How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 06:49pm

Like it or not, he wasn't. He did not believe in salvation through the saving grace of Christ, therefore he couldn't possibly be a Christian. On the contrary, he called Christianity the greatest blight on the face of mankind and was quite keen to eradicate it. Publicly he supported it, because it created less problems.

Evidence? Hearsay accounts from Nuremburg documents don't count. I all his public addresses and his own Mein Kampf, he exonerated Christianity's beliefs.

Care to back up that rather audacious claim? You say that religion is non-disprovable, then you say with conviction that it is false and an invention of man, thereby eliminating the possibility of it being true, which you aid couldn't be done. Surely you're contradicting yourself?

Read the book of Genesis and the book of Job.

And since when did religion tell us how the universe works? I don't recall the Bible claiming validity as a scientific paper. Bit of a strawman don't you think?

Oh, come on, Jon. Read Genesis and Job.

Secularism is better for controlling people?

Better for governing them, which is what I should have said.

Subjective opinion.

Supported by the fact that Christianity has been directly responsible for countless millions of deaths.

Actually, Christianity hasn't changed one iota since its founding. The church has, but that's a different matter.

Depends on who you ask. Some Christians are more moderate, and they don't believe in Hell because they think it's grossly unjust. Suffice it to say, mainstream Christianity has changed a great deal. Medieval Christianity would have had such people executed and burned at the stake.

And yes, the Bible does day that we are here for the glory of God, rather than our own. But it also calls Jesus the servant king who died for us. He gave his life for me. I don't need to be told to serve him; I want to do it.

Fine, but I don't. He's done nothing for me. He can't even demonstrate his own existence in an objective manner.

Do you automatically toss love out the window?

Love is an emotion between humans. People claiming to love one another, dying for one another in the name of love and various other things lend credence to the idea. The basic point is that I can feel when I love someone. I don't really require objective verification for it. It's not the same with religion. It may be for you, but you don't represent everyone, do you?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2002-11-12 06:50pm

There is no evidence I'm aware of against the flood. In fact, IIRC, there is some archaeological evidence in favour of a major flood in the area.
Present it. I bet it has already been ripped to schreds

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/black ... frame.html

The original theory was that if something really had happened that gave rise to the myth as written in the bible and other places (even Native Americans have a similar legend), then there should be archaeological evidence in the black sea region.

In 1999 an expedition was mounted to try and find the evidence.

September 9, 2000, remains of a wattle and daub structure, ceramics, and stone tools were found at a depth of 311 feet on the bottom of the Black Sea.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-12 06:51pm

Durandal wrote:
What I hear about every day of the week is love, pure and simple. I don't want people to die, but justice has certain requirements. I (along with God and many other people) would much rather all you atheists turned and accepted God's love. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't. But it's easy to say that from where I'm sitting.
You can't accept God's "love", because it's purely conditional.

Actually, it's unconditional. "Jesus died for us while we were still sinners." While we were destined for Hell, Jesus died for us so that we could go to Heaven instead. If he didn't love us when we were sinners, why would he have done that? If he loves us while we're sinners, what could we possibly do to make him stop loving us?

If you don't, he sends you to Hell to suffer for all eternity.

If you commit a crime, you go to jail.

If you commit a sin, you're destined for Hell. It's called justice. Unlike most judges, however, God loves us so much that he'll forget all about the crime if you just say sorry. It's really not that hard. You make it sound like we have to lie prostrate on the floor, in sackcloth and ashes, eating only bread and water, taking a vow of silence and promising to burn the heathen heretics, or else. I guess we have several centuries of an incompetent Church to blame for that. Only the church could make a wedding announcement sound like a funeral.

Don't assume that atheists have never tried Christianity.

Ooooh, what a lovely bundle of man-shaped pile of straw

I was raised Catholic. All I ever got was useless guilt and a feeling of worthlessness. Since becoming an atheist, I'm a much happier, more self-confident person.

Well that's a problem with the people who were round you when you were a Catholic. They failed you and failed God. The Bible tells us we are all so valuable to God that he died for us and wants a personal relationship with each of us. And it makes us clear that we are set free from guilt by grace.

Just because Christianity has worked for you doesn't mean that it works for everyone. Those of us who tend to be more rational will more than likely tend to reject Christianity because of its blatant irrationality.

Bit of an ad-hominen there, don't you think Damien?

It's not a matter of Christianity 'working' or not. It's a matter of whether it is true or not.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 06:52pm

September 9, 2000, remains of a wattle and daub structure, ceramics, and stone tools were found at a depth of 311 feet on the bottom of the Black Sea.

So we automatically extrapolate that the floor was global rather than a simple local occurence?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-12 06:55pm

Darth Wong wrote: There is no conflict provided religion admits that it is irrational, subjective nonsense, and that for real answers about the real universe, you must defer to science.

You answered

Jonathan wrote: False dilemma. Religion does not claim to offer a basis for scientific theories. It's like criticising people for getting married by saying that love is incompatible with science.

I said

Colonel Olrik wrote: Can't you read? Or simply think? Fundies DO claim religion offer a basis for scientific theories.

And now:

Jonathan wrote: Have you read my posts? The word fundamentalist is not applied correctly. And what is the relevance of your point to what I've said?

FUNDIES SAY RELIGION OFFERS A BASIS FOR SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. WE DISLIKE THEM.

There, was I clear?

Jonathan wrote: If you do not accept Jesus as the one true Lord and Saviour and sincerely ask him for forgiveness of sins, then I believe you're going to Hell. If you do, however, believe these things, you're a Christian and won't.

Thanks for confirming you're a bigot that believes people who have never heard of Jesus, but have otherwise led a good honest life, are going to hell. What a cruel vindictive God you believe in.

Jonathan wrote:
Darth Wong has reasons to have little patience. Christian fundamentalism almost ruined his marriage cerimony, after all.
And that's a valid reason to randomly insult someone who's trying to have a civil discussion about religion in a forum designed for debate over religion? If an atheist had shot my parents, would that be a valid reason for me to call you all murderers and flame you?

1) It's his forum, you're here as his guest, he can do whatever he wants.
2) He called you, and only once, asshole, for trying to pass him as an ignorant that didn't not understand what he's read/heard. He then proceeded to produce an argument which you failed to notice.

Actually, I'm the one who's answering questions and sending more back. The brickwall tactics seem to lie elsewhere. What questions do you think I haven't answered? Or is the problem that you don't like my answers? That isn't an accusation, BTW, just an honest question to try and find out what you think is wrong.

Since you still fail to aknowledge the existance of fundies, and keep on with the claim there is not such a thing, I tend to believe I'm facing a brick wall.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-12 06:59pm

Durandal wrote:Textbook example of circular reasoning. There is no evidence for the existence of God, so asserting that he exists is fallacious.

Classic strawman. I was saying that God and science are separate issues which don't prove or disprove each other.

Anyway, there is evidence, it just isn't scientific evidence. It isn't the only kind you know. Not everything can be tested by experiment. It comes down to whether you believe the evidence is sufficient, which I do and you don't.

If you do not accept Jesus as the one true Lord and Saviour and sincerely ask him for forgiveness of sins, then I believe you're going to Hell. If you do, however, believe these things, you're a Christian and won't.

In other words, if people don't accept your ridiculous beliefs for which no objective evidence exist, they deserve to suffer for all eternity. Fucking bigot.[/quote]

There is a great problem with tolerance in today's society. Apparently it's no longer possible to have a single truth. Which itself strikes me as rather intolerant. Christianity is open to everyone. You, me, Chuck, Gandhi, Pol Pot, George Bush, Mike Wong, everybody. How is that bigoted? Oh and I believe I deserve that fate and there, but for the grace of God, go I. I don't think I'm a better person, I don't think I'm more loved and I don't want you to suffer. Why do so many atheists linger under that preconception? It seems like a terribly cynical view.

By the way, I hope you burn for all eternity because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

And I hope you come to know the love I have and will join me, God and a whole other bunch of happy people in Heaven some day. God bless you in all that you do and may he lift the burden of guilt and hate from your heart

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-12 07:01pm

Vendetta wrote:
There is no evidence I'm aware of against the flood. In fact, IIRC, there is some archaeological evidence in favour of a major flood in the area.
Present it. I bet it has already been ripped to schreds
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/black ... frame.html

The original theory was that if something really had happened that gave rise to the myth as written in the bible and other places (even Native Americans have a similar legend), then there should be archaeological evidence in the black sea region.

In 1999 an expedition was mounted to try and find the evidence.

September 9, 2000, remains of a wattle and daub structure, ceramics, and stone tools were found at a depth of 311 feet on the bottom of the Black Sea.

Peeelease. Myths are well known to sometimes have origin in a real fact. How can you jump from the recent floods in China, cathastrofic as they were, to the biblical flood which killed everything on the surface except animals that entered an ark two by two?

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-12 07:02pm

Durandal wrote:I've noticed that Jonathon has fallen into the "well, there's no evidence against it, so it must be valid" trap. Take a course in logic, Jonny-boy.

You seem to be labouring under a mis-apprehension. Where did I make that claim? Surely when you accuse someone, it is customary to present evidence to support your conclusion? wouldn't that be... logical?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 07:02pm

Actually, it's unconditional. "Jesus died for us while we were still sinners." While we were destined for Hell, Jesus died for us so that we could go to Heaven instead. If he didn't love us when we were sinners, why would he have done that? If he loves us while we're sinners, what could we possibly do to make him stop loving us?

Who cares?He'll condemn us to Hell with no second thoughts! He has no problem allowing a large portion of those he "loves" to suffer in Hell for all eternity.

If you commit a crime, you go to jail.

And, eventually, you get out. Punishments are meant to teach lessons. What lesson do you learn from being tortured for all time?

If you commit a sin, you're destined for Hell. It's called justice. Unlike most judges, however, God loves us so much that he'll forget all about the crime if you just say sorry. It's really not that hard. You make it sound like we have to lie prostrate on the floor, in sackcloth and ashes, eating only bread and water, taking a vow of silence and promising to burn the heathen heretics, or else.

No, I make it sound like I'm being forced to glorify a proudly unrepentent, sociopathic, narcisisstic, genocidal mass-murderer. I'm not going to sacrifice my ethics for empty promises of eternal bliss.

I guess we have several centuries of an incompetent Church to blame for that. Only the church could make a wedding announcement sound like a funeral.

No, you have the Bible to blame.

Ooooh, what a lovely bundle of man-shaped pile of straw

You said that you don't understand why atheists don't "accept Christ's love" or whatever. You make it sound as if we don't know what we're talking about. Maybe true for some atheists, but certainly not me. My experience with Christianity is well-known to many, especially to you.

Well that's a problem with the people who were round you when you were a Catholic. They failed you and failed God. The Bible tells us we are all so valuable to God that he died for us and wants a personal relationship with each of us. And it makes us clear that we are set free from guilt by grace.

Circular reasoning. You fail to realize that most denominations of Christianity embrace the teaching of Hell, which I find morally repugnant, and the teaching that we are all worthless, sinful, dirty, unworthy creatures created only for the purpose of aggrandizing an incompetent deity with apparently low self-esteem.

Bit of an ad-hominen there, don't you think Damien?

How so? Christianity is irrational, so those who like being rational will probably reject it.

It's not a matter of Christianity 'working' or not. It's a matter of whether it is true or not.

And you have absolutely no objective evidence that it is true. Stop dancing around this obvious fact and just admit that your beliefs are purely subjective with no capacity for independent verification.

We've been through this before on ASVS, Boyd. You continually appeal to the fact that Christianity makes you feel good, and you expect everyone else to get the same results. When I tell you I had radically different results, you blame those who taught me, even though they taught me the exact same things you claim to believe.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2002-11-12 07:04pm

Love is an emotion between humans. People claiming to love one another, dying for one another in the name of love and various other things lend credence to the idea. The basic point is that I can feel when I love someone. I don't really require objective verification for it.

So you're lending weight to an entirely subjective process, emotion, when describing part of the universe, your relationship with a loved one.

That being the case, is it not silly to claim that only objective reasoning can be used to produce a model of the universe, because you know yourself that some parts of it simply cannot be objectively proven or even observed, you have to 'feel' them subjectively.

So what I said earier about using tools other than science to contemplate meaning for your life is true, if you want your life to include these subjective processes.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 07:09pm

So you're lending weight to an entirely subjective process, emotion, when describing part of the universe, your relationship with a loved one.

That being the case, is it not silly to claim that only objective reasoning can be used to produce a model of the universe, because you know yourself that some parts of it simply cannot be objectively proven or even observed, you have to 'feel' them subjectively.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong! We have produced objective models of the universe that make accurate predictions and conform to observations. Simply assuming that stuff we have yet to model can never be modeled is the kind of intellectual laziness that religion thrives on.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2002-11-12 07:14pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:Peeelease. Myths are well known to sometimes have origin in a real fact. How can you jump from the recent floods in China, cathastrofic as they were, to the biblical flood which killed everything on the surface except animals that entered an ark two by two?

Did I ever mention China?

I rather think I was pointing to the fact that there IS evidence for a real event which subsequently appeared in the Bible in a heavily interpreted form.

Durandal wrote:So we automatically extrapolate that the floor was global rather than a simple local occurence?

To the people living there, it was almost the entirety of the world, their horizons would be fairly close to home, as their opportunities for travel and communications would be almost nil. This was about 7000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

Combine that with the way that oral tradition introduces distortions into stories, and it's not hard to see how it comes to be reported in that instance as 'the whole world flooded'.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-12 07:18pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:Damn it. Accept, for once, that there are actually people who take a step further.

I never claimed otherwise. I simply questioned the practise of calling them fundamentalists.

Fundies hate homosexuality.

There are people who hate homosexuality. That is different from hating homosexuals. Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that

Chick puts all Catholics in hell (I don't really know why, it's just pure hate, I guess).

I don't know who 'Chick' is. i think Catholicism has problems, but that anyone who believes the things I've already outlined, will be saved.

They try to stop Evolution from being taugh at schools. They ban Harry Potter has eviill. You made an imense ranting that didn't even adress the point. THERE ARE FUCKING FUNDIES.

You made an immense rant that didn't address the point that fundamentalist is an ill-defined and mis-used term.

Be glad you're not as rabid as them.

Why? I'm not here to please men. This is not a popularity contest. I will be glad if it turns out I believe the truth.

Go and check www.creationweb.com

Why?

The mere idea of taking the Bible science literally enough to give credit to those thoughts is disturbing.

Repeat after me: "The Bible is not a scientific document. Jonathan does not use it as one."

I fail to see where the confusion lies here. what is wrong with believing that God had the power to do something and then using the scientific evidence available, ignoring God, to form scientific theories?

Fuck it. FUNDIES DISAGREE.

I would say that I'm a fundamentalist. That would disprove our point rather wouldn't it?

Present it. I bet it has already been ripped to schreds

Been presented by someone else. It's not something I have on hand or would even know where to get, seeing as it's been a long time since I heard the stuff. It's a side issue anyway.

Sigh. "And he could see the four corners of the world"

Why the sigh?

It's a figure of speech anyway. And look at a map. On certain projections, you could say the earth has 4 corners. If someone says they're on top of the world, would you criticise them, saying that there is no literal top?

And, due to that, some fundies still think the Christian value for pi is three.

That depends on your definition of fundamentalist.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 07:19pm

Classic strawman. I was saying that God and science are separate issues which don't prove or disprove each other.

Anyway, there is evidence, it just isn't scientific evidence. It isn't the only kind you know. Not everything can be tested by experiment. It comes down to whether you believe the evidence is sufficient, which I do and you don't.

My idea of evidence is objective verifiability. Your idea of evidence leaves the door wide open for any moron's claims to be considered valid because he "knows" they're true.

There is a great problem with tolerance in today's society. Apparently it's no longer possible to have a single truth. Which itself strikes me as rather intolerant. Christianity is open to everyone. You, me, Chuck, Gandhi, Pol Pot, George Bush, Mike Wong, everybody. How is that bigoted?

BECAUSE YOU CONDEMN ANYONE WHO REFUSES YOUR OFFER TO AN ETERNITY OF SUFFERING AND BURNING AND YOU THINK THEY DESERVE IT SIMPLY FOR NOT EMBRACING THE SAME BELIEF SYSTEM YOU DO.

Oh and I believe I deserve that fate and there, but for the grace of God, go I. I don't think I'm a better person, I don't think I'm more loved and I don't want you to suffer. Why do so many atheists linger under that preconception? It seems like a terribly cynical view.

See above.

And I hope you come to know the love I have and will join me, God and a whole other bunch of happy people in Heaven some day. God bless you in all that you do and may he lift the burden of guilt and hate from your heart

The only hate in my heart is hatred for intolerance. You completely disregard the fact that many non-Christians lead decent lives, are nice to people, and are well-liked. You simply ascribe us all to eternal torture and then turn on this dispicable sob-story of how you love everyone and wish everyone was Christian because Christianity has been good to you. Sorry, Jon, I don't buy it, and I never will.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-12 07:19pm

Vendetta wrote: Did I ever mention China?

I rather think I was pointing to the fact that there IS evidence for a real event which subsequently appeared in the Bible in a heavily interpreted form.

I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit. I meant that a cathastrophic event, like last years big floods in China, may give origin to myths.
Just what you said now.

Vendetta wrote: Combine that with the way that oral tradition introduces distortions into stories, and it's not hard to see how it comes to be reported in that instance as 'the whole world flooded'.

So, saying 'the whole world flooded' is obviously a lie. The Biblical flood did not exist.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-12 07:21pm

Durandal wrote:
So you're lending weight to an entirely subjective process, emotion, when describing part of the universe, your relationship with a loved one.

That being the case, is it not silly to claim that only objective reasoning can be used to produce a model of the universe, because you know yourself that some parts of it simply cannot be objectively proven or even observed, you have to 'feel' them subjectively.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong! We have produced objective models of the universe that make accurate predictions and conform to observations. Simply assuming that stuff we have yet to model can never be modeled is the kind of intellectual laziness that religion thrives on.

I'm curious, do you think Mike Wong has an objective scientific model of his wife's feelings towards him? No offence intended towards Mike or his wife. If any is taken from me using them as an example here, I apologise. I do not mean to imply that they are unfeeling robots. On the contrary, I believe the opposite. Hence the question

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-12 07:26pm

I'm curious, do you think Mike Wong has an objective scientific model of his wife's feelings towards him? No offence intended towards Mike or his wife. If any is taken from me using them as an example here, I apologise. I do not mean to imply that they are unfeeling robots. On the contrary, I believe the opposite. Hence the question

No, nor does he claim to, nor did I claim that he did. I'm sure you feel nicely about the sight of Mike and his wife and kids roasting in Hell simply because they don't agree with you. No offense indeed.

Fine, I'll admit that love is irrational and drives people to do irrational things, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, love isn't like religion. Religion makes claims. Love does not. Love is mutual; religion in domineering.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2002-11-12 07:28pm

We have produced objective models of the universe that make accurate predictions and conform to observations.

so where's your objective model of a friendship, love, hell, almost ANY human interaction.

They don't submit to objective models because they RELY ON SUBJECTIVE PROCESSES, emotions, things which are DIFFERENT FOR EVERYONE!

The way two people percieve 'love' is often wildly, massively different, they have different criteria, different expectations, different requirements, and it all comes under the same heading.

There are things that are entirely subjective, even things as trivial as enjoyment of a television show, which are impossible to make an objective model for. Two people with te same background and tastes watching the same show will respond to it differently, because the show triggers a subjective response.

I'm not denying the fact that the show itself COULD be objectively analysed, but that WOULD NOT EXLPAIN the subjective responses that those two people produced when watching it.

The only way you could objectively model their reaction would be by a brain activity pattern, but even that wouldn't tell you for certain what they experienced, you'd have to make an assumption based on a subjective model, your own reaction in similar situations.

You seem to be saying that objectivity is the ONLY tool for looking at the universe, but you've already said yourself that there are things you have subjectively decided on, like the fact that you 'don't need' objective verification of love.

They are part of you, art of the universe, but you approach them subjectively. Why do you think that is, if you're so committed to using objective logic to define the universe.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-12 07:34pm

Durandal wrote:Evidence? Hearsay accounts from Nuremburg documents don't count. I all his public addresses and his own Mein Kampf, he exonerated Christianity's beliefs.

I don't recall where the quote is from. All I recall is that it is accurate. Which quotes from Mein Kampf, etc. support you? Where does he say that salvation is through the Grace of God alone? And where is the evidence be actually believed this, rather than saying he did for political reasons? What is the relevance of it anyway? Surely Christianity stands or falls on the basis of what it says, rather than on the actions of those who claim to follow it. Is communism evil because Stalin killed millions?

Care to back up that rather audacious claim? You say that religion is non-disprovable, then you say with conviction that it is false and an invention of man, thereby eliminating the possibility of it being true, which you aid couldn't be done. Surely you're contradicting yourself?
Read the book of Genesis and the book of Job.

I have. What's your point?

And since when did religion tell us how the universe works? I don't recall the Bible claiming validity as a scientific paper. Bit of a strawman don't you think?
Oh, come on, Jon. Read Genesis and Job.

See previous.

Supported by the fact that Christianity has been directly responsible for countless millions of deaths.

There's a difference between those claiming to be Christians being responsible, Christians being responsible, and Christianity being responsible. Millions have been killed by atheists. Does that make atheism evil? A belief system should be judged on the basis of what it says, rather than on the actions of its followers. If you tell me not to kill people, then I go shoot Mike and claim you told me to, is it my fault or yours?

Depends on who you ask.

No it doesn't. Facts are facts. Christianity is the same. The doctrines of the church and what people who call themselves Christians believe are what have changed.

Some Christians are more moderate, and they don't believe in Hell because they think it's grossly unjust.

They aren't Christians because they're ignoring what Jesus said. If there was no hell, there would be no Justice and no need for salvation and as a consequence, no resurrection, no crucifixion, no Messiah, no Jesus, no Christianity.

Suffice it to say, mainstream Christianity has changed a great deal. Medieval Christianity would have had such people executed and burned at the stake.

No, medieval people who claimed to be Christians did that. Christianity didn't any more than atheism sent millions to the gulag.

Fine, but I don't. He's done nothing for me. He can't even demonstrate his own existence in an objective manner.

Define an objective manner for me.

Love is an emotion between humans. People claiming to love one another, dying for one another in the name of love and various other things lend credence to the idea. The basic point is that I can feel when I love someone. I don't really require objective verification for it. It's not the same with religion. It may be for you, but you don't represent everyone, do you?

Why do you have different criteria for religion? I regard Christianity as love. A elationship, rather than mindless, distant religion.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2002-11-12 07:34pm

So, saying 'the whole world flooded' is obviously a lie. The Biblical flood did not exist.

Historical sources can't be approached in simplistic binary terms.
The flood happened, the way the bible reports it tells us how the writers, and the people who carried the oral tradition before them, chose to interpret it.

Even without fact on its side, the bible is still a valuble historical document which can tell a lot about the people who wrote it, and in part about the events that shaped them.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-12 07:38pm

Jonathan wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote:Damn it. Accept, for once, that there are actually people who take a step further.
I never claimed otherwise. I simply questioned the practise of calling them fundamentalists.

Oh, alright. From now on, I'll just call them fucking religious utter morons (FRUM, for short).

Jonathan wrote: There are people who hate homosexuality. That is different from hating homosexuals. Hate the sin, love the sinner and all that.

No, they also hate the sinner. They want to forbid them to marry and deny they can feel love, only lust.

I don't know who 'Chick' is. i think Catholicism has problems, but that anyone who believes the things I've already outlined, will be saved.

Just look at one of the theads with 'Chick' in the title. There are many of them.

You made an immense rant that didn't address the point that fundamentalist is an ill-defined and mis-used term.

You're obviously right. THEY'RE ALL F.R.U.M

Jonathan wrote:
Be glad you're not as rabid as them.
Why? I'm not here to please men. This is not a popularity contest. I will be glad if it turns out I believe the truth.

Because, if you were, you'd be assraping flamed by now, instead of mildly flamed.

Jonathan wrote:
Go and check www.creationweb.com
Why?

To observe your separation of Science and Religion at work.

Jonathan wrote:
Fuck it. FUNDIES DISAGREE.
I would say that I'm a fundamentalist. That would disprove our point rather wouldn't it?

No, it would only make further arguing useless.

Jonathan wrote:
Present it. I bet it has already been ripped to schreds
Been presented by someone else. It's not something I have on hand or would even know where to get, seeing as it's been a long time since I heard the stuff. It's a side issue anyway.

No it has not. Present evidence for the Biblical flood or don't mention it at all.

Jonathan wrote:
Sigh. "And he could see the four corners of the world"
Why the sigh?

It's a figure of speech anyway. And look at a map. On certain projections, you could say the earth has 4 corners. If someone says they're on top of the world, would you criticise them, saying that there is no literal top?

Figure of speech, eh? Many people have taken it at face value during centuries. And I would criticize someone who said he could see Australia from the Alpes.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-12 07:43pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:FUNDIES SAY RELIGION OFFERS A BASIS FOR SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. WE DISLIKE THEM.

There, was I clear?

Shouting actually makes text harder to read, rather than clearer.

"The word fundamentalist is not applied correctly."

I would regard myself as a fundamentalist and yet do not use religion as a basis for scientific theories.

1) It's his forum, you're here as his guest, he can do whatever he wants.

Interesting attitude. If I ran a forum and called him names in it, what would you say about my maturity?

2) He called you, and only once, asshole,

Actually, the entire tone of the post was condescending and insulting. hardly the way to welcome someone into a forum for debate. I'd have thought that politeness would have been encouraged, rather than flaming?

for trying to pass him as an ignorant that didn't not understand what he's read/heard.

How could I do that when I hadn't mentioned him? And the bit about wlakign in shoes was with regards to the joke about killing fundamentalists and how much atheists would appreciate a reciprocal joke. How is that calling him ignorant?

He then proceeded to produce an argument which you failed to notice.

And which one would that be so I can address it?

Since you still fail to aknowledge the existance of fundies, and keep on with the claim there is not such a thing, I tend to believe I'm facing a brick wall.

When did I do that? I challenge you to find a single point where I didn't. Perhaps I didn't make my position clear enough and if that is indeed the case, I apologise.

My position is that the term 'fundamentalist' is poorly applied. I would regard myself as a 'fundamentalist' and yet do not hold the positions people here claim 'fundies' do.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-12 07:49pm

Vendetta wrote:
We have produced objective models of the universe that make accurate predictions and conform to observations.
so where's your objective model of a friendship, love, hell, almost ANY human interaction.

They don't submit to objective models because they RELY ON SUBJECTIVE PROCESSES, emotions, things which are DIFFERENT FOR EVERYONE!

The way two people percieve 'love' is often wildly, massively different, they have different criteria, different expectations, different requirements, and it all comes under the same heading.

There are things that are entirely subjective, even things as trivial as enjoyment of a television show, which are impossible to make an objective model for. Two people with te same background and tastes watching the same show will respond to it differently, because the show triggers a subjective response.

I'm not denying the fact that the show itself COULD be objectively analysed, but that WOULD NOT EXLPAIN the subjective responses that those two people produced when watching it.

The only way you could objectively model their reaction would be by a brain activity pattern, but even that wouldn't tell you for certain what they experienced, you'd have to make an assumption based on a subjective model, your own reaction in similar situations.

You seem to be saying that objectivity is the ONLY tool for looking at the universe, but you've already said yourself that there are things you have subjectively decided on, like the fact that you 'don't need' objective verification of love.

They are part of you, art of the universe, but you approach them subjectively. Why do you think that is, if you're so committed to using objective logic to define the universe.

Objective logic will nessecarily produce a right answer. Subjective emotions do not, although because human intuition has been tuned over mellenia by evolution and further tuned within the lifetime of each individual through his observations of the real world, it will produce a correct answer somewhat more often than purely random guessing under normal circumstances.

We use whatever process is most likely to produce the truth. In purely subjective matters such as friendship and love, we use subjective emotions, because an application of objective logic is simply impossible. HOWEVER, that does not prevent us from using objective logic where we can use it because we know that wherever we can use objective logic it is more reliable than subjective emotion. Deciding whether a God exists, and if so, what our reaction should be, is a matter where objective logic can be applied, so we apply it. WHAT IS SO FUCKING HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2002-11-12 08:03pm

Durandal wrote:Who cares?He'll condemn us to Hell with no second thoughts! He has no problem allowing a large portion of those he "loves" to suffer in Hell for all eternity.

Actually he does. Such a big problem that he came down and died on a cross to offer all those people an opportunity to join him in heaven.

And, eventually, you get out. Punishments are meant to teach lessons. What lesson do you learn from being tortured for all time?

You get out because you are deemed to have repaid your debt to society. I'm sure that if anyone in Hell honestly repented of their sins, they would go to Heaven. Jesus went there at one point to preach to sinners and offer them the chance of repentance. However people there are there because they haven't and won't repent.

No, I make it sound like I'm being forced to glorify a proudly unrepentent, sociopathic, narcisisstic, genocidal mass-murderer. I'm not going to sacrifice my ethics for empty promises of eternal bliss.

Ah but from my POV, you'd be freeing yourself from relativistic subjective 'ethics' by accepting a fulfilled promise of eternal bliss. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

No, you have the Bible to blame.

Really? I have a book which lists 'love your neighbour as yourself' and regards all men, even worst enemies, as neighbours, as the most important command to obey between men, for acts of torture? I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic.

You said that you don't understand why atheists don't "accept Christ's love" or whatever. You make it sound as if we don't know what we're talking about. Maybe true for some atheists, but certainly not me. My experience with Christianity is well-known to many, especially to you.

I think you've read a lot and experienced a lot. That's why I can't understand what's gone wrong. If i thought you were dumb, I might understand. Then again, Christianity is for all, intelligent and ignorant alike.

Circular reasoning.

How so?

You fail to realize that most denominations of Christianity embrace the teaching of Hell,

Actually, I think it's a major feature of Christianity and taught in most denominations. Try asking me what I think rather than assuming.

which I find morally repugnant, and the teaching that we are all worthless, sinful, dirty, unworthy creatures created only for the purpose of aggrandizing an incompetent deity with apparently low self-esteem.

Ah, now here we disagree. I think that most denominations try to teach that God is living and values us in spite of our sin. He finds enough worth in us to die for us in fact. However, I think that most denominations are also pretty poor at getting this message across and that it is easy for one wrong voice to drown out a thousand right ones.

How so? Christianity is irrational, so those who like being rational will probably reject it.

Ah, bu that's only an opinion, not an objective fact.

And you have absolutely no objective evidence that it is true. Stop dancing around this obvious fact and just admit that your beliefs are purely subjective with no capacity for independent verification.

Depends what you mean by objective fact. Can I run an experiment on God in the scientific sense? No. Is there historical evidence in favour of Christianity? Yes. Many a book has been written on it. In fact I'm reading a very good one on the issue at the moment called 'The Case For Christ" by lee Strobel, former legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. Once an ardent atheist who was converted when he questioned world experts on the historical evidence for the gospel.

We've been through this before on ASVS, Boyd. You continually appeal to the fact that Christianity makes you feel good, and you expect everyone else to get the same results.

Now Damien, that's just not true. I've never said that people should believe in Christianity because it makes me feel good. i think that people should believe it because it's true. If it was false and merely made me feel good, it would have no real value an I would not encourage people to believe it. I've said as much before.

When I tell you I had radically different results, you blame those who taught me, even though they taught me the exact same things you claim to believe.

Err, you say they made you feel guilty. I say that Gospel teaches us that we are free from guilt. they made you feel worthless. the Gospel teaches us that God values everyone so much that he died for us. They made you feel depressed. God talked about banquets and feasts held in our name. Everlasting parties. I fail to see how they could be teaching the same thing.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-12 08:10pm

My position is that the term 'fundamentalist' is poorly applied. I would regard myself as a 'fundamentalist' and yet do not hold the positions people here claim 'fundies' do.

I consider myself to be God. Yet I don't do anything that these people say God does. Should I go around flaming them?

Of course not BECAUSE I AM NOT A GOD. The fact that I consider myself to be one is because I am using the colloquial definition, they are using the literal definition. Similarly, you should not be flaming the people on this board because your definition of fundie isn't the same as theirs. Besides, your definition isn't the one in the dictionary. The dictionary defines a fundie as one who believes that the bible is the literal true historical record and word of God. Your definition of fundie is everyone else's definition of Christian. Not all Christians are fundies, nor do we erroniously believe them to be. According to the rest of the world, you cannot possibly be a fundie (although you certainly argue like one) because you don't believe the bible to have any authority on scientific matters. You accept that God did not create the world in six literal days, therefore you are not a fundie.

However, just because you are not a fundie does not mean that you are free from being flamed. Not only have you attempted to defend fundamentalism using the classic (redefine A then prove A under new definition and hope no one notices that that has no bearing on the truth of A by the difinition that the rest of the world uses) fallacy, a very dangerous thing to do on this board. You have also attacked atheism and attempted to proselytize Christianity, commited numerous ad hominim fallacies, put up an IWoI, and generally made an ass out of yourself. On this board, that is punishable by a Village Idiot title and intense public ridicule, but of course we'll have to wait for the verdict from Lord Wong on the former. As for the latter:

Don your flamethrowers! Moron at twelve o'clock.