Creation museum causes Chrisitans to feud... lawsuits ensue

[General Zod]

Bzzt. As of the 60s or 70s (a few decades ago, I forget precisely which) the KKK leaders fractured the Klan membership and declared that there was to no longer be a centralized group and each one is on its own. They're no more unified than Christianity. I don't know enough about the flat earthers to say one way or the other.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance of the KKK. But my general point is still valid.

Your complaint was that the KKK was united, therefore not a valid comparison. Your point no longer holds water. Try again.

Other than the not taking it seriously bit (and it's pretty clear you're not a fan of Christianity), I agree with you. Hence my reasoning that blanket statements about Christianity are inherently false.

Enough people fit the mold for some blanket statements apply. Not all KKK members might be jew haters, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't call everyone who belonged to the KKK a racist fuckwit. (For example).

[Insert Username Here]

Your complaint was that the KKK was united, therefore not a valid comparison. Your point no longer holds water. Try again.

No, my point was more that Christianity isn't united. The KKK was an example that apparently doesn't fit. So insert any other reasonably large, united group in place of the KKK. I assumed you would figure that one out.

Enough people fit the mold for some blanket statements apply.

Not the blanket statement I took issue with. And it doesn't exactly help a person's debating cred to use them.

[General Zod]

Your complaint was that the KKK was united, therefore not a valid comparison. Your point no longer holds water. Try again.

No, my point was more that Christianity isn't united. The KKK was an example that apparently doesn't fit. So insert any other reasonably large, united group in place of the KKK. I assumed you would figure that one out.

Then you can provide a reason why the KKK is not a valid analogy beyond "it doesn't fit", which is hardly a valid reason if you don't explain "why" it doesn't fit.

Not the blanket statement I took issue with. And it doesn't exactly help a person's debating cred to use them.

[Insert Username Here]

Then you can provide a reason why the KKK is not a valid analogy beyond "it doesn't fit", which is hardly a valid reason if you don't explain "why" it doesn't fit.

You're the one who pointed out that the KKK is not a valid analogy. Do you want me to prove you right on that after I accepted your correction?

[General Zod]

Then you can provide a reason why the KKK is not a valid analogy beyond "it doesn't fit", which is hardly a valid reason if you don't explain "why" it doesn't fit.

You're the one who pointed out that the KKK is not a valid analogy. Do you want me to prove you right on that after I accepted your correction?

My point is that just because a group is not entirely unified (name one large, nationwide group that is) doesn't mean we can't make generalizations that would apply to the majority of its members. The KKK being racist fuckwits despite not all of them being racist towards all groups equally, for example. Likewise we can call most religious fundamentalists delusional whackjobs for believing that they've been singled out by their magic sky pixie for an important calling.

[Darth Wong]

Hence my reasoning that blanket statements about Christianity are inherently false.

But blanket statements about blanket statements about Christianity aren't?

[Insert Username Here]

My point is that just because a group is not entirely unified (name one large, nationwide group that is) doesn't mean we can't make generalizations that would apply to the majority of its members. The KKK being racist fuckwits despite not all of them being racist towards all groups equally, for example. Likewise we can call most religious fundamentalists delusional whackjobs for believing that they've been singled out by their magic sky pixie for an important calling.

Ah! Now see, if the generalization was about religious fundamentalists, I wouldn't have had a problem, because they're a more unified (though not officially) subset of Christianity, and a generalization is more likely to be accurate in that case.

But blanket statements about blanket statements about Christianity aren't?

Exactly! Man, we're totally on the same wavelength here.

[General Zod]

My point is that just because a group is not entirely unified (name one large, nationwide group that is) doesn't mean we can't make generalizations that would apply to the majority of its members. The KKK being racist fuckwits despite not all of them being racist towards all groups equally, for example. Likewise we can call most religious fundamentalists delusional whackjobs for believing that they've been singled out by their magic sky pixie for an important calling.

Ah! Now see, if the generalization was about religious fundamentalists, I wouldn't have had a problem, because they're a more unified (though not officially) subset of Christianity, and a generalization is more likely to be accurate in that case.

You're an idiot if you think religious fundamentalism is a unique sect in and of itself. You have Baptist fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists, Evangelical fundamentalists, Islam fundamentalists. . .see where I'm going with this?

[Darth Wong]

Saying that all blanket statements about Christianity are false is itself an easily falsified statement. For example, "All Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ" is a blanket statement about Christianity, yet it is not false. I'm afraid you'll have to do better than simply pointing out that a statement is a blanket statement.

[Superman]

First, I am totally NOT evangelical.

Alright, noted.

Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. The KKK and the Flat Earth Society are unified groups. They all believe more or less the same thing and are united. Christianity isn't. Their belief in Christ as the Savior is about where the similarity ends. Different Christian churches have vastly different beliefs, mind sets, attitudes, political desires, etc. Making a sweeping generalization about Christians based on, for example, the Creationists is completely misplaced because other Christian faiths stand at odds with the Creationists and don't believe the same thing.

That's a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

How does a group's unity, or lack thereof, make a statement less true?

Don't all Christians use the Bible as their holy book? Don't all Christians believe that Jesus was the son of god? Can we not say that the KKK is made up of a bunch of racist shit heads?

[Insert Username Here]

You're an idiot if you think religious fundamentalism is a unique sect in and of itself. You have Baptist fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists, Evangelical fundamentalists, Islam fundamentalists. . .see where I'm going with this?

But this issue in particular deals with a certain group of fundamentalists. So a statement about fundamentalists on this topic wouldn't encompass all those you mention.

But I agree, fundamentalists is not a unique sect. On this issue, however, I believe they are. (Or close enough, anyway.)

Saying that all blanket statements about Christianity are false is itself an easily falsified statement. For example, "All Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ" is a blanket statement about Christianity, yet it is not false. I'm afraid you'll have to do better than simply pointing out that a statement is a blanket statement.

Stop messing up my blanket statements with logic!

So yeah, I'll concede that point. But one point I (more or less) made earlier was that outside of the fact that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ (and maybe a belief in the Bible as the word of God), there really isn't a blanket statement that you could apply to all of Christianity. Not one that I can think of, anyway. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will tell me...

[Darth Wong]

Stop messing up my blanket statements with logic!

So yeah, I'll concede that point. But one point I (more or less) made earlier was that outside of the fact that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ (and maybe a belief in the Bible as the word of God), there really isn't a blanket statement that you could apply to all of Christianity. Not one that I can think of, anyway. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will tell me...

I already gave an example before: all of you think that the creator of the entire universe cares deeply about you, and not about the "lesser" animals such as cockroaches. To even argue that the creator of the universe cares about biological life at all is egotistical, when most of the universe is devoid of it.

If you believe a God created the universe, we are the fungus in the corners of his Creation. It is religious egocentrism to believe otherwise.

[Insert Username Here]

That's a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

How does a group's unity, or lack thereof, make a statement less true?

Don't all Christians use the Bible as their holy book? Don't all Christians believe that Jesus was the son of god? Can we not say that the KKK is made up of a bunch of racist shit heads?

I guess my point is that unity is important if you are going to pass judgement on a group's belief or character. Yes, you can say the KKK is made up of a bunch of racist shit heads because, well, they are. But outside of the two you mention, the same doesn't hold with Christians. Are all Christians racist shit heads? No, but some are. Are they all homophobes? No, but some are. The list goes on.

By 'unity' I was meaning unity in belief. Christians are only unified as a group in a couple very core, very basic believe. Then they split wildly from there.

That's really the only point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to makee.

[Insert Username Here]

I already gave an example before: all of you think that the creator of the entire universe cares deeply about you, and not about the "lesser" animals such as cockroaches. To even argue that the creator of the universe cares about biological life at all is egotistical, when most of the universe is devoid of it.

If you believe a God created the universe, we are the fungus in the corners of his Creation. It is religious egocentrism to believe otherwise.

Yes, and I'll buy that. Though like I said earlier, egotism isn't the word I would use for it, and I think it's more a religious generality than specifically a Christian one.

[General Zod]

You're an idiot if you think religious fundamentalism is a unique sect in and of itself. You have Baptist fundamentalists, Catholic fundamentalists, Evangelical fundamentalists, Islam fundamentalists. . .see where I'm going with this?

But this issue in particular deals with a certain group of fundamentalists. So a statement about fundamentalists on this topic wouldn't encompass all those you mention.

I specifically said "religious fundamentalists" "general", asshole. So don't try distorting what I said to fit what you want it to say.

But I agree, fundamentalists is not a unique sect. On this issue, however, I believe they are. (Or close enough, anyway.)

Please, do backpedal faster. Or do you always make this many backhanded concessions?

So yeah, I'll concede that point. But one point I (more or less) made earlier was that outside of the fact that all Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ (and maybe a belief in the Bible as the word of God), there really isn't a blanket statement that you could apply to all of Christianity. Not one that I can think of, anyway. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will tell me...

"Delusional" comes to mind.

[Darth Wong]

By 'unity' I was meaning unity in belief. Christians are only unified as a group in a couple very core, very basic believe. Then they split wildly from there.

Even once you get past the core beliefs that 100% of Christians share, and which are intrinsically egotistical as mentioned before (sorry, but if a loaded word is accurate, then it's still the right word), there are also dangerous beliefs that the overwhelming majority of Christians share, like the notion that morality comes from religion.

[Insert Username Here]

I specifically said "religious fundamentalists" "general", asshole. So don't try distorting what I said to fit what you want it to say.

I wasn't referring to your comment. I've been referring to Superman's original post on this topic. Deal with it.

Please, do backpedal faster. Or do you always make this many backhanded concessions?

Only when I'm conceding a point that bears little relevance to what I'm talking about.

"Delusional" comes to mind.

A lot of things come to my mind, but I'll refrain from the shit slinging for now.

[Insert Username Here]

Even once you get past the core beliefs that 100% of Christians share, and which are intrinsically egotistical as mentioned before (sorry, but if a loaded word is accurate, then it's still the right word), there are also dangerous beliefs that the overwhelming majority of Christians share, like the notion that morality comes from religion.

Not sure how that's a dangerous belief. I suppose most Christians share it. I don't know if morality comes from religion or if religion is based on morality. And I don't see how it matters either way. But that's a different discussion, I imagine.

[Darth Wong]

Even once you get past the core beliefs that 100% of Christians share, and which are intrinsically egotistical as mentioned before (sorry, but if a loaded word is accurate, then it's still the right word), there are also dangerous beliefs that the overwhelming majority of Christians share, like the notion that morality comes from religion.

Not sure how that's a dangerous belief.

A belief is dangerous when one could easily construct a fairly logical deduction from it that is destructive. The belief that morality comes from religion is dangerous because if you believe it, then it is logical to conclude that a society without religion would be immoral. Hence, in order to have a moral society, you need to make sure that it is infused with religion. Which means, functionally speaking, forcing religion down other peoples' throats. In other words, theocracy. And lo and behold, the vast majority of Christians throughout history have always favoured some form of theocracy, where their beliefs are enforced by the weapons of government.

I suppose most Christians share it. I don't know if morality comes from religion or if religion is based on morality. And I don't see how it matters either way. But that's a different discussion, I imagine.

You don't see how it's harmful because you're so accustomed to it that you don't equate its fallout with it (assuming you're enlightened enough to understand that theocracy is a bad thing; if you're not, then there's a completely different reason why you would not think it's dangerous).

[General Zod]

I wasn't referring to your comment. I've been referring to Superman's original post on this topic. Deal with it.

It's called "context". You quoted me when you were responding and I damned sure wasn't referring to just "Christian Fundies". Next time I suggest not strawmanning people.

Only when I'm conceding a point that bears little relevance to what I'm talking about.

Translation: "Only when I've been caught backpedaling a response I was too stupid to do basic research on."

A lot of things come to my mind, but I'll refrain from the shit slinging for now.

Perhaps it's just me but there's not many other things you can call someone who believes in magic sky pixies that promise to grant them eternal life by worshiping them anything but delusional.

[Insert Username Here]

You don't see how it's harmful because you're so accustomed to it that you don't equate its fallout with it (assuming you're enlightened enough to understand that theocracy is a bad thing; if you're not, then there's a completely different reason why you would not think it's dangerous).

Heh. Probably more the former than the latter. Unless I get to be in charge of the theocracy.

Honestly, I've never really thought about which came first between morality or religion.

[Insert Username Here]

Perhaps it's just me but there's not many other things you can call someone who believes in magic sky pixies that promise to grant them eternal life by worshiping them anything but delusional.

You've got some serious issues with religion. Your folks force you to Sunday School every week as a child or something?

[Surlethe]

"Delusional" comes to mind.

A lot of things come to my mind, but I'll refrain from the shit slinging for now.

Do you think he's wrong? We Christians are indeed irrational; that's another of the reasons why our faith is potentially dangerous, even though it can be used for good, as well. If you don't think irrationality and faith are potentially dangerous, think back to a sunny Tuesday morning in September 2001.

That's why we have to keep a close eye on faith. Sentiments like "morality only comes from religion" are destructive to society, and since there's no objective evidence to back it up, anyone who takes it to be true is taking it on faith. That's the sort of thing you always have to keep in mind when you're thinking about Christianity: live the good parts of the traditions, reject the evil parts.

A belief is dangerous when one could easily construct a fairly logical deduction from it that is destructive. The belief that morality comes from religion is dangerous because if you believe it, then it is logical to conclude that a society without religion would be immoral.

Nitpick: strictly speaking, that's a non-sequitur: it only follows if the belief is that morality only comes from religion. Of course, that's what most brainwashed religionists believe, so this is only a nitpick. And people confuse contrapositives and inverses all the time, anyway.

[General Zod]

Perhaps it's just me but there's not many other things you can call someone who believes in magic sky pixies that promise to grant them eternal life by worshiping them anything but delusional.

You've got some serious issues with religion. Your folks force you to Sunday School every week as a child or something?

I could go off naming my issues with it, but that would wind up taking several pages most likely, and derailing the thread (even more). Derogatory remarks on subjects by shitheads who don't understand what the fuck they're talking about being one of my problems.

[Surlethe]

Honestly, I've never really thought about which came first between morality or religion.

It should be obvious when you realize that there are moral atheists and immoral Christians.