Its not just that some attempts at secularism in the past werent successful. Its that no attempts

not even one

was successful. That indicates to me a fundamentally unworkable set of values. periods with secular values are brief and are bracketed on both sides by longer periods of religious values. religious values are stable. they work. they have a long track record. the record of secular values are much sketchier.

We cant argue meaingfully about the modern period because no one knows how secularism will play out in europe or the united states etc. I'd hazard a guess it will fail in those places for the same reason it failed in the past, but thats just speculation.
AF

Wwll, religious periods tend to be ruled by an iron fist that is not to be argued with under penalty of stoning, burning, racks, public executions in various gruesome forms. Perhaps that is why they last longer. The marriage between a monarchy and the church was a mutually assured boon for both of them so it took a while for either side to diss their conspiratorial partner in crime. The pope says the king is ordained by god... the king likes this... the king says the pope speaks for god... the pope likes this... so pay your taxes peasants to the king and fess up your tithe to our clerical brothers. Lovely racketteering scheme. Two baseless claims on power each tooting each other's horn to take advantage of the ignorant.

Guitardian
maybe it is why they last longer. have you considered the possibility that people are by nature selfish, violent, short-sighted, stupid - and that only the strong hand of government and of religion working together keeps their basically savage nature from destroying every achievement of civilization? What would our lives be without order imposed from above? A savage, endless war of all against all, incapable of resolution, from which no one benefits. If it takes a little despotism to prevent that then I'm for it. And if it requires the backing of religion to make it stick, then I'm for that too. People who dont believe in God after all dont fear God or divine punishments - they just fear the police man and going to jail. Maybe under those circumstances civilization is totally impossible.

If that seems like a nightmare scenario then reflect just how damn rotten your average human being is when on one's watching. A little divine wrath might straighten people up a bit. Hopefully though the industrial revolution has made different kinds of government possible. I think that our nature is basically so bad that some element of religion is required, but hopefully not despotism. I dont think your average human being is constitutionally capable of going through life without belief in the divine. So that by itself tells against secular values.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:General
some areas of the bible have widely different versions depending on what manuscript we're using. For instance the end of the gospel of mark. apparently in some of the oldest manuscripts Jesus doesnt rise from the dead. He just dies.
AF

How bout a source?

GG

I gak you not

In Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament Metzger states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription."

The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20." No major English translation mentions any of the patristic evidence from the 100's that favors the inclusion of the "Longer Ending."




Just google it I'm not telling you stories.
AF

The argument that the Bible varies from version to version is almost always used as argument against biblical inerrancy. In that sense its fairly strong, given the absence of true source material.

A better argument regarding inerrancy is the variation in canon.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its not just that some attempts at secularism in the past werent successful. Its that no attempts

not even one

was successful.

And not one Religious one was successful either. Since you exclude anything that is current, all civilizations that data can be collected on for this experiment must have fallen...Secular and Religious as well.

dogma wrote:The argument that the Bible varies from version to version is almost always used as argument against biblical inerrancy. In that sense its fairly strong, given the absence of true source material.

A better argument regarding inerrancy is the variation in canon.

well I dont really have anything to say about how variations in the versions etc reflects on the truth of its contents. I do think some christians have gotten some pretty bad information about their book from "apologists" and other interested parties.

There's also the post that prompted to say that the world is round. It translates from Hebrew as "enthroned on the circle of Earth" and there are better words describing a sphere or round shape in the language. The word for circle (flat 2d object) is used. Various flat adjectives are used especially when concerning the 'ends' of the earth.

Or how about that 2 of the 4 books leave out the virgin birth? Pretty important part there.

Further, there have been texts found with varying ages that change what the number of the beast is, how many were slain at such and such battle, how many God commanded to slay etc. And let's not forget centuries of years of editing by the Vatican allowing which texts to be in the Bible or other scripture.

*edited for more examples

generalgrog wrote:

mrwhoop wrote:Well, noone should really take the Bible as the word of God as it's gone though so many renditions and translations. Hebrew to Greek/Latin to Middle English to King James Version to *shudder* the newest edition which takes the poetic rhythm out. But then maybe it should be taken as the literal word as one person said to me "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me"

I hate the South so very, very much. The very marrow of my bones seethes in this Bible belt.

*edited for grammar

Also your notion that the "The Bible has been through so many renditions and translations" line is used over and over again, by the unstudied and uninformed. The fact of the matter is, while there are some minor transcriptions errors in the Bible(that do not effect any major orthodox doctrine), when you look at the 1,000's of manuscripts, it's quite remarkable how little was changed. Not to mention the minuscule differences(again no doctrine affected) between the dead sea scrolls and the modern Old Testament.(2,000 years between them)

GG

Well, I got you here GG.

Consider the difference between the following:

"Verily, I say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with me in paradise"

and:

"Verily I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise"

The first version is the Protestant interpretation of the passage. (Luke, xxiii, 43)

It skips over Purgatory and takes the thief being crucified alongside Jesus straight to heaven.

The second version is the Catholic interpretation, and promises Paradise at a later date, leaving purgatory nicely in the picture for Catholics who believe in it.

And all because of a "minor transcription error".

Would you not agree that that little comma switcheroo has a rather massive impact on doctrine?


*I stole this example from Lynne Truss' fantastic book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"

skyth wrote:
And not one Religious one was successful either. Since you exclude anything that is current, all civilizations that data can be collected on for this experiment must have fallen...Secular and Religious as well.

nonsense.

What part in nonsense? I took your theory and your method of determining it, and applied it to religious cultures and found the same result.

sebster wrote:We're still free to debate what God might want, whether he'd actually care if two dudes got it on. And more importantly, whether personal faith is enough to force one's beliefs onto another person.

But that debate is utterly pointless when, out of some misguided notion of politeness, we have to give theists a pass on having a testable, rational and falsifiable position. You can't have a debate when you start by agreeing that one side can jst say anything they want without ever being called out on it.

Now, it may just be that you're here to win and so you don't care - you're going to keep on insisting your take was reasonable no matter how clearly it wasn't. But it might be that you're hear to talk, maybe share some idea, in which case I think it might be best for you to think about how you go about reading other people's posts - do you really stop to consider the context? Do you look to understand their point, or skim looking for something to prove them wrong on?

I did read your comment in context, and my reading of it was quite fair. You're meaning was not as clear as you think.

all of it. Egyptian civilization survived for about 4000 years on a religious basis. I call that a success. Chinese civilization right up to the present day for about 4000 too. Thats success. French Italian Russian etc etc right up to the present day on an almost entirely religious basis. Those are successes. I excluded modern societies because you dont know how they'll end up so its not fair to make any final judgements. you just decided that because modern societies are outside my cut off date then anything that isnt modern isnt around anymore so they must have been failures. thats ridiculous. straiten up.
AF

I like this idea of using only the most negative people as examples to represent each side.

There is also the attitude that only religious people are intolerant and atheists are the only rational people being tossed around which is fairly fun as well.

Monster Rain wrote:Unless he edited it it should still be in the other thread, as it was definitely said. There was an attempt to weasel out of it when he was told how crazy it was, and was likely a mistake to bring up because it will only serve to cast all other statements he makes in an unfavorable light. To even think that killing 18 month olds is a reasonable thing to say smacks of asperger's.

I never said that killing 18 month old babies is a reasonable thing to do, in fact I clearly argued that it was not. So don't lie.

You jerks keep bringing it up, but you know what none of you will do? Try to engage the point in a reasonable manner. No, instead you attack me personally for saying it, but not one of you has even tried to engage the idea. Not one of you is willing to deal rationally with the consequences of declaring personhood at conception.

I picked 18 months because that's when self-awareness can be proven, so it seems less arbitrary than saying "at birth," which doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. We can argue that point if you want, but bringing it up out of context in order to bash on me and avoid the actual argument in front of us? All that does is demonstrate how completely dishonest and disingenuous you are.

Also, has there been a rash of Gay Stonings that I am unaware of? Someone that would indicate that that mainstream Christianity would advocate such a thing has so little concept of what they are talking about I should think it wouldn't even be worth refuting.

Try Islamic countries. Happens all the time.

And gays get bashed all the time in America. Plus gays are constantly under legal attack from the Christian right. If you think God's supposed hatred of gays has nothing to do with this, you're utterly deluded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:all of it. Egyptian civilization survived for about 4000 years on a religious basis. I call that a success. Chinese civilization right up to the present day for about 4000 too. Thats success. French Italian Russian etc etc right up to the present day on an almost entirely religious basis. Those are successes. I excluded modern societies because you dont know how they'll end up so its not fair to make any final judgements. you just decided that because modern societies are outside my cut off date then anything that isnt modern isnt around anymore so they must have been failures. thats ridiculous. straiten up.
AF

You really have no grounds for calling anyone ridiculous, AF. France has been secular for over a hundred years. Russia was communist for most of the 20th century, and thus embraced a policy of atheism. You're basically just making stuff up, and playing fast and loose with definitions, in order to twist facts to fit your case.

Bruce Metzger of Princeton was a fairly controversial guy, even though well respected. Mark 16:9-20 was quoted by some of the early church fathers (2nd century). This is what happens many times, because some of the surviving 1st century texts don't have 9-20 doesn't automatically = someone edited those verses in. It also in no way = a "wildly different version", even if it was added after the fact.(which is an unprovable theory from the start).

So we have a few possibilities.
1) The original actually had more to it than ending at verse 8
2) The original did end at verse 8
3) Somehow the early copies lost some of the text after verse 8, (assuming there was more)
4) Someone added verses 9-20 at a later date.

Regardless of which scenario happened, there was no "wild difference", since if it was left out, everything else up to that point was in agreement with the other texts, and if was indeed edited it still agrees with everything else.

These kinds of difficulties are only really problems to people that think that the Modern Bible is somehow supposed to be totally non influenced by man at all. The fact is, that it was men that translated it and men did make transcription mistakes. (however slight they may be). As stated before, there are really only a few "controversial" texts out of may thousands of texts and text pieces (some are only bits and pieces of a certain passage or book) and biblical scholars are well aware of these.

GG

skyth wrote:And not one Religious one was successful either. Since you exclude anything that is current, all civilizations that data can be collected on for this experiment must have fallen...Secular and Religious as well.

The Vatican is gone?

I need to watch more news...

Gailbraithe wrote:And gays get bashed all the time in America.

Meh. Violent crimes should be punished. I don't think anyone is saying that they shouldn't be. Your hysterical ranting about this seems unnecessary.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.

A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.

This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.

well we're just using different words to describe the same thing.
We don't know that a scientist's theory is true by any means other than watching how his theory plays out in the physical world. Did what he said would happen actually happen? Well I would argue that we can look for results in the field of religion and make similar inferrences. If followers of XYZ religion consistently commit suicide, then for gods sake lets all avoid that religion. If followers of ABC religion live happy and prosperous lives, then let's investigate the cause of that. (protestants have a higher rate of suicide than catholics btw. did you know that? I think thats fascinating. anyway...) It's not a scientific experiment, but in both cases I'm making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe. In a field where methodology and experimentation are impossible, in the rigorous sense of science, I think its fair. Unless there's a better way available.....?

You make a jump... and this is what I am pointing out.

Your are jumping and saying that the simple process of Observing a phenomenon, Explaining the pattern you see, Making a prediction based on your explanation, and then testing it is the same thing as (in your words...) "making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome" which to me doesn't even make sense...

Did you mean: Conclusions inferred from multiple observations may be tested by additional observations?

You can't draw inferences from a theory... inferences would come from observations! the inferences as you put them ARE the theory.... The way I read what you said... (making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe) sounds like you're making a theory about a theory?

Or do you mean "I'm revising my theory based on the results of my observational experiment?"

I just require clarification of your idea : )

Gail
France has been secular for about 250 years out of a total history of about 1500. That's why I said ALMOST entirely religious. Read, then type.
AF

generalgrog wrote:
These kinds of difficulties are only really problems to people that think that the Modern Bible is somehow supposed to be totally non influenced by man at all. The fact is, that it was men that translated it and men did make transcription mistakes. (however slight they may be). As stated before, there are really only a few "controversial" texts out of may thousands of texts and text pieces (some are only bits and pieces of a certain passage or book) and biblical scholars are well aware of these.

GG

Whoa... wait a minute here... a year ago you made exactly the argument I highlighted above....

You said there were no mistakes caused by man...

Have you changed your ideas?

Monster Rain wrote:

skyth wrote:And not one Religious one was successful either. Since you exclude anything that is current, all civilizations that data can be collected on for this experiment must have fallen...Secular and Religious as well.

The Vatican is gone?

I need to watch more news

The Vatican doesn't fit his definition.

AbaddonFidelis wrote: I only chose states whose history is known from beginning to end.

That excludes the Vatican.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gail
France has been secular for about 250 years out of a total history of about 1500. That's why I said ALMOST entirely religious. Read, then type.
AF

And this is what I mean by playing fast and loose. If you're going to claim France "survived" for 1500 despite being invaded multiple times, having multiple revolutions and restructurings, despite wave after wave of immigration, and constantly changing culture, then you have to grant that France has survived the last 250 years as a secular state.

Which completely destroys your claim that no secular society survives.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Well, I got you here GG.

Consider the difference between the following:

"Verily, I say unto thee, This day thou shalt be with me in paradise"

and:

"Verily I say unto thee this day, Thou shalt be with me in Paradise"

The first version is the Protestant interpretation of the passage. (Luke, xxiii, 43)

It skips over Purgatory and takes the thief being crucified alongside Jesus straight to heaven.

The second version is the Catholic interpretation, and promises Paradise at a later date, leaving purgatory nicely in the picture for Catholics who believe in it.

And all because of a "minor transcription error".

Would you not agree that that little comma switcheroo has a rather massive impact on doctrine?


*I stole this example from Lynne Truss' fantastic book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"

That's a good point rubicsnoob. Jehovah's witness' do the same thing in their New World Translation, because they don't believe in hell.

GG

Gailbraithe wrote:
You jerks keep bringing it up, but you know what none of you will do? Try to engage the point in a reasonable manner.

It's not something that deserves reasonable discussion. If you had denied the Holocaust or something I'm sure the treatment would be similar. What you said is that crazy.

generalgrog wrote:Bruce Metzger of Princeton was a fairly controversial guy, even though well respected. Mark 16:9-20 was quoted by some of the early church fathers (2nd century). This is what happens many times, because some of the surviving 1st century texts don't have 9-20 doesn't automatically = someone edited those verses in. It also in no way = a "wildly different version", even if it was added after the fact.(which is an unprovable theory from the start).

So we have a few possibilities.
1) The original actually had more to it than ending at verse 8
2) The original did end at verse 8
3) Somehow the early copies lost some of the text after verse 8, (assuming there was more)
4) Someone added verses 9-20 at a later date.

Regardless of which scenario happened, there was no "wild difference", since if it was left out, everything else up to that point was in agreement with the other texts, and if was indeed edited it still agrees with everything else.

These kinds of difficulties are only really problems to people that think that the Modern Bible is somehow supposed to be totally non influenced by man at all. The fact is, that it was men that translated it and men did make transcription mistakes. (however slight they may be). As stated before, there are really only a few "controversial" texts out of may thousands of texts and text pieces (some are only bits and pieces of a certain passage or book) and biblical scholars are well aware of these.

GG

How you interpret differences between the texts is open to debate, but the existence of those differences is not. You said the manuscripts agree almost all the time. I don't think that's accurate.if the last chapters of mark had been left out in just 1 or 2 instances then mb it would be an accident. But that the resurrection story starts appearing in later manuscripts rather abruptly leads me to believe it wasn't there in the 1st place. Anyway it's not just those 2 sources I mentioned. This is a pretty well known instance in biblical scholarship. I first became aware of it by reading Crossan. The information is pretty readily available. AF

frgsinwntr wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
These kinds of difficulties are only really problems to people that think that the Modern Bible is somehow supposed to be totally non influenced by man at all. The fact is, that it was men that translated it and men did make transcription mistakes. (however slight they may be). As stated before, there are really only a few "controversial" texts out of may thousands of texts and text pieces (some are only bits and pieces of a certain passage or book) and biblical scholars are well aware of these.

GG

Whoa... wait a minute here... a year ago you made exactly the argument I highlighted above....

You said there were no mistakes caused by man...

Have you changed your ideas?

frigs if I did say that, then yes I was in error. I would like to see my quote in context. :-)

GG

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
You jerks keep bringing it up, but you know what none of you will do? Try to engage the point in a reasonable manner.

It's not something that deserves reasonable discussion. If you had denied the Holocaust or something I'm sure the treatment would be similar. What you said is that crazy.

It's not crazy at all. Under current law we don't even recognize 17 year old children as having full rights. Your counter-argument isn't an argument at all, it's just a personal attack. And when someone makes a personal attack in lieu of an actual rebuttal? That person is generally recognized to have lost the debate.

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gail
France has been secular for about 250 years out of a total history of about 1500. That's why I said ALMOST entirely religious. Read, then type.
AF

And this is what I mean by playing fast and loose. If you're going to claim France "survived" for 1500 despite being invaded multiple times, having multiple revolutions and restructurings, despite wave after wave of immigration, and constantly changing culture, then you have to grant that France has survived the last 250 years as a secular state.

Which completely destroys your claim that no secular society survives.

What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
maybe it is why they last longer. have you considered the possibility that people are by nature selfish, violent, short-sighted, stupid - and that only the strong hand of government and of religion working together keeps their basically savage nature from destroying every achievement of civilization? What would our lives be without order imposed from above? A savage, endless war of all against all, incapable of resolution, from which no one benefits. If it takes a little despotism to prevent that then I'm for it. And if it requires the backing of religion to make it stick, then I'm for that too. People who dont believe in God after all dont fear God or divine punishments - they just fear the police man and going to jail. Maybe under those circumstances civilization is totally impossible.

If that seems like a nightmare scenario then reflect just how damn rotten your average human being is when on one's watching. A little divine wrath might straighten people up a bit. Hopefully though the industrial revolution has made different kinds of government possible. I think that our nature is basically so bad that some element of religion is required, but hopefully not despotism. I dont think your average human being is constitutionally capable of going through life without belief in the divine. So that by itself tells against secular values.
AF

I have to disagree with you. Needing a respect for a social order does not have to tie in to superstitious ghost stories to tell you to be nice. I belive there is a god, but I also believe that all human accounts for such a thing are self serving tools for worldly gain. Yes I agree people can be harsh, rude, cruel, and generally bad when not held to some accountability. We can have morals and idealism without needing the book of Bubba 13:11 telling us why. The problem I have isn't with the existance of a higher power, but why the specific ones detailed and (like the post chapter 8 stuff) quite possible conveniently made up for sociological reasons, quenched by the vatican, re-interpreted according to the times. Sorry, but Jesus didn't die for my sins. Jesus died. Let that be a lesson to people who think they are god I believe was what they were thinking at the time. Only later, with the lies of Paul, did Jesus become the demigod ideal he is so revered for with all the magical powers and godlight shining out of his butt.

So God is (probably) a real thing, that we cannot actually know. Why any specific religious take on it though? That is stories invented by people to serve people's purposes.

For all I know God is a giant uncaring amoeba and we are little atoms that make up it's big cosmic cell. God may not think at all as we can understand it, God just is. Religion as a social control mechanism and a 'necessary' despotism as you pointed out, is not the reflection of a higher power at work, but of our own failed natures needing to be kept in check by the fear of retribution from something that may or may not exist. I do fear cops because I have been wrongfully harassed by them before. I do not fear being struck by lightning for working on the sabbath though. I prefer to be good for goodness's sake, because it feels good to be good and helpful and kind and so on, not because I am afraid of some guy with a pitchfork slow roasting me till the end of time. It is a sign of weakness to invent supernatural stories as an excuse for idealism. Why not just have idealism for its own sake.

So my God says I must partake of no hot-dog-buns on friday because of the doctrine of the Origional Snub. Does that make me a good person? No. Helping out my old neighbor lady take out her lawn clippings to the curb makes me a good person, and God isn't responsible for that, I am.

Guitardian wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
maybe it is why they last longer. have you considered the possibility that people are by nature selfish, violent, short-sighted, stupid - and that only the strong hand of government and of religion working together keeps their basically savage nature from destroying every achievement of civilization? What would our lives be without order imposed from above? A savage, endless war of all against all, incapable of resolution, from which no one benefits. If it takes a little despotism to prevent that then I'm for it. And if it requires the backing of religion to make it stick, then I'm for that too. People who dont believe in God after all dont fear God or divine punishments - they just fear the police man and going to jail. Maybe under those circumstances civilization is totally impossible.

If that seems like a nightmare scenario then reflect just how damn rotten your average human being is when on one's watching. A little divine wrath might straighten people up a bit. Hopefully though the industrial revolution has made different kinds of government possible. I think that our nature is basically so bad that some element of religion is required, but hopefully not despotism. I dont think your average human being is constitutionally capable of going through life without belief in the divine. So that by itself tells against secular values.
AF

I have to disagree with you. Needing a respect for a social order does not have to tie in to superstitious ghost stories to tell you to be nice. I belive there is a god, but I also believe that all human accounts for such a thing are self serving tools for worldly gain. Yes I agree people can be harsh, rude, cruel, and generally bad when not held to some accountability. We can have morals and idealism without needing the book of Bubba 13:11 telling us why. The problem I have isn't with the existance of a higher power, but why the specific ones detailed and (like the post chapter 8 stuff) quite possible conveniently made up for sociological reasons, quenched by the vatican, re-interpreted according to the times. Sorry, but Jesus didn't die for my sins. Jesus died. Let that be a lesson to people who think they are god I believe was what they were thinking at the time. Only later, with the lies of Paul, did Jesus become the demigod ideal he is so revered for with all the magical powers and godlight shining out of his butt.

So God is (probably) a real thing, that we cannot actually know. Why any specific religious take on it though? That is stories invented by people to serve people's purposes.

For all I know God is a giant uncaring amoeba and we are little atoms that make up it's big cosmic cell. God may not think at all as we can understand it, God just is. Religion as a social control mechanism and a 'necessary' despotism as you pointed out, is not the reflection of a higher power at work, but of our own failed natures needing to be kept in check by the fear of retribution from something that may or may not exist. I do fear cops because I have been wrongfully harassed by them before. I do not fear being struck by lightning for working on the sabbath though. I prefer to be good for goodness's sake, because it feels good to be good and helpful and kind and so on, not because I am afraid of some guy with a pitchfork slow roasting me till the end of time. It is a sign of weakness to invent supernatural stories as an excuse for idealism. Why not just have idealism for its own sake.

So my God says I must partake of no hot-dog-buns on friday because of the doctrine of the Origional Snub. Does that make me a good person? No. Helping out my old neighbor lady take out her lawn clippings to the curb makes me a good person, and God isn't responsible for that, I am.

I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
You jerks keep bringing it up, but you know what none of you will do? Try to engage the point in a reasonable manner.

It's not something that deserves reasonable discussion. If you had denied the Holocaust or something I'm sure the treatment would be similar. What you said is that crazy.

It's not crazy at all. Under current law we don't even recognize 17 year old children as having full rights. Your counter-argument isn't an argument at all, it's just a personal attack. And when someone makes a personal attack in lieu of an actual rebuttal? That person is generally recognized to have lost the debate.

Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.

You can feel like you won broseidon, I really don't care.

rubiksnoob wrote:I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.

I agree with your first statement, more or less.

The second one doesn't seem to work though. The many actually do have a say in whether or not they follow a particular doctrine or not. If they don't think that what their religious leaders are doing is right, they are free to leave in most cases. In the cases they are not free to leave, that is less a problem of Religion and more of a legal matter, IMHO.

frgsinwntr wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

not necessarily in the sense of building an engine or a bomb or whatever, but in the sense of consistently yielding predictive results. of saying something useful and reliable about the phenomena under examination.

A theory that says 'if A, then B' and people test it again and again, we aren't looking at a useful thing, we're looking at a true thing, because we know now that when A happens, then B will happen shortly afterwards.

This thing may or may not be useful, it could be 'if you throw a rock at Ms Gardiner's window she'll call you a prat'. That it happens everytime makes it true, but it doesn't make it very useful to know.

well we're just using different words to describe the same thing.
We don't know that a scientist's theory is true by any means other than watching how his theory plays out in the physical world. Did what he said would happen actually happen? Well I would argue that we can look for results in the field of religion and make similar inferrences. If followers of XYZ religion consistently commit suicide, then for gods sake lets all avoid that religion. If followers of ABC religion live happy and prosperous lives, then let's investigate the cause of that. (protestants have a higher rate of suicide than catholics btw. did you know that? I think thats fascinating. anyway...) It's not a scientific experiment, but in both cases I'm making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe. In a field where methodology and experimentation are impossible, in the rigorous sense of science, I think its fair. Unless there's a better way available.....?

You make a jump... and this is what I am pointing out.

Your are jumping and saying that the simple process of Observing a phenomenon, Explaining the pattern you see, Making a prediction based on your explanation, and then testing it is the same thing as (in your words...) "making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome" which to me doesn't even make sense...

Did you mean: Conclusions inferred from multiple observations may be tested by additional observations?

You can't draw inferences from a theory... inferences would come from observations! the inferences as you put them ARE the theory.... The way I read what you said... (making inferrences about the theory based on the outcome I observe) sounds like you're making a theory about a theory?

Or do you mean "I'm revising my theory based on the results of my observational experiment?"

I just require clarification of your idea : )

Sure. Yes the theories are the inferrences. The theory about the theory would be it's true or it isn't. People would be astonished to know how patchy science can be. For instance both relativity and quantum theory have been observationally verified to a high degree of accuracy but they posit very different explanations of the universe. We can infer that they're both true from looking at the experimental results but if they contradict each other how can they be. I don't remember the nature of the contradiction exactly so you'll have to pardon me.... Anyway my point is science isn't about immutable truths it's about good guessing backed up by experimentation and then given mathematical expression. Well if someone makes a good guess about god and goes on to live an exemplary life and then those ideas become doctrines, what's wrong with that? The processes are similar though not the same, but we accept the 1 and not the other. Why?

generalgrog wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
These kinds of difficulties are only really problems to people that think that the Modern Bible is somehow supposed to be totally non influenced by man at all. The fact is, that it was men that translated it and men did make transcription mistakes. (however slight they may be). As stated before, there are really only a few "controversial" texts out of may thousands of texts and text pieces (some are only bits and pieces of a certain passage or book) and biblical scholars are well aware of these.

GG

Whoa... wait a minute here... a year ago you made exactly the argument I highlighted above....

You said there were no mistakes caused by man...

Have you changed your ideas?

frigs if I did say that, then yes I was in error. I would like to see my quote in context. :-)

GG

took me a while to find but here is the thread
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/253789.page#945944

rubiksnoob wrote:

Guitardian wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
maybe it is why they last longer. have you considered the possibility that people are by nature selfish, violent, short-sighted, stupid - and that only the strong hand of government and of religion working together keeps their basically savage nature from destroying every achievement of civilization? What would our lives be without order imposed from above? A savage, endless war of all against all, incapable of resolution, from which no one benefits. If it takes a little despotism to prevent that then I'm for it. And if it requires the backing of religion to make it stick, then I'm for that too. People who dont believe in God after all dont fear God or divine punishments - they just fear the police man and going to jail. Maybe under those circumstances civilization is totally impossible.

If that seems like a nightmare scenario then reflect just how damn rotten your average human being is when on one's watching. A little divine wrath might straighten people up a bit. Hopefully though the industrial revolution has made different kinds of government possible. I think that our nature is basically so bad that some element of religion is required, but hopefully not despotism. I dont think your average human being is constitutionally capable of going through life without belief in the divine. So that by itself tells against secular values.
AF

I have to disagree with you. Needing a respect for a social order does not have to tie in to superstitious ghost stories to tell you to be nice. I belive there is a god, but I also believe that all human accounts for such a thing are self serving tools for worldly gain. Yes I agree people can be harsh, rude, cruel, and generally bad when not held to some accountability. We can have morals and idealism without needing the book of Bubba 13:11 telling us why. The problem I have isn't with the existance of a higher power, but why the specific ones detailed and (like the post chapter 8 stuff) quite possible conveniently made up for sociological reasons, quenched by the vatican, re-interpreted according to the times. Sorry, but Jesus didn't die for my sins. Jesus died. Let that be a lesson to people who think they are god I believe was what they were thinking at the time. Only later, with the lies of Paul, did Jesus become the demigod ideal he is so revered for with all the magical powers and godlight shining out of his butt.

So God is (probably) a real thing, that we cannot actually know. Why any specific religious take on it though? That is stories invented by people to serve people's purposes.

For all I know God is a giant uncaring amoeba and we are little atoms that make up it's big cosmic cell. God may not think at all as we can understand it, God just is. Religion as a social control mechanism and a 'necessary' despotism as you pointed out, is not the reflection of a higher power at work, but of our own failed natures needing to be kept in check by the fear of retribution from something that may or may not exist. I do fear cops because I have been wrongfully harassed by them before. I do not fear being struck by lightning for working on the sabbath though. I prefer to be good for goodness's sake, because it feels good to be good and helpful and kind and so on, not because I am afraid of some guy with a pitchfork slow roasting me till the end of time. It is a sign of weakness to invent supernatural stories as an excuse for idealism. Why not just have idealism for its own sake.

So my God says I must partake of no hot-dog-buns on friday because of the doctrine of the Origional Snub. Does that make me a good person? No. Helping out my old neighbor lady take out her lawn clippings to the curb makes me a good person, and God isn't responsible for that, I am.

I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.

Well ofcourse power gets abused in religious hierarchies as it also does in secular ones. I don't want to get into the ethics without god question. I don't think ethics without god is possible but that tends to be a pretty angry debate..... Anyway guitardian brought up the point that maybe the stability is all based on a lie. I don't think it is. I think it's based on effectively controlling channelling and repressing the basically rotten nature of mankind.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gail
France has been secular for about 250 years out of a total history of about 1500. That's why I said ALMOST entirely religious. Read, then type.
AF

And this is what I mean by playing fast and loose. If you're going to claim France "survived" for 1500 despite being invaded multiple times, having multiple revolutions and restructurings, despite wave after wave of immigration, and constantly changing culture, then you have to grant that France has survived the last 250 years as a secular state.

Which completely destroys your claim that no secular society survives.

What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Sure. Yes the theories are the inferrences. The theory about the theory would be it's true or it isn't. People would be astonished to know how patchy science can be. For instance both relativity and quantum theory have been observationally verified to a high degree of accuracy but they posit very different explanations of the universe. We can infer that they're both true from looking at the experimental results but if they contradict each other how can they be. I don't remember the nature of the contradiction exactly so you'll have to pardon me.... Anyway my point is science isn't about immutable truths it's about good guessing backed up by experimentation and then given mathematical expression. Well if someone makes a good guess about god and goes on to live an exemplary life and then those ideas become doctrines, what's wrong with that? The processes are similar though not the same, but we accept the 1 and not the other. Why?

I agree with the red.

I disagree with the green. Science is ABOUT disproving ideas. Scientists love the fact that both ideas you've quoted haven't been disproved yet... it gives them something to do : )

Science Is not a guess. It is a logical machine to DISPROVE... there is no guessing and there is no proving.

Monster Rain wrote:Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.

You are manifestly not attacking my statement. Comparing me to a paranoid homeless guy drinking Lysol is not attacking my argument, it's attacking me. You haven't offered any rebuttal of the argument except to say that I'm crazy.

In short: You are a disingenuous liar who is trying to derail this thread.

I heard about this. It made me laugh for a few fleeting seconds....The I realized how much sense it makes!

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gail
France has been secular for about 250 years out of a total history of about 1500. That's why I said ALMOST entirely religious. Read, then type.
AF

And this is what I mean by playing fast and loose. If you're going to claim France "survived" for 1500 despite being invaded multiple times, having multiple revolutions and restructurings, despite wave after wave of immigration, and constantly changing culture, then you have to grant that France has survived the last 250 years as a secular state.

Which completely destroys your claim that no secular society survives.

What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.

You are manifestly not attacking my statement. Comparing me to a paranoid homeless guy drinking Lysol is entirely fair in light of my previous nut bag statements. I apologize for wasting your time. I really should stop talking now

In short: you're way smarter than me and probably better looking too.

fixed that for you

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.

You are manifestly not attacking my statement. Comparing me to a paranoid homeless guy drinking Lysol is not attacking my argument, it's attacking me. You haven't offered any rebuttal of the argument except to say that I'm crazy.

In short: You are a disingenuous liar who is trying to derail this thread.

Sorry, your arguement was 18 month babies should not be treated as people under the law. How exactly are reasonable people supposed to respond to that? Furthermore, when you continued the discussion via PM you refused to address many of my points, yet you are the one who repeatedly throws out the word 'disingenous'. And that is just as much an attack as comparing someone to a homeless guy drinking Lysol.

In short: The response suits the comment.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Guitardian wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Guitardian
maybe it is why they last longer. have you considered the possibility that people are by nature selfish, violent, short-sighted, stupid - and that only the strong hand of government and of religion working together keeps their basically savage nature from destroying every achievement of civilization? What would our lives be without order imposed from above? A savage, endless war of all against all, incapable of resolution, from which no one benefits. If it takes a little despotism to prevent that then I'm for it. And if it requires the backing of religion to make it stick, then I'm for that too. People who dont believe in God after all dont fear God or divine punishments - they just fear the police man and going to jail. Maybe under those circumstances civilization is totally impossible.

If that seems like a nightmare scenario then reflect just how damn rotten your average human being is when on one's watching. A little divine wrath might straighten people up a bit. Hopefully though the industrial revolution has made different kinds of government possible. I think that our nature is basically so bad that some element of religion is required, but hopefully not despotism. I dont think your average human being is constitutionally capable of going through life without belief in the divine. So that by itself tells against secular values.
AF

I have to disagree with you. Needing a respect for a social order does not have to tie in to superstitious ghost stories to tell you to be nice. I belive there is a god, but I also believe that all human accounts for such a thing are self serving tools for worldly gain. Yes I agree people can be harsh, rude, cruel, and generally bad when not held to some accountability. We can have morals and idealism without needing the book of Bubba 13:11 telling us why. The problem I have isn't with the existance of a higher power, but why the specific ones detailed and (like the post chapter 8 stuff) quite possible conveniently made up for sociological reasons, quenched by the vatican, re-interpreted according to the times. Sorry, but Jesus didn't die for my sins. Jesus died. Let that be a lesson to people who think they are god I believe was what they were thinking at the time. Only later, with the lies of Paul, did Jesus become the demigod ideal he is so revered for with all the magical powers and godlight shining out of his butt.

So God is (probably) a real thing, that we cannot actually know. Why any specific religious take on it though? That is stories invented by people to serve people's purposes.

For all I know God is a giant uncaring amoeba and we are little atoms that make up it's big cosmic cell. God may not think at all as we can understand it, God just is. Religion as a social control mechanism and a 'necessary' despotism as you pointed out, is not the reflection of a higher power at work, but of our own failed natures needing to be kept in check by the fear of retribution from something that may or may not exist. I do fear cops because I have been wrongfully harassed by them before. I do not fear being struck by lightning for working on the sabbath though. I prefer to be good for goodness's sake, because it feels good to be good and helpful and kind and so on, not because I am afraid of some guy with a pitchfork slow roasting me till the end of time. It is a sign of weakness to invent supernatural stories as an excuse for idealism. Why not just have idealism for its own sake.

So my God says I must partake of no hot-dog-buns on friday because of the doctrine of the Origional Snub. Does that make me a good person? No. Helping out my old neighbor lady take out her lawn clippings to the curb makes me a good person, and God isn't responsible for that, I am.

I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.

Well ofcourse power gets abused in religious hierarchies as it also does in secular ones. I don't want to get into the ethics without god question. I don't think ethics without god is possible but that tends to be a pretty angry debate..... Anyway guitardian brought up the point that maybe the stability is all based on a lie. I don't think it is. I think it's based on effectively controlling channelling and repressing the basically rotten nature of mankind.

Hey, you more or less brought it up. I am curious to hear just how ethics without god is impossible. And by god I am assuming you are referencing the common monotheistic notion of god, a sentient and thinking being. Much of the debate going on here hinges on one's definition of god.

rubiksnoob wrote:


Hey, you more or less brought it up. I am curious to hear just how ethics without god is impossible. And by god I am assuming you are referencing the common monotheistic notion of god, a sentient and thinking being. Much of the debate going on here hinges on one's definition of god.

I'm going to agree... this interests me... how is ethics with out god impossible?

Ok... Fair enough. If my good conflicts with that of others whose good am I likely to pursue? My own. If I recognize a fundamental difference conflict is inevitable. If I somehow come to conflate the two cooperation is much more likely. Thats only going to happen if I have strong, direct, immediate and obvious reasons for regarding the two as related.

So the reason I don't beat my x wife over the head with a concrete block till she's dead isn't because I care about her. I don't. I hope she burns in hell. The reason is because If I do the policeman will take mr away. I have to act in a way that benefits her even though that's the last thing in the world I want, because I care about myself first and foremost. Well the police can't be everywhere. Maybe i can get away with it.... hmmm.... Maybe ill stop thinking about it and look for a rock. Yeah i can get away with it. No problem. She's history.

But god can. He'll see. Really I should be sorry I thought that at all. Hopefully he'll forgive me for being such a brute if I repent. And if I repent every time I think violent thoughts like that and reflect on how much god loves all people, I'll love them too. At least a little bit. More than I would have otherwise.

I don't see any inhibitory mechanisms for atheists. It all comes down to self interest. Everyone pursuing their own self interest (as they understand it, which is often not very well) will leaf to anarchy murder blood death chaos. That's why I think secular values are inextricably linked to political turmoil and social decay. Only god can get people to put their own interests aside for long enough to make a community and a civilization possible.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ok... Fair enough. If my good conflicts with that of others whose good am I likely to pursue? My own. If I recognize a fundamental difference conflict is inevitable. If I somehow come to conflate the two cooperation is much more likely. Thats only going to happen if I have strong, direct, immediate and obvious reasons for regarding the two as related.

So the reason I don't beat my x wife over the head with a concrete block till she's dead isn't because I care about her. I don't. I hope she burns in hell. The reason is because If I do the policeman will take mr away. I have to act in a way that benefits her even though that's the last thing in the world I want, because I care about myself first and foremost. Well the police can't be everywhere. Maybe i can get away with it.... hmmm.... Maybe ill stop thinking about it and look for a rock. Yeah i can get away with it. No problem. She's history.

But god can. He'll see. Really I should be sorry I thought that at all. Hopefully he'll forgive me for being such a brute if I repent. And if I repent every time I think violent thoughts like that and reflect on how much god loves all people, I'll love them too. At least a little bit. More than I would have otherwise.

I don't see any inhibitory mechanisms for atheists. It all comes down to self interest. Everyone pursuing their own self interest (as they understand it, which is often not very well) will leaf to anarchy murder blood death chaos. That's why I think secular values are inextricably linked to political turmoil and social decay. Only god can get people to put their own interests aside for long enough to make a community and a civilization possible.
AF

It looks like this is more about your view of human nature than it is about god.

I would have to disagree with you on the fact that humans are fundamentally selfish and brutish.

I would never kill anyone, not because i'm afraid of divine retribution, but because i believe it is wrong to kill people.

rubiksnoob wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ok... Fair enough. If my good conflicts with that of others whose good am I likely to pursue? My own. If I recognize a fundamental difference conflict is inevitable. If I somehow come to conflate the two cooperation is much more likely. Thats only going to happen if I have strong, direct, immediate and obvious reasons for regarding the two as related.

So the reason I don't beat my x wife over the head with a concrete block till she's dead isn't because I care about her. I don't. I hope she burns in hell. The reason is because If I do the policeman will take mr away. I have to act in a way that benefits her even though that's the last thing in the world I want, because I care about myself first and foremost. Well the police can't be everywhere. Maybe i can get away with it.... hmmm.... Maybe ill stop thinking about it and look for a rock. Yeah i can get away with it. No problem. She's history.

But god can. He'll see. Really I should be sorry I thought that at all. Hopefully he'll forgive me for being such a brute if I repent. And if I repent every time I think violent thoughts like that and reflect on how much god loves all people, I'll love them too. At least a little bit. More than I would have otherwise.

I don't see any inhibitory mechanisms for atheists. It all comes down to self interest. Everyone pursuing their own self interest (as they understand it, which is often not very well) will leaf to anarchy murder blood death chaos. That's why I think secular values are inextricably linked to political turmoil and social decay. Only god can get people to put their own interests aside for long enough to make a community and a civilization possible.
AF

It looks like this is more about your view of human nature than it is about god. I would have to disagree with you on the fact that humans are fundamentally selfish and brutish.

I would never kill anyone, not because i'm afraid of divine retribution, but because i believe it is wrong to kill people.

thats a pretty dark view of human nature alright...

I'm an atheist... I wouldn't think about killing someone just because I don't like them... they have just as much right to exist as I do....

Piranhas don't worship god... yet they don't eat each other... they school together...

haha Rubic beat me to it... but we had the same idea...

It also says that people have to be inhibited and aren't free to think and make choices on their own... in complete disagreement with the concept of "freewill"

Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

And I think were all potential murderers. I mean imagine we all got to a couple grenades every year and we could use them without fear of any retribution from the state. How long do you think we'd last. It's like the prophet said: the heart of man is desperately. We need law from on high or else we won't last.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

And I think were all potential murderers. I mean imagine we all got to a couple grenades every year and we could use them without fear of any retribution from the state. How long do you think we'd last. It's like the prophet said: the heart of man is desperately. We need law from on high or else we won't last.

5 of the 10 commandments have Nothing to do with morality

AbaddonFidelis wrote:And I think were all potential murderers. I mean imagine we all got to a couple grenades every year and we could use them without fear of any retribution from the state. How long do you think we'd last. It's like the prophet said: the heart of man is desperately. We need law from on high or else we won't last.

Any one of us is about two days away from killing someone for a gallon of water if it became necessary.

frgsinwntr wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

And I think were all potential murderers. I mean imagine we all got to a couple grenades every year and we could use them without fear of any retribution from the state. How long do you think we'd last. It's like the prophet said: the heart of man is desperately. We need law from on high or else we won't last.

5 of the 10 commandments have Nothing to do with morality

That's a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Because Jesus said so. I saw him in my toast this morning.

Monster Rain wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.

I agree with your first statement, more or less.

The second one doesn't seem to work though. The many actually do have a say in whether or not they follow a particular doctrine or not. If they don't think that what their religious leaders are doing is right, they are free to leave in most cases. In the cases they are not free to leave, that is less a problem of Religion and more of a legal matter, IMHO.

I was referring more to AF's idea of religion as a means to impose order. What I was getting at was that the rules of a religion are not created by the majority of a religion's followers, they are set down by those in positions of authority. Thus those that follow the religion had no say in the creation of the rules they are following.

Not to mention that as much unethical behavior can be pointed at belief in a diety as ethical behvaior.

Another problem is, a lot of the time, people define 'ethical behavior' as whatever thier religion teaches them to do. Unethical behavior is defined the same way with no regard to what is actually ethical and unethical behavior.

Frg
Yeah that's true. I think people left to themselves are pretty rotten. With gods help we can learn to be occasionally decent. Maybe. No I don't believe in free will. What people choose are strategies for pursuing goals that are given to them by biology or environment. When people think they're choosing really they're just making cost benefit analyses. No more a matter of choice than solving a math equation. They either analyze the situation correctly or they don't.

Pirannhas may(?) or may not attack each other but our closest relatives, chimps, most definitely do. It can be pretty awful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster rain
Yes. Exactly. 3 days if were saints.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I'm with Guitardian on this one. Lack of religion does not equal lack of morals. And furthermore, while organized religion can be used to keep the peace, it can also be hijacked for more nefarious purposes.

In the simplest terms, organized religion is the few laying down rules for the many, and the many have no say in it. This inevitably leads to those with authority abusing their power. I challenge you to provide an example of an organized religion in which this has not occurred.

I agree with your first statement, more or less.

The second one doesn't seem to work though. The many actually do have a say in whether or not they follow a particular doctrine or not. If they don't think that what their religious leaders are doing is right, they are free to leave in most cases. In the cases they are not free to leave, that is less a problem of Religion and more of a legal matter, IMHO.

I was referring more to AF's idea of religion as a means to impose order. What I was getting at was that the rules of a religion are not created by the majority of a religion's followers, they are set down by those in positions of authority. Thus those that follow the religion had no say in the creation of the rules they are following.

If a belief system is presented to you and it makes sense to you, why would you not follow the rules? Any learned behavior follows the same pattern you describe. Also, to become, say, a doctor you have to be taught things by people in positions of authority.

skyth wrote:Not to mention that as much unethical behavior can be pointed at belief in a diety as ethical behvaior.

Another problem is, a lot of the time, people define 'ethical behavior' as whatever thier religion teaches them to do. Unethical behavior is defined the same way with no regard to what is actually ethical and unethical behavior.

Care to cite an example?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Frg
Yeah that's true. I think people left to themselves are pretty rotten. With gods help we can learn to be occasionally decent. Maybe. No I don't believe in free will. What people choose are strategies for pursuing goals that are given to them by biology or environment. When people think they're choosing really they're just making cost benefit analyses. No more a matter of choice than solving a math equation. They either analyze the situation correctly or they don't.

Pirannhas may(?) or may not attack each other but our closest relatives, chimps, most definitely do. It can be pretty awful.

So what you are saying is: that you are simply making a cost/benefit analysis that if you are bad God will punish you? and thats your reason for not doing wrong?

You don't think god will know the difference and see you are really evil and just trying to trick her?

@monster
Explain to me how the first 4 are morality?

frgsinwntr wrote:
@monster
Explain to me how the first 4 are morality?

From the perspective of Christians, Jews and Muslims I would say that they are part of their cultural values of right and wrong. That would make them issues of morality, in my opinion. If not obeying them would be considered wrong, there's a moral issue there.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

See, the problem with that is that the story of Moses and the burning bush and all that, is in all probability a metaphorical story.
But then again that is a personal opinion, so we come to the impasse that all religion debates usually end in. I can't take anything from the bible as literal evidence for something, because I do not view the Bible as a literal work. I can appreciate it as a metaphorical piece of literature, but I cannot consider it or it's content as fact upon which to base an argument.

Monster Rain wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
@monster
Explain to me how the first 4 are morality?

From the perspective of Christians, Jews and Muslims I would say that they are part of their cultural values of right and wrong. That would make them issues of morality, in my opinion. If not obeying them would be considered wrong, there's a moral issue there.

BUT as a species as a whole not morality? Which means only in this case? and only if going by the definition that it is proper behavior for that culture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

However... this points out that on a whole... is a belief in a god necessary to KNOW right from wrong? I don't believe in god... but I know its wrong to steal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

See, the problem with that is that the story of Moses and the burning bush and all that, is in all probability a metaphorical story.
But then again that is a personal opinion, so we come to the impasse that all religion debates usually end in. I can't take anything from the bible as literal evidence for something, because I do not view the Bible as a literal work. I can appreciate it as a metaphorical piece of literature, but I cannot consider it or it's content as fact upon which to base an argument.

QFT

in the immortal words of Leonard Cohen.. "I will help you if I can, but I will kill you if I must".

It isn't about whether or not morals can be justified, legalized, put in stone. It is about the need for such laws in the first place. If the laws are absolute, then why do we need unicorns to tell us they are true? The rules are true because of our communal nature of needing to get along with each other from a superstitious subjective point of view. Satan didn't tell me to kill puppies, I just blame it on him. If he isn't around I guess I can blame it on Cthulu or something. If my grandma lived I can blame it on Jesus, If my boss died in a car accident on the way to work, I can praise Poseidon for the earthquake.

Personally I like the tooth fairy. She gets better with age. She's a lot more sexy once the grown up teeth start crumbling. Maybe that was just a wierd dream.

Chimps are stupid. We ascribe them with more intelligence and empathy than they deserve because they remind us so much of our own mannerisms. They still throw temper tantrums (and poop) when upset.

Frg
I think god will know that I can't help thinking wicked thoughts and occasionally acting on them. On that basis alone I deserve punishment. But if I accept the sacrifice he made for me through his son and try really hard to reform my life he might overlook it. Maybe.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Ummm.... yeah I guess it has alot to do with human nature that's true. But so did the 10 commandments. They're inextricably linked. Moses comes down from the mountains and what does he see? The isrealites couldn't stay on the strait and narrow for a few short days. So yeah it's about human nature.

See, the problem with that is that the story of Moses and the burning bush and all that, is in all probability a metaphorical story.
But then again that is a personal opinion, so we come to the impasse that all religion debates usually end in. I can't take anything from the bible as literal evidence for something, because I do not view the Bible as a literal work. I can appreciate it as a metaphorical piece of literature, but I cannot consider it or it's content as fact upon which to base an argument.

Well suppose it is a metaphor.. What's wrong that. It's not like you have to be a slow to appreciate the value of belief. I don't know if god spoke to Moses through a bush either.

Monster Rain wrote:

skyth wrote:Not to mention that as much unethical behavior can be pointed at belief in a diety as ethical behvaior.

Another problem is, a lot of the time, people define 'ethical behavior' as whatever thier religion teaches them to do. Unethical behavior is defined the same way with no regard to what is actually ethical and unethical behavior.

Care to cite an example?

Several. The attack on the twin towers on 9/11, human sacrifice by the Aztecs, The Crusades, The Inquisition, Abortion Clinic Bombings, The drive against gay marriage, refusing to pay interest owed to Jewish bankers in the middle ages.

All are unethical acts, perpetuated by religions under the guise of ethical acts.

There have been ethical acts as well, don't get me wrong. The problem is when you try to derive the root of ethics from Religion.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Frg
I think god will know that I can't help thinking wicked thoughts and occasionally acting on them. On that basis alone I deserve punishment. But if I accept the sacrifice he made for me through his son and try really hard to reform my life he might overlook it. Maybe.
AF

In this case then we also have reached an impasse.

I don't believe in any god. I received a 10/10 on the simple quiz... and wish they published the actual.

I think it would help clarify things if everyone provided their definition of "god".

We're not going to be able to agree on one definition but it would help everyone understand where everyone else is coming from.

I have no need for a belief in a higher power. Our existence does not require it

that is my stance

I think the Nicene creed pretty much sums it up for me.

Well I'm sorry that you have a guilt complex. If you can't take the judgements of others based on their limited perspectives, then I guess don't do wrong things. Or redefine what is wrong by your own standards, not the ones shucked on you by superstitious morons with a veil of political immunity from reproach hiding their dumb natures with a government that protects their freedom of dumbassery. I believe in excorcism, baptism, all that crap about as much as I believe in Ghostbusters.

Guitardian wrote:Well I'm sorry that you have a guilt complex. If you can't take the judgements of others based on their limited perspectives, then I guess don't do wrong things. Or redefine what is wrong by your own standards, not the ones shucked on you by superstitious morons with a veil of political immunity from reproach hiding their dumb natures with a government that protects their freedom of dumbassery. I believe in excorcism, baptism, all that crap about as much as I believe in Ghostbusters.

Even i see this as a trolling attempt...

and that says a lot

What are you talking about, Guitardian?

Monster Rain wrote:What are you talking about, Guitardian?

frgsinwntr wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:What are you talking about, Guitardian?

Alas, I can't help myself!

No, but you're right of course.

Well I really don't agree with the traditional concept of god. I don't believe in a thinking, self aware, supernatural being.
To me, God is simply another word for the universe. Matter is sacred and existence is divine. We are God because we are part of the universe, like cells that are the constituent parts of a greater organism. Same goes for the keyboard you're typing on, the ant you just stepped on, and your most recent bowel movement. All part of the greater organism, whether you call it god, the universe, what have you.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years? That the Albigensian Crusade never happened? The war against the Huguenots? German invasions? The Revolution? The birth of the Republic?

You're the one who is being ridiculous, AF.

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years? That the Albigensian Crusade never happened? The war against the Huguenots? German invasions? The Revolution? The birth of the Republic?

You're the one who is being ridiculous, AF.

I 100% think that there is almost no way you can say there is no cultural change...

there has been a vast cultural change just since the invention of the internet...

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Here's where I say I wasn't attacking you I was attacking your statement, and blah blah blah. I'm not going to argue that issue any more than I'd argue with the homeless guy drinking Lysol about whether or not the government was reading his brainwaves.

You are manifestly not attacking my statement. Comparing me to a paranoid homeless guy drinking Lysol is not attacking my argument, it's attacking me. You haven't offered any rebuttal of the argument except to say that I'm crazy.

In short: You are a disingenuous liar who is trying to derail this thread.

Sorry, your arguement was 18 month babies should not be treated as people under the law. How exactly are reasonable people supposed to respond to that? Furthermore, when you continued the discussion via PM you refused to address many of my points, yet you are the one who repeatedly throws out the word 'disingenous'.

I didn't address all of your points in PM because I was sick and tired. That's not even the close to being the same thing as Monster Rain claiming I said it's justified to kill babies. And more importantly, that has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION. Bringing it up is just a PATHETIC AND DISINGENUOUS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Here's a clue, you moth-breathing troglodytes: I DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT. I JUST SAID IT TO BE PROVOCATIVE AND TO CHALLENGE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM. I WAS HOPING THAT MAYBE YOU MORONS WOULD DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY TO THINK. BT INSTEAD YO HAVE ONLY DEMONSTRATED AN ABILITY TO RUSH TO JUDGMENT, BE RIDICULOUS, BE DISINGENUOUS, AND GENERALLY COMPORTED YOURSELF AS THE KNUCKLE-DRAGGING SUB-LITERATE CLODS THAT YOU ARE.

GO FETH YOURSELVES.

This thread was looking like it just might have had a chance. . . sigh.

And...

I rest my case.

ah well...



it was a good thread

Monster Rain wrote:And...

I rest my case.

YOU HAVE NO CASE, YOU feth!NG PIECE OF SH!T. YOU'RE JUST A LYING DIRTBAG.

You're feth!ng slowed. A feth!ng idiot.

You couldn't argue your way out of a fething paper bag, so instead you just troll and flamebait and get away with it because sh!t-head mods like Frazzled take your side.

You are completely full of feth!ng SH!T. You are a lying, sleazy, underhanded craphound.

The world wold be a better place if you took a shotgun, shoved it in your mouth, and blew your rotten, useless turd brains across the ceiling, you craven, worthless dog excrement.

AND I'LL TAKE MY fething BANNING NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SINCE CLEARLY THE MODS IN THIS FORUM HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MONSTER RAIN AND HIS TROLLING, THREAD DERAILING NONSENSE. CLEARLY HIS BEHAVIOR IS ALL MY FAULT.

FU.CK THIS WHOLE GODDAMN FU.CKING FORUM.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:And...

I rest my case.

YOU HAVE NO CASE, YOU feth!NG PIECE OF SH!T. YOU'RE JUST A LYING DIRTBAG.

You're feth!ng slowed. A feth!ng idiot.

You couldn't argue your way out of a fething paper bag, so instead you just troll and flamebait and get away with it because sh!t-head mods like Frazzled take your side.

You are completely full of feth!ng SH!T. You are a lying, sleazy, underhanded craphound.

The world wold be a better place if you took a shotgun, shoved it in your mouth, and blew your rotten, useless turd brains across the ceiling, you craven, worthless dog excrement.

AND I'LL TAKE MY fething BANNING NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SINCE CLEARLY THE MODS IN THIS FORUM HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MONSTER RAIN AND HIS TROLLING, THREAD DERAILING NONSENSE. CLEARLY HIS BEHAVIOR IS ALL MY FAULT.

FU.CK THIS WHOLE GODDAMN FU.CKING FORUM.

Woah, bro. Calm down. I agree, the OT forum is a gakhole and a lot of the posters here are jerks, but responding to trolling like that doesn't help your case.

Is that why I can't get out of this paper bag?

Seriously, I've been in this paper bag all day and I can't seem to argue my way out of it. It's a bitch, dude.

You knwo why I don't believe in Jesus?

Because pieces of crap like Monster Rain aren't improved one bit by their belief. And it seems to me that if Jesus were real, he would make his followers better people.

BUT INSTEAD THEY ARE JUST FU.CKING SH!TBAGS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHOTGUN.

IN YOUR MOUTH.

MAKE THE WORLD BETTER, DIRTBAG.

seems more logical to base your beliefs on your own ideas... than the actions of others... just saying...

but seriously... i did think you had some good points... till you flew off the deep end

Woah....up until this page I was thinknig this thread was actually pretty jovial considering the subject matter...

The quote he went crazy on was quoting someone else, anyway.

I'm not sure what happened there.

frgsinwntr wrote:seems more logical to base your beliefs on your own ideas... than the actions of others... just saying...

but seriously... i did think you had some good points... till you flew off the deep end

That's what these pieces zof gak, these fething dishonest dirtbag scumb sucking donkey-cave liar wretches want. They n eedle and harass and needle and harass so they can piss people off, all because they are too fcking STUPID, too fething THICK HEAED, and so obviously fething WronG, THAT BTHEY CAN HAVE A REAL DEBATE. tHEY HAVE TO USE THESE UNDERHANDED TACTICS TO WIN,


BECAUSE THEY ARE PIECES OF CRAP.

gOD DAMN, PRAY YOU NEVER MEET ME IN REAL LIFE MONSTER RAIN, BECSAUSE I'LL FCKING SMAXH YOUR GOXDAMN FACE IN.

Gailbraithe wrote:You knwo why I don't believe in Jesus?

Because pieces of crap like Monster Rain aren't improved one bit by their belief. And it seems to me that if Jesus were real, he would make his followers better people.

BUT INSTEAD THEY ARE JUST FU.CKING SH!TBAGS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHOTGUN.

IN YOUR MOUTH.

MAKE THE WORLD BETTER, DIRTBAG.

Dude, Gailbraithe. You had some valid points and we having a cool little debate here, but man. . . you gotta tone it down a bit and not respond to baiting. You seem a tad bit sensitive, and while this is a sensitive topic, your reaction is a bit over the top.

chill dude... just deal with them like this:


they are crazy... so is everyone on this topic in their own way

feth you ribiksnoob

feth YOU AND THIS WHOLE fething FORUM.

STOP CALLING ME OIT ON GETTING PISSED OFF AT THEIS bs AND DO THE RIGHT THIJNG:

CALL OUT KONSTER RAIN ON HIS bs. STOP BLAMING THE GODDAMN VICTIM. STOP V ALIDATING HIS BULLYING BY TAKIING EM TO TASK FOR BEING UPSET BY IT.

OR PUT A SHOTGUN IHN YOUR OWN MOTH, YOU CRAVEN fething DOG,.

Yeah, if they piss you off just toss 'em a lolcat and then leave the thread. No need to escalate.

sadly I cant resist this.

Gailbraithe wrote:gOD DAMN, PRAY YOU NEVER MEET ME IN REAL LIFE MONSTER RAIN, BECSAUSE I'LL FCKING SMAXH YOUR GOXDAMN FACE IN.

*Booming Voice*

A new challenger appears!

Ready....

Internet Fight!

Gailbraithe wrote:feth you ribiksnoob

feth YOU AND THIS WHOLE fething FORUM.

STOP CALLING ME OIT ON GETTING PISSED OFF AT THEIS bs AND DO THE RIGHT THIJNG:

CALL OUT KONSTER RAIN ON HIS bs. STOP BLAMING THE GODDAMN VICTIM. STOP V ALIDATING HIS BULLYING BY TAKIING EM TO TASK FOR BEING UPSET BY IT.

OR PUT A SHOTGUN IHN YOUR OWN MOTH, YOU CRAVEN fething DOG,.

We don't call him out on it because if we think someone's a douche, we just ignore them.

Not saying I think that way, but is it really that hard to hit the 'Ignore' button next to his post?

Gailbraithe wrote:feth you ribiksnoob

feth YOU AND THIS WHOLE fething FORUM.

STOP CALLING ME OIT ON GETTING PISSED OFF AT THEIS bs AND DO THE RIGHT THIJNG:

CALL OUT KONSTER RAIN ON HIS bs. STOP BLAMING THE GODDAMN VICTIM. STOP V ALIDATING HIS BULLYING BY TAKIING EM TO TASK FOR BEING UPSET BY IT.

OR PUT A SHOTGUN IHN YOUR OWN MOTH, YOU CRAVEN fething DOG,.

Whoa, dude. I'm on your side, but you are major league overreacting.

ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE gak. YOU ARE WOTRTHLESS gak. YOU ARE THE GREAT SILENT MAJORITY THAT STOOOD BY AND DID NOTHING IN EVERY HOLOCAUST, IN EVERY STONING, IN EVERY HATE CRIME.

YOU HAVE NO MORALS, NO DECENY, NO0 ETHICS. YOU ARE ALL CRAVEN, USELESS COWARDS, AND YOU -- YES YOU!!! - ARE THE REASON EVIL WINS EVERYTIME.

BECAUSE ALL EVILM NEEDS IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO REMAIN SILENT, OR TO DO WHAT YOU WORTHLESS DOGS DO EVERY fething TIME,

BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
feth it. I'm done with this forum. I'm done with all of you useless pieces of crap.

I hope you all get cancer and die. I fething hate this world. I hate people. None of you deserve to live.

BRING ON THE END, THERE"S NOTHING BT GARBAGE ON THIS PLA NET. GARBAGE AND EXCREMENT.

I'm out... peace guys

Ok rubic... we can continue with him gone : P

I'm trying to figure out why I was the center of that. I went back a couple of pages and I definitely wasn't the only person bringing up why we think his reasoning is suspect.

Oh well...

http://news.discovery.com/human/atheists-best-informed-about-religion.html

so apparently the quiz was 32 questions... not 10!

I just don't even. . .


I guess he just really got off on the wrong foot here and then it just sort of snowballed. And I don't get why he was going off on me.

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php

here is the quiz

Monster Rain wrote:I'm trying to figure out why I was the center of that. I went back a couple of pages and I definitely wasn't the only person bringing up why we think his reasoning is suspect.

Oh well...

Likely because of the "history" between you and Gailbraithe.

I'm sure if phryxis or dogma had posted in this thread recently they would have been targetted directly as well.

As it happens, all of Dakka is now evil because we don't step in when other people are having an argument about differences of opinion

I got a 14 out of 15 this time... didn't know the last one...

del'Vhar wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm trying to figure out why I was the center of that. I went back a couple of pages and I definitely wasn't the only person bringing up why we think his reasoning is suspect.

Oh well...

Likely because of the "history" between you and Gailbraithe.

I'm sure if phryxis or dogma had posted in this thread recently they would have been targetted directly as well.

As it happens, all of Dakka is now evil because we don't step in when other people are having an argument about differences of opinion

I think I was, of the three adversaries named, the one with the least history with the kid.

---

I got 14/15 on the quiz that frgsinwntr just posted. Confirmation Class ftw!

Monster Rain wrote:I'm trying to figure out why I was the center of that. I went back a couple of pages and I definitely wasn't the only person bringing up why we think his reasoning is suspect.

Oh well...

Because you're a lying sack of crap. Because you do this to me all the fething time. Because this is who you are, a piece of crap troll that can't defend his positions with reason, only with nastyn little personal attacks.

You never challenged by reasoning, you fuucking toad. You just called me crazy.

Because you're an idiot. A pathetic, small-minded fool.

AND YOU KNOW IT. You're scared of intelligence, of intellect, of any real thoght, so you have to make personal attacks, and atagnoize, and flame.

And pieces of gak like the rest of this forum let you get away with it, because calling out bullying fuckwads is hard. It requires spine. it's much easier to just ignore, ignore, ignore, and when someone gets hurt, BLAME THE VICTIM.

You should die. It would make the world a better place.

So go do it, you dirtbag son of a whore. Go kill yourself. Do one decent thing in your miserable excuse for a life, you bullying fu.ck.

rubiksnoob wrote:I just don't even. . .


I guess he just really got off on the wrong foot here and then it just sort of snowballed. And I don't get why he was going off on me.

Because clearly Monster Rain is attacking me. But who do you take to task? Who do you challenge to change their behavior?

This is you, you fething coward: "Hey Jews, why don't you just leave Germany. That would be easier than, you know, me standing up to the Nazis for your rights."

Coward!

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years?

No.... I'm not arguing that. I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you get a fething clue?

Gailbraithe wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I just don't even. . .


I guess he just really got off on the wrong foot here and then it just sort of snowballed. And I don't get why he was going off on me.

Because clearly Monster Rain is attacking me. But who do you take to task? Who do you challenge to change their behavior?

This is you, you fething coward: "Hey Jews, why don't you just leave Germany. That would be easier than, you know, me standing up to the Nazis for your rights."

Coward!

Your logic here is deeply flawed.

Anyone who responds to a troll that violently is just being an idiot. Put him on ignore, and you don't have to deal with his bs. Anyone else who has that problem should do the same. I had a problem with a user here claiming to be a Christian being an immoral fethwit, so I put him on ignore and everything's cool.

Problem solved. Don't go comparing this to Nazi Germany.

So your perception of being attacked(whether real or imagined or parts of both) by a small number of people on an internet forum are equal to the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years?

No.... I'm not arguing that. I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you get a fething clue?

Don't encourage him, man.

frgsinwntr wrote:http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php

here is the quiz

damn i missed the billy graham one. i'm going to hell for not keeping up with televangelism.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years?

No.... I'm not arguing that. I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you get a fething clue?

Go feth yourself, you slowed idiot. Your every argument in this thread has been utter fething bs.

You're a fycking joke. You're usinbg the space between your ears for sh!t storage. It's a cesspool.

You are so fething stupid it takes amazing self-control for everyone here to not just laugh at the dumb, ridiculous gak that comes out of your mouth.

"God is real because it makes me happy, and all atheists are unhappy, plkus religion helps societies survive and secularism destroys societies, except all those religious societies that failed and the secular ones that survive, DUR DURR DUR."

Fcking slow.

Wow just ....wow.

GG

And all the trolly flamey guys need to chill out. God hates whiners.

Gailbraithe wrote:You knwo why I don't believe in Jesus?

Because pieces of crap like Monster Rain aren't improved one bit by their belief. And it seems to me that if Jesus were real, he would make his followers better people.

BUT INSTEAD THEY ARE JUST FU.CKING SH!TBAGS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHOTGUN.

IN YOUR MOUTH.

MAKE THE WORLD BETTER, DIRTBAG.

God this guy is tedious

Guitardian wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php

here is the quiz

damn i missed the billy graham one. i'm going to hell for not keeping up with televangelism.

Was that the answer to the last question?

I had no idea.

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years?

No.... I'm not arguing that. I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you get a fething clue?

Go feth yourself, you slowed idiot. Your every argument in this thread has been utter fething bs.

You're a fycking joke. You're usinbg the space between your ears for sh!t storage. It's a cesspool.

You are so fething stupid it takes amazing self-control for everyone here to not just laugh at the dumb, ridiculous gak that comes out of your mouth.

"God is real because it makes me happy, and all atheists are unhappy, plkus religion helps societies survive and secularism destroys societies, except all those religious societies that failed and the secular ones that survive, DUR DURR DUR."

Fcking slow.

perhaps atheists are atheists because they are unhappy, not unhappy because they are atheists. Either way we can still be civil. Nuns can go ride a bike through a red light, completely oblivious and believing that God is watching over them, and then get run over by a bus. Oh well. God's will. Another one for the heavenly harem I guess.

Gailbraithe wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I just don't even. . .


I guess he just really got off on the wrong foot here and then it just sort of snowballed. And I don't get why he was going off on me.

Because clearly Monster Rain is attacking me. But who do you take to task? Who do you challenge to change their behavior?

This is you, you fething coward: "Hey Jews, why don't you just leave Germany. That would be easier than, you know, me standing up to the Nazis for your rights."

Coward!

Dude, people have been dicks to you, but If you'll recall I have stood up for you before, and I've even apologized to you for being a douche to you. But you've got to meet people half way, and I'm not going to alienate myself from everyone on this forum because of your disputes with a few members of this forum that I don't have any problem with. In fact there really isn't anyone on dakka that I have a problem with. People here are generally pretty cool. Do I agree with all of them on everything? Of course not, but that doesn't make them bad people. And I always try to refrain from personal attacks, and if I'm the victim of such attacks or criticism, I just ignore it. It's not that hard to throw up a stupid picture and then log off for the day. It's the internet. You don't have to prove anything to anybody.

del'Vhar wrote:So your perception of being attacked(whether real or imagined or parts of both) by a small number of people on an internet forum are equal to the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany?

No, you fething idiot. Don't be so fething stupid.

USE YOUR fething BRAIN. THINK. FOR ONE SECOND. JUST fething TRY IT. PLEASE.

It's not "equal," but it's the same pattern of behavior. It's the fundamental flaw in humanity. It's why the bullies win, and why Jesus said the "meek will inherit the earth" after the end. Because only an act of God could cleanse the world of pieces of gak like Monster Rain,.

Because humanity, humanity is jst a bunch of lazy, cowardly sheep willing to turn a blind eye to evil.

So no, MORON, this situation isn't EQUAL to the holocaust, but this situation and the holocaust happen for the SAME fething REASON.

Because when confronted with evil, most useless pieces of gak will TURN THE OTHER WAY. You only come out of hiding when someone is down on the grond, so that you're fething cowardly asses can kick them while their down.

You suck!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:I just don't even. . .


I guess he just really got off on the wrong foot here and then it just sort of snowballed. And I don't get why he was going off on me.

Because clearly Monster Rain is attacking me. But who do you take to task? Who do you challenge to change their behavior?

This is you, you fething coward: "Hey Jews, why don't you just leave Germany. That would be easier than, you know, me standing up to the Nazis for your rights."

Coward!

Dude, people have been dicks to you, but If you'll recall I have stood up for you before, and I've even apologized to you for being a douche to you. But you've got to meet people half way, and I'm not going to alienate myself from everyone on this forum because of your disputes with a few members of this forum that I don't have any problem with. In fact there really isn't anyone on dakka that I have a problem with. People here are generally pretty cool. Do I agree with all of them on everything? Of course not, but that doesn't make them bad people. And I always try to refrain from personal attacks, and if I'm the victim of such attacks or criticism, I just ignore it. It's not that hard to throw up a stupid picture and then log off for the day. It's the internet. You don't have to prove anything to anybody.

Stop fuucking deluding yourself. And if you're going to keep deluding yoirself, keep it to yoiurself, because I don't give a feth what you have to say, you fething piece of gak.

Bye, Gailbraithe.

Just stop giving him attention. It's what this whole fiasco is about.

Monster Rain wrote:

Guitardian wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php

here is the quiz

damn i missed the billy graham one. i'm going to hell for not keeping up with televangelism.

Was that the answer to the last question?

I had no idea.

john edwards...
:(

It got me..

you can actually see the data and see which group got what questions wrong...

its pretty funny 50% of catholics don't know what the bread and wine become...

BUT even funnier that 7% of mormons don't know the founder of their religion LOL

You evidently make friends with the wrong people, Gail. I find most people helpful when they can be, and only hurtful when they have to be.

Monster Rain wrote:Just stop giving him attention. It's what this whole fiasco is about.

STOP LYING YOU PIECE OF gak.

TAKE SOME fething RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

OR GO KILL YOURSELF.

If only people had been more like gailbraithe back then.... The holocaust never would have happened. Why o why can't there be more gAilbraithes in the world?

Guitardian wrote:You evidently make friends with the wrong people. I find most people helpful when they can be, and only hurtful when they have to be.

feth you, you hippie douchebag.

Every single one of you feths that thinks the best response here is to challenge me, while ignoring Monster Rain, you can all fething die.

BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL WORTHLESS EXCREMENT.

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years?

No.... I'm not arguing that. I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you get a fething clue?

Go feth yourself, you slowed idiot. Your every argument in this thread has been utter fething bs.

You're a fycking joke. You're usinbg the space between your ears for sh!t storage. It's a cesspool.

You are so fething stupid it takes amazing self-control for everyone here to not just laugh at the dumb, ridiculous gak that comes out of your mouth.

"God is real because it makes me happy, and all atheists are unhappy, plkus religion helps societies survive and secularism destroys societies, except all those religious societies that failed and the secular ones that survive, DUR DURR DUR."

Fcking slow.

You are doing exactly to people what you are accusing them of doing to you: distorting their arguments and insulting them.

I do not agree with all of AF's opinions on the topics we've discussed in this thread, but his arguments were not "utter fething bs" He backed up his arguments and stood his ground without losing his head, and you know what? I respect that. I don't have to agree with him to respect the fact that he's got an opinion and he is willing to defend it earnestly and civilly. I cannot say the same for you unfortunately.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If only people had been more like gailbraithe back then.... The holocaust never would have happened. Why o why can't there be more gAilbraithes in the world?

No gak.

Lincoln Brigades. I would have joined. But not a pussy little coward like you.

World War 2 only happened because COWARDS like the members of this forum did nothing.

Because that's humanity: Weak, pathetic, cowardly pieces of gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years?

No.... I'm not arguing that. I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you get a fething clue?

Go feth yourself, you slowed idiot. Your every argument in this thread has been utter fething bs.

You're a fycking joke. You're usinbg the space between your ears for sh!t storage. It's a cesspool.

You are so fething stupid it takes amazing self-control for everyone here to not just laugh at the dumb, ridiculous gak that comes out of your mouth.

"God is real because it makes me happy, and all atheists are unhappy, plkus religion helps societies survive and secularism destroys societies, except all those religious societies that failed and the secular ones that survive, DUR DURR DUR."

Fcking slow.

You are doing exactly to people what you are accusing them of doing to you: distorting their arguments and insulting them.

I do not agree with all of AF's opinions on the topics we've discussed in this thread, but his arguments were not "utter fething bs" He backed up his arguments and stood his ground without losing his head, and you know what? I respect that. I don't have to agree with him to respect the fact that he's got an opinion and he is willing to defend it earnestly and civilly. I cannot say the same for you unfortunately.

I hope your mother gets raped, you piece of gak.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Guitardian wrote:You evidently make friends with the wrong people. I find most people helpful when they can be, and only hurtful when they have to be.

feth you, you hippie douchebag.

Every single one of you feths that thinks the best response here is to challenge me, while ignoring Monster Rain, you can all fething die.

BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL WORTHLESS EXCREMENT.

If we're ignoring him, it's because you're being far more vitriolic and drawing attention to yourself.

Use the fething ignore button and you never have to worry about him again. If you're really taking a faceless poster's opinion this seriously over Dakka, then I suggest you find a more civil, less right-leaning forum.

I don't like the conservative slant here either, but I learned to deal with it.

Uhh you guys should just give up.
Gailbreth has totally taken the thread here...


GG

You mean you're a fething coward and turn a blind eye to the bullying that conservatives do here, everywhere, all the time.

If they don't get a response, then they just look pathetic.

Don't respond to them. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't you dare compare this to Nazi Germany. One was a murderous regime that couldn't be stopped with the press of a button, but the other is a dispute on a forum that *can* be stopped with the press of a button.

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If only people had been more like gailbraithe back then.... The holocaust never would have happened. Why o why can't there be more gAilbraithes in the world?

No gak.

Lincoln Brigades. I would have joined. But not a pussy little coward like you.

World War 2 only happened because COWARDS like the members of this forum did nothing.

Because that's humanity: Weak, pathetic, cowardly pieces of gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:What the hell are you even talking about? Honestly. Do you deny that France has survived as an independent state/cultural group from conquest by the franks right up to the present day? AF

Uh, yeah.

Ok then it's not your fault for being ridiculous. It's my fault for encouraging you. AF

Are you seriously arguing that France hasn't undergone any cultural changes in 1500 years?

No.... I'm not arguing that. I didn't say anything like that. Why don't you get a fething clue?

Go feth yourself, you slowed idiot. Your every argument in this thread has been utter fething bs.

You're a fycking joke. You're usinbg the space between your ears for sh!t storage. It's a cesspool.

You are so fething stupid it takes amazing self-control for everyone here to not just laugh at the dumb, ridiculous gak that comes out of your mouth.

"God is real because it makes me happy, and all atheists are unhappy, plkus religion helps societies survive and secularism destroys societies, except all those religious societies that failed and the secular ones that survive, DUR DURR DUR."

Fcking slow.

You are doing exactly to people what you are accusing them of doing to you: distorting their arguments and insulting them.

I do not agree with all of AF's opinions on the topics we've discussed in this thread, but his arguments were not "utter fething bs" He backed up his arguments and stood his ground without losing his head, and you know what? I respect that. I don't have to agree with him to respect the fact that he's got an opinion and he is willing to defend it earnestly and civilly. I cannot say the same for you unfortunately.

I hope your mother gets raped, you piece of gak.

I hope you gain a sense of perspective.

Ok I think I'm done. To all the non-lunatics: it was a good conversation

It really wasn't. It just sounded like one.

Well Gailbraithe, it is quite clear my perception of the situation between yourself and MR/others has been entirely different.

I viewed it as heated arguments between people with differing opinions, which got out of hand on several occasions.

You apparently feel that you have been persecuted unjustly, and that no-one was willing to step in and help you. That sucks, but I don't agree that it was the case.

You have quite clearly become infuriated and snapped, to the point where you seem to have abandoned some of what I perceived your own moral principles to be.

Honestly, I will be sorry to see you leave dakka (which is probably what is going to happen here), as even if I disagree with many of your positions, you have sparked several interesting discussions/debates.

Now feel free to point out how I'm a dirty animal who deserves to die; I hope that this outburst has at least been cathartic.

Locking out for now.

Frazzled Mod editing.
Sadly Gailbraithe will no longer be joining us for future conversations. As a reminder, when you feel the need to freakout, its always helpful to go go for a walk, or sit outside and watch children play. Worse to worse watch a weiner dog try to run.


And remember, Weinie Legions are coming, coming for you!