[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Funny, I thought it was generally the Christians who said that people who disagreed with them died in a fire.

Any Christian follower who chooses to rant at you and screams about how you will be Damned to eternal Damnation needs to reevaluate what they're doing. It is entirely inappropriate.

If anything, Jesus Christ of all people would have been kind, accepting, and accomodating to anyone regardless of their personal beliefs.

[SenorCheaposGato]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues One need not ramble to make a concise statement without "being a dick". Example 1: "I don't believe in God or the Bible's validity." Example 2: "God is a murdering farce and the Bible is nothing but a book of lies and anyone who believes it is a complete and utter fool and should die in a fire." Guess which example is preferred!

Great examples. I think the key here may be respect...golden rule and all that.

As I said, I'm an atheist, but I'd like to think that Jesus did exist (as a smooth-talking carpenter with some pretty cool ideas about how to live peacefully.) I like to think that Buddha, Muhammed, etc. existed too. I don't know if they did or not--no one does--but there are some religious figures that had some fantastic ideas/philosophies about how to live a good, peaceful, productive life. I have no qualms pulling what I like from different religions/philosophies without the stuff I don't like (including the faith).

Philosophy buffet...mmm.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato Great examples. I think the key here may be respect...golden rule and all that. As I said, I'm an atheist, but I'd like to think that Jesus did exist (as a smooth-talking carpenter with some pretty cool ideas about how to live peacefully.) I like to think that Buddha, Muhammed, etc. existed too. I don't know if they did or not--no one does--but there are some religious figures that had some fantastic ideas/philosophies about how to live a good, peaceful, productive life. I have no qualms pulling what I like from different religions/philosophies without the stuff I don't like (including the faith). Philosophy buffet...mmm.

I've got a great joke about Jesus regarding his status as the world's first hippie.

I mean, how could he not be? He walked around in a robe, with long hair, in sandals, preaching about universal love and acceptance.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues You are most certainly welcome to believe that; I disagree.

But you should be perfectly well able to call it a ridiculous claim. Clearly it is.

Considering the world's three largest religions all corroborate some or much of what is in what is considered the Bible, I think it's fair to say there's some validity and grain of truth to it all.

Argumentum ad populum. Further, the three Abrahamic religions (they are not, by the way, the three largest religions.) are derived from the same source.

It is for this reason that many will say that Jesus Christ did exist - of course the question of whether he was just a smooth-talking carpenter or the Son of God or whatever-you-will is entirely debated. But, the fact that he existed is corroborated.

Sure, but so is the existence of Mohammed, the Dharma Buddha, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.

Similarly, the Great Flood is corroborated in many other items of folklore besides Judeo-Christian ones (the Story of Gilgamesh for one).

Add in Greek mythology as well, and Chinese, etc... Now, here's a problem- the Great Flood as described in the Christian bible is clearly inaccurate: Mt. Ararat is hardly the tallest mountain on earth.
Here's another: Every one of the large historical civilizations sprung up around a river. Floods were one of their greatest fears. Of course they had hyperbolic stories about them, in much the same way we have hyperbolic stories about terrorists and airplane hijackings today. That doesn't mean the story ever happened, just as Jack Bauer didn't really kill Chuck Norris's evil brother (or whatever, I don't watch TV).
Perhaps another civilization, 1000 years from now, will come upon a pile of Superman comics and come to the conclusion we knelt before Zod.

Some people like to operate under the belief that they have a higher purpose in life than to simply live and die and call it a day.

Ah, wishful thinking.
Just because you WANT something to be true doesn't mean it actually is.
*goes back to operating under the belief that ten million dollars will appear in his top drawer overnight*

[SenorCheaposGato]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues I've got a great joke about Jesus regarding his status as the world's first hippie. I mean, how could he not be? He walked around in a robe, with long hair, in sandals, preaching about universal love and acceptance.

Fantastic--I love thinking of Jesus as a hippie! I agree--his message was peace, love, and tolerance. He had some pretty good ideas, eh? I admire him as a man (if he existed--if not, then I'd like to congratulate the author on coming up with such a cool guy.)

It's nice to see a really tolerant, laid back Christian. It doesn't seem like there are enough of you guys around!

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato Fantastic--I love thinking of Jesus as a hippie! I agree--his message was peace, love, and tolerance. He had some pretty good ideas, eh? I admire him as a man (if he existed--if not, then I'd like to congratulate the author on coming up with such a cool guy.)

You clearly haven't actually read that much of the Bible. I'm pretty sure that the first mention of a "lake of fire" in the Bible is from Jesus, and it's a pretty common theme in his speeches. See Mark 9 as an example.

(as a side note, Mark 9:1 is pretty convincing evidence that the Bible is wrong- Jesus prophesies the end of the world and... well, we're still here.)

[SenorCheaposGato]

JoshJ:

I won't argue that you could call it a ridiculous statement. It's the Invisible Pink Unicorn...personally, I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's just not very nice to say it's a ridiculous idea.

Just because you WANT something to be true doesn't mean it actually is. *goes back to operating under the belief that ten million dollars will appear in his top drawer overnight*

You're right. Wanting something doesn't make it a reality. (especially with material items.) The thing is, to people who are religious that is their reality, whether we like it/agree with it or not. If that makes it easier for them to face life, it gives them a sense of purpose, gives them strength, or whatever then good for them! Well, good for them until they try to push it on me.

I think religion/spirituality is too personal and subjective to really make any good/bad or reasonable/ridiculous judgments on it. As far as I'm concerned, people can believe whatever they wish (and act as if their belief is reality) as long as they don't expect me to do the same.

[utabintarbo]

Is religion really worth the effort required to "bash" it?

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato You're right. Wanting something doesn't make it a reality. (especially with material items.) The thing is, to people who are religious that is their reality, whether we like it/agree with it or not. If that makes it easier for them to face life, it gives them a sense of purpose, gives them strength, or whatever then good for them! Well, good for them until they try to push it on me.

"Their reality"? If someone says the world was made last Tuesday, you'd be quite right in calling them insane. The evidence just doesn't hold up to that claim at all and Last Tuesdayists offer no proof. However, when someone claims the world is 6000 years old, there's no evidence to that claim and they offer no proof. However, the latter group attaches the Bible to their claim and this is somehow supposed to defend them- you can't call them insane, you're attacking their religion!
Why should religion be a shield for crazy ideas?

Originally Posted by utabintarbo Is religion really worth the effort required to "bash" it?

When religious people (In the USA, this is Christians- they're the only religious group with a large enough base) are trying to pass laws based on their religion, hold back scientific progress because of their religious beliefs (stem cells, evolution, etc), it's not only "worth the effort", it's necessary.

[SenorCheaposGato]

Originally Posted by JoshJ You clearly haven't actually read that much of the Bible. I'm pretty sure that the first mention of a "lake of fire" in the Bible is from Jesus, and it's a pretty common theme in his speeches. See Mark 9 as an example.

You caught me. I actually read "The Holy Bible: The Good Parts Version." No, I honestly can't say that I have read that much of the bible. I've never really felt the need to. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt me, but I've got a big stack of books I've been waiting to read for awhile, and now that I'm done with school I plan to do that first. Like I said before, I like to pick the parts I like and leave the rest. Most of what I know about Christianity I've picked up here and there, in large part from talking with friends and family (ranging from born-again Christian to militant atheist). I've always gotten the impression that lakes of fire are more old-testament, but I'll take your word for it.

I'm still going to think of Jesus as a hippie, though...I think he spent more time on "love thy brother" than lakes of fire.

Originally Posted by JoshJ (as a side note, Mark 9:1 is pretty convincing evidence that the Bible is wrong- Jesus prophesies the end of the world and... well, we're still here.)

I'm not arguing that the bible is right. I don't think it will predict the future, nor do I think that Jesus rose from the grave. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

[panickedthumb]

But bashing will get you nowhere. Criticism is necessary. Bashing will make people ignore you for being a dick. There is a difference.

[SenorCheaposGato]

JoshJ, I don't mean to be offensive, but what do you have against religion? Yes, it's been a part of some terrible things. But a lot of terrible things have happened without religion.

I used to really hate religion, but I got over it. They're not hurting me, they can believe what they want if it helps them.

I also think that there is a difference between Last Tuesdayists and, for example, Christians. A Last Tuesdayist would probably be alone (maybe a few friends would agree) and he would have just come up with it.

Like it or not, the fact that Christianity has been around for a long time and has the bible does make a difference. It's not a single person having a psychotic break or a drug fueled hallucination--it's a very long tradition that many people grow up in. People (by and large) don't question beliefs they learned from very early childhood on.

Call it indoctrination if you want, but the fact that it's a very old phenomenon/belief system that has been taught through generations does make a difference.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato You caught me. I actually read "The Holy Bible: The Good Parts Version." No, I honestly can't say that I have read that much of the bible. I've never really felt the need to. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt me, but I've got a big stack of books I've been waiting to read for awhile, and now that I'm done with school I plan to do that first. Like I said before, I like to pick the parts I like and leave the rest. Most of what I know about Christianity I've picked up here and there, in large part from talking with friends and family (ranging from born-again Christian to militant atheist). I've always gotten the impression that lakes of fire are more old-testament, but I'll take your word for it.

The Old Testament mentions hell a lot- the Hebrew word was sheol. Basically, it meant roughly "grave" or "underworld". Some readers take the OT mentions of "hell" to basically mean "death"- in other words the punishment for certain things was not that you went to hell after you died, but that the punishment was literally death.
Regardless, the Judeo-Christian conception of Hell clearly changed over time, with a big change in perception lining up with the translation into Greek, in which the Hebrew sheol got translated into Hades.

It's also worth mentioning that a lot of the modern perception of "what Hell looks like" has more to do with Dante's Inferno than the Bible. Somewhat ironic given what the Church thought of Dante at the time.

I'm still going to think of Jesus as a hippie, though...I think he spent more time on "love thy brother" than lakes of fire.

This is a rather generous assertion, and I'm not at all sure a fair (complete) reading would bear it out.

I'm not arguing that the bible is right. I don't think it will predict the future, nor do I think that Jesus rose from the grave. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I wasn't directing it at you, it was just a random side note. IMO, the Bible, when read with an open mind, is the best argument for not being a Christian.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato JoshJ, I don't mean to be offensive, but what do you have against religion? Yes, it's been a part of some terrible things. But a lot of terrible things have happened without religion. I used to really hate religion, but I got over it. They're not hurting me, they can believe what they want if it helps them.

If you live in the USA, they are trying to take away your freedom. That's enough right there.

Furthermore, religious groups consistently hinder scientific progress. That's enough right there.

Thirdly, they're basically a scam on the populace- I have more respect for religions that don't demand a tithe and/or an offering than those that do. I'm not sure there are any that don't, though. That's enough reason to mistrust them right there.

I also think that there is a difference between Last Tuesdayists and, for example, Christians. A Last Tuesdayist would probably be alone (maybe a few friends would agree) and he would have just come up with it.

argumentum ad populum again.

Like it or not, the fact that Christianity has been around for a long time and has the bible does make a difference. It's not a single person having a psychotic break or a drug fueled hallucination--it's a very long tradition that many people grow up in. People (by and large) don't question beliefs they learned from very early childhood on.

Nobody worships Zeus anymore, nor Quezacoatl. Just because it's old doesn't make it true. In fact, as science progresses we've been finding out the exact opposite.

Call it indoctrination if you want, but the fact that it's a very old phenomenon/belief system that has been taught through generations does make a difference.

Memetics. Sure, it's indoctrination. It served a purpose a long time ago, when people had to be kept in line with the fear of God (really the fear of Hell) in order to keep order. We don't need that sort of thing now to have an orderly society.

[SenorCheaposGato]

I'm not arguing that it's true. I'm just arguing that because it is taught to most of the population of the US starting at a young age there is a difference. The numbers and age do make a difference in terms of the level of ridiculousness.

I do agree that neo-con Christians are causing some real problems in the US. They are holding the highest positions in government and they scare the CRAP out of me--but not necessarily because of their religion.

(even though I try to be as tolerant as possible, the religion part of it also creeps me out...did god really tell Bush to attack Iraq? That seems pretty messed up to me.)

Good point with the scientific progress as well...

My defense for my inability to come up with those points before are as follows:
- I think I may be overly tolerant sometimes
and
- I'm really, really tired.

I think you're making some really good, valid points. I'm not offended by any of it, but you're not talking about anything I hold sacred. (I think empirical research may be the closest thing to "sacred" that I have...) You clearly know your shit...too bad that's not enough to convince anyone.

You got me, but you're preaching to the choir.... (dammit, I keep running into religion-related cliches...)

[utabintarbo]

Originally Posted by JoshJ ... When religious people (In the USA, this is Christians- they're the only religious group with a large enough base) are trying to pass laws based on their religion, hold back scientific progress because of their religious beliefs (stem cells, evolution, etc), it's not only "worth the effort", it's necessary.

Just to clarify, regarding stem cells, the only thing held back was federal money for research. Private research is not restricted. As I don't think scientific research is within the purview of a proper government, I have no problem with it. Scientific progress is safe.

Essentially nothing else (vis-a-vis "Christian" issues) has actually been passed. Stay calm.

[SenorCheaposGato]

I'm calm...just wary and mistrusting.

Wary is good....

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ But you should be perfectly well able to call it a ridiculous claim. Clearly it is.

Did I say otherwise? It's still argumentum ad lapidem.

Argumentum ad populum. Further, the three Abrahamic religions (they are not, by the way, the three largest religions.) are derived from the same source.

In the strictest sense, yes, it is argumentum ad populum. However, the slightest bit of evaluation shows that in the case of the majority believing something to be true, to the best of their knowledge, it is true. Even in such cases as "the earth is flat" argument, to the best of their knowledge, it was.

Sure, but so is the existence of Mohammed, the Dharma Buddha, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.

Of course.

In all likelihood, if we could resurrect them all, most of them would probably be hanging out in Starbucks drinking coffee and chatting it up.

Add in Greek mythology as well, and Chinese, etc... Now, here's a problem- the Great Flood as described in the Christian bible is clearly inaccurate: Mt. Ararat is hardly the tallest mountain on earth.

And how were such archaic societies to be able to properly identify not only the height of such features, but travel the world in order to find what is truly the highest point?

Here's another: Every one of the large historical civilizations sprung up around a river. Floods were one of their greatest fears. Of course they had hyperbolic stories about them, in much the same way we have hyperbolic stories about terrorists and airplane hijackings today. That doesn't mean the story ever happened, just as Jack Bauer didn't really kill Chuck Norris's evil brother (or whatever, I don't watch TV).

I believe there is also geographical evidence to indicate some sort of "Massive flood" that could be comparable to the tellings of the Great Flood.

Perhaps another civilization, 1000 years from now, will come upon a pile of Superman comics and come to the conclusion we knelt before Zod.

We're much better at writing down things than previous cultures.

Ah, wishful thinking. Just because you WANT something to be true doesn't mean it actually is. *goes back to operating under the belief that ten million dollars will appear in his top drawer overnight*

Argumentum ad ignorantium - how quaint.

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato It's nice to see a really tolerant, laid back Christian. It doesn't seem like there are enough of you guys around!

I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by JoshJ You clearly haven't actually read that much of the Bible. I'm pretty sure that the first mention of a "lake of fire" in the Bible is from Jesus, and it's a pretty common theme in his speeches. See Mark 9 as an example. (as a side note, Mark 9:1 is pretty convincing evidence that the Bible is wrong- Jesus prophesies the end of the world and... well, we're still here.)

There's a huge difference between "If you are not Saved, then you will forever be in a Lake of Fire" and "LISTEN TO ME YOU ARE GOING TO BE ETERNALLY AND FOREVER PUNISHED IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO EVERY WORD I SAY SO SHUT UP AND BELIEVE IN ME!!!"

Originally Posted by utabintarbo Is religion really worth the effort required to "bash" it?

One could say the same about bashing any belief or ideology.

Originally Posted by JoshJ "Their reality"? If someone says the world was made last Tuesday, you'd be quite right in calling them insane.

Only because that's what society has deemed to be the acceptable response, which in turns, goes right back to argumentum ad populum.

The evidence just doesn't hold up to that claim at all and Last Tuesdayists offer no proof. However, when someone claims the world is 6000 years old, there's no evidence to that claim and they offer no proof. However, the latter group attaches the Bible to their claim and this is somehow supposed to defend them- you can't call them insane, you're attacking their religion! Why should religion be a shield for crazy ideas?

Because you're simply using argumentum ad ignorantium over and over again?

When religious people (In the USA, this is Christians- they're the only religious group with a large enough base) are trying to pass laws based on their religion, hold back scientific progress because of their religious beliefs (stem cells, evolution, etc), it's not only "worth the effort", it's necessary.

I don't judge the Islamic faith based on the actions of its extremists, so why do you insist on judging all religion based on the actions of extremists?

Originally Posted by panickedthumb But bashing will get you nowhere. Criticism is necessary. Bashing will make people ignore you for being a dick. There is a difference.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato JoshJ, I don't mean to be offensive, but what do you have against religion? Yes, it's been a part of some terrible things. But a lot of terrible things have happened without religion.

Quite.

I used to really hate religion, but I got over it. They're not hurting me, they can believe what they want if it helps them.

I feel the same about any other demographic I'm not a part of (eg. gays, etc.) As long as I'm not personally harmed as a result of what they're doing, then I don't see any reason why they should be unable to do and believe what they want.

I also think that there is a difference between Last Tuesdayists and, for example, Christians. A Last Tuesdayist would probably be alone (maybe a few friends would agree) and he would have just come up with it. Like it or not, the fact that Christianity has been around for a long time and has the bible does make a difference. It's not a single person having a psychotic break or a drug fueled hallucination--it's a very long tradition that many people grow up in. People (by and large) don't question beliefs they learned from very early childhood on. Call it indoctrination if you want, but the fact that it's a very old phenomenon/belief system that has been taught through generations does make a difference.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by JoshJ I wasn't directing it at you, it was just a random side note. IMO, the Bible, when read with an open mind, is the best argument for not being a Christian.

Because no other society past or present has ever advocated strict punishments for what they deemed inappropriate behavior, right?

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by gato I do agree that neo-con Christians are causing some real problems in the US. They are holding the highest positions in government and they scare the CRAP out of me--but not necessarily because of their religion.

It's not their religion that's the problem, it's the way they seek to impose their religion on others.
However, that wouldn't be a problem if their religion didn't exist, now would it? Even if they still sought to push their beliefs on others, they wouldn't have the huge base of people willing to follow them in the name of Jesus. They'd actually have to convince a bunch of people first.

Originally Posted by utabintarbo Just to clarify, regarding stem cells, the only thing held back was federal money for research. Private research is not restricted. As I don't think scientific research is within the purview of a proper government, I have no problem with it. Scientific progress is safe. Essentially nothing else (vis-a-vis "Christian" issues) has actually been passed. Stay calm.

Evolution is a huge issue, it's just that the schools are run by the states as opposed to the nation.
Also, I was under the impression that there were restrictions on stem cell lines- no more could be created.

Also, the problem isn't just what has been passed, it is also what hasn't been passed. Gay people still can't get married (or adopt in many places), and the main justification for that is that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin (in the same chapter it also bans eating shrimp, but for some reason you don't see them going after shrimp.) There's still huge religious opposition to abortion- so huge that it crowds out any real debate and just turns it into a "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL FOR KILLING BABIES!" "IT ISN'T EVEN ALIVE UNTIL IT'S BORN!" screamfest. There's certainly room for debate outside of those positions but the Religious Right screws up the discourse.

Also, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court is effectively 5-4 liberal right now and that tempers the ability of the Right to do what they want to do. I have no doubt that if the court were 5-4 conservative instead we'd already be screwed over.