Trade Your Bible For Porn 227
An anonymous reader writes "Atheist students at the University of Texas at San Antonio announced that any student over the age of 18 will receive pornographic materials if they trade in religious materials. From the article: 'Leaders of this atheist campaign allege that porn is no worse than what's written in religious texts. A university spokesman says that this controversial cause is completely legal, though he admits a majority of the students on campus do not agree with it.'"
Stunts (Score:3, Insightful)
I find that people who feel the need to perform stunts like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "cause." Yes, we get it, you hate the Bible. But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring.
Re:Stunts (Score:4, Insightful)
So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.
What bothers me ... (Score:2)
What bothers me is the term 'religion' becoming synonymous with the term 'confession'.
I can be a perfectly reasonable person, even an atheist or agnostic, and still be religious, accepting the concept of religion as an optimised means of using formalised liturgy as a method for mental and spiritual advancement. And I can even choose a stronger formalised confession as my means of exercising my chosen religion. However, the problems start when I try to superimpose my confession upon others. That's when thing
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."
So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.
I'd just like to point out something about your post. You are assuming everyone starts with the same underlying assumptions that you do. Thus anyone who disagrees with you is irrational, according to your logic.
The point is that people with your beliefs often refuse to acknowledge much of what you believe to be true is taken on faith. You have faith that everything you believe about evolution is true. Why do I say faith? Because evolution and things such as the non-existence of God have never been conc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I see here, and in many other places, is total condemnation of people of faith based on "not knowing". It's a "you're stupid to believe that and I'll prove you're irrational to believe that, and yes, evolution is true and God does not exist", when it's based on nothing more than "not knowing".
Either you're not reading what I'm saying, not understanding it, or deliberately ignoring it. So I'll repeat it again, with emphasis:
In the end, both people don't know, but the person of faith additionally accepts the invention of things they cannot test. That is where they are irrational. There is nothing irrational about just not knowing , or accepting reproducible, controlled tests as the best possible model for understanding reality (effectively facts, even if absolute facts are not possible).
Your
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."
Same can be said about atheist proponent. Some of of them could not be reasoned with to share with the "why" people choose to believe there is a God. They don't respect your stance on believing in God. They just want to make a point and show their positions are superior than others. They are no better or no worse than the religious zealot in any religion, be Christianity, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindoism.
I need to make it clear that I am a Christian and I SUPPORT the use of any scientific tools for
Re: (Score:2)
In fact we were not won over by clever arguments.
Because you exclude contradictory evidence, which makes you unreasonable. Conversely, a non-religious person MUST accept, integrate, and adapt to contradictory evidence or
Re: (Score:2)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Sorry, you either believe the Bible or you don't. How could these verses be right otherwise? How could man be perfected through imperfection?
John 10:35 also says that scripture cannot be broken, and if it is to be used as a measure for judging people (as Paul says it should be), must it not be perfect in order to be just?
And if you discard these things and hold that the Bible was imperfectly written by men, what make it so much better than all the other imperfect books? Why run your li
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who Dr house is, but the way I've heard it expressed before is "you can't reason someone out of a position that they did not arrive at by reasoning."
I don't have a citation for that though.
Edit : WikiQuote [wikiquote.org] hints that it's Dean Swift, but they don't have a source for it. It does have the sound of a Swift-ism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stunts (Score:4, Insightful)
That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.
Done. [scienceblogs.com] For chrissake, every dictionary definition of dogma even says it's a synonym for religious doctrine. How can that not make sense?
it's easy to rattle off many, many rational religious people throughout history
Who said anything about rational? Any sane person is rational to some degree. The phrase is 'reasoned with'. You can't reason with people who exclude evidence because some book tells them to exclude it.
They don't want rational argument
We know only about this present escapade, not about any previous efforts they may or may not have made. You may be willing to judge them out of ignorant assumptions in absentia, but that only makes you unreasonable and subjective, the worst foundation from which to make judgement. Unless you can point me to evidence that this group has done nothing else, made no other efforts, then I reject the validity of your judgement.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh and just a little clue for you ... all of Protestantism was BASED ON the notion that religious doctrine CAN and SHOULD be questioned, and subject to examination (that was one of the primary bases of the theses, if I may school you via rhyme). The Apostle Paul himself told us to subject all teachings, including his own, to examination. To claim all religious doctrine, including Christian doctrine, is dogma denies a couple thousand years of Christian teachings to the contrary.
Of course, many Christians A
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well...yes and no...
Yes, Protestantism is based on questioning your faith. But somehow, you don't find many ex-Protestants-turned-atheists at revival meetings, do you? The "questioning" is not earnest inquiry: suppose you do wind up rejecting the Bible for the badly cribbed ramblings of sunstroke-addled "prophets" (and the occasional self-serving insertion such as Deuteronomy) that it really is. You're not going to be welcomed back into the fold. The truth is that the "questioning" in faith is like teen
Re: (Score:2)
See, you're doing it. Twisting points, "this is just stupid", "that's false", "few examples I saw/didn't saw settle the matter", "Bible itself is correct, some/most just lack understanding"
Anything goes...
PS. It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always cute how, when religions are responsible for something "bad", religious folks go with "ahh, but that's just human nature" story...but of course when everything is "good", they are the ones to thank. Cute :)
I never did that, or anything like it.
You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above. I quote:
Now, granted, some people (and some sects) will burn you. People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing. What a shock. No one implied otherwise. But for every Fred Phelps there's many more Billy Grahams.
You denied something which you wrote just moments ago. Which is quite good testament to validity of the rest of what you write. Not because you're inherently incapable of seeing such flaws, but because you trained yourself not to see them. You choose not to realise how blatant lack of coherency you display.
Which is sad. Though understable. Remember, there's a high chance that many people you argue with were similarly brainwashed to you; I kno
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above.
No, I did not. You're very confused. Your quote only shows me saying that there's both good and bad in religion, not trying to -- as you falsely claimed -- attribute everything good to religion. Nor did I even state or imply that anyone should be thanked, as you, again, falsely claimed.
I did the first, part, yes: I said, "ahh, but that's just human nature." But I never said that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."
You denied something which you wrote just moments ago.
You clearly saw something in what I wrote that literally
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I get it, you don't see that there. You don't have to prove it to me again and again; I understand (again, also because once I was in such state as you are now). You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity. Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir... (and even if, certainly only "some sects")
You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Look, I get it, you don't see that there.
It literally isn't there.
I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.
You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity.
Can you really not read simple English? I explicitly stated that I was attributing their failings to their human nature, but t
Re: (Score:2)
It literally isn't there.
I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.
:)
And that sums you up. It doesn't really matter to you what happened, what was written...the only thing matters is what's currently inside your mind; what suits you. And that's it. That's your idea of winning. Twisting words along the way (you really want to convince yourself that I said I think like you do now? Fine, have it your way :) ), claiming you use logic...
You just made a wonderfull explanation of what religion is, BTW. Too bad you might not realise that ever...
Re: (Score:2)
Cute. I posted the quote right there :)
But of course, I'm lying, I'm stupid, I'm the scurge of gods children...don't you get hard while fighting me on a holly quest?
Re: (Score:2)
I know you think I'm lying (for some reason...hey, maybe I'm a Satan sidekick). This being your response to what anybode can clearly is in quote below is the whole point by now...
Re: (Score:2)
And I clearly demonstrated it.
I know you think you did :). Thing is, you hold critique of your mythology to some curious "standards". Mind you, they are enough for you...the rest can just see at the quoues. In full, not what you, sic, cherry-picked or tried to somehow bend to fit later.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Btw. this one statement caught my eye...
"By far, more murders were committed by explicitly atheistic regimes than religious ones in the 20th century"
Could you please expand on that? Are you referring to military, or something smaller in scope? I'm trying to identify if religion (or lack of) has anything to do with it...
I am referring to the mass murders by the regimes of the USSR and China, responsible for somewhere between 75 million and 100 million human deaths combined.
I would say atheism played a role in two ways: first, in that because atheism is itself an ideology, these fascist regimes were set on wiping out any ideologies that posed a threat. This is not unique to atheism, of course, but it's distinctly different from having a regime that has no ideology.
Second, in that because it was an atheist regime, as oppose
Re: (Score:2)
They question the doctrine except for questioning the notion that Protestantism / Christanity is ultimatelly correct and any incosistencies are simply a limit of our understanding. Everything else just follows from that. Every BS can follow from that.
And you really argue that what vast majority of Christians stand for is NOT what Christanity ultimatelly represents? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
This is claimed to be questioned. By worshippers. That's a different thing than actually questioning.
As for the second part, you misunderstood my point - which is that, ultimatelly, what a very large portion of worshippers think (or, say, actions consistantly seen together with certain faith) is ultimatelly also what that religion represents; not only what it claims to represent.
Re: (Score:2)
It is questioned. All the time.
Again, that's just a claim.
Fine, I'll bite: what evidence would you accept that it is actually questioned?
It seems to me you ONLY believe it is not actually questioned because you falsely believe that if it WERE actually questioned, then there would be more atheists.
Yes, that's what you to think. But it's not the case.
Let me paint it this way: what role this supposed questioning plays in emergence, continuing existence or daily life of religions? Or is it simply tackled on? Ignored byvast majority of the faithfull? (which, again, represents what the religions is about)
At best I might grant you it is actually questioned if you agree that "masses" and those who, as you claim, question dogmas...actually follow quite different religions.
(that als
Re: (Score:2)
But every faith tries to do that. Every faith is "real".
I met only a few Christians which seriously tried to examine their faith BTW; I don't agree with their conclusion, but I respect them fully. They are not a cowards unable to accept that they simply believe in certain things...and that's the end of it.
PS. And you're trying to see more in this one thing I was trying to convey few times. It's just a about a simple question. Is what religions only claim about themselves representative of them? Or do you ha
Re: (Score:2)
I see, you think we're on Crusade here :)
What's the matter, do you really have to dismiss comparisions with other faiths and how real they claim they are? So insecure?
In case you didn't notice (wonder why...) - the story is about "religious texts", not just the Bible. And my points are quite general (though obviously in response to yours will touch on Christianity more often; but they are nowehre exclusive to it)
I'd say I know quite many Christians; in a country where there's officially 95+ % of them that's
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, no, yes, no...you know, I have an idea; why don't use binary next time? :)
Though I must admit, there's another cute thing - you seem to claim that having the nerve to not discuss only what and how you the discussion should progress is somehow...illogical. :)
Very reveling in regards to your logic. Very typical for certain kinds of people.
Re: (Score:2)
I think however God intends the Christian believe to be a very personal expeience and therefore you can't really win any heart and soul though arguments of religious doctorine. If that was the case Paul would have won the argument and convert the entire Roman Empire in his own lifetime. Heck why were so many Christian has to suffer the persecution since day one of the Christianit
Re: (Score:2)
I'll add to the dog pile...
Something that is unreasonable: 2+2=5. Anything that axiomatic and provably false and claimed to be true. Or vice versa.
Science is not axiomatic. It' is a process, not a definition.
Just on the surface, religions have had a rich history with humanity -- and appear pretty much with every culture. One might say it's an ignorant culture making up their "religion" trying to come to grips with a world that appears random -- to give it some meaning and to find their place in the wor
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Stunts (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll grant that there may be some dictionaries that do not list religious doctrine as one of the definitions of dogma. So, in a absolute sense, yes, not 'every' dictionary, but that is simply deliberate obtuseness on your part about a rhetorical device. Most dictionaries of the English language have the aforementioned as part of the definition, including but not limited to: Random House Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition; Cambridge Dictionary of American English; etc. Stop being disingenuous.
And now the ethnocentrism comes out. Where previously we were talking about religion, suddenly we're talking about Christianity. Of course, why wouldn't we, after all, Christianity is the exception, it's not like all those other religions. Pardon me while I roll my eyes so hard they could put a smooth surface on fresh asphalt.
You want to play that game? Fine. The resurrection of Christ. All Christians must believe it, and the only evidence for it is in religious text, all scientific evidence to the contrary is ignored. That is the very essence of the denotation of dogma.
I think you're being deliberately dense about the difference between rational and reasonable. Do you notice how those are both adjectives? They are not the same word. You don't know much about the definitions, much less connotations, of words do you? A rational person connects causes to effects, learns from experience, etc. etc. A reasonable person is one who is objective, less closed-minded. These are connotations of context. If you just say 'reason' out of nowhere it does not have the same feeling or background of meaning (connotation) as when you talk of 'reasonable people'. In this sense, to use the language fully, it is necessary to look beyond the straight definitions of rational vs. reasonable.
You're incapable of demonstrating a single thing in the Bible that tells anyone to exclude any evidence. You're just inventing something that doesn't exist.
2 Peter 3:5. If you don't believe in creation, you're wrong.
Galatians 1:8. If anybody says something different from the Bible, they are cursed.
2 Corinthians 10:5. This one is so good, it can speak for itself:
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
If that's not clear enough I don't know what is.
That's what YOU were doing to "religious people." I was just playing along in the game you started.
Key word there is ignorant. I know a lot about history and where religion fits into it, including Christianity. I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery, etc. etc. What I said is you don't know anything about these people beyond this story. Until you do, your judgement is weaker than my judgement of religion.
Also, 'judgement' is an accepted alternate spelling [merriam-webster.com]. But you wouldn't know that, since you have some strange aversion to dictionaries.
Re: (Score:2)
I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery
On the facts? Your facts are incomplete, since you do not include the positive aspects of religion, including the community support that churches provide, etc. etc. Cherry-picking facts to suit your bias is the same as lying, and reveals your own lack of rationality. As far as knowing a lot of history, I'd suggest you reread some of it. You will find society shapes religion as much if not more than religion shapes society, and that much of the violence and persecution attributed to religious zeal is mor
Re: (Score:2)
If we examine misogyny for instance, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 tells women to sit down and shut up, and that they should never teach men, but their inferiority should not cause them despair because having children is their redeeming function. Judai
Re: (Score:2)
Key word there is ignorant. I know a lot about history and where religion fits into it, including Christianity. I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery, etc. etc. What I said is you don't know anything about these people beyond this story. Until you do, your judgement is weaker than my judgement of religion
Did these things happen because of religion or religion just was used as mean of promoting this?
I'm not against religion, but I am against organizations that manipulate people for their own benefit. Those two are not the same and the second, which is the actual problem, doesn't happen exclusively because of religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, we have eyewitnesses who independently testified to the event, outside of the religious texts. And perhaps more to the same point, those religious texts (aside from the Gospel of John) were floating around the area while the eyewitnesses who say the saw the risen Christ were mostly still alive: standard historical analysis methods tell us that it is extremely unlikely that the gospels would have survived if a large number of people (around 500 people) would have been around as eyewitnesses to deny the events contained therein.
Proof that a story survived does not mean that it is accurate. First of all people would need know of these events to be able to deny them. At the time few people could read let alone write.
I'd respond to your other statements but you provide absolutely no supporting evidence for most if not all your claims.
On the whole I find the whole thing terribly amusing. I spent most of my childhood with Christians attempting "convert" or force me into accepting their belief system. They don't seem to like it much wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The latter of course. Only those who agree with us can understand those things.
Re: (Score:2)
If your “sense” only makes sense to people who already agree with you, you might want to rethink how sensible your position actually is.
We aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at you (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks, pudge. There's nothing I quite enjoy more than watching you get smacked down repeatedly, only to come back swinging with arguments that work only in your own mind. I bet you think you're winning this argument, don't you? Hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Your hopes deceived you yet again.
Re: (Score:2)
Scrolling through how this is spiralling as large as it is, I'm probably going to pass. This guy obviously has a lot more time than I do...
Re: (Score:2)
That pretty well describes pudge's fallback argument, and he has to fall back to it every single time, lol.
It's more like mud wrestling a pig. Afterwords, you feel dirty but the pig is happy.
Re: (Score:2)
All definitions I've ever seen of dogma imply that the belief is not subject to examination, or isn't backed up by any evidence. I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.
Could you name one that is? Forget the "subject to examination", for now. Name one Christian doctrine that is "backed up by evidence." Isn't the idea of "evidence" sort of anathema to the very idea of "faith"? If you have evidence, then there's no need for faith. Please keep in mind that the Bible is evidence of anything by itself . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I mentioned several in the other comments in this thread. One example: Jesus was witnessed by 500 people post-resurrection, and many of those people were alive when the gospels were written, and could have -- but didn't apparently, as there's no record of it -- denied that the gospels were accurate reflections of what they saw.
Is this proof? Nope. Evidence? Of course.
For this to be evidence you have to *assume* that Jesus Christ is a real historical figure and that the events surrounding his life as depicted in the Bible were true. These 2 things alone are huge leaps of faith. How do you know there were 500 people present at the time of his resurrection? Because the bible tells you so? The Romans kept great records, and we don't have any roman records of Jesus -- his execution or otherwise.
The only record of this story at all is the gospels themselves. If it is a f
Re: (Score:2)
"Christians are ... very often"? The "guilt" of which you speak and suggest is done by most Christians is actually perpetrated by a minority. Those who have far too much zeal in their beliefs. Like the Atheists in this thread. Or the Atheists here. [huffingtonpost.com] Or the Atheists here. [photobucket.com] Or the Atheists here. [goodasyou.org] Or the Atheis
Re: (Score:2)
I could go point by point in my response, but I've been down that road before. There's no benefit to it. You clearly have your own beliefs and they are clearly not what I would consider to be based on solid intellectual footing.
You clearly have confused, quite intentionally because it suits you, "biblical scholars" with "historians". Biblical Scholars are the least credible people when it comes to the authenticity and historical accuracy of the Bible. They are, quite simply, biased. They have created b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
religious people are dogmatic by design
That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.
You really don't know that religions are built around certain dogmas?...
That quote from House implies something obvious which you're trying not to see, "...reasoned with in the matters of religion". Religions obviously require suspension of disbelief, accepting things which are supposedly above reason (which too often leeches over to other areas, unfortunatelly)...you want to tell me you don't know that?
See, rational arguments simply don't work; not against something which in vast, vast majority of cases wa
Re: (Score:2)
Allright, now it's clear that you don't even know the basics of faith. It's specifically about believing in things without evidence - any serious preacher will agree with that.
You...you seem to managed to convince yourself that it's all simply a fact (too unsecure otherwise?), apparently up to a paint of ridiculously treating, say, science on the same terms. Whatever we'll say won't change your mind obviously, but consider this: what of an accomplishment would that be?
Thos things are above YOU CAPACITY, to
Re: (Score:2)
Allright, now it's clear that you don't even know the basics of faith. It's specifically about believing in things without evidence - any serious preacher will agree with that.
“Allright”, let’s set this straight: Faith is specifically about believing in things without proof.
Come back when you’ve learned the difference between what you just said and what I just said.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems we have a different understanding or experience of what "serious preacher" means. That might explain why religion in my place is so...efficient (95+ % uner one monolithic faith, in an EU country with proper liberties)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it seems your understanding or experience of what “serious preacher” means is what I’d consider a lazy and shallow one (both intellectually and in terms of leadership). They don’t like to be questioned, so they tell their followers to believe things without evidence. That is dogma, and is not faith.
A “serious preacher” is exactly the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
If "serious" preachers at your place must rely on evidence for people to follow, their faith is quite shallow, superficial.
Which I don't mind actually...
Re: (Score:2)
Great, kudos to you.
Now give me a coherent explanation why you ignore 99+ % of religious texts that exist in the world. Why your "evidence" stemming from study of only one religious text, one mythology, is not just claiming to search for evidence; just reinforcing what you want to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I try not to search for things to reinforce what I believe; it's possible I don't do that. Anyway, there's hardly anything from what I "believe" which falls under things that even need any evidence to speak of (in that I am similar to people I would call true faithfull; the scope of things in which we believe is completelly different of course)
Anf of course you ignore them; have you studied extensivelly Finnish Paganism, for only one example? Or (throw in 500 another ones here)?
Re: (Score:2)
In no place I cherry-picked the Bible. But it's understandable you might see all of that as an attack on your "special" text.
And why yes, I do not say that there is "no god"; from my point of view that's at least highly unlikely, and furthermore (if he exists) useless. But...you give an evidence for the non-existance of Swarog, which your faith requires. And thousands of other gods. Go ahead.
And good one, it's rare to see so devoted one as you are (I might get from this discussion quite a bt after all; don'
Re: (Score:2)
You're more damaged than I thought. You're confusing me with another poster; take a deep breath and reread whole discussion, trying to notice this time who says who.
In regards to res of your post, I wonder if you really think you'll get far with "no, I'm right because I say so!" :). I mean, sure, that's the standard religious practice...but one would think you'd at least try not to show it so directly. Unless you're so lost by now... (or...endule me, actually have the guts to clarify why you think you're no
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant! :D Now you seem to claim that Slashdot discussion system lies in regards to poster names (above their posts...) it shows to you. Hm, or maybe Slashdot admins are on the dark side?...really, perhaps you should consider that.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're so fabulously great, a true Christian if I ever saw one.
No, seriously, I adore folks like you; not spoiling anything...well, you're usefull :)
Re: (Score:2)
Don’t make me repeat myself. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see, it's about constant repetition of evidence. How quaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off [merriam-webster.com].
NONE of the definitions say “without evidence”, and definition 2b(1) specifically is:
Is that adequate “evidence” that your definition of “faith” is bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
How quiant...you should be also really looking at different pages in Merriam Webster (and why only there) though. Not only those about "faith"; also "evidence", "evidenced". Without that you're picking what suits you and might just as well be even dialect specific...
The funny thing about evidence as pillar of faith is that it means different things to differet people (too bad I don't drink cofee or tea generally, I could have looked at dregs right now); it's, as I've said, quite shallow if youe preachers ca
Re: (Score:2)
Read the definitions of “evidence” yourself. It’s quite clear that many forms of “evidence” do not, in fact, furnish “proof”.
Re: (Score:2)
...and many still do; that's the whole point. Prove why you picking yours is fine while me picking mine is not.
Nvm that it probably also largely stems from differences between sects we're most familiar with, their approach to what even "faith" is - but I thought that goes without saying. You don't operate under absolutist assumption here, do you? (as a sidenote - sects I'm familiar with actually form significant majority of Christianity ;p (and btw are quite tolerable in certain things; accepting evolution
Re: (Score:2)
...and many still do; that's the whole point. Prove why you picking yours is fine while me picking mine is not.
...do I need to spell it out?
Faith is accepting something without proof. Not (necessarily) without evidence: you can have evidence. Obviously, if you have evidence but not proof, you only have the sort of evidence that supports but does not conclusively prove what you believe. QED.
If you do have proof for your belief, it isn’t faith. It’s a fact.
If you have no evidence for your belief, it is one type of faith, but not the kind you should have. It is blind faith.
Any preacher who demands blind fa
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I need to spell it out...
Yes, people who I would call serious preachers (and faithfull too of course) might point out many, many examples of so called evidence (I don't have to repeat them here, you know the drill). But then...they will say something like "...I believe that in those things we see a manifestation of my deity". I can fully accept and respect that, even if I don't agree with it. That somebody knows what's he's doing at least.
What many people are doing is quite different however - point
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. I’m ok with that.
However this:
people who I would call serious preachers (and faithfull too of course) might point out many, many examples of so called evidence (I don't have to repeat them here, you know the drill). But then...they will say something like "...I believe that in those things we see a manifestation of my deity". I can fully accept and respect that, even if I don't agree with it.
does not agree with your initial statement, with which I disagreed:
faith [is] specifically about believing in things without evidence - any serious preacher will agree with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, one liners conveying obvious truth (plus...do you have to resolve to cut'n'paste between different posts? Automata much?);
You and I know know perfectly well that you will accept no example of lack of evidence. You rerouted around that possibility long ago.
Sad, really; not only another mind wasted - discussion with you isn't even very usefull to me, not revelaing any new mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
Cute, another obvious "truths" to you :) (hey, I mean you no ill - whatever you need to feel comfortable woth your so called "choices")
I believe it's impossible to provide something which will satisfy you, in your current state. That's quite a difference. Something would have to shake you for any argumentation to work (that's how religions exploit you BTW, creating or feeding on mystical experiences (birth, death))
But how nice and modest you are, a model "Christian" :) Better than me obviously. Are you poss
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to comprehend what I wrote, that you have safety mechanisms against any argumentation.
"Cheating" similarly to how religions do won't work here, the medium is too limited; but tricks, exploiting certain "flaws" does work, I can assure you that :) (well, you sorta know that already, by the simple fact how you are caught by them...)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you fail at understanding the issue (but really, I'm totally serious here - that's not your fault; you're a victim of certain societal realities against which there's very little defense)
Psychological safet mechanisms aren't in the field of arguments at all; you proposition of distinguishing on from the other is nonsensical.
Re: (Score:2)
Duopoly I desribed is a fairly basic (yet often neglected, especially by worshippers) issue. Not an issue even, just a simple observation. If you would stop dismissing it, you would be able (I am sure you are fundamentally able to do that) to see the simple non-issue (really; it was quite secondary to everything)
Also, since you have rather lax approach to what constitutes an evidence and disregard for arguments which you don't like...well, I didn;t expect you to see that this is just part of your safety mec
Re: (Score:2)
A witch!!!
Re: (Score:2)
As I said to the other commenter: I defy you to give a single example of Christine doctrine -- such doctrine as is held by all, or almost all, Christian sects -- that is not subject to examination or isn't backed up by any evidence.
Pudge, English is not my native language so I guess that's why I fail to understand what you mean by that. It seems to me that all of the cornerstones of Christianity (and any other religion, for that matter) fit that description precisely.
In the case of Christianity examples of such basic concepts would include:
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want rational argument, so they do stupid things like this.
Flamewars FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect they are just venting off a bit for their own amusement at the expense of Bible worshipping folks; I don't know how they have it daily, but you know...sometimes having a little laugh is all that remains.
Still, not very productive or sensible...
Re: (Score:2)
And believe me I don't think of religi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, religions revolve around stunts. For example "look, I'll be sooo alive after I'm dead, promise" or "there's totally a hand of %INSERT CHOSEN DEITY% here"
That's just a - clumsy, I give you that - effort to work on the level of religions; perhaps exploit unsecurity of few people in the way religions do.
Best. Idea. Ever. (Score:2)
I wonder if they would do this mail-order style?
In any case, I wholly support this awesome idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wish I hadn't discarded all my extra Bibles...
Contact the Gideon society. Offer to distribute a crate load of bibles to help convert the heathens at the university...
Re: (Score:2)
I guess sex sells (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is religion so meaningless to you that would extend its definition to include any arbitrary group of people that may or may not have read books by a particular author?
I said essentially. It's obviously not a religion.
However, Dawkin's form of 'militant atheism' shares many traits with the very religions he rails against. Particularly, his very hard-line claim that his is the Only True Way (capitalization mine). Did he start a religion? Not really. Is he as Dogmatic, radical, and evangelistic as some religions? Absolutely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is he as Dogmatic, radical, and evangelistic as some religions? Absolutely.
Really? Which religions? Dawkins never trained any suicide bombers; he never tortured people in an Inquisition; he never launched a Crusade; he never advocated ostracizing people from their communities who don't agree with him; he never started any political parties; he never put "in Dawkins we trust" in the pledge or on the money of any nation; he never lobbied any nation to engrave excerpts from his writings on their military hardware; he never even organized any camps where parents could send their child
Re: (Score:2)
The world is a lot bigger than the three major abrahamic religions in the west. Sometimes I imagine that the angry atheist Slashdot postings about religion, are addressed against Jainism or Shintoism. They don't make very much sense in that context, and it's obvious then how much this is an issue of western culture. Especially for people acting in reaction against the evangelical Christianity in America. If you go to some other places in the world, these things jus
Re: (Score:2)
would anyone ever become angry about Shingon Buddhism
The history of China shows quite the backlash against Buddhism in general. When Buddhism started taking over culturally, the resistance was also far more radical than anything Dawkins proposes.
The Jains do have a legitimate claim to peace and non violence and like their hindu neighbors gen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
sexual assault on a child is sometimes less damaging than teaching a child to follow Christianity
Interesting proposition considering that the Catholic Church does both. I believe Dawkins never actually said that as such, but rather made an insensitive comment about "the Church's real child abuse" or something to that effect. Still, is he more vile than the people actually abusing children or the institution that protects the abusers?
Dawkins is just one voice among many. Attempts to use him to brand a single unified atheist movement are more a result of his detractors than the efforts of the people he
Re: (Score:2)
simply consider a vile person to be avoided
good idea - for those who can identify what is vile
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the point isn't it, atheism isn't concerned with improving anyones life, it's just concerned with what it's adherents consider bald fact (strong atheists), or lack of evidence existence of god(s) (weak). It's not nice, not self-affirming, and certainly not heartwarming, that's what "humanism" was invented for.
Well, it's true that atheism in and of itself is nothing more than a belief that God doesn't exist (almost always) coupled with a belief in a lack of any afterlife or supernatural forces, but that's not necessarily the end result of such a belief, and atheism doesn't have to be negative.
As you point out, there's humanism. There are also a host of other beliefs that can dovetail quite nicely with a lack of belief in God that could be considered to have a positive message. One example would be a belief that
Re: (Score:2)
If it was actually doing something USEFUL like protesting censorship or whatever, it'd be a perfectly cromulent stunt. This is just attention whoring.