You know what? I've actually lost my patience

[Peregrin Toker]

. It's bad when the only people you know are either Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Southern Baptist, or Jehovah's Witness

What's so bad about Roman Catholics?? For a start, they're the world's biggest Christian denomination, and it's hard to believe that all Catholics are fundamentalists. (although some Roman Catholic doctrines are more or less illogical - the ban on contraception, in particular)

[Darth Wong]

What does the size of a religion have to do with anything?

[Guest]

Thus, we delve into the religious bigotry that is "True Christianity," where "True Christians" don't follow the Bible at all, pretend that certain parts simply don't exist, and always work from the assumption that modern secular values are what the Bible supported all along.

Suuuuuuure.

I think a lot of people simply misquito (sp?) Biblical passages and take them completely out of context. Unintentional or not, this is usually done to support thier own beliefs on what the Bible "actually says." A good example is asking someone to give you specific passages that say that ALL people will burn in Hell forever. There are none that I am aware of, but I guess that all depends on which version of the Bible you are reading. I beleive the only Bible that actually alludes to all people suffering forever is the Catholic Bible. HA!

[Guest]

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

You should be aware that you will be eaten alive by saying "In the face of mountains of evidence......God has not been proven to exist, therefore he must exist" that you will be smacked around like a red headed step child.

I guess we are supposed to find this evidence for God in your sig, do I need a magnifying glass? You don't offer any evidence, you do not give any examples of evidence. Besides, I do not need to prove a negative. Sounds like you are asserting that God does exist, and in that case, you make the assertion and therefore must prove. The burdern of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.

[AdmiralKanos]

The sig is sarcastic, KC.

[Guest]

The sig is sarcastic, KC.

You know, when I hit submit, I was wondering if it was a joke.

Poo.

[XPViking]

Thus, we delve into the religious bigotry that is "True Christianity," where "True Christians" don't follow the Bible at all, pretend that certain parts simply don't exist, and always work from the assumption that modern secular values are what the Bible supported all along.

Suuuuuuure. - Durandel

My main point was that when a person mentions the word "Christian", then a certain stereotypical image comes to mind, which does hinder communication. Come on Durandel. If I say the word "Mormom". what do you think of? Probably the Utah-based one, right? There are over 150 sects of Mormonism but most people think of the pair of lads wearing white shirts with the tag "Elder". If you ask a Christian fundementalist what an athiest is, you will get a stereotypical (and most likely incorrect) view. It's not fair for either side to do that to eachother.

I'm not justifying my belief system here. I'm saying that we as people who identify ourselves with similarily like-minded folk sometimes risk stereotyping other groups. Fundementalists aren't the only ones who do it.

XPViking

[AdmiralKanos]

My main point was that when a person mentions the word "Christian", then a certain stereotypical image comes to mind, which does hinder communication. Come on Durandel. If I say the word "Mormom". what do you think of? Probably the Utah-based one, right? There are over 150 sects of Mormonism but most people think of the pair of lads wearing white shirts with the tag "Elder". If you ask a Christian fundementalist what an athiest is, you will get a stereotypical (and most likely incorrect) view. It's not fair for either side to do that to each other.

The difference is that the Christian fundamentalist bases his viewpoint on ignorance. He assumes things about atheism even though atheism is not a belief; it is a lack of belief, and as such, has no documents or sets of dogmas to critize.

However, in our case, we have studied the Bible, which underpins Christian thought, and we have found it wanting. Moreover, we have observed that Christians are loathe to criticize the morality of the Biblical God. Even if they will agree that it was wrong to (for example) massacre the Canaanites, they blame it on the Israelites, not God (even though he ordered it done). And every Christian learns about the "great" Flood, for example. They are rarely willing to describe it as an unspeakably ruthless example of mass-murder and genocide.

To be a Christian is to worship a mass-murderer. There are simply no two ways about it, unless you are willing to say that none of those things happened or were even intended by God, which would put you well outside the Christian mainstream.

I'm not justifying my belief system here. I'm saying that we as people who identify ourselves with similarily like-minded folk sometimes risk stereotyping other groups. Fundementalists aren't the only ones who do it.

When a group willingly pledges allegiance to a concept, they should be held accountable for that concept. This is not "stereotyping". Do you think it's unfair to "stereotype" racists? That's what the WCOTC donkey-fuckers said.

[XPViking]

The difference is that the Christian fundamentalist bases his viewpoint on ignorance. He assumes things about atheism even though atheism is not a belief; it is a lack of belief, and as such, has no documents or sets of dogmas to critize. - Darth Wong

True. One way a Christian fundamentalist would be able to "pin down" what an atheist is would be to see if such an individual pursued another line of thought, such as secular humanism.

However, in our case, we have studied the Bible, which underpins Christian thought, and we have found it wanting. Moreover, we have observed that Christians are loathe to criticize the morality of the Biblical God. Even if they will agree that it was wrong to (for example) massacre the Canaanites, they blame it on the Israelites, not God (even though he ordered it done). And every Christian learns about the "great" Flood, for example. They are rarely willing to describe it as an unspeakably ruthless example of mass-murder and genocide.

To be a Christian is to worship a mass-murderer. There are simply no two ways about it, unless you are willing to say that none of those things happened or were even intended by God, which would put you well outside the Christian mainstream. - Darth Wong

Fair enough.

When a group willingly pledges allegiance to a concept, they should be held accountable for that concept. This is not "stereotyping". Do you think it's unfair to "stereotype" racists? That's what the WCOTC donkey-fuckers said. - Darth Wong

Wait a second here. How are stereotypical views formed? Let's clarify the definition. I would say that a "stereotypical view" is not formed by careful investigation on the part of the individual. Rather, such views are held by someone who refuses to do the legwork into what other people are like and as to what concepts they believe in. There is a difference, as you already pointed out, between stereotyping and after examining the evidence you arrive at a conclusion. The people over at WCOTC were rightly ripped apart because there concepts were found to be disturbing after investigation. I have to assume that your remark:

Of course! Fundies and inbreeding go hand-in-hand.

was the result of investigation and not a casual "stereotypical" observation.

XPViking

[Guest]

Wait a second here. How are stereotypical views formed? Let's clarify the definition. I would say that a "stereotypical view" is not formed by careful investigation on the part of the individual. Rather, such views are held by someone who refuses to do the legwork into what other people are like and as to what concepts they believe in.

I wouldn't necessarily say that people refuse to do the "leg work" as you put it to form proper opinions about people; whether it be religion, race, ethnicity ect.

In basis psychology dealing with the biological part of the human brain, theorizes that people are put into groups. The human brain cannot process all of the sensory information that a person is being exposed to at a given time, so grouping objects makes it easier on the brain to store information. Examples would be like "red objects", "round objects" yadda yadda so on and so forth. This process of grouping is thought to form stereotypes (the overgeneralizations about appearences/behaviors of people). Of course, we could also discuss the sociological concepts of stereotypes/prejudice/racism too, but I don't think we need to go there.

Basically, I guess I could have said that stereotyping simply is, although unfortunate, human nature.

[Coyote]

Yes, I will scoff, because religions were clearly created to explain the unexplainable and to control the masses through divine legislative dictate, or an appeal to authority.

Which unfortunately gave them the roots of temporal power. For many early civilizations, the religion was the government, and the high priests had power over the people due to their 'divine connection'. Religion, in my opinion, is supposed to fulfill a person's need for a higher philosophy while staying out of the mechanations of government. But the anciet priestly governments (tribal organizations) were just as bloody and arbitrary as any sword-wielding chieftan who had no 'divine' backing, it was the nature of the times.

The central messages of the Bible and Qua'ran aren't to treat your neighbor kindly because he deserves it as a basic human right, they are to treat your neighbor kindly because the Invisible Man said so.

But in the long run, if people are nice to each other, does it matter if they did it because they are kindly by nature, or if the voices told them, or the invisible man, or the ouija board? Isn't the end result-- being decent to one another-- the important goal?

You can't very well maintain control over people by telling them it's OK to kill each other, can you?

Not sure where you're going with that-- part of your argument was that religion was specifically a tool to kill others?

Then petition to whatever high court or similar committee of pomposity to delete the entire Old Testament, as it encourages such behavior.

The Kahanists are now an outlawed movement and their members arrested like any other terrorist. However, I have given my support to groups such as "Peace Now" and the "Refuseniks", the Army officers that petitioned their refusal to fight in the Territories. Activists and lawyers far better at this stuff than I can take my support an dturn it into legislative action, the sooner the better.

[Durandal]

Which unfortunately gave them the roots of temporal power. For many early civilizations, the religion was the government, and the high priests had power over the people due to their 'divine connection'.

Precisely. Religion was never intended as an advanced system of morals. It's based on appeals to authority.

Religion, in my opinion, is supposed to fulfill a person's need for a higher philosophy while staying out of the mechanations of government.

I never got the assumption that everyone needs something to believe in or a personal philosophy. That need is created from birth in today's world by ruthlessly thorough religious indoctrination.

But the anciet priestly governments (tribal organizations) were just as bloody and arbitrary as any sword-wielding chieftan who had no 'divine' backing, it was the nature of the times.

Indeed, so why should we continue to follow the primitive ways of primitive people who are long dead?

But in the long run, if people are nice to each other, does it matter if they did it because they are kindly by nature, or if the voices told them, or the invisible man, or the ouija board? Isn't the end result-- being decent to one another-- the important goal?

The problem is that the Invisible Man changes his mind a lot in scripture. Moralistic appeals to authority are completely dependent upon the particular mood that authority is in at a given time. Sometimes God is merciful, but most of the time, he is a vengeful, sociopathic dickhead. You can justify either. That's why secular morality is more desirable. You can't use secular humanism to justify mass atrocities like you can the Bible.

Not sure where you're going with that-- part of your argument was that religion was specifically a tool to kill others?

No, that's just why the leaders enacted that law in the first place. You can't control people and tell them that it's OK to kill one another.

[Coyote]

Religion, in my opinion, is supposed to fulfill a person's need for a higher philosophy while staying out of the mechanations of government.

I never got the assumption that everyone needs something to believe in or a personal philosophy. That need is created from birth in today's world by ruthlessly thorough religious indoctrination.

I'm not sure, this may be in the realm of philosophy or sociology, but it seems that every primitive tribe, as it rose in its region, chose some sort of belief system based on what was unexplainable or to express some sort of philosophy (an ethical code, a warrior ethic, etc). Even many who chose not to believe in a god or similar power put some allegiance to a social system, political concept, or other abstract. The human mind needs an abstract of some sort to rally round.

Most of the athiests or other non-believers I know (here and elsewhere) adhere to the beliefs (and I use that term in the non-theological manner) of freedom, human rights, ecological responsibilty, and similar ideals. This is wholly admirable and worthy!

...so why should we continue to follow the primitive ways of primitive people who are long dead?

And in my way of seeing it, we shouldn't. In the context of the times, the intolerant violence of a threatened tribe may have made a practical sense, but now that those long-past dangers are gone we need to shed these outmoded systems. I've stated several times that the Bible is allegory and hyperbole, a legend to threaten primitive children. Now whereas I admit to a belief in God, I see nearly all of the Bible to be the works of Man (I know this goes against 'authorities' that say otherwise, but I am not their 'bot, leave that to CreationWeb).

... the Invisible Man changes his mind a lot in scripture. Moralistic appeals to authority are completely dependent upon the particular mood that authority is in at a given time. ... That's why secular morality is more desirable.

Secular morality is usually more predicatable and stable, especially when compared to the whims of the Biblical God...

[Durandal]

Cool, then we agree.