Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I would never rate the Athiests low, not only because my grandmother is an Athiest, but it's just as bad as racism to hate someone of another religion. Athiests could be right, I don't beleive that no God exists, but people may as well beleive what they want to beleive! Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Except that's ridiculous. In all this saying, let people beleive what they want to believe, even if they're scientologists. Ramen.

_________________

I disagree; isn't Occam's Razor all about "preferring" one explanation over another in cases like this? In fact, I think I'd like to take back my agreement on "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", recasting my position as "absence of evidence does not prove absence". Of course, that version is much less catchy, but oh well.

Here's a common example, using the same "you can't prove a negative" theme: ESP. Science does not state that ESP does not exist. Some (perhaps even most) scientists will say that ESP does not exist, but science itself does not say it does not exist because it's impossible to prove. The only thing that can be proven is that ESP has not been exhibited to a significant (enough) degree in any test so far. So we have an impasse: there is no evidence for ESP, and there is no evidence against ESP -- unless, of course, we accept absence of evidence as evidence of absence. We assume that ESP does not exist until the contrary is proven; we recognize this assumption is not necessarily true (or we wouldn't be trying to prove the contrary), but this is the only practical approach to the problem.

I am willing to admit all the possibilities (both about God and ESP): that they exist, or they don't exist. It may surprise you, but I do actually sort of believe in ESP. I do so with a healthy dose of skepticism, realizing that there is no scientific basis for my belief; I've just had one wild and crazy experience that I am unable to chalk up to anything else (which I won't explain here; it isn't the point; suffice it to say the odds seem impossible, and I know a lot about odds). I know I'm as lousy as everybody else at predicting what the next card to come out of the deck will be, though, or I'd be rich... but still, if you were to ask me as a scientist rather than me as a silly kid, I'd say "ESP probably does not exist".



Well, I have to admit to thinking they're silly. But hey, everybody thinks somebody who they believe is mistaken is silly. You probably think atheism is silly, right?

- Kef

Yeah, I'm sure Occam's Razor means "when in doubt, it isn't real." Occam's Razor isn't like that. It's about choosing the simpler and less assumptious between two or more theories.

For that matter, Occam's Razor is not a guide to the truth. It only works on the basis of what you currently know. Again, it--and the method of science itself--are fundamentally flawed because we are not all-knowing, we can only observe and observe again as our abilities of perception improve with technology.

Use of Occam's Razor to support your own skepticism, atheism, and pessimism doesn't exactly help with theories like dark matter or ESP. And it certainly doesn't help with the question of God, no matter how many atheists claim Occam's Razor slit God's throat.

You can prove a negative if you can soundly demonstrate that the positives just don't work at all. So far, that's up in the air with your example of ESP. Suggestions have been made that telepathy, a form of ESP, could be done using "strange action at a distance" which is a quantum mechanics theory. In theory, that could work--but finding humans capable of demonstrating that it works with human brains as-is is difficult. There's also the possibility of transmitting thought patterns using technological applications.

But since I've brought up quantum mechanics, I'd like to say that Occam's Razor is only really suited to physical theories. It doesn't work well when you get into the metaphysical, which could include ESP. And I think that quantum physicists would laugh whenver Occam's Razor is brought up; that field of science is a horse of a different color entirely.





The FSM is an anti-religious mockery, not an honest religion. It used to be a parody of intellgent design, but it has been twisted to serve other means, co-opted by people seeking to use its popularity to make theists look stupid.

For that reason I have no respect for supposed "Pastafarians."

_________________

I didn't say it did. As I keep saying, assuming something until proven otherwise does not mean that the "something" is true. You and I both know that assumption != truth. It does, however, make me more inclined to believe the assumption. It's a subjective thing. It's really more of a question of methods and reasoning than it is a question of truth. Perhaps I wasn't really saying what I meant when I said "science 'prefers' x".



Yeesh, I'm not saying it did. It's almost as if you're trying to interpret me as refuting (or wanting to refute) the existence of God...

- Kef

That part wasn't directed at you, actually! I've just seen Occam's Razor used to excess to directly say "there is no God," so it was an offhanded remark.

My bone with you is your saying that Occam's Razor supports a supposed inherent pessimistic/skeptic "default" in the scientific method, which includes things that are not yet/may never be observable (like, well, the idea that science "by default" "believes" God doesn't exist, which started this whole bone in the first place).

And actually, I think this is starting to lead the topic off course. Maybe a new topic is needed for toastpainting ...

_________________

Ah, apologies.



Yes, I myself would object to the use of Occam's Razor that way.

- Kef

The point is that "honest religions" are themselves mockeries of accountability, science, common sense, and so on. The ID debate is just a facet of the issue. FSM could never claim the debate over ID was absurd without the corollary that the religious beliefs fueling debate were also absurd.

Religious people ridicule athiests for having no faith in the truth of their stories, and athiests ridicule religious people for their actions based on faith and not on the world around them.

That said, it is self evident that FSM is not a religion, if only because it's stories are so humorous.

_________________
                            
S E R I O U S L Y .
_________________

incapable of friend-have

See, that's a rather insulting and logically fallacious claim to make, and only fuels people's negative perceptions of atheists.

Claims like that ignore the entire field of philosophy of ontology, the serious and rational attempts to explain God's existence--and I'm not talking about ID when I say that. I'm talking about people like Kurt Godel, regarded as one of the greatest logicians of all time, who tried to mathematically express the possibility of God's existence.

Claims like that ignore the fact that religious scientists have made significant contributions to science. It ignores that the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest, or that the current director of the Human Genome Project--who lead it to its completetion--is a devout Christian, who is regarded by some as one of the leading geneticists of the United States.

I could go on about other faithful scientists, living or dead, who've been highly important to scientific progress in one field or another, but a claim like that ignores all of this in order to satisfy a fantasy world where all religious people are backward hicks.

When someone makes the claim that religion is founded in a rejection of common sense, science, and accountability, they demonstrate their own prejudices, intolerance, arrogance, and wishful thinking. They demonstrate their lack of knowledge about the history of science, the kind of people who contribute to it.

Who are they to claim that atheism is "common sense," that anyone who believes in God is "clearly delusional," when the question of God cannot be proven or disproven by science? Can't they see that kind of chest-thumping only worsens what people think about atheists in the first place?

I don't know if you seriously believe that claim or if you're speaking from the viewpoint of what a Pastafarian thinks. But if you indeed were making that claim as a personal opinion, shame on you.

_________________

Yes, religion is very diverse and so are the people who profess a belief in it. Some people take what they are told literally. Other people simply operate on the "assumption" that they are, for instance, Christians. There is a Christian explanation for so many mysteries about the world.

Perhaps it is wrong of me to say that religion in general goes against common sense. It is an extension of my feelings about religion in general, but I can see why this might be unwarranted.

Now, to address some of what you have said:

Ontology is not science. It is primarily a thing for people who have mixed feelings about god, so that they may have a tangible justification for claiming he exists. Ontology is just a different way of approaching one question about deities. It's not going to convince a non religious person that god exists. In science, your conclusion is obtained from your observations and research. In ontology, you start with your conclusion and try to fabricate enough data to support it.

Science: People vary. Some people take religious works literally. Other people assume, for instance, the Christian explanation where there is no scientific explanation. I make no claims about the ability of Christian/religious scientists. What I do make claims about is the scientific validity of the religions themselves. The prevailing idea these days is that it's a question of faith in the religion, however plausible or implausible what it says may be. Many people believe parts of religion, or even parts from more than one religion. It suits their beliefs and philosophy about life.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the fact that Christian authorities closed non Christian ("pagan") academic institutions across Europe in the dark ages. They did not tolerate opinions which weren't centered around Christian theology. I'm not going to claim that Christians in general fight non theistic adademic institutions, of course they don't these days, but if you're going to talk about the history of Chrstian science it bears mentioning that they began by outlawing those people who didn't cooperate with theology. I don't even have to mention the end of that time, in which people like Galileo were treated as evil incarnates. There are two sides to almost any issue.

Also note I never said Athiesm was common sense. I implied that athiesm did not contradict common sense, but if athiesm is in fact deism, that still leaves religious questions open. Even if athiesm is anti-religious, it does not, as you say, disprove many religious beliefs. Perhaps religion these days involves taking the closest dogmatic belief which clearly can't be disproven. I think so, take whatever fits best and can't be refuted, and, viola, that's the next sermon.

Cleary delusional: Religion is belief, not hallucination. I never equated the opposite of common sense with insanity, maybe stupidity, but that is an issue far from religion. Remind me, who are you to say that my theoretical belief that a person believing in god is delusional is not religious? I don't make that claim, but you don't afford an attack on religion the same crediblity as the religion's attack on "atheism." Can you judge an athiest if athiesm is a religion so to speak, or would doing so be "insulting and logically fallacious?"

_________________
                            
S E R I O U S L Y .
_________________

incapable of friend-have

This point is moot to me. It's just as easy to be "born atheist" as it is "born [insert other religion here]." For all intents and purposes, I was born agnostic and came to Christianity.



It is unwarranted. Just because you believe a certain way does not mean you get to look down your nose at everyone else who has different beliefs. I've said this to other atheists, I've said it to fellow Christians, and I'm now saying it to you.

Did I mention that it does not help if atheists are too busy arrogantly smirking and declaring the majority of Americans to be backward hicks who reject intellectualism just because they're religious? Atheists who do that seem less concerned about being accepted or upholding religious diveristy and tolerance thereof, as they are fufilling their fantasy of being the intellectually superior vanguard of a godless future.



Given your curt dismissal of ontology as "non-science", I suspect the entire concept of philosophy means little to you.

I think it was crystal clear that I did not confuse philosophy with science, but that it is a field based on rational thought and logic. When you declare religion rejects reason and common sense, you imply that religious people can't possibly be involved in any sort of rational thought or logic. But oops, they are, and there's a whole field related to this!

By the way, "mixed feelings about God?" Kurt Godel was a deeply religious man. He wasn't on the verge of atheism when he worked on his mathematical proof (as in the mathematical kind of proof, an orderly demonstration that shows some statement to be true).



Which is funny because you said religion outright rejects science, implying that religious people are too stupid to be scientists, or that religious people are wholly incapable of reconciling scientific observations with faith--and that claim is clearly false given the reality of the situation.

Some religious beliefs, like a word for word interpretation of Genesis, do reject scientific observations, but religion itself does not. Not everyone believes or interprets religious texts the same way--to take that further, not everyone holds the same opinions on what the purpose of one religious text is over another. Look up Cobalt and Didymus' posts on the book of Genesis for an example there.



I brought up the Christian scientists to counter your accusation that religious people reject science--by your attempting to pin ignorance of Christian persecution on me, you're trying to make my counter-point moot and reassert the supposed truth of your accusation.

While I make no denials about anything bad that has happened in the past ages, and I am certainly not blindly ignorant of those events, even if my lack of mentioning them out of hand gave you an opportunity to insinuate that, I am not a person you'd want to play the "religions have persecuted" card on.

Atheists are not free of comitting persecution. You said yourself, there are two sides to almost any issue--and if you think atheists have never persecuted non-atheists or, by your specific example, attempted to hold back progress, I can drop a few incidents in the last century to prove you wrong.

In short, given atheists also have done the exact same crap, it's clear that playing the "religions have persecuted" card isn't going to fly. And neither is your primary point about religions rejecting science, or scientific progress now that we're getting into this.



I totally did not follow you there. Atheism and deism are two different beliefs; one is disbelief/denial in God, the other is a belief that God exists but is not involved with universal matters after creating it.



You appear to be renging on one insult while doling out another. This is the exact kind of attitude I've argued against in the past, atheists claiming "Christians only began re-interpreting Biblical texts once scientists proved them wrong" (usually said where the theory of evolution and Liberal Christianity is concerned). Some of Christianity's earliest believers--Thomas Aquinas, from AD 200 for example--argued that Christians should apply critical thinking to the Bible to better understand it. Paul himself said in the Bible: "Test everything. Hold onto the good."

There is much about the Bible--and other religious texts, I imagine--that is lost on people who are not involved in researching its history, its very nature and composition, or the exgeses and midrashes that surround it. I've found out this much from my arguments with atheists challenging my beliefs, and in arguing with them I only scratched the surface of bible study. Didymus, being a professional biblical scholar, is best suited for this kind of thing, if you're going to claim that modern religion 'dodges' disqualification by simply changing what is preached.

But I can say from the outset that such a claim doesn't really hold up to voices from history. Aquinas lived roughly 1659 years before Charles Darwin published his theory on evolution. Galileo himself cited Aquinas in defending his heliocentric theory. Rational and critical thinking in faith has had a head start, suffice to say.



Who am I to say such a claim is not religious? I'm not the one to do so. Wikipedia says that religion is commonly defined as a group of beliefs concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. Therefore a belief (and yes, I know you said theoretical) that theists are delusional is non religious in nature, and in fact is insulting. Such a belief does not concern itself with the divine itself, it concerns itself with the people. You might as well have said that people who believe the color red is nice are delusional, but your belief wouldn't be dealing with the nature of colors or color theory, it'd be dealing with the people.

But yes, I do assert that atheism, when organized (and it does have organized elements), is a religion--just that it is a religion of denial in and rejection of belief in a divine being, rather than belief in and reverance of. It is still a set of beliefs about divinity and the supernatural, just that it is the opposite of most religions. The most insulting thing about your past post declaring religion to reject various intellectual qualities is that it implied a sort of special status, a pedistal, for atheists, as if atheists deserved to be the upper caste of American society. Atheists are humans, like religious people are, and their beliefs are just as dogmatic and religious as any Christian's. I've seen far too much to say otherwise.

_________________

I'm sure that doesn't help at all. Personally I believe the dubious part is the religion and practices derived thereof.



Let's step back and review what I said. "'honest religions' are themselves mockeries of accuntability, science, common sense and so on." "Reason" I am just going to lump under "common sense" which I have stated I was hasty in listing as being mocked by "honest religions" for reasons which I have not disclosed. Ontology may be a subset of philosophy, and philosophy may be a social science, but I would not say as a result "ontology is a [social] science." That is not warranted.


Yes, the trick is in relating meaningless values in mathematics with meaningful concepts in life. I don't envy that task...

In any case I was not referring to Kurt Godel, sorry if it appeared that way.



Where did I said "religion outright rejects science?" I did in fact say that religious people assumed a scriptual explanation where there was no plausible scientific explanation. In other words, those same religious people clearly believe in many scientifically proven principles because they changed the world around us, and make more sense than the previously accepted (scientific or religious) explanation for a given phenomenon. But it's a cynical belief, as in science is guilty until proven innocent and vice versa. Furthermore you can't just generalize religious people. There are billions of them, and they all have different opinions. Let's worry about what is said intead of what we infer has been implied, it really just complicates a nice debate.



Every human being is assumed to have a religious stance. In the past it was often assumed they were of the dominant religion, regardless of how devout they were. It is often the same these days. My point about the Christians closing non Christian institutions is not about persecution, it refers to the spotted legacy of specifically Christian contributions to science. Maybe if you take another "religion" like Confucianism you will find different evidence, though Confucianism is not really "religion" as much as it is philosophy. I am not ignorant of the fact that many great scientists considered themselves to be members of an organized religion. That says much about them, and little about their professed religions.



Well, deism is much like religion assuming there's not a god, a human centric account of events. Some people define atheism as a non deistic religion itself, others feel it is just an anti-religious organization in general.



Those peple were clearly not referring to non canonical texts when they said that. It's good general advice - they're not talking about "heretical" Christian beliefs. They would be quick to denounce those works which don't, according to them, fit their accounts of the events, if you could ask them about it. Why shouldn't an apostle? He knows what happened, right? Well...we can never know the truth, we can only know that in a contradiction, one or both things are false.



Are Christians not the "upper caste" of society? If they are not, I can't imagine where all the athiests and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and so on are. I believe in the separation of church and state because I disbelieve that religions can be substitute for competent governmental management. They're highly questionable, mystic, ancient documents. I won't say that religion necessarily compromises a given politician, but it can, and when it does, the real world, and that politician's constituents have been betrayed - unless they voted for him because he was Christian/whatever religion. Personally, my view is that I don't have a religion. I don't disbelieve or believe much of the inane supernatural questions many religions pose.

_________________
                            
S E R I O U S L Y .
_________________

incapable of friend-have

While Christianity as the dominant religion in America may give many Christians something of an upper-hand in the world, it by no means makes them the "upper caste" of society. Consider, for example, the number of impoverished Christians in the world, who struggle every day to pay bills, get food--even to just survive. Are they the "upper caste" still? Moreover, there are very few Christians I have met who earnestly hold the Holier-Than-Thou attitude you may be inferring, so to judge all Christians as such is entirely prejudiced.

And to relate this in a toastpaint way: I don't give a flying spaghetti monster what a person believes in--nor do I care what race they are, how much money they have, what their education level or occupation is, how tall they are, or even what brand of shoes they wear. The MOMENT that a person holds an attitude that they are better than someone else--as a general human being--for any reason whatsoever...then they have dishonored themselves, and IMO, they fail as a social being. We all make mistakes. We all have our own flaws and our own strengths, and just because somebody's flaws (or perceived flaws) differ from your own doesn't give anyone a right to say that one person is better than another. Period.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

As an atheist, I have never run into any personal discrimination. But I don't go around declaring my atheism to anybody, except on message boards and to my close friends. But the people I choose to keep as my close friends are people who wouldn't care what I believe anyway. My extended family has some very religious people in it, and I just don't bring up the subject. They don't need to know. Why bring unnecessary drama to the family? I know some of them wouldn't understand or accept my belief, but I still think they are good people and I like them, so I just don't talk about it. Even my Myspace page doesn't declare my religion as "Atheist" because if a family member finds it, I don't want to face all the questions. I avoid it altogether because, in the end, it's not an important part of my life. I certainly won't be attending any atheist rallys or fighting to get a manger scene taken out of a town square or the word Christmas out of store advertising. The atheists that do that kinda tick me off.
On the other hand, I am guilty of thinking less of religious people. I try not to, but it just seems to come naturally. I tend to think of organized religion as a mainstream cult, and the people who subscribe to it are basically brainwashed. I try not to actively think this way, but it is something that's always going on in the back of my head. So, I can completely understand religious people not trusting us atheists, because I don't trust religious people.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

As an atheist, I have never run into any personal discrimination. But I don't go around declaring my atheism to anybody, except on message boards and to my close friends. But the people I choose to keep as my close friends are people who wouldn't care what I believe anyway. My extended family has some very religious people in it, and I just don't bring up the subject. They don't need to know. Why bring unnecessary drama to the family? I know some of them wouldn't understand or accept my belief, but I still think they are good people and I like them, so I just don't talk about it. Even my Myspace page doesn't declare my religion as "Atheist" because if a family member finds it, I don't want to face all the questions. I avoid it altogether because, in the end, it's not an important part of my life. I certainly won't be attending any atheist rallys or fighting to get a manger scene taken out of a town square or the word Christmas out of store advertising. The atheists that do that kinda tick me off.
On the other hand, I am guilty of thinking less of religious people. I try not to, but it just seems to come naturally. I tend to think of organized religion as a mainstream cult, and the people who subscribe to it are basically brainwashed. I try not to actively think this way, but it is something that's always going on in the back of my head. So, I can completely understand religious people not trusting us atheists, because I don't trust religious people.

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

I lose all pretense of "a nice debate" when someone directly insults my intelligence, rationality, and sanity, since I'm, y'know, Christian. Declaring that religions reject accountability, science, and common sense will do that to a religious guy. No matter how politely you word that stab, it's still a stab. And like it or not, what you directly said implied a whole ton of things about what you think of religious people and their religions, none of them "nice."

I imagine many people would likewise feel affronted when faced with someone making such negative and streotyping claims about something that makes up who they are. (Misty Rose excluded from this, because apparently--to her--asserting something about a common Christian tradition and holiday equals stuffing Pagans into an iron maiden.)

You might be mellow and polite and apologizing for a few things, but you keep trying to defend this view of yours which ultimately amounts to this belief in atheist superiority.



Gee, I dunno, I was under the impression this country was a republic democracy with freedom of religion hard-wired into a bill of rights, not a theocratic state where the ruling religion would be a upper caste. You know, in a country that assures freedom of religion, there shouldn't be an "upper class" at all.

Or you can go with what PMG posted, which sums up exactly what I think and what I'm trying to say here, and says it very nicely at that.



Apparently my point about atheists baving their own dirty laundry was lost on you, because you keep trying to assert that religious--or Christian, in this case--achievements are somehow "dirty" from atrocities committed in the name of one religion or the other. It apparently doesn't occur to you that arguing Christians--or any religion's--accomplishments and achievements should be dismissed or at best downplayed because of oppression and crimes against humanity committed in their name is a self-defeating argument, when atheists are just as guilty.

In other words, I can boil down my long windedness to three words: Pot. Kettle. Black.



From what it sounds like, you're suggesting that there should be a requirement for all politicians to be atheist or agnostic before running in politics. I do hope my guess isn't right, because if it is, then it would seem you're intent on pushing the common atheist myth that religion is the key evil in society. "We cannot have our politicans corrupted by these highly questionable myths! They must be grounded in the logic of atheism!"

Oh wait, there's about as much logic and rationality to atheism and agnosticism as there is to any religion. Especially when it comes to real world politics. I think China's requirement to be atheist to even participate in politics underscores that. Whoops!

Politicians are politicians, who also happen to be humans. And there is such a thing as "irrational atheist bias." Amorican admitted to having one, albeit he conciously tries to fight it.

And my whole purpose of arguing with you is to shake that irrational bias against religions out of you. If you go around declaring something very much a part of a LOT of people's lives to completely reject common sense, accountability, and science, you're going to put off a lot of people, and some of them might just walk away thinking less of atheists as a whole. Which brings us back to Racer's initial post about Americans thinking badly of atheists.

I'd prefer to stop a downward spiral of atheists bashing theists bashing atheists, thankyouverymuch. As a country that makes religious freedom a core philosophy, we should be able to treat everyone respectfully, no matter if they believe in God or not--as equally capable of accountabiliy, common sense, intelligence, rationality, and accepting of science. Whether or not someone believes in God, and how they believe in Him, is a rather outrageous thing to judge someone's mortal worth on.

_________________

You should never take a debate personally, unless specifically it's about you of course. It just creates anger and...resentment. I think that's even more true on line, the land of callous words. Perhaps you're just a very religious person, but even if people insult my personal beliefs, as opposed to questioning them, it would be futile to chastise them over it.



Hmm, that was backwards. Is the "upper caste" of society not Christian? You mean to imply that it's pure chance only Christians rule this allegedly diverse land? That's an interesting statement about the upper class...but for reasons which I can't get in to here, I think it's utopian.



You call me a hypocrite, but I neither represent athiesm nor have seen any examples of how they have persecuted religious people. I don't think Christianity specifically is either a shining beacon or a harbinger of evil, religion is a broad subject and there are advantages and disadvantages to having it. Since we're on the topic, yes, I can distinguish a person from his professed religion. Religion rules some people's lives, but for most people they just say they have a religion and vague beliefs even if they don't observe fundamental rituals like church attendance.



Religion is an evil in society, the same as government and education and war and intrigue and so on are evils of society. They may all have legitimate, beneficial purposes. Who are we to judge the ultimate worth of any of them?

I think it would be interesting to have some athiests in government, has that happened before? Well any way, to answer your question, it depends on how religion plays a role in that politician's life. If he takes the bible literally, I don't want him anywhere near the nuclear weapons. On the other hand, many politicians these days abuse religion by appealing to the religious, to "relate" to them, in order to garner votes. Since the constituents are Christian, they too become Christian for their selfish purposes.



I think religion makes far more wild unsupported claims than, say, agnosticism. If you'll open your bible you will quickly find much logic defying claims being made. You'll find plenty in Genesis...unless the whole book is figurative to you. That would be eccentric at best, to write so much and mean a completely different thing to what was written.

The Chinese are poor athiests and worse communists.



I've already renounced my claim about religions and common sense, if you will be so good as to read my replies. I agree that...frustrated people do not promote tolerance and understanding.

Rest assured I have been in the real world, and if you're sane, you don't run around trying to convince people they're irrational for believing in god as you apparently imagine I do. You keep your beliefs to your self, and try to work together. That goes for political beliefs as well.



I am glad then, that I have not judged your worth or that of any other based on belief in god. Has it influenced my judgement? Absolutely, exactly as you would probably admit it influences your judgement as well. But neither of us dwell on whether the people we know believe in god.

You can never stop the arguments between athiests and religious people. They are as old as religion itself. I agree that you can be capable no matter if you believe in god or not. As for perception...it's hard for a religious person to religiously take an athiest seriously, and vice versa. Perhaps in the distant future there will be a more equal number of athiests to religious people and that type of discrimination will cease to be of consequence.

_________________
                            
S E R I O U S L Y .
_________________

incapable of friend-have

You should never expect to open a debate with an insult if you want to have an actual debate.

See, going into this, I didn't see this as a debate at all. I saw this as a stuck-up atheist jerk trying to justify his denial in God by extoling fantasies that claim religions and religious people are beneath him intellectually.

If it helps you to understand why I'm so adamant about fighting a view like this, it's because I've had the displeasure of running into really nasty atheists who pushed that belief like a bulldozer, and spared no expense to beat me on the head with insults to my intellgence.

It didn't happen here, by the way. It was in another community I no longer go to (primarily because I can't stand folk like that).



Demographically Christians are a majority, but I don't think that automatically makes Christians the "upper class," not in a country like this. Or did you even bother reading PMG's post?

Democratically you might say that decisions in the U.S. are dominated by a general Christian perspective (and that's not even really considering that Christianity itself has so many different--and significant--divisions and attitudes), but that's why we have so many checks and balances.

More to the point, that's why we have the Supreme Court--the three branches of government watch eachother and blow the whistle when things get out of hand. In this case, the Supreme Court can rule laws unconstitutional if they infringe on the right of belief of others.



Well, it's clear you aren't a theist. That was implied by all of your past posts.



You know, I'd thank you for coming out and saying this, but then the next thing you said was ...



You just passed judgement, though. You would have been better off saying those so-called "evils in society" can be used for evil by evil men, much like they are used for good by good men. That, more than anything, describes the human condition.



Most of the presidents have been Christian, especially those during the development of nuclear weapons and the cold war--on the oposite side we had Soviet Primeres who avowed atheism and were just as edgy with the nukes. Using nuclear weapons is a very serious responsibility, and no amount of bold or underscore can convey that. My point being--a word for word interpretation of the entire Bible doesn't change said responsibility.



... You just stepped on a landmine, dude. I can tell you didn't take a look around before you posted that. And, by the way, thanks for revealing how you're able to believe in yet another commonly held myth about religious people rejecting science.

Allow me to burst your bubble. I started this thread by investegating current theories, research, and evidence in various scientific fields. Some of what I had written there I had already believed, and I wasn't expecting to get all that justified when I began scrutinizing things, but I came out of that far more reinforced in my interpretation of Genesis than before.



Yeah, I can tell you have no idea who Thomas Aquinas is and why he's so important that I'd bring up his name again. He happens to be one of the most honored theologicians of the Roman Catholic church. He is in many ways as important to the Catholics as Abraham Lincoln is to us.

A lot of work in Bible scholarship deals with copies of the original texts. Language does deal heavily in semantics, and context is also important. Not just of the surrounding text, but the times these texts were written in. We live in different times, with different contexts. We take words differently--this is true when you take a modern guy and have him read the KJV version. Hence, what you assume is the "literal" interpretation might not be the right one--it's been 2000 freakin' years since Jesus died, and it's been even longer where the lives of Moses and Abraham are concerned! That's why there's such a thing as midrashim and exegeses. They both are methods of extensively, and critically (that's the important bit, folks!) interpreting a given text.

I won't say much else in response because, if you'll read the thread I linked to, you'll see I've already argued with Furrykef at length on this. He already held a similar view about the Bible--and I was demonstrating to him with this thread that it's possible for the Bible to not outright contradict science, and that interpreting the Bible is not "heretical"--it's a very old tradition.



And the people behind the Christian persecution of non-Christian folk you bring up were poor Christians. Yet you seem to have no problem bringing them up. Please don't tell me you're trying to dismiss the actions of the Chinese--I see this too much in atheists already. "Oh, that stuff can't be considered atheist atrocities, because they were communists!"

Of course, I could always bring up North Korea, the Cambodian Khmer Rogue, and the Soviet Union under Lenin and Kuruschev ... I can't quite bring up the Soviet Union under Stalin, because most of the blood he shed was for political gain.

And Gorbachev brought an end to the Soviet Union and spearheaded the religious freedom movement in post-Soviet Russia, which means he's awesome.



Alright, then.



Depends. You could have been very Richard Dawkins about it if you actually did.



Well, if such influences did affect my judgement, I wouldn't think so highly of Gorbachev, who is an atheist through and through. The reason why I think highly an respect him, and why I can't stand Richard Dawkins or Murray O'Hair, is that he's religiously tolerant and fights for tolerance, whereas the latter two want to see religious people thrown into zoos and game preserves for atheists to point and laugh at.



Just because we can't put an end to wildfires forever doesn't mean we don't fund firefighting programs to try and control, contain, and possibly extinguish them before too many people's homes and lives are consumed by them.

I likewise feel that even though I'll never shut Richard Dawkins, Osama bin Laden, or Fred Phelps up, I can at least convince a few people to treat other religious beliefs with more respect. Or just demonstrate why the raging extremist idiots should not be listened to.

_________________

How does this help me if I don't think or realize that what I say is not a claim meant to expose a fallacy but a petty insult? No, petty insults are no way to have an argument. What if I do voice my beliefs and you just happen to find them insulting? Rest assured some people find my religious positions to be sound.



It boils down to this; Christians rule the nation and promote Christian values to the populace. Non Christians have weaker chances of winning, and this is simply discrimination. Not that I blame Christians for seeking representation by one with Christian beliefs, but it makes the ruling class Christian. That is just how it is in the United States.



Yeah, in theory. Assuming the Supreme Court has power, which it doesn't necessarily have, the justices will just act in whatever they believe are the interests of the Christian majority. It's not Christian to abuse people for their religion, et cetera. Getting back to the subject, Christian values rule the country whether athiests feel it is justified or not. Most of the athiests probably do have "Christian values" but they don't do the religious dogma and don't associate their morals with any deities. In this case it doesn't matter if the government acts in the interests of Christians because, ideally, the Christians agree with the people of other religions on many points.



Of course it's my opinion. I feel these institutions are corrupt...inevitable. It's pretty hard to say how good the concepts themselves are.



This just says to me that the man is capable of making some serious errors in judgement which does not befit those with deadly weapons. Perhaps it's far flung to think that any religious belief could influence a military man, I just hear about a lot of crazy people on the news who cite the bible for having done what they did.



I have no interest in expanding our conversation to new threads...you will believe what you want to believe. It doesn't mean there's credible evidence to support illogical claims made in Genesis. Illogical as in, "could not happen in our world." Unless god exists. But if god exists then there's not much point in debating what happens, but instead what god is, why he did what he is purported to have done, and more questions like that.



I can tell you are guilty of the same crime you charge me with. Now you are giving me an excuse - poor translation. You admit you don't even know what the instruction manual for your own religion is supposed to say. That's self evident, of course. The best you can do is assume the book means what you would hope it means. There's no guarantee you know what "Christianity" is, you just...interpret it as you desire. Or as your sect, whatever that may be, desires. The fact is, there's an enormous amount of disagreement within, moreso than other religions, the Chrsitian community. They can't all be right or wrong. They all make up their favored interpretations as it suits them. Insulting, right? There's actually true and false Christianity?



They were poor Christians? By who's account? They were popes, emperors, church officials. Historical figures who shaped Christianity.

About the Chinese - No, they're miserable. It has nothing to do with whether they are athiests. You don't really think I believe there's some magical quality to athiests which makes them better people morally, right? Because that is so illogical as to be religious in itself. No way.

And, as I said, the Chinese are not communists. They make terrible communists. They disgrace the concept of communism, however noble the intentions of the communists were in founding their goverment.



It's just futile at best and...you know, insulting at worst to the people you want to "convert." You might as well have a crusade or jihad for all the good that will do.



I said influences, as in, doesn't decide the issue for you. In this case you probably think higher of Gorbachev because he is an athiest and you have lower standards for athiests in general when it comes to religious tolerance. He excels, therefore his (dis)belief in god has affected your judgement of him.



Well that's obvious. You said

"I'd prefer to destroy fires once and for all."

I said

"Yeah. But that's not possible."

You then said

"It does not mean we should not try to extinguish them."

Now I say

"Yes, religious tolerance/firefighting is good."

_________________
                            
S E R I O U S L Y .
_________________

incapable of friend-have

We've been through this before. Apparently your "theoretical" belief that you tried to claim was a religious one is in fact not so theoretical.

There's a word for the "beliefs" about religious people you desperately try to justify, and the same word applies to those that would agree with you: INTOLERANT.



Eeeexcept that doesn't work at all. Read what I said again. Pay careful attention to that bit about differing Christian groups. There are some basic, key values all Christians believe in, but there are some big differences among the various groups. Enough that respectful debates, or intolerant arguments and wars start over them.

Or if you want an example, watch the fireworks when someone publicly groups Mormonism with the rest of Christianity. What debates I've seen around here tend to be respectful between Christians, but they still underline the differences.



Gee, I didn't know "Christian majority" was synonymous with "constitution" or "bill of rights."

There's something implied in my sarcasm that you can discover if you look at what the Supreme Court has done over the course of this nation's history. That is to say, there are times they've upheld the rights of a minority against the majority. It's not perfect, no, but it's the system we have to try and keep things egaltarian as much as possible.



It's not far fetched at all to think that there'd be irrationality in atheists with nukes, too. Put Kim-Jong Il back in time, put him in the seat of power when the Soviet Union was around--what do you think HE'D do with all those nukes? I don't think he'd use nukes as the leader of North Korea because he knows there would be no way to survive the world's retaliation. He could leave Tokyo or Seoul or Los Angeles as a sea of fire, and then half of the world's soldiers would crush his own military to finely ground dust, and apprehend him for the murder of millions.

And again, I don't see how even a literal interpretation of the Bible would convince someone to start a nuclear war, or to even deploy nukes. You're going to have to demonstrate to me how someone like Bush would openly and liberally use nukes--he hasn't to date and there was at least one point in his presedency where if what you're suggesting were true, he'd have launched off at least a few.



So you didn't even READ the thread? Marvelous.

I'll sum up the purpose of that thread: The comparison of scientific studies to Genesis showed, to me, that the "creation story" in Genesis had many parallels to current scientific theories. It's not a word for word interpretation, but given this part of Genesis is written in a poetic manner, that leaves the "creation story" open to such interpretations like mine. Poetry is often based around the symbolic nature of its words.

It demonstrates that the Bible does not defy science.



... Hah! "Poor translation?" Admitting Christians make stuff up? Nice try.

Unfortunately for you, I never "admitted" that we don't know what the entire Bible is supposed to say. What I admitted to was that translations of translations of the original text can cause drift in meaning, especially when read from people living in a different time, place, and language. But see, we still have the originals in most cases, or copies written from that time, place, and language.

We have more modern, more direct translations of the originals, suited to the audience. That's why bible scholarship continues--we can compare and inspect the original word. Read the Gospel of Judas thread--note what Didymus is saying.

It's also important to note that the Bible is a compilation of books and letters that each have a specific purpose for being in the Bible, something you show no knowledge of.

Let's start with an easy example. Do you know that the New Testament is composed of several books from various apostle's views of Jesus life and death, a narrative of the Apostles' ministries, which is also a sequel to the third Gospel; twenty-one early letters, commonly called "epistles" in Biblical context, which were written by various Apostles and consisted mostly of Christian counsel and instruction; and a "prophecy," which is also technically the twenty-second epistle?

Well, now you do. The Old Testament is even more diverse--as an example, some books are really records of the laws that Moses' people lived by. Leviticus, for example, has a code of laws defining what Moses' priests should do and how to do it. It also contains a more general set of laws as well as laws on what should be considered sacred.

The Book of Judges is a narrative history concerning the judges who lived during that time.

The Book of Psalms itself is entirely devoted to religious songs. That is, psalms. The Book of Proverbs is a book of philosophical and moral maxims, presented in poetic form (take note!).

The Books of Exodus and Joshua are narratives surrounding Moses, Joshua, and the Hebrews they led in search of the promised land.

I think that's enough examples.

See, we KNOW much of what the Bible is saying or, most importantly, what it's meant for. The Old Testament books, such as those concerning the laws of Moses' people, give Christians background and perspective--a religious frame of reference, given that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Not all groups agree just what books are relevant to Christians (and therefore there are differences between what Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodoxies include), but it's all agreed that Christians must have that frame of reference. It's just that not everyone really understands that.

Let's put this another way since you seem so eager to cling to your prejudices and declare Christians as "making up whatever they want." Take the American constitution, the bill of rights. Can you, word for word, tell me EVERYTHING, EVERY AMENDMENT, and what it's for? Without looking up a source?

Maybe you can, but not everyone can do that. In this analogy, you'd be more like a Canadian, having called Americans stupid, irrational, and tyrranical, making up whatever they want when they want to support themselves. Yet as a Canadian, you likely have even LESS knowledge about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, mostly on hearsay and misinformation, and you use that to criticize an entire country and its law system.

It might seem like a strange analogy given the Constitution is open to editing whereas most groups of Christians vehemently reject making edits or adding entirely new books (part of why there's debates and less tolerant methods of taking issue with Mormonism), but like the Bible, the Constitution is open to interpretation. There's whole schools of thought based around how much 'play' there is in the words of that document.

It's somewhat similar to exegeses and midrashes. Bible scholars DO NOT "make up whatever they want." They look at all the conext to try and make a critical analysis (that part of my post you glossed over) of what the text is saying. There ARE some disagreements, but that's expected--it's very much historian's work as it is a judge's. When it comes to trying to figure out what the laws say in books like Leviticus, there's echoes of people arguing over the nature of various amendments in our own constitution.

I'm going to leave a summary of what I just said; apparently you count on people to not read through my posts when you claim I said certain things that I really didn't.

1) Accusing Christians of "making stuff up whenever they want" is BS.
2) We have books from their original language; we can modernize translations, and we do. It's just that when people think of the Bible they think of the KJV, a translation for people who lived in a different time and place, and spoke a language that's not so clear to us. People judge the Bible and Christianity based on that, and do not consider the language differences or the context of the original books, which is unfair.
3) We know much about the Bible and what various books within it were for. We know their purpose, the reasons for writing them and the information they're trying to convey. Having context is almost important as what the books say.
4) However, just like in today's world concerning government, not everything in the Bible is crystal clear, and it can be open to interpretation. That's especially true of books/verses that are written poetically and lyrically (e.g. the first part of Genesis).



I can already see what you're planning on doing. If I say that "what they practiced is not what Jesus taught" then you'll sieze on that and say "but you Christians make up whatever you want, how could they be poor Christians?"

Which would have been a perfect trap if the words you attributed to me from earlier were mine. As I've demonstrated, they couldn't be farther from the truth. So I'll say it anyway:

What they practiced is not what Jesus taught. For all the interpretation that can be done with parts of the Bible, it's kind of hard to NOT get the meaning behind "if you're truthfully, completely without sin, then cast the first stone" and "treat others as you would like to be treated," or "love your neighbor as you love yourself."



You're mistaken. There is no "lower standard" compared to what I think of people from other religions. There's a reason why I referred to American Atheists as the atheist Westboro Baptist Church, thereby linking Madalyn Murray O'Hair with Fred Phelps.



As much as I'd like to think you honestly agree with that statement, the rest of this post from you shows differently. Not when you call religion an evil (alongside with most core concepts in society), or attempt to play chess with my posts, trying to get me to agree with your initial insults, or consistently defend your initial insult, this time saying "there are people who'd agree with my (so-called) 'religious position!'"

I don't expect religiously tolerant people to consider Christianity the truth, but I do expect them to disagree with more politeness and respect. For example, I respect the Jewish view that Jesus is not the messiah. I respect the Buddhist view that we shouldn't be concerned with God at all and should work towards achieving Nirvana.

We're dealing with something that ultimately is up to a person to believe in, and one's beliefs has no bearing on their ability to grasp science, reason, and so on.

_________________

Your claim that I believe any person who believes in god is delusional is your theory, and while it may be true, I am not sure about that myself. My beliefs are not "proven" by what is typed here unless I say it outright.

Also, you are confusing "disgust" with "intolerance." Why do you find it necessary to distribute personal insults, saying that I am "desparate?"



I really don't care what denomination they are. They're Christians. That alone lends them much prequisite credibility for powerful positions.



I see you know a bit about mockery yourself, when you mock my understanding of your argument. It is not that we do not understand each other, but that you and perhaps I as well do not fully explain ourselves and assume we are in conflict on every point reglardless of whether we are.

Those documents you mention and that government to which you refer include values which, if not being expressly Christian, are not disagreeable to Christian sensibilities. Your claiming that the people are somehow religiously diverse and integrated because a court of Christians "impartially" ruled in favor of un-named minorities in un-named court cases, in agreement with Christian principles, is baseless.



That's not the issue. I am aware that there are many moronic athiests. What I am referring to is the religion influencing important decisions. The more literally any religion is interpreted, the more literally important decisions may be made with an arbitrary ancient text in mind, instead of the issue at hand.



I was thinking along the lines of moving armageddon along, but I don't claim to see why that would make sense. I am sure there are other examples, but I don't know enough about various religions to give some more. I am sure Bush knows very well why using nuclear weapons is a bad idea; therefore my interpretation is that religion is not an important factor in his job. His life maybe, and getting elected certainly. Bush is surrounded by many "Christians" who moderate each other for social and political practicality.



What you demonstrate to me is that you think ALL parts of Genesis correspond to some scientific theories, that you interpret Genesis as being poetic, and as a consequence actually just rephrases "true" science.

However logical your position may be if you think the things you do, I don't think those things. There will be fiery letters in the sky around the time you finish "proving" Genesis is poetic and not meant to actually say what happened.



Nay. We interpret the meaning of what we see. Even if we actually knew Judges was about the Judges, (which it surely is) that tells us nothing about what is being implied and the purpose of such a document in the bible. I disagree that different Christian sects exclude books simply because they are "not relevant." That may be the case, but often it's a contradictory or blasphemous justification for trimming the lore.



You "seem" to not understand that in my saying that Christians "make up whatever they want" they choose the scripture which they feel fits their specific beliefs, a fact which you do not dispute. You said sects would exclude texts which are "not relevant." See my reply above about that.



I never said #1. I said sects make up their interpretations of works they favor. Can you see any difference in what I typed and "making stuff up whenever they want?" You make it sound as if I painted them as raving lunatics running through the streets spewing random nonsense. This is a gross misrepresentation. You should be ashamed of yourself for your hypocrisy. Further more your swearing does NOT aid your argument. I don't care what abbreviations you use.

#2 is another excuse, for me. I don't need your excuses, rest assured the differences between me and Christianity are much greater than that of modern English and that middle English used in the King James bible. It's not that I don't understand - it's that I don't believe.



So were they Christians if they were out of touch with Jesus? How is it that any Christian who happened to spread Christianity and is considered a SAINT was also a corrupt despot who, despite being "Christian" did not follow the teachings of Jesus? I say there have been situations in which religion has persecuted athiest apathy, and you give me an excuse! You denounce these men in hind sight, you slander them, even as other "Christians" revere the same person. How can this be? What was Christian about them, but their strange and brief associations with the real Chrisitan church which must keep Jesus in mind?



I am not mistaken, as it was probable that you thought higher of Gorbachev since he was an athiest. Your citation of a "great athiest" is very misleading when we're talking about whether a man's belief in god influences your judgement of him. I maintain that it isn't really possible, knowing what god is, that you wouldn't have some opinion regarding a person on learning about his belief in this deity, no matter how trivial this fact is or impartial you are to such beliefs. You make yourself out to be a saint.



You are confusing "athiest beliefs" with insults. I am insulting nothing. Whether you would find my beliefs to be appropriate for a Christian or Christianity is not relevant. If I say, "God is a harlot" then I think he is. It has nothing to do with trying to force my beliefs on you, I just felt that it was relevant that you should know my belief concerning god.

Oh, and before you spend a paragraph explaining how insulted you are that I think God is a harlot, let me say that is a purely hypothetical example. I fear my effort is wasted, you're probably going to write a paragraph on this non-issue and mix it with your reply.



If I hate Christians for being who they are, (I don't...arrghhhh, the stake!) and I hide my disgust, I can be tolerant in knowing that I do not generally prejudge those people in any non religious matter. I think prejudice is the greater part of tolerance along with respect.



One's beliefs have no bearing on their mental aptitude.
But does one's mental aptitude have any bearing on one's beliefs?

(The answer is yes, as any visit to your local "institution," school, mental hopsital, et cetera can attest).

_________________
                            
S E R I O U S L Y .
_________________

incapable of friend-have

Am I going to get criticized here for saying that I've been rolled down muddy hills at school for being an atheist?

I'd say the perception is bad.

EDIT: Honorying furrykef's request for a toastpaint, I've moved my response from here to a new thread.

_________________

You guys wanna take this elsewhere? This thread has long been off-point and the long argumentative posts are no fun to read.

- Kef

Alright. I'll take my latest response and move it to a new thread.

To toastpaint:



Well, one of the few times I nearly got into a fight back in high school, it was because this atheist jerk nearly attacked me after harassing me. I told him to back the (censor'd) off and pushed him back, and it took some other guys to pull him away from me.

I was also evangelized by other Christians since I was not part of their specific denomination, too. Either told I was outright going to hell, or what not.

_________________

I was never arguing....doesn't really matter if they're fun to read, this is 'Religion and Politics'.

I was talking about the little debate between Trev-MUN and Seriously., not one post of which I read all the way through. In fact, after the first couple I didn't so much as glance at them.

- Kef

Trev has already started a new thread.

_________________

Mt family has had a long standing tradition of Atheism on both sides, extending back roughly 4 generations, and it hasn't seemed to have inhibited us in anyway whatsoever, from getting jobs or spouses.

most of the athiests I know are total jerks who think they're better than those who believe in something and use the fact that they "aren't stupid enough to believe in fairy tales" as "proof"...

While I certainly think I am right in my disbelief of god, I don't think being an atheist makes me better then you, and in matter of speaking, I think in being a theist your better off then I am. I remember in my family, when my aunt was in her 3 year struggle with Cancer, everyone was happy that she became religious, because religion gave her comfort and hope in her dieing days.

I am not against religion, I am just convinced it isn't true.

But I'm getting off-topic. The point really is, those athiests that you mentioend say "People are trying to force their belifs on me!" but by doing things like taking "Under God" out of the pledge, you're forcing your belifs on others.

If the words under god are taken out of the pledge, then no beliefs are forced on anyone, and the pledges stance on religion is made nuetral.

When "under god" was inserted into the pledge in the 1950s, the asserted reason for its addition, was that it allowed religious people to say the pledge without impuning upon their beliefs that religious law transcends human law. Being a humanist, I decided last year to replace the words "under god" with "under humanity", to exhibit my belief that my loyalty lies more to the human race as a whole, then to that portion of it which exists in the United States.

That's funny. I was under the impression that "under God" was added as sort of a slam against the growing threat of Communism of that time.

_________________

Which it was. Curious how so many people are so strongly opposed to taking it back out considering that, isn't it? Especially since we're not a Judeo-Christian nation anyway (just a nation that happens to contain mostly Judeo-Christians).

- Kef