You claimed that "we have testimony from those living during the time". Either we do, or we don't.
So where is it? If you can't produce it, then you are simply wrong. There's nothing to "agree to disagree" about.
Correct -- when given a story that is full of ridiculous supernatural claims, the best thing to do is not to believe it until some actual evidence is produced that it happened.
We can't travel around the world in seconds.
And the Internet wouldn't have been that far-fetched 200 years ago -- that's around when the first telegraphs were invented, and the concept is basically the same, just less sophisticated.
But you're talking about a supposed deity who impregnated a virgin with his son, who did all sorts of impossible things and then was killed and resurrected. Even if it were possible for us to do some of these things in 200 years -- and it won't be, by definition -- the claim is that these things happened 2,000 years ago, when we had no real technology.
So, yes, it is extremely hard to believe, at least for anyone trying to judge it on a rational basis.
See, stuff like this is what drives me crazy about people like you. Stuff like this is why threads devolve into flame wars.
Here's what you actually said:
And here's my response:
There were two points: critical thinking and literacy. I agreed that literacy was required, but pointed out that critical thinking was not required. You snipped out the part where I disagreed with you, and then deliberately lied by saying that literacy was the "whole point" you were trying to make.
Why bother being so blatantly dishonest? What does it accomplish, especially when your own past words, only a few hours old, are so easily referenced?
Do you think it says anything positive about you or your religion to behave in such a manner?
Juddog
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 7,851
- 6
- 81
It's all fine and dandy until one religion thinks it's special and deserves special privileges above all others; e.g. cramming their bullcrap into the school system and trying to raise doubt about actual scientific study (creationism), or hold back scientific study which holds incredible promise towards the field of medicine (stem cell research, human cloning).
Here is a real world example:
http://youtu.be/JbZKUNvmsCU
Creationists are straight up stupid. There's no question about that. That video is very disturbing because you can tell that the man has no business teaching. He's unintelligent.
There is no point is discussing this anymore. You've already claimed that those who wrote in the Bible about him didn't actually meet him so screw it, there's no point is debating about that anymore.
You can have your opinion, and I will have mine.
We can't travel around the world in seconds.
And the Internet wouldn't have been that far-fetched 200 years ago -- that's around when the first telegraphs were invented, and the concept is basically the same, just less sophisticated.
Please, you very well knew the point I was making.
Like I said above, we aren't changing each others minds, so lets agree to drop it, k?
These turn into flame wars becasue you can't control yourself and start on your tirades about how right you were and wrong I am. Calm down, dude.
I actually conceded the critical thinking point when I was talking to soulcaugher, and stuck with the literacy point. My bad for not mentioning that.
You so much want to be right, you really do. At any rate, it matters almost nothing to me what you may think.
Last edited:
CK: For reference, the context here was you asking whether you were smarter than me or not. That never had anything to do with the discussion. So I don't see how it could have been "your point".
M: No, the context is that you brought up the subject of intelligence by suggesting that I'm smart when how smart I am has nothing to do with anything as I said.
CK: I was simply trying to be courteous, by saying that you appear to me to be intelligent enough to make useful contributions to the thread. You responded with multiple paragraphs of silliness about whether or not you are smart.
M: No, you simple stated your opinion of what I would have to be to contribute usefully to the thread, smart, but only according to your opinion of what smart is which is why I asked you how you would recognize smart if you saw it. And being smart I knew that being smart has nothing whatsoever to whether what I say is useful. So what you call silliness about being smart relates directly to the fact that you make assumptions that you blind yourself with. I do not have to meet your definition of smart or useful to make smart useful contributions to a thread because you neither know what smart is nor what useful means but you think you do. And in the process I increased your knowledge on the subject by explaining that it's not smartness that matters but wisdom and that is something I can tell you don't have and I can't give you.
CK: Does that seem reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.
M: It seems both arrogant and foolish to me. You are way way to confident that you are reasonable in my opinion.
CK: I see quite a few people saying they cannot understand you. I see no reason why they would not want to.
M: You will know why they don't when you realize why you don't just like what happened to me when I was confronted with this.
CK: That's not an answer, it's an obfuscation that just repeats your prior claim with no attempt at justification or clarity.
M: Proof? When did you get to be capable of recognizing justification or clarity. Take your self proclaimed assumptions and, well you no, reconsider them in the light of humility.
CK: Consciousness is inherently individual and so you seem to be saying truth is subjective. Yet there are obvious truths that are, indeed, objectively true. So you'd have to explain how those aspects of reality can co-exist.
M: I don't got to show you no stinken batches, but you would make a great pretzel. And I think if you entered a Zen monastery would quickly have a sore head. If you've got a pumpkin I'll give you one but if you haven't I'll take it away. Oh and did I mention that the ego is its own prison or that the truth is always 180 degrees from where you are looking. It's seems you have a way to go before you get tired of yourself.
CK: The conflation of "truth" with "certainty" is also a strange one. People are "certain" of things constantly that are not true.
M: Something I think you should deeply consider.
CK: Let's assume that I accept this statement at face value. That leaves two possibilities.
M: Let's assume there are possibilities you don't see.
CK: The first is that there is some way that you can show us how to understand what you're talking about. If so, you should make a better attempt to find that way, because people (including me) are saying that we do not understand, and frankly, I don't see much of an effort on your part in this regard.
M: I am showing you the limits of your understanding, that it creates conditions for truth that have nothing to do with it, a fact which you, attached as you are to your methodology, don't make an effort to understand and in a way you don't see.
CK: The second is that there is no way to show us what you're talking about. In which case, how does it have any value in this sort of discussion? If your "truth" is only true for "your consciousness" and nobody else can understand it, then really, who cares?
M: I already told you there is no way for me to show you, you have to show yourself. I asked you the only question that matters, do you believe there may be a state of consciousness that unifies everything. I care, but my care is only for me. You either care or you don't. I have my answer.
CK: And furthermore, how would that be distinguishable from madness, from utter detachment from reality?
M: You are looking from the outside in. You need to reverse that to know there's a kind of mad men who have more fun.
CK: Again you run from the point.
M: You run from the implications and do not see them.
CK: To recap, you said "truth is a state of consciousness" and also that "religions are bridges to help folk awaken into that state".
And so I am asking how it is that anyone knows if these bridges really do lead to "truth", or just to self-created illusions that make the bridge-walkers comfortable. Why can't you answer the question?
M: My dear man, the answer is obvious and as stated. He who tastes know. Cross a bridge and find out.
CK: If I "don't know what I am talking about" with regard to your claims and statements, then that's because they are your claims and statements, and after I politely pointed out a contradiction in them, you chose not to clarify them but instead take a pot shot at me.
Why is that?
M:It isn't a pot shot. It's what I see about you, my opinion. You point to what you imagine is a contradiction because you don't understand what I mean. It is like explaining an orgasm to a child. When he has one he will know.
CK: I don't recall seeing you say that anywhere before. But having now read it thrice, it just looks like word salad to me -- a bunch of metaphysical/spiritual buzzwords strung together in a semi-grammatical manner to confound people.
M: Yup, I spend hours a day here trying to impress people. It's the self hate. I need constant attention or I'll die of humiliation.
CK: This is not just gibberish but self-contradictory gibberish. Unity implies singularity, which would mean a single state of consciousness.
M: Ah, so you attained a state of unity and can now pronounce on it. You are big on believing your assumptions. I'd be interested in your opinions on a valuable bottle of wine I have. I don't want to open it and drink my money but I'm sure you will be able to tell me how it tastes.
CK: You haven't given me any answers. You've ducked every question.
M: Truth is a substance that can't be forced. You can't give it to folk who are blind to it nor keep it from folk who can see.
CK: More word salad, put forth either in some strange attempt to impress onlookers into thinking that because they can't understand you that you must be profound; or merely meant to distract from your inability or unwillingness to address the questions I've asked you in good faith.
Nasrudin was with the CK, who was complaining that his forum members were untruthful. "Charles," said Nasrudin, "there is truth and truth. People must practice real truth before they can use relative truth. They always do things the opposite way and take liberties with their man-made truth, because they know instinctively that it is only an invention."
CK frowned, "There are true things and false things. I will force people to tell the truth and thus establish a habit in them of being truthful."
The next morning it was announced that whoever trolled in the forum would be hung and that those wishing to enter it would be asked a question which they should truthfully answer. Nasrudin, who had been waiting for the forum to open, was the first to step forward. The captain of the forum asked him, "Where are you going? Answer truthfully or you will be hung."
"I am going," said Nasrudin, "to be hung on those forum gallows."
"I don’t believe that," said the captain.
"Very well, if I am lying, hang me!"
"But that would make it the truth!"
Yes, your truth, answered Nasrudin.
M: No, the context is that you brought up the subject of intelligence by suggesting that I'm smart when how smart I am has nothing to do with anything as I said.
CK: I was simply trying to be courteous, by saying that you appear to me to be intelligent enough to make useful contributions to the thread. You responded with multiple paragraphs of silliness about whether or not you are smart.
M: No, you simple stated your opinion of what I would have to be to contribute usefully to the thread, smart, but only according to your opinion of what smart is which is why I asked you how you would recognize smart if you saw it. And being smart I knew that being smart has nothing whatsoever to whether what I say is useful. So what you call silliness about being smart relates directly to the fact that you make assumptions that you blind yourself with. I do not have to meet your definition of smart or useful to make smart useful contributions to a thread because you neither know what smart is nor what useful means but you think you do. And in the process I increased your knowledge on the subject by explaining that it's not smartness that matters but wisdom and that is something I can tell you don't have and I can't give you.
CK: Does that seem reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.
M: It seems both arrogant and foolish to me. You are way way to confident that you are reasonable in my opinion.
CK: I see quite a few people saying they cannot understand you. I see no reason why they would not want to.
M: You will know why they don't when you realize why you don't just like what happened to me when I was confronted with this.
CK: That's not an answer, it's an obfuscation that just repeats your prior claim with no attempt at justification or clarity.
M: Proof? When did you get to be capable of recognizing justification or clarity. Take your self proclaimed assumptions and, well you no, reconsider them in the light of humility.
CK: Consciousness is inherently individual and so you seem to be saying truth is subjective. Yet there are obvious truths that are, indeed, objectively true. So you'd have to explain how those aspects of reality can co-exist.
M: I don't got to show you no stinken batches, but you would make a great pretzel. And I think if you entered a Zen monastery would quickly have a sore head. If you've got a pumpkin I'll give you one but if you haven't I'll take it away. Oh and did I mention that the ego is its own prison or that the truth is always 180 degrees from where you are looking. It's seems you have a way to go before you get tired of yourself.
CK: The conflation of "truth" with "certainty" is also a strange one. People are "certain" of things constantly that are not true.
M: Something I think you should deeply consider.
CK: Let's assume that I accept this statement at face value. That leaves two possibilities.
M: Let's assume there are possibilities you don't see.
CK: The first is that there is some way that you can show us how to understand what you're talking about. If so, you should make a better attempt to find that way, because people (including me) are saying that we do not understand, and frankly, I don't see much of an effort on your part in this regard.
M: I am showing you the limits of your understanding, that it creates conditions for truth that have nothing to do with it, a fact which you, attached as you are to your methodology, don't make an effort to understand and in a way you don't see.
CK: The second is that there is no way to show us what you're talking about. In which case, how does it have any value in this sort of discussion? If your "truth" is only true for "your consciousness" and nobody else can understand it, then really, who cares?
M: I already told you there is no way for me to show you, you have to show yourself. I asked you the only question that matters, do you believe there may be a state of consciousness that unifies everything. I care, but my care is only for me. You either care or you don't. I have my answer.
CK: And furthermore, how would that be distinguishable from madness, from utter detachment from reality?
M: You are looking from the outside in. You need to reverse that to know there's a kind of mad men who have more fun.
CK: Again you run from the point.
M: You run from the implications and do not see them.
CK: To recap, you said "truth is a state of consciousness" and also that "religions are bridges to help folk awaken into that state".
And so I am asking how it is that anyone knows if these bridges really do lead to "truth", or just to self-created illusions that make the bridge-walkers comfortable. Why can't you answer the question?
M: My dear man, the answer is obvious and as stated. He who tastes know. Cross a bridge and find out.
CK: If I "don't know what I am talking about" with regard to your claims and statements, then that's because they are your claims and statements, and after I politely pointed out a contradiction in them, you chose not to clarify them but instead take a pot shot at me.
Why is that?
M:It isn't a pot shot. It's what I see about you, my opinion. You point to what you imagine is a contradiction because you don't understand what I mean. It is like explaining an orgasm to a child. When he has one he will know.
CK: I don't recall seeing you say that anywhere before. But having now read it thrice, it just looks like word salad to me -- a bunch of metaphysical/spiritual buzzwords strung together in a semi-grammatical manner to confound people.
M: Yup, I spend hours a day here trying to impress people. It's the self hate. I need constant attention or I'll die of humiliation.
CK: This is not just gibberish but self-contradictory gibberish. Unity implies singularity, which would mean a single state of consciousness.
M: Ah, so you attained a state of unity and can now pronounce on it. You are big on believing your assumptions. I'd be interested in your opinions on a valuable bottle of wine I have. I don't want to open it and drink my money but I'm sure you will be able to tell me how it tastes.
CK: You haven't given me any answers. You've ducked every question.
M: Truth is a substance that can't be forced. You can't give it to folk who are blind to it nor keep it from folk who can see.
CK: More word salad, put forth either in some strange attempt to impress onlookers into thinking that because they can't understand you that you must be profound; or merely meant to distract from your inability or unwillingness to address the questions I've asked you in good faith.
Nasrudin was with the CK, who was complaining that his forum members were untruthful. "Charles," said Nasrudin, "there is truth and truth. People must practice real truth before they can use relative truth. They always do things the opposite way and take liberties with their man-made truth, because they know instinctively that it is only an invention."
CK frowned, "There are true things and false things. I will force people to tell the truth and thus establish a habit in them of being truthful."
The next morning it was announced that whoever trolled in the forum would be hung and that those wishing to enter it would be asked a question which they should truthfully answer. Nasrudin, who had been waiting for the forum to open, was the first to step forward. The captain of the forum asked him, "Where are you going? Answer truthfully or you will be hung."
"I am going," said Nasrudin, "to be hung on those forum gallows."
"I don’t believe that," said the captain.
"Very well, if I am lying, hang me!"
"But that would make it the truth!"
Yes, your truth, answered Nasrudin.
Last edited:
I suspect it has something to do with the profound and often life long effect a religious upbringing can have on someone. It seeps in to almost every aspect of a persons life, affects your world view, affects the way you think and act, etc. Many people are so deeply convinced of the 'right-ness' of their particular belief system at a young age that it is impossible for them to even question it once they become old enough to actually critically think about it. I'm not even saying many of those people would change their beliefs if they did step back and think about it, and I don't really care whether doing so or not would actually change their mind. My problem is that many people aren't even given a chance.
Very few things can control ones life as much as religion, it is in my opinion the most powerful and far reaching concept in existence. It is not something that should be taken lightly, and nobody should not be forced in to a belief system before they even have the mental faculties to understand what it is they are buying in to. The idea that someone could even follow a religious belief system before their late teens or twenties is somewhat ludicrous to me, most people don't have the maturity (mental and emotional) to even evaluate a decision like that until then.
Please note I'm not suggesting nobody should attempt to learn about the Bible, God, or anything religious until then, I'm just saying that it should be done in a less heavy-handed manner than what most parents subject their children to. Raise your children to be good people, teach them about your religion if you want, but don't force it on them. Give them the tools to make a decision, don't make it for them.
If there's no point in debating it any more, that's because you made yet another claim you cannot back up.
Once again, you said: "we have testimony from those living during the time". Well, where is it?
This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. Either this testimony exists, or it does not. Since you cannot produce it, the rational conclusion is that it does not. Your opinion is irrelevant.
If you want to "drop it", then stop making nonsensical comments, like saying the Bible is believable because 200 years ago there was no Internet. Simple.
No, they turn into flame wars because people like you refuse to discuss the topic with any degree of intellectual honesty. So people get impatient and resort to insults.
It's a good illustration of what others have noted in the past -- that insults often don't arise in a vacuum. They come out of frustration in dealing with irrational and dishonest people.
Yes, I want to be right, and so do you. The difference is that I have the facts on my side, and you do not.
It doesn't matter what you or I think. But I like to challenge my beliefs, and frankly, all you've done is confirm my views that religion = irrationality, just like the first post said.
And I said that because I wouldn't bother asking you to try responding reasonably if I thought you were stupid. I'd just conclude that your standard nonsense is all you're capable of. But I think you can do better.
Well, I have enough wisdom to see when someone is talking a lot and saying nothing, of which the above is an excellent example.
That's not likely to happen. More likely I will conclude that you are either deliberately wasting my time, or foolish.
Because it's been one of those every time I've run into someone like you in the past.
Once again -- you don't deal with the issue, you duck it.
Word salad. No response to the question or the topic being discussed.
I already have. That's why I found your conflation of the two concepts rather nonsensical.
I'd ask why you did that, but I am pretty sure I won't get an answer, just like you don't answer any other questions.
The only thing you are showing me is that, rather than have a sensible discussion of an interesting topic, you want to spew endless metaphysical verbal diarrhea that just wastes everybody's time.
Again, no response.
Alright, I'm done.
You're just cybrsage with more flowery words.
Really?
You keep saying you're bringing up a point but you're not. Someone stated that kids are taught the same religion that their parents were brainwashed with. You then side tracked the issue at hand (parents being brainwashed so kids being brainwashed). You started saying we were teaching them these things because they help them. Then you went off on that parents should be able to teach their kids whatever they want. Then that we don't know how they'll end up as adults.
How about addressing the actual point which is that religion is passed on by brainwashing and kids aren't given a choice. You could never dream of not believing in your religion and could never dream of not teaching it. Are you going to let your kids make up their own minds or are you going to take them to church and teach them about the bible? Are they going to go to Sunday school? Are they going to go to summer camp? Confirmation?
I was given a choice. I could pray, or not. I could go to Sunday School or not. I could go to religious camps or not. I could have a Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, or not. I could go to Church, Temple, or neither. I could read the bible. I could read the torah. I could read the Koran if I wanted to. I didn't have to read any of them. The only choice I was not given was that I had to take off both Christian and Jewish holidays from school and I was perfectly fine with that since that was awesome. My parents did not preach to me or force it on me. I was allowed to make my own decisions with respect to religion.
Ultimately I have studied multiple religions and determined that they are all a crock of shit. My parents respect this.
Rob you just pulled a Ron Burgandy. ROFL. That's not a matter of opinion. You're discussing facts.
..and so what? So what if parents are "brainwashing" their children and they "don't have a choice"?
Why does this bother you? Why won't you mind your own business?
Just make sure you don't brainwash your kids.
It is a matter of opinion, or other words "what you choose to believe", which would have been a better way to put it.
Juddog
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 7,851
- 6
- 81
It is my business because I want to be able to live in a world and even a community that does not have stupid people in it. I want more critical thinking, less wars, and more intelligent discourse. I want scientific progress in things such as stem cell research which could save lives and I want free and easy access to family planning. I want less bigots and people to not persecute people because they are different.
The major religions are hurting human progress. Significantly.
The major religions are hurting human progress. Significantly.
You can believe in God. Nobody will ever take that away from you. However if get into a discussion about a physical entity such as Jesus or the Bible that is not a matter of opinion.
Believing that Jesus is real does not make him real. No more than Unicorns.
No, it's not your business what someone does in the privacy of their own home.
You secularists are exhibiting the same type of "kill the infidel" behavior -- you're ready to drag the parents of religious children out of their home and stone them in public squares unless they stop their teaching to protect your already violent, stupid, and effed-up world which has more problems than you are willing to admit.
Lol, you're being bigoted, and want less bigots.
*falls unconscious*
How did you come to the conclusion that I'm "you're ready to drag the parents of religious children out of their home and stone them in public squares"? Can you explain that thought process?
You're making shit up again and deflecting from the issue at hand.
I believe that if people did not have a religion forced down their throats and if critical thinking was encouraged the world would be a better place.
Due to your obvious hatred of parents teaching the kids their religion.
What do you mean by "better place"?
Can you show causation with wars and religion? How about with religion and violence? Religion and stupidity?
Juddog
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 7,851
- 6
- 81
Of the people that I posted in the video at the beginning of this page? Yes - because they have tried to get their own elected to various school boards to push down their agenda on the public school system. We need the country to move forward, not backward.
alzan
Diamond Member
- May 21, 2003
- 3,860
- 2
- 0
It becomes a concern of society when religions and their followers use their political and populist influence to affect other peoples lives and choices.
Thanks but we'll leave the stoning to the bible thumpers.
Oh and this violent, stupid and effed-up world? According to you, your all-knowing deity with full future foreknowledge created it, knowing full well what would happen. I guess he/she/it is the one who effed-up, eh?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter