Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Mail)   Afghan judge to Red Cross worker: Convert back to Islam or you'll be hanged in three days. Red Cross worker: STFU   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 310
    More: Obvious, Red Cross, Afghans, islam, Christianity, STFU, Red Cross worker  
•       •       •

27120 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Feb 2011 at 10:18 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



310 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-07 12:48:00 PM  

Shatner's Bassoon: douchebag/hater: Yeah, for all you people that think Christianity sucks.

Let me know when the Vatican et.al. starts killing people that convert to Islam.

Until then STFU about how Christianity is so 'terrible'.

If something sucks ass, it doesn't suddenly stop sucking ass just because something else sucks even more ass.

/suck my ass



So vote Democrat?
 
2011-02-07 12:59:35 PM  

trucktrash: Joce678: Remember: 90% of the dead Iraqis were civilians...

Got a citation for that statistic, or are you just talking out of your ass?


It's hard for anybody to be exact give the coverups and chaos over there but we can be pretty sure it's at least 80%.
 
2011-02-07 01:25:11 PM  

Nocens: Shatner's Bassoon: douchebag/hater: Yeah, for all you people that think Christianity sucks.

Let me know when the Vatican et.al. starts killing people that convert to Islam.

Until then STFU about how Christianity is so 'terrible'.

If something sucks ass, it doesn't suddenly stop sucking ass just because something else sucks even more ass.

/suck my ass


So vote Democrat?



They're all the same. Vote whoever you feel sucks slightly less ass.
 
2011-02-07 01:38:03 PM  

Revek: genneri>Can we finally retire this?



Check your math?


That is most certainly world-wide statistics.

Religion in the united states would much more resemble the pac-man pie graph saying, "halp halp we're being oppressed."

Considering this is an article for a country other than the US, I must agree that it is inappropriately used this time around.
 
2011-02-07 02:58:09 PM  
hey gais
 
2011-02-07 03:57:30 PM  

Zamboro: What is it about the psychology embedded in Abraham's message


what-which message?

Zamboro: ciberido: "I've gone down this road before in other Fark religion threads (and there have been a lot of Fark religion threads), and it always gets into arguments about whether or not we should count atheists who just happened to be atheists as opposed to atheists who committed atrocities in the NAME of atheism. (And someone will dispute that that EVER happened, then people will argue about what exactly it means to "do X in the name of Y.") Eventually someone will claim that Hitler was an atheist, someone else will say no, Hitler was a Christian, and then it's a race between which gets cited first, Godwin's law or the "No True Scotsman" fallacy."

Yes, I've been through the same argument myself many times. But I am not saying any of those things. I have what I believe are novel arguments. I've put a lot of thought into them and would like to explore them with you, if you're interested, without them being casually dismissed.


Hitler was an extraterrestrial.

abb3w: Actually, there's evidence some people are disproportionately more corruptible than others


it's the jews right? catholics? catholic jews? lawyers..?
 
2011-02-07 04:36:54 PM  

rico567: Yes. And I am willing to agree with your position, if only we could pass a teensy law relating to censorship. Would take care of your problem, and also mine. So how about it?


I don't know what you mean. I wasn't suggesting censoring anything. This is a battle of ideas, people need to be educated out of taking these texts seriously, particularly the parts that no longer fit the moral zeitgeist.
 
2011-02-07 07:36:52 PM  

Zamboro: abb3w: "But is religion the cause, or merely an expression of tendency to authoritarian submission that may arise from genetic and/or non-religious environmental factors?"

Could be both. I'd like to see more studies. What I'd bet my last dime on, though, is that a child who grows up in an environment where the notion that faith is virtuous will wind up with diminished capacity for critical thought, at least when it comes to the claims they've been coached to have faith in.

Again, this may extend to many other kinda of ideology, but the study didn't explore that. What it did show was that the effect was strongest in the very religiously devout sample, and that it didn't work if the charismatic figure just happened to be Christian, only if they claimed to be some sort of special figure, in this case a healer.



I found the entire study online here.

They were trying to find the brain mechanism by which an effect noted 90 years ago on charisma occurs. They picked members of "different charismatic denominations" because, well, they were studying charisma. It is interesting to note that they didn't pick Catholics or Presbyterians or Lutherans for the study on charisma, only charismatic Christians.

At the bottom, when they discuss the meaning of their findings, they say "while our study informs us on the specific context of intercessory prayer in charismatic Christians we do not argue that this mechanism is exclusively related to hypnotic and charismatic interaction. Rather this relation may touch upon a central psychological mechanism of trust which is ubiquitously present in interpersonal interactions, e.g. in leader-follower, doctor-patient, teacher-student, producer-consumer and parent-child relations." They mention other studies found the same result in studies where "participants were asked to relax and watch pictures of loved ones."

So this effect appeared between children and parents, doctors and patients, and other interactions where the subject trusted the speaker. The conclusion seems to be that when you trust someone, you are more willing to listen to what they have to say.
 
2011-02-07 08:56:35 PM  
GilRuiz1: "So this effect appeared between children and parents, doctors and patients, and other interactions where the subject trusted the speaker. The conclusion seems to be that when you trust someone, you are more willing to listen to what they have to say."

What you've quoted does not seem to indicate whether the effect was as stronger, stronger or weaker with other types of bonds:

"Rather this relation may touch upon a central psychological mechanism of trust which is ubiquitously present in interpersonal interactions, e.g. in leader-follower, doctor-patient, teacher-student, producer-consumer and parent-child relations."

Key word bolded.

"They mention other studies found the same result in studies where "participants were asked to relax and watch pictures of loved ones.""

They did not mention how the results from these studies compare to theirs, what the implications might be if charismatic religious figures really do command a devotion neurologically identical to romantic/familial love (which would be telling by itself) besides which abb3w's RWA studies still have to be taken into account.

I drunk what: "what-which message?"

The Bible contains recurring themes of guilt, including multigenerational guilt, blood sacrifice, the notion that one death can atone for others' crimes, etc.

The Bible was of course authored by many people but Abraham and others (famously Paul, in his portions of the New Testament) acted as auteurs, their influence showing through disproportionately to others' and offering a glimpse into their psyches. Neither appear to have been especially well adjusted men.
 
2011-02-07 09:04:34 PM  

Zamboro: "They mention other studies found the same result in studies where "participants were asked to relax and watch pictures of loved ones.""

They did not mention how the results from these studies compare to theirs



The very next sentence says:

"To this condition they responded with deactivations in many of the same executive and social cognitive regions that we report in our study"
 
2011-02-07 09:27:25 PM  
GilRuiz: "To this condition they responded with deactivations in many of the same executive and social cognitive regions that we report in our study"

Fair enough. So deeply religious people have the same implicit trust in someone who claims to be a religious healer that atheists have in family members and significant others. That's not unusual, in your view? Doesn't it create a unique opportunity for anyone intent on duping religious people to simply pretend to have special religious authority?

Atheists might have a similar trust in accomplished scientists and academics, but those credentials are considerably harder to fake. :p
 
2011-02-07 10:12:29 PM  
I will be praying for the man in Afghanistan. I will also happily say a prayer for all of you that don't believe in a higher power. If you are right, then no harm done. If I am right then I look forward to meeting you in the afterlife and having a beer.

Jesus came to earth, was crucified and raised from the dead on the third day that we all might be freed from the grave. The news is good.
 
2011-02-07 10:19:59 PM  

Mongo8269: I will be praying for the man in Afghanistan. I will also happily say a prayer for all of you that don't believe in a higher power. If you are right, then no harm done. If I am right then I look forward to meeting you in the afterlife and having a beer.


Terrific, could you sacrifice a goat for me too? Maybe a rain dance. It's just as useful.

Mongo8269: Jesus came to earth, was crucified and raised from the dead on the third day that we all might be freed from the grave. The news is good.


According to the bible, many were raised from the dead at various times. It seems to have been a fairly commonplace event, in fact. ZOMBIES
 
2011-02-07 10:20:43 PM  
Mongo8269: "If you are right, then no harm done. If I am right then I look forward to meeting you in the afterlife and having a beer."

Those aren't the only two possibilities, though. There are countless possible gods, and countless possible attitudes they might hold towards belief/nonbelief. The Hindu gods may be the real ones. If you were raised in India, you'd most likely believe that. The Shinto gods might be the real ones. If raised in some parts of Japan you'd believe that instead. The real god or gods might prefer atheists, as they were able to overcome their neurological and social inclination towards belief and come to more difficult, thoughtful conclusions about the universe based on evidence and reason.

Any of these are possible. But you don't believe in all of them, so you must have certain criteria for what constitutes a credible god concept. I'd like to hear what those criteria are, why your god satisfies them, and why others don't.
 
2011-02-07 10:34:43 PM  

Zamboro: Doesn't it create a unique opportunity for anyone intent on duping religious people to simply pretend to have special religious authority?



To the extent that people belonging to x group trust people in x group, sure, it's unique.

Hey, a related thought occurs to me. If having a picture of a loved one nearby makes people more trusting... isn't it dangerous that millions of workers have photos of wives and children on their desks?
 
2011-02-07 10:39:13 PM  
GilRuiz1: "To the extent that people belonging to x group trust people in x group, sure, it's unique."

See: "Atheists might have a similar trust in accomplished scientists and academics, but those credentials are considerably harder to fake."

GilRuiz1: "Hey, a related thought occurs to me. If having a picture of a loved one nearby makes people more trusting... isn't it dangerous that millions of workers have photos of wives and children on their desks?"

Has anyone ever claimed to be millions of peoples' mother or child, and convinced them to commit an atrocity?
 
2011-02-07 10:55:54 PM  
kerp: me and the missus have that picture of Hitch on our bathroom door. Serious :)
 
2011-02-07 11:13:27 PM  

Fuller: kerp: me and the missus have that picture of Hitch on our bathroom door. Serious :)


nothing wrong with that.

/serious.

Put that jpg up, give her a thrill.

/joking

On the other hand, can you distinguish the difference between why I say there's nothing wrong with that (seriously too) and the ramblings of a fanatical atheist supremacist on Fark?

/Just curious.
 
2011-02-07 11:32:52 PM  

Zamboro: See: "Atheists might have a similar trust in accomplished scientists and academics, but those credentials are considerably harder to fake."
...
Has anyone ever claimed to be millions of peoples' mother or child, and convinced them to commit an atrocity?


Now that you mention it, something that is troubling is when a prestigious scientist or academic recommends a course of action and lots of people follow it, only to find out later on that it was a horrible thing to do.

Remember Walter Freeman and his lobotomies?
www.lobotomist.com

Certainly, as science marches on, we learn better and things improve, but in the meanwhile, 2,500 people got lobotomized because back off, man, I'm a scientist.

/See also eugenics, Lysenkoism , and tobacco company scientists who assured the public that smoking was ok.
 
2011-02-07 11:41:43 PM  

kerpal32: On the other hand, can you distinguish the difference between why I say there's nothing wrong with that (seriously too) and the ramblings of a fanatical atheist supremacist on Fark?


I can barely find a coherent sentence from you most of the time, so no.
 
2011-02-08 12:35:17 AM  

Zamboro: justaguy516:

I agree with the last part, but the first bit still doesn't seem to account for the fact that the Judeo-Christian faiths have been disproportionately violent, to an absurd extreme, compared with all other historical religions. Why this particular strand of religion? Why no long tradition of genocidal Buddhists, or Sikhs? What is it about the psychology embedded in Abraham's message that attracts (or creates, depending on opinion) the worst of us?


Well, I am no expert on religious history. But from what little I know, Buddhism is a very individualistic religion. Being in a group is given little or no importance. The buddha always emphasized that nirvana is not something that someone else can find for you; it is something you have to find for yourself. Maybe that is why Buddhists tend not to group-think.

Sikhism is unique; it is very much a group oriented religion, and in many ways, very martial. The idea behind Sikhs not cutting their hair is precisely to mark them out so that they could not deny their faith; they would have to fight for it. Sikhs did plenty of fighting, both against the Mughals as well as the British. But they inherit, to an extent, the belief of Vedic Hinduism (Guru , that there is no such thing as an un-believer. The laws of karma and atman are as universal as the law of gravity, and are applicable to everybody, whether or not they believe in it. So Sikhs do not proselytize; there is very little emphasis on conversion, because you don't need belief in order to be saved.
 
2011-02-08 05:49:23 AM  
justaguy516: "Well, I am no expert on religious history. But from what little I know, Buddhism is a very individualistic religion. Being in a group is given little or no importance. The buddha always emphasized that nirvana is not something that someone else can find for you; it is something you have to find for yourself. Maybe that is why Buddhists tend not to group-think."

Now we're getting somewhere. I find this explanation plausible as there's a unique focus on reason in Buddhism not found in Abrahamic faiths. I'd want to confirm a difference in cognitive approach to problems by sticking sample groups of various faiths into fMRI machines though. I imagine regardless of the results, it would prove very revealing.

GilRuiz1: "Certainly, as science marches on, we learn better and things improve, but in the meanwhile, 2,500 people got lobotomized because back off, man, I'm a scientist."

Good point. I'll concede that one. I'm not sure it's morally equivalent to religiously justified genocides but it's bad enough that I can't bring myself to quibble, and the mechanism does appear to be the same.

GilRuiz1: "/See also eugenics, Lysenkoism , and tobacco company scientists who assured the public that smoking was ok."

Eugenics I'll give you, although there are caveats: It would have worked, as it's just animal husbandry as applied to humans. The problem was in the forcible application. Lysenkoism was advanced for political reasons, not scientific ones; It was to be the Soviet's triumph over inferior capitalist agricultural methods. Lysenko's boost came not from scientific support but the party's support. He'd never have gotten anywhere through legitimate scientific channels.

I don't know what to make of the tobacco company example. It's a perfect example of when critical thinking comes in handy. I don't think you'll find any atheist who fell for those ads. We do sort of make a sport out of dissecting fraudulent medical claims, see James Randi's efforts to discredit homeopathy by consuming an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills onstage. We're also one of the loudest voices decrying anti-vaccinationists. The tobacco example is a valid instance of scientists being corrupted by business, but not of people naturally inclined to trust in science being fooled by such efforts.
 
2011-02-08 08:51:21 AM  

Zamboro: I don't know what to make of the tobacco company example. It's a perfect example of when critical thinking comes in handy. I don't think you'll find any atheist who fell for those ads.



Well, I was only going to talk about people's belief in the prestige of scientists and I wasn't going to bring atheism or religion into this, but since you mentioned it, here's an excerpt from an interview with an anti-tobacco lawyer where he talks about a conversation he had with a leading pro-tobacco scientist:
Another incident was with Dr. Frank Colby. He as a senior scientist for R. J. Reynolds for 35 years and then was assigned to their law firms. When I asked Dr. Colby, who had insisted--and this was in 1997--that no American had ever died from smoking cigarettes. That was his position. I asked him if he had read the deposition of Jeffrey Bible that I had taken, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Phillip Morris, the big parent company. Who said 100,000 possibly die every year.

And he looked me straight in the eye and he said, "Mr. Motley, I don't believe in that Bible or the Bible." And I said, "Are you an atheist." And he said, "Yes." It strikes me as rather remarkable that a company that has a scientist who is supposed to be in charge of scientific morality is an atheist.
 
2011-02-08 09:13:59 AM  
All right, but how many atheists believed him? Remember, that's the metric we've been using all this time and the basis of my original argument. Not what charismatics themselves believe but to what extent different groups are prone to believing uncritically in what charismatics who share that label tell them.

I think if you dug around you could find a scant few examples of atheist scientists who deny AGW/evolution or oppose gay rights. And yet, the breakdown in terms of AGW acceptance/denial still correlates strongly with religious belief/lack of it. You will never see atheist groups put out videos like this, or this, or this. Those few examples wouldn't mean much, eh?

Atheists are typically on the right side of scientific and social issues, at least give us credit there. You agree with most common atheist positions in that sense, such as gay rights, stem cell research, AGW and evolution. We have a pretty good track record in those areas and I'd like to hear an admission of that. It'd be a nice gesture anyway.

I'd also like some recognition that Christian efforts to sow doubt around scientific issues are causing harm. For instance it was recently revealed that only 28% teach evolution as it's understood by science. Most avoid the topic because creationist students create problems for teachers who bring it up (and that can mean legal issues) and 13% of teachers are explicitly advocating creationism in violation of the Dover ruling. This is a direct result of the efforts of Christian organizations. Atheists don't do this sort of thing.
 
2011-02-08 09:21:37 AM  

Zamboro: All right, but how many atheists believed him?


Holy moley, I don't know. Anybody do a poll to see how smoking broke down by religion? I know you suspect that atheists didn't buy it, but is there data anywhere to help us figure this out?

Come to think of it, if the metric we're using is critical evaluation of people's claims, how come more atheists believe in astrology, tarot cards, and so on? Shouldn't it be fewer?


Zamboro: Atheists are typically on the right side of scientific and social issues, at least give us credit there. ... and I'd like to hear an admission of that.


I honestly never keep track of which religion (or lack thereof) is most in favor of which issue. Are more atheists or wiccans or 7th Day Adventists for or against a certain issue? I don't know. I don't look at the world like that.
 
2011-02-08 09:25:32 AM  
Zamboro: Atheists don't do this sort of thing.

See the tobacco interview directly above.
 
2011-02-08 10:17:37 AM  
GilRuiz1: "Come to think of it, if the metric we're using is critical evaluation of people's claims, how come more atheists believe in astrology, tarot cards, and so on? Shouldn't it be fewer?"

Got me there, I have no idea why that study turned out how it did.

GilRuiz1: "I honestly never keep track of which religion (or lack thereof) is most in favor of which issue. Are more atheists or wiccans or 7th Day Adventists for or against a certain issue? I don't know. I don't look at the world like that."

Well in case you hadn't noticed right now there's a political movement in this country comprised of very right wing Christians who are anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay and anti-AGW. They're pretty hard to miss. Starts with a T. It's worth understanding this segment of the population as in one form or another it's been on the wrong side of every issue from abolition to suffrage to segregation to gay rights to farking electric cars and renewable power even. The poorest among us are also the most religious and the most easily led by the worst corporate interests. It's a farking mind boggling phenomenon. Don't pretend it has escaped your notice.

GilRuiz1: "See the tobacco interview directly above."

That was one doctor who was incidentally atheist speaking on behalf of a tobacco company. Not an explicitly atheist organization. The videos I provided were all produced by explicitly Christian organizations, not by Christian individuals speaking on behalf of unrelated organizations. If the gist is that I should've said "atheist organizations don't do that", that's fine, but I figured that was the obvious implicit meaning.
 
2011-02-08 10:31:08 AM  

Zamboro: Well in case you hadn't noticed right now there's a political movement in this country comprised of very right wing Christians who are anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay and anti-AGW. They're pretty hard to miss. Starts with a T. It's worth understanding this segment of the population as in one form or another it's been on the wrong side of every issue from abolition to suffrage to segregation to gay rights to farking electric cars and renewable power even. The poorest among us are also the most religious and the most easily led by the worst corporate interests. It's a farking mind boggling phenomenon. Don't pretend it has escaped your notice.



Well, if you mean to say that atheists tend to be more liberal and thus are more likely to back the liberal agenda, while religious people tend to be more conservative and thus are more likely to back the conservative agenda, then yes, certainly I can agree to that.

I guess my brain short-circuit is due to the fact that I tend to see things as more liberal-vs-conservative, rather than atheist-vs-religious. But yeah, if we're putting more atheists in the liberal camp, then yes, certainly you are right.


Zamboro: The poorest among us are also the most religious and the most easily led by the worst corporate interests.


An interesting exception to this is black peoples. On the average, in this country they have less wealth, more religion, but also are more likely to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum. I wonder why that is.
 
2011-02-08 10:39:48 AM  

Zamboro: The Bible contains recurring themes of guilt, including multigenerational guilt, blood sacrifice, the notion that one death can atone for others' crimes, etc.

The Bible was of course authored by many people but Abraham and others (famously Paul, in his portions of the New Testament) acted as auteurs, their influence showing through disproportionately to others' and offering a glimpse into their psyches. Neither appear to have been especially well adjusted men.


well that's because they lacked the omniscience one obtains through scientific know-how, like your well adjusted self

so then old grand pope-pooba of Scientism, please enlighten us to the Nature of God?

or perhaps you could just start with "Nature" itself before you attempt to tackle somewhat more complex topics...

What is Nature again?

surely a Scientist can define the one word that is absolutely required in order to gain knowledge of their subject...
 
2011-02-08 10:53:07 AM  

Zamboro: The Bible contains recurring themes of guilt, including multigenerational guilt, blood sacrifice, the notion that one death can atone for others' crimes, etc.

The Bible was of course authored by many people but Abraham and others (famously Paul, in his portions of the New Testament) acted as auteurs, their influence showing through disproportionately to others' and offering a glimpse into their psyches.


so then, we should NOT feel bad for the sins we have committed and God has no right to demand a price to be paid for these transgressions?

have you tried this angle with law enforcement officers, i think you've got something there:

Cop: Sir you were speeding and must pay this fine-ticket

Zamby: The nerve of you! bullying me with your guilt and then having the gall to demand recompense for your "imaginary offense" *smiles smugly*

Cop: I'm going to need you to step out of the car

Zamby: Are you serious?!? Surely you aren't that stupid, after I explained to you why you fail at logic. Now go away before i taunt you a second time.

Cop: Is there anyone else in the car i can talk to? *reaches for tazer*

/all hail the grand pooba Zamby!
//pope zamby is insulting to popes...
 
2011-02-08 11:03:26 AM  

Fuller: It seems to have been a fairly commonplace event, in fact.


Disagreements aside for a moment, you use words too much. I don't think you understand their purpose.
 
2011-02-08 12:50:17 PM  
When a group of people collectively decides that the world is not a big enough place for both us and them, then all that is left to do is to agree with them, and to show them how much better we are at that game than they are.
 
2011-02-08 04:02:26 PM  

GilRuiz1: /See also eugenics, Lysenkoism , and tobacco company scientists who assured the public that smoking was ok.


Not to mention Milgram's Obedience experiment.

GilRuiz1: On the average, in this country they have less wealth, more religion, but also are more likely to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum. I wonder why that is.


Possibly because racial equality questions have been a "liberal" issue for some time.
 
2011-02-08 04:30:09 PM  

I drunk what: Fuller: It seems to have been a fairly commonplace event, in fact.

Disagreements aside for a moment, you use words too much. I don't think you understand their purpose.


Nup, not getting your point here.
 
2011-02-08 06:19:54 PM  

Fuller: I drunk what: Fuller: It seems to have been a fairly commonplace event, in fact.

Disagreements aside for a moment, you use words too much. I don't think you understand their purpose.

Nup, not getting your point here.


it doesn't seem that way

it wasn't commonplace

and it certainly is not fact

*puts guyinFuller16 on his xmas list for dictionaries*

/he's makin' a list
//checkn' it twice
///gunna find out who's been naughty or nice
//IDW is comin' to town
 
2011-02-08 07:34:39 PM  

I drunk what: it doesn't seem that way

it wasn't commonplace

and it certainly is not fact

*puts guyinFuller16 on his xmas list for dictionaries*


Yeah, you're still not explaining what's wrong with what I said. It seems fine to me.
 
2011-02-08 07:48:35 PM  

I drunk what: Zamboro: The Bible contains recurring themes of guilt, including multigenerational guilt, blood sacrifice, the notion that one death can atone for others' crimes, etc.

The Bible was of course authored by many people but Abraham and others (famously Paul, in his portions of the New Testament) acted as auteurs, their influence showing through disproportionately to others' and offering a glimpse into their psyches.

so then, we should NOT feel bad for the sins we have committed and God has no right to demand a price to be paid for these transgressions?


No, you should only feel bad about the sins that you have committed, not the ones some mythical ancestor committed on your behalf. Likewise, you should only feel redeemed if you have done something redeeming, not because some middle Eastern guy was tortured to death. I guess that is the point.
 
2011-02-08 09:50:14 PM  
GilRuiz1: "An interesting exception to this is black peoples. On the average, in this country they have less wealth, more religion, but also are more likely to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum. I wonder why that is."

It isn't. They are by and large fiscally liberal, but socially conservative. American blacks lag other groupings in acceptance of gays, for example.

I drunk what: "so then, we should NOT feel bad for the sins we have committed and God has no right to demand a price to be paid for these transgressions?"

Well, should one feel bad for being homosexual? What price should they pay? Admonitions against homosexuality are found in both the Old and New Testaments, the latter containing verses which explicitly state that homosexuals cannot enter heaven.

Religions have some very good common sense behavioral guidelines, but only the same ones already enumerated by ethicists. The Code of Hammurabi, mankind's first written law, predated the Ten Commandments you know. Anyway, the 'extra' guidelines religions advance that ethicists do not often don't make any sense, are sexist or homophobic, and carry needlessly cruel punishments. It's what happens when you insist on making use of a ruleset that cannot change to reflect societal growth. The rules that made sense for our primitve ancestors largely still make sense for us now, but there are notable exceptions that keep cropping up and causing problems. We need to be able to discard those bits, and the belief that they were dictated by God interferes with that.
 
2011-02-08 10:09:48 PM  

Zamboro: It isn't. They are by and large fiscally liberal, but socially conservative.


*brainexplode*
 
2011-02-08 11:04:09 PM  

justaguy516: No, you should only feel bad about the sins that you have committed


sounds reasonable

which is why i said it

/glad we agree

Zamboro: Well, should one feel bad for being homosexual?


we should feel bad anytime we fail or disappoint God, whether or not it is a Sin

God created female for male, when we engage in un-natural behavior we disappoint Him, whether it be with animals or immediate family

there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way

we shouldn't feel bad because we are tempted by Sin, we should feel real bad when we give in to it

Zamboro: What price should they pay?


self-control otherwise the price will be one they cannot afford

Zamboro: Admonitions against homosexuality are found in both the Old and New Testaments, the latter containing verses which explicitly state that homosexuals cannot enter heaven.


on the day of judgment i really don't think anyone will care about sexual desires, perhaps now would be a good time to start setting priorities...

Zamboro: mankind's first written law, predated the Ten Commandments you know


who said that the Old Law was the ONLY time God spoke to Man? or the first time?

but one thing is that you can be reasonably sure about, that God did speak to the prophets, Jews, etc.. everything else you just gotta take with a grain of salt, even if He did reveal Himself to the gentiles through Patriarchs n' such, that was in the past and does not provide any information that we have not already received

Zamboro: Anyway, the 'extra' guidelines religions advance that ethicists do not often don't make any sense


make sense to Who?

Zamboro: are sexist


example?

Zamboro: or homophobic


we do not fear homosexuality

Zamboro: and carry needlessly cruel punishments.


such as?

Zamboro: It's what happens when you insist on making use of a ruleset that cannot change to reflect societal growth Objective Morality.


sorry lad, but that is simply the nature of the beast

/the sword cuts both ways

Zamboro: The rules that made sense for our primitve ancestors largely still make sense for us now, but there are notable exceptions that keep cropping up and causing problems.


such as?

Zamboro: We need to be able to discard those bits, and the belief that they were dictated by God interferes with that

I'd love to tell ya, that we can just use the parts we like and cherry pick the scriptures to suit our needs. And simply ignore the parts that cause us discomfort. But then you'd no longer be talking to IDW. but your post was addressed to him, so I'll just keep speaking the Truth instead...

besides why would you want to go and create yet another false religion...? don't we have enough of those already

i'm with you up until this point:

Zamby: Let's get rid of all religions

but then i go one step further,

IDW: Let's discover the One True Religion...

well? are you with me or against me?

Zamboro: Religions have some very good common sense behavioral guidelines

Nope. that's ethics. Religion is the tool we must utilize to know-understand God, just like Science is the tool we use to understand Gravity.

there aren't many Gods, or many Gravity's

Just the One. With tools to find Him-It.

There are however, plenty examples of how to use those tools incorrectly, I concur.

let's get rid of all the sciences and discover the One True Science
 
2011-02-08 11:15:38 PM  

I drunk what: we should feel bad anytime we fail or disappoint God, whether or not it is a Sin

God created female for male, when we engage in un-natural behavior we disappoint Him, whether it be with animals or immediate family

there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way

we shouldn't feel bad because we are tempted by Sin, we should feel real bad when we give in to it


Do you really believe this rubbish? Because you need to understand that it really is rubbish.
 
2011-02-08 11:18:08 PM  

Fuller: I drunk what: we should feel bad anytime we fail or disappoint God, whether or not it is a Sin

God created female for male, when we engage in un-natural behavior we disappoint Him, whether it be with animals or immediate family

there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way

we shouldn't feel bad because we are tempted by Sin, we should feel real bad when we give in to it

Do you really believe this rubbish? Because you need to understand that it really is rubbish.


--Citation Needed--
 
2011-02-08 11:20:39 PM  

Fuller: Do you really believe this rubbish? Because you need to understand that it really is rubbish


you may need to be a bit more specific, i usually believe the things i say

everything you quoted seems to be in order, did i err?
 
2011-02-08 11:42:51 PM  

I drunk what: everything you quoted seems to be in order, did i err?


You're claiming not only that god is real, which is outlandish enough, but also that you know what this god wants.

These are completely unjustified claims that simply can't be taken seriously.
 
2011-02-08 11:58:23 PM  

Fuller: I drunk what: everything you quoted seems to be in order, did i err?

You're claiming not only that god is real, which is outlandish enough, but also that you know what this god wants.

These are completely unjustified claims that simply can't be taken seriously.


Is it your contention then that there is no power greater than you in the universe? That the universe and it's splendors are one giant accident? All that waits for you at your death is corruption and the cold ground?
 
2011-02-09 12:06:58 AM  

Mongo8269: Is it your contention then that there is no power greater than you in the universe?


Power? I mean...I'm a small guy, there's plenty of muscle bound dudes more powerful. Or do you mean energy wise, like the sun? Or politically, like...anyone in politics is more powerful than me?

What are you talking about

Mongo8269: That the universe and it's splendors are one giant accident?


I didn't claim to have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe. But positing a god doesn't get you any closer, because you still have to explain the god. And any god capable of creating the complexity in this universe is by definition even more complex. So you have a regression problem.

Mongo8269: All that waits for you at your death is corruption and the cold ground?


When I die, it will be as it was for the millions of years before I was born. And I didn't suffer any then, so I'm not bothered.

Besides, we know this is the case from neurobiology. Consciousness is entirely dependant on the material brain. There's no basis for positing a spirit that continues living after death, save for wish thinking.
 
2011-02-09 12:54:33 AM  

Fuller: Mongo8269: Is it your contention then that there is no power greater than you in the universe?

Power? I mean...I'm a small guy, there's plenty of muscle bound dudes more powerful. Or do you mean energy wise, like the sun? Or politically, like...anyone in politics is more powerful than me?

What are you talking about

No higher moral authority? No right or wrong? You are the ultimate and only judge of your actions?

Mongo8269: That the universe and it's splendors are one giant accident?

I didn't claim to have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe. But positing a god doesn't get you any closer, because you still have to explain the god. And any god capable of creating the complexity in this universe is by definition even more complex. So you have a regression problem.

Not really, as just like the square in Flatland I do not need to see the whole sphere to know that something funny is going on. God is of course the most mysterious and complex being that can exist. I do not need to know why or how a bumblebee flies to know that it does. I cannot think of any other way to describe this feeling, sorry if my explanation is incomplete for your purposes.

Mongo8269: All that waits for you at your death is corruption and the cold ground?

When I die, it will be as it was for the millions of years before I was born. And I didn't suffer any then, so I'm not bothered.

I hope you have a long and healthy life if that is all you have to look forward to. Time is a wasting here on the internet, better get out and live it up more than you are. Get that bucketlist completed...


Besides, we know this is the case from neurobiology. Consciousness is entirely dependant on the material brain. There's no basis for positing a spirit that continues living after death, save for wish thinking.


Might need a little help finding where neurobiology has disproved the existence of any soul or spirit. I have not run across that in my studies. Lack of evidence =/= proof of nonexistence. At one time there was no proof that man could ever fly. Now we have been to the moon.
At one time there was no proof that Columbus would not simply fall off the edge of the earth.

You seem like a thinker. I recommend looking at the first section of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It lays out the argument for the existence of God in a much more learned way than I can. It may be in the public domain and available on the net. It will take less than an hour to read, and will at the very least help you to understand the many of us that believe.
 
2011-02-09 02:42:56 AM  

Mongo8269: Might need a little help finding where neurobiology has disproved the existence of any soul or spirit.


I didn't say that, I said it has demonstrated that consciousness is a product of the brain. A spirit could still be there, but it wouldn't have anything to do.

My point is that nothing remains to be explained about the experience of 'self' that could only be explained by something supernatural.

And by the way, the only connection between the idea of an afterlife and the idea of god is that the religious believe in both. If the afterlife would be proved tomorrow, it would say nothing of the existence of god, and vice versa.

Mongo8269: You seem like a thinker. I recommend looking at the first section of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It lays out the argument for the existence of God in a much more learned way than I can.


I am familiar with your C S Lewis. He was a great writer, but I have to say the arguments on the other side of the divide are far more compelling.

Now, I think your comment about scientific project is actually quite relevant - notice that every time we are able to explain something that we previously couldn't, god gets a bit smaller? God used to explain lightning and earthquakes and diseases that we couldn't see and...the sun, even. Now he's simply supposed to sound more plausible than an accidental universe (which, by the way, is a use for god that is probably on its last legs now too, according to some rather high profile astrophysicists).

So it seems like every time we solve a mystery, it turns out to be not god. How far would this have to go before you gave up on the god explanation? Or is it possible for god to get infinitely smaller, because every time a question is answered further questions are raised?

The fact is that while we can't prove a negative, there is precisely as much evidence for, and logical argument in support of god as there is thor. Should we then believe in thor, because he can't be disproved? Pay attention to why you don't believe in any of the other gods, and you'll understand why I don't believe in any of them, period.
 
2011-02-09 02:44:39 AM  

Fuller: Now, I think your comment about scientific projectprogress is actually quite relevant


ftfm
 
2011-02-09 05:29:38 AM  

Mongo8269:

Is it your contention then that there is no power greater than you in the universe?


Yes, there is. It's called gravity. It causes stars to collapse into black holes, apples to fall from trees and pretty much everything in between. It is omni-present and, to quite an extent, all powerful. It is inalienably built into the structure of the universe. However, it can be measured, its effects are predictable and it is not a moral authority. Also, it does not care whether I believe in it or not; it works on me just the same.

Cool, huh?
 
Displayed 50 of 310 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report