If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   "When a sampling of non-Christians were asked to rate eleven groups in terms of respect, they rated evangelicals tenth. Only prostitutes ranked lower"   (inewp.com) divider line 447
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

23747 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Aug 2010 at 12:25 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



447 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-17 01:05:06 AM
Fuller: LindyJohn: That's your "olive branch" to the moderates? I hate to break it to you, but Prop 8 was passed by the majority of the state. What is "moderate" if it is not the views held by the majority?

Moderate doesn't necessarily equal majority. If the majority were extremists, it wouldn't make extremism moderate.


That makes "moderate" rather subjective then doesn't it? More or less then, "moderate" is whatever you find agreeable. If that is all, well then it is not a very big compromise to "extend an olive branch" to moderates so long as that is all you mean by it.

If that is the benchmark, then I think everyone is ready to "extend the olive branch" to moderates all the time. Aren't we just swell? :)
 
2010-08-17 01:05:14 AM
LindyJohn: "That's your "olive branch" to the moderates?"

Gotta start someplace.

LindyJohn: " I hate to break it to you, but Prop 8 was passed by the majority of the state. What is "moderate" if it is not the views held by the majority?"

That was sort of my point. I expressed appreciation of moderate support on the evolution issue, but disappointment that they dropped the ball on Prop 8.

LindyJohn: "I think really you are just extending an olive branch to the people who agree with you. That's very big and open-minded of you."

I oppose creationism because it's a position maintained in spite of what science tells us. It is the very definition of closed-mindedness. Likewise with homophobia; we know thanks to science that gays are naturally occurring in countless species, but opponents maintain that it's simply perversion.

If you're saying it's closed minded to oppose closed-mindedness, the term has lost all meaning, or is being used improperly in an attempt to defend untenable views. Or both.
 
2010-08-17 01:06:34 AM
LindyJohn: Zamboro: Plenty of love for moderates, though. You guys are true bros when it comes to evolution.

Just wish more of you'd had our backs when Prop 8 first rolled around.

That's your "olive branch" to the moderates? I hate to break it to you, but Prop 8 was passed by the majority of the state. What is "moderate" if it is not the views held by the majority?

I think really you are just extending an olive branch to the people who agree with you. That's very big and open-minded of you.


You are confusing "moderate" with "centrist". Pure popularity = centrism. Schwarzeneggar won the election because he was an incredibly recognizable, popular, and charismatic man.

Moderate are typically compromise types. Satisfy the largest number of people without alienating one side more than the other. A moderate would've suggested civil unions or perhaps civil marriage rights with a caveat that no person of faith should ever be compelled to perform a marriage against their beliefs.

This prop 8 situation is the tyranny of the majority on the lives of the minority. Societally, married straights are analogous to whites in a country club upset that if the club lets blacks and jews in and make that club no longer exclusive, it'll devalue their membership's perceived value.
 
2010-08-17 01:06:41 AM
I really wouldn't put a whole lot of eggs in this guy's basket. For a guy who claims to have a PhD in Religious Studies methodology, he's playing pretty fast and loose with context and numbers (like the Pope's quote) and he's relying awfully hard on Christine Wicker's book, which is not usually considered a well-researched or documented source. One citation from the JSSR does not make a paper, and one book published on Zondervan is not going to give you a fair representation of evangelical Christianity.

/religion prof
//getting a real kick out of these replies
///also, boobs
 
2010-08-17 01:07:00 AM
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: It's not a logical fallacy to say that in order to be a part of X group, Y conditions must be met, as the poster said. For example, if I said "All True Freemasons were made Masons in a recognized Lodge of Freemasonry", you can disagree with me, but you can't later claim I'm committing a logical fallacy when I claim irregular Masons aren't "True Masons".

The poster was simply saying that there are conditions to be met before you can be a Christian more so than self-identification.


The only real requirement for Christianity is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Self-identification is the default state. If there were a similarly simple requirement for Masons, you could make a similar statement.

As such any form of "No True Christian" that is not "No True Christian does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God" is, indeed, repeating the No True Scotsman fallacy.

It's as much a requirement of being a Christian as being Scottish is for the Scotsman fallacy (i.e. If you are not Scottish you cannot be a Scotsman, so, therefore, any statement of "no true Scotsman" that isn't "No true Scotsman is not Scottish" repeats the fallacy)
 
2010-08-17 01:07:03 AM
Ringshadow: ignite ice: But they wouldn't -- and that's the difference between atheists and Christians: one has morals, the other lacks them.

As an apatheist with morals, I invite you to kiss my grits.


Look at his profile.
 
2010-08-17 01:08:27 AM
Come on ignite ice, throwing a stick of dynamite into the water is just plain cheating. You are WAY over your limit for today.
 
2010-08-17 01:08:37 AM
ignite ice: austin_millbarge: It said nothing of the sort. They asked non-Christians. Not every non-Christian is an atheist.

An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. You can't be a non-Christian and not be an atheist. The two terms co-exist. Someone who denies the existence of God is not a Christian and is therefore an atheist.


Well you have to admit, the two terms do coexist. Look at them. Coexisting. Along with all those other terms, too! We should take a lesson from terms like these.
 
2010-08-17 01:09:14 AM
zedster: true but I would not put too much faith into that. Most people between the time they leave their parents home and the time they start their own families are not religiously observant, second they pop out a kid they are back into organized religion.

Says who? I would need to see some evidence for that, I can't see any obvious reason why that would be the case.

zedster: Think about Baby Boomers who became the Regan supporting Middle America in the 80s, you can expect a similar revival in 15~20 years.

You really think America is doomed to be forever super-religious? I don't think so. Countries change, grow, etc. What you're talking about could be a real pattern, but the overall trend could still be slowly moving away from faith.
 
2010-08-17 01:09:17 AM
They must really hate evangelical whores like Ted Haggard, Peter Popoff, and Benny Hinn.
 
2010-08-17 01:09:26 AM
What's with the hate on Lesbians?
Doesn't matter if she's a Lesbian or not, you're still not getting any.
 
2010-08-17 01:10:44 AM
Butterflew: Nothing more, nothing less. I really wish people would stop sensationalizing this into the WILL OF THE PEOPLE nonsense. it's plain ol' hate wrapped up in a not-so-fabulous package.

Well, I didn't say right or wrong, I just said "moderate". Why can't the "moderate" WILL OF THE PEOPLE be hateful in some instances?

Listen, politically, "moderate" simply means "not extreme" or "not partisan". I have trouble finding that what the majority of the people want, even if it is not moral by all accounts, is not "moderate". Again, I was calling Zamoboro to task fo his use of "moderate", not making a specific argument about the issue.
 
2010-08-17 01:10:57 AM
emjoi: What's with the hate on Lesbians?
Doesn't matter if she's a Lesbian or not, you're still not getting any.


Lesbians are competitors for pussy. It makes sense to be threatened by 'em. On the other hand, gays are men who remove themselves from competition for the pussy. I love 'em!
 
2010-08-17 01:11:19 AM
LindyJohn: That makes "moderate" rather subjective then doesn't it?

Well no, Zamboro was using it with a very specific intention. There are other ways to interpret the word, sure, but I think you know what his intention was.
 
2010-08-17 01:12:11 AM
Fuller: Says who? I would need to see some evidence for that, I can't see any obvious reason why that would be the case.

My dad's rabbinical school thesis (I'm not going to post any links on fark, sorry, if you are really really interested EIP)

Fuller: You really think America is doomed to be forever super-religious? I don't think so. Countries change, grow, etc. What you're talking about could be a real pattern, but the overall trend could still be slowly moving away from faith.

I think more religious then the rest of the Western World, that is always going to be relative. We have a history of Evangelical big tent movements popping up every few decades and I see no reason to think that will stop.
 
2010-08-17 01:12:49 AM
Lexx: Lesbians are competitors for pussy. It makes sense to be threatened by 'em. On the other hand, gays are men who remove themselves from competition for the pussy. I love 'em!

How'd you manage to type that with a handful of dick?

/ mouthful of dick doesn't really apply to the internet.
 
2010-08-17 01:13:05 AM
LindyJohn: Again, I was calling Zamoboro to task fo his use of "moderate", not making a specific argument about the issue.

He was referring to the group of people we commonly refer to as 'religious moderates'. You know who they are.
 
2010-08-17 01:14:05 AM
zedster: Fuller: Says who? I would need to see some evidence for that, I can't see any obvious reason why that would be the case.

My dad's rabbinical school thesis (I'm not going to post any links on fark, sorry, if you are really really interested EIP)

Fuller: You really think America is doomed to be forever super-religious? I don't think so. Countries change, grow, etc. What you're talking about could be a real pattern, but the overall trend could still be slowly moving away from faith.

I think more religious then the rest of the Western World, that is always going to be relative. We have a history of Evangelical big tent movements popping up every few decades and I see no reason to think that will stop.


If the Duggars keep breeding the whole nation will be evangelical within a few generations. I hear they're working on their 15th.
 
2010-08-17 01:14:29 AM
A lot of you really need to check ignite ice's profile.
 
2010-08-17 01:14:33 AM
Of course, the only Christians non-Christians are likely to be aware of in day-to-day life are the douchebag loudmouths. They think of Fred Phelps, Jack Chick and Jimmy Swaggart, rather than the likes of Martin Luther King and Saint Damien of Molokai. Millions of Christians are quietly living out their inoffensive lives.

I do note, however, that this is an experience of the evangelical Christians, not Catholicism (and before you bring up the pedophilia scandals, most Catholics are as angry with the Church about that as anyone) or mainline Protestantism.
 
2010-08-17 01:15:31 AM
To paraphrase the pastor from last Sunday:

The Bible teaches us that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life; none go to the father except through him. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that christianity is the way, the truth, and the life. Christian denominations (in all their forms) are one interpretation of the truth of Jesus.

Moreover, the Bible also tells us to approach other faiths with an open mind and a willingness to learn. Just because people don't profess a belief in Jesus in name does not mean that they are wrong. When Paul spoke to the Athenians he told them that their poets and their philosophers all had different elements of their beliefs which contained truth. He singled out a "shrine to an unknown god" and exclaimed that the unknown God and his God were the same.

That said, Christians are not relativists. There is one objective truth: the ministry and message of Jesus does make our faith incompatible with some other beliefs. However, to condemn another for such a belief is decidedly un-Christian.

End paraphrase.

Here's a handy one-step litmus test. If someone professes to be christian but condemns another (gays, Muslims, liberals, atheists, etc.) then they are not Christian. They might be christian in the sense of a secular christian church whose purpose is to make money and promulgate itself as a community center, but they are not Christian in the sense of following the teachings of Christ.

It is only when one abandons their life, their prejudices, and takes up the mantle of Jesus that a person or a church can be considered a true Christian in the sense of following the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never incited his followers to judge or to political action, he never shunned anyone or refused to meet a person at their level. He spent his life in the service of others and never forced anyone to do something they did not want to do. If someone professes to be a Christian but is not emulating any of these beliefs then you would be right in calling them out on their hypocrisy.
 
2010-08-17 01:16:08 AM
zedster: My dad's rabbinical school thesis (I'm not going to post any links on fark, sorry, if you are really really interested EIP)

I find it strange that children would make people go back to religion. If anything, having a kid would want me to get even further away from creepy priests and other weirdy beardies.

zedster: I think more religious then the rest of the Western World, that is always going to be relative. We have a history of Evangelical big tent movements popping up every few decades and I see no reason to think that will stop.

Yeah, maybe. Maybe there'll be a tipping point - a critical mass of non-believers that sort of...opens the floodgates of freethought. Its possible.
 
2010-08-17 01:16:43 AM
i647.photobucket.com

I am EvaAngelinacal and proud of it.
 
2010-08-17 01:17:45 AM
muck4doo:

Look at his profile.


Well he can kiss my grits anyway.
 
2010-08-17 01:17:50 AM
Begoggle: I am EvaAngelinacal and proud of it.

Tig Bake Fitties!

...

Whatwasisaying?

//Penthouse's quality has dropped if she made it in
 
2010-08-17 01:17:51 AM
Fuller: I find it strange that children would make people go back to religion. If anything, having a kid would want me to get even further away from creepy priests and other weirdy beardies.

They grew up in religious school, summer camp, etc..
have kids and put on the rose tinted glasses and want them to have the same great opportunities they had
 
2010-08-17 01:19:09 AM
zedster: Fuller: I find it strange that children would make people go back to religion. If anything, having a kid would want me to get even further away from creepy priests and other weirdy beardies.

They grew up in religious school, summer camp, etc..
have kids and put on the rose tinted glasses and want them to have the same great opportunities they had


Also, I'm not endorsing this or passing judgment either way, just saying what I think the reasons may be that having kids and getting linked back into organized religion maybe, even for people who during their college and early adult years were apathetic or even opposed to religion
 
2010-08-17 01:19:12 AM
LindyJohn: "Again, I was calling Zamoboro to task fo his use of "moderate", not making a specific argument about the issue."

You misunderstood. I was using moderate as shorthand for "moderate Christian", i.e. one that accepts evolution and (at least I thought) supports gay rights, abortion rights, stem cell research, stuff like that. Perhaps I was wrong to assume it would be understood as such. At any rate that's why I pointed my post out to GilRuiz1. He's a moderate Christian and we occasionally butt heads.
 
2010-08-17 01:19:21 AM
Gotta love any news article about prostitutes being under evangelicals.
 
2010-08-17 01:20:13 AM
Fubini: Here's a handy one-step litmus test. If someone professes to be christian but condemns another (gays, Muslims, liberals, atheists, etc.) then they are not Christian.

Urgh, really? No true scotsman?
 
2010-08-17 01:20:37 AM
Begoggle: I am EvaAngelinacal and proud of it.

Someone appears to have implanted soup bowls in that young woman's chest. Tragic, really.
 
2010-08-17 01:20:51 AM
Relatively Obscure: I can't rate 'evangelicals' as a group, really. But there are a whole lot of 'em I'd put below prostitutes every single time.

Still, I've met some that are awesome enough for me. And some prostitutes are just mean and make me cry :'(


do you have to pay extra for that?
 
2010-08-17 01:20:53 AM
Relatively Obscure: And some prostitutes are just mean and make me cry :'(

Yeah, but you pay them to make you cry. And you like it.
 
2010-08-17 01:21:14 AM
zedster: zedster: Fuller: I find it strange that children would make people go back to religion. If anything, having a kid would want me to get even further away from creepy priests and other weirdy beardies.

They grew up in religious school, summer camp, etc..
have kids and put on the rose tinted glasses and want them to have the same great opportunities they had

Also, I'm not endorsing this or passing judgment either way, just saying what I think the reasons may be that having kids and getting linked back into organized religion maybe, even for people who during their college and early adult years were apathetic or even opposed to religion


Also nothing backs up Mom & Dad's authority like divine authority.

//I seriously suspect parents find it easier to say "Because God says so" than "Because I say so".
 
2010-08-17 01:21:17 AM
ignite ice: An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. You can't be a non-Christian and not be an atheist. The two terms co-exist. Someone who denies the existence of God is not a Christian and is therefore an atheist.

I'm just going to be blunt. You're an idiot.
 
2010-08-17 01:21:35 AM
Is it odd that I have as many friends with a history of prostitution as friends that have been born again? (No, there's no overlap that I know of)
 
2010-08-17 01:21:37 AM
Begoggle: I am EvaAngelinacal and proud of it.

god I love that woman
 
2010-08-17 01:22:19 AM
austin_millbarge: ignite ice: An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. You can't be a non-Christian and not be an atheist. The two terms co-exist. Someone who denies the existence of God is not a Christian and is therefore an atheist.

I'm just going to be blunt. You're an idiot.


*sigh* check his profile. He's not an idiot, he's a troll par excellence.
 
2010-08-17 01:23:11 AM
Knara
So you're saying that, because it is a self-identifying group, evangelicals are Christians... they're just really lousy at following the teachings of Christ?

That seems to be your argument: That they are Christians, they're just bad Christians?

Just wanted some clarity of your argument.
 
2010-08-17 01:23:44 AM
DreamyAltarBoy: Is it odd that I have as many friends with a history of prostitution as friends that have been born again? (No, there's no overlap that I know of)

You attract teh crazy.
 
2010-08-17 01:23:50 AM
Uchiha_Cycliste: this is gonna be a nasty thread, I can feel it.

Yep. And you can thank Ignite Ice for shiatting in the punchbowl and getting the fight started. farking troll.
 
2010-08-17 01:24:13 AM
zedster: Also, I'm not endorsing this or passing judgment either way, just saying what I think the reasons may be that having kids and getting linked back into organized religion maybe, even for people who during their college and early adult years were apathetic or even opposed to religion

Yeah, you could well be right. In my opinion, if they're vulnerable to falling back into religion at a later age, then they never embraced critical thinking properly. But I know what you're thinking, of course thats what my opinion would be.
 
2010-08-17 01:24:32 AM
Wrong_Intentions: ignite ice: So this study asked a bunch of atheists what they think about non-atheists, and the atheists ranked evangelicals ridiculously lower than others? I am shocked, absolutely shocked, that atheists would have it out for evangelicals, or anyone with beliefs that differ from them. If this study was reversed, you'd see atheists up in arms if Christians rated atheists as disrespectful. But they wouldn't -- and that's the difference between atheists and Christians: one has morals, the other lacks them.

They sure do.


Didn't poll just atheists. They also polled Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and other religious groups. On any objective poll, atheists will only make up 14% of the polling demographic unless you specifically target them.

What I always found interesting was that study that showed prison population figures. While Atheists compose 14% of the American public, they make up less than half of 1% of the prison population. Apparently, not having a religion makes one less inclined to rape, murder, steal, brutalize, and indulge in recreational drugs.

Frustratingly enough, the article's wording on the 'respect' poll is unclear. Does that means the poll takers respected the hookers the least, or that they found the hookers to be the least respectful towards them? I want to say the former, but clarification would be nice.

GAT_00: Wrong_Intentions: GAT_00: I respect hookers more than I respect evangelicals. Hookers have values.

Especially if you're quick about it or you pick a fat one.

Also, hookers give back to the community. They actually help people.


I agree wholeheartedly. I was out on Bourbon Street, New Orleans a few years ago (I'm well known as a designated driver), when some jackass picked my pocket and ran off with my wallet. I turned to chase him, and by the time I had finished turning around, three hookers had the prick on the ground and were alternatively macing him and stomping his nuts. One of them handed me back my wallet, all the cash and cards still inside. Didn't ask for anything in return, but I gave them each a third of the cash I had on me at the time (Came out to about 23 bucks a piece, I'm not a wealthy man). When the nightly police patrol rolled around to harass them, I told the officers what happened (glossing over the nut stomping), and they left the girls alone for the night, taking the pickpocket into custody instead. I have to say, I have significantly more respect for hookers than I did before that incident. Meanwhile, the fundies who protest Bourbon Street did nothing but yell insults at them, and me, and everyone else.
 
2010-08-17 01:25:44 AM
Ed Grubermann: Uchiha_Cycliste: this is gonna be a nasty thread, I can feel it.

Yep. And you can thank Ignite Ice for shiatting in the punchbowl and getting the fight started. farking troll.


This thread would've been so much lamer had he not trolled so magnificently. He's on par with those flight attendants "crop dusting" their passengers.
 
2010-08-17 01:27:16 AM
thisispete: "Of course, the only Christians non-Christians are likely to be aware of in day-to-day life are the douchebag loudmouths. They think of Fred Phelps, Jack Chick and Jimmy Swaggart, rather than the likes of Martin Luther King and Saint Damien of Molokai. Millions of Christians are quietly living out their inoffensive lives."

So you think the only reason we're leery of Christianity is because we're idiots who can't tell the difference between moderate Christians and fundies?

Are you receptive to the idea that we can in fact tell the difference, but take issue with moderate Christianity for different reasons (and to a lesser degree) than evangelical Christianity?
 
2010-08-17 01:29:02 AM
Fuller: Fubini: Here's a handy one-step litmus test. If someone professes to be christian but condemns another (gays, Muslims, liberals, atheists, etc.) then they are not Christian.

Urgh, really? No true scotsman?


Not sure which part of Jesus' "judge not" statement you're confused by.
 
2010-08-17 01:29:18 AM
muck4doo: wademh: ignite ice: austin_millbarge: It said nothing of the sort. They asked non-Christians. Not every non-Christian is an atheist.

An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. You can't be a non-Christian and not be an atheist. The two terms co-exist. Someone who denies the existence of God is not a Christian and is therefore an atheist.

What if you believe in Krishna or Baal?

Don't bother. He's an Atheist troll
asshole.

/FTFY
 
2010-08-17 01:31:36 AM
Lexx: This thread would've been so much lamer had he not trolled so magnificently. He's on par with those flight attendants "crop dusting" their passengers.

I disagree, all the interesting posts are the ones that aren't either ignites trolling or the bites. Its just boring, I don't know why he bothers.

CaptainFatass: Not sure which part of Jesus' "judge not" statement you're confused by.

All the other stuff in your book that contradicts it?
 
2010-08-17 01:31:43 AM
tedbundee: Begoggle: I am EvaAngelinacal and proud of it.

god I love that woman


Boobs are fake, your allure is invalidated.
 
2010-08-17 01:32:49 AM
Knara: Ummm, no, it appears you do not understand it at all.

/it is left as an exercise to the reader to determine why "no christians who do (x) are real christians" is not any different than the classic example of the logical fallacy at hand


I think the issue is the definition of Christian. I would posit that most people would say a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Thus, in this case, those who self-identify themselves as Christian are irrelevant because the status is not defined by the way you label yourself but by the more or less objective truth of how a person behaves and what they believe to be true.

I think the No True Scotsman fallacy would be far more applicable in a situation where someone claims "No Christian is gay." Then you would go find a gay Christian and introduce the two, whereupon they would assert "No true Christain is gay." In that act they redefine Christian from "one who follows Christ" to "one who follows Christ and is not gay" and thus tautologically exclude gay persons from being Christians. The reason that this is a fallacy is because the person has provided no argument that Christ excluded homosexuals, but has just redefined the debate.
 
Displayed 50 of 447 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report