Yes, it really is that stupid

[violence in the media]

Remember this every time someone accuses an atheist of being arrogant — we don't claim to be speaking for a cosmic tyrant who will torture you for eternity if you don't obey us.

[Kaelik]

I remember thinking of that defense too. I've never heard anyone use it, but I wondered if it was a popular line of defense.

I mean, yeah, by definition, you could say that omnipotence puts you outside of the realm of logic, but then at that point, there's no more reason for logical discourse.

It's actually a lot less popular than that omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible, followed by hemming and hawing about how genocide is all our fault, and earthquakes are necessary for the greater good.

[mean_liar]

Is the entire summary of this conversation. We are talking about what the ones that do believe actually believe, and you are trying to talk about how Jews worship your lord and savior.

WAHRAGBLRELHRLLL

I'm not Christian.


EDIT - WTF? Jehova's Witnesses aren't Christians? Sure, why not? They're not True Scotsmen, afterall.

[PoliteNewb]

EDIT - WTF? Jehova's Witnesses aren't Christians? Sure, why not? They're not True Scotsmen, afterall.

That's pretty much what I'm getting out of this. NOBODY obeys all the rules in the bible (since many of them are contradictory)...so if that's a prerequisite for being Christian, there AREN'T any true christians...which would be a shame for people like Frank and Kaelik, since they'd have a lot less people to mock.

If you can accept that people can be christians without obeying every teaching in the bible, then this bullshit "haha you're a christian so you believe in X, aren't you dumb" is kind of pointless.

[Kaelik]

WAHRAGBLRELHRLLL

I'm not Christian.

Well, you consider Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians Christian, so yeah, you are just about as Christian as them.

EDIT - WTF? Jehova's Witnesses aren't Christians? Sure, why not? They're not True Scotsmen, afterall.

No, I said they don't consider themselves to be Christians. I didn't say whether I consider them to be Christians or "they are Christians" because Christian is a fucking label, and that means you have to have a definition, and no two people actually agree with any definition of it. As evidenced by the fact that you are telling Jehovah's Witnesses that believe they are not Christians that they are in fact Christians.

That's pretty much what I'm getting out of this. NOBODY obeys all the rules in the bible (since many of them are contradictory)...so if that's a prerequisite for being Christian, there AREN'T any true christians...which would be a shame for people like Frank and Kaelik, since they'd have a lot less people to mock.

If you can accept that people can be christians without obeying every teaching in the bible, then this bullshit "haha you're a christian so you believe in X, aren't you dumb" is kind of pointless.

It's funny that you idiots are all so stupid you can't fucking read. No one has even once claimed that someone has to follow all the rules of the bible to be a Christian. That would be dumb. But no one is doing that. Instead, Frank and I are arguing that the vast majority of Christians believe that X is true.

And they do.

And then you fucking retards are strawmanning your faces off and trying to claim that because a small minority of people don't believe something, therefore, all the people who will tell you to their face that they believe don't believe it either.

You are the dumbasses treating Christians as a collective, which because some people don't believe X, therefore none of them do.

[angelfromanotherpin]

No, I said they don't consider themselves to be Christians.

And you are completely wrong. I've just been to their official web site, and it contains multiple references to themselves and their beliefs and their practices as Christian.

[Maj]

Actually, that poll indicated that only 55% of Catholics actually know that Catholic Transubstantiation was not a metaphor and that the Eucharist was the real deal.

If you consider that a hardcore Catholic is more likely to know that than a moderate, then it's probable that a moderate Catholic has no idea about the nature of Transubstantiation and only understands that stabbing the Eucharist is just really fucking rude.

You went where I did.

It's possible for several Christian elements to take a similar cultural place in tradition without requiring practitioners to be believers.

Damn straight! You are so not taking my Christmas away from me!!!

And yet, even that did not stop the continuous chorus from the religious that atheists somehow fail to understand the religious point of view and do not know what religious people "really believe."

I've been watching this phenomenon in real life, on multiple message boards, and in piles of books, and I'm going to go out on a limb with my response to this.

Religion isn't just an organized set of rituals devoted to promoting a belief system. It's also a deeply personal experience - like the crack addict who has an epiphany about his life and dedicates the rest of it to trying to help others shake addiction. I don't know a lot of people who enjoy having others take a very moving and motivating personal experience - of any kind - and make a mockery of it. It's about empathy - or the lack thereof.

And really, how can anyone know that feeling of the moment of giving birth, or the importance of being a doctor, or the feeling of true love unless they've also experienced it?

There are some experiences for me that have had such a huge impact that I don't like to talk about them at all because something I hold very precious and dear will just be torn to shreds by people who don't give a damn about me.

Giving birth was one of those things. I don't like to participate in many of the conversations here about pregnancy and birth because it's treated like some sort of disease and parasite that women get nothing out of. It's like it's some horrible thing that causes endless suffering.

And yet... That moment in the hospital when I first met my son was so incredible that I can't even put it into words. My hands get all shaky just thinking about it. I don't even remember the hard parts (my mom assures me there were some) because that moment - that eternal second of time - was so overwhelmingly wonderful that I'm speechless. It was pure amazement. Amazement that the mechanics of human evolution could produce such minute perfection. Amazement at how I could have done such a thing. Amazement at the strength of emotion. Amazement at the feeling of recognition.

Due to the failings of language and empathy, I can't really share that moment with anyone. And if someone walked up to me and informed me that I really didn't feel anything cool and amazing, I'd probably haul off and deck them.

That's why I think religious people and atheists clash. An atheist holds up a book and says, "No, bad, wrong." A religious person holds up an experience and says, "You don't get it." The Bible, in other words, isn't where religion comes from - it's where religion is justified.

[virgil]

To be fair, this atheist only holds up a book to go "no, bad, wrong" in response to religious justification for bad behavior or when a religious bloke is trying to convert/condemn me. I try not to think about how those same arguments and statements could easily apply to other situations, such as the experience Maj speaks of, because thinking too much about that part will make me less tolerant.

[Zinegata]

I'm pretty sure the religious right is growing because of america's shitty economy and the fact that civil rights keeps marching forward, terrifying the "aging racist" demographic. Atheists aren't even a significant enough force to cause something like that, and to the extent that atheists are getting loud now it's a reaction to rightwing religionaries.

I'm not saying that atheists alone are to blame. But I am saying stupid Internet atheists who are unable to show any discretion or simple respect to the views of others is precisely the sort of people Glenn Beck talks about.

That's why he sells when he says "These people think they know better than you". Because it's actually true. And it wouldn't have been so bad if the Frank Trollmans of the world weren't so obnoxious about it.

And really, the link you cited is based on stuff that was written in the 1200s. That's called the "Dark Ages". Of course it's full of racist shit. That's when people forgot that Christianity was supposed to be a repudiation of spiteful angry Gods who tear down walls for you and you should instead sit down, be good, and be a good Roman citizen (Oh, wait, Rome was gone by then!)

Also, Atheists are not as a group ignorant of the cultural, historical context of religious text. Biblical scholarship, for instance, is well known to be a field full of atheist researchers. Of course, understanding a text is different from understanding a contemporary community. That said, in America at least I doubt you'd find a Christian who doesn't think Jesus is God.

Actually....

http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_515.html

There was a survey done in 1988 that extensively interviewed Americans regarding their religious beliefs (from The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World War II). I've been looking for a study that is as-extensive that is newer, but apparently none exist.

Anyway, money quote of the findings:

""...nine persons in ten believe Jesus Christ actually lived, seven in ten believe he was truly God, and six in ten think one must believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian. "

Take the highlighted figure in reverse. That means that 3 in 10 Americans - or 30% - actually do not believe that Jesus was truly God. That's 300 times more people that the moron Kaelik thinks. And that doesn't also count the number of people who think he was a man before he became God.

Moreover, the figure right after that? It says that 40% of Americans don't believe that you even need to believe in Christ to be called a Christian. So Buddhists who show love to fellow men are totally going to Christian Heaven according to 40% of Americans.

It is worth noting both of these positions are contrary to most dogma. Yet Americans hold these views anyway.

You can buy the book here if you want to know more: http://www.amazon.com/Restructuring-Ame ... 0691073287

But, really, when people say "you'd hardly find a Christian who doesn't think Jesus is God", that's factually wrong.

And the reason is simple: A lot of Internet atheists simply make generalized strawman attacks. They do not realize that people are not simple and can be summarized for easy reference like "Elves are a lithe, pointy-eared people who excel in poverty".

As for you grandmother, it's nice that you have a good relationship with her. She sounds like a nice lady. Good thing we're not talking to her right now, or we might have to adopt a different posture. That said, as wonderful as she is, you've got a high burden to clear to demonstrate that her religion doesn't impair judgment "in any way".

She's had a good life, has a nice house in the province, and sends me money (even if I don't need it) rather than the other way around. So again, why should I question her religious beliefs?

The world has a lot of problems. World Hunger. Disease. Poverty.

Solve those first. Arguing about religion isn't likely to work anyway, and it's not helping the world at all.

Those who argue that they are "trying to rid the world of stupidity" are frankly just wasting their time working on an unachievable goal. So when they claim they're trying to improve the world, that's simply a lie.

So, in summary: Sure, atheists can claim to know a lot of religious trivia. But that trivia is useless unless you have the wisdom to know what to do about it. Questioning ordinary people's beliefs? That's not gonna help anyone.

[Zinegata]

To be fair, this atheist only holds up a book to go "no, bad, wrong" in response to religious justification for bad behavior or when a religious bloke is trying to convert/condemn me. I try not to think about how those same arguments and statements could easily apply to other situations, such as the experience Maj speaks of, because thinking too much about that part will make me less tolerant.

[Kaelik]

""...nine persons in ten believe Jesus Christ actually lived, seven in ten believe he was truly God, and six in ten think one must believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian. "

Take the highlighted figure in reverse. That means that 3 in 10 Americans - or 30% - actually do not believe that Jesus was truly God. That's 300 times more people that the moron Kaelik thinks. And that doesn't also count the number of people who think he was a man before he became God.

Actually, that would only be 30% more if I said all Americans. But since I actually said Christians, both excluding the atheists, Muslims, Jews, ect, and including Christians from other countries, like Italians and Greeks and Even filthy Germans.

So your little US quote doesn't actually show anything at all, except the fact that people are right when they say "The Vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus was God the whole time."

Frankly, I'm skeptical of any statistics that involve every single question coming down to a multiple of ten (aka, rounding everything out to discount large sections of people) but the math you want to do is compare the 10 Percent of the US that believes Jesus is God now, but wasn't at the beginning, figure that into total Christians of the time period, then argue that this number will be similar across all countries (False, Italians hold much stricter to dogma in general than US christians, who are probably the most diverse and inclusive of tiny religious minorities that believe outside the norm.) Then say that X percent of Christians believe that Jesus was not God the whole time. Of course, that number will be like 8% if you assume uniformity, thus proving you wrong and us right, but fuck actual math, just claim victory because you don't understand what hyperbole is. (And the difference between a Christian and an American, but that's to be expected.)

Moreover, the figure right after that? It says that 40% of Americans don't believe that you even need to believe in Christ to be called a Christian. So Buddhists who show love to fellow men are totally going to Christian Heaven according to 40% of Americans.

Here you go projecting your whiny liberalized everyone gets to heaven shit onto everyone else.

"You don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian" =/= "People who believe Jesus wasn't a Prophet, didn't even exist, but happen to be groovy get into Heaven." Like, not at all. Note that Christian and "Get into Heaven" aren't even the same thing. Stop projecting your beliefs onto others.

The world has a lot of problems. World Hunger. Disease. Poverty.

Solve those first. Arguing about religion isn't likely to work anyway, and it's not helping the world at all.

Yeah, after all, Religion has nothing to do with the spread of Aids in Africa, with the opposition to the Welfare state. If I want to prevent people from getting Aids, Calling the Pope an idiot and highlighting the stupidity of Abstinence education is the best way to do that.

And attacks on the Pope or AA education only work if you also attack the thing behind them. Peoples stupid fucking belief in shit that doesn't exist, and that they don't even understand in the first place, except that it totally supports their position all the time.

Zine, the problem with every "There's other stuff to deal with besides religion" is that those other things are supported by religion. Middle Eastern Terrorism is a bad thing, and one way to help solving the problem, is to convince a bunch of people that God doesn't actually hate women and want them kept in virtual slavery.

[Zinegata]

Actually, that would only be 30% more if I said all Americans. But since I actually said Christians, both excluding the atheists, Muslims, Jews, ect, and including Christians from other countries, like Italians and Greeks and Even filthy Germans.

Actually, the book's study focuses on Christian Americans, if you'd actually read the summary in Amazon. So the study actually asked Christian Americans

Also, Americans actually rank higher on the religiosity scale than Christians from other countries. So the 3 in 10 figure actually goes higher in other countries.

And regardless, that's still way higher than your 0.1% figure.

You lose this argument. Utterly.

The rest of your post boils down to whining that the study can't possible be correct because it proves you wrong.

No Kaelik, this is not some rushed poll run by USA Today. It's an actual scholarly study that really attempts to figure out the American religious landscape.

Here you go projecting your whiny liberalized everyone gets to heaven shit onto everyone else.

That's not called projecting. I simply showed a logical progression:

40% of people do not believe that you need to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian.

Therefore, a Buddhist - fulfilling certain conditions (i.e. love for fellow man) can be a Christian even if he doesn't think he is.

Therefore, said Buddhist has a shot of going to Heaven. Thus 40% of people believe this is possible.

So again, Kaelik, you are wrong. Most people are not sad, spiteful, bigots like you.

Zine, the problem with every "There's other stuff to deal with besides religion" is that those other things are supported by religion. Middle Eastern Terrorism is a bad thing, and one way to help solving the problem, is to convince a bunch of people that God doesn't actually hate women and want them kept in virtual slavery.

Strawman argument. Nobody's arguing that "religion can't be a root of some of the world's problems".

My argument is that trying to get rid of mysticism and spiritualism is an unachievable goal. Therefore, those who say "They are trying to get rid of stupidity in the world to make it a better place" are liars. Because they can't ever achieve that goal in the first place.

Again, all you're doing is to be a hate-mongering bigot. You don't need to be religious to be an asshole.

I'm through replying to you in this thread too, because facts are facts: The belief that 99.9% of Christians believe that Jesus is truly God is false. In fact, 40% believe in the entirely heretical view (based on every "official" church teaching that you cited) that you don't even need to believe in the divinity Jesus to be a Christian.

You lost this argument. And this is just the whining because you don't want to admit you were totally wrong.

[Kaelik]

Also, Americans actually rank higher on the religiosity scale than Christians from other countries. So the 3 in 10 figure actually goes higher in other countries.

Religiosity, not adherence to dogma.

And regardless, that's still way higher than your 0.1% figure.

My hyberbole.

You lose this argument. Utterly.

But I'm the one who says I win because I said so.

That's not called projecting. I simply showed a logical progression:

40% of people do not believe that you need to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian.

Therefore, a Buddhist - fulfilling certain conditions (i.e. love for fellow man) can be a Christian even if he doesn't think he is.

Therefore, said Buddhist has a shot of going to Heaven. Thus 40% of people believe this is possible.

No, because any number of those people could not believe Heaven exists, Could not believe that "love for fellow man" is necessary to be a Christian, ect.

You believe those things, so you project your beliefs on to this 40%.

Strawman argument. Nobody's arguing that "religion can't be a root of some of the world's problems".

Actually you kinda did. Technically, it was the slightly similar "Opposing religion can't solve any of the world's problems."

[Zinegata]

Kaelik, like I said, I'm done replying with you on this thread. Your point was refuted and blasted out of the water. And you're not even trying to argue about that anymore.

You're just quibbling over tangents that nobody really cares about - because you're really just trying to find an opening so you can cheap shot me.

Not. Gonna. Happen. Dealing with your bigotry is trouble enough to start with, and I ain't gonna give you a chance to air anymore of your bullshit.

But hey, if other people want to discuss religious issues in a civil manner, I'd be perfectly happy to discuss it with them. But as other people here have found out and also stated: Kaelik is full of shit when he talks about religion.

[Kaelik]

So long story short. You are wrong. I was right, you are going to retroactively declare yourself right based on your inability to understand the concept of hyperbole, and ignore everything I say to instead call me a bigot over and over again several times a post because you don't like it when other people point out you are wrong.

Wow, that sounds exactly like Crissa, only replace "religion" with "feminism."

Although, I supposed she at least understood the concept that something has to be false or offensive, at least one, to be bigoted.

Getting all upset that most Christians believe Jesus is God is pretty hilarious though. I think that's the dumbest thing I've been accused of bigotry for ever.

[Zinegata]

EDIT - WTF? Jehova's Witnesses aren't Christians? Sure, why not? They're not True Scotsmen, afterall.

That's pretty much what I'm getting out of this. NOBODY obeys all the rules in the bible (since many of them are contradictory)...so if that's a prerequisite for being Christian, there AREN'T any true christians...which would be a shame for people like Frank and Kaelik, since they'd have a lot less people to mock.

If you can accept that people can be christians without obeying every teaching in the bible, then this bullshit "haha you're a christian so you believe in X, aren't you dumb" is kind of pointless.

Just to more or less repeat what I said earlier to support this...

Most of the "rules" of the Bible come from the Old Testament. Which was intended to be repudiated by the New Testament.

The Romans didn't copy-paste the holy book of one of their most troublesome minorities for the official Christian Bible because they seriously believed in the Ten Commandments. Their intent was to say "Okay, you USED to have an awesome God. That period is OVER. Time for a kind and compassionate God."

That's why the priests of the old order are the bad guys in the New Testament. They're the ones who had Jesus killed. In comparison, the Roman secular officials are depicted as being fair dudes who are trying to avoid as what they see is a stupid religious problem. And when Christ dies, the first "ordinary" person to say "Sure he really is a God!" isn't a Jew. It's a Roman Centurion.

The problem is, after the fall of the Roman Empire, the Church survived and went on to serve the barbarian kings. Who totally didn't get the Christianity was meant to promote order and peace. And which is why most of the craziest dogma emerged from the Dark Ages.

[For Valor]

Just gonna post my own nerdrage.

I get crap from everybody about being agnostic. "LOOK AT THE BIBLE! I PRAY FOR YOU AND YOU WILL GO TO HELL I AM SO SORRY FOR YOU" is usually the reaction I get. And when I press someone's beliefs, I usually end up with someone quoting some bullshit to get out of the argument, like "the smallest stone can move a mountain".

Some people...

[Zinegata]

I don't give you crap for being agnostic.

[Sashi]

If you want to get into a crazy random logic loops, argue about religion with a Jesuit, Priest, or a member of a denomination that is very obvious (like an orthodox jew or amish) and isn't isolated. Their faith has been challenged so often that they have thousands of prepared responses to any question you might ask them.

If you want to watch a person grasp and cry, ask a person who has never had their faith questioned why the Gospel of Matthew says Jesus walks on water on a bright sunny day, while the Gospel of Mark says it's during a storm (the Gospels suffer from severe Rashomon Effect).

The vast majority of US Christians never really think about their religious beliefs, it's a kind of casual racism like when someone makes Kentucky jokes until you reveal you're from Louisville. In college I met a girl who believed that belief in Jesus was necessary and sufficient to go to heaven, but also believed that a murderer who believed in Jesus wouldn't go to heaven, and that a good person who didn't believe in Jesus would go to heaven*.

Those contradictory beliefs aren't a product of Christianity specifically, they're a product of this girl's being raised in an environment where her belief has never been questioned. So confrontations about the contradictions inherent in her faith had no prepared answers and caused serious cognitive dissonance which were answered with flailing gobbeldygook.

All moderates of all faiths do serious societal harm not through their beliefs, but through the way their beliefs create casual societal acceptance of religious belief and make it far harder to question dangerous cults that camouflage themselves by pretending to be part of some larger religion.

* For the record, the answer to the "murderer" question is that if the murderer truly finds Jesus he's transformed through the power of the Lord into a person deserving of going to heaven, and that a good person will be magically compelled to profess his belief in Jesus, so a "good person" who hasn't expressed belief is either unable or is somehow being coerced into not doing so. And yes, there are answers to the very real questions brought up by those answers, it's turtles all the way down.

[Zinegata]

All moderates of all faiths do serious societal harm not through their beliefs, but through the way their beliefs create casual societal acceptance of religious belief and make it far harder to question dangerous cults that camouflage themselves by pretending to be part of some larger religion.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that "Religious nuts hide behind moderates". But saying moderates do harm is a bit of a stretch.

That's a bit like saying white people are doing harm to all other races because White Supremacist groups can disguise themselves as ordinary white folk.

The fault ultimately lies with the extremists, and they are just doubly culpable when they try to hide behind moderates.

[For Valor]

I don't give you crap for being agnostic.

Hyperbole
[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
Noun
Defintion: Go fuck yourself.

[Sashi]

Just gonna post my own nerdrage.

I get crap from everybody about being agnostic. "LOOK AT THE BIBLE! I PRAY FOR YOU AND YOU WILL GO TO HELL I AM SO SORRY FOR YOU" is usually the reaction I get. And when I press someone's beliefs, I usually end up with someone quoting some bullshit to get out of the argument, like "the smallest stone can move a mountain".

Some people...

The local Skeptic Society was far harder on my for being Agnostic than any Christian I've met. They basically took "athiest" to mean "aChristian" and conflated any position other than atheism with being a secretly gay homophobic child rapist. It took over an hour to convince them that agnosticism is the only scientifically sound position (Denying the existence of a supernatural being that exists outside our ability to detect it is just as irrational as affirming it's existence and giving it a personality).

[Sashi]

All moderates of all faiths do serious societal harm not through their beliefs, but through the way their beliefs create casual societal acceptance of religious belief and make it far harder to question dangerous cults that camouflage themselves by pretending to be part of some larger religion.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that "Religious nuts hide behind moderates". But saying moderates do harm is a bit of a stretch.

That's a bit like saying white people are doing harm to all other races because White Supremacist groups can disguise themselves as ordinary white folk.

The fault ultimately lies with the extremists, and they are just doubly culpable when they try to hide behind moderates.

Moderates do harm by providing active camouflage to extremists. David Koresh goes around being a nutjob and when someone tries to point out that he's a nutjob all of the people who self-identify as Christian but don't really question or even act on their beliefs close ranks and say "How dare you question him, he is a member of the club who's rules I don't understand or even follow particularly closely."

Moderates of all religions close ranks around and protect the extremists until they do a suicide bombing or rape a kid or something, at which point they're suddenly No True Scotsman.

[Kaelik]

The local Skeptic Society was far harder on my for being Agnostic than any Christian I've met. They basically took "athiest" to mean "aChristian" and conflated any position other than atheism with being a secretly gay homophobic child rapist. It took over an hour to convince them that agnosticism is the only scientifically sound position (Denying the existence of a supernatural being that exists outside our ability to detect it is just as irrational as affirming it's existence and giving it a personality).

Every time some idiot says this I murder a kitten.

I keep a stock just for this purpose.

No, bad whiny agnostic. You aren't agnostic about Leprechauns.

[Zinegata]

Moderates do harm by providing active camouflage to extremists. David Koresh goes around being a nutjob and when someone tries to point out that he's a nutjob all of the people who self-identify as Christian but don't really question or even act on their beliefs close ranks and say "How dare you question him, he is a member of the club who's rules I don't understand or even follow particularly closely."

Moderates of all religions close ranks around and protect the extremists until they do a suicide bombing or rape a kid or something, at which point they're suddenly No True Scotsman.

I don't see it that way. I see it more as people refusing to believe guilt unless they see it.

My example of white people doing harm to other races because White Supremacist groups can disguise themselves as ordinary white folk? That totally happened in 1945 Germany. Only 1/3 of Germans ever voted for Hitler or the Nazi party, and most of them did so due to the economic programs and promises to restore Germany back to its former glory, not to wipe out the Jews.

But when the truth of the Holocaust came out, all Germans quickly dissociated themselves with the Nazi party. Because for most of them "wiping out the Jews" isn't what they signed up for.

So really, should you blame people who signed up for something but which extremists twisted into something terrible, or should you instead blame the extremists themselves for manipulating people?

I really think it's the latter. Again, most people don't really think about religion or politics all that much. It's not important to them. So when somebody comes along and tried to manipulate this apathy into a camouflage for committing atrocities, that makes them a bad person.