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.

(Patheos)   Seminary professor announces that he will "live like an atheist" for a year as an experiment. Step 1: Facing religious bigotry as your seminary fires you less than a week into the experiment   (patheos.com) divider line 347
    More: Asinine, religious bigotry, seminary, Adventist Church, Hemant Mehta, experiments  
•       •       •

13639 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2014 at 2:08 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



347 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 05:46:22 PM

Whodat: Given that theology is "is the systematic and study of the concepts of God and the nature of religious truths" and that atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of those concepts and beliefs, I can understand him being let go from a Theological Seminary.


Merriam-Webster defines theology as "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience".

His stance is akin to going to basketball camp and rejecting the concept of all sports yet expecting to be able to still play the game and get paid to do it.

It's more like not being a professional athlete yet expecting to still work as a sportswriter. Or studying cancer in mice without having cancer, or being a mouse.
 
2014-01-06 05:48:11 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: There isnothing inherent to atheism which is analogous to "not using technology."


I would say that "Not believing in God" in a field predicated on teaching "How to believe and worship God" is one.
 
2014-01-06 05:48:36 PM
Also, I am juvenile enough to snicker at this:

static.fjcdn.com

/Thor has better box office numbers, frankly, and gets to schtupp a nice Jewish girl...from space!
 
2014-01-06 05:49:55 PM
if this guy is truly on a spiritual quest then more power to him, however I wonder if it's more a publicity stunt from an AW looking for their next book deal.

My 2 cents on religion. Believe in whatever you wish or nothing at all for all I care.  As long as it's not being forced upon me or others I'm more than willing to let you go about your business.  Since I live in the US and it's mostly Christian I am basing my opinions on the people I have interacted or heard about.  Most Christians are  relatively cool about their religion an don't care about yours or lack thereof.  Most just give me a double take when I say I'm an atheist and shrug.  There are a few assholes that feel they need to save me and leave 'Good News' on my desk everyday and wanting me to go to their church.

Any group of size though it's the ones that feel their way is the only way that hurts them along with others and where I put those irritating people.  My personal opinion is that this group has increased in size over the past couple decades and has been browbeating other Christians for their tolerance.  This to me seems a failing strategy, as although working atm it will not work in the long run as we are becoming more accepting and tolerant of other ideas/beliefs all the time.  Not fast enough for me, but in my lifetime I have witnessed vast changes to the way blacks, women, Asians, LGBT, and other religions are treated.
 
2014-01-06 05:53:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments


In my experience physicians perform poorly delivering competent diagnoses, I have had much better results goggling and/or consulting nurse practitioners with very few exceptions in that regard.

I can see clearly how rejection of scientific theory by a physician maybe indicative of attitudes and judgements that would adversely affect his ability to competently diagnose.
 
2014-01-06 05:59:20 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Finger51: Not really. One is a hammer (a.k.a. science. Belief via evidence) The other? Well you'll just need to have faith that it is a screwdriver (a.k.a. religion. Belief via faith)Not the same.

Unsurprising that you do not understand. Unsuprising that you feel the need to assert that your hammer and your hammer alone is the only valid tool.

But by all means, feel free to live a hammer only life. I have a hammer too, and I like it just fine. It does everything I would expect a hammer to do. We both have fine hammers, and with them we can easily tackle all hammer related tasks.

But I also have a screwdriver, and I find it serves me well for things that a hammer just can't help with, or just does it better. Having never used a screwdriver, or even seen the need for one, I can't expect you to grasp its utility.

But whereas I am perfectly happy for you in your hammer only life, I find it puzzling that you insist that my screwdriver is not really a tool. One would think that *I* would know better than you (who have no screwdriver at all) whether the screwdriver works for me. Even more curious that someone like you without a screwdriver would insist that the majority of his fellow man, who also have screwdrivers of various kinds, are somehow mistaken in their use of a tool that serves them well.

LoneWolf343: Personally, I don't know how my old Bible professor kept his job at my college since he would say openly "Alcohol ain't going to send you to hell."

I'll give you a hint: If someone studied the bible, what would they find was Jesus' FIRST miracle?


What we non believers tend to worry about is huge numbers of people who believe in things they have no cause to believe in. That in itself may not seem scary but many of these beliefs have to do with harming or bothering people who don't believe. Kind of like really annoying salesman who might just gang up and kill you for not buying their stuff. Then, of course, there are the constant wars over whose god is right. Also, most religious people are determined that their beliefs be turned into laws that are inflicted on everyone, even those who don't believe. They don't seem to realize that by doing so they pretty much negate the whole 'faith' thing but hypocrisy is one of the trademarks of religion.

Of course YOU may be an enlightened believer (or at least think you are) in which case no one is really interested in bothering you.
 
2014-01-06 06:00:17 PM

zepillin: In my experience physicians perform poorly delivering competent diagnoses, I have had much better results goggling and/or consulting nurse practitioners with very few exceptions in that regard.

 I can see clearly how rejection of scientific theory by a physician maybe indicative of attitudes and judgements that would adversely affect his ability to competently diagnose.

I won't argue your experience with doctors' diagnostic skill, but I'd bet money that most of them embrace evolution and that doesn't seem to have granted them any special skill in their job.

I can't question what YOU can clearly see, but I'm not seeing any link between evolutionary theory and the diagnosis and treatment of physical ailments. A physician doctor simply does not deal with evolutionary matters.

As I said, this is the functional equivalent of evaluating a pediatrician based on their unequivocal acceptance or dismissal of Freudian psychoanalysis.
 
2014-01-06 06:01:51 PM

hitlersbrain: That in itself may not seem scary but many of these beliefs have to do with harming or bothering people who don't believe. Kind of like really annoying salesman who might just gang up and kill you for not buying their stuff.


Ah. So you DO believe in mythical and imaginary stuff.
 
2014-01-06 06:17:00 PM
.

BojanglesPaladin: I won't argue your experience with doctors' diagnostic skill, but I'd bet money that most of them embrace evolution and that doesn't seem to have granted them any special skill in their job.

I can't question what YOU can clearly see, but I'm not seeing any link between evolutionary theory and the diagnosis and treatment of physical ailments. A physician doctor simply does not deal with evolutionary matters.

As I said, this is the functional equivalent of evaluating a pediatrician based on their unequivocal acceptance or dismissal of Freudian psychoanalysis.


Good points well taken.

Jung rules!
 
2014-01-06 06:19:50 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: I had an engineer say that evolution couldn't be real because there was no way it could account for the diversity of life on the planet. I never thought I would have to screen my physicians for a basic understanding of evolution, but I do now when insurance forced me to change doctors.

Why would that matter?

I have no idea whatsoever if my doctor 'believes' in evolution. It's never even occurred to me to ask. I care if he is a competent physician, but since neither he or I will be personally evolving during the time we work together, I can't imagine it matters in the least. Anymore than it matters if he is an atheist or a budhist or whether he believes in werewolves.


It matters because modern medicines are based on evolutionary science. If a doctor thinks that's hooey, I do not want that doctor prescribing me drugs. On some level, a physician ought to be a scientist. One is a very bad scientist, indeed, if one believes the Genesis section of the Bible takes precedence over biological science.
 
2014-01-06 06:24:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: A Cave Geek: A competent physician would understand and 'believe' in the science that proves that organisms change and adapt to their environment. Someone who denies evolution IS a poor physician.

I would say you have an imperfect understanding of the theory of evolution and its role in science and biology if you believe this to be true. A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments. It is also worth noting that one can fully embrace and accept micro-evolution (the changing of species over time) without accepting macro-evolution (speciation or evolutionary divergence of species).

But either way, it's like saying your pediatrician must accept Freudian psychoanalysis.

But hey. It's your doctor. If you choose your physician based on whether they  share your political affiliation or religion, it's your call.


Evolution is neither politics nor religion. It is the underlying basis for all biology. Doctors who are bad biologists are bad doctors. The fact that you think evolution falls under politics or religion is quite telling.
 
2014-01-06 06:50:03 PM

Pangea: BojanglesPaladin: Pangea: I probably just had a few bad experiences, but they accumulated into enough to turn me off churches pretty much entirely.

I assume you were going to the 'non-denominational'?

Those churches I identified as "modern" were non-denominational. I grew up around Baptist and Lutheran churches attending some when I was young. I've also been to some Episcopalian services with a girlfriend and they were more about ritual. I went to one Catholic service and realized I had zero interest once I found out their stance on non-catholics.

I thought maybe it would be better at a non-denominational service. Someone suggested I try a unitarian/universalist service, but I was sort of over it by that point. I feel like there can be a spiritual component I can feed without having to buy into dogma.


Deism?
 
2014-01-06 06:50:12 PM

Gough: Satanic_Hamster: Captain Darling: Not teaching at a seminary sounds like part of living like an atheist.

Yep.  Also, how exactly does one live as an atheist?  I don't go to atheist lectures or clubs, apparently I'm doing it wrong?

Your absence from the meetings has been noted, believe me.


I think you mean, "DON'T believe me."

Was that a simple mistake, or atheist heresy?
 
2014-01-06 06:54:37 PM

DeaH: BojanglesPaladin: A Cave Geek: A competent physician would understand and 'believe' in the science that proves that organisms change and adapt to their environment. Someone who denies evolution IS a poor physician.

I would say you have an imperfect understanding of the theory of evolution and its role in science and biology if you believe this to be true. A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments. It is also worth noting that one can fully embrace and accept micro-evolution (the changing of species over time) without accepting macro-evolution (speciation or evolutionary divergence of species).

But either way, it's like saying your pediatrician must accept Freudian psychoanalysis.

But hey. It's your doctor. If you choose your physician based on whether they  share your political affiliation or religion, it's your call.

Evolution is neither politics nor religion. It is the underlying basis for all biology. Doctors who are bad biologists are bad doctors. The fact that you think evolution falls under politics or religion is quite telling.


I think that there is much more to being a good doctor than a complete understanding of biology.  I look at doctors more as technicians of medicine (or engineers) and hopefully humanitarians rather than scientists. Of course modern medicine is informed by biology, but so is modern electrical engineering informed by physics.

They guy designing the circuitry on my computer's processor doesn't need to know the quantum mechanics of the molecules within it.  Likewise my anesthesiologist does not need to know who  Ardipithecus was in order to administer the correct dosage.  My primary care physician doesn't need to understand gene flow or genetic drift in order to diagnose a staph infection.

On the whole the study of medicine is an evolutionary study, but the giving of care is done by care givers, not scientists.
 
2014-01-06 06:55:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: There isnothing inherent to atheism which is analogous to "not using technology."

I would say that "Not believing in God" in a field predicated on teaching "How to believe and worship God" is one.


If faith is truly a private matter, it cannot be taught. And I don't believe in gods or supernatural beings, but being raised Catholic, I certainly explain its rites, cultures, and the desired thought patterns, and can (have) appeared quite observant to strangers when the need arises. I don't believe in Vulcans either, but I know enough about Trek lore I could educate the interested on them as well. I aerospace engineers who don't believe in the moon landing hoax, but understand how the evidence can be interpreted to support such conclusions.
 
2014-01-06 06:56:15 PM

ampoliros: Just to be clear, you can (pretend to) be an atheist and be employed by a religious organization. That's not really a big deal.  What is a big deal is (pretending to) be an atheist and be employed by a religious organization to teach religion.

If you're in accounting or IT at a religious institution and someone says, "Do you believe in God?" your answer has no bearing on your ability to do your job.  If you're a religion teacher and a student asks what you think of the material you're teaching and you're answer is, "It's a nice story with lessons we can learn but a story none-the-less" then you've got some issues that arise.

That said, the school seems pretty but-hurt over this and they reasons they give are not religious in nature (they even praise it's merits). They're simply worried about funding. That's something they need to worry about for sure but it just seems wrong to do so.


My good ampoliros, there is nothing more Christian than worrying about funding.
 
2014-01-06 07:08:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: A Cave Geek: A competent physician would understand and 'believe' in the science that proves that organisms change and adapt to their environment. Someone who denies evolution IS a poor physician.

I would say you have an imperfect understanding of the theory of evolution and its role in science and biology if you believe this to be true. A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments. It is also worth noting that one can fully embrace and accept micro-evolution (the changing of species over time) without accepting macro-evolution (speciation or evolutionary divergence of species).


Hehe. That's cute, you think you can distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution using something as imperfect and fluid as "speciation". Species are just naming scientists use for shorthand... species have jumped entire taxonomic trees before, and it's far from a hard delineation like you seem to think it is. Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same thing, only operating on different timescales. If you can't conceive of something larger than a few thousand years, then no wonder you think there's a difference between the two.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Origin_and_Misuse_of_the _t erm
 
2014-01-06 07:19:57 PM
Buttsex. Lots and lots of buttsex.
 
2014-01-06 07:20:20 PM
What, no religious tolerance?
 
2014-01-06 07:23:07 PM
Has anyone been able to answer whether or not this was going to impact his duties as a professor?  Personally, it sounds to me like the kind of thing you could do as a research project while on sabbatical.

Also, the situation amuses me, not because his school fired him or because they acted like dicks, but because it's just so situationally absurd.  It's like the plot of a bad sitcom.
 
2014-01-06 07:29:18 PM
BojanglesPaladin: Finger51: Not really. One is a hammer (a.k.a. science. Belief via evidence) The other? Well you'll just need to have faith that it is a screwdriver (a.k.a. religion. Belief via faith)Not the same.

Unsurprising that you do not understand. Unsuprising that you feel the need to assert that your hammer and your hammer alone is the only valid tool.

when the two choices are between science and religion then yes, science is a much much much more valid tool.

 But I also have a screwdriver, and I find it serves me well for things that a hammer just can't help with, or just does it better. Having never used a screwdriver, or even seen the need for one, I can't expect you to grasp its utility.
If by 'Utility' you mean I have no need for deluding myself into belief without evidence (which is what your faithful screwdriver really boils down to) then you are correct. If you have need for your 'tool' (faith) then I hope it works out for you. And I really mean that, as I stated earlier- I'm happy that religion brings people peace/solace. Do I think that peace/solace is as you stated "perfectly valid" ? No. I don't.

But whereas I am perfectly happy for you in your hammer only life, I find it puzzling that you insist that my screwdriver is not really a tool.
Parsing here, but my intent was to posit that your tool relies on faith- your screwdriver is a tool certainly, but because it depends on faith it's validity is not "Perfect" as your comment stated. If I have a broken leg, morphine is going to make it feel better- but it won't heal it. I think your tool is like morphine. It's really good  at making you feel better but it's not going to 'cure' you of your broken leg.

One would think that *I* would know better than you (who have no screwdriver at all) whether the screwdriver works for me.
I never said or implied your screwdriver didn't work for you. In fact I am happy that you have a tool for your loose screws. I don't have any loose screws so I don't feel any particular need for that tool.

Even more curious that someone like you without a screwdriver would insist that the majority of his fellow man, who also have screwdrivers of various kinds, are somehow mistaken in their use of a tool that serves them well.
I find it curious that you think I said anything of the sort. The closest I can see that I said that one tool is evidence based and (implied) more valid, the other is faith based. How you claim that I've judged others as 'mistaken' is ... curious.

You are the one who brought up the validity of these tools. "they are both perfectly valid tools" And I disagree. The definition of valid is (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. And I do not believe your tool meets that requirement. It may be a tool which has worked for you, but these two tools are not comparable as one of them does not meet the requirements to be 'valid'. Religion's basis on logic or fact is NOT sound, reasonable or cogent.

But keep on using your screwdriver if it helps you. You might want to ease up on the condescending tone, you sound like one of those rabid atheists.
 
2014-01-06 07:33:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: There isnothing inherent to atheism which is analogous to "not using technology."

I would say that "Not believing in God" in a field predicated on teaching "How to believe and worship God" is one.



How so?
 
2014-01-06 07:41:02 PM
This guy living like an athiest for a year is a lot like Jesus 'dying' for the sins of all...

...except Jesus came back after three days, redefining 'death'...

...and Jesus is coming back to life a second time (supposedly), therefore once more showing that death, at least for him, isn't permanent...

Being dead for just a weekend, to me, is like offering to pay all of someone's bills and then putting a stop payment on the check - you either commit or just farking forget it.  Same deal here.
 
2014-01-06 07:49:06 PM
ScaryBottles: A Cave Geek: [global3.memecdn.com image 850x890]

[media.tumblr.com image 500x282]

I bet that goes over great with all the wannabe psdeudo-intellectual libertarians sisterfarkers on your facebook wall doesn't it.

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Neil deGrasse Tyson Rand Paul-


FTFY
 
2014-01-06 07:49:27 PM

Premeditated_Road_Rage: Being dead for just a weekend, to me, is like offering to pay all of someone's bills and then putting a stop payment on the check - you either commit or just farking forget it. Same deal here.


Dude was faking it the whole time. "Hey Dad, let the monkeys flail and flagellate for a few days then zap me back upstairs. LOLSUCKERS!"
 
2014-01-06 07:54:33 PM

Premeditated_Road_Rage: Being dead for just a weekend, to me, is like offering to pay all of someone's bills and then putting a stop payment on the check - you either commit or just farking forget it.  Same deal here.


But he died again after forty days, so it's all good.  (Ascention, assumption, translation: call it what you will, you go up to Heaven and you stay there, it means you're dead.  You don't leave behind a corpse, that just means you're extra dead.)
 
2014-01-06 07:56:10 PM

Pitabred: BojanglesPaladin: A Cave Geek: A competent physician would understand and 'believe' in the science that proves that organisms change and adapt to their environment. Someone who denies evolution IS a poor physician.

I would say you have an imperfect understanding of the theory of evolution and its role in science and biology if you believe this to be true. A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments. It is also worth noting that one can fully embrace and accept micro-evolution (the changing of species over time) without accepting macro-evolution (speciation or evolutionary divergence of species).

Hehe. That's cute, you think you can distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution using something as imperfect and fluid as "speciation". Species are just naming scientists use for shorthand... species have jumped entire taxonomic trees before, and it's far from a hard delineation like you seem to think it is. Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same thing, only operating on different timescales. If you can't conceive of something larger than a few thousand years, then no wonder you think there's a difference between the two.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Origin_and_Misuse_of_the _t erm


While true, I think BJP makes a valid point. You aren't necessarily a bad physician if you are a creationist. Suffering from cognitive dissonance, for sure, but my first hand experience with my long-time creationist friend, they make a distinction between what we know and see today vs. what we can know about the past. It's not a rational bit of logic, just an acknowledgement that you could potentially be quite a fine doctor and still be a creationist.
 
2014-01-06 08:09:49 PM
A true atheist priest would lick the snake blood slowly off of the bared stomach of a supine priestess mounted on the largest table in the seminary residence hall at least weekly, so it sounds like he was doing it right.
 
2014-01-06 08:12:24 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: TheOnion: How does one live like an atheist? Stop praying and going to church?

Stay home on sunday (or Saturday, since he's a Seventh Day guy), watch football, protest another public nativity scene


Atheists don't protest Nativity scenes, a handful of attention-seeking douches do, Atheist or not.

The guy is ironically off to a great start: he learned a big lesson right away. The whole "War on Christians/Christmas" thingy is sheer BS, and now he knows it.  I'm guessing that the guy thought he would do some Jebus version of "Black Like Me". I guess he never read about the aftermath of that book: The reporter received death threats and moved his family to Mexico for a while.
 
2014-01-06 08:15:36 PM

theknuckler_33: Pitabred: BojanglesPaladin: A Cave Geek: A competent physician would understand and 'believe' in the science that proves that organisms change and adapt to their environment. Someone who denies evolution IS a poor physician.

I would say you have an imperfect understanding of the theory of evolution and its role in science and biology if you believe this to be true. A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments. It is also worth noting that one can fully embrace and accept micro-evolution (the changing of species over time) without accepting macro-evolution (speciation or evolutionary divergence of species).

Hehe. That's cute, you think you can distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution using something as imperfect and fluid as "speciation". Species are just naming scientists use for shorthand... species have jumped entire taxonomic trees before, and it's far from a hard delineation like you seem to think it is. Microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same thing, only operating on different timescales. If you can't conceive of something larger than a few thousand years, then no wonder you think there's a difference between the two.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Origin_and_Misuse_of_the _t erm

While true, I think BJP makes a valid point. You aren't necessarily a bad physician if you are a creationist. Suffering from cognitive dissonance, for sure, but my first hand experience with my long-time creationist friend, they make a distinction between what we know and see today vs. what we can know about the past. It's not a rational bit of logic, just an acknowledgement that you could potentially be quite a fine doctor and still be a creationist.



It also bears mentioning that creationism and evolution are not inherently in conflict (or at least, no more than creationism and any other scientific theory). It is only a minority sort of literalist fundamentalism with regard to particular scriptures which generates the conflict we're so familiar with.
 
2014-01-06 08:24:16 PM

Valiente: HeartBurnKid: WTF does "live like an atheist" mean?  I mean, I'm an atheist (well, I'm trending more towards agnostic lately, just because of my own egocentrism), and as far as I can gather, the only major differences in my life are that I sleep in on Sundays and I don't go around telling everybody "Jesus is the reason for the season" every December.

If only more English words rhymed with "Mithras". Beyond "ass", I mean.

Oh, wait...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 676x456]


I do wish people who don't know anything about the cult would stop tossing Mithras around -- he's nothing to do with Christmas and "Mithras" as "Mithras" doesn't pre-date Roman Christianity.  They pulled the name for the god from the Persian "Mitra" because Persian Magi are all mystic-like and foreign.

It was a "secret society" more like a men's lodge -- Shriners, Masons, Holy Order of Water Buffalos -- or a fraternity than a religious  movement.
 
2014-01-06 08:32:01 PM

Beeblebrox: Satanic_Hamster: Captain Darling: Not teaching at a seminary sounds like part of living like an atheist.

Yep.  Also, how exactly does one live as an atheist?  I don't go to atheist lectures or clubs, apparently I'm doing it wrong?

We don't even have a secret handshake. :(


At the next super secret anti-christmas meetings held by the ACLU/Acorn/AFL-CIO/MSM cabal, we should come up with such a handshake.
 
2014-01-06 08:32:32 PM

ccundiff: They guy designing the circuitry on my computer's processor doesn't need to know the quantum mechanics of the molecules within it.


Actually these days he does, because the physical dimensions of the circuitry are now so goddamned small that quantum effects are starting to play more and more of a role in processor design.

A physician that doesn't 'believe'* in evolution may hold the belief that MRSA (for instance) cannot possibly exist because it would imply rapidly changing (evolving) organisms. Any sort of cop-out for that one thing (micro-evolution, bacteria are asexual so speciation is irrelevant, whatever) just shows more ignorance and lack of understanding with who knows what effect on their activities as a doctor?

So yeah....


(*that's in quotes because it's not a reasonable belief, it's flat denial in the face of evidence)
 
2014-01-06 08:32:35 PM

DeaH: It is an interesting topic, but why did you choose to be such a jerk about it?


You interpreted this as being a jerk? I apologize. I was actually providing rationale for why you were wrong about his changing beliefs but were not wrong to make the assertions, what with being buried in multiple links and this being a site which has a large amount of content which is basically just opinion pieces or similar argument or agreement on other articles and utilizes inflammatory or sarcastic headlines with frequency. Rather, I was trying to inform those following up on the same idea, his lack of change in belief, of there being far more stories to this in a usual Fark manner with snark about lack of investigation, not directed at you, though.
 
2014-01-06 08:38:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: That's cool. That's how most of us feel about atheists. It's fine if you don't believe in God, but it gets tiring listening to atheists trying to "poke holes" in the faith without a good grasp of adult theology. It's like a 6th grader telling a college grad that biology is dumb because sometimes brown-eyed parents have blue-eyed children.

/if I hear the "If god is all-knowing and all powerful, then why is there sin?" again, Imma gonna have to punch someone.


Most religious people do not have any grasp of 'adult theology', so poking holes in their faith is perfectly valid.

Frankly, most 'adult theology' I've ever encountered bears no resemblance to any sort of christianity, and is little more than word-soup and sophistry designed to justify irrational beliefs.

But keep on keeping on, I understand you need to feel special and that death terrifies you.
 
2014-01-06 08:40:53 PM

Valiente: FitzShivering: Valiente: EvilEgg: How does one "live like an atheist"?  Most Christians don't go to church, don't talk about Jesus much, and pretty much ignore Christ's teaching.

Not necessarily. Christ (or people writing decades after his death allegedly quoting him) said some pretty interesting stuff, as did many of his Classical contemporaries. But he also said some fairly inflammatory things that would tend to tick off the establishment Jews and the Romans of his time.

If you read Christ like you read Plato, or Marcus Aurelius, or Plotinus or even the emperor Julian, it's all good. Currently applicable life lessons may be drawn from "the collected sayings of" and can be used as part of a functional moral compass by any old atheist.

It's when you start with the actual religious edifice built on these sayings, which many people (not only non-religious people) find pretty much diametrically opposed to the intent of the words of the teacher who (again, allegedly and almost certainly heavily redacted) said them, that it all becomes problematic.

Christ the wisdom teacher is fine, if a little "local". Christ the magical fairy with the complicated god/man origin story and the church full of heretic-smiting, gold-loving kiddie fiddlers? Not so much.

My favorite is still Jesus with the moneylenders.  Mainly because Jesus hated capitalism.   Free market put those thieves in that temple, damn it!

What a peacemaker, just the sort of pro-family, hearth and home proto-Republican the world was looking for:

"34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35For I have come to turn
"'a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-
36    a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10#fe n-NIV-23454c" title="See footnote c">c]
37"Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not w ...


And then there is all that stupid "abortion is murder" crap!

Genesis @:7 - "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Job 33:4-"The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

Ezekiel 37: 5&6- "Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I shall lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord."

A fetus is not a living thing until respiration occurs. It's true! It's in the Bible!

And here's a little gem about causing a miscarriage:

Exodus 21:22- "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no mischief follows: he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
 
2014-01-06 08:51:27 PM

Premeditated_Road_Rage: This guy living like an athiest for a year is a lot like Jesus 'dying' for the sins of all...

...except Jesus came back after three days, redefining 'death'...

...and Jesus is coming back to life a second time (supposedly), therefore once more showing that death, at least for him, isn't permanent...

Being dead for just a weekend, to me, is like offering to pay all of someone's bills and then putting a stop payment on the check - you either commit or just farking forget it.  Same deal here.


You know, that has always confused me about the importance Christians place on Jesus' sacrifice.  "He gave his life for US."  "Yeah, but if he's immortal and can come back to life at will, how big of a deal is dying for him then?"
 
2014-01-06 09:15:22 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Premeditated_Road_Rage: This guy living like an athiest for a year is a lot like Jesus 'dying' for the sins of all...

...except Jesus came back after three days, redefining 'death'...

...and Jesus is coming back to life a second time (supposedly), therefore once more showing that death, at least for him, isn't permanent...

Being dead for just a weekend, to me, is like offering to pay all of someone's bills and then putting a stop payment on the check - you either commit or just farking forget it.  Same deal here.

You know, that has always confused me about the importance Christians place on Jesus' sacrifice.  "He gave his life for US."  "Yeah, but if he's immortal and can come back to life at will, how big of a deal is dying for him then?"


Syncretism has muddled the act over the centuries. Some would argue that he died body and soul on the cross and overcame death in that regard. People started to believe that only the body dies and that the soul was immortal, thus leading to your question.
 
2014-01-06 09:37:11 PM

g4lt: So he's staying out of foxholes for the next year?  Sounds like a pretty sane thing to do.



I never got that whole "no atheist in fox holes" crap.  When I was being shot at, I didn't pause to beg baby jesus to make the bad men stop
 
2014-01-06 09:38:45 PM
I wasn't in a foxhole though, so I guess there's that.
 
2014-01-06 10:00:12 PM

thisisarepeat: g4lt: So he's staying out of foxholes for the next year?  Sounds like a pretty sane thing to do.

I never got that whole "no atheist in fox holes" crap.  When I was being shot at, I didn't pause to beg baby jesus to make the bad men stop


I never got why they even try that argument. Yes, people grasp at straws when they're feeling sufficiently desperate, but it doesn't change the fact that people are grasping at straws out of desperation. This is not an argument that is complimentary towards religion. Quite the opposite.
 
2014-01-06 10:23:33 PM

MooseUpNorth: thisisarepeat: g4lt: So he's staying out of foxholes for the next year?  Sounds like a pretty sane thing to do.

I never got that whole "no atheist in fox holes" crap.  When I was being shot at, I didn't pause to beg baby jesus to make the bad men stop

I never got why they even try that argument. Yes, people grasp at straws when they're feeling sufficiently desperate, but it doesn't change the fact that people are grasping at straws out of desperation. This is not an argument that is complimentary towards religion. Quite the opposite.


I always wondered why Christians would want or need a foxhole.
 
2014-01-06 10:23:35 PM

ccundiff: DeaH: BojanglesPaladin: A Cave Geek: A competent physician would understand and 'believe' in the science that proves that organisms change and adapt to their environment. Someone who denies evolution IS a poor physician.

I would say you have an imperfect understanding of the theory of evolution and its role in science and biology if you believe this to be true. A medical physician has no real need to understand, much less accept evolutionary theory in order to competently diagnose and treat physical ailments. It is also worth noting that one can fully embrace and accept micro-evolution (the changing of species over time) without accepting macro-evolution (speciation or evolutionary divergence of species).

But either way, it's like saying your pediatrician must accept Freudian psychoanalysis.

But hey. It's your doctor. If you choose your physician based on whether they  share your political affiliation or religion, it's your call.

Evolution is neither politics nor religion. It is the underlying basis for all biology. Doctors who are bad biologists are bad doctors. The fact that you think evolution falls under politics or religion is quite telling.

I think that there is much more to being a good doctor than a complete understanding of biology.  I look at doctors more as technicians of medicine (or engineers) and hopefully humanitarians rather than scientists. Of course modern medicine is informed by biology, but so is modern electrical engineering informed by physics.

They guy designing the circuitry on my computer's processor doesn't need to know the quantum mechanics of the molecules within it.  Likewise my anesthesiologist does not need to know who  Ardipithecus was in order to administer the correct dosage.  My primary care physician doesn't need to understand gene flow or genetic drift in order to diagnose a staph infection.

On the whole the study of medicine is an evolutionary study, but the giving of care is done by care givers, not scientists.


I wouldn't want an engineer who thinks pixies in the computers perform calculations. I don't want a doctor who think the all life was created in six days, six thousand years ago.
 
2014-01-06 10:42:46 PM
303% funded.

Christian charity < Atheist charity.
 
2014-01-06 11:24:44 PM
How does one live like an atheist? Be a smarmy dick to everyone else all day? No wonder he got fired.
 
2014-01-06 11:43:11 PM

phrawgh: MooseUpNorth: thisisarepeat: g4lt: So he's staying out of foxholes for the next year?  Sounds like a pretty sane thing to do.

I never got that whole "no atheist in fox holes" crap.  When I was being shot at, I didn't pause to beg baby jesus to make the bad men stop

I never got why they even try that argument. Yes, people grasp at straws when they're feeling sufficiently desperate, but it doesn't change the fact that people are grasping at straws out of desperation. This is not an argument that is complimentary towards religion. Quite the opposite.

I always wondered why Christians would want or need a foxhole.


Same reason the Pope has his tiny bulletproof car
 
2014-01-06 11:59:56 PM

JusticeandIndependence: Vangor: This is what I remember doing in my early teens, once I found being an atheist was an option and my disenchantment with Christianity did not mean I had to replace with Islam, Buddhism, etc..

you know what I did in my early twenties?  Nothing, I just kind of stopped thinking about religion entirely.  It just didn't really come up.  I stopped going to church after moving out of my parents house.  I just plain don't think about why I don't believe.  I don't have to be defensive enough about it to read on it or protest some church.

I'm more of the meh thinking on religion.


Kind like me not spending much thought on not believing in astrology. Being an atheist isn't grueling.
 
2014-01-07 12:38:46 AM

TheOnion: How does one live like an atheist? Stop praying and going to church?


I've been told that shaving your head and throwing away all your stamps is a good start.
 
2014-01-07 12:42:41 AM
Which group of atheists did he live like though.

category 1: Most of the gamers in a video game/internet cafe at all hours.  Drinking alcohol and/or coffee. Yelling about shenanigans.  Occasionally having to run the store because the owner got drunk over a break-up and slept with his pants down around his ankles in the women's restroom of his own business.  (in case you're wondering why so specific. I was the random christian getting a little tipsy with that group.  And picking on the owner over it.)  Complete with an anarchist who believed in Jesus.  He wants anarchy.  Anyone who disagrees with him on it is an idiot according to him.  I got called that a few times.

category 2: atheists who love to read all kinds of fiction right along with the christian friends they somehow decided to get along with and were perfectly fine as long as you didn't insist that Cthulhu could be vaporized by Q.

I know there are other categories. Fark covers them plenty of times. I think I can leave it at that.
 
2014-01-07 12:44:12 AM

Whodat: Given that theology is "is the systematic and study of the concepts of God and the nature of religious truths" and that atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of those concepts and beliefs, I can understand him being let go from a Theological Seminary. His stance is akin to going to basketball camp and rejecting the concept of all sports yet expecting to be able to still play the game and get paid to do it.



Do you expect an expert on the history of Nazi Germany to actually be a Nazi?

It's entirely possible to study something without believing or subscribing to it.    One could even argue it would make you BETTER at studying it objectively.
 
Displayed 50 of 347 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report