How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

That's like asking if we should eliminate Nazism because we don't have the right to tell people what to think. Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't actively strive to eradicate fundamentalism through the use of education.

Damn straight. Especially if that fundementalism advocates the killing of non-believers. And no person can look at the Bible and logically claim it doesn't advocate the killing of non-Christians. Of course, logic and fundementalism is mutually exclusive.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

There is a very obvious question that must be asked here, and it's an oldie but a goodie: Should we eliminate fundamentalism and religion in general? Do we have a right to tell people what they can and cannot think? And how would you target people who believe in God? Lastly, by attempting to stamp out (read: persecute) Christians, do you realize that you'd be playing right into what their "holy" book says will be done to them? Why validate their faith? Leave them alone.

That's like asking if we should eliminate Nazism because we don't have the right to tell people what to think. Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't actively strive to eradicate fundamentalism through the use of education.

Clearly, there's a difference between the neo-nazi who beats the living crap out of a member of a minority and the harmless old man who sits on a street-corner in a wheelchair offering people gospel tracts. Yes, they can both be annoying to those who don't agree with their ideas, but the fundamentalist is not a threat to society. He may, however, pose a threat to your ideology. One wonders why some atheists feel their logic is so weak that they're compelled to eliminate the alternative at any cost. (Oh, am I ever going to get flamed for that.)

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

That's like asking if we should eliminate Nazism because we don't have the right to tell people what to think. Of course we don't, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't actively strive to eradicate fundamentalism through the use of education.

Damn straight. Especially if that fundementalism advocates the killing of non-believers. And no person can look at the Bible and logically claim it doesn't advocate the killing of non-Christians. Of course, logic and fundementalism is mutually exclusive.

Do tell, when was the last time the Southern Baptists held their Fish-Fry and Atheist-Lynchin' Jubilee? Funny I should miss that in the papers.

[Darth Wong]

In the 1950's. It was called "McCarthyism". The social forces that caused it are still present.

Before that, it was the 1940's and it was called Nazism (mind you, they hated both Jews and atheists, so I guess it wasn't exclusive).

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

In the 1950's. It was called "McCarthyism". The social forces that caused it are still present.

Before that, it was the 1940's and it was called Nazism (mind you, they hated both Jews and atheists, so I guess it wasn't exclusive).

That's quite awhile ago. We're not dealing with McCarthyism anymore (a term, from what I've seen, which is almost exclusively used in reference to anyone who points out and objects to socialist cultural subversion).

Your typical fundamentalist, even the particularly virulent Sourthern strain, more closely resembles Ned Flanders from the Simpsons -- an innefectual, bumbling dimwit. Hardly anything that threatens the safety of anyone around them.

I was going to post this incident in the Dangerous Fun thread, but now's as good a time as any.

Take, in contrast, this little drama that played out last Friday night while I was spending time with an elderly fellow named Jim Coleman. Now Mr. Coleman is a fundamentalist. I don't hold that against him, because I've never seen him behave toward anyone with anything other than civility and kindness. Mr. Coleman likes to sit on the corner across from the local coffee shop and offer people gospel tracts. According to him, he "came to know God" after suffering Guillam Berret (sp) syndrome, which left him wheelchair-bound. To his credit, he doesn't use this condition as an excuse for anything.

This particular Friday night, Mr. Coleman was accompanied by his wife (who invariably gives the impression that she might blow away in a stiff enough wind, not because she's particularly unhealthy, but simply because she's so diminutive) and his 2 year old great granddaughter.

Another friend of mine showed up and we started talking about some damn thing of no consequence, when I hear someone ask, "What, you brought your whole fuckin family down here for this shit? Huh?"

That's not the typical reaction Mr. Coleman gets; most people, if they don't want what he's offering, will ignore him. Some will even return his politeness and say, j"No, thank you." This was the first time I had ever heard anyone swear at him. It got worse.

Mr. Coleman tried to say something, but his attacker -- somewhere in the neighborhood of 6'2"-6'4" and well over 200lbs of tattooed, leather-clad, wild-eyed dipshit -- cut him off: "Maybe I should kick your fuckin' ass! You want me to kick your fuckin' ass, fucker?"

At this point, Vince, the friend I had been talking with, stood up. "Hey. You don't need to be talking to an old man like that. He believes in God and he isn't hurting anyone."

"You believe in God?" the man was towering over Mr. Coleman, inches away from his face, "You believe in God? You know what I believe? This" He turned around and lifted his shirt. A large, ornate "666" was tattooed on it.

"Why the 666?" I asked.

"Oh, you're gonna get into this now?" He tried to stare me down, his arms spread menacingly.

"Don't try selling me Crazy, kid." I warned him. "I'm all stocked up." Vince laughed, then Mr. Tattoo laughed too. "Now answer the question: why 666, if you don't believe in his" -- I nodded toward Mr. Coleman -- "God?"

"Because I fuckin' hate Christians. And I fuckin' hate Christians teaching their kids to be Christians. And the next time I see him out here, I'm kickin' his fuckin' ass!" He then spit directly in Mr. Coleman's wrinkled, leathery, kindly face. That's why my friend has a sprained wrist and why I have a shiner today, kids.

[Darth Wong]

Wow, anecdotal evidence to prove that fundies are less harmful than atheists! How ... typical.

Fundies have had numerous laws passed to make all manner of activities illegal if they disapprove of them (eg- prostitution). Fundie groups are responsible for 100% of abortion clinic violence and shootings. McCarthyism was not that long ago. Fundies invariably try to intrude on peoples' personal rights; McCarthy did it in the 1940's, and Asscroft is doing it today. And finally, any homosexual can relate stories of being abused, beaten, harassed, or otherwise terrorized by the Christian majority. So I'm afraid your lone story does not outweigh all of that. Not even close. We're talking about trampling on the rights of hundreds of millions of people by group action, and you're talking about a lone nutjob.

[Durandal]

In Idaho, you can spend life in prison for engaging in homosexual acts. Fundamentalists may not be running around killing people, but the fact that they have adversely affected our society's justice system is undeniable, which is more than enough reason to actively strive to exterminate such idiocy from society, or at least destroy its power-base.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Wow, anecdotal evidence to prove that fundies are less harmful than atheists! How ... typical.

Fundies have had numerous laws passed to make all manner of activities illegal if they disapprove of them (eg- prostitution). Fundie groups are responsible for 100% of abortion clinic violence and shootings. McCarthyism was not that long ago. Fundies invariably try to intrude on peoples' personal rights; McCarthy did it in the 1940's, and Asscroft is doing it today. And finally, any homosexual can relate stories of being abused, beaten, harassed, or otherwise terrorized by the Christian majority. So I'm afraid your lone story does not outweigh all of that. Not even close. We're talking about trampling on the rights of hundreds of millions of people by group action, and you're talking about a lone nutjob.

Aside from the laws you refer to (and I'm interested in reading them for myself) McCarthyism, as I understand it, is a political phenomenon, not a religious one, as is what Ashcroft is doing. I'm not saying McCarthy wasn't a paranoid nutcase, and I don't know enough about what Ashcroft is up to to have an opinion on him in either direction yet. As far as the stories of abused homosexuals go, I'm certainly sympathetic, but those are anecdotal evidence as well. And the kind of incident I related above is increasing in frequency and severity.

Look, crimes are crimes -- it's illegal to abuse anyone, for any reason. But once you decide that someone can't think a certain way, you set a precedent that may eventually be used to outlaw what you believe in.

[data_link]

Wow, anecdotal evidence to prove that fundies are less harmful than atheists! How ... typical.

Fundies have had numerous laws passed to make all manner of activities illegal if they disapprove of them (eg- prostitution). Fundie groups are responsible for 100% of abortion clinic violence and shootings. McCarthyism was not that long ago. Fundies invariably try to intrude on peoples' personal rights; McCarthy did it in the 1940's, and Asscroft is doing it today. And finally, any homosexual can relate stories of being abused, beaten, harassed, or otherwise terrorized by the Christian majority. So I'm afraid your lone story does not outweigh all of that. Not even close. We're talking about trampling on the rights of hundreds of millions of people by group action, and you're talking about a lone nutjob.

Actually, this guy sounds more like a Satanist (one of the bad denominations). But yeah - the image of Christians (and especially Christian fundies) as inherently good has no basis whatsoever in reality.

[Darth Wong]

Raoul, for you to pretend that Christians are regularly suffering the threat of violence in America, approaching that of homosexuals, is so mind-bogglingly stupid that I'm having trouble believing you actually had the temerity to say it.

I never said it was OK for some weirdo to attack you; why do you think I called him a nutjob? But I do say that Christians are awfully quick to cry "persecution", and incredibly slow to notice when they're doing it to someone else (eg- gays, atheists). And frankly, the Bible is so horrible that any Christian who does not apologize for its atrocities when challenged is either an idiot or an asshole. You don't see people running around praising "Mein Kampf" and then acting shocked if they get a hostile reaction, do you?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Not at all; and I'm not by any means saying that Christians are suffering as much violence as gays have suffered; I am only saying that the incidence of open hostity toward Christians for no other reason than that they are Christians is on the rise. No, it's not comon yet; but from what I see of the treatment of people who are perfectly harmless aside from their beliefs it may be there soon.

EDIT: And true, Christianity has had it's failings -- so have a few other religions and ideologies. But is anyone calling for the extermination of (I forget if it's Confucianism or Buddhism) because of the inhumanities the Chinese inflicted on Tibetans because of their religion? Is anyone calling for Marxism and other forms of Socialism to be exterminated from college campuses? Christians, probably, but the animosity seems to be mutual.

Yes, the Bible has a lot of atrocity to answer for. There's no denying that. But most Christians aren't out sacrificing their kids, or doing any of the other truly objectionable shit in it. Notice I say most. Every group has its share of psychopaths. Christianity happens to have a lot of them, but Christianity is also a religion that spans the entire planet. Naturally, the number of fruitloops goes up along with the total number of practitioners.

[Jonathan]

HEY FUNDIE! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MY POST? YOU KNOW - THE ONE WHERE I LIST ALL THE CRIMES YOUR GOD HAS COMITTED BECAUSE HE'S AN ASSHOLE?!

That post was made in the last 24 hours. There are, what, at least ten of you arguing against me? In addition to dealing with all that you've written (it takes time to actually read and reply to posts), I have to find time to eat, sleep, work (preparing for an EM tutorial, going to 3 lectures, going to an EM class, going to an EM tutorial), and go to my Bible Study Group.

In addition to that, I've got a mathematical methods tutorial tomorrow that I still have work to do. I'm a very busy person and have considerably more posting to do in this thread than the rest of you, so I think it's a little unreasonable to scream at me for not replying within 24 hours.

Patience and politeness will get you further and screaming.

[Jonathan]

I see we're all learning the pleasures of arguing Christianity with Jonathon Boyd. Guys, I'd stop now. His beliefs have survived assaults from Mike Wong, Kynes, Wayne Poe, and me – probably a few others as well.

There have been others. If anything, you've strengthened my faith because I've had to go away and look things up in the Bible more than i would have thought to on my own.

Jon appeals to his own personal experience and uses that as justification for his assumption that God is just, loving and the like. He then uses that assumption as the basis on which he analyzes the Bible.

That's not entirely true. I use personal experience and verified historical evidence.

So, you get to have fun by watching him twist and turn, trying to morally justify all the various atrocities.

I don't try to justify atrocities - I deny that there are any.

I've explained to him countless times why this is a flawed approach, but he doesn't listen.

And each time, I've explained to you that you are mistaken about my methodology and yourself make logical fallacies.

[Darth Servo]

So, you get to have fun by watching him twist and turn, trying to morally justify all the various atrocities.

I don't try to justify atrocities - I deny that there are any.

You deny that the God of the old testament committed genocide with the great flood?
You deny that the 10 plaques of Egypt would be considered an act of terrorism if committed today?
You deny that the God of the old testament wanted to exterminate all of Israel for worshiping the golden calf and Moses needed to talk him down to only killing 3000?
You deny that the under the Law of Moses, most 'crimes' were punishable by death, including rude children?
You deny that the God of the old testament ordered EVERYONE in Cannan killed by the Isrealites, including the women and children?

[Jonathan]

I have a Sky Pixie that magically makes everything Jonathan says to be wrong by default. Nobody has a right to say otherwise.

If that is satire directed against me, it's pretty poor because I never said people don't have a right to form their own beliefs. What I say is that such a system is right or wrong independent of people choosing it. I.e. people can make the choices they want, but that doesn't make them right. I have repeatedly emphasised the importance of free choice.

Sure, perhaps I shouldn't believe in something that has absolutely no basis on reality or empirical evidence whatsoever,

Are you familiar with the definition of empirical? I'll quote it here for you:

em·pir·i·cal     P   Pronunciation Key  (m-pîr-kl)
adj.

1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

We can't experiment on God, therefore any empirical evidence would be observational. I have had personal experience of God such as answered prayer. However personal evidence isn't much use to other people. A better evidence is that of history. We have the Gospels which are historically reliable documents, like it or not. To claim there is no evidence is to cover your eyes to the truth. You are free to form your own conclusion based on that evidence, but you cannot deny that the evidence exists.

but that would mean not having an institutionalized, sugar-coated crutch to lean on throughout my dull, superficial days.

It's rather arrogant to presume that Christians must have dull lives and be weak people, merely because they believe in God. you do not allow for the possibility that they might believe in God because they honestly think he exists. Ad I do not view Christianity as in institution. I view it as a personal relationship with God.

Besides, if nobody is capable of invalidating my Sky Pixie, so why should I listen to other people? That would mean I have enough will and humility to discard useless social inventions from my repetoire.

I'm listening to people, which is more than I can say for other people here. I say things, and people turn round to say that I've said the complete opposite. It's pretty clear who need sot open their eyes and ears.

Sheesh, some people. Thank the Sky Pixie that they're all wrong by default, eh?

EDIT: Skimed over the last two posts, didn't get a chance to read this:

What I find funny is he believes perhaps we all came to this jump because we thought it would be hip...sad he may never learn the truth that perhaps a great many of us were once Christian and opened our eyes to something that while not prettier is far more friendly than dogmatic worship of a pie in the sky.

Wolly shit, the guy's submitting to institutional mantra contradictory in the very essence of science,

Which institutional mantra would that be then?

and he's claiming we are the ones following the leader?

No, I'm not. which people would realise if they read my posts, but hey, why waste time when you can just label me a 'fundie' and laugh? If people are honestly interested in debate

Talk about a Wall of Ignorance.

I ask you again, who is he one listening and replying to points? And who is ignoring what one person has to say to the extent that they think they are saying the opposite of what they have actually said? You may be able to see a wall, but it is not one which I have built.

[edited to fix typo about people forming beliefs]

[data_link]

If that is satire directed against me, it's pretty poor because I never said people have a right to form their own believes.

Exactly. You'd rather we all be indoctrinated with yours.

What I say is that such a system is right or wrong independent of people choosing it. I.e. people can make the choices they want, but that doesn't make them right. I have repeatedly emphasised the importance of free choice.

Then just why are you advocating a system that supports killing people for not believing it?

We can't experiment on God, therefore any empirical evidence would be observational. I have had personal experience of God such as answered prayer. However personal evidence isn't much use to other people. A better evidence is that of history. We have the Gospels which are historically reliable documents, like it or not. To claim there is no evidence is to cover your eyes to the truth. You are free to form your own conclusion based on that evidence, but you cannot deny that the evidence exists.

You can, apparently. By the way, are you familiar with the laws of probability? Or the principle of selective memory? Because those have explained answered prayers much more effectively than the idea that some God exists. (esp. why prayers are never answered through some event that is impossible, and why which prayers are answered is totally random)

BTW, just where did you get the idea that the Gospels are reliable historical documents?

It's rather arrogant to presume that Christians must have dull lives and be weak people, merely because they believe in God. you do not allow for the possibility that they might believe in God because they honestly think he exists. Ad I do not view Christianity as in institution. I view it as a personal relationship with God.

Wow. You're even more arrogant than I thought. Not only do you assume that we meant that you are consciously choosing to be stupid (we aren't), but you think that you are so important that the creator of the UNIVERSE is going to have time to deal with you personally. Arrogant little dipshit.

I'm listening to people, which is more than I can say for other people here. I say things, and people turn round to say that I've said the complete opposite. It's pretty clear who need sot open their eyes and ears.

Yep. This is proof: not only do you not understand what we are saying, but you don't even understand what you are saying.

Which institutional mantra would that be then?

Christian fundamentalism.

No, I'm not. which people would realise if they read my posts, but hey, why waste time when you can just label me a 'fundie' and laugh? If people are honestly interested in debate

FYI, we are wasting time debating you. And not only do you deny this, but you also try to weasel out of answering my posts by claiming "Oh, I was too busy." If you can't back up your arguments, just say so and we'll move on.

I ask you again, who is he one listening and replying to points? And who is ignoring what one person has to say to the extent that they think they are saying the opposite of what they have actually said? You may be able to see a wall, but it is not one which I have built.

I am. You are. Wrong.

[Durandal]

Not at all; and I'm not by any means saying that Christians are suffering as much violence as gays have suffered; I am only saying that the incidence of open hostity toward Christians for no other reason than that they are Christians is on the rise. No, it's not comon yet; but from what I see of the treatment of people who are perfectly harmless aside from their beliefs it may be there soon.

That's pure bullshit perpetrated by whiney, self-righteous, born-again jack-offs. When a public institution, like a university, denies them the right to hold a prayer service or a Christian rock concert, they cry that they're being persecuted, conveniently ignoring the establishment clause in their ridiculous complaints. Christians who complain about persecution have balls beyond description.

Face it. Christians virtually control the United States with idiotic anti-pornography and prostitution laws cloaked with the guise of "family values."

For every story you hear of Christian "persecution," there are thousands of stories of gays being savagely beaten, thrown in prison or atheists being forced to "swear to God" in courtrooms, listen to everyone else recite allegiance to religious beliefs and the like. Christians have no idea at all what real persecution is.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Not at all; and I'm not by any means saying that Christians are suffering as much violence as gays have suffered; I am only saying that the incidence of open hostity toward Christians for no other reason than that they are Christians is on the rise. No, it's not comon yet; but from what I see of the treatment of people who are perfectly harmless aside from their beliefs it may be there soon.

That's pure bullshit perpetrated by whiney, self-righteous, born-again jack-offs. When a public institution, like a university, denies them the right to hold a prayer service or a Christian rock concert, they cry that they're being persecuted, conveniently ignoring the establishment clause in their ridiculous complaints. Christians who complain about persecution have balls beyond description.

Face it. Christians virtually control the United States with idiotic anti-pornography and prostitution laws cloaked with the guise of "family values."

For every story you hear of Christian "persecution," there are thousands of stories of gays being savagely beaten, thrown in prison or atheists being forced to "swear to God" in courtrooms, listen to everyone else recite allegiance to religious beliefs and the like. Christians have no idea at all what real persecution is.

Maybe not yet -- but they will, once someone makes it a point to exterminate their right to be Christians. Do you understand what I'm saying? By "eradicating fundamentalists" all that's going to be accomplished is the validation of their whining. What you complain about with fundamentalists are harmful acts. Make the acts illegal (most of them are) educate children against committing these acts (wait, that would be teaching morality in school, can't do that) but you can not and must not interfere with what people can and can not think. Free thinking means that you think for yourself, even if what you think is unpopular. If what you want is tolerance, try exercising some.

[Jonathan]

He didn't change the law. And God cannot change his nature. Even for an omnipotent being, some things are intrinsically impossible. A perfectly good being could not commit an evil act for instance. A perfectly just being could not change the law because doing so would only make it less just.

The solution to this problem - the law condemning us to Hell, with no hope of redeeming ourselves - was not to change the law, since that was impossible, but rather to remove the cause of our condemnation - sin. We cannot earn our way out of sin by good deeds, therefore it had to be removed by the willing sacrifice of perfect innocent. Only God is perfectly good therefore Jesus had to die for us so that are sins could be removed.
Next you're going to ask why, if this has been done, do we need to bother about Christianity, right? Well, in order for us to be forgiven, we have to accept God's offer. That's it.

I really can't believe what I'm reading. I know that some people can be thick, but REALLY. This guy takes the cake.

Ad hominen.

That particular paragraph above is unbelievable. Now he's an authority on knowing that God changing his nature is intrinsically impossible? Where the hell did he get this idea? He argues over and over how God being outside the natural realm has the power to bend reality to his will and can do the impossible, and then turns around and proudly trumpets God's inability to change his basic nature therefore justifying the immoral system of victimless crimes (ergo - sin) get punished for eternity if you do not repent.

LOL

People here are very fond of attacking people for not applying logic. Let's apply a bit of logic here.

God is perfectly good.
In order for God to change his nature, he would have to be less than perfectly good.
This would involve doing something wrong.
Being perfectly good, however, he would be incapable of doing something wrong.
If he cannot do something wrong, then he cannot change his nature because to do so would be wrong.

This is an example of the intrinsically impossible.

Would you care to point out what is so amusing/where I have gone wrong? It would certainly be a lot more productive than sneering.

That is truly unbelievable. And you wonder why people aren't respecting your arguments? Where do you draw this idea of God's inability to change his nature? I would like to hear it. Besides all of this, how could a "perfectly good being", who CANNOT sin as you aptly point out have been responsible for murder en masse?

A perfectly good being obviously couldn't sin therefore either:
1) he is perfectly good and it was murder
or
2) he is not perfectly good and it was murder

People here seem to conclude that it must be 2) without allowing for the possibility that it could be 1).

ALL of these people were truly wicked?

The wages of sin are death. All men are sinful. Therefore, they deserved death. In the case of Soddom and Gomorrah, for instance, God said that he would spare the cities of a righteous an could be found there. None was.

because they did not know or believe in God?

Because they had sinned. Everybody does it. everyone at least lies. Many people do more. If you wish to claim that they were perfectly innocent, then the burden of proof lies on you.

THIS you call justice? What about the children born to these people?

I've already answered this one.

As a Christian visiting an isolated african tribe, would you argue against their slaughter if people came in and tried to wipe them out because in their ignorance they practiced necrophilia thinking it was a way of giving them the "seed of life" to carry with them in the other world?

Yes. Only God has the authority to judge. He gave us life, not men. He is the only perfectly righteous being. We don't get to judge who should live and die. I've been very clear on this issue before.

Or would you protest and say that they don't know and better and we must educate them.

I would try t stop sin. I think that a man killing another for the reason you have given would be a sin. To abandon them would not be loving.

If you would do this, why would God be any different?

I am not God. Are you trying to say that God must act the same as me? I try to act in the image of Christ, but do not live up to him and never would. And there is a world of difference between my authority and God's, as I have already outlined above.

If you believe that only God knows the heart of a man and can decide truly if they are wicked, than why allow the babies to be born if they were going to be born automatically wicked and have to be killed anyway? This doesn't make SENSE.

Why does god allow them to born? A good question and one which I'm glad you've asked.

God wants us to have a loving relationship with him.
To mean anything, our love must be of our choosing.
We must therefore have the freedom to choose to love God.
This means that we must have the freedom to reject him.
This requires God to allow us to sin - if he only permitted people who didn't sin to be born, then there wouldn't really be any free choice being made.

Another argument is that we are all sinners. If he didn't allow any sinners to be born, then no-one would have been born and there would be no-one to have a relationship with. This is tied in with the necessity of free choice thing.

The problem with you is that you want to believe in the essence of Christianity. That in itself is fine. But you are trying to justify the Bible as a valid reference. This is your problem. You CANNOT use the Bible as anything more than an example of people who might have been INSPIRED by the events that allegedly happened,

Whoa re you to dictate what I can and cannot do? Why shouldn't I be able to take it as a valid reference? If it is the word of God, what would be wrong with taking it as a reference?

but have no definitive credence to their writings as to historical fact or accuracy.

Actually, the Gospels are more reliable, historically, than the overwhelming majority of ancient texts accepted without question by scholars. I've outlined the reasons in another post. Would you like them reposted?

Maybe some of it IS true, but even IF this is so, you cannot assume that EVERYTHING must be by default.

You mean assume without reason? I don't do that. i have had personal experience with God that leads me to believe that the Christian God exists. There is historical evidence for the validity of the Gospels and epistles. If the Gospels are accurate, then Jesus is the Son of God and he says hat th the scriptures are God breathed. That is why I trust the Bible.

It is much more likely that a great deal of it is allegorical,

On what basis is it more likely? You have a point with Genesis and Revelation since they are essentially dreams committed to paper, so much of it could well be symbolism, but beyond that I don't see where your stance is coming from.

and if you were standing on that basis, you would not be receiving such a backlash. The people here will certainly not AGREE with you necessarily, but at least you would be admitting that it is pure BELIEF and cannot be defended by logic.

I think that people here too quickly throw about the word without applying it and make assumptions about my beliefs without actually reading my posts. If they did that, then maybe things would go better. Me faith is belief backed up by historical evidence and personal experience.

Basically anyone trying to defend religious beliefs by using the Bible as an authority is guilty of circular reasoning.

Not necessarily.

Historical evidence supports the NT.
This evidence and my own experiences are sufficient for me to trust the NT.
The NT claims that the OT is accurate.
I therefore accept the OT as a valid reference in addition to the NT.

Some people have come to faith purely on the basis of the historical evidence. I have a fair bit of anecdotal evidence and have testimonies about it, but that counts for little around here. People don't seem to counted as reliable sources.

Let me spell it out quite clearly so you understand what this is and why it is wrong:

If you say I believe God exists and I ask you why, and you reply with "Because the Bible says so", then the next natural question is "Ok, why is the Bible an authority on this fact'? You answer "because God either wrote the Bible himself or had people write it about him". So I'm left with two things: Your belief that God exists because he is responsible for the Bible, and your belief that the Bible is authoritative and true because God is real and all-powerful. From this CIRCLE of reasoning there is absolutely NOTHING objective to draw on to support either the claim of God OR the veracity of the Bible.

The problem here is that you are all attacking a strawman. I've had this problem with Durandal for quite a while. People seem reluctant to let go of the strawman, even when I repeatedly point out that they are mistaken. It gets very frustrating after a while.

Don't you see why this is insensible? ANYBODY could do this with any subject whatsoever. The sticking point with Christians is the very long history of this subject and the amount of people who wrote stories regarding God and Jesus and the prophets. I think the real reason why people tend to ignore the application of logic towards religion is that they favour mass belief and repetition of stories as being superior.

I don't see the relevance of this to anything I've said.

As someone else was trying to allude to earlier, fortune telling is still believed by many. Why? Many reasons, but certainly a great deal of it is the sheer volume of books and stories and corner psychics that are set up on every 10 blocks of certain cities. Toronto being one of them. I personally believe in the possibility of certain people having psychic ability, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that there is very little objective evidence that this phenomena is in existence, common, or even definitively REAL. But you know what? A lot of people believe that it IS established. A great deal of them in fact. They haven't REALLY looked for any peer-reviewed studies, or compiled a list of prophecies made by your friendly neighbourhood psychic and subjected them to a statistical analysis to see how accurate they are. It doesn't matter to them. They BELIEVE it without any true evidence. That's called FAITH.

Blind faith actually. There is an important distinction.

The exact same situation is applicable to the Bible.

No it's not. There is historical evidence for the validity of the Gospels. People have seen miracles even in this modern day. People have had prayers answered. There are still people who prophecy, who speak in tongues, who translate tongues, who receive answers to prayer. God is not inactive. Not in my experience anyway.

Worse though, psychic ability can be objectively tested and so at least has a shot at verifying it's existence in some people. the bible has NONE of this when it lays reference to God's existence. We don't NEED the concept of God to explain reality around us.

No, we don't, and i have never given that as a reason for believing in him. I don;t know why people keep brining it up. But that doesn't mean that God is an impossibility.

Of course we don't know if there is a WHY to the universe and life, or if there is a reason why laws of physics exist, but if there is a reason, we have not established it yet. So to make a claim that the existence of God is a fact,

I claim it as a personal belief. Which I keep telling people, but they seem to prefer to believe that I call it a fact.

especially that Jesus is the son of God, (in itself still not a very impressive title because the Bible says we are ALL sons of God),

He's called considerably more. such as God in person.

is just picking beliefs you prefer to believe over others.

not true. I believe Christianity on the basis that i think it has the most evidence going for it.

Who says you're right? You have no more evidence favouring you than Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism or Wiccan.

Again, not true. Aside from my experiences, there is historical evidence to support the Gospels.

The whole point is you have no evidence PERIOD.

Wrong. see above. Read my earlier posts. You may not agree with the conclusions I draw from the evidence, but you can't deny that evidence exists.

Nothing you have presented to justify the belief in God is evidence.

I can't use my own experiences to formulate a belief?

what is wrong with the historical evidence of the Gospels?

Not on iota. The only evidence you are giving is your BELIEF in God. Until you truly understand this, you will never be arguing on a level playing field with the people in this forum. They are getting frustrated because you truly are erecting an IWOL. Cute phrase there by the way. First time I saw it.

I'm not the one erecting the wall. I'm providing evidence which people ignore. People construct strawmen and attack them instead of my arguments. It's very frustrating for me to face a dozen people doing this.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not the one erecting the wall. I'm providing evidence which people ignore. People construct strawmen and attack them instead of my arguments. It's very frustrating for me to face a dozen people doing this.

It is not "evidence" to state your conclusions (eg- "God is perfectly good", "God loves us", etc) as premises and then use them to justify themselves. It is circular logic. Your abject stupidity doth not a valid argument make.

[Durandal]

I can't use my own experiences to formulate a belief?

You can use whatever you wish to formulate whatever idiotic belief you wish. But, you can't use personal experience to formulate a belief and then expect it to be considered a valid belief.

For the last fucking time, appeal to personal experience is the name of a logical fallacy.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't it amazing how Boyd gets older but not wiser?

[Durandal]

Indeed. He appeals to his answered prayers, but what about the unanswered ones?

[Nova Andromeda]

--It is truly amazing people here even bother with him after the first few rounds. Why do the idiots deserve so much attention?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Indeed. He appeals to his answered prayers, but what about the unanswered ones?

Oh, well those are the cases where God knew better than he did what he needed.

You know, I hope this doesn't sound incredibly fucking strange, but I actually picked a fairly decent stupid religion to (tell people I) believe in, at least on the prayer score: The Aesir (Viking gods) don't answer prayers. They don't give a rat's ass about anyone too lazy to do shit for himself.