 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 19:03, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> As long as we take one another's religion serious and don't try to
>> make fun of what differs from what we believe, there should not be a
>> problem.
>
> I don't think the atheists would have a problem with it if the faithful
> everywhere were tolerant as well.
Many religious people are very tolerant. Problem is that you mainly hear
the others.
> When it's still the death penalty to
> change which prophet you believe in large parts of the world, there's
> still good reason to argue it, methinks.
With China a nice example that a government can be atheist and still put
people to death for having a religion with one or more gods. And you
don't even need a god, a little collective exercise may be enough. The
main reason most intolerant groups and governments are religious is
simple because also most tolerant ones are.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the
> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd
> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something." But when there's no
> difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
>
Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results?
Anyone can find that reference?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> On 5-7-2009 16:19, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> BTW you forgot
> >> to shed doubt on the church part. Now we could read it as a confession
> >> that you are member of a church. ;)
> >
> > In fact, I'm not.
> Oh no, you shouldn't say that either. ;)
It's ok to say it because it doesn't categorize me into anything.
> > That's a command, not a promise. It commands that people should not
> > divorce. It doesn't promise that people won't want to divorce. If you
> > read the next verses you'll see a direct admission of that: People *do*
> > divorce, even if God has put them together, and that's why some laws were
> > put in place for those occasions.
> >
> > If the bible made any kind of promise that people who believe in God
> > won't even divorce, why would there be any need for such laws?
> I can only assume that you contrasting commands and promises relates to
> some theology that I am not familiar with.
No. What I'm talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood from
the "10 questions" video, is that the video presents the question of why
christians divorce even though they have got married before God and people
pray for them. In other words, they are implying that if God existed, he
would not allow believers to get in such bad terms with each other that
they would divorce, and that the fact that christians divorce at the same
rate as non-christians is an indicative that there's no such God.
This is made even clearer at the end of the video where they give their
own "answer" to the question: Christians divorce at the same rate as anyone
else because there is no God who would stop them.
But that's petitio principii: They start with the *false* assumption that
christianity or the bible teaches that God stops believers from divorcing
each other. There is no such promise anywhere in the bible, nor is it the
teaching of any mainstrean christian church.
> > The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> > at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> > assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> > to divorce.
> Actually He wouldn't. He accepts it reluctantly only when one party has
> already broken it's vows.
I think there's a confusion here about the word "allow".
When I say "allow", I'm talking about what the video is talking about:
That God would actively stop believers from getting into such bad situations
where they want to get divorced. That's what the video is implying.
When you say "allow" you are talking about law: It's forbidden in the law
for people to divorce. That's not what I nor the video are talking about.
> > I suppose the correct answer to the question would be: "Because people
> > don't always follow God's will."
> And that is, I think, the point the guy is trying to make.
No it isn't. Watch the video more carefully. They are trying to insinuate
that if there was a christian God, he would stop believers from divorcing,
but since christians divorce at the same rate as non-christians, that's an
indicative that there is no God.
However, that's a false assumption.
> That God forbids it has zero effect on the Christians.
That only tells us that christans are not perfect. It doesn't tell us
that God doesn't exist, which is what the video is trying to say.
> > The answer the video gives to the question
> > is inconsequential.
> What answer? I didn't see one.
Did you even watch the video to the end? It's clearly there.
"Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
Because God is imaginary."
That answer is a complete non-sequitur.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > The video asks a very loaded question: "Why do christians get divorced
> > at the same rate as non-christians?" It's a loaded question because it
> > assumes that the bible or christians teach that God doesn't allow christians
> > to divorce.
> I think it's more the "if marriage is a holy gift from God, why don't those
> married in God's eyes have better marriages?"
In other words, it's basically the "why does God allow bad things to
happen?" question.
The answer the video offers to this question is "because God is imaginary",
which is a non-sequitur.
> I.e., it's more along the lines of "if you're not going to follow God's will
> in *your* marriages, what right do you have to impose God's will on the
> marriages of people who don't believe in your God to start with?"
That's not what the video is saying, nor even implying. The video is
purely questioning God's existence.
> > Even if all that is true, how does the "answer" given in the video, ie.
> > "God is imaginary", related to this? It doesn't make God imaginary if people
> > don't follow what the bible says.
> It makes God "imaginary" in the sense that God has no physical effect or
> cause any change in the world.
No, it only tells us that God doesn't affect all (or any) marriages.
No more.
> If nothing God commands comes to pass, why
> believe in God's ability to command things?
If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, does that
mean that your boss doesn't exist?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, let
> no man put asunder." Plus, of course, we have entire wars in Ireland and
> such over Catholic royalty trying to get divorced and such. Better to behead
> the wife than divorce her, because God doesn't like that.
> In this country, Christians fight hard to keep gay people from marrying
> because God doesn't like it. However, God apparently does nothing to help
> the Christians follow God's law either. It's the hypocracy being pointed out.
> Now, if you live in a country where Christians don't stick their fingers
> into the private lives on non-Christians, then sure.
I completely fail to see the relation between what you wrote above, and
the video being discussed here. That's certainly not the point the video
is presenting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined,
> > let no man put asunder."
> """
> Petitio principii. You assume that:
> * All christian marriages are caused by God.
> * God never allows two people to divorce.
> """
> You're also pulling a straw man here, btw. It's not necessary that *no*
> Christians get divorced. Only that a statistically valid deviance exists
> between those married in the eyes of a God who doesn't want divorces and
> those married in sin.
Congratulations: You just proved that God doesn't actively force people to
stay married. Of course you haven't proven anything about God's existence.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 21:49, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I've never been to a Christian wedding that says "What God has joined, let
>> no man put asunder." Plus, of course, we have entire wars in Ireland and
>> such over Catholic royalty trying to get divorced and such. Better to behead
>> the wife than divorce her, because God doesn't like that.
>
>> In this country, Christians fight hard to keep gay people from marrying
>> because God doesn't like it. However, God apparently does nothing to help
>> the Christians follow God's law either. It's the hypocracy being pointed out.
>
>> Now, if you live in a country where Christians don't stick their fingers
>> into the private lives on non-Christians, then sure.
>
> I completely fail to see the relation between what you wrote above, and
> the video being discussed here. That's certainly not the point the video
> is presenting.
It is background information. Why the video was made in the first place,
who it is addressing and why someone does not want to make an hour long
video with a balanced point of view that appeals to every person on this
earth. But you knew that already, so why am I even answering. Perhaps to
point out that you are taking this video literally and disregard it's
historical context? Nah, I wouldn't do such a thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> """
> Let me repeat: There's no such a thing as a "universal moral code".
> """
> I think that right there distinguishes you from the Christians at whom this
> video is aimed. You don't think Jesus' message is universal? You don't think
> the ten commandments apply to everyone? OK, then most folks who agree with
> that don't have a problem with your beliefs.
What I'm talking about is that whenever atheists attack the bible, they
seem to assume there exists an universal moral code accepted by the
majority, and then they proceed to show how the bible breaks this universal
moral code.
That's a shaky premise because there is no such a thing as a universal
moral code accepted by the majority.
For example, some people think that abortion is genocide, while other
people think it's acceptable. Whose moral code is the correct one here?
Whichever you choose, are you going to tell the others that their moral
code is wrong?
What about age of consent? Canada had until recently an age of consent
of 14. There are some countries which go as low as 12. On the other extreme,
there are some countries where it's 21. If one of the latter countries comes
and tells you that your country is depraved because they allow sex with
minors, are you going to tell them that their moral code is wrong? Why is
your moral code right?
Americans who advocate the death penalty have their own moral code about
that subject. Is their moral code wrong? Why?
There is no such thing as a "universal moral code". You can't argue that
something in the bible is universally "wrong" because there is no such
universal measure of what is right or wrong.
> """
> While some christians believe that, that doesn't automatically mean that
> christianity, as a religion, teaches that, or that (assuming God indeed
> exists) it's true.
> """
> And yet, that's exactly what Jesus tells people in the Bible, and that's the
> excuse some crazy people use for killing their children.
Jesus also tells people that their prayers don't get answered because
they don't have faith. The message seems clear to me: God does not answer
all prayers.
> """
> In internet parlance this is called trolling.
> """
> That's pretty insightful.
Well, they clearly don't want to discuss, they clearly don't want to
listen nor hear any answers. Their attitude is "whatever you say, you are
just rationalizing". In other words, they are simply and purely being
provocative.
In other words, they are trolling.
> The Bible has God promoting genocide, slavery, mass slaughter of
> infants, rape, etc.
That's a pure straw man.
If a history book tells us that the president of the US ordered a nuclear
bomb to be dropped in Japan, does that imply that this history book is
promoting genocide? Of course not. It's simply stating what happened. It's
not promoting anything.
If the bible says that God told some people to get rid of some nation,
is it promoting genocide? No, it's only stating that God told those people
to get rid of that nation. It's not giving permission for the readers to
go and murder someone. You might completely disagree with the *reasons*
stated in that passage why God gave this order, but that's not related to
whether the passage *promotes* doing it again and again.
Nobody has the right to say "hey, this passage tells about killing
people, thus I can go there and kill those people" because that's not
what the passage is telling. It's not giving permission to anybody to
do any such thing.
Of course some people will interpret such passages as they please, but
the bible is not the only text being abused like that, nor does being abused
tell anything about the veracity of the text.
You can ask "but *why* did God order killing those people?" That's a
different, theologically interesting question. You can disagree with any
answers if you want, but it still doesn't say anything about the existence
of God or the veracity of the text.
> Why is that good? Is it good because God does it? If
> not, isn't God doing bad? Or are you in agreement that slavery and genocide
> *can* be good?
> That last seems to be what you're arguing with your ice cream analogy.
You are now misinterpreting *my* writing. I didn't say that it's good.
I said that perhaps it's that we don't understand now what's going on
because we don't have all the info nor the necessary intellect and
experience. Just like the child may be unable to understand why he is
being denied things.
> > My point is that the *way* they are saying it is wrong because
> > they present a bunch of fallacious distorted arguments and outright straw
> > men, and then present questions and conclusions based directly on them.
> I think it's more like they're summarizing a whole bunch of well-known and
> extended arguments and presenting them as a monologue, so it comes across as
> a straw-man argument.
Those well-known arguments have their answers, which atheists simply refuse
to listen to, or consider in any way acceptable. They just dismiss anything
as "rationalizations", whatever it may be.
Some of the questions are truely complex and difficult. However, most of
the questions are trivial and have completely simple answers to them.
However, a bit like conspiracy theorists, they refuse to let go even of
the most ridiculous questions. Maybe the reasons are the same as with the
conspiracy theorists (ie. shotgun argumentation).
(Often they also choose the most ridiculous and misguided answers out
there, just to make fun of them and ridicule them. That is, to make straw
men out of them.)
> > Some christians understand that the bible uses a lot of metaphors and
> > similes, but they believe that the *message* these metaphors and similes
> > are expressing is true.
> But then they argue over which are literal, which are metaphors, and what
> those metaphors mean. And then they punish you for disagreeing with their
> evaluation.
Still doesn't say anything about the existence of God (which is the core
point of the video).
> > Of course you have to understand that it *is* a
> > metaphor, and what it is trying to say. (Naturally different people may
> > have different interpretations, which is why we have a myriad of different
> > churches, branches, sects and whatnot.)
> A myriad of different churches, branches, sects, explosions of airplanes,
> murders of abortion doctors, and beheadings of apostates.
Still not the point of the video.
> Then you're not the type of person this video is addressed to. :-)
Its straw men about what the bible is saying just bother me a lot.
That's why I wrote them that open letter. (And in fact, I got a polite
response from the website admin.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Many religious people are very tolerant. Problem is that you mainly hear
> the others.
I'm sorry, but I live in California, where they just passed an amendment to
the constitution to strip the right to marry from gay people. Now, *maybe*
it wasn't religious, and perhaps you can offer me an actual rational secular
reason why this happened.
Many religious people are tolerant. A majority of them around here are *not*.
>> When it's still the death penalty to change which prophet you believe
>> in large parts of the world, there's still good reason to argue it,
>> methinks.
>
> With China a nice example that a government can be atheist and still put
> people to death for having a religion with one or more gods.
From everything I've heard from people actually *in* China, one doesn't get
punished for being religious. One gets punished for using religion as an
excuse to advocate overthrow of the current government.
YMMV, but I have religious relatives in China, so maybe one of us is hearing
propaganda.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 21:41, Warp wrote:
> No. What I'm talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood from
> the "10 questions" video, is that the video presents the question of why
> christians divorce even though they have got married before God and people
> pray for them.
That is your interpretation. Although I might understand why you would
prefer that interpretation, I see no reason to change mine. Your and
mine sensitivities are very different, let's leave it at that.
> "Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
> Because God is imaginary."
>
> That answer is a complete non-sequitur.
Sorry, but you can not judge a video by what you decide is it's main
point. Nor is it your prerogative to decide for me what I should
consider the most important points.
About that quote: It *is* a non-sequitur and therefore I dismissed it as
of being of no value and I won't discuss any such nonsense that is not
defended by anyone here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> """
> Just because the same word, "slave", is used, doesn't automatically mean the
> situations were comparable.
> """
> OK, so you're of the feeling that slavery *can* be good and moral.
Assuming you understand what "slavery" means in the bible. It has little
to do with the slavery that happened eg. in the US in the past.
> Now, how
> about the genocide, rape and pillage attacks, and murder of thousands of
> innocent babies? :-)
How about death penalty in the US? Is it good and moral?
I don't know your stance on that subject (and you don't have to answer),
but moral codes are different for different people. If we assume that God
did indeed exist, then it may be plausible that *his* moral code may be
slightly different than ours. If God indeed created us, then he basically
owns us, and can do whatever he wants with us. You might not agree with it,
in the same way as the child doesn't agree with his father about what he
wants.
Also, just because God has the right to do whatever he pleases, that
doesn't mean *we* also have the right, without his express permission.
The "murder of innocent babies" might sound horrible to you, but consider
these two completely hypothetical situations (assuming God did indeed exist):
1) These babies are born to a depraved society where they may be raised
to hate, rape and kill people. (Usually when the bible tells about the
eradication of some people, it gives an indication of *why*.)
2) These babies go to heaven before seeing or learning anything bad, and
are happy everafter.
Maybe from your point of view situation #1 is preferable, but it might be
plausible that God considers situation #2 even more preferable, or at least
not that bad of an alternative.
And no, this still doesn't give anybody permission to murder anybody.
No person can be the judge of who deserves to live.
> """
> And what kind of evidence do you want?
> """
> So, Jesus brings people back from the dead, cures illness, has a lecture
> with thousands of people in attendance, and then comes back from the dead
> himself. Yet none of the scholars and historians of the day mention him, the
> head priest of the town where he overturns the tables of the money lenders
> mentions the event, and in the whole of historical documents, there's maybe
> one sentence that could be interpreted as a reference to Jesus, maybe.
Do you have any estimate of how much of humanity's history has been lost
forever? Written history is very fragile and gets destroyed very easily
(by accidents, by deterioration and by vandalism).
It's not completely implausible that only few records have survived.
> """
> Question #9: Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
> I can't believe how fast these "questions" are degrading in quality.
> What do you not understand about symbolism? Do you have some kind of
> difficulty in understanding metaphors?
> """
> Maybe you missed this story, wherein a student takes a piece of bread, and
> the priest is as upset as if Jesus himself was kidnapped:
I don't want to badmouth the Catholic church here, but suffice to say
that I don't agree with them, nor consider their intepretations of the
bible completely correct. (Which shouldn't be too surprising, as I'm from
a protestant country. Not that I consider myself "protestant" per se.)
> Just be glad you don't live in the religious nuthouse that's America these
> days. When the religious leaders don't understand the metaphor, and are
> ready to shoot at you for kidnapping Jesus himself, then this question makes
> complete sense.
It doesn't make any sense when it's presented as an argument that God is
imaginary (rather than that some christians are crazy).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If the muslims here were rioting and murdering in the name of Islam here,
> I'm sure there would be videos of ten things intelligent muslims need to
> address, too. :-)
I don't think so. Muslims are rioting in Europe, yet it's forbidden to
say anything bad about them. In Finland, for example, you can literally
get jailed if you made such a video about islam. There have been concrete
cases. (Christianity, on the other hand, is completely free to be bashed.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> In other words, it's basically the "why does God allow bad things to
> happen?" question.
>
> The answer the video offers to this question is "because God is imaginary",
> which is a non-sequitur.
It's only a non-sequitur if you ignore those who claim that all good comes
from God and indeed God is 100% good. Of course, if you're going to define
God as someone who makes no difference in the world, then it's a non-sequitaur.
>> I.e., it's more along the lines of "if you're not going to follow God's will
>> in *your* marriages, what right do you have to impose God's will on the
>> marriages of people who don't believe in your God to start with?"
>
> That's not what the video is saying, nor even implying. The video is
> purely questioning God's existence.
Well, yes. This is step one of asking "why do you impose your will?"
Again, a lot of the arguments look foolish or like shortcuts because they're
not given the full time to develop. Following up on some of the referenced
web sites etc will provide a better insight. I.e., the video is a poor
argument. The arguments it addresses are quite reasonable and well thought out.
>>> Even if all that is true, how does the "answer" given in the video, ie.
>>> "God is imaginary", related to this? It doesn't make God imaginary if people
>>> don't follow what the bible says.
>
>> It makes God "imaginary" in the sense that God has no physical effect or
>> cause any change in the world.
>
> No, it only tells us that God doesn't affect all (or any) marriages.
> No more.
But all the other arguments are also along the lines of "God has no physical
effect."
God doesn't exist because religious marriages fail exactly like
non-religious marriages. God doesn't exist because religious medicine fails
exactly like non-religious medicine. Etc. Apply induction, lather, rinse,
repeat. That's why the arguments sound repetitive.
>> If nothing God commands comes to pass, why
>> believe in God's ability to command things?
>
> If your boss tells you to do something and you don't do it, does that
> mean that your boss doesn't exist?
If nobody anywhere has or ever had any actual evidence for my boss, does it
mean he doesn't exist? There's a big difference between "nothing happens"
and "sometimes something doesn't happen." You know this.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago?
Yes. Often, actually.
> With surprising results?
Only surprising to the faithful.
> Anyone can find that reference?
Feel free. I certainly never saw it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Congratulations: You just proved that God doesn't actively force people to
> stay married. Of course you haven't proven anything about God's existence.
You're talking about a different god. That's my point. The video sounds
foolish to you because you reject the premises it's arguing against *already*.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I live in California, where they just passed an amendment
> to the constitution to strip the right to marry from gay people. Now,
> *maybe* it wasn't religious, and perhaps you can offer me an actual
> rational secular reason why this happened.
Personally, I don't think the government should have anything to do with
marriage. Its an entirely religious matter, and the Civil authorities
should keep their hands off it.
Then, if gay people wanted to get married, all they would have to do
would be to find a church that allows them to.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > "Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
> > Because God is imaginary."
> >
> > That answer is a complete non-sequitur.
> Sorry, but you can not judge a video by what you decide is it's main
> point. Nor is it your prerogative to decide for me what I should
> consider the most important points.
> About that quote: It *is* a non-sequitur and therefore I dismissed it as
> of being of no value and I won't discuss any such nonsense that is not
> defended by anyone here.
I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that yes,
there is a flaw in the video, but that I shouldn't judge it for that flaw?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
> Personally, I don't think the government should have anything to do with
> marriage. Its an entirely religious matter, and the Civil authorities
> should keep their hands off it.
That would make some things a bit difficult, such as who inherits all
the stuff of the deceased. It's a legal matter, and thus the legal system
has to know about marriage.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 22:38, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Many religious people are very tolerant. Problem is that you mainly
>> hear the others.
>
> I'm sorry, but I live in California, where they just passed an amendment
> to the constitution to strip the right to marry from gay people. Now,
> *maybe* it wasn't religious, and perhaps you can offer me an actual
> rational secular reason why this happened.
>
> Many religious people are tolerant. A majority of them around here are
> *not*.
A majority of voters, which may not be the same, but I can see why you
are angry.
>>> When it's still the death penalty to change which prophet you believe
>>> in large parts of the world, there's still good reason to argue it,
>>> methinks.
>>
>> With China a nice example that a government can be atheist and still
>> put people to death for having a religion with one or more gods.
>
> From everything I've heard from people actually *in* China, one doesn't
> get punished for being religious. One gets punished for using religion
> as an excuse to advocate overthrow of the current government.
>
> YMMV, but I have religious relatives in China, so maybe one of us is
> hearing propaganda.
Probably me. I keep hearing stories about various religions being
illegal and followers having been prosecuted for convening. It is hard
to judge from here, and probably they were indeed trying to overthrow
the government.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That would make some things a bit difficult, such as who inherits all
> the stuff of the deceased. It's a legal matter, and thus the legal system
> has to know about marriage.
Then have a quick-n-easy "Next of Kin" specification. Anything not
covered by a will is left to your next of kin and, if they don't claim
it, then it goes to the State.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What I'm talking about is that whenever atheists attack the bible, they
> seem to assume there exists an universal moral code accepted by the
> majority, and then they proceed to show how the bible breaks this universal
> moral code.
Atheists aren't attacking the bible: how is your argument going to affect a
book?
They're attacking the belief that the bible applies to those who choose not
to believe it. Those who try to apply the bible's morality to those who
don't believe it are exactly those people who believe it's a universal moral
code.
> That's a shaky premise because there is no such a thing as a universal
> moral code accepted by the majority.
But many people believe there is, and many people believe they know what it
is, in spite of the fact that many of those people disagree with each other.
> For example, some people think that abortion is genocide, while other
> people think it's acceptable. Whose moral code is the correct one here?
MINE!
> Whichever you choose, are you going to tell the others that their moral
> code is wrong?
Not only are you going to tell them it's wrong, you're going to MURDER THOSE
PEOPLE who you believe is wrong. You're also going to lobby to prevent
life-saving medical research from being carried out because you erroneously
think your holy book says it's evil.
> Americans who advocate the death penalty have their own moral code about
> that subject. Is their moral code wrong? Why?
You're missing the point.
> There is no such thing as a "universal moral code". You can't argue that
> something in the bible is universally "wrong" because there is no such
> universal measure of what is right or wrong.
And if every Christian agreed that the moral code in the bible wasn't
universal, we'd not be having this coversation.
One problem with monotheism is that it leads to the presumption that since
there's only one god, its opinions apply even to those who don't worship it.
If you're a Christian that rejects any of the following premises, then you
don't really need to be watching atheist videos:
1) There's exactly one God;
2) It's the God described by your Holy book;
3) That God created the universe;
4) That act of creation gives that God the authority
to tell humans how to live their lives;
5) Your holy book gives an accurate description of
what that God wants all humans to do;
6) Your interpretation of that holy book is correct;
7) Your holy book authorizes you to enforce your God's will.
As soon as you are open to the idea you might not agree with all of those
principles, then you're not the kind of religious fanatic that outspoken
atheists try to discredit.
I have never, ever seen an atheist screed against Quakers, Amish, or any
other very Christian sect that says "leave other people alone." If you know
of one, let me know.
>> And yet, that's exactly what Jesus tells people in the Bible, and that's the
>> excuse some crazy people use for killing their children.
>
> Jesus also tells people that their prayers don't get answered because
> they don't have faith. The message seems clear to me: God does not answer
> all prayers.
He doesn't answer the prayers of the unfaithful. If you're willing to starve
your child to death because you have the assurance that Jesus will resurrect
him, I'm pretty sure you have faith.
See, I'm explaining that the video is addressed to the religious fanatics
who think God talks to them daily and if he doesn't talk to you, you're
going to burn in hell for eternity, and that it's their job to help you get
there. You're arguing "not all Christians are like that." Sure.
> Well, they clearly don't want to discuss, they clearly don't want to
> listen nor hear any answers. Their attitude is "whatever you say, you are
> just rationalizing". In other words, they are simply and purely being
> provocative.
No, I honestly think it's more like "we've heard all 2000 answers to this,
and they're all full of crap, and if you think about your answer, you'll see
why it's likely full of crap." It's not like the same arguments aren't on
interactive forums also.
> In other words, they are trolling.
The preemptive dismissal is indeed assuming that you're not going to come up
with a valid counterargument.
In the sense that you can't really answer a video, yes.
>> The Bible has God promoting genocide, slavery, mass slaughter of
>> infants, rape, etc.
>
> That's a pure straw man.
>
> If a history book tells us that the president of the US ordered a nuclear
> bomb to be dropped in Japan, does that imply that this history book is
> promoting genocide? Of course not. It's simply stating what happened. It's
> not promoting anything.
>
> If the bible says that God told some people to get rid of some nation,
> is it promoting genocide? No, it's only stating that God told those people
> to get rid of that nation.
Wait. So if God tells his chosen people to go to a country, murder everyone
but the young virgins (including women, infants, the infirm, etc), and then
take the young virgins home as slaves... Is that moral? Or is that immoral?
Is God telling you to do something good?
> It's not giving permission for the readers to
> go and murder someone.
And phrases like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" are indeed giving
permission for the readers to go murder someone, yes?
> You might completely disagree with the *reasons*
> stated in that passage why God gave this order, but that's not related to
> whether the passage *promotes* doing it again and again.
I don't think you're getting the point of the argument.
If God's will is by definition good, then sometimes genocide, rape, and
murder of infants (like the first born sons of every family in an entire
country) are sometimes good.
The point is to point out to intelligent people "hey, are you really saying
that genocide and infantcide is sometimes OK? Would you really go murder an
entire country full of people if your God told you to?"
> Nobody has the right to say "hey, this passage tells about killing
> people, thus I can go there and kill those people" because that's not
> what the passage is telling. It's not giving permission to anybody to
> do any such thing.
It's giving permission to the historical people to do that historical act.
The act itself is either good or evil. You must admit that God either
ordered something evil to be done, or that genocide is OK if God says to do it.
Then you have to ask yourself "is genocide really OK, ever? Would I
actually participate in dashing the brains of infants against rocks if my
God told me to, and said 'you don't understand why, but do it anyway.'"
> Of course some people will interpret such passages as they please, but
> the bible is not the only text being abused like that, nor does being abused
> tell anything about the veracity of the text.
Correct. That's why there's someone imploring intelligent people not to be
dicks and interpret things that way.
> You can ask "but *why* did God order killing those people?" That's a
> different, theologically interesting question. You can disagree with any
> answers if you want, but it still doesn't say anything about the existence
> of God or the veracity of the text.
That God ordered the genocide is presuming the existence of God. The video
is asking you to consider what the logical rational implication is of
accepting that portion of the bible to be true.
>
>> Why is that good? Is it good because God does it? If
>> not, isn't God doing bad? Or are you in agreement that slavery and genocide
>> *can* be good?
>
>> That last seems to be what you're arguing with your ice cream analogy.
>
> You are now misinterpreting *my* writing. I didn't say that it's good.
You said that believing the more wise father and avoiding the ice cream you
want is good, yes? Or am I misunderstanding that?
The isomorphic mapping would be that committing genocide and rape when
instructed to do so by your God is good, even if you don't understand why.
> I said that perhaps it's that we don't understand now what's going on
> because we don't have all the info nor the necessary intellect and
> experience. Just like the child may be unable to understand why he is
> being denied things.
Certainly. Doesn't that argument lead towards the conclusion that everything
God commands is good? Or are you willing to admit that God may order people
to do evil things, and you have no way of knowing whether his orders are
good or evil?
I don't really see a fourth possibility:
1) Everything God orders you to do is good, including the things like
widespread genocide, infantcide, rape, even if you don't understand it.
This seems to imply that genocide, slavery, murder, human sacrifice,
etc is not necessarily immoral.
2) God may order you to do evil things, and you'd not know whether it's
evil or not. This means God sometimes wants you to do evil things at
his bequest, meaning he's not 100% good.
3) God may tell you to do something evil, and you know it's evil.
Conclusion: You probably shouldn't do it anyway, and if you do,
it's because you're afraid of the giant bully who will punish
you again forever for disobeying his evil instructions.
4) God is fictional.
Am I missing a possibility?
And (as an aside) if we can't understand why it's good or evil, why were
humans kicked out of the garden of eden after eating from the tree of
knowledge of good and evil and becoming like god in that respect? :-)
> Those well-known arguments have their answers, which atheists simply refuse
> to listen to, or consider in any way acceptable.
I've never really seen a reasonable answer to most questions. At some point,
one has to simply accept there are different premises at work, different
axioms, and no amount of rational argument will argue people out of
positions found via irrationality.
> Some of the questions are truely complex and difficult. However, most of
> the questions are trivial and have completely simple answers to them.
Yes, and usually that answer is "God is fictional." :-) I've looked at a
lot of these things, talked for tens of hours to deeply religious and highly
trained ministers and such, and I've never found an answer to these
questions that aren't trite.
> However, a bit like conspiracy theorists, they refuse to let go even of
> the most ridiculous questions.
Oh come on. You watch Ray Comfort convincing you God exists because the
banana is curved and changes colors when it ripens, and you think *atheists*
have ridiculous questions?
> (Often they also choose the most ridiculous and misguided answers out
> there, just to make fun of them and ridicule them. That is, to make straw
> men out of them.)
No, it's more like the most ridiculous and misguided answers are the most
dangerous. The people who are moderate don't get any time because there's no
need.
> Still doesn't say anything about the existence of God (which is the core
> point of the video).
Depends. Which God. Your God? Or the God of the people who think everything
in the bible is literally true?
>>> Of course you have to understand that it *is* a
>>> metaphor, and what it is trying to say. (Naturally different people may
>>> have different interpretations, which is why we have a myriad of different
>>> churches, branches, sects and whatnot.)
>
>> A myriad of different churches, branches, sects, explosions of airplanes,
>> murders of abortion doctors, and beheadings of apostates.
>
> Still not the point of the video.
Yes it is. It's just poorly expressed, probably due to time constraints.
>> Then you're not the type of person this video is addressed to. :-)
> Its straw men about what the bible is saying just bother me a lot.
It's really not. It's what many of the religious fanatics here actually
claim the bible says. You're taking your interpretation of the bible, and it
doesn't match up with what the video is arguing, because the video is
arguing with someone else's interpretation of the bible.
Given that every sect and really every person interprets the bible
differently, it's impossible to make a video arguing about the bible that
many people won't think is arguing against points not made in the bible.
If you think Genesis is a metaphor, then anyone arguing against a 6-day
creation is "attacking a straw-man." But then you go to places like the
Genesis Museum, or the Texas school board, trying to prevent biology
students from learning about evolution, and you realize it's not a straw
man; you're just already convinced.
> That's why I wrote them that open letter. (And in fact, I got a polite
> response from the website admin.)
Yep.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Personally, I don't think the government should have anything to do with
> marriage.
No, this wouldn't be right. If I'm hurt and unconscious, someone has to make
a decision about what to do. If I die without a will, someone has to make a
decision about who gets the money. There are bunches and bunches of
situations where your family is the "default" in cases where you can't make
the choice yourself.
People in my family get to drive my cars without paying different insurance.
I pay different taxes because I'm married, and my wife can collect my
savings and other government benefits when necessary. This sort of thing
*also* goes on all the time, even though arguably that could be a private
agreement. And even when it's a private matter, the religious raise hell
when a private corporation decides to (for example) insure gay couples even
when they're not required to by law.
As soon as you say "you have all the rights, we just won't *call* it
marriage", then you're opening up to discrimination, including lawsuits
where a law says "married couples" and it gets enforced as "but not civil
unions." "Separate but equal" has been shown to be a bad idea, and I'm
really kind of surprised that so many blacks here voted for it less than a
generation after it was applied to *them*.
> Its an entirely religious matter, and the Civil authorities
> should keep their hands off it.
I disagree. I think most of the people who aren't allowed to marry would be
happy to actually have all the rights and privileges of a religious marriage
without the religion.
> Then, if gay people wanted to get married, all they would have to do
> would be to find a church that allows them to.
And I would bet that the first thing that would happen is the religious
types would try to get that religion somehow declared improper.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Then have a quick-n-easy "Next of Kin" specification. Anything not
> covered by a will is left to your next of kin and, if they don't claim
> it, then it goes to the State.
Yeah. We call that "marriage", dude. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Probably me. I keep hearing stories about various religions being
> illegal and followers having been prosecuted for convening. It is hard
> to judge from here, and probably they were indeed trying to overthrow
> the government.
Apparently, religion is often used as a front. It's quite fine (or so I hear
from those living there) to practice Falong Gong or whatever it's called, as
long as you don't say "because you don't recognize our practice, we want to
overthrow you." Yet around San Diego, people pass out brochures about all
the abuses perpetrated against proponents of falong gong.
Of course, it's not like the chinese government never lies or propagandizes.
But from what I saw when I'm there, most people seem pretty happy with the
government, and it's the individual abuses that get blown out of proportion
here. Not unlike 98% of the cops in the USA are nice and polite and such,
and it's the 2% who beat the crap out of handcuffed suspects that makes the
news.
They don't have as much freedom. The government officials are still trying
to keep the country stable and prosperous. But from everything I hear,
they're actually working quite hard to keep the majority of chinese citizens
happy and healthy and prosperous. (Unlike, say, what I hear about Zimbabwe
and such.) The government just tries to keep people from disrupting the
government and throwing the whole country back into hundreds or warring
territories.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But that's petitio principii: They start with the *false* assumption that
> christianity or the bible teaches that God stops believers from divorcing
> each other. There is no such promise anywhere in the bible, nor is it the
> teaching of any mainstrean christian church.
Now, stop and ask yourself how do you know that? Isn't there anything in the
bible that can be interpreted as "God oversees marriage"?
The video isn't attacking the bible. It's attacking the interpretation of
the bible that includes "God has something to do with the appropriateness of
any given marriage". If you don't believe that, you're not the target
audience. It's not a straw man. It's just an argument you're not making.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-7-2009 22:45, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago?
>
> Yes. Often, actually.
>
>> With surprising results?
>
> Only surprising to the faithful.
>
>> Anyone can find that reference?
>
> Feel free. I certainly never saw it.
What I remember is something like this: divide a group of patients into
3. One group you let recover on their own. One you let pray for but
don't tell and one that knows that they are prayed for.
IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly worse*. I
don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that knew.
* this being regular research probably a cutoff value for P of .05 was
used. It is a well know fact that using this method one in twenty
results is wrong. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> """
>> Just because the same word, "slave", is used, doesn't automatically mean the
>> situations were comparable.
>> """
>> OK, so you're of the feeling that slavery *can* be good and moral.
>
> Assuming you understand what "slavery" means in the bible. It has little
> to do with the slavery that happened eg. in the US in the past.
OK. To me, slavery means "you work for this person, or whoever he tells you
to work for, and you have no choice and you may not leave." Note the Bible
also describes the way in which a slave owner owns the wife the slave
marries, as well as the children.
Me? I'll take that as universally unacceptable.
>> Now, how
>> about the genocide, rape and pillage attacks, and murder of thousands of
>> innocent babies? :-)
>
> How about death penalty in the US? Is it good and moral?
That logical fallacy is called "et tu." The morality of the US laws don't
have anything to do with whether killing every first born son in Egypt was
good or bad. How could it?
> I don't know your stance on that subject (and you don't have to answer),
> but moral codes are different for different people.
Hence, you're not the person the video is addressed to. Your God isn't the
one it's saying doesn't exist. You're worshiping some other God, one whose
morality isn't applicable to everyone in the world by definition.
> If God indeed created us, then he basically
> owns us, and can do whatever he wants with us.
I reject that premise.
Alternately, I accept it *IF* and *ONLY*IF* you leave it up to actual God to
be doing the whatever. If, on the other hand, you feel it's your job to
enforce God's will because God owns us, then you are evil and immoral. :-)
> Also, just because God has the right to do whatever he pleases, that
> doesn't mean *we* also have the right, without his express permission.
Ah, here, you see, we're sliding into evil.
"God created both me and you." OK, who cares.
"God therefore owns both me and you and can do whatever he wants."
OK, who cares.
"God has given me express permission to murder you."
OK, suddenly we're in trouble here.
Yet that's pretty much how the argument goes whenever religious rules get
enforced. If it actually was *GOD* punishing gay people or abortion doctors
or whatever, I don't think you'd actually *have* too many atheists about.
> The "murder of innocent babies" might sound horrible to you, but consider
> these two completely hypothetical situations (assuming God did indeed exist):
>
> 1) These babies are born to a depraved society where they may be raised
> to hate, rape and kill people. (Usually when the bible tells about the
> eradication of some people, it gives an indication of *why*.)
>
> 2) These babies go to heaven before seeing or learning anything bad, and
> are happy everafter.
>
> Maybe from your point of view situation #1 is preferable, but it might be
> plausible that God considers situation #2 even more preferable, or at least
> not that bad of an alternative.
OK, so your take is that the murder of innocent babies is sometimes good and
righteous. That's fine, but it's not a stance many people would take.
You're of the "it must be good, because God approves." Unfortunately, taken
to extremes, that turns into "it's Ok for me to do that, because God approves."
> And no, this still doesn't give anybody permission to murder anybody.
Would you murder someone, if God told you to? Sadly, there are enough
people here who do just that that we actually have to pass laws about it
specifically.
> No person can be the judge of who deserves to live.
Sure we can. Doctors and judges do it all the time, as do politicians and
soldiers.
> Do you have any estimate of how much of humanity's history has been lost
> forever? Written history is very fragile and gets destroyed very easily
> (by accidents, by deterioration and by vandalism).
There are *tons* of records from the same time period. Inventories from
stores, lists of party guests, real estate records, bank records, etc. If
you're interested, you should take a bit of a look around at resources and
find one of those that discusses the situation.
We have *lots* of records of Jesus' time.
> It's not completely implausible that only few records have survived.
It's not implausible. It's just not the case that only a few records have
survived.
> I don't want to badmouth the Catholic church here, but suffice to say
> that I don't agree with them, nor consider their intepretations of the
> bible completely correct.
Sure. But that doesn't make the argument a straw man. It just means you
already agree with the conclusion of the argument because you already
rejected the premise. The argument wouldn't be a straw man if addressed to
one of the outraged church members hiring armed guards to protect bread.
> It doesn't make any sense when it's presented as an argument that God is
> imaginary (rather than that some christians are crazy).
Except that you're not going to convince crazy Christians that their
interpretations are mistaken. You have to go with "OK, assume everything you
believe is true. Here's the reasonable consequence. Do you really want to
believe that consequence? If not, can you rationally explain why not?"
In my experience, the answer is "Yes, that's all true. Yes that's a
reasonable consequence. No I don't want to believe it. Therefore, it's not a
reasonable consequence." Which is why I tend not to have that sort of
argument any more.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly worse*. I
> don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that knew.
Oh, yes. By "surprising", I thought you meant the prayer actually helped,
which would be surprising to those doing the experiment.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If the muslims here were rioting and murdering in the name of Islam here,
>> I'm sure there would be videos of ten things intelligent muslims need to
>> address, too. :-)
>
> I don't think so. Muslims are rioting in Europe, yet it's forbidden to
> say anything bad about them.
That's why I said "here." Of course, there are some things out there that
talk about the evils of islam, calling it a pedophiliac religion and such.
But since it isn't the muslims *here* attacking the atheists where it's
still fortunately legal to criticize such attacks, you see fewer videos
about it.
> In Finland, for example, you can literally
> get jailed if you made such a video about islam. There have been concrete
> cases.
Why is that? Some bizarre reading of "human rights" or something?
> (Christianity, on the other hand, is completely free to be bashed.)
I find it hard to understand how to reconcile that, except maybe the way
that it's common to consider a white person being passed over in favor of a
black person "affirmative action" but the reverse being "discrimination."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Like you I noticed that devout christians sometimes change a lot when
> they study theology. Often the 'God' becomes more abstract and/or their
> believe becomes more personal or gnostic. That is not strange, but it
> may result in a gap with the 'lay-man'. I don't have a problem with
> that, but it may appear hypocritical in certain circumstances.
> As long as we take one another's religion serious and don't try to make
> fun of what differs from what we believe, there should not be a problem.
> This video fails pathetically in that respect.
Sigh.. Ok.. So, you want people to take seriously religions that smear
their gods so thin that their "order/church" becomes little more than a
title, since their god has been reduced to quantum interference
patterns? I can certainly tolerate such people a lot more, but taking it
seriously... And no one that is "serious" about the truth of their faith
is going to take those people as anything other than just what they are,
agnostics/atheists who still insist on holding on to some vague belief
in magic beans.
Fact is, the lay-man doesn't have a problem with such people, other than
their unfortunate tendency, when confronted with a problem, to circle
the wagons "around" the Indians (i.e., more radical and literalist
believers), in order to defend themselves against the settlers...
But, you are right in a sense, its "precisely" why the truly lost ones
claim everyone "other" than them is a non-believer. Because, its true,
in a sense. They are the only ones "holding on" to the idea that Thor
causes thunder, Poseidon didn't like the street festivals in New
Orleans, Ares is going to show up in 2012 bringing conquest, famine and
death with him (yeah, the white one is conquest, which is why he has a
Roman helmet and spear) and Ahriman still plans to plunge the world into
unending chaos, if Ahura Mazda wasn't around to being universal order
(even if they now insist on calling the later ones Satan and Jesus).
Like I said, there are no "deeper" issues. Anything internally tends to
be nitpicking over trivia, and anything they "claim" are huge issues
when talking to the outside world are the same silly BS Dawkins, et al,
point out are their only, and failed, arguments.
--
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 6-7-2009 0:09, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly worse*. I
>> don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that knew.
>
> Oh, yes. By "surprising", I thought you meant the prayer actually
> helped, which would be surprising to those doing the experiment.
>
Any change would be surprising to the non-believer. This has the
advantage that everybody is just as astonished.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 6-7-2009 0:09, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly worse*.
>>> I don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that knew.
>>
>> Oh, yes. By "surprising", I thought you meant the prayer actually
>> helped, which would be surprising to those doing the experiment.
>>
> Any change would be surprising to the non-believer. This has the
> advantage that everybody is just as astonished.
I had understood that the third group (unlike the others) were told they
were being prayed for. That's why there were three groups instead of two.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> As soon as you say "you have all the rights, we just won't *call* it
> marriage", then you're opening up to discrimination, including lawsuits
> where a law says "married couples" and it gets enforced as "but not
> civil unions." "Separate but equal" has been shown to be a bad idea,
> and I'm really kind of surprised that so many blacks here voted for it
> less than a generation after it was applied to *them*.
>
A black atheist recently stated in an article she wrote that this is the
one great tragedy of America. You can be a serial killer, rapist, child
molester, or just about anything else, and as long as you are
"religious" you will get more respect in black community than an atheist
who runs charities, helps the poor, works as a doctor, or anything else.
Confronted with horrible conditions and hardships while slaves, they
embraces the "promises" of their slaver's religion so completely that it
is no ingrained into the culture so deeply that anything can be excused,
as long as its "religious". Ask one of the descendants of slave owners
if they think religion is beneficial, they will tell you that they
*believe* it is. Ask someone growing up in the black communities that
rose out of the same nasty insanity and they will tell you that they
***know*** it is. The reason Prop 8 passed is because the wackos staged
it as an "religious" issue, and the black community fell for it, hook
line and sinker, so they voted for it, because anything defending
"religion" is right, no matter how fundamentally wrong it might have
seemed if presented in secular liberal terms instead. God is on their
side, in their minds, because he helped them through past tragedies, and
continues to help them through their present blind refusal to take
control of their own lives and rise out of the ghetto. Its a self
perpetuating mess. Insist that everyone else is stacking the deck
against you, like always, turn to god to solace in your time of
tribulation, fail to do anything that "solves" the problems, including
the things you "should do", which is reject people that claim religion,
but commit crimes (after all, they do so because of the oppression and
inequity, not because they are not good believers), and when things
don't get better, go back to step one.
Its ironic, the priests proved to be better slavers than the people
buying and selling slaves (then again, they have had centuries more
practice).
--
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 6-7-2009 0:28, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 6-7-2009 0:09, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly worse*.
>>>> I don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that knew.
>>>
>>> Oh, yes. By "surprising", I thought you meant the prayer actually
>>> helped, which would be surprising to those doing the experiment.
>>>
>> Any change would be surprising to the non-believer. This has the
>> advantage that everybody is just as astonished.
>
> I had understood that the third group (unlike the others) were told they
> were being prayed for. That's why there were three groups instead of two.
And a possible explanation would be that they would think somebody else
would help them so they could devote energy to other things than
recovering. Still most probably a fluke.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:53:38 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> Many religious people are tolerant. A majority of them around here are
>> *not*.
>
> A majority of voters, which may not be the same, but I can see why you
> are angry.
One of the largest financial contributors (if not the single largest
contributor) to the pro-Proposition 8 vote was the LDS Church and its
membership.
Q.E.D.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> "Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
>>> Because God is imaginary."
>>>
>>> That answer is a complete non-sequitur.
>
>> Sorry, but you can not judge a video by what you decide is it's main
>> point. Nor is it your prerogative to decide for me what I should
>> consider the most important points.
>> About that quote: It *is* a non-sequitur and therefore I dismissed it as
>> of being of no value and I won't discuss any such nonsense that is not
>> defended by anyone here.
>
> I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you saying that yes,
> there is a flaw in the video, but that I shouldn't judge it for that flaw?
>
How about, judging the entire thing based on only its flaws is as bad as
what you accuse it of doing, by having any in the first place? All such
lists are flawed, because there will be people stating that a) well it
doesn't apply to the ones "I" consider to belong to the group it talks
about, b) such and such group doesn't include X idea, and I don't
imagine Y or Z does either (which just shows a lack of imagination imho
lol), or c) it really is, in this one case, a bad argument, whether the
rest is sort of accurate or not. So... point out where its inaccurate
and be "specific" about who its inaccurate about. Don't presume that
because you find it inaccurate that its "not" accurate for the group
"they" where talking about, even as a general example of the sort of
issues that crop up.
That said.. Highest divorce rates, child abuse rates, incest, etc.
always seem to be in states that are high religion, and
literalist/dominionist/creationist at that, and the only thing that has
changed in that particular statistic is the accuracy of the "collection"
of such data. Sure, at one time it was probably less likely that people
divorced, but "in general", this seemed to happen a lot more with the
highly religious people than the more wishy washy ones. Two obvious
reasons this may be the case is a) the inflexibility of relationships in
such households, which means a greater odds of conflicts, and b) a much
more strict idea about the rules on when, how, and what you do before,
marriage, which can result in them having no clue when they do it, if
they are compatible in the first place (in any respect, including the bed).
In other words, the deck is stacked "against" them having stable social
relationships, and the only thing the prevalence of divorces indicated
is a recognition that its not worth living in such incompatible
conditions. Mind, they also have the highest rate of "actual" cheaters
too, probably do to the same social issues.
Ah, you might wonder why I say "actual" cheaters... This stems from
something I never put into words myself, but which someone else did at
one point. They where describing how they reached the conclusion of why
"some" situations caused jealousy and some didn't, including one case of
attending an orgy. The conclusion they reached was that it was about
self respect and inclusion. Attending the orgy was a "mutual" choice,
with both parties talking about the situation, knowing what was going to
happen, and accepting that it would, because they "both" decided it was
something they wanted together. A later situation was the exact
opposite. Her boy friend simply cheated, without talking about it at
all, with someone she didn't know about, when she thought he was doing
something else. That later case she had to wonder a) why he didn't feel
the need to consult her at all, b) why she wasn't good enough to consult
about it, never mind good enough period, and c) what else (or who else)
he might have done behind her back without her being even talked to
about it.
Its kind of an interesting look at the reality of what the word means.
And, the fact that she could switch from, "This is no big deal.", in any
number of cases she "knew" what was going on, and agreed with it, to
absolute rage in the ones she didn't, didn't make sense to her, until
she took a look at "why" the situations where different.
That said, people who think sleeping outside marriage is absolutely
wrong, like the highly religious, are a) not going to tell/consult their
partner when they do it, b) going to do it anyway, and c) going to do
everything they can to hide that its happening. This can "only" lead to
jealousy and rage, but.. for the very reason they hide it from the
spouse, they can't avoid the backlash resulting "from" it. The opted to
exclude their partner from the choice, "knowing" that they not only
wouldn't approve, but that that they wouldn't respect their partners
refusal, even if they "did" consult them. And, that.. right there shows
a lack of real commitment/respect to their partner in the first place.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Then have a quick-n-easy "Next of Kin" specification. Anything not
>> covered by a will is left to your next of kin and, if they don't claim
>> it, then it goes to the State.
>
> Yeah. We call that "marriage", dude. :-)
>
Marriage has a number of things associated with it that don't make it
ideal for this purpose. For one thing, the religious ideas that
accompany the word, which in effect limit who you can designate.
A designation of your heir shouldn't be limited by religious constraints
like that.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I disagree. I think most of the people who aren't allowed to marry would
> be happy to actually have all the rights and privileges of a religious
> marriage without the religion.
Then don't you think the two institutions should be separate, if there
is a significant demand for one without the other?
>
>> Then, if gay people wanted to get married, all they would have to do
>> would be to find a church that allows them to.
>
> And I would bet that the first thing that would happen is the religious
> types would try to get that religion somehow declared improper.
Yes, but we at least have a couple hundred years dealing with unpopular
religions. The issue of a religion not being popular but still being
protected from persecution has been mostly sorted out.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> One of the largest financial contributors (if not the single largest
> contributor) to the pro-Proposition 8 vote was the LDS Church and its
> membership.
Its membership, not the Church itself. As a rule the Church itself
stays out of politics, other than to say "Follow your conscience."
In fact, just about every election the leaders are asked to read a
statement to the congregations reminding them that
1) The Church does not tell you how to vote.
2) Church facilities may not be used for political purposes
3) The Church does not endorse any specific individual OR piece of
legislation
4) You should vote.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If the muslims here were rioting and murdering in the name of Islam here,
>> I'm sure there would be videos of ten things intelligent muslims need to
>> address, too. :-)
>
> I don't think so. Muslims are rioting in Europe, yet it's forbidden to
> say anything bad about them. In Finland, for example, you can literally
> get jailed if you made such a video about islam. There have been concrete
> cases. (Christianity, on the other hand, is completely free to be bashed.)
>
And, when ever you do, some of them write you a nasty fatwa envy letter,
which basically states, "Man, its a good thing I am not one of those
Muslims, because if I was, you couldn't get away with this, and you
might just end up dead. But, this isn't a death threat, because as much
as I would love to kill you, and do it myself, Christians don't make
such threats, only Muslims do."
Some people are a bit too freaked by Islam in Europe right now, and just
like Christians, the moderate Muslims won't fracking stop supporting the
radical ones by proxy of not doing anything "about" the radical ones at
all. The only difference seems to be that Christians want to legislate
you to death, while Islam has less respect for civilization, and figures
that just blowing you up, along with the local super market, is much
easier than passing stupid laws, arresting you for blasphemy, then
jailing you, thus leaving the infrastructure intact. The same poisonous
hate and insanity exists in both, and even to some extent in the Jewish
faith, though in even smaller numbers than among Christians, but "all of
them", have 80% of the rest of the followers pointing fingers at, and
babbling about "intolerance" every time someone "outside" does what they
usually won't in anything like real numbers, and appose the stupidities.
This whole argument is an example of such. The video implies "everyone"
in some category share some traits, when they don't. It attacks the true
crazies, but the moderates get pissed that it makes the whole edifice
look bad, and so one. Well... tough fracking shit. You're holding the
wrong end to of damn stick. If you don't like what the video implies
about the "whole", then stop trying to argue that atheists and others
are poking the wrong caged animal, grab a stick yourself, and beat the
idiots that "are" the problem senseless, with us. So long as all your
effort goes into trying to take the stick away, because poking at the
cage looks bad, and we just "can't have that", all you are doing is
emboldening the rabies infested critters we are trying to distract with
the stick, and pissing off the people with the courage to at least "try"
to get it to stop biting random people, and infection more with the same
poisons in the process.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Marriage has a number of things associated with it that don't make it
> ideal for this purpose. For one thing, the religious ideas that
> accompany the word, which in effect limit who you can designate.
You're assuming to start with that marriage has something to do with
religion, then saying "we shouldn't have marriage because it has something
to do with religion." You are, in short, begging the question.
> A designation of your heir shouldn't be limited by religious constraints
> like that.
It's not. There's no religious constraint on my marriage. I didn't have a
religious marriage. Yet my *default* heir would still be my wife, and I'd
still need to have her agree if I changed her to not be my heir.
When someone gets hurt in an accident, who should the doctor allow to visit?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> Wow. I am really naive. But what does it all mean?
>
> Actually, I have never 'gotten' Steven Colbert. For me the absurdist
> vein to his humor undercuts the sactimony, satirical or otherwise.
Yeah, they make a brief mention of conservapedia on that page,
mentioning "numerous" examples there. The problem is, within 24 hours of
the site going live and people finding out about it, anything from
50%-100% of the pages posted to it where ***all*** spoofs, written by
atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like, as a reaction to the insane
BS already one their, in order to see what sort of ludicrous BS would
survive. My guess, though without some parallel site tracking who did
what, its not possible to know for sure, is that at least 50%-80% of the
stuff "still on there" is things that the site owner couldn't tell where
fake either, due to his own insanity, so left, more or less unedited.
The Mt Ararat volcanoes stuff is just the tip of the iceberg.
Someone once stated that they had posted something on a blog some place
involving, I don't remember what, but like space aliens, the polar ice
cap and Jesus being Elvis, or some insane BS, and had someone else point
out to him, within less than an hour, a web site run by some cult or
other, who "actually" believed it already, and had made an almost word
for word identical argument, **and not as a joke, but as a serious
statement of belief**.
When you are dealing with people that are so crazy that they might
imagine that Peter Pan was a documentary and Never Never Land is heaven,
but they way to get there is by capturing a pixie (and I am sure someone
someplace makes this argument), almost "anything" else you could come up
with, no matter how vaguely rational you make it, in an attempt to make
it sound 'somewhat' plausible, as part of a joke, is going to be accused
of being "real", instead of a Poe. And, almost any position held by
"real" people in the world will be accused of being a Poe, even if they
are 100% serious.
Its like living in a world based on the movie Baron Münchhausen. The
only thing more ridiculous than the silly BS the main character "makes
up", is the actually reality of what is taking place.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The reason Prop 8 passed is because the wackos staged
> it as an "religious" issue,
It *is* a religious issue. There's no secular reason to care about the
gender of who gets married. It even helps the economy, so I've read.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I disagree. I think most of the people who aren't allowed to marry
>> would be happy to actually have all the rights and privileges of a
>> religious marriage without the religion.
>
> Then don't you think the two institutions should be separate, if there
> is a significant demand for one without the other?
Well, yes. That's why we have religious marriages and secular marriages.
I'm not sure why a "religion" has anything to do with contractual
obligations of the state and its regulated service providers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Its membership, not the Church itself.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html
> 1) The Church does not tell you how to vote.
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_84a8a9bf-6851-56a1-8c36-f170e8cd9f13.html
"""
In June, California church authorities read a statement from Salt Lake City
leaders over the pulpit that church members "do all [they] can to support
the proposed constitutional amendment."
"""
And, really, if bunches of mormons voted for it, even tho the church leaders
didn't explicitly say to, don't you think maybe it was the teachings of the
mormon church that caused it?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The reason Prop 8 passed is because the wackos staged it as an
>> "religious" issue,
>
> It *is* a religious issue. There's no secular reason to care about the
> gender of who gets married. It even helps the economy, so I've read.
>
Yeah. Of course, but my point is, they know "exactly" how to distort the
arguments, so that the only thing most of the "believers" heard was
those issues, not the secular matters. Or, to put it another way, they
got a face full of, "Our definition of marriage is being threatened, and
**nothing else is at issue**". If they had honestly been defending
marriage they would have fought for a bill to adjust the definition, not
ban what is 99% secular legal issues, and 1% religious ritual. The
problem is, the argument to the black community was, "They are attacking
tradition", when outside of that community, and those others that they
"knew" where going to see the religious argument, the same people where
talking about property ownership, patient rights, kin rights, etc.
It was shell game. So, yeah, it was religious, but only in the sense
that, for the people pushing the idea, ***everything*** is religious,
and they knew that the otherwise liberal voting black community would
fall for that argument, without bothering to consider any other issue.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That said, people who think sleeping outside marriage is absolutely
> wrong, like the highly religious, are a) not going to tell/consult their
> partner when they do it, b) going to do it anyway, and c) going to do
> everything they can to hide that its happening.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090702.gif
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 6-7-2009 0:28, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 6-7-2009 0:09, Darren New wrote:
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> IIRC One of the groups that was prayed for did significantly
>>>>> worse*. I don't remember exactly which one, I think the group that
>>>>> knew.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, yes. By "surprising", I thought you meant the prayer actually
>>>> helped, which would be surprising to those doing the experiment.
>>>>
>>> Any change would be surprising to the non-believer. This has the
>>> advantage that everybody is just as astonished.
>>
>> I had understood that the third group (unlike the others) were told
>> they were being prayed for. That's why there were three groups instead
>> of two.
>
> And a possible explanation would be that they would think somebody else
> would help them so they could devote energy to other things than
> recovering. Still most probably a fluke.
Certainly that would be my first guess. :-) Or disappointment that they
weren't getting better faster.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> One of the largest financial contributors (if not the single largest
>> contributor) to the pro-Proposition 8 vote was the LDS Church and its
>> membership.
>
> Its membership, not the Church itself. As a rule the Church itself
> stays out of politics, other than to say "Follow your conscience."
>
> In fact, just about every election the leaders are asked to read a
> statement to the congregations reminding them that
>
> 1) The Church does not tell you how to vote.
> 2) Church facilities may not be used for political purposes
> 3) The Church does not endorse any specific individual OR piece of
> legislation
> 4) You should vote.
>
That's a bit like arguing that a union didn't take an official stand on
an issue, but its "members" voted to go on strike....
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Some people are a bit too freaked by Islam in Europe right now, and just
> like Christians, the moderate Muslims won't fracking stop supporting the
> radical ones by proxy of not doing anything "about" the radical ones at
> all.
I'm not sure what the average "regular" Christian or Muslim could do about
the radical ones. Normal Christians don't "do" anything about Fred Phelps
either.
I think the problem is more what the leaders of the religion are saying. If
the pope was out there advocating suicide bombers, I think there would be a
better case against Catholics than there is now.
> The only difference seems to be that Christians want to legislate
> you to death, while Islam has less respect for civilization,
I disagree. Islam very easily legislates you to death quite literally, where
Islam is the primary religion of the country. The whole "Sharia Law" thing
is Islam, you know. :-)
Christians mostly legislate you because you're not radical enough for death
threads. Muslims legislate you where they can, and blow you up where they
have no valid political authority. Christians murder you where they have no
valid politcal authority to otherwise do so. And the fringe-moderates
(Limbaugh, for example?) support it.
> are poking the wrong caged animal, grab a stick yourself, and beat the
Good rant! :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
