Science is what we know and we know the bible can't all be true. Its far from it and we know that. We also know that there are several stories of creation that started around the world independent of each other. Many of these stories of creation have striking similarities but are different enough to be unique. This suggests that it could be a convergent characteristic of human society to believe in a creation story similar to the one in the old testament. We don't know that.

12/15/2011 11:12:36 PM

^To your point, recently I was looking at similarities in islam and christianity. there are indeed similarities on many points of doctrine.

12/15/2011 11:34:48 PM

^

Except that it can only be read in Arabic and the penalty for apostasy is death...


Christopher Hitchens died tonight....

12/16/2011 2:27:32 AM

Quote :

"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?" "

I'm engaging in a very specific discussion about a narrow aspect of religion. I'm not defending religion as a whole, I'm trying to explain why one group shouldn't be substantially more crazy or deluded, in the eyes of the OP, than another.

Quote :

"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:"

I believe very, very strongly in keeping religion out of substantial policy discussions or scientific study. (I say "substantial" because I still don't think a nativity scene on public property is going to move us to the dark ages). You say that us "sane religious people" should try to convince the rest. Believe me, we're trying. You know what doesn't fucking help? Having people like some on this forum attacking religion in general every chance they get. You don't lure a wounded bear out of his cave by poking him with more spears.

I'm not even making a normative claim here, I'm just laying out the facts. You want us to get religion out of public policy? So do we. But when the fundies find such easy excuses to be on the defensive, it's goddamn difficult.

Quote :

"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"

I think I've figured out what this clusterfuck of a post is trying to say, and it just proves you're missing the point. All morality depends, to some extent, on the person in question. "Higher reasoning" is only something you can appeal to if you're a perfectly rational personal. I'm pretty sure that none of us are. I'm absolutely certain that nobody with such a poor grasp of their language is.

12/16/2011 2:33:12 AM

Youre right. No way to reason that boiling babies in oil is wrong. At least not without Jesus.

12/16/2011 2:56:38 AM

So far from the point I don't even know where to begin.

12/16/2011 3:35:36 AM

Quote :

"What do you even mean by 'Window Dressing'? Did the author of Luke believe Jesus' ancestry to be mythical past David?"

I believe the author genuinely believed the ancestry he put forth. But, I don't think the ancestry to Adam is important. It's not held up or referenced as being important in any way. The lineage to David, however, is important, at least in the context of the gospels, as it is used as support for Jesus being the messiah, as the prophecies regarding the messiah in the OT say the messiah will be from the line of David.

Quote :

"I will, however, insult some atheists on this board who don't realize what a parody of religious extremism, fundamentalism, and bigotry they are."

truth.

12/16/2011 8:54:17 AM

Well, obviously we cannot have a rational discussion of the Gospels. Grumpy has convinced me that Christians don't take a critical look at the Bible and just believe the passages that they prefer to.

It seems incredibly arbitrary, to believe the genealogy of Jesus to a point and then in the very same passage believe past that point is mythical. Call it "faith". From outside in, it appears to be "interpretation that is most convenient to my preconceptions."

Quote :

"You know what doesn't fucking help? Having people like some on this forum attacking religion in general every chance they get. You don't lure a wounded bear out of his cave by poking him with more spears. "

Poor oppressed Christians in America. Cry me a river.

Quote :

"I believe the author genuinely believed the ancestry he put forth. But, I don't think the ancestry to Adam is important. It's not held up or referenced as being important in any way. The lineage to David, however, is important, at least in the context of the gospels, as it is used as support for Jesus being the messiah, as the prophecies regarding the messiah in the OT say the messiah will be from the line of David. "

This is you adjudicating importance to the passage. You are deciding by fiat that the rest of that passage is unimportant because it obviously forces you to critically examine the veracity of the part which you think IS important. Nothing about the way this passage is written suggests that you should stop reading it once you get to David.

Besides, we have very little reason to believe David even existed as described in the OT! I mean, it's more plausible than Genesis but do you believe Goliath and other giants to have actually existed?

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 8:57 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2011 8:54:31 AM

Quote :

"This is you adjudicating importance to the passage. You are deciding by fiat that the rest of that passage is unimportant because it obviously forces you to critically examine the veracity of the part which you think IS important."

so then, what is it? the false dilemma that either everything is important or nothing is important? If you declare that the lineage from David to Adam is so important, then how about you explain why. What makes your fiat declaration of importance the correct one? My stance is that literally nothing in the OT or the NT references the lineage from David to Adam put forth here. Nothing. Nothing says "this lineage from Adam to David is important!" But, I can see references to the line of David elsewhere. There are prophecies about it. And why wouldn't it be important to show how a man you purport to be the messiah actually fulfilled those prophecies?

12/16/2011 9:05:42 AM

Obviously none of it is personally important to me or my beliefs so I'm reading it as what it is. The supposed genealogy of a supposed Jesus all the way back to God through Adam and everyone in between.

I'm not certain why you think whether it is "important" to you has any bearing on whether it is true.

Plenty of Ancient Greeks thought aspects of the Theogony were important too, does that mean the story of of the Titans actually happened as described?

Way to not answer the question about David by the way.

References to Adam and the Noah abound in the New Testament so your "that's the only place I see it so it isn't important" bullshit is just that. Do you even read the Bible? It's not just the author of Luke that refers to Adam as the first man.

Whatever, just say faith and wave your arms like you're not making shit up.

12/16/2011 9:29:11 AM

Nevermind, continue the argument.

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 9:46 AM. Reason : *]

12/16/2011 9:45:56 AM

Quote :

"Way to not answer the question about David by the way."

what's there to answer? you said that people question whether David existed. good. congratulations on knowing that. or are you asking me about Goliath? and if so, how in the fuck is that even close to being relevant about the lineage to David, other than being an event in David's life?

Quote :

"References to Adam and the Noah abound in the New Testament so your "that's the only place I see it so it isn't important" bullshit is just that."

Sure, there are references to Adam and Noah, but not to any importance of their lineage to Jesus, which, if you actually read what I said, is clearly what I was referring to. Again, I'm still waiting for you to explain why your fiat is the correct one that the lineage to Adam even matters. I've clearly explained why the lineage to David would matter in the context of the NT and OT. Now, support your claim that the lineage to Adam matters in the overall context of the NT or, more narrowly, the Gospels

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM. Reason : ]

12/16/2011 10:01:34 AM

Is modern Christianity even really a belief?

It sounds like just an institution.

12/16/2011 1:27:11 PM

Since you're inventing the context by fiat I'm not going to even try. You are deciding ahead of time that the veracity of the lineage only matters so far as to David. In the context of "proving that Jesus is a descendant of David" I wholly agree. Unfortunately both Luke and Matthew kept going, but let's just ignore that because it has nothing to do with the arbitrary context that you conjured a priori.

The context in which I read the Gospels are "a description of the story of Jesus, including but not wholly limited to the context in which aaronburro decides what is and is not important." Before this point I was fairly certain that Christians held every line of the Gospels as important. I guess it's only the ones that fit their notion of Christianity.

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2011 1:30:15 PM

Quote :

"Poor oppressed Christians in America. Cry me a river."

Are you willfully being fucking stupid, or is it just happening naturally? Whether or not they are oppressed doesn't matter, but if they perceive themselves as under attack then they're even less likely to listen to reason than usual. Pricks like you have successfully linked "pro-science/pro-reason" with "aggressive atheists who want to kill baby Jesus" in the minds of the religious right. No fucking wonder they fight progress tooth and nail.

You can take this sarcastic tack on principle, or you could try an approach that actually has a chance at helping the fucking situation. My guess is you'll continue to choose the option that lets you wallow in a smug sense of superiority, deeply inhaling the perfume of your own shit.

12/16/2011 1:33:33 PM

When the religious right stops pushing this shit in education and government, maybe we'll be less aggressive.

12/16/2011 1:37:18 PM

^^It's not the entrenched religious right I care to change nor care what they think about my tone. It's the moderates who can recognize the ridiculousness of the >80% majority claiming how poorly get treated. It's the fence sitters who may just stop and think "you know, that really doesn't make a lick of sense."

You might think that my approach doesn't have a chance, but that's because you think my goal is to change yours or aaronburro's mind.

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2011 1:53:40 PM

Well stop being aggressive when you nutsos stop flying planes into buildings.

12/16/2011 3:03:11 PM

I'm going to attempt to bring this thread back to the original topic. I'm not going to debate the existence of G-d.

It has always upset me when ignorant Christians (and I mean specific Christians who are ignorant, I'm not saying they all are) tell me I'm a bad person for not following the New Testament when they have completely thrown out an overwhelming majority of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, we don't call it the Old Testament since we don't have a new one).

Many parts of the "old testament" as written in the King James Bible and other non-Hebrew publications changed the translation to better fit Jesus' life. Jesus didn't fulfill the prohphesy of the OT Messiah, but the words in the OT were changed to make it look like he did.

What bugs me the most is views of homosexuality. First of all, despite being surrounded by dozens of laws Christians worldwide ignore, one line of Leviticus is used constantly as a talking point against gay marriage. Secondly, they never even quote the line as what it really means. It is made very clear that David was in a homosexual relationship and was still loved by G-d, but that always gets ignored.

12/16/2011 3:07:29 PM

Quote :

"It's the moderates who can recognize the ridiculousness of the >80% majority claiming how poorly get treated. It's the fence sitters who may just stop and think "you know, that really doesn't make a lick of sense.""

Assuming I correctly understand this dog's breakfast of a sentence, it still shows me that you're missing the point. The moderates don't feel oppressed, and they're also not the ones who are trying to bend policy in accordance with their personal religious beliefs.

Quote :

"When the religious right stops pushing this shit in education and government, maybe we'll be less aggressive."

But that's exactly my point. You're making it easy for them to associate secular education and government with rabid atheists who call them all assholes and want to dismantle their religion. You drive otherwise moderate people into their fold. It doesn't make tactical or strategic sense, which is what leads me to believe that you're just doing it to be a dick.

12/16/2011 3:24:07 PM

Well you know, 2000 years or torture, murder and systemic abuses of all kinds, sort of makes people turn into dicks.

12/16/2011 3:27:43 PM

Quote :

"You are deciding ahead of time that the veracity of the lineage only matters so far as to David."

And I've given a pretty damned compelling argument as to why: the prophecies regarding the messiah being from that line. Do you take any issue with that argument? Care to explain why, if you do?

Quote :

"Before this point I was fairly certain that Christians held every line of the Gospels as important."

So, then, you have, as we all suspected, built up a beautiful strawman and then proceeded to pummel the shit out of it. Or, you came in with a pre-conceived false-dilemma and silently imposed it on all who entered the discussion. Good work!

12/16/2011 3:36:57 PM

Oddly I am in agreement with teh burro. We all know that xtians pick and choose whatever verses they like and disregard any others.

12/16/2011 3:57:45 PM

Yep. I'll ignore Genesis in the OT, but not the prophecies in the OT, and then I'll ignore anything referencing Genesis in the NT but not anything that validates those OT prophecies. Noted.

12/16/2011 4:17:09 PM

Quote :

"Well you know, 2000 years or torture, murder and systemic abuses of all kinds, sort of makes people turn into dicks."

Well, we've tried creating atheistic societies, and the USSR managed to pack quite a bit of torture, murder, and systemic abuse into its short life. So I don't think religion has a monopoly on the dickmaking business.

12/16/2011 4:42:41 PM

Let me roll out the atheistic scriptures that were used to justify being a dick.

Here's a hint. Stalin's dictatorship wasn't terrible because it was atheistic. It was terrible because it was dogmatic and deified Stalin above all opposing viewpoints. It was too much like a religion.

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2011 4:54:24 PM

Isn't the point of a dictator just that? He becomes the single ruler as if he had the power of 'a god'

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ,]

12/16/2011 4:55:56 PM

Indeed. But atheism is the reason for it, apparently.

12/16/2011 4:59:12 PM

I'm glad to see that I was able to get you to bring that false dilemma out into the open. lets everyone know to ignore this thread now.

12/16/2011 5:10:13 PM

Regarding moderates and conservatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGxVeQw3SE

It's not about the fact that there are extremists out there. It's that the rational people out there make blanket statements that clearly and unambiguously identify belief in the following:

- Earthquakes and hurricanes were God's way of getting the attention of politicians
- Virgin birth
- Resurrections
- The bible is the literal word of God
- There were talking snakes
- It is right to kill your son if God tells you to
- There are clean and unclean animals
- The story of the flood is true with all that it implies
- We should stone anyone who works on a Sunday
- Mixing cotton and linen will send you to hell

The issue is that these people should not believe this. The process of rationalism they exercise in EVERY OTHER public discussion they participate in demonstrates a clear mind that values evidence and a functional moral compass. Hopefully someone religious will tell me they don't believe these things. Because that's the point! Stop fucking saying that you believe in these. Stop making statements that clearly and unambiguously imply that you believe these.

In other words:
Please stop speaking in code.

Honestly, on the idea of God as a creator of the universe, I'm entirely sold! Well, more specification is needed, but sure, let's talk about a clock maker. Many formulations of this (and there are many) conclude in a rational belief. But what would this God have to do with the Holy Bible?

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 7:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2011 7:01:59 PM

Quote :

"It's that the rational people out there make blanket statements that clearly and unambiguously identify belief in the following"

is it your contention that simply saying "I am a Christian" means you agree with every one of those things you listed unequivocably?

12/16/2011 8:52:14 PM

Quote :

"Let me roll out the atheistic scriptures that were used to justify being a dick."

I don't think you're going to fit "The Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital" into a single post.

Quote :

"It was terrible because it was dogmatic and deified Stalin above all opposing viewpoints."

The USSR managed to kill, torture, and abuse before and after Stalin's cult of personality. I don't think anybody was revering Chernenko or Andropov as being godlike. I don't recall the gulags evaporating after Kruschev admitted that Uncle Joe had been kind of a shit-head.

But of course, I wasn't even suggesting that the USSR sucked because it was atheistic. I was suggesting that unspeakably awful things don't happen because of religion. They happen because some people are awful. You think that if they hadn't been Catholic, the sadists who launched the Inquisition wouldn't have found another outlet for their revolting behavior?

12/16/2011 9:33:58 PM

Maybe those leaders actually believed that the people would be better off if they (the leaders) were controlling everything. I doubt it, though. The trick is get the masses to believe that big government is in their best interests.

Statism is like a religion, except at least with religion, there's no "proof" that the deity doesn't exist. With the state, there's more than enough proof that command economies don't last. Doesn't matter - state-controlled education won't teach that, so most people accept government control as something that should be around because...well, it is around. It has also been around for a long time.

What we need is a new era of rationality, an enlightenment if you will, that rejects the need for both mysticism and statism.

[Edited on December 16, 2011 at 9:46 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2011 9:43:19 PM

Yes, driving home from work on Friday I knew I should have posted "/The State" after "Stalin" because I knew someone would ignore the entire post and say 'b-b-b-b-b-but there were other rulers in the USSR than Stalin".

My point was absolutism and dogma are the hallmark of every totalitarian regime, and every religion.

Your point is yet again "bad things happen independent of religion" is still missing the forest for the trees. Religion and totalitarianism are both the products of irrationality and dogma. Both suck, and the world would be better off without either.

Quote :

"You think that if they hadn't been Catholic, the sadists who launched the Inquisition wouldn't have found another outlet for their revolting behavior?"

Who knows? Even if they had, would that somehow prove that religion had nothing to do with the Inquisition? How many years are you going to grasp at this straw?

12/19/2011 9:05:44 AM

The things that made Stalin terrible had nothing to do with the ideology he claimed to espouse. Gulags, mass killings and purges, completely non-democratic totalitarianism, all those things are about as Socialist as the DPRK is a Democratic Republic. There's nothing in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital that suggests any of those things. The "Dictatorship of the Proleteriat" wasn't a phrase to be taken literally, all of Marx's works indicated the society he envisioned was strictly Democratic, run by Democratic assemblies of workers.

It was Lenin and Stalin especially who took it to mean a single vanguard party to rule everyone, and a single leader-for-life to rule the party. Most of the nations that went Communist in the 20th century were formerly autocratic monarchies, and I think there's a strong case to be made that they simply were not culturally prepared to go from an agrarian, feudal society to a post-industrial democratic communist state.

I suppose the analogy to religion is that there are plenty of people who do terrible things in the name of religion that aren't actually part of the religion. Thing is, most of the old religions have pretty terrible practices directly encoded into their scriptures...

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 2:45:34 PM