How can people still think like this? [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

surodat

26-01-2009, 10:46 PM

I'll raise you one, unfortunately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?hp

I just hate this kind of stupidity. You want to gamble your life, fine, do so. But I'm sorry, they essentially murdered that child.

Let's use medicine AND pray. That way all bases are covered.

This kind of crap was covered by my Junior Kindergarden Catholic School Teach when she told me this story:

A man heard on the Radio that there was a huge flood coming towards his town, and that everyone should evacuate. But he thought, "No, I won't leave, God will save me!"

The flood arrive, and still the man stayed in his house. A boat came by, and the man in it said "Come on mate, get in!"

"No" replied the man. "God will save me!"

The flood got very high now and the man had to stand on the roof of his house.

A helicopter soon came and the man offered him help. "No, God will save me!" he said.

Eventually the man drowned.

Arriving in heaven he said to God, "Why didn't you save me?"

God replied, "I sent a radio report, a boat, and a helicopter. What more do you want, you dumbass!"

In this case God should say to the parents: "I gave you idiots the gift of rational thought that allowed the creation of the field of medicine - that's a miracle enough. Go to a Doctor!"

As for the witchcraft thing - *shrug*. All of Africa needs infrastructure (Except for the 3 major western trade hubs) - economical, political, educational, medical and physical. Until that happens, this kind of thing will always happen.

Walkingapocalypse

27-01-2009, 06:39 AM

The goat one was hilarioius.

The religious one was outright stupidity on the parents' part.

Mazhulsage

27-01-2009, 11:21 AM

Archania

27-01-2009, 02:33 PM

The first one is funny. I wonder if they will do a DNA test to see if its really a human.
For the second.. the parents should be in jail. I know what it does to a child with diabetes. My son was diagnosed last Easter. He looked like a skeleton with some skin on him. Everything you drink or eat (if you can) comes right back up besides the constant bathroom. You are so weak and sick its unbelievable you want to cry just looking at the child. It took a full day for him to come out of it at the hospital with all the insulin/drugs they kept on giving him. Its not a pretty sight nor something that any child be put through. Those parents of the girl should be treated the same way.. let them slowly rot.

jschild

27-01-2009, 03:18 PM

The parents were idiots, but it wasn't truely their fault... I mean, obviously they 100% believed God would save their child, and IMO the child was saved, from possibly further occurences of things like this since I also believe in God... They should've taken the kid to the hospital, but they didn't, that's ignorance on their part, not flat out "Nope, he'll be saved, just wait another minute, if she's not fine then we'll go... Oh... She's gone." it wasn't like that, it was purely "Eventually" to them.

Yes it was TRULY their fault. They are responsible for their child. Those chose to refuse medical treatment for that child. They ensured their child died. It was, completely 100%, their fault, bar none. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Twoflower

27-01-2009, 03:52 PM

there should be licenses for having kids just like for driving. To let your child die and believe that your "imaginary friend for grownups" will eventualy save it is just moronic. They should be punished for manslaughter through criminal negligence at the very least.

Mazhulsage

28-01-2009, 11:39 PM

jschild

29-01-2009, 12:21 AM

Most of the world does not believe in denying your child needed medical care.

Those people were idiots and deserve jail. In America, there is no excuse for that kind of behavior. You are free to practice your beliefs as long as you do not harm others. They chose to harm and kill their child. Once that child turned 18, she could have refused all the medical care in the world, before then, preventing medical care is child abuse and should be treated as such.

Your freedom of religion ends once people start dying for your beliefs.

snowieken

29-01-2009, 12:29 AM

odinsnephew

29-01-2009, 12:36 AM

I don't believe that a moderator should be bashing something that most of the world believes in, nor even something that only one person believes in, you're a moderator and a controller of these forums. You're acting like a 12 year old troll on the WoW Forums.

I'm struggling to grasp what you are rambling on about here? Is it the "Imaginary friend for grownups" comment? If so excuse the pun but, Good Lord :grin:

elsegundo

29-01-2009, 01:44 AM

having seem Maz argue before, i would guess that he's not really talking about the topic, but rather just the part of the post where 2flower said imaginary grownup friend. or something like that. then he took it offensively somehow and figured moderators should not be saying such garbage. or he can be referring to any of the things 2flower said. im sure we'll find out eventually.

in any case, i dont believe that this imaginary friend for grownups is the actual problem. it was the parents and not the God or god or gods they believed in that caused the eventual death of their daughter. it was their belief.

MrBCorp

29-01-2009, 02:38 AM

snowieken

29-01-2009, 03:33 AM

I think Maz has a point. No need to offend people with such a derogatory way of wording it. And doesn't being a moderator mean you have to be on better behaviour? (I'm not offended, just pointing it out) :smiley:Moderators on these forums are taken from the general community. This means that we never had any official "training", but also that we were once normal posters like anyone else. This still reflects in the way we post our opinions about certain matters just like a normal poster would. I myself have ran into a few problems as well expressing my opinion a bit too freely... We are only human. Now that I am green for quite a while already (the longest from the current moderators, apart from Elly and Rushster and I think Shanda too) I have learned a bit. As a moderator, we represent worldofwar.net in a way, and whatever we say can be seen as this website's point of view on things. Besides, our status requires that we word things a bit more carefully, just in order to avoid conflicts like these.

That said, I do think Maz is overreacting here. I am thoroughly convinced Twoflower never tried to offend people by what he said. At most he should try to word things a bit more carefully, but the topic at hand is just asking for a heavy reaction (a reaction I am experiencing as well, finding myself in total agreement with Twoflower). To call him a 12-year old troll for this is too far fetched, I think.

Apart from that, I strongly disagree with Maz. This kind of extremism should be bashed. Whether it's by extremists beliefs or outright physical child abuse, the result is the same: the kid is gone. And I will never ever have any respect for any behavior that leads to this kind of result. When death is involved, the discussion about religion stops in my book.

Trakamoocow

29-01-2009, 04:35 AM

He is right though. As the late George Carlin said, pick your superstition. But realise on some level that's all it really is. It's nice to have a comforting thing to fall back on when everything seems hopeless.

Kodonn

29-01-2009, 05:44 AM

I fail to see what Twoflower is so wrong about here. Did he make that post to bash religion? I think not. All he bashed is moronic parents letting their child die because they refused treatment for her, based on their beliefs. I'm sorry, but I feel that people like that don't even deserve to ever have children.

I believe what Maz was referring to was Twoflowers use of the words "imaginary friend for grownups." Instead of "bashing" the parents in the original post for letting their religion interfere with their care of their child....
2F's choice of words only served to semi-derail the thread into one of religion bashing overall.

I side with Maz, but to be clear...I'm not offended by the words (although it does sound like something a forum troll or a 12 year old would come back with). I'm more offended by Twoflowers attitude. Live your life as you choose Mr Flowers, but several billion people on this planet retain some sort of religious belief. Obviously we're ALL wrong and you have the right of it. :wave:

Shellar

29-01-2009, 10:44 AM

I'm certain that many of our beliefs, ideas and prejudices are equally absurd when examined from a purely objective point of view.

Mazhulsage

29-01-2009, 12:12 PM

To ignore the obvious "lulz u dun no wut u tokin abot dum god beleever" items... I simply am saying that I feel that if a regular one time poster came in here screaming about how atheism is wrong, and that evolution is a lie, simply based on their ideas and no facts or anything I'm sure they'd be banned quickly or at least suspended. I'm not saying that Twoflower deserves to be kicked out of moderator status, I'm just saying that... Shouldn't common sense be used here, as it should have been with the child?

I don't believe that I had said that the child (Or anyone) should be refused treatment simply because "I believe in this"... If someone's going to get severely sick, or die, they REQUIRE the treatment... I never denied that, nor did I ever say in my post that children deserve to die like you're acting.

I also don't get how you could say "took it offensively SOMEHOW" like it's unimagineable that someone couldn't take it offensively.

Thank you Kondonn. That's exactly my point, at least HALF of this planet has a form of religion/belief in God, even including Agnostic which believe there's something, just they need proof of it...

I fully understand that this forum is more... Let's say democratic than I am. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (Why would I? I'd get attacked. =P Jk of course.) I'm just more in the middle, leaning more toward the Right and I get disagreed with.

Twoflower

29-01-2009, 01:56 PM

I didnt think my remark would cause such a stirr ^^

I am sorry if it upset you, Maz, it is just how I see the whole religion thing. And many other things, in fact. Tracamookow put it nicely with his "you choose your superstition" comment.

This is how i think about that topic. This has nothing to do with being a moderator. When i delete gold sellers posts, i am a moderator. When i just read trough here, i am just a normal user like i was since 2003, and my comments dont express anyone's opinion but my own.

Now i think that we dont have exactly the same opinions, but i hope that we still can talk about this ( or leave each other alone, for that matter ) in a civil way. My wording was slightly inappropriate, i confess, but the message in general stands as it is. Would it realy be that much less offensive if i would sugarcoat it ?

Telic

29-01-2009, 03:04 PM

People do some incredibly cruel and stupid things in the name of their imaginary friend.

Its my honest opinion.

It is not meant to be offensive, but is an honest summary of how I feel about the situation of the child that was allowed to die, and as such I feel it is a fair and relevant comment on the topic.

Shellar

29-01-2009, 04:29 PM

People do some incredibly cruel and stupid things in the name of their imaginary friend.
People also do some incredibly cruel and stupid things for a variety of other reasons.

Telic

29-01-2009, 05:00 PM

People also do some incredibly cruel and stupid things for a variety of other reasons.

True enough, can't think of any where lots of other people would be rushing to apologise for their motives though :wink:

Davemetalhead

29-01-2009, 05:02 PM

People do some incredibly cruel and stupid things in the name of their imaginary friend.

People also do some incredibly selfless and courageous acts "in the name of their imaginary friend".

Redhole

29-01-2009, 05:27 PM

The term 'imaginary friend' is clearly derogatory and meant to be so. It's the kind of sneering arrogance that gives humanists a bad name.

Telic

29-01-2009, 05:42 PM

People also do some incredibly selfless and courageous acts "in the name of their imaginary friend".

And without one...

Let's be clear that this was caused directly from their belief. In the name of their belief.
People who are 'run of the mill' child abusers, don't do it in the name of any disbelief... and don't have people coming out of the woodwork to defend them.

The danger here is the warping of reason; Its an extreme version of the way most people are blind to the amount of death and suffering caused by modern Christianity's "moral" guidance.

surodat

29-01-2009, 05:42 PM

Live your life as you choose Mr Flowers, but several billion people on this planet retain some sort of religious belief. Obviously we're ALL wrong and you have the right of it.

That's exactly my point, at least HALF of this planet has a form of religion/belief in God, even including Agnostic which believe there's something, just they need proof of it...

I've never completely understood this argument. The number of people around the world that believe in a external power or powers is much higher than 50%. While there is a majority of people around the world that believe in a God, or Gods - most of them simply think that the other religions are wrong - so they don't believe in *your* God/Gods. In fact some of them would want to kill you for believing in the wrong God.

While Judaism and Islam can be said to be worshiping the same God (Christianity to a lesser extent because of the polytheistic connotations, but dogmatically it is the same God) - the resulting violent disputes over the path to God do not seem to be an example of the unity of the believers.

How do religious people see each other? The same way that Agnostics or Atheist view religious people - deluded by their upbringing to believe the wrong set of ideas. Whereas the Atheist views the path to right thought through logic and materialism, the Religious Woman sees the path to right through the word of God. Both will try to preach - in their seperate ways - to bring other people to their point of view. But they are both the same.

What I find remarkable about someone adopting one religion over another is the ability to catagorically dismiss the possibility of other divinity around the world - with the odd exception of your own. While the Atheist, or the Agnostic, dismisses all divinity without exception.

Now, I want to talk to the the specific comment: "imaginary friend for grownups"

Why do you take offense to this? I mean, sure it was delivered in an obviously condescending way, but why take offense? Because "imaginary friends" are children's fancies, things that are easily dismissed and you believe do not represent anything like your own convictions. Yet some children believe in them - to some children they are integral parts of their development, providing comfort and support in trying times.

Imaginary friends normally develop in times of stress and change and discomfort for the child and appear as supporters, protectors and surrogate parents. All of these things can be represented as the primary qualities of the Gods in Monotheistic religions, and the Primary Gods in polytheistic religions.

And even if you reject that, your God is an imaginary friend - even if he is does exist - because he is the product of you imagination, your belief, and not direct personal proof.

And it's also like saying that most people believed in a Geocentric universe, so Galileo should have shut up.

Davemetalhead

29-01-2009, 06:40 PM

Now, I want to talk to the the specific comment: "imaginary friend for grownups"

Why do you take offense to this? I mean, sure it was delivered in an obviously condescending way, but why take offense? Because "imaginary friends" are children's fancies, things that are easily dismissed and you believe do not represent anything like your own convictions. Yet some children believe in them - to some children they are integral parts of their development, providing comfort and support in trying times.

Imaginary friends normally develop in times of stress and change and discomfort for the child and appear as supporters, protectors and surrogate parents. All of these things can be represented as the primary qualities of the Gods in Monotheistic religions, and the Primary Gods in polytheistic religions.

And even if you reject that, your God is an imaginary friend - even if he is does exist - because he is the product of you imagination, your belief, and not direct personal proof.

And it's also like saying that most people believed in a Geocentric universe, so Galileo should have shut up.

People took offense because, as you said, it was "delivered in an obviously condescending way". To many folk around the world, God is not imaginary - He/She/It is very real to them. While they cannot provide scientific proof that God exists, neither can science prove that God doesn't exist.

Just to clarify - I myself am not religious. I don't really have a belief system that I can explain to others, but I like to think I have an open enough mind to see the point of view of others, and not to be condescending just because they may believe something that I don't.

jschild

29-01-2009, 06:48 PM

neither can science prove that God doesn't exist.

You can't prove a negative. To be fair also though, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

surodat

29-01-2009, 08:51 PM

People took offense because, as you said, it was "delivered in an obviously condescending way". To many folk around the world, God is not imaginary - He/She/It is very real to them. While they cannot provide scientific proof that God exists, neither can science prove that God doesn't exist. Just to clarify - I myself am not religious. I don't really have a belief system that I can explain to others, but I like to think I have an open enough mind to see the point of view of others, and not to be condescending just because they may believe something that I don't.

Well, even though my question was a rhetorical device introducing the next part of my argument...

To many folk around the world, God is not imaginary - He/She/It is very real to them.

Actually most religions state very explicitly that God is imaginary. Why? Because his existence can only be inferred by a human mind, not observed or measure - inferred - the act of imagining into existence a cause.

This is actually one of the reasons that Judaism and Islaam prohibit the representation of God - because to create a representation is to diminish the reality - that God isthought and thought cannot be properly represented in a physical form.

(An argument that Theological scholars can take up with Artists :D )

God is imagination. God is imaginary. And that's where the beauty is.

However, those religions who worship idols have a harder time associating God with ideas because the act of worship is not a mental exercise. The worship of the physical is different than the worship of the ephemeral.

So, I ask again, why are you insulted by calling God your imaginary friend? If God was your Imaginary friend then it would not matter. If God was just a symbol on an altar - and not a real part of your life - I can see how it would sting.

Shellar

29-01-2009, 10:19 PM

I am God's imaginary friend.

Mazhulsage

29-01-2009, 11:55 PM

Yeah, if I continue to talk about this I'm just going to end up angry and end up writing a rant filled with more anger than truth, so I'm going to allow this to continue (Or, hopefully die down.) without me.

I would never hurt others for my religion, I would only try to help others through it. If God is the only way someone can get better (In any way, shape, or form) then I'm glad to lend a hand to try to help them get to that point... If others insist on disliking my ideas... I accept that... I'm not a perfect guy and I don't have all the answers to everything I believe in, nor what I don't believe in. I'm not an all knowing person, I gladly accept that, I don't even think I'd want to be. I'm simply saying that I have faith that someone's in a higher position than me, and is taking care of me.

It might sound childish to some, and it's going to sound more and more childish as years go by as we all know that more and more people aren't believing in God... I'm fine with being the crazy guy at the end who stuck to what he believed in, even if I were wrong. At least I'd know that I tried to help others through things because of someone I beleive in, instead of helping others simply to benefit myself in some way like I've seen so many others do. I don't think that every single Christian is even a semi-good person, I don't think that they're better than Atheists simply because they're Christian.

I believe that we're all equal in this, and that eventually when the time comes I'll be hoping I've done enough good on Earth to get into Heaven... Whereas I'm sure non-believers would just be hopeful that they've done enough to make themselves happy so they can die in peace... I'm not aiming to create a fight or anything. I'm aiming to create more happiness on Earth than there would've been without me, instead of more happiness for myself.

Well, I guess I sort of typed more than I thought I would, and especially after the first paragraph when I said "I'm done here" lol... Enjoy guys.

Kodonn

30-01-2009, 12:10 AM

...Actually most religions state very explicitly that God is imaginary. Why? Because his existence can only be inferred by a human mind, not observed or measure - inferred - the act of imagining into existence a cause. ...God is imagination. God is imaginary. And that's where the beauty is. ...So, I ask again, why are you insulted by calling God your imaginary friend? If God was your Imaginary friend then it would not matter.

I am not a theologian, but I sincerely doubt that most religions state outright that "God is imaginary". I think you are taking what they say "must be based on faith" and applying your own definition of "imaginary".

Most people understand imaginary to mean a complete fabrication. It implies an understanding that the subject is completely non-existant.

Most religions on the other hand tell you that God must be taken on faith, that His/Her existance can only be inferred indirectly. NOT that you simply create God out of your imagination.

Inference does not mean you just make something up. Inference means you observe certain things, actions, conditions, etc. and from that, you deduce the existance of something that cannot be directly observed.
Scientists use this technique quite often. There are stars and planets that they "prove" to exist because they can infer that existance from other observable effects.

But again, I don't think anyone had that much of a problem with the actual words "imaginary friend for grownups". I think the offense was taken because of the way those words were apparently used to cast a slur on religion in general.

The original topic of this thread was of the sort..."Do you think these parents were stupid for letting their religious beliefs affect their judgement in caring fo rtheir sick child?"

It was NOT...."Do you think these people were stupid for believing in God?"

Telic

30-01-2009, 03:22 PM

The term 'imaginary friend' is clearly derogatory and meant to be so. It's the kind of sneering arrogance that gives humanists a bad name.

Many people honestly believe god plays this role of an imaginary friend, and are honestly not trying to be insulting. I think if you can get past knee jerk reactions you will be able to see that this is possible.

Would 'comfort blanket' be more acceptable?
People do insist on how much comfort they derive from their belief after all; But I suspect that this would be considered insulting also.

'Supernatural parent figure'?

Am I allowed to believe that god is a delusion without giving offence? Or am I just not allowed to say it out loud?

Well I'm not really happy to be completely censored just because people are going to take offence whether or not I'm really trying to insult them. I don't believe that staying silent, and pandering to religion is an option because I believe it is a great evil in the world.

I think the insults that come back from knee jerk reactions are far stronger. Ranging from accusations of "sneering" condescension, through the quite common "your mother was a *bleep*, that's how personal an insult that was", all the way through to the gleefully delivered "you'll burn in hell".

I can accuse someone's political beliefs of being ridiculous without being accused of condescension...
Why on earth does the creator of the universe need such militant defence?

There is a direct line between this 'sensitivity', all the way up to extremes of violence and bigotry that have been all too common traits of religious states and organisations.

neither can science prove that God doesn't exist.

You can't prove a negative. To be fair also though, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There are some great summer camps in the U.S. called CampQuest I think, and one of the really thought provoking exercises they set the kids is to prove that no unicorns live in the local woods... :ponder:

To go back to the original topic, I have to say that anyone who believes in a personal god of some kind, shouldn't really be throwing stones in this thread :wink:

Redhole

30-01-2009, 05:16 PM

TPMdm

30-01-2009, 09:11 PM

.....While they cannot provide scientific proof that God exists, neither can science prove that God doesn't exist.....

Depends on what proof you require, on both counts. For some the very simple "If God cared so much if people believed in him why doesn't he just appear during the half time show of the Super Bowl?" is enough to disprove his existence. I've personally "felt God" in both good times and bad (to some those are nothing more than delusional moments, but I digress). However I'm compelled by my beliefs to have reasons behind my faith. I consider fulfilled prophecy in the Bible to be my #1 proof of the the existence of a being existing outside of our time stream. There are those who dismiss or explain away the fulfilled prophecies (or think the prophecies were put in after the fact).

@surodat
The argument that X Billion people or 9X% of the human race has some belief in a supernatural power is not meant as vindication of any particular religion or belief. It is used as a very specific argument against atheism. It's not damning (pun intended) but it is a powerful argument.

For the record I believe in bringing the full force of modern medical science to heal my loved ones, but don't call me a fool for also saying a prayer.

det

31-01-2009, 12:45 AM

Kodonn

31-01-2009, 02:17 AM

Bah, bring up a story that includes religion and people always freak out at a point. ALWAYS. Why can you flame somebodies taste in politics, clothing etc, but religion has this precious prtection that you cannot touc. Ok..."imaginary friend" will hurt people, because "imaginary" tries to imply that it is 100% guranteed unreal. But the George Calin term "invisible man in the sky" would most likely also offend people.

Live and let live...believe what you want, just don't shove it in anybodies face. That works for atheists as much as for religious fanatics.

Maybe people react so harsh when their religious belives are attacked, because it is the last thing that they can fall back on? the last thing that gives them hope. Something they need to cling to. This may be because they cannot stand the thought of being wiped out forever after they die or need something that gives them a sense in life. If you belittle that, they feel cornered? Hopeless?

Ahh det, I think you missed the point that most people are trying to make.
It's not about "bringing up the topic of religion", but rather HOW it's addressed. That same goes for politics or clothes or sports or whatever.

There is a right way and a wrong way to discuss or disagree with any "touchy" topic.

If I openned a discussion on politics with someone by saying..."Well, you ignorant socialist bast***d, it's no wonder the economy sucks. It's your fault, you voted for that poser Obama." How could I expect that person to NOT be offended? I've completely digressed from the intended purpose of the discussion and instead tried to put my opponent off by throwing as many insults as I could. It's pointless and immature to say the least. Not only that, but I would have lost all credibility to any sound arguments I DID have.

<sidebar> (No offense was intended to anyone. My comment was only meant as a BAD example...of how NOT to behave)

On a separate note, I do find it rather ironic that some people are propping up George Carlin as the paragon of "what should be okay to say." :rolleyes:

wyren

31-01-2009, 05:12 AM

I think George Carlin would be mortified to know that he was considered a standard of political correctness. I believe that parents have the right and responsibility to raise their children as they see fit as long as they do not abuse their children. It is terrible that this happens sevral times a year. I do not feel that any single law can fully and correctly adress this issue. Each case should face a judge. I hold a very tolerant rligous view that is both right wing conservative and left wing liberal. Boiled down it is god is too big to understand so just do good. I do not do good just to get to heaven even prostitutes work for rewards. Any time you surrender your responsibility to some one else you are trying to avoid your responsibility to do good. So much evil starts that way. I am not offended that some one who worships darwin considers me a religous nut. I will concede that a negative is impossible to prove. I will discuss my faith with any one who ask (and some who do not). I want every one to have the joy that I have. Man my thumbs are sore so I am stopping my tyrade now.

Telic

31-01-2009, 05:56 AM

Telic there is already a perfectly good word to describe god, and that is god (or God if you prefer).

As in:

'I don't believe in god', which is less patronising than 'I don't believe in your sky pixie'.

I like the sound of that Unicorn thing :)

Mmm, well I know what you're saying on one level.

But at the same time, a dictionary wouldn't be much good if the definition of a 'Stick' was "a stick"....

Also I didn't go as far as saying 'sky pixie' so lets not put words in my mouth ;)
There have been psychological studies about the needs for imaginary friends, and the need to be comforted is obvious to anyone, atheists and religious people alike.... It is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.

Kodonn:
"Well, you ignorant socialist bast***d, it's no wonder the economy sucks. It's your fault, you voted for that poser Obama." How could I expect that person to NOT be offended?

Even so, I'm not sure you can equate the above type of comment with the imaginary friend issue. I've certainly heard political arguments about the 'Nanny State' and 'bleeding heart liberals', etc. and how people want the government to look after them..... all of which are basically the same arguments that are considered to be condescending when applied to god.

Frankly you'd look pretty silly in the houses of parliament, or on the floor of the senate, if you stamped your feet and said your feelings had been hurt, and started insulting your opponent's family just to show how offended you were :tongue:

This example is clearly a personal attack directed at an individual which isn't quite the same thing as the imaginary friend stuff...
But lets broaden it to a more general, plural "bast***ds".
Then, yes, haven't we all heard comments like that in political discussion threads... and doesn't this prove det's point?
No one actually takes, real, personal offence at a broadside attack like this do they?
No one declares war, or a fatwah, or feels the insult as personally as though their own mother had been slandered. But this is exactly the reaction det is pointing towards in the religious.

Politicians do have to be thick skinned, and to a lesser extent anyone who wants to discuss politics should be prepared for strong views...

Does anyone think we have some kind of human right to not be offended?

p.s. surely its fair to point out that you can't really blame Obama for the state of the economy yet :shocked:
Two terms of being Bush-whacked... there's your problem. No need for those pesky banking and market regulations... it must be just coincidence that the banks that are in the best shape, like those in Spain, are the ones that have been restrained by government regulations.
(Brown is just as guilty in the UK, if not more so)

Note that due to the late hour of posting, and far too many beers, I reserve the right to post complete nonsense :hide:

Glurin

31-01-2009, 08:25 AM

Does anyone think we have some kind of human right to not be offended?

Actually, yes, I remember discussing this with one or two people who stated that we do have the human right to not be offended. Not sure how they tried to justify it though. The very concept has a number of fundamental flaws to it.

Me, I just think most people have an utter lack of any imagination or thought process at all. That's why they react so harshly to anything that questions what they know.

wyren

31-01-2009, 08:49 AM

The worst people to argue with are people who hold stong beliefs but do not know why they believe what they believe. If you are never offended you are probably dead. Even if only on the inside.

det

31-01-2009, 09:45 AM

Well, I don't think Carlin should be the paragon of "what should be okay to say."

More like there is somebody who says things that many people haven't considered to say. When you are brought up on christian / muslim / jewish / insert religion here beliefs, you have been pretty "defenseless" because you are only a child an end up believeing what your parents and society tells you. Out of some things you grow out easily (the stork brings the babies is a popular one in Germany to tell kids and the reason that mom is in hospital is becuase the stork bit her when he brought your little brother). Others you don't grow out or it is very hard.

Then there are some that get muddles up. Ofc I grew up with the story of Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem and delivering Jesus. But I also grew up with the story of the "Christchild" (Christkind) that brings presents on Christmas eve. But for the majority of my childhood, these two were treated like seperate entities. The Christkind was even "it" (es) in german and like a little angel, (if not "it" then definitely "she"). Today that muddles with santa. Nobody will probably say they really believe Santa really brings the presents, but still - even people who will attack you viciously in defense of their own religious feelings celebrate Christmas with Santa Claus.

It is then, when people start to muddle up those religious holidays (I cannot find the words "Easter bunny" and "choclate eggs" in the bible) that some people (me included) ask themselves WHERE does this muddle up come from. And it is ofc easy to find out - a "heathen" ritual, with christion motives forced ontop of these heathen days by people conquering or ruling these heathen.

Then I get more interested in other things and I find that many people cannot explain why we are "Christians" - after all, Jesus surname wasn't "Christ". So it goes on...you find that even several priests cannot explain (in words that make sense) what the holy trinity is and how three entities can be one and yet three.

How people live by "You shall only have one god" but pray to several holy persons (like Mary) as well. How people believe in the 10 commandments, yet break them every day. Not only "Though shalt not kill", but more often "And forgive us our sins as we forgive others" I have seen so much hatred (yes, often in forums) from people who call themselves religious, that it seems to me I live more by the 10 commandments then they.

This can go on and on..and is more a rant already than coherent thinking...but it is all thoughts that also play part in the conclusion that baffles me, when people say "Your science cannot disprove (if that is the right word) that god exists" (or it rather cannot prove that god doesn't exist) - while at the other hand the religious stories are "full of holes" and can often only be covered by biggers stretches, make beliefs and theologians that need to be highly trained...or in the end stop at things like "well..we don't really take this passage of the bible literally but rather interpret it like this...."

If not George Carlin, I like Bill Hicks take on this, if this is too cynical, ironic or smug for you, I suggest Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. And yes...I have not only read the books, but also the criticism that is being directed at the books and their thinking. So I don't stop at a certain point, my journey isn't over, I am still agthering information, I am finding my place...

TPMdm

31-01-2009, 04:37 PM

Well, I don't think Carlin should be the paragon of "what should be okay to say."

Indeed, but I never found Carlin to be offensive. His "invisible man" comment is actually quite true. I have no picture of my invisible friend. There is a certain derogatory intent with "imaginary friend" however and those who were upset by it are justified (upset doesn't describe how I feel, but I didn't enjoy reading it)

More like there is somebody who says things that many people haven't considered to say. When you are brought up on christian / muslim / jewish / insert religion here beliefs, you have been pretty "defenseless" because you are only a child an end up believeing what your parents and society tells you. Out of some things you grow out easily (the stork brings the babies is a popular one in Germany to tell kids and the reason that mom is in hospital is becuase the stork bit her when he brought your little brother). Others you don't grow out or it is very hard.

So THAT'S why my wife is going to the hospital! They sure do charge an aweful lot of money for a silly little stork bite.

(snip)
Then I get more interested in other things and I find that many people cannot explain why we are "Christians" - after all, Jesus surname wasn't "Christ". So it goes on...you find that even several priests cannot explain (in words that make sense) what the holy trinity is and how three entities can be one and yet three.

The Trinity is a tough one, but my favorite example is indeed the one used in the bible most. Family. My wife, children, and I are all part of a family with distinct roles and differences, however we are all part of the the umbrella word "Family". Another good example is the business model of a 3 person corporation, three distinct entities that are all part of an unified organization

How people live by "You shall only have one god" but pray to several holy persons (like Mary) as well. How people believe in the 10 commandments, yet break them every day. Not only "Though shalt not kill", but more often "And forgive us our sins as we forgive others" I have seen so much hatred (yes, often in forums) from people who call themselves religious, that it seems to me I live more by the 10 commandments then they.

Actually, this is where particular christian theologies collide. In my view Mary and "The Saints" should not be prayed to, at all. They are important historical and spiritual figures and examples but they are not worthy of prayer. As far as breaking the 10 commandments, Jesus goes one step further. If you hate somebody you have committed murder in your heart, If you look at a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. The point of the commandments, in my view (shared by many), is not as a goal to be attained. Rather they are a measuring stick (the Bible uses the anaolgy of a mirror). The Commandments show how sinful we are, they are impossible to keep fully especially when using Jesus' standard. Mankind is hopelessly lost in sin except for the self sacrifice of Jesus.
Romans 3:23 http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=3&v=23&t=KJV#23
Combined with
Isaiah 64:6 http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=64&v=6&t=KJV#6
and
John 3:16 http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=3&v=16&t=KJV#16
(yes that is the one that you used to see at sporting events all the time)

This can go on and on..and is more a rant already than coherent thinking...but it is all thoughts that also play part in the conclusion that baffles me, when people say "Your science cannot disprove (if that is the right word) that god exists" (or it rather cannot prove that god doesn't exist) - while at the other hand the religious stories are "full of holes" and can often only be covered by biggers stretches, make beliefs and theologians that need to be highly trained...or in the end stop at things like "well..we don't really take this passage of the bible literally but rather interpret it like this...."

I agree, it's when you get wishy washey in either respect that you do your belief a disservice. Btw, I don't think the religious stories are full of holes :grin:

and I feel I've gotten a little "ranty" here as well.....signing off

det

31-01-2009, 05:20 PM

The Trinity is a tough one, but my favorite example is indeed the one used in the bible most. Family. My wife, children, and I are all part of a family with distinct roles and differences, however we are all part of the the umbrella word "Family". Another good example is the business model of a 3 person corporation, three distinct entities that are all part of an unified organization

Wikipedia alone has an overwhelming entry on this, I dare not even think how long it would take me to read books on this, yet in a mono-theistic belief "You shall not have other gods next to me"...wouldn't Jesus count as a seperate god? (especially since he is prayed to) That is where it gets so complicated when those three entities are really explained to be one?

I am not even trying to get the "Holy Ghost" (literal translation from german) in here, because before the church got to me, literature had..and ghosts are always something spooky. So even with several years in church service between 12 and 18, this concept never stuck wwith me or could be satisfactory explained.

"Btw, I don't think the religious stories are full of holes" I am not falling for this one :grin:

TPMdm

31-01-2009, 07:40 PM

"Btw, I don't think the religious stories are full of holes" I am not falling for this one :grin:

Indeed, that is an entire derailment in itself.

As far as the trinity goes, it's not something I bother with too terribly much. I accept the fact that "God" is a tri-unity made up of 3 distinct individuals. I can't explain how except by analogy as I did in my previous post. But neither can I explain precisely how God created everything other than what the Bible says, basically he spoke it into existence (btw no less incredible than "in the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded").

Kodonn

31-01-2009, 08:05 PM

Wikipedia alone has an overwhelming entry on this, I dare not even think how long it would take me to read books on this, yet in a mono-theistic belief "You shall not have other gods next to me"...wouldn't Jesus count as a seperate god? (especially since he is prayed to) That is where it gets so complicated when those three entities are really explained to be one?

Perhaps a different analogy might help.

Here on these forums is a person who goes by the forum name det. For the most part, all of us here on worldofwar.net have a certain understanding or a picture in our mind of who we conceive det to be. That comes from all of the posts and guides and opinions etc. that he (?) has provided us. Those posts and especially the opinions, reflect a lot of the personality of a RL person.

Now, somewhere on one of the WoW servers (Earthen Ring?) is an undead warlock that is played/controlled/driven (however you want to look at it) by the RL person that we here know as det. Again, I am sure his guildmates and raid groups have a certain concept of the RL person based on their game interactions.

Finally, somewhere in Germany is the guy behind these 2 personas. His friends, neighbors, maybe even some family might not have any knowledge of his WoW character or his forum persona. They only know him as <insert det's RL name here>.

This is a little bit like the blind men and the elephant fable. All of us might think we have a grasp of who det is, yet it's possible that very few actually know ALL of his aspects and can have a complete picture of who he really is.

Yet, I cannot say that the forum det is imaginary just because I have never met the RL person in Germany or played against his undead lock. I can also not say that the "picture" I have of det is 100% accurate because I have inferred a lot of details from his posts. But whether you meet him on the street, raid with him on Earthen Ring or "post-duel" with him in these forums, I am sure that in each case he would say..."This is me. I am <insert det's RL name here>". :wave:

P.S. Remember I said this is only an analogy. det, please don't start handing down commandments or working miracles. It would only confuse us. :grin:

det

31-01-2009, 10:24 PM

Haha :grin:

Okay, for today I won't

I really enjoyed that analogy :smiley:

Telic

01-02-2009, 12:49 AM

Here's an excellent article that appeared in the Independent recently discussing why the right to free speech should always be favoured over any right to not be offended, and it highlights the true dangers of being over-respectful toward religions :

Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions? (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html)

We absolutely should have the right to draw cartoons of holy figures, and even ridicule them when necessary; And people should grow some balls and refuse to be derailed or deflected from making their points, just because someone plays the 'hurt feelings' card, or even the 'religious prejudice' card...

And my favourite Carlin quote has always been :

"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation." :laugh:

det

01-02-2009, 01:17 AM

A good read indeed

I suppose the problem WHY people are so overly respectful of religion is, that it is the one field where you run into the danger of being killed over a disagreement. That and questions of your patriotism to country in days of war.

So I wouldn't go out of my way to ridicule anybodies believes. You just can't argue with fanatics. Look at what happens to people like Saman Rushdie, the filmaker in Holland and how the danish caricatures were manipulated and false information was spread to evoke some "Holy Wrath".

I know what you are going to say "Don't tug your tail in because of these idiots" etc etc - it is just sometimes easier said than done and goes all the way back to Galileo revoking his theory of the round earth revolving around itself and the sun and not being the center of the universe in the face of a church tribunal. Even today people are not always willing to accept what he discovered ^^

Telic

01-02-2009, 01:54 AM

Well, I'd agree with your comment on arguing with fanatics det. It reminds of another favourite quote of mine, this time from Winston Churchill :

A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

But I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we were commenting on a story about a child suffering and dying - and yet the bulk of the discussion has been about how religious people might be offended by a casual phrase, spoken in justified haste and anger.

What better example could there possibly be for the skewed and unjustified respect that we are supposed to offer religion.

det

01-02-2009, 11:39 AM

...and this is where my original answer (and first post in this topic came in) From "How can people act like this" it turns into a fight over religios beliefs and how they are (should be) treated....

Telic

01-02-2009, 03:27 PM

...and this is where my original answer (and first post in this topic came in) From "How can people act like this" it turns into a fight over religios beliefs and how they are (should be) treated....

As long as we're agreeing that this isn't reason enough to give them any more respect than anyone else ;)

If we're discussing the death of a child, the person who derails things to focus on the mild insult of 'imaginary friend' is the one with the skewed moral values...

(Lets not forget that someone suggested the only criticism atheists should be allowed to voice is "I don't believe in God" - so religious people can discuss what god means to them by analogy and interpretation, but critics can only use that one single phrase?)

Back on topic slightly, I agree with the point I think you were trying to make about the way religious people resolve problems of belief they have with phenomena like the trinity, and transubstantiation...
They are clear examples of the logical contortions that religious thinking allow; Doublespeak and personal interpretation so that they can mean anything you want them to mean.
Its the same kind of thinking that leads religious apologists like Mazhulsage to actually reach a stage where they can make excuses for the parents.
And its the same kind of empty reasoning you hear when theologians are trying to justify their beliefs, or resolve challenges to religion.

There is a specific word for this nonsense - Casuistry.

I guess in some cases, like these parents, they have been totally convinced that logic no longer means anything, and they have no powers of reasoning left what so ever; The only way to live their lives is to adhere STRICTLY to the set of rules they have been given, and thinking is no longer allowed. Its an extreme case, but milder versions are expressed every day by religious people.

TPMdm

01-02-2009, 04:11 PM

I guess in some cases, like these parents, they have been totally convinced that logic no longer means anything, and they have no powers of reasoning left what so ever; The only way to live their lives is to adhere STRICTLY to the set of rules they have been given, and thinking is no longer allowed. Its an extreme case, but milder versions are expressed every day by most people.

Fixed. Btw the argument that because these wrong headed parents allowed their child to die it is fine to insult religion in general is illogical (again I'd like to emphasize I wasn't insulted by "imaginary friend"). Lets not forget zealotry and dogma to extend far beyond the metaphysical questions of life and life after death.

Since we're trading quotes, apparently, I'll use my favorite Al "Peace Prize" Gore quote
---- "The science is settled"

Thinking is no longer allowed anywhere I guess then.

det

01-02-2009, 04:37 PM

I admit I don't really understand the "Science is settled" quote (in a comprehensive sense), because really most (all) scientists will admit that things are discovered every day and the "proven facts" of today are the "ridicule" of tomorrow.

Yes, I do agree with your statements, telic - just like I believe that my thinking is very close (if not identical) to twoflowers and jschild.

Telic

01-02-2009, 05:03 PM

@TPMdm

I don't think I ever linked the reasoning "that because the parents were wrong", then "we are allowed to insult religion".

I think "we should be allowed to insult religion", period.

I fixed your fix btw, I think your correction is incomplete. If you add that in addition to what I said, then I have less of a problem, but to split hairs the full quote might be something like :

"...but milder versions are expressed every day by religious people (it is almost axiomatically required in order to be religious), and even milder versions are expressed every day by most people mainly due to a lack of education and training in how to think logically (and non-religiously)"

(Also, dogma (and to a lesser extent zealotry) are basically what I was referring to when I said "adhere STRICTLY to the set of rules" without the capability to resort to their own thinking...)

I haven't actually seen Al Gore's film, but if you're thinking I'll defend that quote, you're mistaken ;)
It just goes to show how easy it is to misunderstand science.
Most scientists would actually say the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Most scientists would broadly agree in a definition of a theory being something that is NEVER PROVED, but can only be disproved.
And most scientists who have any feeling for philosophy at all, will agree that we are only ever really involved in making models ;)
Perhaps mathematics itself has some central, Platonic, truths, but for example, all real scientists know that Einstein's theories of relativity are not complete, and/or Quantum Mechanics is not complete.

So in the end, despite your efforts to mislead, it is religious people who claim "God did it" who are really finding themselves in a cul-de-sac, and not logically scientific people.
In fact, it is religious people like creationists who use the scientist's open mindedness against them when they use phrases like "only a theory", and "you haven't really proved it though have you", etc.

[ I may have worded this too strongly, in which case I aplogise. Perhaps, you are just trying to be fair to both sides of the argument; Which can be a little confusing and only serve to muddy the waters... ;) ]

Please, please, please lets not get derailed by a discussion on climate change itself... ;)

@det

I think we've mostly agreed with each other (and with jschild), so I hope we haven't been talking at cross purposes - I did think that your first post about religious offence was perhaps a bit too apologetic on their behalf, but that may be my own mistake, and I think you have definitely talked a lot of sense, and brought me back on track :)

det

01-02-2009, 05:20 PM

If my post sounded apologetic on behalf of religeon it is because I also wouldn't sunscribe to "We should ne allowed to insult religion" per se.

For one it sounds like insulting for the sake of it. On the other hand, I would resort to insult only when insulted first. I rather resort to debate and logical thinking, which indeed is often hard in religious debates. In the end one can always go back on the little corner of "Well, it is belief, not prove"

Telic

01-02-2009, 05:48 PM

But this just goes back to them saying its insulting so .... and we're only allowed to say "god doesn't exist".

The imaginary friend aspect of religion has been investigated by psychologists; And if you're retreating from using these terms just based on the possibility of insult, then you're contradicting yourself when you talk about our ability to criticise politics in much stronger ways.

We do NOT have the right NOT to be offended.

If you want to argue that there is a 'politic' reason for stepping carefully around religious feelings, then I completely disagree.
I don't really care if the philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett was correct when he pointed out that there is probably NO WAY for us to 'disparage' religion without someone taking offence - it means they've wasted all that time they were praying, and how galling would that be to admit.

[What's the bumper sticker? "PRAYER: how to think you're helping while actually doing NOTHING."]

Perhaps, I'm wrong to compare my view to yours and jschilds, and perhaps I am more militant.

But I can't help thinking about the millions of people who are suffering and dying because of the mildest beliefs of Judeo-Christian faith that are being forced on non-believers around the world.

While religious apologists have the gall to try and excuse parents who go so far as to let their children die... using the same non-logic that they use to excuse their fatih.

I think it was one of your posts earlier on that recommended Sam Harris, and yet I can't help feeling that his mild prose has led you to misunderstand just how anti-religious his views and books are.... ;)

det

01-02-2009, 06:05 PM

You are different in the way that you seem to have more of "a message to send" :)

I can be "preachy" too...but I wanted to point out in my post that I wouldn't want to START being the one who is insulting. I agree that we should have the right to be as insulting as "they" are..I am just not saying that I want to be the one who starts out being deliberately insulting. Ofc that doesn't mean that people don't take offense at what I say anyhow ^^

Telic

01-02-2009, 08:13 PM

lol, shall I bite at the insults like a religious person ?
Nah ;)

I think the reason you DONT sound preachy is because you are trying to keep both sides of the argument happy at the same time :)
But I'm less confused about my priorities. Religious offence comes low down compared to real suffering... ;)

Let me try and put it another way; I don't think that knowing a phrase is likely to cause offence is the same as intending to cause offence. If it does, then that's just tough.
Anyone who shies away from one, because of the other is (at best) being disingenuous, and betraying their side of the argument.
[They are the ones who are truly being condescending towards religious people.]

You mentioned "invisible man in the sky" .... but people would be afraid of using that too ?
What phrase would you 'dare' to use ?
Are you happy to be censored by threats and accusations of being offensive so that the only objection you are allowed to raise is "I don't believe in god"?
If so, then what was the point of your original post?

"Yes, religious people get offended too quickly, but I'm happy to be cowed in to obeying their edicts."

I think I am now 'understandably' confused about where you stand ?

det

01-02-2009, 09:00 PM

"I am just not saying that I want to be the one who starts out being deliberately insulting"

Why is that so hard to understand? I am not saying that I wouldn't insult at all.

TPMdm

01-02-2009, 09:41 PM

FYI I know this post was directed at det, but I'd like to comment.
lol, shall I bite at the insults like a religious person ?
Nah ;)

If you are truly insulted why not? Isn't that part of the point? Insulters can claim the right to insult (and I think generally people have that right) but then they must also accept certain consequences of their insults ranging from the extreme to the comical.

I think the reason you DONT sound preachy is because you are trying to keep both sides of the argument happy at the same time :)
But I'm less confused about my priorities. Religious offence comes low down compared to real suffering... ;)

Let me try and put it another way; I don't think that knowing a phrase is likely to cause offence is the same as intending to cause offence. If it does, then that's just tough.
Anyone who shies away from one, because of the other is (at best) being disingenuous, and betraying their side of the argument.
[They are the ones who are truly being condescending towards religious people.]

Indeed, but there is a concept best phrased "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". Saying something with the primary purpose to insult or demean, when there are alternatives which don't insult, is down right uncivilized and mean. There is a difference, for example, between me standing on the street corner shouting "If you don't know Jesus as your personal Savior you are going to spend an eternity in Hell" and "Are you sure you are going to Heaven?" Or threatening the author of Satanic Verses or calling the United States the Great Satan, or commenting that the smell of sulphur still lingers after you adversary has left the Podium....

You mentioned "invisible man in the sky" .... but people would be afraid of using that too ?
What phrase would you 'dare' to use ?

Somebody else mentioned it, what was wrong with "god/GOD"? It doesn't offend anybody and it gets the point accross. The "imaginary friend" was used to insult in the first place (again, I wasn't insulted....). Why call an agressive female a *****? Why are there even insults in the first place?

In a twisted world of tit-for-tat everytime an atheist called me dellusional or said I was wasting my time, or whatever I'd respond that I was glad they were going to spend an eternity in Hell (I don't btw, just trying to come up with the polar opposite). Now the difference, and the principle difference in all cases of insult, is that they don't care. I'd be better off "insulting" them on another front (wasted years believing in anthropogenic global warming f.ex). "Imaginary Friend" and other insults are fine to use from the perspective of the insulter until their sacred cow (pun intended) is insulted.

Are you happy to be censored by threats and accusations of being offensive so that the only objection you are allowed to raise is "I don't believe in god"?
If so, then what was the point of your original post?

Hell no. I'm more offended by religiously based threats of censorship than I am by religiously based insults (threatening to kill some cartoonists for depictions of "the Prophet" is far more bothersome than calling my God an "imaginary friend" IMO)

"Yes, religious people get offended too quickly, but I'm happy to be cowed in to obeying their edicts."

I think I am now 'understandably' confused about where you stand ?[/QUOTE]

To quote the l337 speakers on my server "lol wut?"

Telic

01-02-2009, 10:47 PM

"I am just not saying that I want to be the one who starts out being deliberately insulting"

Why is that so hard to understand? I am not saying that I wouldn't insult at all.

Oh boy.

"I am just not saying that I want to be the one who starts out being deliberately insulting"

Why is that hard to understand... ?

Please read what you posted and try again. I REALLY DO NOT MEAN TO BE OFFENSIVE, but SURELY you see what I mean ?

IF you mean you do not want to be the first one to cause insult, then I suggest you read what I said again... "He said it first" is a very childish argument, whether it is right or wrong.

[I honestly, and earnestly apologise in advance if your first language is not english.]

Telic

01-02-2009, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Telic View Post
lol, shall I bite at the insults like a religious person ?
Nah ;)

If you are truly insulted why not? Isn't that part of the point? Insulters can claim the right to insult (and I think generally people have that right) but then they must also accept certain consequences of their insults ranging from the extreme to the comical.

No, no, No, NO !!!

Religious people complain about Insult in order to DEFLECT the argument from what it was at the start. Namely that Religion is to blame - so let's start arguing about something else instead, and then they'll forget how truly evil we are :)

It is very easily done, and I COULD take insult at the words preachy, and the quotation marks around the words "a message to send", and then get in to a personal argument...

But that would miss the point.

The point is FROM THE ORIGINAL POST, that a child died because of someone's ridiculous belief in god. But of course, my use of the word ridiculous trumps any death of a child, so I should be put to death, and the death of a child because of religious belief should be forgotten....

Saying something with the primary purpose to insult or demean, when there are alternatives which don't insult, is down right uncivilized and mean. There is a difference, for example, between me standing on the street corner shouting "If you don't know Jesus as your personal Savior you are going to spend an eternity in Hell" and "Are you sure you are going to Heaven?" Or threatening the author of Satanic Verses or calling the United States the Great Satan, or commenting that the smell of sulphur still lingers after you adversary has left the Podium....

Well at the risk of being patronising, can you at least speak recognisable english ?
There are so many 'or's in that statement, I don't know whether I'm coming or going.....
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING SOMETHING YOU KNOW MAY CAUSE OFFENCE, AND ACTUALLY SAYING SOMETHING WITH THE INTENT TO OFFEND.
[AND AGAIN, LET ME DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST THE MENDACIOUS ACCUSATION THAT MY PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS TO BE INSULTING - PLEAS STOP LYING.]

Somebody else mentioned it, what was wrong with "god/GOD"? It doesn't offend anybody and it gets the point accross. The "imaginary friend" was used to insult in the first place (again, I wasn't insulted....). Why call an agressive female a *****? Why are there even insults in the first place?

In a twisted world of tit-for-tat everytime an atheist called me dellusional or said I was wasting my time, or whatever I'd respond that I was glad they were going to spend an eternity in Hell (I don't btw, just trying to come up with the polar opposite). Now the difference, and the principle difference in all cases of insult, is that they don't care. I'd be better off "insulting" them on another front (wasted years believing in anthropogenic global warming f.ex). "Imaginary Friend" and other insults are fine to use from the perspective of the insulter until their sacred cow (pun intended) is insulted.

AGAIN, how many times, (and this is the third so far), do I have to say that it is unfair for religious people to use analogy, and euphamism to describe their god, while it is "apparently" unfair for atheists to use similar analogies and euphamisms, because it is deemed insulting. Grow up for dog's sake.
To be clear, and as I have stated before, YOU are effectively saying that the ONLY phrase that religious critics can use is that 'They don't believe in god'
Religious critics are NOT allowed to elucidate, or clarify their position, or describe what they think god means to people, while not actually being a god....
This censorship that you are promoting is truly ridiculous and evil when thought through....
[AND AGAIN, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH - IT IS YOU THAT DISPARAGED AGRESSIVE FEMALES BY IMPLICATION - NOT ME]

Hell no. I'm more offended by religiously based threats of censorship than I am by religiously based insults (threatening to kill some cartoonists for depictions of "the Prophet" is far more bothersome than calling my God an "imaginary friend" IMO)

"Yes, religious people get offended too quickly, but I'm happy to be cowed in to obeying their edicts."

I think I am now 'understandably' confused about where you stand ?

To quote the l337 speakers on my server "lol wut?"

[I will admit that I got confused by YOUR own use of square brackets at this stage and gave up on trying to understand the correct sequence...]

Wow, can I just say "ditto".
Surely its not acceptable to quote me, AND challenge my meaning in the same sentence, while duplicating my meaning ?

"lol wut?"

I suspect you are drunker than I am at this point :P

Telic

01-02-2009, 11:31 PM

Perhaps det could now answer this question instead of avoiding it ?

You mentioned "invisible man in the sky" .... but people would be afraid of using that too ?
What phrase would you 'dare' to use ?
Are you happy to be censored by threats and accusations of being offensive so that the only objection you are allowed to raise is "I don't believe in god"?
If so, then what was the point of your original post?

det

01-02-2009, 11:42 PM

Indeed english isn't my first language, but I am not offended at what you said :grin: I think I get by pretty well with what I can write and speak, read parts of the bible in english (most of it in german though) and can stomach the entire LotR in english. Read (and claim to have understood) The God Delusion in english, yada yada yada.

Though I think Telic and me are closer in our stance towards religion, TPMdm expressed my feelings (stance) towards people who I disagree with in general better.

I can answer your last question: I love the phrase "Invisible man in the sky" (btw, Twoflowrs used "Imaginary childhood friend..small difference, but the "imaginary" was what got ppl ticked off) and I love it especially in the way George Carlin debunked the 10 commandments and to the point the 5th:"Though shall not kill" (You may kill people who believe in another invisible man in the sky - which is totally true if you read the bible and especially the old testament: God is a child-sacrifice demanding, woman hater there who sends his people to war against pretty much every tribe that is out there).

Yes, you should be allowed to use it. Hell...I could have punched Bill O'Reilly in the face for his ****ty argumentation when he had Richard Dawkins on his show and wanted to "argument" that Hitler and Stalin did the deeds they did because they were atheists, at the same time he said Dawkins would not be allowed to argue with the Jihadd or the crusades.

As I said before (I think I did anyhow) I wholeheartedly agree with the link to

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html

and we should not succumb to this kind of thinking. Just TDMbm explained better that there are several ways to achieve this. You don't need to be upfront in the faces of people about it, but "sigh" maybe that is why atheists and critical persons ultimately fail. We are too nice :(

(and argue among each other as we do now^^)

TPMdm

02-02-2009, 12:30 AM

The point is FROM THE ORIGINAL POST, that a child died because of someone's ridiculous belief in god. But of course, my use of the word ridiculous trumps any death of a child, so I should be put to death, and the death of a child because of religious belief should be forgotten....

OMG rofl.....from this I completely understand. We are in complete agreement on that point. I still think the use of "imaginary friend" was needlessly childish and meant to insult but yes the ultimate point is that a child died due to parental neglect due to their misguided religious beliefs.

Twoflower

02-02-2009, 02:37 PM

the imaginary friend comment comes from a standup comedy show by Dilan Moran.

And yes, he is immaginary. Or have you met god ?

I dont mean it in a way that believing in god has to be bad. It can lead to good and bad things, just as any other believ.

Telic

02-02-2009, 03:05 PM

Well, I'm not sure how much we were arguing in the end? :ponder:

As always when drunk, I just rambled on too much, and started to rant hehe.
And my last couple of replies were probably not examples of my clearest thinking :wink:

Some of this might depend on what purpose you're trying to achieve; I mean what flies exactly are we trying to catch with religious criticism.
If you want to convert someone, 1 on 1, then its probably much more convincing to lead them to the contradictions in religion and let them reach their own conclusions, and I'd agree with the polite tactics.
But in general discussions, I don't think anyone is ever converted, and the 'purpose' of the debate comes down to what?
A desire to influence the undecided?
A wish to change the widespread opinion, to influence the zeitgeist?
Personally, I think a little disrespect can be a healthy thing, and is as valid a means of achieving the above 2 aims as politeness. So why should religion be exempt?

We need to be careful of how effectively ALL our criticism could be silenced if we cow-tow too much. How will we escape these beliefs if we allow ourselves to be censored, and don't examine them and suggest reasons for our need of them? I'm honestly not sure its possible to explain away someone's core beliefs as wrong without belittling those ideas to some extent.
And being overly respectful is just the thin end of the wedge that leads to the kinds of problems the Independent article discusses.
So while I'm happy to respect individuals, I'm also reserving my right to be irreverent about certain belief systems :grin:

And I'm going to keep using phrases that challenge the reasons that people need faith - especially in extreme cases like this where a child has been smothered by his parent's security blanket. :tongue:

Kodonn

02-02-2009, 04:54 PM

the imaginary friend comment comes from a standup comedy show by Dilan Moran.

And yes, he is immaginary. Or have you met god ?

Hah :rolleyes: you'll have to do better than that.
A lot of us have never met Twoflower. Does that mean you are imaginary?
All we have are some words....pixels....on the internet.
Personally, I've seen a lot more second-hand evidence of God's existance than I have of Twoflower. :laughing:

@Telic
I believe your motives are sound, but I think you still overlook one important concept....for ANY topical argument.
It's quite acceptable to criticize WITHOUT being insulting or belittling.
You can be respectful, without being OVERLY respectful.
You can be polite, and STILL disagree.

surodat

02-02-2009, 06:04 PM

The argument that X Billion people or 9X% of the human race has some belief in a supernatural power is not meant as vindication of any particular religion or belief. It is used as a very specific argument against atheism. It's not damning (pun intended) but it is a powerful argument.

I know I'm throwing us back a ways in the thread, but I've not been back to this thread in a bit.

Can you clarify this thought TPM?

I still don't understand how people can use that argument to support anything.

Is the argument the same as "Most religions on this planet are not x, therefore x is wrong." ?

Where x can be any belief.

Or is it "Most people on this planet believe in a form of y, therefore, people who don't believe in y are wrong." ?

Where y is not a consistent entity, merely a supernatural something. So Muslims would say Allah; Christians would say God, Jesus, Angels, Saints, etc; Hindus would say Brahman, Shiva, etc; Buddhists would say the devas; and each religion will have their own different view of the supernatural.

(ie. Buddhism doesn't even provide supernatural powers to the divine beings, only to enlightenment. The mind itself creates the supernatural.)

How can such a diverse array of beliefs be used to negate the lack of belief.

Seriously, Buddhism is a great example - there is no creator, no capital 'G' God. So does the same 'argument' against atheism extend to Buddhism as well?

So is it an argument against the Atheist who doesn't believe in God? The Agnostic? The Irreligious?

PS: I find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irreligion_statistics_by_country.png)map fascinating.

Also, I am considering moving to Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia).

TPMdm

02-02-2009, 09:39 PM

I know I'm throwing us back a ways in the thread, but I've not been back to this thread in a bit.

Can you clarify this thought TPM?

I shall do my best, I'm coming from a heavy influence in CS Lewis btw and he phrases these things much better than I in certain circumstances.

I still don't understand how people can use that argument to support anything.

IMO this argument can only really be used in the metaphysical sense (i.e. if "everybody" thought 1+1 = 3 and one guy thought it was 2 clearly everybody would be wrong). In the extreme, if everybody in the world were.....Muslim (except for 1 Atheist): Is it more likely that everybody else is wrong and the singular Mr. Atheist has a grasp of "the Truth" or is Mr. Atheist the crazy person? Remember we are talking spiritual/metaphysical stuff here. Without getting into specifics on the tenets and teachings of specific faiths most of the world believes in "something" beyond the physical world. This is where the atheists fall into the "crazy person" category

Is the argument the same as "Most religions on this planet are not x, therefore x is wrong." ?

Where x can be any belief.

Or is it "Most people on this planet believe in a form of y, therefore, people who don't believe in y are wrong." ?

Roughly speaking it's the second example. Most people believe in a form of y.

Where y is not a consistent entity, merely a supernatural something. So Muslims would say Allah; Christians would say God, Jesus, Angels, Saints, etc; Hindus would say Brahman, Shiva, etc; Buddhists would say the devas; and each religion will have their own different view of the supernatural.

Indeed. CS Lewis generally uses the borrowed term Tao in his writings to describe the "commonness" of...... non-atheists(?).

(ie. Buddhism doesn't even provide supernatural powers to the divine beings, only to enlightenment. The mind itself creates the supernatural.)

That is a specific of their faith and belief system. But they still believe in "something".

How can such a diverse array of beliefs be used to negate the lack of belief.
I'll borrow a song from Sesame Street (since my daughter just finished watching):
"One of these things is not like the other.... One of these things does not belong.....:
Christian
Hindu
Buddhist
Muslim
Atheist

Seriously, Buddhism is a great example - there is no creator, no capital 'G' God. So does the same 'argument' against atheism extend to Buddhism as well?

No, I don't personally feel in that example there are enough "numbers" on either camp to resolve that. Mormons outnumber Southern Baptists, does that mean Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (a Mormon Teaching)? IMO the answer to that is: inconclusive.

So is it an argument against the Atheist who doesn't believe in God? The Agnostic? The Irreligious?

Strictly an argument "against" atheism. Even purely irreligious and agnostic people disagree with atheists. The irreligious "don't care" and agnostic "don't know"..... the atheist denies the argument.

PS: I find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irreligion_statistics_by_country.png)map fascinating.

Also, I am considering moving to Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia).

Too much incomplete data on that map :grin:

det

02-02-2009, 10:45 PM

Strictly an argument "against" atheism. Even purely irreligious and agnostic people disagree with atheists. The irreligious "don't care" and agnostic "don't know"..... the atheist denies the argument.

I believe you are wrong here:

"
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of belief in the nonexistence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_belief_in_God) of a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-0) or the rejection of theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-britannica-1) It is also[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-2) defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-3)"

In that way, you are an atheist when it comes to accepting Zeus or Wotan or Thor as your god.

surodat

02-02-2009, 10:51 PM

TPM says some stuff

Oh, okay, I think I get it.

It's sort of an argument for the existence of something "other." Not for religion, or even God for that matter, but to provide counterpoint to Physicalism.

So even the Buddhist's "powers" of enlightenment fall under the umbrella of the "other" and in a world of people who believe in the "other" it is the Physicalist who is the exception to the universal rule.

That seems to make it make sense in my mind. It seems more to counterpoint Physicalism than Atheism - but I suppose I was using the commonplace definition of Atheism as "one who doesn't believe in God."

det

02-02-2009, 11:05 PM

Hah :rolleyes: you'll have to do better than that.
A lot of us have never met Twoflower. Does that mean you are imaginary?
All we have are some words....pixels....on the internet.
Personally, I've seen a lot more second-hand evidence of God's existance than I have of Twoflower. :laughing:

.

Ah well..good you put so many smileys here, because thatone isn't so hot.

Yes we have pixels on the net and writing of something called Twoflower, but where are these things that you attribute to god? Not just things that you believe god made, but actual facts? Twoflowers can produce a photo of himself, has mom, dad and friends and you could meet him. You can take others who dont believe in twoflowers with you to meet him. Can't do that with god.

Better still, if god speaks to you it is no proof. It was good enough for some people when it happened ages ago, but if god REALLY spoke to you and you would go public with that, people think you are a nutcase. You may pray and speak with god, that is okay. If you try to tell people that god spoke to you, they think you are a lunatic. Well..they might accept if you claim god told you, paradise will be yours or your dead relatives are happy in heaven - but if you tell people that god told you "do this and that or the earth will be destroyed" - yup..a soft rubber cell for you...

Why do I think so many people need some kind of religious belief especially of a life after death? Because many people live a miserable existance (and I mean mostly the 5 billion people who are truly poor) and because most people can't bear the thought to be dead "forever" - complete nonexistance of time.

TPMdm

03-02-2009, 01:58 AM

I believe you are wrong here:

"
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of belief in the nonexistence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_belief_in_God) of a god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-0) or the rejection of theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-britannica-1) It is also[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-2) defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-3)"

In that way, you are an atheist when it comes to accepting Zeus or Wotan or Thor as your god.

I don't see where I have disagreed with that definition at all tbh. I may have expanded my interpretation of atheist to "one who rejects spirituality".

det

03-02-2009, 08:56 AM

Well, you said "the atheist denies the argument" - wich in my reply is ofc nitpicking. I know we pretend to be on the level that an only atheist doesn't believe in THE god (of christians, muslims, jews), but an atheist doesn't believe in any god (or believes in disbelief) - but since it is "the affirmation of belief in the nonexistence of a god or god" I am trying to be wicked and say that all you who believe in a christian god are atheists when it comes to pretty much any other god that is worshipped by other cultures ...

While I was typing this, it occured to me how easily we make the camps of atheists, believers in god (christian, muslim, jew), and believers in funny gods (polytheistic religions, nature god religions). But really even between the believers in one god (christian, muslim, jew), who might by many even be considered as variations of the same god, there is a bloodshed and fighting like you can't bloody believe it. Protestants and catholics in Ireland. Marriage between them basically impossible for ages. The catholic church mostly throwing a fit over church service with protestant etc etc.

Twoflower

03-02-2009, 01:55 PM

It occured to me over night that the entire discussion is pointless as long as we do not have exact definitions of what we understand as god.

Some may think of a big beard in the heaven, a creator who is controlling our actions, a father figure, and call that god.

Me, personaly, i have a strange mix of ideas like karma, ying and yang, all being one etc, and i call the general feeling i get out of his "god". We could call it Twoflowerism for all i care.

But i think that it is important that we talk about the same things here. I do believe that there is something going on that we dont know about. I do believe into a kind of lifeforce. I do NOT believe into a big beard hanging from heaven. I think i have some quite spiritual side, but if i look at the christian church in europe, i clearly want to distance myself from this and be a atheist.

surodat

03-02-2009, 04:29 PM

I do believe into a kind of lifeforce.

If you're ever in Toronto, you can swing by my Zen centre. A quick conversation with me and the Sensei will sort you out. :D

zerlikjr

03-02-2009, 04:35 PM

2Flower makes a good point, if I am understanding him correctly.

There is a major divide in 'The Church' and religion. I have strong believes but I do not believe in 'The Church'.

From my experience 'The Church' is not about religion at all. It it mostly about mind control to get believers to donate money so the powers that be can get more wealth and power. They use religion because it is a vital part of everyone, even atheist. For the most part, even though most of the doctrines state otherwise, they use hate as a motivator. It is far easier to convince someone to hate then it is to teach/practice real compassion.

Take Prop 8 in California. Why is 'The Church' so against people falling in love and being treated with the same legal rights as others who fall in love. How would any two people getting married have the minute impact on someone else?

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

Next big topic, slavery. For those who truly believe they should not have a problem with this.

http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html

Also need to be careful when shopping
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/192/

Twoflower

03-02-2009, 05:38 PM

Next big topic, slavery. For those who truly believe they should not have a problem with this.

there are still people who think they should not have a problem with it ? :shocked:

zerlikjr

03-02-2009, 07:57 PM

jschild

03-02-2009, 09:05 PM

The bible not only says it is a good thing but describes the rules you have to follow on how to treat your slaves. Not sure if you clicked on the link, but here are some excerpts.

It is ok to beat your slave as long as they live for a day or 2. Be careful not to put out an eye or else you have to let them go.

" Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
"

One of my all time favs is the wearing of two different fabrics.

Leviticus is easily the most tedious example of how Christians today pick and choose what rules they want to follow. Ignore the so called "golden rule" when convienent, gloss over some of the 10 commandments on a regular basis, but work yourselves over into an intense fury over gay sex that is only briefly mentioned a few times? Gandhi said it best about Christianity.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. "

Not true of all Christians, but it does tend to represent the loudest and most of the leaders.

TPMdm

03-02-2009, 09:13 PM

Well, you said "the atheist denies the argument" - wich in my reply is ofc nitpicking. I know we pretend to be on the level that an only atheist doesn't believe in THE god (of christians, muslims, jews),

Nonononono! That is the point of the whole argument. An atheist doesn't believe in any god, that is what I meant by denies the argument between an agnostic, a religious person and an irreligious person. I know you are nitpicking by saying a Cristian who doesn't believe in the Muslim Allah is "an atheist" but I think that is a problem of the definition.

Analogy
It would be like some people discussing who the greatest football/soccer player is/was. Two honestly disagreeing "religious" people might argue between Pele and Diego Maradona. The "agnostic" can't decide and might even say it is an unknowable question. The irreligious would say they don't like soccer. It is the atheist who says soccer has never been played, Pele and Diego Maradona, while historical figures and great people never played soccer. Soccer does not exist.

It occured to me over night that the entire discussion is pointless as long as we do not have exact definitions of what we understand as god.

No, in fact it doesn't matter what our definition of god is. The atheist, as I have already said, denies the argument.

I said it "tongue in cheek" in a previous post, but I'll expand the thought a little:
A Wiccan
A Christian
A Native American Shaman
A Superstitious Person
A Muslim
A Taoist
A Budhist
A Mormon
A Twoflowerist
A Jew
A Zoroastrian
A "Believer in Thor" (not sure what the viking "religion" might be called)
And A Satanist
***ALL***
Have more in common with each other than any one of them do with An Atheist. They don't agree with each other on just about any matter of faith, however they all agree the Atheist is wrong.

Leviticus is easily the most tedious example of how Christians today pick and choose what rules they want to follow.

Minor nit but Leviticus is not a Christian book. Most Christians believe Jesus' sacrifice has freed us from the "bondage of 'The Law'"

Ignore the so called "golden rule"
curious why you put golden rule is quotes....I agree it shouldn't be ignored.

when convienent, gloss over some of the 10 commandments on a regular basis, but work yourselves over into an intense fury over gay sex that is only briefly mentioned a few times?

IMO it's the over emphasis of particular points of dogma and tradition and bible verses that give many Christians such a hard time. I honestly believe that gay sex is wrong and (ugg....I'm going to regret typing this) God hates it, but it isn't the overriding concern of my life (I could care less what 2 people do with each other). I also believe lieing is wrong and God hates that too. I'm pretty sure God hates all sin (it's said many times), he hates what sin does to the pinnacle of his creation. God has a very high standard and only one person in history has ever lived up to it. Too many people ignore http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=7&v=4&t=NIV#4 when they go off on their flavor of the month sin crusades.

elsegundo

03-02-2009, 09:43 PM

zerlikjr

03-02-2009, 10:00 PM

An agnostic dyslectic insomniac is a person who lays awake at night wondering if there is a dog.

jschild

03-02-2009, 10:05 PM

Because most people act as if the "golden rule" was first spoken by Jesus and most people give credit for it to him. The rule easily predates him, just as flood stories easily predate the old testament.

My reference to the "sin" of Gay Sex is how much the Christian Church (in it's many flavors) tend to obsess on certain sins, while completely ignoring others. Just like the current obsession some of the Mega-Churches have with money. This despite the fact that Christ spoke of how impossible it is for a rich man to enter heaven. It is this "pick and choose" effect that gives Christianity a bad taste in peoples mouth. Not because of of Christ himself, but because of his "followers". Hence the Gandhi quote.

Twoflower

03-02-2009, 10:13 PM

The bible not only says it is a good thing but describes the rules you have to follow on how to treat your slaves. Not sure if you clicked on the link, but here are some excerpts.

It is ok to beat your slave as long as they live for a day or 2. Be careful not to put out an eye or else you have to let them go.

" Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
"

well, this entire thing just shows me that the bible was written in medieval times. And this mindset is just as backwardish. If you realy think you can apply this nowadays, well, good luck. Unless you own a country, you will have problems.

As with any other book aswell, the bible also has parts that belong to a completely different time and can under no circumstances be applied to our modern society. This be one of them.

zerlikjr

03-02-2009, 10:32 PM

What you are forgetting is this is the word of God and therefor must be eternal.

The subtle point I failed to make is that most people who claim to be very religious don't really know the contents of the book they so quickly throw in others' faces. Most just know what their cult leaders teach them. As mentioned it is much easier for the cult leaders to fire up commoners passions with hate then it is with love and compassion.

TPMdm:
"Minor nit but Leviticus is not a Christian book. Most Christians believe Jesus' sacrifice has freed us from the "bondage of 'The Law'"
"
Also from the site linked to earlier:
"
The New Testament did not forbid or alter the institution of slavery, nor did it improve their conditions.

1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Colossians 3:11 "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

"

surodat

03-02-2009, 11:00 PM

What you are forgetting is this is the word of God and therefor must be eternal.

The subtle point I failed to make is that most people who claim to be very religious don't really know the contents of the book they so quickly throw in others' faces.

TPMdm:
"Minor nit but Leviticus is not a Christian book. Most Christians believe Jesus' sacrifice has freed us from the "bondage of 'The Law'"
"
Also from the site linked to earlier:
"
The New Testament did not forbid or alter the institution of slavery, nor did it improve their conditions.

1. Yes there are a few sects of the Christian faith that believe the Bible to be literally true. By far the majority do not.

2. Yeah, it's not a subtle as you think, and again - those sects.

3. Mentioning that there are slaves and not denouncing slavery does not mean that the New Testament is Pro-Slavery. That's like calling George Bush an environmentalist because he said the word "green".

...

TPM:

Analogy
It would be like some people discussing who the greatest football/soccer player is/was. Two honestly disagreeing "religious" people might argue as follows: One says it was Pele the other Diego Maradona. The first says Diego never played soccer, but played baseball instead and did it badly, the second said Pele was actually a small kitten. The "agnostic" thinks they're both kind of odd and asks the second to prove Pele was a small kitten before making up his mind. The irreligious would say they would rather talk about something else. It is the atheist who says that there's no such thing as "the greatest" soccer player as it's qualitative and not quantitative and if neither of you two can agree on what you're talking about, I'm not going to get involved - then the first two proceed to get in a fight, destroying the bar and killing some innocent bystanders.

PS. I believe Pele was a tabby kitten.
And I think this post pretty much proves that I will argue with everyone :D

det

04-02-2009, 12:21 AM

I honestly believe that gay sex is wrong and (ugg....I'm going to regret typing this) God hates it,

Well, god also hates abortions and gay people are 100% unlikely to ever have one..so that should count something for them, no?

What you are forgetting is this is the word of God and therefore must be eternal.

Written 40-70 years after Jesus Death by different writers of which then in (mediaval?) times the current evangelists were chosen and others discared
With TV and other recordings it is still today sometimes hard to get an objective idea of thanks that happened between 1930 and 1960 and the bible is basically word of mouth (and metaphors that can be found in religions that pre-date Christianity: The child that is worshipped by kings, the resurrection et al).

But word of god? Unfortunately the bible mentions dates and historical figures that historicans now can deduct / prove don't work together. Ofc we wouldn't want to assume that god has become so senile that he is mixuing up dates and times?

I also believe lieing is wrong and God hates that too. I'm pretty sure God hates all sin (it's said many times), he hates what sin does to the pinnacle of his creation. .

The god of the old testament has no problem sending his chosen people out to invade, kill and put to slavery other tribes. If you want to believe that HE created everything he is basically telling people to sin (5th commandment) against others.

I mean, seriously...read the old testament..it is outrageous what stories are written there.

Shellar

04-02-2009, 02:15 PM

I believe in Wilson/Leary's 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness.

It perfectly explains every mode of thought described in this thread.

TPMdm

04-02-2009, 02:56 PM

I set out to prove how the numbers of people in the world who believe in "something" can be a valid argument against atheism. Because I also mentioned I am a Christian and threw out a few examples I am now expected to defend all "questionable" points of my belief in a few paragraphs?

@zerlikjr
I did mention how obsessing over 1 point of doctrine can lead one to distortions. You've brought out a half dozen verses where God lays down how one should treat a slave or acquire a slave. You ignore where Jesus refers to himself as a slave, calls his followers slaves, and a few verses from one of the ones you quoted God calls for slaves and bondmen to be freed during the year of Jubilee. As with Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" the laws concerning slavery given in the Bible are calls for moderation and control. Without having lived then I'm pretty convinced that any slave living in a Jewish household is better off than a slave living elsewhere.

God calls for men and women to be married for life, yet he allows for divorce. Does that mean he likes divorce? I'm honestly shocked you didn't bring up the crazy snake handlers.... is it because they've inflated a single verse while you have a couple? God calls for a man to be married to one woman and specifically forbids the Kings of the Nation of Israel from having multiple wives yet King Solomon who God allowed to rebuild the temple, who was called the wisest person ever, had multiple wives.

@det
I don't let Dan Brown dictate my historical views of the text of the Old and New Testaments. I mentioned lieing right after gay sex for a reason. Lieing is just as wrong IMO to God as gay sex. Everybody has lied, Everybody has sinned and fallen short. I agree with everyone that the people obsessed with who does what to who in their bedrooms is missing the point. But the further point is, hell is not just filled with killers, mass murderers, rapists, and child molesters. There are plenty of "good people" who only lied a little and stole from their employer who are there too.

And now I feel this thread has gone too far OT for my liking, interesting discussions, but please people can we get a new thread?
Biblical Slavery
Child abuse
Atheists Being wrong
Historicity of the bible

Too much for me to follow.