Response to the "but that's not the god I believe in" anti-atheist argument [Archive]

Edmund Standing

10th May 2008, 02:51 AM

I see the 'but that's not MY God' argument is being used yet again (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/09/catholicism.religion), this time by the Archbishop of Westminster.

"The interesting question about atheism is, what is the theism being denied? Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins does not believe in? The God that is being rejected by such people is a God I don't believe in either."

And here is an article of mine responding to that same claim, when it was previously made by the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'? (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=280) (ButterfliesandWheels.com)

Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'? (http://richarddawkins.net/article,1816,Are-the-New-Atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments,Edmund-Standing-ButterfliesAndWheelscom)
(RichardDawkins.net - with discussion pages)

Czy Nowi Ateiści unikają 'prawdziwych argumentów'? (http://www.racjonalista.pl/kk.php/s,5677)
(Racjonalista.pl - Polish translation)

Forðast „nýju trúleysingjarnir“ „raunverulegu rökin“? (http://www.vantru.is/2008/01/18/08.00/)
(Vantru.is - Icelandic translation)

Have Dawkins, Hitchens, and numerous other atheist thinkers grossly misrepresented Christianity? Can Christian believers justifiably claim that the religion they find written of by such thinkers is something other than the one they at least pay lip service to? No, and no, again. Must Dawkins and others undertake an arduous trawling through centuries of theological waffle in order to reject religious belief? Absolutely not.

westprog

10th May 2008, 03:29 AM

I see the 'but that's not MY God' argument is being used yet again (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/09/catholicism.religion), this time by the Archbishop of Westminster.

And here is an article of mine responding to that same claim, when it was previously made by the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'? (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=280) (ButterfliesandWheels.com)

So, Williams does believe in walking corpses.

It seems strange that an article protesting that Christian beliefs are fairly portrayed by atheists should use the phrase "walking corpses". How many Christians believe in walking corpses? I would say, to a good approximation, none. But somehow Mr Standing considers it a reasonable way to portray their beliefs.

We look for the resurrection of the dead

It wouldn't take more than a few minutes to establish what a Christian means by the resurrection of the dead. Mr Standing is perfectly at liberty to regard such belief as absurd. He's entitled to make fun of it. He's even entitled to try to be shocking and brave, though it's not really that shocking any more, and not many atheists are being burned for heresy.

What he's not entitled to do is to make up what Christians believe to make it sound more sinister than it is. It's what Christians did to Jews for hundreds of years, making up spurious anti-Christ rituals that never existed.

dglas

10th May 2008, 03:37 AM

The disparity of Christian beliefs precludes any consistency. I don't see anything coherent at all. Anything is permitted, it seems.

Egg

10th May 2008, 04:31 AM

Edmund Standing

10th May 2008, 04:37 AM

It seems strange that an article protesting that Christian beliefs are fairly portrayed by atheists should use the phrase "walking corpses". How many Christians believe in walking corpses? I would say, to a good approximation, none. But somehow Mr Standing considers it a reasonable way to portray their beliefs.

So, no Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, no Christians accept the claim that people walked out of their tombs (Matthew 27:51-53 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+27%3A51-53)), no Christians believe that 'the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out' (John 5:28-29 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John+5%3A28-29))? These are three examples of a belief in walking corpses. When a person dies, their body is a corpse. If that corpse walks out of its tomb, it's a walking corpse. It's a key Christian belief.

It wouldn't take more than a few minutes to establish what a Christian means by the resurrection of the dead ... What he's not entitled to do is to make up what Christians believe to make it sound more sinister than it is.

From the days of the primitive Church, into the era of the Church Fathers the belief in the literal bodily - as opposed to 'spiritual' - resurrection of the dead was a central tenet of Christianity. Justin, for example, spoke of (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0131.htm)the 'heretics' who 'who maintain the wrong opinion [and] say that there is no resurrection of the flesh'. He went on, as many others have before and since, to give explanations of how it won't actually be a rotting corpse that is resurrected, but a 'new body'. However, if it is effectively the same body, just regenerated, we are still talking about physical bodies rising from tombs (and strangely, Jesus' 'resurrected' body still bore wounds from the cross, allegedly, so it wasn't totally regenerated). Special 'resurrection' bodies don't exist; people don't walk out of tombs. Many Christians believe they do. I'm not 'making up' anything.

It's what Christians did to Jews for hundreds of years, making up spurious anti-Christ rituals that never existed.

Nice try at discrediting what I have written by attempting to taint the discussion with irrelevant allusions to anti-Semitic persecution.

plumjam

10th May 2008, 04:45 AM

Edmund Standing

10th May 2008, 04:49 AM

Egg

10th May 2008, 05:07 AM

The Archbishops are custodians of a faith tradition and bound by its historical formulations; indeed, it is their job to promote them. When they say atheist writers are misrepresenting these beliefs, I'd like to know which ones.

Considering how it appears that you just tried to defend your notion that believing that Jesus was a zombie is a key Christian belief, rather than admit to a poor choice of words in that instance, it doesn't bode well for how such a discussion might pan out.

westprog

10th May 2008, 06:11 AM

So, no Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, no Christians accept the claim that people walked out of their tombs (Matthew 27:51-53 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+27%3A51-53)), no Christians believe that 'the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out' (John 5:28-29 (http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John+5%3A28-29))? These are three examples of a belief in walking corpses. When a person dies, their body is a corpse. If that corpse walks out of its tomb, it's a walking corpse. It's a key Christian belief.

There's a particular kind of atheistic perversion of Christian belief which starts off by investigating a certain belief, then saying that X is impossible, so what you really believe is Y. Christians believe in the resurrection of the body. That means being fully alive. A corpse is fully dead. I can't think of a more willfully dishonest way to represent someone else's beliefs.

If you believe that the concept of the dead coming to life is absurd, then say so. Don't pretend that Christians believe something they don't believe. The living Christ is central to Christianity. Zombie Christ is something nobody believes in.

From the days of the primitive Church, into the era of the Church Fathers the belief in the literal bodily - as opposed to 'spiritual' - resurrection of the dead was a central tenet of Christianity. Justin, for example, spoke of (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0131.htm)the 'heretics' who 'who maintain the wrong opinion [and] say that there is no resurrection of the flesh'. He went on, as many others have before and since, to give explanations of how it won't actually be a rotting corpse that is resurrected, but a 'new body'. However, if it is effectively the same body, just regenerated, we are still talking about physical bodies rising from tombs (and strangely, Jesus' 'resurrected' body still bore wounds from the cross, allegedly, so it wasn't totally regenerated). Special 'resurrection' bodies don't exist; people don't walk out of tombs. Many Christians believe they do. I'm not 'making up' anything.

Why not just say that Christians believe things that aren't true? Isn't that enough? Why make up stuff that they don't believe?

Nice try at discrediting what I have written by attempting to taint the discussion with irrelevant allusions to anti-Semitic persecution.

It's the same kind of misrepresentation, and it has exactly the same dangers.

Edmund Standing

10th May 2008, 06:27 AM

It's the same kind of misrepresentation, and it has exactly the same dangers.

Oh, really? When was the last time you heard of someone mocking Christian beliefs in bodies rising from tombs leading to statements such as this from the charming St John Chrysostom:
The Jews sacrifice their children to Satan ... They are worse than wild beasts ... they know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen ... I hate the Jews, because they violate the Law. I hate the Synagogue because it has the Law and the Prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.

To compare presenting Christian beliefs about the dead walking out of their tombs in a way you don't like as similar to the blood libels that led to pogroms is disgusting.

Civilized Worm

10th May 2008, 10:15 AM

Civilized Worm

10th May 2008, 10:21 AM

If you believe that the concept of the dead coming to life is absurd, then say so. Don't pretend that Christians believe something they don't believe. The living Christ is central to Christianity. Zombie Christ is something nobody believes in.

A zombie is a reanimated corpse. In what way did Jesus not fit that criteria?

Gregory

10th May 2008, 11:43 AM

The word "zombie" has specific connotations, and you damn well know it. Stop being so dishonest.

JoeEllison

10th May 2008, 12:12 PM

Ummmm... yes and no? Sure, there are stupid beliefs that all religious people have good reason to avoid laying claim to. And, yes, mocking those stupid beliefs is fun and emotionally rewarding. But, sometimes people mistake "zombie" for "ghoul", and we wouldn't want anyone to think the Bible said Jesus was a reanimated cannibal. He was reanimated, and his FOLLOWERS were the (symbolic) cannibals. Keep it straight!

Civilized Worm

10th May 2008, 12:35 PM

The word "zombie" has specific connotations, and you damn well know it. Stop being so dishonest.

What like brain eating?

I'm not saying it's the term I'd use to describe it but technically Jesus would have been a zombie.

Whack01

10th May 2008, 12:40 PM

The word "zombie" has specific connotations, and you damn well know it. Stop being so dishonest.

Its not dishonest, it's a joke. Granted a sacrilegious one.

As for the argument. I would ask the bishop a question. If the scriptures teach that Atheists have rejected the God of the scriptures then isn't this lovely little argument in contradiction to scripture?

ETA: I understand that sometimes people ridicule and accuse God of falsehood. However to say that Atheists and men like Dawkins don't reject God, strikes me as more than a bit disingenuous.

Bob Klase

10th May 2008, 01:32 PM

"The interesting question about atheism is, what is the theism being denied?"

What a convoluted and meaningless question. The theism being denied is all of them which have no evidence to support their claims (which would be all of them).

Since atheism is the non-belief in any god, that would include all the gods the bishop doesn't believe in as well as the one(s) he does.

"Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins does not believe in?"

Of course. Anyone who believes in any form of sky fairy believes something that Dawkins (and others) do not believe in.

It's really a very silly argument.

Robin

11th May 2008, 12:53 AM

Perhaps one day they will decide what sort of God they do believe in and let us know,

11th May 2008, 01:13 AM

My response?

"It's not the god I believe in, either..."

andyandy

11th May 2008, 03:06 AM

I don't see why " but that's not the God I believe in" is an anti-atheist argument. The atheist argument requires as a bedrock the positive definition provided by the said believer of the God they believe in. Without this provided definition "I don't believe in (your) God" is meaningless.

This is a problem when one wishes to actively push atheist arguments, because by definition now one must be proactive rather than reactive to the question of God. As soon as you're proactive, then it is contingent to provide the bedrock positive definition yourself and use this to deconstruct the general theisist position. And once you do do this, then you are indeed open to the rebuttal " that's not the God I believe in." the only solution to this is to be reactive in one's argument, but unfortunately this does not always appeal, especially to those who wish to promote or lead a self-styled atheist movement....... :)

H3LL

11th May 2008, 04:32 AM

Without this provided definition "I don't believe in (your) God" is meaningless.

My thoughts exactly.

The hesitancy of those believers that have posted here and others to actually define what they believe is endemic with christians.

It is nigh-on impossible to get a straight answer and if you do, it will not match with the next christian you speak to and with little work you could find yet another christian disagreeing entirely.

When you have an eminent figure such as the Arch Bishop that cannot consistently state his beliefs or what beliefs should be held - What hope is there for the ordinary christian mark.

The Arch Bishop knows that he must keep any description sufficiently fluffy to maintain the cash flow from the, appropriately named, flock.

One child's imaginary friend if rarely the same as another's. The same with christians, it seems.

I have a suspicion that the fear of revealing the details of their personal imaginary friend might get them ostracised from their imaginary friend's club and social circle. The poor dears will have nowhere to throw away their money, time and effort to support the organised liars.

At least some children grow out of the belief in imaginary friends.

BTW, the twisting and turning, weasel words of those trying to disassociate themselves from belief in "walking corpses" and "zombies" is, frankly, hilarious.

The "eating brains" analogy was particular fun as some part of christain's deluded brain is so dysfunctional and un-critical that it is as if it has been eaten. :D

Jesus Christ as a zombie that eats brains seems just about as perfect a description as can be applied.

I like it so much I will try hard to use it more often ... probably.
.

Darat

11th May 2008, 04:55 AM

If the use of the word "zombie" is dishonest than the dishonesty was promulgated by the likes of Egg and westprog; the opening post's article used the phrase "walking corpse", Egg and westprog brought the "dishonest" word zombie into the thread.

...snip... your notion that believing that Jesus was a zombie ...snip....

...snip... Zombie Christ is something nobody believes in.

...snip...

A question to westprog and Egg - since you are happy to use the word "Christian" as an identifier for people and claim knowledge of what beliefs are and are not attached to that word could you please provide a list of them?

Darat

11th May 2008, 05:13 AM

volatile

11th May 2008, 05:33 AM

An excellent, excellent article. Might I suggest sending it as a letter to the Guardian, Independent or Observer? As the article you're critiquing was in the Guardian, that might be the best target.

westprog

11th May 2008, 06:42 AM

Strange you should claim none when you participated in a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113326) only yesterday that included people believing exactly this.

From the article linked to in that thread:

Several points here

Looking at the story closely, it looks like a scam to continue drawing money while pretending the woman was alive.
The people involved are a long, long way from being normal Christians.
At no stage does anyone believe in walking corpses. They either believe the woman isn't dead, or they think she will be brought back to life. In fact, they probably believe neither, but believe that this woman's money will continue to be dished up only if they can pretend she's alive.What astonishes me about this business is that it's quite easy to argue against what Christians actually believe. I'm sure there are plenty of arguments used on this forum. There is no need to make stuff up.

Darat

11th May 2008, 07:02 AM

The people involved are a long, long way from being normal Christians.

Goes back to my previous post - please do provide me your authoritative list of what a "normal" Christian believes in so in future I'll know if I'm reading about "normal Christan's" or not.

At no stage does anyone believe in walking corpses. They either believe the woman isn't dead, or they think she will be brought back to life. In fact, they probably believe neither, but believe that this woman's money will continue to be dished up only if they can pretend she's alive.

Semantic quibbling. A dead body coming back to life is a corpse being reanimated. The clue is in the word "dead".

What astonishes me about this business is that it's quite easy to argue against what Christians actually believe.

...snip...

It might be easy, if anyone knew what they were! Apparently all these Christians that are being quoted are not "normal Christians". So again since you are claiming to know what beliefs a Christian has can you provide me with this authoritative list?

So far in this thread I've provided evidence that at least three Christians do or did believe that a dead body will walk again.

I'm sure there are plenty of arguments used on this forum. There is no need to make stuff up.

So you are saying the article I quoted was made up? Or the biblical passages and the quotes in the opening post's article are made-up?

westprog

11th May 2008, 08:12 AM

Goes back to my previous post - please do provide me your authoritative list of what a "normal" Christian believes in so in future I'll know if I'm reading about "normal Christan's" or not.

I suppose there are people who have never met any Christians, and think that maybe for them, keeping dead bodies around the house is normal. If you're one of those, then

Try meeting some actual Christians, instead of reading about them in supermarket magazines
No, Christians mostly don't keep dead bodies around the house, any more than atheists.

Semantic quibbling. A dead body coming back to life is a corpse being reanimated. The clue is in the word "dead".

No, the clue is in the word "resurrection". Which is the word Christians use. "Reanimate" is used in Zombie or Frankenstein movies. If someone is resurrected, he is no longer dead, hence not a walking corpse.

The difference between being alive and dead isn't a semantic quibble for me, and I hope not for a surgeon operating on me.

When someone's heart stops and he gets CPR, is he a walking corpse for the rest of his life?

It might be easy, if anyone knew what they were! Apparently all these Christians that are being quoted are not "normal Christians". So again since you are claiming to know what beliefs a Christian has can you provide me with this authoritative list?

So far in this thread I've provided evidence that at least three Christians do or did believe that a dead body will walk again.

You've provided evidence that some insane people claim to believe that a corpse either wasn't dead, or would be brought back to life. Nobody in the article talked about walking corpses. Is there anywhere in the entire body of Christian literature where Christ is referred to as a walking corpse? Of course not. Where the term is used (as I found in Google books) it is used precisely to describe what Christ isn't.

So you are saying the article I quoted was made up? Or the biblical passages and the quotes in the opening post's article are made-up?

I'm saying that the pursuit of this line shows considerable intellectual dishonesty. What's absurd about it is that all that needs to be said is Bringing Dead People To Life Is Impossible. That's a reasonable atheist objection to the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Why continue to assign beliefs to Christians which they don't believe, which everyone reading this knows they don't believe, and which is so out of line with Christian belief that it isn't even intended to persuade anyone. It's just another way for the atheists with an agenda to give each other high fives and congratulate each other on how clever they are.

Let's just break it down. It isn't complicated. A corpse is a dead body. A walking corpse is still dead, but walking, either due to black magic, crazed scientists with hunchbacked assistants, an alien virus or an exoskeleton. In any case, it's still dead.

A resurrected body was dead, and is now alive. Hence not a corpse.

Oh, but resurrection is impossible, science, etc etc. Well, then, why not bloody say so?

Darat

11th May 2008, 08:51 AM

I suppose there are people who have never met any Christians, and think that maybe for them, keeping dead bodies around the house is normal. If you're one of those, then

Try meeting some actual Christians, instead of reading about them in supermarket magazines
No, Christians mostly don't keep dead bodies around the house, any more than atheists.

Remember it is your claim that there are "normal Christians". Why it is then difficult for you to provide your authoritative list of which beliefs "normal Christians" hold is beyond me.

You see I do something that you seem to be rather reluctant to do, I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they do believe what they say they do. In this case we have Christians who believe a corpse would be reanimated, which contradicts your claim earlier in this thread that there would be no Christan's that believed this.

Will you now retract your claim that

"If you believe that the concept of the dead coming to life is absurd, then say so. Don't pretend that Christians believe something they don't believe. "

and

" How many Christians believe in walking corpses? I would say, to a good approximation, none."

? Or will you persist in your erroneous claim?

No, the clue is in the word "resurrection". Which is the word Christians use. "Reanimate" is used in Zombie or Frankenstein movies. If someone is resurrected, he is no longer dead, hence not a walking corpse.

...snip...

A semantic dance. The evidence is quite clear no matter how much you try to wriggle out of accepting it - some Christians certainly do believe the dead will walk again.

The difference between being alive and dead isn't a semantic quibble for me, and I hope not for a surgeon operating on me.

When someone's heart stops and he gets CPR, is he a walking corpse for the rest of his life?

...snip...

You are making your semantic two-step even more apparent.

You've provided evidence that some insane people claim to believe that a corpse either wasn't dead,

...snip...

I've presented no such evidence. The only evidence I have presented is that some Christian believe that a corpse will walk again. I can add another one if like, they believe this because the Christian God told their Bishop that it would.

or would be brought back to life. Nobody in the article talked about walking corpses. Is there anywhere in the entire body of Christian literature where Christ is referred to as a walking corpse? Of course not. Where the term is used (as I found in Google books) it is used precisely to describe what Christ isn't.

...snip...

Again the semantic two-step. And it seems quite strange that you are now being so pedantic about the actual wording since it did not seem to bother you that you used the word "zombie" to talk about the article in the opening post despite the article never using that word... To paraphrase: Is there anywhere in the entire body of the opening post article where Christ is referred to as a Zombie? Of course not.

I'm saying that the pursuit of this line shows considerable intellectual dishonesty.

...snip...

You claim there are "normal Christians" - all I have done is asked you what beliefs these Christian do hold so I can distinguish them from the not-normal Christians. How can that be called dishonest in any way?

What's absurd about it is that all that needs to be said is Bringing Dead People To Life Is Impossible.

...snip...

Not according to many Christians I know, many are quite sure that this is possible. I take it then in future I can tell anyone who says they do believe in resurrection that they are not a "normal Christian"?

That's a reasonable atheist objection to the Christian doctrine of resurrection. Why continue to assign beliefs to Christians which they don't believe,

...snip...

I have assigned no beliefs to Christians, I have merely presented you with what they believe.

which everyone reading this knows they don't believe, and which is so out of line with Christian belief

...snip...

Again I'll ask you to provide the list of what are the "Christan belief". You keep telling many of us that quote what Christians say they believe that those are not Christian beliefs yet when asked the simple question "OK then what are the Christian beliefs?" you do not provide an answer.

Please just answer the question and tell me what is the "Christan belief".

westprog

11th May 2008, 09:43 AM

Please just answer the question and tell me what is the "Christan belief".

And we look for the resurrection of the dead

I don't believe for a minute that Darat or Mr Standing don't understand this. I'm quite sure that they know that resurrection means that a corpse ceases to be a corpse. I've snipped the wriggling above. Pretending that it makes no difference whether a body is alive or dead is not a matter of semantic triviality.

However, it's been an illuminating thread in what it reveals about the nature of discourse on this subject.

volatile

11th May 2008, 09:55 AM

However, it's been an illuminating thread in what it reveals about the nature of discourse on this subject.

It certainly has. Probably not for the reasons you think, though.

Jekyll

11th May 2008, 09:59 AM

quixotecoyote

11th May 2008, 10:16 AM

So if Jesus was no longer dead, having risen again, could we refer to him as `un-dead' providing we didn't use the Z word?

Given the issue of communion, would 'reverse vampire' be an appropriate title?

DoubtingStephen

11th May 2008, 10:24 AM

The word "zombie" has specific connotations, and you damn well know it. Stop being so dishonest.

I see your point. Most zombies want to eat your flesh, but Zombie Jeebus turned this ancient paradigm on it's head. He insists that people eat him, instead of his eating people.

Maybe Jeebus was the first Ultra Zombie, no matter how much we eat Jeebus, he keeps coming back so we can eat him some more.

Maybe the Catholic Church could have a positive impact on world hunger by setting up 24 by 7 communion servings. Hungry? Need a snack? Stop by Church tonight on your way out to the disco and get some high p[rotein Zombie Jeebus, it's what's for dinner.

Darat

11th May 2008, 10:49 AM

A Christian Sceptic

11th May 2008, 10:51 AM

DoubtingStephen

11th May 2008, 11:32 AM

But I'm sure you knew that the same way you all know what Ressurection means in the context of Christian beliefs. ;)

Yes, it is an absolutely ridiculous idea, with not a single shadow of a shred of evidence to support it. Christianity is stupid and obnoxious.

I do defend your right to weave your life around a ludicrous bunch of ancient fairy tales if you so desire. And if it gives you comfort or helps you in your daily life, good for you. You do not seem like the type of person that uses their religion like a club to beat others, so I have no personal argument with you. Your attitude does not seem to reflect the majority of people who suffer from Christian-brand religious delusions. And of course Christianity is only one of the religions with which I disagree, there are all the other delusional belief systems too.

I am reminded on a daily basis of the great evils that are done with the implicit or explicit approval of religious organizations. I personally experience negative effects in my life that are justified using these fairy tales. In case the reason for my extreme hostility to Christianity was not already apparent to you, it is because of my life experience dealing with people that suffer from these very same delusions and use them as a justification for doing harm to others, myself included.

As far as I am concerned, the only good religion is a dead religion. Even those remain stupid, but once everybody finally agrees that an old religion is too dumb to use it anymore, that particular cult seems to lose it's ability to create havoc in the world.

Religion should be studied and analyzed as should all areas of human belief and behavior. I continue to hope that some day a pharmaceutical cure or treatment might be developed for fanatical religious delusions.

I would offer to pray that you would abandon your comfy blanket faith, but we all know that nothing fails like prayer.

Edmund Standing

11th May 2008, 11:35 AM

Let's just break it down. It isn't complicated. A corpse is a dead body. A walking corpse is still dead, but walking, either due to black magic, crazed scientists with hunchbacked assistants, an alien virus or an exoskeleton. In any case, it's still dead.

Yes, let's break it down. Jesus was 'brought back to life' by the 'power of God', which is an absurdity on a par with black magic. As bodies, once dead and buried, cannot come back to life, the risen Jesus must have still been dead, but walking, courtesy of God's magic powers.

It seems your entire objection to my article is based around what you see as a facetious and sarcastic way of referring to the Christian belief in bodily resurrection; you haven't addressed any of the rest of the content. I am happy to admit no Christian would speak of 'walking corpses', but so what? That article was not an academic text, and I don't see why I should have to show some kind of 'respect' for the absurd belief I was referring to. You seem to think I am somehow being devious and deliberately slandering Christianity. Nonsense. Anyone reading that article will be educated enough to know that Christians don't envisage a future paradise populated by zombies. It was mild sarcasm to make a point. Yes, I was showing contempt for certain Christian beliefs. And? I feel no need to pussyfoot around trying to sound as though I think these 'ideas' are worthy of respect, or that they deserve to be taken any more seriously than any other superstition.

It's just another way for the atheists with an agenda to give each other high fives and congratulate each other on how clever they are.

Well, we are, so why not?

We're not the ones who think that a body can die only later to emerge intact from the grave.

Darat

11th May 2008, 12:13 PM

...snip...

It seems your entire objection to my article is based around what you see as a facetious and sarcastic way of referring to the Christian belief in bodily resurrection; you haven't addressed any of the rest of the content.

...snip...

It can't be that else westprog wouldn't have used the word "zombie" which did not appear in your article....

...snip...

We're not the ones who think that a body can die only later to emerge intact from the grave.

That may be a hasty conclusion since we are still waiting for westprog's list of what "normal Christians" do believe, it may be that "normal Christians" do not believe in zombies/corpses walking/resurrection...

By the way I enjoyed your article, don't you find it rather ironic in a thread you started to help illustrate the "but that's not the god I believe in" argument the people criticizing your article are saying "but that's not what a [normal] Christian believes"?

Still we can but hope at some point rather than just keep telling us that all these Christian we quote are not Christans™ they will provide us with a list of what these (fast attaining mythical status) Christians™ actually do believe in!

plumjam

11th May 2008, 12:23 PM

Zombie Christ.

Didn't I read that on the '1001 Band Names' thread?

ETA: actually I think I'll start using that as a new expletive.

Darat

11th May 2008, 12:31 PM

Zombie Christ.

Didn't I read that on the '1001 Band Names' thread?

ETA: actually I think I'll start using that as a new expletive.

Zombie Jesus Lives*! (http://www.zombiejesusisback.com/)

*"Lives" being used subject to westprog's approval.

thaiboxerken

11th May 2008, 12:32 PM

Christians believe in the resurrection of the body. That means being fully alive. A corpse is fully dead. I can't think of a more willfully dishonest way to represent someone else's beliefs.

If you believe that the concept of the dead coming to life is absurd, then say so. Don't pretend that Christians believe something they don't believe. The living Christ is central to Christianity. Zombie Christ is something nobody believes in.

Zombie Christ isn't a misrepresentation. It's mockery, and rightfully so. Resurrected Christ is as absurd as Zombie Christ, but just not as funny.

Silentknight

11th May 2008, 01:08 PM

I see your point. Most zombies want to eat your flesh, but Zombie Jeebus turned this ancient paradigm on it's head. He insists that people eat him, instead of his eating people.

Maybe Jeebus was the first Ultra Zombie, no matter how much we eat Jeebus, he keeps coming back so we can eat him some more.

Maybe the Catholic Church could have a positive impact on world hunger by setting up 24 by 7 communion servings. Hungry? Need a snack? Stop by Church tonight on your way out to the disco and get some high protein Zombie Jeebus, it's what's for dinner.

No, no, no! Don't you know anything? One of the rules of zombie survival is that you should never eat zombie meat. As desperate as you may get, consuming zombie meat will infect you in turn by providing the virus a direct route into your system. Besides, who knows how long it's been decaying?

Or maybe that's what the Church had in mind all along. Maybe they're trying to intentionally infect people and turn them into even more zombies. That would certainly explain the behavior of their followers.

A Christian Sceptic

11th May 2008, 02:03 PM

I am reminded on a daily basis of the great evils that are done with the implicit or explicit approval of religious organizations. I personally experience negative effects in my life that are justified using these fairy tales. In case the reason for my extreme hostility to Christianity was not already apparent to you, it is because of my life experience dealing with people that suffer from these very same delusions and use them as a justification for doing harm to others, myself included.

Well - I haven't and don't, so though I can understand where you're coming from I can't really apologize for something I don't / haven't done. But, for what it's worth - sorry.

I would offer to pray that you would abandon your comfy blanket faith, but we all know that nothing fails like prayer.

Why - my faith doesn't affect you at all (except in conversations on this forum).

DoubtingStephen

11th May 2008, 02:16 PM

Well - I haven't and don't, so though I can understand where you're coming from I can't really apologize for something I don't / haven't done. But, for what it's worth - sorry.

Thank you. You certainly did not owe me an apology :)

Why - my faith doesn't affect you at all (except in conversations on this forum).

For your benefit, sir, not mine. I have this notion that the more our ideas and actions align with reality, the better off we will be. My default is to wish well to others, so that includes you of course.

kerikiwi

11th May 2008, 02:19 PM

Why - my faith doesn't affect you at all (except in conversations on this forum).
Your faith will, in fact, affect other people, because it affects your actions.
The effect may be small, or imperceptible, but it exists.
Think of the butterfly effect.

Fiona

11th May 2008, 02:38 PM

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06cr.htm

Will this do ?

Nogbad

11th May 2008, 02:38 PM

Similarly, atheists use the 'but that's not the atheism I believe in' "argument". There is a spectrum of atheist belief ranging from near-agnosticism to the bad-hair-day rantings of Dawkins and Articulett.
I wouldn't expect it to be any other way. The alternative would be to unrealistically demand a uniformity of belief among theists, and a different but similarly uniform position held by all atheists.

Surely the whole point of atheism as a principle is that you don't believe - in effect there isn't anything to believe. How one articulates this disbelief can vary from the strident

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2053/2291964522_0f8f6713db.jpg?v=0

to the light hearted strong agnostic who is simply happy to rest on the point that the evidence presented is inconclusive.

To those observing the theist position from the outside it is clear that the God of Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard or Osama Bin Laden is different from the God of the good Archbishop. I am sure the Archbishop can see this too.

westprog

11th May 2008, 03:29 PM

Zombie Christ isn't a misrepresentation. It's mockery, and rightfully so. Resurrected Christ is as absurd as Zombie Christ, but just not as funny.

I have no particular objection to the mockery. If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't play. The OP, OTOH, was supposedly a serious response to the idea that atheists misrepresent Christian beliefs, and in the course of it, it misrepresented Christian beliefs. I (together with several other people who noticed exactly the same thing) pointed this out. Naturally this drew defenders from the same people who seem to support any atheist argument against any theistic argument, however feeble.

westprog

11th May 2008, 03:42 PM

Surely the whole point of atheism as a principle is that you don't believe - in effect there isn't anything to believe. How one articulates this disbelief can vary from the strident
to the light hearted strong agnostic who is simply happy to rest on the point that the evidence presented is inconclusive.

Atheism in itself doesn't get anyone anywhere until they have a decision about how to live their lives. There are many different options, some off the shelf, and some pick and choose.

To those observing the theist position from the outside it is clear that the God of Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard or Osama Bin Laden is different from the God of the good Archbishop. I am sure the Archbishop can see this too.

I think that it's fairly clear that both within and between belief systems that there's a vast range of behaviour. Strangely that doesn't seem to affect the belief of many people posting here that there's only one way to think.

westprog

11th May 2008, 03:46 PM

Your faith will, in fact, affect other people, because it affects your actions.
The effect may be small, or imperceptible, but it exists.
Think of the butterfly effect.

It's an unavoidable side-effect of a world with other people in it.

westprog

11th May 2008, 03:49 PM

I continue to hope that some day a pharmaceutical cure or treatment might be developed for fanatical religious delusions.

And who could possibly worry about that?

westprog

11th May 2008, 03:55 PM

Yes, let's break it down. Jesus was 'brought back to life' by the 'power of God', which is an absurdity on a par with black magic. As bodies, once dead and buried, cannot come back to life, the risen Jesus must have still been dead, but walking, courtesy of God's magic powers.

Which, as I've said, is quite contrary to what Christians believe.

It seems your entire objection to my article is based around what you see as a facetious and sarcastic way of referring to the Christian belief in bodily resurrection; you haven't addressed any of the rest of the content.

Since the article was disputing that atheists misrepresent Christians, and the article included a major misrepresentation of Christian doctrine, I didn't need to go much further than to point out that it was self-refuting.

I am happy to admit no Christian would speak of 'walking corpses', but so what? That article was not an academic text, and I don't see why I should have to show some kind of 'respect' for the absurd belief I was referring to. You seem to think I am somehow being devious and deliberately slandering Christianity. Nonsense. Anyone reading that article will be educated enough to know that Christians don't envisage a future paradise populated by zombies. It was mild sarcasm to make a point. Yes, I was showing contempt for certain Christian beliefs. And? I feel no need to pussyfoot around trying to sound as though I think these 'ideas' are worthy of respect, or that they deserve to be taken any more seriously than any other superstition.

If you have no interest in what Christian beliefs are, and no intention of representing them correctly, then why write an article claiming the opposite?

Well, we are, so why not?

We're not the ones who think that a body can die only later to emerge intact from the grave.

And what could be wrong with an elite who think their beliefs make them superior to other people?

Magyar

11th May 2008, 07:54 PM

I don't believe for a minute that Darat or Mr Standing don't understand this. I'm quite sure that they know that resurrection means that a corpse ceases to be a corpse. I've snipped the wriggling above. Pretending that it makes no difference whether a body is alive or dead is not a matter of semantic triviality.

However, it's been an illuminating thread in what it reveals about the nature of discourse on this subject.

You are absolutely right! It is quit CLEAR that you - who proposes to know the meaning of your faith - are quit unwilling to define what it exactly means despite being asked repeatedly.

You shouldn't feel bad, nor should you really expect us to be surprised, since this has been done by many far and wide and for nearly 2 millenium. After all there is a reason why there are as many as 38000 christian denominations.

You have however succeeded in demonstrating (yet again) that xianity is nothing more than a power cult based on a fairy tale life of a mythical man. Vaguely defined on purpose so that all spectrum of human beings from the deranged, perverted, power hungry, delusional, racist and prejudice and the feeble minded can justify their behavior. Yet - ALWAYS - leaving the same excuse of "false profits" (after all the "that's not the god I believe in" is just a rephrasing of that) so they can continue to steal and abuse their power. OH and don't kid yourself, just because you're not the Fred Phelps kind of christian you are the base that makes such people possible.

thaiboxerken

11th May 2008, 11:48 PM

The OP, OTOH, was supposedly a serious response to the idea that atheists misrepresent Christian beliefs, and in the course of it, it misrepresented Christian beliefs.

But most often, they don't. It's a hyperbole used to demonize atheists.

I (together with several other people who noticed exactly the same thing) pointed this out.
You're wrong. You are demonizing the opposition because you hate atheists and seem to misunderstand many of the points atheists bring up about theism.

Naturally this drew defenders from the same people who seem to support any atheist argument against any theistic argument, however feeble.

Bull freaking spit. It's rather silly that these theists talk about the strawmen gods that atheists supposedly built that no theists believe in, yet come from the very bibles and holy books that the theists hold so dear. Then, in the same breath, these theists refuse to define the god and beliefs that they supposedly believe in.

You are one of these theists, you cry "strawman" while not stating what your beliefs really are. That's a dishonest and cowardly tactic, but I'm not surprised by it. I think that deep inside, most of the "moderate" believers like you really do understand how absurd your beliefs are. I'm glad, because if you didn't, it's likely you'd be one of those that would take violent action to promote your faith.

H3LL

12th May 2008, 01:36 AM

..For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised .... - (1 Corinthians 15:49–55)

...And the dead in Christ will rise first.... - (1 Thessalonians 4:15–17)

...the dead shamble and lurch, hunting the living before the Day of Judgement... - (Revelations 25:13*)

..And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God..... And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them... - (Revelation 20:12-15)

Plus several chapters given earlier.

Nope ... no "walking corpses" in the bible what-so-ever.

It seems strange that an article protesting that Christian beliefs are fairly portrayed by atheists should use the phrase "walking corpses". How many Christians believe in walking corpses? I would say, to a good approximation, none. . My bold

More evidence that some/most christians either don't read the bible or just out-and-out Lie For Zombie Jesus.

Neither is admirable.

Westprog, are you Lying For Jesus or ignorant of the bible and its teachings?

.

* Made-up to follow the christian traditions.

Darat

12th May 2008, 01:49 AM

I have no particular objection to the mockery. If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't play. The OP, OTOH, was supposedly a serious response to the idea that atheists misrepresent Christian beliefs, and in the course of it, it misrepresented Christian beliefs. I (together with several other people who noticed exactly the same thing) pointed this out. Naturally this drew defenders from the same people who seem to support any atheist argument against any theistic argument, however feeble.

Any chance you can provide us with a list of what the actual Christian beliefs are so we won't inadvertently confuse what a Christian states are his or her beliefs with what are the real and actual beliefs they do have....

Or will you again just ignore the fact that in this thread and in article there is clear evidence that it is your views on what are Christian beliefs that the evidence refutes?

Darat

12th May 2008, 01:55 AM

...snip...

If you have no interest in what Christian beliefs are, and no intention of representing them correctly, then why write an article claiming the opposite?

...snip..

Well I for one have a great interest in what these beliefs are and if you havena noticed I have asked you a few times in this thread to actually tell me what they are.

So I'll ask again, please provide me with a list of what are the Christian beliefs.

H3LL

12th May 2008, 04:48 AM

So I'll ask again, please provide me with a list of what are the Christian beliefs.

Me! Me! Me! Me! Please! Ask me!

*Stands*
*Declaims*
"THE christian beliefs are that lying is OK and to be worshipped. The end."
*Sits*

Westprog's turn now .....

.

westprog

12th May 2008, 05:20 AM

Any chance you can provide us with a list of what the actual Christian beliefs are so we won't inadvertently confuse what a Christian states are his or her beliefs with what are the real and actual beliefs they do have....

Or will you again just ignore the fact that in this thread and in article there is clear evidence that it is your views on what are Christian beliefs that the evidence refutes?

I've given you the Nicene creed, and I've explained the difference between resurrected Jesus and Zombie Jesus. If you can't tell the difference, then that's because you don't want to tell the difference. There's nothing complicated about it.

Darat

12th May 2008, 05:25 AM

I've given you the Nicene creed, and I've explained the difference between resurrected Jesus and Zombie Jesus. If you can't tell the difference, then that's because you don't want to tell the difference. There's nothing complicated about it.

So if it ain't in the Nicene creed it isn't a Christian belief?

ETA: Psst.... have you forgotten by the way that it was you and Egg that introduced the idea of "Zombie Jesus" into this thread? The opening post article never mentioned "Zombie Jesus". You do seem to be very prescriptive as to what is acceptable or not, so you are the one that determines what Christan beliefs are (not the Christians themselves), you determine what words are acceptable synonyms and so on...

Robin

12th May 2008, 05:49 AM

"The interesting question about atheism is, what is the theism being denied? Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins does not believe in? The God that is being rejected by such people is a God I don't believe in either."
Here is how Dawkins defined the God he didn't believe in:
a supernatural intelligence that designed the universe and everything in it including us
So the Cardinal does not believe in, nor has ever met anyone who believes that a supernatural intelligence designed the universe and everything in it including us.

So if even the Archbishop of Westminster is an atheist and he doesn't know anybody who is not an atheist, then we must be making some headway.

westprog

12th May 2008, 05:51 AM

So if it ain't in the Nicene creed it isn't a Christian belief?

ETA: Psst.... have you forgotten by the way that it was you and Egg that introduced the idea of "Zombie Jesus" into this thread? The opening post article never mentioned "Zombie Jesus". You do seem to be very prescriptive as to what is acceptable or not, so you are the one that determines what Christan beliefs are (not the Christians themselves), you determine what words are acceptable synonyms and so on...

No, it was the OP that introduced the idea of Zombie Jesus. Egg and I called it like it was. Darat and H3ll made irrelevant excursions into Revelations which were never what it was about. The OP referred to Jesus as a walking corpse. He's reaffirmed that that's what he meant. He's fairly clearly implied that his contempt for Christian belief is such that he can't be bothered to get it exactly right.

blobru

12th May 2008, 06:05 AM

I've given you the Nicene creed...

Thanks much for the reference.

From the 1988 ecumenical version:
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

Will He [Jesus] judge them as he promises to in Mark 16:16:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

and will the Judgment be as described in Revelation 20:12-15:
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. ... And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

? :halo:

Nogbad

12th May 2008, 06:09 AM

No, it was the OP that introduced the idea of Zombie Jesus. Egg and I called it like it was. Darat and H3ll made irrelevant excursions into Revelations which were never what it was about. The OP referred to Jesus as a walking corpse. He's reaffirmed that that's what he meant. He's fairly clearly implied that his contempt for Christian belief is such that he can't be bothered to get it exactly right.

Be fair - a lot of denominations think the other denominations can't be bothered to get it right too.

There may be 38,000 denominations but as far as the RCs are concerned there is only one...... oh and 37,999 sets of heretics.

westprog

12th May 2008, 06:10 AM

But most often, they don't. It's a hyperbole used to demonize atheists.

So what? In this case, the misrepresentation is blatant.

You're wrong. You are demonizing the opposition because you hate atheists

That's what's technically known as a "lie". It's also very clear that the most virulent and hate-filled attacks on atheists on this forum are from other atheists who don't regard them as sufficiently fervent in their beliefs. See Articulett about apologists.

and seem to misunderstand many of the points atheists bring up about theism.

Maybe I do - but I continue to try to get at the heart of what people actually believe, rather than insist I already know.

Bull freaking spit. It's rather silly that these theists talk about the strawmen gods that atheists supposedly built that no theists believe in, yet come from the very bibles and holy books that the theists hold so dear. Then, in the same breath, these theists refuse to define the god and beliefs that they supposedly believe in.

You are one of these theists, you cry "strawman" while not stating what your beliefs really are. That's a dishonest and cowardly tactic, but I'm not surprised by it. I think that deep inside, most of the "moderate" believers like you really do understand how absurd your beliefs are. I'm glad, because if you didn't, it's likely you'd be one of those that would take violent action to promote your faith.

How do you know? I'm too dishonest and cowardly to tell my true beliefs, so I could be beating up atheists* every day for all you know.

And Ken accuses me of having a fantasy life.

*Weak, feeble atheists, obviously. I'd run away when the big strong atheists come along.

martu

12th May 2008, 06:15 AM

No, it was the OP that introduced the idea of Zombie Jesus. Egg and I called it like it was. Darat and H3ll made irrelevant excursions into Revelations which were never what it was about. The OP referred to Jesus as a walking corpse. He's reaffirmed that that's what he meant. He's fairly clearly implied that his contempt for Christian belief is such that he can't be bothered to get it exactly right.

Which Christian sect has it 'exactly right' in your opinion and why?

westprog

12th May 2008, 06:42 AM

Which Christian sect has it 'exactly right' in your opinion and why?

I'd need to be sure of what they believed before making specific judgements. Or I could just make up something, I suppose.

martu

12th May 2008, 06:51 AM

I'd need to be sure of what they believed before making specific judgements. Or I could just make up something, I suppose.

It worked for Cephas it could work for you.

A Christian Sceptic

12th May 2008, 06:56 AM

I think that deep inside, most of the "moderate" believers like you really do understand how absurd your beliefs are. I'm glad, because if you didn't, it's likely you'd be one of those that would take violent action to promote your faith.

Here again - many atheists apparently don't view all Christians as equally wrong. Apparently the more literal and apparently violent they are the more accurate and less wrong they are - they are the True Believers.

Robin

12th May 2008, 07:08 AM

Here again - many atheists apparently don't view all Christians as equally wrong. Apparently the more literal and apparently violent they are the more accurate and less wrong they are - they are the True Believers.
Can you give an example of an atheist saying that more literal and apparently violent Christians are more accurate and less wrong?

I don't think I have ever heard an atheist say anything even remotely like that.

Darat

12th May 2008, 07:14 AM

No, it was the OP that introduced the idea of Zombie Jesus. Egg and I called it like it was.

So let me get this right when you change how someone chooses to describe something that is "calling it it like it is" but when someone else changes how someone describes something that is wrong.

Darat and H3ll made irrelevant excursions into Revelations which were never what it was about.

Yet another one of your factual inaccuracies.

The OP referred to Jesus as a walking corpse. He's reaffirmed that that's what he meant. He's fairly clearly implied that his contempt for Christian belief is such that he can't be bothered to get it exactly right.

I am beginning to get this - when something is done by you it is OK, but when the same thing is done by someone else it isn't. So it doesn't matter when you don't "bother to get it exactly right" but it does when, in your opinion of course, others do not get it exactly right.

A Christian Sceptic

12th May 2008, 07:15 AM

Can you give an example of an atheist saying that more literal and apparently violent Christians are more accurate and less wrong?

I don't think I have ever heard an atheist say anything even remotely like that.

Well Thaiboxer above for one. He's making a comparison between a "moderate" and someone who "takes their faith more seriously" with the latter being the preferred to measure against. There's been others here, too.

It's pretty common to see a variation of "I'm glad you don't take your faith seriously - otherwise you'd be a Fundamentalist" etc.

If you don't, then great. It is a fascinating phenomenon here though, none the less.

Edmund Standing

12th May 2008, 07:18 AM

And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God

The dead standing... the dead walking... the walking dead... walking corpses. And back we come to the original point.

And what could be wrong with an elite who think their beliefs make them superior to other people?

No, I believe those who have a lack of belief in superstitions are intellectually superior. I would also rather be part of an educated elite dedicated to rationalism than join the millions of people who still believe that the crap they find written in a few ancient books is the truth about life and the universe.

Darat

12th May 2008, 07:19 AM

Well Thaiboxer above for one. He's making a comparison between a "moderate" and someone who "takes their faith more seriously" with the latter being the preferred to measure against. There's been others here, too.

...snip...

You do know this does not support the claim you made?

It's pretty common to see a variation of "I'm glad you don't take your faith seriously - otherwise you'd be a Fundamentalist" etc.

If you don't, then great. It is a fascinating phenomenon here though, none the less.

If it is common surely it should be easy for you to provide a quote or link to an atheist saying what you claim?

martu

12th May 2008, 07:22 AM

blobru

12th May 2008, 07:30 AM

Well Thaiboxer above for one. He's making a comparison between a "moderate" and someone who "takes their faith more seriously" with the latter being the preferred to measure against. There's been others here, too. ...

Moderates are normally contrasted with extremists. :confused: I would guess that was boxer's intent, especially since nowhere in the post you must be referring to does the phrase "takes their faith more seriously", which you mysteriously attribute to him, appear.

Nogbad

12th May 2008, 07:42 AM

Well Thaiboxer above for one. He's making a comparison between a "moderate" and someone who "takes their faith more seriously" with the latter being the preferred to measure against. There's been others here, too.

It's pretty common to see a variation of "I'm glad you don't take your faith seriously - otherwise you'd be a Fundamentalist" etc.

If you don't, then great. It is a fascinating phenomenon here though, none the less.

I think, as others have said, there is a significant difference between someone who has a devout, deep and abiding faith/opinion but nonetheless accepts that others can and do hold a different views and someone who cannot rest until everyone agrees he is right.

A religious fundamentalist to me is someone who will prove he is right over your dead body (literally or metaphorically) if need be.

A devout individual on the other hand can be humble, human and still not compromise their beliefs.

Debate with the latter can often be challenging rarely if ever rancerous. Rancour is the starting point of the former - it generally goes downhill from there :)

Big Les

12th May 2008, 08:37 AM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2053/2291964522_0f8f6713db.jpg?v=0

Oh god (pun intended), that's me. I've done that. Thanks for the reminder to just hit that power off button once in a while!

DoubtingStephen

12th May 2008, 10:36 AM

Oh god (pun intended), that's me. I've done that. Thanks for the reminder to just hit that power off button once in a while!

You may not be the only person that blushed upon seeing that cartoon (blush).

I felt like saying "Oh my, a direct hit."

Egg

12th May 2008, 10:42 AM

ETA: Psst.... have you forgotten by the way that it was you and Egg that introduced the idea of "Zombie Jesus" into this thread? The opening post article never mentioned "Zombie Jesus". You do seem to be very prescriptive as to what is acceptable or not, so you are the one that determines what Christan beliefs are (not the Christians themselves), you determine what words are acceptable synonyms and so on...

I was the first to use the word "zombie". Darat, you're quite right to point out that it is an argument over semantics, but that doesn't trivialise it or make those arguing over the semantics dishonest or wriggling. The article referred to in the OP is largely about semantics ie. the meanings of the words used.

Quite simply, as I understand the meanings of the words, "corpse" is a dead body. "Zombie" is defined as an animated (perhaps walking) dead body (or corpse) and would generally be understood to be a word accurately used to describe a "walking corpse". Other people may have a different understanding of the words and are welcome to challenge me over the semantics, but I believe these definitions are consistent with most English dictionaries.

"Resurrection" involves a dead body becoming alive again, so it would no longer be called a "corpse" as it is no longer a dead body. "Walking ex-corpse" would be fine, but "walking corpse" is semantically inaccurate and therefore misrepresents what is being stated in the Nicene creed, which is kind of self-defeating in an article by someone setting out to disagree with bishops that certain atheist writers are misrepresenting Christian beliefs.

A Christian Sceptic

12th May 2008, 10:57 AM

I think, as others have said, there is a significant difference between someone who has a devout, deep and abiding faith/opinion but nonetheless accepts that others can and do hold a different views and someone who cannot rest until everyone agrees he is right.

A religious fundamentalist to me is someone who will prove he is right over your dead body (literally or metaphorically) if need be.

A devout individual on the other hand can be humble, human and still not compromise their beliefs.

Debate with the latter can often be challenging rarely if ever rancerous. Rancour is the starting point of the former - it generally goes downhill from there :)

I don't disagree with your definitions. It's some peoples (Not yours) preference to compare and contrast Fundamentalists / Literalists with "others" and somehow make the distinction between the two that the "others" are somehow less faithful.

A Christian Sceptic

12th May 2008, 11:11 AM

Moderates are normally contrasted with extremists. :confused: I would guess that was boxer's intent, especially since nowhere in the post you must be referring to does the phrase "takes their faith more seriously", which you mysteriously attribute to him, appear.

You're technically right. He actually said moderates really believe their beliefs are absurd while violent non-moderates really believe their beliefs. :confused:

And that doesn't mean the non-moderates are taking their faith more seriously?:boggled:

Darat

12th May 2008, 12:39 PM

You're technically right. He actually said moderates really believe their beliefs are absurd while violent non-moderates really believe their beliefs. :confused:

And that doesn't mean the non-moderates are taking their faith more seriously?:boggled:

It may do but that is not the claim you made that you were asked to support, as a reminder:

"Apparently the more literal and apparently violent they are the more accurate and less wrong they are - they are the True Believers."

Darat

12th May 2008, 12:52 PM

I was the first to use the word "zombie". Darat, you're quite right to point out that it is an argument over semantics, but that doesn't trivialise it or make those arguing over the semantics dishonest or wriggling. The article referred to in the OP is largely about semantics ie. the meanings of the words used.

I didn't call it dishonest, I was commenting on someone else's comment who seemed to be saying that it was dishonest.

Quite simply, as I understand the meanings of the words, "corpse" is a dead body. "Zombie" is defined as an animated (perhaps walking) dead body (or corpse) and would generally be understood to be a word accurately used to describe a "walking corpse". Other people may have a different understanding of the words and are welcome to challenge me over the semantics, but I believe these definitions are consistent with most English dictionaries.

...snip...

There are many definitions of Zombies and many fictional creatures are called zombies. Since the word is a label for a fictional creature how there can be a definitive zombie is nothing more than another example of you trying to impose your views on others. It's like arguing that a unicorn chews the cud and anyone who uses the word to describe a one horned horse like creature that doesn't chews the cud isn't talking about a unicorn!

"Resurrection" involves a dead body becoming alive again, so it would no longer be called a "corpse" as it is no longer a dead body. "Walking ex-corpse" would be fine, but "walking corpse" is semantically inaccurate and therefore misrepresents what is being stated in the Nicene creed, which is kind of self-defeating in an article by someone setting out to disagree with bishops that certain atheist writers are misrepresenting Christian beliefs.

I see you use the same standard as westprog - it's alright for you to misrepresent someone's words but when you see it done (in your opinion) about a Christian term you consider it wrong.

Egg

12th May 2008, 01:18 PM

blobru

12th May 2008, 02:57 PM

You're technically right.

No skin off my banana. Can't say how thaiboxerken will appreciate being misquoted though.

He actually said moderates really believe their beliefs are absurd...

Ever hear of Kierkegaard (considered by many Christians the most influential Theologian since Thomas Aquinas)?

According to him (Fear and Trembling), believing in the absurd is the most serious faith there is.

... while violent non-moderates really believe their beliefs. :confused:

Again, you're putting words in his mouth, though at least this time you didn't enclose them in quotes (implying verbatim).

What he said was "if you didn't [understand how absurd your beliefs are], it's likely you'd be [a violent promoter of the faith]."

Personally, I disagree with this (though not being a Christian Theologian, it's all a bit moot). I would guess that someone who thinks her beliefs are "not absurd", i.e., "absolute", and wishes to spread them is more likely to resort to violence than someone who realizes her beliefs are absurd (limited). However, I don't think violence likely in either case (absolute or absurd). It does seem to be the case though, historically, that absolute faith, whatever the ideology, has a lot more potential for harm (some might also argue for good) than absurd faith.

And that doesn't mean the non-moderates are taking their faith more seriously?:boggled:

To unboggle your mind on this subtlety of Christian Theology, read Kierkegaard (warning: he's a Dane, and often melancholy).

A Christian Sceptic

12th May 2008, 03:10 PM

Again, you're putting words in his mouth, though at least this time you didn't enclose them in quotes (implying verbatim).

How?

What he said was "if you didn't , it's likely you'd be [a violent promoter of the faith]."

Now you're misquoting him. :)

Here is what he said:

I think that deep inside, most of the "moderate" believers like you really do understand how absurd your beliefs are. I'm glad, because if you didn't, it's likely you'd be one of those that would take violent action to promote your faith.

Let's look at this.

most of the "moderate" believers like you [U]really do understand how absurd your beliefs are

He is saying that moderates understand (believe?) that their beliefs are absurd.
And yes - I take this as meaning someone who doesn't believe it like real believers. I get this because of the comparison made. (ImaginalDisc uses this argument too but uses the phrase 'moderates are less faithful')

because if you didn't

Here's the comparison to what someone who actually believes their beliefs would be like.

it's likely you'd be one of those that would take violent action to promote your faith.

And there is what Thai thinks someone who doesn't think their beliefs are absurd would do / be like. It's the greater (more accurate, truer) of the two being compared in his opinion.

Of course, if that's not what he meant - I'd love for him to explain what he did mean.

Civilized Worm

12th May 2008, 04:54 PM

Let's just break it down. It isn't complicated. A corpse is a dead body. A walking corpse is still dead, but walking, either due to black magic, crazed scientists with hunchbacked assistants, an alien virus or an exoskeleton. In any case, it's still dead.

A resurrected body was dead, and is now alive. Hence not a corpse.

Oh, but resurrection is impossible, science, etc etc. Well, then, why not bloody say so?

Thanks for pointing out that christian beliefs are infact MORE bizarre improbable than Edmund gave credit.

Ron_Tomkins

12th May 2008, 05:21 PM

Oh my God, I love this!!! Zombie Christ! That one goes to my messenger sub-nickname.

Dunstan

12th May 2008, 05:54 PM

Not that the zombie discussion isn't fascinating, but I'd like to return to the original subject.

The reasonableness of the "that's not my god" argument depends on the context. If you're having an individual discussion, then both sides need to tailor their arguments to what's really in dispute. Much like the JREF challenge, you have to test what the claimant claims. If I'm arguing with a Hindu, there's no point in pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible. If a Christian admits that the Bible is not a great moral guidebook, then there's no need for me to talk about references to genocide and slavery.

But if, like Dawkins, you're writing a book to be read by a general audience, it's not realistic to try to address each of the many different individualized flavors of belief out there. The fact that Dawkins didn't say "the god that Steven K. Quibbleberry of Des Moines, Iowa believes in does not exist because...." is hardly a ringing indictment.

If you take a position like Dawkins, i.e. that you cannot absolutely disprove the existence of a god, but that there is no good evidence for the existence of a god, then all you can realistically do is address the common arguments that are out there. And that's basically what Dawkins did in The God Delusion.

I don't think that "that's not my god" is a very good response to Dawkins, because it fails to make an affirmative case. If someone follows that statement by saying "Dawkins didn't address my reason for believing in a god, which is the following evidence and/or argument," well, that's a different kettle of fish, and then we can talk about whether the proferred argument is a good one or not. But they never seem to get to that part; they seem to think that it's enough to say "ha, ha, silly Dawkins, we don't believe in an old man with a long beard sitting in the clouds!" without explaining what exactly they do believe in, and why. Not long ago, Dawkins did a BBC radio programme with ... I think it was Lord Winston, who was frustratingly vague on what he actually believed. Dawkins kept trying to flush out what exactly Winston believed in, but Winston kept dodging.

Jon.

12th May 2008, 06:02 PM

I don't think that "that's not my god" is a very good response to Dawkins, because it fails to make an affirmative case. If someone follows that statement by saying "Dawkins didn't address my reason for believing in a god, which is the following evidence and/or argument," well, that's a different kettle of fish, and then we can talk about whether the proferred argument is a good one or not. But they never seem to get to that part; they seem to think that it's enough to say "ha, ha, silly Dawkins, we don't believe in an old man with a long beard sitting in the clouds!" without explaining what exactly they do believe in, and why. Not long ago, Dawkins did a BBC radio programme with ... I think it was Lord Winston, who was frustratingly vague on what he actually believed. Dawkins kept trying to flush out what exactly Winston believed in, but Winston kept dodging.

Didn't Dawkins actually make exactly this point in The God Delusion? Specifically, that he had met very few believers who could actually provide a coherent definition of what they believed in. Or was that Dennett?

Dunstan

12th May 2008, 06:36 PM

Didn't Dawkins actually make exactly this point in The God Delusion? Specifically, that he had met very few believers who could actually provide a coherent definition of what they believed in. Or was that Dennett?

I think they both said something along those lines. I think Dawkins anticipated the "we don't believe in a bearded man in the sky" criticism, and Dennett has written and spoken about what I think he calls (I think) the "murkies" or "fuzzies," who believe in something but it isn't clear what.

Silentknight

12th May 2008, 06:38 PM

There are many definitions of Zombies and many fictional creatures are called zombies. Since the word is a label for a fictional creature how there can be a definitive zombie is nothing more than another example of you trying to impose your views on others. It's like arguing that a unicorn chews the cud and anyone who uses the word to describe a one horned horse like creature that doesn't chews the cud isn't talking about a unicorn!
But Egg did have a point. There is typically a distinction between a zombie and a resurrected person, whether you look in mythology, folklore, or fantasy roleplaying games. As humorous as I find the "Zombie Jesus" argument (one I've often used myself) it's clear that the bible was describing a resurrected person, not a zombie. A zombie is an undead creature, by every definition I've heard of, which usually means a dead thing animated by supernatural means. It's technically still dead, yet behaving as if it were alive in some respects. A resurrected person is a person restored to a living state after having been dead. In other words, they'd be the same as they were before they died, and fully healed.

Neither one of these phenomena is scientifically possible, mind you.
If you take a position like Dawkins, i.e. that you cannot absolutely disprove the existence of a god, but that there is no good evidence for the existence of a god, then all you can realistically do is address the common arguments that are out there. And that's basically what Dawkins did in The God Delusion.

I don't think that "that's not my god" is a very good response to Dawkins, because it fails to make an affirmative case. If someone follows that statement by saying "Dawkins didn't address my reason for believing in a god, which is the following evidence and/or argument," well, that's a different kettle of fish, and then we can talk about whether the proferred argument is a good one or not. But they never seem to get to that part; they seem to think that it's enough to say "ha, ha, silly Dawkins, we don't believe in an old man with a long beard sitting in the clouds!" without explaining what exactly they do believe in, and why. Not long ago, Dawkins did a BBC radio programme with ... I think it was Lord Winston, who was frustratingly vague on what he actually believed. Dawkins kept trying to flush out what exactly Winston believed in, but Winston kept dodging.

Exactly. If someone were to say to me, "But that's not the God I believe in," I would simply reply, "Well good for you." The thing is, I'm very well aware that God can mean very different things to different people. I don't even necessarily have a problem with certain types of God beliefs, because it all depends on how a person acts on those beliefs. My main concern is with beliefs (any kind of beliefs) that either cause harm to others, or that shelter those beliefs from criticism.

blobru

13th May 2008, 01:58 AM

Again, you're putting words in his mouth, though at least this time you didn't enclose them in quotes (implying verbatim).

How?

Thus:
He actually said moderates really believe their beliefs are absurd while violent non-moderates really believe their beliefs.

YOU BELIEVE he meant that.

He did not ACTUALLY say that.

At least not as blatant as your original direct misquote:
Well Thaiboxer above for one. He's making a comparison between a "moderate" and someone who "takes their faith more seriously"...

This time you disquise the misquote with the phrase "He actually said..."

What he said was "if you didn't , it's likely you'd be [a violent promoter of the faith]." Now you're misquoting him. :)

Square brackets within double quotes is periphrasis within vebatim for the sake of brevity or clarity.

E.g.:

Christ said: "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." direct quote -- Mark 16:16 -- NASB transl.

Christ said: "." -- irreverent but not inaccurate periphrasis of same.

Here is what he said:

I think that deep inside, most of the "moderate" believers like you really do understand how absurd your beliefs are. I'm glad, because if you didn't, it's likely you'd be one of those that would take violent action to promote your faith.

Let's look at this.

[B]most of the "moderate" believers like you [U]really do understand how absurd your beliefs are

(minor point) The full quote is: "I think that deep inside..." . He's offering an opinion.

He is saying that moderates understand (believe?) that their beliefs are absurd.

Which interpretation wouldn't necessarily mean that they take their faith less seriously, as you assert in your original misquote, and as is obvious to every student of Christianity (who has read Kierkegaard, pretty much [I]sine qua non along with Augustine and Aquinas for being a student of Christianity I would have thought).

I don't know what thaiboxerken meant. Neither do you. To pretend otherwise with direct and indirect misquotes bespeaks either dishonesty or ignorance and is usually followed by an admission of same and an apology.

At least in 'polite' discourse. Not being a Christian Theologian, I can't say if these rules apply to everyone.

And yes - I take this as meaning someone who doesn't believe it like real believers. I get this because of the comparison made.

I get that you get that, but I wouldn't pretend to know that was meant with a direct misquote (that wasn't immediately followed by a retraction upon notice).

(ImaginalDisc uses this argument too but uses the phrase 'moderates are less faithful')

I don't know if he uses the phrase or not, and your post doesn't help much. You put 'moderates are less faithful' in single 'scare' quotes, implying this is not a direct quote.

because if you didn't
Here's the comparison to what someone who actually believes their beliefs would be like.

??? Sorry, don't speak the lingo. (and why the boldface?)

By "who actually believes their beliefs would be like" do you mean, "who don't doubt their beliefs"?

it's likely you'd be one of those that would take violent action to promote your faith.

And there is what Thai thinks someone who doesn't think their beliefs are absurd would do / be like. It's the greater (more accurate, truer) of the two being compared in his opinion.

I think he's comparing someone who is certain their beliefs are literally true with someone who realizes their beliefs are incomplete metaphors because they quite literally don't make sense.

Just my opinion, though. Probably wrong.

Of course, if that's not what he meant - I'd love for him to explain what he did mean.

He may mean precisely that. We don't know. To have suggested you do with direct and indirect misquotes was either dishonest or ignorant or both.

Sorry to have to state and re-state it so brusquely.

Darat

13th May 2008, 02:29 AM

But Egg did have a point. There is typically a distinction between a zombie and a resurrected person, whether you look in mythology, folklore, or fantasy roleplaying games. As humorous as I find the "Zombie Jesus" argument (one I've often used myself) it's clear that the bible was describing a resurrected person, not a zombie. A zombie is an undead creature, by every definition I've heard of, which usually means a dead thing animated by supernatural means. It's technically still dead, yet behaving as if it were alive in some respects. A resurrected person is a person restored to a living state after having been dead. In other words, they'd be the same as they were before they died, and fully healed.

...snip...

But remember the article didn't use the word "zombie". And this is not just a quibble since one of Egg and westprog's main criticism of the article is that the author used a term they consider is somehow disparaging/sarcastic and so on e.g. "walking corpse", yet they then didn't mind using the exact same "tactic" against the article.

In other words they tried (and have been very successful with the knowing cooperation of me) at sidetracking any actual discussion of the argument contained within the article.

I am still waiting for the folk who don't (in broad terms) agree with the article to actually address the substance of the article's arguments...

Complexity

13th May 2008, 02:32 AM

A distinction without a difference.

Silly xians, silly xian beliefs.

westprog

13th May 2008, 02:44 AM

But remember the article didn't use the word "zombie". And this is not just a quibble since one of Egg and westprog's main criticism of the article is that the author used a term they consider is somehow disparaging/sarcastic and so on e.g. "walking corpse", yet they then didn't mind using the exact same "tactic" against the article.

Nonsense. A zombie is a walking corpse. There was no distortion. That's why The Egg And I came up with the same description quite independently. That was what was being described. And the dispute wasn't over the use of disparaging/sarcastic terms - it was about deliberate distortion of Christian belief, in an article about the supposed non-distortion of Christian belief. If I had a big hang up about blasphemous language I wouldn't have mentioned Zombie Christ in the first place.

The reason that nobody has addressed the points in the article is that the article was rendered useless by being self-debunking.

westprog

13th May 2008, 02:48 AM

I don't know what thaiboxerken meant. Neither do you.

I don't know what he meant, precisely. I don't really care- it was an outstandingly stupid post by one of the stupider people posting here.

And he wasn't posting generally about Christians - he was making up stupid lies about me. Luckily his allegations are sufficiently idiotic to be not worth worrying about.

Darat

13th May 2008, 02:54 AM

Not that the zombie discussion isn't fascinating, but I'd like to return to the original subject.

The reasonableness of the "that's not my god" argument depends on the context. If you're having an individual discussion, then both sides need to tailor their arguments to what's really in dispute. Much like the JREF challenge, you have to test what the claimant claims. If I'm arguing with a Hindu, there's no point in pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible. If a Christian admits that the Bible is not a great moral guidebook, then there's no need for me to talk about references to genocide and slavery.

...snip...

But when the Christian (or anyone else of course) then states that the Bible does promote a "good morality" or "in essence its message is a good one" and other types of phrases it is not inappropriate to point out that this view can only come about by adopting a pix 'n' mix approach to the Bible.

Now this is generally only a problem for the minority of Christians that are from what are generally described as "protestant" denominations since the Roman Catholic Church is quite clear that morality does not come from the Bible but from the RCC. (ETA: Of course that just opens up a whole new field for discussion and at some point I bet the Bible is again referenced... ;) )

To your wider point, I agree that it is only when a specific belief is claimed by a particular person that we can argue about that belief with that person so if they do say "I don't believe in that" then it would be rather silly to try and convince them to continue to not believe in that specific belief!

(Interestingly the folk in this thread that are apparently making the "pro religious" case are the only ones that are trying to prescribe what a Christian can and cannot believe in.)

...snip...

I don't think that "that's not my god" is a very good response to Dawkins, because it fails to make an affirmative case. If someone follows that statement by saying "Dawkins didn't address my reason for believing in a god, which is the following evidence and/or argument," well, that's a different kettle of fish, and then we can talk about whether the proferred argument is a good one or not. But they never seem to get to that part; they seem to think that it's enough to say "ha, ha, silly Dawkins, we don't believe in an old man with a long beard sitting in the clouds!" without explaining what exactly they do believe in, and why. Not long ago, Dawkins did a BBC radio programme with ... I think it was Lord Winston, who was frustratingly vague on what he actually believed. Dawkins kept trying to flush out what exactly Winston believed in, but Winston kept dodging.

Well put.

westprog

13th May 2008, 02:54 AM

But Egg did have a point. There is typically a distinction between a zombie and a resurrected person, whether you look in mythology, folklore, or fantasy roleplaying games. As humorous as I find the "Zombie Jesus" argument (one I've often used myself) it's clear that the bible was describing a resurrected person, not a zombie. A zombie is an undead creature, by every definition I've heard of, which usually means a dead thing animated by supernatural means. It's technically still dead, yet behaving as if it were alive in some respects. A resurrected person is a person restored to a living state after having been dead. In other words, they'd be the same as they were before they died, and fully healed.

I've been saying this repeatedly. They don't care. Edmund Standing considers that he is sufficiently above and beyond the people he considers his inferiors that he really can't be bothered what they actually think.

Neither one of these phenomena is scientifically possible, mind you.

That's why it's called "supernatural".

Exactly. If someone were to say to me, "But that's not the God I believe in," I would simply reply, "Well good for you." The thing is, I'm very well aware that God can mean very different things to different people. I don't even necessarily have a problem with certain types of God beliefs, because it all depends on how a person acts on those beliefs. My main concern is with beliefs (any kind of beliefs) that either cause harm to others, or that shelter those beliefs from criticism.

In this case, we're dealing with beliefs that nobody has. SilentKnight has accurately described the difference between Zombie Jesus and Risen Jesus. Nobody (to a good approximation) believes in Zombie Jesus. So why debunk what nobody believes?

Darat

13th May 2008, 02:55 AM

Nonsense. A zombie is a walking corpse.

...snip...

And a unicorn does chew the cud!

westprog

13th May 2008, 03:01 AM

Thanks for pointing out that christian beliefs are infact MORE bizarre improbable than Edmund gave credit.

Thanks for admitting that Edmund Standing wasn't telling the truth about Christian beliefs.

westprog

13th May 2008, 03:07 AM

You're technically right. He actually said moderates really believe their beliefs are absurd while violent non-moderates really believe their beliefs. :confused:

And that doesn't mean the non-moderates are taking their faith more seriously?:boggled:

He quite clearly said that it was a good thing that I probably didn't believe what I purported to believe, since otherwise I would very likely be carrying out violent acts. That seems serious enough to me.

It's a strange thing about this thread - the use of any form of paraphrase, even when it doesn't change the meaning in any way, is jumped on as a lie. The lie in the OP meanwhile goes through on the nod.

Hokulele

13th May 2008, 03:12 AM

Darat

13th May 2008, 03:12 AM

He quite clearly said that it was a good thing that I probably didn't believe what I purported to believe, since otherwise I would very likely be carrying out violent acts. That seems serious enough to me.

It's a strange thing about this thread - the use of any form of paraphrase, even when it doesn't change the meaning in any way, is jumped on as a lie. The lie in the OP meanwhile goes through on the nod.

Which lie in the opening article? If you mean the "walking corpse" then you do realize by your own reasoning you are in fact saying that your use of "zombie" was also a lie?

Darat

13th May 2008, 03:17 AM

But how does anyone know whether Jesus was resurrected or a zombie? ...snip...

Gosh haven't Egg and westprog been successful.....! :)

Remember the article in the opening post did not say Jesus was a zombie, that is the word that Egg and westprog introduced so it is rather irrelevant to the actual argument made in the article.

blobru

13th May 2008, 03:18 AM

I don't know what he meant, precisely. I don't really care- it was an outstandingly stupid post by one of the stupider people posting here.

And he wasn't posting generally about Christians - he was making up stupid lies about me. Luckily his allegations are sufficiently idiotic to be not worth worrying about.

I'm not defending what thaiboxerken might have meant (although he certainly did generalize about two classes of Christians while conjecturing which you belonged to).

I'm attacking the ignorance and/or dishonesty of A Christian Sceptic's direct and indirect misquotes of his posts.

Because beneath all the vitriol, this is a serious topic. Precise beliefs, of those whose delusions differ from my own, are fascinating to me.

H3LL

13th May 2008, 03:21 AM

Darat and H3ll made irrelevant excursions into Revelations which were never what it was about.

So you keep saying. Though it's hard to tell from your twisting and weasel words.

I beg to differ.

If you can explain coherently some answers to a few questions:

Can you explain the difference between the use of Resurrection as applied to the rising of the Necromancer, Zombie Jesus after crucifixion (still bearing his wounds as a corpse) and as applied to the rising of the dead at the Last Judgement (where their souls are reunited with their corpse ... Yuk!)?**

At the point of resurrection, no mention is made of any repair to the corpse ... Quite the opposite ... Characteristics of the corpse are specifically mentioned.

They are clearly capable of moving so in what way can this not be described as a walking corpse?**

It's a walking what?**

The Necromancer, Zombie Jesus is a walking something-that-looks-very-similar-to-his-corpse-bearing-the-wounds-of-his-corpse-but-isn't-a-corpse-because-it-sounds-nasty-and-hurts-my-wikkle-feelings?

I suggest that you go the whole hog and just say out right that the Necromancer, Zombie Jesus, Holy Spirit and God are one and the same and, being immortal, never died in the first place.

It's all a con job and a BIG lie ...

or a made up fantasy.

** Questions for you to help separate them from the rhetoric.

Hokulele

13th May 2008, 03:30 AM

Gosh haven't Egg and westprog been successful.....! :)

Remember the article in the opening post did not say Jesus was a zombie, that is the word that Egg and westprog introduced so it is rather irrelevant to the actual argument made in the article.

Well, if any Doubting Thomas tries to thrust their hand into my side while I am alive (rather than a walking corpse), things could get fairly ugly fairly quickly. Just sayin'.

H3LL

13th May 2008, 03:34 AM

westprog

13th May 2008, 03:37 AM

I think, as others have said, there is a significant difference between someone who has a devout, deep and abiding faith/opinion but nonetheless accepts that others can and do hold a different views and someone who cannot rest until everyone agrees he is right.

A religious fundamentalist to me is someone who will prove he is right over your dead body (literally or metaphorically) if need be.

A devout individual on the other hand can be humble, human and still not compromise their beliefs.

Debate with the latter can often be challenging rarely if ever rancerous. Rancour is the starting point of the former - it generally goes downhill from there :)

I think it's often the case that the most violent and agressive are in fact least certain of their belief. It can be a way to compensate for unsureness.

westprog

13th May 2008, 03:41 AM

It's all a con job and a BIG lie ...

Well, if that's the case - why not just debunk the actual belief?

I've said nothing in defence of the doctrine of the resurrection. I've merely pointed out what it actually is.

westprog

13th May 2008, 03:43 AM

BTW: Mods, a serious and successful derail of the original OP has been made by westprog and co, to which I'm contributing (or at least posting).

Can the offending posts be moved to, say, a Necromancer, Zombie Jesus thread?

.

I continue to refer to the OP, and that's what I'm discussing. I don't see how a seperate thread that has to continually refer back to this thread is going to work.

H3LL

13th May 2008, 03:52 AM

I've said nothing in defence of the doctrine of the resurrection. I've merely pointed out what it actually is.

I've said nothing in defence of the doctrine of the resurrection. I've merely pointed out what it actually is.

Well, if that's the case - why not just debunk the actual belief?

No problem. When you let us know what that actually is, I'll give it my best shot.

BTW, how's it going with your research on which is THE Bible?

.

westprog

13th May 2008, 04:32 AM

No problem. When you let us know what that actually is, I'll give it my best shot.

Why bother? You'll just ignore it, like the previous times I've explained what resurrection is and how a living body differs from a dead one.

Here's the creed again, for you to ignore.

He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again ...And we look for the resurrection of the dead

I could explain it if you wanted, but of course you don't.

BTW, how's it going with your research on which is THE Bible?
.

I have to congratulate Edmund Standing. Given the vast range of Christian belief, from deepest ignorant fundamentalism to episcopalians who regard God as a largely symbolic figure, he managed to find one belief that no Christians have. And that was the one he used to illustrate his point.

westprog

13th May 2008, 04:43 AM

Which lie in the opening article? If you mean the "walking corpse" then you do realize by your own reasoning you are in fact saying that your use of "zombie" was also a lie?

I see we will have to use "semantics" here, otherwise known as treating words as if they actually mean something.

A Zombie is a walking corpse. The two describe the same thing. When Edmund Standing refers to a walking corpse, and I accuse him of referring to a zombie, then that is not a lie, because I am just using a different word to describe what he is saying.

When Edmund Standing says that Christians believe in walking corpses - referring specifically to Jesus, as the context makes entirely clear - he is not telling the truth, because Christians don't believe that Jesus was a walking corpse. That is because the word corpse means dead person, and Christians believe that Jesus was and is alive.

That the defenders of the article are clutching at straws like "he didn't actually say Zombie" shows the limits of their arguments.

Big Les

13th May 2008, 05:10 AM

Darat

13th May 2008, 05:15 AM

I see we will have to use "semantics" here, otherwise known as treating words as if they actually mean something.

A Zombie is a walking corpse.

...snip...

And still the unicorn chews the cud.

Darat

13th May 2008, 05:21 AM

H3LL

13th May 2008, 05:28 AM

I could explain it if you wanted, but of course you don't.

Just because you choose to ignore questions that were specifically asked of you doesn't mean the question wasn't asked.

It was.

Why would you you assume I don't want you to explain when I specifically asked that you do explain.

You can't pretend you never saw the question as you quoted from the same post.

What you are saying is what I call a lie. What do you call it?

You are a weasel, sir, using weasel words. Just another lying christian, lying for the Necromancer, Zombie Jesus like all your ilk.

You are a lying, liar that tells lies.

Your holy book has something to say about lying, liars that tell lies. Check it out sometime.

I have no more interest in your lies and you are not funny anymore.

.

Robin

13th May 2008, 05:44 AM

Well Thaiboxer above for one. He's making a comparison between a "moderate" and someone who "takes their faith more seriously" with the latter being the preferred to measure against. There's been others here, too.

You are changing your claim now, you didn't say "takes their faith more seriously". You said:
Here again - many atheists apparently don't view all Christians as equally wrong. Apparently the more literal and apparently violent they are the more accurate and less wrong they are - they are the True Believers.
So I asked you to give an example of an atheist who regarded literal and apparently violent Christians as more accurate and less wrong.
It's pretty common to see a variation of "I'm glad you don't take your faith seriously - otherwise you'd be a Fundamentalist" etc.

If you don't, then great. It is a fascinating phenomenon here though, none the less.
Still, it does not seem so unreasonable that someone who takes the Bible literally, for example that Christ literally rose from the dead - might be seen as in some ways more serious.

Mobyseven

13th May 2008, 06:51 AM

And still the unicorn chews the cud.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but:

All zombies are walking corpses.

BUT!

All walking corpses are not zombies.

You can't just equate the two words like they mean the same thing...

A Christian Sceptic

13th May 2008, 07:15 AM

YOU BELIEVE he meant that.

He did not ACTUALLY say that.

At least not as blatant as your original direct misquote:

I think you're issue is with me using double quotes, because then below you take issue with me using single (scare) quotes. I wasn't quoting him directly - that's why I bever used the quote option in this forum software. I did put quotes around it to seperate it from what I was saying and I wrote it how I understood it. ETA: I was contrasting the term "moderate" which he used with the other Christians he was comparing - the term "non-moderate" seemed lacking so I parpahrased the sentiment he and others were meaning which was Christians who "takes their faith more seriously". Again - maybe brackets would have been better to seperate the two ideas he was conveying. And again - If that's not the idea he was conveying he's more than welcome to clarify. But in a few recent threads this observation of certain peoples techniques of comparing Christians has came up so it's not just me.

Square brackets within double quotes is periphrasis within vebatim for the sake of brevity or clarity.

Maybe I should have used brackets.

(minor point) The full quote is: "I think that deep inside..." [italics added]. He's offering an opinion.

Of course.

I don't know what thaiboxerken meant. Neither do you. To pretend otherwise with direct and indirect misquotes bespeaks either dishonesty or ignorance and is usually followed by an admission of same and an apology.

OK - so next time someone says something to me I should just ignore it - even when I think I know what he meant? How about he correct me if I'm wrong or continue the conversation if I'm correct.

??? Sorry, don't speak the lingo. (and why the boldface?)

To seperate it from the rest of the type.

And yes - judging from Thais post and past posts I'll assume he did mean one Christian is more serious than another.He can correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not sure why you think you can when you admit you don't know what he meant.

Darat

13th May 2008, 07:45 AM

I shouldn't have to point this out, but:

All zombies are walking corpses.

BUT!

All walking corpses are not zombies.

You can't just equate the two words like they mean the same thing...

I follow your logic, but not all zombies are corpses; often the term zombie is used to describe someone who has been infected by a virus which alters them and/or their behaviour. (For example the zombies of Resident Evil.)

westprog

13th May 2008, 07:45 AM

I shouldn't have to point this out, but:

All zombies are walking corpses.

BUT!

All walking corpses are not zombies.

You can't just equate the two words like they mean the same thing...

If we were discussing the details of the Voodoo religion then the point would be interesting. I don't think it's of especial significance when discussing Christianity.

westprog

13th May 2008, 07:49 AM

Just because you choose to ignore questions that were specifically asked of you doesn't mean the question wasn't asked.

It was.

Why would you you assume I don't want you to explain when I specifically asked that you do explain.

And the part where I explain is snipped and ignored. Then a torrent of foolish abuse complaining that I was telling lies and not answering the right questions.

westprog

13th May 2008, 07:56 AM

Jesus Christ, the zombie jesus thing is a JOKE, it's parody, it's not expected nor required to accurately reflect the made-up history that it's lampooning. At the level of accuracy expected of a JOKE, zombie=walking corpse=walking dead is the *same thing*, for the purposes of parody, because it's funnier.

If I say George Bush is a dumb monkey, I don't mean to say that he's actually significantly genetically different and flings poo at passers-by. When I talk of Zombie Jesus, I am poking fun at the idea that a person could come back to life in any way having been stone bloody dead, whether or not their heart is notionally beating after they come back.

Oh god, I'm doing it again, aren't I?

Yes, big Les, I understand jokes, I read about them once. The Zombie Jesus thing was actually mine. Incidentally, I'm glad that you understand that walking corpse = zombie, because a number of people have accused me of telling lies over it.

The point is context. The article in question (available in Polish!) is as given in the topic title. I think it's fine to make fun of Christians or atheists or anyone else, and taking things literally all the time is unnecessary. However, when the entire point of the article is to deny that atheists misrepresent Christians, it's at the very least foolish to deliberately misrepresent Christians in the very same article. When discussing precisely what Christians believe, it makes sense to portray precisely what Christians believe.

BTW, BL, if the initial response to my first post had been "It's a joke, lighten up" then this portion of the discussion would have quickly lapsed. Instead there was a lengthy attempt to defend the phrase "walking corpse" and a sideline where the precise distinctions between "walking corpse" and "zombie" are picked over like fresh brains.

westprog

13th May 2008, 07:59 AM

But how does anyone know whether Jesus was resurrected or a zombie? I agree, there is a difference in terms, but how would someone really know which one applies to this particular case? For example, John 20:25-27 makes it pretty clear that Jesus still bears the wounds of his crucifixion. That sounds rather zombie-ish to me.

Are those your actual beliefs or are you looking after them for a friend?

Darat

13th May 2008, 08:01 AM

Despite the fact you keep claiming they don't many Christian's do believe in the bodily resurrection/walking corpse/zombie idea. That you won't accept their own words on the belief is quite remarkable.

Thanz

13th May 2008, 08:08 AM

At no point has anything I posted suggested I don't know the difference.
This very posts indicates that either you don't know the difference or are being deliberately obtuse.

Apart from those that have done of course.
And who are they?

I'll have to assume that like westprog you hold people who believe in the walking corpse/bodily resurrection/zombie thing as not being "true Christians".
Your use of "walking corpse/bodily resurrection/zombie thing" indicates that you do not understand that bodily resurrection is not equivalent with walking corpse or zombie.

Bodily resurrection means the person is alive. Not dead but walking, not a zombie, but alive.

Darat

13th May 2008, 08:19 AM

...snip...

And who are they?

See the article linked to in the opening post and the post I previous linked you to.

...snip...
Your use of "walking corpse/bodily resurrection/zombie thing" indicates that you do not understand that bodily resurrection is not equivalent with walking corpse or zombie.

Bodily resurrection means the person is alive. Not dead but walking, not a zombie, but alive.

No what it shows is that you wish to set yourself up as the arbiter of how we may describe claims of beliefs.

I have no problem if you wish to use the term" bodily resurrection", "zombie" or "walking corpse" to describe one of the beliefs many Christian's hold. Anyone reading the article this stems from can clearly see exactly what belief the author is discussing, that you don't like how he phrases the belief does not alter the fact that he makes it very clear the exact belief he is discussing.

If you object to the term "walking corpse" I presume you also object to westprog and Egg's use of "zombie" when talking about the article?

DoubtingStephen

13th May 2008, 08:25 AM

Bodily resurrection means the person is alive. Not dead but walking, not a zombie, but alive.

I wonder what might be revealed by doing a taste test to compare wafer thin slices of zombie meat to wafer thin slices of no longer dead savior meat.

Also, I wonder if all of the sub-cults of Christianity agree about whether Jeebus was a zombie or just a re-animated self propelled meat bag with death certificate.

And for those sub-cults of Christianity that do eat their savior, I wonder if they consume randomly selected chunks of Jeebus or if there is a particular type of tissue or even a major organ they are eating. I always imagined I was eating Jeebus' light colored Caucasian skin when I were a wee lad in Catholic school. You could tell with just a glance at the crucifix in the front of St Cecelia's that he was def European.

I also remember how Father whatever his name was would belch very loudly about 5 minutes after the communion every morning at Mass. The sound of his belch would reverberate off the walls.

Them were the days.

Mobyseven

13th May 2008, 08:35 AM

I follow your logic, but not all zombies are corpses; often the term zombie is used to describe someone who has been infected by a virus which alters them and/or their behaviour. (For example the zombies of Resident Evil.)

I stand corrected. Not all zombies are walking corpses - the relationship doesn't hold either way.

The original Zombi from voodoo actually isn't a walking corpse either, now that I think about it.

Mobyseven

13th May 2008, 08:38 AM

If we were discussing the details of the Voodoo religion then the point would be interesting. I don't think it's of especial significance when discussing Christianity.

Er...then why did you bring the damn thing up?

Don't start things you don't what to finish.

blobru

13th May 2008, 09:06 AM

I think you're issue is with me using double quotes, because then below you take issue with me using single (scare) quotes. I wasn't quoting him directly

When you enclose a statement in double quotes you ARE quoting him directly. Every literate person abides by this convention.

- that's why I bever used the quote option in this forum software. I did put quotes around it to seperate it from what I was saying and I wrote it how I understood it.

When you give your interpretation of someone else's meaning, don't enclose it in double quotes. Unless you want people to think you're illiterate.

Maybe I should have used brackets.

Maybe you should learn how and when to use them. Learning the difference between "verbatim", [periphrasis], 'exaggeration', and opinion, and how to convey each in print, might be a good place to start.

Of course.

Good. You know the difference between opinion and declaration of fact.

OK - so next time someone says something to me I should just ignore it - even when I think I know what he meant?

NO! Learn the conventions.

Don't write:

So-and-so said "Jesus is a fruit cocktail" -- if that's not what she said verbatim.

So-and-so thinks Jesus is a fruit cocktail.

No double quotes. No misunderstanding. (I'm italicizing above to separate the writing samples from the commentary.)

How about he correct me if I'm wrong or continue the conversation if I'm correct.

Which is all I'm doing. Pointing out how to correct your mistake(s).

To seperate it from the rest of the type.

It was already separate inside a quote box. The boldface emphasis looks like shouting in that context, as if you're frustrated. (Making oneself understood, can be extremely frustrating! no shame in that.) Anyway, just a minor point of style.

And yes - judging from Thais post and past posts I'll assume he did mean one Christian is more serious than another.He can correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not sure why you think you can when you admit you don't know what he meant.

I'm not correcting your opinion of what he meant. I'm correcting the illiterate manner in which you conveyed it.

If I write:

A Christian Sceptic says "thaiboxerken is a big liar and hates Xtians, and he hurts my feelings. Hey everybody... I'm illiterate!"

or

What A Christian Sceptic actually says is that thaiboxerken is a big xtian-hating liar, he hurts his feelings, and that he himself is illiterate.

based on my considered impression of what you meant in your last partial quote, I would expect other posters to correct me for my flagrant ignorance of proper typography. Why? Because you DIDN'T SAY THAT. That's merely the information I get from your post. If I'm expressing my opinion, there's no excuse save ignorance or dishonesty to imply it's what you said. When others point that out, I first admit my ignorance and/or dishonesty, then either defend or retract my opinion.

Get it? :) ... :bwall

westprog

13th May 2008, 09:30 AM

No what it shows is that you wish to set yourself up as the arbiter of how we may describe claims of beliefs.

Accurately or inacurately.

Thanz

13th May 2008, 09:38 AM

See the article linked to in the opening post and the post I previous linked you to.
Neither one of which shows anyone who is Christian believing in a "walking corpse".

No what it shows is that you wish to set yourself up as the arbiter of how we may describe claims of beliefs.
If you have no care for accuracy, you can describe them however you like. But if you are trying to make the point that athiests are accurate in describing beliefs, then I am entitled to point out the inaccuracies. And professing that Christians believe in a walking corpse is inaccurate.

Anyone reading the article this stems from can clearly see exactly what belief the author is discussing, that you don't like how he phrases the belief does not alter the fact that he makes it very clear the exact belief he is discussing.
If by "discussing" you mean "mischaracterizing to demean the belief and then knock it down". Considering that this behaviour is exactly what some are complaining about, I don't see how engaging in it shows how athiests don't do it.

A Christian Sceptic

13th May 2008, 09:40 AM

If by "discussing" you mean "mischaracterizing to demean the belief and then knock it down". Considering that this behaviour is exactly what some are complaining about, I don't see how engaging in it shows how athiests don't do it.

Careful about using those quotation marks Thanz.

Darat

13th May 2008, 09:40 AM

Accurately or inacurately.

You missed a few words out:

"In my opinion accurately or inaccurately."

And I've already illustrated how you apply different standards of "accuracy" to your own statements than you do to others. So using "zombie" when the word never appears in the article in question is apparently "accurate" but using "walking corpse" isn't.

(This of course all being despite the article being absolutely clear to exactly what belief he is referring to as "walking corpse".)

Thanz

13th May 2008, 09:42 AM

Apart from those that have done of course.
As set out in the thread you bounced the other posts to, that would be none.

I'll have to assume that like westprog you hold people who believe in the walking corpse/bodily resurrection/zombie thing as not being "true Christians".
I'll have to assume that you have reading comprehension or cognitive difficulties, as those three terms are not equivalent and it has not been shown that any christian believes in either a walking corpse or a zombie Christ.

westprog

13th May 2008, 09:42 AM

Your use of "walking corpse/bodily resurrection/zombie thing" indicates that you do not understand that bodily resurrection is not equivalent with walking corpse or zombie.

Bodily resurrection means the person is alive. Not dead but walking, not a zombie, but alive.

Darat's been told this a number of times and simply refuses to accept it. He understands it all right. He just feels that he's the right to say whatever he likes about what other people's religious beliefs are, and you're not the boss of him.

Darat

13th May 2008, 09:44 AM

Neither one of which shows anyone who is Christian believing in a "walking corpse".

Perhaps you should atcually read the article in question?

If you have no care for accuracy, you can describe them however you like.

Which as you can see westprog and Egg have done.

But if you are trying to make the point that athiests are accurate in describing beliefs, then I am entitled to point out the inaccuracies. And professing that Christians believe in a walking corpse is inaccurate.

...snip...

I think you need to re-read some more of this thread (I know you've come here from another thread) you are missing the context of this discussion.

If by "discussing" you mean "mischaracterizing to demean the belief and then knock it down". Considering that this behaviour is exactly what some are complaining about, I don't see how engaging in it shows how athiests don't do it.

Again I'll refer you to the article itself, it does not do this. However you are describing the technique that westprog and Egg have used in this thread and I don't know if they are atheists or not, so I cannot say if they are atheists doing anything or not.

Darat

13th May 2008, 09:49 AM

Darat's been told this a number of times and simply refuses to accept it. He understands it all right. He just feels that he's the right to say whatever he likes about what other people's religious beliefs are, and you're not the boss of him.

Do I need to remind you that in this thread it is you that has claimed to know what the "Christian belief" is, not me?

Darat

13th May 2008, 09:52 AM

And yet again I note the lack of argument against the substance of the article (which is what this thread is about....) just a lot of what I have to say just seems like waffle to avoid actually having to address the actual article and what it says.

As I've said I've so far cooperated in this (in a sense) interesting diversion however I'll now wait for a discussion of the article itself.

westprog

13th May 2008, 09:54 AM

Careful about using those quotation marks Thanz.

Three Hail Mary's and an Act of Contrition for you.

westprog

13th May 2008, 10:00 AM

Do I need to remind you that in this thread it is you that has claimed to know what the "Christian belief" is, not me?

If you don't know what the Christian belief is, then why try to define it?

Incidentally, though the creed and the centre of mainstream Christian belief is the resurrection of Christ, I suppose that there are Christians out there who don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. However, they don't believe that he was staggering around while dead either.

Jekyll

13th May 2008, 10:02 AM

I stand corrected. Not all zombies are walking corpses - the relationship doesn't hold either way.

The original Zombi from voodoo actually isn't a walking corpse either, now that I think about it.
Presumably then, referring to Zombis as zombies would be considered offensive by voodoo-ers.

Egg

13th May 2008, 10:44 AM

Do I need to remind you that in this thread it is you that has claimed to know what the "Christian belief" is, not me?

The article was using the Nicene Creed. Whilst I don't think by the common definition of the word "Christian" that all the statements in the Nicene Creed need to be believed in to be "Christian", when commenting on something said by the head of the Anglican church, the Nicene Creed is a pretty good place to start in terms of mainstream Christian beliefs. It is a standard part of the liturgy used in Anglican services.

As the term "walking corpses" was in reference to statements in the Nicene Creed, this isn't about anyone claiming to know what the Christian belief is, but determining what Christians generally mean when talking about Jesus rising from the dead. I've certainly never come across any Christians talking about Jesus being a "walking corpse". "Living Christ", "defeated/conquered death", "back to life", however, are all phrases found in Christian literature.

Having initially tried to defend the term, Edmund has now admitted that it was used in mockery, which is fine, except of course it is mocking by saying something that Christians don't actually believe. As with Westprog, my point was nothing to do with considering the term "disparaging/sarcastic". It was purely about its accuracy in the context of an article which was arguing against claims of inaccuracy from atheists describing Christian beliefs.

Hokulele

13th May 2008, 01:13 PM

Are those your actual beliefs or are you looking after them for a friend?

What? :confused:

SilentKnight originally described the differences between resurrection and zombification. Based on his description, I asked how one could tell which applied to Jesus based on the Gospel accounts, specifically John.

How is a request for clarification a declaration of belief (regardless of ownership)?

blobru

13th May 2008, 01:28 PM

Careful about using those quotation marks Thanz.

Thanz understands how to quote directly. You don't. Can you see why?

Look. :hypnotize

Dude. :cool:

Literacy is not a walking, talking snake, okay? Don't be fooled by their slight resemblance to pendent, gravid apples on the ToK. Coincidence. Quotation marks are not "forbidden fruit". So take a bite. They're goo-ood.

;) Seriously.

There's no shame in admitting ignorance. Everyone makes mistakes. I should know. I have made and continue to make more mistakes out of native and unshakable ignorance than there are angels on the head of pin. But even a pinhead such as I can learn from my mistakes. Of course, I do have to admit the mistake first, which bruises the old pride a bit. But that's not so bad really, is it? Seems to me I've even heard somewhere where less pride might be a good thing...

"When pride comes, then comes shame, but wisdom is with those who have no pride." (Proverbs 11:2, NLV transl.)

Pfftt. :rolleyes:

Here endeth the sermon on literacy. Tummy growling like a tabby. Blobru gots to make himself a sandwich. :drool:

A Christian Sceptic

13th May 2008, 01:31 PM

Thanz understands how to quote directly. You don't. Can you see why?

Hey - I thought Christians were the only people lacking humor.

And just in case you miss the intention: :):D;):rolleyes::eye-poppi

blobru

13th May 2008, 01:39 PM

Hey - I thought Christians were the only people lacking humor.

And just in case you miss the intention: :):D;):rolleyes::eye-poppi

Blobru lacking sandwich spread. That never funny. :defrown:

Civilized Worm

13th May 2008, 01:40 PM

Ugh.

Can't we just agree that "walking corpse" was a somewhat poor choice of words and move on to discussing something more relevant?

thaiboxerken

13th May 2008, 02:21 PM

No, we have to nitpick the point because the other points in the OP make too much sense.

westprog

13th May 2008, 02:57 PM

What? :confused:

SilentKnight originally described the differences between resurrection and zombification. Based on his description, I asked how one could tell which applied to Jesus based on the Gospel accounts, specifically John.

How is a request for clarification a declaration of belief (regardless of ownership)?

I think we have had ample clarification - in other words, nobody believes in Zombie Jesus. There are people having some fun with it, but nobody believes in it. There are people who think other people should believe in it, I think.

I should also apologise to the Voodoo worshippers reading this for possible misuse of the term Zombi/Zombie. I do not wish to cause them offence.

westprog

13th May 2008, 02:59 PM

Ugh.

Can't we just agree that "walking corpse" was a somewhat poor choice of words and move on to discussing something more relevant?

That would have done it for me. I assumed that that would have been the response and I'd have pursued a meatier topic.

westprog

13th May 2008, 03:24 PM

Having initially tried to defend the term, Edmund has now admitted that it was used in mockery, which is fine, except of course it is mocking by saying something that Christians don't actually believe. As with Westprog, my point was nothing to do with considering the term "disparaging/sarcastic". It was purely about its accuracy in the context of an article which was arguing against claims of inaccuracy from atheists describing Christian beliefs.

I find myself in disturbingly close accord with the Egg. Perhaps the possibility of some kind of psychic resonance should be considered.

H3LL

14th May 2008, 02:03 AM

Jesus and Mo have seen the news:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_3180482a9c669ac54.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12203)

Source (http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/05/13/stop/)

:D

.

H3LL

14th May 2008, 02:31 AM

And the part where I explain is snipped and ignored.

The lies just keep coming.
You can't stop yourself, can you?

Yes, snipped but not ignored.

Here it is un-snipped with the fairy-tale drivel for all to see again.

Originally Posted by Nicene Creed
He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again ...And we look for the resurrection of the dead

I could explain it if you wanted, but of course you don't.

In no way does the above constitute an explanation of anything.

Next lie please ....

.

westprog

14th May 2008, 06:32 AM

In no way does the above constitute an explanation of anything.

Next lie please ....

.

H3ll, you appear to be among the slowest of them here. Still hanging one when most of 'em are just begging for it to end.

Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don't. I don't know how to persuade him but I really don't.

So, Williams does believe in walking corpses

Is there any ambiguity here, as to what we are discussing? I don't think so. So we don't need to wander around the rest of the bible. We are discussing the resurrection of Jesus, here.

Is there some ambiguity about what is meant by resurrection? Well, one can quibble about the precise state of the body on its restoration, but there is little doubt - a resurrected body is alive. And similarly, a corpse isn't.

There are certainly people who don't believe in the resurrection. However, such people - who may indeed include self-described Christians - don't believe in a walking corpse. So who does? Nobody.

The fact that H3ll insists on trying to find other areas of the Bible to dig quotes out of is irrelevant in this context. We're talking about the resurrection of Jesus. The fact that H3ll is getting so upset with me is unfortunate, but I'm pretty sure it's because I'm not getting distracted from the OP. If I blow my chances with the hot twins, so be it.

Incidentally, while Bishop Spong is certainly on the liberal wing of the church (i.e. more atheist than the atheists themselves), I can't find a reference to the phrase "walking corpses". Perhaps Mr Standing could give us the reference. Wouldn't want the quote police on his back!

blobru

14th May 2008, 09:30 AM

... Incidentally, while Bishop Spong is certainly on the liberal wing of the church (i.e. more atheist than the atheists themselves), I can't find a reference to the phrase "walking corpses". Perhaps Mr Standing could give us the reference. Wouldn't want the quote police on his back!

"But despite that fact [Luke and John writing about Jesus' physical resurrection 55 to 75 years after his death] there are many Christians living today who feel that if these objective, physical elements of the resurrection story are dismissed as legendary, then the power of the Easter moment will disappear. My view is exactly the opposite. ... When Paul wrote that, 'he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,' he was not talking about physical resuscitations, bodies walking out of tombs, or the inspections of the wounds of crucifixion. "

-- Spong, [I]Liberating the Gospels (1997): p.287.

A synonomous but not identical phrase. Of course, if "walking corpses" is attributed to Bishop Spong as a direct quote and he never used those exact words, it should be retracted.

So Bishop Spong is more "more atheist than the atheists", eh? That's a pretty brave stance for a clergyman. For he must know what Jesus said:

"I love you... and if you don't believe me, I'll kill you!" :halo:

pgwenthold

14th May 2008, 10:41 AM

DoubtingStephen

14th May 2008, 11:09 AM

I want to go back to the initial comment of, "but that's not the god I believe in." Let me grant, for the moment, that this is true. That Dawkins is indeed arguing against a god that does not resemble the one in which the Bishop believes.

Does that mean, then, that the Bishop agrees with Dawkins?

The flaw here is that Dawkins does not state that there is some limited subset of sky fairies in which he does not believe.

For each instance of Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, an atheist does not believe in that instance. So no matter which Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy the Archbishop might imagine, that man-made shadow is included in the set of Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddies that atheists do not believe.

So if the Archbishop decides tomorrow to imagine a brand new deity, perhaps with all of the attributes of Thor but a different name, a person who is an atheist already does not believe it.

I certainly would not wish to limit my doubt only to those Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddies that have already been invented, I do not believe in all future Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddies that have yet to be invented as well.

Space and time present no limitations to my status of not believing in sky fairies.

kerikiwi

14th May 2008, 02:02 PM

- who may indeed include self-described Christians -

Do you mean that there are some christians who would not so describe themselves?
Or that you, or some other qualified person, must first so describe them?

westprog

14th May 2008, 03:03 PM

Do you mean that there are some christians who would not so describe themselves?
Or that you, or some other qualified person, must first so describe them?

If someone calls himself a Christian, then I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

kerikiwi

14th May 2008, 03:50 PM

If someone calls himself a Christian, then I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Why would there be any doubt to be given the benefit of?
What makes a christian (or any other delusion you wish to choose) a christian?
Who makes the rules?
I would concede that for someone to call herself a catholic, she would have to subscribe to the dogma of the catholic church.
But the christian label is much less 'official'.
If someone chooses the christian label, then christian it is. No doubt, no benefit.

westprog

15th May 2008, 03:21 AM

If someone chooses the christian label, then christian it is.

I'm trying to agree with you but seem to be falling short somehow.

westprog

15th May 2008, 10:37 AM

What you are saying is what I call a lie. What do you call it?

You are a weasel, sir, using weasel words. Just another lying christian, lying for the Necromancer, Zombie Jesus like all your ilk.

You are a lying, liar that tells lies.

Your holy book has something to say about lying, liars that tell lies. Check it out sometime.

I have no more interest in your lies and you are not funny anymore.
.

I find it genuinely puzzling that a mere difference of theological opinion can generate such venom.

Just bought The God Delusion yesterday and that one jumped out at me.

Lithrael

15th May 2008, 01:10 PM

(...)when the entire point of the article is to deny that atheists misrepresent Christians, it's at the very least foolish to deliberately misrepresent Christians in the very same article. When discussing precisely what Christians believe, it makes sense to portray precisely what Christians believe.

I.. have to agree with this. Can somebody please PM me and fill me in on why posters I usually like appear to be gleefully pissing on other posters for pointing out that Christians generally believe in bodily resurrection to a living state and not resurrection as walking corpses?

** ok yes I would remove the 'precisely' bit but I do think that 'walking corpse' is still a deliberate misrepresentation.

*** yes I did read the whole thread and no I still don't get it.

westprog

15th May 2008, 03:09 PM

thaiboxerken

16th May 2008, 01:19 AM

Can somebody please PM me and fill me in on why posters I usually like appear to be gleefully pissing on other posters for pointing out that Christians generally believe in bodily resurrection to a living state and not resurrection as walking corpses?

Because it's pretty much the same thing, an absurd magical belief that is stupid.

H3LL

16th May 2008, 02:08 AM

I.. have to agree with this. Can somebody please PM me and fill me in on why posters I usually like appear to be gleefully pissing on other posters for pointing out that Christians generally believe in bodily resurrection to a living state and not resurrection as walking corpses?

Imagine you had recently buried your great-great-grandfather and he then turns up to meet you at the local Starbucks.

While there, he lets you have a rummage around in his internal organs through a a gapping wound in his side, humorously does 'magic tricks' with stirring-sticks through the bloody holes in his hands (shouldn't that be wrists?), soils the carpet from the injuries in his feet, messed up your comb while removing the clots from his hair and leaves an interesting pattern on the chair from the bleeding welts on his back.

He then leaves, never to be seen again.

When you tell your mates, do you think a single one of them would question your description of great-great-granddad being a "walking corpse"?

.

Egg

16th May 2008, 03:28 AM

Can somebody please PM me and fill me in on why posters I usually like appear to be gleefully pissing on other posters for pointing out that Christians generally believe in bodily resurrection to a living state and not resurrection as walking corpses?

Perhaps they disagree with the article in the OP and are setting out to show by example exactly the kind of way that atheists misrepresent Christian beliefs (as shown in the last two posts).

Silentknight

16th May 2008, 02:21 PM

Incidentally, I have read Bishop Spong's book, but you don't need to have read his book to realize that he was arguing for a non-literal interpretation of the story about bodies walking out of tombs. Just look at the context of his quote. He was talking about the believers who refuse to dismiss such beliefs because they feel it will devalue their faith. So it doesn't really matter if the walking bodies were meant to be zombies or resurrected people, because both are irrelevant to the point.

Besides, as Big Les pointed out (as I alluded to previously) the "walking corpses" line in the original article was a JOKE.
I follow your logic, but not all zombies are corpses; often the term zombie is used to describe someone who has been infected by a virus which alters them and/or their behaviour. (For example the zombies of Resident Evil.)

Or the zombies of the Return of the Living Dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_of_the_Living_Dead_(film_series)) series by John Russo, who were reanimated using a chemical called trioxin. If I remember correctly, it can turn live people into zombies as well. :D

Lonewulf

16th May 2008, 03:14 PM

Sheesh, people, get your classification right. If there's something I learned from many years of RPGs, it's this:

Mindless undead that attack unarmed and have no special attacks or abilities outside of being a rotted corpse with perhaps slightly more-than-natural strength: Zombie.

General ex-living thing that was once dead, but now is animate with some sort of disadvantage or supernatural ability and without all of their living processes turned "on" (I.E., vampires, revenants, etc.): Undead.

Someone that was once dead, but is now back again with seemingly no actual difference between life and death, and with fully functioning living processes: Resurrection.

Two totally different concepts, and one general category that the other falls into. Although I could see Jesus applying for a different category when he came back, if he was only in a spirit form.

You all disappoint me. You have failed at the internet.

nonbeliever

16th May 2008, 09:09 PM

It sounds like a lot of folks have latched onto this ancient word that makes them feel all fuzzy and warm inside, and then they shy away from any definitions when parts of those definitions are found to make no reasonable sense. This way they can hold onto their frayed corner of their security blanket without paying attention to the rest of it.

So maybe I can get the ball rolling a little by saying right off: No matter what your definition is, I don't believe in your god(s). Any vague definitions don't deserve scrutiny, and any precise definitions will probably include irrational claims that cannot be backed by reasonable evidence. Try me.

Perhaps some believers are afraid of nonbelievers because their arguments might someday make "banky" go away. It is a scary thought, I have to admit.

westprog

17th May 2008, 10:49 AM

Lonewulf

18th May 2008, 09:51 AM

The way I see it is this:

The one God I will accept as even the least bit probable to exist is the one that has evidence for it.

I have, in so far, seen absolutely no evidence that calls to the supernatural (through prayer), something like the soul (and thus, afterlife), or miraculous happenings even occur. Furthermore -- to get into the deep core question of theology -- I have seen no evidence whatsoever that there is a powerful intelligent force behind the Universe.

When I see evidence of such a powerful force, then I will accept it. It doesn't really matter how you define "intelligent force".

And if you define "God" as "Love", then that's a pretty useless definition. I wouldn't pray to an emotion.

DeusPhasmatis

18th May 2008, 10:51 AM

But Theists are correct in invoking the "but that's not the god I believe in" clause. There are as many forms of belief in Christianity as there are Christians. Any time you try to pin down said beliefs, all you'll be doing is building a straw-man. Well, at least for the majority (some minority will be represented by it). And, of course, they can change their belief at any time, thus invalidating all the work done in disproving said particular belief.

Much better to work from base principles. The burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. Lacking such evidence, the positive claim of God's existence is false, and since this is the core tenant of any theistic position, anything else becomes irrelevant.

Don't bother building a straw-man when Occam's Razor cleanly and quickly cuts down the opposition.

Also, the whole raging Zombie Jesus argument, while amusing, is a semantics argument. Semantic arguments should be settled before getting into the meat of a debate. It is not the words, but the meaning, that is relevant.

Also, resurrection and walking dead are different. Animate Dead is only a third level Cleric spell (4th level Wizard/Sorcerer), while Resurrection is a seventh level Cleric spell...

Lonewulf

18th May 2008, 11:16 AM

Much better to work from base principles. The burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. Lacking such evidence, the positive claim of God's existence is false, and since this is the core tenant of any theistic position, anything else becomes irrelevant.While I understand what you're attempting to say here, I must be pedantic and say that no, their positive claim of God's existence is not automatically "false". But, you are right in that we should indeed not act like it is true without the appropriate evidence.

They might very well be correct, but with nothing supporting the claim whatsoever and nothing that can be used or predicted, it's not a very useful claim, or one that can be explored in any way, shape, or form outside of as a thought experiment.

Don't bother building a straw-man when Occam's Razor cleanly and quickly cuts down the opposition.I'd also have to pedantic here, as well. While some might actually accuse someone of setting up a "straw man", in this case that accusation would not be correct. If I attack the argument of one person, it is not a straw man; if I claim that everyone's argument is the same way, then yes that is a straw man -- but I think I find atheist arguments to be a bit more flexible than you seem to. If I attack the argument given in, say, the book that's claimed to give all the data and facts (after all, Christianity is almost entirely supposed to be based on the words of the prophets coming from the Bible), then yes, I am attacking that particular claim. It's not a straw man to target a particular claim.

Also, the whole raging Zombie Jesus argument, while amusing, is a semantics argument. Semantic arguments should be settled before getting into the meat of a debate. It is not the words, but the meaning, that is relevant.100% correct.

Also, resurrection and walking dead are different. Animate Dead is only a third level Cleric spell (4th level Wizard/Sorcerer), while Resurrection is a seventh level Cleric spell...Ah, but are you using 4th edition rules? D:

DeusPhasmatis

18th May 2008, 01:31 PM

While I understand what you're attempting to say here, I must be pedantic and say that no, their positive claim of God's existence is not automatically "false". But, you are right in that we should indeed not act like it is true without the appropriate evidence.

They might very well be correct, but with nothing supporting the claim whatsoever and nothing that can be used or predicted, it's not a very useful claim, or one that can be explored in any way, shape, or form outside of as a thought experiment.

Negative proofs cannot have evidence for the claim. This is why Occam's Razor is important. The negative claim is assumed true. This is objective fact. If there is a right, there is a wrong. If you are not right, you are wrong.

And damnit, I always get into semantics arguments!

I'd also have to pedantic here, as well. While some might actually accuse someone of setting up a "straw man", in this case that accusation would not be correct. If I attack the argument of one person, it is not a straw man; if I claim that everyone's argument is the same way, then yes that is a straw man -- but I think I find atheist arguments to be a bit more flexible than you seem to. If I attack the argument given in, say, the book that's claimed to give all the data and facts (after all, Christianity is almost entirely supposed to be based on the words of the prophets coming from the Bible), then yes, I am attacking that particular claim. It's not a straw man to target a particular claim.

It is, however, a straw-man to attribute a particular sub-set of claims to the whole. And that is what I am advocating to avoid. You can say it is silly to believe in Zombie Jesus, but you shouldn't say Christians are silly because they believe in Zombie Jesus (well, not in a serious discussion, anyways). It may be persuasive, but it isn't formally correct, and therein lies the danger. Give them no opening, no quarter, no mercy.

It doesn't doesn't help that some theists call out said straw-man, and then immediately launch into their own straw-man...

Ah, but are you using 4th edition rules? D:

Not until June 7th. >_<

Lonewulf

18th May 2008, 01:55 PM

Negative proofs cannot have evidence for the claim. This is why Occam's Razor is important. The negative claim is assumed true.This is objective fact. If there is a right, there is a wrong. If you are not right, you are wrong.Actually, Occam's Razor is used differently than you claim here. Occam's Razor is used against competing theories; the theories that make the least amount of unproved assumptions is the one that is most favored; essentially slotting in the right Object A into the right Slot A, and using the piece that fits the most. It does not mean claiming that something is automatically 100% wrong if there is no evidence for it. It does mean, however, to avoid altogether such things until any evidence does demonstrate itself.

Also, you seem to be confused. You talk about how it's not "assumed true". An assumption is a human decision; in this particular decision, it's a decision to take something for granted, and in this case what you are taking for granted is that the claim is not true because there is no evidence behind it.

Then you say it is "objective fact".

You do not seem to understand the difference between the two.

And no, you are wrong, it is possible to be right and not have any evidence for being right. Just because I claim, completely at random and without evidence that it will rain tomorrow, it does not mean that it's automatically true it won't rain tomorrow, and that I'm automatically "wrong". This is also an objective fact. Just because I can't prove I'm right, does not make me wrong; it means I cannot prove I am right. No more, no less. To science, making a claim that can't be falsified or shown to be wrong is completely ignored just because there is nothing useful in such a theory; after all, if it had any use or observable affect on the universe, it could be falsified.

A claim without evidence is not the same as a claim that is wrong. And further, it is possible to give negative evidence. If I say that it will rain tomorrow, and it doesn't rain tomorrow, then that is proof that I am wrong. Q.E.D.

This is why the ability to make predictions is so important in many theories in physics and in science. However, there are some theories that you cannot provide negative evidence for; these would be called unfalsifiable theories.

All of this stuff is pretty basic stuff in science.

And damnit, I always get into semantics arguments!Because these "semantics" are actually very important.

There's a big difference between saying "You're wrong, period" and "There is no evidence to support that claim, so we are not treating it as if it is true".

Not until June 7th. >_<Heh. I'm avoiding it altogether.

I prefer GURPS anyways. ;)

DeusPhasmatis

18th May 2008, 02:18 PM

Lonewulf

18th May 2008, 02:20 PM

Hmm, I was most of the way through a full response when I decided to break the cycle of circular discussion. Suffice it to say, I view function as existence. I don't think there's any way to reconcile our views, and we sure as hell aren't going to convert each other. Truce?Sure, if there is no possible way to convince you that simply saying something without having evidence for it doesn't automatically make the item objectively 100% wrong, then I don't see the point in continuing.

Personally, I'm not out to "convert" anyone. I just state the truth as it is -- this is how science works. It may dismiss theories, but it will not say that a theory that has no evidence is objectively false. Nor will scientists, and nor does even reality. If I say, without evidence, that something will happen -- that thing will happen or it will not, regardless of what I said and what evidence I had on hand for that claim. If I come up with a theory as to how reality works, it does not matter if I had evidence for it or not; reality continues on as it is, blissfully unaware as to my attempts to understand it, or as to whether I succeeded or I failed. This is reality. There really should be nothing to "convert" anyone with on the subject.

Aside - I get where you're coming from, I just disagree with it.You can disagree with it all you want. Reality will not conform to your perception.

Edmund Standing

19th May 2008, 01:10 AM

As I said before, if the reply to my reply had been "It was a joke, lighten up" then the subtopic would have died, and the substance of the article could have been delved into.

Then why did you ignore what I said in post 37 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3694450&postcount=37)?

Anyone reading that article will be educated enough to know that Christians don't envisage a future paradise populated by zombies. It was mild sarcasm to make a point.

You read this and still referred to nothing else in the article. It's clearly a stalling tactic on your part.

westprog

19th May 2008, 03:08 AM

Then why did you ignore what I said in post 37 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3694450&postcount=37)?

I noted it and moved on, and replied to the people who continued to defend the article as being accurate. Some of them are still doing so.

Post 37 was leaving it a little bit late in the day. Post 5 would have done the trick.

You read this and still referred to nothing else in the article. It's clearly a stalling tactic on your part.

Why on earth do I have any obligation to review your article? I don't require anyone else to reply to anything I post. I commented on something I felt worthy of comment.

I was arguing with the point made, not with the person making it. If Edmund Standing says that "walking corpses" was a facetious comment intended to show his disdain for the belief, rather than an attempt to accurately describe it, that still leaves the other posters who've continued to express their conviction that it's what Christians believe, in some sense.

Edmund Standing

19th May 2008, 06:29 AM

Why on earth do I have any obligation to review your article?

You don't, but it was you who said above that 'the substance of the article could have been delved into' if I clarified 'walking corpses', which I did, and it wasn't.

A Christian Sceptic

19th May 2008, 06:56 AM

The burden of proof is always on the positive claimant.

I think the burden of proof is on the person demanding something from someone else.

If you are demanding someone believe in God, the burden of proof is on you.

If you are demanding someone not believe in God, the burden of proof is on you.

lupus_in_fabula

19th May 2008, 08:05 AM

I think the burden of proof is on the person demanding something from someone else.

If you are demanding someone believe in God, the burden of proof is on you.

If you are demanding someone not believe in God, the burden of proof is on you.

I think we should be more rigorous than that. According to your reasoning, it’s perfectly valid to claim that there’s a Juju-monster residing in the centre of Io, directing our sexual fantasies.

Now, if no one is demanding anything, then by your logic there’s no burden of proof at all. But on the other hand, if there’s no burden of proof, we might as well treat the whole claim as empty, devoid of any reason to take it seriously. If you want any kind of validity to the claim, there must at least be some kind of valid basis for making the claim; otherwise it just remains an empty utterance.

If any kind of validity for a claim is declared, it’s up for scrutiny. Scrutinizing involves evidence and proving. Thus, if you want validity, you’ll have to somehow subjugate yourself to the burden of proof.

So for instance, there’s no reason to treat god-beliefs as nothing more than empty (which is the point of departure) unless the person believing can provide a valid basis for why his/her beliefs are anything more than that.

Lonewulf

19th May 2008, 08:06 AM

"God" cannot be proven to not exist. The God Hypothesis is one that is not falsifiable. Thus, it's utterly useless.

Prove that there isn't an invisible elf in my back yard.

Egg

19th May 2008, 10:00 AM

Prove that there isn't an invisible elf in my back yard.

Ah, that's easy. Leave out some chocolate biscuits before you go to bed. If they're still there in the morning...no invisible elf. Invisible elves can't resist chocolate biscuits. ;)

A Christian Sceptic

19th May 2008, 10:19 AM

I think we should be more rigorous than that. According to your reasoning, it’s perfectly valid to claim that there’s a Juju-monster residing in the centre of Io, directing our sexual fantasies.

Now, if no one is demanding anything, then by your logic there’s no burden of proof at all. But on the other hand, if there’s no burden of proof, we might as well treat the whole claim as empty, devoid of any reason to take it seriously. If you want any kind of validity to the claim, there must at least be some kind of valid basis for making the claim; otherwise it just remains an empty utterance.

If any kind of validity for a claim is declared, it’s up for scrutiny. Scrutinizing involves evidence and proving. Thus, if you want validity, you’ll have to somehow subjugate yourself to the burden of proof.

So for instance, there’s no reason to treat god-beliefs as nothing more than empty (which is the point of departure) unless the person believing can provide a valid basis for why his/her beliefs are anything more than that.

I think there's a subtle distinction here. As long as the Juju-Monster believer isn't trying to convert you or demand anything from you - they have no burden to prove it.

If you think they might be onto something it's not up to you to prove they are right, but they still don't have the burden of proof upon them until they accept your request for proof. And if they claim they can't prove it, but that it's the conclusion they've come to - then they still don't have the burden of proof upon them, although they can still give you what evidence they've accepted, and you don't have to react or accept their evidences or even come to the same conclusion about them.

At least that's how I see it.

westprog

19th May 2008, 10:37 AM

You don't, but it was you who said above that 'the substance of the article could have been delved into' if I clarified 'walking corpses', which I did, and it wasn't.

I'm sorry if that sounded like a promise. The use of the passive voice was meant to indicate that it was an observation.

lupus_in_fabula

19th May 2008, 11:01 AM

I think there's a subtle distinction here. As long as the Juju-Monster believer isn't trying to convert you or demand anything from you - they have no burden to prove it.

If you think they might be onto something it's not up to you to prove they are right, but they still don't have the burden of proof upon them until they accept your request for proof. And if they claim they can't prove it, but that it's the conclusion they've come to - then they still don't have the burden of proof upon them, although they can still give you what evidence they've accepted, and you don't have to react or accept their evidences or even come to the same conclusion about them.

At least that's how I see it.

I don’t think ‘conversions’ or ‘demands’ are even relevant here. No one is demanding anything, since there’s no claims to it’s validly before, well, it’s claimed to have validity.

If you have a claim that you think is valid, then obviously there’s some reason for why you made the claim in the first place, and those reasons are up for scrutiny. Otherwise it’s just an empty assertion, like any other mumbo jumbo.

Why should you adhere to your own beliefs if you don’t have a reason for them? Whatever the reasons are is your own business. But if you claim them to have validity outside your own head, then the burden of proof is on you to provide for their validity. Not that I or anyone is demanding them from you, since before you give a valid reason for taking them seriously, they are as empty as the Juju-monster-claim (or any other infinitely hypothetical assertion).

Don’t mistake the burden of proof for a demand. It’s not like I’m interested in what’s actually going on in your head, although it could be interesting if you claim them to be valid outside your own head.

A Christian Sceptic

19th May 2008, 11:17 AM

I But if you claim them to have validity outside your own head, then the burden of proof is on you to provide for their validity.

How do you mean "claim them to have validitiy outside my own head"? I think you might using the phrase "claim them" the same way I'm using the word "demand". If you'd be so kind as to give me an example I could verify it.

DeusPhasmatis

19th May 2008, 12:09 PM

How do you mean "claim them to have validitiy outside my own head"? I think you might using the phrase "claim them" the same way I'm using the word "demand". If you'd be so kind as to give me an example I could verify it.

Yes, he is. Because there is no difference between them. Any statement in an open discussion is, unless ironic/sarcastic or admitted as wrong by the speaker, assumed to be held as true by the speaker (this is the implicit claim in making the statement). By making the statement, you bring it into the field of discussion, and thus it becomes fair game for critical analysis. "In my opinion" or "personal belief" defenses are evasions; if you don't want to discuss (debate/argue) your personal views, don't voice them.

By saying "I do/don't believe in (a) God(s)", a person is picking a fight (discussion/debate/argument).

lupus_in_fabula

19th May 2008, 12:57 PM

How do you mean "claim them to have validitiy outside my own head"? I think you might using the phrase "claim them" the same way I'm using the word "demand". If you'd be so kind as to give me an example I could verify it.

If you claim that your personal god is not solely in your imagination but a real objective phenomenon in this universe, also observable by me, it’s a claim that needn’t be taken as anything other than an empty assertion – mumbo jumbo – unless you specify what you mean and give a plausible reason for that god’s objective existence. There’s no reason to treat that claim as anything other than mumbo jumbo unless you can show why that claim should have validity outside your own head – i.e. evidence for plausibility should follow.

I’m not demanding anything from you because the starting point is devoid of any validity. There’s nothing to demand. You have to claim validity to your assertion – that’s usually implicitly understood; otherwise you probably wouldn’t have made the claim in the first place. Why would you claim god’s existence without attaching validity to your claim? Attaching validity is done by evidence for its plausibility (i.e. the burden of proof).

A Christian Sceptic

19th May 2008, 01:02 PM

If you claim that your personal god is not solely in your imagination but a real objective phenomenon in this universe, also observable by me, it’s a claim that needn’t be taken as anything other than an empty assertion – mumbo jumbo – unless you specify what you mean and give a plausible reason for that god’s objective existence. There’s no reason to treat that claim as anything other than mumbo jumbo unless you can show why that claim should have validity outside your own head – i.e. evidence for plausibility should follow.

I’m not demanding anything from you because the starting point is devoid of any validity. There’s nothing to demand. You have to claim validity to your assertion – that’s usually implicitly understood; otherwise you probably wouldn’t have made the claim in the first place. Why would you claim god’s existence without attaching validity to your claim? Attaching validity is done by evidence for its plausibility (i.e. the burden of proof).

I think this is an interesting discussion Lupus. Please don't assume I have any other point other than wanting to clarify things with you. :) Thanks.

Do you think this applies to all beliefs?
What about opinions? (Can't think of much of an example except maybe - I believe blue is the best color.)

What about if someone asks you - Do you believe in God? If you say "Yes" - is the burden of proof now on you?

Do you think they are now obligated to prove anything?

Thanks,

Lonewulf

19th May 2008, 01:12 PM

I know you didn't ask me, Sceptic, but I would like to bring forth my own viewpoint here.

I think this is an interesting discussion Lupus. Please don't assume I have any other point other than wanting to clarify things with you. :) Thanks.

Do you think this applies to all beliefs?Dependingly.

What about opinions? (Can't think of much of an example except maybe - I believe blue is the best color.)Preferences don't count in my book, personally. However, if you were to make the claim that Blue exists, I would want to see evidence that it exists. If I asked you, "What's your favorite color?" and you said, "Breezleplax", I'd be like, "What's that? That doesn't exist..."

You say that if no one attempts to force their ideas on you, they can believe whatever they want. Imagine if that was really 100% true, and scientists went through this route all the time; they could never actually accomplish their job. Without the rigor of scientific questioning of data and bringing data to the table in order to support theories, society never gets anywhere. I don't see why I can't personally want to bring that form of rigor to the table when talking about a deity.

What about if someone asks you - Do you believe in God? If you say "Yes" - is the burden of proof now on you?If they ask "why", I should be able to give a reasoned response, yes. If I can't reason my own decision to believe, then why should I believe it in the first place? It creates a cognitive dissonance in me; I can't explain something logically, and yet I accept it as true and live my life as it's true. Why would I want to live my life that way?

What can I possibly accomplish by accepting the existence of an invisible being with no evidence whatsoever of it's existence, and further claim that no one can question this deity? That's not the kind of life I want to live.

Do you think they are now obligated to prove anything?If they expect me to put up with their behavior, yes. Though I suppose you're onto something. If Christians didn't attempt to force their beliefs on me or the law in any way, shape, or form, I'd be just fine with Christians -- or ANY religion whatsoever.

The less religion has an effect, the more I can stand it.

lupus_in_fabula

19th May 2008, 01:46 PM

Do you think this applies to all beliefs?
What about opinions? (Can't think of much of an example except maybe - I believe blue is the best color.)

I have to agree with Lonewulf here and say: let’s hear the claim first (belief is of a secondary concern). Again, I’m not really interested what you’re able to imagine. Stating that blue is the best colour isn’t claming much except personal preference – unless you come up with a measurement that somehow makes “betterness” more objective than simple inclination.

What about if someone asks you - Do you believe in God? If you say "Yes" - is the burden of proof now on you? First, why say yes with such limited information; god can practically mean anything here (Zeus, Juju, Allah, or something else). Second, saying yes in this instance is, again, not saying much except implying that one believes in some kind of deity. Hence, there’s no claim about a god existing outside one’s own imagination. In this example I’m simply revealing what’s going on in my head. There’s no reason to think any god is anywhere else except in my imagination.

Do you think they are now obligated to prove anything? As I already pointed out, there’s no obligation and no demand. No claim has been made to have validity, outside one’s own imagination that is.

A Christian Sceptic

19th May 2008, 01:48 PM

I know you didn't ask me, Sceptic, but I would like to bring forth my own viewpoint here.

Hey - Lonewulf. I really enjoy your responses. Feel free to respond any posts I make anywhere. (That is, unless it's some sort of specific response towards someone specifically that you might be taking somehow negatively towards you. I'd prefer you PM me to clarify or assume that's not what's intended.)

Preferences don't count in my book, personally. However, if you were to make the claim that Blue exists, I would want to see evidence that it exists. If I asked you, "What's your favorite color?" and you said, "Breezleplax", I'd be like, "What's that? That doesn't exist..."

I was re-reading my example. The use of the word "best" is definitely a claim that it's the best, but I think it's probably assumed as "best for me".

You say that if no one attempts to force their ideas on you, they can believe whatever they want.

I think until someone requires something from me (it doesn't have to be something verbally being told to me, by the way.) I treat all their beliefs, whatever they are, as simply opinions worth approximately 0. This may not come across as intended, but I don't care what my neighbors beliefs are until they're beliefs infringe upon me somehow or I'm somehow convinced they're beliefs may potentially be infringing upon me negatively. [Please don't extrapolate from that statement that I don't care about people. ] But the moment they say to me "My God blah-blah says it's wrong for you to have a blue house. You need to paint it a different color." (I'm just pulling that out of the air). well, Now I care. Apart from any legal actions involved :) all the proof rests upon them. Actually, scratch that, they don't have to prove anything - they just need to obey the restraining order. Joking aside, I hope that makes sense.

Imagine if that was really 100% true, and scientists went through this route all the time; they could never actually accomplish their job. Without the rigor of scientific questioning of data and bringing data to the table in order to support theories, society never gets anywhere. I don't see why I can't personally want to bring that form of rigor to the table when talking about a deity.

I think you can - but isn't there now something pro-active on your part. To keep with my lame analogy. If I approach my neighbor with regards to the color of my house for advice or what have you I don't need to expect near the amount of anything from him as if he approached me unasked.

Maybe it's not much of a distinction here. That's why I used the word "subtle".

If they ask "why", I should be able to give a reasoned response, yes. If I can't reason my own decision to believe, then why should I believe it in the first place? It creates a cognitive dissonance in me; I can't explain something logically, and yet I accept it as true and live my life as it's true. Why would I want to live my life that way?

But in this case is there a burden of proof - that is do they now have to prove to you anything? They just need to tell you the reasons, which may not even be good evidence or proof to you at all. It's their reasons.

What can I possibly accomplish by accepting the existence of an invisible being with no evidence whatsoever of it's existence, and further claim that no one can question this deity? That's not the kind of life I want to live.

I understand that.

If they expect me to put up with their behavior, yes. Though I suppose you're onto something. If Christians didn't attempt to force their beliefs on me or the law in any way, shape, or form, I'd be just fine with Christians -- or ANY religion whatsoever.

The less religion has an effect, the more I can stand it.

I agree that if they use their religion for their argument as to why in our society people who don't belong to that religion have to do things - the burden of proof absolutelty falls upon them.

The distinction with how the phrase "burden of proof" is used isn't often clear. (At least to me) It often seems to be used in a sense where someone is now obligated to prove something.

That's why I don't think it's just the "positive" claim that's required. Unless "positive" means the claim being asserted towards someone. Maybe the word demand was too harsh? The word claim though seems too wimpy.

A Christian Sceptic

19th May 2008, 02:04 PM

Apologies Lupus. DeusPhasmatis had posted right before you agreeing and explaining your post to me.

He had made this claim:

By saying "I do/don't believe in (a) God(s)", a person is picking a fight (discussion/debate/argument).

If that's not your distinction I apologize. I was trying to clarify if in all situations that claim needs to have the burden of proof put on the person making the statement.

First, why say yes with such limited information; god can practically mean anything here (Zeus, Juju, Allah, or something else). Second, saying yes in this instance is, again, not saying much except implying that one believes in some kind of deity. Hence, there’s no claim about a god existing outside one’s own imagination. In this example I’m simply revealing what’s going on in my head. There’s no reason to think any god is anywhere else except in my imagination.

As I already pointed out, there’s no obligation and no demand. No claim has been made to have validity, outside one’s own imagination that is.

Thanks. I wrote a longer respone to Lonewulf. I'd be interested in your recomendations or thoughts on my last point in that post on my use of the word "demand". I'm not trying to argue my ideas are right or try to have you accept my definitions or ideas on it, but want to have a better definition for myself and would like your input. Thanks.

Lonewulf

19th May 2008, 02:06 PM

Hey - Lonewulf. I really enjoy your responses. Feel free to respond any posts I make anywhere. Hey, thanks. No problem.

I think until someone requires something from me (it doesn't have to be something verbally being told to me, by the way.) I treat all their beliefs, whatever they are, as simply opinions worth approximately 0. This may not come across as intended, but I don't care what my neighbors beliefs are until they're beliefs infringe upon me somehow or I'm somehow convinced they're beliefs may potentially be infringing upon me negatively.[Please don't extrapolate from that statement that I don't care about people. ] But the moment they say to me "My God blah-blah says it's wrong for you to have a blue house. You need to paint it a different color." (I'm just pulling that out of the air). well, Now I care. Apart from any legal actions involved all the proof rests upon them. Actually, scratch that, they don't have to prove anything - they just need to obey the restraining order. Joking aside, I hope that makes sense.Reading this, I think we agree a lot more than I've thought.

Essentially, you are like me. Religion is perfectly fine, as long as it doesn't affect you or your lifestyle in any way, shape, or form just based on the religious basis alone.

I.E., you'd be against me in feeling a bit slighted that we can't buy beer on Sunday in some places because "you should be in Church". Although perhaps you'd also be like me and not consider it *quite* so important, just a sign that laws can get passed for religious pretenses.

But in this case is there a burden of proof - that is do they now have to prove to you anything? They just need to tell you the reasons, which may not even be good evidence or proof to you at all. It's their reasons.Well, true enough I suppose. But when they can't really support their beliefs with anything significant, why have them? I guess I'm just not really able to comprehend it.

I mean, I cannot look at Christianity and not see that it's man-made. There's so many claims of supernatural that I just don't see ever happening -- yet they happen with frightening frequency in the Bible. There were magic-wielding priests in Egypt, miracles happening left and right, and burning bushes... things were chaotic, and downright wondrous.

Yet I look at the world and I don't see any of it. There doesn't seem to be anything at all in the Bible or in almost any religion that seems to have any actual objective demonstration; nothing that actually happens that seems to even come close to match the source material.

Demons were once blamed for illness. The sky was considered a dome, far closer to the Earth than even the moon is, one of the MANY objects in the night sky on a clear night with no light pollution. How can these prophets be able to come up with the ideas of a powerful all-present God, claim to be inspired by Him, but yet get all these fundamental facts so incredibly wrong? It was a long time until we even got rid of the myth of the Four Humors as part of medicine...

I dunno. One thing that strikes me the most in the Bible is the Doubting Thomas. Jesus comes from the dead, but one of his own disciples, Thomas, won't actually believe it. He asks for evidence -- for proof. Jesus didn't tell him to "just believe"; he fulfilled this proof. Here:

Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'.

Even in the base source material, Jesus may encourage belief (at least according to this translation), but he still provides evidence to Thomas. That's what I want, when it comes to religion. I don't see why Thomas can receive evidence, yet I'm expected to put my life on the line for none; or at the very least, I won't see eternal life without it. Which strikes me as a bit unfair, but that's just me.

And it just makes me pull my hair out how God acts so much like the very humans -- only in all the worst ways. Cruel ways, childish ways. He doesn't like what people do (even though He created them -- free will or not -- with perfectly predictable mental organs and social behavior), and then goes ahead and decides who should be "gotten rid of". Old Testament or not, if you accept it as *true*, then it doesn't paint God in good light.

It's just kinda funny how Gods always so accurately mirror all the qualities you will find in the humans that would believe in them, while also making the claim that they're "higher" -- usually with some sort of Chosen People that are most often the culture that most believed in them. Really, honestly, how anyone can see this as anything else other than man-made, I will never understand.

I agree that if they use their religion for their argument as to why in our society people who don't belong to that religion have to do things - the burden of proof absolutelty falls upon them.

The distinction with how the phrase "burden of proof" is used isn't often clear. (At least to me) It often seems to be used in a sense where someone is now obligated to prove something.

That's why I don't think it's just the "positive" claim that's required. Unless "positive" means the claim being asserted towards someone. Maybe the word demand was to harsh? The word claim though seems to wimpy.Well, in this case, if you expect me to respect your viewpoint -- in that you want me to accept it -- I would want evidence.

If you want me to leave you alone and not attempt to "convert" you, that's just fine; just expect me to be willing to start up debates at parties. ;)

I think we agree on this point, though.

A Christian Sceptic

19th May 2008, 02:42 PM

Well, true enough I suppose. But when they can't really support their beliefs with anything significant, why have them? I guess I'm just not really able to comprehend it.

Because to them the reasons they have are enough for them. Maybe they accept certain things as evidence that you wouldn't. (I'm not sure what you'd expect as evidence. You don't need to answer or anything. Just pointing out the followins is just a generalization). Maybe they "weigh" anectdotal evidence more, or count their own personal experience or feelings more, or they saw something unexplained. Alot, my guess is, is that it's working. They might see some scientific evidence as a sort of proof where you don't, etc. Of course, it could also be as simple as they've never considered why they believe what they believe.

I'm not really sure how much of the rest was rhetorical or even if I have anything satisfactory to offer. I suppose I could tell you some things I think about on some of that, but I predict we'd then have a whole lot of people jumping in to the middle of it all at me. :) I enjoy thinking and working out these kind of things, but judging from the success of my last thread it might need to be organized a bit better so we aren't talking past each other. :)

lupus_in_fabula

20th May 2008, 01:00 AM

I agree that if they use their religion for their argument as to why in our society people who don't belong to that religion have to do things - the burden of proof absolutelty falls upon them.

The distinction with how the phrase "burden of proof" is used isn't often clear. (At least to me) It often seems to be used in a sense where someone is now obligated to prove something.

That's why I don't think it's just the "positive" claim that's required. Unless "positive" means the claim being asserted towards someone. Maybe the word demand was too harsh? The word claim though seems too wimpy.

Well, once a positive claim is made, it’s implicitly assumed that it’s also claimed to have validity. Once it’s claimed to have validity outside one’s own head, then it’s up for scrutiny, and thus it’s primarily the reasons the original claimant has which is evaluated.

I suppose the problem here is that many claim their god-believes as valid outside their own imagination, without giving any suitable reasons for why those external reasons are valid, yet simply claim they are valid by referencing to their internal reasons.

Lonewulf

20th May 2008, 11:48 AM

articulett

20th May 2008, 12:30 PM

Lupus' font is normal to me.

Lonewulf

20th May 2008, 12:40 PM

Hm, this is weird. I took a screen shot of my browser; the top half is Lupus' writing.

Might it be that I use a very large resolution for my large monitor...?

What I see: http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/4205/screenshotdesktopzk8.th.jpg (http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotdesktopzk8.jpg)

Anyways, I should probably move this question to another part of the forum, but figured I could get this cleared up real quick here without starting a new thread...

Skeptic Guy

20th May 2008, 04:29 PM

(SNIP)I have to congratulate Edmund Standing. Given the vast range of Christian belief, from deepest ignorant fundamentalism to episcopalians who regard God as a largely symbolic figure, he managed to find one belief that no Christians have. And that was the one he used to illustrate his point.

Bolding mine. I had to look this up as it didn't sound like the Episcopalians I know. They're part of the Anglican Communion of churches and as such, are considered 'Catholic Lite' and believe pretty much the same thing as a Catholic, though I have to give them props for ordaining an openly gay priest.

This from the Wikipedia site:

The center of Episcopal teaching is the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ).[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America#c ite_note-70) The basic teachings of the church, or catechism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism), includes:

Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God. He died and was resurrected from the dead.
Jesus provides the way of eternal life for those who believe.
God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit, are one God, and are called the Holy Trinity, "Three and yet one"
The Old and New Testaments of the Bible were written by people "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." The Apocrypha are additional books that are used in Christian worship, but not for the formation of doctrine.
The two great and necessary sacraments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_sacraments) are Holy Baptism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism) and Holy Eucharist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist)
Other sacramental rites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_sacraments) are confirmation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation), ordination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination), marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage), reconciliation of a penitent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession), and unction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unction).
Belief in heaven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven), hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell), and Jesus's return in glory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_coming).

Sounds pretty standard Christian. The only difference with Fundamentalism is that they don't beat people over the head if they disagree with their religion.

blobru

20th May 2008, 06:47 PM

Can I ask a serious question here?

Is Lupus' font really big for anyone else besides me? To me, it's at least 5X the size of everything else.

While in theory larger font should be easier to read, it comes as too much as a surprise to me to help...

Hiya wulf. I have 2 pc's, different versions of IE on each. In the IE-7 browser it looks normal, but in IE-6 it's huge. I notice from your screenshot you're using firefox -- if you haven't, maybe upgrade to the latest version? Either that, or we can politely petition brother Lupus to stop messing with his font:

Hey, Lupus, stop messing with your font, forpetesakes! What's wrong with the default? This is what your words look like. Can't you see how you're scarin' poor Lonewulf & me with your giant posts! Have a heart, eh? :(

There, that oughta do it.

p.s. I thought it was funny you'd say: "Can I ask a serious question here?" Here, in the Religion & Philosophy forum, a serious question, about browser font size!? (uh-oh.) Very lucky the whole thread, the whole forum, wasn't wiped out in the collision. :p

lupus_in_fabula

21st May 2008, 12:34 AM

Lonewulf

21st May 2008, 03:02 AM

Problem fixed. Changed font settings in my browser. Thanks for the help, don't worry about anything Lupus. Was just a browser problem I had; as soon as you set the font, my computer would act on changing it. It's my glitch, not yours.

I agree that if they use their religion for their argument as to why in our society people who don't belong to that religion have to do things - the burden of proof absolutelty falls upon them.

The distinction with how the phrase "burden of proof" is used isn't often clear. (At least to me) It often seems to be used in a sense where someone is now obligated to prove something.

That's why I don't think it's just the "positive" claim that's required. Unless "positive" means the claim being asserted towards someone. Maybe the word demand was too harsh? The word claim though seems too wimpy.

I copy/pasted your quote word for word, and it should work. Not sure what's going on there. Maybe the forum doesn't recognize your tags if you set the font?

blobru

21st May 2008, 04:30 PM

Aaaah, damit! I use Firefox 3 (beta) and everything looks normal to me. Although sometimes when I write, I first do it in MS Word, and then copy-paste the text into the reply-box. There’s usually some kind of problem with that process, so I always have to fix it by manually changing the font to Verdana size number 2. Isn’t that the default? A possible work-around could be to copy-paste to Notepad, and only then bring it here (that seems to solve the problem).

Can anyone tell me if this problem is prevalent in all my posts, also in different threads? :confused:

Besides, if you look at my reply to ACS in #205, I tried to quote him, but it did not let me.

Hi, Lupus. :)

I've run into the same problem you mention when pasting from Word. The bb formats it somehow so older browsers see it as large font. Looks fine in IE-7, and ff-3, as you say. So it's our fault for not being up-to-date. The 'complaint' last post -- just me playing the fool, eh? ;)

Anyway, you're right Verdana is the default font, and the size tags in your post all say 2, so not sure what problem the older browsers are having... (maybe some unseen texting character unique to Word?) :confused: You might want to try switching editor mode to basic [button top right] if you have it set at advanced before pasting in the reply box; I've found that helps too when transferring saved text.

articulett

21st May 2008, 05:30 PM

I think this thread is haunted.

lupus_in_fabula

22nd May 2008, 01:46 AM

Truthfully I say to all of you, there will come a time when a Burning Fox will rise gloriously, and great words, in normal size, will be illuminated through her flames. But there will also be great confusion amongst the ones that do not accept her offering, and fonts will be scattered all over their screens.

…blobru, thank you for the tip, I’m trying another mode right now, and it seems to work; the text is automatically changed into the default (without having to manually change it). :)

Whack01

22nd May 2008, 03:05 PM

Sorry for dragging this back up, but I really must say something here.

..For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised .... - (1 Corinthians 15:49–55)

...And the dead in Christ will rise first.... - (1 Thessalonians 4:15–17)

...the dead shamble and lurch, hunting the living before the Day of Judgement... - (Revelations 25:13*)

.
Plus several chapters given earlier.

Nope ... no "walking corpses" in the bible what-so-ever.

Neither is admirable.

Westprog, are you Lying For Jesus or ignorant of the bible and its teachings? (emphasis added, -whack01)

* Made-up to follow the christian traditions.

I love how many skeptics bothered sourcing this. You people call yourself skeptics and condemn Christians for lying and uncritical thought.

What bible is it exactly that has a revelations chapter 25? The something awful translation?

Revelations chapter 22:18-21 closes the book with these words

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am comming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen"

It took 30 seconds to source this and even the Christians arguing against it didn't bother to notice it isn't even in the canon of scripture. That said, I understand that you're just trolling. I'm just disappointed in people that they didn't bother calling you on your source. Four pages of replies should have been enough for ANYBODY with half a brain left to notice. :idea: :eek: Quick! Everyone get away from the thread fast!

Darat

22nd May 2008, 03:10 PM

Sorry for dragging this back up, but I really must say something here.

I love how many skeptics bothered sourcing this. You people call yourself skeptics and condemn Christians for lying and uncritical thought.

What bible is it exactly that has a revelations chapter 25?

Revelations chapter 22:18-21 closes the book with these words

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am comming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen"

It took 30 seconds to source this and even the Christians arguing against it didn't bother to notice it isn't even in the canon of scripture. That said, I understand that you're just trolling. I'm just disappointed in people that they didn't bother calling you on your source. Four pages of replies should have been enough for ANYBODY with half a brain left to notice. :idea: :eek: Quick! Everyone get away from the thread fast!
Wasn't going to respond but my soul is just too evil to resist the temptation....

Whack01 - notice that * next to the quote you have a problem with? Well it denotes a footnote and if you read the footnote it says "* Made-up to follow the Christian traditions."