patrick.net

Zlxr says

I don't pretend to define god for anyone other than what I believe - but it has struck me that in order to disbelieve in something - you have to have an idea of what you think it is in the first place

Well said. Exactly.

For example let's say you have some nuanced beliefs that you have cultivated over your entire life, and these are personal beliefs that you can't even describe. And let's also say that tangential to these beliefs, is your membership to a community, that has some traditions and rituals, that I sort of do understand, but I take them literally, and I have rejected these traditions (for myself). But because of my particular emotional and ego makeup, it's not enough for me to reject them just for myself. Like Richard Dawson I come along and say that even though I have almost no clue what it is you believe (I can not relate to these beliefs in the slightest), I am going to tell you that your beliefs are not only wrong, but that all people that have any of an entire class of beliefs of which you beliefs fit, are wrong and are irrational. Furthermore, mankind would be better off if nobody had beliefs like yours.

If I made such claims, as Richard Dawkins and other extremist religious atheists do, I would have to be inconceivably arrogant, or emotionally unhinged (or both), or possibly as Einstein put it, simply still hung up on the process of tearing myself away from religious dogma of my youth.

"The fanatical atheists," Einstein said in correspondence, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Although Einstein did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because

such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook

(Jammer, Max (2002). Einstein and Religion: physics and theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press)

wthrfrk80 says

Who are you to say what's right and wrong? Who made you judge?

What are you bitching about now? Are you complaining that I think it is wrong to rape and murder? OK, you go out and do those things and then tell a judge who he is to say what's right and wrong.

Wtf does any of that have to do with this thread and Marcus's incorrect argument that the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment means that there is a god?

In any case, this thread has certainly shown how nasty and mean Christians are. And that's the best argument against your religion one could make.

Try to talk objectively about the existence of god with the faithful and they bring out the pitch forks. And that alone is sufficient reason to not spread the virus of religion to the next generation.

wthrfrk80 says

Dan8267 says

What would constitute proof to you that Jesus was cartoonified?

Anything. I'm still waiting for something specific. Like a claim that the written accounts of Jesus' life were somehow altered or "cartoonified".

Page 1 of the Google image search for "Jesus".

Why the hell is an ancient Middle Eastern man being rendered as a white guy with blue eyes? He's literally fucken cartoonified!

I guess the south wouldn't be as apt to worship the guy if they knew he was a dark brown skin man.

As for Jesus's life events being altered. Well, he didn't have 12 apostles, walk on water, raise Lazarus from the dead, was born of a virgin, or rise from the dead himself. That all was ripped of from the older myth of Horus.

But gay marriage is out of question!

Um, it was the Bible belt that attempted to succeed from the Union and started the Civil War.

Atheists, winning since 300 B.C.E.

Dan8267 says

Marcus's incorrect argument that the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment means that there is a god?

The funny thing, is that after all the times I clarified, I honestly believe that's his inference of what my point was.

And he wonders why he didn't hear more arguments from me.

Cool Shrekian troll moves dude.

You moderates out there, and right wingers too, please don't think that all liberals are assholes like Dan. I think he wants you to think that.

marcus says

You moderates out there, and right wingers too, please don't think that all liberals are assholes like Dan. I think he wants you to think that.

Wow, I'm the first liberal that wants to see Romney beat Obama in the upcoming election. I'm so far left.

Dan8267 says

It makes no sense for me to argue against your imaginary and paranoid delusions of what you think I believe. I will just say this. I am like a mirror. I reflect the inner image of the person talking to me, only inverted. Right-wing nuts see me as an elite liberal socialist. Left-wing nuts see me as a heartless conservative fascist/capitalist. In both cases, it is the one looking into the mirror that casts the image.

I am orthogonal to the batshit crazy left-right line you and your ultracon counterparts draw. The truth, and my beliefs, does not lie between dumb ass Tea Baggers and dumb ass hippies. No, it lies on the other side of the smart-dumb axis, which evidently runs at a right angle to the left-right axis. So maybe you should stop talking out of your ass about what other people must be thinking, and instead listen and ask questions when you are uncertain.

Yet, I keep having to repeat that. So polarized has our society become.

Dan8267 says

Why the hell is an ancient Middle Eastern man being rendered as a white guy with blue eyes? He's literally fucken cartoonified!
I guess the south wouldn't be as apt to worship the guy if they knew he was a dark brown skin man.

Yes, the presentation of Jesus with blue eyes and blonde hair is pretty ridiculous. In African countries, Jesus is portrayed as someone from Africa. I suppose it's just human nature to think that all humans look like the locals. But that's a whole different topic.

But you claimed that Constantine, specifically, cartoonified him and essentially made up everything about his life, and you have yet to offer any specific evidence for that claim.

The following Pauline Epistles were written between 50 and 60 AD and record the same beliefs of Christians today: First Thesselonians, Phillipians, Philemon, First & Second Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. If there's evidence that Constantine did some "shuck and jive" with those documents, then let's hear it.

Dan,

Believe it or not, I completely agree with you that "God personally told me to do X, Y, and Z" is very dangerous. During the protestant reformation, that kind of thinking was called "enthusiasm" or literally, "god-within-ism".

The following article is by a conservative Christian and is very critical of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/08/19/the-politics-of-enthusiasm/&sa=U&ei=PiAgT6zEPMagsQKxvrScDg&ved=0CBAQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHLhNg7LzlCFajEa-WtrFEEfuFKqw

Not all Christians are Pentecostal wackos.

Marriage is a whole new debate. With regard to marriage, maybe the best solution is to keep the government out it? If marriage is an inherently religious institution, than the establishment clause makes a good case for keeping government out of marriage.

Ultimately, what's the point of "marriage" anyway, now that pro-creation is essentially "optional?" Is marriage just a tool for "gold diggers" to get their hands on another person's money?

But again, that's a whole 'nuther topic.

wthrfrk80 says

But you claimed that Constantine, specifically, cartoonified him and essentially made up everything about his life, and you have yet to offer any specific evidence for that claim.

Correction, what I said was:

Dan8267 says

Christianity was a radical religion when it was started. That's why Christ was crucified. He was a threat to the establishment. After he died, like all rebels, he was cartoonified and incorporated into the state by Constantine, who found Christ useful for manipulating the peasantry of the Roman empire. Had that not happened, Christianity would not even exist. But when that happened, Christianity ceased being a radical religion and started towing the state line.

And this is well supported. For example, the book Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor goes into detail about how Constantine manipulated Christianity for political gains. Publishers Weekly book summarizes this book and Constantine's motives

Stephenson, a historian at the University of Durham, successfully combines historical documents, examples of Roman art, sculpture, and coinage with the lessons of geopolitics to produce a complex biography of the Emperor Constantine. Rather than the divinely guided hero of legend who singlehandedly brought pagan Rome to Christian orthodoxy, Constantine is depicted as very much a product of his political environment. Recognizing the growing influence of the Christian Church, he adapted the generally pacifist faith to the Roman theology of victory and created a newly militant Christianity that would sustain his rule. Constantine wisely sought to impose religious toleration on the diverse Roman Empire while discouraging trivial disputes among the Christian faithful. Stephenson examines the variety of religious beliefs in the early fourth century with emphasis on Mithraism, a pagan mystery cult practiced by pre-Constantine soldiers, and on the bitter divisions within victorious Christianity that ultimately led to the Council of Nicaea. Constantine is revealed as a master politician who, while delaying his own baptism for reasons not fully explained in the text, became the ruler of both church and state.

But all the physical evidence and historical documents isn't going to convince you that Christianity could have easily been a footnote in history if it weren't for Constantine. After all, if Christianity exists only because a corrupt politician -- and I know that's redundant -- decided that it would be useful for controlling the masses, then surely Christianity has no merit and is nothing but lies. Since you cannot accept the conclusion, you ignore the facts. That is the entire basis of faith. Science, on the other hand, says that the facts determine the conclusion and whether or not you like the conclusion has no bearing on whether or not it is correct.

Dan8267 says

But all the physical evidence and historical documents isn't going to convince you that Christianity could have easily been a footnote in history if it weren't for Constantine.

Why do you say that? If Chrisitianity is little more than Constantine's invention, I don't want anything to do with it. Why live for a lie? That would be tragic.

If there's good evidence that Christian beliefs were not actually established by Jesus and Paul in the first century, but rather by Constantine, I will reject Christianity. I will read that book.

At this point, I just want the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/UXoNE14U_zM

Dan,

I'm behind a Websense firewall, so I cannot watch any videos right now. What is the video about? Can you explain it in words?

You can't handle words!

That's an extremely rude comment, is it not? Why should I take you seriously any longer?

wthrfrk80 says

That's an extremely rude comment, is it not?

No, your humor detector is malfunctioning. Try hitting it on the side.

Cloud says

"all catholic woman are sluts."

http://vimeo.com/7247863

thunderlips11 says

Cloud says

"all catholic woman are sluts."

http://vimeo.com/7247863

Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.

Is that pedophile Cloud still stalking me? I have him on ignore but, this comment seems to indicate that the stalker is still jizzing out his mental masturbation. Talk about obsessive. It's like I'm reliving Single White Female.