Religion...Bitch slapped... by kaneman

I wouldn't say that religion was "bitch slapped" in any way shape or form here. In fact, everything in this video is widely known, and most, if not all of this, is known by anyone who has taken a /first/ year intro religion course.

The only people that I'd say were "bitch slapped" (to use your phrasing) is the nutters that go with a literal interpretation of there religion. No-one else.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 1:21 PM

KANEMAN

I say....What you say is bullshit! If this was 'KNOW' to everyone who has taken REL101...there would be no religions..........

Oh...you didn't have time to watch before your post...Ties into 9/11 and the fed reserve.....Watch before you post...otherwise you are a closed minded 'nutter' to me...........Well, not really.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 1:42 PM

people are so hostile towards religion.. i just dont get it. im sure a bunch of you believe that things 'would just be better' if religion would just cease to be, and scientific reason and logic would finally 'rule the day'. do you know why it wouldnt? this is where even the most cursory of study into the ideology of communism would be beneficial, because the platform of the communist party was atheism and evolution. why? because absent moral absolutes, and divine rights granted by a transcendent intelligence, the state, or the collective will of Man, becomes supreme authority. man, it has been shown(through 6 thousand years of history), cannot be entrusted to protect God given rights, when confronted with ultimate power and control. if you want to know what the world would be like absent religion, imagine communist Russia or China globally. if you are just an animal, thats how you will be treated, garaunteed

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 1:49 PM

@Kaneman:

I did watch the vid that you submitted. How would I have responded like I did if I didn't watch it. Regarding your view that there would be no religion if what I said was widely known, well... just take a look outside your boarders. There are... lots of people that acknowledge these facts yet are still religious i.e. there is a difference between knowledge being wide spread in general and knowledge being wide spread in the US.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 1:59 PM

@AntiMason:

People largely are _not_ hostile towards religion. People just like to point out when others have gone to that bad, extreme, irrational, horrid place. This is so regardless of whether it's applied to religion or otherwise. And the literal interpretation of the bible is one of those things i.e. people do _not_ criticize Christianity as a whole, but just some interpretations of it. Interpretations mind you, that ignore historical facts.

You also don't acknowledge a few facts about Communism that make your argument completely wrong.

The whole point is that the theory realizes that power corrupts. But, the theory of Communism states that /when/ this happens, the people would rise up and over-throw the government. At that point the cycle is renewed.

There is also the fact that Communism was FORCED on the people. And as we all know, forcing people to do things, doesn't actually work.

For these and MANY other reasons, your Russia/China example is fallacious.

I love this one:
"""
if you are just an animal, thats how you will be treated, garaunteed
"""

So, since the Russians, by your reasoning, were animals, they were treated like animals. But, Russians are Humans. Thus, Humans are animals and should be treated as animals. So, since I gather you count yourself as a Human, you're an animal.

Would you like me to start treating you like an animal now, or would you like some time to adjust?

Let me know.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 3:55 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
In fact, everything in this video is widely known, and most, if not all of this, is known by anyone who has taken a /first/ year intro religion course.

Sigma, I'd like to know what intro religion course at what university is teaching the astrological alegory in the Bible.

I think you may have missed the point of the documentary which differentiates it from any intro religion course I've participated in or heard of. A lot of people have a sort of Joe Campbell inspired notion that all religions are the same, or express the same deeply human truths--heck, Antimason believes this way, it's his main argument for the authenticity of Biblical "history." But this documentary, in laying out the very simple math of the solar calendar year and the translation of various interesting words like "sunset" and "bethlehem," does not merely suggest the touchy-feely notion that all religions tell the same story--but that all religion is merely literature grafted onto astronomical events. And then the documentary goes on to suggest that such literature was cherry-picked by the power elite in ancient Rome to create the Holy Bible, as we know it, as a tool of mind control. I think that covers a lot more ground than simply dicrediting the fundy "nutters."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 5:16 PM

Quote:
Sigmanunki- People largely are _not_ hostile towards religion.

people who are non religious are rarely just indifferent, a lot of people have a genuine contempt for it.

Quote:
People just like to point out when others have gone to that bad, extreme, irrational, horrid place.

im very willing to admit the criminal acts that have been committed throughout history in the name of 'religion'

Quote:
This is so regardless of whether it's applied to religion or otherwise.

i agree. its about individual rights and responsibilities

Quote:
And the literal interpretation of the bible is one of those things i.e. people do _not_ criticize Christianity as a whole, but just some interpretations of it. Interpretations mind you, that ignore historical facts.

specifically you mean the 7 day creation right? MO is that there are certain fundamental concepts of the bible that if altered, end up unraveling the entire thesis, and to an extent this is one. the bible in a nutshell says there was a beginning, when 'God created' the heavens and the earth, which was then subject to a 'fall'(a period of decay/sin), but which will be restored at the 'coming of the Lord'. i see the literal 7 day interpretation as a temporal description of Gods interaction with his creation, which occurred during a distinct, finite period of time. this would be unimaginable if you believe it had to have taken billions of years, and all this randomness and failure occurring etc just in order to initiate human life. the bible then goes on to say that we will be transformed immortally, with 'new flesh' when we are reunited with the Lord.. that in essence death was a result of our 'fall'. if there was no death prior to the fall, there were no extinctions prior to man(according to the bible). i could expand further but my point is that watering down a faith, to fit what is currently understood is not wise, instead we ought to read it for what it says

Quote:
You also don't acknowledge a few facts about Communism that make your argument completely wrong.

The whole point is that the theory realizes that power corrupts. But, the theory of Communism states that /when/ this happens, the people would rise up and over-throw the government. At that point the cycle is renewed.

well no, the communist belief is that 'individual' power corrupts, so the state is given authority to micromanage the populaces lives, to tell people what to do and how to think. they deny personal rights because they do not believe you have any, plain and simple; you exist for the collective, the 'species'

Quote:
There is also the fact that Communism was FORCED on the people. And as we all know, forcing people to do things, doesn't actually work.

exactly.. they were forced to accept atheism and collectivism, and look how it turned out

Quote:
For these and MANY other reasons, your Russia/China example is fallacious.

i think you should read more from Marx and Lenin, to see for yourself why they saw atheism and communism inseparable. this is a profound ideological difference- either your Creator gives you your rights, or your fellow man does. in the absence of divine authority, or 'moral absolutes' defined by our creator, your only hope is the rationality and expediency of your elected(if your lucky) officials, and their own consciences.

Quote:
I love this one:
"""
anti- if you are just an animal, thats how you will be treated, garaunteed"""

So, since the Russians, by your reasoning, were animals, they were treated like animals. But, Russians are Humans. Thus, Humans are animals and should be treated as animals. So, since I gather you count yourself as a Human, you're an animal.

you have it backwards.. so try to understand the philosophy here. im not the evolutionist claiming we ascended from primates, which originated spontaneously from a primordial soup billions of years ago. if thats what you believe, then understand what precedent you are setting. communism was/is a monster because the state doesnt recognize rights granted by A CREATOR, it sees people as you see us; animals. we're just animals, like every other species... so why wouldnt the law of the jungle apply for us as well. look at China, their government performs forced sterilization, they allow no property rights, no 2nd amendment, government censored news and internet; its not a coincidence, its the result of an ideology that has no respect for individual human liberty and sovereignty.

the abortion issue is a universal example- the sactity of life is undermined when you remove the foundation of law that has existed for millennia, and customs of value and virtue and morality, and replace it with 'this is our closest relative, the orangutan'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 5:31 PM

@HKCavalier:

I didn't say all, I said "most, if not all of this" was in the video (btw, I only said that I watch the video posted).

Obviously, you've caught something that isn't /all/. But, that aspect is hardly the whole thing. In fact, pretty much all of the basic facts are in an intro religion course (at least the ones I took). Just because this guy goes a bit beyond and goes into the history of a few terms briefly doesn't mean that what I said isn't true.

"""
I think that covers a lot more ground than simply dicrediting the fundy "nutters."
"""

Good to know. I look forward to watching the rest of it.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 5:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
Sigmanunki- People largely are _not_ hostile towards religion.

people who are non religious are rarely just indifferent, a lot of people have a genuine contempt for it.

You're assuming that many means pretty much all. Are you sure you want to do that?

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
People just like to point out when others have gone to that bad, extreme, irrational, horrid place.

im very willing to admit the criminal acts that have been committed throughout history in the name of 'religion'

You missed my point. It isn't that religion has been used to commit horrible acts. That's obvious. What I'm getting at is when people take a document that was written as allegory and think that it's literal. Then b/c of this, go to a bad, etc place.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
This is so regardless of whether it's applied to religion or otherwise.

i agree. its about individual rights and responsibilities

What are you talking about?

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
And the literal interpretation of the bible is one of those things i.e. people do _not_ criticize Christianity as a whole, but just some interpretations of it. Interpretations mind you, that ignore historical facts.

specifically you mean the 7 day creation right? MO is that there are certain fundamental concepts of the bible that if altered, end up unraveling the entire thesis, and to an extent this is one. the bible in a nutshell says there was a beginning, when 'God created' the heavens and the earth, which was then subject to a 'fall'(a period of decay/sin), but which will be restored at the 'coming of the Lord'. i see the literal 7 day interpretation as a temporal description of Gods interaction with his creation, which occurred during a distinct, finite period of time. this would be unimaginable if you believe it had to have taken billions of years, and all this randomness and failure occurring etc just in order to initiate human life. the bible then goes on to say that we will be transformed immortally, with 'new flesh' when we are reunited with the Lord.. that in essence death was a result of our 'fall'. if there was no death prior to the fall, there were no extinctions prior to man(according to the bible). i could expand further but my point is that watering down a faith, to fit what is currently understood is not wise, instead we ought to read it for what it says

A summery of what AntiMason is saying is, "Sure I know that historical fact contradicts what I believe, but I don't care. I'm just going to put blinders on and completely ignore it."

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
You also don't acknowledge a few facts about Communism that make your argument completely wrong.

The whole point is that the theory realizes that power corrupts. But, the theory of Communism states that /when/ this happens, the people would rise up and over-throw the government. At that point the cycle is renewed.

well no, the communist belief is that 'individual' power corrupts, so the state is given authority to micromanage the populaces lives, to tell people what to do and how to think. they deny personal rights because they do not believe you have any, plain and simple; you exist for the collective, the 'species'

You should keep reading from where you left off.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
There is also the fact that Communism was FORCED on the people. And as we all know, forcing people to do things, doesn't actually work.

exactly.. they were forced to accept atheism and collectivism, and look how it turned out

Prove from that that if people /wanted/ /to/ that it would turn out the same way.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
For these and MANY other reasons, your Russia/China example is fallacious.

i think you should read more from Marx and Lenin, to see for yourself why they saw atheism and communism inseparable. this is a profound ideological difference- either your Creator gives you your rights, or your fellow man does. in the absence of divine authority, or 'moral absolutes' defined by our creator, your only hope is the rationality and expediency of your elected(if your lucky) officials, and their own consciences.

Pardon me while I don't believe someone who can't capitalize properly can understand such works properly.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:
I love this one:
"""
anti- if you are just an animal, thats how you will be treated, garaunteed"""

So, since the Russians, by your reasoning, were animals, they were treated like animals. But, Russians are Humans. Thus, Humans are animals and should be treated as animals. So, since I gather you count yourself as a Human, you're an animal.

you have it backwards.. so try to understand the philosophy here. im not the evolutionist

... snip ...

I was taking your logic to it's logical end to show how you contradict yourself. If that wasn't obvious to you...

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

the abortion issue is a universal example- the sactity of life is undermined when you remove the foundation of law that has existed for millennia,

This example is completely contradicted by the fact that there has been herbal ways to perform abortions for millennia.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

and customs of value and virtue and morality, and replace it with 'this is our closest relative, the orangutan'

No-one is replacing anything. How you come to that conclusion from where you started is... how?

But, this is called growing. Once we figure out things that prove previous thought wrong, we change our ways of thinking. We have landslides of incontrovertible evidence of our evolution. To ignore that is delusion.

This is hardly abandoning values, etc. Where are you getting that?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 7:45 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
people are so hostile towards religion...

I don't think this is true. Kaneman is just naturally hostile (among other things).

Anyway, none of the atheists I know have any axe to grind. But, if you think about it, you can kinda see why we might be a little put off. How would you feel if someone told you that'd you'd suffer eternal torture if you don't buy what they were selling?

I don't have the slightest ill will for religious folks in general. Most of my best friends are religious. I respect their beliefs and they respect mine.

The negative responses you've witnessed are usually, although not always I realize, prompted by proselytizing. Like most people, atheists don't want to be preached at. And they don't want their kids learning mythology in place of science to satisfy the fundamentalists. It's pushing for these kinds of things that prompts ill will toward religion.

I'm not really in favor of the 'preaching' that Dawkins is pushing lately. But it's certainly no more offensive than the message the Christians put out there every Sunday.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 8:37 PM

Quote:
sargeantx- Anyway, none of the atheists I know have any axe to grind. But, if you think about it, you can kinda see why we might be a little put off.

thats fair, no one wants to be converted... so how it is that atheists cant see when their beliefs are forced upon us is beyond me

Quote:
How would you feel if someone told you that'd you'd suffer eternal torture if you don't buy what they were selling?

oh come on... if its all make believe, then what do you really care? people have tried so hard over the last 100 years to remove God from public discussion or view, that in fact we've been marginalized to the point of irrelevance

regardless though, cant you see the message.. that our actions have eternal consequences? personally, i never threaten damnation to people, because only God is qualified to make that judgement. but i think its interesting that you perceive us as 'selling' something to you; it never occurred you were being sold on atheism? some people will always see God as some repressive overlord who wants nothing more then to deny any pleasure or original thought from man. well, if we're just animals, then morality is just relative, and maybe what we believe to be 'sins' are in actuality benign actions. in that case, the belief in God might be oppressive(if you want ultimate freedom to do whatever you want). however if their is a Creator, then our decisions do have consequences, and we will be held accountable; in that case, this 'belief' is a guideline to do what pleases God and is mutually beneficial to others.

whats ironic is that its the absence of God that is oppressive, and youve been conditioned to believe otherwise. do you know what the obstacle to (successful)anarchy is? morality. if each individual understood his rights, and subsequent responsibilities, held accountable to him by his Creator, then self governance would be possible. but without God, consider that human beings are imperfect, and having removed these moral absolutes, an exterior body is then required to enforce some kind of 'rule of law' necessary to maintain a civilization. what happens when you remove this influence of God given rights(and responsibilities)? laws become arbitrary and relative, and people do what they want regardless- and in turn government responds with equal coercion and force, as a means to oppress. i mean.. is this news to any of you? the founding of our country was ideologically based on these principles.. that their is no 'king', but 'king Jesus'(actually one of the revolutionary wars early slogans), implying ones individual sovereignty

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

You're assuming that many means pretty much all. Are you sure you want to do that?

no im not, but if this website is any kind of consensus, id say im more correct then you are

Quote:
A summery of what AntiMason is saying is, "Sure I know that historical fact contradicts what I believe, but I don't care. I'm just going to put blinders on and completely ignore it."

and youre omniscient.. i got it

Quote:
Pardon me while I don't believe someone who can't capitalize properly can understand such works properly.

thats kind of like when people resort to name-calling as they run out of good arguments. but thats fine... when you finally do get around to it, you can very modestly eat your own words. you think im making this up? find out the hard way

Quote:
I was taking your logic to it's logical end to show how you contradict yourself. If that wasn't obvious to you...

you were trying to take my logic.. but no, again you have it backwards, and apparently you didnt even read my last comment. i believe we were created. you believe we are ascendants of animals. so why were the russians treated like animals? because thats what the beliefs of communism lead to. what was communism? athiest. pretty simple.. but maybe even you dont understand the implications of your own beliefs sometimes

Quote:
This example is completely contradicted by the fact that there has been herbal ways to perform abortions for millennia.

and its probably always been a sin too. but again.. if you dont believe in Divine rights, i dont expect you to honor the sactity of life either

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 25, 2007 9:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"how it is that atheists cant see when their beliefs are forced upon us"

You mean science ? It's not a belief. It's a tool to study the world. I think the problem comes when religious people try to foist their religion on science.

"people have tried so hard over the last 100 years to remove God from public discussion or view ..."

By "public" I take it you mean "governmental". Blame that on the founders, who tried to prevent a theocracy.

"... that in fact we've been marginalized to the point of irrelevance."

Hardly. This is just so much victimhood, not born out by a simple reality check.

"our actions have eternal consequences"

That's true in a literal physical sense. In so far as time will probably not reverse itself, everything will be unique till the end of time. But you don't need a god for that to be true.

"it never occurred you were being sold on atheism"

I'm guessing everyone on the board was brought up with some form of religion, and those who are now atheists came to aetheism on their own.

"maybe what we believe to be 'sins' are in actuality benign actions"

That's probably true in the broad scope of human history - AFAIK there is no one stricture that is held across all humanity. But ...

"if you want ultimate freedom to do whatever you want"

There are brain structures in most people that foster cooperation, trust, empathy.

"however if their is a Creator, then our decisions do have consequences"

If there is NO creator our decisions have consequences as well.

"and we will be held accountable"

We will always feel the consequences of our actions in this world.

"do you know what the obstacle to anarchy is? morality"

You seem to believe people are evil and need a big daddy in the sky - wait till your father comes home !

"what happens when you remove this influence of God given rights(and responsibilities)? laws become arbitrary and relative, and people do what they want regardless- and in turn government responds with equal coercion and force, as a means to oppress."

People tend to believe what the hierarchy tells them to believe, to keep that hierarchy going. At the moment the hierarchy is pushing capitalism - greed is the ultimate good. And people can be propagandized into ignoring their basic impulses and needs. But neurology shows us that humans are in fact internally rewarded by peace, cooperation, trust and love. If laws and systems were built to foster those values rather than punish and deny them, then you'd see a self-regulating society.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
well no, the communist belief is that 'individual' power corrupts, so the state is given authority to micromanage the populaces lives, to tell people what to do and how to think. they deny personal rights because they do not believe you have any, plain and simple; you exist for the collective, the 'species'

your understanding of what communism "says" is as fractured as your understanding of what science "says". Have you actually read Marx or Lenin? Pardon me while I laugh my *ss off.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
people are so hostile towards religion

I hate to burst your bubble Anti, but I'm not hostile towards religion I'm hostile to you. And that's because you have some serious fractures in your mentation that you try to impose on others. For example, in the other thread you said "I'm not ignoring reality" almost immediately followed by "That's your reality" Do you even understand what the word reality means? It means that which remains constant no matter what we think about it. There is no such thing as "your reality" and "my reality" except to people who want to ignore reality and still claim they have one oar in the water.

Quote:
so how it is that atheists cant see when their beliefs are forced upon us is beyond me

Anti- As I said in the other thread, there are three assumptions (call them "beliefs" if you will) about what is "real" that underlies science:
1) There is an objective universe that exists outside of ourselves
2) We are part of it
3) Our senses tell us something meaningful about it
And one other about cause and effect:
4) It exists.
Those are the assumptions (beliefs) that underlie science. Which one of those "beliefs" do you care to dispute? Which one(s) am I "forcing" on you? Hey, feel free to reject one, some, or all of the above.

Quote:
regardless though, cant you see the message.. that our actions have eternal consequences? personally, i never threaten damnation to people

You just did. God will punish you - not only for taking away his perogatives but also for being dishonest about it!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:29 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
thats fair, no one wants to be converted... so how it is that atheists cant see when their beliefs are forced upon us is beyond me

That makes sense if you are pretending that atheism is a religious belief. That's why religious evangelists pursue this fallacy. If a belief about religion is a "religious" belief, then is a belief about evil an evil belief? Atheism is a lack of religious belief, regardless of the word games you choose to play.

Quote:
but i think its interesting that you perceive us as 'selling' something to you; it never occurred you were being sold on atheism?

No, but the opposite has. I was taught Christianity growing up. But I was also taught how to think. I came to my own conclusions on the nature of gods, in the face of a persistent pressure from believers to do otherwise. Atheists (outside of Dawkins and his ilk) aren't evangelists. We don't care what you believe and we have no interest in 'converting' people. That's the point I was trying to make - you only get our ire up when you try pushing your religion on us publicly. The fact that it's 'promoted' through fear and intimidation only makes it more objectionable.

Quote:
well, if we're just animals, then morality is just relative ...

Right, the old refrain that religion is the source of morality. If you're worried about moral relativism, basing morality on religion is pretty shaky ground. You may have noticed that there's more than one religion. You of course want your religion to rule, but surely you can understand why those of other faiths would have a problem with that. In a pluralistic society we have to rely on something more universal than the idiosyncrasies of a specific religion.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:36 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"our actions have eternal consequences"

That's true in a literal physical sense. In so far as time will probably not reverse itself, everything will be unique till the end of time. But you don't need a god for that to be true.

"however if their is a Creator, then our decisions do have consequences"

If there is NO creator our decisions have consequences as well.

"and we will be held accountable"

We will always feel the consequences of our actions in this world.

Come on now Rue, Anti is having a hard enough time in this thread as it is without you misrepresenting his/her argument. I believe Anti was refering to after death, don't you think?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:39 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
your understanding of what communism "says" is as fractured as your understanding of what science "says". Have you actually read Marx or Lenin? Pardon me while I laugh my *ss off.

Do tell us about property rights and individual freedoms under a communist system Signy. I'm a sponge waiting to soak it all in.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
people are so hostile towards religion
I hate to burst your bubble Anti, but I'm not hostile towards religion I'm hostile to you.

You’re hostile towards anti because of his religious opinions.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:58 AM

I'd just like to point out two factual inaccuracies in the video:

1) Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. As a matter of fact, Christian religious texts don't say when he was born. The nascent Catholic church began celebrating his birth on December 25th in an effort to co-opt the Saturnalia festival (which, among other things, was observed by the giving of gifts and decorating the home with greenery). But Christian sacred text don't say when Jesus was born.

2) Christian sacred texts don't say how many magi visited Jesus. Church tradition has it that there were three (and it's always portrayed as three) but not because the Christian sacred texts say so.

I say this only to point out that if the maker of the video had taken an intro to world religions course he would have known that, because that's where I got my data. So might I suggest taking the video with a grain of salt.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- I'm hostile towards Anti because s/he lies to him/herself (and therefore others). It's not Anti's opinion that bothers me, its the deep fractures within Anti's own thinking. Anti does not have the courage to follow his/her religious convictions to their logical, inevitable outcome.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- I'm hostile towards Anti because s/he lies to him/herself (and therefore others). It's not Anti's opinion that bothers me, its the deep fractures within Anti's own thinking. Anti does not have the courage to follow his/her religious convictions to their logical, inevitable outcome.

You’re hostile to him because he holds a religious opinion you don’t agree with. And as a result you feel driven to bring the “Word” to him, and convert him because he’s a "heathen."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:37 AM

The trouble that I encounter isn't that people are hostile towards religion per se, but that they are scornful towards it. One need look no further than [ removed ]'s post above to get a glimpse of how condescending people can sometimes be toward religious believers. You can be as intolerant and disrespectful as you please because as we all know, religious belief is little more than intellectual savagery, right? (Where's the eye-rolling emote when you need it?)

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No Finn. I know plenty of religous people. The problem I have with Anti is that his/her head is a snakes nest of contradictions.

Using "evidence" to prop up The Flood, then ignoring evidence when it doesn't fit.

Attempting to "prove" faith by science, but discounting science.

Saying s/he includes reality, then turning reality into opinion (mine and yours).

Claiming not to threaten people with hellfire, but doing exactly that.

If I went thru Anti's posts, I could prolly come up with more serious internal contradictions. I really don't care what conclusions Anti comes to, it's the endless, pointless rationalizations that drive me nuts.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:44 AM

Have you encountered serious religious believers who you would say aren't beset by "a snake's nest of contradictions"?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No Finn. I know plenty of religous people. The problem I have with Anti is that his/her head is a snakes nest of contradictions.

Like I said, you’re hostile to him because he holds a religious opinion you don’t agree with. And as a result you feel drive to bring the “Word” to him, and convert him because he’s a "heathen." It's you that is pushing your views on him, not the other way around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No Finn. I know plenty of religous people. The problem I have with Anti is that his/her head is a snakes nest of contradictions.

Also, I'd be curious to know what constitutes a contradiction of this type, if you don't mind sharing.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:49 AM

Also, can I just point out the irony in the fact that we are at each other's throat over a thread our resident troll started? How please do you think he is with himself right about now?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I added to my post above to detail those contradictions, but to try to make myself clear....
if Anti truly believes as s/he believes, then why attempt to rationalize those beliefs with some sort of pseudoscience? Anti's beliefs contradict the evidence, and endlessly trying to make the evidence conform to belief does injustice to both belief and to the evidence.

BELIEF is holding an idea without evidence and even despite evidence to the contrary. If it could be tested and validated against the evidence, it would be science and not belief. If you have to prop up your "belief" with peudoscience, then you actually trust the scientific process more than faith, you just don't like where science leads. Anti spends an inordinate of mental energy trying to paper over this huge chasm, and then tries to get everyone else to step onto the paper mache bridge.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Have you encountered serious religious believers who you would say aren't beset by "a snake's nest of contradictions"?

yes. They say : I believe as I believe and leave it at that.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:05 AM

Well, I hate to quibble on such a minor point, but philosophically speaking "belief" isn't holding an idea for which there is no evidence and despite knowledge to the contrary. Philosophically speaking, belief is the cognitive acceptance of some proposition as true. For instance, I believe that the world continues to exist when I have my eyes closed--and I could provide quite a good deal of evidence for that proposition via my other senses. I believe that 1 and 1 make 2 and that the Earth orbits the sun. All those things are beliefs of mine which are both supported by evidence and for which (as far as I know) no evidence exists to the contrary.

Also, I have to strenuously disagree that science is the only way to have true knowledge (although I can't really tell if that's your position). That line of thinking is a legacy of the Logical Positivism movement in philosophy, a movement that lost nearly all support over 50 years ago because it was entirely unsupportable philosophically. Claiming that science is the only path to real knowledge (which, again, I can't tell if you're asserting) is a stunning example of epistemological imperialism. It certainly seems to be the case that there are things that are accepted nearly unanimously as being true (e.g. the law of contradiction or the Uniformity Principle) which are not provable "scientifically."

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I added to my post above to detail those contradictions, but to try to make myself clear....
if Anti truly believes as s/he believes, then why attempt to rationalize those beliefs with some sort of pseudoscience? Anti's beliefs contradict the evidence, and endlessly trying to make the evidence conform to belief does injustice to both belief and to science.

No, it doesn’t. It does no injustice to belief or science. It’s just irks you because he holds a religious opinion you don’t agree with. So you follow him around on this board and attack his beliefs because you feel some need to change the way he believes. You want to purge him of his “contradictions” and force him to repent his “pseudoscience,” don’t you?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Have you encountered serious religious believers who you would say aren't beset by "a snake's nest of contradictions"?
yes. They say : I believe as I believe and leave it at that.

Of course. As long as they keep their mouth shut you’re fine with them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Have you encountered serious religious believers who you would say aren't beset by "a snake's nest of contradictions"?
yes. They say : I believe as I believe and leave it at that.

Is it the case, then, that such people ought not make any attempts to provide rational arguments for their beliefs? I'm trying to clearly see the difference between saying, "I believe as I believe" and leaving it at that, and what you take Anti to be doing.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Come on now Rue, Anti is having a hard enough time in this thread as it is without you misrepresenting his/her argument. I believe Anti was refering to after death, don't you think?"

Anti was claiming that the only consequences are enternal, supernatural ones. I was pointing out that there are completely natural (and eternal) consequences that don't involve (a) god(s). In other words, I was debating the claim. That's what a debate is about. Savvy?

***************************************************************
Only bland acceptance is allowed if you're Rue or SignyM.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"So you follow him around on this board and attack his beliefs"

WAIT ! Say it's not so ! SignyM debated religion in a thread about ---- gasp RELIGION. How simply awful.

***************************************************************
Only bland acceptance is allowed if you're Rue or SignyM.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Anti was claiming that the only consequences are enternal, supernatural ones. I was pointing out that there are completely natural (and eternal) consequences that don't involve (a) god(s).

Claiming that actions have eternal consequences (as Anti did) is different than the claim that actions have only eternal consequences. Anti said, "Our actions have eternal consequences." This seems pretty clearly to be a claim of the first sort, not the second. Anti would have had to have said more than he did to make it a claim of the second type. I know you're keen on making Anti look like a fool, but the fact is that he didn't say anything about the question of whether or not human actions have temporal consequences. That wasn't his point. His point was that they have eternal ones. And the having of eternal consequences does not entail the not having of temporal ones. He didn't claim that actions have no temporal consequences, nor do his arguments (on my reading) suggest that he believes that. So unless you can justify that with something other than a false entailment, you're still going to be vulnerable to the charge of misrepresenting him.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"(He) didn't say anything about the question of whether or not human actions have temporal consequences" Actually, in a round-about way he did. What he said was that without eternal consequences there is no guide for human law - that it beomes a matter of whim and circumstance. What I was pointing out was that there are REAL consequences to actions that are unavoidable, and they can be a good guide to human action.

***************************************************************
Only bland acceptance is allowed if you are Rue or SignyM.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Is it the case, then, that such people ought not make any attempts to provide rational arguments for their beliefs? I'm trying to clearly see the difference between saying, "I believe as I believe" and leaving it at that, and what you take Anti to be doing.

Beliefs are not necessarily irrational because they may be internally consistent. (Irrational, definition: a. Not endowed with reason. b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock. c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment)

The purview of science is "how": How did life being? How do electromagnetic waves propagate through space? But there are areas of thought and feeling where science has no insight: beauty, morality, purpose. Religion can provide insight where science cannot. But what Anti is doing is irrational. S/he is trying to ram religion and science together in areas where they are mutually exclusive.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
and endlessly trying to make the evidence conform to belief does injustice to both belief and to science.= signy

No, it doesn’t. It does no injustice to belief or science= finn

Yes FINN, the method of science is to make the data fit the hypothesis. And the path of faith is an endless quest for proof.

Quote:
As long as they keep their mouth shut you’re fine with them.

I've had many interesting conversations with deeply religious people. We talk about morality, about the purpose of life, about the end-state that our differing beliefs will lead to. (Yes, science is based on assumptions. In addition, I have deeply held beliefs of my own. Funny that no one should think to ask me about them!) Strangely, we wind up agreeing on many things. On others, we agree to disagree.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What he said was that without eternal consequences there is no guide for human law - that it beomes a matter of whim and circumstance.

Yes, but he is making a metaethical claim, not a factual one. No one, I think, is going to deny that if you make an action in the here-and-now, it will have consequences in the here-and-now. Antimason is, I think, trying to claim that if there are no ethical standards that obtain transculturally, then there is no objective way to make the claim that something is "right" such that that claim can be the basis of human law. I believe that he thinks that if it's the case that "right" and "wrong" are merely cultural artifacts, then what is "right" and "wrong" are arbitrarily assigned--that is that "right" and "wrong" are what they are not in virtue of anything real, but just in virtue of what people happen to think about the matter at some particular place and time.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Is it the case, then, that such people ought not make any attempts to provide rational arguments for their beliefs? I'm trying to clearly see the difference between saying, "I believe as I believe" and leaving it at that, and what you take Anti to be doing.

Beliefs are not necessarily irrational because they may be internally consistent. (Irrational, definition: a. Not endowed with reason. b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock. c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment)

Can religious beliefs be internally consistent?

Can religious beliefs be rational?

Quote:
The purview of science is "how": How did life being? How do electromagnetic waves propagate through space? But there are areas of thought and feeling where science has no insight: beauty, morality, purpose. Religion can provide insight where science cannot. But what Anti is doing is irrational. S/he is trying to ram religion and science together in areas where they are mutually exclusive.

I think that I agree with you that in general, science investigates the "how" of things. Interestingly, I am a religious believer myself because I am much more interested in the "why" of things than the "how." "How did humans get here" seems to be a question that falls under the purview of science (albeit, I also have theological beliefs about that to; but I don't reject outright the claims of science on the question). But "Why are humans here" is a question that I don't believe that science is at all equipped to answer. Of course, the claim might be made that there isn't a "why"--but there's no way to support that claim "scientifically."

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose, for the sake of the thought experiment that the following propositions are all true:
1) There is a God
2) God created the universe
3) God revealed himself via some scripture
4) God is self-consistent (that is, he does not self-contradict).
I'm not asking you to believe these are all true, merely that you suppose they are for the sake of argument. It seems to be the case that if (4) is true, then the results of accurate investigation of the universe (which God created, according to (2)) will never contradict the results of accurate interpretation of scripture (which reveals God, according to (3)). Augustine, for example, thought that interpretation of scripture and study of nature should be dialectical: that is, that they should inform one another. So if a particular observable fact (like the spherical shape of the planet) appeared to contradict a particular scriptural interpretation (like a flat earth) then one or the other was in error, and had to be abandoned (just as Christians have abandoned the flat earth and geocentric interpretations of the Bible). It seems to be the case that if 1-4 are true, then one can believe that the Bible is true and also believe the results of the study of nature. Because while science can tell us a lot about the phenomenal aspects of existence, it can tell us almost nothing about the teleological aspects of the same.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Causal- Yes, religious beliefs can be internally consistent and rational.

And yes, in theory "the book" should not be contradicted by "the evidence". But the Bible has many contradictions even within itself. You can find arguments for anything within its pages, and retrospectively fitting the words of the Bible to the evidence as it is discovered only proves the power of the evidence, not the other way around.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And in general, that's how humanity has run. I'd like to point out that each assemblage of notions has nearly always invoked (a) god(s) as their basis. The big exceptions are Asian societies that follow ancestor or nature worship and run by a secular code of conduct (Confucianism). So on the one hand we have a multitude of religions per se being invoked in support of social rules, and on the other, societies that don't invoke religion at all.

Either way, I can't see a special claim for AntiM's religion as the eternal basis for the only good.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Causal- Yes, in theory "the book" should not be contradicted by "the evidence". But the Bible has many contradictions even within itself. You can find arguments for anything within its pages, and retrospectively fitting the words of the Bible to the evidence as it is discovered only proves the power of the evidence, not the other way around.

Well, the accuracy or lack thereof is really beyond the scope of the argument I wanted to construct (and, incidentally, not something I'm really keen to argue, because of the entrenched nature of the various opinions on it). So is it true to say that the answer is that your answer would be no, one cannot have an internally consistent set of religious beliefs?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:17 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Also, can I just point out the irony in the fact that we are at each other's throat over a thread our resident troll started? How please do you think he is with himself right about now?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

What is trollish about posting a link to a doc. that I found interesting? I found the whole part about the Fed and NAU interesting also. Like tossing darts? "at each others throats" is a bit much by the way. So, take your flame thrower and go read some Plato or something. I think someone pointed out once or twice that you are a philosopher

What a tool.........

Love always kaneman

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:17 AM

SERGEANTX

As a side note:

Anti,

I don't harbor any hostility toward you and find your spirited defense of your position refreshing. You're facing overwhelming opposition here and doing so without resorting to the usual hyperbole. In short you've inspired a lot of fun discussion. Thanks!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And in general, that's how humanity has run. I'd like to point out that each assemblage of notions has nearly always invoked (a) god(s) as their basis. The big exceptions are Asian societies that follow ancestor or nature worship and run by a secular code of conduct (Confucianism). So on the one hand we have a multitude of religions per se being invoked in support of social rules, and on the other, societies that don't invoke religion at all.

Either way, I can't see a special claim for AntiM's religion as the eternal basis for the only good.

I don't see him making that claim, though (although I certainly think that he would say that his religion is the eternal basis for the only good). The claim I see him making is that if there is no ground for moral assertions over and above cultural norms, then "right" and "wrong" are arbitrary and therefore not reliable for guiding human behavior. Of course, that view depends heavily on the idea that human behavior has some end towards which it aims, although I don't really want to get into that mess!

I do want to point out that the mere fact that other cultures have based their legal codes on their own views of the Ultimate DOES NOT* entail that there is no Ultimate and no one standard for morality. You've quite accurately described the way things are (multiple views on the Ultimate and on morality). But the mere fact of disagreement DOES NOT entail that it's not the case that there is some one objectively true standard of morality. That is, the mere fact of disagreement doesn't automatically mean that there's no objective truth to be had. Disagreement may make it hard to believe, but logically speaking it doesn't follow from your observation.

*caps for emphasis only
________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So is it true to say that the answer is that your answer would be no, one cannot have an internally consistent set of religious beliefs?

Causal- Quite the opposite. Religious beliefs can be wholly internally consistent. I'm not sure I'm getting your point.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:36 AM