How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

[Nova Andromeda]

Yo, HAS ANYONE noticed that two polar opposites can not see the same flaws inthemselves yet see it clearly in their counterparts on the other extreme.

This could explain why I usually stay the fuck out of this forum.

--Sounds like the Golden Mean arguement to me and perhaps a bit of cowardice.

[XPViking]

That still leaves a whole lot of people out, Jonathan. Why, for example, did Jesus appear in the middle east? God is still showing favor here. What about Africans, Asians, aboriginal tribes in Australia, New Zealand and the Americas? If they were all at that point God's People as well, shouldn't there have been a Jesus born on every continent? - Raoul Duke Jr

Well, the Mormons have North America covered in that regard.

XPViking

[Darth Wong]

Well, the Mormons have North America covered in that regard.

All of the white people in it, anyway. Of course, now they pay lip service to minorities after the government threatened them ...

[data_link]

No.

Take the premise that God is perfectly just.
If God was to change, then he would be capable of doing unjust things.
This would make him unjust.
This, however, would go against his nature as a just god.
It is therefore impossible for God, is he is perfectly just, to lower the standards of justice, because it would be an unjust action.

This is known as the intrinsically impossible. It is be definition impossible for a perfectly just being to make himself less just because such a change would be an unjust action.

When you back up the claim that God is perfectly just, I'll concede the point. I do not ever expect to concede the point.

The bible never describes God as evil. In fact it says just the opposite.

Perhaps you would like to refer to God's actions instead of his descriptions of himself? After all, Hitler sad he was perfectly just too.

God gave us the gift of life. It is his to take away since we don't deserve it, being sinful beings. It is entirely consistent with God being perfectly just.

So it would be perfectly just for your mother, who gave you the gift of life, to take it away from you? Cool. I'll call her and see if we can arrange a retroactive abortion.

Why is it absurd? The wages of sin is death. Are you saying that everyone was perfect? The burden of proof is on you to prove that

No, it is on you to prove that every single person was sinful, and the burden of proof also falls on God to prove that they deserved death for their crimes.

Animals don't have souls. And he didn't kill all the animals. And he gave them life, so he can take it away

Every living thing that breathes the breath of life - is this not what He said?

And he said he would spare the city if anyone innocent was found therein. None were.

So He says - really, if you had just committed murder, wouldn't you try to dehumanize the person you just killed?

Lot was trying to protect his guests. I hardly think he wanted his daughters to be raped and it doesn't say they objected to his suggestion. Why would he want them raped? The chances are that they were offering to take the place of his guests and suffer instead of them. Lot being righteous is not inconsistent with the story.

Gen 19:8 - "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." I think that's plenty explicit - he was offering to let the mob RAPE his daughters. Note that he was doing this without regard to what they may want. No offers were made - his daughters weren't even aware of what he was doing. Of course, this kind of horror is par for the bible.

Err, yes it does. In verse 7.

'But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death

Wicked in the LORD's sight - notice that the specific sin was never mentioned. And, incidentally, if you want to justify that by saying that God's precognition told Him that this was a person who would do wicked things in the future, then you will need to justify why He doesn't use this ability to kill other wicked people before or soon after they are born.

As you quote below, God had commanded that everyone be circumcised. Moses was disobeying this command nd therefore sinning, brining the punishment of death upon himself.

And you think that death is a just punishment for being uncircumcised. Good. Why don't you do God a favor and kill yourself, or is this a sin that you aren't repenting of?

They were sinful people and holding the Hebrews as slaves. They were warned it would happen

By Moses, not God. By the way, was it really nessecary to harden the Pharoh's heart ten seperate times?

A more accurate translation would be that he allowed his heart to harden i.e. he let Pharaoh have his own way, rather than forcing him to change

Excuse me? READ the listed passages. Oh don't bother - here.

4:21 - Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

7:3 - And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

7:13 - And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

9:12 - And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

10:1 - And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:

10:20 - But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

10:27 - But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.

11:10 - And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

14:4 - And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so

14:8 - And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.

Get the picture? THE LORD HARDENED THE PHAROH'S HEART. Pharoh didn't have a choice in it.

Pharaoh ordered his army out, not God.

Read Ex. 14:4 again.

The people were sinful and not worthy of entering his presence. And he gave them a clear warning

I'm referring to the warning - God never kept that promise. People have been up on Mt. Siani dozens of times. Oops, guess your God is a liar.

Sins must be atoned for. Under the Law, the way to do this was the sacrifice of an animal. God was entirely consistent with what he had declared righteous.

I see. And I ask you again - what kind of sick God is pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals?

The translation is more accurately poisoner, rather than witch. Entirely understandable in a desert culture where water was scarce.

But why the fuck should God care about the culture. Supposedly He's writing these laws for all people for all time. Or, is this an admission that humans had a hand in writing the bible and it is not the literal word of God?

Because it was a sin to poison wells and therefore those caught doing it were worthy of death.

The consequences of the verse are irrelevant. It should be examined purely on the basis of whether it is in of itself just or not.

And murder is not a just punishment for any crime, esp. not something as petty as being a witch.

And what is unjust abut that? God commands people to worship him as he is the one true God. To worship others would therefore be a sin. You would not be giving glory to God or showing him love, therefore you would be a sinner and worthy of death.

I had to read that five times in order to be sure I read that right. You honestly don't understand what's unjust about killing someone for not aggrandizing you? By the way, you've just contradicted yourself - you keep saying that you are tolerant of other religions, yet you think that it is just to kill people just for having them. Incredible - I underestimated the strength of your IWoI.

See above. Justice requires that the price of sin be paid.

Justice requires that the guilty party be the one to pay it. Harming an innocent animal for something you did wrong - that's jsut sick. It's like me killing the President of the United States and then throwing YOU in jail for it.

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, (Mark 2:23-3:6). He makes it clear that the Sabbath is for man's benefit, suggesting that that law (and here I distinguish between law and Law) is one that was specific to the Israelites at the time. They were to be molded into God's people and lived in a climate where ill-discipline was dangerous to the entire society. I would say here that the sin is not in working on the Sabbath, but rather in disobeying God when he says that you should not work on the Sabbath.

Uh huh. Sure. And it never occured to you that he said this to avoid geting killed? Besides, Leviticus 23 made it pretty damn clear that sabbath law was to "be a statute forever throughout your generations." So even if we make the argument that Jesus was a special exception - you still have yet to justify why you yourself are doing work on Sunday, being that it's sinful (A direct violation of the 6th commandment, no less).

The problem here is that you are placing yourself as an objective source capable of saying for certain what right and wrong are. If God, however, is the source and does not violate any of the laws he makes, then the argument that he is perfectly just is entirely self-consistent. It is not a proof, but it is not inconsistent and is therefore rational.

Bullshit. I am most certainly in a position to decide whether God's actions are moral - I am not a hypocrite. Or did you forget that God commands his people not to kill and then proceeds to commit multiple counts of genocide? Or did you forget that God feels free to violate any of His own laws He wishes. Or did you forget that God is a liar - Even within Ex. 33 alone, He contradicts himself. 33:11 - "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." 33:20 - "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Well excuse me God, but didn't he just see your face? And is Moses not a man? Therefore, shouldn't Moses be dead? But wait - he lives still. And then, in 33:23, Moses see's God's backparts. BTW - this also invalidates the testimonies of John , 1 John, and 1 Timothy, for they all claim no man has seen God at any time. You might try to weasel out of it by saying that none of God's laws apply to Him, but if He is such a liar that He makes obviously untrue statements and breaks His own promises, then He is obviously not just.

I would also like to point out that if God is perfectly just, as you say, and that as you say, it is inherently impossible for God to do anything unjust, then it would also be impossible for God to repent, for He would never do anything unjust and thus would never have anything to repent for. In that case, explain Gen. 6:6, Ex. 32:14, Dt. 32:36, 1 Sam. 15:11, 1 Sam 15:35, 1 Sam 24:16, 1 Chr. 21:15, Jer 15:6, Jer 18:8, Jer 26:3, Jer 26:13, Jer 26:19, Jer. 42:10, Am. 7:3, and Jon. 3:10

May I also make an observation? By saying that if God is perfectly self-consistent (He isn't) that He is moral (even though there are perfectly self-consistent immoral systems), you are claiming yourself to be an objective authority on who is qualified to judge whom, and therefore claiming you are an objective authority on morality. Hypocrite.

If he was happy to allow that, why die on the cross? Your argument is not consistent with the whole Bible. Mine is.

My argument is that God enjoys torturing people. By tricking them into believing a false religion whose practitioners then became even more opressive than the Egyptian Pharoh (after God hardened his heart), He has effectibely and with minimal effort caused people monumental pain and suffering. The existence of Jesus and the fact that He claimed He was the son of God are not in conflict with my theory. Your argument on the other hand, I have already domonstrated to be false.

You don't acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Saviour. You do not worship God as the one true God. That is a sin you are unrepentant of.

When God presents an argument as to why I should believe in Him without any empirical evidence that does not involve terrorism, I will repent of the sin of not believing in Him. I have a sign saying this quite clearly on my door, so if God wanted me to go to heaven, He would have given me such an argument. The fact that he has not means one of three things:

1. God is a sadistic bastard and would rather see me in hell. In which case, I don't feel like serving Him.
2. I've stumped God, and He has no answer, in which case He as implicitly acknowledged my moral judgement to be supeior to His and He will, being just, allow me to judge Him.
3. I'm right, and God doesn't exist.

So which one is it?

Yes, I do. but only if I am a sincere Christian. I don't think for one moment that there's anything I can do to save myself, therefore I rely on God and his grace. And it's freely available to anyone, so yes, I guess it is a 'get out of jail free' card.

Sorry, wrong answer. Try James 2:20 - "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

Hang on, You say you don't deserve to go to Hell, yet I definitely do. And yet people claim that I am the one taking the moral high ground, despite the fact that I say I'm as guilty as anyone and better than no-one. I don't see how the accusation holds.

Yes, on the basis of pure Justice, if there is only Law, then I am condemned to Hell. However Christ came not to condemn the world, but rather through his actions, save it. We have Grace as ell as Law - God has taken my place therefore I a not going to Hell because I can be judged righteous before the Law through his sacrifice (not through any deed of my own, so I can not boast of any righteousness).

I rightfully claim the moral high ground based on the fact that your only system of morality is obedience to a completely amoral God. If there is a moral God, you will then go to Hell, whereas I, being moral, will not. What is so difficult to understand about this.

You are judging God by your standards. What makes them more reliable than his? He is entirely consistent with his own laws

My standards are objective. His are not. Yours are not. My standards are internally consistent. His are not. Yours are not. I apply the same standards to myself as everyone else. You do this too, but God definately does not.

If you so badly want to be there, why complain when Christians point out that that's where you're destined for?

Because they are claiming moral superiority when they have none.

Objective reality is that which is absolute. True regardless of who you are or what you believe. If what I believe is true, then it is related to objective reality. Do you know the absolute truth of the universe? Are you in a position to conclusively say that I am wrong?

Yeah, IF you believed the truth, then by definition your beliefs would have to do with objective reality. But you believe a book which isn't even internally consistent, and certainly not consistent with reality. Thus, what you believe is false. And yes, I am in a position to conclusively say you are wrong. I understand logic, and can apply it to your beliefs. They don't pass the test.

Care to back that up by quoting me where this happens?

Do you really want me to quote every single post you've made?

where did you prove that God didn't exist?

If we're talking about the biblical god, every time I showed a contradiction in the bible.

Where did you prove that God's actions were inconsistent with what he had defined as just?

See above, this post.

Where did you prove that Jesus was not God?

Burden of proof is on your side, but the fact that the bible can't even decide when he was born is indictment enough.

Where did you prove that the Bible was false?

Let's see... totally inconsistent with a)itself b)reality c)common sense d)history and e)science. These points have been made by all of us, not just me.

What exactly do you claim to have proven?

That you are an idiot. Of course, we knew that already, but it's nice to be sure.

Easy. I think that it is a sin to not worship God. You think you aren't harming anyone by not worshipping him. I think you're harming yourself because you're sinning.

You think, you think, you think. If you're just suffering in your own private delusions that's one thing, but if you're claiming any basis in reality, that you think something does not make it so. BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS.

Neither you nor I are in a position to say whether it is an objective source or not. I believe that it is, but can't prove it. You believe it isn't and can't prove it. Neither of us can known without knowing what the absolute truth of reality is, something neither of us know. We can theorise, but we can't prove.

Oh this is bullshit. You keep on saying it's impossible to claim that we know what an objective source is, but then you turn right back around and start claiming the bible is an objecitve source. You also claim that without absolute knowledge of reality, we cannot possibly know anything about it for certain, the most atrociuos black/white fallacy yet.

Leviticus 19:33-34
'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.'

God is saying "love thy neighbor as thyself" (a premise which He repeatedly violates elsewhere BTW) on a national scale - i.e. do not treat others differently because they weren't born locally. What does this have to do with slavery.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16
'If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.'

So God likes you taking in political refugees. Again, where does He say YOU shall not keep slaves.

24:17-18
'Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of a widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.'

Again, only showing treat foreigners with the same respect as your own people. What does this have to do with slavery?

You do know the difference between Noah and God, right?

Okay, point ceded. That's not the only verse, what about Ex. 21:20? Or Ex. 22:3, which explicitly tell you to sell people into slavery as punishment for theft.

That is a covenant between the Jews and God. I am not a Jew. It was a symbol of who they were, so that they would stand out as different. That is no longer necessary as we are all God's people now.

Sorry. Matthew 5:17-19 - "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is quite explicit here - every one of the old commandments is to be obeyed. And don't quote Romans 7:6 to me, the word of Jeses is more canon than the word of Paul.

It is entirely self-consistent with the idea of God being just if he is the source of justice. You are declaring him unjust by assuming that you are an absolute source on justice. You haven't pointed out any self-inconsistencies with the viewpoint that he is just. Where does he make a law and then break it? where does God do anything he calls a sin?

God commits murder. God has called murder a sin. Get the picture?

Personal experience, testimonies of others, historical evidence of the Gospels.

Not good enough.

And yet you used a sample of one to "prove" that Christianity is logical.

Where did I do that?

DID YOU READ MY POST? AGAIN:

Once an ardent atheist who was converted when he questioned world experts on the historical evidence for the gospel.

Good. Then stop using the number of people who believe in a phenomenon as evidence of its truth, as you were doing here.

I did no such thing. Quote me where I say that or stop making things up.

AGAIN, THIS WAS IN MY LAST POST, WHICH YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU WERE ACTUALLY READING IT:

Is there historical evidence in favour of Christianity? Yes. Many a book has been written on it.

I believe that all record of my wrongdoing is removed, that the burden of the sin is passed form me to Jesus so that I am not responsible for any wrongdoing and am instead found righteous.

And you wonder why we question your morality.

It's a strawman anyway. I don't believe that the being sorry is it what makes everything okay. I believe that it's Jesus taking the punishment for me, after I accept his offer by repenting, that makes everything okay. there's a world of difference. If Jesus hadn't died and risen, then all the sorrow in the world wouldn't help. I feel I've been quite clear on this point.

And you think that a just God will punish an innocent person instead of the guilty party? You really think that if I commit murder and then you get thrown in jail for it that that constitutes justice? Geez, you're a moron.

And what would that be? And what logical reason have you for thinking that this will erase what you've done wrong and make everything okay?

Depends on the crime, but the point is we take responsibility for our own actions, whereas you go blame an innocent person for them. (Jesus, in case you can't figure it out)

Why shouldn't I? there is historical evidence that the Gospels are accurate. It is a matter o faith that the rest is.

Actually, it's a matter of evidence that the rest isn't. Or perhaps you'd like to tell me that the bible isn't self-contradictory? Go on, say it, we like hearing you make an ass out of yourself.

IOW, you think I'm stupid because I disagree with your view of morality, suggesting that your view of morality is the only possible valid one suggesting that you believe you know some absolute truth about morality. Is this true?

No. I think you're stupid for defending the morality of a God who doesn't conform to YOUR system of morality. Or do you admit that YOUR system of morality condones Genocide?

That's a disagreement in interpretation. You have yet to prove, or even offer plausible evidence that the Bible claims authority as a scientific document. The 4 corners thing is poetic and creation attempts to provide no details about how the universe works, merely saying that Gos is responsible for it existing.

Light travels infinitely fast. No, that doesn't contradict science, because I'm not cliaming authority as a scientific document. You don't need to explicitly claim authority on a subject in order to say things relevant to that subject, dumbass.

You assume that you are right about the contradiction. You are not allowing for alternative interpretations which are themselves perfectly reasonable. And what do you think I think has no connection to reality? The Bible or science?

How is there a reasonable alternative interpretation of Genesis? And I'm saying you think science has no connection to reality. Did it ever occour to you that science not only describes the way reality is now, but also in the past? You know... 6000 years ago when the Bible says the world was created?

1) That's an 'if', not a certainty.
2) there's nothing to prevent God creating the world in a state which it would resemble if it was 15 billion years old, so the appearance of 15 billion years old universe is not contradictory with a 6 day creation
3) I said that the 6 days could well represent ages

But why would God deliberately create aged materials? Why would He deliberately construct a massively detailed fossil record? Why would He deliberately create light from countless billions of stars which we would not be able to see yet if the universe was still young? Why would God try to decieve humans? And yet, if He isn't, then that proves Genesis untrue, and thus your belief in God as the creator goes out the window. Unless you believe God is a liar, which would have to be true for the universe to be young (because as I said before, the appearance of age would have to be a deliberate illusion). So which is it - is God a liar, and the bible untrustworthy, or is God nonexistant, and the bible untrustworthy.

Matthew 28:19
'Go and make disciples of all nations'

I.e. go and convert people to Christianity. There is a difference between Judaism and its relationship with the world, which necessitated that passage and Christianity and its relationship with the world, which brings about my passage.

You are free to chose atheism if you want, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your choice, or that it must be acknowledged as right. the same gos for homosexuality. It is a sin like any other. That doesn't mean that I am called to love a homosexual any less than anyone else. How does that, therefore, qualify as intolerant? Surely to deny me the right to believe that

It qualifies as intolerant because what you believe says that we should be killed for our beliefs. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Do you deny that Christians were persecuted and still are being? The persecution of atheists and persecution of Chrisitans are independent variables. Just because there's more of one, doesn't mean there's less of the other. The 20th century has seen more people martyred because they were Christians than any other time in history. Try looking outside the 'land of hope and glory' some time. Society is increasingly intolerant of Christians voicing their opinions. Protestantism has been declared a cult in France and street evangelism is outlawed (freedom of speech restricted). There are dozens of countries where declaring that you are a Christian will get you executed.

The only place where Christians are being persecuted are in nations controlled by a)communists, who don't recognize basic freedom of speech, and b)fundies of other religions, which just goes to prove our point about fundies being intolerant. On the other hand, even in open democratic nations, atheists are STILL being persecuted, and denied our rights. WE certainly didn't vote for G.W. Bush. Care to guess who his main supporters were? That's right - fundies. BTW, in all of the fundie-controlled countries, declaring yourself an atheist will also get you executed.

[data_link]

If this idiot thinks he can gain victory through exhaustion, he's going to find that I'm quite a bit more stubborn than his usual caliber of opponent.

[Darth Servo]

Well, the Mormons have North America covered in that regard.

All of the white people in it, anyway. Of course, now they pay lip service to minorities after the government threatened them ...

The government threatened them? Please share where this information came from.

[neoolong]

If this idiot thinks he can gain victory through exhaustion, he's going to find that I'm quite a bit more stubborn than his usual caliber of opponent.

Gah. That guy is a moron. I commend you on your stubborness.

[Utsanomiko]

If this idiot thinks he can gain victory through exhaustion, he's going to find that I'm quite a bit more stubborn than his usual caliber of opponent.

Gah. That guy is a moron. I commend you on your stubborness.

Even if he does wear data_link out, Jon is going to have a hell of a time getting through me and the absolute truth of my Sky Pixie. She says God doesn't exist, and Jon's argument is wrong by default.

[data_link]

This is a public service announcement to our resident fundie moron: we are still interested in debating you. Unless you want to concede the argument, I would suggest responding shortly.

[Darth Wong]

Well, the Mormons have North America covered in that regard.

All of the white people in it, anyway. Of course, now they pay lip service to minorities after the government threatened them ...

The government threatened them? Please share where this information came from.

The government was systematically removing tax exemptions from all institutions which practiced racial discrimination, starting in 1970 and moving through that decade.

Much of this is documented in the case of Bob Jones University vs the United States. A federal court ruled that a university could not maintain a white-supremacist policy and expect to be exempt from taxation, since this would amount to government approval of racial discrimination.

It is true that the government never publicly threatened the Mormons, but the Mormons coincidentally removed their whites-only policy in 1978, right in the midst of this systematic removal of tax exemption from discriminatory institutions. One could argue that it was mere coincidence that they suddenly discovered the Bible to not advocate white-supremacy in the midst of this government campaign, but honestly, one would have to be quite naive to do so.

[Jonathan]

This is a public service announcement to our resident fundie moron: we are still interested in debating you. Unless you want to concede the argument, I would suggest responding shortly.

I'm compiling the historical evidence that was asked for, which takes time. And I'm still only up to page 10, so it'll be a while before I can reply to everyone. In fact, I think it would take too long to reply individually, so would anyone object if I simply made a new post, giving my evidence and clearly outlining my position and opinions so that there can be no misunderstanding? I think that the start of this debate was a little heated and things weren't read that should have been. How about we start over?

BTW, I have no intention of wearing any of you out, particularly since I myself am busy and understand the pressures of life. If anyone stops debating, I'll simply assume it's because they have more pressing things to do. I'm here to score a 'victory' through people giving up. I'm here to share ideas and let people know what I really think. Sure, it would be nice if people changed their minds and came over to my way of thinking, but that's not my main goal here.
Oh and if anyone is sceptical that I'm an Oxford physics student (I think I saw someone scoffing th idea) go to http://homepage.mac.com/jonathanboyd/photos/ and laugh at what a total prat I look like in sub-fusc. I won't begrudge anyone a laugh at me after seeing that

[Durandal]

Much of this is documented in the case of Bob Jones University vs the United States. A federal court ruled that a university could not maintain a white-supremacist policy and expect to be exempt from taxation, since this would amount to government approval of racial discrimination.

Now, if only they'd recognize that tax-exemption of religious institutions amounts to government approval of religion, we'd be set.

[Justforfun000]

Actually it was myself who was scoffing, but it wasn't at you being a physics STUDENT. Earlier in the posts you claimed to be a scientist. That is a huge difference. In any event, I truly hope they do teach you well in university, and god forbid they teach you by rote instead of instructing you in the true understanding of the scientific method and logic.

I feel a little better knowing you are much younger than I assumed, and are still going though school. It was so discouraging to think of you as someone finished with academic learning and likely to have no further chance in learning proper logic.

Mind you there is no guarantee you WILL, but at least there's a chance.

Suggestion. Print off some of the debates given and show them to some people and get their response. Preferably people with no clear decision towards atheism or Christianity. Agnostic would be ideal. Don't even bother asking opinions of definite believers because they will likely NOT look at this objectively. Same with atheists, although they would be objective and very likely fair, it would be too tempting to say they were being biased.

I think it would be good for you to verbalize some of the points flung back and forth here out loud with other people and see if the discussion might bring home some things you have not truly grasped.

I really hate to sound patronizing, but Jonathan, when you have a dozen people or more all agreeing on certain points and just ONE (you) saying otherwise, you really should look at the likelihood of you being the one in error. There's a saying I like that sums it up. "If one man calls you an ass, ignore him. If 10 men call you an ass, buy a saddle".

I know you think that everyone here is on each other's "side" because we're a big amorphous group of proud atheists. Wrong. I'm not an atheist. I have not always agreed with some on this board. I read many posts where there have been differences between members of the boards, and some of it is because there ARE Christians here that are still respected because they know what is logical and what is not and are not trying to bend reality to suit an argument.

Anyhow, I hope you really try to understand the points being made against you and not dismiss them as irrelevant because of SUBJECTIVE reasons. I"m not arguing with you that subjective reality is unimportant, but ANYTIME objective analysis is available to be had, it MUST be deferred to. This is a singularly imperative point that you have to understand for further discussion to be fruitful.

[Justforfun000]

Now, if only they'd recognize that tax-exemption of religious institutions amounts to government approval of religion, we'd be set.

You said it. Here in Ontario they had a huge issue over a gay kid in a Catholic School wanting to bring his boyfriend to the prom and them saying no. One of the contentions was that this school along with many other other christian institutions, is publicly funded.

I was debating for weeks religiously (ouch) on a chat board set up by supporters of the kid. We got the usual slew of fundies of course, and also some just bigoted assholes. It disgusted me though how the arguments the school sympathizers were making centered around a simple thing when you distill it. "We believe we have the right to be funded publicly and FORCE as well as teach our beliefs system on children attending our school. We should not have to respect any other opinions, or laws of the land such as the Canadian Charter of rights & Freedoms".

Of course they did not argue it quite so BLUNTLY, but it is EXACTLY what they were saying. I was so pissed at the audacity of this I tirelessly besieged school sympathizers, and even had a one on one with the Catholic Civil Rights League, a Michael Connell. Actually Mike also read his diatribe and ripped it to shreds. it was quite amusing.
After sending his response and mine back to him, we never heard from him again. Actually, I think I have a copy somewhere of mine. I'll post it as a new topic if any of you wish to read it. It will show you that they still use the same tiresome tactics regardless of age or position. *sigh*

I also make an argument against parents being allowed to indiscriminately decide how they wish to brainwash their children by religion picking, and personally if I had MY way I wouldn't allow impressionable children to be taught religion as anything OTHER than cultural beliefs that are presented with the understanding that this is NOT something that has equal validity to Geography and Math.

You can imagine the flak I got on that one.

[Justforfun000]

By the way, when do i become more than a newbie?

I don't have the time to post as much as others, but I've been a member for awhile now.

[Ghost Rider]

51 posts I believe...

[Justforfun000]

Hmmm, I wonder where Jonathan went?

Sometimes I think I'm a thread killer. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but when I post something it seems the threads die. LOL.

[data_link]

He hasn't been back since I posted my last rebuttal, except to answer my accusation about his not coming back. More than likely, he's realized he can't answer my points and is desperately running around the library looking for something that can. Never mind that it doesn't even occur to him that the reason he can't answer me is because he's wrong. Really, if he'd just concede the argument I might even be able to convince Wong to remove his Fundie Moron title. But anyway, Justforfun00, don't blame yourself for him running away, I'm the one who did that.

[fennyCWAL]

Wanna know how I'd do it?

I'd educate the people, and close down religious schools. I would place the emphasis on science, and take religion out of the educational system, every last bit of it.

Then, if you want to be fancy about it, I'd ban fundementalism. Anybody caught preaching this bull would be executed right on the spot.

I honestly see no other way. They won't face up to reality, and they're dragging us and our children and their children along with them in their ride of delusions.

[Darth Wong]

BTW, I have no intention of wearing any of you out, particularly since I myself am busy and understand the pressures of life. If anyone stops debating, I'll simply assume it's because they have more pressing things to do. I'm here to score a 'victory' through people giving up. I'm here to share ideas and let people know what I really think. Sure, it would be nice if people changed their minds and came over to my way of thinking, but that's not my main goal here.

Your main goal is to get people to stop thinking, and blindly accept the literal truth of "facts" which are both scientifically absurd and self-contradictory.

Oh and if anyone is sceptical that I'm an Oxford physics student (I think I saw someone scoffing th idea) go to http://homepage.mac.com/jonathanboyd/photos/ and laugh at what a total prat I look like in sub-fusc. I won't begrudge anyone a laugh at me after seeing that

Have you managed to convince your professors that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old yet? Or that the Bible represents objective data? Or are you carefully avoiding those issues in order to avoid being flunked out of the program? It will be hard maintaining that double-life, Jonathan.

[XPViking]

It is true that the government never publicly threatened the Mormons, but the Mormons coincidentally removed their whites-only policy in 1978, right in the midst of this systematic removal of tax exemption from discriminatory institutions. One could argue that it was mere coincidence that they suddenly discovered the Bible to not advocate white-supremacy in the midst of this government campaign, but honestly, one would have to be quite naive to do so. - Darth Wong

That is interesting. The Mormon religion does have a mechanism in place to justify current revelations. It could be argued that, like most other religions, that they will change their present form in order to survive.

XPViking

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

It is true that the government never publicly threatened the Mormons, but the Mormons coincidentally removed their whites-only policy in 1978, right in the midst of this systematic removal of tax exemption from discriminatory institutions. One could argue that it was mere coincidence that they suddenly discovered the Bible to not advocate - in the midst of this government campaign, but honestly, one would have to be quite naive to do so. - Darth Wong

That is interesting. The Mormon religion does have a mechanism in place to justify current revelations. It could be argued that, like most other religions, that they will change their present form in order to survive.

XPViking

Of course, God's telling them to do so. After all, God doesn't want the Mormon's tax-exempt status revoked.

[XPViking]

I should clarify. The Mormon religion does have a mechanism in place that allows them to alter doctrines of the Church. This usually comes about by revelations. Whether that is the case here I don't know.

XPViking


Edit: here is the mechanism, the ninth Article of Faith:

"We believe that all the Lord has revealed and will yet reveal many great and glorious truths pertaining to the kingdom."

Edit: replaced "Scripture" with "doctrines of the Church"

[Coyote]

A few years ago I saw a film called "The Godmakers", which is an admittedly anti-Mormon crusade. However, they did base their research on the doctrines of the church, and it stated that in the early days of creation there had been a war in heaven (God, Jesus on one side, Lucifer on the other). Humanity, as unborn souls, chose sides-- the ones that chose to be with God were slated to become angels after life on Earth, those that sided with Lucifer became devils & demons.

The ones that chose neutrality and did not partake in the fight were "cursed with black skin and forced to walk in degradation upon the Earth". Now, I never looked this up to confirm it, but I've heard that phrase before in some Mormon circles unrelated to the film, so I am thinking it may be in there somewhere.

Other things? Yeah, revelation of the church president (or, I think, by any member of the Quorum of Twelve) can lead to a change in policy. Used to be Mormones couldn't drink Coke (caffeiene) but after a "revelation" (and the purchase of a controlling interest of this profitable stock) it was deemed that Coke was okay to drink as long as it was served at room tempurature.

Also, you can't go swimming on Sundays-- that is when the rule of God is on the land, and the Devil is banished to rule only over the waters. So the Devil lives in your pool on Sunday.

The Mormon church is huge out here in Boise, in fact probably half the population, and you can't help picking up some of this stuff just by being here...

[Ghost Rider]

If the Devil is in the water on Sunday ...what the hell do you drink then ?