Jump to content

Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1744635' date='Apr 4 2009, 09.29']Look to the backsliders. Kirk Cameron claims he [i]used to be[/i] an atheist before he reconverted. If someone goes from believing in evolution to believing in creationism, then they obviously never had a very clear understanding of evolution in the first place.[/quote]

I don't doubt that many people who acknowledge evolution don't have a clear understanding of it. You can probably apply that gravity, special and general relativity, and many other scientific theories. But choosing to believe it just to spite religion is another thing entirely and quite a ridiculous one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744646' date='Apr 4 2009, 09.56']I don't doubt that many people who acknowledge evolution don't have a clear understanding of it. You can probably apply that gravity, special and general relativity, and many other scientific theories. But choosing to believe it just to spite religion is another thing entirely and quite a ridiculous one.[/quote]
Well, maybe 'spite' is overly strong, but what would be the basis of believing it if they don't really have a clue about it? I mean if Cameron [i]used to[/i] accept it but then later goes on about "crocaducks"....what the hell was his original reason?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1744650' date='Apr 4 2009, 10.06']Well, maybe 'spite' is overly strong, but what would be the basis of believing it if they don't really have a clue about it?[/quote]

When every scientist on the planet confirms it, when your biology books teach it, when your college fruitfly tests confirm the basics, when people with a detailed understanding of it explain it here and in national geographic, when the most basic facets of it are easy to grasp, when just about every remotely related History, History International, Discovery Channel, Animal PLanet, Nat. Geo channel special explicitly confirms it or treats it as a given, sometimes you just defer to the experts. And you figure that if there was a wealth of evidence pointing the other way, some pioneering scientist wishing to win a dozen Nobel prizes would've already uncovered it. Cause if someone could manage to disprove arguably the most important scientific theory of the last couple centuries, that'd be a big fricken deal. He'd be a rockstar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
Ok, that kind of makes sense...just a kind of go with the flow acceptance. That's probably right. It just seemed so strange coming from someone who's later willing to be so willfully pig-ignorant.

Still, it seems like some people become atheists (at least temporarily) as a backlash against their individual mistreatment from their religious background, so it wouldn't be too surprising to me if some spite were mixed in with that general deferral to the experts (which itself doesn't seem unreasonable to me...I generally refrain from having an opinion on things that are way out of my league).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1744657' date='Apr 4 2009, 10.23']Still, it seems like some people become atheists (at least temporarily) as a backlash against their individual mistreatment from their religious background, so it wouldn't be too surprising to me if some spite were mixed in with that general deferral to the experts (which itself doesn't seem unreasonable to me...I generally refrain from having an opinion on things that are way out of my league).[/quote]

This (first sentence) I don't doubt. I'm sure a bad personal experience with religion has played a role in many newly 'converted' atheists. Though I doubt that's ever (or if it is, quite rare) the only reason they go that route. I mean its not like there aren't significant reasons to doubt every faith or more than enough ground for substantial disagreement that doesn't rise to the level of mistreatment. The bad experience may give greater voice to those doubts, but they usually had to be there in the first place. As for evolution...the notion of sitting down and saying to yourself 'I'm gonna go with the scientists to piss off my parents, yeah! TAKE THAT!' just strikes me as absurd and stretches credulity a bit I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm intolerant of bigots and intolerance. I don't see a problem with that. Nor all that much irony."

The irony is that you are willing to blanket label a massive block of people (the devout of every single religion on earth) as inherently bigoted. That is bigotry. Or perhaps you can explain to me how it is not. If you were speaking of an organization like the KKK, your statement is legit. But you have cast an incredibly wide net over a vastly disparate group of people.

"Not all of them. But its very clear that a majority of them are. At least in the US."

Stats? And I don't mean stats of people who self identify as religious. I mean stats of people who self identify as religious and can be demonstrated to be bigots.

As for all this Genesis bashing stuff, you do realize it is only the more inflexible interpretations of English translations of a very old, highly figurative text that leads to clear absurdity. Even a reading of the English translations closely will show a story much different than the commonly ascribed story of Genesis. Get into the Hebrew and things become way, way, less definitive. Even the name 'Adam' in Hebrew can mean the name Adam, man, blood, red, and earth. The more correct translation for 'serpent' from the garden myth is 'shining one'. Before the infamous 'seven days of creation' get hopping, there is a 'in the beginning' statement which is ascribed no temporal value. All I am saying is that even the creation myth is much more nuanced and sophisticated than the tale the anti evolutionists insist on. You mock the religious attempting to reconcile their texts with what we now know. I admire and applaud their attempt to critically analyze what they have always believed in and adopt new and more sensible interpretations on that basis. You see it as a waste of time, but you have no appreciation of spiritual beliefs so how could you possibly judge the merits of this exercise?

And you do realize that there are many, many Christians who don't read their bible from a fundamentalist perspective but from a theological one. Their big man, JC, stated that the purpose of the texts were to teach man about God. It is manifestly absurd to use a book that was written thousands of years before science as a concept developed for any scientific or quasi scientific theory. It is also manifestly unfair to look at these same books and judge them on the basis of modern scientific knowledge when it's a book about theology. Quite frankly, from a theological perspective, it doesn't even matter if men like Job, Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc. even ever existed. It aint a science book and never claimed to be. It's not even a history book. It's a book about God, a subject science by necessity doesn't even deal with. Science is all about how. Theologians would tell you their text is all about why. I don't see a problem with the devout trying to reconcile the two. Many of the early scientists were devout men of faith who wanted to understand the mechanisms of creation. Charles Mendel comes to mind. These men didn't go to their bibles to understand these things because they knew the answers were not there.

EHK, I'm shocked you are even entering a Church for some free fish. I'm assuming your discourse in that place will be far more tolerant than it is here, or I imagine you'll be leaving with an empty belly and no teeth.

At any rate, do your thing. Good luck on your mission of removing religion as a force everywhere. Keep me updated on your progress. I'm sure when your finally successful (and the sun rises in the West) all sexism and homophobia will instantly disappear (funny, some of the most sexist and homophobic guys I know have absolutely no use for religion of any form). Myself, I'll hit my bong and let everyone happily believe what they choose as long as they aint interfering with yours truly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GSP,

[quote name='GSP' post='1744752' date='Apr 4 2009, 10.45']EHK, I'm shocked you are even entering a Church for some free fish. I'm assuming your discourse in that place will be far more tolerant than it is here, or I imagine you'll be leaving with an empty belly and no teeth.[/quote]


Oh. This would be because religious people don't know how to cook fish and, like trying to eat bricks, it will break all his teeth?

Or is this another example of Christian hypocrisy? "Turn the other cheek, until the other guy gets cheeky, and then it's fucking war."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Christian is supposed to turn the other cheek. But I'm guessing that if someone showed up to a Catholic fish fry spouting on and on at length about how all religion is a cancer and detriment to human progress and should be removed from the earth, depending on the size of the crowd present, someone is like to loose their temper (particularly so after being informed they are due to their faith a backwards bigot).

It aint what their good books says to do, but as has been hammered on in this thread repeatedly, many people don't follow everything their good books says. Even those who try to fall short at times. Tempers often trump doctrine when insults are the name of the game. For sure, the pope wouldn't approve of any tooth loosening, but I'd wager it'd still happen in the face or a relentless straw man laden, bigoted rant.

I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts EHK leaves his preachier urges at the door when he goes to the fish fry, stalwart anti religious crusader that he is. It just shocks me that he can be so strongly anti religious and even enter a church, be it for free fish or anything else.

And don't take my words as representing those of someone in the faith. I aint Christian, and I've never been Catholic (although my older brother converted to that faith). Last time I was in a Church was over a year ago because my uncle died, and me and two of my cousins blazed a big fatty before we went in. But I sure as hell wouldn't have thought to go on some uber secularist rant there. But then, I'm no anti religious crusader either. Just a nihilistic stoner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GSP,


My only point is that if the religious are in fact benign, then EHK should have nothing to fear, except perhaps being asked to leave. I grant that you were being colorful, but all the same you had no trouble imagining and making light of a violent reaction. I don't see how it's possible to apologize for their behavior, if you yourself believe their behavior either accentuates or at least does nothing to discourage such gross overreaction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='GSP' post='1744752' date='Apr 4 2009, 12.45']The irony is that you are willing to blanket label a massive block of people (the devout of every single religion on earth) as inherently bigoted. That is bigotry. Or perhaps you can explain to me how it is not. If you were speaking of an organization like the KKK, your statement is legit. But you have cast an incredibly wide net over a vastly disparate group of people.[/quote]

Why am I not talking about an organization like the KKK? Its views certainly aren't nearly as obnoxious, but they do have some obnoxious views. And considering its size and scope, its easily more dangerous than the KKK ever could have been. I guess you can distinguish them by the fact that you really can't be a KKK member without being a bigot. But than again, most churches do promote tenets of bigotry and a LARGE majority of their membership in the US supports that bigotry. I don't even want to speculate how gay marriage would fare in the Mideast, South Asia, or most of Africa. So maybe 'like the KKK' may be a bit harsh, as bigotry isn't its primary reason for existence nor an essential qualification for membership, but most churches, faiths, and religions I'm aware of have prohibitions against it and the majority of the membership share that bigotry to one degree or another. Once we get past 51%, isn't it time to consider that the whole thing may be fucked? And that it just might be time for some largely warranted 'broad shots' thrown at it?

[quote]Stats? And I don't mean stats of people who self identify as religious. I mean stats of people who self identify as religious and can be demonstrated to be bigots.[/quote]

2006-MAY-08: A Gallup Organization poll: They conducted a poll among 1,002 American adults from 2006-MAY-08 to 11. The margin of error is about 3 percentage points. Results were:

[url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm[/url]

On extending marriage to include same-sex couples:

58% are opposed.
39% are in favor
3% are undecided or did not respond.

Among adults who attend religious services weekly, 77% oppose "gay marriage."
Among adults who seldom or never attend services, 51% favor it. 15,16

And this is progress from polls taken a few years earlier. Now can we fairly infer from this that a large majority of American Christians are opposed to gay marriage? Can we agree that gay marriage is primarily an equal rights issue? That opposing gay marriage is essentially opposing equal rights for homosexuals? That those who oppose equal rights essentially support prejudice and discrimination. And that people who do that are in fact bigots? Even if you don't agree with all the point-to-point shit, if you oppose gay marriage, you're a bigot. I have absolutely no problem making that blanket declaration.

[quote]As for all this Genesis bashing stuff, you do realize it is only the more inflexible interpretations of English translations of a very old, highly figurative text that leads to clear absurdity. Even a reading of the English translations closely will show a story much different than the commonly ascribed story of Genesis.[/quote]

So what? This is the version found in most every church, in every living room, in every hotel room drawer (do they still do that?), its also the most common and obvious interpretation of the story, and I haven't seen a mass crusade from any church trying to clarify the matter. That is the story and message that's getting across, which has a hell of alot more impact than what the proper, more nuanced reading of the original greek/aramaic text might have had.

[quote]You mock the religious attempting to reconcile their texts with what we now know. I admire and applaud their attempt to critically analyze what they have always believed in and adopt new and more sensible interpretations on that basis. You see it as a waste of time, but you have no appreciation of spiritual beliefs so how could you possibly judge the merits of this exercise?[/quote]

I don't necessarily mock it, I just find it to be a bunch of excess work that's completely unnecessary. Call it a quaint creation myth, maybe look for the odd nugget of wisdom, accept scientific reality and call it a day. Calling it critical analysis is a bit silly though. Its ad hoc rationalization. Finding relevance because you choose to find relevance. Self-fulfilling prophecy, patterns in the clouds, and all that crap. Find me any sufficiently vague, artful text and I can find some modern day reality to attach it to. It ain't hard. But treating the practice as anything more than that is little more than willful self-delusion.

[quote]And you do realize that there are many, many Christians who don't read their bible from a fundamentalist perspective but from a theological one. Their big man, JC, stated that the purpose of the texts were to teach man about God. It is manifestly absurd to use a book that was written thousands of years before science as a concept developed for any scientific or quasi scientific theory.[/quote]

Oh its completely absurd. And yet many do. Hell, even the teachings about God often reveal him to be quite the prick. Even those who don't go the full fundy route use various passages to justify the legislation of prejudice.

[quote]It aint a science book and never claimed to be.[/quote]

I can give you several youtube links to people claiming its an excellent science book. Most of them doing what you're advocating, though using it in a different fashion. Taking bits and pieces of vague text and interpreting it as a prediction of modern scientific discoveries to come. But of course those are fundies...even if they account for a HUGE portion of the Christian population in the US, they don't count.

[quote]Many of the early scientists were devout men of faith who wanted to understand the mechanisms of creation. Charles Mendel comes to mind. These men didn't go to their bibles to understand these things because they knew the answers were not there.[/quote]

Many were devout men of faith. Many had to pretend to be devout men of faith because there wasn't much alternative in repressive Middle Age/Renaissance Europe.

[quote]EHK, I'm shocked you are even entering a Church for some free fish. I'm assuming your discourse in that place will be far more tolerant than it is here, or I imagine you'll be leaving with an empty belly and no teeth.[/quote]

Its good fish. I also go to gun shows despite my advocacy for a total handgun ban in the US...lo and behold, I don't get shot. You see, I don't go into other peoples houses and pontificate towards them. That's for Baptists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. But if there happens to be a public forum dedicated to the purpose of discussing matters that are either newsworthy or of public interest...like say...an internet message board...well shit, I just might express my views there.

[quote]At any rate, do your thing. Good luck on your mission of removing religion as a force everywhere. Keep me updated on your progress. I'm sure when your finally successful (and the sun rises in the West) all sexism and homophobia will instantly disappear (funny, some of the most sexist and homophobic guys I know have absolutely no use for religion of any form). Myself, I'll hit my bong and let everyone happily believe what they choose as long as they aint interfering with yours truly.[/quote]

I will live to see gay marriage legalized throughout the country, anti-gay rhetoric banished from the public discourse, the increased secularization of society, self-described atheists reach 20% of the total population, the effective marginalization of the most fundy branches of Christianity, and maybe a few openly atheist national politicians. Not everything I'm looking for, but its progress.

[quote]I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts EHK leaves his preachier urges at the door when he goes to the fish fry, stalwart anti religious crusader that he is. It just shocks me that he can be so strongly anti religious and even enter a church, be it for free fish or anything else.[/quote]

The fish is actually kinda pricey. The Methodist church does it better and cheaper. But the Catholics staked out a monopoly on Lent, so I've gotta wait for the Methodists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I will live to see gay marriage legalized throughout the country, anti-gay rhetoric banished from the public discourse, the increased secularization of society, self-described atheists reach 20% of the total population, the effective marginalization of the most fundy branches of Christianity, and maybe a few openly atheist national politicians. Not everything I'm looking for, but its progress."

Great! Quite probable and in my view all good things.

It's this perfect world cured of all vestiges of religious cancer that I don't ever see happening while there is a human race. All cultures developed it so I'm taking a wild guess that at some level it's in our DNA and one of those little quirks that are apparently unique to our species on this planet. Which brings us full circle to where this whole silly argument began. I'll just have to agree to disagree with you and call it that. Your world view sees religion and its adherence about as negatively as humanly imaginable and you quite obviously cannot be moved from your vehemence. My experiences are different and I just don't see things that way. I also in all likelihood lose far less sleep over such issues than you do.

I'm not even going to get into the whole 'opposes gay marriage' = bigot thing. I mean, ancient Greece was pretty damn tolerant of homosexuality yet they did not recognize gay marriage. Might there be a little more nuance to this issue? Personally, I've no problem with gay marriage. My country has endorsed it for years and it never changed a single aspect of my existence for one single second so I don't understand the fuss. That being said, I'm not jumping to the conclusion that every single person who opposes that particular development has to be a homophobic bigot. I haven't even looked at that 'secular case against gay marriage' thread going on. I imagine there are flame fests going on there I don't even want to see.

" I don't see how it's possible to apologize for their behavior, if you yourself believe their behavior either accentuates or at least does nothing to discourage such gross overreaction."

Bill, I don't see why I have to apologize for the behaviour of some theoretical people encompassed by my flip remark. Am I missing something here? I mean, your acting like this is something that happened and not something smart assed I said off the cuff.

Amen Matrim, amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GSP,

[quote name='GSP' post='1745267' date='Apr 4 2009, 21.41']" I don't see how it's possible to apologize for their behavior, if you yourself believe their behavior either accentuates or at least does nothing to discourage such gross overreaction."

Bill, I don't see why I have to apologize for the behaviour of some theoretical people encompassed by my flip remark. Am I missing something here? I mean, your acting like this is something that happened and not something smart assed I said off the cuff.[/quote]


Ah, well.

I was a little casual in my use of the word "behavior." The way I see it, you and I have written as apologists for the religious: "yes, some awful shit has been done by them and is still done by them, but religion is not really bad and religious people are good (charitable, if nothing else)."

How does that comport with your appearance of gloating over the fact that if EHK pulls his atheistic shit at the wrong moment in front of the good Christians he gets a mouthful of fist? Anyone can lose their temper, but it hardly helps the case that Christians are not necessarily reactionary hypocrites when this is what you imagine is the response, even to rude behavior.


If you'd guessed that EHK would probably be afraid of eating his teeth over such remarks in such a context, that would have been a little different -- because EHK can be afraid of anything, real or imaginary, and so your beliefs about what he might be afraid of can mean anything. But in an offhand, flippant remark, you assumed and stated positively that the reaction in the stated case would be violence.


Does it completely disprove "Christianity isn't as bad as EHK makes it out to be"? Hardly. It's just a smallish, ironic hole in your case that other people shouldn't prejudge the religious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='GSP' post='1745267' date='Apr 4 2009, 23.41']I'm not even going to get into the whole 'opposes gay marriage' = bigot thing. I mean, ancient Greece was pretty damn tolerant of homosexuality yet they did not recognize gay marriage. Might there be a little more nuance to this issue?[/quote]

No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i]It is also manifestly unfair to look at these same books and judge them on the basis of modern scientific knowledge when it's a book about theology. Quite frankly, from a theological perspective, it doesn't even matter if men like Job, Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc. even ever existed. It aint a science book and never claimed to be. It's not even a history book.[/i]

i sympathize with this argument, but it's directed to the wrong audience somewhat. if the book is considered relevant in scientific and historical controversies by some of its adherents, the critique of that book also becomes relevant.

it's kinda like the rule of evidence that allows one side to cross-examine their opponent's testimony for reliability and credibility: i don't get to cross-examine criminal defendants, e.g., unless those defendants first put their credibility at issue by testifying--but once they testify, it's a free fire zone up in this.

i.e., biblical criticism is fair when biblical adherents bring biblical arguments into these discussions.

if, on the other hand, anti-theists bring up biblical absurdities when theists haven't brought the bible into the scientific or historical discussion already, then those anti-theists just appear stupidly blinkered and obsessively focused on criticizing the bible without regard to the context of the critique. one might rightly accuse them of unfairness at this point, but it would be more effective to accuse them of idiocy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

it was just a stupid comment. A true Christian fundamentalist (the one's that are always labeled fundamentalists by themselves and the press seem consistently lacking to an ironic degree in Christian fundamentals i.e. charity, forgiveness, tolerance, love, non judgmentalism) would never react that way. He'd smile, bless EHK, pray for his soul and give him more fish. You'll find all makeup of people in a Church. If it is a large gathering no doubt at least one is going to become quite upset somewhere after being informed of his total lack of critical insight, general stupidity and clear bigotry due to his most cherished beliefs and maybe even to a degree that there is some knuckle/tooth action. But it is a total moot point both due to its origins in my flip colorful comment and the fact that EHK has confirmed that he has far more class than to enter their place of worship and go off like that. Kudos to him in all seriousness.

Wow EHK, great counterpoint. But reading this thread, I shouldn't be shocked by sweeping judgments based on the worst case presumptions and little fact. But as I stated I am not going to get into that debate, that'll do.

Sologdin, I absolutely agree with your point and my criticism was a two way one, at the Atheist who wishes to bash the book because it doesn't hold mustard as a scientific source and the fundamentalist who would try to refute evolution or the age of the earth based on his inflexible interpretation about matters with which the biblical scribes were never concerned or even aware of. I've tried, with mixed success, to explain to various devout friends and family members how they do great injustice to their faith when they try and shove an inflexible version of the garden myth down the throat of anybody with just a wee bit of scientific knowledge. The age of the earth or whether or not God used evolution as a mechanism of creation are not even close to central biblical tenants and when such unfounded in science positions are taken they really might as well advocate for belief in the Easter bunny, Santa Claus or little green leprechauns.

What I was attempting to point out as well, was the complexity and nuance of biblical scholarship, issues the more militant atheists I hear from are woefully ignorant on. Take everyone's favourite new gospel 'Religulous'. What's his face there goes on this little rant about how disgusting the actions of Lot were in wanting to hand over his virgin daughters to the sodomistic mob that was there to butt fuck the angels (by the way, totally off topic but this is one of the least appreciated and persistently abused stories in the OT. Fundy's will point at the French Quarter of New Orleans and its gay activities or similar places and be all 'see, see, Sodom and Gommorah'. Bullshit. I've never even heard of a neighbourhood nearly as depraved as Sodom. I mean, can you really compare a place where if two good looking strangers show up to your door a ravening horde of sodomistic rapists show up and demand they be handed over for a good time and one in which there is literally not one man of any moral worth to New Orleans, San Fransisco or any other such city? How is that even on a scale of depraved magnitude with some city that has a larger than average population of consensual homosexuals?). He then concludes that there is no morality worth having that derives from the bible. Of course, if he knew jack shit about the bible, he would understand that Lot is a perpetual fuck up and not somebody you are supposed to emulate. Fuck, even the 'protagonists' in the stories are all too human and fuck up huge! I mean, King David's as close to a hero as we get, but I don't think the bible is suggesting we kill a loyal soldier so we can steal his wife. All's I'm saying is that when you don't know fuck all, and try to criticize biblical stories ad hoc you sound pretty fucking stupid to me at least. Of course, my dipshit know it all uber atheist friends I was watching it with ate it like it was fuckin gravy. I didn't even waste a breath on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='GSP' post='1745605' date='Apr 5 2009, 12.01']Bill,

it was just a stupid comment. A true Christian fundamentalist (the one's that are always labeled fundamentalists by themselves and the press seem consistently lacking to an ironic degree in Christian fundamentals i.e. charity, forgiveness, tolerance, love, non judgmentalism) would never react that way. He'd smile, bless EHK, pray for his soul and give him more fish.[/quote]

Eh...your true Christian is another guy's lame poser. Its a largely subjective label without much meaning to it.


[quote][b]Wow EHK, great counterpoint[/b]. But reading this thread, I shouldn't be shocked by sweeping judgments based on the worst case presumptions and little fact. But as I stated I am not going to get into that debate, that'll do.[/quote]

I thought so. But please continue. I'd love to hear how nuanced the gay marriage issue is and how needlessly discriminating against a historically oppressed minority might not be bigotry in some cases. Or you could just acknowledge that I called a spade a spade and stop making that out to be some sort of moral or logical failing.


[quote]What I was attempting to point out as well, was the complexity and nuance of biblical scholarship, issues the more militant atheists [i][and the vast majority of Christians][/i] I hear from are woefully ignorant on.[/quote]

Fixed. Seriously, I'll bother with it once they do. (Actually I still won't, but I do find it ironic that we're bashing atheists for being ignorant of Biblical scholarship when in fact most Christians are as well)

[quote]Take everyone's favourite new gospel 'Religulous'.[/quote]

Who and where is this 'everyone' person? Just about every review I read was mixed at best and I know of noone holding this up as some atheist gospel. The God Delusion maybe, but sure as hell not this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Seriously, I'll bother with it once they do. (Actually I still won't, but I do find it ironic that we're bashing atheists for being ignorant of Biblical scholarship when in fact most Christians are as well)[/quote]
When those Christians attempt to tell me that I am wrong in my Judaism and in so doing display their ignorance, I smirk and explain to them exactly where the beginning of their being wrong lies, and great will be the tl;dr on that day. (The full extent of their wrongness is beyond even me to delineate.) And when atheists such as you do the same, I present you the same smirk and analogous explanation. It's not my fault if you're too wrapped up in your own fallacies to care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, so anybody who actually tries to follow the reputed teachings of Jesus is a lame poser? I guess you would be more at home with the knuckle bludgeoning theoretical Christian hot head my comment mentioned in the first place? They really can't win for loosing with EHK, but oh well.

"But please continue. I'd love to hear how nuanced the gay marriage issue is and how needlessly discriminating against a historically oppressed minority might not be bigotry in some cases. Or you could just acknowledge that I called a spade a spade and stop making that out to be some sort of moral or logical failing. "

Well, you didn't call a spade a spade. It is not a moral failing, but based on massive logical assumptions. Were the ancient Greek's homophobes? Recognizing homosexual marriage is a fairly new phenomenon. I guess every previous culture everywhere was entirely made up of bigots. But this is not my crusade or axe to grind. I couldn't fuckin care less so you won't hear me trying to explained how nuanced the issue is. Maybe they are hitting on it over in that 'secular case against...' thread. I pointed out the issue might be more nuanced. You insist it's all clear black and white (you know, such matters usually are). You are clearly an ideologue and I'll let you to your own. Get someone who gives a flying fuck to banter back and forth about this one for you. I don't even know how many years its been since my country recognized, and there is no apparent threat of backpeddling up here, so I remain thoroughly unconcerned with the topic.

"Fixed. Seriously, I'll bother with it once they do. (Actually I still won't, but I do find it ironic that we're bashing atheists for being ignorant of Biblical scholarship when in fact most Christians are as well) "

-- Touche. I fully support this one. Christianity is often easily made mock of because of certain of its own adherents who don't know squat about what their book teaches. I don't know if you can honestly say 'most' but way way too many. In fact I suspect that a lot of what ails you is the old 'enough religion to hate, not enough to love' trend that encompasses the masses of many faiths. That there are religious adherents that use some crude, rude religious knowledge to back up their own bigotries is a given to me. That this way of thinking is so pervasive in all religion everywhere so as to make all spiritual journeys worthless and counter to progress is the pill I am not swallowing.

I think this debate is thoroughly exhausted and each side is entrenched and unmoving. I endevour to remain open minded to all points of view, and not to write off masses of people world wide as intellectually stunted bigots. You do your thing. That's why I'm an agnostic (i.e. I don't fucking know shit) and will never be a self described atheist. Atheistic evangelism leaves just as shitty a taste in my mouth as the religious kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='the silent speaker' post='1745694' date='Apr 5 2009, 13.53']When those Christians attempt to tell me that I am wrong in my Judaism and in so doing display their ignorance, I smirk and explain to them exactly where the beginning of their being wrong lies, and great will be the tl;dr on that day. (The full extent of their wrongness is beyond even me to delineate.) And when atheists such as you do the same, I present you the same smirk and analogous explanation. It's not my fault if you're too wrapped up in your own fallacies to care.[/quote]

Well so far I haven't told anyone that they're wrong in their biblical interpretation, so I should be safe. Fact is, I don't give a shit what a random individual does or doesn't gather from a particular Biblical story anymore than I care what some High School student did or didn't get from Shakespeare. What I have done is give my brief take on a couple passages that were brought up by others. I am not telling anyone that they're wrong in their particular version or interpretation of Christianity and Judaism. I am simply saying that they all suck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...