Is there a general distain of Christianity on the forums?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 17 NEXT
 

Da Orky Man:

Judges 16:30

"And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life."

So, Samson killed a house full of Philistines, killing himself in the process. A suicide attack. Is that close enough?

If we look at Judges 16:27, it shows us how many were in the house:

"Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport."

Not quite blowing himself to smithereens, but it's pretty near, and about the closest thing you could do at that time.

.
This is a bad example as it does not present martyrdom or suicide attacks-
The attack was made in desperation as he cried out for help from God, he didn't plan to be kidnapped and put in such a house.

Oirish_Martin:

So can you maybe begin to understand now why some atheists have a little bit of a hair-trigger response to Christianity, because they keep get shat on by them?

This thread is not the best way to start off my day, but I feel this warrants a response.

And yes, I do, however the fact of the matter is that, to a point, I at least tried to work with them. I'd agree with them when they began talking about how disgusting groups like the WBC were and how we should work to change them. I agreed with them when they talked about how Evolution shouldn't be substituted for classes on creationism in public school. I'd debate with them from time to time, I'm sure you remember that "are atheists truly moral?" thing between us a while back, but if I felt I was wrong I'd concede and agree that they were right and I was wrong. But you know what all that earned me?

Absolutely nothing. I'd be hated entirely by the community when they wanted to hate me, nothing I said before mattered, I said something that could be misconstrued as "bigotry" and they latched onto it the first chance they got. It was at that point I realized that deep inside they don't want some Liberal Christian they can have a semi-reasonable debate with, they want a total and complete zealot, they want a mad "crusader" of christianity, just so when they argue and debate with him, they have the pleasure of being totally and completely morally superior.

Oirish_Martin:
But the worst Christians ARE those who commit acts of terrorism. Bombing abortion clinics etc.

The problem with saying "the worst" means that no-one knows that you only meant loudmouth fundies as people are generally aware of worse behaviour by Christians than that - and instead of acknowledging that you massively f'ed up the communication if that's NOT what you meant, you went on a massive drama queen rant.

I. DID. THOUGH.

I don't know why "clarification" is such a hard concept for people to understand. I mentioned twice that what I was saying was being misconstrued and that I never meant the things they were trying to claim I meant.

Like in this post.

Witty Name Here:

Well it appears I set off a landmine on that one.

I wasn't referring to Extremism (in the sense of murder and suicide bombings), but "Crazy" in the sense of the Westboro Baptist Church, a bunch of Jackasses who go around screeching their beliefs and telling everyone they're going to hell.

And this post

Witty Name Here:

Elcarsh:
How often do you get antitheists telling you you deserve eternal suffering? I'm betting it doesn't happen THAT often.

I meant that they're both Jackasses who condemn you according to their beliefs. The WBC screams that people are going to hell for their sins, and most Anti-Theists I've seen generally just moan on and on about people being "Brainwashed" or saying that it's "Child Abuse" to induct a child into a religion at a young age. In the end, calling a person an "Idiot" or a "Child Abuser" is about on par insult wise as saying they're going to rot in hell.

And that was ignored in favor of just calling me a bigot.

Oirish_Martin:
And you're doing....what, exactly?

Clarifying my reasons for my growing hatred of them.

Oirish_Martin:
Not because of their position. People hated what you said because of, funnily enough, what you said, not because you're Christian so everything automatically fails.

Regardless of whether they hated what I said because of my christianity or what I said, the fact is simply this. I tried to clarify my point, that failed because I (idiotically enough) continued to think that Anti-Theists have the capacity to threaten someone with death just as much a religious zealot.

Oirish_Martin:
No. Because it's false equivalency. Which is the same shit that a lot of atheists have to put with all the time. Merely making strident criticisms is enough to get you labelled militant.

I make this point a lot, but it bears repeating - in the UK (a place I previously thought was somewhat sane towards nonbelief) an atheist won a case that established a precedent where council prayers would have to be held off the clock, i.e. not on official council time. This spawned a week of daft headlines about MILITANT ATHEIST SECULARISM, most of which missed the point. We had a peer of the realm accuse us of being totalitarian, she then went sucking up to the pope who had previously explicitly equated us to the Nazis (and he would know, wouldn't he?!).

You know what else happened in the UK that week? A Christian couple were in the courts appealing their conviction for discrimination against a gay couple that they turned away from their hotel (and talk about rights all you want, it came out in court that they'd had no problem letting unmarried heterosexual couples stay there, so they're hardly being consistent), and also that week saw the end of the trial of Abu Qatada, a Muslim hate preacher.

But no, an atheist using the court to establish reform via precedent (i.e. properly)? Clearly this is the real problem here!

Once more. Putting words in my mouth. I can agree that christian prayers should be kept off official time for a government related job, and I think both of the examples you mentioned deserve to go to jail. Yet why should I feel pity for the "poor atheists"? You know how many people claim to be made into Atheists/Anti-Theists when the majority of Christians they met, including priests, turned out to be self-righteous nutters or, essentially, hate preachers? Well you can say the opposite for me. With exception of about two or three that I met online, virtually every single Atheist I've spoken to has shown some stubborn unreasonableness or made pompous claims "superiority" to me, so forgive me if I find it a bit "difficult" to be moved to even slight pity for them.

[/quote]
Judges 16:30

"And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life."

So, Samson killed a house full of Philistines, killing himself in the process. A suicide attack. Is that close enough?

If we look at Judges 16:27, it shows us how many were in the house:

"Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport."

Not quite blowing himself to smithereens, but it's pretty near, and about the closest thing you could do at that time.[/quote]

Well, first of all, that part is in the Old Testament, which I have not read, but as I understand it is more about the superiority and history of the Jewish people than anything else.

Now, for your quote, I suppose he did kill a bunch of guys who displayed him in their living room and were planning to torture him to death. But then again, who ties a superpowered dude to the support beams of his house? It was practically assisted suicide... mass suicide, whatever.

I dunno man... when I talk about the Bible I usually talk more about the New Testament, as I said, I haven't read the Old one, therefore I do not get it fully. So yeah, you can say that that's the reason people are blowing themselves up on the street and such, but I think that argument would fall flat on its face.

Seses209:

Judges 16:30

"And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life."

So, Samson killed a house full of Philistines, killing himself in the process. A suicide attack. Is that close enough?

If we look at Judges 16:27, it shows us how many were in the house:

"Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport."

Not quite blowing himself to smithereens, but it's pretty near, and about the closest thing you could do at that time.

Well, first of all, that part is in the Old Testament, which I have not read, but as I understand it is more about the superiority and history of the Jewish people than anything else.

Now, for your quote, I suppose he did kill a bunch of guys who displayed him in their living room and were planning to torture him to death. But then again, who ties a superpowered dude to the support beams of his house? It was practically assisted suicide... mass suicide, whatever.

I dunno man... when I talk about the Bible I usually talk more about the New Testament, as I said, I haven't read the Old one, therefore I do not get it fully. So yeah, you can say that that's the reason people are blowing themselves up on the street and such, but I think that argument would fall flat on its face.

.
I don't like your first paragraph. Smells of racism.

Nope - They tied him up after his hair was cut, which means that he shouldn't have had any power to resist. The only reason he managed to bring the place down is because god himself helped him on that occasion and returned him his strength to make vengeance on the philistines.

Don't belittle the old testament, you Christians took the ten commandments well even though nowadays in the USA very few can actually name all of the commandments, which is.... commendable, in its own way.

Lilani:

keinechance:
If you really think, that the people advocating unreason and unthinking doctrine, have the same case as the people advocating reason and critical thinking, then good luck in the future.

See? Perfect example.

You really don't know a lot about Christianity, do you? All you know is the fundamentalists and Catholics. Because if you knew exactly how broad it is, I think your words wouldn't be quite so harsh.

Would you be surprised to learn I have no problem with gays? Because I don't. They're just fine. And the leadership of the church I attend agrees. I'm also pro-choice. I think it's rather interesting how so many Christians are willing to look at things written by Paul and in Leviticus, such as a woman shall not have authority over a man, slaves should obey their masters, and that unruly children should be taken and stoned to death, and we say "Oh, that wasn't literal," or "Oh, that is just the ignorance of the culture they lived in at the time." But then, when those same writers and same texts talk about homosexuality, suddenly they are the unquestionable authority on what is good in the eyes of God. It's silly, really. I think I've almost got my dad to realize this, but he'll need just a bit more time.

And recently I've been studying this guy, and I suggest you watch this video and the others with him on YouTube whenever you can. Even if you don't want to watch the whole thing, just give it two minutes. Or six if you want to see him begin to take apart the gospels in a scholarly manner (the man does have multiple degrees and at least one PhD. that I know of in religious and cultural studies). I think you'll be impressed.

What he says there I very much agree with. Call it unreason if you want, but never think for a moment all Christians are unthinking. You just need to open your lens a bit wider.

"I believe in X, despite there being no evidence for X"

The above is an irrational statement.

And I don't think "all" christians are unthinking, but if you believe in the existence of a supernatural controlling entity, without any evidence to support your belief in said entitiy, then your belief ON THIS PARTICULAR subject is irrational.

keinechance:
"I believe in X, despite there being no evidence for X"

The above is an irrational statement.

And I don't think "all" christians are unthinking, but if you believe in the existence of a supernatural controlling entity, without any evidence to support your belief in said entitiy, then your belief ON THIS PARTICULAR subject is irrational.

See, I can dig that. It's much less general while at the same time being much less personal, making it more of a simple statement and less of a cheap jab at the intelligence of the people you disagree with. That is all I want. More statements of opinion, and fewer personal insults for the purpose of putting yourselves on a pedestal above others. You can disagree with somebody, even something very personal to them, without putting them down.

Lilani:

keinechance:
"I believe in X, despite there being no evidence for X"

The above is an irrational statement.

And I don't think "all" christians are unthinking, but if you believe in the existence of a supernatural controlling entity, without any evidence to support your belief in said entitiy, then your belief ON THIS PARTICULAR subject is irrational.

See, I can dig that. It's much less general while at the same time being much less personal, making it more of a simple statement and less of a cheap jab at the intelligence of the people you disagree with.

I am PERSONALLY attacking the people who advocate unreason and unthinking doctrine.

EDIT: And no, not with torches and pitchforkes, but with rational arguments.

Lilani:

keinechance:
"I believe in X, despite there being no evidence for X"

The above is an irrational statement.

And I don't think "all" christians are unthinking, but if you believe in the existence of a supernatural controlling entity, without any evidence to support your belief in said entitiy, then your belief ON THIS PARTICULAR subject is irrational.

See, I can dig that. It's much less general while at the same time being much less personal, making it more of a simple statement and less of a cheap jab at the intelligence of the people you disagree with. That is all I want. More statements of opinion, and fewer personal insults for the purpose of putting yourselves on a pedestal above others. You can disagree with somebody, even something very personal to them, without putting them down.

So you want me to be nicer to irrational people?

You want me to consider their irrational opinions as equal to rational opinions?

TheIronRuler:

Seses209:

Judges 16:30

"And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life."

So, Samson killed a house full of Philistines, killing himself in the process. A suicide attack. Is that close enough?

If we look at Judges 16:27, it shows us how many were in the house:

"Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport."

Not quite blowing himself to smithereens, but it's pretty near, and about the closest thing you could do at that time.

Well, first of all, that part is in the Old Testament, which I have not read, but as I understand it is more about the superiority and history of the Jewish people than anything else.

Now, for your quote, I suppose he did kill a bunch of guys who displayed him in their living room and were planning to torture him to death. But then again, who ties a superpowered dude to the support beams of his house? It was practically assisted suicide... mass suicide, whatever.

I dunno man... when I talk about the Bible I usually talk more about the New Testament, as I said, I haven't read the Old one, therefore I do not get it fully. So yeah, you can say that that's the reason people are blowing themselves up on the street and such, but I think that argument would fall flat on its face.

.
I don't like your first paragraph. Smells of racism.

Nope - They tied him up after his hair was cut, which means that he shouldn't have had any power to resist. The only reason he managed to bring the place down is because god himself helped him on that occasion and returned him his strength to make vengeance on the philistines.

Don't belittle the old testament, you Christians took the ten commandments well even though nowadays in the USA very few can actually name all of the commandments, which is.... commendable, in its own way.

Smells of racism, seriously? It literally says they are the chosen people. That sounds like they are saying they are superior. I did not mean it in a racist manner, so if I offended anyone I apologize. And I did not belittle the Old Testament, I simply said I have not read it and therefore do not understand it. And the second paragraph was sort of a joke. My real point was the last sentence, so I'm not surprised you chose to ignore it. Do you people practice this on these forums?

keinechance:
So you want me to be nicer to irrational people?

You want me to consider their irrational opinions as equal to rational opinions?

I'm not asking you to think in any way other than the way you already think. I'm asking you to be careful how you word it, because trying to prove you're the more "rational" one by making sweeping generalizations you know yourself to be untrue, and going straight for personal insults upon their intelligence is quite contradictory. Don't be an asshole. I am certain you know one when you see one, so don't do it. Even if that's truly how you feel, it's better to be a silent asshole than a loud one. None of the loud fundamentalists are changing any minds or proving they have any high ground by being rude and trying to legitimize it by saying "Well that's just how I feel." So why would that be a legitimate strategy for atheists?

keinechance:
I am PERSONALLY attacking the people who advocate unreason and unthinking doctrine.

EDIT: And no, not with torches and pitchforkes, but with rational arguments.

Rational arguments are fine. Calling them raving idiots incapable of critical thinking is not. There is a huge difference between calling a general and abstract concept irrational, and calling an individual person irrational. One is a judgement strictly of a concept, the other is a direct judgement of the character of the individual.

Note, this does not include the ones who do rant and rave. I'm talking about a situation such as you're on the bus, you begin to talk with some random stranger, and they happen to mention they're on the way to church, and they ask if you'd like to come along. A positive and non-combative situation.

Seses209:

TheIronRuler:

Seses209:

Well, first of all, that part is in the Old Testament, which I have not read, but as I understand it is more about the superiority and history of the Jewish people than anything else.

Now, for your quote, I suppose he did kill a bunch of guys who displayed him in their living room and were planning to torture him to death. But then again, who ties a superpowered dude to the support beams of his house? It was practically assisted suicide... mass suicide, whatever.

I dunno man... when I talk about the Bible I usually talk more about the New Testament, as I said, I haven't read the Old one, therefore I do not get it fully. So yeah, you can say that that's the reason people are blowing themselves up on the street and such, but I think that argument would fall flat on its face.

.
I don't like your first paragraph. Smells of racism.

Nope - They tied him up after his hair was cut, which means that he shouldn't have had any power to resist. The only reason he managed to bring the place down is because god himself helped him on that occasion and returned him his strength to make vengeance on the philistines.

Don't belittle the old testament, you Christians took the ten commandments well even though nowadays in the USA very few can actually name all of the commandments, which is.... commendable, in its own way.

Smells of racism, seriously? It literally says they are the chosen people. That sounds like they are saying they are superior. I did not mean it in a racist manner, so if I offended anyone I apologize. And I did not belittle the Old Testament, I simply said I have not read it and therefore do not understand it. And the second paragraph was sort of a joke. My real point was the last sentence, so I'm not surprised you chose to ignore it. Do you people practice this on these forums?

.
Then why the fuck did you put all of that fluff in if you wanted to say one sentence?
His example was incorrect. Your response was abysmal.

crazyarms33:
If I may respond to both Ses209 and keinechance: I once read "My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don't really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and there are some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly I don't care."

Food for thought here guys :)

Oh snap!!

"They hang there, the stars, like notes on a page of music, free-form verse, silent mysteries swirling in the blue like jazz."

^_^

Spartan1362:
It seems to me that the agnostics in this thread seem to be doing a bit of this:
image

That meme really needs to go into the memory hole. Not only are comics and image macros terrible counter-arguments (effectively they amount to little more than an admission of "I don't like what you're doing but I can't be bothered to make a rational argument for why you should stop so here's a picture I'm going to use to make fun of you"), but there is no reason to believe Randall Munroe knows a damn thing about what is going on in agnosticism. I'm sure he's a good authority on programming, robotics, and some associated sciency-stuff (His poster about radiation levels is pretty great), but I see no reason to assume this random internet celebrity nerd knows a damn thing about agnosticism. The fact that this comic you love so much can't even to make a reasonable argument against it and can only really manage to be annoyed because some people think atheism isn't the perfect belief shows that maybe y'all aught to stop plugging up the ole' interwebs with repeatedly posting his little stick-figure funnies and start thinking for yourselves.

Lilani:

keinechance:
So you want me to be nicer to irrational people?

You want me to consider their irrational opinions as equal to rational opinions?

I'm not asking you to think in any way other than the way you already think. I'm asking you to be careful how you word it, because trying to prove you're the more "rational" one by making sweeping generalizations you know yourself to be untrue, and going straight for personal insults upon their intelligence is quite contradictory. Don't be an asshole. I am certain you know one when you see one, so don't do it. Even if that's how you feel, it's better to be a silent asshole than a loud one.

If a person is thinking irrationally, then the person is thinking irrationally.

There is no way to sugarcoat it, and saying that their argument is irrational is a fact, and not an insult.

keinechance:
I am PERSONALLY attacking the people who advocate unreason and unthinking doctrine.

EDIT: And no, not with torches and pitchforkes, but with rational arguments.

Lilani:
Rational arguments are fine. Calling them raving idiots incapable of critical thinking is not.

Note, this does not include the ones who do rant and rave. I'm talking about a situation such as you're on the bus, you begin to talk with some random stranger, and they happen to mention they're on the way to church, and they ask if you'd like to come along. A positive and non-combative situation.

Then it is a good thing I never called someone a "raving idiot", right?

TheIronRuler:

Seses209:

TheIronRuler:

.
I don't like your first paragraph. Smells of racism.

Nope - They tied him up after his hair was cut, which means that he shouldn't have had any power to resist. The only reason he managed to bring the place down is because god himself helped him on that occasion and returned him his strength to make vengeance on the philistines.

Don't belittle the old testament, you Christians took the ten commandments well even though nowadays in the USA very few can actually name all of the commandments, which is.... commendable, in its own way.

Smells of racism, seriously? It literally says they are the chosen people. That sounds like they are saying they are superior. I did not mean it in a racist manner, so if I offended anyone I apologize. And I did not belittle the Old Testament, I simply said I have not read it and therefore do not understand it. And the second paragraph was sort of a joke. My real point was the last sentence, so I'm not surprised you chose to ignore it. Do you people practice this on these forums?

.
Then why the fuck did you put all of that fluff in if you wanted to say one sentence?
His example was incorrect. Your response was abysmal.

Wait, what? You're not making sense. What do you mean his example was incorrect? Killing a whole bunch of people was incorrect? No sh*t Sherlock. We figured that out around 1945. You know, around the time the atomic bombs hit the ground. Yeah, that time. (While I can already feel your chubby ass fingers typing the word "hippie" in big, bold, redneck letters, I do understand that the possession of nuclear weapons has been instrumental to overall world peace in the last 60 years)

And what do you mean my response was abysmal? I took you up on all your points, countered them as best I could and agreed with you when you were right, before making my final statement. My response would have been abysmal, if, say, I simply answered in two short sentences rather than in any coherent way, backing up my accusations with not a shred of reference to why I believe them to be true.

Thank goodness I did not do that.

keinechance:
If a person is thinking irrationally, then the person is thinking irrationally.

There is no way to sugarcoat it, and saying that their argument is irrational is a fact, and not an insult.

Then it is a good thing I never called someone a "raving idiot", right?

Let me copy what I just edited into that post to make it perfectly clear what I'm talking about:

There is a huge difference between calling a general and abstract concept irrational, and calling an individual person irrational. One is a judgement strictly of a concept, the other is a direct judgement of the character of the individual.

Now do you see what I'm talking about? And that includes the person and their way of thinking.

keinechance:

Lilani:

keinechance:
If you really think, that the people advocating unreason and unthinking doctrine, have the same case as the people advocating reason and critical thinking, then good luck in the future.

See? Perfect example.

You really don't know a lot about Christianity, do you? All you know is the fundamentalists and Catholics. Because if you knew exactly how broad it is, I think your words wouldn't be quite so harsh.

Would you be surprised to learn I have no problem with gays? Because I don't. They're just fine. And the leadership of the church I attend agrees. I'm also pro-choice. I think it's rather interesting how so many Christians are willing to look at things written by Paul and in Leviticus, such as a woman shall not have authority over a man, slaves should obey their masters, and that unruly children should be taken and stoned to death, and we say "Oh, that wasn't literal," or "Oh, that is just the ignorance of the culture they lived in at the time." But then, when those same writers and same texts talk about homosexuality, suddenly they are the unquestionable authority on what is good in the eyes of God. It's silly, really. I think I've almost got my dad to realize this, but he'll need just a bit more time.

And recently I've been studying this guy, and I suggest you watch this video and the others with him on YouTube whenever you can. Even if you don't want to watch the whole thing, just give it two minutes. Or six if you want to see him begin to take apart the gospels in a scholarly manner (the man does have multiple degrees and at least one PhD. that I know of in religious and cultural studies). I think you'll be impressed.

What he says there I very much agree with. Call it unreason if you want, but never think for a moment all Christians are unthinking. You just need to open your lens a bit wider.

"I believe in X, despite there being no evidence for X"

The above is an irrational statement.

And I don't think "all" christians are unthinking, but if you believe in the existence of a supernatural controlling entity, without any evidence to support your belief in said entitiy, then your belief ON THIS PARTICULAR subject is irrational.

evidence:

their is a historical document. it holds records of a political/religous group orignaly called "the way" later adopting the disrespectful title of 'little christs' or later known as christians. this group's historical existence is supported by other records kept by the ruleing factions at the time the romans. the central figure of this record, 'Jesus' is supported in his claims by reportably fufilling older Fulfilling older prophecies. Furthermore the nature of his ministry, while fulfilling prophecies does this in a way that was directly opposed to the socio-political and religious paradigm of his time. The cultural discrepancy that He represents warrants interest in Him historically. Because evidence exists for a historical Jesus, his claims must then be taken seriously.

This leaves us with a choice: disregard this historical text as false due to supernatural elements, or attempt to understand it.

Lilani:

keinechance:
If a person is thinking irrationally, then the person is thinking irrationally.

There is no way to sugarcoat it, and saying that their argument is irrational is a fact, and not an insult.

Then it is a good thing I never called someone a "raving idiot", right?

Let me copy what I just edited into that post to make it perfectly clear what I'm talking about:

There is a huge difference between calling a general and abstract concept irrational, and calling an individual person irrational. One is a judgement strictly of a concept, the other is a direct judgement of the character of the individual.

Now do you see what I'm talking about? And that includes the person and their way of thinking.

Then what do I call a person that holds irrational opinions if not an irrational person?

If the person was rational, would such a person not acknowledge that this opinion is not rational, and change that opinion?

Seses209:

TheIronRuler:

Seses209:

Smells of racism, seriously? It literally says they are the chosen people. That sounds like they are saying they are superior. I did not mean it in a racist manner, so if I offended anyone I apologize. And I did not belittle the Old Testament, I simply said I have not read it and therefore do not understand it. And the second paragraph was sort of a joke. My real point was the last sentence, so I'm not surprised you chose to ignore it. Do you people practice this on these forums?

.
Then why the fuck did you put all of that fluff in if you wanted to say one sentence?
His example was incorrect. Your response was abysmal.

Wait, what? You're not making sense. What do you mean his example was incorrect? Killing a whole bunch of people was incorrect? No sh*t Sherlock. We figured that out around 1945. You know, around the time the atomic bombs hit the ground. Yeah, that time. (While I can already feel your chubby ass fingers typing the word "hippie" in big, bold, redneck letters, I do understand that the possession of nuclear weapons has been instrumental to overall world peace in the last 60 years)

And what do you mean my response was abysmal? I took you up on all your points, countered them as best I could and agreed with you when you were right, before making my final statement. My response would have been abysmal, if, say, I simply answered in two short sentences rather than in any coherent way, backing up my accusations with not a shred of reference to why I believe them to be true.

Thank goodness I did not do that.

.
Your response to his example.
His example was martyrdom and suicide attacks in the bible and I argued that his example was false. Your response to his example was simply bad.
Don't assume anything about my identity. It's rude and presumptuous.

keinechance:
Then what do I call a person that holds irrational opinions if not an irrational person?

If the person was rational, would such a person not acknowledge that this opinion is not rational, and change that opinion?

I'm saying you don't approach the person with the idea that they are irrational. I'm saying you approach them with the idea that the concepts are. Critique the problem, not the person. In your opinion, as far as I've been able to gather, if they didn't hold those beliefs, they wouldn't be irrational. Meaning the "irrationalness" within them is exclusive to the concepts, not the person. So choose one: Is the person as a whole irrational, or is the concept irrational?

Gorrila_thinktank:

keinechance:

Lilani:

See? Perfect example.

You really don't know a lot about Christianity, do you? All you know is the fundamentalists and Catholics. Because if you knew exactly how broad it is, I think your words wouldn't be quite so harsh.

Would you be surprised to learn I have no problem with gays? Because I don't. They're just fine. And the leadership of the church I attend agrees. I'm also pro-choice. I think it's rather interesting how so many Christians are willing to look at things written by Paul and in Leviticus, such as a woman shall not have authority over a man, slaves should obey their masters, and that unruly children should be taken and stoned to death, and we say "Oh, that wasn't literal," or "Oh, that is just the ignorance of the culture they lived in at the time." But then, when those same writers and same texts talk about homosexuality, suddenly they are the unquestionable authority on what is good in the eyes of God. It's silly, really. I think I've almost got my dad to realize this, but he'll need just a bit more time.

And recently I've been studying this guy, and I suggest you watch this video and the others with him on YouTube whenever you can. Even if you don't want to watch the whole thing, just give it two minutes. Or six if you want to see him begin to take apart the gospels in a scholarly manner (the man does have multiple degrees and at least one PhD. that I know of in religious and cultural studies). I think you'll be impressed.

What he says there I very much agree with. Call it unreason if you want, but never think for a moment all Christians are unthinking. You just need to open your lens a bit wider.

"I believe in X, despite there being no evidence for X"

The above is an irrational statement.

And I don't think "all" christians are unthinking, but if you believe in the existence of a supernatural controlling entity, without any evidence to support your belief in said entitiy, then your belief ON THIS PARTICULAR subject is irrational.

evidence:

their is a historical document. it holds records of a political/religous group orignaly called "the way" later adopting the disrespectful title of 'little christs' or later known as christians. this group's historical existence is supported by other records kept by the ruleing factions at the time the romans. the central figure of this record, 'Jesus' is supported in his claims by reportably fufilling older Fulfilling older prophecies. Furthermore the nature of his ministry, while fulfilling prophecies does this in a way that was directly opposed to the socio-political and religious paradigm of his time. The cultural discrepancy that He represents warrants interest in Him historically. Because evidence exists for a historical Jesus, his claims must then be taken seriously.

This leaves us with a choice: disregard this historical text as false due to supernatural elements, or attempt to understand it.

So you consider any old text as "evidence"?

You know that there are far older texts from different religions talking about different Gods and Saints and Dragons and Heroes etc.

Do you consider them to be "historical" too?

keinechance:
So you consider any old text as "evidence"?

You know that there are far older texts from different religions talking about different Gods and Saints and Dragons and Heroes etc.

Do you consider them to be "historical" too?

What are you talking about? Apparently you didn't watch the video, if you know I agree with John Spong and yet you think I believe everything in the Bible is totally historically accurate. So please, just watch the video. Two to six minutes.

Lilani:

keinechance:
Then what do I call a person that holds irrational opinions if not an irrational person?

If the person was rational, would such a person not acknowledge that this opinion is not rational, and change that opinion?

I'm saying you don't approach the person with the idea that they are irrational. I'm saying you approach them with the idea that the concepts are. Critique the problem, not the person. In your opinion, as far as I've been able to gather, if they didn't hold those beliefs, they wouldn't be irrational. Meaning the "irrationalness" within them is exclusive to the concepts, not the person. So choose one: Is the person as a whole irrational, or is the concept irrational?

A false dichotomy isn't making your case.

If a person has irrational beliefs, then that person is irrational ( exibiting irrational behaviour ).

Does that mean the person is always irrational ( exibiting irrational behaviour )?

No.

Lilani:

keinechance:
So you consider any old text as "evidence"?

You know that there are far older texts from different religions talking about different Gods and Saints and Dragons and Heroes etc.

Do you consider them to be "historical" too?

What are you talking about? Apparently you didn't watch the video, if you know I agree with John Spong and yet you think I believe everything in the Bible is totally historically accurate. So please, just watch the video. Two to six minutes.

Then please do me a favor.

Take a bible and highlight all the things that are "historical" in yellow, highlight all the things that are "fables" in blue, and all things where you are not sure in red.

Otherwise I won't know what to address specifically.

TheIronRuler:

Seses209:

TheIronRuler:

.
Then why the fuck did you put all of that fluff in if you wanted to say one sentence?
His example was incorrect. Your response was abysmal.

Wait, what? You're not making sense. What do you mean his example was incorrect? Killing a whole bunch of people was incorrect? No sh*t Sherlock. We figured that out around 1945. You know, around the time the atomic bombs hit the ground. Yeah, that time. (While I can already feel your chubby ass fingers typing the word "hippie" in big, bold, redneck letters, I do understand that the possession of nuclear weapons has been instrumental to overall world peace in the last 60 years)

And what do you mean my response was abysmal? I took you up on all your points, countered them as best I could and agreed with you when you were right, before making my final statement. My response would have been abysmal, if, say, I simply answered in two short sentences rather than in any coherent way, backing up my accusations with not a shred of reference to why I believe them to be true.

Thank goodness I did not do that.

.
Your response to his example.
His example was martyrdom and suicide attacks in the bible and I argued that his example was false. Your response to his example was simply bad.
Don't assume anything about my identity. It's rude and presumptuous.

Ok, so we're skipping past all my other points again? ...That's cool... I guess...

Well, my satirical second paragraph was meant to invoke the feeling of ridicule towards the situation, meaning that I agree with the fact that such an action is condemnable, but as my last sentence stated this extract doesn't fit the original purpose as it has not, to my knowledge been an inspiration to suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks. I could be wrong though - there could be someone out there puling down houses with his bare hands as we speak, who knows. (Again, that was satire, clearly I know your point is that it glorifies martyrdom and blah blah blah, I'm not being ignorant, just trying to diffuse the tension)

But at any rate, sorry about the whole name calling thing, that was impulsive and immature and I apologize.

Stagnant:

Gorrila_thinktank:
sorry, let me phone my friend out in the north-bush and tell him to fly home. his christan belifs are only an exucuse to rob people of their rights, so he shouldent be running summer reading and writing programs for the native amaricans our country (canada) totaly impovreished through systematic discrimantion. I guess I should also stop my plans to head out as a voulenter on a mercy ship. The risk of christainity contaminating the international poor is to great. I should also tell the doctors, nurses and dentist who voulenter that they should stop as well. we might accidently sway someone while in the operating theater.

while i'm at it I should tell that group of christans out in tieland to stop trying to brake up the child sex slave rings in their country. they might hurt somebody.

we should also get urban promise out of camdan, new jersey. I might need some help with this one, they rebuilt alot of infistructure in a couple of areas. and those christain run homeless centers? they have got to go.

Way to miss the point completely, and read in a completely different point. I said "christians use their religion as an excuse to be bigots". That doesn't mean that every christian uses it for bigotry, or that many christians use it solely for bigotry. There are many Christians who use their religion to do good things. It doesn't excuse the religion as a whole, though. Even if Christianity did absolutely no harm, I still would consider it a negative influence on our society, because it's giving people a false, ungrounded, irrational truth, and convincing them to stop looking for the real truth.

But here's the funny thing. Every single thing you just mentioned could be done just as well, if not better, by secular organizations. The secular organizations wouldn't have the baggage and falsehoods attached that Christianity brings with it. And here's the most interesting fact of all: Christians who were generally giving and heartfelt who deconvert more often than not stay giving and heartfelt (just like Christians who were generally dicks who deconvert more often than not stay dicks). The difference being, secularism carries no baggage. You aren't obliged by your secularism to waste time in church, or treat homosexuals as lesser people, or anything of the like.

Helmholtz Watson:
Prove an alternative to the Divine without telling me that something comes from nothing.

Prove an alternative to the Norse Mythos without a lack of evidence.

Why is "God did it" the default answer? Remember, you have no evidence that god did it beyond this faulty idea "it only could have been god". If you don't have proof that the divine is the only possible explanation (and no, saying "I can't think of anything else" isn't proof; it's simply evidence of your own ignorance), and you don't have evidence that the divine actually did it, then your explanation hold no merit whatsoever, and must be discarded by any rational human being as a non-answer, akin to "An alien farted it out over coffee one day" or "The universe suddenly poofed into existence from nothing". How do you know it was a god?

I do not dispute the validity of secular humanitarian organizations but I do disagree with your hand waving of where the impudence to arrange these initiatives comes from. A person and their beliefs cannot be separated. This is fundamental and shown in our natural dislike of indoctrination. The sheer number of grass roots, large and small scale Christian aid groups leads credence to the positive impact of the Christian belief structure. there is a diffrence between "Could" and "Does".

Here is a link to a Red Cross Review article on the subject. The Red Cross itself is a secular organisation so bias should be limited.

http://www.ikrk.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_858_ferris.pdf

keinechance:

Lilani:

keinechance:
Then what do I call a person that holds irrational opinions if not an irrational person?

If the person was rational, would such a person not acknowledge that this opinion is not rational, and change that opinion?

I'm saying you don't approach the person with the idea that they are irrational. I'm saying you approach them with the idea that the concepts are. Critique the problem, not the person. In your opinion, as far as I've been able to gather, if they didn't hold those beliefs, they wouldn't be irrational. Meaning the "irrationalness" within them is exclusive to the concepts, not the person. So choose one: Is the person as a whole irrational, or is the concept irrational?

A false dichotomy isn't making your case.

If a person has irrational beliefs, then that person is irrational.

Does that mean the person is always irrational?

No.

Tell me what about that is a false dichotomy to you.

When you say a person is irrational, that is an absolute statement. "Is" is an absolute term of being. It isn't partial, and there isn't any wiggle room. So when you say somebody is something, everything that they are is whatever you say. It is a contradiction to say somebody is irrational, and then to say sometimes they aren't. The sentence "If a person has irrational beliefs, then that person is irrational" literally means the entirety of that person is irrational, and is always irrational. There is no time stamp or limit when using the word "is."

And either way, again, by engaging the person at the point of where they connect with the beliefs is approaching it from the wrong side. If you want to convince them their beliefs are irrational, you don't do that by telling them the fact that they hold the beliefs is the problem. You address the beliefs objectively, separate from the person, and point out what about those beliefs are irrational. The problem is not the person. It's the concepts they believe in. Trying to rectify that by saying "Those concepts make you irrational" rather than "These concepts are irrational, let me show you why" is childish and elitist thinking.

Why is it I'm the one trying to teach you how to be objective and impartial, anyway?

keinechance:
Then please do me a favor.

Take a bible and highlight all the things that are "historical" in yellow, highlight all the things that are "fables" in blue, and all things where you are not sure in red.

Otherwise I won't know what to address specifically.

If you go by the etymology of the word "Christian," from the words Christ and the Greek ianos which means to follow, Christians are just Christ followers. So really, going by that, the only text that really matters is the teachings of Jesus. And many Bibles already have that highlighted in red. So if you want a pretty good representation of what I personally take from the Bible, just track down one of those red letter Bibles and you'll be good. I'm not trying to prove the validity of anything, and that was never my intention in making that post. I'm just trying to show you what makes my values tick.

Also, I'll take that as "Yes, I didn't watch the video."

Lilani:

Tell me what about that is a false dichotomy to you.

When you say a person is irrational, that is an absolute statement. "Is" is an absolute term of being. It isn't partial, and there isn't any wiggle room. So when you say somebody is something, everything that they are is whatever you say. It is a contradiction to say somebody is irrational, and then to say sometimes they aren't. The sentence "If a person has irrational beliefs, then that person is irrational" literally means the entirety of that person is irrational, and is always irrational. There is no time stamp or limit when using the word "is."

And either way, again, by engaging the person at the point of where they connect with the beliefs is approaching it from the wrong side. If you want to convince them their beliefs are irrational, you don't do that by telling them the fact that they hold the beliefs is the problem. You address the beliefs objectively, separate from the person, and point out what about those beliefs are irrational. The problem is not the person. It's the concepts they believe in. Trying to rectify that by saying "Those concepts make you irrational" rather than "These concepts are irrational, let me show you why" is childish and elitist thinking.

Why is it I'm the one trying to teach you how to be objective and impartial, anyway?

So if I say that a person is rational/irrational/impartial/objectiv, that person is always rational/irrational/impartial/objectiv, and will never exibit different behaviour?

But you are correct, maybe saying: "You are exibiting irrational thinking by holding to an irrational opinion." is a more precise definition.

keinechance:

Wolverine18:

keinechance:

IF God is omnipotent and omniscient THEN everything is predestined, as God knows EVERYTHING.

So I ask again, is God omnipotent and omniscient?

Already answered, it doesn't matter if he is. Like I said, some people can't see past a timeline.

That is correct, as I am not omnipotent and omniscient.

And it seems the God you propose is not omnipotent and omniscient either.

The "God" you propose seems indistinguishable from non-sentient natural phenomena.

I haven't actually proposed any god. I believe in the Einsteinian view of god and thus can propose nothing specific.

What I said was, it doesn't matter if he can see the future or not, it doesn't change if people have free will or not, it only changes if he will know their final decision if such a god was omniscient.

If my choice was free will and there is no god, then it doesn't stop being free will just because some creature can see what choice I will make by glancing ahead in the timeline.

And of course if multiverse theory is correct and every choice creates a separate universe, then such an omniscient being would see you would make every choice and praise you where you made a good choice and punish you for bad choices you made.

Your view of time is just very simplistic.

keinechance:

Lilani:

Tell me what about that is a false dichotomy to you.

When you say a person is irrational, that is an absolute statement. "Is" is an absolute term of being. It isn't partial, and there isn't any wiggle room. So when you say somebody is something, everything that they are is whatever you say. It is a contradiction to say somebody is irrational, and then to say sometimes they aren't. The sentence "If a person has irrational beliefs, then that person is irrational" literally means the entirety of that person is irrational, and is always irrational. There is no time stamp or limit when using the word "is."

And either way, again, by engaging the person at the point of where they connect with the beliefs is approaching it from the wrong side. If you want to convince them their beliefs are irrational, you don't do that by telling them the fact that they hold the beliefs is the problem. You address the beliefs objectively, separate from the person, and point out what about those beliefs are irrational. The problem is not the person. It's the concepts they believe in. Trying to rectify that by saying "Those concepts make you irrational" rather than "These concepts are irrational, let me show you why" is childish and elitist thinking.

Why is it I'm the one trying to teach you how to be objective and impartial, anyway?

So if I say that a person is rational/irrational/impartial/objectiv, that person is always rational/irrational/impartial/objectiv, and will never exibit different behaviour?

When you use the word "is" on its own, yes. That is exactly what you're saying. If I say "Mayonnaise is nasty," that on its own does not imply that I don't mind mayonnaise in egg salad.

But you are correct, maybe saying: "You are exibiting irrational thinking by holding to an irrational opinion." is a more precise definition.

Thank you :3 If the idea is to get the person to separate themselves from their beliefs, then you also need to separate them from the beliefs when you address them.

Lilani:

keinechance:
Then please do me a favor.

Take a bible and highlight all the things that are "historical" in yellow, highlight all the things that are "fables" in blue, and all things where you are not sure in red.

Otherwise I won't know what to address specifically.

If you go by the etymology of the word "Christian," from the words Christ and the Greek ianos which means to follow, Christians are just Christ followers. So really, going by that, the only text that really matters is the teachings of Jesus. And many Bibles already have that highlighted in red. So if you want a pretty good representation of what I personally take from the Bible, just track down one of those red letter Bibles and you'll be good. I'm not trying to prove the validity of anything, and that was never my intention in making that post. I'm just trying to show you what makes my values tick.

Also, I'll take that as "Yes, I didn't watch the video."

You are correct, I didn't watch the video yet, because I was in a discussion with several other people beside you.

But I will rectify that ASAP.

Seses209:

Now, for your quote, I suppose he did kill a bunch of guys who displayed him in their living room and were planning to torture him to death. But then again, who ties a superpowered dude to the support beams of his house? It was practically assisted suicide... mass suicide, whatever.

Well he wasn't super human at the time. The story was he was a Nazarian from before birth. His sins with a philistine girl led him to be in a position where she could break his oath as a Nazarian and thus cost him his strength. He was just an average man when captured, it was part of a plot against him. In his misery he called out to god in recognition of his wrongs and asked for this one last thing, and god granted him one last burst of strength.

So, they didn't know he was still dangerous. I love OT stories, they have a sense of flair about them.

Now, to address the original quote, this situation isn't the same as suicide bombers. His only escape was death, and he took his captors with him. That's an entirely different scenario than someone who walks into a place with the intention of killing everyone, and even then, it depends if they are targeting innocents or those involved in the aggression.

Wolverine18:

Seses209:

Now, for your quote, I suppose he did kill a bunch of guys who displayed him in their living room and were planning to torture him to death. But then again, who ties a superpowered dude to the support beams of his house? It was practically assisted suicide... mass suicide, whatever.

Well he wasn't super human at the time. The story was he was a Nazarian from before birth. His sins with a philistine girl led him to be in a position where she could break his oath as a Nazarian and thus cost him his strength. He was just an average man when captured, it was part of a plot against him. In his misery he called out to god in recognition of his wrongs and asked for this one last thing, and god granted him one last burst of strength.

So, they didn't know he was still dangerous. I love OT stories, they have a sense of flair about them.

Now, to address the original quote, this situation isn't the same as suicide bombers. His only escape was death, and he took his captors with him. That's an entirely different scenario than someone who walks into a place with the intention of killing everyone, and even then, it depends if they are targeting innocents or those involved in the aggression.

Eeerm.. I'm not sure whose point you're arguing there bucko.

At any rate, I knew about the story (but I guess some people didn't, so thanks for clarifying to everyone else) and I was really just poking fun at the other commenter, who tried to imply that this is the stuff that inspires suicide bombings and the like. Which as you said is bullcrap.

Lilani:

keinechance:
Then please do me a favor.

Take a bible and highlight all the things that are "historical" in yellow, highlight all the things that are "fables" in blue, and all things where you are not sure in red.

Otherwise I won't know what to address specifically.

If you go by the etymology of the word "Christian," from the words Christ and the Greek ianos which means to follow, Christians are just Christ followers. So really, going by that, the only text that really matters is the teachings of Jesus. And many Bibles already have that highlighted in red. So if you want a pretty good representation of what I personally take from the Bible, just track down one of those red letter Bibles and you'll be good. I'm not trying to prove the validity of anything, and that was never my intention in making that post. I'm just trying to show you what makes my values tick.

Also, I'll take that as "Yes, I didn't watch the video."

I have watched it.

Not a single piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

A lot of heresay and storys of personal experience.

"I have no idea what human words I would use to try to articulate who or what God is"

"I can articulate what I believe my experience of God is"

To me that seems, he has no idea what he is talking about, but believes it anyway.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked