A Hidden Danger in Secularism
Jack
Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
somewhat different.
Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
with theistic ones in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay, shaky
intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
skin-deep.
The real danger I want to highlight here is another, somewhat subtle,
phenomena and stems from the observation that secularists become so
distanced from and unfamiliar with individual religions that they
bundle and label all religions collectively. If you don't know what
Christianity, Judaism or Islam means they start to all look the same.
"Religion" is handled as if it were a single ideology and you see
comments (explicit or implicit) along the lines of: "Religion is bad",
"Religion is dangerous", "Religion is stupid". "So what?", you might
say "Religion is bad, dangerous and stupid!". Well that, at least,
proves my premise - we do bundle religions into "Religion". My
conclusion however you may dispute:
A Secular person's inability to know and evaluate the merits of a
particular religion and the subsequent a priori rejection is a
Dogmatic approach which throws the baby out with the bathwater. If we
reject the bad and good things that religion has to offer we will
descend into inhumane chaos. I think we are already on the way there.
Before I continue, a short disclaimer. I'm not pro-Religion and don't
consider myself religious. I see and detest the ugliness religion can
bring but try to approve or reject religions on their merits
individually. All this is aside from the fact that I would normally be
labelled a Christian for my beliefs: I see no necessity for
identifying belief in Jesus with being religious. Jesus himself was
anti-religion, not religious and did not start a religion.
Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of us "postmodern
westerns" don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions. The media tends
to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
These things all have their roots in the Bible and were put in place
by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
correct basis for Man's behaviour. Eastern and primitive cultures
don't inherently have many of these things and it's these values which
provide the basis for the obvious success and dominance of western
culture in the world.
A society that has a sound foundation and works can be strong and
humane. The switch to secularism has triggered the decline and the
postmodern period following the modern "Enlightenment" has
appropriately been labelled "The Darkening".
Aside from the moral decay I wonder how many atheists or "free
thinkers" (as they like to be called) are aware of the backlash effect
of categorically denying and condemning religion. By dogmatically
assigning all religions an equal truth-probability they line
themselves up to miss the key truths these religions encompass. The
danger is that you are not a free thinker anymore if you dogmatically
reject religions you don't even understand. The typical excuse is
"There are so many religions all different, contradictory and
competing- One cannot know which is correct. Best stay out of it." One
could however easily take a different view: So many people recognize a
God, one must exist. So many voices and opinions, they can't all be
right: Which parts are true? Which one is mostly right? It's really
not that hard.
Today we are exposed to a multitude of views - we are overloaded and
don't know what to believe. Often media attention skews the attention
we should be giving to certain views because the media likes to report
new and controversial topics. The Da Vinci code controversy is an
excellent example of a minority view receiving so much media attention
that it became a majority view. We often assume old ideas are wrong
forgetting that our "new" ideas will one day too be old. The question
is whether the "new" ideas will even still be around. I would venture
that the ideas humanity has forgotten were those found and proved to
be wrong and many of the the old ideas we still have are those that
contain wisdom and truth.
Bill M
religions and the Bibles is the equivalent of assuming it is based on The
Wizard of OZ.
If you ever read the Bible with any degree of discernment you would not
claim this nonsense.
The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, and impossible tales.
Modern societies are founded and based on the science and technology. If
they were based on the Bible and religious dogma we would still be living in
the dark ages.
"Jack" <caw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180814646.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Conspiracy of Doves
> The western world has seen an unprecedented increase in Secularism and
> Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
> dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
> surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
> somewhat different.
>
> Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> with theistic ones in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
> secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay, shaky
> intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> skin-deep.
>
Spoken like someone who doesn't get it.
Enkidu
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> The western world has seen an unprecedented increase in Secularism and
> Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
> dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
> surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
> somewhat different.
>
> Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> with theistic ones in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
> secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay, shaky
> intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> skin-deep.
Yep, a deeply committed, religious government is so much better, kinder,
tolerant, much more moral.
Move to Tehran or Islamabad, then tell me how mythology-based govenment
works to the advantage of all.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
What interests fundamentalists to the exclusion of everything else is
not the paradisal happiness of the saints, but rather the horrors other
people are going to have to suffer for their skepticism.
- David Hopewell Ph.D.
J Forbes
Jack wrote:
> Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> with theistic ones
Maybe you should be comparing secular countries, with those under
atheist or thesit regimes.
Jim
Al Klein
More like someone who isn't intelligent enough to ever get it.
Believing in the supernatural aspects of Jebus isn't being religious?
Maybe when he hits (intellectual) puberty he'll be a little more
intelligent.
JTEM
> Before I continue, a short disclaimer. I'm not
> pro-Religion and don't consider myself religious.
So you're not the least bit honest. Well, it's not
like that could be any kind of surprise....
JTEM
> Your assuming that modern civil society is
> base on the Christian and Jewish religions
Now there's an issue....
Let's face it, there isn't a government outside
of the Islamic world that looks anything like
an O.T. government.
Which is rather ironic. The fundy Christian
idea of utopia is Saudi Arabia & Iran.
ike milligan
> particular religion and the subsequent a priori rejection is a
> Dogmatic approach which throws the baby out with the bathwater. If we
> reject the bad and good things that religion has to offer we will
> descend into inhumane chaos. I think we are already on the way there.
>
chaos. Until then we were doing so well.
> Before I continue, a short disclaimer. I'm not pro-Religion and don't
> consider myself religious. I see and detest the ugliness religion can
> bring but try to approve or reject religions on their merits
> individually.
So you are like a movie critic, only a religion critic.
>
> We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
> and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
> charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
> These things all have their roots in the Bible
Thanks for pointing that out. I thought they came from scince fiction
novels.
and were put in place
> by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
> correct basis for Man's behaviour. Eastern and primitive cultures
> don't inherently have many of these things and it's these values which
> provide the basis for the obvious success and dominance of western
> culture in the world.
I see, and I thought it was guns.
>
The Da Vinci code controversy is an
> excellent example of a minority view receiving so much media attention
> that it became a majority view.
The Da Vinci code is so controversial, I hesitate to even mention it to
anyone. Especially if he is packing heat.
Josef Balluch
caw...@gmail.com says...
...
> Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> with theistic ones in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities, ...
yaaaaaaawwwwnnnnn
What the proponents of this "argument" never seem to grasp is that
atheism is not the reason for such atrocities. This sort of mayhem
is fueled by ideology, not necessarily religious ideology, but
ideology just the same. Another thing that the proponents of said
argument fail to grasp is that atheism is not an ideology.
> ... secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay, shaky
> intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> skin-deep.
Unsupported assertion.
> The real danger I want to highlight here is another, somewhat subtle,
> phenomena and stems from the observation that secularists become so
> distanced from and unfamiliar with individual religions that they
> bundle and label all religions collectively.
Since many religions are constructed upon the same set of
fallacies then it is not too surprising that they do indeed look
similar.
> If you don't know what
> Christianity, Judaism or Islam means they start to all look the same.
And if you understand the core assumptions these various religions
make then you understand WHY they look the same.
...
> A Secular person's inability to know and evaluate the merits of a
> particular religion and the subsequent a priori rejection is a
> Dogmatic approach which throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Fortunately, one can toss out religion without being dogmatic.
> If we
> reject the bad and good things that religion has to offer we will
> descend into inhumane chaos.
Really? Rejecting the bad things is a problem for you?
And earlier you stated that: "Aside from the staggering statistics
proving atheistic regimes on par with theistic ones in terms of
violence, murders and other atrocities ..." Since the two regimes
are on a par according to you, then it should not matter which one
we keep and which we reject.
> I think we are already on the way there.
If the two regimes are on a par then we presumably were always
there.
...
> Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of us "postmodern
> westerns" don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
> societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
> no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions.
Are you sure you don't have the cart before the horse? Does
religion drive progress, or merely claim the credit for those
things that humans would do anyway?
> The media tends
> to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
> waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
Whose fault is that? Politicians, theologians and even the press
have long been in the business of selling you what you want to
hear.
> We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
> and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
> charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
See above, about carts and horses.
> These things all have their roots in the Bible and were put in place
> by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
> correct basis for Man's behaviour.
In order to understand the need for such things one need only be a
student of the school of hard knocks.
> Eastern and primitive cultures
> don't inherently have many of these things ...
What is your evidence for the lack of such things in Eastern
cultures?
...
> A society that has a sound foundation and works can be strong and
> humane. The switch to secularism has triggered the decline and the
> postmodern period following the modern "Enlightenment" has
> appropriately been labelled "The Darkening".
yaaaawwwwnnnnn
See above, your earlier statement about regimes being on a par.
> Aside from the moral decay I wonder how many atheists or "free
> thinkers" (as they like to be called) are aware of the backlash effect
> of categorically denying and condemning religion. By dogmatically
> assigning all religions an equal truth-probability they line
> themselves up to miss the key truths these religions encompass.
Nonsense. There has never been a shortage of theists ready and
willing to inform all and sundry about the superiority of their
belief systems. The only problem has been separating the gold from
the (voluminous) dross. I would suggest that this very poor signal
to noise ratio is more to blame than your straw man of dogmatic
dismissal.
> The
> danger is that you are not a free thinker anymore if you dogmatically
> reject religions you don't even understand.
Uh huh. See above regarding the other reason for so much
misunderstanding.
> The typical excuse is
> "There are so many religions all different, contradictory and
> competing- One cannot know which is correct. Best stay out of it."
This would be an agnostic position, not a purely atheist one.
> One
> could however easily take a different view: So many people recognize a
> God, one must exist.
Argumentum ad Numerum.
> So many voices and opinions, they can't all be
> right: Which parts are true? Which one is mostly right? It's really
> not that hard.
True. Deities have no explanatory power, so they are irrelevant
to us even if they do exist.
...
> We often assume old ideas are wrong
> forgetting that our "new" ideas will one day too be old. The question
> is whether the "new" ideas will even still be around. I would venture
> that the ideas humanity has forgotten were those found and proved to
> be wrong and many of the the old ideas we still have are those that
> contain wisdom and truth.
Argumentum ad Antiquitatem.
Regards,
Josef
The world has never been so good, and will never become so
good that the majority will desire the truth.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Smiler
Blazing Saddles?
> don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
> societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
> no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions. The media tends
> to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
> waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
>
> We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
> and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
> charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
> These things all have their roots in the Bible
So does slavery, rape, murder, genocide, trickery and lies.
and were put in place
> by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
> correct basis for Man's behaviour. Eastern and primitive cultures
> don't inherently have many of these things and it's these values which
> provide the basis for the obvious success and dominance of western
> culture in the world.
>
> A society that has a sound foundation and works can be strong and
> humane. The switch to secularism has triggered the decline and the
> postmodern period following the modern "Enlightenment" has
> appropriately been labelled "The Darkening".
>
> Aside from the moral decay I wonder how many atheists or "free
> thinkers" (as they like to be called) are aware of the backlash effect
> of categorically denying and condemning religion. By dogmatically
> assigning all religions an equal truth-probability
Zero.
> they line
> themselves up to miss the key truths these religions encompass.
Such as?
The
> danger is that you are not a free thinker anymore if you dogmatically
> reject religions you don't even understand. The typical excuse is
> "There are so many religions all different, contradictory and
> competing- One cannot know which is correct.
One can. None are correct.
Best stay out of it." One
> could however easily take a different view: So many people recognize a
> God, one must exist.
By the same argument... Eat shit, a trillion flies can't be wrong.
> So many voices and opinions, they can't all be
> right: Which parts are true?
None
> Which one is mostly right?
None
> It's really not that hard.
Simply none.
>
> Today we are exposed to a multitude of views - we are overloaded and
> don't know what to believe. Often media attention skews the attention
> we should be giving to certain views because the media likes to report
> new and controversial topics. The Da Vinci code controversy is an
> excellent example of a minority view receiving so much media attention
> that it became a majority view. We often assume old ideas are wrong
> forgetting that our "new" ideas will one day too be old. The question
> is whether the "new" ideas will even still be around. I would venture
> that the ideas humanity has forgotten were those found and proved to
> be wrong and many of the the old ideas we still have are those that
> contain wisdom and truth.
>
Smiler,
The godless one
quibbler
> Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
> dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
> surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
> somewhat different.
>
> Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> with theistic ones
In fact, even with the ridiculously inflated "statistics" attributed by
propagandists about soviet and chinese atrocities, this is only a drop in
the bucket compared to the billions of people killed because of religious
motives. In absolute and percentage terms religion is still far more
likely to kill you for no good reason than are atheists. And those
atheists who have killed people often had other dogmatic ideologies,
which arguably meant that they weren't actually being atheists.
> in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
> secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay,
Your ridiculous moral codes have fallen, but they have been replaces with
superior and more realistic ones that are responsive to modern life.
> shaky
> intellectual foundations
As opposed to your blind faith beliefs which have no intellectual
foundations whatsoever.
> and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> skin-deep.
As opposed to your religion which would have no tolerance whatsoever if
it could get away with it, like during the inquisition.
>
> The real danger I want to highlight here is another, somewhat subtle,
> phenomena and stems from the observation that secularists become so
> distanced from and unfamiliar with individual religions that they
> bundle and label all religions collectively.
Perhaps some do. You seem to have bundled all "secularists". Most of
them are quite knowledgable about and even interested in learning about
religion, in my experience. Yes, many have concluded that lots of
religious practices are ridiculous wastes of time and resources, but they
have not done so a priori.
> Before I continue, a short disclaimer. I'm not pro-Religion
Ah, the standard, an atheist, but I don't support anything that atheists
say form of evangelism. Gotta love it.
> Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of us "postmodern
> westerns"
Most secularists also seem to reject the excessive views of post
modernism, from what I have seen. Post-modernism was never anything but
an academic phenomenon, largely confined to literature and the fine arts.
It was never implemented in any serious sense, because, by it's nature,
there wasn't really much that could be implemented. It just doesn't have
much to say.
> don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
> societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
> no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions.
No, most progress was in spite of ChristInsanity and JooJoo-ism. Some
christian principles have helped to make society a bit better, but most
of these ideas were co-opted by xianity and judaism from previous
civilizations.
> The media tends
> to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
> waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
No. Technology can always be used for good as well as ill. That doesn't
mean that it inherently brings curses with it. There are always
limitations and downsides to anything in real life. But the primary
reason that our lives are better than they were in the middle ages is
because of technology. It has saved us, far more than any other factor.
It has healed more disease than all faith healers in history. It has fed
more people than the churches. It is the primary thing that has
empowered people and made our lives more worth living.
>
> We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
> and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems,
Ever heard of the roman justice system which preceded ChristInsanity?
Sure you have, because Basilicas were Roman courthouses before they were
churches.
> ethics,
> charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
> These things all have their roots in the Bible
Bullshit. These ideas existed throughout the world in India, China, and
previous middle-eastern societies from Babylon to Egypt. In particular,
hygiene and tolerance were some of the things that the Bible did the
worst job on.
> A society that has a sound foundation and works can be strong and
> humane. The switch to secularism has triggered the decline and the
> postmodern period following the modern "Enlightenment"
The enlightenment was due to secularism, idiot.
> has
> appropriately been labelled "The Darkening".
There's been an "EnDarkening", but it's been due to the attempt to revive
antiquated religious dogmatism.
>
> Aside from the moral decay I wonder how many atheists or "free
> thinkers" (as they like to be called) are aware of the backlash effect
> of categorically denying and condemning religion.
Shove your "backlash" up your ass. There are always countervailing
forces, but you theists had your chance for thousands of years and you
failed miserably. The Enlightenment was the beginning of secular re-
birth and has created pretty much everything that is good about modern
life.
> Today we are exposed to a multitude of views - we are overloaded and
> don't know what to believe.
You might be confused, but thinkers are not. We follow the evidence. I
know you just want someone to tell you what to do, so you don't have to
think, but people who refuse to think are abrogating their
responsibilities to society and themselves.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Jack
> claim this nonsense.
>
> The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
> human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
> barbarisms, and impossible tales.
Well you sound like you started reading the bible from page 1, got
discouraged and never finished.
> Modern societies are founded and based on the science and technology. If
> they were based on the Bible and religious dogma we would still be living in
> the dark ages.
Incorrect, most of the founders, thinkers and leaders of western
society had their morals and values based consciously or unconsciously
in the Bible's teachings. Nobody based society or their behaviour
science and technology. In the past 200 years or so, sci. and tech.
have played a major role in shaping our day to day living but we're
still "standing on the shoulders of giants" morally and socially. The
decline of community (inherant in technological societies) and the
decay of morals associated with the "there is no God watching me"
dream are pushing us into a new dark age my friend.
Jack
> Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1180814646.682833.167020
> @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The western world has seen an unprecedented increase in Secularism and
> > Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
> > dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
> > surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
> > somewhat different.
>
> > Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> > with theistic ones in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
> > secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay, shaky
> > intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> > skin-deep.
>
> Yep, a deeply committed, religious government is so much better, kinder,
> tolerant, much more moral.
>
> Move to Tehran or Islamabad, then tell me how mythology-based govenment
> works to the advantage of all.
"ooh this religion is bad, all must be bad" dogmatism which I'm
addressing here. In fact, I hold that the fiasco that some people call
Islamic states goes to show how lucky western states are to be based
on the Bible and not the Koran.
Jack
Perhaps you could list a few "secular countries" not founded on
religion or religious principles?
Jack
because you consider 'believing' a synonym for 'being religious'?
Jack
> > intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> > skin-deep.
>
> Unsupported assertion.
>
> > The real danger I want to highlight here is another, somewhat subtle,
> > phenomena and stems from the observation that secularists become so
> > distanced from and unfamiliar with individual religions that they
> > bundle and label all religions collectively.
>
> Since many religions are constructed upon the same set of
> fallacies then it is not too surprising that they do indeed look
> similar.
religions false"?
>
> > If you don't know what
> > Christianity, Judaism or Islam means they start to all look the same.
>
> And if you understand the core assumptions these various religions
> make then you understand WHY they look the same.
Well, to a lay-person all guitars look the same. If that person heard
a couple of crappy guitars or crappy playing and assumed guitars don't
make good music they'd be missing something special.
>
> ...
>
> > A Secular person's inability to know and evaluate the merits of a
> > particular religion and the subsequent a priori rejection is a
> > Dogmatic approach which throws the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> Fortunately, one can toss out religion without being dogmatic.
Feel free to be the first atheis I've met who did not hold a priori
naturalistic assumptions.
>
> > If we
> > reject the bad and good things that religion has to offer we will
> > descend into inhumane chaos.
>
> Really? Rejecting the bad things is a problem for you?
>
> And earlier you stated that: "Aside from the staggering statistics
> proving atheistic regimes on par with theistic ones in terms of
> violence, murders and other atrocities ..." Since the two regimes
> are on a par according to you, then it should not matter which one
> we keep and which we reject.
Well, considering the atheistic regimes have had so little time to
even the score, the theistic ones win hands down.
It's like this - there are no good or bad things - just good or bad
people. Some people think guns, TV or the Internet are bad - not so -
they're just powerful. Good people can do better things with TV than
without and vice versa. Yes, religion is powerful and, in the wrong
hands, worse than a religion-free state. The dilemma is that no state
survives without some focus and ideology so you throw out religion and
some other ideology arises.
>
> > I think we are already on the way there.
>
> If the two regimes are on a par then we presumably were always
> there.
>
> ...
>
> > Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of us "postmodern
> > westerns" don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
> > societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
> > no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions.
>
> Are you sure you don't have the cart before the horse? Does
> religion drive progress, or merely claim the credit for those
> things that humans would do anyway?
Just look east to see what would have happened had we not been a Bible-
based society.
>
> > The media tends
> > to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
> > waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
>
> Whose fault is that? Politicians, theologians and even the press
> have long been in the business of selling you what you want to
> hear.
Whose fault? As consumers it's squarely ours. The media panders to us
and we like to read novel controversal crap and we don't like to think
or go out and get a life.
>
> > We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
> > and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
> > charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
>
> See above, about carts and horses.
>
> > These things all have their roots in the Bible and were put in place
> > by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
> > correct basis for Man's behaviour.
>
> In order to understand the need for such things one need only be a
> student of the school of hard knocks.
Much like learning arithmetic by trying all possible solutions.
Budikka666
I see a lot of blind-ass-ertion, but not a shred of supportive
material.
Do let me know when you can support your blather.
Yawn....
Budikka
Jack
> > We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
> > and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
> > charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
> > These things all have their roots in the Bible
>
> So does slavery, rape, murder, genocide, trickery and lies.
That's right - the Bible tells a story and we must all run out and
emulate it's protagonists!
By your argument - "I can't do this sum, there are so many numbers to
choose from."
> > So many voices and opinions, they can't all be
> > right: Which parts are true?
>
> None
>
> > Which one is mostly right?
>
> None
>
> > It's really not that hard.
>
> Simply none.
Either I missed your book proving all religions wrong or you've got
yourself a great dogma going there!
Jack
> In article <1180814646.682833.167...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> cawo...@gmail.com says...
>
> > The western world has seen an unprecedented increase in Secularism and
> > Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
> > dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
> > surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
> > somewhat different.
>
> > Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> > with theistic ones
>
> In fact, even with the ridiculously inflated "statistics" attributed by
> propagandists about soviet and chinese atrocities, this is only a drop in
> the bucket compared to the billions of people killed because of religious
> motives.
> In absolute and percentage terms religion is still far more
> likely to kill you for no good reason than are atheists.
Well, as I have said earlier in this post - there are no good or bad
things, just good or bad people. Guns, TV, Internet, Religion are all
things which are neutral until you put them in the hands of a person.
Religion as such can lift up a scoiety to great heights or plunge it
into dispair. The atheists gamble is that we're better of without the
risk. I must state again - I'm not pro-Religion and would hate to live
in a dominant theocratic state of any religion. My plea here is for
societies not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And those
> atheists who have killed people often had other dogmatic ideologies,
> which arguably meant that they weren't actually being atheists.
To be honest - when you and your family are being opressed, tortured,
and murdered it doesn't matter what motivates your oppressor. I don't
think atheists can seriously consider the "we weren't religiously
motivated" excuse a valid one.
> > in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
> > secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay,
>
> Your ridiculous moral codes have fallen, but they have been replaces with
> superior and more realistic ones that are responsive to modern life.
Are we living on the same planet?
> > shaky
> > intellectual foundations
>
> As opposed to your blind faith beliefs which have no intellectual
> foundations whatsoever.
>
> > and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> > skin-deep.
>
> As opposed to your religion which would have no tolerance whatsoever if
> it could get away with it, like during the inquisition.
The Christian Religion became corrupted because people became are the
head and hands instead of Jesus and his teaching. None of the
attrocities you guys are fond of touting resemble anything Jesus said
or stood for. Also, it would assist fair-mindedness if you guys would
read the New Testament as well as the Old when rummaging for dirt on
Christianity.
>
> > The real danger I want to highlight here is another, somewhat subtle,
> > phenomena and stems from the observation that secularists become so
> > distanced from and unfamiliar with individual religions that they
> > bundle and label all religions collectively.
>
> Perhaps some do. You seem to have bundled all "secularists". Most of
> them are quite knowledgable about and even interested in learning about
> religion, in my experience.
This I've witnessed and it amounts to rummaging through scripture and
history in search for dirt on theists.
> Yes, many have concluded that lots of
> religious practices are ridiculous wastes of time and resources, but they
> have not done so a priori.
I've never met an atheist who, upon questioning, did not reveal a deep
and convicted naturalist assumption which they could not justify. I've
also never met an atheist who has understood the Bible's message. Feel
free to be the first.
> > Before I continue, a short disclaimer. I'm not pro-Religion
>
> Ah, the standard, an atheist, but I don't support anything that atheists
> say form of evangelism. Gotta love it.
As a Christian (in the true sense) I support everything that Christ
said. That should be the true definition wouldn't you agree?
Jack
> > to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
> > waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
>
> No. Technology can always be used for good as well as ill. That doesn't
> mean that it inherently brings curses with it.
get pro's without con's. However you're about to confirm that...
> There are always
> limitations and downsides to anything in real life. But the primary
> reason that our lives are better than they were in the middle ages is
> because of technology. It has saved us, far more than any other factor.
> It has healed more disease than all faith healers in history. It has fed
> more people than the churches. It is the primary thing that has
> empowered people and made our lives more worth living.
Plague. I disagree wholeheartedly that society as a whole or in
general is better off now than at any time prior. I was born raised in
Africa and can testify that technology and wealth do not lift up
humanity or provide more happiness. I now live in one of the most
developed, democratic and civilized countries in the world so I think
I can draw a valid comparison. Talk to any person on the planet about
what makes them most happy or what moment lifted them up and you'll
soon see that sci. and tech. ranks poorly.
Jack
I usually assume my audience is moderately educated and informed...
Enkidu
news:1180907353.7...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
You don't read much history, do you? Christianity was every bit as
barbaric as Islam is now. And quite a few Christians would be as
barbaric today, if they could pull it off. Christanity would be every
bit as vile and violent if Christains paid as much attention to the
Bible as Muslims pay to the Koran.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the
natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or
mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that
whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the
rights of mankind.
-John Adams
*nemo*
Jack <caw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The western world has seen an unprecedented increase in Secularism and
> Atheism in the past 100 years.
And the "hidden danger" of secularism is -- to the income of priests who
got fat through being overtly supported by the state. No big loss there,
sunny Jim.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
quibbler
caw...@gmail.com says...
> On Jun 3, 4:34 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <1180814646.682833.167...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > cawo...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > The western world has seen an unprecedented increase in Secularism and
> > > Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
> > > dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
> > > surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
> > > somewhat different.
> >
> > > Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> > > with theistic ones
> >
> > In fact, even with the ridiculously inflated "statistics" attributed by
> > propagandists about soviet and chinese atrocities, this is only a drop in
> > the bucket compared to the billions of people killed because of religious
> > motives.
> Please cite both claims if you can.
You provided no citations. But I will point you in the direction of the
evidence that backs my claims. Most leaders throughout most of history
have belonged to religions of some sort. Take the Aztecs, or the divine
right monarchs of Europe, or the god-king of babylon and the god-
pharoah's of Egypt. If you wish to blame atheism for the acts of a few
people like Stalin or Mao in the 20th century, what about the previous 99
centuries of recorded history when religion largely dominated everything?
What about the colonization of Africa and the Americas, and China and
India by european missionaries who did their level best to kill off or
enslave indigenous people? More people have had their throats cut in
disputes about what would happen after they were dead than for any other
purpose.
As to the issue of propaganda, clearly the west was interested in
portraying Chinese and Soviet communism in the worst possible light.
Often times the body counts attributed to those regimes include their
losses during the world wars, which neither China nor the Soviets
started. They often also attempt to conveniently forget that things like
the Russian Civil War were made all the more bloody by outside countries
supporting the "White Russians". And then there's the bullshit about
classifying people like Hitler as an "atheist", when the reality was that
he was strongly Roman Catholic and at most only gravitated toward forming
a splinter sect of nationalist Christianity.
>
> > In absolute and percentage terms religion is still far more
> > likely to kill you for no good reason than are atheists.
>
> Well, as I have said earlier in this post - there are no good or bad
> things, just good or bad people.
Who do good and bad things.
> Guns, TV, Internet, Religion are all
> things which are neutral until you put them in the hands of a person.
So you think that a child having cancer or a torture manual or a
supervirus that could wipe out billions are not inherently bad and that
we have to let them happen before pronouncing them so?
> Religion as such can lift up a scoiety to great heights or plunge it
> into dispair.
Most every good thing that religion has done is something which does not
require religion and amounts to secular concern for one's fellow man.
The same goes for legal and moral codes.
> The atheists gamble is that we're better of without the
> risk.
No, that's one issue, but not the most important one. The main issue I
have with religion is that it saps resources (time, money, energy, etc)
which could be better directed toward improving our technology and using
reliable scientific principles to make the world a better place. I argue
that the resources of the vatican would be far better spent, for example,
financing a "war against disease" or giving research grants and prizes in
other areas of science. Instead, that money gets wasted on jewel-
encrusted sceptres for codgerly, skirt-wearing pedophiles who have the
delusion that they can speak for god.
> I must state again - I'm not pro-Religion and would hate to live
> in a dominant theocratic state of any religion. My plea here is for
> societies not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I never said differently. I don't deny that religion might accidentally
do some good things, though I think it could be done better without the
middle-man of religion.
>
> And those
> > atheists who have killed people often had other dogmatic ideologies,
> > which arguably meant that they weren't actually being atheists.
>
> To be honest - when you and your family are being opressed, tortured,
> and murdered it doesn't matter what motivates your oppressor. I don't
> think atheists can seriously consider the "we weren't religiously
> motivated" excuse a valid one.
I didn't pay attention to what I said. It's not an issue of being
motivated by religion, but being dogmatic. Religion is very good at
being dogmatic, though it is possible to dogmatic without religion. Most
atheists and free-thinkers are much better at being non-dogmatic or even
anti-dogmatic, because of their experiences with the excesses of
religious devotion.
>
> > > in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
> > > secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay,
> >
> > Your ridiculous moral codes have fallen, but they have been replaces with
> > superior and more realistic ones that are responsive to modern life.
>
> Are we living on the same planet?
Well, it looked like your headers said something about being from mars,
so perhaps not. It's blindingly obvious that many elements of religion
are not responsive to modern life. Take the ban on making "graven
images" or "working on the sabbath" or muslims wanting to wrap their
women up in potato sacks to name just a very few primitive bits of
religious nonsense.
>
> > > shaky
> > > intellectual foundations
> >
> > As opposed to your blind faith beliefs which have no intellectual
> > foundations whatsoever.
> >
> > > and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> > > skin-deep.
> >
> > As opposed to your religion which would have no tolerance whatsoever if
> > it could get away with it, like during the inquisition.
>
> The Christian Religion became corrupted because people became are the
> head and hands instead of Jesus and his teaching. None of the
> attrocities you guys are fond of touting resemble anything Jesus said
> or stood for.
Jesus was a racist who did not condemn slavery and saw nothing wrong with
people being eternally tortured in hellfire for finite sins. Jesus saw
nothing wrong with a bloody final battle in which all the people who
opposed his dogmas would be violently slain and their souls tortured.
Jesus railed against the hypocrisy of some, but was rather hypocritical
himself on a number of occasions. So I don't see Jesus necessarily being
against the commission of atrocities to further his goals. He even
killed a fig tree for not having figs, despite the fact that it was not
in season.
> Also, it would assist fair-mindedness if you guys would
> read the New Testament as well as the Old when rummaging for dirt on
> Christianity.
BTDT. Why is it "dirt" for us to just quote what your Holy Books
actually say. BTW, didn't you say "I'm not pro-Religion"?
>
> >
> > > The real danger I want to highlight here is another, somewhat subtle,
> > > phenomena and stems from the observation that secularists become so
> > > distanced from and unfamiliar with individual religions that they
> > > bundle and label all religions collectively.
> >
> > Perhaps some do. You seem to have bundled all "secularists". Most of
> > them are quite knowledgable about and even interested in learning about
> > religion, in my experience.
> This I've witnessed and it amounts to rummaging through scripture and
> history in search for dirt on theists.
> > Yes, many have concluded that lots of
> > religious practices are ridiculous wastes of time and resources, but they
> > have not done so a priori.
>
> I've never met an atheist who, upon questioning, did not reveal a deep
> and convicted naturalist assumption which they could not justify. I've
> also never met an atheist who has understood the Bible's message. Feel
> free to be the first.
>
> > > Before I continue, a short disclaimer. I'm not pro-Religion
> >
> > Ah, the standard, an atheist, but I don't support anything that atheists
> > say form of evangelism. Gotta love it.
>
> As a Christian
Didn't you say, "I'm not pro-Religion"?
> (in the true sense) I support everything that Christ
Wouldn't that make you pro-religion in the form of being "Pro-Christian"?
quibbler
caw...@gmail.com says...
> I was born raised in
> Africa and can testify that technology and wealth do not lift up
> humanity
Was that testimony before or after you got your immunizations and anti-
malaria drugs?
> or provide more happiness.
Mainly because the locals couldn't afford the technology, presumably.
However, one of the key goals in technology development is to keep making
useful products more cheaply. One day, solar panels might be cheap
enough, even for Africa.
> I now live in one of the most
> developed, democratic and civilized countries in the world so I think
> I can draw a valid comparison. Talk to any person on the planet about
> what makes them most happy or what moment lifted them up and you'll
> soon see that sci. and tech. ranks poorly.
Only because many of them take it for granted. They type on their
computers and drive their cars, fly in their passenger jets and receive
life-saving medicine while refusing to give these commonplace occurences
the credit that they are due.
quibbler
caw...@gmail.com says...
Is that because you're only moderately educated/informed, or perhaps
because you know that most theists, in general, are only moderately
educated? Atheists tend to be better educated than that, so apparently
your faulty assumption was hoping that atheists were beneath your level,
when in fact they appear to be above it.
Josef Balluch
caw...@gmail.com says...
> > > ... secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay, shaky
> > > intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> > > skin-deep.
> >
> > Unsupported assertion.
> You'd consider the atheists and secularists tolerant!?
Wow. Some argument.
> > > The real danger I want to highlight here is another, somewhat subtle,
> > > phenomena and stems from the observation that secularists become so
> > > distanced from and unfamiliar with individual religions that they
> > > bundle and label all religions collectively.
> >
> > Since many religions are constructed upon the same set of
> > fallacies then it is not too surprising that they do indeed look
> > similar.
> Unsupported assertion. Or did I miss your book "How I proved all
> religions false"?
You certainly did.
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.atheism/msg/d5ea57e809148e4c
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.atheism/msg/92d69151e481a211
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.atheism/msg/859f103b91aadc67
> > > If you don't know what
> > > Christianity, Judaism or Islam means they start to all look the same.
> >
> > And if you understand the core assumptions these various religions
> > make then you understand WHY they look the same.
>
> Well, to a lay-person all guitars look the same.
Irrelevant. Examining core assumptions is generally not the
province of lay people.
...
> > > A Secular person's inability to know and evaluate the merits of a
> > > particular religion and the subsequent a priori rejection is a
> > > Dogmatic approach which throws the baby out with the bathwater.
> >
> > Fortunately, one can toss out religion without being dogmatic.
>
> Feel free to be the first atheis I've met who did not hold a priori
> naturalistic assumptions.
Thanks. I will.
> > > If we
> > > reject the bad and good things that religion has to offer we will
> > > descend into inhumane chaos.
> >
> > Really? Rejecting the bad things is a problem for you?
> >
> > And earlier you stated that: "Aside from the staggering statistics
> > proving atheistic regimes on par with theistic ones in terms of
> > violence, murders and other atrocities ..." Since the two regimes
> > are on a par according to you, then it should not matter which one
> > we keep and which we reject.
>
> Well, considering the atheistic regimes have had so little time to
> even the score, the theistic ones win hands down.
Please demonstrate that the "score" is in fact even.
> It's like this - there are no good or bad things - just good or bad
> people. Some people think guns, TV or the Internet are bad - not so -
> they're just powerful. Good people can do better things with TV than
> without and vice versa. Yes, religion is powerful and, in the wrong
> hands, worse than a religion-free state.
And since you reject organized religions then you tacitly admit
that this has in fact occurred.
> The dilemma is that no state
> survives without some focus and ideology so you throw out religion and
> some other ideology arises.
Why is that a dilemma? It sounds like a desirable state of
affairs.
> > > Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of us "postmodern
> > > westerns" don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
> > > societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
> > > no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions.
> >
> > Are you sure you don't have the cart before the horse? Does
> > religion drive progress, or merely claim the credit for those
> > things that humans would do anyway?
> Just look east to see what would have happened had we not been a Bible-
> based society.
Wow. Another scintillating argument. It appears that my point
about carts and horses hasn't yet sunk in.
Have you ever heard the dictum that correlation does not establish
causation? Theists are fond of pointing it out when it is their
favour to do so.
> > > The media tends
> > > to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
> > > waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
> >
> > Whose fault is that? Politicians, theologians and even the press
> > have long been in the business of selling you what you want to
> > hear.
> Whose fault? As consumers it's squarely ours. The media panders to us
> and we like to read novel controversal crap and we don't like to think
> or go out and get a life.
Thanks for your agreement.
> > > These things all have their roots in the Bible and were put in place
> > > by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
> > > correct basis for Man's behaviour.
> >
> > In order to understand the need for such things one need only be a
> > student of the school of hard knocks.
> Much like learning arithmetic by trying all possible solutions.
Sure. It's not pretty, but that is actually what has happened.
Or are you suggesting that scripture really WAS the product of
divine inspiration?
Regards,
Josef
The masses have little time to think. And how incredible is the
willingness of modern man to believe.
-- Benito Mussolini
Smiler
>
>> > We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
>> > and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
>> > charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
>> > These things all have their roots in the Bible
>>
>> So does slavery, rape, murder, genocide, trickery and lies.
>
> That's right - the Bible tells a story and we must all run out and
> emulate it's protagonists!
You take the good things in the bible for granted but ignore the bad things.
I call that hypocricy.
I cannot see your reasoning there.
I'll try again.
Many people believe in Father Xmas, so he must exist?
Many people believe in the Tooth Fairy, so it must exist?
Many people believe in the Loch Ness monster, so it must exist?
Many people believe in unicorns, so they must exist?
Many people believe in Leprechauns, so they must exist?
Many people believed the earth was flat, so it must have been flat?
Many people believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, so the
Sun and Moon must have revolved around the Earth?
Many people recognize a God, one must exist?
Do you now see how stupid that argument is?
>
>> > So many voices and opinions, they can't all be
>> > right: Which parts are true?
>>
>> None
>>
>> > Which one is mostly right?
>>
>> None
>>
>> > It's really not that hard.
>>
>> Simply none.
>
> Either I missed your book proving all religions wrong or you've got
> yourself a great dogma going there!
>
You're the one claiming there is such a thing as a god.
Prove it.
Smiler,
The godless one
J Forbes
How about you provide some examples of atheistic regimes, and theistic
regimes, and we'll see what's left?
Jim
Jack
by the Old Testament. Try reading the New Testament and see if your
argument still holds. It would be pretty difficult to support any kind
of violence or aggression based on what Jesus taught. I think you
don't understand the context in which the OT should be read.
JTEM
> So you claim I'm lying without even knowing
> how I live?
Your spewings are based on latter day fundy
revisionism, not reality.
After the fall of the Roman empire, it took
a millenia or more before Europe cought up
to where Pagan Rome left off. That's hardly
impressive.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can
be trapped in a distinctly religious view
of history and not be religious.
Enkidu
news:1180952159.0...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Jesus said it's still valid and meaningful. Do you disagree?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
The believer is happy; the doubter is wise.
-- Hungarian proverb
Hatter
>
> - Show quoted text -
There was a time that morality and government was based off the
adhearents of "the New Testement" it was called "The Dark Ages." The
more pluralistic and secular government has become, the more tolerant
and advanced it has become. The major problem with your attempts to
associate Atheism with the regimes of Stalin and Mao is that they had
an avowedly unpluralist and quasi-religous viewpoint. It is Dogma that
destroys, and the biggest source of Dogma is religion, the second
biggest source is Communism.
Hatter
jem
And your reply sounds like a moral relativism, something you are
against right?
So the old testament is immoral, and you want to set it aside and
proclaim it's all about the new testament, so morals change in your
view.
Well, great, let's swap the sacrificing animals to wash away sins for
sacrificing humans, good step forward.
And I guess you have no need for the ten commandments, that old
testament babbling huh.
So tossing out the ten commandments gives us the jesus advice, let's
look at that....
Are you ready for the new testament? here goes....
If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)
good practical advice, why suffer once when you can get a two-fer.
Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
ya, let's be lazy slobs, gawd'll feed us. or die wretchedly- but
HAPPY!
Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)
Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)
obviously we need this jesus guy at the fed reserve bank.....
Pray in secret... do not let men see you pray. (Matthew 6:1-7)
why hide like a coward? I dunno, but that's what jesus wants...
If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question.
(Matthew 5:42)
say, do you have a car? gimme it.....
Resist not evil.
and don't forget to not work for food, hey are there christian
muggers? Be a wussypussy for jesus, is that what it means?
Does it follow- that not resisting evil means you naturally become
evil? Jesus endorses evil? He's a daddy's boy ain't he!
Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
fucked up about sex.... whodathunk?
Love thine enemies.
I suppose you view atheists as your enemies...... hon......wink-wink
Sell everything you have and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)
and don't forget to not work for food......
Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
but you really shouldn't achieve that by persecuting or demonizing
everybody else, so get your shit together on that.
Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
how about that, YOU GOT THAT ONE BANG ON!
Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich
investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
did you work for Enron? You may already have that under your belt.
If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)
and then walk two miles, don't work for food, oh man it sux to be you.
If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)
hey, S&M in the bible, "thank you sir may I have another"
If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
more sound money management, real wall street wizards.
"Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall
teach men to do so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven." Matthew 5:19
and this includes all the old testament stuff. looks like you are back
to square one, it's the bible, the whole bible, and nuthin but the
bible so help you moral relativist.
Matthew 24:37 is an undeniable link to the brutality of the Old
Testament, where Jesus compares his second coming to the destruction
of the Great Flood that killed the world's population. Can I have your
car when the rapture smokes your ass?
In the New Testament Jesus makes constant references to "scripture".
in his day, there was no new testament, so what the fuck do you think
he meant?
"If you believe Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to
believe what I say?" John 5:45
jesus is talkin to ya, there's his command, pay attention to the old
testament, either give it the reverence JESUS said it deserves, or
chuck the whole fucking thing. The new testament refers to the old
testament 52 times. I bet you could build up a big happy story about
52 weeks in a year, 52 references from the happy testament to the
nasty old testament. Have fun.
Besides the fact that you think you can separate jesus from the old
testament, where's your family values? That's jesus' DAD you are
tossing aside, he's the guy doing a lot of smiting and evil stuff, and
jesus never badmouthed his daddy, why are you?
Why do you hate god so much?
It's a family business, that blood drenched sword thing.
Even better, if jesus is god, god is his father, him and his father
are one, then it was Jesus Christ who ordered the Israelites to
slaughter millions of defenseless men, women and children in the
conquest of Canaan; it was Jesus Christ who killed every firstborn
child in Egypt; it was Jesus Christ who ordered king Saul to butcher
thousands of children and babies in the genocide of the Amalakites; it
was Jesus Christ who ordered the Israelites to capture and mass-rape
32,000 young girls of the Midianite tribe after killing their
families; it was Jesus Christ who struck dead 50,000 innocent people
at Beshemish for merely looking into the ark of the covenant; it was
Jesus Christ who caused the painful asphyxiation of every man, woman,
child and animal on the face of the earth during the flood of Noah
(with the exception of 8); and it was Jesus Christ who condemned every
person ever born to a state of eternal suffering, all because 6000
years ago a curious and naive woman ate a piece of fruit. And, of
course, it was Jesus Christ who sent 2 bears to chase down 42 little
kids and disembowel them for just acting like kids.
The context you refer to about reading the old testament is to abandon
the teachings of jesus, he enthusiastically endorsed all the shit you
are softening to irelevancy. Jesus taught that the scrpitures were to
be obeyed, they are your guide to behavior.
why do you hate jesus' teachings?
stick that in your new testament bong and smoke it.
Jack
meaning and context. I don't know what you mean by 'valid' nor where
you think Jesus said that. 'true', 'important', 'useful' yes but
certainly not valid in the sense that we live under it's rule. The NT
explicitly denies this hence my advice that you read it in it's
entirety. The NT is the New Covenant in which Christians live.
Jack
> There was a time that morality and government was based off the
> adhearents of "the New Testement" it was called "The Dark Ages." The
> more pluralistic and secular government has become, the more tolerant
> and advanced it has become. The major problem with your attempts to
> associate Atheism with the regimes of Stalin and Mao is that they had
> an avowedly unpluralist and quasi-religous viewpoint. It is Dogma that
> destroys, and the biggest source of Dogma is religion, the second
> biggest source is Communism.
knowing Jesus and NOT being religious or dogmatic?
Jack
Jack
Define religious.
Jack
> > > fallacies then it is not too surprising that they do indeed look
> > > similar.
> > Unsupported assertion. Or did I miss your book "How I proved all
> > religions false"?
>
> You certainly did.
>
> http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.atheism/msg/d5ea57e809148e4c
> http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.atheism/msg/92d69151e481a211
> http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.atheism/msg/859f103b91aadc67
Just to be clear - you consider these 3 posts your proof that all
religions are false? I doubt it but I printed all 3 anyway and have so
far read the one entitled 'The Naturalistic Fallacy'. Aside from the
errors I think you've made in that post, in all three you seem to be
doing what you said (below) you wouldn't do: Assume atheism a priori
then explain why we got it all wrong.
> > > > If you don't know what
> > > > Christianity, Judaism or Islam means they start to all look the same.
>
> > > And if you understand the core assumptions these various religions
> > > make then you understand WHY they look the same.
>
> > Well, to a lay-person all guitars look the same.
>
> Irrelevant. Examining core assumptions is generally not the
> province of lay people.
>
> ...
>
> > > > A Secular person's inability to know and evaluate the merits of a
> > > > particular religion and the subsequent a priori rejection is a
> > > > Dogmatic approach which throws the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> > > Fortunately, one can toss out religion without being dogmatic.
>
> > Feel free to be the first atheis I've met who did not hold a priori
> > naturalistic assumptions.
>
> Thanks. I will.
So you started out as someone open for the possibility of a God,
searched, thought and decided otherwise? How convinced are you that
you are correct? What would make you change your mind?
>
> > It's like this - there are no good or bad things - just good or bad
> > people. Some people think guns, TV or the Internet are bad - not so -
> > they're just powerful. Good people can do better things with TV than
> > without and vice versa. Yes, religion is powerful and, in the wrong
> > hands, worse than a religion-free state.
>
> And since you reject organized religions then you tacitly admit
> that this has in fact occurred.
Well we've all read history it has occurred and is occurring. The
question is whether you can do away with religion and still survive or
whether you simply replace the religious regime with some other type,
equally powerful and liably to corruption.
>
> > The dilemma is that no state
> > survives without some focus and ideology so you throw out religion and
> > some other ideology arises.
>
> Why is that a dilemma? It sounds like a desirable state of
> affairs.
Blind faith that ANYTHING is better than religion. Why don't you
emigrate to North Korea then?
>
> > > > Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of us "postmodern
> > > > westerns" don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
> > > > societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
> > > > no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions.
>
> > > Are you sure you don't have the cart before the horse? Does
> > > religion drive progress, or merely claim the credit for those
> > > things that humans would do anyway?
> > Just look east to see what would have happened had we not been a Bible-
> > based society.
>
> Wow. Another scintillating argument. It appears that my point
> about carts and horses hasn't yet sunk in.
>
> Have you ever heard the dictum that correlation does not establish
> causation? Theists are fond of pointing it out when it is their
> favour to do so.
No, do explain how I am falling foul of this.
> > > > The media tends
> > > > to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
> > > > waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
>
> > > Whose fault is that? Politicians, theologians and even the press
> > > have long been in the business of selling you what you want to
> > > hear.
> > Whose fault? As consumers it's squarely ours. The media panders to us
> > and we like to read novel controversal crap and we don't like to think
> > or go out and get a life.
>
> Thanks for your agreement.
>
> > > > These things all have their roots in the Bible and were put in place
> > > > by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
> > > > correct basis for Man's behaviour.
>
> > > In order to understand the need for such things one need only be a
> > > student of the school of hard knocks.
> > Much like learning arithmetic by trying all possible solutions.
>
> Sure. It's not pretty, but that is actually what has happened.
What are you saying? That humanity blindly tried all possible moral
codes and kept the ones which worked? Examples please!
> Or are you suggesting that scripture really WAS the product of
> divine inspiration?
Yes. God created us, instructed us how to live. The shit hit the fan
when we failed to do this and we've been mopping up ever since. Jesus
came along and said, stop mopping Just Trust Me.
Jack
> "Jack" <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180908422....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> > We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
> >> > and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
> >> > charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
> >> > These things all have their roots in the Bible
>
> >> So does slavery, rape, murder, genocide, trickery and lies.
>
> > That's right - the Bible tells a story and we must all run out and
> > emulate it's protagonists!
>
> You take the good things in the bible for granted but ignore the bad things.
> I call that hypocricy.
hold. Same with anything really if you know what it's for and how to
apply it correctly.
Hatter
> On Jun 4, 4:01 pm,Hatter<Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:> There was a time that morality and government was based off the
No. One cannot "believe in God" and not be religous...one can be non-
dogmatic..certainly...but it is not possible to be an non-religous
believer in a single deity. Even moreso when the book that the
religion is based on is deliberately non-pluralistic. None the less it
is still easily possible to mantain a religous outlook without
dogmatism as long as the religion does not co-mingle with
power...particularly the power instrument of government. A non-
pluaristic religion(such as Christianity) when mixed with power
inevitably leads to dogmatic institution.
Hatter
jem
>I'm sorry - you're too far gone...
I'll take it as a compliment
Jack
statistics of Communist regimes have been inflated because I am
interested in knowing the truth. What you have done instead is show
how all cultures were in some way religious and in some way violent
and oppressive - fair enough. They all ate carbohydrates as well.
Again, I'm not here to push a particular religion or Religion in
general but one thing is clear: You don't stop a nation being violent
or oppressive by removing Religion. It's just not the key factor -
people are. People and their corruptible nature excacerbated and
amplified by power. Some religions give the "bad" more sanction than
others of course but this is a problem with the particular religion
and not with Religion in general.
Again I'd like to make the point that Jesus was not religious, he was,
in fact, anti-religion, and Christians who understand and live his
message are the same. The focus of my belief is a relationship with
God, obedience to Him, servitude, friendship and love towards my
neighbours. The 'Christian' Religion the institutional Church are
human constructs and attempts to formalise what should be a living,
loving relationship with others and with God. That's screwed as
history shows us.
I long for the day when the majority of atheists wake up from this
delusion that everyone who goes to church, walks the walk and talks
the talk is a christian, living as Jesus would have wanted. Real
Christians see the zealots, hypocrites and dogmatic posers the same
way you do.
Jack
I've never seen so many smiling faces as in rural areas of Africa and
Europe! Take a walk or drive through any major city in the western
world where, presumably, technology is most accessible. What do you
see? Not so many smiles. Distrust and loneliness. People seeking to
fill spiritual holes with material goods.
Of couse we all need health care, food and shelter but expected life-
span is no measure of happiness. Nor is wasteline, TV size or mobility.
jem
>I'm sorry - you're too far gone...
"It would be pretty difficult to support any kind
of violence or aggression based on what Jesus taught."
He supported it quite clearly, alongside the peaceful stuff.
Jack
> On Jun 4, 3:37 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 4:01 pm,Hatter<Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:> There was a time that morality and government was based off the
> > > adhearents of "the New Testement" it was called "The Dark Ages." The
> > > more pluralistic and secular government has become, the more tolerant
> > > and advanced it has become. The major problem with your attempts to
> > > associate Atheism with the regimes of Stalin and Mao is that they had
> > > an avowedly unpluralist and quasi-religous viewpoint. It is Dogma that
> > > destroys, and the biggest source of Dogma is religion, the second
> > > biggest source is Communism.
>
> > Well, I'm with you man! Now, can you conceive of believing in God,
> > knowing Jesus and NOT being religious or dogmatic?
>
> No. One cannot "believe in God" and not be religous...one can be non-
> dogmatic..certainly...but it is not possible to be an non-religous
> believer in a single deity.
I would define 'religious' in terms of ritualistic actions,
institutional membership, and dogmatic Thus I would not call myself
religious because these things don't describe me. Of course religions
have spiritual elements and I am spiritual. However I don't accept
people doing a 2 for 1 deal with these terms. Spiritual is not
Religious.
JTEM
> Define religious.
why tell you when I can show you. Here, this is
and example of "Religion" as I was using the word:
| Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of
| us "postmodern westerns" don't realize that our highly
| organized and civilized societies are the result of
| thousands of years of progress driven in no small part
| by the Christian and Jewish religions.
In reality, your statement is completely wrong. After the
fall of Pagan Rome it took about 1,000 years for
"Christianity" to catch up to where things were left off.
There hasn't even been a thousand years of progress
yet, never mind "thousands."
Hatter
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:38:40 -0000, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm sorry - you're too far gone...
>
> "It would be pretty difficult to support any kind
> of violence or aggression based on what Jesus taught."
>
> He supported it quite clearly, alongside the peaceful stuff.
You forgot "hide when you pray" and "don't hide when you pray" two
different and opposite statements by the Son of Celestial Santa Claus.
(amongst many)
Hatter
Jack
> Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Define religious.
>
> why tell you when I can show you.
you mean by the term. You also have not done that below...
> Here, this is
> and example of "Religion" as I was using the word:
>
> | Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> |
> | Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of
> | us "postmodern westerns" don't realize that our highly
> | organized and civilized societies are the result of
> | thousands of years of progress driven in no small part
> | by the Christian and Jewish religions.
>
> In reality, your statement is completely wrong. After the
> fall of Pagan Rome it took about 1,000 years for
> "Christianity" to catch up to where things were left off.
>
> There hasn't even been a thousand years of progress
> yet, never mind "thousands."
highlight Pagan Rome as more civilized or cultivated will not stand up
to scrutiny - they were barbaric and immoral. Perhaps they were more
technologically advanced but you've forgotten that Paganism is also a
religion so you've not denied my premise nor shown the contrary that
an atheistic society can do better than a religious one.
Jack
jem
memory has never been my strong suit, or, no, ya.....
jem
>Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Define religious.
>
>why tell you when I can show you. Here, this is
>and example of "Religion" as I was using the word:
>
>| Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>|
>| Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of
>| us "postmodern westerns" don't realize that our highly
>| organized and civilized societies are the result of
>| thousands of years of progress driven in no small part
>| by the Christian and Jewish religions.
>
>In reality, your statement is completely wrong. After the
>fall of Pagan Rome it took about 1,000 years for
>"Christianity" to catch up to where things were left off.
That thousand years was when christianity had unrivaled power.
Human and social progress only accelerated when christian theological
influence declined.
jem
Public prayer sanctioned
1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
Public prayer disapproved
Matt 6:5,6
want a hundred more contradictions?
Neil Kelsey
> The western world has seen an unprecedented increase in Secularism and
> Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
> dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
> surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
> somewhat different.
There are plenty of "secularists" who are religious but believe that
church and state should be separated, so your assertion is incorrect.
> Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
> with theistic ones in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
> secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay, shaky
> intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
> skin-deep.
Uh huh. By what standards do you measure moral decay? What is wrong
with "intellectual foundations?" And are you measuring tolerance with
callipers? How do you determine how deep the tolerance goes? Sounds
like you pulled these "staggering statistics" out of your ass. Oh
yeah, and which ones are the "atheist" regimes?" I've seen theocracies
but I've never seen an atheocracy, and don't try to tell me that
communism is the rule of atheism
> The real danger I want to highlight here is another, somewhat subtle,
> phenomena and stems from the observation that secularists become so
> distanced from and unfamiliar with individual religions that they
> bundle and label all religions collectively.
Bullshit. I know plenty of people who think government should be
secular when they are religious. You need to learn to quantify your
arguments.
> If you don't know what
> Christianity, Judaism or Islam means they start to all look the same.
> "Religion" is handled as if it were a single ideology and you see
> comments (explicit or implicit) along the lines of: "Religion is bad",
> "Religion is dangerous", "Religion is stupid". "So what?", you might
> say "Religion is bad, dangerous and stupid!". Well that, at least,
> proves my premise - we do bundle religions into "Religion". My
> conclusion however you may dispute:
All religions share basic similarities, which involves the worship of
powerful supernatural being(s), who want us to behave in certain ways
in order to please them.
> A Secular person's inability to know and evaluate the merits of a
> particular religion and the subsequent a priori rejection is a
> Dogmatic approach which throws the baby out with the bathwater. If we
> reject the bad and good things that religion has to offer we will
> descend into inhumane chaos.
The good things that religion has to offer are already covered in the
secular world, like laws against murder, stealing, rape, etc. Or were
you referring to something else?
> I think we are already on the way there.
If we are, it's the religious who are taking us there. As in, the
conflict between Muslims and Christians and Jews. However, I don't
subscribe to your panic stricken Chicken Little point of view.
> Before I continue, a short disclaimer. I'm not pro-Religion and don't
> consider myself religious.
You're kidding yourself then.
> I see and detest the ugliness religion can
> bring but try to approve or reject religions on their merits
> individually. All this is aside from the fact that I would normally be
> labelled a Christian for my beliefs: I see no necessity for
> identifying belief in Jesus with being religious. Jesus himself was
> anti-religion, not religious and did not start a religion.
This is a patently obvious attempt to distance yourself from the parts
of religion you find distasteful. Sorry, doesn't work. If you believe
in a supernatural deity then you are religious. You may not
participate in organized religion, but you're still religious, and
you're anti-social.
> Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of us "postmodern
> westerns" don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
> societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
> no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions.
And I view those religions as inhibitors to progress, and many of the
advancements we've made are in reaction to religious oppression, not
because of it. Christian religion in particular has a long and sorry
history of trying to block scientific knowledge.
> The media tends
> to present science and technology as the salvation mankind has been
> waiting ignoring that each new step brings a blessing and a curse.
I don't see the media ignoring the bad side effects of science and
technology at all, in fact, it sells newspapers. Look at how huge the
issue of Global Warming has become. You're totally wrong.
> We tend to be ignorant of our particular dependence on Christianity
> and Judaism's contribution to our western judicial systems, ethics,
> charity, basic hygiene, tolerance and order and take them for granted.
Hilarious how you go ape shit about our tolerance being only skin deep
earlier and here you proudly proclaim that it is religion that is
responsible for our levels of tolerance. I'm going to have to agree
with you here, religion does have a lot to do with our level of
tolerance. On the other hand, I think religion has falsely claimed to
be the origin of laws since I think since we are social animals the
rules of behaviour came long before religion. Same for hygeine. Our
ancestors were grooming each other for millions of years before any
religion. That claim is just plain laughable.
> These things all have their roots in the Bible
No they don't. Only the specifically Biblical things have their roots
in the bible. You know, like not taking the lords name in vain.
> and were put in place
> by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
> correct basis for Man's behaviour. Eastern and primitive cultures
> don't inherently have many of these things
What? Christians didn't inherently have "these things" either. They
had to develop their beliefs. Eastern and "primitive" cultures managed
to not kill each other off to the same degree as christians, and
plenty were killed off BY christians.
> and it's these values which
> provide the basis for the obvious success and dominance of western
> culture in the world.
Read Guns Germs and Steel and you might come to a different
conclusion. It is geographical accident that Christianity dominated,
it coming out of a region that had the right climate for the best
plant and animal domestication, giving the locals a huge advantage
over people who had inferior stock to work with, and it is not because
of any inherent superiority of any people over another that
Christianity dominated. And you say that as if forcing your beliefs
upon others is something to be proud of.
> A society that has a sound foundation and works can be strong and
> humane. The switch to secularism has triggered the decline and the
> postmodern period following the modern "Enlightenment" has
> appropriately been labelled "The Darkening".
Oh please. Societies have been getting more humane under secularism.
The US abolished slavery and black people have been accepted to the
point where the next President might be black. Theocracies are still
quagmires of intolerance and conflict, as they always were. You can't
be advocating theocratic rule, can you?
> Aside from the moral decay
What moral decay?
> I wonder how many atheists or "free
> thinkers" (as they like to be called) are aware of the backlash effect
> of categorically denying and condemning religion.
What do you mean by "denying" religion? And secularn cultures allow
for freedom of religion, so you're off base once again.
> By dogmatically
> assigning all religions an equal truth-probability they line
> themselves up to miss the key truths these religions encompass. The
> danger is that you are not a free thinker anymore if you dogmatically
> reject religions you don't even understand.
It ain't hard to understand religions, and a lot of us here read the
source material. Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding.
> The typical excuse is
> "There are so many religions all different, contradictory and
> competing- One cannot know which is correct. Best stay out of it."
I have NEVER heard an atheist say something as stupid as that.
> One
> could however easily take a different view: So many people recognize a
> God, one must exist.
So many people recognize a God could not exist, now what?
> So many voices and opinions, they can't all be
> right: Which parts are true? Which one is mostly right? It's really
> not that hard.
No, it isn't. Whatever argument is supported by valid evidence is the
correct one.
> Today we are exposed to a multitude of views - we are overloaded and
> don't know what to believe.
Speak for yourself. I know not to believe unsupported assertions by
people who have obvious ulterior motives.
> Often media attention skews the attention
> we should be giving to certain views because the media likes to report
> new and controversial topics. The Da Vinci code controversy is an
> excellent example of a minority view receiving so much media attention
> that it became a majority view. We often assume old ideas are wrong
> forgetting that our "new" ideas will one day too be old.
I don't know why you project your mediocre brain processes onto
everybody. You REALLY need to learn to quantify your statements.
> The question
> is whether the "new" ideas will even still be around. I would venture
> that the ideas humanity has forgotten were those found and proved to
> be wrong and many of the the old ideas we still have are those that
> contain wisdom and truth.
Vague meaningless generalizations are always good for filling up
unwanted bandwidth.
Smiler
"Jack" <caw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180986853.7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
The bible is a book which you appear not to have read for comprehension.
Just one example from the NT.
It was your god that raped Mary, a 13 year old girl, and got her pregnant.
Yes raped, as there is no mention of her consent to the act and they weren't
married.
Smiler,
The godless one
Smiler
"What have the Romans ever done for us?"
"Clean water!"
"Yeh, but apart from clean water, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
"Roads!"
"Yeh, but apart from clean water and roads, what have the Romans ever done
for us?"
"Education!"
"Yeh yeh, but apart from clean water, roads and education, what have the
Romans ever done for us?"
Etc., etc.
Smiler,
The godless one
Josef Balluch
caw...@gmail.com says...
...
> Aside from the
> errors I think you've made in that post, in all three you seem to be
> doing what you said (below) you wouldn't do: Assume atheism a priori
> then explain why we got it all wrong.
Get back to me when you can support your assertions.
> > > Feel free to be the first atheis I've met who did not hold a priori
> > > naturalistic assumptions.
> >
> > Thanks. I will.
> So you started out as someone open for the possibility of a God,
> searched, thought and decided otherwise?
I received a fairly standard christian indoctrination as a
youngster. Therefore, I did not hold "a priori
naturalistic assumptions".
> How convinced are you that
> you are correct?
Reasonably certain.
> What would make you change your mind?
A sound argument.
> > > It's like this - there are no good or bad things - just good or bad
> > > people. Some people think guns, TV or the Internet are bad - not so -
> > > they're just powerful. Good people can do better things with TV than
> > > without and vice versa. Yes, religion is powerful and, in the wrong
> > > hands, worse than a religion-free state.
> >
> > And since you reject organized religions then you tacitly admit
> > that this has in fact occurred.
> Well we've all read history it has occurred and is occurring.
Thanks for your agreement.
...
> > > The dilemma is that no state
> > > survives without some focus and ideology so you throw out religion and
> > > some other ideology arises.
> >
> > Why is that a dilemma? It sounds like a desirable state of
> > affairs.
> Blind faith that ANYTHING is better than religion. Why don't you
> emigrate to North Korea then?
Silly twaddle.
Read you own admission above about the abuses of religion. Should
we not make the effort to improve matters?
> > > > > Getting back to the moral slide I warned of. Most of us "postmodern
> > > > > westerns" don't realize that our highly organized and civilized
> > > > > societies are the result of thousands of years of progress driven in
> > > > > no small part by the Christian and Jewish religions.
> >
> > > > Are you sure you don't have the cart before the horse? Does
> > > > religion drive progress, or merely claim the credit for those
> > > > things that humans would do anyway?
> > > Just look east to see what would have happened had we not been a Bible-
> > > based society.
> >
> > Wow. Another scintillating argument. It appears that my point
> > about carts and horses hasn't yet sunk in.
> >
> > Have you ever heard the dictum that correlation does not establish
> > causation? Theists are fond of pointing it out when it is their
> > favour to do so.
> No, ...
Predictable.
> ... do explain how I am falling foul of this.
< chuckle! >
You have only shown a correlation, and have simply assumed
causation.
...
> > > > > These things all have their roots in the Bible and were put in place
> > > > > by generations of believers who really thought these formed the
> > > > > correct basis for Man's behaviour.
> >
> > > > In order to understand the need for such things one need only be a
> > > > student of the school of hard knocks.
> > > Much like learning arithmetic by trying all possible solutions.
> >
> > Sure. It's not pretty, but that is actually what has happened.
> What are you saying? That humanity blindly tried all possible moral
> codes and kept the ones which worked? Examples please!
Not necessarily EVERY one, but nevertheless it is quite clear that
much has been learned through trial and error.
Examples? How about the evolution of judicial systems, the
presumption of innocence, concepts such as equality. The
alternatives were tried and replaced when found lacking.
> > Or are you suggesting that scripture really WAS the product of
> > divine inspiration?
> Yes. God created us, ...
Idealistic Fallacy.
Regards,
Josef
All human beings should try to learn before they die what they are
running from, and to, and why.
-- James Thurber
JTEM
> Well because you accuse me of being religious
> without explaining what you mean by the term.
Which is somewhat retarded of you, as it was YOU
who introduced the term to this thread....
> You also have not done that below...
I guess we'll have to remove the word "somewhat"...
> This is getting a bit side-tracked however: Your vague
> attempt to highlight Pagan Rome as more civilized or
> cultivated will not stand up to scrutiny -
Not if you insist on viewing this from an entirely
Christian perspective....
> they were barbaric and immoral.
Read Machiavelli's "The Prince" lately?
Shit, we don't even have to get into witch hunts...
> Perhaps they were more technologically advanced but
> you've forgotten that Paganism is also a religion so
> you've not denied my premise
Oops, there's that retard thing again. How on earth does
a Pagan Rome support your premise that biblical
mysticism drove progress in Europe?
JTEM
> That thousand years was when christianity had
> unrivaled power. Human and social progress
> only accelerated when christian theological
> influence declined.
True enough. I've heard it stated that it wasn't
until the 17th century before European glass
making caught up to the Romans. Of course,
there were other technologies that took even
longer.
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
@4ax.com:
There is also the bit of nastiness in Acts where god killed the old couple
for not handing all their money over to Peter. It's a pretty transparent
threat to get the sheep to cough up their money to the priests.
Klazmon.
Hatter
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:52:37 -0000, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 4, 10:42 pm,Hatter<Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 4:32 pm, jem <A0054...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:38:40 -0000, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >I'm sorry - you're too far gone...
>
> >> > "It would be pretty difficult to support any kind
> >> > of violence or aggression based on what Jesus taught."
>
> >> > He supported it quite clearly, alongside the peaceful stuff.
>
> >> You forgot "hide when you pray" and "don't hide when you pray" two
> >> different and opposite statements by the Son of Celestial Santa Claus.
> >> (amongst many)
> >Citation please...
>
> Public prayer sanctioned
> 1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
> Public prayer disapproved
> Matt 6:5,6
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
beat me to it.
Hatter
jem
I see no acknowledgement from Jack, did it bounce off his forehead, or
was he bluffing not expecting a reply, or did he never look up
contradictions or...?
I would guess if he had a canned answer it would have popped up by
now.
I bet there is a standard fundy explanation, I hope it's entertaining.
Hatter
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you are game for that type of entertainment try: www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
A major source of fundy word salad and mental gymnastics of the
"that's a stretch there, Armstrong" kind. You know the "um Judas
hanged himself but was unsucessful so he tried another way to kill
himself, the two passages just um don't mention the other act" utter
bullcrap.
Hatter
Ash
>> If you ever read the Bible with any degree of discernment you would not
>> claim this nonsense.
>>
>> The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
>> human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
>> barbarisms, and impossible tales.
>
> Well you sound like you started reading the bible from page 1, got
> discouraged and never finished.
>
>> Modern societies are founded and based on the science and technology. If
>> they were based on the Bible and religious dogma we would still be living in
>> the dark ages.
>
> Incorrect, most of the founders, thinkers and leaders of western
> society had their morals and values based consciously or unconsciously
> in the Bible's teachings.
I think we can all be relieved that this isn't this case
Ben Kaufman
>On Jun 3, 2:11 am, Enkidu <fox_rgf...@trashmail.net> wrote:
>> Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1180814646.682833.167020
>> @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > The western world has seen an unprecedented increase in Secularism and
>> > Atheism in the past 100 years. Secularists believe Religion is
>> > dangerous whilst Atheism is more tolerant, intellectually honest, and,
>> > surprisingly, more moral. On the ground however, the picture is
>> > somewhat different.
>>
>> > Aside from the staggering statistics proving atheistic regimes on par
>> > with theistic ones in terms of violence, murders and other atrocities,
>> > secular societies display obvious and significant moral decay, shaky
>> > intellectual foundations and, surprisingly, a tolerance which is only
>> > skin-deep.
>>
>> Yep, a deeply committed, religious government is so much better, kinder,
>> tolerant, much more moral.
>>
>> Move to Tehran or Islamabad, then tell me how mythology-based govenment
>> works to the advantage of all.
>Did you even read and parse the whole post? It's exactly this kind of
>"ooh this religion is bad, all must be bad" dogmatism which I'm
>addressing here. In fact, I hold that the fiasco that some people call
>Islamic states goes to show how lucky western states are to be based
>on the Bible and not the Koran.
Do you think it could be that Western countries do not impose literal
interpretations of the Bible?
Ben
skyeyes
> On Jun 4, 4:01 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:> There was a time that morality and government was based off the
> > adhearents of "the New Testement" it was called "The Dark Ages." The
> > more pluralistic and secular government has become, the more tolerant
> > and advanced it has become. The major problem with your attempts to
> > associate Atheism with the regimes of Stalin and Mao is that they had
> > an avowedly unpluralist and quasi-religous viewpoint. It is Dogma that
> > destroys, and the biggest source of Dogma is religion, the second
> > biggest source is Communism.
>
> Well, I'm with you man! Now, can you conceive of believing in God,
> knowing Jesus and NOT being religious or dogmatic?
Got any evidence that such a critter as god even exists? If so,
please provide it here:
Thanks awfully.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Jack
nevertheless I am willing to offer a critique of your "book which
proved all religions wrong" namely, your 3 posts. Would you like to do
this via email or in this newsgroup?
Jack
Jack
They say a bit of knowledge is more dangerous than none at all and you
are living proof. Most atheists who know more than armchair history
don't play the theism-is-worse-than-atheism card any more and I don't
really have the time or inclination to enlighten you. Enjoy your
little wish-fulfillment dream...
Jack
a) you don't know what a contradiction is
b) you're cutting with the blunt end of the knife (not understanding
context or application)
Nevertheless I'm not particularly interested in educating folks on how
to read the Bible. When all they use it for is gleeful dirt digging
they're never gonna get the message and I don't like to spoil their
fun!
Jack
Regarding Judas - do we have any takers? Anyone actually read these 2
verses and is convinced they are contradictory? I've been surprised at
the misquotes and general ignorance of biblical texts here but it's
really quite pathetic to see a contradiction here.
Jack
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
groups_ support literal interpretation of _certain parts_ of the
Bible. The question of which dominates is too simplistic because of
the various dimensions involved.
However, I'd personally take a literal interpretation (by the state)
of the Bible over the Koran any day in terms of the consequences for
daily living. I am also convinced that anyone who knows both texts
would agree.
There is also one further important point which many people do not
fully appreciate. Christianity is defined by the New Testament and not
the Old. That does not discredit the Old testament in any way or
render it's reading unprofitable. It's like reading the history of
science in order to understand how science became what it is - you may
read about failed experiments and theories but it's not true to say
that these define or comprise modern science. The OT is the
explanation of how humanity related to God for several millenia and
why Jesus was necessary. Paul explains this in great detail in Romans.
Josef Balluch
caw...@gmail.com says...
> Your selective snipping and question evasion ...
Unsupported assertion.
...
> Would you like to do
> this via email or in this newsgroup?
Newsgroup.
Josef Balluch
> Your selective snipping and question evasion ...
Unsupported assertion.
...
> Would you like to do
> this via email or in this newsgroup?
Newsgroup.
.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:53:14 -0700, Jack wrote:
> They say a bit of knowledge is more dangerous than none at all and you
> are living proof. Most atheists who know more than armchair history
> don't play the theism-is-worse-than-atheism card any more
Whether one knows history or not is largely irrelevant. While it is true
that atheism carries with it nothing to drive one to good deeds, it
likewise carries with it nothing to drive one to evil deeds. Many
religions, by contrast, do carry such baggage. Bible-based Godism, in
whatever flavor, tends to be one of the worse; a simple reading of the
book demonstrates quite handily the almost glorification of killing, the
notion that "might makes right" and the like.
History need not enter into it; the ability to simply read is sufficient
to show that atheism *is* better than much theism - and one can go a step
further to say it is in fact better than _all_ theism, insofar as it does
not require unfounded beliefs and thus does not implicitly support the
acceptance of things with insufficient evidence.
The rest - the history - is just a matter of examining who did what. I'm
sure you can find any number of cases of people killing in the name of
their religion, going to war in the name of their religion and so forth; I
suspect you'd be hard pressed to find many examples of people going to war
in the name of atheism.
--
Rest asured that I __will__ hack and chop by way through as many
innocents as it takes to restore my religions’ good name! - Fred Rice
Smiler
So you don't deny it, Jack?
Can't prove me wrong?
Proves your religion is a pile of bullshit, doesn't it?
Smiler,
The godless one
JTEM
JTEM
> While it is true that atheism carries with it nothing
> to drive one to good deeds,
That's not necessarily true. Most people have an
internal moral compass, and atheism can heighten
the importance of life & our social interdependence.
Ironically, the issue wasn't atheism but Christianity.
> it likewise carries with it nothing to drive one to
> evil deeds.
Well, it's doubtful that religion drives people to
anything. It's more of an "enabler." Evil people
want to do evil things, and they rationalize their
desires with religion.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While it is true that atheism carries with it nothing
>> to drive one to good deeds,
>
> That's not necessarily true. Most people have an
> internal moral compass, and atheism can heighten
> the importance of life & our social interdependence.
Perhaps so, but there's just not a lot in "I don't believe in gods" that
inherently compels good or bad. At most it frees one from the shackles of
other superstitious nonsense and as a result allows other features to take
their proper place.
>> it likewise carries with it nothing to drive one to evil deeds.
>
> Well, it's doubtful that religion drives people to anything. It's more
> of an "enabler." Evil people want to do evil things, and they
> rationalize their desires with religion.
I dunno... the whole mob mentality bit, fueled by the inherent nastiness
of much of the theistic reference material, is certainly sufficient to
make me want to think twice about regarding it as anything short of an
active danger to society.
--
> tru: No doubt JFK is also working at Burger King somewhere.
JTEM
> I dunno... the whole mob mentality bit, fueled by the
> inherent nastiness of much of the theistic reference
> material, is certainly sufficient to make me want to
> think twice about regarding it as anything short of an
> active danger to society.
It's hard. I mean, you're not wrong, but is religion the
cause or a symptom? Perhaps it's both...
Speaking of "the mob," there's a genuine (middle class?)
desire to see people punished for doing wrong, a
genuine hatred of seeing anyone get away with anything.
Best example: Michael Jackson.
While the judge & the lawyers wrestled with the question
of whether he did anything illegal, the average person
didn't concern themselves with matters quite so nuanced.
What Michael Jackson admitted to was *Wrong*. Grown
men shouldn't act that way. That alone was reason to
punish him. And, besides, anyone who would cross THOSE
invisible lines no doubt was doing all sorts of other wrongs,
too....
Anyhow, the bible certainly invents a whole lot of "wrong"
to incense the mob. Look at the number of psychos who
actually care if their gay neighbors get married? And then
there's abortion. Of course, there really isn't any religious
argument -- for Christians -- against either one of these...
| When we are born, our names are automatically written
| in the book of life, and they remain there as long as we live.
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/tim_lahaye_book_of_life.html
Not conception, but birth? Hmmm....
And then there's the fact that Jesus never onced so much
as mentioned homosexuality. Nobody in the bible did. There's
a reference to ANAL SEX in leviticus, but that exact same
book also condemns you for all eternity for eating pork or
shellfish...
Hatter
>
> - Show quoted text -
You will not see the contradiction...you are too far gone(see how easy
it is to make that statement?)
(Matthew 27:3-8) - "Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He
had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of
silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by
betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to
that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary
and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief
priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put
them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And
they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter's Field
as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been
called the Field of Blood to this day."
AND
By falling (Acts 1:16-19) - "Brethren, the Scripture had to be
fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David
concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this
ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his
wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all
his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in
Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called
Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)"
And any attempt to make both true is mental gymnastics. One doesn't
mention falling and one doesn't mention hanging. And a failed hanging
from so far up the it resulted in a disembowling is the typical
apolgist answer...and its just trying make it fit by any means,
however contortionist they may be.
But you will not listen to reason. Not by a long shot. You are too far
gone.
Hatter
jem
>On Jun 4, 11:04 pm, jem <A0054...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:52:37 -0000, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 4, 10:42 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 4, 4:32 pm, jem <A0054...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:38:40 -0000, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >I'm sorry - you're too far gone...
>>
>> >> > "It would be pretty difficult to support any kind
>> >> > of violence or aggression based on what Jesus taught."
>>
>> >> > He supported it quite clearly, alongside the peaceful stuff.
>>
>> >> You forgot "hide when you pray" and "don't hide when you pray" two
>> >> different and opposite statements by the Son of Celestial Santa Claus.
>> >> (amongst many)
>> >Citation please...
>>
>> Public prayer sanctioned
>> 1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
>> Public prayer disapproved
>> Matt 6:5,6
>>
>> want a hundred more contradictions?
>Aha, so...
>a) you don't know what a contradiction is
In two statements, when one is in opposition to the other statement,
that's called contradiction, it's a stark inconsistency, one statement
denying the other.
>b) you're cutting with the blunt end of the knife (not understanding
>context or application)
Even if that does minimally support you, (that certain context is the
manner in which the bible is to be interpreted) it is actually more a
point against you. Reading it literally obviously is a problem, it is
full of errors and falacies and evil. Creating various interpretations
is the only way to give it some kind of meaning to consider, and the
unending variety of interpretations gives rise to justification for
almost any good or evil you want to argue in favor of.
As for application, in general the abrahamic religions have a horrid
torrid history of evil results regardless of how they interpreted the
bible, quran, or torah. Islam is the current undisputed posterboy for
evil, but your predecessors had their bloody heyday as well, and they
are not great practitioners of peace and love still, and certainly not
much for tolerance of outgroups.
>Nevertheless I'm not particularly interested in educating folks on how
>to read the Bible. When all they use it for is gleeful dirt digging
>they're never gonna get the message and I don't like to spoil their
>fun!
So nice of you.
You say "education", you are implying "brainwashing".
It seems that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to be
religious.
Here's two more contradictions on the same topic.
(Matthew 6:5-6) Jesus condemned public prayer. (1 Timothy 2:8) Paul
encouraged public prayer.
Context is whatever you want it to be, and your flavor is not the same
as the next guy, or the next guy, or the next guy. The book should
have been largely ignored in all the forms it has taken. Besides
contradictions, it is predominantly bullshit. Take out every
contradiction and it is still bullshit. Take out the bullshit and you
have a brochure. Maybe a nice brochure, with four or five pages of
something worth reading.
Dirt digging is what you get when it is dirt to begin with. A planet
littered with deluded zealots and religious nutbars is not what gives
me glee.
Ben Kaufman
And I would personally take Sharon Stone over Michelle Pfeiffer but it's not
going to happen so no need to make a big hoopla over who I would choose;
especially when I might be offending Pfeiffer fans
>
>There is also one further important point which many people do not
>fully appreciate. Christianity is defined by the New Testament and not
>the Old. That does not discredit the Old testament in any way or
>render it's reading unprofitable. It's like reading the history of
>science in order to understand how science became what it is - you may
>read about failed experiments and theories but it's not true to say
>that these define or comprise modern science. The OT is the
>explanation of how humanity related to God for several millenia and
>why Jesus was necessary. Paul explains this in great detail in Romans.
It's funny you should bring this up because I gathered that almost all of the
past and present problems caused by or promoted by religion in this country are
from the Old Testament. Such things as discrimination against women,
homosexuals and atheists, blue laws and censorship.
Ben
Jack
I would say the one who see's a contradiction where there is none is
the one who is gone. However, perhaps it's just education: Do you know
what a contradtiction is? Obviously not or you wouldn't see one here.
Grab a dictionary or speak to a logician.
What we see here is at most a variance. I will resist the temptation
here to try and resolve the variance for you because you don't want to
see that. It would mess with your tidy worldview that the Bible is
contradictory etc.
On a seperate note we must be careful in applying formal (perhaps even
boolean) logic to the real world where unqualified and imprecise
sentences are to be judged for truth. Example:
A) Water gives life
B) Water kills
Both statements are true. You cannot prove statement A false by
showing that statement B is true even though it is the (apparent)
antithesis.
Hatter
Yes Education. Edication tells me a man can die by x, or a man can die
by y. Not both. That is a contradiction. Everything else is mental
gymnastics.
>Do you know what a contradtiction is? Obviously not or you wouldn't see one here.
A man can die by x, or a man can die by y. Not both. That is a
contradiction. Everything else is mental gymnastics.
> Grab a dictionary or speak to a logician.
Every logician can see the bible is full of contradictions. You are
playing "I'm right and your wrong" games. Logically a man can die by
x, or a man can die by y. Not both. That is a contradiction.
Everything else is mental gymnastics.
>
> What we see here is at most a variance. I will resist the temptation
> here to try and resolve the variance for you because you don't want to
> see that.
You are full of it. a variance would be the one account of the
Nativity mentioning the Star, and one not. That is a varience. A man
can die by x, or a man can die by y. Not both. That is a
contradiction. Everything else is mental gymnastics.
> It would mess with your tidy worldview that the Bible is
> contradictory etc.
Oh the "tidy" view that the book that most people supposedly base
their life of of it full of contradictions. How is that tidy?
Pretending that it is not is "tidy." Saying that we are nothing but
intelligent dust arising out of chaos is not tidy. That morality is
relative is not tidy. That there is no design to the universe is not
tidy. That sometimes people we love become monsters due to chemical
diseases is not tidy. That they die is not tidy. A single Godhead that
created the universe and handed down rules of how we behave any any
that oppose those rules are wrong and under the influence of a
supernatural supervillian called 'Satan' and all behavior is rewarded
and punished by this standard...THAT'S TIDY.
Hatter
Jack
> >fully appreciate. Christianity is defined by the New Testament and not
> >the Old. That does not discredit the Old testament in any way or
> >render it's reading unprofitable. It's like reading the history of
> >science in order to understand how science became what it is - you may
> >read about failed experiments and theories but it's not true to say
> >that these define or comprise modern science. The OT is the
> >explanation of how humanity related to God for several millenia and
> >why Jesus was necessary. Paul explains this in great detail in Romans.
>
> It's funny you should bring this up because I gathered that almost all of the
> past and present problems caused by or promoted by religion in this country are
> from the Old Testament. Such things as discrimination against women,
> homosexuals and atheists, blue laws and censorship.
results. As with any text it's important to understand the context,
audience and culture - so called hermeneutics. Jesus howerver came
along with a mild, loving, peaceful message AND declared his audience
to be ALL PEOPLE. That's a stark contrast to the OT.
Jack
go:
Your claim that Mary was raped by God implies that you consider
artificial insemination equivalent to rape. This is absurd and does
not reflect a firm grip on reality (secular or otherwise). Aside from
this, Mary did indeed consent as you'll discover if you read Luke's
first chapter.
> Proves your religion is a pile of bullshit, doesn't it?
theological about it!
Jack
> > this via email or in this newsgroup?
> Newsgroup.
Off we go then:
http://tinyurl.com/2xdwbo
Hatter
So what God was previously doing and saying was wrong? What made him
change his mind? If he wasn't wrong...then everything is correct and
applies to anyone who wishes to be amongst his people. You can't have
it both ways, Jack.
Hatter
Hatter
> jem <A0054...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > That thousand years was when christianity had
> > unrivaled power. Human and social progress
> > only accelerated when christian theological
> > influence declined.
>
> True enough. I've heard it stated that it wasn't
> until the 17th century before European glass
> making caught up to the Romans. Of course,
> there were other technologies that took even
> longer.
Only now are we even approaching Roman concrete technology. It was
still a little more advanced than we are capable of.
Hatter
Hatter
>
> They say a bit of knowledge is more dangerous than none at all and you
> are living proof. Most atheists who know more thanarmchairhistory
> don't play the theism-is-worse-than-atheism card any more and I don't
> really have the time or inclination to enlighten you. Enjoy your
> little wish-fulfillment dream...- Hide quoted text -
>
<eyeroll>
Pejorative terms without any real meaning roll easily off your
keyboard, don't they Jack?
If someone demonstrated knowlege, but come up with a differing
conclusion than you:
>They say a bit of knowledge is more dangerous than none at all and you
> are living proof
If the evidence knowledge of history, and come to a different
conclusion than you:
>Most atheists who know more thanarmchairhistory
> don't play the theism-is-worse-than-atheism card any more and
If you incapable of presenting an argument but still wish to feel
superior:
> I don't really have the time or inclination to enlighten you
And the absolute epitome of an unjustified sneer(with the easy to say-
impossible to justify adjective 'little" should conclude things:
>Enjoy your little wish-fulfillment dream...-
and there it is!
Hatter
please all debaters take note and avoid the term "little" for strictly
pejoritive use. It adds nothing to your argument.
Bob T.
I don't believe you. I don't know anything about Roman concrete, but
I know something about the sophistication of modern concrete
techniques. Do you have a reference?
- Bob T.
>
> Hatter
Hatter
Roman history buff. He mentioned there are Roman baths made 2200 years
ago that still hold water today, something not currently
possible(without relying on polymers) to be done with current tech.
Hatter
Ben Kaufman
I think the religious right is more than just a few crackpots.
Ben
Smiler
God said, through his son (also, a part of god), that his inerrant word in
the OT wasn't inerrant?
Why, therefore, should we treat the NT as the inerrant word of god?
A god that obviously made mistakes, by his own admission.
Not very omnipotent, is he?
Smiler,
The godless one
No 33 Secretary
news:_Cjbi.64$n17...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:
You have such a limited imagination. Parents do not expect their
teenagers to follow the same rules as their toddlers, after all.
No wonder theists - who, by definition, *must* be brain damaged -
think atheists are retards.
--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."
Terry Austin
Smiler
There's nothing religious or theological about the supposed insemination of
a 13 year old girl by your supposed god?
There's nothing religious or theological about the supposed 'miracle' of
Mary's virginity?
There's nothing religious or theological about the supposed conception of
the supposed son of your supposed god?
Next you'll be telling us that there's nothing religious or theological
about xmas or easter.
Sorry, you don't get to redifine words to "what you'd like them to mean"
here.
It's not even history. It's a myth. Get over it.
Smiler,
The godless one
Smiler
"No 33 Secretary" <terry.nota...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns994C9AA8E46...@216.168.3.64...
But, according to your religion, god's son is/was also part of the 'one
god'.
Not a son disagreeing with his father, but god disagreeing with himself.
Either they are two different entities and you worship more than one god, or
they are the same entity and, therefore, god disagrees with himself.
You can't have it both ways, sonny.
Smiler,
The godless one