View Thread

Atheists Today » Religion » Islam
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Barbaric
RayvenAlandria
You guys are welcome have fun arguing some more but it's time for me to go have some fun. I'm going to go watch Corpse Bride with the family.
 
Cynic
Lucky you --- I'm being subjected to The Polar Express.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote: There is not "atheist book". There is no "atheist manifesto". There is no "atheist bible" that ALL atheists subscribe to, now IS there?

No, there is not.

Your analogy fails on that single point alone.


And there is no single text Christians all agree on either (which is why there is the apocrapha in the first place). The Christian extremists argue that only the synoptic gospels are of any worth and that they were dictated infallibly by god and so on, but thatís their position, not the position of a variety of different Christians all throughout history. You need to stop arguing the religious fanatic argument for them.


Maybe. Maybe not.

Do they share the exact same core beliefs, as expressed in the [majority held] portions of their holy book?

Why, yes, yes they do.

Do they not all claim (to more or less a degree) that their holy book is "the word of god"?

Why, yes, yes they do.

Do they want the rest of the world to accept their holy book AS the word of god?

Why, yes, yes they do.

You can argue the finer points if you like.

I don't like: I see that the moderates ARE responsible for what their extremists do with regards to the book both groups use to justify their actions.

That IS THE POINT.

Doesn't matter that the book is seen slightly different within different groups.

They all have in common: they think it's a book of wisdom.

They all have in common: they think the book should be pushed forward onto everyone else in the world, as the de facto "final say".

This puts them firmly in bed with each other, violent groups with the "moderate" ones.

So long as they both claim the bible and "christian" as reality, they are responsible for each other.

If they were to change their name, and edit out the violent bits of their book?

You might have a case for your point of view...

...of course, the bible wouldn't be nearly as long, would it?
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
RayvenAlandria wrote:
You guys are welcome have fun arguing some more but it's time for me to go have some fun. I'm going to go watch Corpse Bride with the family.
Cynic wrote:
Lucky you --- I'm being subjected to The Polar Express.


While I liked Corpse Bride, I thought Polar Express was pretty good, too.

Hope you both have fun anyway.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JDHURF
Maybe. Maybe not.

Do they share the exact same core beliefs, as expressed in the [majority held] portions of their holy book?

Why, yes, yes they do.


I stopped right there Bob because, why, no, no they do not. There is no shared core belief between the Evangelical and the gnostic and so on. The beliefs are as different as Jesus being the son of god or not, Jesus being human or not, him resurrecting or not and so forth.

Again, you need to stop arguing the religious fanatic argument for them.

btw - the core beliefs argument you just presented refutes your argument against my atheist and church brunings analogy, seeing as all atheists clearly share the same core belief that is the rejection of theism.
Edited by JDHURF on 11/28/2008 21:20
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
Maybe. Maybe not.

Do they share the exact same core beliefs, as expressed in the [majority held] portions of their holy book?

Why, yes, yes they do.


I stopped right there Bob because, why, no, no they do not. There is no shared core belief between the Evangelical and the gnostic and so on. The beliefs are as different as Jesus being the son of god or not, Jesus being human or not, him resurrecting or not and so forth.

Again, you need to stop arguing the religious fanatic argument for them.

btw - the core beliefs argument you just presented refutes your argument against my atheist and church brunings analogy, seeing as all atheists clearly share the same core belief that is the rejection of theism.


I'm an atheist.

_I_ don't have a "core belief".

I have few, if any beliefs actually: certainly none that are supernatural.

Yet, I consider myself an atheist, in that I DO NOT BELIEVE in anything supernatural.

This is NOT the same as saying that I am CERTAIN these things do not exist.

Thus, I have demonstrated that atheists DO NOT share a "core belief".

Many, like myself, don't have much if any beliefs AT ALL!

Thus your "argument" fails.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
Maybe. Maybe not.

Do they share the exact same core beliefs, as expressed in the [majority held] portions of their holy book?

Why, yes, yes they do.


I stopped right there Bob because, why, no, no they do not. There is no shared core belief between the Evangelical and the gnostic and so on. The beliefs are as different as Jesus being the son of god or not, Jesus being human or not, him resurrecting or not and so forth.


Hmmm. There may be a few, minor sects that don't share the basic core beliefs. So what?

The moderate majority is what I'm speaking of, together with the zealous minority.

You are hell-bent on giving a "by" to these moderates, as if they had NOTHING TO DO with their violent brothers-in-belief.

I say, "no", that these moderates share the same core beliefs as their violent brothers-in-beliefs.

They (more or less) share the same book. Your lame attempt to nit-pick a very, VERY tiny minority who do NOT share the same book is just that: a red herring.

The moderate majority do share the same book. As do the majority of violent sub-groups.

Are there even 1,000 gnostic people in my home state? No. Your argument fails, because it ignores the basic point: (here, I better bold it, as you seem to skip over that which you don't like or don't understand? I dunno which...)

the moderates (which is the majority of christianity/muslims) do not make any REAL, working attempts to censure or curtail their violent brothers-in-belief.

These share the same book. Your lame attempt to point out minor, insignificant sub-groups notwithstanding. For the purposes of the argument, it's the same book.

Even the "differences" between the catholic bible and the protestant bible is trivial, when compared to the beliefs of the rest of the world at large.

You may like to argue from a trivial platform, I do not; it only side-steps the real issue.

And that is, these moderates are morally, and ethically responsible for what their book does to the world at large.

They are actively promoting their book; as such, they are responsible for what it's used for.

THAT IS MY POINT, which you cannot seem to grasp.

That there are various versions of this book? So what. The basic contents are enough the same, that to a non-believer, it does not matter even a tiny bit.

The basic core beliefs between the moderates (the majority) and the violent off-shoots? The same: they all believe that their book is "god's word". They all promote that book. They all believe that THEY and ONLY THEY have the "real truth" (else, they would join the group that did have, obviously. Regardless of protests to the contrary from the moderates...they believe this, or they would go elsewhere)

They all believe that Jesus lived at one time. The majority believe that Jesus was some sort of magical person.

The all believe in god, as described by their book.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
Maybe. Maybe not.

Do they share the exact same core beliefs, as expressed in the [majority held] portions of their holy book?

Why, yes, yes they do.


I stopped right there Bob because, why, no, no they do not..


You should have read the rest.

My points were made, lower down, even better.

That you stopped reading, says much, I think: it says to me that you cannot stand it when someone has a point of view that is different than yours.

Or it says that you might be afraid I might have an argument you cannot refute?

I dunno. Nothing good, though.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JDHURF
Bob of QF wrote: You should have read the rest. My points were made, lower down, even better.


No they werenít.

Bob of QF wrote: That you stopped reading, says much, I think: it says to me that you cannot stand it when someone has a point of view that is different than yours.


Iím not sure why you believe you are able to telepathically read my mind as well as my psychological state, but Iíll leave the voodoo to you; Iím not interested in it in the least.

The real reason I stopped reading was because you were simply repeating the same tired arguments, regurgitating what Sam Harris writes. Itís not new to me. Itís very stale by now.

Bob of QF wrote: Or it says that you might be afraid I might have an argument you cannot refute?


Again, Iíll leave you to the voodoo; it doesnít interest me.

Bob of QF wrote: You may like to argue from a trivial platform


The trivial platform is yours. Itís also absurd and outrageous. Just because Iím a socialist and I read some of the same literatures as the FARC doesnít mean that I am indirectly responsible for any of their actions and it sure as hell doesnít mean that I am required to go to Colombia and fight off the FARC.

To say that Christians who view the bible as the fallible product of fallible human beings, who don't view Jesus as the resurrected son of god, are responsible for abortion doctor murderers is just plain stupid and most people recognize this.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote: You should have read the rest. My points were made, lower down, even better.


No they werenít.

Bob of QF wrote: That you stopped reading, says much, I think: it says to me that you cannot stand it when someone has a point of view that is different than yours.


Iím not sure why you believe you are able to telepathically read my mind as well as my psychological state, but Iíll leave the voodoo to you; Iím not interested in it in the least.

The real reason I stopped reading was because you were simply repeating the same tired arguments, regurgitating what Sam Harris writes. Itís not new to me. Itís very stale by now.

Bob of QF wrote: Or it says that you might be afraid I might have an argument you cannot refute?


Again, Iíll leave you to the voodoo; it doesnít interest me.

Bob of QF wrote: You may like to argue from a trivial platform


The trivial platform is yours. Itís also absurd and outrageous. Just because Iím a socialist and I read some of the same literatures as the FARC doesnít mean that I am indirectly responsible for any of their actions and it sure as hell doesnít mean that I am required to go to Colombia and fight off the FARC.

To say that Christians who view the bible as the fallible product of fallible human beings, who don't view Jesus as the resurrected son of god, are responsible for abortion doctor murderers is just plain stupid and most people recognize this.


I don't know who "sam harris" is. I've never heard of him, and I've certainly never read anything he wrote, either.

So your quick assumption that I have is just that: still more assumption.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:

To say that Christians who view the bible as the fallible product of fallible human beings, who don't view Jesus as the resurrected son of god, are responsible for abortion doctor murderers is just plain stupid and most people recognize this.


Most people are only to happy to give them a "by".

It's an excuse I've seen for many years now: religion always gets a "by" simply because it IS the dominant religion in the US.

And for no other reason than that.

I say: no more.

They need to take responsibility for the actions of their violent brothers-in-belief.

Issuing press releases is no longer good enough; they need to own up to the consequences of their belief in an ancient book.

For their violent off-shoots IS one of the consequences.

They need to recognize this.

They do not need to be granted "special status" simply because they believe in the dominant religion.

Thus, ultimately, they are responsible: it's the same book (regardless of how they see that book).

It's the same basic beliefs: book is the magical word of god. Book has the answers to all of life's questions, etc.

this is as true for so-called "moderate" christians as it is for the so-called "moderate" muslims.

Their case is even weaker: their book is less fractured, more the same across the board-of-belief.

That they push their book has consequences. One of them is that some people take it literally, and commit acts of violence.

They are responsible. They all are.

Just because it's religion, does not mean it is granted a special "pass" when it acts in an irresponsible fashion.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote: You should have read the rest. My points were made, lower down, even better.


No they werenít.


Yet.

Yet you don't have any points to refute them.....

Do you?

No, you do not.

Hmmm.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Bob of QF
Well, g'night. It's late, and I'm off.

It was certainly interesting in trading insults, JDHURF.

Maybe another day, hmmm?
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Skeeve
JDHURF wrote:
To say that Christians who view the bible as the fallible product of fallible human beings, who don't view Jesus as the resurrected son of god,


That was cool....call them Christians then define them as not. How did you do that and not see it?

Let's keep the same benchmarks, shall we?
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Cynic
A perhaps appropriate quotation graced my Google interface today:

Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art. -- Charles McCabe


Anyway, as efforts to figure out who those idiots in Mumbai (if I may be so bold as to call them idiots) are, consider this: Of their three targets in their months-planned attack, one was a Jewish community center. In India.

Anyone want to enlighten us as to the mostly socio-political motivations behind that?
 
JDHURF
Skeeve wrote:
JDHURF wrote:
To say that Christians who view the bible as the fallible product of fallible human beings, who don't view Jesus as the resurrected son of god,


That was cool....call them Christians then define them as not. How did you do that and not see it?

Let's keep the same benchmarks, shall we?


Here again we have an atheist arguing the religious fanatic argument for them. Since when did you become the arbiter? Since when did the Catholic Church and the council at Nicea become definitive? Since when did you start agreeing with them?
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
JDHURF
Bob of QF wrote:They are responsible. They all are.


Pure witchcraft. A person is responsible for his/her own actions, they are not and cannot be responsible for the actions of other people. The ideology you are now espousing is a supernatural one: voodoo.
Edited by JDHURF on 11/29/2008 16:59
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Bob of QF
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote:They are responsible. They all are.


Pure witchcraft. A person is responsible for his/her own actions, they are not and cannot be responsible for the actions of other people. The ideology you are now espousing is a supernatural one: voodoo.


Yes. Your pont?

ALL systems of belief are the same as voodoo.

That I ignore the trivial differences within the overall sect that is "christianity"?

That I lump the whole together, simply because the whole is IRRATIONAL?

What YOU fail to see is that these people are dangerous: they are pushing books AS "WISDOM" which have severely violent consequences.

ALL the branches of Christianity push their violent book.

As such, ALL are responsible for the consequences of doing so.

You totally ignore this point-- which IS MY POINT.

You just do not seem capable of grasping a point of view different than yours.

Pity.

I choose to NOT give these "moderates" an excuse for their irresponsible behavior.

Neither the "moderate" Christians, nor the "moderate" Muslims, nor the "moderate" Jews.

None are innocent: ALL push a book that, when used by some, leads to violence.

And the worst part?

The worst part, is that I get the impression that you don't consider the Bible/Koran to BE an irrational collection of superstition.

That's okay, I suppose.

But it certainly undermines your "arguments", doesn't it?
Edited by Bob of QF on 11/29/2008 18:25
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
seeker
To an extent I'm with you on this one Bob but that only goes so far. The problem is that the focus on just the religious element obscures a lot of other factors that cause this underlying bad behavior. Face it, had we in the west not decided that we were entitled to the Middle East's resources we wouldn't have created a lot of the conditions that have caused the problems we are having these days. Our society's religious fanaticism is no different from theirs in any way except that we have a better military right now.

Have you ever read about 'manifest destiny'? The original colonists considereds themselves to be a 'New Israel' and justified the Genocide of native Americans because they viewed it as the same process as the bibles depictions of Isreal destroying the Caananites.

The same thinking went on in England when the Brits, with US help, plopped a bunch of Jews down in their holy land and then looked the other way while Jewish settlers committed a string of atrocities, as they continue to do. Its all irrational and the moderates keep backing the extremists on both sides.

What continues the conflict is not the extremists, its the people who keep looking at the extremists and blaming them while ignoring the causes. Wanna know the really fucked up part Bob? Oh come on, you know you want to.

The fucked up part is that the people who are continuing the conflict are the idiots who keep putting the same kinds of people into power over and over. Israel is run by hard liners who always consider force first. The Palestinians respond with the same kinds of leaders, who tacitly (on both sides) not only encourage extremists but use the fear those extremists generate to keep themselves in power. The thing that is fucked up Bob is that the people who keep those idiots in power are the uninformed, those people who see the articles in the papere and believe them, never once questioning why things never really seem to change.

That 'tacit acceptance of irrational behavior' is not just a theist thing, its a human thing
 
RayvenAlandria
JDHURF wrote:
Bob of QF wrote:They are responsible. They all are.


Pure witchcraft. A person is responsible for his/her own actions, they are not and cannot be responsible for the actions of other people. The ideology you are now espousing is a supernatural one: voodoo.


You are so full of shit.

If you join a " I hate faggots" group, you support the ideology and ARE responsible for what that group does, especially with the funds you donate to it. Being in such a group makes a person a bigot.

You are responsible for any group you choose to be part of, whether it's religious, political or social in nature.
 
Jump to Forum: