POLL: What is the World's Most Evil Religion?

LongShot · Dec 3, 2003

Quote from darkhorse:

what i find most amusing about these debates is not the disagreement- intelligent people have the right to disagree and do so all the time.

the funny part is how so many atheists on this board assume that theists are intellectually dishonest and then strain their arms patting themselves on the back for pointing it out.

think about it: to say "there are hundreds of contradictions, you must be blind not to see them" is to assume the theist is either stupid, unable to conduct even a cursory rational assessment of his beliefs, or unwilling to even consider the possiblity of an alternative argument.

the ridiculous smugness with which such charges are implied is a bit like a mosquito floating down the river on his back with a hardon yelling "raise the drawbridge!"

i think it's ironic that the assumption of intellectual dishonesty actually stems from intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who criticize. i mean after all, it doesn't take a whole lot of logic to recognize there is a third possibility:

Hmmm, it appears to me the bible is full of holes, yet there are intelligent people who believe in it who are also capable of open mindedness and rational argument. how can this be? either

a) all those seemingly intelligent people are really quite stupid or "brainwashed"

or

b) perhaps, just perhaps, there are stronger responses to my criticisms that i haven't considered. am i only scratching the surface here? maybe i should do some more reading and find out.

If you think you won your argument because you wrestled with a strawman, you deserve little respect. If you brag to others about winning your argument with a strawman, you deserve even less respect. A real desire for understanding will translate into a desire to go up against the best the other side has to offer. If I'm going to seek out challenges to my theism, I'll look to hear what guys like Bertrand Russell have to say, not posters on a message board who wouldn't know espistemology if it smacked them on the face.

Going back to the contradictions, obviously a message board does not provide the space nor the attention span to provide a real answer. But consider a few things:

As I said before, no one gets a free ride on the metaphysics train. There is no complete belief system that is without tension in certain areas which could be construed as contradiction rightly or wrongly on the part of the critic. None. Agnosticism does not count either, because permanent agnositicism is little more than acceptance of ignorance. (and Yet I don't know any agnostics who ACT as if they are ignorant. They all seem to operate on the basis of moral codes and in support of virtues that are supposed to mean something, even if they have not a whit why.)

Balance can also be misconstrued as contradiction by a sloppy mind. A random walk professor corners a trader and says "Hey! I was reading one of your trading books and it said that traders have to be willing to take risk and avoid risk at the same time. How does that make sense? Isn't the need to embrace risk and shun risk simultaneously a contradiction?" The trader looks puzzled and says "umm, no, you actually just don't understand the deeper point..." Random walk professor waves him off and says "Ha! I knew you would try to come back with some mumbo jumbo- face it, the idea of 'trading' is full of holes..."

Reality is complex and any explanation that sought to explain such without mystery and tension would be inadequate. The need for balance between opposite but vital concepts creates tension in itself. In some sense a complex truth is like a molecule. Consider water: two hydrogen molecules, one oxygen. Without the proper balance, you don't have water. In the same sense, certain truths cannot be understood independent from their juxtaposition and adjacence to other key truths. Certain principles look unbalanced when they are presented without support of other principles intrinsic to correct understanding. A belief system without tension would be about as illuminating as a Dick and Jane primer.

There is no unassailable position from which to throw down criticism without exposing your own beliefs to much criticism in return. Going back to the poll I posted on how people validate their morality- as best I know only specul8r answered so far. Anyone else care to step up and be intellectually honest- and expose themselves to serious flaws intrinsic to their line of reasoning? Those who think theism is 'silly' don't recognize that it is perhaps more 'silly' to hold to beliefs that are internally contradictory when it comes to morality and virtue.

A negative position is not an actual stance, and everyone has an actual stance underneath the posturing whether they recognize it or not. It's easy to lob bombs at anything. It's much harder to actually articulate what you believe personally, and to explain your rationale and reasoning for such.

Reaction to apparent contradiction is usually determined by higher order beliefs- which may in themselves be justified or not justified at all. Scientists come across apparent contradictions all the time in their work, many of which have not yet been solved. Quantum physics is crawling with 'em. So do they assume quantum physics is dumb and anyone who believes it is stupid? No- they move forward on the logical assumption that the contradictions represent flaws in their reasoning as it currently stands, and they seek to expand their knowledge to resolve the apparent contradiction. They don't throw out quantum physics, they recognize that the flaw is in their current thinking process and they seek to correct their understanding. Why do they do this? Because they have a higher level belief that the laws of the universe are ultimately logical, ordered and discernible- inherently infallible if you would. Is this belief any less steeped in mystery than a belief that a Christian would have in regards to scripture? Scientists have many rational arguments for their beliefs- so do intelligent Christians. The idea that the universe is ultimately rational, logical and ordered cannot be found within science itself- it is essentially a metaphysical belief. The idea that knowledge is accessible, reliable and valid is a metaphysical proposition as well. How can the scientific method validate the validity of the scientific method? It can't.

If a believe in science supports any philosophical notions, one of them should be that there is an objective standard we can move toward. I believe in the usefulness and efficacy and value of science, but I also don't believe that's where the buck stops. For those of you guys who do think it stops there, may I politely suggest you are showing your naivete because it can't stop there- science makes no claim on epistemology or metaphysics by definition, and no thinking person is without some realized application of both.

Last point before I go: winning an argument with a neophyte in and of itself really doesn't prove anything, because the truth of the matter in question is independent of the quality of debate. It's possible to hold a correct position for the wrong reasons. It's possible to be right and still lose. And it's possible to completely thrash your opponent and still be wrong.

I don't consider those who disagree with me to be lightweights by default, or intellectually dishonest by default- (though I am consistently surprised by the intellectual dishonesty I see in some). To assume the same of myself- or of the theistic position in general- is incredibly naive and shows both undue pride and copious ignorance.

Read some real books, put aside the soundbite thinking. Disagreement is fine and good, just please: step up the quality of your game.
More...

Very nice, Darkhorse. Your characterization of what is happening on this thread aptly describes to a tee the fate of the Diet Thread. You have a few shallow-thinking mullet heads [like axeman] that really have no depth to their understanding of the subject matter [like axeman and nutrition] but have the EGO driven audacity to think they can just wade right in with their personal "logic" and make everything perfectly clear. You see it unfolding before you but you can't shut them up or show them the folly of their ways. At first amusing watching them , then completely frustrating as they shout even louder and more often or resort to "witty" sarcasm such as micro-phallic insinuations.

There is no substitute for in depth study , and you can't get very far applying some generic personal "logic" to everything and anything.

"It ain't what you don't know that gives trouble it's what you know that ain't so"

TriPack · Dec 3, 2003

Quote from axeman:

I particularly like this one:

So parents among you will eat their children, and children will eat their parents.

Mmmmmm mmm good eating

I will send a time of hunger and wild animals against you, and they will kill your children. Disease and death will sweep through your people, and I will bring the sword against you to kill you. I, the Lord, have spoken

Gee... wild animals eating my children? What a nice guy

This god really IS benevolent. LMAOOO

Hehehe.... lets watch little Alfonso go nutz now

peace

axeman
More...

Does anyone besides me and marketsurfer see the irony of an atheist judging God by a moral code that eminated from God?

Or put another way, an imperfect being judging a perfect being with imperfect knowledge. The conceit is mindblowing.

Cutten · Dec 3, 2003

Which is more likely:

i) that God exists, and created life, the universe, and everything

ii) that humans are stupid, gullible, and desperately in need of reassurance that their lives aren't completely meaningless accidents of history, and therefore believe any old crap you invent about afterlives, the poor and meek inhering the world, good deeds being rewarded, and bad people getting punished for their sins instead of getting stinking rich and having a whale of a time while nice people starve to death, die of disease, or have their limbs hacked off by homicidal political fanatics.

Hmm, I'll have to think about that for, oh, at least 2 microseconds

Shrewd Dude · Dec 3, 2003

Quote from Cutten:

Which is more likely:

i) that God exists, and created life, the universe, and everything

ii) that humans are stupid, gullible, and desperately in need of reassurance that their lives aren't completely meaningless accidents of history, and therefore believe any old crap you invent about afterlives, the poor and meek inhering the world, good deeds being rewarded, and bad people getting punished for their sins instead of getting stinking rich and having a whale of a time while nice people starve to death, die of disease, or have their limbs hacked off by homicidal political fanatics.

Hmm, I'll have to think about that for, oh, at least 2 microseconds
More...

ii!!

axeman · Dec 3, 2003

ii!

axeman · Dec 3, 2003

Nothing mindblowing here at all.

Its only mindblowing if you first ASSUME that such a god exists,
and therein lies the problem.

You have never proved that god exists.
You have never proved that morality stems from god either.
You have never proved god is perfect.

These are all baseless assumptions.

Would it be silly to judge ZEUS to you?
Didnt think so

peace

axeman

Quote from TriPack:

Does anyone besides me and marketsurfer see the irony of an atheist judging God by a moral code that eminated from God?

Or put another way, an imperfect being judging a perfect being with imperfect knowledge. The conceit is mindblowing.
More...

TriPack · Dec 3, 2003

Quote from axeman:

Now this begs the question.... what is the RIGHT interpretation?

Funny how NO ONE can agree, not even the religious people.

If we follow this line of reasoning, the bible is completely WORTHLESS
due to its extreme ambiguity. How can anyone believe in a
book that effectively says NOTHING??

More...

By this same definition, science is also worthless because every year or so it seems an old theory is discarded, and a new one is embraced. With so much extreme ambiguity science is completely worthless. How can anyone believe in science when virtually every year an old theory is discarded and a new one adopted in its place.

No, ambiguity doesn't render the bible or science worthless. The real test is, does its teachings or advances give anything that can help one live a better, more fulfilled, more enjoyable life?

Can living the principles taught in the bible improve your quality of life?

Can living according to the commonly accepted scientific principles improve your quality of life?

Has science made advances to improve your quality of life?

darkhorse · Dec 3, 2003

Quote from axeman:

Exactly. The typical darkhorse dodge.

He is only seems capable of writing extremely elegant, well written
replies which do a beautiful job of MASKING the fact
that he didnt answer a thing

peace

axeman

More...

I've said more times than I can count now that this subject matter is too deep for a message board. I can understand how that could be construed as a copout if I weren't willing to go off board. But I am willing.

If you'll recall, I made a challenge to Stu a while back: he reads any three books of my choosing, and I read any three of his, and we then come back and post critiques after a defined timeframe, proving that both sides actually read the material by reproducing the structure of the argument in detail before attacking it.

I'll go toe to toe and answer everything you throw at me, but only if you do the same in return. If you want to get down in the blood and the mud and debate this stuff til the cows come home, fine. But it has to be in line with definable rules and both sides have to get their shovels out and do some real digging. I'm not going to go on a whack-a-mole soundbite hunt, I'm done with those.

But if you seriously want to get into this, let's go. Three books each. Fully fleshed out, coherent presentations of the structural arguments for all three books to show understanding of the concepts presented before engaging in a rebuttal.

The name of the game is put up or shut up. What'll it be? If you refuse, then I don't want to hear a word from you ever again about me 'masking' anything just because I'm not willing to set myself up with incomplete answers.

TriPack · Dec 3, 2003

Quote from axeman:

Nothing mindblowing here at all.

Its only mindblowing if you first ASSUME that such a god exists,
and therein lies the problem.

You have never proved that god exists.
You have never proved that morality stems from god either.
You have never proved god is perfect.

These are all baseless assumptions.

Would it be silly to judge ZEUS to you?
Didnt think so

peace

axeman

More...

It is totally mindblowing.

Its only not mindblowing if you first ASSUME that God does not exist, and therein lies the problem.

You have never proved that God does not exist.
You have never proved that morality does not stem from God either.
You have never proved God is not perfect.

These are all baseless assumptions.

Would it be silly to judge ZEUS to you?
I thought so

peace

TriPack

axeman · Dec 3, 2003

Notice you used the word THOERY.
Of course science rotates through theories as more
things are studied more carefully.
Thats part of the scientific method.

But you are comparing apples and oranges.

Theists typically propose that the bible is FACT, not theory.

How often does science discard FACT for new fact?

It has happened...but its EXTREMELY rare.

Dont pretend that the bible is anywhere NEAR on the same
level as scientific fact, or even theory, or even hypothesis.

It is a story, written by a bunch of cult wackos as far as I can tell.

What data has been collected on the bible to support the
supernatural things that have occured in it?

Has anyone seen someone come back from the dead?
Anyone seen water turn to wine?
Anyone seen god send wild animals to eat infants?

Give me a break. Totally different worlds here, and completely
different standards for measuring truth.

"Can living the principles taught in the bible improve your quality of life?"

Maybe. Maybe not. It didnt improve the life of the witches
that were burned at the stake. It didnt improve mine.
It DOES improve others. But does this mean its TRUE??
Of course not.

Has science improved your life? Of course it has.
If your over the age of 30, more than likely, its because
of the science of medicine that has kept you alive for so long.
People used to die in their teens or twenties from disease
back in the dark ages when the church ruled.

Oooops.... I guess prayer doesnt work very well does it?
Verified again by the latest studies. Ooops again.

peace

axeman

Quote from TriPack:

By this same definition, science is also worthless because every year or so it seems an old theory is discarded, and a new one is embraced. With so much extreme ambiguity science is completely worthless. How can anyone believe in science when virtually every year an old theory is discarded and a new one adopted in its place.

No, ambiguity doesn't render the bible or science worthless. The real test is, does its teachings or advances give anything that can help one live a better, more fulfilled, more enjoyable life?

Can living the principles taught in the bible improve your quality of life?

Can living according to the commonly accepted scientific principles improve your quality of life?

Has science made advances to improve your quality of life?
More...