 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Man, you don't even understand what I mean by mentioning the movie, your
> appreciation is too shallow and deny complexity, plus is not well
> informed about the History about Jesus: what non-religious experts
> (Paleontologists, Historians, Anthropologists, Archaeologists, etc.)
> have discovered and documented about it.
>
> I suggest you see: Banned from the Bible, History Channel documentary.
Sigh.. You are missing the point. First you have to prove the man even
existed at all. The problem with all the people you list here is that
not **one** of them can present history, (Uh.. just why would
paleontologists be involve with this???), artifacts, or writings
**earlier** than the known date of publication of the parts of the NT
they are using as primary sources. This is a bit like claiming that you
found evidence at a convention site, showing that people actually
dressed up as Jedi last year, and therefor you concluded that George
Lucas merely "recorded" events, instead of making them up. After all,
too many people have, at this point, by such logic, written about,
dressed up as, joined a fake religions based on, or otherwise treated as
semi-real, Jedis, for them to have been made up in the 1970s...
It doesn't work that way. You first have to establish that **someone**
actually new the guy existed "prior" to 50-100 years after the fact. You
have to find actual records of the person, of his family, a
**convincing** reason why anyone would believe he was born in a town
that didn't **exist** when he is supposed to have been born and raised
there, etc.
So what if "some" of the stuff in the movie was glommed off of people
looking at things written 200, or 300 years after the fact? You first
have to convince people that the stuff written only 50-100 years after
describes a real person, and ***no one*** has done so, despite 2,000
years of following the religion, and probably 50 years of the most
intense study of records, artifacts, and records, all **dedicated** to
proving that he actually existed in the first place.
This, for skeptics, and even for *many* Biblical scholars, is a
**serious** problem, and makes the movie (and I laugh at the idea that
you pick the movie as a better authority than the book it is based
on..), basically a Biblical equivalent of, "The illustrated encyclopedia
of more stuff people made up, to fit into the Harry Potter universe." In
short, its interesting, but you have to prove the central point *before*
you start getting excited about other stuff people made up even later
on, to support the original story. It makes no more sense than if you
tried to defend the validity of the gospel of Judas, by pointing out the
existence of the KJV Bible (which doesn't, as none of them do, contain
it). You can only prove that people that believed in the original story
told other stories about the central character, until/unless you can
prove the existence of the character *first*, and that requires more
than, "So and so thought X was true about him, but we have no record
linking that belief to *any* original document, from his own time."
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
An interesting aside to this discussion:
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html
Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not the
literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, "its
made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really believe
anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while anyone is
watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought about some
things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to other believers,
or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up any belief in it at all.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Well, I take Darren's attitude as "Your /argument/ is crap because it
>> is based on wrong assumptions; try again"; as long as he doesn't make
>> any statement whether a religion not teaching universal love for each
>> other is crap or not, his posting cannot be read as "God and any
>> religion is crap"
>
> His attitude is not his words, you're missing the point, Islam for
> example teaches the purity of God's love and that we most promote this
> among us,
Yet it also teaches war, killing, stoning, etc, not love. So, no, I don't
believe that.
> exactly where? and I don't know exactly, is what I conclude
> from the many Koran fragments I've heard or read in an unknown period of
> time.
Certainly. That's precisely my point. The followers of a religion pick and
choose the parts they want to hear. If you haven't read the *whole* Koran
yourself, arguing about what it says is kind of silly, don't you think?
"Hey, Darren's wrong, because some people who may or may not have read the
Koran themself tell me he's wrong."
What about the other dozen religions you just *ignored*, compared to which
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are essentially identical?
> No he didn't, his attitude also speaks for him.
My attitude is that I call BS on people who tell me what my god wants me to
believe without ever having read my holy books, let alone don't believe
them. I find it an amazing amount of hubris for you to speak for the basic
premise of every religion in the entire world, don't you?
> And even if the
> quotation is flawed is what we all need to do anyway, as one possible
> way for a harmonious co-existence, makes sense to me.
I'm not arguing the truth of the assertion for people. I'm disagreeing with
your assertion that every religion wants you to love everyone.
Do you even know what the basic premise of the mayan religion is?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> take the good and the truth and apply it to
> our life for constructive benefice which is basically what religions,
> governments and society in general strives for, right?
This is again an overgeneralization. Clearly Mugabe isn't running a
government which strives for good and truth. You could probably go through
history and list dozens if not hundreds of governments that don't even
strive for the welfare of their citizens let alone goodness and truth.
You overgeneralize too much, which is one of the fatal flaws of monotheism.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> since you missed the point of my post, Ill say this is a wrong assumption.
BTW, I don't think we missed the point of your post.
I have also noticed it's very *very* common for the faithful to think anyone
who disagrees with any of their statements to be attacking, and anyone who
disagrees with their faith just "doesn't understand" it. Right up there with
"if only you asked sincerely enough, you'd be answered."
So, yeah, typical "debating" tactic: "You're wrong, because you don't
understand what you meant, and you don't understand what *I* meant, and what
I meant isn't what I said but that doesn't matter because you're wrong, and
I know you're wrong because you disagree with me, because I know what *your*
god wants *you* to do."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-10-2009 6:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> An interesting aside to this discussion:
>
>
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html
>
>
> Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not the
> literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, "its
> made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really believe
> anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while anyone is
> watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought about some
> things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to other believers,
> or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up any belief in it at all.
You should also consider the reverse: why do atheists get upset if
someone comes up to them and bluntly states that God does exist?
I think an important factor is that believing in God is not an
independent factor. It is connected to every other believe and
conviction one may have. I couldn't care less if the president of the US
did believe in a god or not if it weren't for the fact that it
influences his decisions. When I know that he doesn't care for nature,
because his religion teaches that man was independently created to rule
the world. Or that he was taught that those in power are there because
God wants them there and that they are therefore justified in getting
even more rich at the expense of others. Then it becomes very relevant
indeed. (I know that strangely at precisely these points there are other
Christian churches that preach precisely the opposite)
What is often included in any religious or atheist packet is that
believers are one group. In essence, if an atheist goes to a believer
and say that he/she got the facts wrong, the atheist is at the same time
implying that he/she is not really a true human. They may not mean it
that way and even vigorously deny it, but that is the effect of the remark.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 25-10-2009 6:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> An interesting aside to this discussion:
>>
>>
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html
>>
>>
>> Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not the
>> literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, "its
>> made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really believe
>> anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while anyone is
>> watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought about some
>> things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to other
>> believers, or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up any
>> belief in it at all.
>
> You should also consider the reverse: why do atheists get upset if
> someone comes up to them and bluntly states that God does exist?
>
Annoyed maybe, but for the same reason that you would get annoyed at an
adult coming up to you and saying, "I believe in the tooth fairy, its
just too bad my teeth don't fall out anymore, I need the money." We
don't get all that upset about people believing it BS. If that was all
they did, there are thousands of stupid things people believe that would
upset us. What upsets us is that those people immediately think that
declaring belief in it means that they can, in the next sentence, start
talking bullshit about others, condemning things they don't understand,
undermining science, undermining freedom of expression, undermining
cultures they don't like, etc. They don't stop with just "believing",
most of them, on some level, think that the next logical step is to
start pissing people around them off by telling everyone how evil those
people are for not attending the same church, or how evil someone else
they never met is, because they don't abide by X random rule, which may
not even exists, as stated, in their silly book.
> I think an important factor is that believing in God is not an
> independent factor. It is connected to every other believe and
> conviction one may have. I couldn't care less if the president of the US
> did believe in a god or not if it weren't for the fact that it
> influences his decisions. When I know that he doesn't care for nature,
> because his religion teaches that man was independently created to rule
> the world. Or that he was taught that those in power are there because
> God wants them there and that they are therefore justified in getting
> even more rich at the expense of others. Then it becomes very relevant
> indeed. (I know that strangely at precisely these points there are other
> Christian churches that preach precisely the opposite)
>
Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right around
and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make their decision
was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because "god" led them to
the choice. This is the thing that pisses **everyone** that is an
intellectual, from Christians who manage to mostly compartmentalize
things enough to still think about it, to humanists, to atheists, the
outright refusal, and apparent inability, of too many "believers" to
believe in, respect, or recognize, their own thinking and how they
reached a conclusion, and all too often, actually not just claim they
reached the result "without" something, but the turn right around and
declare, "And since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right
after frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly
think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they believe
in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...
> What is often included in any religious or atheist packet is that
> believers are one group. In essence, if an atheist goes to a believer
> and say that he/she got the facts wrong, the atheist is at the same time
> implying that he/she is not really a true human.
WTF? Project much? I have never heard on single person on my side of
this matter ***ever*** make such a statement. Oddly enough, we do get
accused of a shit load of things that we never actually do, while the
other side has been caught actually saying them on national TV. Oh, no..
Believers are all too human, which is why rejection of any process or
means to assess their own belief system is so frustrating to some
people. If you can't verify your own conclusions, you can and will fall
for any stupid idiocy that comes along, which seems to confirm what you
refused to examine. And sometimes, as I stated above, this can lead to
some truly insane cases where someone, for example, gets a degree in
some science, has a mediocre and nearly 100% unproductive carrier, only
to turn around and blame it, not one their own failure to examine their
own premises, but a refusal of all the other people in the field to
accept them. After all, their unexamined ideas where right, while the
rest of the entire field where being "dogmatic".
One of the absolute key things that some of us find corrosive and
dangerous about religions is that, with the exception of some modern
believers, who have also given up *most* of the ritual and silly BS, is
the idea, pervasive in 99% of all of them, with few exceptions, that:
"If the world contradicts religion, you are not understanding the world
properly, therefor the fault lies in your understanding of the world,
and scripture, not in a failure of the scripture to describe it." The
same principle can be, as I said, found in nearly ***all*** religions.
Its pure idiocy. Even some of the Christian thinkers, like Aquinas
almost managed to get this, and recognize that something was horribly
wrong about the view. Yet, they failed to realize how wrong, and
persisted in rejecting things that, even in their own time, where
obvious bloody fact, because.. it didn't reflect their belief, and they
where willing to examine anything, and everything, in the world
***except*** those beliefs. It has nothing at all to do with how human
someone is.
We recognize that we cannot, on our own, reach a sane conclusion about
the world, because ***humans*** are seriously flawed, and that, more to
the point, a group is often "worse", because groups, generally, have
rules that say, "don't upset the group". Actually questioning the
central premise of "anything" they believe is a near certain way to a)
not be in the group any more, b) lose a lot of friends, and c) become
hated and despised. When it happens, most people find it easier to
fracture the church, which is why you have 10,000+ versions, rather than
examine "all" of it, and conclude that none of it is worth it. That is
why you will find tens of thousands of people in the US calling
themselves "agnostic", or "no religion", or admitting, "I am not sure I
believe in god", and yet, ***they all still attend churches***.
But, heh.. Keep insulting people with accusations of accusations they
never would make themselves. We are frakking used to it at this point.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> take the good and the truth and apply it to our life for constructive
>> benefice which is basically what religions, governments and society in
>> general strives for, right?
>
> This is again an overgeneralization. Clearly Mugabe isn't running a
> government which strives for good and truth. You could probably go
> through history and list dozens if not hundreds of governments that
> don't even strive for the welfare of their citizens let alone goodness
> and truth.
>
> You overgeneralize too much, which is one of the fatal flaws of monotheism.
>
It also depends on your definitions of "goodness" and "truth". Many
consider "goodness" to mean, "Upholding the natural order of their gods
world.", and "truth" to be, "The truth of what this order is." The
leader of the wackos that Bush & Co. sent to Iraq to "help" us,
Blackwater, literally believes that this "truth" is that some people
really do have a divine right to rule, that poor people are poor because
god made them that way, and that the natural order of things, and thus
the greatest "goodness" is to kill anyone that won't convert to
Christianity, then create a Utopia which follows the above pattern. A
significant number of the right wing, who are apposed to health care
reform, have stated similar beliefs, if not quite so empirial in nature.
They quite literally think that, if you can't afford health care, its
because god wants you sick and dying. As quite a few people have stated,
the only difference between radical Christianity and radical Islam is
one less prophet, and the Christians being too chicken shit to blow
themselves up for the cause.
Kind of one of the problems with the term "good". Believers think it
comes from god, and so, what ever they think god thinks is good, must
be, whether that is helping other people, at their own expense, or
making themselves rich, at everyone else's expense. "Truth" is an even
bigger mess, since, for most believers, what ever "truth(s)" their
religion teaches automatically trumps ***everything*** else, including
facts. Like the wacko a while back that decided the most effective
solution to his cities drought problem was to "pray" for rain that a)
hasn't fallen outside of expected amounts, and b) was past do to fall
anyway, but insists, along with a lot of other fools there, that his
prayers where answered. Almost reminds me of a scene near the end of the
movie "Year One"... Ooh! It rained for 30 seconds, I must be the chosen one!
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-10-2009 19:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 25-10-2009 6:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> An interesting aside to this discussion:
>>>
>>>
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not
>>> the literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying,
>>> "its made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really
>>> believe anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while
>>> anyone is watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought
>>> about some things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to
>>> other believers, or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up
>>> any belief in it at all.
>>
>> You should also consider the reverse: why do atheists get upset if
>> someone comes up to them and bluntly states that God does exist?
>>
> Annoyed maybe, but for the same reason that you would get annoyed at an
> adult coming up to you and saying, "I believe in the tooth fairy, its
> just too bad my teeth don't fall out anymore, I need the money." We
> don't get all that upset about people believing it BS. If that was all
> they did, there are thousands of stupid things people believe that would
> upset us. What upsets us is that those people immediately think that
> declaring belief in it means that they can, in the next sentence, start
> talking bullshit about others, condemning things they don't understand,
> undermining science, undermining freedom of expression, undermining
> cultures they don't like, etc. They don't stop with just "believing",
> most of them, on some level, think that the next logical step is to
> start pissing people around them off by telling everyone how evil those
> people are for not attending the same church, or how evil someone else
> they never met is, because they don't abide by X random rule, which may
> not even exists, as stated, in their silly book.
That was covered by the next two sentences, yes.
>> I think an important factor is that believing in God is not an
>> independent factor. It is connected to every other believe and
>> conviction one may have. I couldn't care less if the president of the
>> US did believe in a god or not if it weren't for the fact that it
>> influences his decisions. When I know that he doesn't care for nature,
>> because his religion teaches that man was independently created to
>> rule the world. Or that he was taught that those in power are there
>> because God wants them there and that they are therefore justified in
>> getting even more rich at the expense of others. Then it becomes very
>> relevant indeed. (I know that strangely at precisely these points
>> there are other Christian churches that preach precisely the opposite)
>>
> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right around
> and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make their decision
> was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because "god" led them to
> the choice. This is the thing that pisses **everyone** that is an
> intellectual, from Christians who manage to mostly compartmentalize
> things enough to still think about it, to humanists, to atheists, the
> outright refusal, and apparent inability, of too many "believers" to
> believe in, respect, or recognize, their own thinking and how they
> reached a conclusion, and all too often, actually not just claim they
> reached the result "without" something, but the turn right around and
> declare, "And since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right
> after frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly
> think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they believe
> in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...
Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.
>> What is often included in any religious or atheist packet is that
>> believers are one group. In essence, if an atheist goes to a believer
>> and say that he/she got the facts wrong, the atheist is at the same
>> time implying that he/she is not really a true human.
> WTF? Project much? I have never heard on single person on my side of
> this matter ***ever*** make such a statement.
You never noticed it, that is not the same. And if I had reversed the
roles that would not have changed the meaning, though you would probably
not have reacted this way. I though it would be instructive to view the
matter from the other side, and it was ;)
[snipped a lot more open doors]
> But, heh.. Keep insulting people with accusations of accusations they
> never would make themselves. We are frakking used to it at this point.
Not sure if this is directed at me. If so, you missed.
BTW as you might remember I am an atheist living in Europe. Saul isn't
living in the US either. What you express is, I think, mostly anger with
the situation in the US. In an international newsgroup always remember
that some things are rather peculiar to the US.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It also depends on your definitions of "goodness" and "truth". Many
> consider "goodness" to mean, "Upholding the natural order of their gods
> world.", and "truth" to be, "The truth of what this order is."
Yes, that too. Islam preaches goodness *and* murder if you leave Islam,
because that's the goodness of truth! But you know, it's a book about goodness.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
