Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson [Archive] - Page 2

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 04:01 PM

You, too, TA-- you could use a few more sig phrases.

Nah, it's full. Only the very best get in nowadays.

Keep ignoring the point.

As I'm about to show, using your own words, it is YOU who is missing the point.

Keep pretending you are fighting on behalf of the good believers. When people say that faith is a bad way to know something they are not attacking the victims (the faithful)-- they are attacking the institutions proffering lies as "higher truths"--your apologetics are tangential to what we are talking about--the truth...

Completely and demonstrably incorrect.

I suggest you withdraw that statement. Do you have some memory problems, because there are at least twenty of your posts here where you are attacking people rather than religion. You have proven yourself a liar with this bit - feel free to ask me to scan some more of posts to prove my point, because I have a fairly quiet day today and I'd be glad to keep showing up what a dishonest and vindictive person you are.

People trust the least trustworthy people the most while being fearful of those who bear the facts-- and it's religion that is responsible for that.

Yes, thanks Arti, I know that, because I've just quoted a whole load of your posts which belabour that point.

So, according to this portion of your post, the least trustworthy people are religious, or they are untrustworthy because of religion.

My word, you do live in the wrong country, eh? Your president and all the hopeful followers in his footsteps at the White House are christian, the majority of your judges are christian and 80% of the population are christians. Very few trustworthy people in USA. I guess. Hope you never have to go to court; judges don't take kindly to being told they're untrustworthy.

It's religion that proffers the notion that faith is a good way of knowing something. You are defending the lying to others while pretending to care about the lied to.

And showing your complete inability to read what I said. Nowhere have I defended religious lies. My position, from the start of this thread, has been that religion is not all bad, nor even mostly bad.

Further you slander those who would share the facts.

Again, demonstrably incorrect. I didn't slander Qayak. I slander those who ask me to. Calling me a christian is an easy opening ploy and since you used it, I figured that you must want to play, especially after our exchange last week. Your call - you can stop now, or keep going. I'm fine either way.

I think (hope) you are only fooling yourself.

And I take your commentary about as seriously as most people seem to take you. ( And I wear your insults as a badge of honor.)

Good. We're both the same then in that regard. I find it hard to believe that the error-ridden, repetitive and mind-numbingly boring posts you make are read by anyone at all. Fortunately, I don't ask to be taken seriously, I just play the game as I find it.

I trust you wear the insults from TAM as badges of honour as well.

Actually, that's completely wrong - the TAM comments aren't insults, just the impression you give in person.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 04:18 PM

Oh, thanks for posting the moses/creighton study. I think it's a great one. It's really good at showing how religiosity is strongly correlated with societal dysfunction. Nice institutions you're apologizing for, there, TA.

And just to complete the picture of someone blinded by their own silliness you give me that!

Arti, I wasn't disagreeing with the study, I was just pointing out that you are repetitive in the extreme and that the targets of your preciously, much-repeated study are completely wrong. If you ever manage to accept that I am not a christian and John's not a creationist, you might see the irony.

But I doubt it.

Actually, I was trying to give your cantankerousness the benefit of the doubt.

No use trying to wriggle out of it now - it was one of several posts in the same vein and you meant it exactly as it stands. Personally, having been suspended for abuse a couple of times, I find that kind of comment quite sickening and far beyond anything I've ever typed or said. Fortunately, you only aimed it at me and I'm quite happy to carry it around in my sig, because I think it says a lot more about the person who would say that than who it was said to. Others I've discussed it with agree.

And all those other sig lines, were they merely because people disagreed with you too? Surely, you've never said anything insulting to those who disagreed with you, eh?

Lemme count them:

ID. LOL! The little hippo-panties boy and I have a great history. He posts rubbish and I destroy him. He dislikes being made a fool of repeatedly.

Jon the Geek's comment was something I asked him to post so I could copy it. That's the only time I've ever conversed with Jon, so no we haven't had a disagreement.

MdC just likes being in my sig, so has been thinking up cute terms of abuse to ensure that he gets in. I don't think I've ever disagreed with him - other than in sports, maybe - and we have a cordial relatrionship.

Lost Angeles and I have had our little spats, but we don't have an ongoing problem. The comment wasn't as a result of any disagreement with her, although I'd hardly call her a fan.

JLam made the honest mistake of mis-reading a humourous post I made and replied as you see.

Fowlsound and I are now on very cordial terms and the abuse relates to a major misunderstanding from long ago.

St John's concern is pretty obvious, which leaves us with one piece of sig line which was meant to cause distress and the only one which actually relates to a simple philosophical disagreement.

Wonder which one that is.

Do I abuse people for just disagreeing with me? Probably, but rarely. I reserve the best/worst of my vitriol for people who make idiotic, assumptive and baseless statements about me and people I respect or like. Funnily enough, the other favourite target for that just joined the discussion.

John Hewitt

22nd July 2007, 04:38 PM

What a charming character you are.

Would you care to explain why that was necessary?
Necessary in what way? No posting of any kind is necessary.

TA's comments are understandable because Articulett does not try to have sensible discussions. She never seems to do more than insult anyone who disagrees with her.
The great defining centres of her thought seem to be
1. That "God does not exist."
2. That "all religion is evil and should be destroyed."

In regard to 1, I have the impression that most people make up their minds about the existence, or otherwise, of God by the time they are teenagers. They stop seriously discussing that topic in their late teens to early twenties. Those left are just the proselytizers - on both sides - who are not open to real discussion. Articulett seems to be such a person, as dogmatic and intractable as any high priest of any religion. In regard to 2 - it's just daft.

In any case those issues are not scientific issues and Articulett claims to be a scientist. What one would like is to get her to see that there are real questions out there, questions that can be asked scientifically in the real hope of finding answers that might be useful and interesting.

To put it another way, one would like her to jump out of her perpetual "for loop" and start running a real program.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 04:46 PM

Sorry TA-- you are going to have to get someone else to translate... you are sounding as crazed as Herzblut now... how's that imaginary battle you are winning in your head going?

And I know this is going to be hard to hear, but I actually get quite a lot of positive feedback and pms from both this forum and TAM. And it's from some really smart and cool people who actually know stuff! I don't have communication problems with people in general.

I have heard one person say a positive thing about you (andyandy) and heard tons encouraging others to put you on ignore.

I don't even dislike you... I just think you only make sense in your own head most of the time. I don't really seem to have trouble communicating with intelligent people on this forum or in life. I try to see if someone like you ever has a point--but when I read your old posts they are the same as now. Some are decent... but most are tangential, insulting of those you might learn something from, amusing only to you as far as I can tell, and they show a profound lack of understanding of both evolution and anything Dawkins says as well as evolution in general. Those who you quote in your sig are people I find much more coherent and intelligent than you. So, naturally, I've concluded the problem is you--not me.

In fact, Paul Provenza jokes that he's met dumb theists and smart theists, but he's never met a dumb atheist. And I always think to myself, that's because you haven't met TA. :) And I don't think I called you a Christian, did I? I called you a religious apologist... or maybe a Christian apologist. Heck, even the Christians can't agree on who is or isn't a Christian. I just think it's creepy and sad and weird that people continue this indoctrination because they think it's necessary for morality or to save their kids from hell or because it will lead to salvation. There's no good reason to think that any of this is true. And I think it's part of the indoctrination that people defend the practice without being aware they are doing it... they've learned not to ever say the emperor is naked and to shush those who say as much.-- like you.

If people wish to insult me, I hope they do it to my face, because it livens my day when I piss off creationists and religious apologists and nutters. I can't help it... It makes me feel empowered. It keeps me on my toes. Besides, I might just get over-confident if all I get is praise. It allows me to accumulate info. about whom to ignore and then I can warn new posters that I like so that the wackos don't give them the wrong impression of the forum community. Plus, when I piss the wackos off, their true colors show for all to see. It makes for a nice instant character assessment for anyone dropping by, you know-- it allows people to see who shares their views, who's worth reading, who's totally wacked, etc. Plus, it gives people who were once timid, as I once was, to courage to sound off to the blowhards on line.

Thanks for helping me develop a thicker skin, TA. Oh, and if you can't bear to read me, then there's always the ignore button. I heartily encourage its' use for those who want to avoid my words. I use it myself. I tend to enjoy more intelligent dialogue with my peers than these silly little skirmishes most of the time. But these can be fun too. (I must say, I find myself amusing at times even if nobody else does.)

articulett

22nd July 2007, 04:58 PM

John, the only discussions you want to have is about how Dawkins is wrong, wrong, wrong and scientists are keeping others from hearing your amazing theory as some part of some conspiracy-- and TA is your number one cheerleader and the only one who gives credence to your cell-as-replicator hypothesis and anti-Dawkins, anti-meme, rhetoric.

Just because I dismantle your Dawkins bashing and Behe-esque theory proffering and give others the heads up regarding the delusion you hide behind, doesn't mean I don't engage in sensible discussions. All the "sensible discussions" you seem to be engaged in are centered around the above and you dodge and weave to avoid acknowledging it. And TA follows you like a puppy supporting your unsupported hyptothesis and your piddly ire at Dawkins and those evil others who repress your claims to genius.

Your hypothesis would be used and discussed if it was comprehensive, useful, or true, John. There's no conspiracy to make facts the domain of certain people. Scientists spend millions to analyze stardust. How you've convinced yourself that they are failing to give your notion fair play is beyond me.

You and Von Neuman and Mijo and, even Kleinman are all fairly smart guys who avoid the term "intelligent design" proponent and know just enough science to get some cheerleaders-- You all have a bee in your bonnet about Dawkins and it's mostly because no one takes your alternate claims and explanations seriously even though you are all convinced you are the next genius in explaining how life arose on this earth. To me, you are sad old men like Behe (your hero).

All your supposed deep conversations are all about just that. All your piddly little comments about others are on par with your comments about Dawkins. You're just pissed because you think you deserve the praise he receives. And you stick up for TA, because he's the only one who gives your alternate scenario the notion of plausibility. It's hard to convince yourself that you are a hidden genius with higher truths, if you haven't got sway over an audience. And you're pissed with Dawkins for driving the point home.

HghrSymmetry

22nd July 2007, 05:31 PM

Oh the irony... he accused me of making a baseless accusation when he entered this thread and the other one with a baseless accusation. Irony. Creationists are so bloody good at it!

My Bat Irony Meter kept going off so I was forced to track down the signal.

;)

-H "they keep subbing your for you're" S

qayak

22nd July 2007, 06:02 PM

Nowhere have I defended religious lies. My position, from the start of this thread, has been that religion is not all bad, nor even mostly bad.

Then you are defending lies. Religion is a lie. It is all made up with not a shred of evidence to support it. All Lies = All Bad.

Actually, that's completely wrong - the TAM comments aren't insults, just the impression you give in person.

You can pretty much say anything you want when you never have to prove it. So, you won't mind if I ask for the names of the people who said this so I can verify it..

And don't attempt the old evasion of refusing to give the names to protect a confidence. You have already violated any confidence these people had in you. If they really said it, they shouldn't be afraid to confirm it.

I eagerly await your response.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 06:13 PM

Arti. You must be the only person who ever went to high school who wrote her own "KICK ME' sticker.

For the final time, I'm going to explain exactly why and where it is that you prove yourself to be the perfect example of your favourite cliche - moses.

I know it won't make the slightest bit of difference to how you think you're going, but you've just passed my "not lucid enough to bother with" function. I'll make the odd comment and I'll never put you on ignore, but in terms of efforts to engage you, this is it.

I can even be perfectly civil while doing it.

Sorry TA-- you are going to have to get someone else to translate...

Coming from someone whose posts are littered with grammatical and spelling errors (as opposed to simple tyops), I won't even start to question what level of self-delusion might encourage anyone to start a post to me in that fashion.

Irony didn't even make the top five.

Demonstraby absurd.

... you are sounding as crazed as Herzblut now... how's that imaginary battle you are winning in your head going?

Let me see...

One ad hominem to me, and a quick uppercut to Herzblutt.

*Quick note to Arti: nice to see you get Herzblut's name right, it's a lot more difficult than QAYAK's and they've been posting for about the same time, although qayak has far more posts.

And I know this is going to be hard to hear, but I actually get quite a lot of positive feedback and pms from both this forum and TAM. And it's from some really smart and cool people who actually know stuff! I don't have communication problems with people in general.

Obviously. I wouldn't expect you to have communication problems with people in general. Given the average standard of communication, I'd say you'd be well above it. The problems always seem to stem from when someone questions something you have: A) learned by rote, and B) believe to the point of fury when questioned.

Your argument with me in this thread is entirely about me refusing to accept that all religion is bad.

Now explain which one of us is the zealot, please.

My eight-year old daughter knows some "really smart and cool people who actually know stuff" as well. Congratulations.

I have heard one person say a positive thing about you (andyandy) and heard tons encouraging others to put you on ignore.

Yep, I've spoken to Andy about that, but he's a Pom and they're quite forgiving. I agree with the ignore feature, though, more people should us it on me, because if they keep coming back to me on positions I take, I'll fight for those positions, and as I repeat after repeat after repeat. I have no interest in who are what is right, just that it is right.

Again, how lovely it is to see Unter leaping to your defence. Last week, someone took my defence of him to mean that I was some kind of CFLarsen fan, despite that being demonstrably wrong. Since this started, you have classed me as a religious apologist, because I refuse to accept that all religion is bad.

How silly is that?

I constantly see people demanding skepticism and critical thinking, only to see it fly out of the window when someone kicks a sacred cow. I kick sacred cows just for the hell of it. Just to see whether they kick back, and if so, whether they kick back with a vengeance of facts or a peurile and cowardly attack.

Let's see.

Inbetween the pair of brackets immediately following this sentence, I have listed all of the facts you brought to this discussion showing why all religion is bad: ( )

Hmm. Not much, is there?

I suggest you put me on ignore promptly then, because what you're getting at the moment is me being nice. Frankly, you sicken me. It bugs the hell out of me that I'm perceived as being "on your side" by christendom and apathetic agnostics. Much as I despise christians for being deluded, I far reserve the worst invective for people who are smart enough to know better but act the same way, just minus god.

I don't even dislike you...

That's nice to know. Let's have a look at the evidence, shall we?

I just think you only make sense in your own head most of the time.

Promising start.

I don't really seem to have trouble communicating with intelligent people on this forum or in life. I try to see if someone like you ever has a point--but when I read your old posts they are the same as now. Some are decent... but most are tangential, insulting of those you might learn something from, amusing only to you as far as I can tell, and they show a profound lack of understanding of both evolution and anything Dawkins says as well as evolution in general. Those who you quote in your sig are people I find much more coherent and intelligent than you. So, naturally, I've concluded the problem is you--not me.

Not even worth challenging on your totally baseless allegation about my understanding of evolution. At no stage have I challenged any conventional thinking, beyond supporting John in a theory which has by no means disproven. I commented from my very first defence of John that I did not necessarily agree with his theory, but felt it is worth exploring. Personally, I find it incredible that anyone wishing to be called a scientist would dismiss it out of hand. No evidence has been forthcoming to refute John at any stage.

My defence of him, and my refusal to admit that all religion is bad has led to your "not disliking" me.

In fact, Paul Provenza jokes that he's met dumb theists and smart theists, but he's never met a dumb atheist. And I always think to myself, that's because you haven't met TA. :)

Quick ad hominem on the way through.

Ah prolly wooda larfed myslef iff'n Ah'd a-knowed who thet fulla wuz.

You'd really like me in person. I love letting people think I'm quite stupid before I utterly destroy their credibility in an instant. Unfortunately, you appear to be a n00b at it.

Quick rule for you: when slinging ad hominem, don't make them ones which are so obviously flawed from any angle. Really good abuse should be true, funny and hurtful. 0/3.

And I don't think I called you a Christian, did I? I called you a religious apologist... or maybe a Christian apologist. Heck, even the Christians can't agree on who is or isn't a Christian.

Either or, I'm quite happy, since you have now clearly defined "christian apologist" as a person who will not publicly state that all religion is bad.

Defintely comfortable in that group. That probably rates about 99.999% of English-speaking people.

On that basis, the attempted ad hominem of "christian apologist" is disallowed, because it's now an accurate description, under your meaning.

No worries. Equally happy with "religious apologist", because I constantly fail to state, and will not accept, that all islam is bad, either.

Mea culpa.

I just think it's creepy and sad and weird that people continue this indoctrination because they think it's necessary for morality or to save their kids from hell or because it will lead to salvation.

I think that's creepy, too. Again, the brackets enclose the entire evidence you have posted to date which shows that all christians teach their kids about hell: ( )

Thanks for your hard work.

There's no good reason to think that any of this is true. And I think it's part of the indoctrination that people defend the practice without being aware they are doing it... they've learned not to ever say the emperor is naked and to shush those who say as much.-- like you.

Again, I agree. Another attempted ad hominem falls by the wayside now that, all deluded people cannot state that all religion is bad.

Sorry, I know this all looks a little repetitive, but this is my last reply to you and you will keep making the same [incorect] point, over and over, and over again. (again)

If people wish to insult me, I hope they do it to my face, because it livens my day when I piss off creationists and religious apologists and nutters.

That's nice, but not anywhere near as revealing as this next bit:

I can't help it... It makes me feel empowered. It keeps me on my toes.

Now, you'll get no argument from me that those three groups often contain the three most-useless sectors of humanity - especially the first and last. In any case, apart from me, Andy, John and our hardcore cadre of JREF apologists, there aren't many about.

You're telling us here that you are empowered by arrogantly showing how intelligent you are against people who are clearly less-intellectual than yourself!

What on earth does that say about your personality? "Empowered!"

My word.

Gosh, I hope John's up to the intellectual challenge! Let me see; a research scientist PhD bloke against the biology teacher. Tough one; I'll get back to you on that.

Besides, I might just get over-confident if all I get is praise. It allows me to accumulate info. about whom to ignore and then I can warn new posters that I like so that the wackos don't give them the wrong impression of the forum community.

Was that another ad hominem? Including me in the "wackos"?

Just to clarify, please: if all people who fail to publicly state that all religion is bad are now "wackos", I'll deduct the ad hom - cheers.

Crikey, quite right. Wouldn't want those n00bs to get the impression that the forum was full of hot-heads who are incapable of changing a hard-held opinion, despite having no evidence to back it up.

You should start posting in the "Welcome n00b" thread - I often post in there and they may well get that wrong impression if they read my apologist crap.

Plus, when I piss the wackos off, their true colors show for all to see. It makes for a nice instant character assessment for anyone dropping by, you know-- it allows people to see who shares their views, who's worth reading, who's totally wacked, etc. Plus, it gives people who were once timid, as I once was, to courage to sound off to the blowhards on line.

I think the same ad hominem rule applies to the first one, or even two: I await the "wacko" and think the "totally whacked" could be covered there, but the "blowhard" is definitely ad hominem.

Thanks for helping me develop a thicker skin, TA.

Hell, Arti. As you know, no matter how worthless I think a person is, I'm always glad to help them in some small way.

Oh, and if you can't bear to read me, then there's always the ignore button.

Not a feature I ever have or ever will use in a forum. I just get to a stage where I cease replying because a person has proven to me that he or she is beyond reason. As I said at the top - I may still occasionally even respond, just to let them know they aren't on ignore - I wouldn't ever put someone on ignore. Even the dumbest fundy says something funny every now and then. And I repeat the case of Unter - a bloke with whom I would disagree with on principle - I still found it impossible not to state that he was right about something, no matter how distasteful it was to say so.

I heartily encourage its' use for those who want to avoid my words. I use it myself. I tend to enjoy more intelligent dialogue with my peers than these silly little skirmishes most of the time. But these can be fun too. (I must say, I find myself amusing at times even if nobody else does.)

Interesting way to finish. I suspect that somewhere, deep down, you are actually honest with yourself.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 06:18 PM

articulett

22nd July 2007, 06:24 PM

My Bat Irony Meter kept going off so I was forced to track down the signal.

;)

-H "they keep subbing your for you're" S

We have much irony here at the JREF forum... and we needn't curb our enthusiasm for indulging in highlighting it, I might add. And you know how these forums are... the woo are blustery and omnipresent, but they ARE fun to toy with-- and there is so much variety! And there are a wealth of really smart, fun people here too.

Look at this... you can insert the irony meter of your choice (or most anything else) right in your post.

HghrSymmetry

22nd July 2007, 06:30 PM

Great meter effects!

Thanx Art.

T'ai Chi

22nd July 2007, 06:37 PM

Evidence? any person with an IQ of 5 or less would know that frightening an innocent child with a hell that doesn't exist or a satan that is not there if they don't do as you say is abuse,

Do you regularly call the proper law enforcement agencies and report such people?

Why not?

articulett

22nd July 2007, 06:39 PM

Great meter effects!

Thanx Art.

;)

(Meet T'ai--a young earth creationist who has been posting for over 4 years and still hasn't got a clue-- he has me on ignore, so I can say that. Oddly enough this thread was about Dawkins... but it's nice to get the woo and blowhards all together on the same thread forced to stick up for each other... maybe I can get them all to put me on ignore... I'm having too much fun to do the same for them--yet)

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 06:48 PM

Then you are defending lies. Religion is a lie. It is all made up with not a shred of evidence to support it. All Lies = All Bad.

Believe it or not, I'm a reasonable bloke.

I'll even make it easier for you by putting my arse on the line:

Go vote now! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87979)

Make sure you do read the spoiler before voting!

I'm happy to abide by the majority opinion in this forum, it's full of mostly reasonable people and I'm confident enough to stake my name on the outcome. We'll see. I call this, putting my money where my mouth is. But will you take any notice of the result?

You can pretty much say anything you want when you never have to prove it. So, you won't mind if I ask for the names of the people who said this so I can verify it..

You won't mind me having a quick chuckle and no more. Use that "critical thinking".

And don't attempt the old evasion of refusing to give the names to protect a confidence. You have already violated any confidence these people had in you. If they really said it, they shouldn't be afraid to confirm it.

I haven't violated anything. Nice ploy, though. Poor use of your critical thinking skills, however. If Articulett really wants to know, I would possibly tell her. A third party? I don't think so.

You just concentrate on finding as many buddies as you can to vote "True".

You, Arti, Imaginal Disc, Thaiboxerken, definitely Unter, after last week.... there should be plenty. In fact, according to the eloquent case you and Arti put, it should be a shoo-in.

I'll get my PM to Darat ready to go.

Edit: In fact, I'll even change my sig for a while to get the maximum possible vote.

HghrSymmetry

22nd July 2007, 06:57 PM

;)

(Meet T'ai--a young earth creationist who has been posting for over 4 years and still hasn't got a clue

Hi T'ai.

-- he has me on ignore, so I can say that. Oddly enough this thread was about Dawkins... but it's nice to get the woo and blowhards all together on the same thread forced to stick up for each other... maybe I can get them all to put me on ignore... I'm having too much fun to do the same for them--yet)

W(h)oo boy! I have much reading to do. Preliminary research will be required to categorize the membership into serious selections vs those to engage for entertainment purposes, etc.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 07:18 PM

interesting case studies to be sure.

qayak

22nd July 2007, 07:30 PM

I'm happy to abide by the majority opinion in this forum, it's full of mostly reasonable people and I'm confident enough to stake my name on the outcome. We'll see. I call this, putting my money where my mouth is. But will you take any notice of the result?

Sorry, I thought you were a critical thinker. Moral questions are never decided by popular vote. I will abide by a poll that decides if your dress looks flattering though.

You won't mind me having a quick chuckle and no more. Use that "critical thinking".

I haven't violated anything. Nice ploy, though. Poor use of your critical thinking skills, however. If Articulett really wants to know, I would possibly tell her. A third party? I don't think so.

Are you so desperate to finally get a point on Articulett that you will stoop to any level? If you were not willing to give the names out to a third party you should not have posted the information in a thread. You are dishonest and now apparently a liar.

It is fitting that you try to use imaginary people to support your belief in your imaginary god.

You just concentrate on finding as many buddies as you can to vote "True".

That's the other reason I don't allow popular votes to decide my morality for me. Religious freaks like yourself just love to stuff ballot boxes and plug phone-in polls.

I wouldn't ask anyone to vote "For Me" because this is an issue they need to decide on their own. Religious people like yourself are used to being led around by the nose, so I am sure your friends will be voting.

Are these the same imaginary friends who supposedly said the nasty things about Articulett?

articulett

22nd July 2007, 07:36 PM

Are these the same imaginary friends who supposedly said the nasty things about Articulett?

Now, now... if it weren't for imaginary friends-- some people wouldn't have any friends at all.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 08:20 PM

Sorry, I thought you were a critical thinker. Moral questions are never decided by popular vote. I will abide by a poll that decides if your dress looks flattering though.

Well, I've tried showing you 100 ways why your position is idiotic and I thought a poll might encourage you to re-think it. As it happens, it looks as though a majority agree with you. Shame on me, I guess, for assuming a majority of posters weren't that shallow.

As to moral questions being decided by popular vote, try asking yourself how they are decided then. We live in democracies which impose moral standards, so we certainly do abide by majority vote. Hell, in New Zealand, we've had referenda on several highly sensitive moral subjects, which is about as majority-decision you can get. You're not even thinking straight, you're so worked up. I don't get it. If I'd advocated teaching children that they will go to hell and burn for eternity if they so much as blaspheme, I could understand it. That a seemingly rational person is foaming at the mouth because I will not agree that all religion is bad, quite astounds me.

Are you so desperate to finally get a point on Articulett that you will stoop to any level?

If you think there's even a nanobit of desperation over here, you are sadly misguided.

You are dishonest and now apparently a liar.

You're by no means the first person to sit safely behind a PC and state that and I have no doubt at all that you won't be the last. I'm sure you managed to so bait my old buddy the Huntster that he wanted to beat you up? That was you, wasn't it? Wasting your time with me. I feel rather sorry for you than angered by it all.

Cute.

It is fitting that you try to use imaginary people to support your belief in your imaginary god.

So, in the space of few posts, I've gone from a christian apologist to actually being a christian. (MY imaginary god)

Cuter.

That's the other reason I don't allow popular votes to decide my morality for me. Religious freaks like yourself just love to stuff ballot boxes and plug phone-in polls.

And even further along the scale to "religious freak"!

Cutest!

Has the phrase "angry atheist" ever been uttered in your presence? Or, maybe you should check out "anti-theist".

I wouldn't ask anyone to vote "For Me" because this is an issue they need to decide on their own. Religious people like yourself are used to being led around by the nose, so I am sure your friends will be voting.

The only word I can think of to describe that, is to borrow off my kid, "lame". As if I'd bother. (p.s., as arti or someone will point out, I have no friends. Check my "friends" list. Not one.)

Are these the same imaginary friends who supposedly said the nasty things about Articulett?

I repeat - you can stow that. If you don't like what I said, report it, just as I will if someone attacks John. Other than that, she can ask for herself - she's quick enough to throw it. Something about heat and kitchens? Not really your business.

This entire thread should go to forum spotlight.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 08:30 PM

Let's see, his strawman poll is failing to show the results he intended... hmmm... do you think he's going to learn anything or change his mind...

Hell no... he's not only sure he's right. He's sure his poorly worded poll actually means something. In fact, he's decided that it's because he's more moral than all those who disagree with him. As my sig reveals, the most incompetent are the most over confident. And look how he's threatening to report people... as if he doesn't realize that he's so much more offensive than all those supposed immoral people who say such horrible things to him or speak less than fondly about his beloved, John.

Thankfully, he has me on ignore, so I can tell you that his poll is the inane question as to whether all religions are harmful or not. It's like they can't hear what anyone is saying once they hear a critque of religion-- suddenly it becomes about whether ALL religions are harmful. It's madness, I tell you-- madness.

But they do that to Dawkins and Harris all the time. It's the best way to avoid the real issues. That's the thing about religion... nobody knows that they are acting as protectors and apologists for the paradigm even though it's blatant. Pharyngula has some commentary about this phenomenon:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1436,All-the-mistakes-of-the-godly-are-merely-metaphor,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

So much nothingness to avoid the big question--the topic... the BIG LIE
Dodge, weave, spin, toss in straw mans, ad homs, threats... same ol', same ol'....

qayak

22nd July 2007, 09:10 PM

Shame on me, I guess, for assuming a majority of posters weren't that shallow.

You know, you are such a ***** jerk. You set up the poll, you asked people to vote, you thought it was a good idea. And now everyone who disagrees with you is shallow?

You were not even honest about the poll. In fact, you expected everyone to agree with you because you are you. You didn't allow that they would make up their own mind.

Don't worry, I would never hold you to change because of the poll. It is a popularity contest and that is no way to decide a moral issue.

As to moral questions being decided by popular vote, try asking yourself how they are decided then. We live in democracies which impose moral standards, so we certainly do abide by majority vote.

The natural conclusion to this is that slavery, when it was supported by the majority and legal, was moral but suddenly became immoral when 51% of the people disagreed with it. Wrong! Slavery was always immoral.

Hell, in New Zealand, we've had referenda on several highly sensitive moral subjects, which is about as majority-decision you can get. You're not even thinking straight, you're so worked up.

Are you sure your not a sock puppet for Herzblut?

"The quality of moral behavior varies in inverse ratio to the number of human beings involved." (Aldous Huxley)

Just because a lot of people vote for something doesn't make it moral. To be moral a decision must be based on sound reason and not on whether it won a popularity contest. Were there lobby groups for each side of the referenda in NZ? If so, how do you know the the vote was given to the most moral choice and not to the one with the best marketing strategy?

If I'd advocated teaching children that they will go to hell and burn for eternity if they so much as blaspheme, I could understand it. That a seemingly rational person is foaming at the mouth because I will not agree that all religion is bad, quite astounds me.

You flatter yourself. I spent a glorious day out kayaking and never gave you a thought.

I find it ironic that you are wrong and you think I am angry.

articulett

22nd July 2007, 09:24 PM

It's funny, because I thought that all those comments in his sig was his way of warning people that he could be a jerk at times... but he thought that he was deriding the comment makers.... Irony. He just doesn't know it's him.

qayak

22nd July 2007, 09:26 PM

(p.s., as arti or someone will point out, I have no friends. Check my "friends" list. Not one.)

That makes us about even.

I repeat - you can stow that. If you don't like what I said, report it, just as I will if someone attacks John. Other than that, she can ask for herself - she's quick enough to throw it. Something about heat and kitchens? Not really your business.

Sorry, I have never once in my 15 years on the internet complained to a moderator.

You have reach the height of desperation. It is my business. On a skeptic's list, dishonesty and fraud are everyone's business. You made the information public in an attempt to damage the reputation of Articulett. You thought you could get away with your dishonesty. You can't

I will simply denounce you as a liar and continue to do so until you either reveal your sources so they can be verified or offer an honest apology to Articulett.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 10:26 PM

...Thankfully, he has me on ignore,

You just cannot help yourself can you? I've told you that you won't be being ignored. Do you ever make an honest comment?

So much nothingness to avoid the big question--the topic... the BIG LIE
Dodge, weave, spin, toss in straw mans, ad homs, threats... same ol', same ol'....

Hint: given the ad hominem attacks you've been carrying out lately, that may be just a little ironic itself.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 10:30 PM

I will simply denounce you as a liar and continue to do so until you either reveal your sources so they can be verified or offer an honest apology to Articulett.

You can call me what you like, I've told you twice and that ends it.

If you want to sit behind your screen and call me a liar, I can't stop you. Won't make it true, though. Given that I won't be responding to any more of your comments, you now have a free run to let your imagination run riot.

articulett

23rd July 2007, 12:51 AM

You just cannot help yourself can you? I've told you that you won't be being ignored. Do you ever make an honest comment?

Hint: given the ad hominem attacks you've been carrying out lately, that may be just a little ironic itself.

I know... I misunderstood when you said you were finished with me... now I see that you meant you were so angry that I made comments about John that you were going to report me. And let me just say, I heartily encourage you to do as you feel necessary. But, maybe, just maybe you will want to check your own posts first... because you are a lot more slanderous than you appear to notice-- and I suspect I am a lot more mild than you've built up in your imagination. It's just that most people have you on ignore, so you never quite realize what an ass you are.

Just saying...

I'm trying to make your new sig quote list by the way. (I think I may have called you a dick once too.)

I've never reported anyone to a mod... but you make it so damn tempting...

articulett

23rd July 2007, 01:24 AM

Oh, and I want to sit behind my screen and call you a liar too.

What comes around, goes around--Bozoface.

newlyfound

24th July 2007, 03:17 PM

Why did you mention it then, referring to your small booklet? You have started that case, I haven't.

Well for starter, that's what this thread is about: Dr. Dawkins' last book: TGD, and second, I've mentioned it as a source to the Einstein quote I've given. As I said, check out the book past page 14 ;) .

Irrelevant. A typical Red Herring fallacy called Argument to the consequences.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

No, it's not irrelevant, unless you think this thread is about anything else other than TGD, which doesn't happen to be the case.

Accept the truth or keep being blinded by the weasel words of your small booklet. Just because you like it to be true.
and in answer to the above comment that triggered my "irrelevant" response, I'd say the only really thing I wished was true is Jesus. Prior to reading Dawkins, I've never heard of him before and I had no reason to wish for anything concerning him. His book just happened to be A Bomb that's all LOL.

Also I believe it is very dishonest of a believer to take one's "testimony" as a true evidence of god's existence if it was in relation to him, but when somebody offers the same in regard to an honest book, it is regarded as "irrelevant" and only the product of one's wishful thinking. The book is out there, read it if you Dare!!!! it won't bite you. I don't know what your religious beliefs are, but by saying that you've just given me a sample of what lays at the bottom of your base.

Wishful thinking.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html

Applied to how you feel about TGD, yes. The only wishful thinking I had is that Jesus be real and authentic, this is the only wishful thinking that I'd admit I had in regard to the subject. And what I said about the book happens to be A verification to the book's effectiveness in killing the myth as well as the hoax in the believer's head. ...Unless you don't think my witnessing counts. If that's the case, then I'd retort neither does yours.

I studied Schopenhauer while you were still .. you know that with the Christmas tree and your little child bobbin. :D LMAO, nice sense of humor...

These, your speaches are lacking respect for other people, my dear. I am sometimes reacting by also quitting any respectful behaviour towards that individual. How that looks like, see above. It's a lesson you have to learn, you have to experience how that feels in yourself. You will recognize it, when I am givin this lesson to you, newlyfound. :D

Herzblut

I've been reading and that's what I've concluded, that you guys are after 'prevailing' and not seeing the light, if anybody is disrespecting anybody here, that's rather you doing it to yourselves. Be honest. Being honest is not bad even when it comes to admittng that someone has a point, actually it take a big person to come down from their horse and do it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

PS: thanks for the link, I need to learn those :) .

newlyfound

24th July 2007, 06:03 PM

Newlyfound,

I enjoy your posts, and I agree. Read my sig article-- truly the most obnoxious people never realize they are the most obnoxious. Other people will wonder if it's them and try redressing the issue--but it will just lead to more off topic nothingness.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

It's funny, because it is similar to that primal instinct that leads to religion in the first place-- the us vs. them thinking... in group/out group. But most of this people on this forum are really smart and really cool--and funny. They have a lot to share. (And I highly recommend The Amazing Meeting, because if the trolls are there, I sure never see them. Many of them think skeptics are arrogant anyhow. Dawkins was there one year.)

I love that link, you come up with some good ones. I wanted to go to the AM for just a day, but I don't know if my work schedule will allow me to fly over to the other side. Those guys' books brutally hazed me in a sense that gives one a wake up call forcing me to take a hard look at their religious beliefs. I did, for long enough and it paid off. Dawkins though is the one who really cleaned up the counter Clean. He really finished the job. And I immensely admire him for it.

As far as our fellow members, I don't think I am in a position to venture where you're at, you're a big girl, you can take care of business, I am just a baby chick who's working to grow some feathers first and formost LOL.

The rest you can get along with more or less most of the time and enjoy conversations and share info. Some posters have some real strong areas of knowledge and they are eager to share with anyone who is interested. And many are poignant and funny.

Yeah, I love this forum and its members, they are mostly just as you described them.

.... I, personally, get a spring in my step when I piss off a creationist or religious apologist.

LOL. I noticed.

--I am a former genetics counselor and a current biology teacher, and I think it is so cool that humans have decoded DNA. I think how Darwin never saw DNA and we have the proof of common descent when he could only imagine what it might be: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739#post2199739

This is what I am still waking up to as a recovering believer, scientists go out there and sweat and work, while religionists sit on their bases chattering away, while expecting A payment for their "do-nothing" type of view on life. And when Dawkins get pissed off at them (I don't blame him a bit) they turn around and cry "Ah he is an angry atheist!", well, prove him wrong then!

Humans and chimps even have the same blood types, I believe. It's very cool because we, not only have the DNA proof that shows common ancestry (the same stuff they use in DNA testing and forensic testing)--we can get a pretty good estimate how far back in time any two life forms shared a common ancestor. If you are interested in genetics, then Dawkins Book, An Ancestor's Tale is excellent.

I got "The origin of species" because Dawkins, in his book, kept on going back to how fundamental it is for one to understand Natural Selection to be able to grasp Evolution, so just as I started reading it I get a notice for the library that "The selfish gene" is waiting for me to pick up (I was # 19 on the waiting list), so I am reading it. But I will get the Ancestor's Tale as soon as I finish this one, I intend on reading all his books anywhay.

It beats all scriptures hands down, and it's true. And rather than teaching kids scary and nonsensical lies or post the 10 commandments in schools-- I think we'd have a much better future if they posted Dawkins, Good and Bad Reasons for Believing: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html

Thank you for that article, it's really cool. I think they want people to keep on reading those scriptures because they are their best chance at keeping them in state of "high-ness" LOL. One can't find any other purpose for them.

All this smoke and mirrors and Dawkins criticism and tangential stuff is a fight against such learning, as far as I can tell. I keep looking for the substance behind the words, and there just never is any. I live in the United states and there are some very religious wackos in very prominent positions. It has gotten unbelievably theocratic here, and I am heartened that Dawkins book is a number one best seller. The time for dialogue on this topic is long overdue. And I have no patience for this silly notion that "not ALL religions are bad". Is there any evidence that they're true? No? Great, then lets treat them the way we treat all cults, delusions, or superstitions... and use facts when deciding public policy.

Whatever purpose it served in the past, religion need to be relinquished. The ones that refuse to do so are like giant stupid men who are still desperately clenching on to their mothers' chests for nursing purposes as gigantic as they are! Just picture that!LMAO. I think it's a proportionate caricature. We clearly entered a new phase, a new age of our existence where religion is more of liability than anything else, but yet, they still hold on to it and to the past refusing to let go. ...Some psychological counseling is in order here. Either that or some need to be brought up to speed first to be able to follow what's current. Not everyone is able to perform at a standard level or above.

articulett

24th July 2007, 08:11 PM

Newlyfound,

Great Posts. And welcome. Chances are that if someone attacks you or dismisses you here, they are just some of our resident trolls, apologists, holier-than-thous, that all forums have. Most people will wonder if the communication problem is them, but the incompetents will never clue into the fact that they are to blame for their endless flaming-- they are so sure it's the rest of the world

Richarddawkins.net has a forum too. It's funny that there are apologists and the like at a skeptics forum, isn't it? But since you have to deal with them in real life, it's good to practice here, and I find that it makes me better able to tolerate the ignorant in my actual life. After all, the ones who ventured over here knew what they were in for, and it's a bit arrogant to think that they have tons to teach and nothing to learn or that their opinions should be treated as facts. But there's always the ignore button if they are making your experience less enjoyable.

I'm always glad to have new members like you.

HghrSymmetry

24th July 2007, 09:24 PM

It's funny that there are apologists and the like at a skeptics forum, isn't it?

Seems woos are attracted to skeptic sites like moths to a flame.

Do skeptics haunt woo sites? I can't really say, not visiting any myself.
Maybe it's there way of trying to legitimize their position or add credibility to it.

Perhaps those buried doubts aren't buried all that deeply.

newlyfound

24th July 2007, 09:49 PM

Ok, this is the basis of my problem.

I have long and consistently agreed with your statement above and my concern in this and other threads has been that only a small percentage of christians act that way. I am quite happy to burn down the churches of [metaphorically speaking] of religious sects who do that, or who deny medical treatment to kids for religious reasons. What you fail to recognise is that I am violently opposed to christians of that persuasion and actually do something about it rather than blather in a chat room.

What I refuse to do is tar all christians with that brush, because it doesn't apply to the vast majority.

Whether it applies to them or not, their beliefs are based on false pretenses. Again, this was meant for somebody else not you. How would you feel about someone making up a big lie in order to just get you to endorse them or something like that. And you're thinking it's all real and as authentic as they come. And next thing, you learn that the frame you've been initially presented with is unreal. How would you feel about that? falsehood needs to be combatted.

See, again we agree - religious people are deluded to keep the money flowing to the church. That is a theme I've shouted out loud for over thirty years. I gave a list earlier on containing a number of adjectives I'm happy to see used, even as generalisations, about religion. "Bad" and "evil" weren't among them, even though that would apply to some sects.

Well, I am glad we have something in common, but do you knwo some of Pat Robertson's quotes for example? He is quoted in "god is not great"? or TGD? ...not just him, there are also others I can't think of. The danger with those guys leading is they get whoever that's buying their crap to formally endorse it as well. This is the problem. I would characterise their quotes or at least some of them as "bad" as well as "evil", I'll quote some of them if you want me too.

It's actually more like 75% (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) if you add together the non-religious and Buddhists etc. who don't believe in god.

That was just a guess. And thanks for the page, I needed that :) .

If you are able to show me how religion causes those things you mention, I will be the first to go and beat the crap out of the pope, but unfortunately, those are all human problems and I see no evidence at all that religion causes rape, child prostitution & exploitation, war, crime or drug abuse or famine.

By their own beliefs and religious standards and truths, god is omni this and is omni that, and omni that and that. Basically according to them god is the boss. if He is the boss, then why are children being raped and old ladies being mugged on the streets him being the goody good dady'o??? If this is not their problem, it is god's then. Apparently god is in charge, so he must be held accountable if he is. If religion has nothing to do with this then why is it? what good is it doing? none? good, I thought so, then it needs to go!

Hmm, I hope that was tongue in cheek! My reputation, rightly deserved, is for being extremely rude and aggressive rather than amicable.

You hope? you mean it might be insulting to you to think that you're amicable and even classy in the way you interact with others? yes, even when you're arguing?

:bgrin:

That said, I really only reserve the vitriol for idiots.
Outch!!! that hurts, Art is not that at all, you're dead wrong on this one Classy One!!!

In that case, I'm quite surprised that you'd blame religion for all of mankind's woes. It's certainly responsible for some of them, but I find them strangely absent from the list of problems you present.

As I said, the problem remains, on one hand, we're supposed to believe that god is in charge, on the other, with all horrible things that are taking place, he is supposed to be off the hook since being in charge he still has nothing to do with them. Then if that's the case why can't he just pack up and "leave town" since he is apparently of no use whatsoever? How would you like to have such being living right with you?LOL. claiming credit for everything yet, doing nothing? possibly purging your resources, terrorizing your family with hell and satan, constantly making you feel guilty and denigrating you for the sinner you supposedly are? yet above all of this somebody who is the personification of Ingnorance as well as Arrogance by Excellence? how would like to have such guest? and permantly not just for couple of days?

That's one of those rules where it is necessary to make a typo when pointing out an error!

Oh, no harm done then, I thought you decided to open up an esoteric portal for some reason :boxedin: .

No. I really don't care what Arti thinks. I've had similar discussions with her in the past where she immediately classes everyone who disagrees with her as "creationists" or "apologists" and she's still at it. I just like to counterpoint her ignorance.

I agree with you in pointing out the distinction between someone apologising for religion and someone standing up for factuality but you can't accuse her of being ignorant, that is completely baseless. She might be a bit of an extremist in the way she sees things, but nevertheless, she also make some outstanding points.

Again, you will find exactly zero of my posts disagreeing with any of that. Religion is false and teaching kids that they'll go to hell is child abuse. good then, I thought you'd have no problem seeing that.

That has been my position for over thirty years.

I will note again:

It does not apply to all, or even a majority of christians.

did I say it did?

See above. I have no explaining to do. You will need to explain why you're using this particular strawman of religion to show that all religion is bad, however.

Because an adult is psychologically, emotionally as well as intellectually equipped to deal with religion's c**p, or not even, some aren't and still could use some assitance. A child is not, and that is dishonest to put such helpless person up to such task. The only thing a child need is their parents' love and protection from everything, they don't need any religion.

You can take it for granted, that no matter how abusive I am, I am always perfectly calm. My days of getting uptight about the written word ended long ago.

Geeee, I could just picture that: calmly abusive,...abusively calm...it's such turn on :blush: !LOL. no just kidding.

Please point them out. post # 231

Sorry, but when I see the same presumably intelligent person posting like a fourth-grade moron, I find it difficult to take anything else that person says seriously. I will note that neither Arti nor Qayak, nor anyone else, has posted any evidence to show that religion is "bad", beyond their own stereotypified strawmen of "religion". Feel free to have a go yourself.

I could just be a pain in the neck and claim you being an atheist is good enough reason that to your own self religion is bad, otherwise what's stopping you from embrassing it, but I am not going to do that, I don't want to get on your bad side :boxedin: . I said what I think they've aready pointed out, and that is that relgion is false and abusive because it uses such horrific tools of repression as hell and satan and you agreed!!!!....it's only 2 or 3 quotes up.

It certainly could, but in this case it stems from complete and utter distaste. When I offer olive branches to people only to have them then go and make ridiculous and totally incorrect aspersions about people I have respect for, I always go for the "malicious as possible" approach. I don't even care what Arti thinks about me, I know what I think about her and I'd be enormously surprised if my picture is not a lot more accurate than hers. Arti makes a living [sort of] out of science. I make mine out of words.

No one is innocent, we are all guilty at one level or another.

The reason I became an atheist is because there aren't any gods. I was never religious at any stage of life - I class myself as an atheist from age 8, which is the earliest memory I have of thinking the whole business was a complete load of crap. I spent time studying various religions during my teens and twenties to ensure that I wasn't missing any parts of the puzzle. I didn't.

Again [and I'm getting fairly sick of stating it] the breakthrough will come when someone posts some meaningful data to show: that all religion is harmful to children.

What you are requesting as far as data, you already have within you, if you believe you are worthy of knowing the truth to a point you had to go against the main stream and be atheist, why is ok for other children to be deprived of such truth? are they any less of children than you were when you were little? and speaking about our world famous Professor and Journalist, I named Dawkins and Hitchens, they both have corresponding chapters in their latest books discussing the subject of religion as child abuse, they do 1000 times better than any of us would.

revence.

articulett

24th July 2007, 09:54 PM

Seems woos are attracted to skeptic sites like moths to a flame.

Do skeptics haunt woo sites? I can't really say, not visiting any myself.
Maybe it's there way of trying to legitimize their position or add credibility to it.

Perhaps those buried doubts aren't buried all that deeply.

I've never posted at a woo site. But some members have posted over at "the Secret" or Sylvia Browne's supporters" website. And then come over here and laugh at them. Also at the conspiracy theory (Loose Change) site. But it might be hard to fake the silliness... the lack of logic... the poor grammar... Besides, I'd feel like a "fraud". I hate when people come here and pretend to be all skeptical, but really they just want to preach their own woo.

I think it helps them shore up their beliefs, opinions, and biases although, to them, they are passing along valuable information I imagine. Some people just seem to be making sense to themselves. I give up trying to engage in dialogue until I see actual evidence that the person can engage in back and forth dialogue. The most incompetent of people never realize it's them. They are so so sure that it's everybody else. After a while you get finely tuned to the beliefs and opinions different people are trying to shore up.

mijopaalmc

24th July 2007, 10:19 PM

Seems woos are attracted to skeptic sites like moths to a flame.

And the loudest voices on skeptics' forums don't seem to be real skeptics either.

I have yet to see any discussion of the literature that I have posted except to have it dismissed because of the journals in which it is printed and the supposed non-independence of the sources. There is an overtly conspiratorial tone when newlyfound questions the validity of the research I cited:

Independant studies? independant? how independant? or how dependant should I ask? tell me who is behind those studies and I'll tell you their real purpose. This reminds me of how some pollsters, in order to get to a specific resut, a result that they are looking to obtain, they go to a specific pool of people to survey that insures that they get what they are after. I guess that money needs to keep on flowing into those churches because their owners are not capapable of getting off their fat greedy buns, going out and getting real jobs. So whatever it takes to keep people asleep and stoned since this is the ony way their wallets can be emptied.

It is almost as if research on the mental health effects of religion is suspect unless it confirms his belief that "all religion is bad".

I, on the other hand, have acknowledged the fact that religion in some of its forms is detrimental to some groups of people and deplored the fact that it is. However, I do not think that there is any evidence that this detrimental effect can be generalized all people in all religious traditions, which is what articulett, qayak and newlyfound are trying to do.

articulett

25th July 2007, 02:38 AM

See Newlyfound...
No matter how you say it, you can't talk about the harms of religion indoctrination with some people, because they hear you saying ALL religion is bad and harmful--and they insist on proving that is what you said or mean. The conversation becomes about you painting with too broad of a brush rather than about the harms of religion no matter how carefully you word things.

There just is no way to praise Dawkins or voice the notion that religion is harmful to some people... they are so used to pretending that the emperor is wearing clothes that they are blind to their own complicity in avoiding the topic and covering for religion. They pretend you are demonizing PEOPLE instead of a SYSTEM that encourages "faith" as a means of knowledge. And no matter how much you try to explain, they won't show agreement or understanding. You are the villain for speaking out on the harms of religion, ... because when you say religion you must mean ALL religions and surely not everyone had been harmed by religion... blah, blah, blah and round and round it goes.

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 03:27 AM

Whether it applies to them or not, their beliefs are based on false pretenses. Again, this was meant for somebody else not you. How would you feel about someone making up a big lie in order to just get you to endorse them or something like that. And you're thinking it's all real and as authentic as they come. And next thing, you learn that the frame you've been initially presented with is unreal. How would you feel about that? falsehood needs to be combatted.

Sure, again I agree. We're going to agree so much here that we could potentially end up having a group hug. Except I don't do hugs - unless you're a petite blonde.

I agree completely that the premise of religion is BS. That you and I feel that way doesn't make it bad. Santa is a fairy tale exactly the same - "Be good or Santa won't bring you presents." That seems to be no different to me, but do we consider it "bad"?

I would characterise their quotes or at least some of them as "bad" as well as "evil", I'll quote some of them if you want me too.

No need, I've seen 'em all. Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Falwell; I even started a thread on Benny Hinn a couple of weeks ago, plus we have a couple of home-grown ones over here who are almost as bad. [or worse]

That those insane ####s say what they do doesn't have anything to do with good work done by some christian groups. I will again mention the idiot christian tactic of blaming atheism for Stalin's genocidal insanity. It's a stupid argument, and so is blaming all christianity for the lunatic fringe.

By their own beliefs and religious standards and truths, god is omni this and is omni that, and omni that and that. Basically according to them god is the boss. if He is the boss, then why are children being raped and old ladies being mugged on the streets him being the goody good dady'o??? If this is not their problem, it is god's then. Apparently god is in charge, so he must be held accountable if he is. If religion has nothing to do with this then why is it? what good is it doing? none? good, I thought so, then it needs to go!

The bad news is that you've just created the perfect strawman of religion. The number of christians who think that god makes it rain and helps football teams win are a small minority.

I can explain how Catholics and others equate their god with the atrocities in the world and it hangs together quite nicely. Utter bollocks of course, but if you start with that a priori, god exists, it all makes perfect sense.

You hope? you mean it might be insulting to you to think that you're amicable and even classy in the way you interact with others? yes, even when you're arguing?

Hell yeah, I assiduously cultivate my reputation as the Insult-Meister! Calling me a "gentleman" is about the worst insult you could sling at me.

Outch!!! that hurts, Art is not that at all, you're dead wrong on this one Classy One!!!

Well, I have yet to see it. I see a bitter woman who for some reason cannot accept any question of her idols. Anyway, I've since stopped giving her any curry and will just be concentrating on keeping her to her previously stated position.

... claiming credit for everything yet, doing nothing?

Same strawman as above.

did I say it did?

Not as far as I've noticed, no.

Because an adult is psychologically, emotionally as well as intellectually equipped to deal with religion's c**p, or not even, some aren't and still could use some assitance. A child is not, and that is dishonest to put such helpless person up to such task. The only thing a child need is their parents' love and protection from everything, they don't need any religion.

Quite right, but again, the mere teaching of it isn't "bad", per se. An Anglican upbringing is almost deist in its approach, concentrating on human morality far more than sky-daddy & heaven. They don't even have hell. I love Jesus' morality parables and use them myself as often as I can*.

I could just be a pain in the neck and claim you being an atheist is good enough reason that to your own self religion is bad, otherwise what's stopping you from embrassing it, but I am not going to do that, I don't want to get on your bad side :boxedin: . I said what I think they've aready pointed out, and that is that relgion is false and abusive because it uses such horrific tools of repression as hell and satan and you agreed!!!!....it's only 2 or 3 quotes up.

Ok, so what about those religions which don't teach kids about hell and Satan? Given that the RCC falls into that camp, you're talking about a large majority of christians. Their religion is just as deluded and dumb as all the others, but no harmful stuff is taught, other than the fact that you and I consider their teaching to be fantasy. Is that Anglican upbringing I mentioned above "bad"? Being brought up with the lessons of Jesus, a respect for values and a belief in a featureless, unknowable god-thing. Is that "bad"? Or is it just a good, sound upbringing with some stupid bits in it?

No one is innocent, we are all guilty at one level or another.

Or, to put it another way, "He who is without sin may throw the first stone."

*See.

What you are requesting as far as data, you already have within you, if you believe you are worthy of knowing the truth to a point you had to go against the main stream and be atheist, why is ok for other children to be deprived of such truth?

When all's said and done, the question of religion is about as relevant as mice sexuality. It isn't ever going to go away, regardless of whatever evidence may be amassed as to why and how it exists. Most kids will get the opportunity to grow out of religion during their lives anyway - just have a look at how many ex-christians are on this board.

My comment on data was being facetious - there is clearly no data to suggest that all religion is bad.

are they any less of children than you were when you were little? and speaking about our world famous Professor and Journalist, I named Dawkins and Hitchens, they both have corresponding chapters in their latest books discussing the subject of religion as child abuse, they do 1000 times better than any of us would.

I bet. But I'd still disagree that all religion is child abuse.

Chit! I've just realised that there isn't a single ad hominem in this post. Consider yourself abused.

Ivor the Engineer

25th July 2007, 06:11 AM

TA,

That nice bloke at the head of the RCC has decreed that Hell is back on the agenda.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=174&id=471992007

All religions are harmful because they put mis-information and/or irrelevant information in people's brains. This means that on average, over a lifetime religious people make worse decisions compared to atheists with a similar level of intelligence and education.

Is this 'harm' practically significant given all the other mis-information and trivia shoveled into everyone's brain over a lifetime? I think it is.

The unhappiest and troubled people I know are deeply religious.

BTW, I thought the worst insult for a Kiwi was to be called Australian?

Beth

25th July 2007, 09:08 AM

All religions are harmful because they put mis-information and/or irrelevant information in people's brains. This means that on average, over a lifetime religious people make worse decisions compared to atheists with a similar level of intelligence and education.

Do you have any data to support this? While there is some evidence that atheists are, on average, more intelligent than average, but I'm unaware of anything that looks as their decision-making skills compared to people of similar intelligence and education nor have I noticed a dearth of religious adherents in the people I would consider to be successful in life. In fact, the people I know who are the least successful in life seem far less likely to be religious (though not necessarily atheist) than the average person so I don't see your statement as matching my observations about people.

Ivor the Engineer

25th July 2007, 09:44 AM

Do you have any data to support this? While there is some evidence that atheists are, on average, more intelligent than average, but I'm unaware of anything that looks as their decision-making skills compared to people of similar intelligence and education nor have I noticed a dearth of religious adherents in the people I would consider to be successful in life. In fact, the people I know who are the least successful in life seem far less likely to be religious (though not necessarily atheist) than the average person so I don't see your statement as matching my observations about people.

What I was thinking about was if I created a neural network to categorize multi-dimensional input data, which included variables that are uncorrelated and/or noisy into a yes/no output, then the output would be more 'optimal' on average if I remove the uncorrelated variables and filter the noise from the input.

I see belief in religion as forming a mixture of uncorrelated variables and noise. I.e. it has, on average, less than zero predictive value on what to do next.

mijopaalmc

25th July 2007, 11:13 AM

I have an idea articulett:

Instead of screeching "you can't talk about the harms of religion indoctrination with some people, because they hear you saying ALL religion is bad and harmful--and they insist on proving that is what you said or mean" why don't you address those accusation without calling those making them "religious apologists"?

It is a valid question because it is a convention in the English language that unqualified collective nouns are universal, and give the quotes that The Atheist has provided from your posts, it is unequivocal that you think all religion is bad.

Herzblut

25th July 2007, 11:31 AM

Well for starter, that's what this thread is about: Dr. Dawkins' last book: TGD, and second, I've mentioned it as a source to the Einstein quote I've given. As I said, check out the book past page 14 ;) .

The point is, Mr. Dawkins let you know that Einstein has no "personal god" and is always abused as one of theirs by those evil theists. What you happily and proudly presented here. Well, Mr. D. told you crap. I proved to you that Einstein has actually been a very religious man and does believe in a god. And now, after being refuted, you're pedaling backwards, devaluating the item that you yourself brought up. That's too easy to see through.

No, it's not irrelevant, unless you think this thread is about anything else other than TGD, which doesn't happen to be the case.

Again, you missed the point. What is meant by appeal to consequences looks like this:

D leads to good consequences (for me)
Therefore, D is true.

This is a fallacy.

Prior to reading Dawkins, I've never heard of him before and I had no reason to wish for anything concerning him. His book just happened to be A Bomb that's all LOL.

Again, appeal to consequences. It simply tells nothing about the value of this booklet.

Also I believe it is very dishonest of a believer to take one's "testimony" as a true evidence of god's existence

Likewise, nobody should take your testimony about D. as evidence.

The book is out there, read it if you Dare!!!! it won't bite you.

I dislike unqualified sources. Mr. Dawkins knows nothing about religion.

I don't know what your religious beliefs are, but by saying that you've just given me a sample of what lays at the bottom of your base.

And what lays there? I am honestly curious to know what you think about it.

Be honest. Being honest is not bad even when it comes to admittng that someone has a point,

I am. Also when it comes to admitting someone has no point at all.

PS: thanks for the link, I need to learn those :) .

Match the fallacies against your texts. Even better: against Arti's. :D

I also like my good ol' Schopy:

http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/

The translation of his book title is misleading. It is not "The art of controversy" but "The art of being right after all". How to always be right, even if you're wrong! This fallacy link tells you how to detect fallacies, Schopy tells you how to deploy them! :D

Herzblut

Beth

25th July 2007, 01:54 PM

What I was thinking about was if I created a neural network to categorize multi-dimensional input data, which included variables that are uncorrelated and/or noisy into a yes/no output, then the output would be more 'optimal' on average if I remove the uncorrelated variables and filter the noise from the input.

I see belief in religion as forming a mixture of uncorrelated variables and noise. I.e. it has, on average, less than zero predictive value on what to do next.

Ah.. I see what you mean. I disagree with your assumption that belief in religion is a mixture of uncorrelated variables and noise. I think it also contains some correlated variables, particularly in regard to the formation of moral values and making decisions consistent with those values. While the non-noise or correlated variables could potentially be seperated from the uncorrelated variables, for most people they currently are not.

My observation is that people I consider successful have well-developed systems of moral values that they are able to apply reasonably consistently when making choices. For most people, that system of moral values is based in their religion.

articulett

25th July 2007, 04:16 PM

Ah.. I see what you mean. I disagree with your assumption that belief in religion is a mixture of uncorrelated variables and noise. I think it also contains some correlated variables, particularly in regard to the formation of moral values and making decisions consistent with those values. While the non-noise or correlated variables could potentially be seperated from the uncorrelated variables, for most people they currently are not.

My observation is that people I consider successful have well-developed systems of moral values that they are able to apply reasonably consistently when making choices. For most people, that system of moral values is based in their religion.

But this is because people are told that they need religion to be moral and that their morals come from religion and that "good" comes from god. The studies indicated the opposite. Secular societies have far less dysfunction than religious societies... in fact, the more religious the society, the more social dysfunction there appears to be. Religion makes people scientifically ignorant. People are moral because they evolved to be moral and their cultures shape that morality. All societies have social and/or legal sanctions to punish those who try to cheat the "do unto others" system... and they did before religion as well. It's necessary, because even "threats of hell" don't seem to stop clergy pedophilia or sociopathy. These are phenomenon that have strong links to the brain. Even other animals punish and ostracize those who don't play by the "tit for tat" rules. It makes it easier if you have a group that protects members against rival groups. So in-group cooperation evolved in multiple animals. This is what gangs are all about, and our primate kin have them too. Oxytocin seems to be a major brain chemical in both humans and other mammals that encourages trusting, cooperative, and nurturing behavior... and protection of the vulnerable. And we know the area of the brain where damage results in problems with moral decision making... it cuts of the emotional reaction that people have against dong certain things.

All people raised with religion tend to attribute their morality to their religion, but it makes no sense. If atheists are under represented in prisons, divorce, and other social ills-- then morality is not coming from religion. Moreover, it's disturbing because every religion claims that they know the best way to be moral--what the creator of the universe wants... all religions think that their religion is the "most moral" even as they do despicable things in the name of their god while pretending, like you, to be taking the higher ground.

Instead of promoting understanding of the truth that is the same for everybody, religionists seem to turn everything into a semantic game, state opinions as facts, and demonize those who dare to speak out. They proffer opinions as you do, but these are not supported by the facts. You want the right to feel you are more moral because of religion, but that does not make it true, and it ignores the actual topic of whether it's okay to proffer lies and beliefs and "higher truths"-- even necessary "truths". They promote bigotry, ignorance of science and stem cell research, misinformation about condom usage, encouragement to have too many children--and all, supposedly, for some "higher good". They do horrible things and think they are doing something grand. Who cares if all of them aren't equally awful. All of them encourage the notion that there are higher truths and that faith and feelings are the ways to access them. Lets talk about that fact. That's a pretty disturbing thing to tell people. It makes for ready abuse and no way to distinguish truth from false prophets etc.

It's just ridiculous beyond belief the way religion is defended at every turn for the harms it inflicts on trusting people-- the years of sexism, wars, and blood sacrifice-- the way that the faithful claim this upper hand in morality despite any evidence in support of it. We can never even discuss if the harms outweigh the benefits, because the apologists rush in to defend the delusion lest somebody's world comes crashing down if they consider that religion might just be a pack of lies-- like all the religions we know for certain can't be true. You do know that Sharia law endorses stoning people to death for adultery and they are still doing it-- why? because Allah said so, and that makes it right. Don't you see how sick it is to be told that someone somewhere has access to higher truths and you need to curry favor with that someone in order to save yourself from eternal suffering. To hear that something is right because some invisible guy supposedly said so?

Religions, by their very nature, make "bad guys" out of everyone who doesn't believe as they do. They define their members as being the most moral, chosen, and the ones with higher truth. Apologists ignore this repeatedly to dicker about semantics and opinions and who should be berated next for calling religion a delusion. Even if some religions do some good some of the time-- that doesn't make it right to lie to people or pretend that morality comes from religion or to claim that faith and feelings can lead to truth. It doesn't make it right to vilify those who speak out. If religion was as good as believers seem to think it is, it would withstand scrutiny. But everyone knows that it cannot withstand the scrutiny, and so they rush in to quiet the dissenters and those who speak actual truths. They've been taught all their lives that keeping the illusion alive is "right" and "important" and "necessary" for morality. What a load of scary, misleading, and manipulative sexist crap.
There are no higher truths, and religion never has been necessary for morality--only for making people think they are more moral than others.

The Atheist

25th July 2007, 04:59 PM

TA,

That nice bloke at the head of the RCC has decreed that Hell is back on the agenda.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=174&id=471992007

Yes indeed, but:

[QUOTE=Pope Benedict + Lots of Roman Numerals]The principal punishment of Hell is the eternal separation from God

when that "hell" is merely "not in heaven", no torment is involved, no Satan, no fire, just.... nothing. Dear old Herr Ratzinger is merely affirming Catholic belief, but putting it in his own inimitable style, a la 1354 AD.

I agree that it's a stupid belief - and dumber statement - but it's not much use in the strawman of religious teaching & child abuse; that's why the fundies with hell, fire, brimstone and guys with 18" dicks and cloven hoofs suits the picture so much better.

All religions are harmful because they put mis-information and/or irrelevant information in people's brains. This means that on average, over a lifetime religious people make worse decisions compared to atheists with a similar level of intelligence and education.

Well, considering that they appear to live longer and be happier, according to studies linked in this thread, I'd be interested to know how you back that statement up.

Feel free to have a go.

Is this 'harm' practically significant given all the other mis-information and trivia shoveled into everyone's brain over a lifetime? I think it is.

Agree entirely, and the point you've led to is: all religions do harm. No argument would have ever arisen had that been the charge, but the charge is: religion is all bad, which is a completely different species of fish. Because the difference is quite subtle, I confirmed that there was no mistake being made.

The unhappiest and troubled people I know are deeply religious.

That's funny. By a country mile, the most deeply miserable people I know are practising atheists.

BTW, I thought the worst insult for a Kiwi was to be called Australian?

Nah, we are blood-brothers, us and Aussies. ;)

HghrSymmetry

25th July 2007, 05:42 PM

I've never posted at a woo site. But some members have posted over at "the Secret" or Sylvia Browne's supporters" website. And then come over here and laugh at them. Also at the conspiracy theory (Loose Change) site. But it might be hard to fake the silliness... the lack of logic... the poor grammar... Besides, I'd feel like a "fraud".

Yeah, we could try and post at those sites, but eventually we'd be exposed as sane. Probably not worth the effort.

I think it helps them shore up their beliefs, opinions, and biases although, to them, they are passing along valuable information I imagine. Some people just seem to be making sense to themselves. I give up trying to engage in dialogue until I see actual evidence that the person can engage in back and forth dialogue. The most incompetent of people never realize it's them. They are so so sure that it's everybody else. After a while you get finely tuned to the beliefs and opinions different people are trying to shore up.

Indeed. So many eons of selection plus cultural meme infection can have profound effects. It's not overly surprising that the majority of modern hominids have this characteristic.

qayak

25th July 2007, 11:05 PM

.I agree completely that the premise of religion is BS. That you and I feel that way doesn't make it bad.

You are absolutely correct. Doesn't make it good either.

Ivor the Engineer

26th July 2007, 02:59 AM

Well, considering that they appear to live longer and be happier, according to studies linked in this thread, I'd be interested to know how you back that statement up.

Feel free to have a go.

Well I would argue that it is people who have a large social network that live longer and happier lives. The particular religion they believe (or do not believe) in is incidental. Humans are social creatures. They tend to go insane if isolated from contact with others for extended periods of time. Obviously some people require less contact than others.

Agree entirely, and the point you've led to is: all religions do harm. No argument would have ever arisen had that been the charge, but the charge is: religion is all bad, which is a completely different species of fish. Because the difference is quite subtle, I confirmed that there was no mistake being made.

I would say that overall religion has done more harm than good, but I would never argue that all ideas in any religion are harmful or bad.

That's funny. By a country mile, the most deeply miserable people I know are practising atheists.

Are they lonely?

The Atheist

26th July 2007, 04:13 AM

Ivor the Engineer

26th July 2007, 04:36 AM

Sure, that's possible, but you'd need some info to back it up with. Sounds reasonable at least.

After a very quick search I've found this (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2643_127/ai_53390147).

Okey-dokey. I agree entirely. In fact, that's pretty much my exact position. That would make you a religious apologist!

LOL! I certainly don't bring up the issue, but if someone starts claiming religion provides something 'special' for them or anyone else I have been known to reply:D

Not even slightly. Just insane.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

The Atheist

26th July 2007, 04:43 AM

After a very quick search I've found this.

That bit's fine, I accept that. It just doesn't say anything about any causal links with religion and longevity unless we assume that religious people have more friends. I wouldn't be keen on making that assumption.

articulett

26th July 2007, 03:34 PM

Well I would argue that it is people who have a large social network that live longer and happier lives. The particular religion they believe (or do not believe) in is incidental. Humans are social creatures. They tend to go insane if isolated from contact with others for extended periods of time. Obviously some people require less contact than others.

I would say that overall religion has done more harm than good, but I would never argue that all ideas in any religion are harmful or bad.

Are they lonely?

Although The Atheist seems to be a miserable sort, all the atheists I know are pretty damn happy. The TAM conventions are full of them-- they are like Randi...

And the few studies that show that religious people live longer are kind of whacked, because when people are terminally ill, they stop going to church, so the studies that associate church attendance with longer lifespan are picking from a population healthy enough to make it to church. I think the more telling studies show that people who are socially connected live longer, irrespective of religious attendance. Bertrand Russel lived to his upper 90s, and was a rather happy man as far as I can tell. I think religions spread the lie that those without faith are miserable. And they also tell their members that they are happy or should be... even if they are not. You're supposed to be--Jesus died for you and all.

I've accused The Atheist of being a religious apologist and probably not actually an atheist (rather someone trying to give atheists a bad name), because I don't know any atheist who would say that the most miserable people they know are atheists. Who are these miserable atheists? Penn Jillette isn't miserable... Dawkins isn't miserable... Dennett isn't miserable... Julia Sweeney isn't miserable... aren't their critics more miserable than them? It sure does look that way to me.

I think Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are right... and it's time to stop this primitive madness--this silly notion that faith is good for knowing truth. Of course, if you say religion is harmful-- and you don't say "some religions", then you'll have the strawman tossed at you as well as a derailment for being so audacious as to say ALL religions are harmful and bad, because you didn't use the modifier "some". And then The Atheist will make some poll that proves (in his head) that not ALL religions are harmful (even if no one ever said otherwise) and declare himself a moral victor of some imaginary issue while avoiding ever discussing the actual topic of religion being a lie.

newlyfound

26th July 2007, 09:32 PM

Newlyfound,

Great Posts. And welcome.

Thank you. Really appreciate it :) .

Chances are that if someone attacks you or dismisses you here, they are just some of our resident trolls, apologists, holier-than-thous, that all forums have. Most people will wonder if the communication problem is them, but the incompetents will never clue into the fact that they are to blame for their endless flaming-- they are so sure it's the rest of the world

I am already starting to have a strong taste of that about one or two.

Richarddawkins.net has a forum too. It's funny that there are apologists and the like at a skeptics forum, isn't it? But since you have to deal with them in real life, it's good to practice here, and I find that it makes me better able to tolerate the ignorant in my actual life. After all, the ones who ventured over here knew what they were in for, and it's a bit arrogant to think that they have tons to teach and nothing to learn or that their opinions should be treated as facts.

I just opened an account there. Did you check out his social network? it's really cool, I love than man, also, I llooooooooove The selfish gene, I am enjoying it aaaall the way. Some astoundingly fascinating stuff, now I know why they are fighting him with their nails & teeth. But their case is hopeless with me!LOL.

The sad part (for our poster friends) is that in their minds they think they are brilliant and they "won" the argument (when the core question isn't even about "winning"), but in truth, in working to cheat and thinking no one knows about it they end up looking so ridiculous in the end i'ts a joke.

See Newlyfound...
No matter how you say it, you can't talk about the harms of religion indoctrination with some people, because they hear you saying ALL religion is bad and harmful--and they insist on proving that is what you said or mean. The conversation becomes about you painting with too broad of a brush rather than about the harms of religion no matter how carefully you word things.

They simply do such great job at proving what they are about: Relgion and what it stands for. And "under it" people are not supposed to think for themselves, they are not supposed to criticise it in any way shape or form. If one makes a point, the religionists lie their way around it instead of addressing it and still expect one to believe their crap, it's soo insulting as well as aggravating.

There just is no way to praise Dawkins or voice the notion that religion is harmful to some people... they are so used to pretending that the emperor is wearing clothes that they are blind to their own complicity in avoiding the topic and covering for religion. They pretend you are demonizing PEOPLE instead of a SYSTEM that encourages "faith" as a means of knowledge. And no matter how much you try to explain, they won't show agreement or understanding. You are the villain for speaking out on the harms of religion, ... because when you say religion you must mean ALL religions and surely not everyone had been harmed by religion... blah, blah, blah and round and round it goes.

I said this at Dawkins site and I'll repeat it here, to borrow someone's sentence, I'd say "rats don't like light". Clearly Dawkins is shedding some brilliant "unsupportable" Light on what IS. That is the main basic reason they dont want to digest him. And Ironically, they couldn't even if they tried!!!LMAO, he is just too Great for them :D .

articulett

26th July 2007, 11:03 PM

newlyfound

26th July 2007, 11:32 PM

Sure, again I agree. We're going to agree so much here that we could potentially end up having a group hug. Except I don't do hugs - unless you're a petite blonde.

Ok, ...I bet a 100.00 bucks that she is blonde and petite, and that is the underlying reason you've been fighting her aaall along!LOL. I meant our beloved Arti. I mean both of you are atheists? Am I right or am I wrong? {ARTI, are you petite and blonde?}

I agree completely that the premise of religion is BS. That you and I feel that way doesn't make it bad.

so bs isn't bad? ...or better, bs is good?

That those insane ####s say what they do doesn't have anything to do with good work done by some christian groups. I will again mention the idiot christian tactic of blaming atheism for Stalin's genocidal insanity. It's a stupid argument, and so is blaming all christianity for the lunatic fringe.
We're saying religion, we're not zooming in on christianity in specific.

The bad news is that you've just created the perfect strawman of religion. The number of christians who think that god makes it rain and helps football teams win are a small minority.

If the majority don't, then what makes them christians? and you're still right in a sense that studies have been made where church goers of the main denominations have been asked questions such as "do they believe that the virgin was virgin?", or "do they believe that Christ is coming back?" etc. and guess what? the majority asnwered that they don't. Those type of questions are what makes or breaks A Christian. That tells us what? that a good portion of church goers are atheists and either are obliviously unaware of it or are too afraid to shout it out.

Hell yeah, I assiduously cultivate my reputation as the Insult-Meister! Calling me a "gentleman" is about the worst insult you could sling at me.

Could it be that you are and are simply "obliviously" unaware of it?! ...you know, to add the injury to the insult?LOL.

Quite right, but again, the mere teaching of it isn't "bad", per se. An Anglican upbringing is almost deist in its approach, concentrating on human morality far more than sky-daddy & heaven.
Oh really? I wasn't aware of that thanks, I think Dawkins has been brought up Anglican.

They don't even have hell. I love Jesus' morality parables and use them myself as often as I can*.

I used to think they are his parables too til I learned that much of his teachings have been practiced millenias before he was born already by different pagan civilisations.

Ok, so what about those religions which don't teach kids about hell and Satan? Given that the RCC falls into that camp, you're talking about a large majority of christians. Their religion is just as deluded and dumb as all the others, but no harmful stuff is taught, other than the fact that you and I consider their teaching to be fantasy.

Dawkins talks about the story of this jewish kid, who has been baptised by his catholic babysitter because upon panicking he was going to die un-baptised (he was sick) and go to hell, she went ahead and poured some water on him while reciting "I baptise you in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost". Some time down the line, the Catholic church learned about it, came over and kidnapped the child from his jewish parents because supposedly now, he is living with heathens and it was their duty to save his life from those heathen parents of his!!!!! Because according to them pouring water on a kid while reciting a stupid meaningless (it is to him anyway) sentence over his head, and without his consent or that of of his parents, was sufficient enough to make him a born christian, that's how empty these people are. I know that the converting process starts from within not without. And if it's to be genuine, it can be a long one too. One learns of something like that and just imagines how many cases are out there that need to be brought up to the light.

s that Anglican upbringing I mentioned above "bad"? Being brought up with the lessons of Jesus, a respect for values and a belief in a featureless, unknowable god-thing. Is that "bad"? Or is it just a good, sound upbringing with some stupid bits in it?

I had a female kitty who had few babies, she was an excellent mother to them. she simply couldn't care enough for them, she was all over them around the clock, in other words, she was very ethical and very moral with her kids. She didn't need religion to be ethical, she just was, out of love for her little ones. Who taught her what love was? not the church. Also, one time someone pointed out to me this beeeeautiful spider web, it was prefectly weaved, you would not believe the discipline, the dedication, the industriousness that that spider must have put into making that web for it to be that beautiful! I will never forget that sight!!! why was she so disciplined and honest about it? ...and smart, I say that because the geometry of it was simply mathematical, it looked like it was a calculated and planned harmony. Why? Because her dad or partner told her if she didn't make it she'd go to hell? and who taught her how to do such fine job? surely not the church.
Ethics and values are innate. There is nothing religious about them.

Or, to put it another way, "He who is without sin may throw the first stone."

*See.
People lived before jesus, you know that, right? Like Hitchens said, what an insult to the jews to claim that god came up with the 10 commandements, because that would mean that before he did, they did aall that was advised in those tablets not to do, which is stealing, messing with neighbor's wife, taking other's goods, disrespecting one's parents, etc. Basically the 10 comdmts suggested and indirectly implied that jews were thugs. and he is right. He also pointed out a relevant detail in regard to the biblical scene you brought up, which is: upon Jesus telling what you cited and upon them leaving the area, leaving him alone with Mary Magdalene, how did they know that his words to her were "Go and sin no more"? MM was only referred to as a prostitute in the bible and, and her being that, they couldn't have allowed the holier-than-thou that they were to learn from her what they claim to know as fact.

When all's said and done, the question of religion is about as relevant as mice sexuality. It isn't ever going to go away, regardless of whatever evidence may be amassed as to why and how it exists. Most kids will get the opportunity to grow out of religion during their lives anyway - just have a look at how many ex-christians are on this board.

Religion is like a cheap flotation device. And not even new borns need it. New borns can be taught how to swim much faster than if those ridiculous antique things are borrowed. To impose them on the young is outdated and archaic at best, but to take that a step further by expecting the adults to continue using them long after they no longer need them is simply unconscionable. That's exactly how religion is regarded at the present time. It is a cluttering tool that's teaching people to hate each other more than anything else. It teaches them to run from the truth and ignore it as well as avoid it at all costs. And that's bad.

Chit! I've just realised that there isn't a single ad hominem in this post. Consider yourself abused.

I must have bored you to death. At least Articulett got you over heated good!LMAO. Hail Articulett!LOL. Gawwd, it's so much fun to pick on you. (if this could be of assistance, I usually pick only on the ones I am fond of :boxedin:).

newlyfound

27th July 2007, 12:12 AM

...I also like my good ol' Schopy:

http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/

The translation of his book title is misleading. It is not "The art of controversy" but "The art of being right after all". How to always be right, even if you're wrong! This fallacy link tells you how to detect fallacies, Schopy tells you how to deploy them! :D

Herzblut

How about finding a more honest title? like..., "how to be crooked"?

You have not addressed a single point of what I said, again, you twisted everything I said, put words in my mouth I have never thought of, etc, etc, etc, indeed Articulett iiIIIIS RIGHT! You are an apologist. Congratulations, you've just proved her right :D . And thank you for it.

The Atheist

27th July 2007, 12:56 AM

so bs isn't bad? ...or better, bs is good?

BS is bad, but if it creates a climate which results in good being done, the overall effect can be positive. "Greatest good, greatest number".

We're saying religion, we're not zooming in on christianity in specific.

It's just easier to discuss that one since it's the one which we face most of the time, plus I'm not huge on doctrinal positions of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Hinudism, Sikhism or Shintoism. I'm not too bad at Rastafarianism! The other side is that the comments are pretty interchangeable between religions - they're all based on some supernatural position.

That tells us what? that a good portion of church goers are atheists and either are obliviously unaware of it or are too afraid to shout it out.

I don;t think many atheists are church goers, but lots of agnostics are. Several Anglican bishops have publicly stated agnostic positions in recent times.

Could it be that you are and are simply "obliviously" unaware of it?! ...you know, to add the injury to the insult?LOL.

Nice try!

I used to think they are his parables too til I learned that much of his teachings have been practiced millenias before he was born already by different pagan civilisations.

Sure, but not many of them are that widely known. People recognise Jesus' parables while they might well not recognise one of Odin's.

And if it's to be genuine, it can be a long one too. One learns of something like that and just imagines how many cases are out there that need to be brought up to the light.

Jeez, I'd like some evidence to back that story up. It has either Urban Legend or Ancient History written all over it.

She didn't need religion to be ethical, she just was, out of love for her little ones. Who taught her what love was? not the church.

Love? A cat?

Simple species survival instinct, all mothers protect their offspring. Humans mistake this instinctual trait for something else and call it "love". Having a couple of kids myself, I fully understand the instinct, but I don't believe in "love" sorry. (For crissakes don't tell my wife that though! LOL!)

Why? Because her dad or partner told her if she didn't make it she'd go to hell? and who taught her how to do such fine job? surely not the church.
Ethics and values are innate. There is nothing religious about them.

Shocking example!

That's almost an ID-type argument. Spider webs are the shape they are because evolution provided the time to trial and discard other options. Some spiders build really ugly, messy webs. Still work though.

People lived before jesus, you know that, right?

Only for 4004 years before.

That's exactly how religion is regarded at the present time.

By you and me, sure. Unfortunately, 75% of the population thinks it's true. Well, whichever brand they follow is true, anyway.

It is a cluttering tool that's teaching people to hate each other more than anything else.

Uh-oh! Strawman time. I'd like you to provide any evidence at all which suggests that religions are teaching hate, more than anything else, in the 21st century. Some religions - minor sects all - are promoting hate, but most are not.

It teaches them to run from the truth and ignore it as well as avoid it at all costs. And that's bad.

Yep, that bit's fine with me. All delusion is bad. Lots of things in the world are worse.

articulett

27th July 2007, 01:09 AM

Religion WILL go away... it's been going away more and more as science explains more and more. No more weather gods. Gods are getting more and more nebulous and more tricks are used to keep the faithful attached. But the truth will out. I don't know how people can say with any confidence that it will not. Human thinking is prone to error, but humans are very good at bringing their fellow humans up to speed.

And that "he that is without sin casting the first stone" thing... was added to the bible many centuries later according to biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman. Ehrman truly believed the bible was the inerrant word of god so he learned the languages it was written in to read god's word in the original... only to learn that there are no originals. The first stuff was written way way after the fact.... and based on revelation--not memory... the rest was written too long after the supposed events to be from memory. And we only have copies of copies of hand-written copies and they don't agree. That happens a lot... people really take their religions seriously and devote their lives to it (which is prudent if this life IS a test for some eternity) only to learn that it doesn't make sense... it can't be true. And so I look forward to a time when kids can hear respectable adults mocking religion or saying "I don't believe any of it". I wish I had that. The stone story is not in any of the oldest copies of biblical stories we have... it appears to have been added many hundreds of years after the supposed event occurred.

These are stories. And why didn't Jesus or whomever tell people that it was barbaric to stone people?... and that women weren't property!?

*Btw, newlyfound,
I'm petite...Italian... and brunette.

And I think it's hilarious that someone would go bonkers because little ol' me called them an apologist... or someone else a creationist. Why would that make someone mad? Unless maybe they are afraid it might be true? I think if someone called me those names, and I know quite well that I'm neither... I'd want to know what it was that lead them to conclude such a thing. But if I was, maybe I'd vilify them so as to throw suspicion off myself or keep some kind of holier than thou cognitive dissonance going or something.

People here have said worse about me... but they aren't really people whose minds I care to change. It would matter, I guess, if it came from someone whose opinion I really respect here... but so far the sources tend to be from people I'm glad I piss off. Like all humans, I tend to like the people who notice what's good about me.

One time someone called me a "bimbo" and that really made me laugh. It was
a woman who thought her husband had a crush on me. I've been called many things, but that was the first and only time I was called a bimbo. I actually found it a little flattering, because I know I'm not stupid... so it seems like she was saying I was sexy or cute or alluring to her husband and she may as well use the first demeaning word that popped in her head.

newlyfound

27th July 2007, 01:39 AM

Newlyfound...
Yes. Dawkins makes sense. Religion never did for me. And his critics don't make sense to me either. I think there are few great scientists that have the gift of really communicating the gifts of science with the the masses. And in the biological sciences--Dawkins is tops. He's someone who presents all the facts for you to check out and see for yourself... he's honest... and he's a great role model as an atheist, because he's a charming, eloquent, funny man. He's nothing like the image the faithful wish to see atheists as. He's not miserable and he shares some of the best knowledge with huge numbers

He sure is and does. I love the way he interact with his fans at his site, as mega as he is, the guy is just so down to earth. There is even a thread where he is letting his readers discuss out in the open what his next book should be about!!! Talking about the guy being neither threatening nor threatened. He is simply awesome, Period.

And I think it's valuable to learn as much as you can about this world and pass it on to others so that generations to come can take the knowlege further. Dawkins is very good at getting to the point.

Do you believe that since I've read his book I have not a single time felt the need to go to or even watch a service on tv? or go to religious store? which was something I was addicted to no matter what I did prior to reading him. No more Christian rock, I got rid of all the woo books I had, I am in the process undergoing a life review right now. If I do something I take credit for it and vis-versa, I don't mix god with it any more. My head is clear and I am quite frankly relieved. I am less worried and depressed. He is not just a biologist, I honestly think he is also a medical Dr as well as psychologist. Because he had an effect on me on also both those capacities. Now in starting to read him, I am gaining a whoooooole new and completely different perspective on life. And is it refreshing or what?!!!!

A lot of his books and speeches and lectures can be downloaded on his site or on youtube or (for the books in audio format)--you can usually find them at a shareware site like bitcomet or torrentspy or emule. His documentary: The Root of All Evil? is all over the web too. He didn't make up the title... the BBC did... their only concession to his was the question mark. He has often said that religion is not the root of all evil, but of course, everyone mischaracterizes him and goes on the diversionary path of "not ALL religions are bad" or Dawkins wants to outlaw religion... etc.

Yeah, I've seen him on the Agenda specifically saying that he does not believe that religion is the root of all evil and that evil can be generated by anything, I saw him say that. I saw quite few of his lectures in vid, some off his site and other via the youtube. Thank you so much for the given references, I'll be needing them.

Dawkins isn't a god, and doesn't pretend to be. Like Randi, though, he is an unsung hero. He could use his knowledge to his own advantage--but he uses it to show others the facts.

You're absolutely right, that's exactly how he came across.

People praise invisible gods and prop up dishonest institutions while vilifying those who share the knowledge that human kind has been lucky enough to amass. The real people do the real miracles-- and the wrong people and entities and institutions get the glory (and tax breaks.)

Like Michael Shermer said (I think he is the one or maybe Harris) something along the lines of "BS sells, truth doesn't." and he is damn right. The BS-ers get acknowledged for the real miracle workers findings. I love the tax break note, An excellent one, and for a money they didn't even earn either. How about it? Church is very lucrative business.

articulett

27th July 2007, 03:59 AM

But Dawkins is selling! And so that is good news for the truth, don't you think?

As I was letting go of old beliefs I remember just being so hungry for the truth--stuff I could know for sure was true... I could understand it and test it and revel in what we humans have managed to figure out and share and pass on and use and amass in the way of knowledge. I think there was some momentary panic, but then excitement and a lot less angst and worry and trying to believe or figure out how to "know" something that seemed impossible to know anything about. It's a different world when ghosts aren't spying on you and you don't have to believe a certain story or be damned or there's not some hidden rubric you should be following because some invisible guy killed his kid (who was him) for you (what a creepy awful story...and parents tell it like it was something heartwarming...)--and the whole sex thing--

The further you get from it, the more of a sick disturbing bunch of lies it all seems to be... and you marvel at how people do or say or believe or defend the craziest of things because somehow faith is supposed to be "good"-- a sign of a good person. My sister was showing her kids these bible cartoons and that part where god tells Abraham to kill Isaac (his son) came on... and I just thought what a sick cartoon! And people pass this off as wholesome family goodness. It's so... disturbing. From the outside it just seems unreal.

I have no respect for faith and all the respect in the world for the people willing to share as much as the facts and truth as they can. To me, the apologists are just trying to keep the illusion alive--and why? For who? Why would they do that on a skeptics forum? Since when does religion need defending? Why can't an omniscient guy fight his own battles? Why can't we just stop having to pretend that faith and belief are good and respect worthy and that religion is necessary for something or other? How can you understand that it cannot be true and not want others to have the same opportunity?

I'm glad to hear that his book is freeing people from the delusions that imprison them. What made you pick it up? Some of the best skeptics are former believers--Shermer used to be a born again... scientists and magicians make damn fine skeptics too. These people seem to have a special respect for truth and the ways people can be fooled it seems. I don't understand the apologists or why they don't like being called apologists or why they don't hear your story and reconsider their views... I don't know why they defend religion or why they think it's okay to lie to trusting people... maybe they think or hope or want some of it to be true or maybe they don't realize that they are deferring out of habit and cultural expectations. I always try to listen very closely to see if there are real or valid criticisms of Dawkins, but I think that it's just part of the apology thing... because what has he done wrong that would ever negate all the knowledge he has brought to so many? And he drives home the message that there is no divine knowledge... anything worth knowing is available to everyone who can understand the answer.

I suspect that is where a lot of the ruffled feathers come from. Such people want to be seen as experts of some special knowledge or opinions or morals. They can't be "good guys" in their own minds unless they can make someone else "the bad guy".

FFRF.org (freedom from religion) has podcasts and is a very good site... it's run by a former minister (evangelical) and his wife. It's very interesting hearing the stories of people who have been through similar journeys. I've heard some great stuff from ex-Mormons too. And there is this cool site with lots of personal stories called "recovering from Christianity" (I think). Some people feel really angry or really depressed after understanding that they have been deceived... even though it's not intentional... your stories can help them.
Converts Corner at Richard Dawkins site is really good too.

bridgy

27th July 2007, 05:20 AM

Beth

27th July 2007, 06:24 AM

Jeez, I'd like some evidence to back that story up. It has either Urban Legend or Ancient History written all over it.

Dawkins discusses it in TGD. It happened several centuries ago.

Herzblut

27th July 2007, 01:59 PM

How about finding a more honest title? like..., "how to be crooked"?

The title has been given by the author: "Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten". If you wanna fumble around with it, do it without me, please.

You have not addressed a single point of what I said, again, you twisted everything I said, put words in my mouth I have never thought of, etc, etc, etc,

I explained, again, your dishonest misuse of popular personalities like Einstein. I explained, again, why your frequent appeal to consequences is a fallacy, to help you out of your lack of understanding. I pointed out, that I don't take your testimony about D. as evidence. I asked you to describe my inner beliefs which you - in a delusional attack of megalomania - believed to understand. All in all, I addressed your points. If you prefer to ignore this, no problem. You're not that interesting to me.

indeed Articulett iiIIIIS RIGHT! You are an apologist.

No. I've got nothing to apologize.

Herzblut

articulett

27th July 2007, 06:39 PM

[QUOTE=articulett;2806472]Newlyfound...
His documentary: The Root of All Evil? is all over the web too. He didn't make up the title... the BBC did... their only concession to his was the question mark.[QUOTE]

"The Root of All Evil" was a Channel 4 Documentary - nothing to do with the BBC. (But I believe your general point is correct!)

Thanks for the correction... I had remembered that it was the production company that insisted on the title, and I guess my brain defaulted to BBC.

HghrSymmetry

27th July 2007, 06:43 PM

... which is: upon Jesus telling what you cited and upon them leaving the area, leaving him alone with Mary Magdalene, how did they know that his words to her were "Go and sin no more"? MM was only referred to as a prostitute in the bible and, and her being that, they couldn't have allowed the holier-than-thou that they were to learn from her what they claim to know as fact.

Technically, Mary Magdalene is not mentioned as a prostitute in the bible.
In the gospel of John, there is a linking or Mary of Bethany with the "sinner" mentioned in Luke. This could be the basis for the prostitute connection.

In the 6th century CE, Pope Gregory I manufactured the Mary Magdalene as prostitute campaign. Possibly to reduce her importance as a beloved apostle and the favorable light she is cast in the Gospel of Mary (CE ~125).
In Gregory's time, women weren't seen as having as much status as MM appears to have had.
[Sorry, I don't have URL posting privileges yet. Type in Mary Magdalene prostitute in Google]

Religion WILL go away... it's been going away more and more as science explains more and more. No more weather gods. Gods are getting more and more nebulous and more tricks are used to keep the faithful attached. But the truth will out. I don't know how people can say with any confidence that it will not. Human thinking is prone to error, but humans are very good at bringing their fellow humans up to speed.
Looking forward to the day when the Haggards, Browns, Chopras, etc are on the street corner with "will work for food" signs. Long wait for that though.

And so I look forward to a time when kids can hear respectable adults mocking religion or saying "I don't believe any of it". I wish I had that.
Indeed.

These are stories. And why didn't Jesus or whomever tell people that it was barbaric to stone people?... and that women weren't property!?

Because he is a product of the culture he grew up in. Oops, I guess his old man forgot to tell him the difference between barbaric and humane behavior.

*Btw, newlyfound,
I'm petite...Italian... and brunette.
Anch `io. However, we warriors prefer to be called "moderately boned" or "battle svelte". Despite the soft tissue increases, still the foundation is not as robust as one would want.

People here have said worse about me... but they aren't really people whose minds I care to change. It would matter, I guess, if it came from someone whose opinion I really respect here... but so far the sources tend to be from people I'm glad I piss off. Like all humans, I tend to like the people who notice what's good about me.

In addition to the attacks,...it also makes it difficult when the semantic games commence. Some go out of their way to offer definitions that 99% of people do not use.
Old "60 grit" uses this technique consistently. Even having the audacity & insolence to subtly belittle the administration.

articulett

27th July 2007, 07:28 PM

In addition to the attacks,...it also makes it difficult when the semantic games commence. Some go out of their way to offer definitions that 99% of people do not use. Old "60 grit" uses this technique consistently. Even having the audacity & insolence to subtly belittle the administration.

I hear you. Fortunately there is some great new blood to invigorate battle ready warriors et. al.

The piggies need to wallow. The eagles can fly over their heads. Suspect a wallower when allegations of conspiracy (evolutionist conspiracy, scientist conspiracy, JREF conspiracy, skeptic conspiracty, etc.) surface. The wallowers tend to be a very suspicious bunch as well as being fond of telling you how much holier than thou they are.

The Atheist

27th July 2007, 11:15 PM

Dawkins discusses it in TGD. It happened several centuries ago.

Just as I thought. As irrelevant as witch-burning, unless you want to judge moden Germans on the atrocities of the Nazis.

HghrSymmetry

27th July 2007, 11:25 PM

I hear you. Fortunately there is some great new blood to invigorate battle ready warriors et. al.
Acknowledged. The other joint pulled w's like a magnet. Maybe this one has 'em also, I just haven't encountered that many (yet).

The piggies need to wallow. The eagles can fly over their heads. Suspect a wallower when allegations of conspiracy (evolutionist conspiracy, scientist conspiracy, JREF conspiracy, skeptic conspiracty, etc.) surface. The wallowers tend to be a very suspicious bunch as well as being fond of telling you how much holier than thou they are.

Sometimes the irony can go nova, which can cause one to reel in delight.
The "whoosh" effect is equally piquant.

articulett

27th July 2007, 11:42 PM

Sometimes the irony can go nova, which can cause one to reel in delight.
The "whoosh" effect is equally piquant.

So glad to have someone to enjoy that sweet sound with me. ;)
Whoosh!

HghrSymmetry

27th July 2007, 11:54 PM

Yes, we stalk..er I mean fans like read our favorite posters on a regular basis!
:o :p

HghrSymmetry

28th July 2007, 06:38 PM

Yes, we stalk..er I mean fans like to read our favorite posters on a regular basis!
:o :p

How about it folks....leave the edit function on continuously so we can fix these boo-boo's!

:rolleyes:

newlyfound

28th July 2007, 06:47 PM

BS is bad, but if it creates a climate which results in good being done, the overall effect can be positive. "Greatest good, greatest number".

Ok, the good such as teaching little boys and little girls that "the first" woman in history of mankind was made out of one man's rib?????? ...just picture that and marinate on it for a little bit please. That this stupid serpent came along and screwed them (adam and eve) both into disobeying god, this without neither god's knowledge nor his being able to prevent that from happening being the omni pathetic dork he is? ...And ladies and gentlemen, this is how the world began!!!!!!!!!! Some Knowledge and Some Wisdom!!!

You're fooling yourself. Things are not as simplistic as you put them.

It's just easier to discuss that one since it's the one which we face most of the time, plus I'm not huge on doctrinal positions of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Hinudism, Sikhism or Shintoism. I'm not too bad at Rastafarianism! The other side is that the comments are pretty interchangeable between religions - they're all based on some supernatural position.

Do you believe in supernatural? I once believed in it and from experience, I know it's a road that leads to a town named "Nowhere".

I don;t think many atheists are church goers, but lots of agnostics are.

If a church goer does not believe that Mary was a virgin or that Christ is coming back as it is talked about in the book of revelation, you know, the word of god? what does that make them? a heretic at least, unbeliever at best, and that takes us to atheism.

Several Anglican bishops have publicly stated agnostic positions in recent times.

Good, we're making progress, last night I saw "Man of the year" with Robin Williams, I loved his lines from beginning to end, one in particular stuck in my mind, it went along the lines of "If we didnt' question the political system we'd still be english." and I say if we didn't question religion innocent women would probably still be burnt today because they "are" witches. ...and the rest....

Nice try!
I read your sig's quotes, they are hillarious, you have a really 'odd' way of inducing people into either liking or disliking you. I, on the other hand, am sold.

Sure, but not many of them are that widely known. People recognise Jesus' parables while they might well not recognise one of Odin's.

No, Jesus claimed ownership to many of the parables that were known prior to him showing up. There are I think several years of his life that no one can account for. Many speculate that during the said years, he went on to study with the greeks or the hindus or who knows who before he came back and started his ministery.

Jeez, I'd like some evidence to back that story up. It has either Urban Legend or Ancient History written all over it.

Ok, I'll look it up.

Love? A cat?

Simple species survival instinct, all mothers protect their offspring. Humans mistake this instinctual trait for something else and call it "love". Having a couple of kids myself, I fully understand the instinct, but I don't believe in "love" sorry. (For crissakes don't tell my wife that though! LOL!)

LMAO, You Sir are weeeeird!!!! something tells me that your wife is as crazy as you appear to be. And like I said, ethics are innate, ...as in instinctual. That's where they originated. Ok the cat loves her kitten, how about the female dog adopting bunch of orphan kitten or vis-versa?! don't tell me you've never heard of such stories. If you wanna talk instinct, dogs usually chases after cats, and yes, that's instinctual.

Shocking example!

That's almost an ID-type argument. Spider webs are the shape they are because evolution provided the time to trial and discard other options. Some spiders build really ugly, messy webs. Still work though.

You are avoiding my point. How do you characterize that as ID type of argument? didn't I ask who taught her how to do that? didn't I ask under what possible pressure she could have acted, you and I both know it was not god or hell. This is the bottom line.

Only for 4004 years before.

On one comment you accuse me of being an ID proponent, and on the other you suggest that the earth is 6000 years old, tell me, who's who here :D ?

Uh-oh! Strawman time. I'd like you to provide any evidence at all which suggests that religions are teaching hate, more than anything else, in the 21st century. Some religions - minor sects all - are promoting hate, but most are not.

Read the OT, it's full of killing and butchering anyone who dares to breath too quickly, let alone the ones that don't submit to Yahweh, read the koran, it full of it too, the NT is kind of mild but scholars know for fact it has been written at least 40 years after jesus died, that leaves us with what as far as authenticity? Zero.

articulett

28th July 2007, 07:28 PM

How about it folks....leave the edit function on continuously so we can fix these boo-boo's!

:rolleyes:

That happens to me all the time... we only have an hour or something to edit...
But it gives the woo crowd something to get all excited about and feel superior for noticing. They, of course, make no errors... or rather, they admit to no errors. I end up having problems grasping what they are saying, but most people, I can understand quite well... even with typos and such.

articulett

28th July 2007, 07:35 PM

Newlyfound,
this is a pretty profound video clip showing across species instinctual care. I think that most mammals, particularly female mammals have an instinct towards caring for the vulnerable. Here, a hippo tries to save a baby antelope from being an alligators dinner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8bMS22xQA8

Which makes you wonder, how many times do such things happen when it's not on film.

newlyfound

28th July 2007, 08:05 PM

The Atheist

28th July 2007, 08:17 PM

Ok, the good such as teaching little boys and little girls that "the first" woman in history of mankind was made out of one man's rib?????? ...just picture that and marinate on it for a little bit please. That this stupid serpent came along and screwed them (adam and eve) both into disobeying god, this without neither god's knowledge nor his being able to prevent that from happening being the omni pathetic dork he is? ...And ladies and gentlemen, this is how the world began!!!!!!!!!! Some Knowledge and Some Wisdom!!!

Whoa! Strawmen of religion unite and ignite!

The problem is, that only a tiny minority of christians think Genesis is true. This argument is pointless against 2/3 of the world's christians immediately as no reputable Catholic thinks Adam & Eve were real.

I agree with you that teaching that it's true is tragic. Unfortunately for your argument, only loony sects (most of which are in USA) think the way you suggest.

This is the root of all the problems in this thread - ridiculous assertions against christianity and religion in general, but then even the generalisations are wrong. Why should I bother to argue points which aren't even true? If you want to attack christianity, the OT is the worst possible starting point, unless you're dealing with some fundy idiot.

You're fooling yourself. Things are not as simplistic as you put them.

Sorry, but the one fooling himself in this bit isn't me. Don't take my word for it, study some evidence of what the RCC actually does believe. Genesis, Adam, Eve and serpents don't come into it.

Do you believe in supernatural? I once believed in it and from experience, I know it's a road that leads to a town named "Nowhere".

It should be patently obvious that I don't believe in any supernatural phenomena at all. Never have, and until some pretty compelling evidence presents to the contrary, I never will.

If a church goer does not believe that Mary was a virgin or that Christ is coming back as it is talked about in the book of revelation, you know, the word of god? what does that make them? a heretic at least, unbeliever at best, and that takes us to atheism.

Again, you're simply speaking from lack of knowledge on what christians actually think. If you like, I can point you to several published articles by respected bishops who profess an agnostic attitude to even Jesus' divinity. In any case, I fail to see why it matters - other than belief in a god, "religion" is a very broad subject. Why would you or I care how the churches feel about heretics? I can't see the relevance to the subject and as far as I'm aware, not even the RCC has any rules regarding heresy these days, although priests might get in trouble for it!

Good, we're making progress, last night I saw "Man of the year" with Robin Williams, I loved his lines from beginning to end, one in particular stuck in my mind, it went along the lines of "If we didnt' question the political system we'd still be english." and I say if we didn't question religion innocent women would probably still be burnt today because they "are" witches. ...and the rest....

No surprise for Robin Williams, but his analogy is awful. The War of Independence was about taxation by Englnd, nothing to do with questioning political motives. Do you need lessons in US history?

As regards the church, take RCC as an example. Do you think the atheists' questions or the theologians thinking changed the church?

Hint: very, very few changes to church doctrine happen as the result of any questions asked by outsiders. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, it's yet another baseless assertion.

I read your sig's quotes, they are hillarious, you have a really 'odd' way of inducing people into either liking or disliking you. I, on the other hand, am sold.

I'm going to have start just having a selection in the sig and the full quota on the site linked. People love me!

No, Jesus claimed ownership to many of the parables that were known prior to him showing up. There are I think several years of his life that no one can account for. Many speculate that during the said years, he went on to study with the greeks or the hindus or who knows who before he came back and started his ministery.

They're all wrong. He was in Rotorua (http://www.immortality.co.nz/news%20network/missing.html)- he sailed here in an outrigger canoe.

I wasn't arguing authorship of Jesus' parables - just that's how most people know them.

Ok, I'll look it up.

It's already been covered - it's fairly ancient history and not terribly relevant to today.

LMAO, You Sir are weeeeird!!!! something tells me that your wife is as crazy as you appear to be. And like I said, ethics are innate, ...as in instinctual. That's where they originated. Ok the cat loves her kitten, how about the female dog adopting bunch of orphan kitten or vis-versa?! don't tell me you've never heard of such stories. If you wanna talk instinct, dogs usually chases after cats, and yes, that's instinctual.

Those cases are few and far between; there are aberrations in every system. In almost every case it's simple instinct. Lambs are another great example - a ewe will not usually allow another lamb to feed from it, so orphan lambs are often "dressed" in the skin of a dead lamb to get the mother to allow the orphan to feed. Works every time.

You are avoiding my point. How do you characterize that as ID type of argument? didn't I ask who taught her how to do that? didn't I ask under what possible pressure she could have acted, you and I both know it was not god or hell. This is the bottom line.

ID isn't an argument at all - that was my point. Spiders "know" how to make webs because they've had 100 million years[ish] of evolution to perfect the instinct to build in a style appropriate to each spider type. I just don't see what the analogy is trying to prove. I've always maintained that religion is a great reason not to over-estimate human intellectual abilities - I don't ever sheep and chickens building churches and they aren't among the smarter animals.

On one comment you accuse me of being an ID proponent, and on the other you suggest that the earth is 6000 years old, tell me, who's who here :D ?

I certainly wasn't calling you an ID proponent, I leave that aspersion for others - it was just the [lack of] quality of the analogy. Myself, I'd go with a much bigger figure than 6000. Almost 1,000,000 times bigger.

Read the OT, it's full of killing and butchering anyone who dares to breath too quickly, let alone the ones that don't submit to Yahweh, read the koran, it full of it too, the NT is kind of mild but scholars know for fact it has been written at least 40 years after jesus died, that leaves us with what as far as authenticity? Zero.

OT, I think we've covered. Of course it's full of crap - the entire bible is, but at least the NT isn't a series of atrocities, genocides, rapes, pillaging and incest.

I agree that the intervening time period is damning; I said precisely that very recently on a christian site. If Jesus was soooo bloody wonderful, I find it incredible that not a single one of the "5,000 men, plus women and children" could or would have written about the miracles, contemporaneously. The gospels are also clearly copied one from another. I forget the exact chronology, but at least two of the four are copies of the first. [Luke?] If I could be bothered I'd look it up, but I think we both accept that it's all bollocks, so we have no need to nitpick on which lie was told first.

The Atheist

28th July 2007, 08:27 PM

Articulett,

You, Are, The, Best!!! That is One Priceless Clip! Thank you soooo much. Yeah, I would like one of our friends to explain that please. Perhaps the hippo had a revelation from "god" ordering him to do what he had done and warning him that he would fry in an eternal fire if he didn't. So, he had no choice. Yeah, this is a very plausible explanation.

Just beware reading too much into one example. Crocodiles are natural enemies of hippopotami and it may have been simple instinctual dislike of the crocodile encouraging the hippo. Equally, it may well be maternal instinct as posited.

How about the gorillas when the little boy was seriously injured falling into the gorilla enclosure? The silverback seems protective while a young gorilla seems very unhappy about it all. Which instinct matters most?

7djZzC6FKhw

What do these clips tell us about animal behaviour? Not a lot, without in depth studies to see if these things happen frequently or not.

newlyfound

28th July 2007, 09:24 PM

Religion WILL go away... it's been going away more and more as science explains more and more. No more weather gods. Gods are getting more and more nebulous and more tricks are used to keep the faithful attached. But the truth will out. I don't know how people can say with any confidence that it will not. Human thinking is prone to error, but humans are very good at bringing their fellow humans up to speed.

And that "he that is without sin casting the first stone" thing... was added to the bible many centuries later according to biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman. Ehrman truly believed the bible was the inerrant word of god so he learned the languages it was written in to read god's word in the original... only to learn that there are no originals. The first stuff was written way way after the fact.... and based on revelation--not memory... the rest was written too long after the supposed events to be from memory. And we only have copies of copies of hand-written copies and they don't agree. That happens a lot... people really take their religions seriously and devote their lives to it (which is prudent if this life IS a test for some eternity) only to learn that it doesn't make sense... it can't be true. And so I look forward to a time when kids can hear respectable adults mocking religion or saying "I don't believe any of it". I wish I had that. The stone story is not in any of the oldest copies of biblical stories we have... it appears to have been added many hundreds of years after the supposed event occurred.

These are stories. And why didn't Jesus or whomever tell people that it was barbaric to stone people?... and that women weren't property!?

In regard to that "He who is without sin, cast..." business, they solely have zoomed in on the woman, she presumably committed adultery, that means she did it with a guy, and where is he? why isn't he being held accountable? ...they are simply full of bad cheese. ...And I am only being polite here.

*Btw, newlyfound,
I'm petite...Italian... and brunette.

Italian, ...now I know why you got so much fire in your belly!LOL. you're like one of those NASA type of machines girl! this is nothing more than a sistery compliment.

And I think it's hilarious that someone would go bonkers because little ol' me called them an apologist... or someone else a creationist. Why would that make someone mad? Unless maybe they are afraid it might be true? I think if someone called me those names, and I know quite well that I'm neither... I'd want to know what it was that lead them to conclude such a thing. But if I was, maybe I'd vilify them so as to throw suspicion off myself or keep some kind of holier than thou cognitive dissonance going or something.

I don't know much (creationists don't take that literally) but my guess is, it's who called them vs. what they've been called that's at stake here. You are not just anybody, your opinion is relevant. I might be wrong but I think this is what's bruising to them.

People here have said worse about me... but they aren't really people whose minds I care to change. It would matter, I guess, if it came from someone whose opinion I really respect here... but so far the sources tend to be from people I'm glad I piss off. Like all humans, I tend to like the people who notice what's good about me.

You're great and that's that, they want us to take their word for it as far as them bs-ing us about god. Lets see how they feel about us expecting them to reciprocate in regard to our opinion of the fellow members we happen to esteem...

One time someone called me a "bimbo" and that really made me laugh. It was a woman who thought her husband had a crush on me. I've been called many things, but that was the first and only time I was called a bimbo. I actually found it a little flattering, because I know I'm not stupid... so it seems like she was saying I was sexy or cute or alluring to her husband and she may as well use the first demeaning word that popped in her head.

I would have taken that as a reversed compliment if I were you, she might have subconsciously thought you were the bomb, and her husband being the prey, clearly she is not gonna admit to that, but only presumably to its opposite.

newlyfound

29th July 2007, 12:30 AM

But Dawkins is selling! And so that is good news for the truth, don't you think?

For change, Yes! and it's about time. It's been loooong overdue.

As I was letting go of old beliefs I remember just being so hungry for the truth--stuff I could know for sure was true... I could understand it and test it and revel in what we humans have managed to figure out and share and pass on and use and amass in the way of knowledge. I think there was some momentary panic, but then excitement and a lot less angst and worry and trying to believe or figure out how to "know" something that seemed impossible to know anything about. It's a different world when ghosts aren't spying on you and you don't have to believe a certain story or be damned or there's not some hidden rubric you should be following because some invisible guy killed his kid (who was him) for you (what a creepy awful story...and parents tell it like it was something heartwarming...)--and the whole sex thing--

I, on the other hand repressed my instinct for years. I had many questions and doubts for so long but I just stumped and repressed them as much as I could. Back then, each time a valid question rose in my head as result of just noticing a discrepancy for example, I sincerely and genuinely believed that satan was behind it, that he was working to take over my mind. So I'd start to frantically pray to work to get back inside my confort zone. It wasn't until I started to go to skeptic.com that I finally started to think "wait a minute, you mean I am not alone in this and I've been right all these years (in asking the questions and having the doubts)?". And even then, I kept on veering from one side to the other mainly due to my believer's related experiences. There were times where I was absolutely finally convinced that there was no god, that there was just us, but I'd remember one of those and I'll be like "well, I had that experience, what do I do with it?" and my entire freaking effort would get flushed down again. It wasn't until Daddy Dawkins Came Along. The rest was history.

The further you get from it, the more of a sick disturbing bunch of lies it all seems to be... and you marvel at how people do or say or believe or defend the craziest of things because somehow faith is supposed to be "good"-- a sign of a good person. My sister was showing her kids these bible cartoons and that part where god tells Abraham to kill Isaac (his son) came on... and I just thought what a sick cartoon! And people pass this off as wholesome family goodness. It's so... disturbing. From the outside it just seems unreal.

Again, You are right. I sometimes look back now and often times feel so embarrassed for buying into such show. But the only answer I can find to that is when one has been born into it, having never been exposed to anything else, that becomes a part of their main frame. So clearly anything that threatens its validity or goes against it is the enemi. No wonder people react the way they do when one tries to wake them up.

I have no respect for faith and all the respect in the world for the people willing to share as much as the facts and truth as they can. To me, the apologists are just trying to keep the illusion alive--and why? For who? Why would they do that on a skeptics forum? Since when does religion need defending? Why can't an omniscient guy fight his own battles? Why can't we just stop having to pretend that faith and belief are good and respect worthy and that religion is necessary for something or other? How can you understand that it cannot be true and not want others to have the same opportunity?

I like one Peter O' Toole quote that goes like this: "When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself."

They defend religion because it serves their interests. And clearly anybody who makes the slightest attempt to wake the masses up is going to be demonized to the max. In regard to you last question, me too, I don't understand why one would know a truth, yet would not want to share it with others. Or in fact would even work to prevent others from accessing it.

I'm glad to hear that his book is freeing people from the delusions that imprison them. What made you pick it up?

You are not going to believe this, I first was going to just borrow it from the library when I first learned of it, so no rush, I was going to get to it when I would. It just so happened that a bigot pissed me off 2 days after I learned of its existence. I happened to be sitting across the street from a book store when that occured, at the time I felt strong need to dis-associate from any religious anything, so I walked there and got a copy. Of course when I got it, I was clueless as to the profound effect it was going to have on me. I ended up going back to the bigot and thanking him for being such because thanks to him I was holding a great book in my hands! Upon finishing TGD, I also did send a gratitude note to an address given by Josh, RD site administrator, the note was supposed to be forewarded to RD, I don't know if it ever were.

Some of the best skeptics are former believers--Shermer used to be a born again...

I personally owe Shermer Biiig, he is another phenomenon.

I always try to listen very closely to see if there are real or valid criticisms of Dawkins, but I think that it's just part of the apology thing... because what has he done wrong that would ever negate all the knowledge he has brought to so many? And he drives home the message that there is no divine knowledge... anything worth knowing is available to everyone who can understand the answer.

BS-ers do not like the ones that expose them, and that's what he does in sharing the truth with all, by the same token he clear out the hoax.

FFRF.org (freedom from religion) has podcasts and is a very good site... it's run by a former minister (evangelical) and his wife. It's very interesting hearing the stories of people who have been through similar journeys. I've heard some great stuff from ex-Mormons too. And there is this cool site with lots of personal stories called "recovering from Christianity" (I think). Some people feel really angry or really depressed after understanding that they have been deceived... even though it's not intentional... your stories can help them.
Converts Corner at Richard Dawkins site is really good too.

Me too I felt depressed, and at many levels not just one. I should probably go there and just learn about what people have been through. I meant to send in my testimony to the RD.net convert's corner but failed to do so. I still intent to.

newlyfound

29th July 2007, 02:07 AM

Technically, Mary Magdalene is not mentioned as a prostitute in the bible.
In the gospel of John, there is a linking or Mary of Bethany with the "sinner" mentioned in Luke. This could be the basis for the prostitute connection.

In the 6th century CE, Pope Gregory I manufactured the Mary Magdalene as prostitute campaign. Possibly to reduce her importance as a beloved apostle and the favorable light she is cast in the Gospel of Mary (CE ~125).
In Gregory's time, women weren't seen as having as much status as MM appears to have had.
[Sorry, I don't have URL posting privileges yet. Type in Mary Magdalene prostitute in Google]

What is she mentioned as then? a holy one? I think the bible mentions her as a "sinner" to cover up for the act of prostitution. Whenever she is portrayed, she is as a prostitute. There is no mystery or doubt about that. Whether that has been added later or earlier is irrelevant. Also, whether she be this or that, to me has no bearings since the bible is full of made up stories from start to finish.

HghrSymmetry

29th July 2007, 10:23 AM

HghrSymmetry

29th July 2007, 10:25 AM

What is she mentioned as then? a holy one? I think the bible mentions her as a "sinner" to cover up for the act of prostitution. Whenever she is portrayed, she is as a prostitute.

Gregory made the false connection some 500 or so years later.

The identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and "the woman who was a sinner" is reflected in an influential sermon Pope Gregory I gave in 591, which said: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark."
-----
Mary Magdalene is often referred to as a prostitute, but she was never called one in the New Testament.

There are other sources, but for a general reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

I found this PBS video interesting as well:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week712/feature.html

There is no mystery or doubt about that. Whether that has been added later or earlier is irrelevant. Also, whether she be this or that, to me has no bearings since the bible is full of made up stories from start to finish.
Agreed, whether these characters and their lives are mostly fictional or not... is irrelevant. Just making the point that the New Testament doesn't say anything about her being a prostitute.

newlyfound

29th July 2007, 02:48 PM

Whoa! Strawmen of religion unite and ignite!

The problem is, that only a tiny minority of christians think Genesis is true.

In which case I'd ask, are they really christians????You putting your finger on the term "strawmen" because you have nothing to say does not make my point one. Genesis is the first book of OT, the OT pre-dates the NT. That makes Genesis what? A Cornerstone to the 'word of god'? Again, saying that only a minority of christians believe Genesis is true does not make it so. If it is not believed why is it there? throughout history the church has been known to add and take out material after material after book after book, if Genesis is no longer true and valid as a book, what stops them from taking it out? those are more comments than questions.

This argument is pointless against 2/3 of the world's christians immediately as no reputable Catholic thinks Adam & Eve were real.

That proves my point, most believers don't believe, they just go and show up for the service for reasons that have nothing to do with their religious convictions.

This is the root of all the problems in this thread - ridiculous assertions against christianity and religion in general, but then even the generalisations are wrong. Why should I bother to argue points which aren't even true? If you want to attack christianity, the OT is the worst possible starting point, unless you're dealing with some fundy idiot.

You keep on going back to christianity, I am speaking of religion in general, and the ones you refer to as not believing this or not doing that are philosophies not religions. That leaves us with the 3 main ones.

Sorry, but the one fooling himself in this bit isn't me. Don't take my word for it, study some evidence of what the RCC actually does believe. Genesis, Adam, Eve and serpents don't come into it.

I've already answered this.

Again, you're simply speaking from lack of knowledge on what christians actually think. If you like, I can point you to several published articles by respected bishops who profess an agnostic attitude to even Jesus' divinity. In any case, I fail to see why it matters - other than belief in a god, "religion" is a very broad subject. Why would you or I care how the churches feel about heretics? I can't see the relevance to the subject and as far as I'm aware, not even the RCC has any rules regarding heresy these days, although priests might get in trouble for it!

My comments were in response to what you have said earlier, re-read yourself.

No surprise for Robin Williams, but his analogy is awful.

why is that? because what he said doesn't not back up your argument?

The War of Independence was about taxation by Englnd, nothing to do with questioning political motives. Do you need lessons in US history?

Taxation WAS A political tool used to repress the masses and keep them constantly financially drained. And a financially drained citizen is unable to fight back a politically corrupt system. For this to be seen, one does not need to know US history.

Hint: very, very few changes to church doctrine happen as the result of any questions asked by outsiders. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, it's yet another baseless assertion.

If your goal is to reform the church it isn't the case for me. I am not looking to reform, I am looking to eject as do millions and millions of people out there. And so far, whether you admit it our not, it is happening, gradually and surely.

I'm going to have start just having a selection in the sig and the full quota on the site linked. People love me!

why did you change that avatar? and what does this one imply?

They're all wrong. He was in Rotorua (http://www.immortality.co.nz/news%20network/missing.html)- he sailed here in an outrigger canoe.

I wasn't arguing authorship of Jesus' parables - just that's how most people know them.

The way you put it, you gave him authorship credit.

Those cases are few and far between; there are aberrations in every system. In almost every case it's simple instinct. Lambs are another great example - a ewe will not usually allow another lamb to feed from it, so orphan lambs are often "dressed" in the skin of a dead lamb to get the mother to allow the orphan to feed. Works every time.

the problem remains, when an animal displays a behavior that could be fairly interpreted as ethical by all means, oh they are just animals but if a christian does the same, it's jesus. How about if a jew or moslim does it? who gets credit for that? what if the person is atheist?

I certainly wasn't calling you an ID proponent, I leave that aspersion for others - it was just the [lack of] quality of the analogy. Myself, I'd go with a much bigger figure than 6000. Almost 1,000,000 times bigger.

then why when I pointed out if you knew that people lived b4 jesus, you said only for 4004 years before??

I agree that the intervening time period is damning; I said precisely that very recently on a christian site. If Jesus was soooo bloody wonderful, I find it incredible that not a single one of the "5,000 men, plus women and children" could or would have written about the miracles, contemporaneously. The gospels are also clearly copied one from another. I forget the exact chronology, but at least two of the four are copies of the first. [Luke?] If I could be bothered I'd look it up, but I think we both accept that it's all bollocks, so we have no need to nitpick on which lie was told first.

Agreed. People were illiterate back them, being able to write and read was a fancy that only the elite could access. Also, if Jesus was real, why did they keep on editing and re-editing 'the orginals' over and over and over??? if I was them and I have in my possession the word of god, it's simply going to remain as is. No change would be needed. Since it's not the case, and to perfect their urban legends relating skills, they had to go back, add and substract...

newlyfound

29th July 2007, 03:18 PM

Gregory made the false connection some 500 or so years later.

There are other sources, but for a general reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

I found this PBS video interesting as well:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week712/feature.html

Agreed, whether these characters and their lives are mostly fictional or not... is irrelevant. Just making the point that the New Testament doesn't say anything about her being a prostitute.

Thank you. Also, the fact that to this day the church and the rest of the others relentlessly continue to discriminate against women in any possible way they could, bluntly proves that there never was any god. Why would god create 2 people who are comparably equal and supposedly each other's completions, yet outrageously favors one over the other in every way imaginable? If there is such god, being a woman, I do not want to have anything to do with him.

articulett

29th July 2007, 05:27 PM

I don't know how Christians of any sort can deny the Adam and Eve story, because "original sin" is supposed to be THE REASON god killed his kid (who was really him), isn't it? How do you have Christianity without god killing christ to atone for original sin? Or do they just gloss over all that? What did Jesus die for? Religion just does not make sense. Apologetics make even less sense.
And ths is proffered to people as "higher truths" necessitating a belief in order to be saved??!?

The Atheist

29th July 2007, 06:22 PM

In which case I'd ask, are they really christians????

That proves my point, most believers don't believe, they just go and show up for the service for reasons that have nothing to do with their religious convictions.

Mate, you're getting it all cocked up.

I'm not the person to teach you about RCC doctrine, and as I keep saying, they account for 2/3 of all christians. Add to that a large number of other sects which do not believe the OT is literal truth.

Talk to a priest; he'll explain what each bit of allegory means in their world. It doesn't matter whether you look at the OT, the NT or the entire bible as an allegorical or real document - you and I know it for what it is: a load of old bollocks wrapped in newspapers from c600 BC.

To christians, however, it's the central document of their faith. What you're doing is telling christians what it says, and trust me, as an atheist, they aren't going to give two monkeys what you think the bible says. I'm just trying to explain why you're wrong about most christians and how they read it.

You keep on going back to christianity, I am speaking of religion in general, and the ones you refer to as not believing this or not doing that are philosophies not religions. That leaves us with the 3 main ones.

Well, I did note "or other religions" in that paragraph and we were discussing the OT. The same applies to any religion, which is why I don't bother attacking islam - I simply don't know enough about their religion to attack at it roots by exposing the idiocy of its religious texts. I'm no bible scholar, but I can usually trap the lesser theologians with it. You won't do that by telling christians they should believe in Genesis, literally. There are really only two major religions - while "Hinduism" is listed as the third largest religion, I don't really have a problem with it. Like Buddhism and lots of other beliefs from the East, I think Douglas Adams' "Mostly Harmless" applies.

why is that? because what he said doesn't not back up your argument?

What?

I already said:

The War of Independence was about taxation by Englnd, nothing to do with questioning political motives. Do you need lessons in US history?

See, you're getting all tied up again: I agree with what you said - we need to ask questions, and more importantly, get religious people asking them - but that Robin Williams statement, which would back you up if it were true doesn't because it isn't.

But again, when asking questions, ask the right ones. This is a bit deja vu - I told someone yesterday that he was asking stoopid questions on some christian forum where he'd gotten himself embroiled in a debate and was obviously not going too well. If you want to score points, take the piss, or get christians thinking, you need to do it in novel ways. Asking dumb questions about the OT which have been answered - theologically speaking - hundreds of years ago is just pointless.

Taxation WAS A political tool used to repress the masses and keep them constantly financially drained. And a financially drained citizen is unable to fight back a politically corrupt system. For this to be seen, one does not need to know US history.

Which proves my point. Robin Williams said it was about asking questions - it was a case of being driven to rebellion.

If your goal is to reform the church it isn't the case for me. I am not looking to reform, I am looking to eject as do millions and millions of people out there. And so far, whether you admit it our not, it is happening, gradually and surely.

You do like to get it back to front, don't you? I'm explaining a small part of doctrine, I'm not restructuring the churches, they're doing that themselves. The ones which will survive, as they have for 1800-odd years already, are those who recognise that evolution not only happens, it must happen to beliefs and organisations as well. Do you know of any older organisations on earth than the RCC?

I suspect that in a Pope or two's time, we might see some quite radical shifts in the way RCC doctrine is believed.

Nothing you or I do will destroy religion - christians and muslims don't fear atheism, they fear apathy.

why did you change that avatar? and what does this one imply?

I strongly advise not finding out, it's a long and nasty story, but if you must:

JREF politics. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88279) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2812291#post2812291)

Don't say you weren't warned.

The way you put it, you gave him authorship credit.

Damn right. Why should only the church have a right to make stuff up?

the problem remains, when an animal displays a behavior that could be fairly interpreted as ethical by all means, oh they are just animals but if a christian does the same, it's jesus. How about if a jew or moslim does it? who gets credit for that? what if the person is atheist?

Well, that's really food for an entire other thread - human morality has been done to death around here. I suggest you check out the several threads on the subject.

I'm personally in the camp that some morality is hardwired and most of it's human construct, but until science is able to distinguish which bits of morality come from where, I'm prepared to remain agnostic on it. I am not open to the idea of morality being received via any god. (I thought that would be blindingly obvious, but I'm covering all my tracks around here!)

Religious people might well claim it in the name of their god, but I refuse to accept that things done in the heat of the moment - as most outstanding acts of morality are - they don't actually get around to talking to god about it first anyway. One guy, for instance, only talks to Jesus at morning tea time. WTF does he do if an urgent moral question arises after lunch? Can it wait until tomorrow?

:bgrin:

I don't believe morality is a good subject to argue with christians either. There simply isn't sufficiently precise data to argue very much at all about it. I'd say science is at "probably" with morality.

then why when I pointed out if you knew that people lived b4 jesus, you said only for 4004 years before??

*Sigh*

Are you honestly asking that question? I know irony can be a little difficult to detect online, but my name is "The Atheist" and I consistently crap all over creationists. I figured it was a pretty obvious jape.

Mea culpa.

Agreed. People were illiterate back them, being able to write and read was a fancy that only the elite could access. Also, if Jesus was real, why did they keep on editing and re-editing 'the orginals' over and over and over??? if I was them and I have in my possession the word of god, it's simply going to remain as is. No change would be needed. Since it's not the case, and to perfect their urban legends relating skills, they had to go back, add and substract...

Not quite sure what you mean by "editing and re-editing" because I'm pretty sure the original scrolls are still the original scrolls. The changes in wording of bibles is all about more understanding of the language. I bet that early editions of Aesop's Fables are a bit hard to read and I can tell you that even 600 years ago, Chaucer used a lot different English than we do now.

That's the beauty of having the OT as an almost entirely allegorical document - they can change their opinion of what it all means to suit the times.

They haven't kept screwing money out of people for nearly two millennia without being cunning.

articulett

29th July 2007, 10:54 PM

The new testament doesn't say anything about a rapture, either. When you look at what assorted religions teach and where in the bible they supposedly got these teachings and what they've overlooked, redefined, and cherry picked, the thing becomes so obviously an immoral scam where only those at the top benefit and the masses are told they will benefit in some next life. It's a pyramid scheme that abuses the trust of the masses.

newlyfound

31st July 2007, 10:12 PM

Mate, you're getting it all cocked up.

I'm not the person to teach you about RCC doctrine, and as I keep saying, they account for 2/3 of all christians. Add to that a large number of other sects which do not believe the OT is literal truth.

Talk to a priest; he'll explain what each bit of allegory means in their world. It doesn't matter whether you look at the OT, the NT or the entire bible as an allegorical or real document - you and I know it for what it is: a load of old bollocks wrapped in newspapers from c600 BC.

To christians, however, it's the central document of their faith. What you're doing is telling christians what it says, and trust me, as an atheist, they aren't going to give two monkeys what you think the bible says. I'm just trying to explain why you're wrong about most christians and how they read it.

You kept on hitting me with your strawman-styrofoam type of reply each time I've pointed out the dynamics that currently exist between the predominant belief in the existence of god, and of his omni kaka effect on the general human life him being the in-charge stupid fantasy that he is. But you don't seem to realize that you are just lying to yourself by attempting to have me buy your styrofoamy theory that most christians don't really believe what's in the bible!!!! them being christians, what do they believe in then? And A---gain, generally, I am not solely talking about chrisitians, but the others as well, meaning jews and muslims, unless you secretly think these are above the rules. A FACT: The bible is believed to be The Word Of God by the majority of Christians! you really need to find a way of absorbing that. A Second Fact: Things are really screwed up around the world, I mentioned few illustrative examples earlier. A Third Fact: According to your believers, I named the jews, muslims aaaand christians, god is encompassing, good, fair, and you know the rest... . A Fourth Fact, Based on what one can see and verify, Your theists' god is either impotent considering the fact that he is completely ineffectual in a world he presumably has created or is a crook being able to effect it but is unwilling to. Either way, he is in merky waters along with his flocks.

See, you're getting all tied up again: I agree with what you said - we need to ask questions, and more importantly, get religious people asking them - but that Robin Williams statement, which would back you up if it were true doesn't because it isn't.

I messed up his quote, the quote was as follows: "If it was unpatriotic to question the government, we'd still be english." I used it as A parallel only. And as such, it more than applies to the question of religion. As "an atheist" you are not willing to question religion, or you want to cherry pick as in condamning some parts of it while yet revering others. Only a believer or an agnostic would assume such position.

But again, when asking questions, ask the right ones. This is a bit deja vu - I told someone yesterday that he was asking stoopid questions on some christian forum where he'd gotten himself embroiled in a debate and was obviously not going too well. If you want to score points, take the piss, or get christians thinking, you need to do it in novel ways. Asking dumb questions about the OT which have been answered - theologically speaking - hundreds of years ago is just pointless.

answered 100's of years ago? what are those answers? enlighten me.

Which proves my point. Robin Williams said it was about asking questions - it was a case of being driven to rebellion.

No it does not prove your point. This is not about being rebellious. This is about using your brain cells, they can be 2 different things.

You do like to get it back to front, don't you? I'm explaining a small part of doctrine, I'm not restructuring the churches, they're doing that themselves. The ones which will survive, as they have for 1800-odd years already, are those who recognise that evolution not only happens, it must happen to beliefs and organisations as well. Do you know of any older organisations on earth than the RCC?

Please don't put words in my mouth, you are the one who first accused me of wanting to reform the church, remember? and I responded I wanted to eject it.

I strongly advise not finding out, it's a long and nasty story, but if you must:

JREF politics. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88279) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2812291#post2812291)

Don't say you weren't warned.

I'll have to get back to that for when I have more time to read, thanks.

Well, that's really food for an entire other thread - human morality has been done to death around here. I suggest you check out the several threads on the subject.

Errrr, aren't you the one who first brought up Jesus's values and this and that, post # 292 I think? and here is what your wrote:

Being brought up with the lessons of Jesus, a respect for values and a belief in a featureless, unknowable god-thing. Is that "bad"? Or is it just a good, sound upbringing with some stupid bits in it?

That's when I said ethics do not come from religion because they don't.

I'm personally in the camp that some morality is hardwired and most of it's human construct, but until science is able to distinguish which bits of morality come from where, I'm prepared to remain agnostic on it. I am not open to the idea of morality being received via any god. (I thought that would be blindingly obvious, but I'm covering all my tracks around here!)

Well I am glad you came to that end because seemingly that is not what you asserted earlier.

Religious people might well claim it in the name of their god, but I refuse to accept that things done in the heat of the moment - as most outstanding acts of morality are - they don't actually get around to talking to god about it first anyway. One guy, for instance, only talks to Jesus at morning tea time. WTF does he do if an urgent moral question arises after lunch? Can it wait until tomorrow?

Even if they are right, what would that mean? as many authors covered, would that mean that they are being good and moral only because they are afraid of god? if that's the case, wouldn't that force one to draw that without god they'd be notorious you know what? the answer is yes. Otherwise why would they need god in order to be good? I personally find this to be very defining as to the true nature of each based on whether they are theist or the opposite.

:bgrin:

... I'd say science is at "probably" with morality.

You bet science is moral if that's what you meant, it got mankind outta the woods and it's helping "him" properly get geared up to expand and conquer space as well as the quantum world. Think about it for a second. ...as I said before, imagine it pull out of our lives in vacuum type of motion, stay focused on that for few seconds, and see how moral science truly is. Thanks for bringing me to realise this, but in fact, if I were to nick-name science, one of the choices would most definitely be Moral and with capital M.

*Sigh*

Are you honestly asking that question? I know irony can be a little difficult to detect online, but my name is "The Atheist" and I consistently crap all over creationists. I figured it was a pretty obvious jape.

Mea culpa.
as I hinted earlier, english is not my first language and as result, linguistically related glitches still do generate sometimes, sorry.

Not quite sure what you mean by "editing and re-editing" because I'm pretty sure the original scrolls are still the original scrolls. The changes in wording of bibles is all about more understanding of the language. I bet that early editions of Aesop's Fables are a bit hard to read and I can tell you that even 600 years ago, Chaucer used a lot different English than we do now.

Throughout the history of chrisitianity, books have been added while others taken out, as well as sections. I am not going to give any references as you clearly know what I am referring to. The same can be said about translating and mis-translating. Entire denominations have been "ex-communicated" in the past because they believed that god is not 3 but only 2 or even one, etc. the christian church has never been united in regard to its primary business at the first place. If it has been, why then there has to be 100's and 100's of different denominations? This is documented.

That's the beauty of having the OT as an almost entirely allegorical document - they can change their opinion of what it all means to suit the times.

They haven't kept screwing money out of people for nearly two millennia without being cunning.

This is the underlying purpose for religion, to extort money and gain power and control.

andyandy

31st July 2007, 10:59 PM

You kept on hitting me with your strawman-styrofoam type of reply each time I've pointed out the dynamics that currently exist between the predominant belief in the existence of god, and of his omni kaka effect on the general human life him being the in-charge stupid fantasy that he is. But you don't seem to realize that you are just lying to yourself by attempting to have me buy your styrofoamy theory that most christians don't really believe what's in the bible!!!! them being christians, what do they believe in then? And A---gain, generally, I am not solely talking about chrisitians, but the others as well, meaning jews and muslims, unless you secretly think these are above the rules. A FACT: The bible is believed to be The Word Of God by the majority of Christians! you really need to find a way of absorbing that. . .

I won't be re-joining this thread but this point does seem worth making as this is a view which is prevalent amongst some JREF posters and is based upon a misundertanding.

The fundamental divide between Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism or other mainstream Protestant Christianity is in the belief of bible literalism and in the inherent advocacy of proselytization.

Evangelical Christianity is not at all representative of all Christianity in these two respects.

there is no need for the reply of the kind "so other Christians don't believe anything in the bible then? Is that what you're saying" Because that would be be simply serving to create a false dichotomy - and no one likes them ;). It is sufficient to note that the bible literalism embraced by Evangelicalism is circumvented by other Christian faiths through a pick and mix approach of allegory and mistakes of man explanations. Indeed, the appeal to authority is primarily to that of the church rather than to that of the bible. Evangelicalism on the other hand is much nearer to Islam in its reverence for a sacred text. That is not typical of global Christianity.

American Evangelicalism is marked by;

Biblical inerrancy
Salvation comes only through faith in Jesus and not good works (in particular the belief in atonement for sins at the cross and the resurrection of Christ)
Individuals (above an age of accountability) must personally trust in Jesus Christ for salvation.
All Christians are commissioned to evangelize and should be publicly baptized as a confession of faith.

A comparison with regards to biblical inerancy.

There are three significant [differences between Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism]. First is the question of final authority. [Evangelical] Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]. For Catholics, the final authority is Scripture as interpreted by the church, that is, the magisterium (the pope and bishops). That’s where Catholicism gets its teachings that can’t be found in Scripture, like veneration of Mary, indulgences and purgatory.link (http://pjcockrell.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-difference-between-roman-catholics-and-evangelical-protestants/)

Evangelical Christianity is largely confined to America (with some unfortunate growth in Africa). Indeed this topic is described in depth in the rather good "Global Religious Movements in Regional Context by John Wolffe" in which Evangelicalism is described as "America's religion." If you wish to understand the context of Evangelicalism within the Christian movement then this would be a good book to get out the library. Evangelicalism may be the only Christianity you have been exposed to. But don't make the mistake of extrapolating personal experience onto a global level.

Addressed to the board in general - whether religion is LIES is irrelevant to this point. One can remark upon this point without offering any condonement of Christianity beyond Evangelicalism. It is simply relevant to say that Evangelicalism has fundamental differences with global mainstream Christianity. And yes I am a fan of Dawkins. And no it is not true that I have stopped beating my wife....oh wait....