Religious discussion
I really wonder how someone could go to a great school (such as Harvard or University of Michigan) and still believe that the bible is a literal history of the Earth. Now I am not saying there cannot be a God but there is too much evidence of Evolution and an old Earth. Any thoughts? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- The scientific evidence has very little to do with being a creationist. The end. That explains most of it. YEC is a social practice and a mandatory meme for some social groups. Some people will accept any idea or ideology to fit in with their group. Particularly if it's something they've been told since birth is true anyways. No piece of paper inures you to those effects. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Kurt Wise and Todd C. Wood are excellent examples - very intelligent, know and can do the science, but they have this single fixed point of belief that creationism must be true, therefore baraminology. Todd Wood is an excellent and slightly horrifying example of a mind divided against itself - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm a staff scientist at Caltech (I work in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, but my PhD is in Physics, but no biology), and have worked at and with people at Cornell, Stanford, UC Berkeley, LBNL, PNNL, ANL, INL, LANL, LNL, etc, etc, etc. I've heard people say that most scientists are atheists, (I am an agnostic) but I know many scientists with religious belief, including deists, Christians, Muslims, Unitarians, etc. Not all of these scientists where born into their religion, I know Caltech and Cornell PhD grads who have recently taken up religion. To be honest, I have never worked with anyone who has stated they were atheist or agnostic, but I would guess they're here. It's not often a topic of debate, but the most common belief I hear from those with faith is that the Creation explanation in texts like the Christian Bible are purely figurative. That doesn't explain why some believe in YEC though, but I know there is a wide spectrum of religious believers in science. --TheJackolope (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Figured I would ask, considering there is a ton of proof for evolution. Having faith in something is one thing but the way creation "scientists" have faith is quite extreme. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, but don't you see? Once you get hooked on using God as an explanatory tool, all that proof becomes invalid. You see, if you believe in God, the perceived uniformity of natural laws across time and space is merely an illusion that exists only because God allows it to. Inductive reasoning? Throw it out the window.[wp] That's how you can be a scientist and still believe in YEC; the concept of God is compatible with every observable configuration of reality because inherent to the idea is that God would be able to adjust reality at their whim. These scientists don't study reality to discover fundamental laws, but to take a closer look at what God has painted onto the canvas of existence (and perhaps wonder about what they might paint next).
- And as for creation 'science' specifically; it's founded on a belief in biblical inerrancy, so the level of devotion of its proponents shouldn't really come as a surprise. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- try explaining Andy Schlafly and Jason Lisle. Hamster (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Religious fanatics bent on ignoring reality? Not sure why you bring up Andy, though, since he's by no imaginable stretch of the word's definition a scientist. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- try explaining Andy Schlafly and Jason Lisle. Hamster (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Madoka is our Lord and Saviour!
Homura is her prophet and consort!
They both will save you from the clutches of the Kyubey!--Arisboch (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Never watched that cartoon. Is it any good? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would avoid using anime and cartoon interchangeably when discussing either online. As for the question - if you like magical girl transformation anime and/or subversion and deconstruction of said genre, sure! --Miekal 03:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- MADOHOMU IS LIFE - no seriously, though, it is pretty great. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 03:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- (Cartoons (anime)). AAR, this might be interesting. Is it airing anywhere on US television? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- No--Miekal 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's on Netflix, though. You could also buy the BDs, but the US distributor charges an arm and an leg. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
I'm a survivor, keep on survivin' 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- (Cartoons (anime)). AAR, this might be interesting. Is it airing anywhere on US television? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- MADOHOMU IS LIFE - no seriously, though, it is pretty great. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 03:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would avoid using anime and cartoon interchangeably when discussing either online. As for the question - if you like magical girl transformation anime and/or subversion and deconstruction of said genre, sure! --Miekal 03:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So I have a theory regarding the vastly different behavior of God in the new testament and old testament...
First, let me make it clear that I am not at all religious. The ideas I put forth here are based upon the events described in the Bible being fiction, albeit perhaps with the occasional grain of truth (i.e., there was probably something that led to the story of the great flood, but it was not global, and was not God's doing). As any work of fiction is open to interpretation to some degree, I have my own interpretation of why God behaves differently in the old vs. new testaments.
My theory (I use this term loosely) is that, contrary to what we are told in the bible and what is generally believed (a vague statement, I know), Lucifer was not what most would consider evil. further, when he led his rebellion against God, Lucifer actually won, and has since ruled heaven in God's place. Now, let me present my reasoning behind this:
- the terrible things that God has done are simply too numerous to list, but suffice to say the the God of the Old Testament was a ruthless, merciless, murderous bastard who clearly regarded His creations as nothing more than playthings for his own amusement. in fact, given the evidence, it would be more likely that the earth and its inhabitants came to be in the manner currently accepted by science; God simply discovered us, and claimed to be our creator.
- Lucifer tolerated God's actions for some time, but eventually he decided enough was enough, gathered an army of like-minded angels, and removed God from power (I leave it to your own interpretation what became of God afterwards). The rebellion itself likely took place between the old and new testaments, as this is when "God's" behavior suddenly changed.
- in addition to the very long list of God's grievances against His creations, Lucifer did not agree with the near constant intervention of God in worldly affairs, which would explain the less active role He (now referring to Lucifer) has taken since coming into power. Whether He thinks we still need him is unknown, and Lucifer's policy of non-intervention is what has prevented him from correcting those humans that still direct their prayers to God, or believe that is to whom they pray. Lucifer's belief is that, whether we were created by a madman or evolved naturally, we are quite capable of deciding for ourselves what we believe.
- Jesus had already been prophecised when Lucifer came into power, so he decided to just go with it in order to keep up appearances. this would explain why Jesus was less 'fire and brimstone', and more 'healing the sick and helping the poor'. Indeed, had God still been in power, Jesus would probably have been more akin to how we now envision the antichrist. Jesus' claim that he would one day return, but without actually specifying when, was a nice out for Lucifer to avoid any further intervention after Jesus' departure.
- As for the matter of Satan: put simply, he never existed. I've always heard Satan referred to as the great deciever, among other things. the general belief is that Lucifer became Satan after being cast down to hell. Instead, Lucifer created, or allowed to be created, the story (and general deception) of his defeat and transformation into basically the embodiment of all the world's evils,
Angra MainyuSatan. There is some amount of irony in this.
anyway, that's what I've got so far. thoughts?
[edit] Personally
I love all biblical fantasy not written by any sort of Christians. It's just great fun, like rethinkings of Hercules or Thor can be.
The image of a legion of angels battling a horde of devils is an extremely epic one, that is only ruined by people taking it seriously. Ikanreed (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a fun discussion, and to make this interesting, let's say this God is nothing like they say he is in scripture. Completely not the Abrahamic God, among others. What would you say to him if you met him? As for me, I would say... "Can you help with climate change?" Serocco (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Timely question given Steven Fry on RTE. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think some variation on "You had better have a fucking good excuse" is the only apposite comment anyone could make. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Way to be the stereotypical atheist angry at god or whatever. Anyways, I'd wish for more wishes. Gods and genies are pretty similar. Ikanreed (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Given the real world, there really would be no other ethical way to approach dialogue with a god-like being. I mean, maybe there is a very good excuse. Maybe this hypothetical god wasn't up to the task and did the best they could in the circumstances. I would hope that a hypothetical god in such circumstances would welcome any help in fixing things, however small a contribution. But the more powerful this hypothetical god is, the bigger a fuck-up they become morally, to have the world the way it is. I'm not going to ignore godly cruelty and moral bankruptcy just to avoid hurting the feelings of the liberally religious. If you wouldn't be angry with god, atheist or no, you've not been paying attention. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- It could just be very powerful and very dumb. Let's conjecture a solution to the problem of evil where god is an honest-to-god moron. Then you have an ethical mandate to educate or trick it. Ikanreed (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I should clarify that I meant 'power' above not just as in power to change the world, but the passel of superpowers that are generally comorbid with omnipotence. So a powerful but dumb god would halfway up that power scale or something. A 'how did this get here I am not good with creation' explanation would explain so much. Given how much of a better job humanity has done (by and large) in the morality stakes than any flavour of divine being, whatever excuse there was would have to account for not learning on the job. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- It could just be very powerful and very dumb. Let's conjecture a solution to the problem of evil where god is an honest-to-god moron. Then you have an ethical mandate to educate or trick it. Ikanreed (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Given the real world, there really would be no other ethical way to approach dialogue with a god-like being. I mean, maybe there is a very good excuse. Maybe this hypothetical god wasn't up to the task and did the best they could in the circumstances. I would hope that a hypothetical god in such circumstances would welcome any help in fixing things, however small a contribution. But the more powerful this hypothetical god is, the bigger a fuck-up they become morally, to have the world the way it is. I'm not going to ignore godly cruelty and moral bankruptcy just to avoid hurting the feelings of the liberally religious. If you wouldn't be angry with god, atheist or no, you've not been paying attention. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Way to be the stereotypical atheist angry at god or whatever. Anyways, I'd wish for more wishes. Gods and genies are pretty similar. Ikanreed (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I would see no reason to not attempt to recite the Babel Fish speech as close as I could get to it. Trick (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"ayy lmao" --Ymir (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you're talking about a designer god, I'd strongly advise him to stop slacking. I mean, how come your pinnacle of creation still contains single critical function equipments, like our main computer, and most with single power supply, and/or single points of failure? Even by our lowly human design standards, like the FAA certification rules, noone should ever end handicapped or dead from a stroke. Then, I would offer my engineering and certification auditing services, for the low price of immortality and another couple godlike powers. Once working with him, I'd try to help him redesign the world so that global immortality and minimum suffering can become realistic.--dx (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask for superpowers, so I can do the stuff God's too lazy/disinterested to bother with. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be content with the standard three wishes. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 18:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- But the third wish is always to put right the wrongs done by wishes one and two. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- To paraphrase a quote by Julianne Moore about this very question: "Well, I guess I was wrong, because you do exist." KevinR1990 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I would ask, "So I have been joking about something-are bacteria more important to you than humans? If the world was designed to serve a specific sort of life form, bacteria seemed more likely than humans. Not that I saw any reason for you to care about life" Arachne1988 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- But... humans are bacteria, no? (In the sense that they're composed of cells and all cells evolved from bacteria when you get down to it.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- True, when I joke about god favoring bacteria it is more to mock the very egocentrism and arrogance that underlies that a god would be anthropocentric. Often the idea of an anthropocentric god seems to hinge on how all the things we regard as special and wonderful about ourselves, and not about how significant we are in the universe or the planet. Why should a deity focus on a species that takes up such a small portion of space-time? Homo sapiens have lived what 100,000 years (?) on a single planet and with how destructive we are I doubt we will double that number-not that I think humans will die off soon. Such an unstable state as life is already questionable and a rather arbitrary selection-if there is a god I would sooner bet on a deistic or pantheistic one than a theistic one.
- The specifics of the joke about bacteria being god’s favorite focus on how the domain bacteria’s adaptations are far more impressive. It works similarly to how a sentient puddle might regard the hole it is in as designed for it. Many (if not most) other life forms are dependent on bacteria, directly or indirectly. Human attempts to kill some of them off have only served to strengthen them. Some can live without oxygen. Others can survive extreme heat. The pressures of the deep seas are home to others. Yet others can survive space with ease. Nuclear radiation is a non-issue to some others. They are some of the oldest life forms and will no doubt continue on after us.
- Admittedly, I study psychology, not biology. I am more focused on the anthropocentrism issue with the joke and do not have a very deep understanding of bacteria. Arachne1988 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. Yes, we're all descended from a prokaryotic common ancestor, but saying "we are all bacteria" is just redefining the term "bacteria" to mean "life". It's "Why are there still monkeys?" thinking. Species, and groupings of species, are human classifications that we create for the purpose of distinguishing between different organisms. --Ymir (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Trolling God
- "Got your nose!"
- "No you haven't."
- "Yes I have. Look, here."
- "That's not My nose!"
- "Yes it is. You just don't want to see your nose in my hand, because you're closed-minded."
- "Look, I still have My nose-"
- "Who are you going to believe? Your lying senses or divine revelation?"
- "What divine revelation? You just said that, that's no divine revelation."
- "It was too divine revelation."
- "Was not."
- "Was too."
- "Look, if anyone know divine revelation, it's Me, right, so-"
- "I can prove it was divine revelation."
- "How?!"
- "I said it was. I said what I said before was divine revelation, so it must me. Who are you to deny divine revelation?"
- "Now look, pal, I'm the Creator around these parts, and I don't take too kindly to-"
- "If you deny that what I said was divine revelation, then you are undermining the very concept of logic itself."
- "... What? How? I don't even-"
- "You're just arrogant. Any fool can see that my words prove that my words are true. How presumptuous of you to assume your own flawed senses and flawed intellect are more reliable than my say-so!"
- "I can't believe how silly you have been."
- "Yeah, well that makes two of us, pal."
- *middle finger*
- Scene. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't do very good in the arguments FOR God, so logically I wouldn't do very well in disproving the arguments against God. Of course, I apparently have a distorted sense of logic. So you never know..Pitzy (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll just leave this here: Negative proof. You opened this page with your comment indented by two colons (this symbol :). It seems you are just putting an arbitrary number at the beginning of your posts. Here is a good set of guidelines for posting on wikis [1]. Marlow (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] The ignostic perspective
Let's start here. There's no point in arguing this question without a definition of what's being tested verified. I guess you could say this is the idea that comes closest to mirroring my own.
By example, if I argue that dragons are real, people are right to be incredulous of my claim, but when they respond say dragons don't exist, I can waffle about it and say "Oh I mean WP:Komodo dragons." Unless what you mean is clear, arguing about whether you're right is a fruitless exercise.
As a less fantastical comparison, consider people arguing about whether tomatoes are fruit or vegetables. I can say they're fruit, and point to the fact they are watery and have seeds. And someone else can point out that they have the nutritional and culinary properties of vegetables. This debate is fruitless(ha) because the very idea of what a fruit is isn't established. If, however, myself, and whoever I'm having this hypothetical argument with, decide on a definition of fruit and vegetable ahead of time, we can actually cut through all the ambiguity and answer the question quite freely. Not just for tomatoes, and beets, and rhubarb.
So to the ignostic, the answer for "Is there a god" can only be answered in the context of a well-defined god(and then for most of those that are commonly raised, the ignositic has to promote the discussion to being agnostic or atheistic).
When we argue against "god" as you're asking us to, keep in mind that not only do we have to consider Yehwah, but also Vishnu, Thor, Allah, or Khorne as possibilities for what the question means. Heck, some people define "god" as the universe itself, and the natural response to that definition is "So what? we already know the universe exists."(Philosophical mincing about this notion aside). Ikanreed (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] So, questions to you, from this perspective
What is a fruit? How do you know if something is a fruit? Understanding and answering this question seems natural to anyone familiar with fruit(though we may disagree).
What is god? How do you know if something is god? Understanding and answering this question may help you in ways I couldn't say.
[edit] The determinist's perspective(against an intercessionalist god)
Two quick predicates to this discussion
- This one requires some light education in philosophy to follow. Read up on the wikipedia article on WP:Determinism to understand the meaning of the term when I use it.
- This one also assumes as a predicate that determinism is true. It's a premise to the rejection, and can, itself, be rejected if you don't think it's valid. But you should think about why.
Determinism is the idea that one "state" of the universe flows to the next, without variation. You can think of it as coming from newton's laws. An object at rest remains at rest until acted upon by another force. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by another force. And then all the forces that get exerted on objects comes from other objects. And since the motion of those objects is predictable, it can appear that the resulting state of the universe always flows from the current one.
Now the actual modern laws of physics are a lot more complicated. They deal with a quantum world and a relativistic one. And concern themselves with fields and particles and waves and fundamental forces. But the big thing for this notion hasn't: matter reacts as a result of force being exerted. And after countless observations and experiments, the only forces that affect matter come down to just 4: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. And no experiments have shown things change for causes other than those.
Where then, can an intercessionalist god(like many claim such as yourself the Christian god is) interfere with the world? Why does matter we carefully look at always bend to the apparent mechanics of the universe and not some portion of it simply obey god's direct will? Omnipotence suggests the power to change things, intercessionalism suggests that god does so. Those changes, no matter their nuance, would leave traces. Those traces simply don't appear to exist. Ikanreed (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Blah blah blah, acknowledging the flaws in the argument and tacit replies
- Okay, quantum strangeness is a thing, but every crazy idea ever uses it as an excuse, why should we consider your idea special in that regards?
- "But what if god just set everything on the path it is now and everything is just fated to come out to his will?" Well, that's not the god we're discussing right now. See the ignostic argument.
- "God could purposefully hide from us." Then why leave a book explicitly stating both his presence and how he works? Odd choice.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god
Enjoy... Here is a very detailed page that counters some arguments from non-believers. I would enjoy if you can prove those premises and conclusions false. Pitzy 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- If, after multiple explicit and simple instructions, you still haven't worked out how to sign comments - then it's not entirely clear why we should be convinced by your profound beliefs about the origins of the universe.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, dang, human error reason God didn't make universe. Nice. Pitzy 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Why 1st argument is false:
Enjoy Pitzy 19:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Objections to premises
""Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."" —Premise 1
Let's start with the assumptions here, and the first premise is a good place to go for that. This one is wrong even if it's not the core wrongness of the piece(see discussion of premise 2, AKA "how much nonsense are we going to accept for the sake of argument?"). I contest it on a simple phrasing basis. By example, if a train derails, it doesn't have an external cause. It derails because it was moving quickly, and the rails were misaligned. That's two distinct undeniable factors, and that's just the simple direct necessity. To a human looking for cause we'd be concerned with what safety measures were overlooked, what damaged the rails, what design features are meant to overcome derailments and didn't. To say something has an explanation is to view things far to simplistically to operate in the real world. As a universal assumption, it's a flimsy one.
"If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God" —Premise 2
The mere fact that we're having this argument tells you this one isn't agreed upon. This is begging the question. If we give you god as a premise, then why would you need to prove it.
The amount of outright strawman nonsense heaped upon atheists in the explanation for this premise deserves an Extra (Censored for our friend's software) Award.
"A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence." —Atheists, according to this article
I've never heard any atheists ever make any sort of construction remotely resembling this. To you, is it okay to lie about what those you disagree with say? Do you find this to be an ethical and just practice? Look all over this atheist infested wiki. You'll see nothing remotely like this, not even on talk pages, essays, or forums. I urge you to ponder the honesty of William Lane Craig and why you trust him. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Charles Darwin wrote that in his book...He is pretty well known, I think?Pitzy 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Which book, exactly? The Origin of Species? Because he certainly didn't there. you can read the whole thing Ikanreed (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I should remind you that this was a secondary point about craig's honesty and not the main deconstruction. Ikanreed (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't feel like attacking his credibility is a wise choice. All of you probably have made assumptions and written subjectively, jumping to conclusions and then writing down those conclusions. Just because you write a small lie doesn't mean this guy did. Plus, you know, CHRISTIANITY is about upholding morals, and since he is a Christian he probably upheld his morals and didn't lie.Pitzy 19:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Objections to deduction
Nah, that's fine. To my logic skills the deduction is good, given the assumptions. We can't give you those assumptions. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Why 2nd argument is false
Enjoy. Pitzy 19:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Objections to premises
First and foremost read our article on the cosmological argument. That's this one to a T.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." —premise 1
An interesting supposition here. It's very fluid with the idea of "cause". As per my objections to proof #1, a cause is perhaps reductionist. And the word "cause" is pretty ambiguous. Causality, to physics(for example) isn't an ironclad law of intuition, but a description of the flow of information at the speed of light. Relying on it relies on the existence of time and space. But hold it: those are characteristics of the universe. So that can't be the kind of cause we mean, since we're trying to go to before the universe. There are other kinds of definitions for "cause" and each raises it's own concerns. This premise mostly fails on it's own ambiguity. A more clear version could be written, but seemingly never is.
- how about?
- "Everything that exists has a purpose?" I feel that clears some of the non-specificness of it. Think about it, everything has a purpose, if you think of something that DIDN'T have a purpose you could disprove this premise, but that won't happen.
- So your saying, the premise is true if reworded? Pitzy 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"The universe began to exist." —premise 2
This isn't an objection per se, but a question that is unanswered in the phrasing of the proof.
Time, as revealed through relativity, is a dimension of the universe. A simple variable that a lot of mechanisms of the universe interact with. Velocity is a relationship of time and position. Acceleration is a relationship of time and velocity. Time started, for all intents and purposes, with the universe. We have no evidence to substantiate that it's existence is separate from space, and some pretty good reasons to believe it's existence is attached to space(this is suggested through some rather complex math demonstrating the relationship of velocity and energy and it's similarity to the topology of a hypersphere). Anyways, the question that this premise raises is: what does it mean to "begin to exist" before time?
"Begin" is a word tied to our deeply human perception of time. A time T a thing exists, at T-1 it didn't, so the thing starts to exist at T. But when you don't have T? That idea is meaningless? What does begin mean?
- Do you think that time began when the universe began? I don't. I think time has always BEEN, just like God said he always WAS...I believe time is something humans created. So when he says begin, to come into existence, the universe and everything in it CAME to be, it started to exist, the moment of conception. Are we dependent on time? But, that really isn't an objection, your right. So lets roll with it. Pitzy 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Time is something humans created. Ha, you think the earth revolving around the sun is "Time"?? Think again. The earth would still spin, but nobody would keep track of its revolutions and rotation. That's all. Pitzy (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Objections to deduction(this is the big problem)
Let's grant those premises. There are problems in the deduction.
The problems aren't with the deduction arriving at the conclusion, but the undiscussed further implications thereof. It appears to raise a contradiction thus invalidating the premises. That contradiction comes from taking a further implication. All causes must exist, and thus begin to exist. Your proof suddenly requires causes for causes for causes, with no end, and no evidence for any of them. It's a very suspect implication, and should raise doubts on the premises. For which there are plenty.
And further, even if you accept the premises, and accept the deduction, ignore the further implications, the unstated further conclusion that all causes must be something you deem "God" is an insane non-sequitur. Why would that be true? Completely not established. At all.
Again, see the cosmological argument, our article has a great breakdown of everything wrong here. Better than mine. Ikanreed (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Why 3rd argument is false:
EnjoyPitzy 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Objections to the premises
"If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist." —premise 1
I call this premise the "irredeemable asshole argument". It's the one that baldly asserts that you're a bad person for not agreeing with the conclusion. If you make this argument you're an awful person who deserves no respect. Ever. It's untrue, because one can imagine a godless universe where people follow an absolutist moral code. It's not hard. A universe where no one kills, lies, or fights, but no one has heard of god. All in your imagination, but it's easy to see how these concepts are not related.
He brings up the Eurypthro Dilemma, but refuses to consider the "god(s) contradicts himself in revelations" problem that undermines his kinda classless begging the question response. — Unsigned, by: ikanreed / talk / contribs
if I make the moral argument I am an awful person who deserves no respect?....?....?........? I think you hate this argument because it is so true..You know in your heart you have morals. Where did you get those morals? Can someone tel me where you got morals? Morals defined as understanding wrong and right. Why is it wrong? Why is it right? Pitzy 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The iterated prisoners dilemma has an optimal solution of "do unto others as they do unto you" but be slightly nice about it. Hmmm... doesn't that sound like the basis of practically every moral code? So, you don't need god, you need games theory. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you're an asshole for making this argument. If you say that people who don't believe in god cannot be moral, you're awful. End of story. It's condemnation for something that hurts no one. It's prejudicial. It's wrong. Making this argument makes you a bad person. Ikanreed (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Whoah whoah whoah whoah.... First of all, EVERYONE has morals. That's my point. That proves God exists, because everyone has morals... You must be confused, because, even if you don't believe in God you know killing someone is wrong..Pitzy (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
"Objective moral values and duties do exist." —Premise 2
Completely unsubstantiated. People still argue over what is right and wrong, and have forever. People who claim to follow identical instructions from identical holy books wildly disagree about what is right. Subjectivity reigns. Clearly and unequivocally. There might be an objective reality, but I see no reason to give him it as a premise.
Neither premise stands up to any scrutiny. Ikanreed (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we argue weather abortion is right and wrong, but surely we all agree murder is wrong? I wouldn't say any interpretation of the bible would "wildy" disagree with somebody else's unless the person was purposefully using it in the wrong context. How can you take the 10 commandments as anything but the 10 commandments? He said they do exist, not that everything is ONLY objective, no doubt Subjectivity does reign, but surely it doesn't rein all the time? Pitzy 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Setting aside things like there almost always being someone arguing any given murder is justified if it makes the news, here's a question for you. If we can all agree on something, does that necessarily make it objective? If (almost) everyone agrees that the Mono Lisa is beautiful, is it objectively beautiful, or just popular? What's the difference between objective and subjective? How does that figure into your assertions about objective morality? Ikanreed (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it objective that stealing, killing, rape, telling lies, and dissecting humans is wrong? Pitzy (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] why 4th argument is false:
Enjoy..Pitzy 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Objections to premises
"The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design." —premise 1
A simple false dilemma. Why should those three be the only options?
Apparent fine tuning can also derive from:
- Localized convergence of variables
- As an example, consider earth's orbit. It's perfect for life. Liquid water at most levels. But that's just earth. Venus and mars are both outside that band. Why would a designer fail to tune those planets? Pretty unexplained, right? You could call that chance, but in a thousand solar systems with a dozen planets each, it's inevitable
- Evolution by natural selection
- Life is a beautiful display of how things can arrive at tuned solutions through somewhat chaotic processes that aren't chance. Giraffes have long necks that are perfectly suited to what they eat because their ancestors that didn't died. There's no absolute law of the universe that says they must. Nor did a small creature just randomly mutate straight into a giraffe one day.
- More I haven't thought of, much like Craig didn't think of(or refused to acknowledge) those two.
"It is not due to physical necessity or chance." —premise 2
Improbable things happen and Anthropic principle both undermine this "point".
[edit] Further objections to consider
First:
What really meaningful evidence is there that the universe is finely tuned? Life as it exists in this universe is going to be suited to this universe, because otherwise it wouldn't be alive. But maybe there are universes hypothetical even more conducive to life.
- Maybe if the gravitational constant were an iota stronger, stable solar systems would have formed earlier, and stars exploded less often.
- Maybe if the speed of light were faster, interstellar travel would be easier(wouldn't that be a fun universe)
- Maybe there are possible universes where there isn't malaria, aids, and cancer
Why is this the best possible universe?
Second: Wouldn't the ability to intuit that something is designed rely on contrast with something that isn't designed? Ikanreed (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Are rocks not designed?
- Well yes. But fine tuning does exist - though not in the form the argument suggests. Evolution has "finely tuned" life to exist on the planet in which it exists. However this is hardly surprising, as we would not be around to consider the fact if evolution did not try to fit life to the environment in which it finds itself.
- Secondly the universe as a whole is actually outstandingly inimical to (our kind) of life. Biological life as we know it would not be able to survive in 99.9999999999999 plese continue this number% of the universe. In any event the universe is certainly outstandingly hostile to human beings. For that matter, humans could not survive on most of the surface of the Earth for long - what with it being largely covered with water.
- Suggesting that the universe has been created for our convenience is either absurd or implies the existence of a pretty incompetent creator.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC
) Assuming a God exists, this was the best possible universe for us. Pitzy (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Finally why 5th argument is false:
Enjoy...Pitzy 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Rather than premise by premise...
"It is possible that a maximally great being exists. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
" —Oh really?
It is possible I have a maximally great house.
If it's possible that I have a maximally great house, then I have a maximally great house in some possible world
If I have a maximally great house in some possible world, then I have one in every possible world.
If I have a maximally great house on every world, then I have one in this world.
Wait... where the heck is my perfect mansion? Ikanreed (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- That actually makes a lot of sense, I would say you countered this argument perfectly. Now that I look at it, it is a bit wonky. Pitzy (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] These are old arguments
The first three fall into one basic premise:
1) Most of it is a great example of special pleading. Everything exists therefore God did it since rhetoric. Based on no evidence it was god (not Thor, or a galatic dog fart) and never answers the question that if everything that exists has a creator...what created god? This is an old argument by apologetics that has been debunked since it was proposed, but it still seems to get repeated to the laughter of anyone with a brain.
Four and five are almost nonsense.
2) Objective morality, especially of the bible, doesn't exist.
3) The possibility of a "maximal being" to exist is nonsense. Just because someone can think something could exist doesn't mean it does. Human beings have imagined dragons, space squid, and sea monsters that can exist as well and they don't.
This can be debunked by elementary school theology. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. Although WLK wants to imply that there is something new in these arguments that's not the case. It's the same old ideas re-presented (sometimes) with slightly newer words.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just get sick of it. Some of these things have been debunked for centuries, and these points are well debunked in many locations now (including RW and by Matt Dillahunty). How many times do they need to be debunked before people stop believing in them?
- It's not like electricity gets debunked 30 times but people still believe it exists. People found the evidence that showed it was real and what the properties were. People believe in this god character and keep looking for evidence that it is real. The opposite of how rational thinking goes. Since no matter how many times the evidence is found to be incorrect the belief doesn't change in some people.
- Just my opinion, but if people were really strong in their faith they wouldn't need all of this evidence to be accepted by the people around them either. Other people can believe in what they think is true without affecting another persons faith when it is strong. When it is weak they look to convert the people around them because any questioning causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Same when people are not very strong in thinking they made the right decision...they often look for affermation of those around them. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- In point of fact I think nobody (or very very few people) believe in religion/god/gods because of these arguments anyway. The vast majority of people hold to a particular religion/belief system because that's what their parent's told them was true.
- These arguments are not really made up to convince non-believers - they were invented in order to give believers some kind of confirmation that things they have already been trained to believe are, in fact, justifiable in some way. Showing them to be false won't usually change the mind of a believer as believers don't really rely on them anyway.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 23:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, but if people were really strong in their faith they wouldn't need all of this evidence to be accepted by the people around them either. Other people can believe in what they think is true without affecting another persons faith when it is strong. When it is weak they look to convert the people around them because any questioning causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance. Same when people are not very strong in thinking they made the right decision...they often look for affermation of those around them. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Though it's just as odd to me. I love and respect my parents a lot, but I also understand they are human. They can be right or wrong about things...so accepting what they said unconditionally for the rest of my life would be insane. A 4 year old accepts fantasies about Santa, or cartoons, or Blues Clues till they are older and they question. Somehow, jesus seems to be exempt from questioning when they grow up. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
HA you think I'm a Christian because of the people around me? They introduced me to God, and then I took him as my own. Pitzy (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] And finally
More arguments isn't better arguments.
Logic necessitates that once something is established as true, it's true. Proving it twice doesn't do any good. It does however waste incredible amounts of time for people debunking your nonsense. You have a responsibility to decide which of these is the one that convinces you and defend that. Having more proofs actually makes your logical point weaker by suggesting that you're using rhetorical tactics rather than trying to genuinely make a specific meaningful assertion. Ikanreed (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC) 5 arguments isn't a lot.. The moral argument convinces me the most. Pitzy (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone take William Lane Craig seriously anymore? I've seen his ass get handed to him every time he tries to talk about science or cosmology with anyone who knows what they're talking about. At least in my mind he hardly seems better than your run of the mill creationist who clings to dead arguments after hundreds of refutations. Samstr (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Cool...I don't take Darwinism seriously. Or Oprah. Pitzy (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Explain to me
The need to "prove" the existence of God.
If you have faith, you have faith. And that should be enough; it takes no faith to believe in something that has been empirically proven, like gravity, the sun coming up every morning, evolution, the quadratic formula, etc. etc. I don't have faith (in the religious sense of the term) in those things, I know them to be true because the proof is irrefutable.
On the other hand, what makes faith faith is the risk involved. We don't know that God is real, so belief in God implies a certain risk, a willingness to commit to something for no other reason than a strongly-held belief. Arguably, if you have that bent, that willingness to commit to something in the total absence of proof what makes faith beautiful (and if you don't have that bent, that's what makes it foolish....). By looking for empirical proof, you are shifting the divine to the realm of the mundane -- and it's not divine anymore, so why bother with it? AgingHippie (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, their is never going to be a billboard that says "God is real" or an equation of idea that proves God is real. On the other hand, I don't think there is one that says he is not real. Because, that would take the Faith out of Christianity. Of course, God is still showing that he is real.Your alive, as one example.
And he reaizes that the people blind enough not to admit life had a creator...Will not die happily. Their we go. But, I still insist on bringing these up just so that in the future when I talk to real life athiests I can make a case. Pitzy (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- You might make your case better by learning how to use common words like "their," and "your." I would offer you a more substantive reply, but what you wrote here makes no sense whatsoever. AgingHippie (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry America's school system isn't properly educating teenagers. Pitzy (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict)
- As long as there are christians, there's going to be billboards saying god is real .
- And I guess as long as there are atheists there are going to be billboards saying he isn't.
- And, of course, there's no direct evidence dragons aren't real either. Or leprechauns. Or invisible pink unicorns. Because non-existence doesn't leave evidence. It leaves nothing. Ikanreed (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- (EC) The default position is disbelief till there is proof. Unless you believe anything that is presented as true until evidence is presented that shows it is not true. Your choice I guess. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I so want to muddy the waters here, and discuss a priori versus a postiori knowledge and special pleading and all the other things you already know about, but I know it won't make the debate better. Ikanreed (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Of course, God is still showing that he is real.Your alive, as one example." - Pitzy, you need to pace yourself if you want to carry on being the wiki's happenin', new wannabe fly-in-the-ointment. When you started out, I just assumed you had never bothered to read into any arguments against your position. Barely literate nonsense like the quoted statement now makes me think you've never bothered to read at all. Grumblejaws (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I so want to muddy the waters here, and discuss a priori versus a postiori knowledge and special pleading and all the other things you already know about, but I know it won't make the debate better. Ikanreed (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, I didn't know that life happened by chance Pitzy (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] tl;dr
Here's my take on the arguments (admittedly I only glossed over them):
- Argument 1 & 2: Cosmological arguments are pretty much the same in that they all argue that the universe had a cause (which doesn't seem too unreasonable) but then out of nowhere they assume that this cause must be the same thing as some creator deity described in old manuscripts of dubitable authenticity.
- Objective morality argument: Humans are physically incapable of perceiving reality objectively, morality is no exception to this. Even if we go by the assumption that there is such a thing as objective morality, similarly as with cosmological arguments, there is no obvious reason why the "source" of objective morality would happen to be the particular deity you happen to worship. In fact, there are several very good reasons why a great deal of worshipped deities wouldn't be applicable as sources of objective morality.
- Fine-tuning argument: It might be pretty presumptive to posit that a kind of sentient life could impossibly form except in the kind of universe we're familiar with. But let's go with the idea that a universe permitting the existence of life is a very unlikely feature; we only need to posit the existence of universes besides our own and the occurrence of life-permitting universes quickly changes from highly unlikely to almost inevitable. Some may claim that the existence of a creator deity is a simpler explanation than the existence of a great many universes besides our own; but the notion that a timeless/eternal deity would only create 1 universe is in fact logically preposterous.
- Ontological argument: Just because you can imagine an ideal entity with the property of existing in every reality doesn't mean that that entity is suddenly gonna start existing. This is evidenced by our reality not being overrun with people's idealized fantasies.
141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Relevance of the arguments
Most of the arguments, whatever their validity, strike me as irrelevant. The question isn't so much whether a generic deity exists; the real question is whether a deity similar to the one worshipped by human religions exists; and if so which one.
The proofs, if they prove anything, prove the necessary existence of an entity that matches one attribute of the deities of historical religion. That isn't enough. Why would you expect the uncaused first cause to listen to your prayers? Why would you expect a greatest possible being to pay any attention to you? - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 16:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that you're coming from a (rationalist) Christian perspective, and trying to help Pits Brazil along on that path, but establishing the existence of a generic deity would be a logically necessary prerequisite for demonstrating a specific one. These proofs fail at that task. Ikanreed (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)f
I agree. Honestly, I realize all of these arguments don't prove God's existence, except for perhaps the moral argument. Yuu have me covered on all the bases, and I don't honestly know how someone would be convinced God exists due to your dissecting these arguments. Got to give your props, you have me a knifepoint... I guess the only thing I can tell you now is too read the Bible. It is the living word of God, and I feel like all of you would benefit from buying a Bible and reading, once at least. Doesn't cost much. A dollar or two. Perhaps their is no way to prove God with words, maybe the only way is too have Faith. To believe what you can't see... Perhaps you should try to say a prayer, to open your eyes, if you don't I will :) Anyway, that's all. You win. Of course, you haven't proven he DOESN'T exist, you just have prevented some premises from being true. Pitzy (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
In the wake of recent history, I can't help but wonder if maybe we (as in Western Society) are driving Muslims to extremism out of just how shitty we treat them. Far too often have I come across people in real life casually mentioning their disdain for "barbaric" Muslims and how backwards they are compared to us ignoring a great deal of history. However, what bothers me most is how little people know about Islam, which I figure shapes peoples' (mis)understanding of Muslims and Islam in general. Here's a quick list of things I had to explain about Islam/Muslims:
- Islam was one of the world's youngest religions, younger even than Christianity
- Muslims worship the SAME GOD as Christians, Jews and Ba'hai and that the scriptures of the newer religions recognizes characters from the older ones despite the insistence of my opponent, who was a semi-devout Christian, that they worshiped a "moon God" (ugh)
- The difference between the Koran and Hadith literature, that there are various interpretations on these works, how Muslims don't necessarily believe in those 72 virgins and how most Muslims view extremists the way Christians view the WBC or how secularists view r/atheists
- How Dar al Islam was culturally and technologically superior to the West for centuries, how we borrowed many things from them, how they preserved the works of the Greeks and how a lot of these breakthroughs were made when the West was in a "dark age"
- I had to explain what Sharia law and Fiqh are, but that was a rather tame discussion about legal traditions in different parts of the world; I did have to highlight that there are different interpretations and practices of these, however
I can't help but feel a lot of this derives from casual racism, of confusing Muslims with Arabs with South Asians like Indians, that these ideas are somehow rooted in a persistent desire from someone or something to alienate the other based on superficial traits like garb, language/accents or skin colour. I've also noticed a frightening amount of compartmentalization regarding people's attitudes to Muslims; for instance, I've seen ardent misogynists decry Islam's barbarism based on how poorly they treat their women. However, the thing I find most astounding is that I am neither religious nor a religious scholar - I studied economics and business in Uni and am staunchly secular! Has anyone else here had to go to bat for Islam (or any other controversial entity that may not necessarily be rational) because of massive amounts of misinformation coming from your opponent? Somehow, Monsanto is coming to mind here... Space Turbo (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- The sort of ignorance you're talking is certainly a major cause of prejudice against Muslims and ethnoreligious groups generally. The question of what is leading a small proportion of Muslims to religious extremism is multifaceted and certainly more complex than "just how shitty we treat them", a statement which, in its essentialism of Muslims and their cultural experience, does a disservice to the rest of what you said. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- How so? What then causes extremism in ethnoreligious groups? Space Turbo (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, when I say that the causes are multifaceted, I really mean that. What turns someone to Islamic extremism in, for example, France, might be entirely different to why it occurs in Yemen. If I was pushed to give a catch-all explanation, it would be "religious fanaticism" - to illustrate what I mean, here's a couple of examples of violence perpetrated by extremists where your Global West vs Muslims narrative doesn't really fit. 1) Politically opportunist power grabs on the part of religious fantatics, eg Post-Independence War Algeria, where the power struggle-ridden shambles that was the secular FLN allowed the rise of violent revivalist groups. 2) Instances of native, deep-seated sectarianism, eg the Shia insurgency in Yemen, the bombings that have occurred in Pakistan over the past fifteen or so years. I'd also suggest that the socioeconomic marginalisation that might contribute to fomentation of Islamic extremism in areas where Muslims are a minority doesn't itself necessarily have an Islamophobic subtext. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Whoops! Totally missed your exposition here while dealing with that... stuff below. Anyway, the things both you and I have described sound very situational. So much so that I would argue that right now, the thing driving Muslims to the ranks of extremist groups is the West's continued ignorance of and hostility towards them. It's really the best recruiting tool groups like IS could request - "see? They'll never respect you for who you are!"
- I am however a bit conflicted on your suggestion of economic marginalization of these peoples as a thing that drives them towards extremism. On the one hand, it makes intuitive sense but on the other, there are too many educated, well-to-do Muslims that have been terrorists.Space Turbo (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, when I say that the causes are multifaceted, I really mean that. What turns someone to Islamic extremism in, for example, France, might be entirely different to why it occurs in Yemen. If I was pushed to give a catch-all explanation, it would be "religious fanaticism" - to illustrate what I mean, here's a couple of examples of violence perpetrated by extremists where your Global West vs Muslims narrative doesn't really fit. 1) Politically opportunist power grabs on the part of religious fantatics, eg Post-Independence War Algeria, where the power struggle-ridden shambles that was the secular FLN allowed the rise of violent revivalist groups. 2) Instances of native, deep-seated sectarianism, eg the Shia insurgency in Yemen, the bombings that have occurred in Pakistan over the past fifteen or so years. I'd also suggest that the socioeconomic marginalisation that might contribute to fomentation of Islamic extremism in areas where Muslims are a minority doesn't itself necessarily have an Islamophobic subtext. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- How so? What then causes extremism in ethnoreligious groups? Space Turbo (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- "I've seen ardent misogynists decry Islam's barbarism based on how poorly they treat their women". Just curious, who exactly?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- An acquaintance IRL. Yeah yeah, it's an anecdote. Space Turbo (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Far-right politicians/activists regularly condemn Islam for its purported treatment of women. That doesn't mean they can't support "traditional gender roles" *cough* Western-style misogyny *cough*, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's like saying people who feel uncomfortable around black people can't criticize Hitler. I don't think supporting traditional gender roles is quite the same as forcing women to cover up and cutting off their genitals.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- And there you go associating African cultural practices and West-Asian/North-African dress norms with Muslims in general. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're avoiding the point. I could list a million other examples. Lots of people, even former Muslims, have already. Advocating beating your wife, for example. And Islam is very deeply ingrained in Arab culture, so it's not all purely cultural in origin.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you really think Muhammad invented these sorts of clothing or something? It's not like the Quran says exactly how much is supposed to be covered either way. Different cultures have different ideas as to what the required 'modesty' entails. I'm not saying you can't criticize practices from foreign cultures/religions if you're on the far-right, but you'd obviously be very biased about the matter. And when far-right politicians talk about questionable practices associated with Islam, it's typically to vilify/denigrate Muslim immigrants in their country, the vast majority of whom don't participate in these questionable practices at all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well it wasn't Jesus who told fundamentalist Christians to do all of the stupid things they do. And the Koran states to beat disobedient wives, so yes, the religion is misogynistic. Also, quit imagining insidious undertones in what people you disagree with say. I think people on the far-right are just as, if not more, concerned with places like Iran, as well as foreign terrorists (we all should be, really), than immigrants.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Right, right, when a prominent Belgian far-right politician that constantly complains about headscarfs says that the problem of the Belgian population isn't that it's 'graying' (i.e. the percentage of old people is getting higher) but that it's 'browning' (take a guess), he's obviously doing it out of concern for Moroccans, Syrians, Iranians etc. Seriously, who are you kidding here? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- "I think people on the far-right are just as, if not more, concerned with places like Iran, as well as foreign terrorists" Nowhere in there did I say no one was afraid of Muslim immigrants. So providing one obscure example doesn't really do much in the way of proving me wrong.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Right, right, when a prominent Belgian far-right politician that constantly complains about headscarfs says that the problem of the Belgian population isn't that it's 'graying' (i.e. the percentage of old people is getting higher) but that it's 'browning' (take a guess), he's obviously doing it out of concern for Moroccans, Syrians, Iranians etc. Seriously, who are you kidding here? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well it wasn't Jesus who told fundamentalist Christians to do all of the stupid things they do. And the Koran states to beat disobedient wives, so yes, the religion is misogynistic. Also, quit imagining insidious undertones in what people you disagree with say. I think people on the far-right are just as, if not more, concerned with places like Iran, as well as foreign terrorists (we all should be, really), than immigrants.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you really think Muhammad invented these sorts of clothing or something? It's not like the Quran says exactly how much is supposed to be covered either way. Different cultures have different ideas as to what the required 'modesty' entails. I'm not saying you can't criticize practices from foreign cultures/religions if you're on the far-right, but you'd obviously be very biased about the matter. And when far-right politicians talk about questionable practices associated with Islam, it's typically to vilify/denigrate Muslim immigrants in their country, the vast majority of whom don't participate in these questionable practices at all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're avoiding the point. I could list a million other examples. Lots of people, even former Muslims, have already. Advocating beating your wife, for example. And Islam is very deeply ingrained in Arab culture, so it's not all purely cultural in origin.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- And there you go associating African cultural practices and West-Asian/North-African dress norms with Muslims in general. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's like saying people who feel uncomfortable around black people can't criticize Hitler. I don't think supporting traditional gender roles is quite the same as forcing women to cover up and cutting off their genitals.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The sort of ignorance you're talking is certainly a major cause of prejudice against Muslims and ethnoreligious groups generally. The question of what is leading a small proportion of Muslims to religious extremism is multifaceted and certainly more complex than "just how shitty we treat them", a statement which, in its essentialism of Muslims and their cultural experience, does a disservice to the rest of what you said. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to have a different view. For starters while I am not an anti-theist I would consider an anti-theist who takes that view to be a hypocrite. Nevertheless to say that Islamic fundamentalists kill people because we were mean to them sound similar to me as saying that the peasants who lynched Jews (my people) during the middle ages did so because the aristocracy and/or the Jewish moneylenders were mean to them. There is the urge among those associated with the social justice movement to attribute non-western religious fanaticism to the fact that the west was mean to non-westerners. For certain imperialism helps fuel the popularity of Islamic fundamentalism but the root cause of all religious fundamentalism is always the religion itself regardless of whether or not the religious texts particular to any given religion promote violence. Many anti-theists see this fact as being grounds to reject religion itself and most such as the late Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, and Richard Dawkins are infuriated when other leftists denounce them for criticizing Islam as a whole despite the absence of such criticism when they criticize Christianity as a whole. While I am not an anti-theist I consider their right to criticize all religions, as legitimate, even though I disagree with their critique, and as such I tend to view the apparent double standard to which they are judged, unfavorably, period. I cannot and will not use or accept social justice as an excuse to pardon Religious fundamentalism, and I have seen people do that. I remember reading one author who justified Sayyid Qutb's occidentalist (to say the least) worldview to be excusable on the basis of the "power imbalance between the West and Egypt", as I am familiar with one of Sayyid Qutb's works (a short book called Milestones, which is his Magnum Opus) I find that idea naive at best and illiberal and idiotic at worst, and I feel that most people on this website would agree. Alsto003 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Alex
- It would be disingenious to say that the West is solely to blame for Islamic fundamentalists, but it would be ludicrous to deny that the West has played a significant role. To name a few examples; they empowered mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, inadvertently helping Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to become major movements, and replaced Iran's largely secular democracy with the Shah's autocratic rule, leading to the Iranian Revolution and the establishment of a theocracy. An additional interesting factoid, in the same year as the Iranian Revolution, the Grand Mosque in Mecca was seized by an obscure group of Islamic fighters. In response to Western accusations, Sean-Connery-lookalike Ruhollah Khomeini spread the conspiracy theory that the West was behind the seizure. Eventually the Saudis had to call in help from French special forces to retake the Grand Mosque from the insurgents. The whole affair further increased anti-Western sentiment in the Middle-East. And what have we done in response? Acted like we never did anything wrong and being consistently discriminative, even outright hostile, towards Muslims. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, the West is only responsible in the sense that by using so much oil, they provided the Saudis with all the money to fund the Salafi madrassas, which is the main source of Islamic extremism. We were just as shitty to Black Africans, Chinese and Indians, to say nothing of the Aboriginees and Native Americans, yet they don't have extremist groups demanding the complete eradication of Western Civilization.CorruptUser (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- It would be disingenious to say that the West is solely to blame for Islamic fundamentalists, but it would be ludicrous to deny that the West has played a significant role. To name a few examples; they empowered mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, inadvertently helping Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to become major movements, and replaced Iran's largely secular democracy with the Shah's autocratic rule, leading to the Iranian Revolution and the establishment of a theocracy. An additional interesting factoid, in the same year as the Iranian Revolution, the Grand Mosque in Mecca was seized by an obscure group of Islamic fighters. In response to Western accusations, Sean-Connery-lookalike Ruhollah Khomeini spread the conspiracy theory that the West was behind the seizure. Eventually the Saudis had to call in help from French special forces to retake the Grand Mosque from the insurgents. The whole affair further increased anti-Western sentiment in the Middle-East. And what have we done in response? Acted like we never did anything wrong and being consistently discriminative, even outright hostile, towards Muslims. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Pits' non-sequitur
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. God (the 2nd person of the Godhead - Jesus actually) gave the "Gospel" to Adam and Eve.. As the Hebrews (and Jews) only received half of it, Jesus had to come to set the record straight and explain the Gospel so we can understand it properly, which the Jews failed so to do. This was, and is the same gospel we have in the Bible today. This gospel was expanded upon down through the ages by means of God's Patriarchs, Prophets, Judges, Kings, and Jesus ( God's Son ) , and is the same gospel taught and believed by Seventh-day Adventist Christians today I believe this gospel to be the ORIGINAL religion from God and ALL other religions are a variation of, or are in lieu of God's original Gospel for the salvation of mankind.
- I don't in any way think that Islam is the first religion, definitely no the current religion of Islam. Remember, Mohammed came hundreds of years after the Gospel was shared? Pitzy 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wish the wisdom of the Almighty would reveal itself to you and tell you how to sign your fucking posts properly. Who the hell are you even talking to? Go dump your text walls somewhere else if you've nothing relevant to say. Grumblejaws (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Who gives a fucking shit about your view of the bible, Pits? What does that have to do with what I was talking about in any sense? You have much to answer for in my goddamn thread. Space Turbo (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
--Teslashark (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Yeaterday I was reading the Truth for Children comic Hairy Polarity and saw a scene in somewhere around the middle: The little cultists/book fans are trying to levitate a pair of pink glasses, and an invisible hellspawn did the lifting. Then I read the Bumblebee argument.
What if hellspawns controlled gravity in the real world, and only that we can't see them?
Fellow rationals, comrades, sisters and brothers:
Let's try to convince some people that the Wrights are sorcerers and they sold their souls to Hastur, prince of Hell, as an effort to enter Heaven without the help of Jesus. Heavier-that-air flight is physically impossible. Every aircraft manufacturer from Glenn Martin to Burt Rutan is a Satanist that made stuff fly with the help of summoned unholies lifting them in the air. When the dirty communist Gagarin went to space, he really went to hell and signed a new contract and founded the Secret Knighthood of Astronauts, to cheat the common people with so-called science. It's open season!
Please recount your efforts here. You will be thanked seven hundred thirty and seven thousand times.
Yesterday, I added a link on the Rational Wiki page for 'bilocation' to a discussion paper on the most notorious case of bilocation in history, the case of Maria de Agreda, who bilocated over 500 times between Spain and the US in the 17th century. This discussion paper assesses the evidence by reference to the rules of court and rule of evidence used in civil courts in the UK. It concludes that they actually happened. At the same time I posted in this forum an announcement of the the added link.
http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/pedigree_senior.htm#maria
Both the link in the Rational Wiki article AND the post to the forum were removed almost immediately. A comment on the article by the person responsible says that there is nothing in the discussion paper to justify inclusion - this from a person who is clearly neither an expert in bilocation or the law. This is clear censorship by Rational Wiki.
Evidently they are afraid of rational discussion. We'll see how long this post survives... — Unsigned, by: 5.81.227.40 / talk / contribs 14:15, 13 May 2014
- Why do you think "legal" evidence is sufficient? Whether bilocation is possible is a question for science to answer (and answer it has), and science cares not one iota for legalities. - Grant (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't censorship, it's the dumbest thing I have read this week.
Don't click here 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- What did I just read? SophieWilder
14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- What did I just read? SophieWilder
- This isn't censorship, it's the dumbest thing I have read this week.
- Just for the record, the forum thread was removed because the proper place for discussing an article is its talk page. In this case, this is Talk:Bilocation and the person who deleted your forum thread moved its contents there.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- So why is this still here? Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I moved it to the relevant talk page yesterday. Numb-nuts created another forum page in its place. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not even bothering to add the template we're all thinking of, I'll just stop by and say that the trolls are getting lamer and lamer in the shit that they think we're afraid of rationally discussing. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 20:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I moved it to the relevant talk page yesterday. Numb-nuts created another forum page in its place. TeenageWasteland (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- So why is this still here? Wèàšèìòìď
Try this, rational people. Hahahahaha! I do hope science catches up with religion soon. I am getting bored of your childish idiocy. I have added it to my web page. Pathetic.
'Star Trek-style "beaming up" of people through space could become a reality in the far future, the leader of a landmark teleportation experiment has said. Nothing in the laws of physics fundamentally forbids the teleportation of large objects, including humans, Ronald Hanson pointed out. "What we are teleporting is the state of a particle," said Professor Hanson, of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. "If you believe we are nothing more than a collection of atoms strung together in a particular way; then in principle it should be possible to teleport ourselves from one place to another. In practice it's extremely unlikely, but to say it can never work is very dangerous." Professor Hanson's team showed for the first time that it was possible to teleport information encoded into sub-atomic particles between two points three metres apart with 100 per cent reliability. Teleportation exploits the way "entangled" particles acquire a merged identity, with the state of one instantly influencing the other no matter how far apart they are. Albert Einstein dismissed entanglement, calling it "spooky action at a distance", but scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that it is a real phenomenon. The research is published in the latest online edition of the journal Science*. A more ambitious experiment, involving the teleportafion of information between buildings on the university campus 1,300 metres apart, is planned in July.' ('Beaming up people could be possible', The Times, 30 May 2014)
- W. Pfaff, B. Hensen, H. Bernien, S. B. van Dam, M. S. Blok, T. H. Taminiau, M. J. Tiggelman, R. N. Schouten, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, R. Hanson, 'Unconditional quantum teleportation between distant solid-state quantum bits', Science, 29 May 2014.— Unsigned, by: 86.158.233.46 / talk / contribs
- So I read you link and as far as I can tell some apparently unidentified person on the internet believes that a hypothetical court would accept that a 17th century nun was capable of biolocation. Is that the essence of the argument?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am sure most of these 'I thought this was supposed to be rationalwiki...' People are just socks to give you piss heads an excuse to drink. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are these people just shills for Big Booze? News at 11. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature of moral choice. 04:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Please say "yes"! And then tell me how I may become one of them 208.29.163.248 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Entanglement doesn't mean what you think it means, and neither does quantum teleportation (referring to the BoN of course). While it's exciting that yet another experiment has shown how awesome entanglement is, it should be noted that quantum teleportation still doesn't violate relativity. Even if someone were to find away to transfer all of the information in a person (which I'm not sure is even possible given that quantum mechanical particles are indistinguishable) there would still need to be a classical transfer of information along with it. - Grant (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are these people just shills for Big Booze? News at 11. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
- I am sure most of these 'I thought this was supposed to be rationalwiki...' People are just socks to give you piss heads an excuse to drink. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- So I read you link and as far as I can tell some apparently unidentified person on the internet believes that a hypothetical court would accept that a 17th century nun was capable of biolocation. Is that the essence of the argument?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I like that notion about "science catching up with religion" though. :) That was amusing. I don't think that cultists have managed to come up with a unique idea in literally 10,000 years, every cultist still spews and believes the same lunacy that cultists over the past 10,000 years has spewed and believed, nothing new has come out of religious beliefs. "Catching up" as if reality was some kind of foot race. :) Damotclese (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I was on yahoo answers looking at a person asking "Give me good reasons why god is real".
One person said this:
i was 9 and i got in a car accident...i thought i was going to die...i was in the hospital and i was laying in the bed thinking about my broken leg and how bad things were going to be. i closed my eyes and then i fell asleep. a couple hours later or i dont even know...doctors came in telling my mom that i was loosing to much blood...or had lost to much blood from the accident. I thought i wasnt going to make it. the doctos told my mom i wasnt going to make it and i had already lost to much blood. i had so much faith in God and i knew he was going to help me through that time. Im alive now...it was a mirical. i had so much faith and love in my God and Jesus Christ, and here I am today sharing my story.
You dont need to believe in God...alot of people dont...but when you think about it...would you rather want to believe in the big bang and science...or something pretty like God and flowers and doves?
God is here with us and will always be with me. I still feel him in my heart...i pray to him everynight before i go to sleep...i know he will be with me forever and always...just like he was with me the day i almost died (:
I'd like to ask this idiot a couple questions:
1. You thank god for saving your life through a miracle. How about thanking your doctor? The person who...um...gave you medical attention???
2. Your "miracle" is proof that god exists, but wouldn't it be more of a miracle if world hunger, cancer, AIDS, etc. ceased to exist this very instant? There's no conceivable reason why an innocent person should be afflicted with those things. "God" supposedly is omnipotent, so him doing all he can within his power to bring happiness is considered moral. He's obviously not doing that, but your doctor is doing everything in their power to help people—so your doctor is more moral than God. Funny thing is...the bible condemns everyone but God as a sinner. Funny.
3. "would you rather want to believe in the big bang and science...or something pretty like God and flowers and doves?" This is what happens when people aren't educated. They say stupid things like this. *facepalms* — Unsigned, by: 69.120.181.114 / talk / contribs
- Why are you saying all this here instead of at Yahoo Answers where the discussion took place? Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Y!A people are not the brightest nor the most logical of people. Do not attempt to apply logic to their actions. Do not negotiate with them. Do not make eye contact. Just nod, smile and back away slowly. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦
The neural network broke the phase space!? REVERSE THE TANGENT GRAPH!!! 23:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Y!A people are not the brightest nor the most logical of people. Do not attempt to apply logic to their actions. Do not negotiate with them. Do not make eye contact. Just nod, smile and back away slowly. --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Is it right to condemn ancient cultures for believing in religion even though they did not have the same scientific advances/advantages that we do now?
The title speaks for itself. Many people today poke fun at ancient cultures for their religious beliefs and superstitions which are irrelevant today. However,they did not have our advantages of thousands of years of scientific advancement and learning to build the conclusions of the past 150 years of science. They had no theory of evolution, no big bang theory etc. Virtually all indigenous cultures develop some form of spiritual beliefs i.e. shamanism, suggesting an intrinsic human capacity for religious belief. Religion as a genuine belief system is getting less and less relevant every year, but my question is whether it is right to judge the morality/intelligence of ancient peoples for religious beliefs when they simply didn't know any better. Specifically, whether it is right to judge by our modern standards. What do you guys think? I'd like to know.
- We don't encounter the originators of these ideas. We encounter their current proponents. While I don't know for certain, experience tells me that unsophisticated people pass on unsophisticated ideas. Religion is due no special treatment simply because the misapprehension is old. Should we ignore that it's based on falsehoods? But that's not what you're asking. We don't need to judge the morality or intelligence of ancient people and I find that it's simply not the case that people urge we ought to. I think you're attempting to lure people into conflating criticism of contemporary adherents with criticism of the originators of what we now know to be falsehoods.

03:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well that's the historian's fallacy. Analyze the history of scientific advancement and it's obvious that whatever their conclusions, ancient cultures were actively trying to understand the world around them using the tools they had. That has to stand for something. At the same time, that shouldn't be used as a rationalization for ignoring where they went wrong — audiences watching Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch didn't find it an attack on their faith, for example. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came across as trying to conflate criticism of modern adherents with ancient peoples. It was not my intention. I wasn't referring to members of the site, I was referring to much more amateur commentators online (and a few simple minded people I know). And I'm very sorry if I implied we should ignore where we went wrong; I'm a firm believer of learning from historical mistakes, I think this question just came from my frustration at people I know in my personal life who simplify history. As lover of all forms of history (political, religious, artistic, anthropological etc.) there are two things I hate more than anything; demonizing history and glorifying history. I feel Hollywood films are especially guilty of this; while films can be a great artistic way of portraying historical beliefs that comment on today's society, bad writers (which are all to common in Hollywood) often appear to judge history in a very obvious, two dimensional way. Too often characters in historical films come across as two dimensional caricatures rather than genuine, complex human beings. I've strayed a little off topic; I just wanted to hear what the intelligent people on this site had to say. — Unsigned, by: 68.38.180.115 / talk / contribs
- Past religions shouldn't be criticized for not being correct, just as past science shouldn't be. A religion is a legitimate attempt to explain the workings of the universe, and should be treated as such, even if it is totally incorrect. Past people and societies simply didn't have the knowledge to be correct. In fact, they should be lauded for producing so much worthwhile stuff out of such a terrible body of nonsense and ignorance.(Agrajag (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC))
From the simple-minded:
1) Past religions and past science should be criticized. Understanding the faults, the faulty reasoning, the mistakes, makes us better!
2) In past times, if you didn't believe like those around you, you risked grievous harm by challenging the dominant view. Today's challenge is to encourage inquiry and protect free thinkers from persecution.
3) Satire and comedy, regardless of the quality, often move people to realize some of their beliefs and those of others are silly (and in need of questioning).
Is everyone on RationalWiki an atheist? — Unsigned, by: GrandDukeofGrizzlydale / talk / contribs
- No. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Who cares? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- The idea for a RationalWiki user survey was always around. But no, not everyone here is an atheist. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, only the intelligent ones. Tee hee! - shit meet fan! Scream!! (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Try not sounding like a /r/atheist at least in front of outsiders. :P --ZooGuard (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Most of us are CIA stooges anyway. The stuff about atheism is just a smokescreen. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- the FSM, IPU and Fairy Belinda prefer we not say, so yes , atheists with regard to some things Hamster (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, but rationalists, skeptics and people who ask for evidence before belief tend to be or become athiests.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god as has been described by those religions for centuries any more than I believe the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that a turtle propping up two elephants keeps the Earth in space, or that the stars in the sky are dead lion kings. As time progresses so does our understanding, this is mostly true except in the case of religion, which tends to make myself and other rationalists take a step back and question why exactly that is. I do believe in an infinite multiverse however, and as Bruno described finding providence in infinity, I too see there being far more to understand about the nature of reality than we know now. I understand that given an infinite system, all things become possible however improbable. This to me leaves room for God or a god-like being. However, as rationalwiki points out, believing in the multiverse in some sense still requires just as much leap of faith as does belief in that same Judeo-Christian God does. However, at least with multiverse theory, their is at least some evidence to support the hypothesis, if not any direct evidence of its existence.--Wyt3dr4g0n (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm an agnostic myself, which I think comes from having a scientific background. I find it funny that I hear the same arguments from both anti-theists/atheists and people with faith (not all of either groups, just the most antagonistic). "I know there is/isn't a god, and I have definitive proof! If you don't believe me you're a fool!". Yet the proof always fails any sort of deductive reasoning test. One discussion I had with two friends, a devout Christian and a Harris/Dawkins disciple (both soldiers), mostly entailed them battling over how Occam's Razor proves there isn't a god and how the human eye proves there was.--TheJackolope (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god as has been described by those religions for centuries any more than I believe the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that a turtle propping up two elephants keeps the Earth in space, or that the stars in the sky are dead lion kings. As time progresses so does our understanding, this is mostly true except in the case of religion, which tends to make myself and other rationalists take a step back and question why exactly that is. I do believe in an infinite multiverse however, and as Bruno described finding providence in infinity, I too see there being far more to understand about the nature of reality than we know now. I understand that given an infinite system, all things become possible however improbable. This to me leaves room for God or a god-like being. However, as rationalwiki points out, believing in the multiverse in some sense still requires just as much leap of faith as does belief in that same Judeo-Christian God does. However, at least with multiverse theory, their is at least some evidence to support the hypothesis, if not any direct evidence of its existence.--Wyt3dr4g0n (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, but rationalists, skeptics and people who ask for evidence before belief tend to be or become athiests.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- the FSM, IPU and Fairy Belinda prefer we not say, so yes , atheists with regard to some things Hamster (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Most of us are CIA stooges anyway. The stuff about atheism is just a smokescreen. Щєазєюіδ
- Try not sounding like a /r/atheist at least in front of outsiders. :P --ZooGuard (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, only the intelligent ones. Tee hee! - shit meet fan! Scream!! (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- The idea for a RationalWiki user survey was always around. But no, not everyone here is an atheist. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- there are a smattering of Goat and Jerboa worshippers, and the occasional follower of the Floying Spagehtti Monster as well as Belinda, the Fairy of Last Tuesday. Members of the Maratrean dieties are also around. Its a mix. Hamster (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Who cares? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
[edit] a completely different discussion
I am a Christian, a legit one too. I believe Atheism is one of the many paths that lead to hell.Pitzy 17:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: Pits Brazil / talk / contribs
- I'm not sure how one variety of nonsense can be more "legit" than another. Could you clarify how you know you're "legit"? Ikanreed (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I call myself agnostic (or, if I'm dealing with someone who's super-religious, I simply say I'm "non-religious"), partly for the sake of avoiding stigma and being non-confrontational. If atheism were deemed less disturbing than agnosticism, I would probably call myself an atheist. But also, "agnostic" describes me better because I don't presume to know whether there's a god out there, somewhere beyond the limits of my five senses. A deep sea fish, which didn't need, and therefore doesn't have, functioning eyes, doesn't know either whether there's a bathosphere shining a light on it; it doesn't mean the lamp doesn't exist. Or the ants in an ant farm may be unaware of their owner. Landmartian (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. Though people are often unsure if I'm Catholic or if I worship entropy in the form of Hastur. An argument could be made that there if very little difference between the two.--Castaigne (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I ultimately consider the question of whether god exists or not to be irrelevant to the daily function of my life, and so would be an apatheist despite having other beliefs. --Miekal 18:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do not know if God exists. I also do not know with absolute certainty that unicorns, fairies or bigfoot don't exist. However, in the absence of any good evidence that they that do exist, I am justified in believing that Gods, fairies and unicorns do not exist. One is a question about knowledge and the other is about belief. As I do not believe that gods exist I am an atheist.--Coffee (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- (ec)Since we're re-opening this discussion, I've got lots to say, particularly about apatheism, but it relates to agnosticism, atheism, and every other term for the "whether there is a god" question. There's a lot of hypothetical gods that would matter to my day-to-day life if they existed, but there's a lot of good reason to doubt those gods existance, because the observational results vis-a-vis that daily life isn't there. I'm not agnostic towards that class of gods, nor should I be. They're non-extant. Then there's the set that I have to be agnostic about because they're almost defined by their lack of evidence: deist gods, faith demanding gods, invisible pink unicorns. I feel compelled to be apatheistic towards that. In the end, I have to shift the burden of proof onto the god claimant, because otherwise, I don't even know what kind of god/goat you're talking about. Ikanreed (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unicorns are different because they would be something detectable by your senses (unless they were invisible, silent unicorns that are able to pass through matter like neutrinos). If someone were to ask whether such unicorns exist, I would have to disclaim opinion on the matter. I would also probably be an apatheist about it. Landmartian (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Invisible, pink ones can't be detected at all. Ikanreed (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. But is the argument that Gods - and by their extension their influence - are by definition undetectable? Because if neither they nor their influence is detectable then we have no reason to bother about them. If however they are detectable than they should be at least as testable as unicorns.--Coffee (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Invisible, pink ones can't be detected at all. Ikanreed (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unicorns are different because they would be something detectable by your senses (unless they were invisible, silent unicorns that are able to pass through matter like neutrinos). If someone were to ask whether such unicorns exist, I would have to disclaim opinion on the matter. I would also probably be an apatheist about it. Landmartian (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I ultimately consider the question of whether god exists or not to be irrelevant to the daily function of my life, and so would be an apatheist despite having other beliefs. --Miekal 18:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I said I am a legit Christian because that's exactly what I am, a legitimate Christian, the one the Bible talks about. Not some fake politician that says that to get votes. ANYWAY Unicorns haven't had an effect on the history or the culture of the world. On the other hand, God has been the basis of EVERYTHING since the dawn of the world 10,000 or so years ago. There is little evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist. Why? Because every Christian is an evidence he DOES exist. Every church shows he DOES exist. Every life changed shows he does exist. Can science bring joy, happiness, and end to addictions? Explain Billy Graham or Abraham Lincoln or Paul or the thousands of influential Christians in the world. Charles Spurgeon. How do you explain the fact you hate the God of the bible more than any other false god, or religion, your all in denial. If you ever explored the sciences, chemistry, anatomy, etc...You will realize how FREAKING COMPLEX THE WORLD IS. Every breath is amazing. Every particle transferring energy and staying in place is AMAZING. LIFE itself is proof the a God exists, we don't need the Bible to tell us that. Go to a third-world country, ask anyone if they happened by chance. They wont tell you about mother nature, no, they will tell you about a Creator, perhaps not MY Creator, but a creator. Think about yourself...As a kid, before your were influenced by Satan. What did you think??? Every time someone dies the bible says that is a warning- a warning that the end is near. For all of us. Are you going to be able to tell God you love him, or that you spent your non-influential and sad, depressed life trying to find happiness and disregarding all mention of someone that freely gives the GRACE of JESUS to those in need. I am a Christian, and I hope all of you become Christians, and I hope that someday I will see you in heaven, and rejoice I was part of your conversion.Or, in the line to Hell.— Unsigned, by: Somebody too dumb to sign / talk / contribs
- Counterpoint; every other religion. And I never understood how you can argue "but the world itself proclaims gods existence!" because, hypothetically even if it did absolutely be evident a deity created it, what about it shows it's any more created by some desert hill tribes god than the great spirit of several native tribes? --Miekal 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)--Miekal 19:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Point one: Shouting with capital letters doesn't make you right - though it does make you look silly. Point two: What is this evidence? You simply say it exists. What is it?--Coffee (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- The evidence - ebola, AIDS, cancer, poverty, starvation, war. Yep, he's an alright dude that god of yours. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- and what's your take on the Problem_of_evil. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Point one: Shouting with capital letters doesn't make you right - though it does make you look silly. Point two: What is this evidence? You simply say it exists. What is it?--Coffee (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I enjoy SHOUTING because I feel like a PREACHER! You asked what is the evidence, for God. Well.. If you want me to repeat the list.. But that would be a long paragraph so I wont. Basically, everything GOOD in the world is evidence for God. Caps are used as like italics for me as well, but that's beside the point. Anyway. Ebola-Sin-Aids-Stupid humans not listening to God when he said have Sex with your wife, Sin-Cancer sin..- Poverty, liberals...Just kidding sin- starvation, greed and sin- war, stupid humans not listening to God, and sin, and plain evil.. I suppose the fact that we want to eliminate the above things is fact that he exists. We want, simply put, perfection. 777. Sadly, humans are imperfect, 666. Jesus came to cast our imperfections and sinful lives away.— Unsigned, by: True Christian™ / talk / contribs
Why do you think God doesn't exist? Did your mom die? Or are you in denial, or something? Or, you want to be completely logical. Right. Nobody spends their time on a forum like this if they don't really REALLY hate God. And.. no. I wont stop the CAPS, I rather enjoying yelling and ranting, I feel more convincing. I remembered my siggy too!---> Pitzy 19:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because the idea that there's an all powerful deity running around throwing natural disasters and causing/allowing human made disasters to happen on both widespread and personal scales, and i'm to believe that this deity is benevolent, just and that I should love them for it all, is absolutely horrifying. That I can attribute these things to natural causes instead seems more likely than the doublethink of "loving god who lets lots of terrible things happen"--Miekal 20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Nobody spends their time on a forum like this if they don't really REALLY hate God." Typical god-botherer statement. I'm an atheist; I don't hate god -'cause there isn't anything there to hate. Mind you the older I get, the more likely I am to hate god-botherers! Scream!! (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- So... why care about god if god doesn't exist, right? You have a roundabout way of asking that question, but let's address it honestly. Because people who believe in god, and their interpretations thereof, have very real implications for people who just want to live their lives. Be it your own inexcusable hatred for gay people(seriously, that's on you; grow up), other people's attempt to control our family planning, or some more extreme peoples' attempts to murder and kill. The implications of assuming the absurd are pretty drastic. Wanting to contest that at a root level isn't unreasonable. Ikanreed (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
. Two of the many consequences of sin coming into the world are sickness and death. Romans 5:12 says, “Sin entered the world through one man and in this way death came to all men because all have sinned.” The worst part is that either one can strike anyone at any time, even innocent little babies. 1 John 5:19 tells us the whole world is under the control of the evil one. He’s the responsible party here because he’s the one who brought sin into the world. As long as there’s sin in the world there will be sickness and death. THIS was too answer the guy that said why did a God let bad crap happen. Pitzy 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I do not hate Gay people. I do not agree with Gay people. I do not hate you all. I do not agree with any of you. Pitzy 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- But didn't God create sin by allowing the serpent to tempt Eve? Why would a benevolent all powerful god create such a scenario? Marlow (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.gotquestions.org/tree-knowledge-good-evil.html Think about this: A complete stranger invites you to the diner that he owns. You go, order your food, and get ready to pay the bill. This is when the man tells you everything on the menu is free. You can come whenever you want, get whatever you want, and don't have to pay for anything. But, the man tells you that you can not have the turkey sandwich. It is his favorite, as is special to him. Everything ACCEPT that sandwhich. Why? It was to show that he was still the owner, and that by his GRACE and LOVE they could have everything, at no cost to them. Not allowing them to eat the sandwhich showed they were not in control, not all powerful, God was. Lol, when the serpent tempted Eve that wasn't the sin of Eve, when she ate the apple-Turkey Sandwich- BOOM all hell broke loose. Literally. Kind of. Nevermind. Some people think Adam was the first sinner, because he let Eve eat the apple. That's not my view though. Pitzy 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Why should i be punished for the crimes of my forbearers? Why is the resturant holding me accountable for the fact somebody else related to me ate a sandwich? Why should i be punished for committing sin if i was never given the chance not to commit sin? If sin entered humanity through adam and eve, my ancestors, and through them i inherited a sinful nature i didn't get a say in, ultimately i'm being punished for something somebody else did, and that is the antithesis of justice. --Miekal 19:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because we are all human, and you would have done the exact same thing, and perhaps God enjoys when humans freely worship him and choose to accept him and refuse the Apple. That's what it really is, everytime we refuse sin we are refusing that Apple so long ago. Why should you be punished? Well, that's why JESUS CAME!! That's the greatness of it, Jesus came to take away your punishment! So it doesn't matter that you sin anymore, and that Eve took the apple... Pitzy 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- But why should i need jesus. The point still stands that people have and are being held accountable because somebody else disobeyed god and then had kids. I didn't eat the apple, my great crime to get me a sinful nature was being born to somebody who also was born to somebody who was also born, on and on, back to adam and eve. I'm being punished because I was born, not because i sinned --Miekal 19:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here's the problem: you were not created perfect, you were created with a flaw passed on by your forebearers. You are a factory defect, subject to recall. There's a big factory recall of Takata airbags right now; your argument is like saying, "hey, I bought my car, I paid my money, there is nothing wrong with my airbag. The recall doesn't apply to me." Yet the maker says, "hey, beware, I SCREWED UP in the process of making it. Only I can fix it. If you try to fix your own problem, that voids the warranty, and if harm yourself it's NOT MY PROBLEM anymore." nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- But why should i need jesus. The point still stands that people have and are being held accountable because somebody else disobeyed god and then had kids. I didn't eat the apple, my great crime to get me a sinful nature was being born to somebody who also was born to somebody who was also born, on and on, back to adam and eve. I'm being punished because I was born, not because i sinned --Miekal 19:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because we are all human, and you would have done the exact same thing, and perhaps God enjoys when humans freely worship him and choose to accept him and refuse the Apple. That's what it really is, everytime we refuse sin we are refusing that Apple so long ago. Why should you be punished? Well, that's why JESUS CAME!! That's the greatness of it, Jesus came to take away your punishment! So it doesn't matter that you sin anymore, and that Eve took the apple... Pitzy 19:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
http://bibleq.net/answer/2907/ I just said this, but this makes it more clear Pitzy 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not an answer, and giving me links is worthless. I want you, you, without copy pasting or anything, to tell me why it's fair that i inherited a sinful nature, and thus am forced to go let jesus in my life or be punished eternally for it. Why should i be punished for the crime of my father?--Miekal 19:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It is illogical to think that two imperfect people could produce perfect offspring. Since Adam and Eve had both sinned and been cursed then it would be impossible for their children to be perfectly free from sin. So the real question is: why would God permit sin nature to pass along to Adam’s descendants?1 Doesn’t that seem harsh? Yeah, bro, it does, but so is Hell. Bible Says Levil was in the body in his father.
- If this applies to each person being “in” their ancestors, then we could say Abraham was in the body of Noah before the Flood. And Noah was in the body of his ancestor Adam when he sinned! In a sense, we were all in Adam when he sinned! This explains why we inherit a sin nature. When Adam sinned, a sin nature came over them and since we were in them and our life came from them, we inherit this nature as well.:Guess what, I copy and pasted this, but, here is some biblical passages:For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 :Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned....Romans 5:12— Unsigned, by: True Christian™ / talk / contribs
- uh huh... except no, that isn't how that works.--Miekal 19:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Who cares if he copy pastes it Miekal? It's standard Christian apologia and doesn't get at the issue of theodicy very well. In any event, according to Pitzy, an all powerful god created this scenario and even let this devious serpent into the garden to tempt man. Being all powerful he knew exactly what would happen and yet purposely set things up so that they did. Why would a perfect being make such a flawed creation that he knows can't live up to his own expectations? Why a hypothetical situation where the fruit is replaced by a turkey sandwich is supposed be more convincing, I don't know. If someone invited me to his house and said don't eat this sandwich, but also intentionally invited a devious trickster who he knew would trick me into eating the sandwich I'd be a little upset when he kicked me out, sounds like a set up to me. Marlow (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- uh huh... except no, that isn't how that works.--Miekal 19:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
He didn't make Satan, he didn't want Satan there, but he was. He did know what would happen, and he didn't make a flawed creation. The tree of wasn't flawed, once they ateof the tree it was flawed. And IT WAS POSSIBLE to live up to his expectations. The situation helps some people :/— Unsigned, by: True Christian™ / talk / contribs
- So the all powerful, all knowing god that created everything, wasnt able to stop satan from being in the garden? How does that work with the "god must allow all things to happen and can do whatever he wants" trait. IS god not all powerful or all knowing??--Miekal 19:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- He was able, silly child, if he is ALL powerful and ALL knowing, do you think we would understand why he let Satan in? Well, we do a little, to allow Adam and Eve to live their life FREELY, not like robots. Did he know they would fail? yeah...That sucked, but, now I exist, so maybe it wasn't all that bad, and Jesus came, so that doesn't matter anymore. Also, using caps doesn't impress me, because I use them TOO! Pitzy 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- why should i worship a god who purposefully screwed me over? Why should i worship a god who, because he wanted to have me "freely choose" to follow him, deliberately crippled my legs while only promising to fix it if i follow him around. How is that anything but abuseful on gods part? How is it even a free choice if my options are "follow" or "go jump on a sword"--Miekal 19:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- He was able, silly child, if he is ALL powerful and ALL knowing, do you think we would understand why he let Satan in? Well, we do a little, to allow Adam and Eve to live their life FREELY, not like robots. Did he know they would fail? yeah...That sucked, but, now I exist, so maybe it wasn't all that bad, and Jesus came, so that doesn't matter anymore. Also, using caps doesn't impress me, because I use them TOO! Pitzy 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You want to know why? He sent his bleepin son...his ONLY SON... to DIE... And suffer separation from GOD... That's why you should worship him. Well, that's a choice, isn't it? Love God, or hate God...If you hate God, yeah, your right, that's jumpin on a sword, its suicide. but, with that option on your plate, loving God is oh so much better!!! Pitzy 19:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC) I enjoy talking to you, btw, this is interesting...What Satan fills the minds of unbelievers with. Pitzy 19:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I helped a friend move to a new apartment once (God sending jesus to go die/giving me choice/what have you), asked if we could have sex in return (God demanding i worship him), and then when she said no, i lit her on fire and sent her to forever burn in a pit of evil (God sending me to hell for not worshiping him).. So god is just a bigger, divine version of a MRA. awesome--Miekal 19:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)hahah...HEHEH.MUAAUAHUAHAUH. I finally found what is wrong with your thinking.. God doesn't send people to hell, he saves us. We send ourselves to hell through our sin and willingness to not follow God...Like, why would we reject God after he willingly sent his son to die? That is the worst thing someone could do. And God, looks at your sins, looks at what you have done, realizes you don't have Jesus so pay for any of your sins and says.."I never knew you. I LOVED you..I LOVE You.. but this is what I have to do, otherwise I would not be a perfect, completely fair and loving God." Pitzy 20:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Do you think he found satisfaction in that? Mathew 7:23. Or he will say well done good and faithful servant..YAYAY!! Pitzy 20:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- "God doesn't send people to hell" is where you lost me in that. and "completely fair"? I mean, i guess if the 6 year old girl who thinks olaf and Sven are the funniest shit ever and dies of cancer , while manson gets to apparently live forever, is fair, then we really have nothing to talk about. --Miekal 20:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC) My bad, your right, God isn't completely fair, he kind of cheated when he allowed his son to..SAVE THE WORLD..I mean, all you have to do is have faith... Don't pull that little girl vs manson crap. They are both as guilty and sinful before God's eyes. I don't mean to be cliché, but God's ways are mysterious. And, that is the world that is unfair, because of sin. It isn't perfect, you know.. Don't expect God to be the hero again, he already was, 2000 years ago. Pitzy 20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC) O.K, God DOES TECHNICALLY send people to hell, but the better question is WHY is he sending people to hell, and the answer is because we rejected is FREE no strings attached gift of Salvation.. Pitzy 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd love to know what sins a 6 year old girl commits that makes it so shes going to deserve to burn in hell forever.--Miekal 20:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes, do tell me. God is in direct control of this hypothetical process of judgement, but he doesn't "Send you to hell". Because you know, that'd be mean, and god can't be mean so "he saves you" because you say so. Why would an omnibenevolent god choose anything besides universal salvation?
- Because unrepented sin is beyond his ability to fix? That sure is a weak omnipotence.
- Because he wants some people to go to hell? That sure is a mean spirited savior.
- Because he doesn't want some people in heaven? What kind of omnipotent god couldn't change a person, especially once disconnected from their earthly desires?
- For reasons beyond our understanding? You sure are confident about it for that kind of bullshitty ambiguity. Ikanreed (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
What's sins did the 6 year old girl commit? Well, I wouldn't know, but I know that we are born sinners, and she has undoubtedly whined and lied, and that is enough to make her unworthy to stand before Gods utter perfection. You might call it a limitation, but something sinful couldn't even begin to stand in front of PERFECTION itself...WHICH is why Jesus intercedes for us... Ikanreed. God doesn't want some people to go to hell, I think your referring to Satan? Jesus wants everyone to be in heaven, but if you choose to reject God, your going to end up in hell. God spends your entire life trying to change you, and he probably could. but, once again, FREEWILL is the key word here... I don't really need to explain freewill. Just understand that this life is your only chance, and God has been telling you that through people like me and books like the Bible for your whole life. Pitzy 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh man, sure sucks for that little girl that she whined and maybe told some fibs. Guess god has to give her cancer and then throw her into hell because of it. Where's mansons cancer though? Why does he get to just sit in crazy town prison and live til he dies at an old age, but the little girl gets punished right away? --Miekal 20:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Shalom, y'all. There's at least one Jew here. Meshakhad (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Make that multiple Jews. Though I'm technically an agnostic. Alsto003 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Alex
[edit] a different question
since you are so hung up on people freely choosing to follow god or not through jesus, What about people who have never heard of jesus, or God? What about them? all the natives in america before europeans came to take their land and convert them maybe? Is god going to condemn them to hell because they didn't heed the message they never heard because they were busy being native tribes in america and not in the judean countryside?--Miekal 20:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
"Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.And this is the message I proclaim—that the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone's secret life." Romans 2:14-16 Pitzy As in, they know that murder is wrong-they know that Rape is wrong- So will they choose not to do those things? Or not... Only God knows who of the unreached people will be saved. Pitzy
- That's awesome, but doesn't answer the question. Plus, even if i followed all of gods commandments to the letter, I'd still not be saved, because i am ultimately still unsaved without Jesus, or is Jesus not essential to the process? --Miekal 20:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Jesus is essential to the process, but since none of them have heard of God or Jesus that doesn't mean they are going to hell. Look at the bible verse, if they show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it, they demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts...God will know their situation (Of course) and will look at their life... Look at the verse. The Bible makes it clear their is a possibility they will be saved. Who knows how. Perhaps, before they die they will know Jesus? Who knows. We trust the word of God. Pitzy
- So jesus actually isn't essential, so long as they've never heard of him. Got it, time to airdrop a list of gods commandments, but purposefully hide any mention of jesus. Afterall, then all we need to be judged on is our works and not our faith. --Miekal 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I am 14, and do not know all of these answers (I know basic stuff, but, my adolescent hormonal filled body can't explain it well) so, I go on Google.
- The Bible also teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)! And it implies that whoever seeks after God earnestly will find him (Deuteronomy 4:29; Psalm 86:5; Proverbs 8:17; Jeremiah 29:13; Matthew 7:7-8). God is fair as well as just. We are confident, for example, that the Old Testament patriarchs who lived by faith before Jesus’ earthly ministry, are in heaven. So certainly some people have gotten to heaven without knowing Jesus in the personal way that the New Testament speaks of. Ultimately only God can judge as only He knows the individual’s heart. We hold out hope that for those who have not heard but have not rejected God, those have been misinformed, or those who are unable to understand (children, mentally ill, etc) may be pardoned by a just God.
Certainly, the Bible does not teach “universalism.” Universalism is the idea that everyone gets to heaven. I agree with this completely. Yeah, I know you know that I know you don't get to heaven by works.... Pitzy 23:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You knowq, you can keep saying "But jesus died for our sins!" and "But hell!" over and over and over, but neither are that convincing of arguments. --Miekal 23:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's not like the entire Bible was written about one person.
- That was sarcastic, because it was written about one person, Jesus, everything points to him, so why not talk about the centerpoint of Christianity? So, do you think that copy paste is correct? Is your question satisfied? Or do you still think everyone who hasn't heard the gospel is going to hell automatically. Pitzy 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? Pitzy 00:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Do Daniel's Prophecies Prove God's Existence?
- In the book of Daniel he proclaims prophecies from God that basically tell the history of four empires, before anything happened. It's pretty accurate...So do you think that's valid stuff for proving the that God exists? I mean, nobody is that good at guessing... Pitzy
- been there, done that Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Funny, but none of those prophecy's DIDN'T come true, in fact, the only negative thing the article said was that it was vague...Well, it was obviously Rome, no need to state that, it's obvious. Everything lined up, the correct order of events. Why is it a failed prophecy, again? Pitzy
- Written down after the events no doubt - and excluding mention of the ones that didn't happen. That's assuming you can believe anything 'written' by bronze age herdsmen of course.
- Oh and pits, if you don't start signing correctly (Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button:
, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.) I'm gonna block you! Scream!! (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- God will smash the empire in the end times, he was talking about when the anti-Christ is here. Also, at the time, Babylon was the greatest... Rome actually fell pretty dang hard, they were pretty stupid. Pitzy 19:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since all empires fall, predicting that an empire (or four) will end doesn't prove much. Bicyclewheel
21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Pitts, well yes, at the time babylon was the greatest, however, the implication of it being golden was that babylon was a great state, while the rest following were inferior in quality than the short lived empire of Nebby. Also, even if the last one is the anti-christs kingdom, how does this figure into every previous empire between whatever the third is and fourth?--Miekal 22:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Prophecy doesn't work the way you think it does. The point is to call for repentance and holiness, not to foretell inevitable dooms. This is the actual point of the book of Jonah: despite the lengths to which the prophet went to shirk his duty, Nineveh repented and was not smitten. This is the point of Isaiah 38: Hesekiah repents and prays and is spared for a time. We are the salt of the earth; while there are people who care about their neighbors, the earth may yet be preserved. We aren't supposed to pray that the day of wrath should come sooner. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 04:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Since all empires fall, predicting that an empire (or four) will end doesn't prove much. Bicyclewheel
Hi all, thanks for taking the time to read this (and hopefully respond!). I'm currently working on debunking the resurrection, because 1 Corinthians 15:17 says "if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain." Why not go straight for the jugular?
I've already come across a multitude of possible explanations, so at this point I'm trying to narrow the field down to the top three explanations for the supposed resurrection. I'm NOT interested in just dismissing and/or ridiculing it just yet - but any help in DISPROVING the resurrection would be greatly appreciated.
I'm going to be going about this from a devil's advocate (no pun intended) perspective, so I'll be posting some of the best arguments/"evidence" I find in favor of Jesus' resurrection so that you can happily help me to disprove (not ridicule) them.
If all goes well, by the end of this we'll each have a simple and straightforward rational way to convince anyone of what really happened to Jesus. In order to keep it simple, I'm going to break the case into the smallest pieces I can so that we can dissect each one without too many tangents/rabbit trails. Please keep it rational!
Here's the first claim I'd like to start with: "Jesus died on the cross and was buried"
Do you believe this to be true? If not, can you help me to prove that it's false?
Thanks for your help!— Unsigned, by: Pentheus / talk / contribs
- It cannot be proven that Jesus lived, but then it cannot be proven that he didn't. there are no reliable sources from the time indicating his existence, or the existence of most other people at the time. Records of trials, etc, have become lost over time. The main evidence we have is re-tellings of statements by witnesses written down many years after the time. The crucifixion is described inconsistently but the broad description is roughly accurate, ie in those days that was how criminals and troublemakers were punished. Ultimately we have no proof that a person called Jesus actually was crucified, and no proof that he wasn't. Anyone claiming the story as definitely true or false come up equally to this problem. SophieWilder
14:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making the first contribution Sophie, but if I'm looking for something a bit more potent than that. Can you clarify what you mean by a reliable source? How do we know that the sources which exist are unreliable? If we apply the same skepticism to other matters of history which we apply to the historicity of Jesus, does that leave us with any certainty? — Unsigned, by: Pentheus / talk / contribs
- Why go after the resurrection? I would think the very mainstream idea that he failed as a prophet would suffice. All the early Christians including Paul (who wrote that bit) were expecting that Jesus would return in their lifetime. The reason Jesus' resurrection mattered was because otherwise you are waiting for a dead (instead of undead) person to return from heaven where they never were. However it might be worth noting as Hitchens did that it looks like a bit of 'fakery' as the supposed first witnesses were women who were not regarded as trustworthy for court purposes at the time. Additionally, the gospels are horribly inconsistent about which women were there. The oldest gospel (Mark) originally ends with just the women seeing the empty tomb and a young man in a white robe (not Jesus) who tells them what to do. No one else sees anything, nor do they actually see Jesus.Arachne1988 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Claim 1: Jesus died on the cross and was buried
Please help me find the easiest way to disprove this claim - and whatever evidence I can use to convince people that Jesus didn't die on the cross and/or wasn't buried. I understand that there are plausible alternate possibilities, what I'm looking for is some sort of concrete historical evidence.— Unsigned, by: Pentheus / talk / contribs
- See my comment above. If there's no definite proof or disproof of his existence, then there can be no evidence that the crucifixion happened, or didn't happen. Are you looking for some sort of "smoking gun"? There isn't one, and people on both sides have been looking for the last 2000 years. SophieWilder
18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Here are a couple of examples of non-biblical sources which affirm the existence of Jesus, which any educated Christian will be quick to tell you is far stronger than that of any other figure of that time, including emperor Tiberius. The issue in question here is whether or not Jesus died on the cross and was buried, Jesus' existence is granted by all of the skeptical scholars I'm familiar with because of the preponderance of non-biblical evidence.
The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 56-117) wrote this: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind." Unfortunately, this is an anti-Christian record of the execution of Jesus (Christus) which also serves as a record of his existence.
Here's another one: The Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37-100), also not a Christian, wrote this: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and his learning outstanding. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (translation of Shlomo Pines from the Arabic manuscript) Yet another anti-Christian record of the execution (crucifixion) of Jesus at the hand of Pilate - as well as the supposed resurrection.
If I can disprove (not merely deny) the death of Jesus I can disprove the resurrection, and we'll all have some fun facts to share with our fundie coworkers. If not we'll move on to the next issue on my list of possible resurrection busters. There has got to be someone on here who can help me!— Unsigned, by: Pentheus / talk / contribs
- Take a look at Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ. It's not as clear cut as the sources you cite make out. SophieWilder
19:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Apart from the reasonable doubt of Jesus existing you need to make sure that you are clear about the difference between "magic Jesus" who walked on water and raised the dead and some dude who lived in Palestine and inspired the legend. Demonstrating that the second one existed does not demonstrate the first.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Two questions from an email debate I'm in right now (Help!): 1) Why would even the most liberal scholars (Jesus Seminar) be disputing the so-called "claims" of Jesus if they could prove that he never existed?
2) Why would the Muslim Reza Aslan directly contradict the Quran, which says "Jesus was neither killed nor crucified" if he didn't have historical data for the crucifixion?— Unsigned, by: Pentheus / talk / contribs
- 1. Nobody is saying they can prove that he never existed. The question is how good is the evidence in favour of the existence of either "magical Jesus" or some dude who inspired the Jesus story.
- 2. I don't know. Why does he say he says that?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Wait a minute....
I understand what you're trying to do here. I don't think it will help. There are several reasons why, and one which, given premises I think we share, should fairly conclusively show that this undertaking won't succeed. Given that:
- We are saved by faith, however you imagine that works. We are saved by trust in and participation in the saving sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. I'm not going to bother proof texting this. But,
- (F)aith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Heb. 11:1-3) I think this is fairly interpreted as faith is trust in beliefs for which no proof will be forthcoming.
- Therefore, if the Bible is true, proof of the truth of the revelation of the God of Scripture, who is the only God that matters, will not be forthcoming.
It may well be that people intuit instinctively that there is a God, or at least a world of spirits, and will invent religions attempting to appease them. But the gist of saving faith must always be beyond the reach of formal proof. As I think Saint Anselm said, non in dialectica complacuit Deo salvum facere - it did not please God to save the world through argument. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is true. But the opposite is true, i.e. the middle of the church looks for evidence, of the ordinary sort. Hence, e.g., the Alpha Course pushing Josephus Flavius as solid proof Jesus was real oh yes. c.f. sophisticated believers versus typical ones - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- But then, this probably reinforces your basic point, in that that attempting to nail down (ahahaha) Christians on issues of evidence is mostly a way of producing weasels - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks David, I think we're on the same page here - though just to be clear here are some clarifications: 1/ I am not in the least interested in arguing for or against the Bible's inspiration or even general trustworthiness. 2/ My intent is to identify the biggest holes in the resurrection account so that I can end-run all the stupid tangent arguments which rarely lead anywhere productive. A coup de grâce, so to speak. This is because the resurrection is the defining event on which Christian "saving faith" hangs.
According to 1 Corinthians 15 (which most critical scholars agree was written in the first century): "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."
So if we can disprove the resurrection, the whole "faith" thing will fall apart. Like I said, go for the jugular.
3/ I've used the "faith is trust in beliefs for which no proof will be forthcoming" line in debates and have been shot down on that one, so I'd be hesitant to use it again. The story goes that the apostles claim that Jesus offered "many infallible proofs" over a period of forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3). Christians will argue with you all day long about doubting Thomas and the scars and all sorts of "proof." Additionally, the New Testament is chock full of eyewitness claims: "ye are witnesses of these things" "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses" "And we are witnesses of all things which [Jesus] did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem" "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty"
Like I said - If we can prove the object of the faith (the resurrection of Jesus) to be demonstrably false, we can avoid endless arguments and pestering from "the faithful." I've got some good tactics for this with regards to Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses, here I'm interested in developing my guillotine for Christianity.— Unsigned, by: Pentheus / talk / contribs
- "Additionally, the New Testament is chock full of eyewitness claims" Indeed. Things written by authors who probably never met the people who allegedly had the experiences are certainly "eyewitness claims" rather than "claims by eyewitnesses". And do you think you could sign your posts?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose the chief point is that I think an intellectually honest Christian has to conclude that the Resurrection cannot be proven to have happened. I do think that if you are trying to establish that it cannot have happened, you have to show that, and that for the same reasons we have to conclude that the Resurrection can't be proven, it also can't be proven not to have happened. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm interested in developing my guillotine for Christianity. - you won't succeed. You can argue that the resurrection must have been impossible, but any Christian will simply say it was a miracle. You can say there's no such thing as a miracle, and the Christian will say "ah, but this is a special case - God normally stands back but here he intervened because it was important." You can call that any logical fallacy you like, but faith isn't logic. You can't disprove it. SophieWilder
08:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm interested in developing my guillotine for Christianity. - you won't succeed. You can argue that the resurrection must have been impossible, but any Christian will simply say it was a miracle. You can say there's no such thing as a miracle, and the Christian will say "ah, but this is a special case - God normally stands back but here he intervened because it was important." You can call that any logical fallacy you like, but faith isn't logic. You can't disprove it. SophieWilder
- I suppose the chief point is that I think an intellectually honest Christian has to conclude that the Resurrection cannot be proven to have happened. I do think that if you are trying to establish that it cannot have happened, you have to show that, and that for the same reasons we have to conclude that the Resurrection can't be proven, it also can't be proven not to have happened. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The Romans usually didn't bury people they crucified, in all likelihood, a corpse stayed up there and was eaten by buzzards. Hence its no surprise that allegedly someone opened a tomb or whatever and didn't see a body. Why that person then decided zombiejesus had risen from the dead from the lack of a body, in a time when bodies often didn't end up nice and organized underground, I don't know. The book was written like 200 years after the supposed events anyways, right? ROPChain (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- considering the gospels mention his followers coming back and taking him down from the cross/putting him in a tomb, most of your post becomes irrelevant, As for "The book was written like 200 years after the supposed events anyways, right? " Marks gospel is generally given sometime around the late 60's or early 70's, so no, not a few centuries afterwards. --Miekal 06:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you can somehow prove Jesus didn't come alive again, I will lay down my beliefs and admit God doesn't exist. Of course, that will never happen, because God promised that Jesus would come and crush Satan's head. Also, I feel assured Christ is in me, and his Holy Spirit is working through me. Pitzy 19:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Pitzy, you misunderstand the burden of proof. It is not our job to prove that Jesus didn't resurrect. It is your job to prove that he did. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I thought it was clear I am the proof Jesus was resurrected. Along with any other Christian in the world. But maybe not... Pitzy
- Oh, oh, oh, I know this one! There's actually an RW article on this, it's called argumentum ad populum. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Look at this site, oh my !
http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org
And this
http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5222E.pdf
I have no words, but these - Reason save man! - (not god save the queen) Gianga23 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked. What does it say interesting? Zero (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- The PDF linked is Anthony Flew's "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind". I wonder what's it copyright status. :)
- The site itself appears to be a pretty standard Christian apologetics site with side forays into science denialism (evolution, AGW, etc.) and "liberal"-bashing. The first three paragraphs from the About page:
| Solid Rock Ministries (now The Divine Conspiracy) got its start in the early days of the internet, primarily as a means of publishing debates between Christians and atheists, and then quickly evolved into an apologetics site.
Over the years this site has gone through many changes, and the often contentious debates between believers and unbelievers, which was once a site hallmark, have long since disappeared. Instead, the material has slowly and gradually moved in a more scholarly direction. Perhaps, this trend has been parallel to the journey my own life has taken over the past six or seven years. (You can read about some of my journey in a paper I wrote for an Intro to Philosophy class here.) As I state on the Home page, the goal of The Divine Conspiracy is to present the highest quality material found anywhere on the internet (and especially in one site.) I can say that without boasting because the overwhelming quantity of things found here were not written by me. Most are written by professors and scholars that are specialist in the various areas this site lists under its topics. |
- Has some token contrary views, but without going much deeper into the site than my free time allows, I can't say whether it's a poor attempt at intellectual integrity, false balance or plain old tokenism.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- So I clicked the links and so what?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it would be cool to express my feelings about a christian site, which nontheless talks about a conspiracy. When freetought and rational thinking has always been the victim of the real "divine" conspiracy. That's all. As for Flew's case I think it should need a serious debunking, maybe making a page about Schroeder's idiotic claims could be good for the wiki. Because I believe we shouldn't let "famous atheists" and "physics" get away with pseudophilosophical choices and psuedoscientific claims without a little fight! :) -- Gianga23 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what claim of Schroeder's you are referring to but I've always thought that Flew's case was quite interesting because of it's rarity. As we know, a vast number of theists and even clergymen have switched from theism to atheism. So many in fact that it doesn't really invite much comment.
- Which is what makes the Flew case interesting. Even theists seem to be (rightly) surprised by an occasional intellectual outliner going in the other direction.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- It was to Gerald Schroeder's ideas on physics that Flew appealed to describe why he suddenly changed his mind. The fact is that they were debunked by Vic Stenger and Mark Perakh, but here there are (http://creationistidiocy.blogspot.it/2008/09/moron-of-month-gerald-schroeder.html) comments which state the rightness (or the likeliness) of these theories. A layman like me wonders and asks you what's real about this thing. "Joe from Mesa AZ said...
- I thought it would be cool to express my feelings about a christian site, which nontheless talks about a conspiracy. When freetought and rational thinking has always been the victim of the real "divine" conspiracy. That's all. As for Flew's case I think it should need a serious debunking, maybe making a page about Schroeder's idiotic claims could be good for the wiki. Because I believe we shouldn't let "famous atheists" and "physics" get away with pseudophilosophical choices and psuedoscientific claims without a little fight! :) -- Gianga23 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- So I clicked the links and so what?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has some token contrary views, but without going much deeper into the site than my free time allows, I can't say whether it's a poor attempt at intellectual integrity, false balance or plain old tokenism.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As an engineer myself (educated as an atheist in a former communist dictatorship) I took the time & effort TO VERIFY mathematically Dr.Schroeder's reasoning/ conclusions, and... THEY ARE CORRECT! Following closely this debate one has to conclude that the "evolutionists" are turning more and more into religious fanatics, and - like all fanatics - when running out of arguments they tend to become violent, in this case (foul) language-wise. Whoever is unable to pursue a dialog in civilized terms is abrogating his/her right to participate in the debate." http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm Gianga23 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello 'Rationalists', I like to proceed from an experiential view of being. I experience and within that experience I have identified forms which I describe as sensible. That is within my experience there are consistent conditions of varying character which it has been possible to 'sense'.
At a radical level the separations may have included things like sameness/differentness or self/other and all the sense data deriving from what I now describe as a body: However, they've gone on to rather shaky distinctions like Atheistic/Theistic or Rational/Irrational.
Rationalism, it seems to me, at least as a name, has come to us from the Pythagoreans who were, by all accounts Theists. They tried to describe the world in terms of ratios of pairs of whole numbers and Mathematics has, for some time now, departed from that view - embracing the irrational.
It seems to me that some of the people offering theistic interpretations of phenomenal nature have been among the greatest thinkers of their time, consequently the glib and poorly considered treatment given to ALL non-mechanistic ideas that is fashionable among people calling themselves 'rational' and 'scientific' is likely to blind such people to possibilities and cripple their ability to receive valid data that conforms to their prejudice of the irrational.
It seems to me that some self styled defenders of the 'scientific view' are prepared to take absurd positions to avoid admitting inconvenient presences, such as their own consciousness, in order to forestall arguments they imagine some religious protagonist may bring to bear.
Science has proved itself, this is the age of miracle and wonder and the wonders are the product of science.
It is time science allowed itself to think about mind and being without being afraid the church will take advantage. The battles of the enlightenment have been won, perhaps you can stop punching corpses now.— Unsigned, by: Radical Theist / talk / contribs
- I am not a rationalist, but this appears to mostly be a straw man. Outside of a few overheated popular polemics, I am unaware of any general fear of the church within psychology, cognitive science, or neuroscience. The position you describe is eliminative materialism, which is still a minority position in philosophy of mind. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- "It seems to me that some self styled defenders of the 'scientific view' are prepared to take absurd positions to avoid admitting inconvenient presences, such as their own consciousness, in order to forestall arguments they imagine some religious protagonist may bring to bear." This has happened before, it's called scientism, and if it is an "absurd position," it's not very "rational" per se, is it?
- You won't find a shortage of people on this website that respect contributors to science, logic, or mathematics despite their religious beliefs. And to say that the battles of the enlightenment have been won - I'd suggest you check up the status of evolution in the United States right now. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- you must be an evilutionist ! repent and embrace Baby Jebus ! Hamster (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is because rationalism - as the word is presently used in these discussions - is explicitly not about undemonstrable and unrepeatable personal feelings and beliefs. You may have personally experienced many things, but that does not mean that that are meaningful to anybody else.
- A far as the "original meaning" of a word - these things change. To take a far more recent example than yours take "Humanism". It has not always been synonymous with "secular humanism".
- In so far as thiests being "among the greatest thinkers of their time" - well duh. The majority of people throughout history have been theists so it's hardly surprising that the greatest thinkers were amongst them. For example Isaac Newton was both a theist and an alchemist, though I'm sure you wouldn't present that as s defence of alchemy!
- Finally "consciousness" is quite a tough question actually. But I'm not sure why it would prove the existence of God one way or the other. --Weirdstuff (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- you must be an evilutionist ! repent and embrace Baby Jebus ! Hamster (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- "It seems to me that some of the people offering theistic interpretations of phenomenal nature have been among the greatest thinkers of their time". Many of these "greatest thinkers" are now only taught for their historical contributions, even if none of their explanations still hold up. For example, Aristotle and anything regarding physics.
- "It seems to me that some self styled defenders of the 'scientific view' are prepared to take absurd positions to avoid admitting inconvenient presences, such as their own consciousness, in order to forestall arguments they imagine some religious protagonist may bring to bear." I don't fully understand this, but (ignoring that this reeks of argument from ignorance) see Non-materialist neuroscience.
- The rest is barely coherent and sound to me like a word salad. --The Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉|G̕͡a̵͘͜z̴͞e͏̴̧͞ ͏̀͠͞u͜͢ņţ̛ơ̶͜ ̶̢̛̀t̴͢h̢̛͠҉è̸̛ ̨́a̸͟b̴̧̀̕͡ý̨͠s͡s͟͠͝ 20:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing some thinking about the Christian God and his resemblance to Great Cthulhu .
- Cthulhu lives under the dark ocean, Yaweh is said to live in darkness.
- Cthulhu will return to destroy mankind as will Yaweh.
- When the stars are right in the form of a maiden, Jeebus will return to reclaim earth.
- Cthulhu can return from the dead via his daughter.
- Yaweh has his religion, so does Cthulhu!
Clearly, Yaweh is Great Cthulhu and the Christians have corrupted the tales of our lord.--The Madman (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)The Madman
Wait, Cthulhu has a daughter????? OVERLORDSupplicate yourselves before me! 22:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You forgot the part about the deities and consumption of/by followers. Christians eat Jesus at communion-especially if they are Catholic. Cthulhu's followers long to be eaten by him. I am pretty sure there is a preference for both bits of Jesus (according to Catholic standards) and the followers of Cthulhu to be eaten without chewing-it is more civilized that way. Arachne1988 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
First, I'd like to say how much I've seen Creationists wail about how it is impossible for the two sexes to have evolved naturally. Is it possible that the sexes evolved because the more complex multicellular organisms could not continue to reproduce asexually and needed a faster way to do it or something? I'm no biologist (I'm more into computers and physics and stuff) so feel free to poke any holes in this theory. --At (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed the correlation between the Garden of Eden creation story and the Agricultural Revolution?
I was thinking about history lately when I came up with a rather peculiar realization. There are a few correlations between the Garden of Eden creation story and the agricultural revolution.
Firstly, the Eden story takes place at the same time that Young Earth creationists claim the world began, which is what most scientists recognize as the agricultural revolution.
Secondly, the emphasis on agriculture (the garden) and naming/gaining dominion over animals, which was the agricultural revolution was all about. (Not to mention the "forbidden fruit", likely some sort of poisonous fruit.)
Third, the role of a snake as a villain. Snakes were one of the animals that remained antagonistic and uncontrollable to humans, as well as being deceitful and deadly.
Fourth, "the woman fucks it all up". The Agricultural revolution was when women started getting the shaft in human society, relegated to domestic chores as opposed to the leadership-like role they held during mankind's hunter-gatherer nomad days.
Lastly, the exile from the garden. Humans often left their homes to form new villages. (This is a bit of a weaker correlation, but still.)
Any thoughts?— Unsigned, by: Wolvenreign / talk / contribs
- The shift from hunting/gathering to agriculture may well be a prominent layer in the account written in Genesis. No doubt there are other layers as well, and since it is a story, or accretion of stories, the layers are interwoven, unlike distinct soil horizons. I believe some scholars have connected the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the onset of self-awareness, which predates settled agriculture by very nearly a gazillion years, if not scores or hundreds of millennia. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- "the leadership-like role [women] held during mankind's hunter-gatherer nomad days" is supported by exactly what evidence? SophieWilder 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Good question. All I remember from my reading about surviving Kalahari hunter-gatherer cultures was that the women were responsible for a lot of the "gathering" part, to the extent of memorising the locations of individual plants over the course of hundreds of miles of the annual nomadic trek. See the sprout in the spring; come autumn, find the tuber among the welter of dried stems, that kind of thing. Also, at night, a married woman venturing even a single pace from the family werf (which amounts to a nest in the grass, easily missed by civilised eyes) was the height of impropriety. Not exactly a leadership role... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- "the leadership-like role [women] held during mankind's hunter-gatherer nomad days" is supported by exactly what evidence? SophieWilder 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I believe I was mistaken about the leadership role women played in the pre-agriculture days. Quite silly of me to bring that up from a mere conversation I had with someone I had considered intelligent. My mistake. Still, I think there may be some culturally misogynistic link between Eve's role as the tempted and the idea of women in those days. Perhaps it is merely a sexual allegory, as well. Who can say? I'm just speculating, really.— Unsigned, by: Wolvenreign / talk / contribs
- The advent of agriculture as "The Fall of Man" is a beloved trope of Marxists and, curiously enough, (early) Jared Diamond. See here for a refutation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- [ec]I, for one, would be interested in reading what that erstwhile intelligent-seeming person had to say about it, if you feel like sharing that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like it might be the usual ancient matriarchy stuff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. If one is willing to call William S. Burroughs a practical anthropologist and pharmaceutical researcher in South- and Meso-America as well as north Africa, here are his words:
- "If you find yourself in a matriarchy, walk, do not run, for the nearest border. If you run, some latent queer cop is liable to shoot you."
- (Loosely quoted from unreliable memory...) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm not sure I see a lot of refutation in that livinganthropologically link. It does criticize Diamond's lack of scrupulousness in citing sources, and points out that many hunter-gatherer societies had been pushed into marginal situations by the time notes could be made of their ways. That still seems like a (perhaps tenuous) way of saying agriculture is not quite the bees' knees, even though it made specialist industry possible. I'm not widely-enough read to add much else, so I'll lurk and read for a while. Thanks, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the meat of the criticism is really in the next post, specifically: "The problem with Jared Diamond’s Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race is it lumps together all forms of gathering and hunting, then assumes this is a basic human model with enormous evolutionary depth. From this single model–the hunter-gatherers–there is one transition to another single model, that of agriculture." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. If one is willing to call William S. Burroughs a practical anthropologist and pharmaceutical researcher in South- and Meso-America as well as north Africa, here are his words:
- Sounds like it might be the usual ancient matriarchy stuff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- [ec]I, for one, would be interested in reading what that erstwhile intelligent-seeming person had to say about it, if you feel like sharing that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You state: "Firstly, the Eden story takes place at the same time that Young Earth creationists claim the world began, which is what most scientists recognize as the agricultural revolution."
Most scientists believe the world came into existence with the agricultural revolution? Could we have some links for this remarkable claim? I'm guessing (or at least hoping) that you can't mean this agricultural revolution - which I must admit that I thought you meant at first - so then you mean this one in the neolithic? But even then it's not really when "the world began".
Or are you using "the world began" in two different senses in your statement?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies. What I meant was that Young Earth creationists were claiming that the story of creation happened when most credible scientists recognize the agricultural revolution began. I'm somewhat quoting off of a Dawkins BBC film, in which he confronted a faith school teacher and said, "You do realize that the creation story happened around the time that most scientists recognize as the dawn of the agricultural revolution?". Again, this is somewhat sloppy on my part. I must apologize. -Wolvenreign 09:41 5 March 2013 (EST)
- I guess Dawkins was speaking generally. According to YEC's the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC, while the beginning of farming was a little earlier, happened at different places at different times and is a bit less exactly dated. :-)
- But even if they were at about the same time - so what? If we take any arbitrary point in the past we should coincide with something - especially if we are relaxed enough about how we define "coincide".--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you consider the curses inflicted by God on Adam and Eve, there is some correlation between them and changes in human society and physiology during the agricultural revolution. Adam is cursed with having to work at thorny and unfruitful ground (agriculture), and Eve is cursed with the pains of childbirth (there is evidence that anatomical changes made birth much more painful at around the time of the agricultural revolution, I believe that I heard that in Peter Watson's book The Great Divide). Sorry if this is a bit of a necropost. (Agrajag (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))
Didn't Jesus supposedly die for our sins? If he did, why do fundies still believe in original sin?
- Christians say that Jesus died for our sins, right? Well why do some fundamentalists still believe that humanity is cursed? Did Jesus only die to give us the opportunity to get into heaven? If he did, does that mean everyone before Jesus automatically goes to hell? Does this include the good people too, like Noah or Lot? I'm not a theologian, but I'd like an answer to this question. --At (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- You might be better off asking some Christians. Though I doubt there will be only one answer.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm new at this. I just wanted an answer to my question.--At (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is very a messy question. To work through it you need to split out the "original sin" element from the "death and resurrection" element. Various group disagree on what each of those mean, which leads to a wide variety of possible answers to your overall question.
- Firstly, different branches of Christianity treat "The Fall" differently. While all denominations agree Original Sin exists, the meaning and consequences of it are disputed. Catholics believe it created "darker impulses" (meaning we are born with the "capacity" for sin), whereas Lutheran/Calvinist denominations (which includes some Baptists) believe we actually inherit Adam's actual guilt and are thus born sinful.
- Next there is the "death and resurrection". Sorting out what this means to all the various groups would take forever. Most Christian groups accept that Christ died and was resurrected, and that this indicates that believers will get "eternal life". Whatever else it might mean is a lot more contentious... eg. "He died for our sins" gets thrown around a lot, but there is HUGE disagreement on what that actually implies. Read Atonement in Christianity to get started.
- thanks, that is a good answer to my question. I just wanted to know the "why". And "how". It is nice to hear other people's opinions on this.
- I had a thought the other day. You know how in the bible it says to be fruitful and multiply? what if only one of those is an option? Does this mean that infertile people are hated by god? Or what about poor people, for which neither is an option? I would like to see other people's opinions very much. --At (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's evidence in the bible for public shunning of castrated men, not sure about infertile women. But the majority of the New Testament was probably transcribed at a time when Christianity was in its initial boom phase, so its rules were likely penned when christianity was in it's 'convert the pagans, outbreed those that are left' stage. The old testament was written about bronze age herders in a time where if you wanted to survive the winter you needed a household and to get that you need children. So yeah I'd say that the bible discriminates against people who can't or won't have children. In the modern age, there are problems beyond just fertility with its genital-regulating passages; anyone who has had bottom surgery by the rules of scripture is not allowed in a church. ±
KnightOfTL;DRyeah, well you fight like a cow! 03:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- One thing -- I believe the new testament preaches that being poor is a good thing and being rich is bad, but what about the bible saying "be fruitful"? Does that mean being rich? So is the bible saying to be rich while also condemning it? I'm no expert in this, but I think I see a contradiction.--At (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty sure it means having kids. TyJFBAA 21:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. I always thought being fruitful and multiplying mention having lots of kids and getting rich.--At (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)--
Would the Holocaust have happened if Christians hadn't been preaching Antisemitism and homophobic hate propaganda for centuries?
I'm sure that there's a lot of factors that went into why the Holocaust happened, and if Christianity hadn't existed, it probably would have happened at least in Eastern Europe because of other racist attitudes spread by the Nazis. I suspect that there is a good chance that the Holocaust would not have happened in anything near the severity as it did if Christianity didn't exist, or didn't spread hate propaganda against Jews and gays. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Dumb - Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector
- And then, low, via the bad science of the time we determined that jews simply should not exist. People always like to say "but if religion didn't exist!" and then i slap them for being stupid and point out if it wasnt religion then something else would have been used.--Mikal Harass Follow 20:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- EC Not sure if trolling or just confused. Also, both the Holocaust and Christianity existed, so any statements about what would have happened if they didn't would pretty much meaningless. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Christianity has been so central in European culture for the best part of two thousand years that you can't simply pick an event in modern history & ask "would this have happened the same without Christianity?" because it's basically meaningless. If you're going to talk seriously about "if Christianity didn't exist", you would need to wind right back to the late Roman period & speculate about how the Roman Empire & the cultures that made it up & surrounded it might have fared differently, & go on from there. We would have had a different kind of Middle Ages, a different Renaissance, come to the Enlightenment somewhat differently, & so on. But that's delving way into alternate history, and is unlikely to lead you anywhere meaningful. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was interviewed recently at a convention in a discussion about stereotypes. I was dressed as The Invisible Man (Before the reveal, Covered head-to=toe, like Claude Rains). The interviewer asked me some questions, one of which to the effect of, "How do you think we can end racism?" I told him I had no clue, since people have been making excuses to hate each other since there were people living on the "other side of the river". He then suggested we could all just wrap ourselves in bandages (I admit I'm not funny).
- Anyway, point being, people get massacred and it's horrible, and there would have always been some other rationalization by the perpetrators. The all-too-common rationalization boils down to "Well, they were in the way". --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've never understood how people can think like this. You honestly believe that there hasn't been moral progress? You think humans will be just as despicable as they always have been, and we shouldn't even try to change the beliefs and culture for the better? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say we shouldn't try. I said I don't know how to fix the problem. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've never understood how people can think like this. You honestly believe that there hasn't been moral progress? You think humans will be just as despicable as they always have been, and we shouldn't even try to change the beliefs and culture for the better? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Christianity has been so central in European culture for the best part of two thousand years that you can't simply pick an event in modern history & ask "would this have happened the same without Christianity?" because it's basically meaningless. If you're going to talk seriously about "if Christianity didn't exist", you would need to wind right back to the late Roman period & speculate about how the Roman Empire & the cultures that made it up & surrounded it might have fared differently, & go on from there. We would have had a different kind of Middle Ages, a different Renaissance, come to the Enlightenment somewhat differently, & so on. But that's delving way into alternate history, and is unlikely to lead you anywhere meaningful. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- EC Not sure if trolling or just confused. Also, both the Holocaust and Christianity existed, so any statements about what would have happened if they didn't would pretty much meaningless. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
What I was trying to propose before, which is a fairly dumb point as I think about it, is what role did anti-Semitic and homophobic ideas as promoted by the Catholic Church have on the Holocaust? The Church did have a history of Antisemitism and homophobia, and so I was wondering if that led to the Holocaust or if it affected it in any way. There was a documentary I saw about the role of Christians and centuries of anti-Semitism leading to the Holocaust, and there were tons of Christians down rating it and leaving obviously guilt filled negative reviews. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 23:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. Textbook Leading question! Impressive!--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- My opinion is that Germany has more to do with nationalism than religion since circa The Franco-Prussian war. So if Holocaust didn't involve Jews, some other non-German races will be dragged into it. K61824Ahh! my eyes!! 15:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] I object
This entire discussion is founded on the assumption that the Holocaust happened. There is no evidence of this. Leftwing hater of the rich (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Sir, either your..
You know what, how about you..
Actually.
Are you serious?
That's like saying, if you have never been to Africa, it doesn't exist, or if you have never seen Obama in person, he doesn't exist.
Y'all don't know how much evidence proves you wrong, and proves that the holocaust did happen.— Unsigned, by: 50.178.78.153 / talk / contribs
- Bro, it was a joke. They didn't mean it. It was a joke from over 2 years ago. They don't even edit here anymore. Ikanreed (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my noobity is showing. Pitzy 19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This is quite a lengthy post, and I have posted it here as a first draft for comment. I have no idea whether this is old news, or whether anyone has noticed it before. However, I would really like feedback before I do more work, just in case I am labouring under delusions (it would not be the first time!) I fully appreciate that sections are in need of further sources. [Clearly, this should end up as an Essay is I ever get round to completing it.]'
After spending some time on creationist forums and websites, I have identified what I believe to be the kernel of the YEC belief system. It is not actually biblical literalism but a ‘naïve belief’ that “kind can only beget kind”. The basic belief which is claimed to have its origin in the writings of Aristotle[1], says that 'things can only reproduce other things which are like themselves’ [2]. This is then taken to mean that speciation cannot occur. [3] None of this is new, and the viewpoint is described by Mayr, who called it ‘biological essentialism’. [4] In 'The Growth of Biological Thought ' [5] Mayr claimed that this notion was the prevalent view prior ot Darwin. He cites as evidence a quotation from Lyell: "There are fixed limits beyond which the descendants from common parents can never deviate from a certain type" [6]. Mayr goes on to point out that "It is quite impossible to develop an evolutionary theory on the foundations of essentialism".
However, what is interesting is how the YECs justify it to themselves. In an article addressing this issue, AiG says: “According to the Genesis record of Creation, God created various kinds of things to reproduce their own kind."[7] However, a close inspection of the text of Genesis reveals that it says nothing of the sort. The text actually discusses how things were created, and says little about how they should reproduce: “God created the great creatures of the sea … according to their kinds” (NIV G:1.20). In other words, the text is saying that God made different ‘kinds’ of things. There are instructions to reproduce: “Be fruitful and increase in number…”(NIV G1:28); clearly this is just an invitation to spread all over the earth – it neither suggests that their offspring should be the same as them, nor denies the possibility that they would not.
Just in case this is a translation issue, I checked with the KJV: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.” Whatever “after their kind” is supposed to mean, the context is an instruction from god to the earth to produce the first creatures; it is not about reproducing. However, this phrase “after their kind” crops up time and time again as the justification for the mantra “kind begets kind”.
The fact is, no matter how you look at it, this cornerstone belief is not justified by the bible. So, where is it from? Later on in the article in AiG, the author says: "The scientific problem is simply this: One natural kind changing into a totally different kind has never been observed.” This clearly demonstrates where this comes from. It is an appeal to naïve observation & “common sense” – the same kind of view as the theory of geocentricism – the sun must go around the earth, because that’s what we see every day; dogs can’t breed cats because no one’s ever seen that.
However, some of the other core beliefs of the YECs appear to undermine this principle. Every YEC website admits that in order for the ark animals to repopulate the earth, there must have been some form of ‘microevolution’. They explain this by claiming, for example that dogs are just another “kind” of wolf. “Kinds” are allowed full expression within each “kind”, but they can never reproduce outside it. [source needed]. Clearly this is the most blatant example of goalpost-shifting and term-redefining in history. I have not even seen one website which even attempts to pin down precisely what is meant by a “kind”, nor to give any idea how a continual process of reproduction could in principle be limited in such a manner that one “kind” is by necessity restricted to whatever the parameter range of that “kind” might be. I would conjecture that YECs are not interested in what the process might involve, nor in exploring how it might work, because they think they do not need to defend the principle, in anything other than biblical terms. [8]
However, as we have seen, there is no biblical justification for the belief. The conjecture (for that is what it is) it is simply based on inference from observation, and that lands it squarely in the in the realm of science, not theology. However, before we go any further, we should be quite clear what this ‘conjecture ‘ actually says, and what its implications are. The conjecture does not merely say that “kind” usually begets “kind”; that would be unremarkable, and almost trivially true. The conjecture states that it is impossible for any “kind” to be the ancestor of anything which was not of the same “kind” as the original. This is a bold statement, and “audacious” indeed, and furthermore, would actually disconfirm the whole of evolution if it were true. YECs usually demonstrate the truth of this to themselves by observing that a cows only give rise to another cow, and not a dolphin, with added hilarity at the expense of those ‘misguided and foolish’ evolutionists who could possibly think that it could. Before we get too worried, however, we should actually consider whether this hypothesis is even reasonable, given that we can think and observe in the same way as YECs, without invoking evolution, or fossils, or anything else.
YECs own theories even allow (actually they demand) the possibility that one “kind”, when left to reproduce can produce a wide variety of diverse forms. They believe that at the end of the flood, Noah released the animals and it is these animals that have bred and given rise to all the world’s species today. As a defence to all the criticisms that the species of animals that we see alive today could not possibly have fitted into the ark, even if we only took two of each kind (not the seven required for some animals), YECs have used the construction of “kinds” to explain that Noah only took around 17,000 pairs of animals into the ark. (NB, no plants, insects, fresh water fish or soil bacteria- clearly God forgot to tell him he’d need those.) YECs go to great pains to explain how all these could fit in the ark, and how 8 people could look after them.
This sleight of hand was detected fairly early on, and in response to evolutionists’ queries about how the 17,000 “kinds” from the ark managed to turn themselves into the diversity of species we see today, produced the following explanation. “Of course it wasn’t your ‘evolution’”, replies the YEC, “each pair of the 17,000 were representative of their “kind””, and goes on to explain how one pair of a particular creature has given rise to wolves, jackals, dingoes and all the various types of dogs that we now have around the world. The YEC explains patiently: “In point of fact, you know haw this is done- it’s microevolution”, and the YEC then explains to you the difference between macroevolution and microevolution, pointing out that the latter merely involves variation within “kinds”, whereas the former implies that one “kind” can give rise to a different “kind”, which is, of course, impossible. At this, you can be forgiven for just slapping your head in disbelief, or sinking into a pit of despair.
However, the idea of Microevolution, or at least their version of it, provides a challenge to YECs in terms that they can understand. If one “kind” (whatever that means), when released from the ark, can give rise to animals as diverse as toy poodles and Irish Wolfhounds, over the course of around 4500 years, then would not it be possible in another 4500 years, say that something so completely different could result, so different that it would not even be recognisable as the same “kind”? After all, if we did not know that a Chihuahua and a Great Dane were both dogs, would non-experts actually recognise them as the same “kind” simply by looking? Just this fact on its own says that the conjecture might need further scrutiny.
More evidence that the conjecture may not be as obviously true as suggested by YECs is clearly signified by the results of any number of selective breeding initiatives made by man down the centuries, resulting in plants and animals which bear little resemblance to the original “kind”. Obvious examples are bananas which started life as green, almost spherical fruits with large heavy seeds, and by successive selection has developed into the long, curved, seedless objects we have today. Pigeons have been bred from wild birds, and today not only has their homing instinct has been highly developed, but there are hundreds of different varieties with extravagant feathers and yet others which can perform incredible acrobatics. These are two examples, but you can see the same process at work in any number of domesticated plants and animals: sheep, coats, cattle, horses, roses, tomatoes… the list is endless.
Given this evidence, you would need to very foolhardy (or dogmatic) to say that “kind begets kind” is some sort of universal rule, and continue to state categorically that there is no possibility whatsoever that one kind, left on its own or by human hands, would produce anything other than the kind we started with. Now clearly despite what we think, many YECs are not stupid. They may be deluded; they may have convinced themselves by tortuous and erroneous logic that their ideas are correct, but they are not stupid. They hold onto this idea despite the evidence, and despite the fact that it appears to be challenged by other elements within their own belief system.
So why exactly is this a “cornerstone” of YEC belief, if it’s non-biblical, and it is only founded on a naïve and highly dubious interpretation of observational evidence, and may even be contradicted by other beliefs they hold? The reason is clear – without it, YECs have no grounds on which to attack evolution. Once you allow the possibility that starting out with one “kind” can produce in the future something different to the original “kind”, even if only as a remote possibility, you have opened the door to evolution in its fullest sense. You then have to admit that it is not just a possibility that might occur in the future, but that it could already have happened in the past. However, as this is a conjecture, and is couched in terms which approach being scientific, it is open for testing, and if we make some observations in the real world, we should be able to check this out. We can ask is there any evidence which disconfirms this notion of "kind always begets kind"? Well, yes, there might just be a little bit – how about the fossil record, comparative anatomy, DNA and genome analysis? And, oh yes, there’s a bit of evidence about human evolution – that we evolved from primates.
YEC cannot allow any evidence of evolution like this to slip in through the slightest chink, and certainly not through the back door, otherwise their claim of biblical literality would be demolished. Once you allow the possibility into your belief system that we “might” have evolved from apes, that thought becomes complete and utter anathema. YECs have to assert “kind begets kind” as the central dogma at the core of its beliefs, and so there can be no doubt whatsoever, they need to justify that claim on the highest authority – that of the bible. However, this is a completely false assertion; no such “teaching” exists in Genesis.
So, the question is, if this is pointed out to YECs, will they all see the light and become evolutionists? Well, that’s not going to happen, anytime soon, is it? They will simply argue that because they already know the bible is true, and that the bible contradicts evolution, and that in order to work, evolution claims at its core that “kind begets things other than kind”, then that claim must be false, and so “kind begets kind” must be true. For those that are already in this black hole, there is no way out. Any evidence produced by evolutionists simply contradicts with the bible and therefore is invalid.
Adult YECs are almost all doomed to plunge ever deeper into the black hole they have created, and there is almost no hope of rescue. My real concern is for those young children poised at the event horizon, looking across it at their creationist teachers on the other side. These children are being told that “kind begets kind” is both true and biblical, and that the latter provides them with the highest authority on which to conclude that evolution is false. They are not being subjected to the kind of post hoc logical gymnastics exposed in the paragraph above; the message to children is simple: “kind begets kind” is in the bible, evolutionists deny this, so that means evolution CANNOT be true. The logic is straightforward. However, that argument is founded upon a lie, and that lie must be discredited.
Currently, YEC ‘science’ teaching to children goes along these lines. Let’s look at this idea: “Kind begets kind”; it’s a simple idea, but very powerful. We call it a hypothesis. Look around you – cats beget cats, goldfish beget goldfish, frogs beget frogs. Have you ever seen a dog give birth to a cow – no of course not, that would be impossible. You already know all this, so the ‘hypothesis’ must be true. Now, where did I get that hypothesis from? Did I make it up? No, of course not, I got it from the bible – it tells you that in Genesis. God told creatures to “reproduce after their kind”, and that’s what they do. So now you can see how science works, you have an idea – a hypothesis, you look around to see if it’s right, and then check what the bible says. If it’s correct, you will always find that the bible tells you that, just as in this case. So you see, you can take the word of God as true – he wouldn’t lie to you would he? God is amazing.
Although I have made this up, you can find lots of examples of this on the web where similar teaching occurs. (e.g.) Just as in this applaling example , they are perfectly insidious, completely dishonest and tantamount to child abuse. The examples do, however, have the superficiality of science; they talk of hypotheses, and the use of evidence – and the results are at least plausible. This is what makes it so corrosive; it is a grotesque distortion of what science teaching should be.
If their biblical argument were discredited, YECs would be forced to reframe their belief in the following manner: “Since we take the bible to be literally true as a principle, even though it does not say this anywhere in the bible, we deduce that “kind begets kind” must be a biblical principle, because otherwise the bible would be at odds with the real world”. Now this exposes the belief for what it is, a piece of dogma created entirely on the basis of the assumption of biblical literality, simply in order to deny the possibility that real world evidence might contradict biblical teachings. If they were forced to take this position, it would deny the YECs any opportunity to teach ‘kind begets kind’ as “scientific” fact.
Eradicating the biblical authority for “kind begets kind” would mean that YECs could not begin with the principle, because it does not exist in the bible, and thus only claim for it being true would be on the basis of science – and all available evidence points to it being false. Therefore, YECs could not and would not teach such a thing. If YEC teaching wished to somehow link the conjecture to some sort of biblical authority, they would need to start with the very thing which the underhand “teaching” seeks to establish, namely that the bible is 100% correct, even before you start considering how animals reproduce. That sort of teaching puts creationism exactly where it belongs, in the RE classroom, and never, ever as science. If the theological underpinning of “kind versus kind” can be shown to be flawed, then no creationist could ever again claim that in promoting this notion, that what they are doing is science, simply because their naked belief in biblical literality is exposed as the very first step of the process. In fact the route by which biblical literality is established by YECs requires logical and theological gymnastics of the most tortuous kind, relying as it does on an convoluted understanding of prophesy, a generous interpretation of the New Testament – including some smattering of Hebrew, as well as an initial commitment to the idea of God as its starting point.
Therefore, in dealings with YECs, whenever you meet them, I urge you, in every forum, in every conversation, do not try to engage them with argument and evidence about the real world. Simply ask them whether they believe that “kind begets kind”, explaining what you mean. Then ask them why they believe that. A few may not have thought about this, you might then have an opportunity to engage in a conversation about dogs, wheat, horses and bananas. You might even be able to have a conversation about DNA and how changes to the genome occur. For the others, who will “know” that it is in Genesis, challenge them. Say “Where in Genesis? When I started thinking about this, I read Genesis, just to check, - and it is not there. Sure, it says that God created kinds, but he did not tell them to reproduce according to their kind”. I am sure that most of these people will swear blind it is in there, and even if shown the text of Genesis will say “well if it’s not there, it must be somewhere else”. It isn’t. No YEC was ever convinced to change their belief on the basis of evidence, no matter whether the evidence was biblical or scientific. However, if this is said long enough and loudly enough by enough people, the message will eventually be heard that YECs are making a knowingly deceitful claim of biblical authority. If nothing else, it exposes YECs and all the others who make this claim as heretics, and puts them squarely into the much-despised category of ‘false prophets’. From thereon in, perhaps the YECs might just be sucked into the singularity and disappear out of the universe.
[edit] Notes and References
- ↑ Whether Aristotle held any such view is doubtful. In fact this view was put forward by Quine in Ways of Paradox (1966), New York, Random. In any case the concept of essentialism as defined by Quine (following on from Aristotle) simply refers to the properties of an object which comprise its "essence" or being, and is "the doctrine that some of the attributes of a thing (quite independently of the language in which the thing is referred to, if at all) may be essential to the thing and others accidental." See the RationalWiki entry on Aristotelian Essentialism)
- ↑ This view is expressed by any number of Creationist Websites and Blogs. Typical of the views is this "explanation" from Answers in Genesis:"Since two of each kind of land animal (and seven of some) were brought aboard the Ark for the purpose of preserving their offspring upon the earth (Genesis 7:3), it seems clear that a “kind” represents the basic reproductive boundary of an organism. That is, the offspring of an organism is always the same kind as its parents, even though it may display considerable variation."
- ↑ Actually the view is a little more complex than this. Because 'speciation', in the conventional bioliogical definition has been shown to occur, then creationists take issue with the definition of 'species', attempting to suggest that "kind" is some sort of overarching category (called by creationists a 'baramin'), within which species form sub-categories. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind "Species" and "Kind" . All of this becomes an utter quagmire, mainly because creationists have invented an 'alternative taxonomy' in order to accommodate this idea, which does not relate to accepted taxonomic systems, and even creationists cannot agree amongst themselves how such a systems should operate. This is exemplified by the following passage: "From previous work in baraminology, researchers have suggested that the level of the baramin tends to fall at or near the taxonomic level of family (Wood 2006). There is often a strong cognitum at the family level. This suggests that the family is a good initial approximation of the level of the baramin. In some instances a strong cognitum may be above or below this level. For example, pigs (Suidae) and peccaries (Tayassuidae) form a strong cognitum even though they are in separate families. From looking at these animals or pictures of them, they are easily grouped together by human cognitive senses. Their division into separate families is based on more subtle details, and most people would not naturally split them into these groupings unless they were familiar with the taxonomy of these animals. So in this case the baramin appears to be at the level of the superfamily (Suoidea)."'Determining the Ark kinds' . With a system containing such a deggree of impreciseness and lack of clarity, any attempt to examine whther or not a 'kind' has bred outside of its own boundaries will meet with an almost infinite amount of goalpost-shifting.
- ↑ Mayr, E.: 1963, Animal Species and Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Mayr, E.: 1969, Principles of Systematic Zoology, McGraw-Hill, New York. Mayr, E.: 1970, Populations, Species and Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
- ↑ Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA.
- ↑ Lyell, 1835, Principles of Geology available at : http://www.tower.com/principles-geology-charles-lyell-paperback/wapi/113916269lable
- ↑ See AiG webpage on different "kinds".
- ↑ Please Note: I realise this paragraph is not totally accurate & needs rewriting to incorporate some of the more recent "discoveries" on Baraminology. However, these recent Creation Pseudoscience writings appear to concern the taxonomic quagmire they have crated, not really justifying why it might be correct, say at the level of DNA. Having said that, they will point to one or two actual science results which have ther superficial agreement - such as all forms of cattle appear to share certain commonalities in their genome. However, it should be noted that even if this were shown to be widespread, it still would not constitute evidence that cattle could NOT breed outside this set of commonalitiies.
[edit] Replies
Perhaps. I don't know. I don't get enough exposure to idiots of this caliber. Living in the bay area in Cali has some benefits. I've always figured the best way to attack these beliefs is to ignore evolution entirely, and focus on the age of the Earth and the age of the universe. You don't have to appeal to hard to understand concepts in biology. Instead, you can talk about Dendrochronology and explain it in terms of matching up the rings just like you would put together a jigsaw puzzle. You can talk about measuring the relative quantities of radioactive elements on the ocean floor, and compare that to the magnetic field description captured in igneous rock, and how we can use lasers to measure the rate of spread of the sea floor. A little harder but still quite easy to explain is red shifting, and how type Ia supernova have a specific light curve, have the same absolute brightness due to the understood mechanics of how they happen, and how this shows big bang theory and 13.7 billion years. Throw SN 1987A at anyone who is "informed" enough to make a c-decay argument. In short, just link to Evidence_against_a_recent_creation. My 2 cents. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Even though I understood it at some level, it was only recently that thanks to an Aronra talk that I finally got the major point of contention of your essay. I superficially understood that transitional forms would look like the common ancestor, and the common ancestor of us and fish is probably a fish. What I didn't quite grasp was that the creationists are actually looking for a crocodock, and why this is just obscenely silly. Aronra's talk explains that a fish is always a fish. In a certain sense they are right that kinds do not produce other kinds. Clades are closed. The descendents of a clade will always be members of that clade. We are member of the "fish clade". We are members of the mamalia (sp) clade. And our descendents always will be too. We see transitional forms, form between modern forms and ancestor forms, but we never see "proper" transitional forms between modern forms, such as a crocoduck. Evolution strictly forbids it. So, I understand that you want to dismiss entirely "kinds only reproduce the same kind", I think this is a bad phrasing of evolutionary theory. Kinds, in the sense of clades, do only produce the same kind. However, a clade can expand and diversify, and from the "fish clade" we can get stuff from T Rexes to Humans to Turtles. They're all still members of the vertebrate clade, and their descendents always will be. They'll never produce a non-vertebrate. And here we go, found the video. It's good stuff for those not very versed in evolution. I thought I was. I wasn't. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I think the issue is, you probably have to spend some time around creationists to understand their thinking. The "kind begats kind" mantra is theirs, not mine, and in this context the crocoduck argument is a red-herring. That is something dispensed to counter evolution. However, claiming that evolution is not the mechanism by which we got here today, is of a completley different order to claiming it could NEVER happen - even in principle. The point is they have set up a "Theory of Non-Evolution", which is a parallel theory. Consider how these theories are applied to the future: Evolution would merely claim that it is possible at some point that an animal from one species can be the ancestor of an animal which is so far removed from the original that it cannot be regarded as the same species. It does not predict what that might be, or how long it would take - nor does it guarantee it could happen. On the other hand, "Non-Evolution" denies that this is possible, even in theory. Future Evolution is speculative, and you can point to things like crocoduck, and say it's unlikely, but effectively it is impossible to rule it out altogether just by pointing to evidence. In a sense, that is an unfalsifiable claim, and if that was all evolution had, it would not qualify as science [This is argument is thrown at evolution by creationists all the time - it's the straw man "future speculation" argument - because its unfalsifiable, they claim Evolution is not Science]. However, the Creationists' Future 'Non-Evolution' is not speculative. It's definitive, and that is what makes it special. IT says that something can NEVER happen, and it applies to all living creatures. In order to substantiate such a claim it is not sufficient to point to a series of examples; a mechanism is required which unambiguously demonstrates that cumulative changes to a genome can never change one 'kind' into another kind in the future, nor has ever done so in the past.--CatWatcher (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do want to emphasize that, for example, all descendents of mammals are going to be mammals, forever. A mammal will never have a descendent which is a non-mammal. The descendent might even lose all of the immediately obvious distinguishing criteria of mammals, but its place on the taxonomy tree of life and the genetic tree of life will be as a mammal. Kinds do only reproduce after their own kind. That a creationist asks for a kind turning into another kind merely demonstrates that the creationist doesn't know what they're talking about. Kinds can only reproduce the same kind, and you can have common descent of all known life. These ideas are compatible, and both are part of evolutionary theory. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Needed clarifications. All descendents are the same kind (clade) of their ancestors, but the reverse is not true. All descendents of mammals are mammals, but not all ancestors of mammals are mammals. All descendents of vertebrates are vertebrates, but not all ancestors of vertebrates are vertebrates. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, i.e. that all animals stemming from a common ancestor can all be regarded as variants of that ancestor, and the further back you go, the more general the categories become. However, I disagree with the mamals can only give rise to mammals notion. Take a group of rats, leave them on an island for 50 million years, and you could well have entirely new kinds of creatures, for example:
- some creatures have developed external sacs on their back into which fertilised eggs are deposited, and young develop until they are 'born'; however, birth is for these creatures a somewhat indeterminate concept, as they grow, teats develop inside the sacs, and soon afterwards the placenta begins to shut down and be reabsorbed. At some point the umbilical cord atrophies altogether. During this period the young can exit and re-enter the sac, as it behaves like a marsupial pouches, and is a protective case for young infants, until they are fully ready to leave their mother.
- Due to a mutation on the genome, female animals are created with two sets of reproductive apparatus, and have double wombs. In addition, the fallopian tubes evolve in such a manner that fertilised eggs are stored in a vessel which only allows duplication of the zygote, but never allows the zygote to develop. This not only allows the animal to be in a state of permanent pregnancy, staggered so that a new pregnancy is created as soon as one of the wombs becomes vacant, but that all of the creatures produced are clones from the original mating which may have occurred many years previously.
Now, would either of these be called "mammals"? They might be descendants of mammals, but their reproductive systems would be something entirely different - and identifiably different from each other. And perhaps this latter is really the point; in the creationists world view, whatever resulted, would always be the "same" as each other.--CatWatcher (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to modern cladistics and taxonomy, yes they would still be mammals. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok then. I bow to your superior knowledge. If that is correct I am not sure where this goes. The interesting thing here, is that 'Kind begets Kind' IS a central belief of YEC, and it is plastered all over the place. However, they would not agree that the things I described are mammals. I personally don't think that labelling ALL the descendants of mammals as 'mammals' regardless of what they evolve into actually captures the essence of evolution. After all, human beings are not ancient eukaryotes (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21034815) ; we might have descended from them, but we MUST be clearly different. However, I understand what you are saying. YECs have simply taken a taxonomic convention and turned it into some sort of universal law, justified by some naive thinking and a misleading reading of Genesis; If it is challenged, then they simply point to the taxonomy and say we are being disingenuous, because we believe exactly the same thing. Evolution says that everything comes from one stem; Creationists say there were many stems. Effectively if you slice through the evolutionary tree horizontally and ignore the bottom bit, Evolution & YEC diagrams become almost isomorphic. God I despair.I will have another deep think about this. Many ThanksCatWatcher (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- First, while we might not be "ancient eukaryotes" (whatever that means), surely we are eukaryotic. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Second, evolution does say that kinds only beget the same kind. The problem is the YECs mean something slightly different. In their world, kinds are implicitly and "obviously" discreet and non-overlapping. That's the fatal difference. Descendents of mammals will always be classified as mammals, because their taxonomy will almost surely suggest it, as will their genetics. Thus, we are eukaryotes, animals, vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, monkeys, apes, and human. Those are all nested "kinds", or clades. Creationists don't recognize those as valid "kinds". See Baraminology. As far as I know, they don't recognize anything as a legitimate classification scheme of kinds, because if they did, then we could probably prove them wrong. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Third, I don't know if it's effective, but the the biggest reason why I believe evolution is true is that Linnaeus developed taxonomy, very close to modern taxonomy, a century+ before Darwin. He saw and documented the tree of life without knowing what it was, and he was effectively a christian creationist. Add on that the tree of life according to genetics more or less fully agrees, and the conclusion is inescapable. At least, I wish it was. You'll probably find YECs who disagree. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok then. I bow to your superior knowledge. If that is correct I am not sure where this goes. The interesting thing here, is that 'Kind begets Kind' IS a central belief of YEC, and it is plastered all over the place. However, they would not agree that the things I described are mammals. I personally don't think that labelling ALL the descendants of mammals as 'mammals' regardless of what they evolve into actually captures the essence of evolution. After all, human beings are not ancient eukaryotes (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21034815) ; we might have descended from them, but we MUST be clearly different. However, I understand what you are saying. YECs have simply taken a taxonomic convention and turned it into some sort of universal law, justified by some naive thinking and a misleading reading of Genesis; If it is challenged, then they simply point to the taxonomy and say we are being disingenuous, because we believe exactly the same thing. Evolution says that everything comes from one stem; Creationists say there were many stems. Effectively if you slice through the evolutionary tree horizontally and ignore the bottom bit, Evolution & YEC diagrams become almost isomorphic. God I despair.I will have another deep think about this. Many ThanksCatWatcher (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Having looked into what you have said, I do think you are right. I just wish you weren't. In essence YECs are making a definitive statement here, but are doing it in terms which admit almost infinite flexibility. Even if one of my double placental rats resulted from a gene duplication, they could argue it was still the same "kind", as it was merely a variant of the original , and had found expression within the range of genetic types allowed under that "kind". They could and would do it, even though a week before they would have denied any such thing is possible. There is only one slight chink that I might explore. If their "Theory" is to be in any way valid (if I imagine such a thing) then it would need to be supported by a theory of how the DNA somehow 'prevents' expression outside a 'kind' or restricts expression to a particular kind. Evolution places no such restrictions - a rat could potentially evolve into something like a snake in a suitable environment (convergence). However, if the idea of "kind begats kind" means anything at all, it must surely imply that a rat could not change into a snake, even if that snake were actually a small mammal, which had an extended body and atrophied limbs.--CatWatcher (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Cheetahs
Dunno. Another one of my favorite points on evolutionary theory itself is genetic diversity. If you consider the creationist perspective that all life came from 2 (or 7) individuals per "kind" ala Noah's ark, then you get into extreme silliness. We know how genetics works, and the modern genetic diversity of nearly all species cannot be accounted for by known rates of mutation from such a small starting population less than 6000 years ago. They want to have their cake and eat it too - they say on one hand that the rates of mutation is much smaller than evolutionary theory would require for the current variety of life, but then they say that the rate of mutation is far bigger than evolutionary theory to get the current genetic diversity. ---- Then, finish up with the cheetah. God hates the cheetah. The cheetah has an amazingly low amount of genetic diversity. This is because it actually was reduced to staggeringly low population numbers, still not quite as bad as 2 (or 7), but close in the recent past. Ex: normally, organ donations are rejected for a vast majority of individuals in a population. The immune system recognizes it as foreign and attacks in. Not so for the cheetah. They found cheetahs as distantly related as possible and did skin grants - they all took. ---- So, obviously god made Noah do the Ark thing, but that wouldn't have enough genetic diversity and most would die off anyway, so god had to after the fact go in and add a bunch of genetic diversity to all of the animals (including humans) a few hundred years after the flood. Except the cheetah, because god hates the cheetah and wants it to die off from too little genetic diversity (which the species is actually in danger of). LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
In case you missed the film that caused the protests at the American embassy's that lead to the death of the American ambassador to Libya: Innocence of Muslims (kinda NSFW, depicts sex act). This really reminds me of the Python movie "Life of Brian" which is an obvious mockumentary of Jesus. When that film came out were there any violent protests? Not trying to say Christianity is any different than Islam, I just was not alive during the time so I do not know how the world reacted to it when it was released. Certainly there is not a fundamental difference between the two types of religious zealots (Christian/Islam), but there is obviously a difference in tolerance in the societies that house them. It is times like these I am very glad the whole enlightenment thing happened or I would have been stoned for blasphemy long ago. TheCheatI run on alcohol 13:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Conflating Life Of Brian with The Innocence Of Muslims doesn't work. Life of Brian is an attack on religion in general and, when it briefly touches on Christ, it does so with respect. (Blessed are the cheesemakers). It certainly does not call Jesus a buffoon. I think a far more fitting parallel is between the rioters and the nutter who took out a bunch of Sikhs thinking they were Muslims. In both cases you have extremists using flimsy and misunderstood excuses to further an agenda of hatred. Bad Faith (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Pythons never explicitly called Christianity "a cancer." Does that justify the embassy attacks? Fuck no. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I did not mean to lower Monty Python to the same level as this dumb movie, but frankly I always thought 'life of Brian' was directed at Christianity especially and while extremely hilarious and witty it still would be considered blasphemy by fanatics. Not being alive at the time I do not know how it was received upon release. TheCheatI run on alcohol 14:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- LoB was widely banned and there were widespread protests but, obviously, not attacks on embassies. But I think this misses the point. I would compare the embassy attacks with, for example, abortion clinic bombings, or those who go on the rampage in Sikh temples. In a highly charged and violent society like Syria it doesn't need much of an excuse to set off the fanatics but they certainly don't have a monopoly on them. Bad Faith (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- So is it theoretically possible for a movie to be so blasphemous to Christians that it would create the the same kind of violence? If so, what is the threshold and why? If not, how is one society simply more 'violent' than another? TheCheatI run on alcohol 14:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Life of Brian was never about Jesus. In fact, you can tell because if you bother to watch it you can see Jesus appear in the opening scene. But Christian pro-life groups have bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors in the head. It's far more complicated than just stating one religion "is" or "is not" more violent than the other.
moral
16:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- What people seem to miss, and Christians and atheist choose to ignore, is that the violence has nothign to do with this film, or even Islam. It has everything to do with poverty, power, money, control, freedom, and a base of angry pepole who are being used by their political and religious leaders as tools. No, this would not have happened in the US, or UK, or France, but because it's "islam" and we are "christian", but because we do not have the kind of poverty and lack of access to social systems, health care, political freedome, right to speech, etc that you find in most middle eastern and northern african countries. This is the same ol' thing that it has always been about. Who can control the masses, and when will they say "fuck off" -- and when they do say fuck off, who will they lash out at?
GodotBe informed. Vote. 17:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh please, lots of people are poor and you don't see them go on killing sprees.Religionisforidiots (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- What people seem to miss, and Christians and atheist choose to ignore, is that the violence has nothign to do with this film, or even Islam. It has everything to do with poverty, power, money, control, freedom, and a base of angry pepole who are being used by their political and religious leaders as tools. No, this would not have happened in the US, or UK, or France, but because it's "islam" and we are "christian", but because we do not have the kind of poverty and lack of access to social systems, health care, political freedome, right to speech, etc that you find in most middle eastern and northern african countries. This is the same ol' thing that it has always been about. Who can control the masses, and when will they say "fuck off" -- and when they do say fuck off, who will they lash out at?
- Life of Brian was never about Jesus. In fact, you can tell because if you bother to watch it you can see Jesus appear in the opening scene. But Christian pro-life groups have bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors in the head. It's far more complicated than just stating one religion "is" or "is not" more violent than the other.
- So is it theoretically possible for a movie to be so blasphemous to Christians that it would create the the same kind of violence? If so, what is the threshold and why? If not, how is one society simply more 'violent' than another? TheCheatI run on alcohol 14:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- LoB was widely banned and there were widespread protests but, obviously, not attacks on embassies. But I think this misses the point. I would compare the embassy attacks with, for example, abortion clinic bombings, or those who go on the rampage in Sikh temples. In a highly charged and violent society like Syria it doesn't need much of an excuse to set off the fanatics but they certainly don't have a monopoly on them. Bad Faith (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I did not mean to lower Monty Python to the same level as this dumb movie, but frankly I always thought 'life of Brian' was directed at Christianity especially and while extremely hilarious and witty it still would be considered blasphemy by fanatics. Not being alive at the time I do not know how it was received upon release. TheCheatI run on alcohol 14:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Pythons never explicitly called Christianity "a cancer." Does that justify the embassy attacks? Fuck no. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- What's "NTSF"? -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
What the movies are actually about isn't the issue. It's not like most Christians protesting LoB back in the day actually saw the movie, they just thought it was anti-Jesus. The rioters and bombers in the Middle East obviously haven't seen the movie in question either. They just heard there was an anti-Mohammad movie somewhere in America and went apeshit. But its true that Christians don't react violently to anti-Christian things, while some Muslims do react that way to anti-Muslim things. Some of it has to do with Christians being used to freedom of speech and are accustomed to having their beliefs mocked, whereas Muslims in the Middle East have been coddled when it comes to their religion. We probably need a lot more films/books/etc, critical of Islam so they eventually grow accustomed to it. You can't riot every day. It wears you out. DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- What a fucking stupid idea this Innocence of Muslims was. What did they have to gain by making this film? What could they possibly have accomplished? Also, Life of Brian was not anti-religion, the creators said so themselves--"Shut up, Brx." 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Talking about the response to LoB, this clip from 1979 is just that; the Pythons defending Life of Brian from butthurt Anglican officials. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 04:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think an important difference between LoB and IoM is that LoB was created by western , if not judeo-christian then rooted in judeo-christian values film makers, satirising their own beliefs, as it were. IoM is created by western judeo-christian film makers demonizing the faith of a group of people who as Godot says has very little freedom expression, very little freedom in general, and whose oppressors deflect any and all criticism of them to towards western judeo-christian powers who in many cases are complicit in maintaining and supporting that oppression. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Plus if you are living in abject poverty, constantly oppressed, and everything in this world seems to exist to fuck you over, religious faith is often all you have, all that keeps you going. People can be a tad touchy in such circumstances. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yessss. But it's not like all Christians live in rich democratic countries which allow freedom of speech. A lot of Africans are Christians and all of South America is Christian.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- And Africa has such a non-violent past, with the massive slaughters of peoples in the Congo, the lovely situation of literally 80% of all women being raped as a matter of life in rural South Africa; the endless uprisings against whomever in Zimbabwe. I think reality shows Gay's and my point, more than "but xians don't do that".
GodotBe informed. Vote. 18:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have no more love for Christianity than I do for Islam. My point was the previous posts seemed to me to be written from the point of view that Muslim = south and poor; Christian = north and rich. It's obviously not that simple.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- And Africa has such a non-violent past, with the massive slaughters of peoples in the Congo, the lovely situation of literally 80% of all women being raped as a matter of life in rural South Africa; the endless uprisings against whomever in Zimbabwe. I think reality shows Gay's and my point, more than "but xians don't do that".
- Well, yessss. But it's not like all Christians live in rich democratic countries which allow freedom of speech. A lot of Africans are Christians and all of South America is Christian.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Plus if you are living in abject poverty, constantly oppressed, and everything in this world seems to exist to fuck you over, religious faith is often all you have, all that keeps you going. People can be a tad touchy in such circumstances. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think an important difference between LoB and IoM is that LoB was created by western , if not judeo-christian then rooted in judeo-christian values film makers, satirising their own beliefs, as it were. IoM is created by western judeo-christian film makers demonizing the faith of a group of people who as Godot says has very little freedom expression, very little freedom in general, and whose oppressors deflect any and all criticism of them to towards western judeo-christian powers who in many cases are complicit in maintaining and supporting that oppression. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The quote below is over simplistic.
- This is a new post to a two year old forum, but one thing I cannot abide is an idiot peddling the sort of bullshit that AMassiveGay wrote, regardless of when he wrote it. The movie "The Innocence of Muslims" was produced and directed by a Coptic Christian. The director of this movie most certainly understands oppression better than AMassiveGay does, even if AMassiveGay's username is a description of his sexual orientation. Alsto003 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Alex
- maybe you could explain to me why my two year old post was idiotic, and perhaps be less of a prick about it. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I am sort of using you as a lightning rod. I take exception to this last quote of yours that represents a personal pet peeve of mine, it was also never corrected, IoM is created by western judeo-christian film makers demonizing the faith of a group of people who as Godot says has very little freedom expression, very little freedom in general, and whose oppressors deflect any and all criticism of them to towards western judeo-christian powers who in many cases are complicit in maintaining and supporting that oppression. LoM was produced and directed by a Coptic Christian, not exactly a member of an empowered social group. My point is similar to Weirdstuff. You seem to have immediately assumed that this film was created by a “western judeo-christian” filmmaker when in reality it was made by someone who was a member of marginalized ethnic group. However the reason for this assumption is clear enough and gets to what Weirdstuff said, there is general trend in academia, or at least the academics who I have known, to view the world in a “Muslim = south and poor; Christian = north and rich”. The side affect of that characterization is that the plight of marginalized groups in Muslim societies while superficially acknowledged, are in practice completely ignored. That is what right wing Israelis are referring to when they complain about there being a “double standard” applied to Israel. For instance, Palestinians must have the right of return but Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks from Turkey don’t have the right of return. To right wing populists (who almost certainly have ulterior motives) and to a couple leftists (who often are associated with the old left), the reason for the discrepancy between the advocacy for Palestinian human rights, and the rights of non-Muslim or non-Arab minorities in the Middle East is because the new left (or more accurately its ideological descendants), in a quest for ideological purity rather than truth, discards narratives that don’t fit in the “Muslim = south and poor (and therefore oppressed); Christian = north and rich (and therefore privileged)” model. The “Muslim = south and poor” narrative itself is the reason why hard left political organizations like SWP, RESPECT, and Unite Against Fascism in Europe ally with Islamist organizations, this attitude is best exemplified in a quote from a book by a Mr. James Toth who justifies Sayyid Qutb's Occidentalist worldview by declaring it to be a form of resistance because of and I quote "the power imbalance between the West and Egypt." Not surprisingly I find that worldview to be idiotic and I think most people on Rationalwiki would agree. Where does that leave you? As I said before, I have used you as a lightning rod, but simply put I feel that your immediate assumption that the producer of this film was a westerner is emblematic of a general tenancy among hard leftists to pretend as though Islamic radicalism is solely the product of colonial western oppression and is therefore a legitimate form of resistance against said oppression. I may be mistaken in my characterization of your opinions, admittedly I tend to over-react when I see a factual error that was not corrected especially when I perceive that the person who made said error is an opponent of some sort. Alsto003 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Alex
- at the time of my original post, the chap behind IOM was had been living in the US for around 20years and claimed to be an Israeli Jew, and IOM was produced in the US. That makes it a western, specifically US, production. That the producer, a liar and convicted fraudster, was actually Coptic christian doesn't change my point that a film (iom) critical of Muslims by non muslim judeo Christians is not the same as a film (LOB) critical of judeo Christians by judeo christians. I didn't mention other marginalised groups because the we were discussing Muslims specifically. Your wrong assumption based on nothing about my supposed 'ideological purity' or that I don't care about other marginalised groups is insulting bullshit not supported by anything I have said. The fact that you resurrected a two year old post and singled me out, the only reason I am responding, leads me to make the assumption that you are a prick. And unlike your assumptions, mine is supported by what you have said. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken, I singled you out unfairly. I do not necessarily agree with you entirely but after rereading the entire talk page I have realized that most of the points I was going to make were already stated below mostly by Proxima Centauri and DickTurpis (mostly in response to Godot). Hence there was nothing for me really contribute here. I will try to better control myself on the forums. Alsto003 (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Alex
- at the time of my original post, the chap behind IOM was had been living in the US for around 20years and claimed to be an Israeli Jew, and IOM was produced in the US. That makes it a western, specifically US, production. That the producer, a liar and convicted fraudster, was actually Coptic christian doesn't change my point that a film (iom) critical of Muslims by non muslim judeo Christians is not the same as a film (LOB) critical of judeo Christians by judeo christians. I didn't mention other marginalised groups because the we were discussing Muslims specifically. Your wrong assumption based on nothing about my supposed 'ideological purity' or that I don't care about other marginalised groups is insulting bullshit not supported by anything I have said. The fact that you resurrected a two year old post and singled me out, the only reason I am responding, leads me to make the assumption that you are a prick. And unlike your assumptions, mine is supported by what you have said. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I am sort of using you as a lightning rod. I take exception to this last quote of yours that represents a personal pet peeve of mine, it was also never corrected, IoM is created by western judeo-christian film makers demonizing the faith of a group of people who as Godot says has very little freedom expression, very little freedom in general, and whose oppressors deflect any and all criticism of them to towards western judeo-christian powers who in many cases are complicit in maintaining and supporting that oppression. LoM was produced and directed by a Coptic Christian, not exactly a member of an empowered social group. My point is similar to Weirdstuff. You seem to have immediately assumed that this film was created by a “western judeo-christian” filmmaker when in reality it was made by someone who was a member of marginalized ethnic group. However the reason for this assumption is clear enough and gets to what Weirdstuff said, there is general trend in academia, or at least the academics who I have known, to view the world in a “Muslim = south and poor; Christian = north and rich”. The side affect of that characterization is that the plight of marginalized groups in Muslim societies while superficially acknowledged, are in practice completely ignored. That is what right wing Israelis are referring to when they complain about there being a “double standard” applied to Israel. For instance, Palestinians must have the right of return but Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks from Turkey don’t have the right of return. To right wing populists (who almost certainly have ulterior motives) and to a couple leftists (who often are associated with the old left), the reason for the discrepancy between the advocacy for Palestinian human rights, and the rights of non-Muslim or non-Arab minorities in the Middle East is because the new left (or more accurately its ideological descendants), in a quest for ideological purity rather than truth, discards narratives that don’t fit in the “Muslim = south and poor (and therefore oppressed); Christian = north and rich (and therefore privileged)” model. The “Muslim = south and poor” narrative itself is the reason why hard left political organizations like SWP, RESPECT, and Unite Against Fascism in Europe ally with Islamist organizations, this attitude is best exemplified in a quote from a book by a Mr. James Toth who justifies Sayyid Qutb's Occidentalist worldview by declaring it to be a form of resistance because of and I quote "the power imbalance between the West and Egypt." Not surprisingly I find that worldview to be idiotic and I think most people on Rationalwiki would agree. Where does that leave you? As I said before, I have used you as a lightning rod, but simply put I feel that your immediate assumption that the producer of this film was a westerner is emblematic of a general tenancy among hard leftists to pretend as though Islamic radicalism is solely the product of colonial western oppression and is therefore a legitimate form of resistance against said oppression. I may be mistaken in my characterization of your opinions, admittedly I tend to over-react when I see a factual error that was not corrected especially when I perceive that the person who made said error is an opponent of some sort. Alsto003 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Alex
- maybe you could explain to me why my two year old post was idiotic, and perhaps be less of a prick about it. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is a new post to a two year old forum, but one thing I cannot abide is an idiot peddling the sort of bullshit that AMassiveGay wrote, regardless of when he wrote it. The movie "The Innocence of Muslims" was produced and directed by a Coptic Christian. The director of this movie most certainly understands oppression better than AMassiveGay does, even if AMassiveGay's username is a description of his sexual orientation. Alsto003 (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Alex
[edit] edit break 1 (Proxima Centauri time)
What people seem to miss, and Christians and atheist choose to ignore, is that the violence has nothign to do with this film, or even Islam. It has everything to do with poverty, power, money, control, freedom, and a base of angry pepole who are being used by their political and religious leaders as tools. No, this would not have happened in the US, or UK, or France, but because it's "islam" and we are "christian", but because we do not have the kind of poverty and lack of access to social systems, health care, political freedome, right to speech, etc that you find in most middle eastern and northern african countries. [4]
Yes, the violence was partly to do with poverty and lack of access to social systems, health care, political freedome, right to speech, etc but it was also to do with intolerant Memeplexes connected to Islam. If Godot thinks it’s all due to poverty and the like she should explain why Asian Buddhists suffering similar poverty don’t get similarly violent. Below is a quote about how Muslims worldwide including in the UK reacted to Salman Rushdie round 1990.
By lawfully exercising his right to freedom of expression, Mr. Rushdie is committing no crime. However during the last twelve months, there have been at least a dozen attacks on bookshops. Booksellers in the United Kingdom have reported numerous death threats. Similar threats have been made to Mr. Rushdie’s publishers and supporters throughout the world. [5]
Muslims who weren’t suffering Third World poverty got violent or planned violence during the Danish cartoon affair. [6]
Why does all this matter?? It matters because we see yet again the double standard followed by many Christians and atheist Accommodationists.
- Defenders of religion are allowed to oversimplify in order to whitewash religion.
- Oversimplification by atheists is pounced on and humiliatingly labelled unscientific as in the case of some atheist who allegedly wrote, “I have read all (emphasis mine) of the sophisticated theology and none of it makes any sense”. [7] Christians and atheist Accommodationists don’t even have to give any links to prove any atheist actually wrote the comment about sophisticated theology. They just need to claim that it happened and other atheists are expected to hang their heads in shame and stop/cut down criticism of religion.
Let’s fight (metaphorically) to end this unjust Memeplex that holds opponents of religion to higher standards than supporters of religion. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously, is this "I have read all the sophisticated theology" thing still a big deal for you?
What the hell does it have to do with the price of fish? ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously, is this "I have read all the sophisticated theology" thing still a big deal for you?
- You mention asian buddhists not getting violent, so i gues the anti muslim rioting in burma doesn't count. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Violence by Buddhists if far less common, (edited to include) Buddhist violence happened in Burma and Sri Lanka that I know of, but it's far from the norm in Asia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- And yet it exists and is far too common in Burma. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your blood vendetta against Godot is hilarious. Also, [8] ТyILAB 18:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- While obviously things like poverty and oppression are factors, to pretend this has nothing to do with religion strikes me as wishful thinking. DickTurpis (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Religion is a tool used by those in power, who want to retain power. it is not the problem. Take it away, and you find something like "icky Capitalists from America!" and "AMerican headonists". People who are not desperate, aren't generally violent at this level. It's why groups like Occupy, with legitimate grudges, will not make any real changes. no one is THAT threatened in the west. As long as our focus is on the "icky muslims", we will never address the very real issues of economic power, political power and freedoms that are common place in muslim africa, southern "christian" africa, and the middle east, and we will continue to court violence. Notice however, when these same muslims attacke their own leader, no one was saying it was because they were "muslim", they were saying it was liberation! but the roots? the violence. the lack of a voice which makes someone need to attack - those are exactly the same in both cases. PS. look at LA riots. no religion needed there, but the spark is the same. something people find unacceptable, but cannot challenge via the system.
GodotBe informed. Vote. 18:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- (EC)I'm not sure any one is saying religion isn't a factor nor that it isn't a major one. But poverty, oppression, and centuries of near constant warfare between muslim and christian nations are just as major factors. And that warfare, real or cultural, has been very onesided for quite some time. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- While obviously things like poverty and oppression are factors, to pretend this has nothing to do with religion strikes me as wishful thinking. DickTurpis (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Violence by Buddhists if far less common, (edited to include) Buddhist violence happened in Burma and Sri Lanka that I know of, but it's far from the norm in Asia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] edit break 2 (Proxima Centauri redux)
What people seem to miss, and Christians and atheist choose to ignore, is that the violence has nothign to do with this film, or even Islam. It has everything to do with poverty, power, money, control, freedom, and a base of angry pepole who are being used by their political and religious leaders as tools. No, this would not have happened in the US, or UK, or France, but because it's "islam" and we are "christian", but because we do not have the kind of poverty and lack of access to social systems, health care, political freedome, right to speech, etc that you find in most middle eastern and northern african countries. [9]
The emphasis is mine. Poverty and other problems were certainly a factor, violence by western Muslims over Rushdie and the Danish Cartoons was in the main less extreme than violence in poorer Muslim countries.
- We shouldn't simplify the problem down to, "It's all the fault of Islam".
- We shouldn't simplify the problem down to, "It's all to do with poverty powerlessness and the like" either. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- [EC} A good portion of this argument seems to be that religion isn't a factor in violence in many other places, so it isn't in this case either. I expect we have an argument on that fallacy somewhere here. Of course there are other factors, and of course poverty and oppression are significant, but there is a pretty pronounced religious factor here too. Think back to the Danish cartoons a few years ago. Can anyone think of an example of a significant number of members of another religion turning to violence because someone on the opposite side of the planet made fun of their faith? A substantial number of Muslims worldwide have this idea that their religion is not subject to mockery, or even any meaningful criticism. They have to get over that notion, fast. DickTurpis (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Course, it turns out that the violence had nothign to do with the protests. that was just an excuse. [10]
GodotBe informed. Vote. 19:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- That may well the the case for the assassination of the Libyan ambassador, but what about the other instances? The Danish cartoons, for example? DickTurpis (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I still think it's part of the same situation. You are told how to think, in a seriously oppressive enviroment, and the only outlet you have is "they are mocking you", so you take it. I think it's very much like modern christian right saying "you are out to destroy my Christianity" when a woman says she wants birth control (just at a much lower level of control). You react cause you are told to. Again, the religion is not at fault, the people who USE IT TO CONTROL THE MASSES are at fault.
GodotBe informed. Vote. 19:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- So we agree that religion itself, which is an abstract concept, is not to blame. Very well, but you do agree that there is a significant religious element, whether it includes the masses or just the leaders. The very fact that you can get people to say "you insulted my religion and must die for it" is a problem, even if they are cajoled into it by their betters. Does this happen with any other religion? At least when Christians get bent out of shape over stupid shit no one dies for it (we'll put the occasional abortion clinic related violence aside for now, as it's rare, usually condemned, and about a much bigger issue than mere disrespect), at least not that I can think of, and there are poor and oppressed Christians in the world. Islam appears to be unique in its widespread militant intolerance of criticism or mockery. I don't exactly know why that is; some of it no doubt comes from leaders using it to unite their people against another enemy other than themselves, but the fact they get away with it is disturbing. Additionally, it isn't only the poor and oppressed who engage in such violence. The 9/11 hijackers were largely middle class. Mohamed Atta was living in the free societies of Germany and the US for a decade previously, so he was not terribly poor or oppressed. There was a time when simply insulting Jesus could get you killed, but we're well past that. The Islamic world needs to catch up. DickTurpis (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- "At least when Christians get bent out of shape over stupid shit no one dies for it..." Uh, ever heard of Rwanda? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- That wasn't a response to some guy saying "Jesus is teh stoopid!" No one's saying Christians don't kill people, obviously, they just don't kill people over religious insults anymore. DickTurpis (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- "At least when Christians get bent out of shape over stupid shit no one dies for it..." Uh, ever heard of Rwanda? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- So we agree that religion itself, which is an abstract concept, is not to blame. Very well, but you do agree that there is a significant religious element, whether it includes the masses or just the leaders. The very fact that you can get people to say "you insulted my religion and must die for it" is a problem, even if they are cajoled into it by their betters. Does this happen with any other religion? At least when Christians get bent out of shape over stupid shit no one dies for it (we'll put the occasional abortion clinic related violence aside for now, as it's rare, usually condemned, and about a much bigger issue than mere disrespect), at least not that I can think of, and there are poor and oppressed Christians in the world. Islam appears to be unique in its widespread militant intolerance of criticism or mockery. I don't exactly know why that is; some of it no doubt comes from leaders using it to unite their people against another enemy other than themselves, but the fact they get away with it is disturbing. Additionally, it isn't only the poor and oppressed who engage in such violence. The 9/11 hijackers were largely middle class. Mohamed Atta was living in the free societies of Germany and the US for a decade previously, so he was not terribly poor or oppressed. There was a time when simply insulting Jesus could get you killed, but we're well past that. The Islamic world needs to catch up. DickTurpis (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I still think it's part of the same situation. You are told how to think, in a seriously oppressive enviroment, and the only outlet you have is "they are mocking you", so you take it. I think it's very much like modern christian right saying "you are out to destroy my Christianity" when a woman says she wants birth control (just at a much lower level of control). You react cause you are told to. Again, the religion is not at fault, the people who USE IT TO CONTROL THE MASSES are at fault.
- That may well the the case for the assassination of the Libyan ambassador, but what about the other instances? The Danish cartoons, for example? DickTurpis (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Course, it turns out that the violence had nothign to do with the protests. that was just an excuse. [10]
- [EC} A good portion of this argument seems to be that religion isn't a factor in violence in many other places, so it isn't in this case either. I expect we have an argument on that fallacy somewhere here. Of course there are other factors, and of course poverty and oppression are significant, but there is a pretty pronounced religious factor here too. Think back to the Danish cartoons a few years ago. Can anyone think of an example of a significant number of members of another religion turning to violence because someone on the opposite side of the planet made fun of their faith? A substantial number of Muslims worldwide have this idea that their religion is not subject to mockery, or even any meaningful criticism. They have to get over that notion, fast. DickTurpis (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I rarely support Godot but she made many valid points as well as oversimplifying here. We need to take action against the plutocrats who are destroying our planet. What can we do?? I don't know if Huffington is right or wrong but overall:-
- There's too much of a problem with Muslims expecting their religion to be above criticism.
- There's too much of a problem with Plutocrats messing up our planet.
Let's not oversimplify and blame just the one or just the other. Especially academics following the Scientific method shouldn't do such things. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is something fishy about this -- as CNN reported, it's unknown whether the protest was instigated as cover for the attack or the killers were simply using it as cover. At the same time, Sufi religious sites are being vandalized or demolished, so the conflict is as much internal to Islam as it is external. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Cynical people manipulating desperately poor people is certainly part of the problem but so is the Islamic tradition of Jihad. Many Muslims include violent struggle against those who oppose Islam as part of Jihad, see What is Jihad? for more. Proxima Centauri (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-not-be-a-real - so there's suggestions this isn't even a real flim, and was intentionally created to make a scene that could be "faught" against? this might get very strange indeed. the date suddenly becomes intersting.
GodotBe informed. Vote. 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/inflammatory-anti-muslim-movie-may-not-be-a-real - so there's suggestions this isn't even a real flim, and was intentionally created to make a scene that could be "faught" against? this might get very strange indeed. the date suddenly becomes intersting.
- Cynical people manipulating desperately poor people is certainly part of the problem but so is the Islamic tradition of Jihad. Many Muslims include violent struggle against those who oppose Islam as part of Jihad, see What is Jihad? for more. Proxima Centauri (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Goddamn, did someone really just use "memeplexes" without irony?
- Shorter WaitingforGodot: "This is about human beings with complex, interconnected problems."
- Shorter Proxima: "It's about intolerance memeplexes!"
- Was there ever a more patently meaningless science buzzword? Godot's analysis, while perhaps incomplete, also implicitly offers solutions to the issue. "Strive to improve X, Y, and Z and things will get better." Whereas Proxima might as well be using Freudian psychoanalysis to claim all Muslims want to have sex with their mother for all the good it'll do. If a science about people can't be used to inform public health and safety, what the fuck good is it? Jesus weeps, Proxima.
Radioactive Misanthrope 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Lulz, memes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- relevant]. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 00:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Strive to improve X, Y, and Z and things won't get better.
- relevant]. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 00:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Lulz, memes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Power hungry rulers will keep the bulk of the revenue from economic development for themselves. They kept oil revenue for themselves and there's no reason why they should change.
- The people will remain powerless, angry and ready to demonstrate or riot over any small pretext.
- Power hungry rulers will have more revenue to do such things as finance a large army. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] edit break 3 (AD arrives)
Innocence of Muslims is a bizarre operation. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but it bears repeating if so: the cast and crew have denounced the film, because the trailer has been dubbed and re-pieced together from separate parts. The lead actress, for example, thought she was in a movie called Desert Warriors about Egypt. The producer is using a fake name and posing as an Israeli Jew, but probably also does not exist and is actually an American Christian. And last but not least, there is no reason to think that there is a full movie at all, beyond this trailer.[11] The movie appears to have been custom-made by one bigot to try to purposefully enrage Muslims, even down to lies about how it was funded by $5m from "Israeli donors."
When thinking about this, the best parallel I can think of is with race relations. I imagine a film produced by a white supremacist, cobbled together and over-dubbed from disparate fake film projects made by actors who were being lied to about the intentions, released under the name and alias of an upper-class Republican of the southern U.S., and purposefully rumored to have been funded by Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney. In the high-information atmosphere of America, it's hard to imagine this lie not being uncovered before anything bad happened, but in an America that has poorer communication and not many trusted media outlets, I can easily see race riots springing up in Cincinnati and Atlanta. And I don't think I would blame black people as a group for such rage-fueled and ignorant actions, or think that black people were more prone to violence because there are fewer white race riots.--
talk
00:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- STOP INTERRUPTING OUR NARRATIVE EVERYONE KNOWS RELIGION IS THE PRIME MOVER OF VIOLENCE.
Radioactive Misanthrope 01:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The insinuations that religion - and in particular Islam - is not to blame for violence like this is patently absurd. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 10:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Religion may take part of the blame but it's wildly simplistic to put too much of the blame on Islam. It's like saying the Catholic church is to blame for the Northern Ireland Troubles. Hand waving away the very real problems with "look how awful the rag head nutters are" is burying your head in the sand. Bad Faith (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Religion is not the only thing to blame, but this shit would not have happened without it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just the whole religion? I mean, Bangladeshi aren't rioting. Indonesians aren't rioting. To my knowledge, there's no uproar over this matter in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Morocco, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Iran, Tajikistan, Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Somalia, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Mali, Qatar, or Kuwait.
- There is violence in Syria and the Sudan, of course. Is that violence due to Islam? No, probably not.
- Hm, I don't know. It seems pretty hard to make a case that Islam or even religion overall are to "blame" for any specific incident of violence. There are a hell of a lot of factors involved. For example, until recently Libya was ruled by a dictator called Qaddafi, who kept an iron grip on much of the country, restricting freedoms in order to maintain his power. Bengahzi specifically was a hotbed of dissent and rebellion in the country, notorious for its uprisings, and in fact it was that city to which Qaddafi was rolling his tanks in a vow to exterminate the rebels - that was the action that brought US President Obama to a decision to intervene: Benghazi's rebellion and the threat of the city's extinction. Yet even though that might lead us to believe they should be grateful, it's a hugely different culture, not very liberalized, and it's riven by dissent and factions now as it tries to work its way to a stable government. There are Muslims standing near the embassy right now with signs apologizing - did Islam and their "profit" (as their badly-spelled signs have it) make them do that, as they say? Or does Islam only drive people to hurt people, and when Muslims charge forward and scoop up a shrouded body, to carry it to safety - well, that doesn't count?
- I'm pretty sure that Islam is wrong and complete nonsense. It's so full of holes that I could use a Qu'ran to strain spaghetti. Most individuals, and certainly the world, would benefit if everyone stopped believing it - and this is probably true about most religions. But thinking someone is wrong is very different from believing that a certain belief is not just wrong, but dangerous. And to point at any specific incident and declare: "Islam did that!"... well, that's a damn hard call to make.--
talk
11:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blame was the incorrect word, fair enough. But - as I have said - this shit wouldn't have happened without religion. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you mean this shit wouldn't have happened without deeply held beliefs. Don't we all have those? It wouldn't have happened if the US didn't have an almost religious belief in the sanctity of free speech. Incidentally, such a film would be illegal in the UK. It's all too convenient and misses too may important points to wave it all away as the fault of those crazy rag heads - which may not be what you're saying but it's what you're saying sounds like. Bad Faith (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is just a really stupid comparison. DickTurpis (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's not just "deeply held beliefs". We're talking about irrational, closed-minded beliefs that the majority of people would not hold if they were taught critical thinking skills and educated well enough from the start. Religion is not the only way to instill these beliefs in every new generation, but it sure is the most convenient. Q0 (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is just a really stupid comparison. DickTurpis (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you mean this shit wouldn't have happened without deeply held beliefs. Don't we all have those? It wouldn't have happened if the US didn't have an almost religious belief in the sanctity of free speech. Incidentally, such a film would be illegal in the UK. It's all too convenient and misses too may important points to wave it all away as the fault of those crazy rag heads - which may not be what you're saying but it's what you're saying sounds like. Bad Faith (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Blame was the incorrect word, fair enough. But - as I have said - this shit wouldn't have happened without religion. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Religion may take part of the blame but it's wildly simplistic to put too much of the blame on Islam. It's like saying the Catholic church is to blame for the Northern Ireland Troubles. Hand waving away the very real problems with "look how awful the rag head nutters are" is burying your head in the sand. Bad Faith (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The insinuations that religion - and in particular Islam - is not to blame for violence like this is patently absurd. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 10:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] edit break 4
An interesting discussion which real-life prevents me from getting too involved with. However, I'd just like to comment on the point that most of the violence seems to be from the poor and uneducated but the 9/11 hijackers were middle-class. Middle-class violence seems to be ideological and more considered and planned in its application, and confined to a small group, whereas the mob tend to react emotionally en masse to a stimulus. So even in the West we have the likes of the Unabomber, Baader Meinhof, or the SLA.
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member
16:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Improving economic conditions may lead to different trouble rather than less trouble. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. How do you improve economic conditions if they blow up infrastructure projects such as water supply or oil pipelines? nobsCorporations are people, too 19:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is a school of thought (is it Marx? I can never remember, it's political theory, therefore I generally don't give a crap) to the effect that you need the middle-class to incite revolution. There's only so much the proles can do on their own. So this may gel that idea somewhat. You incite not the poorest to do the dirty work, but those in the middle to effect a revolution.
theist
19:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's an interesting theory that deserves consideration certainly. The American Revolution would be a good example example, anyway. Perhaps not so much for the militant Islamists though? It was the Middle class doing the dirty work on 9/11. DickTurpis (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- But students did the "dirty" work in revolutions and attempted revolutions of yore. Half of Les Miserables is based around one.
gnostic
21:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just think of OWS: No proles allowed in our revolution! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- If Assad in Syria were to be sacked, what government entity can insure the safety and security of US embassy personal there? or the ancient Christian communities there? or will we have a replay of the same chaos under another weak, Western puppet regime as in Libya and Afghanistan, in dealing with the violent elements and the widespread anti-American sentiment fostered under the current administration in the Islamic world? nobsCorporations are people, too 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Considering how the Syrian resistance is heavily balkanized along a great many conflicted lines, I doubt that any serious independent authority will immediately arise. From recent coverage in The New Yorker, it seems fairly clear that a confused and dangerous turf war will arise as various groups try to maneuver behind straw men.
- Unfortunately, there aren't really any good options for America when it comes to this. Hopefully, at least, Obama will be in office. I am not much of an interventionist, but Libya was about the best-possible scenario, and handled in an astoundingly competent manner - as contrasted with your other example, Afghanistan.
- What would your preferred course of action be, assuming you weren't just asking for information? There is no united conservative view on foreign policy these days, except that whatever Obama does will be wrong: do you advocate supporting Assad, despite his monstrousness? Do you advocate removing him with assassination and letting someone else from his regime take over? Do you advocate forcible regime change, and if so, which faction would you install? Do you advocate long-term bombing of Assad's forces? Do you advocate a temporary and forceful strike on the regime forces, as Obama did in Libya? Do you advocate a simple no-fly zone, though it would be an empty gesture? Do you advocate doing nothing?
- Just curious: what do you think should be done in Syria?--
talk
00:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- No short answer to this, but personally I think removing Khadaffi was a mistake for reason I could expound elsewhere. If Assad goes, it is open season on the ancient Christian pocket communities which have existed for 2000 years. But there is another aspect that must be weighed, Syria is one of the few remaining client states for Soviet arms exports. International arms export trade is a lengthy discussion in itself. Suffice it to say, in the real world, there are basically two types of nation-states, arms producers for export (of which there are only about 9), and arms consumers and importers, of which there are potentially 170+. Russia will never give up its status as an arms exporter and competitor with the US, Great Britain, France, China, etc. And most of the world respects this fact after the experiences of WWII. The US and NATO have backed Russia up to the wall, stealing it's arms client states of Poland, Hungary, and other former Soviet satellites. The issues run much, much deeper than just the humanitarian crisis and slaughterfest underway.
- BTW, has anyone seen this? nobsCorporations are people, too 00:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting... so you would not have intervened, and would have let Qaddafi roll into Benghazi and murder his political opponents? I'm not condemning your decision, but I am very surprised.
- You didn't answer my question, except to say that there's no short answer. But since you appear to be sure that Obama is doing the wrong thing, you must have some idea of the right thing. You don't have to write an essay, but just tell me in broad strokes what you want.
- Actually, I guess I know what you want. You can't possibly believe that we should have left Libya alone, yet also believe that we should intervene in Syria. And since you appear to be condemning Obama's policy of generic ideological support for the rebels but overall non-intervention, you must actually believe we should aid Assad. Is that accurate?--
talk
00:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Let's start with the narrative. The Arab Spring is both the object and outgrowth of neo-conservative foreign policy -- bring democracy to the Arab middle east with Iraq as the model. I think the events of the last several days prove that the Arab Spring was not inspired by the election of an ethnic minority US president. Removing Khaddaffi was a mistake because Khadaffi had fully complied with all the demands of the West to be re-addmitted to the community of nations as a member in good standing. He paid reparations to the families of the Lockerbie incident. He renounced international terrorism, did not provide funding or safe harbor for international terrorists. He opened facilities to WMD inspectors, and turned over materials that could be used in WMD production. Sure, he was perhaps motivated by the prospect of $3 billion per year in crude exports to Italy & the UC, but unlike Saddam he was not going to use oil revenues to pursue a WMD program (which Saddam had every intention of doing, and legally could do so, once sanctions were lifted). Khadaffi, in his old age, appeared to want to assume the role of benevolent dictator who had the interests of his people at heart and to extricate himself from a legacy of a repressive and murderous dictator. (Nikita Khrushchev, one of Stalin's murderous lieutenants, likewise is remembered as such after his 1956 secret speech). What sort of example is set now, as a precedent, if a figure such as Kim-Jong Il Jr., Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, or some future despot in his old age has a change of heart? No matter what hoops the West demands to jump though, nothing is good enough, and the US, France, GB, etc. cannot be trusted. And violence is always necessary, with an unstable and uncertain outcome.
- And it is further obvious by now the Libyan action was not motivated by humanitarian concerns. Libya had oil. China was gaining a strategic vital interest inside the Mediterranean. US & EU oil producers were excluded. Syria has no oil, so fuck 'em, even if 5000 people are being slaughtered every moth for the past year and half. nobsCorporations are people, too 02:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, yes, I already knew you would have left Qaddafi alone - that part of your previous response was unambiguous. It would have been a shame to the people of Benghazi and other rebel towns, who wanted franchise and freedom, but stability is also something to value, I guess.
- But that wasn't what I was asking about, was it? What about Assad? What do you want Obama to do, given that you are presently unhappy with his actions?
- If you can't answer the question, that's fine. But it does tend to make it seem more partisanship than actual judgment.--
talk
05:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- In the post-Cold War world, Syria is in the Russian province (sphere, or whatever term you like). There is very little that could be done that does not foster post-revolution chaos and instability. Unlike Libya or Iraq, there is no reason for US involvement (meaning no oil). The US's bigger problem (much bigger) is Bahrain, which clearly is in the US sphere; and the Bahrain puppet stooges cannot even defend themselves from riotous mobs. Saudi Arabia intervened (pgs. 12-13 pdf). Strange how the pro-democracy Arab Spring occurred among all these non-US allies, yet the Granddaddy of the unholy relationship between the US and corrupt Arab rulers -- monarchical Saudi Arabia -- had no problem. And it was this unholy alliance between the US & the Saudi ruling klan that sparked and motivated the 9/11 attacks. Now that same repressive regime props up the Bahrain princes who host the US fleet. This is a much more serious, longterm problem for Obama or the US State Department or whoever addresses the crisis next January. nobsCorporations are people, too 15:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- So what are we to conclude from this? (A) those who were critical of neo-conservative foreign policy objectives are inconsistent and hypocritical in applauding the Arab Spring; and (B) the historical record now shows what the sense of "justice" is, meted out by the "government" Obama helped install in the name of "humanitarianism" (using Obama's own language). nobsCorporations are people, too 19:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you actually agree with Obama, then, and feel that the US should condemn the violence but not intervene? Why did you make a big fuss as though you were criticizing Obama, if really you support his favored course of action?--
talk
06:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- We've learned from the Iraq, Afghani, and Libyan intervention about not having a plan in place to deal with instability after regime change. And I firmly believe Khadaffi would not have allowed the sacking of the US Embassy, and would have dealt swiftly and harshly with conspirators (which of course, is why rebels hated him so much). A policy of non-intervention in Syria is correct or best, despite Hillary Clinton's rhetoric and the two attempts to test Syrian defenses should a No-Fly Zone be established (without UN "authorization", which is not necessary anyway). nobsCorporations are people, too 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then why did you make a big fuss as though you were criticizing Obama, if you agree with the administration's stance on this matter?--
talk
22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- You and I will probably agree what is "correct or best" is not always good. And Hillary was either (a) talking out of her arse-hole about hitting the reset button in US-Russian relations, or (b) Hillary needs to publicly admit her failure, in the interests of transparency. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure that another topic, like Russia, would be fascinating. But why did you make a big fuss as if you disagreed with the Obama administration's stance on Syria, when actually you agree with it? What did that comment about "correct or best" mean? Was it English?--
talk
08:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure that another topic, like Russia, would be fascinating. But why did you make a big fuss as if you disagreed with the Obama administration's stance on Syria, when actually you agree with it? What did that comment about "correct or best" mean? Was it English?--
- You and I will probably agree what is "correct or best" is not always good. And Hillary was either (a) talking out of her arse-hole about hitting the reset button in US-Russian relations, or (b) Hillary needs to publicly admit her failure, in the interests of transparency. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then why did you make a big fuss as though you were criticizing Obama, if you agree with the administration's stance on this matter?--
- We've learned from the Iraq, Afghani, and Libyan intervention about not having a plan in place to deal with instability after regime change. And I firmly believe Khadaffi would not have allowed the sacking of the US Embassy, and would have dealt swiftly and harshly with conspirators (which of course, is why rebels hated him so much). A policy of non-intervention in Syria is correct or best, despite Hillary Clinton's rhetoric and the two attempts to test Syrian defenses should a No-Fly Zone be established (without UN "authorization", which is not necessary anyway). nobsCorporations are people, too 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- So you actually agree with Obama, then, and feel that the US should condemn the violence but not intervene? Why did you make a big fuss as though you were criticizing Obama, if really you support his favored course of action?--
- If Assad in Syria were to be sacked, what government entity can insure the safety and security of US embassy personal there? or the ancient Christian communities there? or will we have a replay of the same chaos under another weak, Western puppet regime as in Libya and Afghanistan, in dealing with the violent elements and the widespread anti-American sentiment fostered under the current administration in the Islamic world? nobsCorporations are people, too 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just think of OWS: No proles allowed in our revolution! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- But students did the "dirty" work in revolutions and attempted revolutions of yore. Half of Les Miserables is based around one.
- It's an interesting theory that deserves consideration certainly. The American Revolution would be a good example example, anyway. Perhaps not so much for the militant Islamists though? It was the Middle class doing the dirty work on 9/11. DickTurpis (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is more evidence of the failure of Obama foreign policy. No way was an operation that destroyed 6 Harrier Jump Jets (at a cost of $35 million each) possible without outside help. The finger would incline toward Iran, however the knowledge of how to locate and penetrate NATO defenses still would point toward Russia. Khadaffi, in keeping with agreements to restore diplomatic relations with the US, would have defended the Embassy. The establishment of a No-Fly Zone, along with surveillance help on Khadaffi ground troop movements, made the Libyan uprising a ground war. The only thing keeping Assad in power are Russian-built helicopters firing on rebels. The situation would turn dramatically with the establishment of a No-Fly Zone and exchange of satellite information from NATO sources, to rebels, on the location of Assad's ground forces. There has now been two attempts by NATO aircraft to test Syrian air defenses in the event a No-Fly Zone is established. Russia has a veto on the UN Security Council to nix a Resolution, but such resolution is not necessary for NATO to establish a No-Fly Zone. And like Libya, only the United States has the technical ability to establish a No-Fly Zone, as our NATO partners France & Great Britain do not.
So, despite the humanitarian crisis in Syria, it should be fairly obvious to everyone now that George W. Bush and Condolezza Rice were correct in their assessments of Russia and and its intentions. That the Obama/Hillary policy of "Resetting" US-Russian relations has failed. That even Obama & Hillary have converted to the Bush policy. That unless Obama and Hillary are serious about establishing an "unauthorized" No-Fly Zone, forcing regime change in Syria, imperiling the lives of US Embassy personal, staff, and US business interests like Kentucky Fried Chicken shacks, the Bush policy was correct, or best. In politics and diplomacy the decision leaders take may be the correct decision, or the best decision. But it may not be a good decision, such as damning the humanitarian crisis in Syria while reaping the rewards of cheap oil in Libya. George Bush, being the idiot he was, knew this; Obama, if he's for real, only learned this after Steven's murder. It remains to be seen if he's now serious about quitting the idea of establishing a No-Fly Zone in Syria. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your answer seems to be evolving. Again, not interested in your desperate attempt at a derail, but you're now saying that you think that the right thing to do would be to institute a no-fly zone, but the practical and best option is to do nothing, as now?
- I just want to get this clear. I know it's tempting to try to post a variety of wild claims about different topics, in the hopes that I'll lose focus and permit you to slink away, but seriously.--
talk
22:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm saying the Libyan intervention (No-Fly Zone) was the wrong decision. I'm saying the hints at establi8shing a Syrian No-Fly Zone is the wrong decision. More importantly, I'm saying Hillary's highly profile, public encouragement, of Syrian resisters is needlessly responsible for more deaths over the past year than any of the riots in recent days. Both Hillary and Obama should have by now recognized Russia and its arms dealers are no longer supporting US efforts in the war on terror. In fact, Russian arms and advice is assisting the destruction of US and NATO lives and material. nobsCorporations are people, too 23:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so you agree on the actual actions of the administration, though you (unsurprisingly) still manage to find fault with their condemnation of Assad's butchery and moral support for the rebels. It must really bother you that Romney is promising to strongly step up aid to the rebels, huh?
- That's all I wanted, thanks. I had thought this would be a really simple and obvious task to get you to admit, but it really took a while.--
talk
23:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Romney is not in charge of foreign policy. There is a huge difference between a candidate's statements, and an incumbent's record. Encouraging people to fight, holding out the illusion of aid, and leaving them high and dry has cost tens of thousands of lives already. Hillary Clinton's words have carried much more weight the past several years, then a candidate seeking donors or votes. There is no comparison, especially where the weight of responsibility falls for a failed policy and needless deaths. nobsCorporations are people, too 02:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, hardly a conservative, expresses identical sentiments today:
- ...Assad remains in power because the United States will not impose a no-fly zone — and really no one else can do so. This cautious policy has resulted in many civilian deaths, a huge refugee crisis and the comfy feeling in the White House that we have ducked another quagmire. The situation may now be beyond remedy, and the chirpy forecasts that Assad is a goner are way past their pull date. Every president gets his foreign policy regret. Syria will be Obama’s....beyond the very Obamaness of Obama himself — the quality that made him a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the pupal stage of his presidency — lurks a foreign policy that has been more sentiment and aspiration than hard reasoning...
- The hard reasoning spelled out in this thread should not be considered as partisanship. nobsCorporations are people, too 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- More evidence Russia not only changed sides in the war on terror, but the Cold War is back on: USAID workers declared personae non gratae. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- In anticipation of the presidential foreign policy debate tomorrow night, and given Romney's pledge to support Syrian rebels, for the sake of consistency let me insert my position. Reading above it's clear I do not back aid to Syrian rebels at this time. Romney, I suspect, driven by support from U.S. Defense contractors (General Dynamics, Martin Marietta, General Electric, etc) could very likely in the early days of a Romney administration deliver an updated "evil empire" speech (Reagan did so in the first ten days of his administration, I believe). Some may consider this the acknowledgement of a Second Cold War. Given the foregoing discussion of international arms trafficking in regional hotspots, and the difficulties anticipated in gaining a concerted effort from U.S. allies if articulated clearly, the prospect of Cold War II is a distinct reality. If Syria becomes the frontline in a Second Cold War, with a concerted strategy articulated, I may revise my opinions.
- It should be interesting to see criticism and defense of the Libyan fiasco tomorrow night, coupled with the prospect of arming more al-Qaeda veterans in Syria to counter the Russian-backed Assad regime. nobsCorporations are people, too 20:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm saying the Libyan intervention (No-Fly Zone) was the wrong decision. I'm saying the hints at establi8shing a Syrian No-Fly Zone is the wrong decision. More importantly, I'm saying Hillary's highly profile, public encouragement, of Syrian resisters is needlessly responsible for more deaths over the past year than any of the riots in recent days. Both Hillary and Obama should have by now recognized Russia and its arms dealers are no longer supporting US efforts in the war on terror. In fact, Russian arms and advice is assisting the destruction of US and NATO lives and material. nobsCorporations are people, too 23:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll take Sam Harris's position. Beliefs are operative. Basically only Muslims become suicide bombers. There are no other confounding factors that might explain this difference. Sure, there are a lot of other factors that you also need in order to get a well adjusted Muslim to blow himself up, like poverty, lack of education, oppression, etc., but you need that Muslim part too. It is silly to say that if the people were Jains in a similar situation they would also be rioting as such. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're conflating one culture's enactment of a religion with the whole religion. And you're doing it in a grossly inaccurate way. A very short list, entirely off the top of my head:
- WW2 featured kamikaze pilots, the so-called "divine wind" pilots who flew their planes into ships as living bombs in order to destroy their opponents. Islam had virtually no representation in Japan at the time.
- In Vietnam, there were numerous suicide bombings, and it was so famous on that score that Graham Greene wrote a book about it. There were very few Muslim Vietnamese.
- The anarchist movements of the long nineteenth century were famous for their suicide bombings, and in fact one of the Russian czars was killed by an anarchist's suicide bomb.
- These three examples were widespread movements of suicide bombers, all from one segment of a population. Now, the Japanese reverence for authority was necessary for kamikaze bombers - do you condemn such values, as well? And do you condemn philosophical anarchists, because so many anarchists were suicide bombers? Clearly not. Because it would be remarkably simplistic and frankly a little silly to try to lay a particular tactic at the feet of any particular broad ideology.--
talk
00:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd condemn the 2nd Word War Japanese system for brainwashing its people into being over respectful or authority and see suicide bombing as part of this.
I'd condemn the Vietnamese Communist system for brainwashing its people into believing the faith based Marxist system and see suicide bombing as part of this.
I don't know enough about 19th Century anarchists to write about that.
Suicide bombing is one of many problems with Islam. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. This is also misunderstanding of the main thrust of my argument, that religions beliefs are operative, just like any other cultural belief. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, I see an annoying aspect here - a sort of "No True Scotsman" by those trying to deflect blame away from religion. Different cultures and places have differing versions of their religion. These people are equating one Muslim to another Muslim, or one Buddhist to another Buddhist. The Buddhism of Tibet is (probably?) very different than the Buddhism of Burma. It's culture + religion. It's very hard to separate the two. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Finally, there is a definite disparity between the frequency and amount of violence from the western Christian abortion clinic bombers and the Muslims who will apparently at the drop of a hat demand the death of blasphemers, form mobs to that effect, demand the death of innocent 11 year old girls, kill in cold blood legislators who try to change the blasphemy laws, and so on. It is simply true that some cultures are more violent and less tolerant than others, and it is true (near definitionally) that this is because of the differing cultural values. And the religious values are part of the cultural values, and it's fair to say that the values of the cultures in question that make them so violent are often highly associated with their religion. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Basically only Muslims become suicide bombers." Fail. I wouldn't take Harris' position on Middle Eastern politics, or much else, too seriously, unless you enjoy being wrong about many things. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I referenced Sam Harris's particular argument in this case as a means of short-hand, rather than copy-paste wholesale. I do not take all of his opinions and belief as fact, contrary to your claim. Finally, there was the implicit argument that because Sam Harris wrong about X, he must also be wrong about Y; of course that's just silly. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also, yes, I admit fault. Apparently Tamil Tigers did as well. This does nothing to help further your cause, nor detract from mine. You have not argued against the obviousness of certain beliefs being operative. You just showed that other beliefs besides Islam can lead to suicide bombings. I agree. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- See actual scholarship on suicide bombing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- So, you completely discount all possible correlations between cultural beliefs and susceptibility to suicide bombing? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest you read the linked paper, rather than trying to straw-man Neb into a statement that in no way resembles his actual words.--
talk
01:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- "So, you completely discount all possible correlations between cultural beliefs and susceptibility to suicide bombing?" Nope. But now we've moved from "All suicide bombers are Muslims" to "there is some possible correlation between cultural belief and susceptibility to suicide bombing." Notice the difference? Also, the problem is that there is a negative correlation in this case. Suicide bombing is negatively correlated to religious education. See Atran's Talking to the Enemy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes yes, sorry, I fully admit fault there. I was dead wrong. I spoke out of turn and out of ignorance. The suicide bomber thing is a side issue to me. I am curious whether you disagree with the main thrust of my argument that we can talk meaningfully about certain cultures and certain religions as being more prone to violence and intolerance, when compared to other cultures and religions. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- That does seem to probably be true. In the antebellum American South, for example, a tradition of dueling for honor - blamed by Mark Twain on the works of Sir Walter Scott - helped create a culture where violence among affluent young men was much more common than it otherwise would have been.--
talk
01:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I definitely don't buy the kind of historical hyper-materialism that discounts the role of ideas in history. At the same time, I think talk of "culture" and "religion" is prone to falling into reification and circular reasoning. Much of the hand-wringing over "Islam" really centers around what has been called the "Arabization" of Islam and the exportation of Qutbism, a blatantly politicized theology. Note my post above referring to the militants' demolition of Sufi sites. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- ETA: I should also note that this also obviously applies to other cultures and religions. Critics of Christian fundamentalism in the US (and I'd say both theists and atheists are prone to this) often ignore the "Southernization" of Christianity. A Falwell has little in common with a Rauschenbusch. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- That does seem to probably be true. In the antebellum American South, for example, a tradition of dueling for honor - blamed by Mark Twain on the works of Sir Walter Scott - helped create a culture where violence among affluent young men was much more common than it otherwise would have been.--
- Yes yes, sorry, I fully admit fault there. I was dead wrong. I spoke out of turn and out of ignorance. The suicide bomber thing is a side issue to me. I am curious whether you disagree with the main thrust of my argument that we can talk meaningfully about certain cultures and certain religions as being more prone to violence and intolerance, when compared to other cultures and religions. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- "So, you completely discount all possible correlations between cultural beliefs and susceptibility to suicide bombing?" Nope. But now we've moved from "All suicide bombers are Muslims" to "there is some possible correlation between cultural belief and susceptibility to suicide bombing." Notice the difference? Also, the problem is that there is a negative correlation in this case. Suicide bombing is negatively correlated to religious education. See Atran's Talking to the Enemy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest you read the linked paper, rather than trying to straw-man Neb into a statement that in no way resembles his actual words.--
- So, you completely discount all possible correlations between cultural beliefs and susceptibility to suicide bombing? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- See actual scholarship on suicide bombing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] edit break 5
So, in sum, we have come to the conclusion that strongly held beliefs can cause people to committ seemingly outrageous acts of violence. True enough, but even knowing this I would say that I would still kill others or die for some of my strongly held beliefs; presumably others would too. So the issue in my mind is not the religion, nor the deeply held convictions but the process that derives the convictions, the quality of those convictions and the morality of killing others to stop them transgressing those convictions. If you can convince or correct any of these steps then you can, perhaps, start to solve the problem. Tielec01 (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just want to say I think this pretty much sums up what I've been arguing. DickTurpis (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- But that leaves the question as to whether those who murder because of offence to Islam are doing so because they're Muslims or because they would do so anyway and offence to Islam is the excuse. I'm no fan of religion but I tend to go with the latter. Bad Faith (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- What does that even mean, "would do so anyway"? Are you suggesting they wake up in the morning thinking "really wanna kill people today, but dammit, I don't have a reason. Fuck!" Obviously there are other circumstances in which they would kill people, but that isn't the issue. Were there people years ago thinking "I fucking hated 'Midnight's Children' so much! I wish I could kill the author, but you really can't kill people for writing bad books. If only there were another reason...oh look, this new book seems slightly critical of Islam. Let's go with that! Kill!" Even if your view is correct (and I'm not entirely sure what it is) the fact that offense to Islam can be used as an excuse people readily latch onto is very disturbing. DickTurpis (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- To Bad Faith: I'm with DickTurpis here. What are you even trying to say? What do you mean they would murder someone regardless if they weren't Muslim? I can read between the lines and see a legitimate point in there somewhere: that if we partition "Muslim beliefs" from "Other cultural beliefs" that we might find that the propensity to violence is part of "other cultural beliefs". Let's just run with this idea for a second. I am ignorant of the issue, but can you think of some other instance where in this particular culture where mobs spontaneously gathered to threaten little innocent girls, where legislators are summarily killed, where embassies are sacked (maybe not the recent one, but the Danish cartoon incident yes), and so on, which didn't have to do with blaspheming Islam? Perhaps, but I think that blaspheming Islam is a particular trigger for these people (or a sizeable subset thereof), well out of balance with other possible triggers. That is, their propensity towards violence against blasphemers and anyone associated with the blasphemers is quite apparent, and it is quite out of step with the rest of the world. We're talking about people (or some subset thereof) who, on the mere accusation of someone burning a book on the other side of the planet, will murder people only tenuously related to the accused. And not just any book burning - it has to be a very specific book. I think it's patently silly to say this has nothing to do with religious beliefs when the trigger is specifically blasphemy. I think it's patently silly to say the idea that "you should kill the blasphemer" is not a religious belief. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- But that leaves the question as to whether those who murder because of offence to Islam are doing so because they're Muslims or because they would do so anyway and offence to Islam is the excuse. I'm no fan of religion but I tend to go with the latter. Bad Faith (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Quoting Tielec01: "True enough, but even knowing this I would say that I would still kill others or die for some of my strongly held beliefs; presumably others would too." False equivocation. You would fight for your rights, but your "rights" do not include the right to kill a person of the same nation as a dude who burned a book on the other side of the planet or who drew offensive cartoons. The right of free speech and the right to blaspheme is a better value than the "right" to kill blasphemers. The right to free speech and the right to blaspheme is a better value than the "right" to kill embassy staff if someone of that nation on the other side of the planet happens to burn a book or draw some offensive cartoons. The right of free speech and the right to blaspheme is better than the "right" to kill your own legislator who wants to amend and weaken the blasphemy laws. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You know, I might be willing to give you more ground, that maybe these religious beliefs are only those of a small minority, but I thought about it more, and remembered that the laws of a good many Muslim countries are death to blasphemers, death to apostates, etc. It upsets me greatly that it's so easy to whip up apparently just average, normal people, into a frenzy on an unsubstantiated claim that a little 11 or 14 year old Christian girl in the neighborhood may have defaced a Koran. From what I heard on NPR - I think - that little girl took refuge in a bathroom and would have died had the bathroom door not been sturdy. I doubt the "terrorists" fly people in for something like this. This is not the fundamentalist fanatics who suicide bomb. This is made up of the average people in the neighborhood. This is horribly wrong. It is also undeniably religious. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- "...the laws of a good many Muslim countries are death to blasphemers, death to apostates, etc." Not true for the vast majority. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that death is ever a legal punishment for such things, and the fact that it is illegal at all in many or most, is still quite disturbing. Though I will also admit that it isn't only Muslims who have laws prohibiting certain forms of blasphemy, as we recently saw with what's-his-name in India. DickTurpis (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- "...the laws of a good many Muslim countries are death to blasphemers, death to apostates, etc." Not true for the vast majority. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Edit break 6 (Neb posts Grauniad links)
Relevant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also relevant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Monty Python
"Yeah, the Pythons never explicitly called Christianity "a cancer."" Actually, I do recall seeing an interview with John Cleese and Michael Palin a couple bishops or something, and John Cleese was surprisingly anti-religion. (Surprising for me, anyway.) Friday Night, Saturday Morning - Monty Python's Life of Brian. Posting this as a slight correction / clarification. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at http://eternian.wordpress.com/top-25-arguments-failed It's author claims it's gotten over 1000 views. Since it's about three days old, that would mean it's been getting on average or whatever, over 300 views a day.Carumbum (talk)
- This was originally started as a complaint on Talk:Pseudohistory, but soon got out of track and was moved here (last version before the move).
[edit] America Christian Nation
Why is the idea of America as a Christian nation "pseudohistory" when it is so well documented?
Our founding fathers proclaimed that people are endowed by their creator (God) with inalienable rights, Thomas Jefferson.
How can it be Psuedohistory when America was largely Christian when the United States was founded back in the 1800s? How can it be Pseudohistory if America placed so much emphassis on Christianity when America was founded in the 1800s?
How can it be pseudohistory, when it is so well documented that we believe that God gave us a mission to civilize the Savages, i.e. the Indians, the Redskin Savages, all the racist statements that people used to call Indians?
The early American nation was a Christian nation because the majority of Americans in that timeframe were Christians and believed that America was a Christian nation founded on all religions escaping to have a new freedom, away from the church of England.
How can you deny that America was settled by Christian settlers? I suppose it is not pseudohistory to proclaim that America was founded as Christian because the first Americans that settled this continent were Christians. They were Protestant Pilgrim Christians who settled this land to escape persecution. The Quakers founded Pennsylvania as a Quaker state under William Penn?
How can you call this pseudohistory, when it is so true? What, did you think that the people who settled the 13 colonies were Muslims or something?
Maybe America was founded as a Muslim nation? Explain why there are so many churches in rural America or why rural America is largely Christian or why so many Americans put such an emphasis on Christianity as a religion? So how can America not be a Christian nation?
I am not a Klansman for saying it, but unfortunately, it's true. 8 out of every 10 Americans is a Christian. The idea that America is a Christian nation has a basis in fact because even a Muslim would admit that the first American settlers were Christians after they got off the boat? Did you think that they were godless Atheists or what?
It's a well-documented fact, that Christianity established itself before Judaism or Islam did. I'm sure that if the Ottomans settled America, which they didn't, that America would be a Muslim nation. Turkey considers itself secular, but it is a Muslim nation. Why do we call Turkey a Muslim nation, when it calls itself secular? Like America does with the Christian thing? Christianity is such an integral part of our belief system and our beliefs. You swear an oath on the Bible, not the Koran, not the Torah, to tell the truth in court before God, or an elected official gives a prayer for fallen victims of a tragedy, or if you place such an emphasis on the Bible, in such a way to affirm it. How can we NOT be a Christian nation?
How is this idea that America is a Christian nation is pseudohistory, when it is so well documented by offical documents in the Library of Congress or other places? We believed that God gave us the will to settle America and civilize the godless savages. The idea that America is a Christian nation, I'm afraid, is not Pseudohistory, but real history based on the strong beliefs of early America that was so staunchly Christian. I'm afraid that it is NOT pseudohistory at all, and that someone who has an agenda against Christians or American history, should take their nonsense somewhere else, because it is well documented in early beliefs and the elected politicians in the 1800s who believed that God blessed America. Explain why God Bless America is a popular song, when we're not a Christian nation? Explain that for me please! We are SO a Christian nation. I do not care about fundamentalists or anything like that. It is so painfully obvious that if we put such emphasis on Christianity this way, that I'm afraid that we are a Christian nation of many denominations I might add.
So the idea that we are not a Christian nation is erroneous and false. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/manifest/manif2.htm
Explain official beliefs of America and Americans settlers. OVer 90%R of America believed in God in its early founding. This idea that America is not a Christian nation is not true at all, but I'm afraid it's the truth, because it is painfully obvious that we are and no one can deny it. Denying it would be like denying that the Holocaust happened or that Russia is not a Christian country even though Russia places such an emphasis on Orthodox Christian, as does Serbia. Poland is a Christian country, that believed in Catholicism and believes that Catholicism helped defeate the godless Commie Russians. People believe that the Catholic Church in Poland and belief in God defeated Communism. It's a true fact. To believe that America is not Christian is like believing that Turkey is not a Muslim country, even though they officialy pronounce themselves as "secular"
See what I'm saying? It's not pseudohistory and never will be. Just look up early documents in the archives and Library of Congress for more details and info and quit discrediting traditional history and quit denying the obvious that is right in front of your face.
For a country that places so much emphasis on the Bible and Christianity, that says that it is not a Christian country, is just incredible to me because that is denying what's in front of its face. Please check the documents and archives sometime, and stop using Wikipedia as reference source. It's a poor reference source anyway.— Unsigned, by: 71.116.34.150 / talk / contribs
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/mandestiny.htm
Please read this article.
It also was firmly anchored in a long standing and deep sense of a special and unique American Destiny, the belief that in the words of historian Conrad Cherry, “America is a nation called to a special destiny by God.” The notion that there was some providential purpose to the European discovery and eventual conquest of the land masses “discovered” by Christopher Columbus was present from the beginning. Both the Spanish and the French monarchs authorized and financed exploration of the “New World” because, among other things, they considered it their divinely appointed mission to spread Christianity to the New World by converting the natives to Christianity. C This was a belief among early Americans that America was a Christian country settle the western United States and make it Christian for the purposes of settlement. America was staunchly Christian in the 1800s and the Founding Fathers knew it and could not deny it, otherwise they'd have a revolt on their hands if they did.
It was considered a divine mission by early Americans to spread the word of God to the natives. The Americans believed that it was their God-given right to settle the West, that God granted them the Western United States for settlement. The Indians were godless heathens in their eyes. The Americans placed such a strong emphasis on it. The Gettysburg address mentions God in it. The idea that America as a Christian country is pseudohistory is ridiculous, because it is so well-documented and blatantly obvious to anyone who does any serious research on the topic and doesn't troll around on a particular belief system. Because it is true that America was founded in a way, as a Christian nation. Not totally of course, but one cannot omit the relgious aspect of early America and how religion had such an impact on early America and how religion was a big influence HUGE influence on early America. I am not a Puritan, i'm just stating the facts here, because it is obvious that one cannot omit the religious aspect of early America, because there was a HUGE religious aspect to early America. No one can deny that, because it has been documented by the Library of Congress, National Archives, State Archives. Mormonism had a part in founding Utah in the 1800s and Mormons are strong identified with Utah. Christians settled Hawaii in the 1890s. I'm afraid that the idea that the idea of America being a Christian nation is NOT pseudohistory because it is real history that is so carefully documented, that mainstream historians would not have any trouble denying it. Conservative historians are mainstream and believe it and do not mean the Oprah type sensationalists like David Barton. I mean REAL historians in real conservative colleges. It is so there. Midwest is staunchly Christian and so is the Southern United States and denying that America is Christian is insulting those groups of people. America is a Christian nation and oen cannot deny that. I guess discrediting the truth is a full-time occupation thanks to people with anti-religious agendas that hate the topic of religion in any way shape of form that put the wool over their eyes. Denying the truth, does not make it right. John says the truth will make you free. We put such an emphasis on teh Bible and religion in America in many parts of America and quote the Bible to comfort, to guide the sick and accommodate different Christian beliefs in some communities and hospitals, that I'm afarid the idea that America is a Christian nation, whether you like it or not. It's the truth and you cannot deny it. Period.
That you. America is a Christian nation. Period. End of discussion.— Unsigned, by: 71.116.34.150 / talk / contribs
- Did you notice in your very first quote, you had to ADD something to the quote, to get it to say what you wanted it to say. Creator is not "God/YHWH/Christian". creator is just what it is. Maybe we are a muslim nation. or an Native American Nation. or a Egyptian nation. This is why we say it's "psuedo-history".
En attendant Godot 23:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
How can that be? I think that implying a Creator implies God and ENDOWED by THEIR CREATOR, which do you think he meant Allah? I think it's clear that he meant God! What do you want a discussion on Creationism? This is an example of Creationism to believe that God is a creator of people with equal rights. That IS NOT pseudohistory. That is well-documented history and I am pretty sure that he meant God in that document. Who else was he reffering to? Allah? Buddha? Gaia? Or some other deity. Name the deity that Jefferson was referring to. Was he referring to a non-exist atheist-created deity? NO, He was REFERRING TO GOD! END OF STORY!
It's not. There were NO Muslims in early America. How come preachers had so much influence in early America at the town level and government level? How come anti-Catholic crusades were common in early America? How come religious people were anle to ban alchool as part of Prohibition in the 1920s without the impact of religion? It is impossible to talk about American history without the impact of Christianity and Christians on American history because American history was written by christians and not Muslims or Bhuddists. Jews had a role in early America, but most everyone in America admitted to being Christian because of its large impact on society and its huge emphasis on it. Being an atheist or agnostic was SIMPLY NOT an option back then. American was and is a Christian nation. End of story.— Unsigned, by: 71.116.34.150 / talk / contribs
- Wrong. For the briefest rebuttal possible, see Article VI, par. 3 of the Constitution. See also the Jefferson Bible. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian. He did not believe in miracles, the trinity or the divinity of Jesus. He had respect for his moral teachings, but that is it. When he spoke of a god, he was referring to what he called 'Nature's God'in the declaration of independence. David L. Holmes has a book on the faiths of the founding fathers which goes into immense detail. You should probably check it out. The United States was founded on the principle of individual liberty, not on Christianity. --Danfly (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] handy edit button #1
- @BoN
- TL;DR...Article VI paragraph 3.
Yes, most people was Christians what became Americans; yes, Christianity was a prime factor in the formation of the institutions of the nation; the treaty of Tripoli aside, why ain't there a Dept of doctrinal purity bureau...Please realize that Christianity of the late eighteenth century had come through the ravages of the Reformation, being freed from the shackles of the Bishop of Rome all sorts of people were proclaiming the "one true church" for themselves...the Deist founders (as well as their dyed-in-the-wool Christian brethren) didn't want the foundling nation to succumb to a religious war soon after the political was finished. C®ackeЯ
Individual liberty is NOT a religion. Individual liberty is an ideal to be a free person, but it is not a religion. America was founded on Christianity, but not by Jeffereson and many states believed in a God that they had God-given rights to settle and colonize early America and settling America. Deism is still a belief in God, but with reason. Jefferson still believed in God, so therefore he was a Christian. Deism is belief in a God, but with a different belief of reason. TJ still believed in God, though. Nice try. Deism Does not mean a lack of faith in God, but belief in God. Acknowledging God and believing in a god based on the Bible, is still Christianity. Jefferson was a Christian, pure an simple.
Either way, Jefferson was a Christian and they believed in a God. Belief in a God, is professing a religion or a religious belief. Belief in a God, while acknowledging the Christian God, is still Christianity. America believed in Christianity in the 1800s as a main religion. Jefferson officialy founding America is relevant, but irrelevant compared to the rest of Christian America. Jefferson did not want to offend his audience throughout the 13 colonies or to alienate people from the cause by believing in a fixed religion. He believed Americans were free to choose religions because he believed in a free America, but that does not diminish the fact that America was founded by Christian settlers in the 1600s and 1700s. Jefferson was a Christian.
Jefferson using the phrase "almighty God"
00:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Individual liberty is an ideal to be a free person, but it is not a religion."
Just so! but individual liberty is anathema to Christianity. People are free to do as they choose so long as in their choosing they choose to obey God and the authorities He has placed in their respective positions.
Okay, what say we accept that American is a "Christian nation" what would be the upshot of that?...how can we make it a "good Christian" nation? 01:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ - Even if Jefferson was a Christian that wouldn't make a difference, and even if America was somehow founded on "Christian Values" it wouldn't really make any difference because America was also founded on separation of church and state. So, I also don't see what your point is. Beck (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
If individual liberty is anathema to Chrisitanity, then come Moses escaped slavery or how come the early Christians desired freedom from persecution by the Romans in its early incarnations? Individual liberty is not the enemy to Christianity because many Christians believed in freedom because they were being persecuted by the Romans and the Romans tried to silence them and Christianity was born out of persecution by the Romans. Individual liberty is not the enemy of Christianity because many Christians believe in liberty and sought to make America a free nation for all people. Christianity was born out of persecution and desired to be free by preaching the Gospel to millions. It was because of Roman peresecution that Christians wanted to be free and desired freedom to be free people from Roman rule. Many took up arms to free themselves from the Roman. The Bible talks about people fighting for freedom from the Romans. The Bible talks about Roman persecution and how the early Christians overcame persecution to be a free people. Christianity desired to be an offshoot from Judaism, because the people wanted their own religion. Individual liberty is not as enemy of Chrisitanity. Individual liberty is the enemy of tyrants and people like Caesar who persecuted thm. You see, Christians wanted to be free because they wanted to practice their religion freely from Roman persecution. That too is well-documented. Christianity is founded, partly, on freedom. Theocracices and people who twisted their religion were destroyed by people for their own evil agendas. Just read Machiavelli and the Prince sometime about people who claimed to be men of God, but were as much sinners as they were religious. God cursed man with sin, but in the end, he could redeem himself in the eyes of God and better himself as a free man, which is what Christianity believes. Christianity is not entirely hostile to individual freedom, when many early Christians embraced it and fought the hated Romans with the Scripture of God in their hearts that they loved so much. Christianity became turned Rome into the Holy Roman Empire and Rome embraced it throught Constantine the Great and his spread of Orthodoxy, but edorsing religion back then meant legitimacy and strength and powerful warriors to win battles with religions in those days. So religion was an important tool then and now, because people believed in the powerful belief of an Almighty God who promised them greatness and strength and guided free people on the path of God, and religion was hijacked too, I know, but that IS THE foundation of Christian. The truth will make you free. Telling the truth makes you free. That is not pseudohistory, either. Indiviudal libery and Christianity are not entirely opposed either. Just look at John Locke.
http://www.piney.com/Lockereasonableness.html
"Theologians cannot find God by themselves. Therefore John Locke said that God reveald His Word through Jesus Christ, and that this revelation is reasonable to the common mind. He never taught that Christianity can be found by human reasoning. This does not prevent distorting John Locke to distort those who read him.
All united in a belief. If they had believed that God wanted them to be, the colonists, did, then how can individual liberty be hostile to Christianity anyway? Think about it.
71.116.34.150 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- ' Jefferson still believed in God, so therefore he was a Christian'. So all Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sikhs and even Pantheists are Christians? I agree with you that individual liberty and Christianity are not mutually opposed though, since you can interpret the religion almost any way you want as long as you accept the divinity of Jesus, or that he was at least a prophet of God(as some unitarians do). --Danfly (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
brxbrxbrxbrxbrxbrx-
Jefferson never was a Zoroastrian or a Jew or a Muslim. In fact, Muslims believe that we believe in the same God. The Koran refers to Jews and Christians as "People of the Book" and that. The Koran borrows from the Bible. I did not say that all Muslims, Jews, or Sikhs, were Christians. We all each believe in a God, though disagree on methodology. In some cases, affirmation of belief in a God is enough to be a Christian. Jefferson still believed in a God, through Deism. Deism still believes in a God. Jefferson was not an atheist either. brxbrxbrxbrxbrxbrx-
"affirmation of belief in a God is enough to be a Christian". You had better elaborate on what those cases are. No one in the entire discussion has even suggested that Jefferson was an atheist. If you say x believed in god, therefore he was a Christian, you are saying that all Monotheists are Christians. I don't know why I'm typing here because it looks like you deliberately went out of your way to create an argument consisting entirely of blatant non sequiturs, probably to see how long you could keep it up for. No thinking person would consider 'x believed in God, therefore x was a Christian' to be a valid argument. --√2 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] As always...
What part of...
“”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
|
...do people not understand? Really, I'd like to know. ADK...I'll bang your hailstone! 18:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- The part that says, right there in black and white, that creator is the Christian god, and not some other godlike being. so there!
En attendant Godot 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Also as always...
What part of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli...
“”[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...
|
...do people not understand either?
Acer Blue 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
ANSWER: the government may not have been founded on Christianity
but the nation (i.e. the people) were predominantly Christian at the time therefore, America was (and probably still is) a Christian nation if we are talking about the beliefs of the majority (which I think is what most people think of when they hear this phrase)
the beliefs of the population do in fact affect the laws and the culture and by the way, until the selective incorporation of the bill of rights, it did NOT apply to state and city governments
- "The nation" was also predominantly white at the time. It was predominantly British at the time, too. Is America a white nation? That's certainly what follows from your logic. Is America a British nation? Hardly, and hardly.
Acer Blue 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- nation != citizensDissidentRage (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
[edit] So much TLDR and Batshit Craziness!
MY EYES!!! 74.89.192.173 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, this rebuttal is not intended to offend merely to offer argumentation, I will attempt to provide questions and answers to each of your statements in affirmation of the topic of America being a Christian nation. 1. Where is it documented? 2. Why must “their creator” imply that Jefferson was referring to the Christian idea of God? Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson whom most historians regard as a deist and in many writings openly denounced Christianity would more than likely not have been referring to the Christian God. 3. The mission “to civilize the savages”, where was this documented that we largely held as a nation a belief to Christianize the Native Americans? The Spanish were the only group of people to fully attempt to do so. More often than not, the American motives of Manifest Destiny were to displace the “savages”, not incorporate them into our culture. 4. The continent of North America was certainly settled by Christian settlers, but all of these setters had died long before the American Revolution. 5. See 6. 6. America is home to many Christians, the prevalence of churches is evidence as such, the original colonies were also founded by those who were Christians, Christians who questioned the virtues of their prior religious organization. But America is not founded on the basis of majority rule, it is founded the virtues of freedom, America is not a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Christian nation, but a free nation. 7. Regardless of the religion of the settlers of America, they were not the founding fathers, nor were they the drafters of the Constitution, true they had many beliefs that were passed down, religious and otherwise, but their impact, was that of religious freedom, not for religious oppression. 8. As the majority of this statement has been argued I will not reiterate however, there is no requirement in any facet of the government, be it taking an oath of office or an oath in court, that you must have a Bible. People are free to make their oath on a Koran, a Torah, or simply affirm that they are telling the truth. As a federal employee, my oath of office was sworn in as in affirmation, and not on a Bible, so this statement is misleading and false. 9. As the only new evidence in this statement is referring to the phrase and song “God Bless America” that phrase was not coined until 1918 when it was penned by Irving Berlin. 10. Manifest Destiny, which is the part of the article by which I assume you are referring, was more about imperialism and the US taking more land, it even says this in the article you linked. 11. This statement about other nations doesn’t affirm your argument, nor does it add any new evidence. 12. What early documents? You have failed to present any. 13. Again, I believe you should refer to them, because in my research very little comes up.— Unsigned, by: 50.15.131.16 / talk / contribs
- Edit: apologies, I thought you were the OP BON and skimmed your massive paragraph. I've deleted my previous comment. ONE / TALK 10:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Stating the obvious
As the OP BON ironically pointed out vis a vis Turkey (and as is also legally and explicitly the case with Spain), just because the majority of a states population may belong to a certain religion, does not mean that state is itself a member of that religion. Regardless of how some Americans (past or present) may feel the USA should stand for a religion the formal government position is unequivolcal on the matter, as expressed in the First Amendment and the Treaty of Triploi, and as clarified and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court on numerous occassions. --
10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
[edit] No.
America was not founded in the 1800's. This shows lack of knowledge of history, and disqualifies the statements on matters of 'psuedohistory.' Whether or not the United States was started as a christian nation or not is rather meaningless, the freedom of people to believe as they wish remains in any case, as it should. If America were to be declared a 'christian nation' the core beliefs of a nation based on liberty for each individual would be violated. This is not how the nation was founded. Instead, each person was given their own personal choice in the matter of religion. Therefore, America was not founded as a christian nation.
I have trouble understanding this 'statement': "This idea that America is not a Christian nation is not true at all, but I'm afraid it's the truth." This appears to say that America is a christian nation but also America is not a christian nation.
Also, don't say that Wikipedia is an invalid source when the bible is continually used as a source though it has absolutely no proof. There is no evidence of the truth of christianity, or of any religion, however, there is sufficient evidence for all of science.
[edit] Forget history what about the future?
I'm more worried that the good ol' US of A will be taken over by Christian fundamentalists & become a theocracy. They have been stacking the courts & republican party for years & are gaining more & more power.Cwon (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] There is no such thing as a Godless Atheist
There is, however, such thing as a deity-laden theist. --Sethpeck (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Um...
If we are a Christian Nation, please explain this. Also, many of our founder, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were indeed non-Christian (they were Deists). Remember that the American Revolution happened after the Age of Englightenment, which marked a significant decline in Christianity and a significant rise in secularism and (yes) atheism. So I would not be surprised if a decent number of Americans at the time of Revolution were indeed atheists or deists. Mr. Anon (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Very few people here would disagree with any of that. We have a mainspace article cataloging most of the arguments people come up with on this subject.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing that the Christian Nation mythos is bull, but you left out the Great Awakening. The Enlightenment was in large part confined to aristocrats, the intelligentsia, and other ivory tower types until later in the 18th century. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- nuh-uh. God(ot)didit.— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
- Intesting... Still, there are records of Muslims living in the United States at the time, and the Founding Fathers made clear statements that they were to be accepted equally. Mr. Anon (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing that the Christian Nation mythos is bull, but you left out the Great Awakening. The Enlightenment was in large part confined to aristocrats, the intelligentsia, and other ivory tower types until later in the 18th century. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] sorry not true
The founding fathers deliberately made the constitution as a secular document
check out these quotes
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." -Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -Benjamin Franklin
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -Thomas Jefferson
"What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." -George Washington
and as others have posted the Treaty of Tripoli
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
a common objection to the treaty of Tripoli is that article 11 didn't appear in the Arabic version. However the English version with article 11 was the one that was ratified and signed by the president.
Nogods4you (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although the constitution was undoubtedly a secular document, religious people have proven to us that it is a simple task to
- spout quotes out of context if it serves them or ignore parts of a whole. Smalltoejoe (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] They were deists!
The founding fathers were deists. There is a legal separation of church and state, so you can't promote one religion over another. They criticized organised religion, they were not Christian. If America was a Christian nation, shouldn't we be selling our daughters into sex slavery?--Anastronomer (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Not a Christian nation: a Protestant nation.
Every argument that shows that America is a "Christian nation" actually shows that America is a Protestant nation. The ideologies that moved the Founding Fathers were born in those very Protestant quarrels, the English Civil Wars and the Restoration. So were their actual opinions on religious enthusiasm, which were a bit more nuanced than the "Christian nation" advocates suggest. The idea of burgherly or agrarian republics was itself a Protestant and Northern European, largely Germanic, phenomenon. Elected kingships, trial by jury, the 'right to bear arms' and the idea of the 'free man' are ideas out of Germanic paganism that also resonated with the more strongly reformist Protestants, and were incorporated specifically into Presbyterianism. Attentioj to this stuff doesn't fit right-wing political or religious agendas, unfortunately. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Why does it even matter a couple hundred years down the line?
Even if, for argument's sake, the USA was founded as a Christian Nation, that doesn't make any kind of legitimate case for it continuing to be one, sort of an 'is/ought problem'. Many who tout this claim don't seem to have a problem with the US military fiddling around with other countries' political foundations. Can't they all please stop continously shouting about 'muh freedoms' while trying to design a country's direction, to the letter, after what they think a bunch of people who owned slaves thought? Polite Timesplitter Cultural loneliness is a right pain 13:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, it's somewhat important insofaras rule of law and jurisprudence. I don't think the courts should decide rule of law questions, like what the first amendment to the US constitution means, merely on the basis of what the justices think makes for a good society. I rather think that original meaning, original intent, original common understanding of the law's effect, and so on, have some bearing on applying a law. ... As for the separate question of what kind of law do we want? I agree then that the opinions of a bunch of guys 300 years ago isn't at all compelling (though I may cite some simply as a means of brevity). EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's useful to squash the tired myth that "the past was better. Look how much it was back when the christians were in charge. Blah blah blah." It's good to remind people of the religious intolerance that happened then, and how the constitution is one of our best defenses against that, and that the people it was to protect was christians from christians! EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, the truth itself is good and useful. It's the biggest gripe with religious people, and those with belief in belief. It's hard if not impossible to try and predict what people with false factual beliefs will do. It's hard to predict what false factual beliefs will not lead to harm, and which will. And finally tolerating false factual beliefs in one area of our life helps corrode critical thinking, which will hurt us in other areas. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] First time adding something, hope this is how you do it.
Personally I don't understand what the fuss about America being founded as a Christian nation is. If so, great. If not, great. What point are we trying to prove here? I don't see what gain either side will...gain if they prove it was or was not founded on God. What we need to realize, is that many of the amendments and documents ARE based on Christian principles, teachings of God... Also, we need to realize that America is no longer a Christian nation, do you think Gay marriage is Christian? Getting high is Christians? THe freakign porn and music industry is Christian? America is in moral decline... God is getting swept aside... Of course, the Bible said this would happen, in the end times, right before the anti-Christ will come....— Unsigned, by: 50.178.78.153 / talk / contribs
- Setting aside the myriad of bullshit you've got going on in this post, for someone pulling out the "what does either side gain from proving it" argument, you have absolutely nothing to gain from what you're trying to prove. Ikanreed (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing with anyone. I was saying, honestly, no underlying schemes to prove some point or something, seriously, I want to know...What is this trying to prove? someone want to inform me?
- I can address that. The secularity of government is important in the context of evaluating the appropriateness of government behaviors(i.e. whether it should punish people for nonsensical things the bible declares crimes, like eating shellfish or as you suggest, being gay). Typically bigots use the "Christian Nation" excuse to promote laws that are actively hostile to outsiders, frequently atheists and Muslims(60 years ago it was Jews too, but the retconned it to "JudeoChristian"). There's no legal or constitutional precedent for this, and a lot of good reasons to reject it, but the flawed reasoning exists. But again, it's got no actual basis outside saying it's true or waffling about who was the majority of those living in the Americas at the time(ignoring the natives, of course). It's not a good way to run a democracy, it's not a good way to run a country in general. Ikanreed (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is the first amendment Christian? Certainly violates one of the commandments. Is wearing clothes of different weaves of fiber Christian? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the first amendment is definitely Christian, and it doesn't violate any of the commandments that I know of.— Unsigned, by: Pits Brazil / talk / contribs
- The implication being that you don't know the first commandment. Ikanreed (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.kthsBoUJ.dpuf
So..Which commandment?? Pitzy 19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, dyslexic. Pitzy 18:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)