|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
23rd May 2018, 11:01 AM | #121 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Mate, first of all, nobody is saying that the Pope should have invaded Germany. Yeah, no, we're not proposing the northern crusades all over again.
But it COULD, you know, show some moral integrity and backbone, and not give international support to a monster, a month after he introduces racial discrimination and an eugenics program. Second, whatever Britain believed in 1938, the situation was very different in 1933. You know, the year when they signed the Concordat. Germany still had a 100,000 soldier army, no tanks, and no airforce to speak of. It wouldn't in fact even have the capability of making any tanks until 1934. In 1933, Germany was less of a military threat to anyone than Finland, simply put. The Vatican or anyone else didn't need much of an army to ignore Germany at that point. In fact, the Vatican didn't even need any army AT ALL to oppose Hitler in 1933, since he had no way to get even that tiny army there. But what do they do instead? Yeah, give him props internationally instead, if he only guarantees their privileges in Germany. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
23rd May 2018, 02:02 PM | #122 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
So you dismiss Dawkins as one of those who doesn't speak respectfully enough about theists beliefs then I take it? In the movie "Religulous" Bill Mayer came across one guy, who got in a huff and walked out when his beliefs were questioned in a less than respectful manner, but other theists interviewed did not react in this manner. Perhaps you are a little to sensitive, on behalf of theists, on this matter? What is this tosh about homosexuals and my belief about how religious people should view them? Did I say anything about this ....... we are getting a little desperate in our attempts to score points here aren't we? |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
23rd May 2018, 10:13 PM | #123 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
Oh yes, Bill Maher is another paragon of respectful discourse and the sharing of ideas, isn't he?
It's called applying your argument to a different situation in order to illustrate a point. You're totally in favour of atheists using disrespectful and insulting language to describe religion, so why aren't you totally in favour of religious people using disrespectful and insulting language to describe homosexuality? What about men using disrespectful and insulting language to describe women? Why is it okay for you to use that kind of language when you're talking about religion, but it's not okay for anyone else to use that kind of language when they're talking about sexuality or gender? Is that not a double standard? The point I am trying to make - the only point I have ever tried to make in our so-familiar exchanges over the last couple of years - is that there is no call to use disrespectful and insulting language at all, and that as rational people we should be capable of making arguments without resorting to insults. I'm not asking you to bend over backwards to accommodate religious people, I'm just asking you to not insult religious people every time you talk about religion. It's childish and unnecessary. |
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
24th May 2018, 01:00 AM | #124 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
It seems to me like there's a key difference there, innit? Homosexuality isn't a personal belief, and you can't stop being gay by just stopping believing you're gay. Homosexuality also isn't the product of counter-factual beliefs, but just something you are, like the colour of your hair. I'm also not aware of gays trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives, or convert others to being gay. Well, not after ancient Greece, anyway. Etc.
Meanwhile for example Xianity involves literally believing in a conspiracy theory. Matthew 28:11-15 about Jesus's resurrection: While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.So, anyway, it seems to me like the two aren't even remotely comparable. Wake me up when the gays start telling people that they must suck dick on Friday or the invisible giant cosmic dick will get them in the ass. Or when I can't go shopping on Sundays because it's the day of the giant cosmic dick. THEN we can treat them like a religion too. Or if you want a more logically rigorous version, try this: what you're doing is an argument by analogy. And an argument by analogy only has any value in as much as there is a property or truth A in both X and Y, which are argued to be analogous, which then leads to the same or similar conclusion C, via an A => C. The argument falls apart when actually the shared property actually isn't the same, or isn't relevant to the conclusion. In your case what your analogy actually involves, is the fallacy of four terms, no matter how you want to choose the relevant attributes, because there are different attributes that homosexuality and woowoo beliefs have, that make people treat them differently. You end up with: P1: Homosexuality is X. P2: Religion is Y. Therefore C: we should treat them with equal respect. Uh, no. As long as the underlying syllogism has 4 terms ("homosexuality", "religion", X and Y) it can't validly lead to ANY conclusion at all. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th May 2018, 01:07 AM | #125 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
Doesn't that example demonstrate that believing in the literal truth of Matthew 28:11-15 involves literally believing in a conspiracy theory? I think you'd be hard-pressed to establish that every single Christian on the face of the planet believes in the literal truth of Matthew 28:11-15. I'd wager that a large number, perhaps even a majority, haven't ever even read it.
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
24th May 2018, 01:16 AM | #126 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
You'd think they would have had the resurrection of Jesus read to them at least at Easter, wouldn't you?
But no matter, that still brings me to another logical problem of most Xians: namely proclaiming something to be true, without having the foggiest about what that is. That actually goes one step beyond believing nonsense, as brainfarts go. At least someone who says that they believe the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, knows WTH the proposition X is that they proclaim to be true. They may be wrong, they may be using bad logic, but at least they know WTH the claim is that they're making. Most Xians, even devout Xians who go to a bible studies course (e.g., listen to Bart Ehrman talk about what happens when he asks his students who's actually read the bible,) proclaim belief in stuff that, as you say, haven't even read or heard about. I mean, imagine if I came and said that that the Truthers are right, but I have no idea what the Truthers actually claim. But it must be the truth, 'cause they say so, and look, it's even in the movement title. Wouldn't you say that it's actually one step MORE stonking stupid than the usual run-of-the-mill CT belief? I mean, WTH, far from being an excuse, it seems to me like actually MORE stupid. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th May 2018, 01:33 AM | #127 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
I think most people believe stuff that they don't know a lot about and haven't really thought about. I mean, you seem to have believed what you just posted about Matthew 28:11-15 without having thought much about it beforehand.
The difference between actual sceptics and others in this regard is that when presented with contrary evidence sceptics say "hmm, that's interesting, I'd not really thought about it before". |
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
24th May 2018, 01:52 AM | #128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Hmm? Given that I've been posting about the bible for literally 10 yeas even just on this forum, including the occasional dive into what it's like in Greek or Hebrew, whatever gives you the idea that I haven't thought about Matthew 28 before? Or for that matter that I'd POST some claim without thinking what it means?
|
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th May 2018, 02:21 AM | #129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
I think that you've not given the matter of whether or not all Christians have read and believe in the literal truth of Matthew 28:11-15 that much thought because in the space of a quarter of an hour and after reading just one short post you went from asserting the truth of that proposition to asserting how the fact that it's not true is worse than it being true would be.
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
24th May 2018, 03:32 AM | #130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
You'll find that I had been posting the same as in post #126 several years ago even on this forum. Not sure what gave you the idea that it's something new, or a change of opinion. In fact I've been believing all along that Xianity has BOTH faults at the same time, and a bunch more at that.
But back to the CT, I think what's confusing you is your own assumption about "all Xians know and believe Matthew 28:11-15." I never actually said that myself. Regardless, virtually all apologetics I've seen involve some degree of CT, whether or not it's quoting Matthe 28, which was just an example. Try to get someone to explain for example why you should believe John's gospel, which is longer after the fact than was the life expectancy of somone BORN at the time of the crucifixion, much less someone old enough to testify about it, and watch them invent LOTS of witnesses going aground, and which would have prevented the gospel writers from making up BS. Then ask them why didn't the Jews convert if they had so many witnesses of this miraculous preacher, and watch exactly a CT unfold. They may be making one up on the spot, instead of quoting Matthew (or realiting the fact that it's made worse by Luke: put the two together and you have people even preferring to be executed by Pilate than betray the conspiracy), but it's a literal conspiracy theory anyway. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th May 2018, 03:49 AM | #131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
I didn't say you hadn't. I said that you'd not given much thought to your assertion that being a Christian necessarily involved believing in the literal truth of Matthew 28:11-15.
Quote:
That in the next post you agreed that not all "Xians" do know it and/or believe it to be true is indicative of a lack of thought put in to the original claim. Which is fine, as I said. We all do it. What's important in terms of critical thinking is how you react to having it pointed out. |
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
24th May 2018, 04:11 AM | #132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
You'll notice that I was talking about Xianity. I never mentioned individual Xians. So I'm still not sure what the issue is. Is there some Xian denomination or sect that believes Matthew's account of the resurrection to be false?
It seems to me like the issue you're trying to raise is that most self-proclaimed Xians don't really know what Xianity involves. Which is true too. And is what prompted my answer in #126. But if you prefer, I can also answer it as: so what? Most self-proclaimed proponents or adherents of a movement/school/theory aren't anywhere near experts in what it actually says. Maybe not as ridiculously clueless as Xians about Xianity, but nevertheless, the basic principle is there. But that doesn't change what that movement/school/theory actually says. Why would you expect me to think it's any different for Xianity and Xians? Essentially it seems to me like the your objection is perfectly analogous to the following: "Evolution theory says that literally all insects evolved from Rhyniognatha." "Yeah, but most proponents of evolution never heard of the Rhyniognatha." |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th May 2018, 07:43 AM | #133 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
24th May 2018, 08:37 AM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
I think every church or denomination decides on its own particular doctrine, innit? And the vast majority of them would be perfectly happy to agree with me that what most Xians believe isn't the REAL Xianity
|
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th May 2018, 08:53 AM | #135 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
24th May 2018, 09:06 AM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Depends on the church, I guess? I mean, for the Catholics, you could be officially excommunicated for sacrificing babies to Satan, and they'd still count you as a Christian and in fact a Catholic. A very bad Catholic, but still a Catholic
BTW, I'm dead serious there. The official doctrine is that basically even excommunication is really just a reminder to get your crap together, but does not mean they actually kicked you out of the church or that you stopped being a Christian or in fact a Catholic. So, yeah, once you've been dipped into the magical water, that crap is sticky. It ain't coming off, no matter what you believe And again, I'm very serious. Just stuff you do or believe that aren't compatible with being an Xian, can at most earn you what's called an automatic excommunication. BUT unless you or the group doing it were actually explicitly mentioned in an explicit excommunication, the automatic excommunication doesn't really mean anything. Even if the priest knows you've done or said stuff that would earn an automatic excommunication, he can't refuse you sacrament or anything, unless he can file you under an explicit excommunication. He could see you all week in front of the church distributing pamphlets that God doesn't exist, and Mary is only a virgin if you don't count anal, but unless he finds an explicit excommunication to file you under, you're still a Christian and a Catholic, and you can get your Jesus-flavoured chips on Sunday. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th May 2018, 09:42 AM | #137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
Okay, so by what measure is the "Xanity" you were speaking of different to what individual "Xians" may or may not know about or believe? In what way can someone be a "Xian" while not holding one of the beliefs that "Xianity involves"? If "Xianity" does not describe everybody who is a "Xian", then what is the definition of "Xian"? How can you determine who is and who is not a "Xian", and how can you determine which of those people are followers of "Xianity"?
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
24th May 2018, 11:02 AM | #138 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Way I see it, you're a Xian if you profess to be one. Which, you'll note is already more restrictive than the RCC criteria
|
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
24th May 2018, 11:08 AM | #139 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
Can you answer the questions I asked?
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
24th May 2018, 12:37 PM | #140 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,617
|
Good question.
What is a scientific fact? It is an observer-independent observation that gives the same results regardless of who is doing the observing. No QM objections apply, as the sense here is that there are no privileged observers, which, in passing, serves to do away with the arguments of the "pseudos" you mention. Opinions are not observations, a distinction which in turn serves to do away with the ideologues, who think descriptive "is" and opinionated "should" are the exact same thing. Oopsie. Example: Drop a stone. It falls to the Earth. No exceptions for all observers. Any laws are self-enforcing, as they only involve the regular working of Nature. What is a religious fact? It is an observer-dependent speculation. There are no observations that can be reliably measured or repeated independently for confirmation. Example: Put laws on a stone. Then find out there are many others with their own stones, no stones, or who love throwing stones. No self-enforcing laws, inviting use of force. Chaos. Anti-science is the refusal to acknowledge valid and reliable observations that have been repeatedly made by independent observers, placing speculation, "should," and/or mere personal preference in a higher position of factual authority. From there, straight downhill to madness and oppression, one shocking lesson after another, throughout recorded history. |
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
24th May 2018, 01:24 PM | #141 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
There you go, just dismiss Bill Mayer as another paragon of ...... and ignore the substance of what I wrote about the movie. Bill interviewed a number of the religious and questioned their illogical beliefs but apart from that one dude I mentioned they did not get offended.
Quote:
This analogy you have given is so pathetic and off the mark it should be written into text books. We are talking about beliefs here not people. If your analogy was about silly beliefs that homosexuals or women had it would be closer to the mark. Childish? Boy that is saying something! |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
24th May 2018, 03:08 PM | #142 |
Disorder of Kilopi
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 17,617
|
Restating prior general point for today:
Anti-science is the refusal to acknowledge valid and reliable observations (hereinafter, "the facts," "what is the case," or in poor shorthand, "the truth" or "reality") that have been repeatedly made by independent observers, placing speculation, "should," and/or mere personal preference (hereinafter, "fake results," "fake news," "delusion," or "motivated reasoning") in a higher position of factual authority. From there, straight downhill to madness and oppression, one shocking lesson after another, throughout recorded history. /FTFM. |
__________________
"His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks." - Da Joik |
|
24th May 2018, 03:12 PM | #143 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
24th May 2018, 09:59 PM | #144 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
25th May 2018, 12:53 AM | #145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
I'm perfectly happy to consider a different argument.
But let's go one step beyond and look at the essence of what you seem to be doing twice: it seems to me like you're saying that basically the shared property for that analogy is that they're different. So essentially we shouldn't disrespect people because they're different. Well, actually the problem there is: different how? I will propose the idea that some forms of being different deserve being disrespected. Trivial example, Intelligent Design is different from scientific explanations of evolution, but the difference is that it's stonking stupid. I can disrespect that. Trivial example, trying to treat cancer with coffee enemas is certainly different, but again it's stupid. I have no problems with calling it stupid. And I can make that work for hairstyles too. If someone just has a punk purple mohawk, sure, it doesn't really affect anyone else or make any objectionable statement, so I have no problem with them. Sure, if that's what you want on your head, go for it. But if someone shaves a Nazi crooked cross on their head, I equally have no problem with finding that objectionable and stupid. And if they then go and act all persecuted when other people don't want to talk to them, then I'll find them even more stupid. Does that answer the analogy? |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
25th May 2018, 01:47 AM | #146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
I'll take that as a "no" on being able to answer the questions I asked, then.
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
25th May 2018, 01:52 AM | #147 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Patience, grasshopper. Believe it or not, I have a finite amount of time, and frankly playing the "define every single word" game was not very high on my list of priorities. It's not like I was talking about stuff like 'the effect of quantum-loop gravity on the Bose-Einstein condensate in a gravastar', where you might actually need every word to be explained. I must confess I was kinda expecting that you'd been at least vaguely exposed to the notion of Xianity or Xians so far. But I guess I forgot some people might be from Asia or something.
|
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
25th May 2018, 02:25 AM | #148 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
I have. Christianity, as far as I'm concerned, is that which is believed by Christians. You, on the other hand, appear to define it differently in a manner that means you can be a Christian while not believing something that is a fundamental belief of Christianity.
It's not unreasonable to want to understand how you define those terms. And, if you truly have thought this position through as much as you claim to have done, then none of the questions I've asked should be at all hard or time-consuming to answer. |
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
25th May 2018, 03:33 AM | #149 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Mate, to put things into context, I'm just in the midle of my lunch break, and I have to eat too. And I have to think about the meeting afterwards too. I'm not saying it's a monumental effort to answer your question, but I also think it's unreasonable to act like there's some final countdown. I really have a finite amount of time, and I have to prioritize what I can squeeze in it and what can wait for the evening. Playing a "define every single word" game has just not been very high on my list of priorities.
|
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
25th May 2018, 04:40 AM | #150 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
You've made at least one lengthy reply to me since I first asked the question of how the terms would be defined. That you've consistently used those replies to avoid answering the questions I've asked rather than answering the ones that I have asked is on you, not me.
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
25th May 2018, 05:04 AM | #151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Frankly, because you're more annoying with pretending it's some timed exam instead of a frikken forum, so that moved up my priority list to address. I don't know what delusions of self-importance you may be having, but you can save the stupid impatience act for when I've not answered for a couple of days, not when essentially you're making a fuss that answering your dictionary games are not what I chose to squeeze between breakfast and going to work.
Or that I chose to hurriedly type two lines before a meeting to say I'll get to you later, instead of getting immediately back to your stupid word games. Frankly, get a clue. You're not the only thing in my life. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
25th May 2018, 05:19 AM | #152 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
That said, now that I have the time, here's the problem with defining ANYTHING as "X is what group Y believe". It ends up meaning nothing, because unless that group is 2-3 people, everyone will disagree about one bit or another of what it means.
E.g., if you want to define, say, "libertarianism" as "what libertarians believe", you'll find that then it doesn't mean anything except "I should be allowed to smoke pot", because most haven't thought about it past that point. You'll find "libertarians" who want the government to strictly control gun ownership or to forbid companies to hire from abroad, and FSM knows that would make Ayn Rand spin in her grave like a turbine. Ditto for Christians and Christianity. If you define Christianity as what ALL Christians believe, you end up with Christianity meaning nothing at all. You'll find self-proclaimed Christians who don't even really believe that Jesus resurrected, but just that he was some sort of prophet. (Mom, for example.) There is hardly any common denominator for them all, except maybe something trivial like "there once was a guy called Jesus, and he may or may not have said any of the smart stuff that the Gospels claim." So how would I properly define Xianity, so it means something usable at all? Well, along the lines of "An umbrella term for a whole class of beliefs, generally centered along the idea that you're granted eternal life via the sacrifice of a saviour, i.e., Christ. BUT each individual school or sect under the umbrella term also has its own very specific claims and doctrines, and claims very specific books as being factually true accounts." What is a Xian? Someone who professes to follow one of the above-mentioned schools of Xianity. Regardless of whether they actually know what they're following or not. (Usually: not.) How can one be an Xian without following all the beliefs that their particular flavour of Xianity claims to be true or even infallible? Well, apparently in the same way that one can claim to be a "libertarian" and ask for more government intervention. The fact is that, as I've said before, it's not even just individual Xians who don't seem to think that they're required to read and believe all that to be Xians. In fact even the biggest denomination (the RCC) doesn't actually require you to even believe anything whatsoever to count you as a Christian. In fact, according to the recent "anonymous Christian" doctrine of the RCC -- and yes, it's an official doctrine -- you could be born on some island and never even hear of Jesus or Christianity, and still be some kind of "anonymous christian" in that Jesus decides to work through you and save you, without your even knowing it. Or you could be ACTIVELY DENYING that Jesus even existed, and the same could apply. How does that work? Well, ask them not me. If even the Pope doesn't actually require you to believe any of it to count as a Xian, I don't know why you seem to think I MUST be more Catholic than the Pope about who really counts as a Xian |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
25th May 2018, 06:40 AM | #153 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
In Denmark we have had Christian priests that confessed they did not believe in God. However, they thought their work was useful, and their congregation wanted to keep them. Were they still Christians?
(When threatened with dismissal, one recanted and started "believing", and the other was sacked). |
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
25th May 2018, 08:43 AM | #154 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
|
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
25th May 2018, 02:18 PM | #155 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
Good post Hans . Mind you I would not have bothered and just pointed out that there are 40,000 or so different flavours of Christianity. So what does a Christian believe .... Obviously they must believe different stuff because otherwise why branch off? In his defence perhaps Squeegee is living in some remote village in South America and the Missionaries have just arrived. |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
25th May 2018, 02:40 PM | #156 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
Well most of the members of the Swedish Church don't believe in God. In Melbourne (Australia) the Swedish Church is a social meeting place. We, my heathen father included, used to go there once or twice a year. Has anyone here heard of John Selby Spong? He has been described as the Anglican Churches nightmare in the USA. https://www.christiancourier.com/art...ican-nightmare
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
25th May 2018, 04:04 PM | #157 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 7,144
|
|
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Justice William O. Douglas "Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures." Author Unknown |
|
25th May 2018, 06:06 PM | #158 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,573
|
"Christian" as defined as a follower of Christ. His kind of approach to Christianity isn't that uncommon - critical biblical scholarship. I think you might enjoy his lectures if you have the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZM3FXlLMug
|
__________________
"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel "A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler “When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb “A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer |
|
25th May 2018, 08:18 PM | #159 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
I was an atheist for my first 30 years, then a theist, then I called myself a "Liberal Christian" for a while, then I went back to just "theist". The thing is, my beliefs as a theist have never changed, even during the middle period while I called myself a "Liberal Christian". I never believed that Jesus was born of a virgin, was the literal Son of God, and not convinced that he was resurrected. The Gospel Jesus is certainly a myth. I used to post on a Christian Apologetics board and I mentioned all this, and asked if it was valid for me to post on the board as a "Liberal Christian", and the answer was 'yes'.
There are a lot of such liberal Christians around. Over the years I've received a lot more backlash from atheists on my beliefs -- they seem more keen to declare that I wasn't a true Christian -- than from Christians themselves. Then again, I don't spend any time on evangelical or fundamentalist boards, so that may be why. I finally dropped the label "Liberal Christian", since to me calling myself "Christian" without believing in the resurrection seems to go beyond the allowable meaning of the term. There were early Christians who thought that Jesus was just a man, the ordinary product of Mary and Joseph, thus no virgin birth; but all seem to have a notion of a resurrection, even if it was just spiritual. I offer the above not to support or refute any specific point in this thread, just to add my perspective. |
25th May 2018, 09:01 PM | #160 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,212
|
Thanks for taking the time to answer, but I still don't see anything there justifying insulting someone for their haircut. You can find a haircut objectionable and stupid if you like, but does that justify you going up to the bearer of the haircut and saying "hey, I find your haircut objectionable and stupid"? How would you react if someone told you that your haircut was objectionable and stupid? The analogy works better if you consider your haircut to be entirely reasonable, by the way.
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|