telling

[vision]

You're still welcome to have your own hand at refuting my points. If you're not interested, then your argument stands defeated.

Your point is unproven, and you look like a jackass from where I'm standing. If a person is dishonest enough they can justify anything with anything, but there are still others that know better. People have justified all kinds of terrible things using the Bible. That's not a commentary on the Bible unless it's in agreement with what's written in the Bible--if it isn't in agreement with the Bible it's a commentary on the people. (no true Scotsman fallacy right there, thank you. ~vision)

I've never seen such delusion. You guys are completely out of your skulls, but that's expected since you've believed this crap your whole lives. My points are proven, even though your faith prevents you from seeing it. Keep in mind you are talking to someone who at one time was studying to be a minister and I'm an atheist today because I actually read the Bible, from cover to cover, and found that unlike the myth that it is a comprehensive tome of God's word, it is, in fact, a bunch of nonsense no different than other religious mythologies (and rather boring and unpleasant compared to it's peers).

[Sergeant Thorne]

I'm not impressed, Vision. Not with your goal of being a "minister", your cover-to-cover, failed attempt to comprehend the Bible, your ridiculous equating of it to other religious texts, or your lame dismissal of my argument as an instance of the oft-referenced "no true scottsman" fallacy. I want the internet to know that given a little bit of time I could come up with a satisfactory definition for a "true scottsman". It might not satisfy the purpose of those folks arguing over it for the sake of the fallacy, but a true or essential definition exists. The Bible has a message--it's not always obvious, but it is there and it is a matter of recorded history that there have been people who have understood it more than others, and those people agree without having compared notes. The message is actually reinforced by the fact that at least the main tenants of scripture are found in 2 or 3 places. For anything else the Bible itself says that it is "line upon line, here a little and there a little", and wants guidance given freely to those who genuinely look for it, by the same God who spoke the words to begin with. That it defies most people's conception of reality is obvious. If you're going to set up any person's conception of reality against a book like the Bible, I'd say the Bible warrants a good hard look. Conception of reality is highly malleable and fraught with inconsistency and contradiction. I say this mostly for the consideration of anyone following along, because I consider vision to be beyond reason in his extreme intolerance for the "Christianity" which he once owed something to. I'm in my 30s now, and through ups and downs I still hold the Bible to be true not because it always agrees with my expectations or my sensibilities, but because I can't honestly accuse any part which touches on my own experience to be untrue. Inconvenient, unpleasant, maybe even a negative outcome from a certain perspective, depending upon my trajectory in life, but never untrue. What are we if we do not hold truth higher than preference? Where will we find ourselves if we fail to hold truth above all else and yet attempt to wield it?

[vision]

The Upanishads has a message--it's not always obvious, but it is there and it is a matter of recorded history that there have been people who have understood it more than others, and those people agree without having compared notes. The message is actually reinforced by the fact that at least the main tenants of scripture are found in 2 or 3 places. For anything else the Upanishads itself says that "All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman", and wants guidance given freely to those who genuinely look for it, by the same Brahman who spoke the words to begin with. That Anekantavada defies most people's conception of reality is obvious. If you're going to set up any person's conception of reality against a book like the Upanishads, I'd say the Upanishads warrants a good hard look. Conception of reality is highly malleable and fraught with inconsistency and contradiction. I say this mostly for the consideration of anyone following along, because I consider vision to be beyond cool and his extreme knowledge of "Hinduism" is something special too. I'm still a kid, and through ups and downs I still hold the Upanishads to be true not because it always agrees with my expectations or my sensibilities, but because I can't honestly accuse any part which touches on my own experience to be untrue. Inconvenient, unpleasant, maybe even a negative outcome from a certain perspective, depending upon my trajectory in life, but never untrue. What are we if we do not hold truth higher than preference? Where will we find ourselves if we fail to hold truth above all else and yet attempt to wield it?

[snoopy]

And... we're done here.

I seem to find that more and more often people seem to want to simply dismiss religion as illogical and walk away to excuse the fact that their own opinions on the matter are quite illogical. When the topic is naturalism or technological advance, logic is king... when the topic is philosophy or politics, logic is conveniently ignored.

[vision]

When the topic is naturalism or technological advance, logic is king... when the topic is philosophy or politics, logic is conveniently ignored.

Give me a break. The Abrahamic religions simply don't hold up to skeptical reasoning. It's not "logical" to believe in God, it's social. Even Descartes dropped the ball when he tried in vain to go directly from "I think therefore I am" to "there must be a God" – but even if you could logically get there it is no guarantee this god would be the same god you worship. Give up. The Bible and it's culture is an emotional experience you can share with others, so just enjoy it that way and stop with this "logic" crap. Those of us not needing the security of a powerful creature saving us from ultimate death will just see those religions as nonsense.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Speaking loftily of logic and reason is kind of out of character for someone who disdains debate. Are you bipolar, or just a troll?

[vision]

Debate? With religious folk who will preserve their faith at any expense using mental gymnastics, selective and deceptive interpretation of facts, and flat out denial? You're not actually capable of seeing the Bible without distortion caused by your emotions and cultural pressures. I'm free of such burden. You should try it, it's rather nice! (Just kidding, you can't try it.)

[Ferno]

And... we're done here.

I seem to find that more and more often people seem to want to simply dismiss religion as illogical and walk away to excuse the fact that their own opinions on the matter are quite illogical. When the topic is naturalism or technological advance, logic is king... when the topic is philosophy or politics, logic is conveniently ignored.

There is no logic in religion because religion is not a self-evident truth.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Debate? With religious folk who will preserve their faith at any expense using mental gymnastics, selective and deceptive interpretation of facts, and flat out denial? You're not actually capable of seeing the Bible without distortion caused by your emotions and cultural pressures. I'm free of such burden. You should try it, it's rather nice! (Just kidding, you can't try it.)

Everyone is subject to emotional, cultural, and ideological pressures, to say nothing of acting out of self-interest, malice. cowardice, and ignorance (non-exhaustive list). You're taking quite a leap to accuse me of being totally intellectually dishonest, and the same by implication ascribing the opposite to yourself.

[Spidey]

You're not actually capable of seeing the Bible without distortion caused by your emotions and cultural pressures.

And your distain for all things “Bible” is not helping to color your views?

[vision]

And your distain for all things “Bible” is not helping to color your views?

No, my views are based on my ability to see without the exact distortion I am describing. Remember, I know how believers think. I used to be evangelical about Jesus and the Bible. I know all the ways people justify their faith because I did it for a long time. I also know what it is like to take a purely skeptical approach to the Bible. This book doesn't hold up to scrutiny which is why Christian apologetics exists.

[Spidey]

What was that about denial.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You're both wrong (that is, Vision and the apologists). Christian apologetics exists because dishonest people take a faithless approach to the scriptures, and therefore try to change their meaning to fit in with popular thought instead of letting the scripture stand where it stands, despite its proximity to popular thought. The Bible doesn't work apart from the living God, and it certainly doesn't make sense if you don't believe in allowing it to stand on its own. Your problem, Vision, aside from the fact that you never knew God (my assumption by your own account), is that you did/do not understand the scriptures. If you did you couldn't say they're not logical. You could say they're fantastic, and I could appreciate that coming from a very common/modern point-of-view. The Bible is very deep, and very interconnected, and it is in fact a very singular message, but you're never going to see it if you reinterpret every piece in order to make it acceptable in popular culture, or if you give it no logical credence at all, and read it as some sort of entertaining fairy tale (most people do--I did too when I was young). It's incredible how people have the ability to discard meaning in real-time even as they read.

And this is not a defense of ignorant faith, because I have seen, in my own undecorated exposure to the Bible, more than 90% of the people who ever glance through its pages or occupy a pew with a Bible parked in front of them will ever even know was there. Now I listen to people talk as if they know the Bible just because they've heard the common narrative, or glanced at it a few times, or even read it through (not only in your case--apparently their must be some religious merit badge associated with that), when they don't know it hardly at all. In my own eyes my pursuit of the message of scripture is very little, and I think it really is. However, the goal is everything, and God is everything, and it is obvious that my own relatively weak grasp of the scriptures is greater than that of a large percentile of the people in this country (or anywhere, I assume).

[vision]

What was that about denial.

What are you implying?

However, the goal is everything, and God is everything...

Sounds like Brahman. Are you sure you are not Hindu? Hinduism has souls and a trinity as well. Weird, huh?

[Spidey]

I’m implying you are not being honest to yourself about how hatred affects opinion and value.

And if you deny your feelings about the Bible...that's even more denial on top of the other.

[vision]

I’m implying you are not being honest to yourself about how hatred affects opinion and value. And if you deny your feelings about the Bible...that's even more denial on top of the other.

Ha. My opinions were formed from skeptical inquiry, not emotion, though I will say the process of losing my faith was a real drag at the time and I did everything I could to stay in the comfortable world of delusion. And while I think the Bible is a terrible book, I don't hate Christianity or any other religion, but I certainly think religions are are both dangerous and worthy of ridicule. That's not denial. I have a much wider than average perspective on humanity and it's future. The religions of today will go extinct, just like countless others throughout time. The sooner the better.

[snoopy]

I’m implying you are not being honest to yourself about how hatred affects opinion and value. And if you deny your feelings about the Bible...that's even more denial on top of the other.

Ha. My opinions were formed from skeptical inquiry, not emotion, though I will say the process of losing my faith was a real drag at the time and I did everything I could to stay in the comfortable world of delusion. And while I think the Bible is a terrible book, I don't hate Christianity or any other religion, but I certainly think religions are are both dangerous and worthy of ridicule. That's not denial. I have a much wider than average perspective on humanity and it's future. The religions of today will go extinct, just like countless others throughout time. The sooner the better.

The fallacy that I find in your view is that you separate "religion" from other belief systems. Believing that your worldview is somehow more enlightened and that others are "dangerous and worthy of ridicule" is quite the haughty way to approach life - especially when you display a penchant for displaying ignorance of those other worldviews - I believe the technical term is cultural elitism. By refusing to engage with what religions actually say you certainly succeed in slaying your own fictitious religions, but then just about anyone would join you in that endeavour.

[sigma]

Religion is a product of society, so religion will always be, as there is a society. Religious feeling consists of love, complete submission to the higher and mysterious master, from a deep consciousness of dependence, fear, respect, nobility and hope for the future. As a love of dogs to humans. For the dog its owner is God. Moreover, man-owner of the dog more often responsible dog mutual love than God for the people)) But and dogs are much more like their master than their relatives.
I know exactly that I'm a cat. Maybe that's why I'm an atheist.

[vision]

The fallacy that I find in your view is that you separate "religion" from other belief systems.

Not a fallacy. Do you even know what that word means? There is an important difference, and it's exactly the reason why I find religion dangerous. Of all belief systems (political, economic, whatever), only religion bills itself as unquestionable, universal truth. It demands a certain black and white thinking, good versus evil and whatnot. Yes, nationalism can be dangerous, but leaders can be overthrown and nations can fall. Non-religious beliefs are more mutable. Once a person starts to believe they are divinely blessed that's when you get some truly remarkable ignorance, which exacerbates problems with other belief systems (for example, theocracy as the marriage between political and religious views).

Believing that your worldview is somehow more enlightened and that others are "dangerous and worthy of ridicule" is quite the haughty way to approach life - especially when you display a penchant for displaying ignorance of those other worldviews - I believe the technical term is cultural elitism.

I also believe it's wrong to abuse women and treat them as property. Is that elitism, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that equal rights for women improves culture? Face it, some views are better than others. All the best parts of religious thinking is already embodied in humanism, which leaves out things like killing babies because your people are chosen by God.

By refusing to engage with what religions actually say you certainly succeed in slaying your own fictitious religions, but then just about anyone would join you in that endeavour.

Are fvcking kidding me? I've made a serious study of religions for over two decades. I know both the ins-and-outs of the Bible along with a healthy understanding of other popular and not-so-popular religions around the world. Trust me, there are a lot better religions out there than the Abrahamic ones.

[Tunnelcat]

Religion is a product of society, so religion will always be, as there is a society. Religious feeling consists of love, complete submission to the higher and mysterious master, from a deep consciousness of dependence, fear, respect, nobility and hope for the future. As a love of dogs to humans. For the dog its owner is God. Moreover, man-owner of the dog more often responsible dog mutual love than God for the people)) But and dogs are much more like their master than their relatives.
I know exactly that I'm a cat. Maybe that's why I'm an atheist.

It's also a product of the brain trying to explain itself and the world it exists in and it's called spirituality. Everyone has it, but since it's a genetic trait, it's variable in it's expression, even with twins. No one is born with a certain religious belief or faith, but parents or a society can definitely influence what religion someone chooses to join in order to satisfy that spiritual urge. Personally, most religions and faiths leave a bad taste in my mouth, so I tend to be agnostic in my spirituality. Besides, I'm also believe organized religion to be nothing more than mass group-think. So yeah sigma, cats are the epitome of what it means to be a rebel individual who rejects being part of any religious hive mind.

[Ferno]

The fallacy that I find in your view is that you separate "religion" from other belief systems. Believing that your worldview is somehow more enlightened and that others are "dangerous and worthy of ridicule" is quite the haughty way to approach life - especially when you display a penchant for displaying ignorance of those other worldviews - I believe the technical term is cultural elitism. By refusing to engage with what religions actually say you certainly succeed in slaying your own fictitious religions, but then just about anyone would join you in that endeavour.

I find it interesting you see visions' opinion as coming off as superior, but can't see a religion being exactly the same. It's a phenomenon known as 'ethical egoism'.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think what you just did there, Ferno, was insinuate that Snoopy is guilty of "ethical egoism" (and blind to it), without actually going all the way and accusing him of some ethical egoism anywhere in the relevant topic. I don't think there is any grounds for that.

[sigma]

Religion is a product of society, so religion will always be, as there is a society. Religious feeling consists of love, complete submission to the higher and mysterious master, from a deep consciousness of dependence, fear, respect, nobility and hope for the future. As a love of dogs to humans. For the dog its owner is God. Moreover, man-owner of the dog more often responsible dog mutual love than God for the people)) But and dogs are much more like their master than their relatives.
I know exactly that I'm a cat. Maybe that's why I'm an atheist.

It's also a product of the brain trying to explain itself and the world it exists in and it's called spirituality. Everyone has it, but since it's a genetic trait, it's variable in it's expression, even with twins. No one is born with a certain religious belief or faith, but parents or a society can definitely influence what religion someone chooses to join in order to satisfy that spiritual urge. Personally, most religions and faiths leave a bad taste in my mouth, so I tend to be agnostic in my spirituality. Besides, I'm also believe organized religion to be nothing more than mass group-think. So yeah sigma, cats are the epitome of what it means to be a rebel individual who rejects being part of any religious hive mind.

There is no doubt.
In me, too, there is a God at the level of the hypothalamus.
It is as if to take a puppy in your arms and hang it over the water. He starts to float already in the air, even if he never saw the lake Instincts is a wise thing, given to us by the Creator.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Actually, having looked into the definition of ethical egoism, I'm going to have to side with Inigo Montoya and just say, "I don't think it means what you think it means."

[snoopy]

All the best parts of religious thinking is already embodied in humanism, which leaves out things like killing babies because your people are chosen by God.

Surely you must anticipate how ironic I would find that statement in light of your position on abortion. (I don't want to turn this into another one of "those topics" - but you have to be aware that I believe abortion embodies killing babies for your beliefs.)

I find it interesting you see visions' opinion as coming off as superior, but can't see a religion being exactly the same.

I'm not questioning or arguing with vision's option that he's right and I'm wrong... I'm complaining about the method. I think anything can be judged on the basis of merit - people of different cultures, religions, schools of thought on quantum mechanics can discuss (and argue) all day about the merits of their way over the other person's way... and often in the end all parties are the better for it - even when no one changes their mind. My complaint is when someone (of whatever train of thought, in whatever context) becomes dismissive, and actually hostile, toward another simply because they don't agree. I don't like the Westboro Baptist folks on the same grounds...

Note: I said anything. I'll draw a very hard line between things - including cultures, beliefs, opinions, etc. - and people. I think that people are intrinsically valuable, no matter their "metrics," but that doesn't mean what they think or do are equally valuable or right.