Something I think bares reading.

[Hyena Dandy]

Their definition of atheism is easier to knock down than the real definition.

Our definition of Atheism IS the definition that's used by practically every English-speaker I've met BESIDES you. We call your position AGNOSTICISM.

And considering I'm evidently falsifying your position because its easier to argue against, I haven't really spent much time trying to disprove or knock down your definition of atheism. All I've ever asked is that we respect each-other, and each-other's beliefs. If I've constructed a strawman at all, which I still think I haven't, I've constructed it in order to ignore it and change the point.

If you guys refuse to learn the English language, then we have no basis on which to have a discussion.

Well, since our discussion seems to be about what atheism is at this point, then we do have a basis for a discussion. I believe that people in this thread have cited proof that Atheism means what we say it means. You have only said repeatedly "That's not it at all."

I believe FAarchivist offered to cite numerous people saying Atheism means what we say it means.

Also.

Do you know where I can get a free copy of that? I'm not going to pay money for apologetics.

Probably a torrent somewhere, but why are you not going to pay money for people arguing against you? I try to read up on all sides of the argument, which, yes, means that I have to spend money. I would hardly consider myself qualified to discuss something if I wasn't willing to actually look at the other side's arguments.


Anyway, enough about Atheism, and beyond the semantics.

And because I think this part of the message is more important, and don't want it ignored by anyone.

BEYOND THE SEMANTICS

I don't want to knock down your beliefs, or lack of beliefs, or what have you. I don't want to knock ANYTHING down. What I sincerely want is for us all to come together. Neither of us is evil. Nobody's position is going to destroy everyone. We shouldn't look at each-other as inferiors, but as equals who don't agree on this. Once we stop trying to destroy each-other's belief systems, we'll be able to move forward, as a people.

There are good atheists. Whether I'm using the standard definition of atheism, or any other I've heard. Atheists are not by definition moraless evil villains who want to rape and pillage.

There are good Christians as well. The fact that not all good people are Christian does not mean that there are no good Christians. It does not mean that religion cannot inspire people to good acts, or works.

And honestly, I am confused about something. This is not me trying to counter an argument, or acting naive in order to try to get some 'from the mouth of babes' cred for my point. I seriously want to know the explanation for this, because I haven't been able to get a good one.

If Christianity is unsustainable, why has it hung around for the last 17 odd centuries?

[Mytical]

This is a fascinating, but headache inducing thread to read through. Which really has flown off the rails of the original intention me thinks. This particular sub forum also has a propensity to de-evolve into debates over semantics and terms it seems. >.>

I will offer only a handful of points for consideration:

1) Extremism is bad regardless of the viewpoint or belief in question and is never excused by said viewpoint or belief.

2) Pointing out how much odour the other side's shit emits in no way perfumes your own side's.

3) Every belief or viewpoint will end up having extremists. They may be drafted by different teams but they all came from the same training camp. I look at them as their own little team onto itself regardless of what they're trying to champion.

4) Glenn Beck is a fantasy animal.

Can I just say that while GK is normally awesome anyhow, that this may be even a bit more awesome then usual? Which is a feat in itself. I only disagree with 4. I only WISH Glenn Beck was a Fantasy Animal

[smileyeagle1021]

If Christianity is unsustainable, why has it hung around for the last 17 odd centuries?

Well, up until maybe a century ago (if not less) there was no alternative (non religious) explanation to the question of "how".
Once science started answering the how, people started questioning if they needed religion to tell them the why.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, up until maybe a century ago (if not less) there was no alternative (non religious) explanation to the question of "how".
Once science started answering the how, people started questioning if they needed religion to tell them the why.

Science goes back quite a bit further than that. The problem is more that the further you go back, the greater probability of stake burning when you submit your paper for peer review. >.>

Personally, I think the biggest problem most major religions currently have is a general unwillingness to adapt and evolve to the times. This problem will just get worse over time. For me, I think science is the answer to religion. But not the replacement. If that makes any sense.

You'd think if you want to understand what everything is and how we were created, you'd be chomping at the science bit to find out. Especially right now when we're discovering such incredible things about the inner workings of our universe practically every other week. If you're ever going to get a definitive answer as to whether or not your particular space wizard exists, thats where you're going to find it.

Yet we have a Creationism Musuem down in the states. -.-

[Ghel]

Can we not just agree Atheists don't believe in the existence of anyone's Sky Wizard and resume whatever the original debate was? -.-

Please. Let's.

I would hardly consider myself qualified to discuss something if I wasn't willing to actually look at the other side's arguments.

First, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia has told me all I need to know regarding the suggested book, which is that the other side doesn't have an argument, just bald assertions. Second, I look at the other side's arguments all the time and find them wanting.

And the reason I won't pay money for books written by religious apologists is the same reason I won't give money to religious charities: at least a portion of that money goes towards proselytizing. I have, however, bought apologists' books second-hand and had loads of fun highlighting the errors. Literally. With a highlighter.

If Christianity is unsustainable, why has it hung around for the last 17 odd centuries?

If you're referring to what I said previously, I said that Christianity is "unsupportable." What that means is that there's no good reason to think that it's true.

Yet we have a Creationism Musuem down in the states. -.-

Yes, and they're adding a theme park with a full-size Noah's ark. With dragons and unicorns. :rofl:

[Ipecac Drano]

Yes, and they're adding a theme park with a full-size Noah's ark. With dragons and unicorns. :rofl:

Maybe they'll also have cockatrices and a satyr or two?

[Ghel]

Maybe they'll also have cockatrices and a satyr or two?

I doubt it. Unicorns, at least, are mentioned in the bible. According to the Answers in Genesis folks (those who created the "Creation Museum" and the associated Noah's Ark theme park), every creature mentioned in the Bible was on the Ark.

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh, damn that creation museum. Its just stupid is what it is... I believe in the bible, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe that every word of it is written by god.

[Gravekeeper]

Oh, damn that creation museum. Its just stupid is what it is... I believe in the bible, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe that every word of it is written by god.

Technically, not a *single* word of it was written by god <nitpick> -.-

The problem is when you take it literally. Its not meant to be literal, you lunatics.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem is when you take it literally. Its not meant to be literal, you lunatics.

Especially when it's rife with local idioms that we don't have the information necessary to translate properly. We can't even manage to have a consistent translation from one modern language to another. Anyone who is a fan of foreign films has encountered this.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

I doubt it. Unicorns, at least, are mentioned in the bible. According to the Answers in Genesis folks (those who created the "Creation Museum" and the associated Noah's Ark theme park), every creature mentioned in the Bible was on the Ark.

In the KJV, satyrs are mentioned in Isaiah 13:21 and in Jeremiah 8:17 there is mention of cockatrices.

[Ghel]

In the KJV, satyrs are mentioned in Isaiah 13:21 and in Jeremiah 8:17 there is mention of cockatrices.

Hmm... Then there should be satyrs and cockatrices on the ark in the theme park. On the other hand, the creators of the theme park may use a different translation that describes the creatures differently, and use that as an excuse for not having them. But since they talk about unicorns on the Answers in Genesis website, they don't have an excuse not to have unicorns on their ark. And that will make the theme park even more of a joke than it already is.

It just goes to show what happens to one's thinking when one accepts fundamentalist dogma.

[Gerrinson]

Well, as much as I hate to pull the conversation away from unicorns and cockatrices, here's what I have to say on it.

Everyone - I'm sick to death of freaking Wikipedia being a 'go to' source for knowledge. Either go read the background material on which the entries are based or assume that whomever wrote it could have slanted it to their worldviews especially in the case of things like religion or lack thererof which are emotionally volatile subjects at the start.

Ghel - if you haven't read the Bible, stop complaing that it is 'unsupportable'. Seriously. If you're going to fight over it, best to know what 'it' is.

I've read the KJV Bible twice. Cover to cover. The Bible is, in fact, by and large WHY I'm an atheist. I like the social contract provided by most of the 10 commandments. They're mostly a good way to keep a bunch of primates from gouging each other's eyes out every other day. Jesus seemed like a pretty stand up guy, I think he and I would have gotten along what with that whole 'love is the most important thing' shtick. The rest of it is mostly either a geneology, a smattering of historical fact, or a crock of shit. Mostly all three mixed together. Mmmm!

The rest of why I'm atheist is that science offers explanations but does not demand blind faith. If I can't understand it, I can follow the foundation work and learn the concepts until I can comprehend why, for example, an incandescent lightbulb works until you add air to the interior. Questions are welcome and answered.

Religion - specifically Christianity - hates questions and tends to browbeat the hell out of people who suggest that maybe things aren't the way they appear at first read. Then there are the smug jackasses who think going to Heaven with them is going to be so super special. If sanctimonious self aggrandizement is Heaven, I'll go stew in Hell with my compadres, thank you very much.

If you're a moderate Christian who disagrees with the paintbrush I used, then you need to speak up more in church. You'll find either the extremists beat you into submission or you'll come join me in my camp of being sick of them.

In the end, I don't care what you believe if you leave me to live my life as I see fit, so long as I do no harm to you and you do no harm to me. My lack of belief does not injure you or your life in any way. If it actually offends you, then you have just poked your nose way too deep into my business and you need to shove off because what I think is not your concern.

And lastly, my father was an ordained Methodist minister. He never shoved religion down my throat. In fact, he was the one that taught me to use scripture as a weapon of self defense when someone starts thumping me over the head with Bible quotes. Though he still believes and I do not, we get along just fine. If we can make it work, all moderates can make it work.

So let's take the extremists of all sides, transplant them to say, Antarctica, give them a crate of weapons apiece and shoot the survivors. Repeat as necessary until we all get the point that live and let live is the best way to, y'know, live with each other.

Oh, and I liked the article that started this thread, though I disagree with some of the statements and particularly his examples of extreme atheists.

/soapbox

[Hyena Dandy]

I consdier myself a moderate, and I do speak up whenever I can. But I am already in your camp of being sick of extremists. I just don't think a bunch of assholes are a good reason for me to lose my faith.

I'm fine with not wanting to believe blindly, though. That's a perfectly reasonable position. My problem is when people think there is a problem with believing without evidence.

And unlike some other Christians, I have no problem with asking questions. I'd never scold someone for asking questions. I believe that everybody has a spiritual journey. Some decide to embrace Christianity. Some decide they are more fulfilled by another religion. Some find that they are most comfortable with not believing in any religion.

I feel that no matter what path you take, the most important thing is that you are happy with it. And, the second most important thing, is that you allow others to take their own.

[Gravekeeper]

<snip>
I like the social contract provided by most of the 10 commandments. They're mostly a good way to keep a bunch of primates from gouging each other's eyes out every other day. Jesus seemed like a pretty stand up guy, I think he and I would have gotten along what with that whole 'love is the most important thing' shtick. The rest of it is mostly either a geneology, a smattering of historical fact, or a crock of shit.

The "crock of shit" part is largely remixed versions of existing legends that predate the Bible. But yeah, pretty much this. If you need to get a bunch of lunatics under control without a police force, you promise them they'll burn in Hellfire for eternity *after* they die. -.-

I'm sure Jesus was a real person, and was certainly on to some good ideas as a teacher. His *original* teachings were different then what is attributed to him these days, and many of his teachings were actually rather Budda like ( to the point its a question if he actually encountered said monks ). That whole "Son of God" thing was glued on later to help Christianity compete in the market place so to speak as it was up against some stiff competition. They needed to make him more "special".

But I mean any of the more fantastical stuff in the Bible was copy pasted from other older traditions. Look at Jesus's birth. Most of the major elements of it are redundant to other "prophet birth" stories all of which predate him by hundreds of years. Hell, look at Noah's Ark. Lots of different cultures have a "Flood" myth.

Really, everyone was a bunch of plagerizing bastards back then. You didn't try to convince other religions yours was better via its actual teachings so much as made up ever more fantastic shit to make it sound more impressive. Well, either that or you started burning people on stakes and what not.