Is the Bible worth reading?

[Insomniac]

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/lemuel_washburn/bible_worth_reading.html

That depends. If a man is going to get his living by standing in a Christian pulpit, I should be obliged to answer, Yes! But if he is going to follow any other calling, or work at any trade, I should have to answer, No! There is absolutely no information in the Bible that man can make any use of as he goes through life. The Bible is not a book of knowledge. It does not give instruction in any of the sciences. It furnishes no help to labor. It is useless as a political guide. There is nothing in it that gives the mechanic any hint, or affords the farmer any enlightenment in his occupation.

If man wishes to learn about the earth or the heavens; about life or the animal kingdom, he has no need to study the Bible. If he is desirous of reading the best poetry or the most entertaining literature he will not find it in the Bible. If he wants to read to store his mind with facts, the Bible is the last book for him to open, for never yet was a volume written that contained fewer facts than this book. If he is anxious to get some information that will help him earn an honest living he does not want to spend his time reading Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Kings, Psalms, or the Gospels. If he wants to read just for the fun of reading, to kill time, or to see how much nonsensical writing there is in one book, let him read the Bible.

I have not said that there are not wise sayings in the Bible, or a few dramatic incidents, but there are just as wise sayings, and wiser ones, too, out of the book, and there are dramas of human life that surpass in interest anything contained in the Old or New Testament.

No person can make a decent excuse for reading the Bible more than once. To do such a thing would be a foolish waste of time. But our stoutest objection to reading this book is, not that it contains nothing particularly good, but that it contains so much that is positively bad. To read this book is to get false ideas, absurd ideas, bad ideas. The injury to the human mind that reads the Bible as a reliable book is beyond repair. I do not think that this book should be read by children, by any human being less than twenty years of age, and it would be better for mankind if not a man or woman read a line of it until he or she was fifty years old.

What I want to say is this, that there is nothing in the Bible that is of the least consequence to the people of the twentieth century. English literature is richer a thousand fold than this so- called sacred volume. We have books of more information and of more inspiration than the Bible. As the relic of a barbarous and superstitious people, it should have a place in our libraries, but it is not a work of any value to this age. I pity men who stand in pulpits and call this book the word of God. I wish they had brains enough to earn their living without having to repeat this foolish falsehood. The day will come when this book will be estimated for what it is worth, and when that day comes, the Bible will no longer be called the word of God, but the work of ignorant, superstitious men.

Another essay has something about as vitriolic:

Liberals should not allow their children to touch the Bible. They should keep it from them until they are old enough to know that no book was ever written by a God, and then, if they read the Bible, they would see its true character. We must guard the minds of our children from Christian influences. We pity the child that is taught that the Bible is the word of God, but we despise the man that teaches this falsehoodIt's a very Protestant thing to get kids to sit down and read the good book (but only certain parts). Could be said it does them more harm than good to fill their heads with the worldview of 10th century monarchists and Hellenized Jews?

[redsox39]

Well...that's that.

[Da Raider]

Humanists all agree; the Bible is nonsense. As their true God is mankind.

[Kilgore]

No

There are other books with better stories.

[Mustard]

I was 17 when I read the Bible from cover to cover, just to do it out of sheer, morbid curiosity. Going into it, I was expecting... well, to learn, to put it plainly. I was more or less disappointed a few days after finishing, because I felt as if I had wasted my time because my expectations were blown. I did like the story though, as it was quite antiquated and showed how far as a civilization we have come, and at times (as I'm sure you are aware) the story borders on fantasy, which I like.

As for the scathing reviews from the intial post, well, I don't disagree with what they're saying, but then again, I don't really agree with their level of hostility. I feel it isn't the Bible's fault that people are idiotic zealots, its the people who are to blame, and I would be willing to wager dollars to donuts that the true zealots haven't actually read the entire story cover to cover, which would figure sadly.

[hatepoppy]

is it worth reading? only if you plan on talking shit about it. i dont think youve got a leg to stand on otherwise.

but thats the only reason i can think of.

[Quantum Leap]

Of course it's worth reading, it's the most read book in the history of mankind. It's not a particularly good read, and the first half of it is filled with more begats than I care to think about, but for sheer cultural influence I don't see why it doesn't deserve a few hours of your life to at least try to get through it.

And it helps a lot in religious arguments. You'd be amazed how many god-fearing christians have never actually read the damn thing.

[Kilgore]

When I was somewhere between the ages of 9-12 (I don't quite remember) I belong to some type of knowledge bowl, but only on the book of Mathew for my church. We would travel and have competitions against other churches. At the time I knew that book of Mathew inside and out. Give me the first couple of words in a passage and I could nail the rest of it, and tell you the exact location of it.

I don't remember a god damn thing now, but at the same time I was reading some Steven King and could at least tell you the general premise of the book. What does that say about the bible?

[Archetype]

It's a very Protestant thing to get kids to sit down and read the good book (but only certain parts). Could be said it does them more harm than good to fill their heads with the worldview of 10th century monarchists and Hellenized Jews?
Well, Protestantism was very much responsible for the modern spirit of capitalism, so I'm gonna vote no.

The bible is not an enclosed piece of literature. You can't just cut yourself off from everyone else and pretend the world you live in is the most logical, and therefore superior. The article is bullshit.

[Claibo]

I tried... and lost.

[EVILution!]

Don't u want to know how it all ends?








Just read the cliff notes.

[The Batman]

Don't u want to know how it all ends?








Just read the cliff notes.

There are cliff notes?

[Archetype]

Well, the catechism could count as cliff notes.

[Claibo]

Don't u want to know how it all ends?








Just read the cliff notes.


I am guessing with you being neg'd a shit load of times...

[HAWK]

Is the Bible worth reading?

I believe it is. Regardless of whether you're a Christian or something else, there is an amount of philosophy found in the bible that can be put to good use.

I'm sorry people...anyone who says that loving one another, being a good samaritan, or simply being charitable are evil and corrupt ideas obviously has some bigger issues.

I'm not claiming the bible is the only book that teaches this. Nor am I saying the bible only promotes my examples. But come on...the loathing is a bit misplaced. As the above post said: It's not the book, it's the people.

[wonderllama]

is it worth reading? only if you plan on talking shit about it. i dont think youve got a leg to stand on otherwise.

but thats the only reason i can think of.

That's pretty much what I thought.
Same reason for reading any religious text actually.

[EVILution!]

I am guessing with you being neg'd a shit load of times...

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no...

[EVILution!]

There are cliff notes?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XS3MNGK5L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

[Archetype]

*though

Dumb Dumb

[EVILution!]

fixed.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Certian books are ok, certain books are a waste of time. It's pointless to read about who begat who, etc... If you want to read religious texts, I would go with greek and roman because there's a lot of rape and war and shit.

[ick]

The Bible is a folk history, meaning the factual and fictional elements are nearly indistinguishable, and they are meant to be as such, for this kind of tradition lays the groundwork for an obedient, conservative society.

You must realize that it is the nature of the Judeo-Christian people to preserve their own values. This tradition was inherited, and has evolved from the Ancient Hebrews, whose religious/national traditions today remain almost completely intact after nearly 3,000 years of recorded history. This is, I believe, the largest reason why there is still such widespread belief in a work that is not consistent with science, modern reasoning, or sound argumentation, and cannot in any way survive true academic scrutiny.

So is the bible worth reading? Perhaps out of anthropological curiosity.... there is almost no verifiable historical content in the bible. There is no uniform code of ethics; in fact, there are several competing ethical systems at work throughout the text, all of which contradict each other. Furthermore, there is really no reason to read the bible for religious or spiritual fulfillment, as there is nothing unique about its cosmology - the old and new testaments are both clearly plagiaristic amalgamations of previously existing pagan traditions of the ancient Mediterranean region, most of them translated from an astrological context to one of theology for visible political motivations.

I say read it if you want to, but please do so with the proverbial grain of salt, and don't vote to have it be taught in schools. Our children already have enough garbage thrown at them which destroys their ability to think critically... why add to it?

[Archetype]

The Bible is a folk history, meaning the factual and fictional elements are nearly indistinguishable, and they are meant to be as such, for this kind of tradition lays the groundwork for an obedient, conservative society.

As with any of the early theocratic societies, order is a major motive, but considering both the entire history of Judaic religious development and the early and modern histories of Christianity, obedience isn't necessarily an avid trait (I would vote something more along the lines of discipline), and conservatism comes with any established civilization, regardless of religion.

You must realize that it is the nature of the Judeo-Christian people to preserve their own values.

I didn't realize we were fucking elves.

This tradition was inherited, and has evolved from the Ancient Hebrews, whose religious/national traditions today remain almost completely intact after nearly 3,000 years of recorded history. This is, I believe, the largest reason why there is still such widespread belief in a work that is not consistent with science, modern reasoning, or sound argumentation, and cannot in any way survive true academic scrutiny.

No. You need to go read some modern works on mythology and religion. Y'know, something within the last century.

So is the bible worth reading? Perhaps out of anthropological curiosity.... there is almost no verifiable historical content in the bible.

Uh, yeah, there's actually quite a lot.

There is no uniform code of ethics; in fact, there are several competing ethical systems at work throughout the text, all of which contradict each other.There's variance in systems, what else would you expect of a book written by a hundred different people over a few thousand years? That's one of the collection's positives, but people tend to read it like they read Kant or Bacon. It's a collection. An anthology, if you will.

And no, they don't all contradict each other, that's a dumb assumption that seems to be dangerously common. I will agree that they're competing, that's the way the majority of the Judaic writings came about. Would anyone rather it's entire history be thrown under the inquisition banner?

Furthermore, there is really no reason to read the bible for religious or spiritual fulfillment, as there is nothing unique about its cosmology - the old and new testaments are both clearly plagiaristic amalgamations of previously existing pagan traditions of the ancient Mediterranean region, most of them translated from an astrological context to one of theology for visible political motivations.

One of, if not the worst, modernist creations, is this idea of plagiarism. Originality doesn't exist. Never has. The creative process is just Godzilla shaking a library around as a different combination of books fall out to make something interesting. But, it does have it's uses inside an economy, as people don't starve just because they think. It certainly does not apply to something like the bible's representations of other cultures myths. Quite frankly, they can't even be called other cultures. The Tower of Babel story wasn't stolen by anyone else, it was passed on and developed in a few different ways by descendants. Other examples, like the Christ figure apparent in other stories, are not plagiarism, but innate archetypal images; signs of similar cognitive processes; the collective unconscious.

I say read it if you want to, but please do so with the proverbial grain of salt, and don't vote to have it be taught in schools. Our children already have enough garbage thrown at them which destroys their ability to think critically... why add to it?

I would agree, but only because people are naturally retarded. There is no innate ability to think critically, it's something that develops over time. The bible has to be studied in different contexts, and by no means should be taken as "fact."

[Archangel]

I don't remember a god damn thing now, but at the same time I was reading some Steven King and could at least tell you the general premise of the book. What does that say about the bible?

Very little. It does say a lot about you, though - for example, that allegory is over your head. It's not just a story; that's the fucking point.


Shit like this could only come from a country that is 15 minutes old, which believes that culture comes from a tabula rasa, which is manifest nonsense. A place where Britney Spears is considered "culture".

You cannot understand Western culture without the Bible. Simple as that. If you haven't read it, you are simply not qualified to say a word on Western thought, just as you are obliged to shut the fuck up about football if you don't know who Vince Lombardi or Johnny Unitas were, or to recognise that in a discussion on American history, your opinion has no weight if you've never read the Declaration of Independence, or you've never heard of the Gettysburg Address.

How the fuck a guy is able to say that one should read English literature instead of the Bible is pretty surprising to me, since Chaucer and Milton reference the Bible on every other bleeding page: The same goes for the great works of Italy, Germany, Spain and France. Fucking hell, for a thousand years, European culture WAS exegesis. Theology was considered the queen of all academic disciplines. Simply put, in the entire Middle Ages, every smart literate person in Europe spent most of his time analysing one book.

And Raider, seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. Humanists (the real ones, not the wishy washy rubbish Americans have turned the term into) always saw the actual words of the Bible as the root of civilisation: Any criticism of the Church of actual merit is based on criticising how far the institution strays from its spiritual centre. Boccaccio, the guy who pretty much fucking invented Humanism, reveres the Bible: He loathes what superficial rubbish the monks of his day spout about it.
Look at Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's De humanitatis dignitate, the closest thing to a systemic programme that Humanism and the Renaissance had, and tell me that the Bible doesn't figure into the equation. Hell, one of the things that make the foundations of America so spectacularly great is the fact that Jefferson was a serious exegete, who earnestly tried to strip the Gospels of the very myth that the Church kept concentrating on, in order to make them relevant to the society he helped create: Would this most brilliant of political thinkers, the only peer to Cicero and Pericles, have tried to make this effort on an inconsequential, unimportant, mediocre book?

Now, I'm an intellectual. I'm probably a hell of a lot smarter than most of these idiots flinging shit at things they know nothing about. I have read, and thought deeply about, many of the great works of Western thought, from Hesiod to Horace, from Dante to Milton, from Kleist to Pushkin, from Kant to Kierkegaard, from Petrarch to Melville. And yet, the books that keep surprising me the most are Genesis, Job, Matthew and Romans/Corinthians. There isn't a serious Western cultural thinker after 300AD on whom the Bible has not had some kind of effect.

You don't have to be a Christian; you don't even have to be religious, just as you don't have to believe in the Heliconian Muses to recognise the genius of Hesiod. You definitely don't have to agree with it. But not to recognise, much less categorically deny, that alongside Timaeus and the Nicomachaean Ethics (and possibly the Metamorphoses), the Bible is the smartest book written in antiquity just shows that the commentator is an armour-plated, ocean-going moron.
It's not the book's fault that people are too fucking stupid to comprehend allegory. Kierkegaard was a smarter man than all of today's vitriolic atheists combined, and he agonised his entire life over the interpretation of that book, to find some vestiges of certainty in a time where there was only contingency. Not relevant, you say? I honestly don't see that happening with Mr King's or Mr Grisham's oeuvre, enjoyable yarns though they may spin.

I don't know who Mr Washburn is, if he is even real, or what he does for a living. But the hatred he and his peers feel can be born of one thing only: total and utter envy. The bitter, resentful, yet absolutely certain knowledge that long after he is dead and forgotten, smart people will still be discussing Corinthians. That long after today's prophets of idiocy will have been relegated to the embarrassing footnotes of human thought, Abraham will still matter. And they fucking loathe that idea. They think that only their views matter, and cannot comprehend how people could possibly not see them as superior.
It's okay to hate something great. Fritz Nietzsche hated most everything about Christianity with a passion. Giacomo Leopardi, the greatest nihilist to ever live - the only one to elevate nihilism to a titanic statement on man's dignity - condemned the Bible for giving hope where there was none. But they never, for a second, would have thought of looking down on it. What does that tell you?
For the fundamentally, quintessentially mediocre to claim that it is not deserving of respect, not sodding worthy - that is a sad comment on a society where idiots feel entitled to opinions. The fucking arrogance of the stupid to believe that Augustine, Bernard, Thomas, Francis, Dante, Leibniz and Kierkegaard were dumber than themselves for making that book the centre of their lives. People are obviously free to follow the mediocre: I, for my part, will always stick to the opinions of the great.


Should the Bible be read to little children? Fuck no. Would you read Antigone or the Comedy to them? What kind of silly question is that?

Should it be required reading for anyone studying the Arts, or Western cuture? Hell yes.

[Fuh Q]

The bible is a boring read. I wish I could unread it. I personally have gained nothing by reading it. I went to church for a number of years, read the bible both collectively and independantly, hell I went to a catholic primary school, and I dont agree with or believe anything in the bible and its had no bearing on my life whatsoever (besides robbing me of my time), what was the point in me reading it? I know many christians (obviously), and they can only quote random psuedo-profound statements from it. They dont even know or understand the book of their religion.

Is the bible worth reading for the average person? No, unless you want to satisfy your intellectual curiosity, in which case why not.

Is the bible worth reading for a philosopher/theologian/historian? probably.

[Archangel]

I am shocked at the idea that people actually approach the Bible like they would approach the latest edition of Spider-Man, expecting to be entertained and satisfied, and being disappointed and dismissive when they aren't.

Have people no grasp of depth anymore?

[Phil Theehor]

My response is probably unnecessary because I don't think an intelligent being could put forth a counter to Arch's argument.

That said, the simple answer is this: Of course the bible is worth reading, if for no other reason than to see what all the fuss is about. What other book has had such an effect on world history?

You could say that the Koran has had a similar affect--flaring up here and there over the last twelve centuries. Certainly, how that book is interpreted is playing a big part in modern history. And for that reason, I think the Koran is worth reading, too (note to self: read Koran).

[Morfin]

As Phil and Arch have put it, much better than I can, of course the Bible is "worth" reading.

But that doesn't mean you have to do what Sink did and slog through the entire thing. Read Genesis and Exodus. Read the Gospels. For kicks, read Revelation.

I make no bones about being an atheist, but one cannot ignore the Bible which has had such a dramatic effect on philosophy, society, governments, and people. Hell, read the parts that give rise to why Sarah Palin and evangelists believe what they do, read the parts about why Jehovah Witnesses won't get blood transfusions, or why some Baptists speak in tongues and handle snakes.

Is it "worth" it to read the Bible? As hatepoppy says, (and I'm paraphrasing) if you're going to talk shit about it, you better read it or STFU.

Is it "worth" it to read the Bible? It depends. Do you come to GMF to participate in and learn from the Philo threads, or do you come here just for the entertainment of the Running Threads? The answer is: It depends what you want to get out of GMF.

[Archangel]

I come here to look at pictures of naked Ukranian Playboy bunnies, actually.

[Morfin]

Mustaches turn you on, eh?

[Archangel]

Judge for yourself. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=12750)

[Archetype]

I'm pretty sure that's dude in the middle, gross!

http://img242.imagevenue.com/loc220/th_46751_Scan-081213-0001_123_220lo.jpg (http://img242.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=46751_Scan-081213-0001_123_220lo.jpg)

[IHaveNone]

I am not a very religious person for me personally I would say no. That being said, I think that everyone should keep an open mind and never rule anything out. Every person ultimately needs to find comfort somewhere.

[Stax]

You cannot understand Western culture without the Bible. Simple as that. If you haven't read it, you are simply not qualified to say a word on Western thought, just as you are obliged to shut the fuck up about football if you don't know who Vince Lombardi or Johnny Unitas were, or to recognise that in a discussion on American history, your opinion has no weight if you've never read the Declaration of Independence, or you've never heard of the Gettysburg Address.

Exactly. The legitimacy of the Bible as the word of God does not matter as far as its importance goes. If you want to understand the past 2000 years of history in a large part of the world, understanding the Bible is a good framework.

[Nosebuckle]

I am not a very religious person for me personally I would say no. That being said, I think that everyone should keep an open mind and never rule anything out. Every person ultimately needs to find comfort somewhere.
That's really thoughtful :D We greatly appreciate your comments!

[Archangel]

Oh, the irony...

[midnight.l2acer]

the bible is the most common book you know. so i guess its worth reading

[Nature's Folly]

I mean i guess, if you believe in that sort of thing. Me? I piss on it daily. Then set fire to it. It has become quite an expensive habit.

[heelsguy]

the bible is not just WORTH reading, it should be considered REQUIRED reading. afterwards, if you simply look at it as a series of parables (mustard seed, etc.) or a blueprint for life as we know it, that is up to the reader.

[Kerjack]

the bible is not just WORTH reading, it should be considered REQUIRED reading. afterwards, if you simply look at it as a series of parables (mustard seed, etc.) or a blueprint for life as we know it, that is up to the reader.

Should The Book of Mormon be required reading as well?

[Morfin]

For giggles?

[freegood]

Should The Book of Mormon be required reading as well?

BoM doesn't hold a candle to the Bible in terms of cultural value to Western civ.

[mongo]

BoM doesn't hold a candle to the Bible in terms of cultural value to Western civ.

if we're basing this on cultural value, star wars should be required watching.

[Mustard]

The Book of Mormon has to be one of the most idiotic works of literature (and using that word is a stretch, mind you) in the entire course of human civilization.

[freegood]

if we're basing this on cultural value, star wars should be required watching.

Who says it isn't?

[tockit]

If you are an American, the Bible is absolutely worth reading since this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles!

Well over 90% of the pilgrams that sailed from England to the United States were Protestant Christians. The rest were comprised of Catholics and Jews.

Heck, all it takes is a walk through the monuments in Washington DC to determine our Christian heritage. The 10 Commandments, scenes from the Last Supper, Crucifixes, et al...

As the country slowly grew, usually the first buildings in new towns were the Churches, which doubled as schoolhouses back in the day!

The vast majority of every college in this country were started as Christian organizations!


Sadly, we've digressed a long way since those days!

We've given up allowing prayer in public schools, and now we have metal detectors and psycopaths ambushing schools on shooting sprees.

Teenage pregnancy rates and STD's are at all time highs, and drugs and gang activity are more prevalent than ever! Divorce rates are higher than ever, and homosexuality if vogue and portrayed as the "in thing" on prime time television!

All of this as our nation teeters on the verge of economic ruin, just as the Roman Empire and many other nations in the past that fell apart.

Morality is being pushed aside by greed and self gratification, all the way from CEO's down to the local business owners!


The Bible a book of fables??? I can't think of anything this country needs more right now than it ever has!

But hey, what do I know......

[vasili denisov]

If you are an American, the Bible is absolutely worth reading since this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles!
Most of the founding fathers were deists, and Thomas Jefferson's agnosticism was so strong that he was accused of being an atheist during his presidential campaign, his possible atheism one reason why John Adams was so deeply against him. What faith Jefferson may have had did not prevent him from passionately supporting the strongly atheist regime of revolutionary France.

The vast majority of every college in this country were started as Christian organizations!
A large number, if not the majority, of these were anglican, and in support of the british government and against independence. Thankfully, the war of independence never broke down along religious lines.

Teenage pregnancy rates and STD's are at all time highs, and drugs and gang activity are more prevalent than ever!
Divorce rates are higher than ever, and homosexuality if vogue and portrayed as the "in thing" on prime time television!
The highest rate of teen pregnancy as well as divorce can be found among religious evangelicals.

All of this as our nation teeters on the verge of economic ruin, just as the Roman Empire and many other nations in the past that fell apart.
I think there are few similarities between the US and the roman empire, and that empire fell apart as christianity spread within it. Probably the last best emperor was the pagan Julian. Augustine attempts to answer why this fall took place despite the movement towards the christian faith.

The Bible a book of fables??? I can't think of anything this country needs more right now than it ever has!

That the bible has a great meaning and power for many is without question; to demand that it have practical value for someone as a self-help guide, or as guidance in steering the ship of state, is a demand that it may not be able to fulfill. That it cannot fulfill it, does not diminish it.

[Archangel]

Witnessing vasili respond to tockit is like watching LeBron go 1 on 1 with, well, tockit.

[VoxAngelikus]

A6vnsrmmUZ4

[tockit]

Most of the founding fathers were deists, and Thomas Jefferson's agnosticism was so strong that he was accused of being an atheist during his presidential campaign, his possible atheism one reason why John Adams was so deeply against him. What faith Jefferson may have had did not prevent him from passionately supporting the strongly atheist regime of revolutionary France.

A large number, if not the majority, of these were anglican, and in support of the british government and against independence. Thankfully, the war of independence never broke down along religious lines.

While it is true that Jefferson was one of the least religious of our founding fathers; if most of them were deists as you suggest, why did 24 our of 56 of the founding fathers have degrees in Christian Seminary?

Out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 28 were Episcopalian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America), eight were Presbyterians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterianism), seven were Congregationalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_church), two were Lutherans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism), two were Dutch Reformed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Reformed_Church), and two were Methodists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism), totalling 49 which seems like a decent majority to me?

The Mayflower Compact (considered by many to be the "birth certificate" of our country) leaves little doubt their intent when it states "Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another".

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States


The highest rate of teen pregnancy as well as divorce can be found among religious evangelicals.

I don't know what the exact definition of a "religious evangelical" is, but that's a pretty vague statement, and I'd love to see a valid source for that statistic! Besides that, just because a person is "religious", doesn't make them a Christian. Satan is religious!

I think there are few similarities between the US and the roman empire, and that empire fell apart as christianity spread within it. Probably the last best emperor was the pagan Julian. Augustine attempts to answer why this fall took place despite the movement towards the christian faith.

Last year, the director of the GAO detailed a few of the similarities between the United States and the Roman Empire in an interview with The Financial Times.

Among these similarities were a decay in our moral values, an overextended military, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.

That the bible has a great meaning and power for many is without question; to demand that it have practical value for someone as a self-help guide, or as guidance in steering the ship of state, is a demand that it may not be able to fulfill. That it cannot fulfill it, does not diminish it.

I totally disagree. If a person "follows" and practices daily the teachings of the Bible, God will bless them.

Black's Law Dictionary, the most widely used law dictionary in the United States for the last hundred years or so, is basically an exposition of the book of Genesis.

My point being that God has blessed the United States since it's founding, more than any other nation in history, and the further we move away from the Biblical principles it was founded upon, the more our nation slips off into oblivion.

How anyone can't see this is beyond me?

[Coco]

My point being that God has blessed the United States since it's founding, more than any other nation in history, and the further we move away from the Biblical principles it was founded upon, the more our nation slips off into oblivion.

How anyone can't see this is beyond me?

I advise you to think long and hard before making such ignorant assertions. This is just ethnocentric bullshit.

[Bill Paxton]

I advise you to think long and hard before making such ignorant assertions. This is just ethnocentric bullshit.

What are you talking about? You don't remember all those people God blessed during WW2, WW1, vietnam, the entire period of slavery, segregation, civil war? Remember how he smoted all those native americans that were wasting this land with their stupid peace pipes and totem poles? Then we came in here and made it awesome and peaceful until those stupid non-christians turned us into a modern roman empire. I just wish that atheist George W Bush hadn't been running the whitehouse for the last few years.

[Archangel]

How anyone can't see this is beyond me?

I dunno, but the average American being too dumb to understand the Bible as a work of allegory and metaphor may have something to do with it.

[Mustard]

My point being that God has blessed the United States since it's founding, more than any other nation in history, and the further we move away from the Biblical principles it was founded upon, the more our nation slips off into oblivion.

How anyone can't see this is beyond me?
Notwithstanding the rest of your response to Vasili, this little gem is easily in the top 3 most ignorant and unfathomably stupid things I have ever had the misfortune of reading on GMF. And that is considering things both Yelram and Tater have said... It is totally based in illogical fiction, aka your reality, and is so blatantly asinine, arrorgant, and incorrect a statement that I can't even comprehend how a person with two working brain cells could have possibly put into words a comment such as this in a serious tone. Your grasp of our nation's founding is rooted in falsehood, your conjectures are distressingly overestimated and just flat out cocky, and the fact that you are convinced you are absolutely correct and righteous is frightening.

Because of this statement, I am convinced that your rationale for existence is rooted in idiocy and fantasy, and furthermore, I will give no heed or merit to your arguments henceforth. Good day sir.

[Archangel]

I love it how his statement implies that God is a) petty enough to get caught up in something as base as politics; and b) hates other countries which aren't half populated by xenophobic inbred relics of the 18th century who shoot everything that moves.

[Archetype]

While it is true that Jefferson was one of the least religious of our founding fathers; if most of them were deists as you suggest, why did 24 our of 56 of the founding fathers have degrees in Christian Seminary?

Appearances aren't everything.

Out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 28 were Episcopalian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America), eight were Presbyterians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterianism), seven were Congregationalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_church), two were Lutherans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism), two were Dutch Reformed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Reformed_Church), and two were Methodists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism), totalling 49 which seems like a decent majority to me?

Considering the era? No, not really.

All of this as our nation teeters on the verge of economic ruin, just as the Roman Empire and many other nations in the past that fell apart.I think there are few similarities between the US and the roman empire, and that empire fell apart as christianity spread within it. Probably the last best emperor was the pagan Julian. Augustine attempts to answer why this fall took place despite the movement towards the christian faith.


Last year, the director of the GAO detailed a few of the similarities between the United States and the Roman Empire in an interview with The Financial Times.

Among these similarities were a decay in our moral values, an overextended military, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.

The Roman Empire didn't fall apart. Not really. Even as the Holy Roman Empire, The Byzantine, hell, The British Empire conquered and slowed, it never fell, just reinvented itself. Thankful to it's so-called "overextension." The US is nothing like Rome, it has nowhere near the cultural foundation, despite leaps in military advancement it's failing miserably to people who aren't even soldiers, it actually attempts to have a moral foundation where the Romans had none, and you can't even compare economics because consumerism hadn't been thought of in Roman times.

The Mayflower Compact (considered by many to be the "birth certificate" of our country) leaves little doubt their intent when it states "Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another".

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States


So they didn't want to piss off God at the dawning of a colony. Funny how the rest of it (what I like to call "content") has relatively nothing to do with Christian ideology.

I don't know what the exact definition of a "religious evangelical" is, but that's a pretty vague statement, and I'd love to see a valid source for that statistic! Besides that, just because a person is "religious", doesn't make them a Christian. Satan is religious.

You randomly call satanists evangelical do ya? Quit being a wiener, it's not that vague.

I totally disagree. If a person "follows" and practices daily the teachings of the Bible, God will bless them.

A religious assertion you can't exactly back up.


Black's Law Dictionary, the most widely used law dictionary in the United States for the last hundred years or so, is basically an exposition of the book of Genesis.

My point being that God has blessed the United States since it's founding, more than any other nation in history, and the further we move away from the Biblical principles it was founded upon, the more our nation slips off into oblivion.

Shut it, Ben Stein email.

[Morfin]

The Mayflower Compact (considered by many to be the "birth certificate" of our country) leaves little doubt their intent when it states "Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another".


I hate to make Arch's point for him (and he will hate it as well), but ...

The Pilgrims and their Mayflower Compact were hardcore Puritans and used major league intolerance toward anyone who did not openly profess and live exactly as they deemed pious. These Puritans were the first (and probably the worst) of what is now referred to as the Religious Right. Their type of tyranny was exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid. So, to use them as support for your argument not only weakens it, but actually presents a great basis for exactly why we have the First Amendment and why there is no organized prayer sessions in public schools.

[Candycane]

I'm generalizing here, but the bible is kinda really outlandish don't ya think? I was just reading some stories from it the other day, and the one about Lot's wife struck me as over the top and so unbelievable. And it's not an isolated incident. I mean really, this stuff is supposed to have really happened? The Old Testament stuff reads like a Stephen King horror novel and God being not a "nice guy". I am am not super well versed in the bible or religion in general, but it just struck me as so not credible the other day. I'm not saying one way or the other if I believe in "god" I'm purely stating the bible seems crazy ridiculous.

[Archangel]

The Old Testament is over the top for the same reason children's stories are - only that in the case of Scripture, it was human consciousness itself which was still very young. If you're gonna give people - few of whom are learned, or even literate - a possible key to understanding metaphysics, you really cannot afford to be subtle in your allegories.

Quoting myself:

If you believe in evolution, why not believe in an evolution of the human consciousness, as well?

Think of mankind in those days as a child of four or so, just beginning his first processes of thought and doubt, and God as, well, a benevolent father. The idea of consciousness ITSELF had just begun to develop among people.

You're basically saying that one should explain the world to a kindergarten kid the same way as you would to a grad student in astrophysics - and, that, my friends, is a sure-fire way of making your kid either dumb or crazy. Thus, you explain things to them a little differently. Should you be reproached for "lying" to your child? Are you less its father for adapting objective truths to its ability to comprehend them? Do you love them less for it?

Or are you simply setting the kid's mind a certain way so it can understand the more complex explanations that it'll receive in those stages of its life when it's ready to receive them?

A lot of you keep applying our consciousness to a different age - and the only thing that proves is that you don't have a firm grasp of history. 300 years ago, people had no concept of what we today define as "morals"; 500 years ago, the concept of the "individual" did not exist; 700 years ago, "mediocrity" was the highest attainable goal for a person.

Imagine how ideas that we take for granted today could have existed in a world before even Plato - hell, the concept of "idea" didn't even exist back then.

[bodybuilder24]

Yes! The Bible is definitely worth reading. Personally, I think it is the inspired word of God, but even if you don't, it is still used as a major work of literature. It is still referenced quite a bit. I am an English major, and in every literature course I've taken, the Bible is used more than any other book.

If you do not believe in the religiosity of the Bible, it is still full of historical events that have been verified through historians, and that, in itself, is worth the read.

[tockit]

The Old Testament is over the top for the same reason children's stories are - only that in the case of Scripture, it was human consciousness itself which was still very young. If you're gonna give people - few of whom are learned, or even literate - a possible key to understanding metaphysics, you really cannot afford to be subtle in your allegories.

Quoting myself:
"Zu jedem ist eigen"

[Archangel]

Yeah, if you're gonna translate idiomatic expressions, Babelfish et al might be the wrong way to go. Also, you apparently typed "to each is own" instead of "his". Just for future reference, the correct equivalent German expression would be "jedem das seine".

[Insomniac]

The Old Testament is over the top for the same reason children's stories are - only that in the case of Scripture, it was human consciousness itself which was still very young. If you're gonna give people - few of whom are learned, or even literate - a possible key to understanding metaphysics, you really cannot afford to be subtle in your allegories.

Quoting myself:

So what's all that stoning stuff about?

[cdean]

Is anything that is already shown on TV reading? XD

[tockit]

Yeah, if you're gonna translate idiomatic expressions, Babelfish et al might be the wrong way to go. Also, you apparently typed "to each is own" instead of "his". Just for future reference, the correct equivalent German expression would be "jedem das seine".
I have no idea what Babelfish is, but I was stationed in Germany for four years several years ago, and that's how the cliche was used around the base during that time.

Evidently, I'm not as intellegent as you are?

Although, I was quite confident that you'd be on here, lurking around these forums and would immediately step in to correct me (I mean God forbid you'd be spending time with your family or friends, wife of girlfriend, or participating in a hobby, humanitarian cause, etc)!

Anyway, I'm not going to convince you that there is, or is not a God, or that the Bible is God's word, anymore than you are going to convince me that there's not!

However, I do find it much easier to believe that a higher power created the world we live in today, instead of some giant explosion from a few mysterious particles (which, I guess spontaneously popped into existence) and randomly came together somehow, causing an explosion big enough to create the entire universe, along with a planet perfectly suited for life.

Then. billions or trillions (pick a number) of years later, a single celled organism evidently evolved into a complex life form, crawled out of some mud-puddle, and eventually evolved into a organism with 23 chromosome pairs, and around 25,000 coded genes perfectly organized to generate human life as we know it!

You want to talk about fairy tales, digest the probability of that happening!

[Archetype]

Arch is Catholic, dumb dumb.

[freegood]

I've been talking to some Evangelicals and they don't consider European Catholics to be Christian. This could be another topic, but what's up with that?

[vasili denisov]

While it is true that Jefferson was one of the least religious of our founding fathers; if most of them were deists as you suggest, why did 24 our of 56 of the founding fathers have degrees in Christian Seminary?
I'll step back from the claim of deism (it's not one I can prove easily on the fly), though I will argue that the faith of the founders was very discrete. Jefferson's faith, or lack thereof, was a non-issue at the convention and only came to the fore due to his passionate support of the french revolution. Someone like Alexander Hamilton may have been a religious episcopalian, but he never attended church, possibly because his mother was refused a church burial for having children out of wedlock. His faith was strong, but very discrete.

I don't know what the exact definition of a "religious evangelical" is, but that's a pretty vague statement, and I'd love to see a valid source for that statistic! Besides that, just because a person is "religious", doesn't make them a Christian. Satan is religious!
There are a number of surveys on both marriage and teen pregnancy in communities that are evangelical; this one here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm) deals with the high rate of divorce. I'm not making the claim that religion is responsible for these divorce rates, only that it does not provide a visible counter effect.

Last year, the director of the GAO detailed a few of the similarities between the United States and the Roman Empire in an interview with The Financial Times.

Among these similarities were a decay in our moral values, an overextended military, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government.

There are a number of empires that have suffered from overextension and fiscal irresponsibility. Why is the United States more like the roman empire, than say, the napoleonic one? If you're going to make a case for this, you need to isolate shared aspects unique, or near unique, to the roman empire and the United States.

However, I do find it much easier to believe that a higher power created the world we live in today, instead of some giant explosion from a few mysterious particles (which, I guess spontaneously popped into existence) and randomly came together somehow, causing an explosion big enough to create the entire universe, along with a planet perfectly suited for life.

What you're in effect arguing is that something that may not seem to be intuitively true must therefore be untrue. This is a very poor argument to make given that much of science may be counterintuitive, and by counterintuitive, not in accord with our limited observation of the universe through sense data over a limited time scale. An example of the counterintuitiveness of the universe (there are many) would be the earth being round (before space photos of earth gave irrefutable proof of this). Another would be a particle's position being determined by observation.

There's a secondary problem with this, in that it places science in opposition to faith. You're arguing that since the first cause of the universe is unknown, it must be divine, and therefore the unknowability of this is proof of god's existence. Any attempt which may deduce the initial cause of the universe therefore is a questioning of god's existence.

Then. billions or trillions (pick a number) of years later, a single celled organism evidently evolved into a complex life form, crawled out of some mud-puddle, and eventually evolved into a organism with 23 chromosome pairs, and around 25,000 coded genes perfectly organized to generate human life as we know it!

You want to talk about fairy tales, digest the probability of that happening!
I won't go into the substantial body of data proving this; I will say that we're able to see strong evidence of genetic variation over the course of a few generations. The domesticated faithful dog is simply a variation of the wild feral wolf over a short period of time. If there is the possibility of such strong evident variation over less than a hundred years, you can at least consider the possibility of far larger variations over billions of years.

[antcruz]

Zeitgeist on religion

[Bill Paxton]

I have no idea what Babelfish is, but I was stationed in Germany for four years several years ago, and that's how the cliche was used around the base during that time.

Evidently, I'm not as intellegent as you are?

Although, I was quite confident that you'd be on here, lurking around these forums and would immediately step in to correct me (I mean God forbid you'd be spending time with your family or friends, wife of girlfriend, or participating in a hobby, humanitarian cause, etc)!

Did you consider the fact that this may in fact be a hobby for some people? While there are a lot of very dumb people on this board there are also a lot of very intelligent people that provide a lot of interesting discussion. I don't know that debate and philosophical discussion is a waste of time.


Anyway, I'm not going to convince you that there is, or is not a God, or that the Bible is God's word, anymore than you are going to convince me that there's not!

However, I do find it much easier to believe that a higher power created the world we live in today, instead of some giant explosion from a few mysterious particles (which, I guess spontaneously popped into existence) and randomly came together somehow, causing an explosion big enough to create the entire universe, along with a planet perfectly suited for life. Thats a very ignorant argument to make. Just because something is "easier" for you to believe doesn't mean its true. I am sure it was easier to believe the sun revolved around the earth at one point, but that doesn't make it true.


Then. billions or trillions (pick a number) of years later, a single celled organism evidently evolved into a complex life form, crawled out of some mud-puddle, and eventually evolved into a organism with 23 chromosome pairs, and around 25,000 coded genes perfectly organized to generate human life as we know it!
This is the same cop-out argument creationists love to make, and its simply because they either don't understand probability or they choose to ignore it.

Yes when you look at every event that lead us to existence as a whole, that chain of events is a very very very small probability. However, you have to look at the probability of the individual events that lead up to it. You also have to consider the size of the universe.


You want to talk about fairy tales, digest the probability of that happening!

I do believe in the evolution and the big bang. However, I have taken into consideration that there may be some type of creator or force beyond what we can understand. That being said, there is no reason to believe that this creator is anything like described in the bible. This "creator" might not give a shit about you or I, or "blessing" our country for that matter.

[Archangel]

I have no idea what Babelfish is, but I was stationed in Germany for four years several years ago, and that's how the cliche was used around the base during that time.

Yeah, and I AM German, and actually something of an expert on the language and the literature. So maybe, my German > yours.

Evidently, I'm not as intellegent as you are?

If that is even a question to you, you're even dumber than you appear to be.

Although, I was quite confident that you'd be on here, lurking around these forums and would immediately step in to correct me (I mean God forbid you'd be spending time with your family or friends, wife of girlfriend, or participating in a hobby, humanitarian cause, etc)!

What, writing a paper on Boccaccio's work as a systemic manifesto of Christian Humanism, consolidating Platonic theory with the definitions of love in Genesis, Job, and Corinthians, another one on the differences in worldview in the lyrical works of Hölderlin and Novalis, another one on the use of hyperbole and euphemism in Manzoni, playing Fallout 3, going to the pub every Tuesday, to a mate's card game every Thursday, and pub/club-hopping every weekend, not to mention getting my brains fucked out by my fiancée? Yeah, my life is SO empty.

Anyway, I'm not going to convince you that there is, or is not a God, or that the Bible is God's word, anymore than you are going to convince me that there's not!

Dude, you have no fucking idea what "God" actually means.


You want to talk about fairy tales, digest the probability of that happening!

Arch is Catholic, dumb dumb.

Um, fuckhead, you are aware that I'm pretty much the #1 Catholic poster on these boards, right? Seriously, bitch, stop posting. It's morons like you whom Dawkins and his ilk use to paint all Christians as retarded inbred Bible-thumping hicks. Convert to Islam or something, I hear they're hiring imbeciles.


I've been talking to some Evangelicals and they don't consider European Catholics to be Christian. This could be another topic, but what's up with that?

I'm guessing it's because we haven't yet discovered those part of the Gospels in which the Lord endorses hate crimes and private ownerships of automatic assault rifles.

[Archangel]

I'm pretty sure that if there is one group of people whom God can't fucking stand, it's evangelicals.

[Morfin]

I'm guessing it's because we haven't yet discovered those part of the Gospels in which the Lord endorses hate crimes and private ownerships of automatic assault rifles.

The Book of Charlton.

[Bill Paxton]

I'm guessing it's because we haven't yet discovered those part of the Gospels in which the Lord endorses hate crimes and private ownerships of automatic assault rifles.

Apparently you haven't read the director's cut.

[shamona]

In bible a lot of man are great and own a lot of slaves. And a lot against the slavery.
You can used it any way

[Archangel]

Your comprehension of Scripture is on par with your command of English.

[Pax Britannia]

I have a natural respect for anyone who has read the Bible given how monumentally boring it is.

I have a similar respect for people who read Shakespeare, given the fact that 99% of Elizabethan English I find completely incomprehensible.

[Morfin]

In bible a lot of man are great and own a lot of slaves. And a lot against the slavery.
You can used it any way

Did ElvisWong move to Pennsylvania?

[freegood]

I'm pretty sure that if there is one group of people whom God can't fucking stand, it's evangelicals.

Seriously though. Someone was telling me how his friend went to Italy of all places as a missionary.

Freakin heathens...oh wait.

[Pax Britannia]

Well they are Catholic....

[tockit]

What are you talking about? You don't remember all those people God blessed during WW2, WW1, vietnam, the entire period of slavery, segregation, civil war? Remember how he smoted all those native americans that were wasting this land with their stupid peace pipes and totem poles? Then we came in here and made it awesome and peaceful until those stupid non-christians turned us into a modern roman empire. I just wish that atheist George W Bush hadn't been running the whitehouse for the last few years.
Your inane ramblings have no point, and are idiotiic at best!

Never fear, that patriot, Barack Hussein Obama is gonna get things straightened out! He's gonna pay off everyone's mortgage, auto loans, provide free health care, and balance the budget, just like he said.

We won't have to worry about wars or terrorists attacks, because Bush will be gone and the world will love us again!

[Bill Paxton]

Your inane ramblings have no point, and are idiotiic at best!

Never fear, that patriot, Barack Hussein Obama is gonna get things straightened out! He's gonna pay off everyone's mortgage, auto loans, provide free health care, and balance the budget, just like he said.

We won't have to worry about wars or terrorists attacks, because Bush will be gone and the world will love us again!

When did I say anything about Obama being any sort of savior? I never even referenced Obama. All I was pointing out was how ignorant your statement about God blessing this country more than any other was, and that during the two terms of one of our more religious presidents we've had a relatively shitty go of it. You sound more and more braindead with every post. Instead of trying to actually argue against the point I was making you just dismiss it as inane ramblings and attack something I never even claimed. Way to go!

[bkoo29]

yes it is worth reading cuz it is proven that it is part of our history. this really did happen and people need to know about it.

[Bill Paxton]

yes it is worth reading cuz it is proven that it is part of our history. this really did happen and people need to know about it.

Are you trying to be ironic?

[nuclearjew]

He's trying to be moronic, and he's succeeding!

[tockit]

Did you consider the fact that this may in fact be a hobby for some people? While there are a lot of very dumb people on this board there are also a lot of very intelligent people that provide a lot of interesting discussion. I don't know that debate and philosophical discussion is a waste of time.
Gee, you know that never dawned on me!!! :rolleyes:

This is the same cop-out argument creationists love to make, and its simply because they either don't understand probability or they choose to ignore it.
You can't be serious??? You want to bring up probability and the creation of life and evolution??? Heck, the brilliant minds that we have in science today can't even reproduce life in a labratory under ideal conditions, and you're suggesting this stuff occured on it's own???

I googled the probability of evolution just for giggles, and here's the first hit that I got:

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Then this cell must live long enough to reproduce.

Next, the reproduced cell must live long enough to do the same.

After that, more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

Then more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

And long before the first "accident" evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.

Besides that, no one's even addressed the question, where did the matter come from that this explosion/random universe, etc, was created from, I don't care how big the universe is, there still had to be a starting point???

I do believe in the evolution and the big bang. However, I have taken into consideration that there may be some type of creator or force beyond what we can understand. That being said, there is no reason to believe that this creator is anything like described in the bible. This "creator" might not give a shit about you or I, or "blessing" our country for that matter.

There are many reasons to belive that the Bible is the word of God (not that you would agree with them), but there are around 2000 prophecies fulfilled from Old to New Testament, to the letter:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

[Coco]

Gee, you know that never dawned on me!!! :rolleyes:


You can't be serious??? You want to bring up probability and the creation of life and evolution??? Heck, the brilliant minds that we have in science today can't even reproduce life in a labratory under ideal conditions, and you're suggesting this stuff occured on it's own???

I googled the probability of evolution just for giggles, and here's the first hit that I got:

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Then this cell must live long enough to reproduce.

Next, the reproduced cell must live long enough to do the same.

After that, more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

Then more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

And long before the first "accident" evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.



Tockit, I think you’re going at it the wrong way.
You believe that God created Earth in 6 days. That’s cool; you’re free to believe that. Just don’t bring probability into this discussion, cause I don’t think your odds are so great either. Creationism is sustained only by faith. Do you think that Creationism - a religious notion - can be “proven” right by who has the best odds? In that respect, evolution is not in any way crazier than Intelligent Design, or whatever you call it. Anyway, just humor me... What are the mathematical probabilities that God created Earth? See how your argument is fucked?
My point is, the evolution vs. creationism debate is ridiculous. Yes, evolution may be just a theory, but so is the notion that God exists and that he created Earth just by lifting his finger. The difference is that Creationism needs religious faith, which not many people have. So don’t act like you know better because frankly you don’t; this is just a by-product of the God you believe in. It’s really unfortunate that you call evolution “a silly, mystical fairy tale”... I think I already know the answer to this but, even as a religious man, do you honestly think the things said in the Bible are cold hard facts? Please...
I agree with Bill Paxton. Even though I believe in evolution, I would also like to believe that there is some force behind all of this. However, I will not make my mind up by who has the best mathematical probabilities. That is just retarded. You can’t mix faith and science to prove who or how Earth was created. There is no proof either way.
Also, stop acting like we just fingerfucked your cat. Seriously, chill the fuck out.
This is a very interesting discussion, so I suggest we handle it properly.
Carry on.

[vasili denisov]

I have a natural respect for anyone who has read the Bible given how monumentally boring it is.

I have a similar respect for people who read Shakespeare, given the fact that 99% of Elizabethan English I find completely incomprehensible.
Actually, both the bible and Shakespeare are in Elizabethan english (roughly, since Shakespeare is writing during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I, while the King James bible, the most common translation, and that later versions often contemporize is made, natch, under James I) it's simply easier to give the bible contemporary spellings, and it uses a far smaller and less obscure vocabulary than Shakespeare.

You can't be serious??? You want to bring up probability and the creation of life and evolution??? Heck, the brilliant minds that we have in science today can't even reproduce life in a labratory under ideal conditions, and you're suggesting this stuff occured on it's own???
I'm not sure where you're getting this argument; however, there are a number of phenomena that can be modelled which cannot be reproduced under laboratory conditions. It's impossible to recreate the creation of a planet, which involves a swirling of dust in a vacuum over the course of billions of years in a laboratory. However, such a development can be modelled quite effectively through physics equations and in computer simulations.

I googled the probability of evolution just for giggles, and here's the first hit that I got:

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

There are many reasons to belive that the Bible is the word of God (not that you would agree with them), but there are around 2000 prophecies fulfilled from Old to New Testament, to the letter:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml
I won't go into the vague probability you've cited, since I don't know what the basis of it is; of the link citing the successful predictions made by the bible as a reason for belief, a problem with this is that many of the books may have been written, or re-written, after the events which they are supposed to have predicted.

As a sidenote, the site's use of probability (the probability of a prediction made being true) is not simply poor application, it has no basis whatsoever. When employing probability as a percentage of an event occuring, it has to be a relatively simple, discrete set of events, such as the possibility of a king showing up as top card in a shuffled deck. This, on the other hand, is stating probabilities on such a thing as thirty coins of silver being paid to Judas. There's no way you evaluate the probabilities of such things. You could make a vague evaluation of likely or highly unlikely, and a context for that, but a solid statistical estimate suggests you either have no understanding of the science or you assume your reader has none.

[Archetype]

Your inane ramblings have no point, and are idiotiic at best!

Never fear, that patriot, Barack Hussein Obama is gonna get things straightened out! He's gonna pay off everyone's mortgage, auto loans, provide free health care, and balance the budget, just like he said.

We won't have to worry about wars or terrorists attacks, because Bush will be gone and the world will love us again!
You suck. Wait for a couple minutes before you make any assessments. Try the archive.

[vasili denisov]

I'm generalizing here, but the bible is kinda really outlandish don't ya think? I was just reading some stories from it the other day, and the one about Lot's wife struck me as over the top and so unbelievable. And it's not an isolated incident. I mean really, this stuff is supposed to have really happened? The Old Testament stuff reads like a Stephen King horror novel and God being not a "nice guy". I am am not super well versed in the bible or religion in general, but it just struck me as so not credible the other day. I'm not saying one way or the other if I believe in "god" I'm purely stating the bible seems crazy ridiculous.
Well, if you're living in an arid desert region where water is incredibly scarce, there are no remedies for what we now consider curable and preventable diseases, and you believe in an all-powerful god, as opposed to a fallible demi-urge which constructed this universe, or a group of capricious deities, then that god will be understood to be severe and unyielding. He is a moral god, his punishments are tests, rather than whimsical cruelties. The severity of the old testament is only striking in the context of Christ's kindness in the new, rather than in the context of other theisms, before and contemporaneous with christianity.

I'm not saying that you should find the severity just; but it's not that of a sadist or a misanthropist, but an attempt to find a justification for the harshness of the earth. Only later is there the dual nature of god, though we frequently focus on the kind, fraternal christ aspect.

[Archangel]

Seriously though. Someone was telling me how his friend went to Italy of all places as a missionary.

Freakin heathens...oh wait.

Best way to get rid of Jehova's witnesses, evangelicals, mormons and whatever else proselytising coo-coo idiots come over from America: Quote Scripture (and Papal Encyclicae) back at them. Countering "I want to tell you about God" with Romans or Proverbs usually scatters those fucks pdq.

[Archangel]

Tockit, I think you’re going at it the wrong way.
You believe that God created Earth in 6 days. That’s cool; you’re free to believe that. Just don’t bring probability into this discussion, cause I don’t think your odds are so great either. Creationism is sustained only by faith. Do you think that Creationism - a religious notion - can be “proven” right by who has the best odds? In that respect, evolution is not in any way crazier than Intelligent Design, or whatever you call it. Anyway, just humor me... What are the mathematical probabilities that God created Earth? See how your argument is fucked?
My point is, the evolution vs. creationism debate is ridiculous. Yes, evolution may be just a theory, but so is the notion that God exists and that he created Earth just by lifting his finger. The difference is that Creationism needs religious faith, which not many people have. So don’t act like you know better because frankly you don’t; this is just a by-product of the God you believe in. It’s really unfortunate that you call evolution “a silly, mystical fairy tale”... I think I already know the answer to this but, even as a religious man, do you honestly think the things said in the Bible are cold hard facts? Please...
I agree with Bill Paxton. Even though I believe in evolution, I would also like to believe that there is some force behind all of this. However, I will not make my mind up by who has the best mathematical probabilities. That is just retarded. You can’t mix faith and science to prove who or how Earth was created. There is no proof either way.
Also, stop acting like we just fingerfucked your cat. Seriously, chill the fuck out.
This is a very interesting discussion, so I suggest we handle it properly.
Carry on.

Sposami.

[Bill Paxton]

Gee, you know that never dawned on me!!! :rolleyes:


You can't be serious??? You want to bring up probability and the creation of life and evolution??? Heck, the brilliant minds that we have in science today can't even reproduce life in a labratory under ideal conditions, and you're suggesting this stuff occured on it's own???

I googled the probability of evolution just for giggles, and here's the first hit that I got:

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!

Then this cell must live long enough to reproduce.

Next, the reproduced cell must live long enough to do the same.

After that, more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

Then more "accidents" must happen to cause more complexity.

And long before the first "accident" evolution is nothing but a silly, mystical fairy tale.

Besides that, no one's even addressed the question, where did the matter come from that this explosion/random universe, etc, was created from, I don't care how big the universe is, there still had to be a starting point???



There are many reasons to belive that the Bible is the word of God (not that you would agree with them), but there are around 2000 prophecies fulfilled from Old to New Testament, to the letter:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

You're a joke. Vasili already pointed out most of the flaws in your argument, but you can't really sit and say "the writings in the bible predicted this would happen, and then right here later in the bible it says they did happen!"

[Kerjack]

BoM doesn't hold a candle to the Bible in terms of cultural value to Western civ.

Then shouldn't the Qur’an, Tanakh and any other major religious or political text be required reading as well? Understanding where others come from in my opinion is much more valuable then where your own peoples. I don't need a book to tell me what I think.

[Archangel]

That makes little to no sense. Because you have no idea why you think what you think.

[Kerjack]

Depends on the bird. Seems silly to be Christian without learning about Christ, but I don't need to study Christianity for 10 years to think man deserves some base rights.

[Kerjack]

I sleep, but I don't know why the body needs sleep. Should I stop sleeping?

[Phil Theehor]

Then shouldn't the Qur’an, Tanakh and any other major religious or political text be required reading as well? Understanding where others come from in my opinion is much more valuable then where your own peoples. I don't need a book to tell me what I think.

The discussion is not should the bible be required reading, rather we are discussing if it worth reading. And by the way, as I had mentioned a few pages back, the Koran is probably worth reading, too. I just haven't done so yet...

[Kerjack]

Sorry, a little off topic there. My point is Christians will benefit from reading the bible, but just because my neighbor is does not mean I will need to if our ideals are close enough. The gain is negligible.

If my neighbor is a spacething from the Todux system and our ideals are vastly different learning about his culture is likly to expand my mind to a higher degree and make our day to day interactions much easier.

[Kerjack]

The discussion is not should the bible be required reading, rather we are discussing if it worth reading. And by the way, as I had mentioned a few pages back, the Koran is probably worth reading, too. I just haven't done so yet...

My reply was in direct connection to a post (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=323461&postcount=40) about saying it should be required reading, so yeah that was the discussion.

[Phil Theehor]

Not to play the "why can't we all just get along" card, but I do have to say that it baffles me that creationism can't coexist peacefully with evolution in the minds of some of the faithful.

When we check under the hood and figure out how things work and how we came to be, we're not invalidating God's role. Science gives us the Big Bang. The Bible says God created Heaven & Earth. Isn't it possible that God created Heaven & Earth through the Big Bang?

It just looks so simple to me. I'd start citing more examples, but I would only be dredging up things we've all read a hundred times.

[Yelram]

Not to play the "why can't we all just get along" card, but I do have to say that it baffles me that creationism can't coexist peacefully with evolution in the minds of some of the faithful.

When we check under the hood and figure out how things work and how we came to be, we're not invalidating God's role. Science gives us the Big Bang. The Bible says God created Heaven & Earth. Isn't it possible that God created Heaven & Earth through the Big Bang?

It just looks so simple to me. I'd start citing more examples, but I would only be dredging up things we've all read a hundred times.


I think far more people use the big bang to disprove the bible than people use creationism to disprove the big bang. Which is even sillier.

[freegood]

Not to play the "why can't we all just get along" card, but I do have to say that it baffles me that creationism can't coexist peacefully with evolution in the minds of some of the faithful.

When we check under the hood and figure out how things work and how we came to be, we're not invalidating God's role. Science gives us the Big Bang. The Bible says God created Heaven & Earth. Isn't it possible that God created Heaven & Earth through the Big Bang?

It just looks so simple to me. I'd start citing more examples, but I would only be dredging up things we've all read a hundred times.

You can't scientifically prove Creationism/ID. Creationism is more of a philosophy than a scientific theory. It's fine to believe in it. Just has no place in science classes.

Sorry, a little off topic there. My point is Christians will benefit from reading the bible, but just because my neighbor is does not mean I will need to if our ideals are close enough. The gain is negligible.

If my neighbor is a spacething from the Todux system and our ideals are vastly different learning about his culture is likly to expand my mind to a higher degree and make our day to day interactions much easier.

You're living in the Todux system, watching Todux inspired TV, reading books from writers who have studied Todux or studied writers who devoted their lives to Todux.

That cultural identity is a well of insight in how Western society acts. If you want to be ignant about it, by all means, but don't claim you're expanding your mind to a higher degree without others smirking or rolling their eyes from it.

[UNC]

Definately worth reading...unless eternal damnation is your forte

[Mustard]

Definately worth reading...unless eternal damnation is your forte
Eternal "means" forever, but science has pretty much proven that the universe, and its parallels, are finite.

Thus, no "eternal" damnation is possible because nothing is eternal. Shit, by that logic, Heaven is also eternal as well, and I don't know about you, but I sure as fuck don't want to be conscious for the next 100 trillion years waiting around for either a universal death hypothesized in the Big Rip, or a universal cycle to complete itslef as hypothesized in a cyclical universe.

[mongo]

science has never proved anything. it's all just a good guess.

[Mustard]

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I mean, all that math predicting things with 99.999% accuracy... I'm sure it is all just bullshit.

[UNC]

Eternal "means" forever, but science has pretty much proven that the universe, and its parallels, are finite.

Thus, no "eternal" damnation is possible because nothing is eternal. Shit, by that logic, Heaven is also eternal as well, and I don't know about you, but I sure as fuck don't want to be conscious for the next 100 trillion years waiting around for either a universal death hypothesized in the Big Rip, or a universal cycle to complete itslef as hypothesized in a cyclical universe.

I'm sure your "knowledge" will score some points come judgement day.

[mongo]

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I mean, all that math predicting things with 99.999% accuracy... I'm sure it is all just bullshit.

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
— Socrates

[UNC]

I wonder how many times the grease tray will have to be emptied the day Sink hits the grill in hell....

[Mustard]

I'm sure your "knowledge" will score some points come judgement day.
Well, since knowledge requires memory, and memory requires electrical impulses and a storage vessle, I'm reasonably sure that neither spirits nor souls have knowledge, because in the physical universe we occupy, that would amount to impossible.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
— Socrates
I've always adored this quote. It is the reason I will never stop trying to learn each and every day I live.
I wonder how many times the grease tray will have to be emptied the day Sink hits the grill in hell....
wow, another fat joke from the guy with the most character flaws out of any single person who posts on this board. they're funny for awhile, but now its just tiring and unfunny, like claydon saying "change we need?!" grow up.

[UNC]

My joke was funny as hell....if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen but we all know you won't stay out of it for long.

[Mustard]

My joke was funny as hell....if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen but we all know you won't stay out of it for long.
No the joke was horrible, and thats the point, because it really sucked ass. The thing is, it isn't the heat of the joke that bothers me, its the lameness of it. I love a good joke, and would laugh if it was funny, but yours are just becomming lame as fuck because you can't get away from the "fat" genre. Come up with some new material or something if you want to make fun. Using the same shit over and over again sure as shit doesn't work for Carlos Mencia, and it isn't working for you either. This is why I say grow up... because if the most you can muster time and time again is a quip about being fat, then you might as well just not even bother anymore.

[mongo]

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j151/Katieboo4x/midol.jpg

[Mustard]

Much better... thank you.

[UNC]

No the joke was horrible, and thats the point, because it really sucked ass. The thing is, it isn't the heat of the joke that bothers me, its the lameness of it. I love a good joke, and would laugh if it was funny, but yours are just becomming lame as fuck because you can't get away from the "fat" genre. Come up with some new material or something if you want to make fun. Using the same shit over and over again sure as shit doesn't work for Carlos Mencia, and it isn't working for you either. This is why I say grow up... because if the most you can muster time and time again is a quip about being fat, then you might as well just not even bother anymore.

wtf dude!

You are funnier than me...you have proven that with this post.

Do you know how hard it is to come up with good fat jokes? I know you have probably heard them all. Maybe you should get off your ass and walk around a little bit instead of sitting on your ass complaining about someone making a joke about you. Fuck...it's physical appearance...everyone here who has had the balls to post thier pic gets fucked with....stop being a big baby.

[UNC]

and none of my jokes are repeats.

[mongo]

stop being a big baby.

accidental lulz?

[UNC]

...no

[Mustard]

wtf dude!

You are funnier than me...you have proven that with this post.

Do you know how hard it is to come up with good fat jokes? I know you have probably heard them all. Maybe you should get off your ass and walk around a little bit instead of sitting on your ass complaining about someone making a joke about you. Fuck...it's physical appearance...everyone here who has had the balls to post thier pic gets fucked with....stop being a big baby.
You don't get it. If you're gonna make a joke, make it a funny one! That's all I want, and it frankly pisses me off you can't come up with anything better than a fucking fat joke. I expect better out of you... Maybe I shouldn't?

[UNC]

Yeah...well.

I thought it was a creative joke and I'll stick by it.

I will try to insult you in a greater variety of ways in the future.

[vasili denisov]

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
— Socrates
Yet in claiming that you know nothing, you are claiming a knowledge of something, a knowledge of a state of non-knowledge. To make the claim is to make a statement that is self-contradictory.

[UNC]

homosayswhat?

[Mustard]

Well Vasili, I look at that statement not as an actual 'statement'... but as a challenge, saying more or less that if you convince yourself that you know enough to satisfy yourself, then you really know nothing at all. As you rightly point out, the face of the statement can be looked at as somewhat illogical, but I really don't think that is the true intention of the statement.

[Phil Theehor]

You can't scientifically prove Creationism/ID. Creationism is more of a philosophy than a scientific theory. It's fine to believe in it. Just has no place in science classes.

Agreed 100%. ID belongs in catechism, not science classes. And I'm not necessarily arguing for ID here. What I am saying is that it needn't be a zero-sum game. Just because you believe in ID, that doesn't mean that you can't acknowlege the validity of evolution.

You only need to use your own two eyes to see that species (ours included) evolve. Just because you believe "God created Man", doesn't mean that He created man exactly as he is today. To argue that Adam looked just like Marcus would be remarkably stupid. Conversely, just because man has evolved doesn't necessarily mean that God didn't get the ball rolling way back when with a little hocus pocus in the primordial soup.

[Bill Paxton]

UNC, i've seen video of you date raping an unconcious 18 year old. I am sure thats part of god's plan.

[tockit]

If all the life forms in existance today evolved "by chance" from a single celled organism out in the jungle somewhere or another, then why (with all the brilliant minds we have today, like Sink) can't we reproduce the creation of life in a modern laboratory setting/controlled environment???

If it just "happened", why can't scientist's just put a positive charge on some swamp water/etc, and create a living cell from some type of matter?

Especially since the probability that it happened that way is so great???


I know, I'm an idiot for suggesting this.....

It's back to the same old "if you can't give a valid explaination for things" you just bash the messenger!!!

Whatever......

[nuclearjew]

If all the life forms in existance today evolved "by chance" from a single celled organism out in the jungle somewhere or another, then why (with all the brilliant minds we have today, like Sink) can't we reproduce the creation of life in a modern laboratory setting/controlled environment???

If it just "happened", why can't scientist's just put a positive charge on some swamp water/etc, and create a living cell from some type of matter?

Especially since the probability that it happened that way is so great???


I know, I'm an idiot for suggesting this.....

It's back to the same old "if you can't give a valid explaination for things" you just bash the messenger!!!

Whatever......
Because it would take millions of years?

[Pike Bishop]

The problem with "intelligent design" is that most of the people advocating for it are fucking stupid.

EDIT: I still think that the Bible is worth reading, though, if only because everything written is worth reading when interpreted by an intelligent reader.

[Mustard]

If all the life forms in existance today evolved "by chance" from a single celled organism out in the jungle somewhere or another, then why (with all the brilliant minds we have today, like Sink) can't we reproduce the creation of life in a modern laboratory setting/controlled environment???

If it just "happened", why can't scientist's just put a positive charge on some swamp water/etc, and create a living cell from some type of matter?
Alright, I'm gonna play ball with you here and indulge you. I don't know why I am going to bother because I have zero chance of convincing you, but here goes nothing.

Life is nothing more than the interaction of amino acids and proteins interacting with each other, and as a result, reproduce. I'm serious, that is as simple as it gets amigo. Humans are just now (read: in the past 20 years) beginning to understand how to manipulate molecular matter, but we are far, far away from being able to actually manipulate in an intelligent and planned way said molecules (such as amino acids and proteins) to tolerances of nano and picometers. Currently, our technology doesn't have the sophistication to recreate in a controlled environment what naturally occurs. One day, as our technology improves, we will overcome this hurdle, and be able to create in a controlled environments, from scratch amino acids and proteins, new organisms like bacterium in this controlled environment.

This is the answer to your question, unless like NJ said, you want to go out to a cesspool and wait around for a few eons for bacteria to show up.

[freegood]

Hmm, I don't think you'll meet many evolutionary biologists with the same attitude on life as you, Sink.

To each their own.

[Archangel]

Agreed 100%. ID belongs in catechism, not science classes.

Agree 100%.


Now, if you could tell biology teachers with ideas above their station to shut the fuck up about metaphysics.

[Blue]

self quoting foe emphasis now?

edit: Bastardo!

[Archangel]

Haha.

[Mustard]

Hmm, I don't think you'll meet many evolutionary biologists with the same attitude on life as you, Sink.

To each their own.
I don't think I'll meet many people at all with the same attitude on life as I do.

Just sayin.

[tockit]

Alright, I'm gonna play ball with you here and indulge you. I don't know why I am going to bother because I have zero chance of convincing you, but here goes nothing.

Life is nothing more than the interaction of amino acids and proteins interacting with each other, and as a result, reproduce. I'm serious, that is as simple as it gets amigo. Humans are just now (read: in the past 20 years) beginning to understand how to manipulate molecular matter, but we are far, far away from being able to actually manipulate in an intelligent and planned way said molecules (such as amino acids and proteins) to tolerances of nano and picometers. Currently, our technology doesn't have the sophistication to recreate in a controlled environment what naturally occurs. One day, as our technology improves, we will overcome this hurdle, and be able to create in a controlled environments, from scratch amino acids and proteins, new organisms like bacterium in this controlled environment.

This is the answer to your question, unless like NJ said, you want to go out to a cesspool and wait around for a few eons for bacteria to show up.
Why don't we run across any "cesspools" today were amino acids and protiens have just interacted and reproduced?

Does it take very rare types of cesspools or something???


Noncondescendingly, why don't we find life forms being formed today?

Why did everything have to happen millions/billions of years ago?

[Archetype]

Because a billion to one shot probably won't happen that many times over a billion years.

[DjAg]

Because a billion to one shot probably won't happen that many times over a billion years.

I've had sex at least 25 times in the past year.

Good day, sir.

[Mustard]

Why don't we run across any "cesspools" today where amino acids and protiens have just interacted and reproduced?
Slow down turbo, who says that doesn't still happen to this day?
Does it take very rare types of cesspools or something???No, not really, it is the time involved that is the problem, because like I said before, unless you have a few million years to wait around to witness the changes, you're going to be in for a disappointment.[/quote]

Noncondescendingly, why don't we find life forms being formed today? Two reasons. One, is because we've only been seriously studying the orign of species for a few centuries, and two is because new life forms don't just magically appear out of thin air. They take time, far, far, FAR more time than early man began to write on sanskrit to reproduce, adapt, evolve, lather, rinse, repeat. For fucks sake man, don't take my word for it, please read a fucking biology book for once in your life.[/quote]

Why did everything have to happen millions/billions of years ago?
You're speaking as if it all has stopped, and that is a false assumption. Also, "everything had to happen millions to billions of years ago" because... when else would have happened? The future? Do you think everything just blinked into existence one day.... oh shit, you do don't you, that's right, I forgot. Well, I'm convinced I can't teach nor convince you of jack diddly shit until you check your faulty and flawed logic at the door. If you do so, we may, just may be able to have a real, intelligent conversation. Until then, kindly gtfo and stop being a forum troll.

[Phil Theehor]

Sink & Tockit: I ask this not to be a gadfly, but because I am genuinely curious. You both seem so sure of your own position here. How are you so sure that the other guy is 100% wrong? You must be the two brightest guys in the world, because I don't know anyone else who could possibly disprove either ID or evolution.

[Mustard]

Hey, at least I have factual evidence, scientific studies, and mathematics to back up my postulations.

And yes, I am the brightest guy in the world.

[Phil Theehor]

Hey, at least I have factual evidence, scientific studies, and mathematics to back up my postulations.

And yes, I am the brightest guy in the world.

Perhaps, but you can't prove Tockit wrong. Just as he cannot prove you wrong.

[Mustard]

Perhaps, but you can't prove Tockit wrong. Just as he cannot prove you wrong.
You're half right. Science can prove me wrong, which is why I put more....... faith........ into it.

[freegood]

Dangerous thinking to put your faith in science. It's one thing to be a researcher and follow results based on personal convictions, but a layman trusting everything with the label scientific is just as bad as following dogma. It's worse because it totally disregards the meaning and spirit of science.

You should read the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=13019&highlight=taleb). Link is all there with a book ready to be read.

[Insomniac]

The average person can probably tell you the earth is round, but not why he knows this is true.

Science is very trustworthy because it is mostly without dogma and strives to be corrected. But, science in North Korea is likely very different from science in America. Atheism isn't necessarily dogmatic, but most scientists don't seem to have a problem with marrying themselves to authority, and that authority is likely to abuse the power given to it if it can.

[wonderllama]

There's probably a couple of Richard Dawkins TV shows you should watch too...it covers all this stuff and he does it in a most excellent and smug manner only possibly by the greatest of English Professors.

He's my hero...well, he and the inventor of donuts.

[Mustard]

Dangerous thinking to put your faith in science. It's one thing to be a researcher and follow results based on personal convictions, but a layman trusting everything with the label scientific is just as bad as following dogma. It's worse because it totally disregards the meaning and spirit of science.

You should read the Black Swan by Nassim Taleb (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=13019&highlight=taleb). Link is all there with a book ready to be read.
1) I put my faith in mathematics, as both a tool and a language, which has proven time and time again just how profoundly ignorant and dangerious the unfounded ideologies of the human race is. Mathematics is the language of science, and I will put my reputation on the line defending the near infallability mathematics provides to science.

2) Make no mistake, I am no layman when it comes to mathematics and science. On the flip side, I am not a Stephen Hawking nor an Albert Einstein either, in fact, far from it. I know what my knowledge in the sciences is, and I know my limitations, and I make no excuses for any shortcomings. If only certain individuals could make that statement as well... but that won't happen. I'm grounded in reality, they're living in the clouds, almost literally. I'll gladly take one of my kind over one hundred billion of their kind.

3) You make mention of the meaning and spirit of science, and isn't that quaint, because it would appear to the reader, and to me, that its as if you are postualting the position that a scientific layman or ignoramus, (which is an assertion thrown in my general direction) in fact, doesn't know the meaning of it. Well, while that could very well be true about the layman, if you're making that statement with yours truly in mind, then your assumption and assertion are categorically false, just flat fucking false. Not that I have to prove myself to anyone on GMF, but for the record, the base meaning and spirit of science according to me is very simple; to better understand. Now, while that may not be the "According to Hoyle" description of what constitutes the meaning and spirit of science, it has served me in my life quite well, and I am a better person for it.

[freegood]

1) I put my faith in mathematics, as both a tool and a language, which has proven time and time again just how profoundly ignorant and dangerious the unfounded ideologies of the human race is. Mathematics is the language of science, and I will put my reputation on the line defending the near infallability mathematics provides to science.

2) Make no mistake, I am no layman when it comes to mathematics and science. On the flip side, I am not a Stephen Hawking nor an Albert Einstein either, in fact, far from it. I know what my knowledge in the sciences is, and I know my limitations, and I make no excuses for any shortcomings. If only certain individuals could make that statement as well... but that won't happen. I'm grounded in reality, they're living in the clouds, almost literally. I'll gladly take one of my kind over one hundred billion of their kind.

3) You make mention of the meaning and spirit of science, and isn't that quaint, because it would appear to the reader, and to me, that its as if you are postualting the position that a scientific layman or ignoramus, (which is an assertion thrown in my general direction) in fact, doesn't know the meaning of it. Well, while that could very well be true about the layman, if you're making that statement with yours truly in mind, then your assumption and assertion are categorically false, just flat fucking false. Not that I have to prove myself to anyone on GMF, but for the record, the base meaning and spirit of science according to me is very simple; to better understand. Now, while that may not be the "According to Hoyle" description of what constitutes the meaning and spirit of science, it has served me in my life quite well, and I am a better person for it.

1. Putting your faith in science is not the same as putting your faith in math. Interesting you bring up math in a Religion topic because math has its own inherent flaws modeling human nature ::cough::modern economics::cough::

2. I have a BS and I still consider myself a layman. I don't live and breathe what I studied. I don't follow the daily drama of new debates over established theory.

That's the point though. One day butter is bad for you and margarine is good. The next day it's totally flipped around. There's some ridiculousness to base all your decisions on what scientists say without seeing the numbers behind their facts. Unfortunately many laymen don't have the time or resources to get any meaning out of it.

3. A layman is a non-professional, ergo..."not", and soforth conceivably...."an ignoramous".

It's great to understand better, but I'm a big advocate at looking into different ways of how. Sure, it's annoying for other people telling you how to do things you think you already know how to do, but ask yourself if you're better off people not taking the time...caring...to give you that advice you consider grief.

And the thing I pushed most heavily was looking into the book. I respect you enough not to force my opinions on you.

[Mustard]

Yeah, math does have its flaws, as I can use algebra to "prove" that 1=2. All that means to me is that it math isn't perfect, and as such, nothing is. BUT! Its what we use to prove as much as we can on this planet through prediction, trial, and error, and its the best thing we have so far. Mathematics, for me, can better prove the workings of the Universe than the works of a bunch of people who consipred to write the Holy Bible when people still thought the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Science, then, wasn't much of anything, and is still to this day considered herecy and blasphemy by some; something I find to be the height of ignorance. You want to talk about abusing power? I point you in the direction of "religion gone wild" my friend...

Also, it seems you and I have a different personal interpretation of what a layman is. I understand now why you would consider a non-professional a layman, and I can sympathize with that. I don't necessairily agree to that full extent, but I suppose we can reach an amicable comprimise.

The point about butter and margerine is a good one, and I'm glad you brought it up. When science is wrong about something, what happens? Well, people get pissy and dismiss the scientists as error-prone, dare I say "human". Then a new placeholder is taken up, and that becomes the generally accepted theory. Take a look at what humans thought about the universe to see my point. For eons people thought that the universe consisted of our planet and the stars we could see, then it became the galaxy we live in, and then last century (with theories from Hubble and Einstein) comes the news that, hey, guess what, we've been wrong all this time, the universe is actually really really fucking enormous. But I digress, because I merely am trying to make a point here, and that is if science is proven wrong, in all actuality, things get better. So, what happens when a denomination of a religion, or a whole religion, is proven wrong? Can they be proven wrong? If they can't be proven wrong, doesn't that raise a great big red fucking flag in your mind? It does in mine... It makes me not want to trust it.

[freegood]

So, what happens when a denomination of a religion, or a whole religion, is proven wrong? Can they be proven wrong? If they can't be proven wrong, doesn't that raise a great big red fucking flag in your mind? It does in mine... It makes me not want to trust it.

Religion can be proven wrong individually. Everything is a test of faith. Every day there are questions and every question is reanswered with a different interpretation. There are no easy answers. One can exclaim God! or Jesus! as the answer, but he has to live with it and it aint easy.

Yeah, there are religions that try to give the answer to everything. Before, one could count on religion explaining how the world works and a guide to how one should live. Now there seems to be a rush in replacing those two roles with science. Well I'll leave the technical stuff to scientists. No need to have God create the universe in 6 days 4000 years ago. That seems to be a big hurdle for atheists and creationists... But what science can't do or shouldn't do is to suggest how people live. Big distinction in roles.

It's for that reason that gets me in trouble when atheists think they can't see any value in something like the Bible or the book of Tao or consider it a waste of time. An animal can look at a book with as much utility as a person who doesn't read with thought and meaning. We're at a very interesting precipice with the coming natively internet generation. Before one read a novel and was forced to have sustained concentration and time for introspection. Now you can google up analyses with 5 different responses.


You want to talk about abusing power? I point you in the direction of "religion gone wild" my friend...

I have the tapes of nuns flashing their saggy milky white tits, but I get the uncomfortable urge to paddle myself.

Highly discourage the burka series. You only get to see flashes of kneecap.

[Mustard]

Yeah, there are religions that try to give the answer to everything. Before, one could count on religion explaining how the world works and a guide to how one should live. Now there seems to be a rush in replacing those two roles with science. Well I'll leave the technical stuff to scientists. No need to have God create the universe in 6 days 4000 years ago. That seems to be a big hurdle for atheists and creationists... But what science can't do or shouldn't do is to suggest how people live. Big distinction in roles.
I really couldn't agree more. The role of science should never be to tell people how to live life. Of course, I'm also of the mind that the role of religion shouldn't be to tell people how to live life either.

[vasili denisov]

Sink & Tockit: I ask this not to be a gadfly, but because I am genuinely curious. You both seem so sure of your own position here. How are you so sure that the other guy is 100% wrong? You must be the two brightest guys in the world, because I don't know anyone else who could possibly disprove either ID or evolution.

Well, evolution is an extended theory of principles which serves as a very effective model for species variation. It not only predicts species variation that has taken place subsequent to the theory being stated, but also past extinct varieties. Intelligent Design in effect says: there are aspects of biology that evolution cannot provide a full and complete answer to, therefore this must be the work of a sentient metaphysical agent. Since the agent is metaphysical, its existence cannot be proved or disproved.

To get back to the original question, evolution, or any theory can be proved or disproved. If the theory fails to predict any relevant data, it can be considered false. If it is false in the context of an existing framework which is internally logically consistent and an effective model of the real world, we can also consider it false. This aspect of provability accompanies any scientific theory.

Intelligent design, on the other hand has as its basis that evolutionary theory cannot at this time answer every aspect of biological life, for instance, why asexual reproductive is sometimes chosen over sexual reproduction (the answer, surprisingly, is not "your mom"). Though there are theories about this, they lack the rigorous and complete proof expected of a scientific theory. So, intelligent design has as its origin the gaps provided by certain areas where there are no theories sufficiently proved, though intelligent design, because of its metaphysical nature, cannot be proved or disproved. So, intelligent design may not be proved or disproved; however, it cannot be considered science.
1. Putting your faith in science is not the same as putting your faith in math. Interesting you bring up math in a Religion topic because math has its own inherent flaws modeling human nature ::cough::modern economics::cough::

2. I have a BS and I still consider myself a layman. I don't live and breathe what I studied. I don't follow the daily drama of new debates over established theory.

That's the point though. One day butter is bad for you and margarine is good. The next day it's totally flipped around. There's some ridiculousness to base all your decisions on what scientists say without seeing the numbers behind their facts. Unfortunately many laymen don't have the time or resources to get any meaning out of it.

3. A layman is a non-professional, ergo..."not", and soforth conceivably...."an ignoramous".

I'd say scientific theory, not simply the casual hypotheses occasionally published in the paper, has a far more rigorous version of the faith based system underlying paper currency. Perhaps only a small fraction of people in a country understand how a country's monetary system works; however, if that country begins to employ practices that are suspect and those knowledgeable in monetary policy are aware of the practices and speak out about them, it will immediately undermine that country's financial system. Similarly, even a financial expert may not inquire into any aspect of a country's treasury before paying for something with the confidence that the money is good.

There is an expectation of testing and proof of any scientific theory, that, if not followed, and that theory is adopted, immediately makes the adoptee suspect. Any work based on the theory is immediately considered invalid, as well as any work based on the initial work. Any financial shenanigans are shut down immediately before the virus spreads, not simply because of the rigor of those involved, but because the theory is of no value without this rigor (whereas bad or currency of false inflated valye, if it is spent before the ruse is caught, still might have value).

[STDSkillz]

Yeah, math does have its flaws, as I can use algebra to "prove" that 1=2.

Those "proofs" always involve breaking some sort of fundamental mathematical rule, such as dividing by 0.

But don't worry--as a math major, I'm totally on your side.

[Mustard]

Those "proofs" always involve breaking some sort of fundamental mathematical rule, such as dividing by 0.

But don't worry--as a math major, I'm totally on your side.
Yay! ^5!

[Archangel]

There's probably a couple of Richard Dawkins TV shows you should watch too...it covers all this stuff and he does it in a most excellent and smug manner only possibly by the greatest of English Professors.

He's my hero...well, he and the inventor of donuts.

Actually, Dawkins is a self aggrandising idiot who is as qualified to speak on metaphysics as I am to teach molecular biology.

Seriously, anybody with half a brain who has read Timaeus or De Civitate Dei can fillet his rubbish with ease. I mean, we're talking about a guy who, by saying on live TV that "the 'why' doesn't matter", just declared everybody from Heraclitus to Bloch to be idiots wasting their time.

[Archangel]

Oh, and Sink's definition of "religion" is some of the most closed-minded, bigoted stuff I've come across.

[freegood]

I'd say scientific theory, not simply the casual hypotheses occasionally published in the paper, has a far more rigorous version of the faith based system underlying paper currency. Perhaps only a small fraction of people in a country understand how a country's monetary system works; however, if that country begins to employ practices that are suspect and those knowledgeable in monetary policy are aware of the practices and speak out about them, it will immediately undermine that country's financial system. Similarly, even a financial expert may not inquire into any aspect of a country's treasury before paying for something with the confidence that the money is good.

There is an expectation of testing and proof of any scientific theory, that, if not followed, and that theory is adopted, immediately makes the adoptee suspect. Any work based on the theory is immediately considered invalid, as well as any work based on the initial work. Any financial shenanigans are shut down immediately before the virus spreads, not simply because of the rigor of those involved, but because the theory is of no value without this rigor (whereas bad or currency of false inflated valye, if it is spent before the ruse is caught, still might have value).

Economic theory has a particular place in social science if only because the real world is the only available lab to test it. Economics peer into past data and form insightful connections from them but in the end, they're assuming a lot in order to force their conclusion.

That's where former investment banks came in and put those papers on the bleeding edge to make hundreds of millions. If you look back at the spectacular failure of LTCM and the players involved (several former IB execs, 2 Nobel prize winners), they didn't and couldn't assume all risks in their models.

Human nature is rapidly evolving to catch up with technological advancement. Most trades are made instantaneously through computers, with different levels of orders that require complex calculation. As more traders begin to capitalize and exploit these shortcomings, we'll discover more and more that regulators are all too human.

[Morfin]

Seriously, anybody with half a brain who has read Timaeus or De Civitate Dei can fillet his rubbish with ease. I mean, we're talking about a guy who, by saying on live TV that "the 'why' doesn't matter", just declared everybody from Heraclitus to Bloch to be idiots wasting their time.

<Morfin reads post and goes through mental checklist: Have I read any of the following:


Timaeus -- No.
De Civitate Dei -- Negative
Heraclitus -- Nope
Bloch -- No, again.

Morfin rubs chin. Have I heard of any of the following:


Timaeus -- No.
De Civitate Dei -- Negative
Heraclitus -- Nope
Bloch -- No, again.

Morfin decides his ignorance is not his fault; decides to blame American public schools. Opens another Diet Coke. Goes to GMF Post A Random Picture Thread.>

[Archangel]

What I'm saying is, that if you're reasonably intelligent, and then read the major metaphysical works of Plato or Augustine, you'll quickly realise that Mr Dawkins's musings simply cannot hold a candle to them. And personally, I despise the arrogance of a glorified science teacher who has the gall to declare all philosophy (especially the ontological kind) to be null and void.

[Archetype]

There's probably a couple of Richard Dawkins TV shows you should watch too...it covers all this stuff and he does it in a most excellent and smug manner only possibly by the greatest of English Professors.

He's my hero...well, he and the inventor of donuts.
Did you see the McGrath or the Harries interviews? Did you see the rest of the list? Nutjob extremists and nonames.

<Morfin rubs chin. Have I heard of any of the following:


Timaeus -- No.
De Civitate Dei -- Negative
Heraclitus -- Nope
Bloch -- No, again.

Morfin decides his ignorance is not his fault; decides to blame American public schools. Opens another Diet Coke. Goes to GMF Post A Random Picture Thread.>

You haven't at least heard of Timaeus? Really? Or The City of God?

[Morfin]

I'm an American and Arch didn't put the title in English. Be empathetic.

[Phil Theehor]

You haven't at least heard of Timaeus? Really? Or The City of God?

The man has a job, JJ. Cut him some slack.

Plus, Timaeus hadn't been published when he was an undergrad.

[vasili denisov]

Economic theory has a particular place in social science if only because the real world is the only available lab to test it. Economics peer into past data and form insightful connections from them but in the end, they're assuming a lot in order to force their conclusion.

That's where former investment banks came in and put those papers on the bleeding edge to make hundreds of millions. If you look back at the spectacular failure of LTCM and the players involved (several former IB execs, 2 Nobel prize winners), they didn't and couldn't assume all risks in their models.
I don't doubt that economics is different from physics, in that a large part of it deals with assumptions about human behaviour, and often those assumptions are wrong.

However, there are still strictures on economic theory. The model must be internally consistent for there to be the possibility of it being accepted`(the conclusion must be able to be derived from the premises). It must be either consistent with accepted theory or provide a grounded, internally consistent alternative model that supplants past theory.

The failure of LTCM only partly had to due with the failure of their models; their models were very successful in the bond market, others also noticed the inefficiencies, and they no longer had the possibility of exploiting an edge, so they moved onto areas where they had very little expertise, like equity and equity volatility. However, all their models were premised on rational players. There was nothing wrong with the models or their applicability as long as market players acting rationally. Players often don't act rationally, and they didn't act rationally when LGMT made their equity volatility bets, expecting the market to stabilize quickly, when instead it stayed in extended flux.

[freegood]

I don't doubt that economics is different from physics, in that a large part of it deals with assumptions about human behaviour, and often those assumptions are wrong.

However, there are still strictures on economic theory. The model must be internally consistent for there to be the possibility of it being accepted`(the conclusion must be able to be derived from the premises). It must be either consistent with accepted theory or provide a grounded, internally consistent alternative model that supplants past theory.

The failure of LTCM only partly had to due with the failure of their models; their models were very successful in the bond market, others also noticed the inefficiencies, and they no longer had the possibility of exploiting an edge, so they moved onto areas where they had very little expertise, like equity and equity volatility. However, all their models were premised on rational players. There was nothing wrong with the models or their applicability as long as market players acting rationally. Players often don't act rationally, and they didn't act rationally when LGMT made their equity volatility bets, expecting the market to stabilize quickly, when instead it stayed in extended flux.

The failure of models arose from discounting the risk of outliers and once in a lifetime events. That players don't act rationally exposes an underlying flaw in real world situations when those paper models are stretched beyond their intended scope.

[Archangel]

The man has a job, JJ. Cut him some slack.

Plus, Timaeus hadn't been published when he was an undergrad.

Lulz. Come on, he's not THAT old. Now Aristotle, that's way after his time.

Kindly look at the title of the book Plato is holding...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Raphael_School_of_Athens.jpg

[Charlatan]

After reading The God Delusion and being shown a glimpse of just how much Christianity has influenced some of the best writers in human history, I think it's fair to say that the Bible is worth reading in the same sense that Greek mythology is. That is, it's necessary for a deep appreciation of English literature (I only mention English because I don't really speak other languages, but it certainly applies to many of them, too). It's also important in a general sense as an aid to understanding the history of Western culture. Of course, I don't think you need to believe in it in any sense (you shouldn't) to receive those lessons.

[Mustard]

Oh, and Sink's definition of "religion" is some of the most closed-minded, bigoted stuff I've come across.
I'm sorry you feel that way, so would you be so kind as to elaborate? Because I know you've lived in the US before, and I know you've seen the same shit I have to deal with day-in and day-out, so really, can you blame me for having such a pesimistic view of religion, Christianity to be specific? Especially given that I've read the good book myself... continually see all of this horse shit that gets done it the name of the Bible, and then see the apparent lack of fundamental understanding of so many of the followers of the religion they're following. Fucks sake man, I was an insider, who is now on the outside scratching his head, wondering how he could ever have been so foolish and gullible to follow such tripe. So I ask again, can you really blame me for being so pesimistic?

[Archangel]

You also saw the elected government of your country cause the deaths of untold thousands of innocent people in the name of freedom, human rights and democracy: Can I safely assume that you're a feudalist or totalitarian now, seeing as how you'd have to be totally disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy? From your posts, I gather that you care deeply about what goes on in your country: Well, when it comes to body count, "nation" only takes a back seat to "equality" and "progress" as far as butcher's bills go.

Seriously, I fail to understand the double standard - I hear people everywhere talking about renouncing religion because of the bad things which failed men have perpetuated in its name, but none of these people renounce secular ideals on that basis, even though none of them have been safe from being abused and perverted.

[Bill Paxton]

You also saw the elected government of your country cause the deaths of untold thousands of innocent people in the name of freedom, human rights and democracy: Can I safely assume that you're a feudalist or totalitarian now, seeing as how you'd have to be totally disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy? From your posts, I gather that you care deeply about what goes on in your country: Well, when it comes to body count, "nation" only takes a back seat to "equality" and "progress" as far as butcher's bills go.

Seriously, I fail to understand the double standard - I hear people everywhere talking about renouncing religion because of the bad things which failed men have perpetuated in its name, but none of these people renounce secular ideals on that basis, even though none of them have been safe from being abused and perverted.

Well to be fair its a little different. First off, its a lot easier to renounce or change your religion. I can hate the US government and what it does all I want but my only options are...

1) Stick it out and hope the next leader is better
2) Leave the country
3) Stage a coup

[Mustard]

You also saw the elected government of your country cause the deaths of untold thousands of innocent people in the name of freedom, human rights and democracy: Can I safely assume that you're a feudalist or totalitarian now, seeing as how you'd have to be totally disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy?
Hold on now a second. You do realize I've been against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning rihgt? There was no part of that invasion that was in the name of freedom, human rights, and democracy. I loathe and lament the notion that Bush is doing what he calls "God's will". Where is my blatant hypocricy when I'm against it the entire time?

From your posts, I gather that you care deeply about what goes on in your country: Well, when it comes to body count, "nation" only takes a back seat to "equality" and "progress" as far as butcher's bills go.I care very deeply about what happens in my country, because I love my country. That is why I am so adamant in my vitriol about Bush and what I see as him fucking up and setting this nation back decades with his policies, which again, he says are "God's will." I am disgusted at the events that have transpired since 2003, but I still think our nation is a great one, still based on ideals like freedom and liberty, even though the outgoing administration seems adamant to destroy those core principles at all costs.

Seriously, I fail to understand the double standard - I hear people everywhere talking about renouncing religion because of the bad things which failed men have perpetuated in its name, but none of these people renounce secular ideals on that basis, even though none of them have been safe from being abused and perverted.
I'm sorry, I see no personal double-standard. I'm fimrly against the war and chaos besieged by my government, as well as the war and chaos perpetrated and wanted (and dare I say needed and adored) by the followers of Christianity in the nation I live in. I have no double standards, because I'm not a hypocrite; I call a spade a fucking spade. I thought you knew me better than to lump me in with the rest of the trash.

[Phil Theehor]

Sink, I think your anger is misplaced.

Starting with the Crusades, I'll allow that there have been a lot of bad things done in the name of Christianity. However, what you are doing is lumping in the justification with the act itself.

People, flawed or evil people, are going to do bad things. They will use whatever they can to justify. "God's will" can be, in the right time and place, an unassailable justification-- hence its frequent usage. In doing so, they are using their interpretation of the religion. It's not the religion doing bad things, it is people hiding behind it.

Conversely, how much good is done by religious groups? How many soup kitchens and shelters are run by church groups? How much good does the Salvation Army (itself an incorporated church) do worldwide? All this good is done by people who interpret God's will in another way.

The point of all of this is this: People, not religions, do both good and bad. The anger you feel is probably better directed at the acts and their perpetrators, rather than means they use to justify them.

[Archangel]

No need to get cross, Sink.

Let me make myself more clear. All the things you have said are true; however, the conclusions you draw from each instance appear to be rather different.

So you say that you while you love your country and what it stands for, you do hate the evil actions of the failed men and women of the outgoing administration, and rightfully so. And because of that, you denounce those actions, make your frustration heard, and vote for somebody else. However, you do remain a citizen of the United States, you keep believing in democracy and freedom, and you blame the agents, not the basic principle. Another example: In the past few months, we've all seen what havoc capitalism run amok can wreak; I've yet to see anyone renouncing money for that reason.

But when you say that you are disappointed in Christianity for having let itself be hijacked for evil deeds by flawed men, you renounce it entirely and claim that the principle itself is bad. Unlike the previous instance, you do not differentiate between the perfection of the idea and its application by people, who by nature are imperfect. You don't try to change the system from within. Don't you see the difference? When the politicians of a democracy carry out something evil in the name of the things they're supposed to stand for, you'd never in a million years call it a systemic flaw of democracy, because in your mind, the few misguided people are to blame; however, when those who claim to be religious do evil, then that difference fades away. Because of the faults of a few, you renounce the whole thing as inherently flawed, not to mention the fact that, as Phil pointed out, you overlook the myriad good things done by religious people of all faiths every day - the hospitals run by churches, the hungry fed by temples, the orphans looked after by nuns, the teaching done by monks, the solace given by ministers etc.

It's also telling that you try to keep blaming everything that Bush did wrong on his apparent religiosity; not one word about greed, lust for power, pure simple showing off, the manipulation of a gullible people through fear, or the inherent flaw of democracy that the evil and the stupid are liable to vote for their own kind.

To sum it up: To you, when democracy goes wrong (as it does over and over again: Remember, Hitler got elected), it's a hiccup. When religion goes wrong, it's a cancer. Do you honestly not see the difference there?

As Dunn said, renouncing Christianity doesn't have much in the way of real world consequnces in this day and age; so while it is your personal decision, it hardly makes you a martyr. Apostasy and $5 will get you something unpronounceable at Starbucks. Big deal.
Now, if your convictions would make you renounce Islam in a country where apostasy is punishable by death, then I'd take the whole thing more seriously.

[Mustard]

No need to get cross, Sink.
Well, to be fair, you called my ideas close-minded and bigoted. Who wouldn't take a little offense?

Let me make myself more clear. All the things you have said are true; however, the conclusions you draw from each instance appear to be rather different.

So you say that you while you love your country and what it stands for, you do hate the evil actions of the failed men and women of the outgoing administration, and rightfully so. And because of that, you denounce those actions, make your frustration heard, and vote for somebody else. However, you do remain a citizen of the United States, you keep believing in democracy and freedom, and you blame the agents, not the basic principle. Another example: In the past few months, we've all seen what havoc capitalism run amok can wreak; I've yet to see anyone renouncing money for that reason.Heh... yeah, you make a good point there. What I have to say is for a different thread, but I have to say quickly that our Federal Reserve is a totally corupt institution, our money has no real value, (read: fiat currency) and eventually our money will become worth less and less until eventually it becomes worthless because every other fiat currency in the history of existence has done so. That is the nature of the beast when its worth is based solely on faith. Fuck... there's that word again. So while I'm not going to immediately flush my money down the toilet in renouncement and disgust, I'll just use the money as a tool and a means to an end while I still can.

But when you say that you are disappointed in Christianity for having let itself be hijacked for evil deeds by flawed men, you renounce it entirely and claim that the principle itself is bad. Unlike the previous instance, you do not differentiate between the perfection of the idea and its application by people, who by nature are imperfect. You don't try to change the system from within. Don't you see the difference? When the politicians of a democracy carry out something evil in the name of the things they're supposed to stand for, you'd never in a million years call it a systemic flaw of democracy, because in your mind, the few misguided people are to blame; however, when those who claim to be religious do evil, then that difference fades away. Because of the faults of a few, you renounce the whole thing as inherently flawed, not to mention the fact that, as Phil pointed out, you overlook the myriad good things done by religious people of all faiths every day - the hospitals run by churches, the hungry fed by temples, the orphans looked after by nuns, the teaching done by monks, the solace given by ministers etc.
Perhaps I am making too sweeping of a generalization about Christianity as a whole, after all, it is rather large and widespread. Also, you are absolutely right about the point you make regarding all of the wonderful and glorious things religion and its followers have provided for humanity throughout the centuries. Just like in democracy and humanity, I suppose it is best to accept the fact that we have to take the good with the bad. Also, those good deeds have little if anything to do with the actual dogma of religion in general, so it would be a great disservice of me to knock religion when so many good things are done in the name of religion itself.

It's also telling that you try to keep blaming everything that Bush did wrong on his apparent religiosity; not one word about greed, lust for power, pure simple showing off, the manipulation of a gullible people through fear, or the inherent flaw of democracy that the evil and the stupid are liable to vote for their own kind.
To be honest, I didn't feel a need to bring any of that up (and you're right in my opinion about everything you mentioned) because I really think that everything you mentioned is rather common knowledge. Also, you forgot spiteful, vengeful, hate-filled, liar with a side of recovering alcoholic/drug adict.

But lets delve a bit further, shall we? You correctly identified that Bush uses manipulation via fear to control his subjects, but he also uses his religion of choice (evangelism, as a "born-again") to also control his subjects. To me, using a religion to control the thoughts of a mass of congregants is equally as bad as despotism or tyranny. We all agree that democracy has its many flaws, but can we also discuss the flaws of religion in this aspect as well? I really feel those flaws inherent in the system and exploitable to the maximum are more heinous than the flaws of democracy, science, and mathematics combined. You brought up being close-minded earlier, which ruffled my feathers a bit since it was a barb at me, so now I would like to bring that up again here with regards to the sheep-like followers who feed at the trough of deceit and ignorance with a blissful candor, which seems warranted to me in this instance. Would you care to discuss this aspect of control in religion with me at greater length?

To sum it up: To you, when democracy goes wrong (as it does over and over again: Remember, Hitler got elected), it's a hiccup. When religion goes wrong, it's a cancer. Do you honestly not see the difference there?
Well, when you put it that way, how can I possibly answer and not sound foolish? I think you're putting words into my mouth, and here is why. When religion goes wrong, it isn't a cancer, because I think most religions are inherently flawed at their core because of the simply unbelieveable stories told by the lot which, to me, simply defy common logic. Of course, we could get into a philosophical and metaphysical debate about the intent behind the stories which do have plenty of merit, but that would be a waste of time because I think we see close to eye to eye on that front. In addition, many evangelicals and baptists actually believe the literal word of the Bible, which to do so shows limitless ignorance, and only serves to prove my point further about inherent flaws that will cease to go away.

NOW, I'm not saying religions are worthless either, far from it is the truth of the matter. You have noted earlier, correctly so, that they do provide many good things to humanity. I just have to say that I think and feel deeply that there is a better way to go about personal spirituality, but unfortunately I don't have much of an answer to provide.

As Dunn said, renouncing Christianity doesn't have much in the way of real world consequnces in this day and age; so while it is your personal decision, it hardly makes you a martyr. Apostasy and $5 will get you something unpronounceable at Starbucks. Big deal.
Now, if your convictions would make you renounce Islam in a country where apostasy is punishable by death, then I'd take the whole thing more seriously.
I'm not trying to be a martyr or anything of the sort here, I hope I'm not coming off like that. I'm just searching for a deeper understanding, preferably one that doesn't have the shackels a religion makes one subscribe to. I like having the absolute freedom of thought, and as a person of superior morals and ethics, I think I'm entitled.

[Charlatan]

You also saw the elected government of your country cause the deaths of untold thousands of innocent people in the name of freedom, human rights and democracy: Can I safely assume that you're a feudalist or totalitarian now, seeing as how you'd have to be totally disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy? From your posts, I gather that you care deeply about what goes on in your country: Well, when it comes to body count, "nation" only takes a back seat to "equality" and "progress" as far as butcher's bills go.Funny how you left out religion at the end there.

Seriously, I fail to understand the double standard - I hear people everywhere talking about renouncing religion because of the bad things which failed men have perpetuated in its name, but none of these people renounce secular ideals on that basis, even though none of them have been safe from being abused and perverted.There are no objective standards for justifying one religion over any other, so if you feel right believing in Christianity, you have no grounds to criticize radical Islam. If you demand respect for any faith-based belief system such as Christianity, you have to afford that same respect to all faith-based belief systems.

People murder for their religious beliefs all the time, but atheism can never be a justification for anything. A man doesn't murder because of his lack of beliefs. Science is all about objective standards, and if it's ever used in an attempt to justify the "bad things" you're referring to, it's easily shown to be a failure of logic.

[Archetype]

There are no objective standards for justifying one religion over any other, so if you feel right believing in Christianity, you have no grounds to criticize radical Islam. If you demand respect for any faith-based belief system such as Christianity, you have to afford that same respect to all faith-based belief systems.

It's not faith-based, faith is one of the cornerstones, yeah, but it isn't the only one. And I'm pretty the golden rule with regards to respect takes a backseat to rape, suicide bombing, etc.

People murder for their religious beliefs all the time, but atheism can never be a justification for anything. A man doesn't murder because of his lack of beliefs.

I'm just gonna ignore that.

[Charlatan]

It's not faith-based, faith is one of the cornerstones, yeah, but it isn't the only one. And I'm pretty the golden rule with regards to respect takes a backseat to rape, suicide bombing, etc.What do you think the other cornerstones are? And I'm not talking about the Golden Rule. I think that religion is entirely based on faith, so if Christians demand that people respect their beliefs, they have to return the favor to radical Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, et cetera.

I'm just gonna ignore that.I'd rather you address it. Nobody can be shown to take any action because of a lack of belief. Psychotic nihilists who go on killing sprees don't do so because they don't believe in God, they do so because they believe that life has no worth or some other such whiny bullshit (and that's probably dishonest in any case, the only excuse for doing something like that is a cry for attention). Muslims who strap bombs to their chests and walk into grocery stores do so for their religious beliefs that it is right of them to do so, that they'll be rewarded in Heaven.

[Archetype]

What do you think the other cornerstones are? And I'm not talking about the Golden Rule. I think that religion is entirely based on faith, so if Christians demand that people respect their beliefs, they have to return the favor to radical Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, et cetera.

It varies, I suppose. Don't get me wrong, the Kirk Cameron, Pat Robertson brand of Christianity is faith based. But it seems like a cop-out to rely only on faith. Every belief will have it's flaws, but if it completely falls apart with regards to reason, it should at least be criticized for it. It should be no matter what, really. Pragmatically, humans need a certain amount of respect for social functions to work. Ideas and beliefs need criticism for social evolution to work.

I'd rather you address it. Nobody can be shown to take any action because of a lack of belief. Psychotic nihilists who go on killing sprees don't do so because they don't believe in God, they do so because they believe that life has no worth or some other such whiny bullshit (and that's probably dishonest in any case, the only excuse for doing something like that is a cry for attention). Muslims who strap bombs to their chests and walk into grocery stores do so for their religious beliefs that it is right of them to do so, that they'll be rewarded in Heaven.
No, you're totally right about that, it's just a definition dispute, which we've already been through, and I don't feel like doing that again anytime soon.

[Archangel]

Funny how you left out religion at the end there.


Yeah, no matter how much you suck Dawkins's cock, religion's body count is nowhere near that of nationalism, communism, race, economy, or "progress".

There are no objective standards for justifying one religion over any other, so if you feel right believing in Christianity, you have no grounds to criticize radical Islam. If you demand respect for any faith-based belief system such as Christianity, you have to afford that same respect to all faith-based belief systems.

Fuck you. I'm the one who always keeps saying that faith is about choice, about picking what best serves you to get a glimpse of universal truths beyond empirism. I don't care whether you do that through the teachings of Paul, Nietzsche, Plato, or Buddha.

However, to suggest that must necessiter lead to relativism, and that perversions of basically good faith have to be respected because everything is worth the same, just shows what an idiot you are. Stick to looking at amoeba, because honestly, if you do not recognise a qualitative difference between Plato and Hubbard, you have no business discussing metaphysics.

If I, as a religious person, cannot criticise religous fanatics who follow men who don't give a fuck about faith, you are not allowed to criticise any instance in which science was perverted. You know, utilitarian eugenics, phrenology, communism, racial studies, Mengele...

There is an objective standard, and it's called respect for human life, something at the core of every faith.

People murder for their religious beliefs all the time, but atheism can never be a justification for anything. A man doesn't murder because of his lack of beliefs.

Yeah, utterly unimaginable how people who hate religion would murder priests or suppress faith.

Try again.

Science is all about objective standards, and if it's ever used in an attempt to justify the "bad things" you're referring to, it's easily shown to be a failure of logic.

You worship science more than any of us here worship God, do you realise that? It can do no wrong, it's perfect, it makes everything better... You're the best example that while science may be objective, its applications never are, since it has to be shot through the inherently subjective human prism. Science got things wrong over and over again. And intellectually lazy retards like you, instead of admitting that scientists are just men who can fuck up, just dismiss every mis-step as bad science.

If you honestly believe any of the things you just said, you're not just an idiot, you're dangerous, as well.

[Charlatan]

Yeah, no matter how much you suck Dawkins's cock, religion's body count is nowhere near that of nationalism, communism, race, economy, or "progress".Dubious, but in any case, irrelevant. What are you trying to say, that we should tolerate religious killings as acceptable collateral damage because nationalism accounts for more deaths? They're all byproducts that we as a species need to leave behind if we're going to survive past the next couple hundred years.

Fuck you. I'm the one who always keeps saying that faith is about choice, about picking what best serves you to get a glimpse of universal truths beyond empirism. I don't care whether you do that through the teachings of Paul, Nietzsche, Plato, or Buddha.

However, to suggest that must necessiter lead to relativism, and that perversions of basically good faith have to be respected because everything is worth the same, just shows what an idiot you are. Stick to looking at amoeba, because honestly, if you do not recognise a qualitative difference between Plato and Hubbard, you have no business discussing metaphysics.

There is an objective standard, and it's called respect for human life, something at the core of every faith.Wishful thinking, nothing more.

If I, as a religious person, cannot criticise religous fanatics who follow men who don't give a fuck about faith, you are not allowed to criticise any instance in which science was perverted. You know, utilitarian eugenics, phrenology, communism, racial studies, Mengele...That only holds if science and religion use the same standards, which they most decidedly do not. A scientist can look at eugenics and say, "This is wrong, and here's why." Bad assumptions, faulty logic. Of course eugenics is bad science. Are you saying it isn't? By contrast, what can you as a Christian say to a Qutbee Muslim? "Your beliefs are a perversion of religion because you do not hold respect for human life at the core of your faith, and I know this because of what the Bible tells me." What does he say back? "No, your beliefs are a perversion of religion. The Qur'an tells me that respect for human life is unimportant." There's no grounds for picking one over the other. Even if everybody did pick what suits them like you advocate instead of being brainwashed by their parents, well, it's still arbitrary and leaves you no basis for deeming one belief system true and another a perversion.

On what is your claim based that respect for human life is at the core of every faith and that everything else is a perversion?

Yeah, utterly unimaginable how people who hate religion would murder priests or suppress faith.

Try again.You seem completely incapable of understanding that a lack of belief is distinct from hating religion. The people you're talking about who murder priests do not believe in religion and believe that priests deserve to be killed. Those don't follow from each other. I have said time again why I don't believe in religion. I think it's a logical approach vetted by a lot of careful thinking. Are you really going to lump me in with somebody who murders a priest? You really think that that murderer thought out his actions like I did in a reasonable manner?

You worship science more than any of us here worship God, do you realise that? It can do no wrong, it's perfect, it makes everything better... You're the best example that while science may be objective, its applications never are, since it has to be shot through the inherently subjective human prism. Science got things wrong over and over again. And intellectually lazy retards like you, instead of admitting that scientists are just men who can fuck up, just dismiss every mis-step as bad science.When have I ever said anything of the sort? How do you get "it can do no wrong" from me saying it's based on objective standards? You have always projected this hateful, thoughtless image onto me, and I have no idea where it comes from.

If you honestly believe any of the things you just said, you're not just an idiot, you're dangerous, as well.In what sense am I dangerous? I wouldn't murder, torture, or otherwise coerce for any of my beliefs, and I don't tolerate people who would or belief systems that engender such things.

You get more heated more quickly than anyone I've ever encountered, and for how smart you swear you are, you devolve into name calling pretty damn fast.

[Archangel]

Because I have a very low idiot tolerance.

Arrogantly dismissing people's arguments as "irrelevant" (after bringing up the subject matter yourself) or "wishful thinking" without backing anything up really shows how smart you are. How about you stick to plankton, and I stick to metaphysics, since we both know jack shit about the other.

[Archangel]

Dubious, but in any case, irrelevant. What are you trying to say, that we should tolerate religious killings as acceptable collateral damage because nationalism accounts for more deaths? They're all byproducts that we as a species need to leave behind if we're going to survive past the next couple hundred years.

Yeah, I'll listen to YOU about what the species has to do to survive.

That only holds if science and religion use the same standards, which they most decidedly do not.

Yeah, any arsehole can say that trees are green, and any computer can add numbers together, while it takes actual intelligence to come up with the Comedy.

A scientist can look at eugenics and say, "This is wrong, and here's why." Bad assumptions, faulty logic. Of course eugenics is bad science. Are you saying it isn't?

And yet, for several decades, many respected scientists DIDN'T. Science isn't the problem; scientists are. The problem is that you would love to keep any human aspect out of your little science fair, which, seeing as how we are human, isn't possible.

By contrast, what can you as a Christian say to a Qutbee Muslim? "Your beliefs are a perversion of religion because you do not hold respect for human life at the core of your faith, and I know this because of what the Bible tells me." What does he say back? "No, your beliefs are a perversion of religion. The Qur'an tells me that respect for human life is unimportant."

Yeah, then I'd tell that moron to actually read that fucking book. Oh, and he wouldn't be the only moron I'd tell that to, btw.

Take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.

On that account We ordained for the Children of Isra`il that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity.


There's no grounds for picking one over the other.

Except for that little problem that murder is evil.

Even if everybody did pick what suits them like you advocate instead of being brainwashed by their parents, well, it's still arbitrary and leaves you no basis for deeming one belief system true and another a perversion.

You really know nothing about either religion than bullet points about how they're all bad, so why even bother? Do you honestly think that all ideas are equal? If so, what the fuck is your relativist arse doing in a Philosophy section, anyway?

On what is your claim based that respect for human life is at the core of every faith and that everything else is a perversion?

Um, Exodus 20:13, Matthew 5:21, or Romans 13:9?

You seem completely incapable of understanding that a lack of belief is distinct from hating religion. The people you're talking about who murder priests do not believe in religion and believe that priests deserve to be killed. Those don't follow from each other. I have said time again why I don't believe in religion. I think it's a logical approach vetted by a lot of careful thinking. Are you really going to lump me in with somebody who murders a priest? You really think that that murderer thought out his actions like I did in a reasonable manner?

Everytime it is convenient for you, the actions are distinct from the actor; yet every time you try to prove a point, they are one and the same. Pick one.

When have I ever said anything of the sort? How do you get "it can do no wrong" from me saying it's based on objective standards? You have always projected this hateful, thoughtless image onto me, and I have no idea where it comes from.

Your easy dismissal of every inconvenient mis-step of science as the perversion of perfection by flawed people, for one.

And your idiotic double standard insistence that the opposite cannot possibly be true.

In what sense am I dangerous? I wouldn't murder, torture, or otherwise coerce for any of my beliefs, and I don't tolerate people who would or belief systems that engender such things.

And yet you said that we need to get rid of religion to make it into the next century, which will be glorious, since any Pentium will be better than us.

You get more heated more quickly than anyone I've ever encountered, and for how smart you swear you are, you devolve into name calling pretty damn fast.

What does thinking that you're an idiot have to do with how smart I am?

[freegood]

I'm not sure how science or even reason comes to play in even the most simplest of life decisions. I eat vegetables to fortify myself of vitamins and nutrients. I avoid fast food because of it clogs my arteries....etc...

And as for realizing that helping others through charity is a "good thing" and can be reasoned as good, fact is that religious people still give more to charity than others (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730).

blah blah blah etc etc

[Charlatan]

Arrogantly dismissing people's arguments as "irrelevant" (after bringing up the subject matter yourself) or "wishful thinking" without backing anything up really shows how smart you are. How about you stick to plankton, and I stick to metaphysics, since we both know jack shit about the other.I dismissed one of your arguments as irrelevant and posed a rhetorical question to illustrate why. Instead of elaborating on and defending the point you were making, you called me arrogant. Good show, Arch.

Yeah, any arsehole can say that trees are green, and any computer can add numbers together, while it takes actual intelligence to come up with the Comedy.You just love to bring up things that make you sound smart (at least to yourself) but don't really have any bearing on the discussion. Nothing that I said could be taken to imply that Dante was anything less than a really smart guy, and in any case, how is that relevant to science's focus on objective standards as opposed to religion's focus on faith?

And yet, for several decades, many respected scientists DIDN'T. Science isn't the problem; scientists are. The problem is that you would love to keep any human aspect out of your little science fair, which, seeing as how we are human, isn't possible.So what? Say it with me, eugenics is bad science. Yes, a lot of intelligent people advocated it for a long time. Now they don't. It started with faulty assumptions and ulterior motives (scientists who, yes, made mistakes and weren't honestly searching for truth about the natural world), and it ended when people actually applied scientific principles to it.

Yeah, then I'd tell that moron to actually read that fucking book. Oh, and he wouldn't be the only moron I'd tell that to, btw.Again, so what? You just ignore all of the passages about jihad? How can you cite a handful of passages about peace as evidence that respect for human life is at the core of Islam when there are plenty of passages about killing and enslaving infidels? There's a glaring contradiction that, for whatever reason, you choose to ignore.

Oh, and that's a nice little jibe at the end, by the way. Insults really drive your point home.

Except for that little problem that murder is evil.

You really know nothing about either religion than bullet points about how they're all bad, so why even bother? Do you honestly think that all ideas are equal? If so, what the fuck is your relativist arse doing in a Philosophy section, anyway?I think relativism is bullshit. What I am saying is that different religious belief systems all have equal grounds to stand on since they all rely on faith.

On what is your claim based that respect for human life is at the core of every faith and that everything else is a perversion?Um, Exodus 20:13, Matthew 5:21, or Romans 13:9?See the bold text above.

Everytime it is convenient for you, the actions are distinct from the actor; yet every time you try to prove a point, they are one and the same. Pick one.

Your easy dismissal of every inconvenient mis-step of science as the perversion of perfection by flawed people, for one.

And your idiotic double standard insistence that the opposite cannot possibly be true.Do you doubt that Muslim suicide bombers are genuine? Do you doubt that they have plenty of scripture with which to support their beliefs? They kill themselves and others because they honestly believe that it is right for them to do so. The fact that there are also passages in the Qur'an advocating peace does not mean that radical Islam is a perversion, it just means that the book contradicts itself and should never be taken as truth, in part or as a whole. The same inconsistencies riddle the Bible and all other holy books.

By contrast, how exactly does atheism (call it the lack of belief in God for the purposes of this discussion) motivate somebody to murder a priest? Guide me through the thought process, Arch, since it's so painfully obvious to you.

And yet you said that we need to get rid of religion to make it into the next century, which will be glorious, since any Pentium will be better than us.Putting words in my mouth again. The only consideration for whether or not something should be believed in is if it's true. But if you want to weigh benefits and dangers, I do think the world would be better off without religion, considering it's a huge source of strife among mankind and all of the benefits typically associated with it can be easily had outside of it. Where the hell did you come up with Pentiums?

What does thinking that you're an idiot have to do with how smart I am?Besides the fact that I'm not an idiot? Civilized discourse is a good indicator of intelligence, and I doubt you could pull it off if you tried.

I've never been so thoroughly mischaracterized as by you. All of your rantings about my beliefs are so far off the mark, you might as well be yelling at someone else.

[provplaya1]

Its worth reading aside from religious ties, its the best selling piece of literature on earth, use it as a religuous giude or ust as another piece of literature.

[Crack]

As much so as reading "The Secret Princess Wardrobes" and believing you can prance around in a magic dress and everything will be A-OK! As literature goes, there's much better reading if "mysticism" doesn't bias your choice in the matter.

[tockit]

I think that religion is entirely based on faith, so if Christians demand that people respect their beliefs, they have to return the favor to radical Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, et cetera.
Where do you get Christian's demand that people respect their beliefs?

95% of the litigation that I read about today is from primarily the atheist's, or the muslims, etc, who feel like they are being descriminated against because someone says "merry christmas" instead of "happy holidays", or because someone gets bent out of shape because someone says a prayer "without mentioning any one particular God, mind you" at a graduation commencement ceremony!

C'mon, give me a break! I have never understood why this offends atheists?

If you don't believe it, why does it bother you?

Heck, I don't believe in UFO's, but I used to work with a guy that went to UFO conventions from time to time, and he was all into them, and truly believed they exist.

That didn't bother me! It's a free country! If he wants to buy tickets to ride Hale-bob the next time it comes by, it ain't no sweat off my back, as long as he's not hurting himself or anyone else!!!

[wonderllama]

I think that's part of the point...religion does tend to be linked to people hurting others, and continues to do so today. Whether they represent the majority of believers in a particular faith or not, what they do is said to be in the name of Allah or God or whoever.

[Charlatan]

Where do you get Christian's demand that people respect their beliefs?Really?

95% of the litigation that I read about today is from primarily the atheist's, or the muslims, etc, who feel like they are being descriminated against because someone says "merry christmas" instead of "happy holidays", or because someone gets bent out of shape because someone says a prayer "without mentioning any one particular God, mind you" at a graduation commencement ceremony!Where do you get your news?

C'mon, give me a break! I have never understood why this offends atheists?

If you don't believe it, why does it bother you?

Heck, I don't believe in UFO's, but I used to work with a guy that went to UFO conventions from time to time, and he was all into them, and truly believed they exist.

That didn't bother me! It's a free country! If he wants to buy tickets to ride Hale-bob the next time it comes by, it ain't no sweat off my back, as long as he's not hurting himself or anyone else!!!I celebrate Christmas (not as a religious occasion, obviously), and any politically correct nonsense actually pisses me right off. I don't take issue with the fact that people have different beliefs than me.

Thinking that martyrdom is righteous and rewarded in a glorious afterlife is just as religious a belief as turning the other cheek (if you do so because God tells you to), and therein lies the problem. You can't keep religion around just because it's desirable for it to be true, and it's heinous considering all of the violent baggage that necessarily follows. The origin and practical value of human traits like compassion and forgiveness can be explained entirely independent of religion, so why put up with suicide bombers and televangelists?

Arch responds angrily to the suggestion that mutually incompatible religious belief systems all have equal grounds to justify their claims, but how does he rebut it? By cherry picking passages from his holy book of choice, which is exactly how guys like Osama bin Laden justify killing people like Arch. He just illustrates the fallacy over and over, calling everybody else blind for pointing out the obvious, rabidly accusing others of being hateful for contributing to rational discourse.

[mongo]

NO!

[DjAg]

NO?

[Charlatan]

MAYBE.

[mongo]

maybe not!

[DjAg]

Spanish Inquisition!

[mongo]

spanish insertion!

[DjAg]

Premature ejaculation!

(and a missed Monty Python reference...)

[Archangel]

I dismissed one of your arguments as irrelevant and posed a rhetorical question to illustrate why. Instead of elaborating on and defending the point you were making, you called me arrogant. Good show, Arch.

This is why I can't take you seriously. My post to Sink: "nation", "equality" and "progress" are responsible for the greatest body counts in human history.

Your quip: nyah nyah, you left out religion!

My rebuttal: bullshit, none of the great slaughters of the 20th century were about religion - hell, a quarter billion deaths were caused by people who denied the existence of higher beings - so stop talking out of your arse.

Your reaction: shit, he's right... Uh, fuck it, let's just say it's irrelevant.

Seriously, mate, be less obvious with your idiocy.

By contrast, how exactly does atheism (call it the lack of belief in God for the purposes of this discussion) motivate somebody to murder a priest? Guide me through the thought process, Arch, since it's so painfully obvious to you.


Hmm, let's see.

I do think the world would be better off without religion, considering it's a huge source of strife among mankind and all of the benefits typically associated with it can be easily had outside of it.

There is no God, so religion is "false" (I'm not even gonna get into how people who can't think beyond empirism into actual thought talking about how philosophies are "false" is as retarded as it gets), and these stupid religious people are responsible for so many bad things - and let's just act like they've never done anything good in the world - so wouldn't the world be better off without them? Didn't you say just that, retard? You honestly think that it's really that large a step from thinking that to putting it in action?

Seriously, get out of Philosophy. You advocate the dominance of trained monkeys counting numbers together in a section devoted to thought. If to you, any actual thought (which observation isn't) is ipso facto false and irrelevant, what are you doing here except trolling? You're blind, dogmatic, and utterly, irrationally and unreservedly beholden to one school of thought. Your argumentation smacks of ignorance, apologism and dogma: Science fucked up - ex post apology, well, it was "bad science". Fucked up again - "bad science". Again - "bad science"; when, exactly, does "good" science start? And who's the arbiter of that, anyway? So they've been wrong innumerable times before - WHILE BEING JUST AS CONVINCED AS YOU THAT THEY WERE RIGHT - and now I'm supposed to believe that teh Philosopher's Stone has been found? It's blatantly ridiculous.

And honestly, fuckhead (I'm just calling a spade a spade, it's called "invective" and has been used in rhetoric since at least Quintillian), back up ONE THING that you say. "All the benefits associated with religion can be had outside of it?" Do you just blindly quote Dawkins, or do you EVER think about what you say?

[Archangel]

Charlatan and tater apparently went to retard school together. Just because you claim over and over, "my arguments are best!", it doesn't make it so.

[freegood]

Just because you claim over and over, "my arguments are best!", it doesn't make it so.

I'm the best mayne!

bHpw6CzprNY

[Phil Theehor]

The origin and practical value of human traits like compassion and forgiveness can be explained entirely independent of religion, so why put up with suicide bombers and televangelists?


I know this was part of a larger point, Charlie, but I am quoting you here because of the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

Failing societies, not religions, produce suicide bombers. Religion is used to justify the bad activity and to cajole people into bad activities, but it's not the root cause (and there are many root causes, but it usually boils down to a bad case of society-wide small-weenie-syndrome-- or "inferiority complex" for you non-psych majors).

It’s the root causes that drive people to do bad things, and then hide behind religion. You say "get rid of religion and these bad things will go away". I say hooey to that. Get rid of religion and bad people will continue to bad things, just under a different justification.

I guess the point here, Charlie, is that religion (like you) is just a tool. It can be used for both good and bad. And if religion did not exist, good and bad people would just use other tools.

Lastly, if you want to get rid of suicide bombers, don't try to stamp out Islam. Rather, work to give the dirty buggers a better use of their lives than exploding. You would see them focusing their attention on the positive aspects of their faith.

[Archangel]

Oh please. Everyone knows that when people colonise entire continents and butcher the native population in the name of eugenics and progress, it's exclusively the fault of greed and ignorance, while when people do the EXACT SAME THING in the name of religion, ONLY religion is to blame, to the exclusion of all other factors. Because, you know, religion is BAD.
It's not like Venice got rich off raping Constantinople during the Crusades, or the French Crown used them to ally itself with the Holy See against the Empire, or anything. It was only about religious people killing people because they are all fanatics.

I wonder whether the little retard has noticed that ever since the advent of secularism, Western societies have used ersatz motivations for conquest and slaughter - the point being that they didn't skip a beat and went right on conquering and slaughtering when religion wasn't the driving factor anymore. I mean, if the colonisation of South America was motivated by bad, bad religion, and the colonisation of Africa wasn't, then how come the mechanisms were so similar?

Oh, but I guess that these are points that the Dawkins blowers were too stupid to consider, so in all likelihood, they're "irrelevant".

[freegood]

Poor countries like Africa suffer because they're stupid and lazy.

yes...a country as big as your mom

[Archangel]

You know, if I had to resort to arguing that the Crusades were ALL about religion, and communism had NOTHING to do with atheism, then I'd have the good sense to be embarrassed at either my stupidity or my desperation.

[Pax Britannia]

Poor countries like Africa suffer because they're stupid and lazy.

yes...a country as big as your mom
We need more people like you at the UN.

[freegood]

You know, if I had to resort to arguing that the Crusades were ALL about religion, and communism had NOTHING to do with atheism, then I'd have the good sense to be embarrassed at either my stupidity or my desperation.

It's mutually exclusive to give those declarations and to have good sense.

[Archangel]

Oh, and if all religious people were gone, all the world's problems would be solved; however, it is utterly unthinkable that any harm could come from such an ideology, because, you know, he's objective...

[Pax Britannia]

Nothing says objectivity quite like blind prejudice.

[Archangel]

But it's, you know, science.

Which is never wrong.

And if it is, you can always laugh afterwards and say that it really wasn't science at all.

Because, you know, science has only uplifted the human race, while it was religion that gave us the hydrogen bomb, poison gas and anthrax delivery systems.

[wonderllama]

I've been reading the arguments back and forth here and I have to say a few things.
Firstly, I don't believe in God, but at the same time, I have no problem with people believing in what the want.

Now the main protagonists here seem to be Arch and Charlie but I see a problem.

Arch - you seem like a smart guy, hey, you keep telling us so, but I was under the impression that simply dismissing an opposing position as stupid or being delivered by an idiot, really did nothing to further your own position, especially when arguing about something as unsolvable as religion and whether it is good or not.

If you find yourself slipping into abuse or belittling ridicule when presenting your side of the argument, it doesn't tell me that you are arrogant or confident (traits I suspect you like to attribute to yourself), it tells me you are intolerant of a different perspective or at least delivery of that perspective than your own...and that's sort of what you are arguing against when it comes to Charlie's posts.

He is seemingly intolerant of religion, any religion, and wishes for it to be gone simply because in his eyes it is so inherently intertwined with lust for power, false worship, and discrimination at pretty much every level. And yet, you are proving to be exactly the same with your intolerance of his position, which you deem to be unworthy because he is either lacking what you see to be relevant facts or because it isn't being delivered in a manner you find acceptable.

Now your arguing of the point may or may not reflect your beliefs, I'm sure you are capable of arguing for something in which you don't believe, but when suitably challenged on your position, and as a smart guy, I believe you have been, you are resorting to an intellectual level of name calling and sooky la la-ism.

And Arch, what's the gripe with Richard Dawkins? Is it simply because he dares to be a atheist? Is it is arrogant style with his delivery of his opinion? Is it because he is not as good as Plato or whoever you were talking about in a post on a previous page?

I assume you don't care, or perhaps relish in it, but perhaps we are all arguing these topics in an online forum because our character flaws prevent us from taking our passions to a larger stage where they may have some influence on others, but I believe you do yourself a disservice by waving off Charlie as yet another online idiot.

[Void]

My rebuttal: bullshit, none of the great slaughters of the 20th century were about religion - hell, a quarter billion deaths were caused by people who denied the existence of higher beings - so stop talking out of your arse.

Assuming you're referring to the death tolls under the various Communist regimes (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc), that figure seems a bit high. Care to provide a source?

Also, you are aware of the Taiping Rebellion, correct?

[Coco]

Also, you are aware of the Taiping Rebellion, correct?

The Taiping Rebellion took place in the 19th century, but anyway, I do see your point. However, it was also extremely political. It wasn't an isolated religious event.

[freegood]

Usually to back up a point, you describe the incident to bring up rather than assume the other person knows what you're talking about.

You know about quantum singularities, amirite?

[Charlatan]

Arch, you're not even arguing against me. You criticize me for saying things that I have never said, never implied, and indeed, do not believe.

I do think the world would be better off without religion.Oh, and if all religious people were gone, all the world's problems would be solved.Great example.

Charlatan and tater apparently went to retard school together.Seriously, retard school? Grow up.

And yes, your argument about the body counts of nationalism as opposed to religion is irrelevant. It's a false dichotomy. I've said time and again that I think it should all go. The world would be a better place without religion just as it would be a better place without nationalism. You fixate on my attacks on religion and start foaming at the mouth, paying no heed to anything else I say.

[Morfin]

Oh, and if all religious people were gone, all the world's problems would be solved

This is such an ignorant statement.


Everyone knows that once Obama becomes President all the world's problems will be solved. Duh.

[freegood]

Even the racists?

[DjAg]

Especially the racists. They will go far before all of our taxes and even before gas is free.

[Archangel]

Arch - you seem like a smart guy, hey, you keep telling us so, but I was under the impression that simply dismissing an opposing position as stupid or being delivered by an idiot, really did nothing to further your own position, especially when arguing about something as unsolvable as religion and whether it is good or not.

If you find yourself slipping into abuse or belittling ridicule when presenting your side of the argument, it doesn't tell me that you are arrogant or confident (traits I suspect you like to attribute to yourself), it tells me you are intolerant of a different perspective or at least delivery of that perspective than your own...and that's sort of what you are arguing against when it comes to Charlie's posts.

He is seemingly intolerant of religion, any religion, and wishes for it to be gone simply because in his eyes it is so inherently intertwined with lust for power, false worship, and discrimination at pretty much every level. And yet, you are proving to be exactly the same with your intolerance of his position, which you deem to be unworthy because he is either lacking what you see to be relevant facts or because it isn't being delivered in a manner you find acceptable.

Now your arguing of the point may or may not reflect your beliefs, I'm sure you are capable of arguing for something in which you don't believe, but when suitably challenged on your position, and as a smart guy, I believe you have been, you are resorting to an intellectual level of name calling and sooky la la-ism.

You're new here.

If you want, check out the Philo section in the archives to see how long this has been going on. You see, I'm extremely tolerant of other people's opinions, as long as there is some intelligence behind them. Nietzsche hated Christianity with a passion, and his early Wagnerian dick-riding aside, I consider him to be the single greatest mind of the past 150 years; closer to home, Sink and Morfin are "devout" (for lack of a better word) atheists, and I do very much respect their views. If you look at my latest exchange with Sink, you'll see what I'd like this section to be about: I say that he and his opinions are quite bigoted and closed-minded, he argues that he has every reason to be, I rebut etc... and at the end, both sides see where the other is coming from. We might still not agree, but we go away understanding more about the other, with more respect for the other's opinions.

However, to simply ape every word of Dawkins and go "you suck, you suck" all the bloody time has nothing to do with discussion. The fact is that he has been doing this - well, it's basically trolling, isn't it? - for a very long time now, and I see neither a willingness to listen to other people's arguments, nor to actually participate in any form of exchange. He is obviously entitled to his opinion (by the same token, I'm just as entitled to thinking that he's an imbecile); but just as I, even though I think that cricket is the most boring activity devised by man, do not go into the cricket thread and troll about how stupid it is - out of respect for those who do enjoy the sport - coming into a thread about religion and screaming "Sci-ence! Sci-ence!" while reducing all of faith and religion to slaughter and bigotry isn't really helping anyone. I mean, if I told people that all science ever produced were weapons of mass destruction, people would consider me a cretin, and rightfully so.

His idiotic apologism is the next issue. I mean, if you cannot grasp the extent of intellectual fallacy which is necessary to ex post declare every mis-step of science to be ipso facto non-scientific, you have no business discussing things with people. Seriously, what would you think if a Knicks fan told you than John Starks jacking up all those bricks in the Finals "wasn't really basketball"? Or if a Ford exec tried to down-play the ghastliness and abysmal failure of the Pinto by arguing that looking back, it "wasn't actually a car, not really"? "Fuck you", that's what.

Last, the fact that he makes broad, sweeping, usually rather condemnatory statements (mostly regurgitated) without feeling the need to back up any of it. I mean, if you're gonna say "what few benefits religion has can be had just as well outside of it" or some such outlandish remark, then you might want to reinforce it with some facts. I mean, he is allowed to have that opinion, obviously; but then, I can't tell people not to think that Bob Ross is the greatest painter of all time. Everybody has the right to be stupid.


And Arch, what's the gripe with Richard Dawkins? Is it simply because he dares to be a atheist? Is it is arrogant style with his delivery of his opinion? Is it because he is not as good as Plato or whoever you were talking about in a post on a previous page?

I assume you don't care, or perhaps relish in it, but perhaps we are all arguing these topics in an online forum because our character flaws prevent us from taking our passions to a larger stage where they may have some influence on others, but I believe you do yourself a disservice by waving off Charlie as yet another online idiot.

My "gripe" with Dawkins is rather well known to the regulars of this section.

Let me ask you this.

I am pretty well versed in literature and philosophy. They are my field of study, my job, and indeed, my passion. I think I can argue Boccaccio's views on the role of women, Leopardi's nihilistic titanism, or the parallels between the Gospel of John and post-structuralistic linguistics with the (literally) best of them.

So what would you think if I told you that that would qualify me to teach physics or biology?


If it were arrogance, I wouldn't mind. Goethe was the most arrogant mother fucker on earth, and I love him for it.

But what we're dealing with here is a fundamental lack of respect, born out of total and utter ignorance. The deeply held belief of science that, because they are good at putting things under microscopes, they can easily deal with those simple-minded fools' metaphysical flights of fancy, that philosophy and religion are footnotes to empirism. It's not that he's "not as good as Plato" (quis ut ille, anyway?), it's that he's worse than Dan Brown.


He said on live TV that the "why" is an irrelevant question. That pretty much tells me that his disciples are on the dick of an armour-plated, ocean-going moron who should stick to his field. I do not know how good he is at it; he may be very good, for all I know. And neither do I dispute that science is good and necessary - I do reward it the respect which it is due, mostly by keeping my ignorant nose out of it, and I do recognise the contributions it has made to mankind. Objectivity is the key here. What I DO dispute, however, is its arrogant primacy among matters of the human mind. Science is a child of philosophy, and most truly intelligent people realise that. Before Galilei, there was Pico della Mirandola.
You know, when I read something by Aquinas, Leopardi or Wittgenstein, my first reaction is admiration, irrespective of my stance on their views, which might as well be utterly contrary. When somebody like Dawkins gets around to read those things (which he probably considers beneath himself), his reaction is ridicule. And you can ever tell the intellectual worth of a person by his attitude towards that which is truly great: If you say that Paul was stupid, you simply cannot be intelligent, full stop. Disagree, loathe, abhor, fight, by all means; but first, always RESPECT.

But what truly gets me is how he and his ilk argue their idiocy from the bully pulpit of "reason". If reason and empirism were one and the same, this world would be a sad fucking place indeed. I mean, as if Timaeus or De Anima weren't fruits of reason. When somebody has to argue that reason stops at 1+1=2, and that something like Dante's anagogy simply isn't part of it, then you know that arguments aren't his forté. I am a great friend of reason; what I protest is the appropriation of the term by those who have a rather limited definition of it. For fuck's sake, these people have the gall to think of themselves as intellectuals...

He does have a good side, though: The supreme irony of somebody who says that religion keeps people from thinking for themselves being blindly and cultishly worshipped by legions of zealous disciples never fails to entertain me. "Buy the typewriter on which 'The Professor' wrote his first book!" "Buy the bog roll which 'The Professor' used to wipe his arse!" - free thought, indeed: If these people knew just how much their behaviour resembled medieval relic worship, they'd have the good sense to kill themselves...

[Charlatan]

If you want, check out the Philo section in the archives to see how long this has been going on. You see, I'm extremely tolerant of other people's opinions, as long as there is some intelligence behind them. Nietzsche hated Christianity with a passion, and his early Wagnerian dick-riding aside, I consider him to be the single greatest mind of the past 150 years; closer to home, Sink and Morfin are "devout" (for lack of a better word) atheists, and I do very much respect their views. If you look at my latest exchange with Sink, you'll see what I'd like this section to be about: I say that he and his opinions are quite bigoted and closed-minded, he argues that he has every reason to be, I rebut etc... and at the end, both sides see where the other is coming from. We might still not agree, but we go away understanding more about the other, with more respect for the other's opinions.You say that you can at least see where guys like Sink and Morfin are coming from. Why not me?

Respect is a precious commodity. It has to be earned, deserved. It's an exchange of values. If I see no value in something, I do not respect it. I do respect the Bible to an extent, and if you want to know the value that I see in it, refer to my first post in this thread (#166 (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=340301&postcount=166)). I do not respect religious beliefs because I think they are wrong and harmful (in short, extremist beliefs are obviously directly harmful, but I see religious moderation as indirectly harmful in being a kind of enabling philosophy for the truly bad things). Now, of course you disagree me with me on the points of all religious belief systems being wrong and harmful, but can you at least see where I'm coming from? Do you at least understand intellectually why I might not respect religion?

However, to simply ape every word of Dawkins and go "you suck, you suck" all the bloody time has nothing to do with discussion. The fact is that he has been doing this - well, it's basically trolling, isn't it? - for a very long time now, and I see neither a willingness to listen to other people's arguments, nor to actually participate in any form of exchange.I don't "ape every word of Dawkins," and as for your second criticism, examine your own posts. It's tempting to set aside thirty minutes and just go back through our exchanges, picking out every one of your insults and presenting them to you in a nice, long list. Well, thirty minutes might not be enough.

I put in painstaking effort to respond to every point you make and to refrain from resorting to insults. It's exhausting, especially considering that I get no such favors from you.

His idiotic apologism is the next issue. I mean, if you cannot grasp the extent of intellectual fallacy which is necessary to ex post declare every mis-step of science to be ipso facto non-scientific, you have no business discussing things with people. Seriously, what would you think if a Knicks fan told you than John Starks jacking up all those bricks in the Finals "wasn't really basketball"? Or if a Ford exec tried to down-play the ghastliness and abysmal failure of the Pinto by arguing that looking back, it "wasn't actually a car, not really"? "Fuck you", that's what.This is such a ridiculous argument. You're giving me shit for saying eugenics is bad science? Of course it's bad science! Are you saying it isn't? I don't think that your understanding of scientific principles is so poor that you honestly believe it's fallacious to declare things like eugenics bad science (to say that it's after the fact is meaningless). Instead, I think you're just dishonestly employing it to fortify your position, and I'm calling you out. Prove me wrong, Arch. Back up your point. Tell me that eugenics is good science. Hell, bring up any other example you want, any evil that you think science is responsible for.

If you only respond to one point in this post, let it be this one (it seems more likely that you won't respond at all, though).

Last, the fact that he makes broad, sweeping, usually rather condemnatory statements (mostly regurgitated) without feeling the need to back up any of it. I mean, if you're gonna say "what few benefits religion has can be had just as well outside of it" or some such outlandish remark, then you might want to reinforce it with some facts. I mean, he is allowed to have that opinion, obviously; but then, I can't tell people not to think that Bob Ross is the greatest painter of all time. Everybody has the right to be stupid.Regurgitated? That is so arrogant of you. "Oh, he disagrees with me, he must just be repeating what he heard from some other idiot." People who disagree are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions, and for you to assume that I haven't done so is petty and insulting. You don't know the first thing about me. I grew up Christian and dropped my faith once I started thinking for myself (I think we've been over this once before). I wasn't molested by a priest, I wasn't shaken by the death of a family member. There was no trauma, no authority figure swaying my opinion. My beliefs today are solely the result of thinking for myself, and I've been helped in refining them by authors like Dawkins.

My "gripe" with Dawkins is rather well known to the regulars of this section.

If it were arrogance, I wouldn't mind. Goethe was the most arrogant mother fucker on earth, and I love him for it.

But what we're dealing with here is a fundamental lack of respect, born out of total and utter ignorance. The deeply held belief of science that, because they are good at putting things under microscopes, they can easily deal with those simple-minded fools' metaphysical flights of fancy, that philosophy and religion are footnotes to empirism. It's not that he's "not as good as Plato" (quis ut ille, anyway?), it's that he's worse than Dan Brown.

You know, when I read something by Aquinas, Leopardi or Wittgenstein, my first reaction is admiration, irrespective of my stance on their views, which might as well be utterly contrary. When somebody like Dawkins gets around to read those things (which he probably considers beneath himself), his reaction is ridicule. And you can ever tell the intellectual worth of a person by his attitude towards that which is truly great: If you say that Paul was stupid, you simply cannot be intelligent, full stop. Disagree, loathe, abhor, fight, by all means; but first, always RESPECT.For as much as you talk about respect, you sure don't afford any of it to me (and you're way off base about Dawkins). I disagree with you just as strongly as you disagree with me, but when have I ever accused you of sucking some other, smarter Christian's cock? You hurl insults at me while shouting loudly that I have no respect. I don't think you truly know what respect is. I have respect for my fellow man, but I do not respect arguments or beliefs that I think are wrong and harmful. My lack of respect for religion is not the cause of my atheism, it's the result. But, since I do respect human beings, I am able to have civil discussions even with people who believe in something I so strongly disagree with as religion.

How do you define respect, and why do you respect the atheism of guys like Sink and Morfin? I am legitimately curious, because it really seems like we fundamentally differ here, and my impression of how you approach respect is very foreign to me.

He said on live TV that the "why" is an irrelevant question. That pretty much tells me that his disciples are on the dick of an armour-plated, ocean-going moron who should stick to his field. I do not know how good he is at it; he may be very good, for all I know. And neither do I dispute that science is good and necessary - I do reward it the respect which it is due, mostly by keeping my ignorant nose out of it, and I do recognise the contributions it has made to mankind. Objectivity is the key here. What I DO dispute, however, is its arrogant primacy among matters of the human mind. Science is a child of philosophy, and most truly intelligent people realise that. Before Galilei, there was Pico della Mirandola.Have you ever actually read Dawkins, or did you just see him on TV once?

And just so we're clear, I make a distinction between philosophy and religion. Call it a subset of philosophy if you want (I wouldn't), but don't think that I intend to criticize philosophy with my attacks on religion.

He does have a good side, though: The supreme irony of somebody who says that religion keeps people from thinking for themselves being blindly and cultishly worshipped by legions of zealous disciples never fails to entertain me. "Buy the typewriter on which 'The Professor' wrote his first book!" "Buy the bog roll which 'The Professor' used to wipe his arse!" - free thought, indeed: If these people knew just how much their behaviour resembled medieval relic worship, they'd have the good sense to kill themselves...What, you're going to lump me in with them now? You seem to think that everybody who reads Dawkins is only interested in sucking his cock and regurgitating his arguments, but if anybody suggests something similar about religion, you throw a fit. If I'm wrong, if you don't really think that, just say so and I'll believe you. I hope I'm wrong, because I can't stand dealing with hypocrites.

[wonderllama]

Arch - I am new here by most standards, so I appreciate that you may have a long history of tolerance for other opinions, however, you say

"You see, I'm extremely tolerant of other people's opinions, as long as there is some intelligence behind them."

...but I fear that you have been studying Philosophy so long and with such dedication that your accepted level of other people's intelligence has been elevated to levels that you cannot possibly be satisfied with...

You have put Philosophy up on such a pedestal, and climbed on to said pedestal, that nothing can reach you.

Now sure, we all do that to a certain degree.
I have expertise in Satellite Imagery and the related sciences, and yet, I am still respectful of others who may not have the same knowledge as I. Respect is as much something earned as it is something the one in knowledge displays to those he KNOWS to be less knowledgeable. Sure, perhaps we can look at Mr Dawkins and suggest he isn't following the humble approach and isn't so tolerant, but in all the books I have read, he doesn't appear to be belittlling me the reader...

I have done some lecturing in my specialised field and am very good at passing on my knowledge by not making the person feel stupid. They may not know or understand what I am talking about, but it is my job to get the knowledge across without making them feel stupid.

Occasionally there are people who don't comprehend or don't agree, but I'm talking about scientific principles which have definite answers or measurable quantities.
When we're talking the Bible, or religion in general, there are no measurable quantities, there are ponderings, theories and opinions...nothing to quantify and thus nothing to prove. Philisophical arguments therefore should at the very least put forward MORE of a tolerance based NOT on a perceived intelligence level capable of grasping a concept, but based on the fact that all end-users of the knowledge shouldn't necessarily have to spend 400 years at University (or A University ;) ) in order to be better able to cope with the information.

.... TBC (need to get my wife from the train station)....

[Archetype]

...but I fear that you have been studying Philosophy so long and with such dedication that your accepted level of other people's intelligence has been elevated to levels that you cannot possibly be satisfied with...

You have put Philosophy up on such a pedestal, and climbed on to said pedestal, that nothing can reach you.

You should probably come down off yours.

Now sure, we all do that to a certain degree.
I have expertise in Satellite Imagery and the related sciences, and yet, I am still respectful of others who may not have the same knowledge as I. Respect is as much something earned as it is something the one in knowledge displays to those he KNOWS to be less knowledgeable.

That's a pretty shitty example.

Sure, perhaps we can look at Mr Dawkins and suggest he isn't following the humble approach and isn't so tolerant, but in all the books I have read, he doesn't appear to be belittlling me the reader...

I have done some lecturing in my specialised field and am very good at passing on my knowledge by not making the person feel stupid. They may not know or understand what I am talking about, but it is my job to get the knowledge across without making them feel stupid.

That works when there's strong understanding behind it. The Selfish Gene was a good book. A Brief History of Time is fantastic. When there isn't? Well, there are a lot of shitty books out there. Pick one.

Occasionally there are people who don't comprehend or don't agree, but I'm talking about scientific principles which have definite answers or measurable quantities.
When we're talking the Bible, or religion in general, there are no measurable quantities, there are ponderings, theories and opinions...nothing to quantify and thus nothing to prove. Philisophical arguments therefore should at the very least put forward MORE of a tolerance based NOT on a perceived intelligence level capable of grasping a concept, but based on the fact that all end-users of the knowledge shouldn't necessarily have to spend 400 years at University (or A University ;) ) in order to be better able to cope with the information.

Academic fields in general should not have to cater themselves to the stupid. Philosophy especially, is a life-long discipline, you can't read a post here and expect to have any understanding at all. Go read The Teachings of the Great Philosophers or The Philosopher's Handbook if you want an introduction.

[wonderllama]

Archetype, rather than being a smarty pants and accusing me of being on a pedestal, how about contributing to the discussion.

Your response adds nothing and is unfounded.

Read through all 350 odd of my posts and you'll find no pedestal mate....

I believe you can do better.

[Archetype]

And I believe that's twice now that you've criticized Arch for his "methods of debate" and then stating how you do it much better. That's a pedestal.

[wonderllama]

Actually, 5000+ posts along the same line of dismissive debating would be a pedestal, 2 of my posts where I am simply challenging Arch on his belittling of others is actually just a suggestion.

Arch clearly knows his stuff and I would never attempt to ridicule his knowledge. I simply don't agree with his, in my opinion, far too generalised waving off of someone with an opposing view.

I'm sure he's a charming and facinating dinner guest, but it would be nice if he was open to other views.

Besides, he is happy enough to put forward his response to me without bitchy comments, so perhaps you should let him answer for himself rather than also cutting down an alternate voice.

[nobody]

Actually, 5000+ posts along the same line of dismissive debating would be a pedestal, 2 of my posts where I am simply challenging Arch on his belittling of others is actually just a suggestion.

Arch clearly knows his stuff and I would never attempt to ridicule his knowledge. I simply don't agree with his, in my opinion, far too generalised waving off of someone with an opposing view.

I'm sure he's a charming and facinating dinner guest, but it would be nice if he was open to other views.

Besides, he is happy enough to put forward his response to me without bitchy comments, so perhaps you should let him answer for himself rather than also cutting down an alternate voice.

Love the hypocrisy ...

So ... not only do you totally disagree with Archangel's points of view, debating style, and philosophies, but now you also feel it necessary to try and silence anyone who writes a post in support of he or his comments? How urbane and accepting of you ...

Of course, I'm pretty much a noob here and don't specialize in Satellite imagery, so I don't really have a pedestal to be knocked from, but I have been an instructor, public speaker, and leader of men (non-gender specific, of course) as part and parcel of my position as Chief Petty Officer in the USN. So feel free to take as many potshots at me as you desire.

Personally, I agree with Archangel's POV, if not always with the rancor and vitriol, that he sometimes displays as part of his defense mechanism against the "very vocal minority".

[Charlatan]

Love the hypocrisy ...Hypocrisy? He was politely defending himself against somebody who was basically telling him to shut the hell up and had nothing useful to say about the topic at hand (or any of the the tangents it's gone off on).

[Archangel]

Have you noticed how nobody responds to your posts but myself? It's because I'm the only one who has the patience. The other regulars keep telling me to just ignore you, but hey, what can I say, I'm a sucker for these things.

You say that you can at least see where guys like Sink and Morfin are coming from. Who not me?

Respect is a precious commodity. It has to be earned, deserved. It's an exchange of values. If I see no value in something, I do not respect it.

Are you familiar with the expressions "pearls before swine"?

I do respect the Bible to an extent, and if you want to know the value that I see in it, refer to my first post in this thread (#166 (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=340301&postcount=166)).

Arrogance is a beatiful thing, isn't it. As I said in my post to llama, you can judge people by how they treat that which is truly great. It matters whether someone like Descartes respects the Bible; and trust me, he does. Whether you respect it matters only insofar as to see how smart YOU are, not the Bible.

Oh, and I'm certain that the most important work of Western civilisation is overjoyed that some random teenager respects it "to an extent".

I do not respect religious beliefs because I think they are wrong and harmful (in short, extremist beliefs are obviously directly harmful, but I see religious moderation as indirectly harmful in being a kind of enabling philosophy for the truly bad things). Now, of course you disagree me with me on the points of all religious belief systems being wrong and harmful, but can you at least see where I'm coming from? Do you at least understand intellectually why I might not respect religion?

No. Because I fucking fail to see how one can be so fucking twisted to think that "be as brothers", "love thine enemy", "in the beginning, there was (logos)", or "if I had (all charismata), but have not love, I am nothing", can be inherently and systemically "harmful and dangerous".

See, the problem is that you keep debating absolutes. Religion is inherently dangerous, and science is inherently good. All I keep saying is that nothing can ever be absolute, because all of it is applied by people, who are never black and white. Can people twist faith into evil? Absolutely. But for one person to judge 4 billion as following harmful beliefs, to think that you know better, Christ, it boggles the mind.

I don't "ape every word of Dawkins," and as for your second criticism, examine your own posts. It's tempting to set aside thirty minutes and just go back through our exchanges, picking out every one of your insults and presenting them to you in a nice, long list. Well, thirty minutes might not be enough.

Yes, make my intolerance of your idiocy out to be my intolerance of every view which isn't mine. Hell, I prefer talking to people with whom I disagree; that's the only way to broaden your horizons. However, what is needed there are comparable levels of intelligence, knowledge and respect. I agree with very little of what Nietzsche says about religion, yet I love reading his books, honing my arguments by putting them against his. I usually lose.

I put in painstaking effort to respond to every point you make and to refrain from resorting to insults. It's exhausting, especially considering that I get no such favors from you.

If you only put in the same effort into reading those points.

This is such a ridiculous argument. You're giving me shit for saying eugenics is bad science? Of course it's bad science! Are you saying it isn't? I don't think that your understanding of scientific principles is so poor that you honestly believe it's fallacious to declare things like eugenics bad science (to say that it's after the fact is meaningless). Instead, I think you're just dishonestly employing it to fortify your position, and I'm calling you out. Prove me wrong, Arch. Back up your point. Tell me that eugenics is good science. Hell, bring up any other example you want, any evil that you think science is responsible for.

If you only respond to one point in this post, let it be this one (it seems more likely that you won't respond at all, though).

See, and this is why I think you're not very intelligent. Seriously, I chuckled when reading this. Do you honestly think I'm defending eugenics? That it's that simple? You see, the essential message here is that again, you base the core argument around unfounded, dogmatic statements such as "to say that it's after the fact is meaningless". No, it isn't. It's the only thing which matters.
What I am citicising is the intellectual laziness and downright cowardice of off-handedly dismissing every one of the myriad mistakes which science has made: Someone points out that people were utterly convinced that their science was right, and all you can do is go, with 20/20 hindsight, "yeah, but they don't count, because the science was flawed". Honestly, man the fuck up. Because in 100 years, people may dismiss most everything which you believe to be true and good as, well, you know, "bad science".

Learn to read. I didn't say John Starks was an idiot for jacking up all those threes, I said those who would dismiss that fact as "not really basketball" would be idiots.

Regurgitated? That is so arrogant of you. "Oh, he disagrees with me, he must just be repeating what he heard from some other idiot." People who disagree are perfectly capable of forming their own opinions, and for you to assume that I haven't done so is petty and insulting.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably not Thomas Aquinas. I mean, Crack bragged about how his own thoughts led him to deny the Holy Ghost. That does not make him Sartre.

You don't know the first thing about me. I grew up Christian and dropped my faith once I started thinking for myself (I think we've been over this once before). I wasn't molested by a priest, I wasn't shaken by the death of a family member. There was no trauma, no authority figure swaying my opinion. My beliefs today are solely the result of thinking for myself, and I've been helped in refining them by authors like Dawkins.

You see, thinking for yourself still doesn't guarantee that the results at which you arrive are worth a shit.

For as much as you talk about respect, you sure don't afford any of it to me (and you're way off base about Dawkins). I disagree with you just as strongly as you disagree with me, but when have I ever accused you of sucking some other, smarter Christian's cock?

Because it's painfully obvious that I don't. I mean, who? Kierkegaard? Leibniz? Augustine? I don't fully agree with any of them; and even if you were to tell me that I was blowing Dante, I'd think that there are very few better whom to ape. I mean, Milton did.

You hurl insults at me while shouting loudly that I have no respect. I don't think you truly know what respect is.

Oooh, subtle. So you don't call me a cretin openly, but suggest that I am unable to grasp a basic concept such as respect while getting on a high horse of "but I don't need to use bad words". Seriously, mate, your rhetorical skills are nowhere near good enough to go sub limine on me.

I have respect for my fellow man, but I do not respect arguments or beliefs that I think are wrong and harmful. My lack of respect for religion is not the cause of my atheism, it's the result.

What does that even mean? Because your little brain has somehow arrived at the notion that "love each other" is perverse and dangerous, you can pretend that you know better than 2000 years of Western thought? Everybody from Augustine to Bloch respected the Bible, but because you managed to fire a few under-informed synapses, you don't have to?

Wow. I'd better see you getting a Nobel in the next five years.

I mean, I know I'm arrogant, but that just takes the bloody cake.

But, since I do respect human beings, I am able to have civil discussions even with people who believe in something I so strongly disagree with as religion.

Yeah, you just think that they're dangerous misguided twats. You don't tell them as much to their face. Colour me impressed.

How do you define respect, and why do you respect the atheism of guys like Sink and Morfin? I am legitimately curious, because it really seems like we fundamentally differ here, and my impression of how you approach respect is very foreign to me.

Because they don't EVER go, "I don't respect religion because it's false and dangerous". First, realise that theology is, as a field of study, AT LEAST as tough as any of the 'hard' sciences, and then realise that (again), when it comes to metaphysics, the notions of "true/false" do not apply - and that anyone who does try to apply them will look an idiot as a result. And that's not because they're wishy-washy, un-serious endeavours, but because when dealing with human thought, "true" and "false" are just too simplistic.

Have you ever actually read Dawkins, or did you just see him on TV once?

Read The God Delusion. Seriously, in the annals of metaphysics, it's fittingly enough rather, well, unicellular.

And just so we're clear, I make a distinction between philosophy and religion. Call it a subset of philosophy if you want (I wouldn't), but don't think that I intend to criticize philosophy with my attacks on religion.

All right, I'll bite.

What, to you, is the fundamental difference between Plato's musings on creation and divinity in Timaeus, and Paul's thoughts on the nature of God in Acts?

Knowing what you're talking about usually helps.

What, you're going to lump me in with them now? You seem to think that everybody who reads Dawkins is only interested in sucking his cock and regurgitating his arguments, but if anybody suggests something similar about religion, you throw a fit. If I'm wrong, if you don't really think that, just say so and I'll believe you. I hope I'm wrong, because I can't stand dealing with hypocrites.

Who is suggesting what? That I blindly follow - or, by my own devices, have arrived at the same hare-brained conclusions as - the uninformed scribblings of somebody who through his achievements in a totally unrelated field feels entitled to mouth off about things of which he only "knows" that they're "teh badz"?

Feel free to. I'd love to see what you come up with. What I believe is that there is a school - well, kindergarten - of thought in the world which believes that science is the only pursuit which counts, and that those who spend their time with anything else are addle-brained dreamers at best, and dangerous zealots at worst. I believe you and "The Professor" *genuflects* subscribe to these notions. I believe that you are both morons. This has nothing to do with my inability to respond to differing views only with vitriol and insult: It has to do with my belief that you have no business discussing metaphysics.

[Archangel]

Oh, by the way, one short post to llama.

Now, I know very little about your field. I know what the KH-11 is, what SPOT do, and (if memory serves) how NASA publishing those first GPR pictures of the Nile's underground tributaries was actually supposed to tell the Soviets that US radar-imaging birds were able to find underground missile silos, but that's pretty much it.

Now imagine me getting all worked up and telling people that your field is worthless, that we should stick to photo-recon aircraft, and that relying on satellite imagery is lazy and harmful.
You'd tell me to stop talking out of my arse about stuff I know nothing about, and rightfully so.

[Morfin]

You say that you can at least see where guys like Sink and Morfin are coming from. Why not me?

Respect is a precious commodity. It has to be earned, deserved. It's an exchange of values. If I see no value in something, I do not respect it. I do respect the Bible to an extent, and if you want to know the value that I see in it, refer to my first post in this thread (#166 (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=340301&postcount=166)). I do not respect religious beliefs because I think they are wrong and harmful (in short, extremist beliefs are obviously directly harmful, but I see religious moderation as indirectly harmful in being a kind of enabling philosophy for the truly bad things).

Charlaton, you and I agree about atheism. However, I do not look at the religious beliefs of others the same way you do. I have stated in similar threads before, one of the hardest things for me to accept as an atheist, is this: If the non-existence of God is so obvious to me, why are there so many people, more intelligent than I, who so fervently believe the opposite? I do not believe and have come to that conclusion, but I will continue to respect those who have reached the opposite conclusion, whether they be Arch, C.S. Lewis, or St. Augustine.

I concede that I have not read any of Dawkins' work, so I will not comment on that. However, I have read Christopher Hitchens' work, therefore, I will comment on that. Hitchens is a non-believer. However, his criticisms are more aimed at organized religions and their inconsistencies and hypocrisies, rather than at the core question of whether there is a higher power or not.

I wonder -- and I am not criticizing as I am truly wondering -- whether your lack of respect is similar to Hitchens'. If that is the case, I understand it and I agree with it in many respects: Militant Islam, U.S. Evangelicals, Mormons, and, to a lesser extent Catholics (I'm not trying to open up a debate on the Catholic Church here).


I have done some lecturing in my specialised field and am very good at passing on my knowledge by not making the person feel stupid. They may not know or understand what I am talking about, but it is my job to get the knowledge across without making them feel stupid.

I agree with you here. This past Spring/Summer, I, as an attorney, spent a good bit of time digesting new Supreme Court decisions and Constitutional questions in an attempt to explain to others -- some hostile, some not -- about the decisions and why they could not be simply dismissed as "stupid." And doing this takes time because issues and terms that another lawyer and I might implicitly understand and have no need to explain to anther non-layman, need to be explained to laymen, or they will not understand or, (and this is your point, I believe) they will feel stupid and not want to learn.

There are times in Philo that I, as an admittedly-unread person in philosophy would like more of an explanation on issues. Three different times this week, someone has referred to Timeaus by Plato. I have never read this/these, although I likely will in the near future because I hate feeling unread. However, it would be helpful instead of just a statement like "It can be found in Timaeus," or something, the statement could be "It can be found in Timaeus where Plato said ..."

As I ramble here, my point is that many of us who haunt the Philo forum are laymen, here to learn and discuss, and sometimes, a little more tolerance toward the unlearned would be helpful.

[Archangel]

I think it was me, all three times.

And the problem with what you suggested is that it's pretty hard to give a short summary of that particular work. Basically, it's Plato's attempt at cosmogeny, in which Plato, quite independent of Jewish monotheism, theorises a benevolent creative force (which he calls the demiurge) behind all of creation and its inherent harmony. Small wonder, then, that Plato was very well received by what early Christians could read Greek - unlike Aristotle, who was largely forgotten in Europe until the 13th century.

Its significance lies not so much in an advocacy of monotheism (such tendencies are already visible in Hesiod's work, 350 years earlier), but that unlike other Greek cosmogenies, in which the universe basically creates itself out of chaos, Plato postulates the existence of will behind creation.

And the irony is that I agree far more with certain atheists than with any religious fundamentalist when it comes to my views on religion. As I've said numerous times before, if I'd grown up around evangelicals or other such retards, I'd probably be an atheist myself...

[freegood]

Sure, perhaps we can look at Mr Dawkins and suggest he isn't following the humble approach and isn't so tolerant, but in all the books I have read, he doesn't appear to be belittlling me the reader...


Depends on who the reader is. Dawkins's religious writing is not belittling atheists or people with grudges against religion because his smarmy and pompous attitude is directed against religion. The random anecdotal potshots about religious people forming childish reasonings in order to reinforce conclusions of theology or passive belief being "irrelevant" or even "dangerous" serves nothing in an informed debate. It's makes a great show to pander to a particular mob. Demagoguery is what it's called. You might be familiar with it in a different context.

He isn't unabashed with his approach, in fact he defends his dull wit as a great weapon in rallying the masses. All it does is that it makes public debates he participates pedestrian when he has to retreat to jokes in order for his favorable audience clap and holler.

He has written several scientific books that have served the public's understanding of knowledge, but his entry into religion and philosophy is more to serve himself and his fat wallet. He's not speaking for the scientific establishment or even evolutionary biologists, but if he was speaking towards them, he would strain to respect and even attempt to amaze them like he has when he writes about his forte. A lower standard is good enough for mob.

It's not Arch putting philo on a pedestal. It's Dawkins placing it in the gutter where he thinks it deserves to be.

[Archetype]

Actually, 5000+ posts along the same line of dismissive debating would be a pedestal,

I rather like my debating style, thank you very much. It's evolved quite nicely since my first philo post.

2 of my posts where I am simply challenging Arch on his belittling of others is actually just a suggestion.

"Challenging" with the utmost condescending form. Do you see the circle yet?

Besides, he is happy enough to put forward his response to me without bitchy comments, so perhaps you should let him answer for himself rather than also cutting down an alternate voice.

OOOOOooOOO

[Charlatan]

Have you noticed how nobody responds to your posts but myself? It's because I'm the only one who has the patience. The other regulars keep telling me to just ignore you, but hey, what can I say, I'm a sucker for these things.I don't know why you insist on bringing this up, we've been over it before. I'm sure there are plenty of people who tell you not to bother with me. Those are the people who agree with you. There are also plenty of people who encourage me to keep fighting the good fight against you. Those are the people who agree with me. So what? Just like I told you before, the number of people who agree with you has nothing to do with the validity of your arguments.

See, and this is why I think you're not very intelligent. Seriously, I chuckled when reading this. Do you honestly think I'm defending eugenics? That it's that simple? You see, the essential message here is that again, you base the core argument around unfounded, dogmatic statements such as "to say that it's after the fact is meaningless". No, it isn't. It's the only thing which matters.

What I am citicising is the intellectual laziness and downright cowardice of off-handedly dismissing every one of the myriad mistakes which science has made: Someone points out that people were utterly convinced that their science was right, and all you can do is go, with 20/20 hindsight, "yeah, but they don't count, because the science was flawed". Honestly, man the fuck up. Because in 100 years, people may dismiss most everything which you believe to be true and good as, well, you know, "bad science".I'm dismissing eugenics as bad science because it is bad science, it's as simple as that. There's no conspiracy, no slavish devotion. 2 + 2 ≠ 5, and eugenics is bad science. I'm struggling to come up with a suitable metaphor here, but I'll just go with it.

If I buy a bunch of apples at the grocery store after examining all of them and cursorily determining that they look good, and then eat all of them only to discover that a handful were severely bruised, well, then a handful of them were severely bruised. There's no reason to tell people otherwise. What does it matter if I discover it after the fact as opposed to more carefully judging them beforehand? They're still bruised.

Certainly not the greatest metaphor of all time, but it illustrates the sentiment well enough. It really is as simple as that. I don't know what else to tell you.

Because it's painfully obvious that I don't. I mean, who? Kierkegaard? Leibniz? Augustine? I don't fully agree with any of them; and even if you were to tell me that I was blowing Dante, I'd think that there are very few better whom to ape. I mean, Milton did.So, you're assuming that I fully agree with Dawkins? I don't remember saying that. I probably look at Dawkins in a very similar way to how you look at guys like Kierkegaard. And because I can just imagine you seizing on that and saying, "Look at the retard comparing Dawkins to some of the most profound minds in all human history. What arrogance." Well, stop right there, because I'm not directly comparing Dawkins to any of those men. I just think that he has a lot of smart things to say, but I do not fully agree with him.

Oooh, subtle. So you don't call me a cretin openly, but suggest that I am unable to grasp a basic concept such as respect while getting on a high horse of "but I don't need to use bad words". Seriously, mate, your rhetorical skills are nowhere near good enough to go sub limine on me.I wasn't going the subtle route there at all. I said straight up that I don't think you truly know what respect is. Where's the hidden insult? I'm not trying to impress any judges with my rhetorical skills. Are you?

All right, I'll bite.

What, to you, is the fundamental difference between Plato's musings on creation and divinity in Timaeus, and Paul's thoughts on the nature of God in Acts?

Knowing what you're talking about usually helps.Philosophy is a reasoned approach to questions of existence, purpose, et cetera. Religion also tries to answer those questions, but no matter how many profound, logical steps you take after the initial leap of faith, it is still based on mysticism. That's the distinction I see.

The rest of your post boils down to, "Lots of people that I think are smart disagree with you and have done so for a long time. That means that you're wrong and arrogant."

[Phil Theehor]

Getting this back on topic, Charlie, you never did respond to the people who pointed out religion's positive contributions (and acknowleged the negative, too).

Your stated position (summarized) is that religion is destructive and that we'd be better off without it. That's an absolute position.

How do you maintain such a position when religion has also made so many positive contributions? Or do you not acknowlege them? It's clear that religion carries no benefit for you , but do you not acknowlege that it carries benefits for others?

I'll be interested in your response.

[Archangel]

His words state that what few positive contributions religion has made to mankind could have been achieved (probably better) without it, as well.

[wonderllama]

As I've said numerous times before, if I'd grown up around evangelicals or other such retards, I'd probably be an atheist myself...

I actually have a Catholic family, not in the slightest bit pushy or preachy, and yet I came to my own decision regarding whether to follow or not.

Contrary to what others may think, my atheism comes with a total tolerance of others beliefs. I admit Charlie's opinions seem somewhat extreme in that respect in that he sees religion as bad...I just see it as not for me. I'm not out to sway others from their beliefs, in fact I think if all religion was abolished it would cause far more harm than good.

People NEED something to believe in and I see value in people getting a sense of belonging by participating in their Church or religious group, so nobody should make the mistake of thinking I hate religion.

I see it like choosing a pair of shoes in a shoe shop, you check them out and pick the one that best suits you. I chose the atheist shoes, but it doesn't mean I hate the rest.

Arch - re: your satellite commentry. You may be right in being offended when someone says your field is worthless, but as I said before, when someone doesn't agree with me and presents what I believe to be an erroneous argument, I don't tend to go the man.

Nobody - I've never said people can't defend their belief, but my bone with Arch was he is attempting to win his argument by attacking the person not the person's argument...which we know he is more than capable of doing. It IS his rancor and vitriol I have issue with, not his opinion nor his point of view...I may not agree with him, but I have no problem with his beliefs.

Archetype - Read the response to Nobody and take a chill pill.

[Justabot]

Clearly, Llama, you are a douche.
You are new thus are not worthy of regard. Your newness makes all of your thoughts and arguments retarded.
Do you not understand what a vacuum is? Are you not clear on the concept of post count?
Go back to masturbating to webcams of unhappily married women slinging their milkbags about while listening to the rantings of a one-eyed ex-biker.

[Coco]

People NEED something to believe in and I see value in people getting a sense of belonging by participating in their Church or religious group, so nobody should make the mistake of thinking I hate religion.



I absolutely agree with llama here: some people do need something to believe in as well as a sense of belonging. Religion fills that void. It gives them a sense of purpose, it gives life meaning, provides guidelines, etc. I do believe it is a stretch to say that religion is inherently bad, dangerous or perverse. In my case, it has been how the Church has handled some issues and how religion has been manipulated - to a sometimes unrecognizable extent - that has disillusioned me the most.

[Archetype]

Clearly, Llama, you are a douche.
You are new thus are not worthy of blah blah blah
Who in the hell are you?

[Justabot]

Who in the hell are you?

The one pointing out the Llama's douchebaggery that is clearly visible by virtue of him being a new guy.

And another thing Llama. Melbourne is full of queers.

[freegood]

I absolutely agree with llama here: some people do need something to believe in as well as a sense of belonging. Religion fills that void. It gives them a sense of purpose, it gives life meaning, provides guidelines, etc. I do believe it is a stretch to say that religion is inherently bad, dangerous or perverse. In my case, it has been how the Church has handled some issues and how religion has been manipulated - to a sometimes unrecognizable extent - that has disillusioned me the most.

That Church can fuck up issues. Even worse would be a community turning their back on one of their own over something that shouldn't be anyone else's damn business. It's disappointing to see people who talk of a higher standard but can't act toward it. The Church isn't all bad, but we do expect it to always be good and to never be...human.

I believe the purpose of religion is force greater thought and challenge established preconceptions. It can be introspective and deeply personal. That's very different than worshiping the God of Thunder and reading stories of how he impregnated cows. I mean, one can read the Bible that way or let people who think higher of themselves convince him it's that way, but he's missing the challenge of discovering something great and the realization that it's inherent in himself even if it isn't always readily accessible.

[wonderllama]

The one pointing out the Llama's douchebaggery that is clearly visible by virtue of him being a new guy.

And another thing Llama. Melbourne is full of queers.

Mother, I told you to stop posting in my threads!

[Archetype]

The one pointing out the Llama's douchebaggery that is clearly visible by virtue of him being a new guy.

57 posts and you're bashing someone, anyone, just for being new? Llama might need to read some older threads, but you need to stfu until you can contribute something at least as good as Llama has. At least he's trying.

[Charlatan]

Your stated position (summarized) is that religion is destructive and that we'd be better off without it. That's an absolute position.Really doesn't do it justice, but whatever.

How do you maintain such a position when religion has also made so many positive contributions? Or do you not acknowlege them? It's clear that religion carries no benefit for you , but do you not acknowlege that it carries benefits for others?

I'll be interested in your response.I do acknowledge the positive things that people derive from religion, I just do not think that any such things are exclusive to religion. And when you consider that religious extremists directly interfere with the lives of others (whether it's crashing planes into buildings or banning gay marriage) and that religious moderates enable extremism by demanding special respect for religion, the answer is pretty clear. So, momentarily disregarding the question of whether religion is true, I do not think that it's defensible to say that we should keep it just because of its positive contributions.

Generally, people credit religion with things like purpose, community, and morality. I think there's plenty of purpose in pursuing happiness in this lifetime. Religion obviously doesn't have a monopoly on community (think of the myriad networks of people you're involved in; church is just one community in a sea of others). And as for morality, I think it evolved through natural selection to help further the human race and is perfectly logical to keep around for the benefits it affords us, i.e. modern society.

If you want to discuss specific examples, feel free to bring them up and I'll share my thoughts.

[Archangel]

Really doesn't do it justice, but whatever.

Brilliant defence of your arguments there. I, for one, am convinced.

I do acknowledge the positive things that people derive from religion, I just do not think that any such things are exclusive to religion.

So the next time somebody loses a loved one, instead of a priest, we should get a biology teacher? Care to provide us with an example, for a change? Or do you always speak in generalities and absolutes and expect people to take them at face value?

And when you consider that religious extremists directly interfere with the lives of others (whether it's crashing planes into buildings or banning gay marriage)

Okay, so scientific extremists directly interfered with a hell of a lot of people's lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

and that religious moderates enable extremism by demanding special respect for religion,

And you have the fucking gall to say you don't ape Dawkins while basically quoting him verbatim? And what kind of retarded position is that, anyway? "Special respect"? Fuck you. All religious people want is for retards to shut up about it. Everything "enables extremism", you moron. Democratic moderates "enabled" Hitler. Research into better detergents "enable" poison gas. Nuclear power "enables" fission bombs. Sex "enables" STDs and over-population. So should we get rid of those, as well?

Dumbarse. Seriously, think ONCE about what you post.

the answer is pretty clear.

Being? Seriously, learn how to discuss. Stop making sweeping, absolute, dogmatic statements without backing ANY of them up.

So, momentarily disregarding the question of whether religion is true,

If you apply "true/false" criteria to metaphysical thought once more, I will delete every post of yours in this section. Get it into your dumb little head that it doesn't work that way.

I do not think that it's defensible to say that we should keep it just because of its positive contributions.

So what you're saying is that we should get rid of it. No matter that 4 billion people consider it an important part of their lives. No, YOU fucking know better.

Extremist, spiteful, bigoted, intolerant, hateful zealot.

Generally, people credit religion with things like purpose, community, and morality. I think there's plenty of purpose in pursuing happiness in this lifetime. Religion obviously doesn't have a monopoly on community (think of the myriad networks of people you're involved in; church is just one community in a sea of others). And as for morality, I think it evolved through natural selection to help further the human race and is perfectly logical to keep around for the benefits it affords us, i.e. modern society.

Just sad that you can't prove that, huh, since ethics did NOT evolve in a religious vacuum.

If you want to discuss specific examples, feel free to bring them up and I'll share my thoughts.

No, fuckhead. The onus is on YOU. YOU are the one bashing something as worthless and saying that the world should be rid of it (don't deny it, mother fucker - you may say that you just theorise that we'd all be better off without it without advocating any such thing, but your hatred is all too visible), and you are telling OTHERS to bring up examples? Seriously, does reading Dawkins always lead to this kind of intellectual laziness?

[Archangel]

See, llama, this is the problem. I attack the man because there are no thoughts to attack. The arguments are utterly empty, and he relies exclusively on delivery. Maybe he usually deals with even bigger idiots who gape open-mouthed at what a free thinker he is, but as they say, that shit don't fly here.

[Charlatan]

Brilliant defence of your arguments there. I, for one, am convinced.I wasn't defending my arguments. I had no need to. He wasn't attacking my arguments, just summarizing them.

So the next time somebody loses a loved one, instead of a priest, we should get a biology teacher? Care to provide us with an example, for a change? Or do you always speak in generalities and absolutes and expect people to take them at face value?How about celebrating the deceased's life on Earth instead of feebly trying to comfort the bereaved with that insulting bullshit about going to "a better place?" I don't walk around in a lab coat, Arch. That you seem to think that I do just further reveals how quick you are to jump to conclusions about people you disagree with.

Okay, so scientific extremists directly interfered with a hell of a lot of people's lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Dropping those atom bombs is not a decision that I can defend as moral and logical. A lot of historians make perfectly logical sounding arguments for it, but those are from a nationalistic perspective, which I don't agree with.

And you have the fucking gall to say you don't ape Dawkins while basically quoting him verbatim?It's a point I've been making for years, long before ever reading Dawkins. So, yes, I have the gall to say that.

And what kind of retarded position is that, anyway? "Special respect"? Fuck you. All religious people want is for retards to shut up about it.That's a roundabout way of saying the same thing. Religious people think that religious beliefs should be tolerated no matter what. Singling out specific belief systems to be excluded from that tolerance can be nothing more than hypocrisy.

Everything "enables extremism", you moron. Democratic moderates "enabled" Hitler. Research into better detergents "enable" poison gas. Nuclear power "enables" fission bombs. Sex "enables" STDs and over-population. So should we get rid of those, as well?

Dumbarse. Seriously, think ONCE about what you post.But there are objective standards for determining why we should have sex and how to do so responsibly. By contrast, religious belief systems have no such standards because they're all faith-based, to which your rebuttal was cherry picking passages from the Bible. Meanwhile, radical Muslims cherry pick passages from the Qur'an to justify murdering you.

So what you're saying is that we should get rid of it. No matter that 4 billion people consider it an important part of their lives. No, YOU fucking know better.Again with your bandwagon fallacies. Aren't you allowed to dissent in the face of millions of Muslims who would like nothing better than to subjugate the entire Western world to Islamic law?

Just sad that you can't prove that, huh, since ethics did NOT evolve in a religious vacuum.It should be a pretty big red flag that ethics in fact evolved in a rich ecosystem of mutually incompatible religious belief systems. But let's explore this. Why are you moral, Arch?

No, fuckhead. The onus is on YOU. YOU are the one bashing something as worthless and saying that the world should be rid of it (don't deny it, mother fucker - you may say that you just theorise that we'd all be better off without it without advocating any such thing, but your hatred is all too visible), and you are telling OTHERS to bring up examples? Seriously, does reading Dawkins always lead to this kind of intellectual laziness?He asked me in general terms, so I responded in kind and invited him to bring up specific examples for us to discuss if he so desired. What seems to be the problem? And if your posts are an honest representation of your feelings toward me, than I can guarantee that you hate me a lot more than I hate you.

[Phil Theehor]

Really doesn't do it justice, but whatever.

First off, my apologies for not crafting a long, grandiose précis for your masterpiece.


I do acknowledge the positive things that people derive from religion, I just do not think that any such things are exclusive to religion. And when you consider that religious extremists directly interfere with the lives of others (whether it's crashing planes into buildings or banning gay marriage) and that religious moderates enable extremism by demanding special respect for religion, the answer is pretty clear. So, momentarily disregarding the question of whether religion is true, I do not think that it's defensible to say that we should keep it just because of its positive contributions.

Generally, people credit religion with things like purpose, community, and morality. I think there's plenty of purpose in pursuing happiness in this lifetime. Religion obviously doesn't have a monopoly on community (think of the myriad networks of people you're involved in; church is just one community in a sea of others). And as for morality, I think it evolved through natural selection to help further the human race and is perfectly logical to keep around for the benefits it affords us, i.e. modern society.

If you want to discuss specific examples, feel free to bring them up and I'll share my thoughts.


That aside, what I want to do is point out the fundamental flaw in your argument. You apply an entirely different standard to the “religion bad” position than you do to the “religion good” position. The proof is right there in your response.

You state that religion is unduly credited with things like purpose, community and morality. Your point is that these things would exist without religion. Yet, you don’t make the same allowance when blaming religion for things like violence and intolerance.

Do you see the great inconsistency in your argument? The positive effects of religion would exist without religion while the negative effects would not?

I wrote this much earlier in the thread, but let me summarize: There are good and bad people in the world. They will act accordingly. What direction they take from religion is largely determined by who they are at that very moment.



That's a roundabout way of saying the same thing. Religious people think that religious beliefs should be tolerated no matter what. Singling out specific belief systems to be excluded from that tolerance can be nothing more than hypocrisy.

But there are objective standards for determining why we should have sex and how to do so responsibly. By contrast, religious belief systems have no such standards because they're all faith-based, to which your rebuttal was cherry picking passages from the Bible. Meanwhile, radical Muslims cherry pick passages from the Qur'an to justify murdering you.



I know that using oneself as an example is a weak form of debate, but screw it, the bar in this thread has been set awfully low.

When you say “religious people” you are painting with an awfully broad brush. I happen to be what you would call a moderate religious person. I want no “special tolerance” for my beliefs simply because beliefs should not require any tolerance. A person is entitled to believe whatever he wants and worship (or not worship) whatever suits him. The only time that “tolerance” should come into play is when actions are concerned. And the only time that actions should require tolerance is when they affect other people.

Now, your logical response would be “Yeah Phil, but that’s just you. Other people think that God tells them to be mean to homos or to fly 747’s into buildings.”

But, that’s precisely the point. Those people are what we call shitheads. Do you think that if all religions ceased to exist that all shitheads would magically be cured?

People will interpret religion differently and the results of their interaction will vary greatly. Speaking for all of mankind and making such a blanket statement (we’d be better off without it) is as arrogant as it is myopic.

[wonderllama]

I believe the mistake that Charlie is making is similar to what he is accusing religion of making.

Part of what I dislike about religion is that it presents a set of values to you and often tells you that to sway from those values is to drift away from God. That is, it guilts or scares people into blindly following and accepting what they are told...but Charlie is in fact doing the same thing, but rather than blindly following these values, he is blindly ANTI these values.

Completely dismissing ANYTHING is dangerous and largely foolish, but then so is completely embracing anything...

[Archangel]

But, that’s precisely the point. Those people are what we call shitheads. Do you think that if all religions ceased to exist that all shitheads would magically be cured?

Since he believes that shit-headedness is exclusively caused by religion, yes. Which is perfectly demonstrated by not one shithead ever having been found in the realms of academia, science, or atheism.

It's funny, isn't it, since those 70 years of the Soviet Union getting rid of religion altogether created the most tolerant, civilised, intelligent, humane and ethically upstanding society in the history of mankind.

You know, I understand some people who spew this nonsense about how if this or that group were gone, the world would become paradise. People like Hitler and Lenin got to run countries off that premise; people like Dawkins get paid off it.

But their followers? Jesus, what do they stand to gain?

[freegood]

Dropping those atom bombs is not a decision that I can defend as moral and logical. A lot of historians make perfectly logical sounding arguments for it, but those are from a nationalistic perspective, which I don't agree with.


So...how's life when you can wish away things you don't believe or agree in?

What 'perspective' that's an alternative to nationalism do you agree with?


But there are objective standards for determining why we should have sex and how to do so responsibly.

Lemme guess...you'll be the one to force it down everyone's throat.

Good bye Jihad, hello's Charlatan's List of Objective Standards for Smart People to Get Busy.

[Archangel]

I'll take the jihad, thanks.