patrick.net

leoj707 says

I think that we can agree that the world would be better off without fundamentalists/extremists.

In that sentence you portrayed the words "fundamentalist" and "extremist" as synonyms by using the slash (/). That's what I was talking about.

leoj707 says

Human morality evolves over time as our situation/society evolves. Morally repugnant things today were morally OK 2000 years ago and vise versa.

Well, how convenient. That means we can do anything we feel like doing and just say, "what we thought was wrong yesterday is no longer wrong today." We're "evolving."

Unless morality is objective, it's ultimately meaningless and everything just boils down to who has the power and who doesn't.

leoj707 says

So... in the bible slavery is morally acceptable. If the majority voted to make slavery legal do you think that would be OK?

I'm not saying it would be OK, but it would definitely be democracy. Democracy is mob-rule, where the 51% votes to enslave the 49% (or in our case, the 60% votes to enslave the 40% thanks to the filibuster rule).

leoj707 says

A unitarian universalist Christian is most certainly not a fundamentalist.

A Unitarian Universalist is not a Christian at all. They deny the diety of Christ and most of the "basic" doctrines of Christianity going back 2000 years. That doesn't mean that a Unitarian Universalist is "bad," but technically they aren't Christian. In the same sense that a Muslim who denies Mohammed isn't really a Muslim. Right? If someone comes to me and says, "yeah, I'm a Marxist but I really agree with Ayn Rand more than Marx", I couldn't help but question if they were really a Marxist. Gotta love identity politics.

leoj707 says

Mormonism and islam for example seem to be more fundamentalist than the church of england.

It would be more accurate to say Mormonism and Islam seem to be more faithful to Mormonism and Islam (respectively) than the Church of England is faithful to Christianity.

The term "fundamentalism" is a pajorative used against people who hold to the central beliefs of their respective religions. Rather than use negative labels, why not try to understand the basic doctrines of the worlds' various religions?

wthrfrk80 says

In that sentence you portrayed the words "fundamentalist" and "extremist" as synonyms by using the slash (/). That's what I was talking about.

Yes, in general fundamentalists are extreme. They seem to fit the definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extreme?s=t
ex·treme
noun
adjective
1. of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average: extreme measures.
2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree: extreme joy.
3. farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost: the extreme limits of a town.
4. farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction: an object at the extreme point of vision.
5. exceeding the bounds of moderation: extreme fashions.

wthrfrk80 says

That means we can do anything we feel like doing and just say, "what we thought was wrong yesterday is no longer wrong today." We're "evolving."

More or less, but it seems to happen over generations rather than over night.

wthrfrk80 says

Unless morality is objective, it's ultimately meaningless.

Well, there is no moral system that has been consistent and objective over time. That is one appeal to fundamentalist, everything is literal and static from the day their god(s) wrote/inspired the text(s), but even fundamentalists cherry pick from their religious texts and they cherry pick different things that did the fundamentalists 1000 years ago.

The moral "laws" that get closest to being objective over time are things like murder. Things that cause society to fall apart when they are not followed by at least most of the people.

wthrfrk80 says

(or in our case, the 60% votes to enslave the 40% thanks to the filibuster rule)

Well, in our system it is more like the .01% enslave the 99% through their dollar votes.

wthrfrk80 says

A Unitarian Universalist is not a Christian at all.

What can I say? There are people that identify their religious faith that way.
http://www.uuchristian.org/

I suppose you could get a hold of them and tell them that they are wrong.

wthrfrk80 says

It would be more accurate to say Mormonism and Islam seem to be more faithful to Mormonism and Islam (respectively) than the Church of England is faithful to Christianity.

I agree that they are more faithful to the original beliefs, but I don't think that a fundamentalist has any more faith in his/her beliefs.

The FLDS are more faithful to the original teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young than the mainstream LDS church. And, yes the "F" they use in their title stands for fundamentalist.

wthrfrk80 says

The term "fundamentalism" is a pajorative used against people who hold to the central beliefs of their respective religions. Rather than use negative labels, why not try to understand the basic doctrines of the worlds' various religions?

I do understand the basic doctrines of many of the worlds religions. That is why I am glad that most followers choose not to be fundamentalists.

Being a fundamentalist in some situations has a pejorative connotation because many literal interpretations and strict following of original beliefs are totally abhorrent by today's moral standards.

When a group believes that stoning a 12 year old girl to death, because she has a crush on a boy, is the right thing to do because they have a fundamental view on their religious texts that reflects very poorly on them. The same can be said for a different set of fundamental beliefs where that 12 year old girl is required to join the wife stable of a church elder.

Morality is definitely relative.

"It's bad to lie"
vs.
"It's bad to lie... to the mass murderer who is asking you directions to the local preschool."

wthrfrk80 says

The term "fundamentalism" is a pajorative used against people who hold to the central beliefs of their respective religions.

One more thing here.

People can hold central a belief in their religion without everything being literal and strict. Implying that one must be a fundamentalist in order to hold central their beliefs cheapens what may be an honest and strong faith. Fundamentalist are certainly not "better" christians, or better any other faith.

@thunder,
there is no commandment against telling falsehoods to protect innocent lives, or protect your own interests. THe commandment is against saying an innocent person did something wrong when asked about it.

That is why the commandment is against murder, not killing.

and there is no commandment that says "be good" because "good" is relative, and man's version does not equal God's version.

leoj707 says

Fundamentalist are certainly not "better" christians, or better any other faith.

I would say that an atheist who believes there is no god is a better atheist than one who says there is a god. In fact, I would say that the "atheist" who says there is a god is no atheist at all. Right?

In the same way, I would say a Muslim who actually follows Islam is a better Muslim than one who doesn't.

I haven't even touched the issue of which person is "better" simply as a person.

wthrfrk80 says

I would say that an atheist who believes there is no god is a better atheist than one who says there is a god. In fact, I would say that the "atheist" who says there is a god is no atheist at all. Right?

Apples to oranges.

By definition an atheist has not belief in god(s). That does not compare to two people who believe in Jesus... just differently.

wthrfrk80 says

In the same way, I would say a Muslim who actually follows Islam is a better Muslim than one who doesn't.

Well, it is not the same...

Who is to say what it means to be a true muslim? Who is to say what should be literal and what is metaphor in the bible? The fundamentalists? What makes their opinions more valid?

Is the person who kills their neighbor who they see working on the sabbath a better christian because they are following a literal and strict interpretation of the bible, how about when they use the rules in the bible to sell their daughter into slavery? Does that make them more of a christian, a better christian?

wthrfrk80 says

I haven't even touched the issue of which person is "better" simply as a person.

Are you implying that a fundamentalist is a better person? Do you really want to live next to the guy above? Have you read the bible? It is full of fucked up shit that people are allowed/required to do.

Would you prefer to live next to Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz or Dan8267?

marcus says

It's hard for me to get through all of that. I'll try to finish it later.

You must be a great teacher. "Students, reading is hard. Try to minimize it."

Bap33 says

That is why the commandment is against murder, not killing.

Right, and that is why the commandment says, "Thou shall not rape and murder children."

Oh, wait... I got that wrong there is no commandment against the rape and murder of children. Then surely there is a commandment about beating not children to near death...

...nope not their either.

Hmmmm... there is the passage about how you should kill your child if they curse you...

Bap33 says

and there is no commandment that says "be good" because "good" is relative, and man's version does not equal God's version.

Yes, "good" is relative, and god's certainly does not seems to be the same as mans.

BTW, Bap you never were able to prove that I am not your god.

Bap33 says

there is no commandment against telling falsehoods to protect innocent lives, or protect your own interests. THe commandment is against saying an innocent person did something wrong when asked about it.

bap, I wasn't addressing the Bible or the Ten Commandments in this case, only the idea that morality is absolute.

leoj707 says

By definition an atheist has not belief in god(s).

True.

And by definition, a Christian believes in the doctrines of Christianity, which isn't merely "believing in Jesus" vaguely defined. Evan an atheist can "believe in Jesus" in the sense of believing he really existed as a person, but wasn't God.

And by definition, a Muslim believes the historic doctrines of Islam, not merely "believing in Allah", vaguely defined.

My analogy is NOT apples to oranges.

leoj707 says

Who is to say what it means to be a true muslim?

Mohammed and 700 years of history.

leoj707 says

Who is to say what should be literal and what is metaphor in the bible?

Jesus. And secondarily, the Apostles.

leoj707 says

What makes their opinions more valid?

Because they were the founders of Christianity.

leoj707 says

Is the person who kills their neighbor who they see working on the sabbath a better christian because they are following a literal and strict interpretation of the bible, how about when they use the rules in the bible to sell their daughter into slavery? Does that make them more of a christian, a better christian?

I don't know about your Bible, but my Bible is divided into two parts: the Old Testament (or Old Covenant) and the New Testament (or New Covenant). The Old Covenant expired with Jesus. Jesus ammended (and even overturned) much of the Old Covenant of ancient Israel. That's well understood in most Christian circles.

leoj707 says

Are you implying that a fundamentalist is a better person?

I made no such implication. I was NOT trying to imply one person would be more pleasant/kind/nice than the other. I was trying to clarify what I meant by "better Muslim" and "better Christian" and "better Atheist." In that context, the word "better" is more like "more faithful to their stated beliefs" than "nicer to chat or drink beer with." But technically it's my fault for not being a better communicator.

leoj707 says

Have you read the bible? It is full of fucked up shit that people are allowed/required to do.

I believe you are talking about the Old Testament, not the entire Bible. Faithful Christians live primarily by the New Testament.

leoj707 says

Do you really want to live next to the guy above?

Which guy? Bap33? I wouldn't mind having Bap33 as a neighbor. Especially if he's willing to let me ride in that sweet go-kart.

wthrfrk80 says

My analogy is NOT apples to oranges.

Yes, there are no people that are atheists and also believe in god.

There are people who define themselves as christians, but they don't fit in your definition of christianity.

Not the same.

In once instance -- the atheist -- you are allowing people to self-define, and even follow the definition everyone understands. In the other they must conform to only your definition.

wthrfrk80 says

The Old Covenant expired with Jesus. Jesus ammended (and even overturned) much of the Old Covenant of ancient Israel. That's well understood in most Christian circles.

Yes, I am aware that this is the way that most christians choose to cherry pick their faith. That said it is not always readily clear in the bible what old rules are invalidated by Jesus, and there is a lot of fucked up stuff still available.

Do you love your family?

wthrfrk80 says

But technically it's my fault for not being a better communicator.

Understood thanks for the clarification.

leoj707 says

Yes, there are no people that are atheists and also believe in god.

Agree. But what if someone asked you, "who are you to say what it means to be a true atheist?"

leoj707 says

There are people who define themselves as christians, but the don't fit in your definition of christianity.
Not the same.

"My" definition of Christianity is the same definition that goes back 2000 years. "My" definition of Christianity is the same definition many other people have (and have had for 2000 years). I'm not inventing anything new, anymore than you are inventing some new definition of atheism.

There are probably people who define themselves as atheists but don't fit your definition of atheism. But, like you, I would say they are not really atheists, considering the basic definition of atheism. After all, "your" definition of atheism is hardly anything new or controversial.

leoj707 says

In once instance -- the atheist -- you are allowing people to self-define

No I'm not. Like you, I believe that atheism has a precise, objective definition: the belief that there is no god (or gods). If someone came up to me and said, "I define myself as an atheist, but I deeply believe in God!" then I would say to myself, "no, you're full of shit, since atheism is the non-belief in god (or gods)...you should probably either change your beliefs or change your label to avoid confusion." At that point I wouldn't even be getting to the whole debate about the existence of god.

Related: I worked for the U.S. census bureau one time. They told me that if a person self-identified as "black" or "white" or "hispanic", even if they clearly were not, we still had to go by THEIR definition. To me, that seemed absurd. But I guess that's just the power of group-identity. The census bureau didn't want to have to deal with any potential controversey.

marcus says

1) Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way? Are there possibly even a million or more such people?

I don't have the data on that, but it's a pointless question. People are brainwashed from early childhood to believe in whatever god their parents believe in. If all intelligent people believed in unicorns and the Lock Ness monster, would it mean that these things probably exist? Would it mean that it's good to believe in those things?

The truth is not a democracy.

marcus says

2) Are there atheists who are significantly more intelligent than you, who chose to be the kind who just don't believe but don't really have much to say about what others believe, and who would even totally neutral as to whether non-fundamentalist religious people are a good or bad thing for humanity ?

Since when is belief in a fact a choice? If you are choosing which factual statements to believe and not, then you're doing it wrong. For example, I believe the world is round because we have satellites in orbit, and I've seen pictures of the Earth, and I understand that gravity forces it to be round, and I've seen ships depart on the horizon with their masts being the last part visible. As such, it is not my choice to believe the world is round.

Second example, hell, I'd love for their to be some benevolent sky daddy that makes everything all right, rights every wrong, and guarantees that we all get to live in perfect bliss for all eternity. That would be great, but it's a crock of shit. I don't choose to believe there is no god, anymore than I choose to believe that the Earth isn't flat.

Is it logically possible to believe there is no god, but to advocate deep belief in god because there are advantages to manipulating people into believing in a false god? Yes, this possible. It's called hypocrisy, and it happens all the time. The vast majority of the high-ranking Republican politicians do this all the time. One of the many problems with hypocrisy is that using evil means to promote good ends often ends up with horrifically evil ends and a perversion of the original intent, or to put it in more common terms, the ends don't justify the means.

Don't get me wrong, occasionally one can use evil to fight evil (e.g., justifiable wars) just like one can literally use fire to fight fire. However, it's a double-edge sword and must be wielded very cautiously. As such, religion isn't a good candidate for this.

marcus says

you make these arguments.

Arguments cannot be arrogant. They can be right or wrong, and even to some degree. They can even be stupid, but they can't be arrogant.

You seem to promote the idea that some stupid ideas are not allowed to be challenged because they protected from criticism for some unspecified reasons. If a person believed that he was Napoleon, should we play along? If a U.S. president bases what he does on astrology, we should look the other way. Holy fuck! That actually happened!

Why should religion be the one and only thing that gets special treatment so that no one is allowed to criticize it or it's track record, yet it is allowed to affect our every day lives in extremely intrusive ways?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9lzT48rPEhM

Ah, hello, Miss Cleo? This is the president, Ronny. I wanted to know if I should issue a first strike against the Soviet Union. Why yes, I am a mamma's boy.

Once again, I refer to the example I gave about honor killings. Should we respect that belief and not question it?

marcus says

Maybe you could just make it a simple yes or no

The first I don't have the data on. The second, it wasn't clear what you were asking, but I believe I addressed what you were getting at.

marcus says

Why do I respect atheists who are neutral to whether non fundamentalist religions are a good or bad thing for mankind.

I don't think you understand what respect means. You can't "respect" someone you know nothing about. Respect and common courtesy are not the same thing. Respect, by definition, must be earned. It is more than a neutral opinion. Took respect someone is to hold that person in higher esteem than you would an average Joe. The way you are using the term, degrades it.

Furthermore, a rational person can passionately argue against a core belief of a person they respect. And a rational person understands that attacks on his beliefs are not attacks on him. In fact, truly respectable people are precisely those who welcome attacks on their beliefs. They merely demand that such attacks be sincere and rational.
marcus says

and why is it that I can not begin to comprehend or respect the views of an atheist who is certain that there is no god by any definition and feels that arguing this is a courageous and noble thing

That's your failing, not ours. The fight for rationalism is essentially the same as the fight for civil rights, the end of slavery, self-governance, liberty, and the dignity of man. Rational thought is at the center of all of these fights because only irrational arguments can justify the opposing positions. No rational philosophy can make a moral case for slavery, monarchies, empires, or subjecting humans to degrading practices.

And it is courageous precisely because of the fierce opposition.

marcus says

and most importantly he or she knows the world would be a better place without even the non-fundamentalist religions and wishes to convert others to his mindset on this.

I can't know for absolute certainty that the world would have been a better place without the Holocaust. It is quite possible that had the Nazis never risen to power, history would have unrolled in such a way that the Soviet Union and the United States had a nuclear war ending the human race in the 1960s or 1970s.

Using your analysis, that means we should not attempt to prevent future holocausts because they might also be "blessings in disguise". I don't buy that argument for a second. If I'm going to make a decision, I'll go with the most likely scenario. Holocausts are bad, and the world is worst off if they happen.

marcus says

Hey people are different. That's what makes the world go round. I can not even begin to fathom where you're coming from.

Again, honor kills. Think about that.

Yeah, people are different. Some think it's a moral imperative to kill their raped daughters. Makes the world go round.

marcus says

Militant agnostic is sort of like talking about extreme moderation. Doesn't compute for me.

A real agnostic believes that you can never know if a god exists even after you die. After all, you can't know that the great being in front of you is really a god or something short of it.

Most agnostics are just closeted atheists afraid of being ostracized for being politically incorrect. Back in the 1950s, gay men would just say they prefer the freedom of being single. That's what most of today's agnostics are like. Give them another 30 years and they will come out of the closet as flaming atheists.

wthrfrk80 says

Marcus,

What exactly is a "fundamentalist" relgion? Can you give an example of one?

What's the difference between a cult and a religion? The number of followers.

What's the difference between mainstream religion and fundamentalism? The degree to which the lunacy of religion affects your daily life.

It's all degrees. Like almost all evils, religion can be throttled.

marcus says

there always has been and always will be religion

There always has been and always will be homicide and rape. We should still strive to minimize those things.

leoj707 says

fun·da·men·tal·ism
noun

Here's a better description. Back in the 1920s, a bunch of hillbillies were afraid all their daughters would turn into sluts when they saw all the flappers in the big city. To prevent this, they decided to go medieval and use religion to scare their daughters into remaining chaste. However, religion being the ridiculous nonsense it is, was contradicted by that new fangled science thing like evolution and physics. Worst still, the progressive movement made childhood schooling compulsory.

With schools trying to get children to read and write and think, the new fundamentalists had to fight back by attacking teachers for teaching and promoting home schooling, which made sense since they already adopted home breeding. Finally, when anyone made any challenges to their religion, they had to become even more irrational and outrageous as shouting and mob mentality are the only defense against critical thinking.

Unfortunately for the fundamentalists, their tactics backfired. Instead of preserving chastity, fundamentalism ensured that all their daughters would appear in countless Girls Gone Wild videos, whereas the educate women in liberal elite states tend not to masturbate on camera for a t-shirt. And that's why till today, you never see Harvard students on Girls Gone Wild, but hear a lot of southern and heartland accents. Don't believe me? I've got gigabytes of hard evidence.

leoj707 says

For one don't confuse religious doctrine with morality; they are two different things.

They are also mutually exclusive. Morality requires free, critical thinking to address conflicts and reach mutually beneficial resolutions. Dogma prevents this.

leoj707 says

People have an inherent basic moral code built in by evolution.

True. The divergence of moral codes are corruptions due to local culture and arbitrary rules like not eating non-fish meat on Fridays or not performing even menial labors on Saturdays. Such arbitrary rules are not moral codes even though they are called as such.

leoj707 says

I don't think that god helmet studies are going to convince anyone that their spiritual experience is not "real".

Not most. The people most susceptible to such so-called spiritual experiences are also least likely to be rational about them. They are acting on instinct, the mutations that lead to mysticism in the first place to keep the dumb human hosts in line and doing the bidding of their genes.

The "spiritual" experiences are really just emotional experiences. They take place entirely in the theatre of the mind. Some people understand this, and some don't. The more intelligent people do realize that their mind is capable of playing tricks on them and that rational thought is the way to counter this. This is exactly why atheists are statistically more intelligent than the religious. Intelligence and learning causes people to reject religion and mysticism.

thunderlips11 says

Yep, nobody gets out of here alive.

You can check out any time, but you can never leave.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/NUbTW928sMU

wthrfrk80 says

leoj707 says

Who is to say what it means to be a true muslim?

Mohammed and 700 years of history.

Mohammed is dead and history doesn't talk like that.

wthrfrk80 says

leoj707 says

Who is to say what should be literal and what is metaphor in the bible?

Jesus. And secondarily, the Apostles.

Ditto to Jesus and the fictional Apostles representing the 12 signs of the zodiac.

The bottom line is that the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, and the New Testaments are all lousy foundations for morality. Both testaments are pro-slavery. The Ten Commandments doesn’t address rape, sexual humiliation, slavery, child abuse, or a host of other issues that were relevant to the time when it was written or today.

To do justice to morality in a complex world, one must first strip away all religion, all theology, all superstition/spirituality, all faith, and all traditions. Once you start with a clean slate, you can discuss morality in detail using mathematics, science, and engineering knowledge, discipline, and modeling. Short of that, any moral code would have a poor foundation and would become corrupted when applied to the real world. If morality is harder than international banking, then why don't we use at least the same level of thought and technology for modeling morality as we do international banking?

wthrfrk80 says

But what if someone asked you, "who are you to say what it means to be a true atheist?"

Who cares? Labels aren't important. What's important are the government, economic, educational, and social systems in which we live.

leoj707 says

Yes, I am aware that this is the way that most christians choose to cherry pick their faith

I wouldn't call the distinction between the Old Covenant (before Jesus) and the New Covenant (after Jesus) as mere cherry-picking. There are plenty of places where Jesus specifically invalidates Old Testament practice (like eye-for-an-eye, stoning the woman caught in adultery). And there is plenty of discussion in St. Paul's epistles regarding things like circumcision, dietary restrictions, and other Jewish customs.

Yes, dishonest and arbitrary cherry-picking happens. But when Christains fail to stone people that's probably not a good example. ;-)

wthrfrk80 says

They told me that if a person self-identified as "black" or "white" or "hispanic", even if they clearly were not, we still had to go by THEIR definition.

Not a good example, racial designations are not always very clear to an observer. They may know something about their ancestry that you do not. That and the census bureau probably did not want you wasting time arguing with people about their race.

wthrfrk80 says

Agree. But what if someone asked you, "who are you to say what it means to be a true atheist?"

I would say, don't listen to me look at what we as an English speaking people have decided on. It is very simple and clear:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t
a·the·ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

wthrfrk80 says

There are probably people who define themselves as atheists but don't fit your definition of atheism.

Probably not, unless they don't know how the word is defined in the English language.

wthrfrk80 says

"My" definition of Christianity is the same definition that goes back 2000 years. "My" definition of Christianity is the same definition many other people have (and have had for 2000 years). I'm not inventing anything new, anymore than you are inventing some new definition of atheism.

Oh, interesting... well then... no cherry picking then 'eh... you sir are then unique among christians. Having resolved all the contradictions and vague passages.

So, then...

Do "real" christians love their families? Can true followers of christ drink a pint of Drano and be OK?

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2010/02/review-chris-hedges-when-atheism.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#French_Revolution

"Counterrevolution against the persecution rooted in the anticlerical aspects of the Revolution led to a war in the Vendée region where republicans suppressed the Catholic and royalist uprising in what some call the first modern genocide."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Mexico_under_Plutarco_El.C3.ADas_Calles

"His anti-Catholic actions included outlawing religious orders, depriving the Church of property rights and depriving the clergy of civil liberties, including their right to trial by jury (in cases involving anti-clerical laws) and the right to vote."

"Calles, however, did not abide by the terms of the truce – in violation of its terms, he had approximately 500 Cristero leaders and 5,000 other Cristeros shot, frequently in their homes in front of their spouses and children."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#People.27s_Socialist_Republic_of_Albania
"By May 1967, religious institutions had been forced to relinquish all 2,169 churches, mosques, cloisters, and shrines in Albania, many of which were converted into cultural centers for young people. As the literary monthly Nendori reported the event, the youth had thus "created the first atheist nation in the world." "

"The clergy were publicly vilified and humiliated, their vestments taken and desecrated. More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death. The cloister of the Franciscan order in Shkodër was set on fire, which resulted in the death of four elderly monks."

"the penal code of 1977 imposed prison sentences of three to ten years for "religious propaganda and the production, distribution, or storage of religious literature." A new decree that in effect targeted Albanians with Muslim and Christian names stipulated that citizens whose names did not conform to "the political, ideological, or moral standards of the state" were to change them. It was also decreed that towns and villages with religious names must be renamed. Hoxha's brutal antireligious campaign succeeded in eradicating formal worship, but some Albanians continued to practice their faith clandestinely, risking severe punishment. Individuals caught with Bibles, icons, or other religious objects faced long prison sentences. Religious weddings were prohibited."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Czechoslovakia

"Thus, the monasteries had been seized by state security service (StB) during three so called “barbaric nights” in 1950. In total, 3142 people were displaced by force into concentrating monasteries. These were in case of male members of orders virtually turned into prison camps or labor camps secured with guards and strict regime aiming the “political re-education” of monks. The 213 monastery buildings and facilities were confiscated by state and content of many ancient precious libraries that survived even Turko-Tatar attacks in the middle ages was scrapped and used for cardboard production.”

In 1957 ŠtB arrested university students in eastern Slovakia town Košice who held Bible study meetings. The consequent investigations lead to further arrests of Christians and lawsuit in 1959 with non-public hearing and coverage by state-controlled media. ... The arrested members of the Blue Cross were found „guilty“ of „spreading hostile Christian ideology“ that is „contradicting scientific Marxist ideology“."

Well, looks like this is enough, even w/o getting into Soviet, Chinese, or N. Korean persecutions. It's clear that Atheism in nothing but a destructive religious cult that gets extremely cruel when it's able to grab some state power.

Dan8267 says

You must be a great teacher

Sorry if reading your ridiculously long comment wasn't as high a priority as breakfast, getting ready for work, and about 4 other things related to my responsibilities.

Besides,....well nevermind.

I think I said it best here, and it is the next thing I should address if I am going to have anything more to say on this.
marcus says

Why do I respect atheists who are neutral to whether non fundamentalist religions are a good or bad thing for mankind?

and why is it that I can not begin to comprehend or respect the views of an atheist who is certain that there is no god by any definition and feels that arguing this is a courageous and noble thing, and most importantly he or she knows the world would be a better place without even the non-fundamentalist religions and wishes to convert others to his mindset on this?

I'm going to work on answering this, because the nitty gritty arguments about god just aren't interesting to me. I guess I'm stuck in my relatively agnostic position.

I think the human behavior part of it is actually more interesting to me. On both sides. Is it me ? Or am I right in what I think (insert what you call name calling here).

edited slightly for punctuation

One other question though Dan, as I continue to ponder my questions to myself. (They were questions to myself and your gibberish interpretations seem designed only to obfuscate. As did your answers to my other questions. But that's okay.)

What do you think about abortion? More specifically what do you think about those who are extremely militant in their antiabortion position, to the point even of advocating violence against the doctors who perform them ? Just curious.

Please just answer in a concise and to the point way, you know, the actual question that I'm asking.

wthrfrk80 says

The Old Covenant expired with Jesus.

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

This is my favorite Bible quote, and I've never seen a satisfactory explanation why it doesn't mean what it plainly says, much less one that relies only on the synoptic gospels without reference to Paul, who never met Jesus. All to me clearly means the Second Coming. Why bother telling his fellow Kosher, law-obeying Jewish apostles when time was so short and much needed to be said? Clearly if Jesus was the Christ, he meant for Christians to obey the entirety of the Law.

Paul's dropping of the Kosher and other OT laws helped his sect of Early Christians predominate, and Pauline Christianity eventually become Orthodoxy*. Them Greeks and Germans love their pigs and shellfish, and wouldn't convert without 'em.

* Meaning the great broad agreement between Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the vast majority of Protestant sects.

On the other hand, Jesus' words probably weren't his anyway, if he existed and isn't a Lao-Tsu of Western Religion, a hodgepodge of "righteous teachers" and theological ideas personified in one Character. Many Bible Scholars believe both the OT and NT are witness to a "Battle of Scribes". That's why there are so many conflicting Bible verses. There's actual debate going on in the Bible, and everybody is putting their words into the mouth of God or Jesus. Judah vs. Israel (the North versus the South, each one insisting they are God's favored and with the more important prophets and heroes than the other); Judaizers vs Paulites; etc. There may have been one original "Source" Gospel, known as the Q-Gospel, but we don't have it, probably never will, and various sects and ideologues - re-wrote or 'clarified' it into the 4 Gospels we have today (plus many more that are lost or were burned on purpose for defying what became Orthodoxy).

Forgeries and false authorship was so common in the Roman Empire, that there were professionals whose sole job was to establish the authorship of documents and books. Galen himself wrote a book on how to identify his real works from forgeries written in his name - precisely around the time the earliest Gospel fragments we have were believed to have been copied.

The World is a better place for the French Revolution. Whenever revolutionaries sweep out the old regime (whether they do better is another story), the Marseilles is sung.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ehkFdOzozQ0

michaelsch says

"Counterrevolution against the persecution rooted in the anticlerical aspects of the Revolution led to a war in the Vendée region where republicans suppressed the Catholic and royalist uprising in what some call the first modern genocide."

Yep, many Priests wouldn't take an oath to the country of which they were born. Catholic Churches remained open throughout the Revolution, but of course the Royalists and Aristos made shit up or blew things out of all proportion. The few clerics that were actually strung up or run out were generally either venal SOBs whose greed and lechery were notorious, or powerful Royalist figures.

Many good things came out of the repossession of land from the Church. Taxes were paid to support the necessary functions of the state, like road-building, levees, and law enforcement, far more than when the lands were owned by the mostly tax-free church. And untold acreage was opened up to modern farming methods and the famines of the dark pre-revolutionary days were soon forgotten. Besides, if the Church is spiritual, why do they need property at all? And from whom did the Church get title to the lands from in the first place?

marcus says

your gibberish interpretations seem designed only to obfuscate.

Perhaps you need to work on those reading comprehension skills. My answers are obviously design to clarify, not obfuscate. The clearer and more precisely defined things become, the more obvious that all religions are hoaxes. Remember, you're the one who proposed that god is undefinable. Now that's obfuscation!

marcus says

What do you think about abortion?

I'm certainly not going to address a complex issue with many shades of gray like abortion with a simple pro-choice or pro-life label. After all, I don't see things in black and white. [Yes, that was a reference to your contradicting accusations.]

Actually, I planned on writing one of those "20-page rants" as you call them, or what other teachers call, the minimum length for a paper that seriously addresses an issue. Funny how in high school and college teachers are always demanding that students write more, but on the Internet anything longer than a tweet is considered too hard to read.

Personally, I prefer to write as long as it takes to fully discuss a topic and not one word longer. The length of a paper should be determine simply by the needs of the message it conveys and the evidence to support the message, no more, no less. Artificial length restrictions on either end hamper the ability to convey a message.

Anyway, here's what I will say about abortion in short form, both sides are wrong. If you want more details, you have to wait for my abortion rant. My view on abortion is sufficiently complex and different from the mainstream positions that any one word answer would simply be misinterpreted.

Nevertheless, the issue of abortion, although largely influenced by religion, is something that should be debated solely in secular terms. Religion is not a good basis for making a decision regarding this topic.

marcus says

More specifically what do you think about those who are extremely militant in their antiabortion position, to the point even of advocating violence against the doctors who perform them ? Just curious.

Please just answer in a concise and to the point way, you know, the actual question that I'm asking.

Nothing is clearer, more concise, and to the point than code.

Works for all murder-making decisions including soldiers killing each other in war, cops shooting suspects, etc. Naturally, the EvaluateGoodEvil method returns negative values for evil and positive values for good.

Of course, you have to plug in your own set of values as the algorithm is value agnostic. For my set of values, it is wrong to kill abortion doctors. You'll also need a good predictor component both for evaluation future events and generating alternative actions.

So, did I fall for your trap?

Now that I've played your little game, how about showing me that you have a pair of balls and answer the question you have been dodging?

Dan8267 says

Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Islamic men in the Middle East, deeply and religiously believe that it is a moral imperative to honor kill a woman in their family if she has had sex with a man who isn't her husband, even if the woman was raped.

Tell me that you "respect" that belief. It's a deeply held, religious conviction from another culture. Are you saying you would tolerate honor killings out of respect for these men's beliefs?

Yeah, I know it's an uncomfortable question to address, but it does get at the heart of your argument's failings. It's a real-world example, too, and one that has great significance today. Having huge balls, I haven't shrunk away from any of your questions, even the ones that were obviously set up as traps. So answer that one.

Dan8267 says

Yeah, I know it's an uncomfortable question to address

Before your question, I had said:

marcus says

I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant.

Maybe you should read my posts and try to understand my point of view, before making arguments that don't apply. This is the main reason your long winded free form verbal diarrhea expression is hard for me to read. You could at least show me the respect of checking your logic and whether the argument applies before wasting my time.

Sure some others who also didn't understand or even read what I said might like it. But is this a conversation with me ?

marcus says

If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could accept that as a reasonable assertion.

But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true (since eliminating all religion does eliminate the extremists and or fundamentalists- but still unknowable since it eliminates all religion - the belief of 80% of the world(some kind of belief in god)), but still also in my view possibly false.

These quotes were from before you made this argument.

Maybe you can find some word choices to dissect, and get into semantics or in some other way be in your own little personal conversation with everyone except me.

Your logic as far as I can tell: Religion is sometimes evil, therefore end all religion.

Or religion is sometimes evil. Religion involves belief in god. Therefore belief in god is evil.

By similar reasoning you could say, humans are sometimes evil....

It's so weak. I thought you were smarter than that.

It makes for cool sounding rants for everyone else. And I get it. "Too much conflict ...can not compute...does not fit my simplistic model....error...stack overflow..."

leoj707 says

Oh, interesting... well then... no cherry picking then 'eh... you sir are then unique among christians.

Not exactly:

Chris·tian·i·ty noun
\ˌkris-chē-ˈa-nə-tē, ˌkrish-, -ˈcha-nə-, ˌkris-tē-ˈa-\
Definition of CHRISTIANITY
1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2: conformity to the Christian religion
3: the practice of Christianity

thunderlips11 says

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
This is my favorite Bible quote, and I've never seen a satisfactory explanation why it doesn't mean what it plainly says

Do a little research into basic Christianity and you'll get your answer.

Wow, Marcus has now started arguing with himself. I guess it's easier than addressing the points I brought up.

Thought so.

I added a few words if it was too hard to understand that I was addressing the end of the comment that preceded it. But I understand, this should be about time for you to bow out, in one way or another.

I'm recommending a few thousand words. By then you will have completely forgotten what I said (if you even took them in in the first place). And yes I did address your question, quite well before you even asked it.

Yikes it seems like there are two or three different arguments occuring in this room at the same time. It's getting awfully confusing.

How's that for an Argument Clinic! Patrick, how much money do we owe you for these arguments?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

wthrfrk80 says

Do a little research into basic Christianity and you'll get your answer.

C'mon buddy, I can't put all that shit in my posts from just a google/wiki browse.

One great book about Early Christianities would be "Lost Christianities" by Ehrman, also good is "Forged: Writing in the Name of God." The first is particularly good, because it covers all the Early Christian sects that "lost" to Pauline Christianity.

"Jesus" by Crossan is another great book for understanding 1st Century Judea when Christianity was born, but he is a bit of a very liberal Priest, so that colors his attitude I think

And my favorite of all is "Who Wrote the Gospels" by Randall Helms, which tries to shed some light on the Gospel Authors' backgrounds and how it colored how they wrote. Some of the stuff is pretty cool, like Matthew is correcting Mark, whose command of the OT seems relatively weak. Both were believed to be Jewish Christians. One interesting theory of Helms is that Luke was probably written by a Lucia - that is, a Woman. His argument is pretty interesting, one being it's the only Gospel where the females around Jesus aren't bumbling around and actually "Get" Jesus' teachings quicker than the men do.

In any case, Matt 5:18 is one of those Holy Book verses that get ignored when inconvenient. When they want to burn witches or oppose gays, out it comes, when they want to eat pork, it's like it doesn't exist.

Same thing happens in Islam - the whole protect the fellow "people of the book" stuff is heard when Caliphs want the taxes from conquered peoples or tolls from trading with Europe. When they're at war, it's "Even the rock will say, there is a Jew behind me", and all the House of War quotes will be uttered and the rest forgotten.

thunderlips11 says

C'mon buddy, I can't put all that shit in my posts from just a google/wiki browse.

You asked about the following passage:

thunderlips11 says

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

If you don't want to look into the issue yourself, fine.

Here are some hints:

John the Baptist says "look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world."

The Jewish Passover: celebrates the spreading of lamb's blood on the doorposts to ward off the angel of death

The Jewish sacrificial system: killing a lamb as atonement to take away the sins of the people, thus satisfying the demands of the law.

Jesus himself said, "the reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord."

Jesus said, referring to himself, "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Thunder,

Using Ehrman, Crossan, and Helms to learn about Christianity is a little like using Ken Ham to learn about geology and evolutionary biology.

wthrfrk80 says

If you don't want to look into the issue yourself, fine.

My point is that the verse couldn't be more explicit. The Law is still in effect, according to Jesus - whether or not Jesus was the Blood Sacrafice who washes away men's sins (at least those who "Believe upon him").

In other words, sin no more, and my death washes away your sins, but keep following the Law.

wthrfrk80 says

Using Ehrman, Crossan, and Helms to learn about Christianity is a little like using Ken Ham to learn about geology and evolutionary biology.

Nonsense. They're all very highly regarded Bible Scholars and Academics.

thunderlips11 says

My point is that the verse couldn't be more explicit. The Law is still in effect, according to Jesus - whether or not Jesus was the Blood Sacrafice who washes away men's sins (at least those who "Believe upon him").
In other words, sin no more, and my death washes away your sins, but keep following the Law.

St. Paul covers this issue ad-nauseum in his epistle to the Romans.

wthrfrk80 says

Chris·tian·i·ty noun
\ˌkris-chē-ˈa-nə-tē, ˌkrish-, -ˈcha-nə-, ˌkris-tē-ˈa-\
Definition of CHRISTIANITY
1: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2: conformity to the Christian religion
3: the practice of Christianity

I am not sure where you got this definition, but could you post a link? I am suspect becasue it uses the word "Christianity" to define "Christianity". Not very good from when defining a word.

Here you go:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christianity?s=t

Chris·ti·an·i·ty
noun, plural Chris·ti·an·i·ties.
1. the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
2. Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine's thought.
3. a particular Christian religious system: She followed fundamentalist Christianity.
4. the state of being a Christian.
5. Christendom.

I do appreciate you citing a definition of the word, and it should be immediately clear that the word "Atheism" is very different from "Christianity".

There is no additional complexity to atheism; the definition is very clear with no additional clarification needed.

To understand what "Christianity" means you also need to define: christian, catholic, protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Christianity of Augustine's thought, pagan, etc. Not so simple. Also, you might note that nowhere in either definition is a strict and literal interpretation required for christianity. Not only that but delving into the additional definitions you will find that many things found under the umbrella of christianity do not require a fundamentalist view of the bible, i.e. a strict and literal interpretation. Also, when listing the beliefs of each demomination that falls under the dictionary definition of christianity you will find that they all cherry-pick.

And speaking of cherry-picking, wthrfrk80 you never answered my questions: Do "real" christians love their families? Can true followers of christ drink a pint of Drano and be OK?

Also see Hebrews 8,9,& 10.

thunderlips11 says

They're all very highly regarded Bible Scholars and Academics.

Among people that want to attack Christianity.