It's a bullshit way of saying "believing in nonsense".

12/14/2011 4:17:51 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what you mean by 'spiritual sensing'. Can you describe this further?"

Do you ever feel good about stuff? Or feel anything because of behaviors? Is that a 'sense'? I'm not sure what it is. Are we supposed to feel embarrassed or sad because we murder a human being? I don't know. It's probably built into our genetic code.

Do you think there's an element built into our genetic software that makes us look for our origins?

Also, do you think 95% of the human population loves getting brainwashed and bullshitted too? Because according to ^, he thinks 95% of the earth is inferior to him and has some logical malfunction. Does 95% of the human species truly have a massive defect?

To him they certainly do.



[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ,]

12/14/2011 4:22:38 PM

YES MOTHERFUCKER, THEY DO!

I don't know how we, as atheists, could be any more clear on this.

It's also far less than 95%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism


[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:32 PM. Reason : *]

12/14/2011 4:30:38 PM

^exactly. your opinion is as falsely planted as the very religions you claim to falsely speak.

DeltaBeta refuses to even accept the possibility of another life-form having a role in humans from the planet earth existing in the universe. So yeh I guess the door is wide open to plenty of other dogma for you too. Why don't you start an "anti church - church" then you could spread your dogma tax free like the others you claim spread it.

12/14/2011 4:34:53 PM

^^

until one of you almighty scientists provides proof of how the universe came into existence from absolutely nothing, i'm not ruling out the possibility of a god.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 4:34:57 PM

It is impossible to argue with retards like you.

Until I am given evidence, I will remain adherent to the nonexistence of any deity. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

Go ahead, give me proof. I want some evidence. Do it now, or shut the fuck up.

I'll also accept verified photographic evidence of a teapot in orbit.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:37 PM. Reason : *]

12/14/2011 4:37:15 PM

^^ NO YOU CANT DO THAT. YOU MUST BELIEVE THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT OTHER LIFEFORMS IN THE UNIVERSE INFLUENCED LIFE HERE IN THIS SOLAR SYSTEM BECAUSE ATHEISM IS THE ONLY ANSWER THERE IS.

lol

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ,]

12/14/2011 4:37:22 PM

It's simple. Give us some shred, ANY SHRED, of evidence that would lend credence to that claim.

12/14/2011 4:38:29 PM

[crickets]

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:43 PM. Reason : *]

12/14/2011 4:43:12 PM

I'll let you just keep pretending you are in the "un-flawed" and "non-handicapped" portion of the population who has all the answers and continue to bash and rant and be angry about other people being happy and finding joy in their faiths. Don't let that word throw you too much. You might have to run some experiments with that word if you want some evidence. But you are already set in your 'side' so I won't bother you more.

Don't worry man. You are safe and sound in the 5% of the population who has all the answers to the universe and everybody else around you is wrong.



[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ,]

12/14/2011 4:44:50 PM

Quote :

"Until I am given evidence, I will remain adherent to the nonexistence of any deity. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. Go ahead, give me proof. I want some evidence. Do it now, or shut the fuck up. I'll also accept verified photographic evidence of a teapot in orbit."

Quote :

"It's simple. Give us some shred, ANY SHRED, of evidence that would lend credence to that claim."

Put up or shut up.

12/14/2011 4:46:38 PM

Hey you can't see infrared light with your eyes so it can't exist.
Also you can't see radio waves, so they can't exist.
You can't see gamma rays so they don't exist.
And a blind person can't see sun rays so they don't exist. Oh wait they can feel them. Oops.

Continue to be happy in your exalted knowledge and superior plane of thinking.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ,]

12/14/2011 4:48:42 PM

We can detect of all of those.

Swing, miss.

Wanna try again?

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:50 PM. Reason : *]

12/14/2011 4:49:18 PM

Yep we've known about them perfectly and documented them for 1000's of years. Oh wait. We finally figured it out. Therefore no-one or any life-form before us knew about it, and none of them could have influenced how we exist on this planet. Therefore we must laugh and make fun of any alternative theories as our own.

12/14/2011 4:51:48 PM

That's not even close to any logical sense. You really are this dumb, aren't you?

12/14/2011 4:52:33 PM

Quote :

"Until I am given evidence, I will remain adherent to the nonexistence of any deity. The burden of proof is on those making the claim."

but modern science can't prove how the universe came into existence. as a matter of fact, not beleiving in a creator goes against two basic scientific principles - that something can't come from nothing, and matter can be neither created nor destroyed. why would you be so antagonistic towards people that admit the possibility of a creator, when science is nowhere close to explaining the origins of the universe? in the end, it's all a matter of faith...or lack thereof.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:53 PM. Reason : fast replies]

12/14/2011 4:52:34 PM

The fact we don't know the exact specifics of how the universe began does not equal evidence of a god creating it. Are you this thick?

Also, the big bang theory, and the multiverse theory all allow for conservation of energy.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:55 PM. Reason : *]

12/14/2011 4:54:27 PM

Ha. We get it. You have no ability to accept any other theories than the one you currently believe. That's cool.

^ yep. it is 100% proven that no other entity could have even played a role in the big bang. who said god created matter from nothing? does the koran or bible say this? why can't an intelligent entity have had a role in the big bang? couldn't an organism have evolved into what we call a god and thus created a dimension or universe? are you saying this is 100% proven impossible?

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ,]

12/14/2011 4:54:44 PM

Not until I get some evidence for them. I can't believe this is a hard concept to grasp.

About that teapot. Do you believe there is one in orbit? What would it take for me to get you to believe there is?

I have to go home now, but you can continue to hone your thickness here until I can come back.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 4:56 PM. Reason : *]

12/14/2011 4:55:54 PM

Quote :

"Do you ever feel good about stuff? Or feel anything because of behaviors? Is that a 'sense'? I'm not sure what it is. Are we supposed to feel embarrassed or sad because we murder a human being? I don't know. It's probably built into our genetic code."

I'm just not sure why you used the word spiritual. If it's something that's in our genetic code or an emotion, why not just call it that?

Quote :

"Do you think there's an element built into our genetic software that makes us look for our origins? Also, do you think 95% of the human population loves getting brainwashed and bullshitted too? Because according to ^, he thinks 95% of the earth is inferior to him and has some logical malfunction. Does 95% of the human species truly have a massive defect? To him they certainly do. "

No, honestly, I think that there definitely are behaviors built into us through Evolution which are amiable to the development of mystical thoughts and religion. For instance, the unquestioning trust of our parents and our community elders. Our need to understand phenomena. Our propensity to hallucinate or have incorrect memory. There are some interesting theories that dualism (the idea that your mind is not part of your body) is also an evolved trait.

To me, it's exactly like moths and other insects which fly directly into fire and immolate themselves. How did such a self-destructive trait evolve in a species? Because they evolved to navigate using the sun which is effectively an infinitely far away light source. Put a light source in a non-infinite distance away and they spiral right toward it.

I believe superstition and religion to be byproducts of our evolution and tribal beginnings. Like the moths, just because we evolved to have these traits does not necessarily mean that they are beneficial.

Regarding the rest of the conversation that's happened, it's important to remember that simply because we cannot explain a phenomena does not make a supernatural explanation for that phenomena more likely.

Because science can not yet explain how the Universe formed or exactly how we went from non-life to life on this planet does not make inserting a god any more plausible. Additionally inserting a god has a problem raising even more questions and not providing any explanatory power in and of itself.

Quote :

"^ yep. it is 100% proven that no other entity could have even played a role in the big bang. who said god created matter from nothing? does the koran or bible say this? why can't an intelligent entity have had a role in the big bang? couldn't an organism have evolved into what we call a god and thus created a dimension or universe? are you saying this is 100% proven impossible?"

Anything is possible. You don't have a good reason to believe in something simply because it is possible.

Quote :

"until one of you almighty scientists provides proof of how the universe came into existence from absolutely nothing, i'm not ruling out the possibility of a god."

No rational atheist should rule out the possibility of a god. Any atheist who says "I know for certain that there are absolutely no gods" is not being rational. Not even Richard Dawkins would say that, simply because it is impossible to rule out.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 5:03:12 PM

Quote :

"The fact we don't know the exact specifics of how the universe began does not equal evidence of a god creating it. Are you this thick?"

you're coming off as a huge dick in an otherwise reasonable discussion.

the only person that's being thick is you. i never said that. I asked you why you wouldn't consider the possiblity of there being a god, seeing as nobody is even remotely close to having all the answers. and you just keep repeating yourself.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 5:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 5:08:19 PM

I think it's just semantics at this point. We do consider the possibility of there being a god and consider it to be vanishingly small. Or at least I do, I don't really speak for DeltaBeta.

12/14/2011 5:11:49 PM

^ because it's obviously proven in his head that no alternate theories to the origins of this universe/dimension exist other than the one he is currently subscribing too.

damn. the more he talks the more embarrassing it gets. i really have no other word to describe it.

12/14/2011 5:12:12 PM

Quote :

"until one of you almighty scientists provides proof of how the universe came into existence from absolutely nothing, i'm not ruling out the possibility of a god."

until one of you almighty believers provides proof of how god came into existence from absolutely nothing, i'm not ruling out the possibility of a more supreme god.

12/14/2011 6:10:43 PM

^100% agree

12/14/2011 6:13:52 PM

^, ^^ i have no problem with that.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 6:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 6:14:31 PM

So to put it another way the universe needs to have some kind of defined cause independent of itself, but God doesn't?

12/14/2011 6:23:59 PM

um...wat? i just agreed with your assertion that god himself may have a creator.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 6:34:19 PM

dude, where's my god

12/14/2011 6:50:03 PM

Quote :

"^ because it's obviously proven in his head that no alternate theories to the origins of this universe/dimension exist other than the one he is currently subscribing too. damn. the more he talks the more embarrassing it gets. i really have no other word to describe it."

No. All along I have said that until there is evidence that says otherwise, I will not believe in any god.
I have even asked you, or anyone else, to bring forward any evidence. You have reading comprehension issues.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 7:23 PM. Reason : *]

12/14/2011 7:22:04 PM

Quote :

"I asked you why you wouldn't consider the possiblity of there being a god, seeing as nobody is even remotely close to having all the answers. and you just keep repeating yourself. "

Because "god" is typically used (although not strictly defined as) to mean a being with a specific intent for humanity, and with a religion codifying this intent surrounding him/her/it.

It's obvious this isn't the case.

You can accept that yes a "god" might exist in the sense that the universe was "created" by this, but this god otherwise doesn't care about how the universe works once it's in motion, but this is a useless, pedantic, pointless view of god that literally has ZERO bearing on science/anything.

12/14/2011 7:26:41 PM

Quote :

"The fact we don't know the exact specifics of how the universe began does not equal evidence of a god creating it. Are you this thick?"

Led to this from you:

Quote :

"i never said that. I asked you why you wouldn't consider the possiblity of there being a god, seeing as nobody is even remotely close to having all the answers."

When in fact you did say that, well, at least implied it:

Quote :

"but modern science can't prove how the universe came into existence. as a matter of fact, not beleiving in a creator goes against two basic scientific principles - that something can't come from nothing, and matter can be neither created nor destroyed. why would you be so antagonistic towards people that admit the possibility of a creator, when science is nowhere close to explaining the origins of the universe? in the end, it's all a matter of faith...or lack thereof."

Seriously, do you guys even think about what you're saying?

12/14/2011 7:36:31 PM

yeh didn't you guys know there is only 1 possible way the universe existed? it's what DeltaBeta says it is

12/14/2011 7:40:51 PM

You really are dumb as a stump.

12/14/2011 7:41:41 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, do you guys even think about what you're saying?"

seriously, do you even think about what you're reading? the only thing implied by the paragraph you quoted is that science currently cannot prove the origins of the universe. therefore, it's not outlandish for people to believe in the existence of a god, and that's what i believe. go ahead and give me your little teapot example again...for the tenth time.

Quote :

"I have even asked you, or anyone else, to bring forward any evidence. You have reading comprehension issues."

if this all you have to post over and over again, just stop...it's nothing but thinly-veiled trolling. you know DAMN WELL that no one can bring forward any evidence that will satisfy you. why don't you just say so and move on to a different topic?

as i stated earlier, it all boils down to faith. call it genetic, cultural, or whatever you want. people that have it don't understand how others couldn't, and those that don't, believe people of faith are crazy. in the million religion threads on here, i'm sure a handful of minds have been changed, at best. it just digresses to personal attacks, so that's why i'm done posting in this one.

12/14/2011 9:40:56 PM

Quote :

"All Christians believe he was at least born to Mary in a physical fashion and by virtue of Joseph being his "father" he is in the line of David."

IIRC, the father would not matter in this case, as the Jewish lineage is determined through the mother.

Quote :

"He's asking how someone can believe in evolution at all and still believe in Jesus. "

because that's pretty easy. The Bible doesn't specifically state how things were created. It just says who did it. There is reason to question whether the "day" mentioned in Genesis is a literal 24-hour earth day. When you stupidly start with the premise that the Bible is a scientific textbook, then you can come up with stupid questions like this, though.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2011 9:45:46 PM

Quote :

"science currently cannot prove the origins of the universe. therefore, it's not outlandish for people to believe in the existence of a god"

See that's the thing. It IS outlandish. Why would you make that jump?

Just a few hundred years ago people had no idea why the Earth would shake from time to time. They jumped to a god causing it. With scientific advancement, we found out different. Same with storms, lightning, all manner of natural phenomenon.

So in all these thousands of years we've gone from being frightened by damned near everything and understanding nothing, to ruling out a god causing just about everything.

So why would people in this day and age jump to the conclusion of a god being the force behind anything when so many things have been proven not to be caused by a god, and nothing at all ever being proved to BE caused by a god.

That's what I just don't understand. I get faith, I do. What I don't get is how people can just detach from whatever rationality they have and apply in the rest of their life and just let it go for a god.

12/14/2011 10:01:32 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP, my entire point is that in the New Testament Gospels, it refers to Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David as real people, which they must have been if you want to believe that he was the Messiah."

I'm not aware of a lot of Christians who run around saying that Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David did not exist.

Quote :

"The writers of the Gospels clearly believed the OT was historical record. If you don't believe them on that, why do you believe them on Jesus?"

Quote :

"This cannot be logically done because the NT references the OT as fact."

These lines cracked me up. Just to be clear, you already think that belief in religion is illogical, and you already know that the answer to why religious people believe in religious things is "faith." Those two things being true, I can't fathom the point of this thread, except to reiterate the point, either for purely masturbatory reasons or in the vain hope that perhaps approaching the logical inconsistencies of religion from a slightly different angle will cause us all to come to our senses and drop the whole thing. I'm leaning towards the former because of your insistence on putting quotation marks around the word "moderate," but it could still go either way.

You want to know where moderate Christianity gets its beliefs? The same place as the rest of Christianity, a confluence of scripture and their own moral compass. Bible-thumping creationists do the same thing, it's just their compasses point slightly more towards total alignment with scripture. You still don't see them stoning adulterers or even, most of the time, fasting.

12/14/2011 10:49:25 PM

Quote :

"The same place as the rest of Christianity, a confluence of scripture and their own moral compass. Bible-thumping creationists do the same thing, it's just their compasses point slightly more towards total alignment with scripture. You still don't see them stoning adulterers or even, most of the time, fasting."

So it's completely arbitrary, that's what I want in my moral guidance.

12/14/2011 11:22:19 PM

Not exactly. The "guidance" is, in the strict sense of the word, pretty rigid -- it's written down. But what we take from whatever guidance we follow (the Bible, the categorical imperative, whatever) is a different matter. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it "arbitrary," but since we're talking about why people do things then we need to admit that part of the reason is their own individual software. This is true for everybody, regardless of religion. One could make the claim that it's particularly true of atheists and agnostics, since they don't have the hard and fast rules to start from, though this line of discussion is unproductive and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

12/15/2011 12:28:10 AM

Quote :

"The same place as the rest of Christianity, a confluence of scripture and their own moral compass. Bible-thumping creationists do the same thing, it's just their compasses point slightly more towards total alignment with scripture. You still don't see them stoning adulterers or even, most of the time, fasting. "

The whole point of this thread is to address only their interpretation of scripture. You keep saying that I shouldn't care because I write off their faith-based reasoning but I'm not even talking about that. You don't come to know Jesus in a vacuum. You don't just randomly believe in something and it just happens to be Jesus. Christians read it in the Gospels and it's the Gospels own treatment of the OT that I'm addressing. Keep trying to evade the questions though, it's extremely telling.

Quote :

"Not exactly. The "guidance" is, in the strict sense of the word, pretty rigid -- it's written down. But what we take from whatever guidance we follow (the Bible, the categorical imperative, whatever) is a different matter. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it "arbitrary," but since we're talking about why people do things then we need to admit that part of the reason is their own individual software. This is true for everybody, regardless of religion. One could make the claim that it's particularly true of atheists and agnostics, since they don't have the hard and fast rules to start from, though this line of discussion is unproductive and irrelevant to the topic at hand."

Then why fucking bring it up? You're trying to again equivocate rational reasoning with faith-based reasoning.

Quote :

"I'm not aware of a lot of Christians who run around saying that Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David did not exist. "

Surely any Christian that believes in Evolution (read: every catholic and most protestants) doesn't believe Adam existed as described in Genesis, right? Do you believe in Evolution? Do you also believe in the Garden of Eden? The timelines aren't what make the two incompatible, it's the idea that all life sprung from nothing fully formed in their present state. You can't interpret this away, I don't think as the whole notion of Genesis is that God looks like us and he created us in his image. Surely this isn't referring to the bacteria from which all life evolved billions of years ago, right? Bacteria don't have ribs, last I checked, nor reproductive organs.

My goal since you wish to infer it: to understand how Christians who believe in Evolution can also believe in the Jesus story since it relies on the Genesis story being a literal truth. Say "faith" if you wish, but you hardly came to know the Jesus story through faith alone, so why ignore the genealogy presented by Luke?

It's obvious Genesis is mythical to anyone with half a brain, which is why moderate Christians try to distance themselves from it in the first place. I'm just wondering how you manage to do that, since the Gospels appear to reference them as fact. Could you just explain your interpretation of the genealogies? Maybe that will help me understand. Or you can just thinly veil insults about atheism some more, whichever you prefer.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 1:42 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 1:41:55 AM

Quote :

"IIRC, the father would not matter in this case, as the Jewish lineage is determined through the mother."

So say the Jews, which is probably one of the many reasons they don't buy Jesus as the Messiah. Good thing I was asking Christians however, including the writers of the Gospels who were careful to mention that Jesus is a descendant of David through his father Joseph.

Quote :

"because that's pretty easy. The Bible doesn't specifically state how things were created. It just says who did it. There is reason to question whether the "day" mentioned in Genesis is a literal 24-hour earth day. When you stupidly start with the premise that the Bible is a scientific textbook, then you can come up with stupid questions like this, though. "

As mentioned above, the duration is not the question. I don't think you can handwaive away the fact that we did not just appear full formed in our present state with ribs and penises through interpretation. I'm willing to hear you try though.

What I am treating it as is the source of the Jesus story and in the exact same book as the Jesus story it refers to the Old testament story of Genesis as fact. Are Christians just willfully ignorant of even the Gospels? Except the creationists of course.

And Grumpy, I only used "moderate" so people would understand that I'm referring to the Christians that don't believe in Genesis as literal truth. Non-creationists essentially.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 2:12 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 1:50:19 AM

Quote :

"My goal since you wish to infer it: to understand how Christians who believe in Evolution can also believe in the Jesus story since it relies on the Genesis story being a literal truth."

and the answer is simple: the story of Jesus does not depend on Genesis being 100% literally true. More precisely, the NT doesn't specifically require that 7-day creation be a literal fact. I believe there is a genealogy of Jesus that references Adam and Eve, yes, but that is hardly something that undoes the entirety of the NT. The only real "concern" with genealogy in the NT is with lineage from David, as the prophecy of the Messiah predicts he will come from David's line. The reference to Adam and Eve is just window dressing.

12/15/2011 5:02:28 PM

Do you or do you not believe Adam existed as described in Genesis?

Luke isn't saying "hey there might have been this dude named Adam." He says, "Here's how you know Jesus was descended from David, and beyond that Abraham, Noah, and Adam, who was the direct son of God himself."

You keep bringing up the number of days like I care or even referenced that. It's the fact that Adam existing as described in Genesis as the first man is impossible if you believe Evolution is what brought humans into existence, entirely independent of how long it took in god-years. How about addressing what I say for a change?

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 5:25:47 PM

Quote :

"The reference to Adam and Eve is just window dressing."

12/15/2011 5:29:19 PM

What do you even mean by 'Window Dressing'? Did the author of Luke believe Jesus' ancestry to be mythical past David? Or was he just wrong? Note that I'm not asking which part of the genealogy you think is relevant.

You trust the author of Luke on the Resurrection thing, right? Why not Jesus' ancestry? I don't care if you think it's irrelevant. It's right there in the Gospel, so if it is not relevant I don't know why you'd be convinced any of it is.

12/15/2011 6:47:32 PM

wow, not often I see aaronburro reply with more than 10 words.

12/15/2011 8:10:53 PM

Quote :

"You don't come to know Jesus in a vacuum. You don't just randomly believe in something and it just happens to be Jesus. Christians read it in the Gospels and it's the Gospels own treatment of the OT that I'm addressing. Keep trying to evade the questions though, it's extremely telling."

I'm not trying to evade anything. Seriously. But I really am having trouble figuring out what the hell is going on here. Of all the things to attack about Christian religion, you're focusing for the moment on a series of "X begot Y" that only a handful of theologians pay any attention to?

Quote :

"My goal since you wish to infer it: to understand how Christians who believe in Evolution can also believe in the Jesus story since it relies on the Genesis story being a literal truth."

I don't think the story of Jesus requires Genesis being literal truth, and I suspect most people who believe in Evolution and Christianity would agree. Did God mold Adam (and his penis) out of clay? Don't think so. What makes Adam (and, by extension, the human race) is that God selected us for special treatment. Rather than messing around with play-doh, I think most of us would take the approach that aspect of man that was literally created in the image of God was the soul or consciousness or whatever you want to call it.

Quote :

"Could you just explain your interpretation of the genealogies? Maybe that will help me understand."

Like the vast majority of Christians, I'm not particularly interested in the begots from Adam to Noah to David to Jesus. The only part of the genealogy of Jesus that would seem really important would be his dad, and I ain't talking about Joseph. What, you think I'm gonna count up the generations, do the math, and say, "Huh, this doesn't add up to the amount of time the human race has been around, better abandon my whole religion." It's fucking accounting.

Quote :

"Then why fucking bring it up? You're trying to again equivocate rational reasoning with faith-based reasoning."

I was responding to a poster who wanted to single out theistic religion as being "arbitrary." I wanted to indicate that all individual moral codes -- including atheistic ones -- are going to be "arbitrary" to the extent that our own experiences and gut instincts and who knows what else are part of the equation that forms them.

I brought it up to drive the point home, then added the last clause because "Oh so now you're saying atheists can't have morality!" seemed like the inevitable result if I didn't try to blunt it right off the bat.

Quote :

"Or you can just thinly veil insults about atheism some more, whichever you prefer."

Let me be very, very clear here: I am not insulting atheism. Atheism is your business. I will, however, insult some atheists on this board who don't realize what a parody of religious extremism, fundamentalism, and bigotry they are.

Quote :

"It's right there in the Gospel, so if it is not relevant I don't know why you'd be convinced any of it is."

I already answered that, though you dismissed the answer even though it still made us all look simple and illogical: faith. You read the book, you hear about the story from some people, and the key parts draw you in and cause you to have faith. Guess what? The key parts involve redemption and love and not a listing of Joseph's great-grandparents.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 9:07 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2011 9:05:47 PM

Quote :

"I already answered that, though you dismissed the answer even though it still made us all look simple and illogical: faith. You read the book, you hear about the story from some people, and the key parts draw you in and cause you to have faith. Guess what? The key parts involve redemption and love and not a listing of Joseph's great-grandparents. "

That seems really childish though, if you have the ability to "know better."

I don't have anything against religious people on a personal level, I understand that people are drawn to religion for different reasons and I respect this IRL.

But if you are going to engage in a discussion about religion, why would you argue from a perspective of "it makes sense to ME and that's all that matters?"

The problem is that the people who are religious for the personal benefits provide safe harbor to the religious idiots who insist on a literal interpretation, causing things to snow-ball towards an anti-science, anti-reason environment:



Of course, the argument then is that even without religion, people would still believe stupid things, but religion just makes it that much easier...

the solution is for "sane" religious people to convince the nutty ones they're wrong.

12/15/2011 9:22:13 PM

Quote :

"I was responding to a poster who wanted to single out theistic religion as being "arbitrary." I wanted to indicate that all individual moral codes --including atheistic ones -- are going to be "arbitrary" to the extent that our own experiences and gut instincts and who knows what else are part of the equation that forms them."

Just because your moral code is arbitrary doesn't mean mine is. I was pointing out if yours is arbitrary then maybe there is some higher reasoning that can illuminate it. Ie morals != god

12/15/2011 10:17:51 PM