you...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080612050321AAp9n9I
There's also the whole problem of whether or not it was written when it is claimed to have been written. How much has been changed. And like TC said, it refers to things that there is no evidence of outside of the bible.

I'malive24/7

12-03-2009, 03:06 PM

TSR's opinion that the Bible is a 100% factual book is extremely intriguing.

My father is a Minister of the United Methodist Church, and preaches often about stories in the bible, saying that they are just that - stories. He says that many stories in the bible (for example, Adam and Eve) are simply parables in order to get across certain points.

uniquinous

12-03-2009, 04:09 PM

1) I never said you stated I or my belief's were attacking you.Nor did I claim such a thing either. This is the second completely made up reaction you've had to my posts. I have never even remotely insinuated that I feel attacked, nor that I feel forced to read this, and yet you made each of those claims in your previous two responses to me. After the first time, I asked you where you were getting these notions. You seemed to have ignored that question to make up a similar but different ridiculous reaction. Again I ask: where are you getting the idea that I feel attacked? Where are you getting the idea that I feel you are forcing anything upon others in this thread?

TSR]Those "ethical" debates are things that we believe are wrong and sure we will speak up against them. This is America, we have that right. If we believe abortion is murder, do we not have the right to say so and protest? If we believe that there is no such thing as a "gay gene" and homosexuality is wrong because the Bible and God directly say so, do we not have a right to protest it and say that we believe its wrong? This is America, we are free, free to express our beliefs.There's this misconception that all opinions are created equal. They're not. There are evidence based conclusions that directly contradict a lot of your opinions. The negative side effect is not what you believe, it's how a group pushes those beliefs onto others. If you want to see a society that is able to (in general) hold strong to their beliefs and not push them upon others, go spend some time with the Amish. They may not use modern technology because of their beliefs, but do you see them urging politicians to make laws restricting it for everyone else?

2) No "lets just say" is necessary here Uniq. There are plenty of things like that. There called cults. Do they last? Sure. Somewhere far far away in places nobody knows about with fanatics that are crazy as it is. Something like that belief would not last due to the society that we live in. Do you not see why that makes Christianity and the Bible so special? You almost prove a point for me on this one. Christianity has stood the test of time and culture changeSo has herpes. But the fact is, Christianity changes with cultural change. To claim it's exactly the same is foolish. You say that crazy beliefs and belief systems don't last. Are you overlooking the fact that the church believed that the earth was flat? That people believed the sun and stars revolved around man? These were claimed "because the bible said so". We look back now and laugh, as EVIDENCE has disproven them.

We are now in a time when evidence has similarly disproven creationism as a literal story. There's similarly a reason why it is no longer taught in public schools. These silly short-sighted theories *don't* stand the test of time. Christianity just changes. People in the future claim "oh those previous Christians just had it wrong - they were reading it wrong - they didn't *really* understand". You, TSR, will be written off by future generations as misinterpreting the bible due to undeniable truths that contradict your current beliefs just as Christians in every era have been.

To demonstrate my point, I'm going to build off something Cheat brought up earlier: brutality to women/slaves. You stated this wasn't valid because it was old law that has been done away with. Let's just say you happen to be alive before Jesus's time, yet you still have your current ethical ideas. slavery is acceptable to you? Beating your wife is ok because Jesus hasn't died for your sins yet?

For someone who cries about their American rights, tell me on what universe is it ever ethically acceptable to beat, torture, or kill people for such things as working on the day of rest, planting different crops next to each other, or wearing garments of different threads? You can say "well it doesn't apply now" all you want, but tell me why you believe these things were EVER ethically acceptable.

Also, I am not quite sure how "ignorance" is a negative to society or a "side-effect". If people are ignorant of like holding open a door for women as a common courtesy thats one thing, but what exactly are you deeming ignorance? Ignoring evidence based reason and scientific fact to further an uneducated opinion is what I am deeming ignorance. Hand-waiving to claim "science isn't right" because you either 1) aren't smart enough to understand it, 2) claim that "faith in science" is equal to religious faith, or 3) can't actually find something wrong with it is also pretty ignorant.

Propagating ignorance is a detriment to society in a number of ways, including the prevention of progress (e.g. banning stem cell research), spreading misinformation (e.g. trying to teach anything other than evolution in the classroom), denying human equality (e.g. preventing gay marriage), and creating panic that can cause health risks to the population (e.g. starting rumors that childhood vaccines cause autism).

Dour

12-03-2009, 09:47 PM

uniq's just mad he will die, and that's it.

I can just see him say:

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

The Cheat

12-03-2009, 10:01 PM

uniq's just mad he will die, and that's it.

I can just see him say:

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

I read that poem the other day.

I hate poetry but enjoyed that work.

TheSilverRider

12-04-2009, 12:32 PM

Nor did I claim such a thing either. This is the second completely made up reaction you've had to my posts. I have never even remotely insinuated that I feel attacked, nor that I feel forced to read this, and yet you made each of those claims in your previous two responses to me. After the first time, I asked you where you were getting these notions. You seemed to have ignored that question to make up a similar but different ridiculous reaction. Again I ask: where are you getting the idea that I feel attacked? Where are you getting the idea that I feel you are forcing anything upon others in this thread?

You mention pretty often when referring to my beliefs about a belief that "forces its beliefs on society". That is where I got that from. I am trying to understand how you deem that Christianity forces its religion on others. See below the red for an example...

There's this misconception that all opinions are created equal. They're not. There are evidence based conclusions that directly contradict a lot of your opinions. The negative side effect is not what you believe, it's how a group pushes those beliefs onto others. If you want to see a society that is able to (in general) hold strong to their beliefs and not push them upon others, go spend some time with the Amish. They may not use modern technology because of their beliefs, but do you see them urging politicians to make laws restricting it for everyone else?

And that is fine, but I am not Amish. We live in America. (I feel like a broken record). We are fully within our rights to debate and protest what we do not agree with. I dont understand why you complain about that "pushes" our beliefs on all society. So again, I will ask YOU, how do we "push" our beliefs on others? By disagreeing? Sorry, thats our right. If you dont want people to disagree or protest, go to a communist country, not America.

So has herpes. But the fact is, Christianity changes with cultural change. To claim it's exactly the same is foolish. You say that crazy beliefs and belief systems don't last. Are you overlooking the fact that the church believed that the earth was flat? That people believed the sun and stars revolved around man? These were claimed "because the bible said so". We look back now and laugh, as EVIDENCE has disproven them.

Who is "the" church? Thats generalizing, and I am NOT Catholic. Could you be more specific on how "Christianity changes with cultural change"?

We are now in a time when evidence has similarly disproven creationism as a literal story. There's similarly a reason why it is no longer taught in public schools. These silly short-sighted theories *don't* stand the test of time. Christianity just changes. People in the future claim "oh those previous Christians just had it wrong - they were reading it wrong - they didn't *really* understand". You, TSR, will be written off by future generations as misinterpreting the bible due to undeniable truths that contradict your current beliefs just as Christians in every era have been.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
Intelligent design in public schools.

Christianity does not change. I dont understand where you are getting that information. Like I stated before, please dont equate my beliefs to those of Catholic origin. I am not a Catholic.

To demonstrate my point, I'm going to build off something Cheat brought up earlier: brutality to women/slaves. You stated this wasn't valid because it was old law that has been done away with. Let's just say you happen to be alive before Jesus's time, yet you still have your current ethical ideas. slavery is acceptable to you? Beating your wife is ok because Jesus hasn't died for your sins yet?

For someone who cries about their American rights, tell me on what universe is it ever ethically acceptable to beat, torture, or kill people for such things as working on the day of rest, planting different crops next to each other, or wearing garments of different threads? You can say "well it doesn't apply now" all you want, but tell me why you believe these things were EVER ethically acceptable.

This is the part I really wanted to get to. Like I stated in a previous post to Cheat, I get this all the time and it is the age old discussion that is brought up. You do however, bring up a very intriguing point, misled as it may be.

Nowhere in the Bible does it merit you "beating" you wife. Its all about the culture and time period. At that time, slavery was accepted. It was a modern way of life. You were no there to experience the culture to make an education assumption as to how things were at that time. All of the things I assume you are referring to are punishments for things that would be wrong even today.

Ok, lets take today for example. There are still cultures that do this. Today, right now, if a child is caught stealing in Iran, his hand is run over by a car. Now, is that ethical? We, in our society would say no. But, I challenge you to think about what goes through a child's head when they think about stealing. It is a punishment.

Another example, I was watching police videos a while back and it showed a comparison of two almost identical bank robberies. One happened in Russia and one in the USA. Now, there was a stark difference between the two. In the USA video, the robbers ran outside to cops with guns pointed at them. They stood there for about 3 seconds then ran away. The cops got in their cars to chase them down. In the Russian one, the robbers came outside to cops with their guns pointed at them. IMMEDIATELY they hit the ground and put their hands on their heads. Why you ask? Because they knew that if they ran, they would be shot. Do you understand that? It is perceived as unethical today for a police officer to shoot someone without being shot at first, but the exact same thing is perfectly fine in Russia. Its culture. In Biblical times, they knew the punishments for what they were doing. They were fully aware. Never does the Bible permit unmerited punishment for anything. It does not say "Go beat your wife". So I ask you to consider if these PUNISHMENTS truly are as ridiculous as you perceive them to be.

Ignoring evidence based reason and scientific fact to further an uneducated opinion is what I am deeming ignorance. Hand-waiving to claim "science isn't right" because you either 1) aren't smart enough to understand it, 2) claim that "faith in science" is equal to religious faith, or 3) can't actually find something wrong with it is also pretty ignorant.

Propagating ignorance is a detriment to society in a number of ways, including the prevention of progress (e.g. banning stem cell research), spreading misinformation (e.g. trying to teach anything other than evolution in the classroom), denying human equality (e.g. preventing gay marriage), and creating panic that can cause health risks to the population (e.g. starting rumors that childhood vaccines cause autism).

Again, I challenge you to be careful where you tread. Who are you to deem that anyone who challenges your beliefs or what you consider to be "evidence" is a "prevention of progress"? Do we not find our greatest inventions and discoveries by people disputing against them and them coming out on top? If nobody spoke against it, only the people who are doing it would believe it. If you proves itself against so many disbelievers and still remains true and proven, then, and only then, do you have something people will truly follow. Which is what you have in the Holy Bible.

GetMeABook

12-04-2009, 12:40 PM

refusing marriage to homosexuals. refusing stem cell research.

KILLING doctors who do abortions.

in addition the protestants SPLIT OFF the catholic church. do you know any history at all. there WERE NO PROTESTANTS at the start of christianity. so clearly the whole religion changes with time.

you cannot claim it doesnt change because the evidence is quite clear. your religion changed over time period. doesnt matter what denomination you are. in fact the mere existence of denominations proves the argument.

the fact that you are not catholic or orthodox proves that the religion has changed. in a sense you are the refutation of your own argument.

uniquinous

12-04-2009, 02:04 PM

You mention pretty often when referring to my beliefs about a belief that "forces its beliefs on society". That is where I got that from. And nowhere have I stated that this thread does such a thing. I have been pretty clear that these referrals have been in regard to politics and social policy.

And that is fine, but I am not Amish. We live in America. (I feel like a broken record). We are fully within our rights to debate and protest what we do not agree with. I dont understand why you complain about that "pushes" our beliefs on all society. So again, I will ask YOU, how do we "push" our beliefs on others? By disagreeing? No, by being flat out 100% wrong about factual information. By propagating ignorance at a detriment to society. The Amish live in America too. The point is that they have no reason to push their beliefs onto others. If someone in excruciating pain with no chance of long term survival or improvement to their quality of life wishes to die, what difference is it to you? You keep talking about "ITS MY RIGHT!!!" What gives you the right to make moral decisions for this person, especially if it disagrees with medical professionals with an education in the field? Why do you believe it should be acceptable for religious fanatics to try and take away that person's medical decision making capabilities? Because they have the "right" to express their personal beliefs onto politicians to restrict the rights of other people? If you want to talk about right to your own opinion, then why are those opinions a detriment to other people's opinions? Do they not have a right to their own opinion?

Who is "the" church? Thats generalizing, and I am NOT Catholic. Could you be more specific on how "Christianity changes with cultural change"?Replace it with "all of Christianity" if you'd like, as all Christian sects at that time believed the earth was flat "because the bible says so". As GetMeABook mentioned, the fact that there are sects directly shows that your religion has changed with culture. If you want to make the claim that the true correct religion is the one that survived the longest, it would be the Roman Catholic Church, which you seem to adamantly distance yourself from. (Although you could make the same claim about Judaism in the same vein, or earlier unrelated religions like Hinduism, which both clearly stood the test of time longer than your recently created sect of Christianity)

http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
Intelligent design in public schools.That's not intelligent design in public schools. That's a book on how to teach intelligent design in public schools. It's not actually used in public schools. In fact, these types of things have been outright banned in classrooms across America

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4545822.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/569313.stm

Nowhere in the Bible does it merit you "beating" you wife. Its all about the culture and time period.
Sorry, it says publicly torture until dead:
"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

Let's look at beating:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave ... survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." The slave doesn't even need to do anything wrong. The master could just enjoy beating people, as they are "his own property".

The bible makes it abundantly clear that women are not equal to men. Again: why are these things ethically acceptable if no one died for people's sins yet?

At that time, slavery was accepted. It was a modern way of life.And yet you avoid the question: why is it that you believe slavery (or beating slaves) is ethically acceptable under any condition? The bible flat out dictates slave law and endorses it. So, tell me why it was ethically fine before Jesus died. Why was it ever acceptable to sell your daughter in to slavery? Burning people at the stake due to sexual acts? Death for working on the sabbath, wearing garments of two threads, cursing parents, blaspheming (there goes that "free speech" thing you like so much). Why were these ever condoned and seen as moral obligations?

You've still not answered this question. You've pointed to other cultures and said "well they think it's ok". I'm asking you, not Russian police at a bank robery. I'm asking you how you can condone these actions as moral obligations. You claim the bible is law from a timeless deity; you claim your religion and the laws of your religion do not change with culture and time; and yet you claim these laws from your deity were acceptable because of the time period.

Do we not find our greatest inventions and discoveries by people disputing against them and them coming out on top?Our greatest inventions and discoveries come from research, which can't happen if research is BANNED. THAT is prevention of progress, not challenges to my ideas.

If nobody spoke against it, only the people who are doing it would believe it. If you proves itself against so many disbelievers and still remains true and proven, then, and only then, do you have something people will truly follow.Which is the scientific method and peer reviewed journal publications. That's the process. Galileo was banned from researching or claiming the earth revolves around the sun. Stem cell research was BANNED. Not contested, not examined for validity to be proven "against so many disbelievers", but outright banned; not because of fact or evidence, but because of flat out ignorance; not different opinion, but knowingly using WRONG information.

You haven't contested a *single* point I've made. You've resorted to hand waiving and generalizations. In my previous post, I stated:
"Ignoring evidence based reason and scientific fact to further an uneducated opinion is what I am deeming ignorance. Hand-waiving to claim "science isn't right" because you either 1) aren't smart enough to understand it, 2) claim that "faith in science" is equal to religious faith, or 3) can't actually find something wrong with it is also pretty ignorant."
Looks like you've taken the route of #1 and #3 in this last response.

Liquid Swordsman

12-04-2009, 02:09 PM

It astounds me that any grown man/woman without a severe mental handicap could believe in the christian god.

Ächilles

12-04-2009, 03:15 PM

Again, I challenge you to be careful where you tread. Who are you to deem that anyone who challenges your beliefs or what you consider to be "evidence" is a "prevention of progress"?

When a new theory is met with opposing, calculated scrutiny, it serves the purpose of testing the theory's vigilance in being held up to rigid communal inspection and questioning.

However, when a theory is met with cries that it's content violate the tenets of out-dated, baseless dogma, it's simply a monkey wrench in the cogs of human scientific progression. There is a difference between challenging a theory or belief with your own fact-based, analytical thoughts, and challenging it with something entirely faith-based. I can't rebut Einstein in a debate on physics by claiming Harry Potter can make a broom fly.

I don't mean any disrespect here. If you want to follow the path which Christianity lays out for you, then good for you if it makes you happy. But the idea that a faith-based religion can refute science is just absurd.

Do we not find our greatest inventions and discoveries by people disputing against them and them coming out on top? If nobody spoke against it, only the people who are doing it would believe it. If you proves itself against so many disbelievers and still remains true and proven, then, and only then, do you have something people will truly follow. Which is what you have in the Holy Bible.

But the Bible has never been proven. What are you trying to say here?

You're right that for a theory to be accepted, it must stand up to constant scrutiny and criticizing from all corners of the academic community. But the Bible has never done this. God has never been proven to exist in field studies. A crucifix has never been uncovered in Roman ruins, or an Ark, or the Grail. Religious relics have never been proven in totality to be what they're claimed to be. Your claim, if this is what you're saying, is downright wrong.

TheSilverRider

12-04-2009, 10:40 PM

And nowhere have I stated that this thread does such a thing. I have been pretty clear that these referrals have been in regard to politics and social policy.

And thats fine. I agree on that. I addressed that before.

No, by being flat out 100% wrong about factual information. By propagating ignorance at a detriment to society. The Amish live in America too. The point is that they have no reason to push their beliefs onto others. If someone in excruciating pain with no chance of long term survival or improvement to their quality of life wishes to die, what difference is it to you? You keep talking about "ITS MY RIGHT!!!" What gives you the right to make moral decisions for this person, especially if it disagrees with medical professionals with an education in the field? Why do you believe it should be acceptable for religious fanatics to try and take away that person's medical decision making capabilities? Because they have the "right" to express their personal beliefs onto politicians to restrict the rights of other people? If you want to talk about right to your own opinion, then why are those opinions a detriment to other people's opinions? Do they not have a right to their own opinion?

Nobody is making the decision for her! We have the right to express our opinion, which is what we do. We are NOT forcing her to do ANYTHING. If she decides that what we are saying and protesting against truly does have faults and chooses to side with us? Great. If not? Great. It is neither our job, nor intent to make the person decide what we want, but rather to make it known that we do not agree with whatever decision it may be (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)

Replace it with "all of Christianity" if you'd like, as all Christian sects at that time believed the earth was flat "because the bible says so". As GetMeABook mentioned, the fact that there are sects directly shows that your religion has changed with culture. If you want to make the claim that the true correct religion is the one that survived the longest, it would be the Roman Catholic Church, which you seem to adamantly distance yourself from. (Although you could make the same claim about Judaism in the same vein, or earlier unrelated religions like Hinduism, which both clearly stood the test of time longer than your recently created sect of Christianity)

I do agree that my denomination of Christianity has not been in existence as long as Roman Catholicism for example. When I speak of the "test of time" i am more specifically referring to God's Word. The Bible. It has been preserved and withstood this test of time to give us what we have today. We can get into the canonical discussion if we must, because I know thats the next point you will bring up, but I hope possibly you will surprise me as we have already exhausted most discussion on the Cannon.

That's not intelligent design in public schools. That's a book on how to teach intelligent design in public schools. It's not actually used in public schools. In fact, these types of things have been outright banned in classrooms across America

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4545822.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/569313.stm

Interesting point, and I did not know that. I will definitely have to do some research on this as i am not well versed on what is being taught today in public schools. While we are on the topic, I was reading a book that dealt with evolution and it being taught in public schools and I would really appreciate your opinion on it if you wouldn't mind. Answer this:

Is anyone there? This is the fundamental question. If God does not exist, searching for him is pointless: "for he who comes to God must believe that He is." While it is impossible to 'prove' God in a mathematical sense, the evidence is very convincing.

Take the existence of the universe. To call it the result of an 'accident' raises many questions - and answers none. The same is true of the 'Big Bang' theory. Where, for instance, did the raw materials come from? Not even a 'big bang' can make something out of nothing! The evolutionary idea is widespread, but just as weak; how can 'nothing' evolve into 'something' , let alone earth's amazingly complex life forms?

All other theories are equally fragile. The only satisfactory explanation is this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Our world is not the random result of a gigantic fluke involving ingredients that were 'always there'. Instead, "the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." Creation had a beginning, and it was God who brought it into being. "For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast."

This is reinforced by the amazing order and design seen everywhere and by the universal laws which hold everything together, from the vastness of outer space to microscopic organisms. But design demands a designer and laws a law-giver - and God is both! "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth."

But the strongest 'creation evidence' is man himself. Unlike other living creatures, man has something we call 'personality'; he makes intelligent choices, has a conscience and can distinguish between right and wrong. He is capable of love and compassion. Above all, he has an instinct to worship. Where did he get these qualities? Neither evolution nor an avalanche of accidents could have produced them. The clearest answer is this: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Man is not an accident: he is "fearfully and wonderfully made" by the Creator of the universe.

-John Blanchard in his book "Ultimate Questions"

TheSilverRider

12-04-2009, 10:40 PM

Sorry, it says publicly torture until dead:
"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

Let's look at beating:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave ... survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." The slave doesn't even need to do anything wrong. The master could just enjoy beating people, as they are "his own property".

The bible makes it abundantly clear that women are not equal to men. Again: why are these things ethically acceptable if no one died for people's sins yet?

I would appreciate if you used references when referring to the Bible if you are able to give them. (if possible)

I would encourage you to stray away from the punishment and look at the act that merited it. What are they doing that they should receive this? A girl was to be a virgin, if she was not found to be, she was put to death by stoning. Stoning was incredibly popular in that day as a means of being put to death. Same as lethal injection today. Electric chair before that. Where can you say that that is not "ethical" today? I am not sure where you can attribute ethics to that, but I do not see anything wrong with it, if she knew the rules, and consequences for them, and agreed to them, and she still broke them, should she not be punished?

And yet you avoid the question: why is it that you believe slavery (or beating slaves) is ethically acceptable under any condition? The bible flat out dictates slave law and endorses it. So, tell me why it was ethically fine before Jesus died. Why was it ever acceptable to sell your daughter in to slavery? Burning people at the stake due to sexual acts? Death for working on the sabbath, wearing garments of two threads, cursing parents, blaspheming (there goes that "free speech" thing you like so much). Why were these ever condoned and seen as moral obligations?

Neither of us were there during that time period to fully grasp the culture. I am trying to think of the best way to put this in an analogy. Ok, take even 30 years ago, if you said that your brother wanted to marry another man, you would have been mocked, scorned, laughed at and probably sent to some sort of authority for therapy of some sort. Do you see how much culture changes? Now, not only is gay marriage accepted, but it is endorsed and anyone who challenges it or disagrees with it is a hater and fanatic. Be careful basing things of the past on todays distorted society.

You've still not answered this question. You've pointed to other cultures and said "well they think it's ok". I'm asking you, not Russian police at a bank robery. I'm asking you how you can condone these actions as moral obligations. You claim the bible is law from a timeless deity; you claim your religion and the laws of your religion do not change with culture and time; and yet you claim these laws from your deity were acceptable because of the time period.

The Bible has not changed. Do you not see the OT law was for that culture. We have the NT law that is for our culture. Your trying to mix the two and your confusing yourself and making up something wrong in the Bible that is not wrong in any way. In that culture, those were the rules, and those were the punishments. In that culture, that was acceptable, that was fine. In today's culture, they would be outlandish to do, which is why we have the NT law, and Jesus as our intercessor.

Our greatest inventions and discoveries come from research, which can't happen if research is BANNED. THAT is prevention of progress, not challenges to my ideas.

Example?

Which is the scientific method and peer reviewed journal publications. That's the process. Galileo was banned from researching or claiming the earth revolves around the sun. Stem cell research was BANNED. Not contested, not examined for validity to be proven "against so many disbelievers", but outright banned; not because of fact or evidence, but because of flat out ignorance; not different opinion, but knowingly using WRONG information.

Excuse my ignorance on the topic, but you will need to be more specific here for me. I dont know enough about this to really talk about it. Who banned it? Reasons? Why?

I mean, from what you have stated, someone disagreed with it and made something up to make it terrible and that banned nationwide research on the subject. Seems like a pretty powerful individual to me.

You haven't contested a *single* point I've made. You've resorted to hand waiving and generalizations. In my previous post, I stated:
"Ignoring evidence based reason and scientific fact to further an uneducated opinion is what I am deeming ignorance. Hand-waiving to claim "science isn't right" because you either 1) aren't smart enough to understand it, 2) claim that "faith in science" is equal to religious faith, or 3) can't actually find something wrong with it is also pretty ignorant."
Looks like you've taken the route of #1 and #3 in this last response.

If I miss a point of yours and do not address it it is one of the two following reasons. Either I get so caught up in responding to other things you have said, that I completely miss it, or I just have nothing else to say to it or it does not need a response. This would be me missing it.

If I say, I need to kill 3 people, to research them, use them, so I can save thousands of lives. What would you say? Why?

If you say no, I could say "You dont understand, your not smart enough to understand my reasoning, therefore, you are prohibiting progress and are ignorant and a hindrance to society". Essentially, I believe, thats what your saying and what is happening. Research does not get banned without a reason Uniq. There has to be merit to banning something. I just think you are so incredibly blinded by what you deem to be infallible proven science, that you fail to see other peoples points on the matter. You believe so incredibly whole-heartedly that Stem Cell research is 100% legit and should continue to further science for the all American good, that you dont care who or what is opposing it....their WRONG. I challenge you to consider, for one measly second what they are saying and see, for yourself, REALLY see if what they say is right or wrong OUTSIDE of the context of what you believe or want.

*Sanosuke*

12-04-2009, 10:41 PM

Hey, TSR....

Go find me someone who can part a sea for me will ya?

TheSilverRider

12-04-2009, 10:49 PM

It astounds me that any grown man/woman without a severe mental handicap could believe in the christian god.

Such arrogance. Please, LS, beneficial comments. Or at least act like someone else is as smart as you for 2 seconds.

Hey, TSR....

Go find me someone who can part a sea for me will ya?

Purpose? Supposed to be funny? Stupid? Draw attention to you? Not sure.

refusing marriage to homosexuals. refusing stem cell research.

KILLING doctors who do abortions.

I dont condone the killing of a doctor for what he/she does. Dont make one persons mistakes that calls himself a Christian the mistake of the entire belief or anyone who follows it.

in addition the protestants SPLIT OFF the catholic church. do you know any history at all. there WERE NO PROTESTANTS at the start of christianity. so clearly the whole religion changes with time.

you cannot claim it doesnt change because the evidence is quite clear. your religion changed over time period. doesnt matter what denomination you are. in fact the mere existence of denominations proves the argument.

the fact that you are not catholic or orthodox proves that the religion has changed. in a sense you are the refutation of your own argument.

Rather than looking at it from a standpoint that the religion has changed, see it as the religion has arrived. The Bible has not changed, but rather it took man a while to truly see what it had to say and believe it. I am trying to think of a good analogy for you but nothing is really coming to mind. :(

*Sanosuke*

12-04-2009, 10:51 PM

Purpose? Supposed to be funny? Stupid? Draw attention to you? Not sure.

It wasn't supposed to be funny at all.

Just showing you the bible is a book of stories, not historical logs.

Kyir

12-04-2009, 11:05 PM

It wasn't supposed to be funny at all.

Just showing you the bible is a book of stories, not historical logs.

Sir, I don't believe that is true.

Why, I turned water to wine just yesterday.

uniquinous

12-05-2009, 12:49 AM

Nobody is making the decision for her! We have the right to express our opinion, which is what we do. We are NOT forcing her to do ANYTHING. If she decides that what we are saying and protesting against truly does have faults and chooses to side with us? Great. If not? Great. It is neither our job, nor intent to make the person decide what we want, but rather to make it known that we do not agree with whatever decision it may be (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)Except that's not the case. If you just made your opinion known, even to the people who were not seeking it and don't want to know it in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. No. The issue is when people press those opinions onto politics, get policy changed, and ENFORCE those opinions on everyone. Gay marriage, abortion, right to death, stem cell research, and the rest of the list I've previously mentioned. These "opinions" are creating restrictions for others, which show they aren't just opinions, are they? Your "right" is directly removing other people's right. Oh, but this is where you claim it's not *you* specifically influencing policy, and probably not your specific sect, or any sect you've heard of, and that I should really blame some other Christian group.

I do agree that my denomination of Christianity has not been in existence as long as Roman Catholicism for example. When I speak of the "test of time" i am more specifically referring to God's Word. The Bible. So has the Qur'an. So has hinduism. You are picking and choosing which parts of your claims apply. Oh you didn't mean which religion stood the test of time best, you mean which religion produced a book that survived the longest. Well, if you make your qualifications specific enough, you can make a similar claim about ANYTHING. I can claim I am the best tiddlywinks player in the world that happens to have a hard drive on their floor and 10.2 inch ceilings in their room - this proves everything I say is absolute truth. Furthermore, the claim is STILL wrong, as the Vedas of Hinduism are much older than the Judeochristian bible.

Interesting point, and I did not know that. I will definitely have to do some research on this as i am not well versed on what is being taught today in public schools. While we are on the topic, I was reading a book that dealt with evolution and it being taught in public schools and I would really appreciate your opinion on it if you wouldn't mind. Answer this:

Is anyone there? This is the fundamental question. If God does not exist, searching for him is pointless: "for he who comes to God must believe that He is." While it is impossible to 'prove' God in a mathematical sense, the evidence is very convincing.
Which public school is this being taught in as science? I've read the entire passage you posted. In the first paragraph it states "the evidence is very convincing". This is the first mistake, which is then used to justify all further mistakes. Evidence is not assumption. Evidence is not guessing. Evidence is not negative findings. Evidence is not misdirection. In a system with limitless possibilities, refuting one possibility is not evidence of any other one possibility.

Evidence is a positive reproducible finding.

Therefore, claiming "it's too complex" is not evidence; "this unrelated solution is correct" is not evidence; "things are too complex" is not evidence; "because the bible says so" is not evidence. Fanatics uneducated in science attempting to mangle scientific terminology to mislead other uneducated blind followers is not EVIDENCE.

Example: let's say I place a random shape into a bag and allow you to reach into the bag and gather evidence to draw a conclusion about it. If you reach in and proclaim "it doesn't have four corners", that is not irrefutable evidence that proves it's shape. If you say "it's too complex to tell what it is", it doesn't disprove that it's a shape. If you claim "the bible says Jesus rocks", you still haven't proven anything about the shape. Let me know if you have any questions.

I would appreciate if you used references when referring to the Bible if you are able to give them. (if possible)
The above quote is Deuteronomy 22:21.

I would encourage you to stray away from the punishment and look at the act that merited it. What are they doing that they should receive this? A girl was to be a virgin, if she was not found to be, she was put to death by stoning. Stoning was incredibly popular in that day as a means of being put to death. Same as lethal injection today. Electric chair before that. Where can you say that that is not "ethical" today? I am not sure where you can attribute ethics to that, but I do not see anything wrong with it, if she knew the rules, and consequences for them, and agreed to them, and she still broke them, should she not be punished?Wait wait wait. She agreed to them? You mean, by being ALIVE during this time period she agreed to be tortured to death for not being a virgin? Note that if a man isn't a virgin, there's no problem with that, which again speaks to gender inequality. But are you really claiming that these people agreed to these rules and that you see nothing wrong with them? You believe there was a time when ethically it was acceptable to stone a woman to death for not being a virgin?

You believe it was ethically acceptable to beat your slaves up until the point that they survive two days? (Exodus 21:20-21) That it was ethically acceptable to sell your daughter (again, gender inequality) into slavery? (Exodus 21:7) You ask me to look to the act that merited the punishment, when these are two situations where no such act was needed for the barbaric action.

Neither of us were there during that time period to fully grasp the culture. I am trying to think of the best way to put this in an analogy. Ok, take even 30 years ago, if you said that your brother wanted to marry another man, you would have been mocked, scorned, laughed at and probably sent to some sort of authority for therapy of some sort. Do you see how much culture changes? Now, not only is gay marriage accepted, but it is endorsed and anyone who challenges it or disagrees with it is a hater and fanatic.Your contradiction is astounding. While claiming your religion never changes, you simultaneously attempt to minimize and justify the brutality that is demanded by the bible as something that was merely a product of the culture at the time.

Well which is it? Is the law made from the word of your deity changing based on social norms, or is it statically ethical? If you want to claim some all-knowing deity would state what is RIGHT and what is WRONG, one would assume it would be irrespective of cultural fads. The fact that you are identifying that such law was so closely rooted to the flavor of the week supports the idea that the document was written by short-sighted and otherwise less ethical man, not an all knowing deity. Otherwise, right and wrong with respect to human rights shouldn't really be changing, should they?

Our greatest inventions and discoveries come from research, which can't happen if research is BANNED. THAT is prevention of progress, not challenges to my ideas.Example?
Example that our greatest inventions and discoveries come from research: every aspect of technology you can see at this very moment.
Example that invention and discovery can't come from research when research is banned: RESEARCH IS BANNED. See Galileo researching celestial bodies. See stem cell research.

uniquinous

12-05-2009, 12:50 AM

Excuse my ignorance on the topic, but you will need to be more specific here for me. I dont know enough about this to really talk about it. Who banned it? Reasons? Why?

I mean, from what you have stated, someone disagreed with it and made something up to make it terrible and that banned nationwide research on the subject. Seems like a pretty powerful individual to me. George W. Bush commissioned a bioethics committee to review several topics and submit to him conclusions and plans. The committee was comprised of experts in the field of biology, law, and ethics. Upon discussing stem cell research, the biology experts provided strong arguments as to why it should be allowed. Religious fanatics with no scientific training or biological knowledge were in an uproar. The biologists were fired from the committee and replaced with lawyers who shared the same ignorant religious views, and President Bush subsequently banned stem cell research.

Needless to say, President Obama quickly overturned that ban. This is what I mean by religious ignorance being forced upon others to the detriment of society. So again I will state:

Stem cell research was BANNED. Not contested, not examined for validity to be proven "against so many disbelievers", but outright banned; not because of fact or evidence, but because of flat out ignorance; not different opinion, but knowingly using WRONG information.

If I miss a point of yours and do not address it it is one of the two following reasons. Either I get so caught up in responding to other things you have said, that I completely miss it, or I just have nothing else to say to it or it does not need a response. This would be me missing it. You're not missing the points, as you're responding to most of them. You're just not *refuting* anything. You're making poor excuses, hand waiving, or you can't actually find anything wrong with the point so you make vague generalizations.

If I say, I need to kill 3 people, to research them, use them, so I can save thousands of lives. What would you say? Why?

If you say no, I could say "You dont understand, your not smart enough to understand my reasoning, therefore, you are prohibiting progress and are ignorant and a hindrance to society".Then I would ask you what education or training is necessary to be an informed decision maker in this type of case. I would also point to current US law as well as human equality rights held worldwide which contradicts your negative right impingement.

As such, to make the case that your research is necessary and I am not in a position to make informed decisions, you would need to

state why US law does not apply to you
state what training or expertise is required to be an informed decision maker, supported by the aspects of this case that require that training
create a general consensus within that community of experts that agree with your setup

So let's apply that to something like evolution. Evolution uses the scientific method to gather evidence from geology, paleontology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, and biochemistry, to name a few. In general, a firm understanding of biology allows for insight into many of the fields that fall later on the list. Note that no part of obtaining evidence or any of these fields is associated with blind belief systems or theology, as theology has no method of acquiring evidence of a physical system. Therefore, I can clearly state what training or expertise is required to be an informed decision maker, show that you don't have the minimal amount of training required, and furthermore show that the general consensus within that community of experts all agree on the same finding, both within and between fields.

Again I will restate: theology has no method of acquiring evidence of a physical system.

GetMeABook

12-05-2009, 08:03 AM

I would appreciate if you used references when referring to the Bible if you are able to give them. (if possible)

I would encourage you to stray away from the punishment and look at the act that merited it. What are they doing that they should receive this? A girl was to be a virgin, if she was not found to be, she was put to death by stoning. Stoning was incredibly popular in that day as a means of being put to death. Same as lethal injection today. Electric chair before that. Where can you say that that is not "ethical" today? I am not sure where you can attribute ethics to that, but I do not see anything wrong with it, if she knew the rules, and consequences for them, and agreed to them, and she still broke them, should she not be punished?

your such an idiot. YOU CANT NOT AGREE TO THE RULES... THERE IS NOWHERE FOR HER TO GO IF SHE DOES NOT AGREE. IF SHE FOUND SOMEWHERE TO GO SHE WOULD NOT BE LET GO. THERE IS NO CHOICE INVOLVED. IT DOESNT MATTER IF SHE AGREED BECAUSE SHE HAD NO OPTIONS, AND WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE THEM IF SHE HAD.

seriously i am not sure that you even bother to read and see how ignorant you are in what you say. its not like today where they bust up the mormon places. her options were to die by leaving or die by staying.

someday i shall be able to post like uniquinous... without having migraines over how illogical and uninformed you are. he pretty much covered every point brilliantly but of course you wont agree because you would have to admit he proved you wrong.

TheSilverRider

12-05-2009, 11:10 AM

Except that's not the case. If you just made your opinion known, even to the people who were not seeking it and don't want to know it in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. No. The issue is when people press those opinions onto politics, get policy changed, and ENFORCE those opinions on everyone. Gay marriage, abortion, right to death, stem cell research, and the rest of the list I've previously mentioned. These "opinions" are creating restrictions for others, which show they aren't just opinions, are they? Your "right" is directly removing other people's right. Oh, but this is where you claim it's not *you* specifically influencing policy, and probably not your specific sect, or any sect you've heard of, and that I should really blame some other Christian group.

The people protesting the ideas and research have no authority to ban it. They cannot say we disagree with it and therefore you should ban it. That would get nowhere. For research to get banned, they must have seen a reason, they must have seen a purpose for banning the research. If it is truly as harmless as you deem it to be, then there would be no reason to ban the research. From the reading I have done, it seems like there is plenty of research being done without having to use the controversial embryos. If you can create the stem cells without destroying life then fine, but until then, I dont see the problem with the ban.

How are stem cells obtained?

Current research projects have obtained stem cells from tissue which has been removed during terminated pregnancies or from embryos produced by in-vitro fertilization clinics. Once isolated, the cells can be grown up in the laboratory and stored for future use. Each reservoir of cells, derived from a single embryo, is known as a cell line. A more reliable supply would be obtained by copying or cloning embryos specifically for their stem cells.

So has the Qur'an. So has hinduism. You are picking and choosing which parts of your claims apply. Oh you didn't mean which religion stood the test of time best, you mean which religion produced a book that survived the longest. Well, if you make your qualifications specific enough, you can make a similar claim about ANYTHING. I can claim I am the best tiddlywinks player in the world that happens to have a hard drive on their floor and 10.2 inch ceilings in their room - this proves everything I say is absolute truth. Furthermore, the claim is STILL wrong, as the Vedas of Hinduism are much older than the Judeochristian bible.

Other books have knows fallacies. Other books have been proven wrong. The Bible has not. The Bible predicts the future to the T. Does that not make it stand out? Ok. Take this statistic for instance:

"...according to Canon Liddon there are 332 distinct prophecies in the Old Testament which have been literally fulfilled in Christ. ...the mathematical probability of all these prophecies being fulfilled in one man is represented by the fraction:

1
84000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

-Hendriksen, John, II, 430

Which public school is this being taught in as science? I've read the entire passage you posted. In the first paragraph it states "the evidence is very convincing". This is the first mistake, which is then used to justify all further mistakes. Evidence is not assumption. Evidence is not guessing. Evidence is not negative findings. Evidence is not misdirection. In a system with limitless possibilities, refuting one possibility is not evidence of any other one possibility.

Evidence is a positive reproducible finding.

Therefore, claiming "it's too complex" is not evidence; "this unrelated solution is correct" is not evidence; "things are too complex" is not evidence; "because the bible says so" is not evidence. Fanatics uneducated in science attempting to mangle scientific terminology to mislead other uneducated blind followers is not EVIDENCE.

Ev-i-dence
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Nowhere does it say that it must be reproducible. It is a "ground for belief" which we very much have in creation. You also did not address the rest of the excerpt that I gave you. Can you answer the questions about evolution for me? If this is being taught in public schools that is, what are they telling them it came from? Those following paragraphs were what I was really hoping you would address.

Example: let's say I place a random shape into a bag and allow you to reach into the bag and gather evidence to draw a conclusion about it. If you reach in and proclaim "it doesn't have four corners", that is not irrefutable evidence that proves it's shape. If you say "it's too complex to tell what it is", it doesn't disprove that it's a shape. If you claim "the bible says Jesus rocks", you still haven't proven anything about the shape. Let me know if you have any questions.

If I say, "it doesn't have four corners", that is reason to believe that is is a triangle. Until proven wrong, I have reason to believe its a triangle. Why, if you cannot refute my statement by giving me a fact that it is not a triangle, should I not believe it is such?

The above quote is Deuteronomy 22:21.

Deuteronomy 22:13-30 give the context of this. It was a law, for them, to be a virgin at marriage. If the man found her to be not a virgin, she was to be put to death. If the man falsely accused her of being a virgin, he was to be fined. If a man committed rape, he was killed. If a woman had an affair, she was killed. And so on and so on. Law was law. Can you truly say that rape, adultery, or not being a virgin at marriage are good things? They were all part of the LAW and they knew that. Therefore they were held responsible for their actions.

Wait wait wait. She agreed to them? You mean, by being ALIVE during this time period she agreed to be tortured to death for not being a virgin? Note that if a man isn't a virgin, there's no problem with that, which again speaks to gender inequality. But are you really claiming that these people agreed to these rules and that you see nothing wrong with them? You believe there was a time when ethically it was acceptable to stone a woman to death for not being a virgin?

Where do you see that? They were not allowed to divorce, and if a man had sex with a woman before marriage he and her were killed unless he forced himself on her then just he was killed. Do not tell me there was gender inequality where there is none. The Bible says that the man is the ruler of the household, yes, but gender inequality? Please.

You believe it was ethically acceptable to beat your slaves up until the point that they survive two days? (Exodus 21:20-21) That it was ethically acceptable to sell your daughter (again, gender inequality) into slavery? (Exodus 21:7) You ask me to look to the act that merited the punishment, when these are two situations where no such act was needed for the barbaric action.

Exodus 21:20-21
Read this, I read it through when researching and could not really come up with a better way of saying it myself.
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/slave-property

Exodus 21:7
If you look at this, you will notice the slave has rights and must be treated with respect and dignity. If the lady isn't treated correctly then she can be set free. Again, its all about culture. You cannot equate the two. Its like today, when a family is going into extreme poverty so he has his daughter become a maid for a rich guy. Thats the best equator i can give you, but like I said, its different cultures, dont try to equalize them.

TheSilverRider

12-05-2009, 11:26 AM

Your contradiction is astounding. While claiming your religion never changes, you simultaneously attempt to minimize and justify the brutality that is demanded by the bible as something that was merely a product of the culture at the time.

Well which is it? Is the law made from the word of your deity changing based on social norms, or is it statically ethical? If you want to claim some all-knowing deity would state what is RIGHT and what is WRONG, one would assume it would be irrespective of cultural fads. The fact that you are identifying that such law was so closely rooted to the flavor of the week supports the idea that the document was written by short-sighted and otherwise less ethical man, not an all knowing deity. Otherwise, right and wrong with respect to human rights shouldn't really be changing, should they?

You are completely missing my point. I am pretty sure I addressed this incredibly specifically in my last post but you skipped over it. My religion, my relationship with my creator never changes yes, but does the Bible change as it pertains to culture, yes. I dont really understand why you are harping on this when it is so incredibly clear, especially for someone as smart as you are. The Old Testament, written in that culture for that culture as a set of rules they were to follow to be a "set apart" people. To be a God-like race as an example to all. That culture, that time, that law. Jesus then dies on the cross as the intercessor for our sins. Everything changes, and now we have the New Testament, written and applied for our culture, our time period, our law. If you apply the OT laws to todays culture, you get your great conundrum and are misinterpreting the Bible to make a controversy that is not there at all.
Example that our greatest inventions and discoveries come from research: every aspect of technology you can see at this very moment.
Example that invention and discovery can't come from research when research is banned: RESEARCH IS BANNED. See Galileo researching celestial bodies. See stem cell research.

I agree with that, but look at WHY. Refer to my post above about this. There are REASONS why they get banned. You and I both know that just because someone disagrees with it is not merit enough to ban research. Dont fool yourself by saying that is fact when you know its not. There has to be a reason they are protesting, in this case, its killing things. If abortion is how you do research, and I believe abortion is murder, then I do not believe your research should go on because I do not believe murder should go on. There is MERIT to why, which is why it is banned. Not just because of me disagreeing.

George W. Bush commissioned a bioethics committee to review several topics and submit to him conclusions and plans. The committee was comprised of experts in the field of biology, law, and ethics. Upon discussing stem cell research, the biology experts provided strong arguments as to why it should be allowed. Religious fanatics with no scientific training or biological knowledge were in an uproar. The biologists were fired from the committee and replaced with lawyers who shared the same ignorant religious views, and President Bush subsequently banned stem cell research.

Why. They dont "uproar" over nothing. You did not state why. The reason why was because its based on abortion. If you dont believe abortion is correct, then of course, you will not believe something is correct that is BASED on abortion. I have said this i feel like a thousand times in the last few posts. Research does not get banned because just some people disagree or uproar. It gets banned when people disagree with a valid reason as to why it should stop.

Needless to say, President Obama quickly overturned that ban. This is what I mean by religious ignorance being forced upon others to the detriment of society. So again I will state:

Stem cell research was BANNED. Not contested, not examined for validity to be proven "against so many disbelievers", but outright banned; not because of fact or evidence, but because of flat out ignorance; not different opinion, but knowingly using WRONG information.

Flat out ignorance. Anyone who opposes stem cell research is ignorant? That is incredibly bold of you, and arrogant I might add, to call that large amount of people arrogant Uniq. You better be pretty confident you are right. Time and time again you refer to anyone who disagrees with you or the research you believe in ignorant, mislead, fanatics, and so on. Do you ever, for one second, give any merit to anything that you dont agree with 100%?

You're not missing the points, as you're responding to most of them. You're just not *refuting* anything. You're making poor excuses, hand waiving, or you can't actually find anything wrong with the point so you make vague generalizations.

I do refute. You just do not deem it refutation in that you do not agree with it. I do not hand waive anything, I respond to all of what you are saying and give you reasons why. I dont make vague generalizations either. All of my responses are specific and directly address what you have to say.

Then I would ask you what education or training is necessary to be an informed decision maker in this type of case. I would also point to current US law as well as human equality rights held worldwide which contradicts your negative right impingement.

As such, to make the case that your research is necessary and I am not in a position to make informed decisions, you would need to

state why US law does not apply to you
state what training or expertise is required to be an informed decision maker, supported by the aspects of this case that require that training
create a general consensus within that community of experts that agree with your setup

Ok good. Now, would you agree that 100% of the people who disagree with stem cell research, disagree with abortion? I would say yes. Now, I would challenge you to apply that list to abortion, and see what you come up with.

So let's apply that to something like evolution. Evolution uses the scientific method to gather evidence from geology, paleontology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, and biochemistry, to name a few. In general, a firm understanding of biology allows for insight into many of the fields that fall later on the list. Note that no part of obtaining evidence or any of these fields is associated with blind belief systems or theology, as theology has no method of acquiring evidence of a physical system. Therefore, I can clearly state what training or expertise is required to be an informed decision maker, show that you don't have the minimal amount of training required, and furthermore show that the general consensus within that community of experts all agree on the same finding, both within and between fields.

I cant tell you how happy I was to read that section in red. I dont know if I could have said it any better myself. How then, can you reason away the beginning of evolution. There must, MUST be an evidence of faith in what you believe because 1) you were not there, and 2) you have no written record from anyone who was. You have no idea where evolution started or where the raw materials came from to set everything in motion. No evidence, proven statement, or fact can explain that. Therefore, you must admit, if you truly meant what you said, that there is a sliver of faith or belief needed to follow evolution.

Again I will restate: theology has no method of acquiring evidence of a physical system.

Faith, as I stated above, is needed for every belief or thought about what happened at the beginning of time. Nobody, NOBODY alive today was alive then. Therefore, to get a true understanding of what happened at the beginning of time all we have left is written records. My belief takes faith. I have faith that God has existed forever and created all things. You have faith as well that some matter somewhere came from something to start evolution. It is blatantly undeniable that everything takes a measure of faith because none of us were there. I know in response to this you will most likely state that science can be proven all the way back to the beginning, but never, has science been able to create something out of nothing. And never, will science be able to create something out of nothing. Therefore, FAITH is required.

TheSilverRider

12-05-2009, 11:33 AM

your such an idiot. YOU CANT NOT AGREE TO THE RULES... THERE IS NOWHERE FOR HER TO GO IF SHE DOES NOT AGREE. IF SHE FOUND SOMEWHERE TO GO SHE WOULD NOT BE LET GO. THERE IS NO CHOICE INVOLVED. IT DOESNT MATTER IF SHE AGREED BECAUSE SHE HAD NO OPTIONS, AND WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE THEM IF SHE HAD.

Wow. Is your caps lock button broken? You will come to learn that caps dont help anything but to make everyone think that your 12 years old and think caps make a point. Please, lay off the capitals.

Secondly, I almost dont even want to respond to your "points". Unorganized, all over the place and "your such an idiot". Great response and so intelligent.

Lastly, its the culture she lived in. Take today, lets say you wanted to steal something, you know its wrong, you know the consequence. Same thing then, just different standards. She lived in the culture, knew the rules, and knew the consequences, and as such, she agreed to them.

seriously i am not sure that you even bother to read and see how ignorant you are in what you say. its not like today where they bust up the mormon places. her options were to die by leaving or die by staying.

No. They werent. She knew the rules. Take todays society again. If you want to steal, thats your problem. Its not either get caught stealing or leave and steal somewhere else. Its, stop stealing. Thats the point. She is not justified, the law was.

someday i shall be able to post like uniquinous... without having migraines over how illogical and uninformed you are. he pretty much covered every point brilliantly but of course you wont agree because you would have to admit he proved you wrong.

I doubt that first statement. Uniq does a great job of organizing his points and actually listening to what the other person has to say and actually comes across intelligent in his posts. You on the other hand, are none of those. Try having an open mind, thinking for one second your not the ruler of the universe, and give something else a thought for one millisecond. Until then, just read, and dont post. If you want people to give your posts merit, post intelligently and organized. Not like this last one.

uniquinous

12-05-2009, 01:59 PM

For research to get banned, they must have seen a reason, they must have seen a purpose for banning the research. If it is truly as harmless as you deem it to be, then there would be no reason to ban the research. From the reading I have done, it seems like there is plenty of research being done without having to use the controversial embryos. If you can create the stem cells without destroying life then fine, but until then, I dont see the problem with the ban. You have so eloquently portrayed the EXACT ignorance to which I'm referring. You who has ZERO knowledge of biology and embryology, let alone the source or fate of those embryos is making a decision not based on fact, but based on uneducated hunches. As I said previously, the "reason" you insist was there was in NO way based on science or biology experts. They fired the scientists and covered it up, hiring people who specifically stated they would agree with the rest of the committee. Identifying and using only people who agree with you to create an ethical discussion by definition undermines any attempt at a balanced outcome. I've given you the "reason" you insist was there, which you've ignored. So why don't you give me the reason that such a thing would require the firing of all the biologists on the committee, and be so quickly overturned by the next president?

Regardless, your facts are still wrong. Specifically, while adult stem cell research can be performed, it's not equivalent. The idea of "it's good enough" is one propagated by the religious community, not scientists. It's completely fabricated, as there is NO acquirable cell lines that have the same potential as embryonic stem cells. But the fact is that without research, these embryos are just destroyed anyway. Do you even realize that's what the ban produced? The options are 1) destroy them, or 2) research. So tell me what benefit banning research produces?

Other books have knows fallacies. Other books have been proven wrong. The Bible has not. The Bible predicts the future to the T. Does that not make it stand out? Ok. Take this statistic for instance:

"...according to Canon Liddon there are 332 distinct prophecies in the Old Testament which have been literally fulfilled in Christ. ...the mathematical probability of all these prophecies being fulfilled in one man is represented by the fraction:
False.

You can't prove Harry Potter wrong, how do you expect to prove any older religious text wrong. More importantly, given the fact that it's impossible to disprove fiction, why do you believe claiming the bible has never been disproven has any value?

Ev-i-dence
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Nowhere does it say that it must be reproducible.Oh good, you quoted the dictionary as a definition of scientific evidence. Perhaps you should go offer the layman definition of "theory" to show how evolution "doesn't count". :rolleyes:

Go read: Scientific Evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_%28law%29) - particularly the Daubert test. Note it states a theory must be testable and reliable (and by extension, reproducible).

When you're done, go find out what the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) is. Don't read the whole thing, just search for any word with starts with "reprodu". Here are a few excerps:
Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community.

it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis

Reproducibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) is one of the main principles of the scientific method

This is yet another instance of an uneducated individual believing they can easily understand a concept not by learning about the concept, but by using incorrect sources or what other uneducated people tell them. Are you starting to understand why I say you aren't in a place to construct and informed opinion? You get almost EVERYTHING wrong.

It is a "ground for belief" which we very much have in creation. You also did not address the rest of the excerpt that I gave you. Can you answer the questions about evolution for me? If this is being taught in public schools that is, what are they telling them it came from? Those following paragraphs were what I was really hoping you would address. I did address them - I just didn't quote them individually to save space. Please go reread and let me know if you need clarification. I also asked which public school it's being taught in. You appear to give no response or support.

If I say, "it doesn't have four corners", that is reason to believe that is is a triangle. Until proven wrong, I have reason to believe its a triangle. Why, if you cannot refute my statement by giving me a fact that it is not a triangle, should I not believe it is such?.. ....

wow. TSR, this is a low for you.

Let's say the shape was a circle. Let's say it was an octagon. What if it was an isotoxal decagram? These are all shapes that don't have four corners. The fact that you are so short sighted to believe there was only ONE other possibility of shapes is astonishing.

Nonetheless, saying what something is *not*, saying it's too complex, or praising your religion do NOT in any way prove what something *is*. So go back to the passages on evolution you said I didn't respond to. Do you see now that claiming what evolution is *not*, claiming it's too complex, or citing the bible are not methods of proving what the system actually is?

Deuteronomy 22:13-30 give the context of this. It was a law, for them, to be a virgin at marriage. If the man found her to be not a virgin, she was to be put to death. If the man falsely accused her of being a virgin, he was to be fined. If a man committed rape, he was killed. If a woman had an affair, she was killed. And so on and so on. Law was law. Can you truly say that rape, adultery, or not being a virgin at marriage are good things? They were all part of the LAW and they knew that. Therefore they were held responsible for their actions. You are once again attempting to justify torture and killing. Are you claiming that the ethics of your god made this type of barbaric behavior acceptable, and that Jesus dying suddenly made it not acceptable? Regardless, you continually avoid the points about beating servants, so let's just focus on only that. Servants could be beaten for no reason, so long as they weren't killed. You can't even make the claim that they are being held responsibility for their actions. How do you justify this?

Note that if a man isn't a virgin, there's no problem with that, which again speaks to gender inequalityWhere do you see that? Exactly.

Exodus 21:20-21
Read this, I read it through when researching and could not really come up with a better way of saying it myself.
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/slave-property

"God allowed it to exist the way He allows other things to exist that He does not approve of: murder, lying, rape, theft, etc."

This is just a horrible comparison. There are specific set out statements throughout the bible which show murder, lying, rape, theft, etc are not approved of. The bible not only "allows for" slavery, but endorses it. If you disagree, then please point me to the bible passage which supports this anonymous internet writer's claim that slavery was not desired.

But again, you seem to be waivering, and again, you have avoided the question and main point: why would an omnipotent deity ever need to change the definitions of what is right and wrong? If she wanted to convey ethical principles, why cater to the culture instead of just say what is right and wrong? Either it's right or it's wrong throughout time. This is not the case with something such as dietary restrictions, which can change based on technology and health knowledge. So again: what reason do you have of changing ethics (the very nature of what is right and wrong) throughout time?

The Old Testament, written in that culture for that culture as a set of rules they were to follow to be a "set apart" people. To be a God-like race as an example to all. That culture, that time, that law. Jesus then dies on the cross as the intercessor for our sins. Everything changes, and now we have the New Testament, written and applied for our culture, our time period, our law. Which is why I asked: if you were alive in that time period, why do you believe beating slaves is ethically justifiable. You still haven't provided a reason past "it was culturally acceptable", which does not speak to ethics at all.

If you want to make the claim that dietary restrictions were lifted as an agreement that was no longer needed, I can buy it. But what we're discussing is NOT a covenant with your creator - it's basic human rights and equality. Why are basic human rights and equalities changed by an omnipotent being over time or by cultural norms EVER?

GetMeABook

12-05-2009, 02:02 PM

uniquinous

12-05-2009, 02:08 PM

I agree with that, but look at WHY. Refer to my post above about this. There are REASONS why they get banned. You and I both know that just because someone disagrees with it is not merit enough to ban research.Yes, yes it is. If you disagree, provide for me the reason that Galileo's research and beliefs that the earth revolved around the sun were banned by Christian officials. You like making these types of generalized statements, but you have yet to support any of them. Please, show these reasons with respect to Galileo.

They dont "uproar" over nothing. You did not state why.I stated they had no knowledge of the biology. The reason they were in an uproar is because they were uneducated both in the field and the surrounding situation, which resulted in the embryos being destroyed anyway. And yes, people uproar over nothing. Have you never heard of a lynch mob mentality? People get mislead or bandwagon all the time. In fact, the entirety of the US economy and stock market hinges on this daily. You can see it in action RIGHT NOW in the mafia thread. Stupid people do stupid things and influence other stupid people continuously.

Flat out ignorance. Anyone who opposes stem cell research is ignorant? That is incredibly bold of you, and arrogant I might add, to call that large amount of people arrogant Uniq. You better be pretty confident you are right. Time and time again you refer to anyone who disagrees with you or the research you believe in ignorant, mislead, fanatics, and so on.There were two options for all those excess embryos:

Destroy them
Do research to create life saving medical procedures (which destroys them in the process)

Yes, anyone who wished it to be banned was incredibly ignorant because they were going on WRONG information and short-sightedness. You, for example, just showed those same qualities by knowing nothing of the situation yet drawing conclusions about it anyway. Instead of trying to better understand the situation, or why other people are saying "you don't understand", you (and other ignorant religious fanatics) just assume informed decision makers are being arrogant and dismiss the claim. Are you starting to understand why I say you aren't in a place to construct and informed opinion? You get almost EVERYTHING wrong.

As such, to make the case that your research is necessary and I am not in a position to make informed decisions, you would need to
1. state why US law does not apply to you
2. state what training or expertise is required to be an informed decision maker, supported by the aspects of this case that require that training
3. create a general consensus within that community of experts that agree with your setup
Ok good. Now, would you agree that 100% of the people who disagree with stem cell research, disagree with abortion? I would say yes. Now, I would challenge you to apply that list to abortion, and see what you come up with.I didn't even type the word "abortion" anywhere near there. Let's apply it to stem cell research though.

1. US law currently allows for it, so this point is unneeded
2. training and knowledge would include a) biology (specifically embryology and microbiology), b) medicine (specifically obstetrics and neonatology), and c) embryo storage protocols (from acquisition to destruction).
3. the general consensus within the community, both between and within individual fields named in #2 has been established

This is where you usually say you need to go do more reading, which usually shows two things: a) you just got licked, and b) that you are the epitome of the ignorant uneducated religious fanatic I've been discussing, that enters discussions with poor knowledge on the topic yet asserts their opinion anyway.

I cant tell you how happy I was to read that section in red. I dont know if I could have said it any better myself. How then, can you reason away the beginning of evolution. There must, MUST be an evidence of faith in what you believe because 1) you were not there, and 2) you have no written record from anyone who was. You have no idea where evolution started or where the raw materials came from to set everything in motion. No evidence, proven statement, or fact can explain that. Therefore, you must admit, if you truly meant what you said, that there is a sliver of faith or belief needed to follow evolution. This is yet another poor misconception of people with no understanding of scientific reasoning. The beginning or preceding aspects of a conclusion is not necessary to prove the conclusion. That is, we don't need to know what came before evolution, or even how evolution started to prove it true. There's only one area that uses that ridiculous assumption: religion.

Let's go back to the idea of that shape in the bag. Let's make it a triangle to keep it simple. You reach in, clearly feel three corners and three straight edges. Do you claim it's not really a triangle because you can't explain how it got in the bag? Maybe I put it in the bag for you. Maybe a friend did. Maybe I bought it in the bag. Does the method it got there change your conclusion?

This is known as logic. Claiming evolution is debunked because *you* don't understand what came before it (which against speaks to your lack of education) is illogical. Similarly, claiming the bible is correct for the same reason is ridiculous and no more valid than claiming the flying spaghetti monster is correct.

Therefore, to get a true understanding of what happened at the beginning of time all we have left is written records.False. We have everything in the universe. We have no written history of the moon, but all those craters prove it was bombarded. This is reproducible evidence and takes no faith.

You have faith as well that some matter somewhere came from something to start evolution. It is blatantly undeniable that everything takes a measure of faith because none of us were there. Therefore, FAITH is required.Ignoring evidence based reason and scientific fact to further an uneducated opinion is what I am deeming ignorance. Hand-waiving to claim "science isn't right" because you either 1) aren't smart enough to understand it, 2) claim that "faith in science" is equal to religious faith, or 3) can't actually find something wrong with it is also pretty ignorant.
Looks like you're not using all three now.

TheSilverRider

12-05-2009, 02:57 PM

if she did not to follow the rules where could she go? so yes, she had absolutely no choice. yes she could not have sex.

and if the law was, people who believe the bible should die, would you say that was fair, because its the law?

you have the choice to go elsewhere and not have a support network of people. and in that time period that meant death. you have the choice to stay and believe and die. you have the choice to not believe.

1. Stay where you were born and believe in the bible and die.
2. Go somewhere else where you do not have any support network and die.
3. Do not believe in the bible.

1. Stay where you are and have pre-marital sex and die.
2. Go somewhere else where you do not have any support network and die.
3. Do not have sex.

If you look at the two lists you will see that in form they are precisely identical. one is about sex and one is about believing in the bible. but the form is the same.

now are you saying that it would be okay to kill people because they believe in the bible?

Your "analogy" is horrible. "now, please let me stone you to death." Go for it. If believing in the Bible is agasint the rules and the consequences are death, them I will die. Simple as that. Why you ask? Because believing in the Bible is not something I am willing to just "give up". It is required, necessary, and needed. Premarital sex? That is not required, necessary, or needed. That can be given up easily. Your analogy holds no merit. I dont really understand how you consider that to be an accurate analogy.

after all:
"She knew the rules"

Indeed i just realized you proved my point in your own words:
"Its not either get caught stealing or leave and steal somewhere else. Its, stop stealing."

You could set that up precisely as i organized the previous two arguments and it would retain the meaning you were trying to convey.

now, please, let me stone you to death.

Like I said. Go for it. I think you really consider this a convincing argument when in all reality its not.

You see i am capable of posting the way that uniquinous does. but i just dont see how posting the way he has has changed your ignorant and illogical beliefs at all.

Dont equate your posts to uniq's. Please.

Let me put it this way. Your beliefs are not logically consistent. That is to say you possess beliefs which directly contradict each other. .

Unless you are claiming that if it was the culture of the time and place to execute bible believers then it was okay.

Blanket claim. Examples please. You gave no Biblical contradictions, but rather a made up analogy that made no sense.

GetMeABook

12-05-2009, 03:05 PM

i wasnt attacking your morals. i was attacking your reasoning.

you said it was okay to kill people for premarital sex because the people knew that they would die if they had sex. and because that was how the culture was.

my analogy demonstrated that you could apply the exact same reasoning to something else.

the justification for killing a christian was precisely the same as the justification you gave for killing someone who had premarital sex.

you said something about required necessary or needed but thats not what i was arguing. it doesnt matter if you are willing to die.

this is something they taught us in philosophy class:

it is the form of the argument which is relevant.

here ill put it in standard validity form:

it is okay to kill someone for breaking the law.
it is against the law to have premarital sex.
you have premarital sex.
it is okay to kill you.

it is okay to kill someone for breaking the law.
it is against the law to believe in the bible.
you believe in the bible.
it is okay to kill you.

Abstract form:
If A and B then C.
A
B
Then C.

Their abstract forms are identical.

the point is that by your logic, i used precisely the logic you used to justify killing people for premarital sex, that it is okay to kill anyone for anything as long as it is the law.

my whole post was the demonstration of your logical inconsistency.

if you agree with the first argument, which you yourself used to justify stoning people, you must agree with the second argument. period.

is it or is it not okay to kill someone because they knew what the law was when they made a decision to do something, be it premarital sex, stealing, or being christian?

*Sanosuke*

12-06-2009, 03:58 PM

Hey TSR, find me someone who can live to be 950 and build an ark to hold every race of animals.

Also, find me someone who can take out a bone and make a whole different person from it.

uniquinous

12-06-2009, 04:07 PM

my response is above, TSR, in case it was missed

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-06-2009, 04:18 PM

uniq: do you believe, not specifically in the Judeo-Christian, but some form of superior direction?

uniquinous

12-06-2009, 04:29 PM

irrelevant, and that's my point.

GetMeABook

12-06-2009, 04:34 PM

remember how much uniq loves ambiguity? like with its gender?

indeed though its right. what matters is that TSR cannot present a logical, logically consistent, evidence based argument.

he doesnt back up his claims, such as with the supposed other sources of reference on jesus.

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-06-2009, 04:47 PM

irrelevant, and that's my point.

i think it's relevant. i'm not especially judgmental, just curious. by your logic, it's too intrusive to ask anyone their name.

GetMeABook

12-06-2009, 04:49 PM

his religion isnt relevant to arguing with TSR. he isnt saying god isnt real, just that TSR is not providing good arguments.

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-06-2009, 05:06 PM

my question is disassociated from the conversation with TSR. though by standards of all zealots i've met, TSR certainly isn't stupid.

GetMeABook

12-06-2009, 05:44 PM

eh, he doesnt seem to be the most brilliant person either. of the people ive argued this with, he's easily in the bottom half. however off the internet i tend to talk to mostly smart people. so i dunno.

but uniq answered your question in reference to his debate with TSR.

you didnt make it clear to him that you wanted to discuss something separate.

i doubt he will tell you. ambiguity certainly doesnt hurt his claim to be non biased.

uniquinous

12-07-2009, 09:59 AM

i think it's relevant. i'm not especially judgmental, just curious. by your logic, it's too intrusive to ask anyone their name.
this isn't a matter of being intrusive. i've told you my background before, DD. my point is that factual information is what determines my responses in this thread, and that people who find that balance need not hinder or mislead society.

TheSilverRider

12-07-2009, 11:04 PM

Your response was not missed Uniq, I just needed some time to do some research on things I did not know. Thank you for your patience and sorry this took so long...

You have so eloquently portrayed the EXACT ignorance to which I'm referring. You who has ZERO knowledge of biology and embryology, let alone the source or fate of those embryos is making a decision not based on fact, but based on uneducated hunches. As I said previously, the "reason" you insist was there was in NO way based on science or biology experts. They fired the scientists and covered it up, hiring people who specifically stated they would agree with the rest of the committee. Identifying and using only people who agree with you to create an ethical discussion by definition undermines any attempt at a balanced outcome. I've given you the "reason" you insist was there, which you've ignored. So why don't you give me the reason that such a thing would require the firing of all the biologists on the committee, and be so quickly overturned by the next president?

You are correct, when it comes to biology, I do not know nearly as much as you or many other people in the field. What I am basing my opinion on is experts who explain the process and the research I have done on what they say. From my knowledge, the embryos you aquire come from abortions. If that indeed is correct, me allowing or not protesting against research done strictly on abortion embryos is in essence me condoning abortion. Does that make sense? If I allow stem cell research done on abortion embryos but protest abortion, how much of a hypocrite am I? As for the question in red, lets be brutally blunt here, it came down to abortion. Bush does not agree with it, Obama does, end of story.

Regardless, your facts are still wrong. Specifically, while adult stem cell research can be performed, it's not equivalent. The idea of "it's good enough" is one propagated by the religious community, not scientists. It's completely fabricated, as there is NO acquirable cell lines that have the same potential as embryonic stem cells. But the fact is that without research, these embryos are just destroyed anyway. Do you even realize that's what the ban produced? The options are 1) destroy them, or 2) research. So tell me what benefit banning research produces?

Thank you for the info. I do appreciate it when you tell me things like this, recognizing that my study in the field is not as advanced as yours. Adult stem cells are not the same as embryonic, I can understand that. I ask you though, can you understand my response to the quote right above this? I do understand that those are the two options, and you make it very convincing that I must choose one of the two, but neither of them should ever be an option. We have to back up a step or two and say why do we have the embryo in the first place.

False.

You can't prove Harry Potter wrong, how do you expect to prove any older religious text wrong. More importantly, given the fact that it's impossible to disprove fiction, why do you believe claiming the bible has never been disproven has any value?

Because I dont believe the Bible to be fiction. Do you agree that the Bible in "some aspects" (as you would say) can be proven scientifically? You bring up Harry Potter. Harry Potter never claims to be fact, it never assumes to be fact and calls itself fiction. The Bible claims to be fact and calls itself fact. There are archeological evidence (http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html) and many other things that give the Bible merit to be set apart from things such as Harry Potter. I do agree fiction is impossible to disprove fiction, but I would argue that does not apply in as such that the Bible is not.

Oh good, you quoted the dictionary as a definition of scientific evidence. Perhaps you should go offer the layman definition of "theory" to show how evolution "doesn't count". :rolleyes:

Go read: Scientific Evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_%28law%29) - particularly the Daubert test. Note it states a theory must be testable and reliable (and by extension, reproducible).

When you're done, go find out what the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) is. Don't read the whole thing, just search for any word with starts with "reprodu". Here are a few excerps:
Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community.

it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis

Reproducibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) is one of the main principles of the scientific method

This is yet another instance of an uneducated individual believing they can easily understand a concept not by learning about the concept, but by using incorrect sources or what other uneducated people tell them. Are you starting to understand why I say you aren't in a place to construct and informed opinion? You get almost EVERYTHING wrong.

I did some research on this subject and I found it very interesting. I have come to the conclusion that yours and my idea of "evidence" were very much not alike. Now I see where you are coming from when you say "evidence" and will keep that in mind when I see you refer to that in the future. I would encourage you to take the definition in red and apply it to the post I am going to put next...

I did address them - I just didn't quote them individually to save space. Please go reread and let me know if you need clarification. I also asked which public school it's being taught in. You appear to give no response or support.

But you did not. I want to know the origin. You claim (somewhere, i dont know exactly where but I am going to post it all right here anyway) that you do not need to prove the origin of evolution to prove evolution. I dont agree with that. If evolution were a one time thing, then yes, I agree with that, but its not. Its the evolutionary process. Its ongoing, and has been ongoing, therefore you must give evidence of where it all came from. How about this for an analogy, if I were to ask you, "How do you make a TV?" you show me that one works and prove very well that it works amazingly, but never tell me how to make one or where I get the materials or whats needed to make one. Do you see the discrepancy? You cannot prove evolution without telling me where it started, where what it started came from, and how it came into being.

.. ....

wow. TSR, this is a low for you.

Let's say the shape was a circle. Let's say it was an octagon. What if it was an isotoxal decagram? These are all shapes that don't have four corners. The fact that you are so short sighted to believe there was only ONE other possibility of shapes is astonishing.

Nonetheless, saying what something is *not*, saying it's too complex, or praising your religion do NOT in any way prove what something *is*. So go back to the passages on evolution you said I didn't respond to. Do you see now that claiming what evolution is *not*, claiming it's too complex, or citing the bible are not methods of proving what the system actually is?

I believe we are totally missing each other's point here. I am not trying to prove evolution, but rather ask you questions about it. Refer to my post above for more specifics on what I am asking about it. I agree that saying what evolution is not is not proving it wrong. I see your point there, and I do not use that as a means to disprove it, rather I am inquiring about the origin of such a process. That is all.

You are once again attempting to justify torture and killing. Are you claiming that the ethics of your god made this type of barbaric behavior acceptable, and that Jesus dying suddenly made it not acceptable? Regardless, you continually avoid the points about beating servants, so let's just focus on only that. Servants could be beaten for no reason, so long as they weren't killed. You can't even make the claim that they are being held responsibility for their actions. How do you justify this?

I am not trying to "justify" anything. Take this excerpt into consideration:

Most likely, this law was intended to distinguish between cases where a slave died as a direct result of their master's mistreatment and where they died of natural causes. It could of course be the case that a slave was severely beaten but didn't succumb to their injuries for a few days. In that situation, the case could have been brought before the priests and they could have used common sense and ruled that it was murder (cf. Dt 17:8-11). One should keep in mind that the laws given in the OT are examples, not legalese. For instance, Ex. 21:33-34 mentions only an ox or donkey falling into a pit, but that hardly means that if another animal fell into someone's pit the owner wouldn't receive compensation.

Do you see that its not meriting the beating, but punishment of slaves? It is not meriting the owner, but protecting the slave from mistreatment?

TheSilverRider

12-07-2009, 11:05 PM

This is just a horrible comparison. There are specific set out statements throughout the bible which show murder, lying, rape, theft, etc are not approved of. The bible not only "allows for" slavery, but endorses it. If you disagree, then please point me to the bible passage which supports this anonymous internet writer's claim that slavery was not desired.

I think Brian Tubbs does an outstanding job of interpreting this the correct way. Notice how he states that "The danger is that when Americans think of "slavery," they conjure up an image of whites enslaving Africans - the institution of slavery that our nation experienced. This is NOT the type of slavery referred to in the Scriptures." and "You must understand the historical context of the Bible's references, determine the timeless principle, and go from there." Do you see how we distort things looking the the lens of current society?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/57430/does_the_bible_endorse_slavery.html?cat=9

But again, you seem to be waivering, and again, you have avoided the question and main point: why would an omnipotent deity ever need to change the definitions of what is right and wrong? If he wanted to convey ethical principles, why cater to the culture instead of just say what is right and wrong? Either it's right or it's wrong throughout time. This is not the case with something such as dietary restrictions, which can change based on technology and health knowledge. So again: what reason do you have of changing ethics (the very nature of what is right and wrong) throughout time?

Culture. I dont really know how many times I am going to have to put this down. Are you so ignorant as to say that right and wrong has never changed as long as mankind has existed? What was right 100 years ago is right today? What was wrong 100 years ago is wrong today? Is that what your saying?

Which is why I asked: if you were alive in that time period, why do you believe beating slaves is ethically justifiable. You still haven't provided a reason past "it was culturally acceptable", which does not speak to ethics at all.

If you want to make the claim that dietary restrictions were lifted as an agreement that was no longer needed, I can buy it. But what we're discussing is NOT a covenant with your creator - it's basic human rights and equality. Why are basic human rights and equalities changed by an omnipotent being over time or by cultural norms EVER?

Statement I made above. God is omnipotent, yes. Man is omnipotent, NO. God works within our boundaries, he may be able to have the same ethics throughout all time, but man changes so much that those standards would be unrealistic to be set in stone from before the world began. We have the 10 commandments, yes, but specific things such as slavery and such are things that change with time and culture.

Yes, yes it is. If you disagree, provide for me the reason that Galileo's research and beliefs that the earth revolved around the sun were banned by Christian officials. You like making these types of generalized statements, but you have yet to support any of them. Please, show these reasons with respect to Galileo.

I have done a lot of reading on this subject as well. I have come to the conclusion that his research itself was not banned. Actually, in many instances, his research was welcomed. His book was banned for not doing what he said it would do. (including all viewpoints). Galileo was very involved in the church and was held to its standards. Please keep in mind this is the Pope we are talking about as well, which I do not agree with his standards. He could have done his research apart from the church by not affiliating himself with it and been just fine. Overall, his research was not BANNED and it was welcomed in many ways. Only when he wrote a work that was not including what he said it would include did he get in trouble.

I stated they had no knowledge of the biology. The reason they were in an uproar is because they were uneducated both in the field and the surrounding situation, which resulted in the embryos being destroyed anyway. And yes, people uproar over nothing. Have you never heard of a lynch mob mentality? People get mislead or bandwagon all the time. In fact, the entirety of the US economy and stock market hinges on this daily. You can see it in action RIGHT NOW in the mafia thread. Stupid people do stupid things and influence other stupid people continuously.

I absolutely agree. But I urge you to consider EVERYONE and not write them all off as this type of uneducated bafoon that hops on every bandwagon no matter how misled it may be. There are some people, that research subject to learn them better and to understand WHY we disagree with it and see what the Bible has to say about it. I try to be that type of person as often as possible.

There were two options for all those excess embryos:

Destroy them
Do research to create life saving medical procedures (which destroys them in the process)

Yes, anyone who wished it to be banned was incredibly ignorant because they were going on WRONG information and short-sightedness. You, for example, just showed those same qualities by knowing nothing of the situation yet drawing conclusions about it anyway. Instead of trying to better understand the situation, or why other people are saying "you don't understand", you (and other ignorant religious fanatics) just assume informed decision makers are being arrogant and dismiss the claim. Are you starting to understand why I say you aren't in a place to construct and informed opinion? You get almost EVERYTHING wrong.

I am very concerned that you have such a low opinion of me Uniq. I try to consider every word that you say, not only because you are very knowledgeable in what you talk about, but because you take the time to form it in an organized fashion. I hope and wish you would do the same for me. I do not respond on impulse, and I plan me responses to best address everything you state. My above posts and replies to your thoughts address this quote rather well. It is not uninformity that is the issue here, but rather the means by which the embryos are acquired. The research itself is not a problem (which is why I have no problem with the adult version), but by condoning the research I am condoning the means by which you acquire the embryos, and that I just cannot do.

I didn't even type the word "abortion" anywhere near there. Let's apply it to stem cell research though.

1. US law currently allows for it, so this point is unneeded
2. training and knowledge would include a) biology (specifically embryology and microbiology), b) medicine (specifically obstetrics and neonatology), and c) embryo storage protocols (from acquisition to destruction).
3. the general consensus within the community, both between and within individual fields named in #2 has been established

This is where you usually say you need to go do more reading, which usually shows two things: a) you just got licked, and b) that you are the epitome of the ignorant uneducated religious fanatic I've been discussing, that enters discussions with poor knowledge on the topic yet asserts their opinion anyway.

I have done the reading and I'm sorry to say its not one of your two little points here. Again, please, consider a higher opinion for my posts. I am not trying to waste your time, but give you organized responses and retorts. I do not post right away because I want to be able to back up what I say to you with research and reading. You basically state here that abortion has nothing to do with it, I disagree. Above posts again deal with this. Apply abortion to those three topics, sure, but my beef is with abortion whether or not its against US law.

This is yet another poor misconception of people with no understanding of scientific reasoning. The beginning or preceding aspects of a conclusion is not necessary to prove the conclusion. That is, we don't need to know what came before evolution, or even how evolution started to prove it true. There's only one area that uses that ridiculous assumption: religion.

Let's go back to the idea of that shape in the bag. Let's make it a triangle to keep it simple. You reach in, clearly feel three corners and three straight edges. Do you claim it's not really a triangle because you can't explain how it got in the bag? Maybe I put it in the bag for you. Maybe a friend did. Maybe I bought it in the bag. Does the method it got there change your conclusion?

This is known as logic. Claiming evolution is debunked because *you* don't understand what came before it (which against speaks to your lack of education) is illogical. Similarly, claiming the bible is correct for the same reason is ridiculous and no more valid than claiming the flying spaghetti monster is correct.

This is the quote I was looking for above. See above post for response to this.

Essentially, if evolution were a one time thing I would aggree whole-heartedly, but it is not. It is a process from which all we see came into existence. Therefore, it requires and origin. *see TV analogy* You can say all you want that it does not matter where evolution started to prove that its true, but if it is to be considered a process it must have an origin to be legitimate.

TheSilverRider

12-07-2009, 11:06 PM

False. We have everything in the universe. We have no written history of the moon, but all those craters prove it was bombarded. This is reproducible evidence and takes no faith.

You missed the point, or just decided to weave around it. The fact that you cannot trace evolution back to the beginning, and because you cannot tell me where the something came from nothing. You MUST have faith that it was just there to begin with. It is not reproducible in a lab (your own definition of evidence requires it to be), therefore, faith is required until you can create something out of absolute nothingness.

uniquinous

12-08-2009, 12:48 AM

You are correct, when it comes to biology, I do not know nearly as much as you or many other people in the field. What I am basing my opinion on is experts who explain the process and the research I have done on what they say. From my knowledge, the embryos you aquire come from abortions. These "experts" you speak of are bible experts, not biology experts! They are just as ignorant, and they're the ones telling you what to think. I want to make the following point unmistakably clear: stem cell research does NOT come from abortions. Anyone telling you otherwise is flat out lying to you and propagating completely false ideas. Embryos across the country are generated regularly for in vitro fertilization. That is, when a couple is having trouble conceiving, doctors can help the process along ("test tube baby"). However, to do this, several eggs are needed and get fertilized. At the end of in vitro fertilization, there are usually leftover embryos that were created but are unneeded. Couples can choose to pay to store them (and there have been some stories in the news about twins being born years apart because of this), but generally they do not. That leaves the embryos to be destroyed. The scientific community wanted some good to come out from that by creating amazing medical treatments to debilitating diseases. Banning the research only lead to the destruction of those embryos with full prevention of progress.

I do understand that those are the two options, and you make it very convincing that I must choose one of the two, but neither of them should ever be an option. We have to back up a step or two and say why do we have the embryo in the first place.
OK so what are the options? Banning in vitro fertilization? Preventing countless couples from having children because of your personal opinions against test tube cells? Tell me: what are your views on emergency contraception?

Regardless: what do we do with the hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos already created? It's easy to say "well that shouldn't have happened", but it did. Let's say you banned all IVF so no more are produced. Given that situation, what do you do with all the ones already created?

Harry Potter never claims to be fact, it never assumes to be fact and calls itself fiction. The Bible claims to be fact and calls itself fact. There are archeological evidence (http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html) and many other things that give the Bible merit to be set apart from things such as Harry Potter. I do agree fiction is impossible to disprove fictionWhere in Harry Potter does it call itself fiction? I've read all 7 books and didn't see that written anywhere inside them. Perhaps if one of the books stated "this is factual" you would believe it all of a sudden? Yes, there are verifiable aspects of the bible just as there are verifiable aspects of Harry Potter. We can prove a city named "London" exists. You claim older religious documents have been disproved. What about the vedas has been disproved?
Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge (http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/scientific-verif-vedas.html)
I do not profess this information to be correct. I offer it to show that people of every religion claim their religious documents are correct.

Let's do a thought experiment. What if you wanted to create a religious text to fool people that it's correct? Which of the following would you use:
A) complete fiction, making up every person, place, time, etc
B) mixed fiction, using known facts and events to support your mythology
Take a guess which one of these would "stand the test of time" best.

But you did not. I want to know the origin. You claim (somewhere, i dont know exactly where but I am going to post it all right here anyway) that you do not need to prove the origin of evolution to prove evolution. I dont agree with that. If evolution were a one time thing, then yes, I agree with that, but its not. Its the evolutionary process. Its ongoing, and has been ongoing, therefore you must give evidence of where it all came from. How about this for an analogy, if I were to ask you, "How do you make a TV?" you show me that one works and prove very well that it works amazingly, but never tell me how to make one or where I get the materials or whats needed to make one. Do you see the discrepancy? No. Your analogy is incongruous as a parallel example to evolution. You ask a "how do you make a TV?" question and get a "yes/no: does it work?" answer, when you should be asking "how does it work?". A scientist would essentially reverse engineer the unknown thing, examine its parts and how they support each other. A scientist would identify that the vital element needed to make it functional would be the plug in the wall, but the scientist doesn't need to know where the power came from; what mines the metals were procured; what process was used to form the plastic structure. The only things that would need to be identified are the elements which make it function, not their origins. For evolution, we know that.

And IF, there happens to be a part we've not seen before, some mystery we can't quite fully reverse engineer but we know is a vital part of the process, it doesn't mean the TV stopped working. It just means we don't understand something immediately, but realize it's needed.

That's the difference between science and religion - we're allowed to say "I don't know" without it affecting everything we do know.

Do you see that its not meriting the beating, but punishment of slaves? It is not meriting the owner, but protecting the slave from mistreatment?No, it does not protect the slave from mistreatment, it protects the slave from murder. That is all. This very much allows for mistreatment so long as it's not murder. So again I ask: in what universe or era is it ethically acceptable to have and beat slaves? Again, why do matters of right and wrong EVER change with an omnipotent being? How is something morally right for one culture but corrupt in another if you know everything?

I think Brian Tubbs does an outstanding job of interpreting this the correct way. Notice how he states that "The danger is that when Americans think of "slavery," they conjure up an image of whites enslaving Africans - the institution of slavery that our nation experienced. This is NOT the type of slavery referred to in the Scriptures." and "You must understand the historical context of the Bible's references, determine the timeless principle, and go from there." He does no such outstanding job at all. What he says is "that's not really how it is". .. ... ok.... well Brian, how WAS it really? He can claim "that's not REALLY what they meant" (as he has), but neither you nor he has provided any support to that claim. So how was selling your daughter into slavery different than what I currently see it as? Moreover, please answer my previous question by pointing out where in the bible it states slavery is undesirable (which was another unsupported claim by that author).

Are you so ignorant as to say that right and wrong has never changed as long as mankind has existed? What was right 100 years ago is right today? What was wrong 100 years ago is wrong today? Is that what your saying?Oh right and wrong have changed for mankind countless times. Why do you suspect that is? Why is it that you think our ethical and judiciary outlooks change over time? Don't say "culture" - tell me what specifically.

God works within our boundariesWhat? Why on earth would you believe that to be true? You're essentially claiming that an all powerful being must YIELD to the tide of culture; that it is unable to stress true "right and wrong", pass on proper morals/habits, and so settles for whatever the children do short of large atrocities. Do you know what that's called? Bad parenting.

uniquinous

12-08-2009, 12:53 AM

I have done a lot of reading on this subject as well. I have come to the conclusion that his research itself was not banned. Actually, in many instances, his research was welcomed. His book was banned for not doing what he said it would do. (including all viewpoints). Galileo was very involved in the church and was held to its standards. Please keep in mind this is the Pope we are talking about as well, which I do not agree with his standards. He could have done his research apart from the church by not affiliating himself with it and been just fine. Overall, his research was not BANNED and it was welcomed in many ways. Only when he wrote a work that was not including what he said it would include did he get in trouble. So you're claiming it wasn't the research itself, but the published findings. Wonderful excuses. Tell me: why was he imprisoned and forced to recant his findings? No, he wasn't forced to "include all viewpoints", he was forced to claim the sun revolved around the earth.

This "reading" that you did on the subject is malarkey. Offer up any support of your argument, because everything I've read says otherwise. While we're on the subject, how do you explain Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30?

I absolutely agree. But I urge you to consider EVERYONE and not write them all off as this type of uneducated bafoon that hops on every bandwagon no matter how misled it may be. There are some people, that research subject to learn them better and to understand WHY we disagree with it and see what the Bible has to say about it. I try to be that type of person as often as possible. I consider you well versed in your religion and its teachings, and you have come before me with baseless opinions on science more times than I can count. So if someone who is assumed to be educated in religion falls for that kind of ignorant garbage, what do you expect me to think of those who are being lead by someone like you? Those who are well educated in neither science nor their own religion? Those who purposely mislead the government and sway policy? Your religion should have no part in government nor science, yet people push it in anyway. Science is not a competing religion, it is not another side to the stories you tell, and it is not something that works only when the bible says it works. Science is the examination of a physical system which draws conclusions from evidence obtained. Theology has no methods of acquiring evidence in a physical system, and as such is in no position to discredit science. The only thing that can do such is science itself via contradictory evidence.

It is not uninformity that is the issue here, but rather the means by which the embryos are acquired. The research itself is not a problem (which is why I have no problem with the adult version), but by condoning the research I am condoning the means by which you acquire the embryos, and that I just cannot do. As I have already corrected yet another misconception above, I think it's safe to say the issue here IS in fact being uninformed. No embryo dealing with a woman having an abortion is ever used for stem cell research.

The fact that you cannot trace evolution back to the beginning, and because you cannot tell me where the something came from nothing. You MUST have faith that it was just there to begin with. It is not reproducible in a lab (your own definition of evidence requires it to be), therefore, faith is required until you can create something out of absolute nothingness.This is a misconception that is only valid in religious origins. For your beliefs to work, you MUST know where everything came from. The mythology doesn't work if it doesn't outline creation (this is why creation is a large part of most religions). You must have faith those stories are true, because there is no evidence and they define your religion. Without Genesis, where would Christianity be?

But the same does not hold true for science. With science, there is an alternative option: "I don't know" - and that's ok. Scientists have the luxury of not understanding specific things, yet still understanding others. If science cannot outline the origins of the universe (and it can), does that diminish our technological advancements? No, of course not.

Essentially, if evolution were a one time thing I would aggree whole-heartedly, but it is not. It is a process from which all we see came into existence. Therefore, it requires and origin. *see TV analogy* You can say all you want that it does not matter where evolution started to prove that its true, but if it is to be considered a process it must have an origin to be legitimate.I think I see your issue now. You seem to believe that we are defining a process from start to finish as evolution, whereby the entire process must be understood. That's not the case. Let's take Santa's workshop, for example. You're the elf who has the privilege of wrapping the toys at the end of a really long magical conveyor belt. They simply pop out of a hole in the wall, you wrap them, and then the conveyor belt brings them to Santa's sleigh. You know your elf friends are the ones making them, but you don't know their process and can't see anyone aside from other gift wrappers. Nonetheless, you know how to wrap gifts really well because you were able to observe how other people did it.

Similarly, we don't need to know the raw materials of evolution - we don't need to know how they came together just as we don't need to know who put the toys together or how. That is because evolution is part of a process, just as gift wrapping is part of a larger process. We learned how evolution works just as you learned how gift wrapping works. The process of evolution is NOT making toys from scratch - it's just the gift wrapping. =)

Happy Holidays!

Whoeversmeltit

12-08-2009, 05:36 AM

TSR,
Reading your posts in this thread gives me a dull head ache and a nose bleed. Your views on religion are so convoluded that you end up debating science and history instead of religion. Further, your arguments, while they do make me vomit in my mouth, do not make logical sense.
Peace be with you.

Realist

12-08-2009, 10:49 AM

TSR,
Reading your posts in this thread gives me a dull head ache and a nose bleed. Your views on religion are so concluded that you end up debating science and history instead of religion. Further, your arguments, while they do make me vomit in my mouth, do not make logical sense.
Peace be with you.

TSR commits the cardinal sin of having coherence and substance in his inane religious arguments.

meat.eater

12-08-2009, 11:05 AM

Harry Potter never claims to be fact, it never assumes to be fact and calls itself fiction. The Bible claims to be fact and calls itself fact. There are archeological evidence and many other things that give the Bible merit to be set apart from things such as Harry Potter. I do agree fiction is impossible to disprove fiction

The Qur'an claims to be fact, too. But you certainly don't believe it; believing it would contradict what you do decide to believe. This is about your personal choice, not what someone else wrote on a page. Imagine what kinds of information people would be conforming to if they believed everything they read and the source of that reading was the proof of its existence (just imagine, for sake of the contemporary, if everyone read, believed and sourced wikipedia).

I'm not making an argument about whether the Bible is true or false, because I don't particularly care. But you're discrediting your own Christian faith by simply making it a testament to the Bibles factual nature.

Whoeversmeltit

12-08-2009, 02:18 PM

TSR commits the cardinal sin of having coherence and substance in his inane religious arguments.

Meditating on and discussing Zen koans or certain aspects of the Sermon on the Mount generally don't involve empirical scientific studies. Just as biologists don't refer to the bible in the lab.

But fundamentalists and athiests all too often insist upon the other abdicating and miss the point.

The athiest will argue that lillies are incabable of thought, while the fundamentalist argues that it really did take 6 days to make it all.

uniquinous

12-14-2009, 09:56 PM

TSR has been ridiculously busy the last like year and had some time on his hand and wanted to pick things back up. I love the discussion in this thread.
why bother? you come here knowing little, make ridiculous errors in your arguments, and then disappear once faced with the overwhelming logic that you are incorrect, just to return months later wondering where we left off but never actually picking up old discussions again...

The Cheat

12-14-2009, 10:06 PM

why bother? you come here knowing little, make ridiculous errors in your arguments, and then disappear once faced with the overwhelming logic that you are incorrect, just to return months later wondering where we left off but never actually picking up old discussions again...

Burn.

Victory to Uniq.

Lonely Tylenol

12-15-2009, 01:13 AM

(just imagine, for sake of the contemporary, if everyone read, believed and sourced wikipedia).

I need to find a new college before my schoolmates give me an aneurysm... :dry:

TheSilverRider

12-17-2009, 03:59 PM

Ächilles

12-17-2009, 08:06 PM

(just imagine, for sake of the contemporary, if everyone read, believed and sourced wikipedia).

You dare challenge the empiricism of Wikipedia, boy?

uniquinous

12-17-2009, 10:55 PM

Sorry Uniq. Finals week. Had 5 exams this week. Finished with a 4.0 for the semester though :)

Your response is on the way, I promise.

congrats. look forward to it.

iceman2001

12-18-2009, 12:26 AM

congrats. look forward to it.

Reading the past 30 pages of this thread has inspired me to post the first time in months.

Honestly, Uniq, I have absolutely no idea why you could look forward to his response. In the past 30 pages, I could not come with a single example of where TSR truely understood a single one of your points, due to the fact that he genuinely does not have the intellectual capacity to do so.

TSR has no idea what the scientific method is. No idea what a theory is. No idea what evidence is. He does not understand problem with a omniscient all knowing God promoting ethics which are only time period specific. (espicially since his God has not given us an update in 2000 years) He was completely unable to comprehend your "shape in the box" part, where he ended up stating that it is impossible to verify anything that cannot be seen first hand. (x-rays, the existence of atoms, molecules, and Jesus for that matter apparently cannot exist) He doesn't understand what stems cells are, nor will he. He doesn't understand that the stem cells were already sitting in vats waiting to be utilized and would have to be destroyed due to the Bush doctrine. His grasp of ethics would make him fail a Philosophy 101 class at both my undergraduate institutions. He simply doesn't understand science, ethics, and their application to religion.

His sources are generally less academic than wikipedia. I've read them, and read the "credentials" of the authors which would not allow them to get a high school teaching certificate in the state of Mississippi. They rely on horrendous assumptions, incorrect definitions, attacking straw men, and general cognitive dissonance to prove their points. It's on the level of OJ's "If I did it" and Tim Donaghy's book which will never be released.

There are basically two groups of people reading this thread. 1) People like TSR, who will never be capable of understanding these complex issues, and 2) People who generally agree with what you are saying already. Nobody is truely learning anything, except perhaps I have gained appreciation of your ability to make clear distinct points. As I've said before, I would love to pair up with you in any intellectual project which would combine our skill sets. (This is what I was talking about in the west about the two of us working together btw. I was just too embarressed to clarify that when you brought it up later)

In light of this, I hope that you will find more efficient use of your considerable intellect. See the ongoing offer above. You could spend the rest of your life trying to give TSR a dose of self-reflection, just as I could spend the rest of mine trying to teach my hamster spanish. But its truely a criminal waste of brainpower in both cases.

Edit: And to TSR, sometimes it takes more intelligence to admit you don't have the certification or the prowess to continue a debate. I'd be a complete fool to think that my 2 semesters of college organic chemistry and 2 semesters of biology put me in the same league as Uni when it comes to genetics or medical science. The guy has about eight solid years of academic study in the field for Christsake. And Uni would be a fool to challenge me in one of my areas of expertise, namely game theory, basketball, or pleasuring a woman. :)

uniquinous

12-18-2009, 01:50 PM

Nobody is truely learning anything, except perhaps I have gained appreciation of your ability to make clear distinct points.
But you see? You've already identified why I do it: for you. It's always been for you. I've been longing for you to notice me, just once. >.>

You are right in that few people read this. If my goal was public education, it would not be in the back alley of an obscure internet forum. You're right in that I have no way of convincing people that the unfounded ideas they've been spoon fed their entire lives should be questioned. But I'm not trying to make anyone an atheist nor a scientist.

But let's just put the altruism, public good, education, and the fact that I enjoy debate aside for a moment. Let's take the selfish angle. Every day I am surrounded by people who all roughly fall within the smartest 5% of America. Honestly, it's nice sometimes to just get away from that. But really, I do just enjoy setting the record straight. I tutor, I volunteer, and I make myself available to the people in my community as a resource. So will this necessarily change the world, or even his outlook? Is this being read by anyone aside from you and maybe Realist looking for opportunities to nip at my heels? Probably not. But it's what I like to do; not to fill my precious time, but to step away from the things that do take up my time. I don't make self-contradictory/fulfilling statements about how you're trying to acquire every form of hepatitis known to man (what you do in your free time) is bad, now do I? >.>

I look forward to his response because it's the type of thing I'm going to need to deal with all the time. I want to hear all the ignorant or misguided ideas here instead of the real world. And if I can teach people that the stem cells were going to be destroyed anyway, or that vaccination does not cause autism, or that evolution is not some weird hoax/conspiracy started by the smartest people in America to trick people out of heaven, or that Rudolf the reindeer's nose actually glows chartreuse, then all the better.

Meanwhile, if you want to start a more engaging thread, or just scheme with me over the weekend, let me know. :)

Kyir

12-18-2009, 02:30 PM

Meanwhile, if you want to start a more engaging thread, or just scheme with me over the weekend, let me know. :)

You mean this isn't the most engaging thread on the forums?

My mind, she is blown.

iceman2001

12-18-2009, 03:52 PM

But you see? You've already identified why I do it: for you. It's always been for you. I've been longing for you to notice me, just once. >.>

lol. Playing to my self-acknowledged narcissism? For the record, I've evolved a little, partly due to cockiness exhibited by a 19-20 year old versus the cockiness exhibited by a 23-24 year old. (please do not point out that "aging" is not evolving :)) Also, like all of us I am subject to change. EVOLUTION YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!! PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT.

You're right in that I have no way of convincing people that the unfounded ideas they've been spoon fed their entire lives should be questioned. But I'm not trying to make anyone an atheist nor a scientist.
Well, I agree. I'd perhaps go a little further still- debating a subject such as religion with a religious person can many times just entrench their existing views and make them more dogmatic. Admittedly this is mostly my own experience, but I'm fairly certain I read a few psychology studies which came to the same conclusion that I guess I could dig up. (not because we're in a *debate* per say, but they truely were interesting)

I don't make self-contradictory/fulfilling statements about how you're trying to acquire every form of hepatitis known to man (what you do in your free time) is bad, now do I?

Low blow! And particularly hurtful considering my junk has become inflammed due to innumerable diseases. ;) Sadly though, I'm basically done with all that crap. Two girlfriends in the past 14 months, one of whom wouldn't do anything at all because her pastor told her condoms were made by the devil to make sins of the flesh more tempting. (not kidding) I've sadly joined the ranks of law abiding citizens these days.

As far as a project, I still don't think your as serious about it as I am. But there be gold in them hills.

Match Strike

12-18-2009, 04:40 PM

EVOLUTION YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!! PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT.
Acquired traits cannot become inherited traits, dumbass!

Gosh!

-=Blade=-

12-19-2009, 12:17 AM

Reading the past 30 pages of this thread has inspired me to post the first time in months.

Honestly, Uniq, I have absolutely no idea why you could look forward to his response. In the past 30 pages, I could not come with a single example of where TSR truely understood a single one of your points, due to the fact that he genuinely does not have the intellectual capacity to do so.

TSR has no idea what the scientific method is. No idea what a theory is. No idea what evidence is. He does not understand problem with a omniscient all knowing God promoting ethics which are only time period specific. (espicially since his God has not given us an update in 2000 years) He was completely unable to comprehend your "shape in the box" part, where he ended up stating that it is impossible to verify anything that cannot be seen first hand. (x-rays, the existence of atoms, molecules, and Jesus for that matter apparently cannot exist) He doesn't understand what stems cells are, nor will he. He doesn't understand that the stem cells were already sitting in vats waiting to be utilized and would have to be destroyed due to the Bush doctrine. His grasp of ethics would make him fail a Philosophy 101 class at both my undergraduate institutions. He simply doesn't understand science, ethics, and their application to religion.

His sources are generally less academic than wikipedia. I've read them, and read the "credentials" of the authors which would not allow them to get a high school teaching certificate in the state of Mississippi. They rely on horrendous assumptions, incorrect definitions, attacking straw men, and general cognitive dissonance to prove their points. It's on the level of OJ's "If I did it" and Tim Donaghy's book which will never be released.

There are basically two groups of people reading this thread. 1) People like TSR, who will never be capable of understanding these complex issues, and 2) People who generally agree with what you are saying already. Nobody is truely learning anything, except perhaps I have gained appreciation of your ability to make clear distinct points. As I've said before, I would love to pair up with you in any intellectual project which would combine our skill sets. (This is what I was talking about in the west about the two of us working together btw. I was just too embarressed to clarify that when you brought it up later)

In light of this, I hope that you will find more efficient use of your considerable intellect. See the ongoing offer above. You could spend the rest of your life trying to give TSR a dose of self-reflection, just as I could spend the rest of mine trying to teach my hamster spanish. But its truely a criminal waste of brainpower in both cases.

Edit: And to TSR, sometimes it takes more intelligence to admit you don't have the certification or the prowess to continue a debate. I'd be a complete fool to think that my 2 semesters of college organic chemistry and 2 semesters of biology put me in the same league as Uni when it comes to genetics or medical science. The guy has about eight solid years of academic study in the field for Christsake. And Uni would be a fool to challenge me in one of my areas of expertise, namely game theory, basketball, or pleasuring a woman. :)

...so you are complaining to another person about the ignorance of an entirely different person...what is this, high school? And btw, you missed one group of people who see this thread...people who think that people like you are ignorant, uncapable of any viewpoint that might be contradictory to secular belief, and just plain stupid for even attempting the debate of science vs. faith in a game forum thread. There are entirely too many factors that could be discussed/brought up, and im willing to bet that no one here would even have the credentials and experience to be able to refute most scientific theories brought against it.

But, I do know it can be done..I've read the books, seen the interviews, talked to professors in the field. You just have to know where to look. You can flame me all you want for saying this, but I can assure you, any refuting testimony brought against christianity principles/teachings/ideals can be disproven. First, no I don't have the answers for them...but I have seen and heard many of them. And secondly, I'm referring to christianity as in Protestantism, the belief that there is one God who created and controls everything. If you really want to continue this argument, there are a couple of books I suggest you read first. "A Case for Faith" and "A Case for Christ" both by Lee Strobel. Strobel was an atheist reporter turned Christian, and he set out to find answers to the most difficult questions brought against christianity. In his search, he interviews the most prominent figures in academia pertaining to his particular questions. Note that his interviews are completely neutral and without bias, however he adds his opinions after each. I can assure you that these references are probably the most legitimate ones brought forth yet.

I only glanced over a few of the pages leading up to this, so I don't know everything that has been covered. However, issues such as stem cells, abortion, etc. has no place in this thread. It is a christianity thread for people to talk about Christian topics. No one deserves to be flamed for it, everyone is entitled to their own ideals and beliefs. If you don't like it, stay out of the thread.

*Sanosuke*

12-19-2009, 12:22 AM

...so you are complaining to another person about the ignorance of an entirely different person...what is this, high school? And btw, you missed one group of people who see this thread...people who think that people like you are ignorant(is to be without knowing. Everything highlighted in red pretty much shows how badly you contradict yourself., uncapable(incapable) of any viewpoint that might be contradictory to secular belief, and just plain stupid for even attempting the debate of science vs. faith in a game forum thread. There are entirely too many factors that could be discussed/brought up, and im willing to bet that no one here would even have the credentials and experience to be able to refute most scientific theories brought against it.

But, I do know it can be done..I've read the books, seen the interviews, talked to professors in the field. You just have to know where to look. You can flame me all you want for saying this, but I can assure you, any refuting testimony brought against christianity principles/teachings/ideals can be disproven(not a word). First, no I don't have the answers for them...but I have seen and heard many of them. And secondly, I'm referring to christianity as in Protestantism, the belief that there is one God who created and controls everything. If you really want to continue this argument, there are a couple of books I suggest you read first. "A Case for Faith" and "A Case for Christ" both by Lee Strobel. Strobel was an atheist reporter turned Christian, and he set out to find answers to the most difficult questions brought against christianity. In his search, he interviews the most prominent figures in academia pertaining to his particular questions. Note that his interviews are completely neutral and without bias, however he adds his opinions after each. I can assure you that these references are probably the most legitimate ones brought forth yet.

I only glanced over a few of the pages leading up to this, so I don't know everything that has been covered. However, issues such as stem cells, abortion, etc. has no place in this thread. It is a christianity thread for people to talk about Christian topics. No one deserves to be flamed for it, everyone is entitled to their own ideals and beliefs(i can haz contradiction?). If you don't like it, stay out of the thread.

u phail.

EDIT:

To expand: If everyone is entitled to their own ideals and beliefs, and this topic is about Christianity, doesn't that mean people are allowed to post their ideals and beliefs about Christianity even though they are not Christians? No where did you just say in your quote that this was a Christian only thread.

Kyir

12-19-2009, 12:28 AM

...so you are complaining to another person about the ignorance of an entirely different person...what is this, high school? And btw, you missed one group of people who see this thread...people who think that people like you are ignorant, uncapable of any viewpoint that might be contradictory to secular belief, and just plain stupid for even attempting the debate of science vs. faith in a game forum thread. There are entirely too many factors that could be discussed/brought up, and im willing to bet that no one here would even have the credentials and experience to be able to refute most scientific theories brought against it.

But, I do know it can be done..I've read the books, seen the interviews, talked to professors in the field. You just have to know where to look. You can flame me all you want for saying this, but I can assure you, any refuting testimony brought against christianity principles/teachings/ideals can be disproven. First, no I don't have the answers for them...but I have seen and heard many of them. And secondly, I'm referring to christianity as in Protestantism, the belief that there is one God who created and controls everything. If you really want to continue this argument, there are a couple of books I suggest you read first. "A Case for Faith" and "A Case for Christ" both by Lee Strobel. Strobel was an atheist reporter turned Christian, and he set out to find answers to the most difficult questions brought against christianity. In his search, he interviews the most prominent figures in academia pertaining to his particular questions. Note that his interviews are completely neutral and without bias, however he adds his opinions after each. I can assure you that these references are probably the most legitimate ones brought forth yet.

I only glanced over a few of the pages leading up to this, so I don't know everything that has been covered. However, issues such as stem cells, abortion, etc. has no place in this thread. It is a christianity thread for people to talk about Christian topics. No one deserves to be flamed for it, everyone is entitled to their own ideals and beliefs. If you don't like it, stay out of the thread.

Nice banner in papyrus bro.

uniquinous

12-19-2009, 12:51 AM

...so you are complaining to another person about the ignorance of an entirely different person...what is this, high school? And btw, you missed one group of people who see this thread...people who think that people like you are ignorant, uncapable of any viewpoint that might be contradictory to secular belief, and just plain stupid for even attempting the debate of science vs. faith in a game forum thread. There are entirely too many factors that could be discussed/brought up, and im willing to bet that no one here would even have the credentials and experience to be able to refute most scientific theories brought against it.

But, I do know it can be done..I've read the books, seen the interviews, talked to professors in the field. You just have to know where to look. You can flame me all you want for saying this, but I can assure you, any refuting testimony brought against christianity principles/teachings/ideals can be disproven. First, no I don't have the answers for them...but I have seen and heard many of them. And secondly, I'm referring to christianity as in Protestantism, the belief that there is one God who created and controls everything. If you really want to continue this argument, there are a couple of books I suggest you read first. "A Case for Faith" and "A Case for Christ" both by Lee Strobel. Strobel was an atheist reporter turned Christian, and he set out to find answers to the most difficult questions brought against christianity. In his search, he interviews the most prominent figures in academia pertaining to his particular questions. Note that his interviews are completely neutral and without bias, however he adds his opinions after each. I can assure you that these references are probably the most legitimate ones brought forth yet.

I only glanced over a few of the pages leading up to this, so I don't know everything that has been covered. However, issues such as stem cells, abortion, etc. has no place in this thread. It is a christianity thread for people to talk about Christian topics. No one deserves to be flamed for it, everyone is entitled to their own ideals and beliefs. If you don't like it, stay out of the thread.
so your stance is "you're wrong, it is impossible for any part of christian teachings and ideals to be wrong, and I won't support anything I'm saying but will make vague references to someone else's book". Blade, for someone criticizing the *methods* used here, you sure aren't doing so hot yourself.

If you want to make a claim, ensure you are in a position to support it. Don't make references to other people who can make it for you. I can waive my hands and claim a book proves the Flying Spaghetti Monster - this is not support. Claiming "he interviewed academics" similarly is not support ("academics", who by the way, use absolutely no science to make their claim).

Lastly, while everyone has the right to believe anything they want, all beliefs are not created equal. Some are in fact really ignorant. So if you want to post your beliefs in this forum, do not be so naive as to assume they are infallible or irreproachable.

-=Blade=-

12-19-2009, 01:25 AM

so your stance is "you're wrong, it is impossible for any part of christian teachings and ideals to be wrong, and I won't support anything I'm saying but will make vague references to someone else's book". Blade, for someone criticizing the *methods* used here, you sure aren't doing so hot yourself.

If you want to make a claim, ensure you are in a position to support it. Don't make references to other people who can make it for you. I can waive my hands and claim a book proves the Flying Spaghetti Monster - this is not support. Claiming "he interviewed academics" similarly is not support ("academics", who by the way, use absolutely no science to make their claim).

Lastly, while everyone has the right to believe anything they want, all beliefs are not created equal. Some are in fact really ignorant. So if you want to post your beliefs in this forum, do not be so naive as to assume they are infallible or irreproachable.

Regarding the two previous posts, it's an older banner made by a friend, so it doesn't really matter who likes it.

Disproven is disproved. In my haste of typing I just added the wrong ending. Forgive me for simple typing errors.

And no, Im not saying that you aren't entitled to your opinion. Again, I'm simply saying that this is a Christian thread for people to discuss Christian topics. Why aren't there Hindu/Buddhist/Mormon/Atheist/etc. threads for people to discuss?

I'd be willing to bet that this thread wasn't made to convince or force anyone to join or convert or be convinced of it. Yet, the entire thread is a constant debate. This is counterproductive and a waste of time.

Let the people who want to discuss Christian topics do so, and keep your opinions of it to yourself or make your own thread. I know it seems particularly easy to inpart your own comments, especially if you don't agree. But, this is a very serious topic on which to debate, from which comes very heated issues.

As I said, they don't belong in an off-topic game thread. Go to some religious forum if you are so adament to find reasonable arguments or disprove major theories/beliefs.

This thread really does nothing but make people frustrated and cause people to say things like "u fail" simply because they don't believe the same way.

I'm not going to debate this topic, because my beliefs are too adament for a forum setting. Regardless of whether people believe the comments made in here or not, there is no excuse for persecuting (yes, I believe it to be persecuting) those who make them. It honestly comes off as a severe lack of maturity, especially if you believe yourself to be so much smarter than those whom you argue against.

And in response to Uniq:

No, that's not what I was saying, and I never said anyone was wrong. I simply said the evidence is there if you know where to look. And as I said, I'm not getting involved in this debate, because it doesn't belong here. If we were in person, I could debate it all day and give you all the references you want...but not here. It's too impractical in my opinion.

I'm not trying to make vague references. I only listed the references to give you a different perspective to see some of the issues from. You make so many references to scientific theory and things that aren't based on fact. I'm not accusing you of anything, and I don't mean to. It just seems to me that you haven't fully and thorughly researched and studied both sides of this topic enough to grasp the deepest meanings of the teaching of Christianity. That's why I listed those two particular references, and I invite you to read them, even if you don't agree.

Furthermore, "academics" such as the doctors/professors/experts that are mentioned in his books have based their lives on the study of their field. This means that they have researched and studied both sides of the spectrum to which their teachings pertain. Only because they have done this are they truly worthy of being labeled "experts" that can be mentioned in these books. You also have no right to say that all academics use no science whatsoever to make their claims. This is extremely bias and largely variable. People who base their entire lives to the study of a specific field, do they not collect information, analyze it, and form a hypothesis/theory/belief? Is this not the scientific method?

Lastly, I 100% agree with you that beliefs are unequal and many ignorant. At no point did I ever post my beliefs. Although, it is not naive to say that the religious beliefs a person has are infallible. Every religion has specific beliefs to which they strictly adhere, and any one of them would probably say that they believe their own religion to be infallible. That is an ideal that belongs to the person and the religion, and you nor anyone else has the right to state otherwise.

Whoeversmeltit

12-19-2009, 06:25 AM

Critics and fundamentalists seem to demonstrate common errors when approaching this topic.

The first error is the failure to understand that in its essence Christianity is the practice of guru-devotion to Christ with the goal of reconciling original sin.

The second error is the failure to discern between the form and substance of this practice.

The result is an argument that revolves around Christian dogma and lacks philosophical substance.

Ächilles

12-19-2009, 11:19 AM

I'd be willing to bet that this thread wasn't made to convince or force anyone to join or convert or be convinced of it. Yet, the entire thread is a constant debate. This is counterproductive and a waste of time.

The end of what you said here, about how the debate and whatnot are counterproductive, is irrefutably incorrect.

The most dire and inherent problem within faith-based worship systems, particularly those of the organized and institutionalized nature, is the chosen lack of debate and questioning. In all actuality, not debating is counterproductive, not the contrary.

Without debate, there is no method by which to progress human understanding of concepts, ideals, and goals relative to our being and our progress as a species. The entire problem with religion is not what it believes, as in the scope of human existence, all beliefs are valid to some degree; what that degree is depends entirely on what length it's supporters are willing to go to in order to prove it. The problem is that religion refuses to accept that they might be wrong - on any level.

With religion, concrete "understandings" are established, and then almost never, ever allowed to evolve or to be questioned. Unless an aspect of religion becomes so socially unacceptable within the secular aspects of culture and society that it absolutely has to be expunged from a belief system, they're upheld regardless of how much evidence and scientific research is presented in opposition of all of this. As I said, THIS is the problem with religion. There is a complete and total, utter lack of humility in any form within religion.

If religious systems were to develop a more humble nature by which to follow, accept, and present their beliefs, they would not be so categorically looked down upon by academics and free thinkers. If religious systems were willing to embrace said humility, and just as science does, accept that on any level they may be incorrect, then their stock would expand tenfold and more.

Thus, debating religious and philosophical principles is in fact imperative in order to ensure the forward progression of human thought and understanding relative to our being. By utilizing the Socratic Method of uncovering understanding through debunking falsely assumed beliefs, we further prove what is true to be so, and likewise disprove all that which is not. If we did not, as a free thinking species, question what we have come to know, we do not evolve.

In fact, the most paramount and perpetual goal of the human discovery of knowledge is to prove wrong as much as we possibly can. Through this, we enable the future by leaving only the understandings which stand against constant and unending scrutinizing.

-=Blade=-

12-19-2009, 12:41 PM

uniquinous

12-19-2009, 12:49 PM

Why aren't there Hindu/Buddhist/Mormon/Atheist/etc. threads for people to discuss? What would be discussed in the atheist thread exactly? What you seemed to have missed is that this is not a religious forum, and as such you should expect that this is not a good place to attempt having a religious-only discussion group.

I'd be willing to bet that this thread wasn't made to convince or force anyone to join or convert or be convinced of it. Yet, the entire thread is a constant debate. This is counterproductive and a waste of time. You're on THE INTERNET. Why do you believe this is any more time wasted then anything else you do on the internet? Specifically, why is it you believe that debate and discussion is any less valuable than blindly agreeing with people?

I'm not going to debate this topic, because my beliefs are too adament for a forum setting. Regardless of whether people believe the comments made in here or not, there is no excuse for persecuting (yes, I believe it to be persecuting) those who make them. It honestly comes off as a severe lack of maturity, especially if you believe yourself to be so much smarter than those whom you argue against.I know, you want to believe that your ignorant ideas are just as valid as intelligent educated professionals, but they're not. Sorry.

I'm not trying to make vague references. Try harder.

You make so many references to scientific theory and things that aren't based on fact.That's actually not true at all. Remember that thing about vague references? This quote is one of them. You say it's wrong to say "u fail" but you seem to have no problem coming here, adding nothing to the discussion, then claiming my points aren't based on fact. Furthermore, when I do reference proven scientific evidence, I make the claim myself. I don't tell anyone "go read [insert book name]", I explain it in my own words. The few times I need to link to something, it's usually to provide evidence or definition, readings which are no more than a paragraph.

Furthermore, "academics" such as the doctors/professors/experts that are mentioned in his books have based their lives on the study of their field.Except they aren't reporting their fields, and they aren't even considered experts in their own fields. Are you not aware of this? Let's review your "experts":

Jonathan Wells - theologian, PhD in religious studies, speaking about evolution
Stephen Meyer - historian and philosopher, speaking about the origin of life
William Lane Craig - PhD in the philosophy of religion, speaking about the Big Bang
Robin Collins - philosopher, speaking about creationism

The list goes on and on. None of these people have ANY training or education in the fields of which they are speaking. You see what I just did there? Support of a claim - not just saying "no they're right/wrong", but SHOWING why their "expert testimony" holds no weight in this discussion. This is classic misdirection used by proponents of creationism, because they simply can't use educated knowledgeable experts - they need to be deceitful and misleading. Contrast that to evolution experts, where distinguished geneticists, anatomists, physiologists, and archeologists speak on their own field presenting EVIDENCE, not philosophy.

You also have no right to say that all academics use no science whatsoever to make their claims. This is extremely bias and largely variable. People who base their entire lives to the study of a specific field, do they not collect information, analyze it, and form a hypothesis/theory/belief? Is this not the scientific method? No, actually. That's not the scientific method. And how these discreditable "experts" go about "collecting information" is in no way scientific.

If you wish to continue posting in this thread, I strongly recommend you bring more substantial and supported claims.

bdog1321

12-19-2009, 01:18 PM

I haven't followed the whole conversation, only this Blade guy's big post and Uniq's response, but what I gather from Uniq is that he is fundamentally different from religious people. Uniq does not seem to understand the concept of faith (which I don't think is the case because he's very intelligent), or, in the more likely case, perhaps he does and simply rejects it. Therefore all of his opinions on this matter will conflict with the Christians', which leads him to so vehemently argue that religion is a fallacy.

So, your conversation is nothing but a waste of posts because you are the two extremes. Neither of you is going to change the others' opinion, and I actually agree with Blade here that this isn't the thread to attempt it in the first place. Debate in this instance isn't healthy for anything but creating enemies because nothing is going to come of it but bad feelings. Uniq does present his argument better than anyone I've ever seen on these forums however, so Blade I'd break off the conversation if you don't want him to make you look like an idiot. Not saying you are, but it's pretty much the fate of anyone who tries to argue with Uniq. :p

Hugh Junit

12-19-2009, 01:20 PM

uniquinous

12-19-2009, 02:38 PM

Uniq does not seem to understand the concept of faith (which I don't think is the case because he's very intelligent), or, in the more likely case, perhaps he does and simply rejects it. Therefore all of his opinions on this matter will conflict with the Christians', which leads him to so vehemently argue that religion is a fallacy. What?! I don't understand faith? I have never once argued that religion is a fallacy. Just because I use logic and acknowledge evidence does not make me an atheist, nor do atheists need to argue that religion is a fallacy to support these topics. Where are you getting all this from?

bdog1321

12-19-2009, 03:34 PM

o.O maybe i'm thinking of someone else.

/embarrassed

-=Blade=-

12-19-2009, 06:12 PM

It really is pointless for anyone who hasn't been in this thread since the beginning to try to input any kind of response, because Uniq will cut down anyone that is conflict with him.

Honestly, if you are so smart and educated, take your arguments somewhere where they can be put to better use...like against actual proponents and experts of the people who debate this, not against a bunch of kids predominantly who have nothing else to do. I acknowledge the fact that you are well educated and can provide compelling research to support what you say. If I wanted to completely waste my time, I could do that as well.

To Hugh, again as I have been saying all along, this is a GAME forum. The argument of science vs. faith is universal and will never be put to rest; thus, it does not belong here. It belongs in a setting where people who know the facts can openly debate it without criticism or impartial judgment from non-experts. Unless it is some religious site or forum where this type of thing is commonplace. I believe that heated debates don't even belong on the internet for all the reasons I have mentioned here and in previous posts.

Uniq:
I don't know why you feel threatened and see the need to tear down anyone who doesn't agree with you. I never tried to argue...I never openly presented my own beliefs. You are trying to get me to present them and facts or information to support them, and I'm not going to. That's my choice, and I don't really care what you think about it.

We can sit here and debate/aruge/whatever you want to call it all day. The simple fact of the matter is that this thread was originally started for Christians to openly discuss their convictions. You and others who continually contest everything that is said are merely taking this thread farther from its intended meaning, and discouraging anyone, especially Christians, to try to post something. To me, you aren't accomplishing anything, accept to spam this thread and waste your own time.

This is my last comment, as I have said, this gets us nowhere. I strongly urge you, to let this topic return to what is was originally intended for and keep your opinions/beliefs/statements/research to yourself or take it elsewhere if you don't agree with that is said.

Realist

12-19-2009, 06:29 PM

Realist

12-19-2009, 06:35 PM

Blade, that's a whole lot of text you've spent devoted to telling people that they are arguing in the wrong place. They seemed to be having no trouble in that regard before you came along.

uniquinous

12-19-2009, 07:00 PM

I acknowledge the fact that you are well educated and can provide compelling research to support what you say. If I wanted to completely waste my time, I could do that as well. No. No you couldn't. There is no valid scientific research that supports your beliefs.

I don't know why you feel threatened and see the need to tear down anyone who doesn't agree with you. I never tried to argueThreatened? Where do you get that from? More so, you believe you never tried to argue? You came here claiming the things people doing here were wrong. You essentially took a stance that opposed the very nature of the last 296.5 pages (99%) of this thread. You came here and claimed my methods were wrong. You came here making vague references to other people's writing on your beliefs as support. And you believe you have not tried to argue?

You and others who continually contest everything that is said are merely taking this thread farther from its intended meaning, and discouraging anyone, especially Christians, to try to post something. To me, you aren't accomplishing anything, accept to spam this thread and waste your own time. You who has nothing to learn: show yourself out then, as this thread won't be returning to its "intended meaning" anytime soon.

The Cheat

12-19-2009, 08:21 PM

http://idology.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/buddha_2.jpg

Whoeversmeltit

12-19-2009, 08:32 PM

Yes, everyone in the world except the 5 people who think like you are doing their religion wrong.

Good one. Although, I know at least 6 (maybe 8 when drunk) who think like I do.

-=Blade=-

12-19-2009, 09:03 PM

You who has nothing to learn

Nothing to learn from you :bigsmile:

Gypsy

12-19-2009, 09:37 PM

With religion, concrete "understandings" are established, and then almost never, ever allowed to evolve or to be questioned. Unless an aspect of religion becomes so socially unacceptable within the secular aspects of culture and society that it absolutely has to be expunged from a belief system, they're upheld regardless of how much evidence and scientific research is presented in opposition of all of this. As I said, THIS is the problem with religion. There is a complete and total, utter lack of humility in any form within religion.

Part of how religious institutions hook people in is the absolute nature of it. People are often searching for something to believe in, and something absolute sounds better than something that involves maybes. People that made religions knew what they were doing, and trust me, their goal was not the progression of mankind.

iceman2001

12-19-2009, 10:01 PM

Blades, you came in here and told me that my post addressed to Uni was wrong, very high schoolish, and then insisted that I was wrong without giving any good reasoning for a full 3 pages while insisting that promoting a secular belief system.

News Flash: I'm a Christian. But not a retard who doesn't understand science

Do me a favor: spend three or more years pre-med or bio at an ivy league or equivalent institution and then please come back and we'll have continue to have an intellectual discussion about scientific standards. Until then, feel free to call me high schoolish and I'll let Uni tear you apart. I won't waste any more of my time on idiots "uncapable" (sic) of understanding what I was talking about to Uni.

And Uni- this is exactly what I'm talking about. Certainly there are people who are within your intellectual stratosphere whose viewpoints differ from your own. Even on this forum for that matter. Hell, if you want a challenge, let's put our cards on the table and each define our religious philosophy and try to poke holes in it. I'm going to assume you refuse such a challenge? Comon, it'll be refreshing I assure you. Having someone actually respond coherently? Having someone capable of admitting defeat? Heck, I'll even outline mine first- but you just have to agree to come out with yours when your done a critique of mine.

Eman_est

12-19-2009, 10:03 PM

Wait a minute didn't we already have a thread like this but then it got locked or something? so why is this one still here? And im christian two lol i like it ^_^

Gypsy

12-19-2009, 10:17 PM

Having someone actually respond coherently? Having someone capable of admitting defeat?

What internet are you on? ;)

Ächilles

12-19-2009, 10:26 PM

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying that debating in itself is counterproductive. Thus, I completely agree with you as to the importance of debating in relation to the promotion of a belief.

I was merely saying that for the purposes of this thread and where this thread is (in a game forum) it is completely irrelevant and counterproductive to argue the opposing viewpoints of this topic.

That's very contradictory. If you agree that debate facilitates further understanding of conceptual philosophies relative to the nature of human being, then why is it counterproductive here? By TSR refuting our points against Christianity, he is only further defining and specifying his beliefs.

As I said, and what you apparently agree with, debate powers the cogs of human evolution. I'm sure that on a very large level, TSR has developed a much more profound and clear understanding of his faith by having to so meticulously dissect, present, and defend his religious beliefs.

I'm not quite sure I understand how you agree with my point, though don't find it applicable here. This thread has been anything but counterproductive. In fact, TSR positively (and openly) loves the debate which takes place here. If you believe that facilitating intellectual stimulation through challenging your beliefs is counterproductive, then I believe that you're in the wrong place.

It really is pointless for anyone who hasn't been in this thread since the beginning to try to input any kind of response, because Uniq will cut down anyone that is conflict with him.

Honestly, if you are so smart and educated, take your arguments somewhere where they can be put to better use...like against actual proponents and experts of the people who debate this, not against a bunch of kids predominantly who have nothing else to do. I acknowledge the fact that you are well educated and can provide compelling research to support what you say. If I wanted to completely waste my time, I could do that as well.

What's your problem? Not a single person here had a problem with the debate we all participate in here until you came along. You're creating a problem by trying to solve a conflict that doesn't exist. In all actuality, all sides of the debate which is taking place really enjoy what we do here. Please stop with this strange self-entitled, pseudo-authoritative protection of something that's not even happening. The only problem here is you.

To Hugh, again as I have been saying all along, this is a GAME forum. The argument of science vs. faith is universal and will never be put to rest; thus, it does not belong here. It belongs in a setting where people who know the facts can openly debate it without criticism or impartial judgment from non-experts. Unless it is some religious site or forum where this type of thing is commonplace. I believe that heated debates don't even belong on the internet for all the reasons I have mentioned here and in previous posts.

This is just ridiculous. Who do you think you are? All of us have been very civilly and intelligently debating and discussing religion here for years with no problem. Who the hell are you to come in here and tell us what we can and cannot do? We don't even know you.

So what if this is a game forum? Some of the most intelligent people I've ever shared dialogue with have been here. Uniq, Realist, Aro, Northwind; these are some of the most intellectually gifted people I've ever had the honor of conversing with. How does the fact that this discussion is taking place here changes anything? You honestly believe that the common person has no place debating this sort of thing?

This notion is inarguably wrong, and honestly, very nonlinear and nearsighted. The reason most common people are so disillusioned and unaware of the nature of our own collective being is because of their lack of such discussions. Conversations such as this make this forum what it is, and enrich the quality of interaction here by leaps and bounds. I began posting on this forum when I was fourteen years old; I'm in my twenties now. I can promise you, with every ounce of sincerity in my bones, that I would not be nearly as open-minded or intelligent as I am now if I did not debate and discuss with the wonderful people here.

Uniq:
I don't know why you feel threatened and see the need to tear down anyone who doesn't agree with you. I never tried to argue...I never openly presented my own beliefs. You are trying to get me to present them and facts or information to support them, and I'm not going to. That's my choice, and I don't really care what you think about it.

We can sit here and debate/aruge/whatever you want to call it all day. The simple fact of the matter is that this thread was originally started for Christians to openly discuss their convictions. You and others who continually contest everything that is said are merely taking this thread farther from its intended meaning, and discouraging anyone, especially Christians, to try to post something. To me, you aren't accomplishing anything, accept to spam this thread and waste your own time.

These mystery Christians in hiding who you keep referring to are perfectly free to post here if they want. None of us are disrespectful (save a few comments here and there from immature members with nothing better to do), and we all welcome them to make their point. I don't know if you got the memo, but the entire point of a forum is discussion. We all love this type of intellectually stimulating conversation. If a Christian doesn't want to discuss their beliefs, then they shouldn't be on a forum.

This is my last comment, as I have said, this gets us nowhere. I strongly urge you, to let this topic return to what is was originally intended for and keep your opinions/beliefs/statements/research to yourself or take it elsewhere if you don't agree with that is said.

What's the deal with you? Why do you have this inexplicable and dire urge to change something that has been peacefully welcomed and embraced here for years? Not a single person was complaining. You just kicked down the door and started making demands. Can you just leave? You're just spamming. This may surprise you - but you're not a cop.

Part of how religious institutions hook people in is the absolute nature of it. People are often searching for something to believe in, and something absolute sounds better than something that involves maybes. People that made religions knew what they were doing, and trust me, their goal was not the progression of mankind.

Absolutism takes advantage of insecurity, yes.

Lonely Tylenol

12-20-2009, 01:27 AM

I think I'll just leave this here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WidsgIt3lfw)

Atheists, skeptics and empiricists alike should get a real kick out of this.

I think the Christians and fundamentalists alike are going to have a thing or two to say about it, but hopefully you'll get a kick out of it anyway, and maybe learn a lesson or two about the value of life experienced, instead of simply life believed. :)

uniquinous

12-20-2009, 03:05 AM

And Uni- this is exactly what I'm talking about.Ok well this one is different. He's not even saying... anything. He's just trouncing around in the shadows thinking he's making points and claiming he's not here to argue. Most aren't like that.

Hell, if you want a challenge, let's put our cards on the table and each define our religious philosophy and try to poke holes in it. I'm going to assume you refuse such a challenge? Comon, it'll be refreshing I assure you. Having someone actually respond coherently? Having someone capable of admitting defeat? Heck, I'll even outline mine first- but you just have to agree to come out with yours when your done a critique of mine.I'ma save you a solid 2 posts by outlining how it'd go down. You would describe your beliefs, which may possibly have some smaller aspect which I will disprove based on some new study, but otherwise find your philosophy fine and otherwise unremarkable simply because I have no counter evidence to offer. I will then take my turn, and you will come to the same conclusion, throwing in intermittent unrelated remarks about how baller you are. We'll both make some half hearted attempt to debate some trivial aspect of Jesus such as his actual name, whether he made sperm, the price each one could rake in on the open market today, or whether he liked light meat or dark meat, but neither of us will really have our hearts in it and we'll basically use it as a stall tactic until someone else says some ignorant thing that has been thoroughly disproved so we can then rofl-combo-pwn him together.

Run on sentences ftw.

*bein awesome*can't rep you again yet

I think I'll just leave this here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WidsgIt3lfw)

Atheists, skeptics and empiricists alike should get a real kick out of this.

I think the Christians and fundamentalists alike are going to have a thing or two to say about it, but hopefully you'll get a kick out of it anyway, and maybe learn a lesson or two about the value of life experienced, instead of simply life believed. :)
that was REALLY well done. I like that.

btw icy, I'm down to put minds together. Here's our first business idea: frosted Jesus wafers. Ya know the kind you get for sacrament? But sugar coated and marketed as a pious breakfast cereal. We can put pope trading cards inside as prizes and have bible quote hangman (hangscientist?) on the back of the box. Maybe turn the milk blood-colored upon hitting the cereal. Maybe put in Jesus shaped crunchberries that are less dense then the normal wafers so that they all rise to the top of the bowl when the milk is added. Religious and nutritious! Now that's the right way to start your day.

http://64bitarmy.com/lol/jesus%20lol//lol_buddy_jesus.jpg

Realist

12-20-2009, 03:25 AM

uniquinous

12-20-2009, 09:15 AM

Well, I don't agree with the mind exercise thing. Every once in a while I get surprised by some comment which shapes my argument. There's a reason my wording has gotten more streamlined. And yeah, half the senate!

Ächilles

12-20-2009, 09:53 AM

The fundamental point, which ice is absolutely right on, is that there is just no sport anymore in beating up on creationists and the like. They already lost that battle 150 years ago. There is a cheap, visceral satisfaction in it--knowing that you are stupendously smarter than some random guy on the internet (or half the US senate, granted) can make you feel superior and powerful--but we should recognize it for what it is, which is pure indulgence, of no personal redeeming value whatsoever. It does not exercise one's mind, nor does it educate the public. And it will bore those of us whose prime focus is to better understand reality.

That' something I've always found positively terrifying. It blows my mind that the majority of the men making decisions on behalf of the sole, unprecedented military superpower empirically believe in angels, the Devil, holy magic, and supreme higher beings whose job it is to judge humans. Those are not the people I want sitting on top of a stockpile of apocalyptic weapons.

Ice, if you're actually looking for highminded religious discussion, I'll bite, if uniq won't. Post.

As will I. It's great talking with reasonable, free thinking Christians. I might not agree with them, but I always value having someone like you forcing me to challenge my own beliefs in order to stand up against your's. I'd love to hear what you have to say, Ice.

Anarchy_United

12-20-2009, 11:25 AM

I might join in as well, though I'm fairly certain I'm not as good at rational argument and discussion as are you, but I could use the practice. Additionally, my views are fairly unsure and fluid at the moment, changing fairly often.

Fazu

12-21-2009, 10:42 AM

Ezekiel 7:25
John 3:16
Psalm 23

Easy to remember, used a lot, but still I enjoy the mundane and simplicity sometimes, it helps me keep in mind that there is something solid in my life when times have gotten rocky.
R.I.P Grandfather

Match Strike

12-21-2009, 01:13 PM

Well heck, this is getting boring to read. To try and counter the malaise which is setting in, I'll throw out some of my own conclusions:

-There is almost certainly no god or divinity as presented by any religion I've encountered. Agnosticism holds out that there is the possibility, since god is technically unknowable. However, I posit that it is so profoundly unlikely as to not merit any consideration.
-Religion will not go away, but its reach will continue to be diminished, as witnessed by newer Christians and "spiritualists" such as what's her face: the religion columnist in Newsweek. people seem to find comforting the notion of a higher power. I personally find it both implausible and kind of creepy.

Anyone else?

uniquinous

12-21-2009, 01:26 PM

i think the comfort comes more from abating two of the largest fears people have: that they will die, and that they are alone or unloved. It comes as no surprise that the "what's in it for me?" of religions tends to be eternal life/existence, and unwavering presence or love.

Match Strike

12-21-2009, 02:05 PM

Or exclusivity. The religion I have the most participatory experience with is Judaism, which has almost no discussion of afterlife or rewards. But there is the nebulous assertion that by being born a Jew, you are one of God's chosen people. This, I suppose, is a pretty good ego stroke for a lot of people.

But the other main draw is one of community/cultural cohesiveness and stability. This is a very strong pull with Judaism,which is as much a cultural as religious affiliation. Perhaps less so with religions that actively recruit people like Christianity. Though it could be said that one is recruited both to a religion and a culture. Domination by Western Europe of other areas of the world included both cultural and religious colonization.

Realist

12-21-2009, 02:50 PM

It's an interesting question what keeps religion's hold on people. I think the most important thing to keep in mind when thinking about religion is that religion is part of "culture" in general, and, I would say, more similar to the broader field of culture than most people consider it. There are many non-religious myths as well as religious ones, the most damaging of which, nationalism/tribalism (me and my more or less extended family are what matters and everyone else exists only as objects of our desires and fears) has wreaked vastly more harm on the world than religion. I think if you look at history, religion is actually a fairly weak hold on people in the context of culture in general--people are far more likely to abandon it's precepts or justify them away than to do the same for "extended familial ties" (and the latter has very deep-seated biological roots, whereas the advanced religions are built on a large social foundation which can be upset by many things).

There are many life events which can be ritualized in a more or less explicitly religious fashion. Even the most hardened rationalist-atheist may feel a need to signify mourning of death, or celebration of birth or marriage, etc. "Lapsed" members of a religion will often nevertheless hold weddings in their birth religion. Religion gives order and structure and symbolic meaning to ritual, and this has useful function even outside any theological belief in any particular doctrine. We know religion is a myth, but it is a meaningful myth, and we don't necessarily have a better way of expressing what we want to express outside of its symbolism. This applies outside major life events too. The symbolic power of ritual is far more powerful to most people than the factual content of religious doctrine.

This is all to say that religion doesn't have much to do with its factual content, including belief in afterlife or supreme beings and so on (most people simply do not believe in these things regardless of what religion they claim to hold faith in). This is why I have very little sympathy for atheists (antitheists) who attack religion for making factually false claims, or for causing lots of wars :rolleyes: or enslaving people, etc. If what you are against is mythology, it is everywhere, and religion is hardly the worst culprit. The only difference is that the advanced religions are somewhat more explicit about the factual claims they make (I think this distinction is weakened in less advanced societies where this is less of a priestly caste). On the other hand, I am fine with mythology in general, and find religious mythology generally more innocuous or positive than other mythologies. It is difficult, but maybe not impossible, to invent a structure of symbolic meaning that can compete with religion without having its less desired aspects (there was an interesting, and inevitably failed attempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being) during the French Revolution.) Until then though, there is no reason to be against religion.

Match Strike

12-21-2009, 03:08 PM

That's very insightful, Realist. Though deistic concepts were part of the founding of this nation as well, as is often pointed out.

There is certainly a strong correlation between nationalist and religious sentiments, which both probably stem from more ingrained tribal mentalities in humans. There will always be a fear of the "other."

But I'm not so quick as you to let religion itself off the hook. It is a means, not an end, perhaps: being used as a justification for military or exclusionary actions that are actually supported mainly for other reasons. But is a very effective means, I think, and discrediting at least the more negative aspects of religion could potentially help to deconstruct support for war or jingoism in general. The same people in our society who promote American exclusionist policies are those who are also vehemently pro-Christian-Nation. Remove the credibility of their religious argument, and that's one less leg supporting their stool.

Of course there are convincing counterarguments. Some, which you have presented, point to the comfort of ritual. But there are many ritualistic behaviors which are not religious. Examples can be found in our culture and others. Confucian philosophy for all its flaws is both deeply ritualistic and rather irreligious. Then there is the point made that as in a fascist state you can have the same general motives and justifications without much religious influence. But I don't find that a very compelling argument. Just because jingoism can happen without religion does not excuse religion's role in supporting it in many instances.

uniquinous

12-21-2009, 04:04 PM

I agree with Match Strike here. Culture produces rituals, but we don't necessarily identify them as such because they don't have the religious assertions associated with them. From neckties to dialing "1" before phone numbers, we are pattern oriented. Now look at Christmas lights. Is that a *religious* ritual?

I am not so quick to dismiss religion as a major source of conflict. It is one of many group differences used as "justification", yes. However, I don't think you can find any other catalysts which has been used so adamantly at the level of justification given. One primitive tribe wanting to war for resources, while still brutal in nature, is *more* reasonable then "because my deity told me so".

Realist

12-21-2009, 05:17 PM

Match, on the idea that religion is a means to justify "exclusionary" or "jingoistic" activity: societies which value highly both religion and nationalism tend to inscribe all major political action with religious and nationalist meaning, perhaps cynically to gin up support, but more importantly because that is simply the common language. But the causal mechanism between religion being a major force in a society and any particular harmful political action is not clear to me. The modern world seems to severely weaken the case. I've said this before, and it's worth noting again: the two great liberal hopes of the 18th/19th century, founded on tolerant secularism, were the USA and revolutionary France. The first has fought expansionary wars of conquest up through the 20th century; moreover it fought a civil war over a very clear-cut issue that the rest of the Western world had already outlawed, for reasons clearly cultural and economic and with very little religious relevance. The latter killed more of its own people in a secular inquisition than the actual inquisition ever did, then it invaded all its neighbors and tried to conquer the world. Can you link religion at all to any of this?

What about the 20th century? To be simplistic about it, nationalism, fascism, and communism are the three tragic stories of the last century, and all of them were, if not explicitly anti-religion, at least willing to take over much of its place. You can look more closely and say that soldiers in WWI were actually motivated by their priests as well as the culture of jingoism. But that's the whole point. Nationalistic priests are nationalist because nationalism has more power over them than their own religious institutions. That proves how weak religion is, not how strong it is as a motivator. Similarly, a priest in a tolerant, multicultural, post-nationalist society will find within their religion justification for the values already present in their congregation. This isn't theory--it happens, the religions in the US which aren't fundamentalist (i.e., with liberal audiences) fit this pattern perfectly.

In short, when you see that religion and nationalism are correlated, I see that religion is simply subsumed by nationalism, just like its always subsumed by the greater culture. And that's exactly my point. When you're looking for mythologies to discredit, religion is the easy target--but almost always the wrong one, simply because it's not all that powerful (unless focused on a few narrow debates like sex, evolution, etc.).

But there are many ritualistic behaviors which are not religious.

Yes. This is also part of my argument. Religion is just part of culture, and its distinction from culture in general is exaggerated. Other cultural institutions can substitute its functions.

Just because jingoism can happen without religion does not excuse religion's role in supporting it in many instances.

Fair enough, but an argument of the form "religious authorities supported war X" is simply insufficient to claim that religion "supports" jingoism, for reasons explained above. A more sophisticated argument is necessary--you need to show how religion itself, organically, has causal power to invoke such sentiment.

Realist

12-21-2009, 05:24 PM

However, I don't think you can find any other catalysts which has been used so adamantly at the level of justification given.

Can you give some specific examples? I suspect every warmonger ever has had some friendly priest willing to give him the go-ahead for a sufficient bribe. But how often has religion actually been an important causal factor in conflict?

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-21-2009, 06:39 PM

I've said this before, and it's worth noting again: the two great liberal hopes of the 18th/19th century, founded on tolerant secularism, were the USA and revolutionary France. The first has fought expansionary wars of conquest up through the 20th century; moreover it fought a civil war over a very clear-cut issue that the rest of the Western world had already outlawed, for reasons clearly cultural and economic and with very little religious relevance. The latter killed more of its own people in a secular inquisition than the actual inquisition ever did, then it invaded all its neighbors and tried to conquer the world. Can you link religion at all to any of this?

Actually, that's not true. The Reign of Terror bears a largely unfair stigma. You hear a lot about regicide, but never about any of the thousands of peasants killed by the previous monarchy.*

This is important because the meritocratic facade ("all equal before the eyes of the lord") of religion is what I find most dangerous. People are disillusioned to thinking each special individual has a place in heaven if they repent, yet these mindsets have only ever been housed in largely stratified aristocratic monarchies with a large, and noble, priest caste. Religion is another useless way to maintain archaic class stratification because, yes, like nationalism, it's a largely selfish ideology propagated and continued by the people who benefit most from its existence. It's hardly the largest culprit of such a trend (see: capitalism, communism, fascism -- fuck it, any "ism", really) but it is the one most easily debunked. I'm not so concerned with what a religion does to a world internationally (jingoism is FAR more dangerous, though, as you say, frequently correlated) so much as domestically. It's truly the opiate for the masses, but it's just as vacuous, useless, and discouraging to intellect and critical thinking as it's been since its inception. You made a similar argument about reading FOX News: it just makes you dumber to believe this stuff, and this is exacerbated by the mindset propagated being nearly the direct counter to what religion actually does.

*Reign of Terror death toll per year was 40,000 at the hands of the government. It's estimated up to 100,000 were killed by the monarchy in the same span the previous decade.

Realist

12-21-2009, 07:25 PM

What was the mechanism of the killing of the thousands of peasants by the monarchy?

Anyways, I said the "secular inquisition" of Revolutionary France killed more people than the Catholic Inquisition, not more than the monarchy. My statement, as stated, is indeed correct.

I think the Marxist view of religion (which you hold) is discredited by looking at religion as a whole in its larger context (can say the same thing for Marxist views on anything really). For example, when you say:

People are disillusioned to thinking each special individual has a place in heaven if they repent, yet these mindsets have only ever been housed in largely stratified aristocratic monarchies with a large, and noble, priest caste.

This is clearly a view based on looking at the West only. Not only do other religions not contain "a place in heaven if [people] repent", some other societies have neither aristocratic monarchies nor noble priest castes, nor their equivalents, yet do have religion. A theory of religion which can encompass such a small portion of the human experience is not very strong.

I disagree with you that either nationalism or religion is "propagated and continued by the people who benefit most from its existence." To the contrary, I believe both arise from our fundamental biology, and can be uprooted only by concentrated training. When you look at cultures around the world, tribalism and religion both seem to be human universals. Now, corrupt individuals will use both nationalism and religion to try to convince you to do things in their interests, but that's simply because it is always necessary to use the language of your target audience to persuade them to do anything. It is no indictment of language that some of its speakers are evil.

It's truly the opiate for the masses, but it's just as vacuous, useless, and discouraging to intellect and critical thinking as it's been since its inception.

Humans have a tremendous ability to compartmentalize, and claim to believe incredible things on church and Sunday, then go back to the lab during the week and do real science. The problem with FOX News is that its lies stick with (general) you all week (i.e., people actually believe them). This isn't to say that you're wrong, entirely, just to qualify it a little. I don't think religion is "vacuous" or "useless" but "discouraging to intellect and critical thinking" it may often be.

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-21-2009, 08:28 PM

If it wasn't clear, the theory was based on exclusively proselytizing religions, which, by nature, are conducive to the conditions I outlined. I guess I could try to expand a more general and less vindictive theory encompassing all religions, but it seems pretty pointless. There are lots of kinds of sandwiches, too, but it doesn't mean most don't use 2 slices of white bread. The other ones are, by nature, flimsier, less common, and ultimately less important unless you're dealing with a "New Age Mystic" kind of chef who's ultimately just reinventing the wheel to cater to a low-carb, healthier cliental.

My God that was a tortured metaphor.

Anyway, the monarchy was Catholic, exclusively so. I'm not sure what you mean? There were a lot of Catholic Inquisitions... I'm not aware of one specifically in France, though. Enlighten me?

Now, corrupt individuals will use both nationalism and religion to try to convince you to do things in their interests, but that's simply because it is always necessary to use the language of your target audience to persuade them to do anything. It is no indictment of language that some of its speakers are evil.

I see your point, but language is not analogous to religion. You can't empirically disprove language. I guess you can't do the same to religion, but you can certainly come a lot closer, and the debilitating effects of jingoism are well enough documented that a similar argument can be levied.

The point is: why allow the continuation/exploitation of this tool? Even if it's not the root evil, like Match said, it's the means, and an altogether flimsy one at that.

As for the mechanisms: I can have them for you by Wednesday. History teacher doesn't let us keep the dbq samples. :P

Realist

12-21-2009, 08:51 PM

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-21-2009, 09:24 PM

If our motives were that pure, I sure could back them. The problem with your equation of liberalism to religion is that one is inherently more correct and worthy of however fruitless conflict. Sure, war is not preferable, but in terms of waging it for liberal or religious reasons? Not hard for me to choose.

Tolerance is a nice word, but it's often paramount to moral indifference. I don't think archaic, patriarchal, or racist societies should exist, period. How you go about making them not exist is an issue over which neocons and I would disagree. Still, we had no problem preaching against apartheid in South Africa, so why draw the line at gender discrimination? It was fine back then to realize subservient races need liberating, so why not women?

Basically, for all the motivations to go to war, converting backwards hyper-religious societies (not that Iraq was in any way hyper-religious, or that if it was we changed that) is a far better and more coherent one than crusade-like fervor.

Anyway, that is most certainly off topic, but interesting nonetheless.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's just a lot harder to convince more intelligent people to do dumber things. Not altogether impossible, just a lot harder. Religion makes people dumber, susceptible to buzz words like "God", "family", and "Glenn Beck" (whoops) than any liberal would ever be connected to words like "freedom" and "democracy". The former are regarded as empirical truths and the latter are regarded as striving ideals. That is an incredibly important distinction. If something is unequivocally true, well, then it's a lot easier to wage war over it. If something is unequivocally where we should eventually end up as a society, flexibility to attaining that goal is implicit.

I'd also contest that war is in fact directly opposite most classically liberal viewpoints, but is not, say, to a proselytizing religion. I might even go so far to say that all imperialistic motives stem from one source: proselytizing religion. Where do we derive this notion that we are the masters of the world's destiny and other such missionary ideals if not religion? I don't think that's intrinsic to human nature. I think it's been conditioned. Primates are isolationist unless confronted, but they wage war over resources, not ideals. The idea that conquest goes hand in hand with brand-new ideology derives only from religion, I contest.

Realist

12-21-2009, 11:04 PM

The problem with your equation of liberalism to religion is that one is inherently more correct and worthy of however fruitless conflict.

The prevalence of this attitude in the US is precisely the reason why liberalism rather than religion is the core of our war-making mythology. So, you're basically agreeing with me that religion isn't anything special in its ability to "justify" war, you just think wars justified by your favorite ideology are inherently more just. Hmm. In a politics thread I'd go after that harder, but since this is "Christian thread" I'll just say thanks for proving my point.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's just a lot harder to convince more intelligent people to do dumber things. Not altogether impossible, just a lot harder. Religion makes people dumber, susceptible to buzz words like "God", "family", and "Glenn Beck" (whoops) than any liberal would ever be connected to words like "freedom" and "democracy".

Really? I haven't watched any Glenn Beck, but I heard he wrote a book comparing himself to (atheist and radical liberal!) Thomas Paine. Or, see a few threads below this one where bdog will be making absurdly stupid arguments comparing himself to the American revolutionaries. For that matter, see the Tea Party movement. They don't call themselves the Jesus movement. There are a lot of myths in all societies, and in ours, the liberalism mythology is quite potent relative to the religious one. And Americans are extremely susceptible to "freedom" propaganda based on the power of this mythology.

The former are regarded as empirical truths and the latter are regarded as striving ideals.

My argument is that the empirical claims of religion are relatively irrelevant to most of its functions and activity. I think I've given fairly good evidence for this claim, none of which you've attacked directly. In any case, the empirical claims made by most religions usually do not directly imply justification for the political actions made in their names.

I'd also contest that war is in fact directly opposite most classically liberal viewpoints, but is not, say, to a proselytizing religion.

Nonsense. Liberalism is one of the most successful proselytizing religions of all time. And, like Islam and Christianity, it got to where it is today by a combination of carrots and sticks. I already gave two examples: US and revolutionary France. The biggest example is the British Empire--ever hear of the "white man's burden"?

I might even go so far to say that all imperialistic motives stem from one source: proselytizing religion. Where do we derive this notion that we are the masters of the world's destiny and other such missionary ideals if not religion?

Tolerance is a nice word, but it's often paramount to moral indifference. I don't think archaic, patriarchal, or racist societies should exist, period. How you go about making them not exist is an issue over which neocons and I would disagree. Still, we had no problem preaching against apartheid in South Africa, so why draw the line at gender discrimination? It was fine back then to realize subservient races need liberating, so why not women?

war is in fact directly opposite most classically liberal viewpoints....

Match Strike

12-21-2009, 11:13 PM

I'm not saying that religion is analogous to language, I'm saying that religious language is part of language. When a person says "God is on our side in the war" the relevant aspect of that statement is not the truth value of the proposition, it's that I share the same values and interests as you do, therefore you should do what I ask in this war. The question is whether there is anything here going on related to religion in particular. If you were trying to convince a bunch of rationalist anthitheists to go to war you would use a different tactic, perhaps referencing your shared values. Indeed, that actually happened a lot in regard to the Iraq war (albeit mostly not to antitheists, merely secularists)! The neocons basically said that we needed to go into a regressive, hyper-religious society and turn them into a bunch of liberal democrats. Does that discredit liberalism and democracy? Surely not.

The Iraq war, basically, was predicated on the idea that liberalism needs to battle against and defeat theism. Match just a few posts ago said that religion and nationalism are often correlated. Yet here I see that liberalism and nationalism are correlated. America's nationalist myth is a liberal one; we are a free democracy, city on the hill, etc., and our duty is to proselytize liberalism. Therefore, the narrative for all of our wars is primarily a liberal one, not a religious one. It is weird therefore for Americans in particular to see war as having religious causes.

I completely understand what you have been saying, Realist, but I maintain that religion meets two criteria which together make it worth fighting to dismantle. Firstly, it is often base don falsehoods, and secondly it is often used as justification for heinous acts. There may well be more important fights.

I do not think your analysis of the stated motives for the Iraq war is comprehensive, though. While you I think you reasonably portray the neocon philosophy, remember that religion was also used as a motivator for the invasion, when convenient. Discredit one of those two motivators in an instance-specific way, and the justification for the war crumbles.

The portrayal as a fight against theism is of course inaccurate because Iraq was by no means a theistic state.

The religious motive is similarly discredited by the above, but also through all of the reasons discussed in this thread showing how perfectly illogical religious belief is.

You are right, our colonial mishaps have not been religiously motivated, but you created a strawman (I hate to use that cliched internet term, but that's what it is) with your last sentence. Remember I do not think religion is generally a cause for war. It can be a justification. Liberalism can as well, you're right. But liberalism is not an ideal based on falsehood.

. . .

I'm going to argue against myself now, because I'm just sort of working through my own thoughts, and can see both sides of this.

Religion can also be used as justification for acts of good. While I personally am uneasy with the fact that, for example, many people find it necessary to give to charity and avoid war because the Bible may suggest that they do so, the fact remains that in these cases religion has this positive effect.

. . .

Now, the question for us as a society is whether we can replace the religious motivator with a better one, thereby avoiding the negative results and fostering the good?

Realist

12-21-2009, 11:43 PM

Match Strike, not sure if you know this or not, the response you're quoting was to DD, not you--I know you understood what I was saying--I responded to you last page. Anyways:

I can't recall religious motivations for the war being used by anyone in power or with a prominent position in the media. That's not to say it never happened even once, but I guarantee I can find you 100 liberal justifications for the war for any 1 religious one. Free the women, spread democracy, fight radical Islam (and not to replace with Christianity, either--the point is often made that Christianity went through its dark ages but is now in an enlightened phase, and Islam could do the same). The only major justification of the war not entirely seeped in the language of liberalism was the self-defense one. And this applies not only to the war in Iraq but the entire war on "terrorism." A similar argument could be made about the "war on communism."

The point is not "religion may suck, but liberalism sucks more, so you are a hypocrite for going after the one but not the other." The point is, rather, that any warmonger will reference the values of their audience in trying to justify a war. That does not imply that those values are bad--at most that they can be manipulated. But what would happen if we drained our culture of anything that can be manipulated for evil? It would make an empty, nihilistic, uncaring society.

But liberalism is not an ideal based on falsehood.

I think that's wrong. It's the myth you, DD, and almost all Americans embrace, but at its heart it is just as false and absurd as Mormonism or Scientology. I'm not going to justify that here, but just consider that, of course, all members of every religion think the same about theirs. What's the chance you got lucky on the first try, and the religion that happens to be dominant in your culture is the one that's actually correct? That's not to say its wrong to believe in it.

Now, the question for us as a society is whether we can replace the religious motivator with a better one, thereby avoiding the negative results and fostering the good?

One imagines that the very process of designing (particularly if done in the open) it might hinder its effectiveness, but in the
age of postmodernism who knows. I agree, in any case.

Edit: Also, I suspect it would still fulfill the two criteria: "often based on falsehoods" and "used as justification for heinous acts." At least as much as liberal Christianity is today.

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-21-2009, 11:45 PM

The prevalence of this attitude in the US is precisely the reason why liberalism rather than religion is the core of our war-making mythology. So, you're basically agreeing with me that religion isn't anything special in its ability to "justify" war, you just think wars justified by your favorite ideology are inherently more just. Hmm. In a politics thread I'd go after that harder, but since this is "Christian thread" I'll just say thanks for proving my point.

I really don't see what's wrong with this. Sure, it's not an especially consistent position, but preferring wars justified by a more sound ideology which at least serve some purpose in the betterment of the world as oppose utterly useless ones makes sense to me. I respect culture, but do I have to condone some ludicrously patriarchal and homophobic circles? I'm not even going to name any ethnicities here: backwards societies should be turned right. This should happen diplomatically, but preservation of outdated social norms under the guise of "tolerance" seems rather stupid to me.

Really? I haven't watched any Glenn Beck, but I heard he wrote a book comparing himself to (atheist and radical liberal!) Thomas Paine. Or, see a few threads below this one where bdog will be making absurdly stupid arguments comparing himself to the American revolutionaries. For that matter, see the Tea Party movement. They don't call themselves the Jesus movement. There are a lot of myths in all societies, and in ours, the liberalism mythology is quite potent relative to the religious one. And Americans are extremely susceptible to "freedom" propaganda based on the power of this mythology.

He has a knack for getting his history mixed up.

Here is his pet project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-12_Project

Principle 2?

And I disagree. Freedom is not divine. It is recognized as being brought about by sound government practices, whatever one thinks constitutes sound government practice. It is not a myth because it is not unattainable lore. Heaven, God, Jesus; these things are exactly that. Unattainable, cathartic, transparent gratification as oppose to tangible, realistic choice.

Nonsense. Liberalism is one of the most successful proselytizing religions of all time. And, like Islam and Christianity, it got to where it is today by a combination of carrots and sticks. I already gave two examples: US and revolutionary France. The biggest example is the British Empire--ever hear of the "white man's burden"?

Right, and I'm saying this mindset is born out of most early liberals being Christian. Sure, you have your Voltaires, but for the most part the anti-Christianity stuff is forgotten about in practice. European imperialism serves as an example to how far missionary thinking can lead you. There are a lot of motives for imperialism, but you can't say the spread of Christianity was not a large one. I'm saying this tenant of conquest is brought about initially by Christianity and continued in some forms like, admittedly, 20th century liberalism, because the founders and continuers of the liberal legacy are Christian. Look at neoconservatism.

Realist

12-22-2009, 12:26 AM

Everything you just said supports my arguments.

Freedom is not divine.

Liberalism is about more than just "freedom." Nevertheless, I accept that it is a bit of a mischaracterization of liberalism to call it a religion. It is one set of cultural values that both competes and hybridizes with other sets of values, including religion (as you showed with Glenn Beck). What makes it similar to religion is that it comes with its own mythology.

Right, and I'm saying this mindset is born out of most early liberals being Christian.

I'm quite sympathetic towards that viewpoint. It seems plausible to me that the messianic, evangelical, and absolutist tendency of liberalism is a direct product of its root in Christian cultures.

because the founders and continuers of the liberal legacy are Christian. Look at neoconservatism.

Prob. not the best example to make that point. :)

uniquinous

12-22-2009, 06:49 PM

Can you give some specific examples? I suspect every warmonger ever has had some friendly priest willing to give him the go-ahead for a sufficient bribe. But how often has religion actually been an important causal factor in conflict?

You seem to continue back towards ideas of "well that wasn't REALLY religiously affected" (and this isn't the first thread where you've outright disregarded stated religious mindsets). I'm not talking about a tacit nod towards war from the local (bribed?) cleric. I'm saying that religious *cause* for war is generally worse than liberal cause for war. In fact, I tend to think the two move in opposite directions. Match has already elaborated on the falsehood of religion idea, so I will not repeat it, but I believe he is correct.

As for religious and power/influence, you need by look at the landscape. Go back in time and you'll find the largest most ornate buildings were religious in nature. Afterwards, government buildings took the lead, and today it's business. These are not coincidental matches. There was a time when religion ruled to a detriment.

I just can't see that comparing "liberal" wars and religious wars are equal. The Civil War produced bloodshed, but do you really want to compare the number killed there to the Inquisition? In my eyes it doesn't matter if the former had a larger death toll - the reason and worth of human equality outweighs the reason and worth of.... what was the reason of the Inquisition? Human inequality?

I think the error is thinking that all wars are equal; that we can simply ascribe the impact or scale of a war based on the number killed. Furthermore, I don't believe that you can hand waive aside all the wars that stated they were religious in nature just because you believe the religious aspect was just a facade or war tactic.

Realist

12-22-2009, 07:38 PM

My argument is indeed "well that wasn't REALLY religiously affected." Because usually it isn't. I think I have amply demonstrated in my conversations with DD that, in the US, liberalism rather than religion is used to justify war. The implication, to state it yet again, is that warmongers will use whatever values held by the populace to justify the wars, so if that is in itself an indictment of those values, then we must drop, too, liberalism, among other ideologies more favored by ourselves than religion. I admit that this argument requires fairly strong backing--to say, sure, many warriors claim religion as justification, but they are lying, perhaps even to themselves--I accept that our first instincts should be to take people at their word. But I think I've given quite good backing, and none of you three have really attacked the evidence I've provided in support of that position directly. I suppose I should ask you though: Do you think GWB and the neocons really care about the women in Afghanistan and Iraq, and actually went to war, and stayed in war, in large part, in order to free them?

Sure, maybe liberal causes are better when liberal causes are actually advanced by the war. It's very hard to see how that happened in Vietnam or in the most recent war in Iraq. Nor is it at all obvious how we can justify Napoleon trying to conquer most of Europe--I think it's far easier to explain in terms of murdering millions of people in order to elevate his personal ego than as a justified campaign on behalf of liberalism.

Consider four possibilities: 1) wars actually justifiable by liberalism, 2) wars actually justifiable by a religion, 3)wars cynically justified by liberalism, 4)wars cynically justified by religion. My understanding of Match's argument is that his dislike of religion is based on 4, to which I say that 3 is analogous, on the grounds that using false logic cynically based on correct premises is not better than using false logic cynically based on false premises.

Alternatively, you and DD seem to be making the argument that 1 and 2 are distinct, which I can agree with. I just don't think either case is very common. That's why I asked you for discrete examples of when religion is actually a causative factor of a war. The only example you came up with is the inquisition (not a war). But if the inquisition was actually justified by Catholicism, can't I say that the Reign of Terror was actually justified by liberalism? Certainly, both groups today condemn at least to some extent these violent examples in their history. Moreover, there are billions of examples of Catholics living peacefully and not causing wars and inquisitions. If Catholicism causes inquisitions why is this so? More pragmatically--given that all these inquisitions are in the past, and liberalism today is still used to justify bombing schools and weddings--why the need to attack Catholicism as causing wars right now?

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-22-2009, 08:17 PM

My argument is indeed "well that wasn't REALLY religiously affected." Because usually it isn't. I think I have amply demonstrated in my conversations with DD that, in the US, liberalism rather than religion is used to justify war. The implication, to state it yet again, is that warmongers will use whatever values held by the populace to justify the wars, so if that is in itself an indictment of those values, then we must drop, too, liberalism, among other ideologies more favored by ourselves than religion. I admit that this argument requires fairly strong backing--to say, sure, many warriors claim religion as justification, but they are lying, perhaps even to themselves--I accept that our first instincts should be to take people at their word. But I think I've given quite good backing, and none of you three have really attacked the evidence I've provided in support of that position directly. I suppose I should ask you though: Do you think GWB and the neocons really care about the women in Afghanistan and Iraq, and actually went to war, and stayed in war, in large part, in order to free them?

My understanding of Match's argument is that his dislike of religion is based on 4, to which I say that 3 is analogous, on the grounds that using false logic cynically based on correct premises is not better than using false logic cynically based on false premises.

This is truly an excellent bit of analysis. However, it's somewhat reliant on the assumptions that liberal and religious warmongers' dedication to their respective causes are equally vacuous. With liberalism, by your own admission, not equating to blind faith -- like religion -- I find this hard to believe. The philosophy itself is far more conducive to rational thought than one based on entirely false premises, like religions, and therefore, even as a tactic to justify war, it is more credible than religious crusades. I think it's a bit of a leap to equate them wholly: I see what you're saying, but in seems an exercise more in hyperbole than actual reality. To an extent, I think some people in the Bush administration cared about the humanitarian justifications of both wars, even if this was not their primary focus. I don't think holy wars had any pretensions to legitimate justification that didn't include, "our religion is t3h win", while liberal motivations is a common tactic to justify Afghanistan and Iraq.

Realist

12-22-2009, 10:20 PM

Don't call it an assumption when I've already given at least 4 examples and none of you have given any to support the alternative position. My notion of the rarity of cases 1 and 2 is neither an assumption nor derived from theory, but based on historical observation. It is an empirical question whether "some people in the Bush administration cared about the humanitarian justifications of both wars." I think at some level they probably did, but it seems entirely clear to me that the main purpose of bringing up those justifications was to sway the populace towards the need to go to war. The only argument you can make at this point against what I've said is an empirical and a historical one. Are my examples poor or incomplete? I don't think it's hyperbole to note that Napoleon, and the liberal Brits, and the Americans, killed millions and millions of people in the name of liberalism, and that very little good came out of it. That's simply the historical record.

Match Strike

12-23-2009, 12:06 AM

Consider four possibilities: 1) wars actually justifiable by liberalism, 2) wars actually justifiable by a religion, 3)wars cynically justified by liberalism, 4)wars cynically justified by religion. My understanding of Match's argument is that his dislike of religion is based on 4, to which I say that 3 is analogous, on the grounds that using false logic cynically based on correct premises is not better than using false logic cynically based on false premises.

I don't see how that's a logical counterargument. Analogous or not, immoral actions (you're the one who started focusing on wars) can still be wrong even if you can point to similarly bad actions. So you're not actually letting religion off the hook at all, you're just simultaneously maligning what you call "liberalism" (yet to be defined).

Realist

12-23-2009, 12:29 AM

The immoral action is wrong. That's not at issue. The point is that religion has no particular relationship to the immoral action. The connection with religion is only that all major actions taken in a society valuing religion will tend to be justified on religious grounds. But this is in no sense unique to religion--evil decisions made in our society will very often be justified on liberal grounds.

Read my post to you above--I think I made this fairly clear there--the only way to prevent evil acts from being justified according to the conventional values of a society is to remove all values from a society. So I'm not maligning liberalism or religion or anything else you want to base your society on.

Match Strike

12-23-2009, 12:09 PM

How can you combat an immoral action without undermining its justification?

Realist

12-23-2009, 12:38 PM

How can you combat an immoral action without undermining its justification?

If GWB says we need to invade Afghanistan in part to free their women, can you think of no argument against the invasion that doesn't undermine the idea of women's rights?

uniquinous

12-23-2009, 10:24 PM

I suppose I should ask you though: Do you think GWB and the neocons really care about the women in Afghanistan and Iraq, and actually went to war, and stayed in war, in large part, in order to free them?Iraq? This was spurred by religion. What was the catalyst? Did all of this not come as a direct result of twisting the teachings in the Qur'an? Did the reason given to us not involve religious terrorism and "God told me to strike at al Qaeda"? Now you can claim this was a tactic to rally the troops, or that people were really fooling themselves into thinking this was religious, but even if we remove Bush's stupidity, was the reaction not against the religious based terrorism? Did we as a country not have a period of extreme intolerance and prejudice against Muslims (or anyone resembling or associated with Muslims)?

That's why I asked you for discrete examples of when religion is actually a causative factor of a war. The only example you came up with is the inquisition (not a war).I'm not quite sure where this conversation turned to focus *only* on war (perhaps it is because I came late into this part of the convo). My underlying point is the detriment of religion on the advancement of civilization. What I've seen is pointing to a number of "liberal wars" (why does it appear that all non-religious wars are "liberal"?), claiming the death toll is higher therefore religion isn't really bad, but... I think that avoids the issue by assigning blame to something else that's bad.

I'm not claiming that religion causes all bad things, nor am I claiming that it's the only reason for bad wars. I am sure that if religion were removed from history, wars would still persist, but the face of the world would be vastly changed for the better. The prevention of scientific progress would be largely removed.

If Catholicism causes inquisitions why is this so?Muslims are not terrorists, nor are Catholics war mongers. We should not be assigning these associations as equal just because one fanatic group within those religions take radical actions.

sure, many warriors claim religion as justification, but they are lying, perhaps even to themselvesThis isn't the first thread you've made that claim. You tend to hand-waive away people's stated reasons/beliefs really easily. But let's just say people are lying to themselves and using religion to justify their actions.... does that not still produce a harmful action from religious justification? I have to bring up WWII in an online forum, but can you so easily dismiss that the holocaust had nothing to do with religion as well? (Tho to be honest, this is more playing to the "which war death toll is bigger?", the argument others seem to be making, and not necessarily mine) What is your take on that?

Realist

12-23-2009, 11:17 PM

Do you think GWB and the neocons really care about the women in Afghanistan and Iraq, and actually went to war, and stayed in war, in large part, in order to free them?
Iraq? This was spurred by religion. What was the catalyst? Did all of this not come as a direct result of twisting the teachings in the Qur'an? Did the reason given to us not involve religious terrorism and "God told me to strike at al Qaeda"?

The point of my question is this: you criticize me for claiming that immoral actions which people claim have religious basis do not actually have religious basis. Therefore, I am wondering whether you think that immoral actions which people claim have basis in women's rights actually have basis in women's rights. You have not answered my question. It is simply fact that freeing the women was used as one of the justifications for starting and continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think the Bushies actually invaded in part in order to free these women, as claimed, or that they were cynically using liberal arguments in order to go to war for other purposes?

I don't believe Bush ever said "god told me to strike at al Qaeda." Perhaps I simply forgot. But I have followed both wars fairly closely, and it is simply undeniable that liberal justifications for the war outnumbered religious ones in ratios at least 100:1.

Did we as a country not have a period of extreme intolerance and prejudice against Muslims (or anyone resembling or associated with Muslims)?

Intolerance against Islam is not religious. Indeed, the intolerance was based on the idea that all Muslims were religious extremists--it was anti-religious intolerance, motivated at least superficially by secular liberal concerns as well as security concerns.

(why does it appear that all non-religious wars are "liberal"?), claiming the death toll is higher therefore religion isn't really bad, but... I think that avoids the issue by assigning blame to something else that's bad.

You think liberalism is bad? Women's rights? Democracy? Secularism?

Muslims are not terrorists, nor are Catholics war mongers. We should not be assigning these associations as equal just because one fanatic group within those religions take radical actions.

So why not just be against radical religion instead of against religion in general?

This isn't the first thread you've made that claim. You tend to hand-waive away people's stated reasons/beliefs really easily. But let's just say people are lying to themselves and using religion to justify their actions.... does that not still produce a harmful action from religious justification?

No. As I've said 50 times so far on this thread, no. And the reason is, that any non-religious society will have non-religious values which can still be used to justify immoral actions just as well. This isn't just theory--I've given many examples of this actually happening. History proves this to be the case.

I have to bring up WWII in an online forum, but can you so easily dismiss that the holocaust had nothing to do with religion as well? (Tho to be honest, this is more playing to the "which war death toll is bigger?", the argument others seem to be making, and not necessarily mine) What is your take on that?

The holocaust had nothing to do with religion--it was not the Nazi's religion that motivated them to kill, nor did they direct their killing based on religion. Racial Jews who had converted to Christianity were killed along with the rest, without discrimination. Nazism was a racial ideology, motivated by extreme, and essentially secular, nationalism.

uniquinous

12-25-2009, 12:41 AM

The point of my question is this: you criticize me for claiming that immoral actions which people claim have religious basis do not actually have religious basis. Therefore, I am wondering whether you think that immoral actions which people claim have basis in women's rights actually have basis in women's rights. Ah, I see your question now. It appears that you are blurring goal and outcome; active and passive; fighters and politicians here. Was the war started due to gender inequality? No. Nor was the US response due to it. Now you can claim that gender inequality was a topic used to gain political support, but was this used to rally the troops? If so, then how is it different? Well, one way would be outcome. When fighting for a religious reason, the outcome is simply... believing. Again, this is something you seem to hand-waive away. I mean, if the goal (victory) is met with troops believing it is somehow a religious duty/calling/whatever, then there's no way to deny the religious aspect (passive goal). If, however, the goal is to install gender equality, and the troops are fighting based on that belief, and victory is won but gender equality is not instilled.... can you see how that very clearly contradicts the stated reasons? One is disproved by end-results, the other can't be disproved because it's in people's heads and/or completely fabricated. You're using a concrete example to hand-waive an abstract one. It don't work that way.

I don't believe Bush ever said "god told me to strike at al Qaeda." Perhaps I simply forgot. That and many others.
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf081507.htm
Just read #1 to get a flavor.

Intolerance against Islam is not religious. Wait wait wait. Intolerance against a specific religion is not religious? I think you'll need to clarify on that one.

You think liberalism is bad? No... no I think war is bad. Please don't get that petty with your responses.

So why not just be against radical religion instead of against religion in general?As I've mentioned previously, my qualm is against religion that is a detriment to civilization. This encompasses radical religious actions, wars based on religious reasons, and religious beliefs that prevent scientific or societal advancement, for example. That last item is a perfect example of non-radical religion that we need not tolerate. If it does not meet the criteria, I have no issues with it, as I have mentioned several times in this thread. If people want to believe in creationism, I have no problem with it. The problem is when they push to get it taught in public schools.

No. As I've said 50 times so far on this thread, no. And the reason is, that any non-religious society will have non-religious values which can still be used to justify immoral actions just as well. This isn't just theory--I've given many examples of this actually happening. History proves this to be the case.And yet again you're claiming it's not bad because you can create a similar bad situation with non-religious values/justification. Pointing the finger elsewhere doesn't make it all better.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Say we have three people called to fight. Person A is very religious, and is convinced by someone that he needs to fight based on religious reasons, and does so. Person B is not religious, but prideful of his hometown and wants revenge for an attack on it. Person C is neither religious nor prideful, and sees no logical reason to fight.

Does person A produce harmful actions based on a religious justification? YES.
Does person B produce harmful actions based on non-religious justification? YES.
Does person C produce harmful actions based on any justification? NO.

Again: just because there are other things that produce the harmful outcome doesn't mean the religious reasons are somehow not bad. They are bad. Reducing the number of illogical or misleading justifications, to instead foster more reasoning and cool-tempered ethos shifts the scenario in a less harmful direction.

The holocaust had nothing to do with religion--it was not the Nazi's religion that motivated them to kill, nor did they direct their killing based on religion. I strongly disagree.

Realist

12-25-2009, 01:35 PM

Now you can claim that gender inequality was a topic used to gain political support, but was this used to rally the troops? If so, then how is it different? Well, one way would be outcome. When fighting for a religious reason, the outcome is simply... believing. Again, this is something you seem to hand-waive away. I mean, if the goal (victory) is met with troops believing it is somehow a religious duty/calling/whatever, then there's no way to deny the religious aspect (passive goal). If, however, the goal is to install gender equality, and the troops are fighting based on that belief, and victory is won but gender equality is not instilled.... can you see how that very clearly contradicts the stated reasons? One is disproved by end-results, the other can't be disproved because it's in people's heads and/or completely fabricated. You're using a concrete example to hand-waive an abstract one. It don't work that way.

I don't really get your point here. All I am trying to establish is that many values can be used to justify unjust acts, and therefore we need to be vigilant at opposing those acts on their own terms rather than focusing on the misrepresented values themselves. The end results of a war justified on women's rights is not inherently better than one justified by religion. Sure we can see after the war that things didn't work out as claimed (in either case--even religious wars can have concrete goals), but the damage is done.

That and many others.
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf081507.htm
Just read #1 to get a flavor.

Following the link to #1 makes me doubt the quote's credibility. In any case, if it was said, it was said in private, and therefore has nothing to do with what we were talking about, which is public justification for the war. The fact that you searched for supporting evidence and this is the best you found bolsters my supposition that religion really had nothing to do with the stated mission for war, though anti-religion did.

Wait wait wait. Intolerance against a specific religion is not religious? I think you'll need to clarify on that one.

Americans, despite our domestic brand of fundamentalism, don't really like religious extremists. There may have been some amount of specific anti-Muslim sentiment, but it was in no sense motivated by Christianity (and some of its biggest proponents were Jews, anyways). The stage set up was always "Islam vs. The West" with The West representing liberal values (free speech, free religion, women's rights, democracy, etc.) supposedly incompatible with Islam.

As I've mentioned previously, my qualm is against religion that is a detriment to civilization. This encompasses radical religious actions, wars based on religious reasons, and religious beliefs that prevent scientific or societal advancement, for example. That last item is a perfect example of non-radical religion that we need not tolerate. If it does not meet the criteria, I have no issues with it, as I have mentioned several times in this thread. If people want to believe in creationism, I have no problem with it. The problem is when they push to get it taught in public schools.

I have no disagreement with any of this.

And yet again you're claiming it's not bad because you can create a similar bad situation with non-religious values/justification. Pointing the finger elsewhere doesn't make it all better.

Sigh. No, that's really not what I'm saying. Please read more closely. Any values can be manipulated for evil. Good values, bad values, neutral values. That's just the nature of persuasion. It will do us no good to try to remove all values which can be manipulated, because, if we could possibly succeed, the result would be even worse than the status quo. I'm not pointing my finger elsewhere--I think values and myths are often good and I don't blame them for the actions of their manipulators. The way to prevent evil action is to attack it directly. My argument is substantially more sophisticated than your caricature of it, and if we are to have high-level conservation, you have to address what I actually say.

I strongly disagree.

Don't know what to say to that, except that you should read some books about the period, because you're wrong.

DOCTOR DEVICE

12-25-2009, 07:34 PM

I strongly disagree.

Uh, why? Nazism was entirely counter-religious (Christians included), sure, but it was also homophobic, anti-Communist, and basically anti-anything that wasn't Aryan belonging to the Nazi party . It was jingoism to the umpth degree. Jews were not persecuted specifically because they were Jewish, but, rather, because they were viewed as to have detracted from German pride. In Nazi propaganda Jewish practice wasn't really defamed so much as Jewish facial features and other such non-Aryan signs of degeneracy. How is that religious persecution? They weren't sent to gas chambers for lighting candles friday night. They were sent because they had big noses.

Sigh. No, that's really not what I'm saying. Please read more closely. Any values can be manipulated for evil. Good values, bad values, neutral values. That's just the nature of persuasion. It will do us no good to try to remove all values which can be manipulated, because, if we could possibly succeed, the result would be even worse than the status quo. I'm not pointing my finger elsewhere--I think values and myths are often good and I don't blame them for the actions of their manipulators. The way to prevent evil action is to attack it directly. My argument is substantially more sophisticated than your caricature of it, and if we are to have high-level conservation, you have to address what I actually say.

I don't know, I kind of think it matters if a manipulated value holds merit in its distilled form. Whereas a religious persecution can yield no positive effects, even a mishandled and misshapen liberal war can. Iraq is better off today than it was under Saddam, even if getting there resulted in gratuitous American and Iraqi casualties as well as a gross misallocation of resources. I concede that any value of a society can be manipulated to service pursuit of false gains, but the net effect of this manipulation varies from value to value.

Besides, the idea that an ideology needs proselytization through conquest is one directly borrowed from Christianity. THAT realization, along with its inherent incorrectness (presumably accomplished by empirically proving the falsehoods of Christianity), would be a far more useful one that recognizing any value can be construed to justify military action. Where does the latter get us, exactly, that the former couldn't?

Also, and maybe I've been conditioned to believe this, I don't think liberalism is conducive to conquest in the same was that religion is. Even in Judaism, mind you a non-proslytizing religion, there are teachings to smite out the racial descendants of biblical anti-Semites, and in limited studies of Islam there are similar teachings. I haven't studied that much Enlightenment philosophy, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of it promoted skepticism in regards to government motives and an emphasis on secular government. Those seem like polar opposites to me.