Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As dear old Maharajah Hureee jamset Ram Singh of Greyfriars might have put it "The wrigglifullness is teriffic!"
While no doubt the mobile star, descending angel and feeding of a multitude with loaves and fishes is to be taken as literally true, direct instructions from Jesus on behaviour is waved away on the grounds that they only know of one example of this (and only because you told him, old stringdoodle), while some current beef or dogmatic shibboleth is maintained as the immutable command of God on the basis of the OT (which I though Jesus made obsolete) and a very arguable reference in Paul.
We know about cafeteria Christianity and Bible quotemining, but it's the mindset behind it that fascinates me.
Basically "My belief justified me; I am a worthy person (not to mention more worthy than you) because my beliefs make me one of a privileged elite, in the next world, if not in this." That is absolutely the key to understanding them.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-21-2017 at 07:32 AM..
Do you really think it would have any effect old fruit??
You never know, old trolbuster, but it should have an effect on 13,000 a day who are seeing what a dismal show the defenders of the faith are putting up.
My dear old elephant's scroat. I will NEVER understand people who's lives are governed by wilful ignorance and superstition.
Understanding that people instinctively use ignorance and superstition to explain and fill in the gaps of what they do not know. Make something up and then refuse to budge is the instinctive way of thinking and it is called "Common sense". True, logical reason, science and the philosophies of ethics and the law that results filters down in education more that we might give the media credit for. This is added or rather addled, selected and distorted to fit the preconceptions, but we are on the whole much more informed than those even fifty years ago.
Knowing this and understanding the particular slant of Theist and cult -think allows us to understand these people really rather well.
It doesn't mean they have to be WRONG of course, but it does mean that, if they are right, they are right by accident, and their method of reasoning to get there was wrong.
are not 'Fringe' groups. These are big influntial Christian denominations. Tracie already exposed the excuse of Christians shrugging this of as the result of 'extremists' but it isn't.
Yes, where religion - all religions and denominations have a level playing -field. I suspect that what you refer to is a fear (justified) that the privileged position enjoyed by religion which it has gotten used to accepting as its' right will be roled back, and that is what seems unacceptable to you.e
Don;t you? I see his as a hate icon of the religious even more than Darwin. I see his singled out for abuse, sneering and attacks quite often. And on very flimsy grounds. I was surprised to see him quite hig up on a list of horrible people simply because of 'Elevatorgate' (which I mentioned, note) which was nothing to do withn dawkins but he rather unadvisedly said 'there were more important things'. This lack of concern for women being Hit on during Atheist conferences was perhaps bad tactics, though i see his point, but this is the very worst Dawkins has ever done, and it's **** compared to the crime, social damage and scamming we get from high profile and mainstream religion.
I may go back and look (1)), though as a rule I don't fall for ploy of giving links and books and telling me to research your case for you. I don't reacall but I would be surprised if I didn't debunk your case already.
We have been off topic for some time, old mate, which is why I mention every time that we are getting no case for the Gospel Jesus.
By all means start a thread on the dangers of religious extremism. I shall look in and will call you on it if you just talk in loose terms. I shall require specific example of extremism all sides (though I won't demand you produce extremism in Buddhism or Hinduism - which is there, I can confirm). If you try to argue on as assumed premise without validation that atheism has extremists to the same degree and proportions as Christianity, never mind trying to pretend it represents any atheists but the ones who stay quiet and the Christian ones can be dismissed as a new irrelevant crackpots or crims, you will be in for a rocky ride.
(1) I did and at p 7, you linked back to the nativity discussion. And if you think that ended in you making a case for Gospel veracity, I can only remind you that you did not address the basic discrepancy any more than Omega has addressed the 3 + contradictions I gave him, but tried to reconcile Luke and Matthew by trying to make the Lucan census the 3 BC Augustan loyalty declaration rather than the 6 AD tax census,. by various fiddles and trying to debunk Josephus, none of which worked very well. And the contradiction in the actual course of the nativities wasn't addressed at all.
I would venture asert that is any can bear to plough through that interesting but very long debate, they are unlikely to be persuaded that the Nativity ever happened, unless they are determined to believe it to start off with.
And anyway, you than came in at p 14 talking about metaphor and decrying literalism. No what is it - a literal Nativity that doesn't work (nor does the resurrection) or a metaphor for those too sophisticated to need a literal Nativity?
Trans you are taking this all wrong. I am not against religion, evolution or atheism; as I no reason we all cannot co exist in a peaceful fashion.
I am taking about how people in each of those fields who take things to the extreme; and those extremes are not good for humanity.
I am talking about those who do not care if they hurt others as long as they get their own way.
I already gave 2 points from Dawkens that show he has that mentality. Here they are again.
Dawkens open the God delusion with the song by Lenin, basically stating imagine there was no God.*
Ok go ahead and imagine that scenario and the impact that would have on much of humanity.
It would take away there hope of the hereafter, take away all the comfort they get from the belief they will see their lost loved ones again etc. Can you also imagine the depression that would set in? can you also imagine the suicide rate that could easily follow the depression?
How is any of that a humanistic view?
Is not a humanistic view suppose to be for all humankind?
Fundamentalism at it core is nothing more then demanding everyone believe like they do or by hell and high water watch out.
Dawkens and those who believe as he does are on the extreme of atheism, and this can easily be seen in that Dawkens called one of his own ( SJ Gould) a traitor just because Gould believes religion and evolution can co exits in a peaceful fashion.
Anyone who must force by any means their belief system on another is of the extreme, and it needs to stop.
are not 'Fringe' groups. These are big influntial Christian denominations. Tracie already exposed the excuse of Christians shrugging this of as the result of 'extremists' but it isn't.
Yes, where religion - all religions and denominations have a level playing -field. I suspect that what you refer to is a fear (justified) that the privileged position enjoyed by religion which it has gotten used to accepting as its' right will be roled back, and that is what seems unacceptable to you.e
Don;t you? I see his as a hate icon of the religious even more than Darwin. I see his singled out for abuse, sneering and attacks quite often. And on very flimsy grounds. I was surprised to see him quite hig up on a list of horrible people simply because of 'Elevatorgate' (which I mentioned, note) which was nothing to do withn dawkins but he rather unadvisedly said 'there were more important things'. This lack of concern for women being Hit on during Atheist conferences was perhaps bad tactics, though i see his point, but this is the very worst Dawkins has ever done, and it's **** compared to the crime, social damage and scamming we get from high profile and mainstream religion.
I may go back and look (1)), though as a rule I don't fall for ploy of giving links and books and telling me to research your case for you. I don't reacall but I would be surprised if I didn't debunk your case already.
We have been off topic for some time, old mate, which is why I mention every time that we are getting no case for the Gospel Jesus.
By all means start a thread on the dangers of religious extremism. I shall look in and will call you on it if you just talk in loose terms. I shall require specific example of extremism all sides (though I won't demand you produce extremism in Buddhism or Hinduism - which is there, I can confirm). If you try to argue on as assumed premise without validation that atheism has extremists to the same degree and proportions as Christianity, never mind trying to pretend it represents any atheists but the ones who stay quiet and the Christian ones can be dismissed as a new irrelevant crackpots or crims, you will be in for a rocky ride.
(1) I did and at p 7, you linked back to the nativity discussion. And if you think that ended in you making a case for Gospel veracity, I can only remind you that you did not address the basic discrepancy any more than Omega has addressed the 3 + contradictions I gave him, but tried to reconcile Luke and Matthew by trying to make the Lucan census the 3 BC Augustan loyalty declaration rather than the 6 AD tax census,. by various fiddles and trying to debunk Josephus, none of which worked very well. And the contradiction in the actual course of the nativities wasn't addressed at all.
I would venture asert that is any can bear to plough through that interesting but very long debate, they are unlikely to be persuaded that the Nativity ever happened, unless they are determined to believe it to start off with.
And anyway, you than came in at p 14 talking about metaphor and decrying literalism. No what is it - a literal Nativity that doesn't work (nor does the resurrection) or a metaphor for those too sophisticated to need a literal Nativity?
Disagreeing with Dawkins and Darwin is not from hate, and Dawkins statements about Christianity are more hateful than what any Christian has said about Him. Some of his comments the border on bigotry.
Trans your still talking about extreme fundamentalism religion. True religion is helping ones fellow man/woman the bible even states as much. So do you really think helping your fellow man is harmful in anyway to humanity?
Any belief that is taken to extreme is harmful to humanity.
The Dawkens mentality is just as harmful to humanity as the religion you talk about. I gave you 2 point showing this which you have not addressed.
Here is the problem as I see it.
Those who hold to the extreme can't seem to see that they hold an extreme view.
You ask any christian fundamentalist if they think what they believe is extreme and you know what their answer will be, the same goes for the atheist.
And yes you do know one.
What is one extremist view held by fundamentalists?
Disagreeing with Dawkins and Darwin is not from hate, and Dawkins statements about Christianity are more hateful than what any Christian has said about Him. Some of his comments the border on bigotry.
I don't care even if it is. All that matters is your evidence. I don't even mind that you post irrelevant and toxic stuff like this rather than engage in any valid argument, because you are doing your beliefs more harm and making atheism look better than any efforts of mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Trans you are taking this all wrong. I am not against religion, evolution or atheism; as I no reason we all cannot co exist in a peaceful fashion.
I am taking about how people in each of those fields who take things to the extreme; and those extremes are not good for humanity.
I am talking about those who do not care if they hurt others as long as they get their own way.
I already gave 2 points from Dawkens that show he has that mentality. Here they are again.
Dawkens open the God delusion with the song by Lenin, basically stating imagine there was no God.*
Ok go ahead and imagine that scenario and the impact that would have on much of humanity.
It would take away there hope of the hereafter, take away all the comfort they get from the belief they will see their lost loved ones again etc. Can you also imagine the depression that would set in? can you also imagine the suicide rate that could easily follow the depression?
How is any of that a humanistic view?
Is not a humanistic view suppose to be for all humankind?
Fundamentalism at it core is nothing more then demanding everyone believe like they do or by hell and high water watch out.
Dawkens and those who believe as he does are on the extreme of atheism, and this can easily be seen in that Dawkens called one of his own ( SJ Gould) a traitor just because Gould believes religion and evolution can co exits in a peaceful fashion.
Anyone who must force by any means their belief system on another is of the extreme, and it needs to stop.
This is not only irrelevant, well poisoning and biased, but too off - topic. It does nothing to produce proof of Gospel - Jesus.
But so you don't think I'm wriggling. I can quote Opium of the people along with the best of them. I can also say Stalin was as bad a criminal dictator as any, and I have no more time for him or Communism than Dawkins has. I cheered when the soviet flag and Berlin wall came down.
I'll leave it there but have to mention that I am aware of the latest 'atheists are fundies' ploy. To which I say, just like the 'atheism is a religion' gimmick, even if that was true, it is supported by the evidence. The religious side - Fundy or not - is not supported by the evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see his as a hate icon of the religious even more than Darwin. I see his singled out for abuse, sneering and attacks quite often. And on very flimsy grounds. I was surprised to see him quite hig up on a list of horrible people simply because of 'Elevatorgate' (which I mentioned, note) which was nothing to do withn dawkins but he rather unadvisedly said 'there were more important things'. This lack of concern for women being Hit on during Atheist conferences was perhaps bad tactics, though i see his point, but this is the very worst Dawkins has ever done, and it's **** compared to the crime, social damage and scamming we get from high profile and mainstream religion. 
