The Story of the Woman With No Authority

[Beldaran]

So Baylor requires all students to spend 2 semesters in what they call "Chapel". It is a one hour long, twice a week, very stupid church service. I find it offensive and ridiculous that I am required to experience the propaganda of the local mystics, so I protest by blatantly playing my gameboy during the whole "service".

So today this fat idiotic lady comes up to me during church and says, "Would you please put that away?" I smile and inform her, "No." And I go back to playing Final Fantasy IV Advance. She then says, "Excuse me..." to which I do not respond because I find her irritating. She tries to get my attention several more times, before I find that she is making my game less enjoyable, so I turn around and say, "Is this against the rules? Will I be forced to not only be here, but to pay attention as well?"

Her: "On the first day of chapel, they explained that you must pay attention."

Me: "Oh, well I had my ear plugs in on the first day, and I was taking a nap so I didn't hear that." [I go back to playing Final Fantasy. She is starting to get angry.]

Her: "What's your name?"

Me: "I am not required to tell you my name."

Her: [getting more angry] "Do you want me to call campus police?"

Me: "Do you want to call campus police and tell them that someone is playing gameboy in church? I might go with you because that would be funny."

Her: "We can take that away from you, you know."

Me: "I suppose if a couple of your staff held me down and stole it you could, but legally you cannot. You are not a police officer, and I am not breaking a law. This is not a class and you are not a teacher. It is a religious event that I am forced to be at."

Her: "Tell me your name."

I say nothing. I go back to playing gameboy. She storms off. I can see that she is waiting by the entrance to get me after the service so I can't scan my student ID and be marked present, so I wait until it is really crowded and chaotic and I leave through another door.

She figured I would be one of those 18 year old freshman, all scared and intimidated by either her weight or her authority (or both), but really I am a 25 year old computer programmer who is too old and too experienced to be intimidated by someone with more bark than bite. I can smell a lack of authority from a mile away, so she can kiss my heathen, godless butt.

[Trevelyan_06]

That's ridiculous. From you saying that you were using earplugs I don't see how you are disturbing anyone else, so why does she give a fuck? You don't want to be there, it's shit that you have to be, but you made the best of it by simply ignoring everything instead of causes an disturbance during the service.

I can tell that this lady would cry foul and cause all sorts of problems in class if she were forced to attend an atheist event. I hate Christians people that think it's okay to force their views on others because it's Christianity.

[Prrkitty]

Heck Bel... ya shoulda called the campus police for her <lol>. Just because you're forced to attend something doesn't mean you have to pay attention.

And the ONLY reason I could see that she'd have a valid reason to complain would be IF you had the gameboy sounds played way up loud (or even audible at all). You can play it with headphones on right?

Edit: ok you did say you were wearing headphones... sorry :) She had no business bothering you!

[Beldaran]

the sounds were completely off, and the gameboy itself was held inside of my backpack so the light wouldn't disturb anyone. She just wanted to force me to observe her primitive ritual and I refused because I'm paying to be there and I know she has no power because she's getting paid $6 an hour to walk around and pretend to be useful.

[Rainman]

Oh man, a gameboy would have made my years of church going bearable. As of right now, when I'm forced to go I just look around for hot catholic girls.

Anyway, you're forced to go to church by your college? Wow, that would really piss me off. Any hot girls?

[The_Amaster]

Yeah, I endured my years of church by imagining I had superpowers.

Seriously, though, you have my respect. I'd never have the nerve to stand up like that.(But then I'm a total coward, so...)
Funny story though.

[phattonez]

Wasn't she causing more of a disturbance than you playing Game Boy? Doesn't she realize that she's in a college and that petty stuff doesn't matter? Some people . . .

[DarkDragoonX]

The fact that an institute of learning is forcing people to attend religious services is damn near the most retarded thing I've ever heard of.

[Aegix Drakan]

? You are required by your college to attend a religious service? I'v enever heard of that before...

:shrug: Well, If you don't want to be there (especially if it's not your system of beliefs), but you're forced to attend, then I guess as long as you don't disturb anyone, you can do other stuff to pass the time. Which brings me to my next point:

the sounds were completely off, and the gameboy itself was held inside of my backpack so the light wouldn't disturb anyone. She just wanted to force me to observe her primitive ritual and I refused

0_o Then how the heck did she manage to catch you?


Well, I can't fault you for what you were doing, but...>_> maybe you could have really been more discreet, and said something along the lines of "It's not my faith, I'm only here because the college requires me to be here." More polite + it would possibly get her off your back easier and more effectively.



>_> and am I the only person in this topic who actually enjoys attending church? (whenever I'm not busy at all, which is like, once every four months)

[biggiy05]

The fact that an institute of learning is forcing people to attend religious services is damn near the most retarded thing I've ever heard of.

Yeah I don't get that either but the fat lady was funny.

[AtmaWeapon]

Oh the tyranny of attending a private Christian college as an atheist!

[Darth Marsden]

Fat ladies are always funny!

Forcing you to attend church as part of your education is a stupid idea and I support you all the way in your Final Fantasy-ing. Seriously, it's like trying to force your beliefs onto someone else, and you wouldn't do that individually, so what makes Baylor think that doing it in great big groups makes it alright?

[Beldaran]

Baylor is run by tribal mystics. My reasons for going here for school are logical, it's completely out of my hands that the administration is intellectually bankrupt.

It's probably the most obnoxious place I could have chosen for school, but it was convenient at the time and I'm getting a rather good education, so whatever.

[AtmaWeapon]

Eh I could troll but why bother.

Seriously requiring chapel is pretty dumb but didn't you say Baylor was a big theological college? I'm not really sure but I swear you said that one time.

It better not be one of those hippy non-denominational services either. If it is, you seriously ought to prepare some kind of argument that there are allegorical themes in video games because I am almost certain you could convince someone to let you give a sermon.

Then you could do whatever but I suggest demonstrating what happens when you mix cesium with the holy water.

*edit* also the lady is dumb unless there's some serious campus policy that you must pay attention in the service she needs to lighten up some. I believe if Jesus were in there he'd probably give you a stern look but thank you afterwards for at least keeping the volume down. Then you guys could form a rock band! Normally band names that are too long fail but I'm thinking "Beldaran and his Mystical Pal who May Not Even Exist" would do.

Seriously though have fun fighting the system; best-case scenario she gets frustrated and gives up, worst-case scenario she manages to identify you and suddenly there are problems with all your campus paperwork. It's not really a religion thing either, I complained to housing about a lot of stuff wrong with my room for my first semesters and kept getting successively crappier rooms; the last few semesters I just dealt with it and only called them to ask when to send money and my last dorm room was in the best dorm short of the slightly-less-than-condo new dorms they built for rich kids.

I mean I guess what I'm trying to say it's not their fault you made a choice for which I am unable to choose a suitable analogy. I'm thinking just one day it'd be cool to see that the statement p -> q where p is "Person is an atheist" and q is "Person is a jerk with superiority complex" doesn't hold, but so far it seems to me that an air of superiority is a defining characteristic of atheism. Which is odd because "holier-than-thou" is an analogous characteristic of Christians that drives people to atheism.

[Beldaran]

I mean I guess what I'm trying to say it's not their fault you made a choice for which I am unable to choose a suitable analogy. I'm thinking just one day it'd be cool to see that the statement p -> q where p is "Person is an atheist" and q is "Person is a jerk with superiority complex" doesn't hold, but so far it seems to me that an air of superiority is a defining characteristic of atheism. Which is odd because "holier-than-thou" is an analogous characteristic of Christians that drives people to atheism.

I don't think I'm better than religious people. I just think religious people are diseased with a corrupt and evil doctrine of anti-intellectualism and the world would be better off if none of them existed. It's not "holier-than-thou", it's "lucky to not be stupid enough to consider myself holy".

You know what's arrogant? Thinking the creator of the universe has a personal interest in you and has communicated to you personally all the secrets to moral living and that anyone with a different opinion is wrong. That's fucking arrogant. So you can blow it out your mystical ass that I am the arrogant one.

Don't mistake my contempt for religion for arrogance. It's just plain old contempt.

[phattonez]

Bel, this thread was fine without out your opinion on religion, did you really have to force it to go down this road?

[Glenn the Great]

Bel, this thread was fine without out your opinion on religion, did you really have to force it to go down this road?

Beldaran is my hero because he wields the amazing power to literally force topics to go down the road of his choosing. I'm not sure I've ever come across anyone else with that ability.

[Beldaran]

I'm pretty sure Atma started it with his highly scientific notion that "all atheists are jerks".:googly:

[phattonez]

I'm pretty sure that you didn't incite him when you called it a "primitive ritual."

You could make a case for not starting it; I didn't respond even though I didn't like it, but you're not completely blameless.

[Beldaran]

Worshiping god is a primitive ritual. It was invented by primitive people, tens of thousands of years ago when they thought the sun was a magic being that walked across the ceiling of a giant magical dome everyone lived in. Religion was born of total ignorance, and it continues to give ignorance a place to call home.

[Gleeok]

I wish I had a gameboy when I was a kid. :( I had to ammuse myself by drawing stick figures on those 3x5 cards with those crappy unsharpened pencils they had....


"all atheists are jerks".

This is just not true. I believe religion has advanced a bit in a decade or two, so maybe if you payed attention you'd learn how to cast lv1 magic spells....

[AtmaWeapon]

Eh it's not worth a wall of words to discuss this; you put forth a laughable effort at debate and frankly I've seen more logical arguments from people that think the reptilians are in control so I don't see why I should lay a bed of logic down.

I never asserted that my observation was a scientific fact. I stated that I have observed this relationship, and I would like to find a contradiction.

Some people attend engineering colleges for engineering degrees. You attend the largest Baptist university in the world (http://www.baylor.edu/about/), but obviously there are compelling reasons because any time someone questions your choice you are quick to state you had a good reason.

You hate religion. You attend the largest Baptist university in the world. Obviously there's some reason for this because any time someone points this out you get incensed and point out you had very good reasons for joining an institution that is fundamentally against your worldview.

You constructed a straw man argument and attacked fanatical Christians who believe their "rebirth" makes them special. That's great, I agree they are worthy of contempt. For this attack to hold, you must show that I have asserted I am superior to you because of my religion, and you will not find this. Instead I assert I am superior to you because I can admit when I am wrong and avoid using fallacies to make a point*.

The lady was being a jerk and I think you had the right to assert your right to play game boy during the service, particularly since you had the volume muted. However, you handled the situation with a lack of tact then rushed home to brag to all your nerd friends about having a backbone in a situation where you were really at no risk. You made a crucial error in your nerd fantasy though:

Once your anonymity was threatened, all trace of a backbone disappeared. If she caught hold of your ID, suddenly she might be able to do something about you. There have been plenty of people in similar situations in the past, but Rosa Parks didn't duck out a side door and Linda McCorvey didn't give in to the notion that anyone had the right to force her to bear her unborn child. Instead of facing a situation that might escalate into a case that questions how much a private institution can force its students to be immersed in religious activity, brave Sir Robin bravely ran away.

Then you rushed to the internet forums to gain the admiration of your peers for being strong when you are safe and weak when you are threatened.

Anonymous, you showed your true colors today. What's your plan for when she's looking for you the next time you attend chapel? I suggest a mask or perhaps you should pretend to be a Muslim and wear a large turban.

*I have, quite frequently, resorted to ad hominem and several other fallacies (in fact I end on that note in this post). I do my best to make it clear when I am attempting to logically prove a point and when I am informally attacking you or your beliefs. Additionally, if you would ever call me out on a specific fallacy I would admit it was a fallacy and point out that I stated as such. You, on the other hand, appear to believe you are above using valid and sound logic to debate. A curious characteristic in a scientist indeed.

*edit* Also while we are discussing primitive rituals, what do you think man believed before he came up with the concept of deities? That's right, I am proposing that atheism predates religion. It was invented before man had language to express concepts such as "sun" and "spirit". Many cultures that have been largely unaffected by modern civilization still have very basic spiritual beliefs that refuse to acknowledge any form of deity. This suggests that before formal religion, there was no religion. Since you seem to support the notion that anything primitive is inferior, where does that put you and your beliefs?

[Glenn the Great]

This is just not true. I believe religion has advanced a bit in a decade or two, so maybe if you payed attention you'd learn how to cast lv1 magic spells....


If I could go to Church and learn a Lvl1 magic skill, you wouldn't have to ask me to know where I'd be on Sunday morning.

[AtmaWeapon]

If I could go to Church and learn a Lvl1 magic skill, you wouldn't have to ask me to know where I'd be on Sunday morning.Wherever you go to learn Lvl2 spells? Seriously all you need is Magic Missile it shouldn't take too many Sundays, and it gets better as you level!

[AlexMax]

Once your anonymity was threatened, all trace of a backbone disappeared. If she caught hold of your ID, suddenly she might be able to do something about you. There have been plenty of people in similar situations in the past, but Rosa Parks didn't duck out a side door and Linda McCorvey didn't give in to the notion that anyone had the right to force her to bear her unborn child. Instead of facing a situation that might escalate into a case that questions how much a private institution can force its students to be immersed in religious activity, brave Sir Robin bravely ran away.

Are you seriously trying to put him down for doing the smart thing in this particular situation? He specificly did not want to make a ringamarole out of the situation, but at the same time knew his rights and called her bluff. He was also smart enough to outwit the possible wrath of said vindictive woman. And he also knows that he's probably not going to get any sympathy from the administration, and probably doesn't have the financial resources to escelate it any higher. Ever heard of picking your battles? And do you honestly expect every athiest who chronicles his epxeriences to be the next Rosa Parks? I say that he played his cards right.

Like you mention later, there is a very real possability that Mistress Morbidly Obese will be back next time with backup. He'll cross that bridge when he comes to it.


*edit* Also while we are discussing primitive rituals, what do you think man believed before he came up with the concept of deities? That's right, I am proposing that atheism predates religion. It was invented before man had language to express concepts such as "sun" and "spirit". Many cultures that have been largely unaffected by modern civilization still have very basic spiritual beliefs that refuse to acknowledge any form of deity. This suggests that before formal religion, there was no religion. Since you seem to support the notion that anything primitive is inferior, where does that put you and your beliefs?

Come on Atma, you can do better than this. I highly doubt that Bel's reasons for disliking christianity stem from how old it is.

[bigjoe]

Wherever you go to learn Lvl2 spells? Seriously all you need is Magic Missile it shouldn't take too many Sundays, and it gets better as you level!

I have a level 45 Mr.T clone who can wield a Quantum Umbrella. Needless to say, it'll come back around when the dimensional moderators find out.

On subject, I think that this debate is giving me a raging clue. The clue is that power is ascertained through study. :D

[Lilith]

you either like snow or you like Christianity, you can't have both

[Aegix Drakan]

you either like snow or you like Christianity, you can't have both

>_> You can if you're Canadian.

[Lilith]

I believe if Jesus were in there he'd probably give you a stern look but thank you afterwards for at least keeping the volume down. Then you guys could form a rock band! Normally band names that are too long fail but I'm thinking "Beldaran and his Mystical Pal who May Not Even Exist" would do.

I seriously lol'd here.

I'm going to link my dawkins-trolling pals to this thread as it's quintessential Beldar"I'm attending a Baptist school with a bunch of fat trogs in Texas/all religions are stupid"an. These views on ALL RELIGION sound suspiciously like views on Baptist Christianity's ~* TRIBAL PARADIGMS *~

also happy rosh hashanah

[Modus Ponens]

Bel, this thread was fine without out your opinion on religion, did you really have to force it to go down this road?

Honestly, now, the topic of the thread is how Beldaran plays his GBA in chapel because he doesn't believe in it. Are you really saying that he forced his own thread in a direction that it clearly was already headed?

Bel, I think you might consider a little patience with religious folk. If you had put your GBA away and toughed it out for the rest of the session, and then talked to her calmly and quietly in private when it was over, it might have been better for everyone. (Not that I don't love to picture this scenario, because I totally agree with you on where you're coming from. I would be playing my GBA too. [Actually I'd probably be playing my DS.])

[Darth Marsden]

I suspect I'd just read a book, maybe going so far as to put a sleeve from a bible over it so as to avoid raising suspicion. But that's just me, since I don't like to draw attention to myself.

Honestly, we all know Beldaran's views on religion. Why must we constantly challenge him when we know he won't change his mind? If he wants to think of religion as a waste of time, that's his prerogative. Just let the heathen be :p

[rock_nog]

No it wouldn't... People like that are authoritative morons. She gets off on pretending that she has some sort of power. Religion or no, we've got to take a stand against these backwards bozos who think that the sun rises and sets at their command.

[Glenn the Great]

My stand is that Beldaran did exactly what he should have.

I wish I had been there to have done that. I get a big rush out of challenging authority in such a calm, firm, and confident manner as Beldaran did.

I can just imagine that I'd be high on the experience all day, and the woman would be silently stewing over her failure for the whole day. What could be better?

[Beldaran]

I can just imagine that I'd be high on the experience all day, and the woman would be silently stewing over her failure for the whole day. What could be better?

Exactly. It made the whole rest of my day a little bit brighter. :)

[Daarkseid]

No, as much as I hate religion too, I side with Atma here. Your choice of college is a rather weird one for somebody with such sentiments towards religion. If there was a particular reason to go, such as options you could not find at other institutions(less religious ones), attending church services should have been considered an obligation you would be bound to in exchange for the benefits offered in that institution. Yeah, its a stupid requirement, but surely you knew before you enrolled you would be made to attend church. But instead you're being a dick about it and essentially not living up to your libertarian notions of contract fulfillments.

[AtmaWeapon]

Are you seriously trying to put him down for doing the smart thing in this particular situation? He specificly did not want to make a ringamarole out of the situation, but at the same time knew his rights and called her bluff. He was also smart enough to outwit the possible wrath of said vindictive woman. And he also knows that he's probably not going to get any sympathy from the administration, and probably doesn't have the financial resources to escelate it any higher. Ever heard of picking your battles? And do you honestly expect every athiest who chronicles his epxeriences to be the next Rosa Parks? I say that he played his cards right.Actually if he were picking his battles, he'd have put his GBA away and not made a big deal out of it. He was gung-ho about protecting his rights so long as there was no danger of negative consequences, and as soon as it became clear that his actions might lead to conflict he ducked out. He started the fight because he thought the woman was helpless, then tucked tail when it turned out she did indeed have teeth. A rational person would learn from this experience that one should only start a conflict if one is willing to face the consequences, but no doubt Beldaran will find himself in the same situation again.

It's really funny that so many people are willing to "stand up for their rights" and get applause and back-pats from other nerds, but it's always in a case where (1) anonymity is guaranteed (2) the right that is being fought for is trivial (3) the target of the "fight" is a powerless individual. Seriously this reads just like the thread about the guy who is suing whatever electronics store because they dared to try and block his exit until they had checked his receipt. The characteristics are all there; the store clerk was some pimply-faced college kid who was doing his job, he had no idea who this weird dude with an attitude was and whether he really had the power to stop him from leaving the store, and what kind of right is "leaving the store without proving I paid for my merchandise" that it's worth a legal battle to fight for?

Beldaran could certainly argue that his rights of religious freedom are much more important than in my example, and I agree this weakens my case. My response is to restate that he is attending the largest Baptist college in the world and upset because the college's Christian values clash with his beliefs.


Like you mention later, there is a very real possability that Mistress Morbidly Obese will be back next time with backup. He'll cross that bridge when he comes to it.Good thing you realized that he made an erroneous choice in picking his own battle. Maybe you could have skipped that paragraph above.




Come on Atma, you can do better than this. I highly doubt that Bel's reasons for disliking christianity stem from how old it is.I'm sorry my post didn't live up to your standards, but I can guarantee I can spell the words "specifically", "rigmarole", "escalate", "atheist", "experiences", and "possibility" correctly. You can do better than that. I'm disappointed in you, but I guess I shouldn't expect much more from a YCS regular.

Also I'm certain Beldaran has other reasons, but he's used the word "primitive" quite a bit in this thread and I felt like it would be topical to point out that Christianity is not very primitive when compared to more ancient systems of religion.

[phattonez]

Okay, this is just getting retarded. It's a mildly entertaining story about a woman who wants to look better than college kids. No debate, no religion, no stance for civil rights, just a mildly entertaining story. This thread reminds me of the kids in English class who try to look smart, won't shut up, and say things like "I believe that this character was trying to . . . he should have . . . "

Just my two cents.

[Beldaran]

Atma get a fucking life and stop making retarded assumptions about me. I just wanted to keep playing gameboy and I didn't feel like listening to that idiot lady.

[Glenn the Great]

All I can say is that I'm eager to hear from Beldaran how the next session of Chapel goes.

This is really exciting because the fat lady is going to be there again. I want to name her Mrs. Conservo. I don't know how Beldaran is going to turn this in his favor, but I'm confident that he will.

[Masamune]

I'm just not sure whose team I want to be on in this little skirmish. :(

[Dechipher]

To anyone complaining about the direction of this thread, who cares? If you guys just want everything to be so cleanly cut and nice and neat this place will die because it will be so fucking boring. It's a topic about religion and Beldaran has posted once in it. Someone will eventually call him out on being a narrowminded atheist and Beldaran will undoubtedly refute it. It's how things go here. That's how people expand their minds and learn.

[bigjoe]

I'm just not sure whose team I want to be on in this little skirmish. :(

Well don't we have such a scary avatar and signature?

:D

If we've degenerated to picking fights with people we have little idea about on the internet, then by all means.

[mrz84]

First of, this story is very funny. Second, I'd also like to hear how the next one turns out. And third, taco. :kitty:

[phattonez]

To anyone complaining about the direction of this thread, who cares? If you guys just want everything to be so cleanly cut and nice and neat this place will die because it will be so fucking boring. It's a topic about religion and Beldaran has posted once in it. Someone will eventually call him out on being a narrowminded atheist and Beldaran will undoubtedly refute it. It's how things go here. That's how people expand their minds and learn.

Nobody learns anything from those worthless debates. They don't accomplish a thing.

[Glenn the Great]

Nobody learns anything from those worthless debates. They don't accomplish a thing.

You just need to pay more attention then. I'm learning a whole lot from these debates. I'm mostly learning about how correct my point of view is.

[bigjoe]

That's how people expand their minds and learn.
That's how my brain shrivels up and dies. I try to be friendly, try to wrap my mind around everyone's point of view, but nothing changes. Person X will always hate and despise Person W, but Person E couldn't give a shit.

[phattonez]

You just need to pay more attention then. I'm learning a whole lot from these debates. I'm mostly learning about how correct my point of view is.

You see what I mean, nothing is accomplished because neither side will change.

[Rainman]

I don't know about other people, but I learned a lot while debating on these forums. It's not about convincing the other guy. It's about coming off as the most prepared.

[Beldaran]

Putting your ideas in contrast with those of other people helps you better understand yourself, and those you are debating with. It also helps you call your own views into question.

You think I'm a militant atheist who will never change right? Never say never. I am an atheist BECAUSE I change. I was a devout christian until age 18. Fortunately, I was smart enough to read books that disagreed with my viewpoints, and I was intellectual enough to entertain "dangerous" ideas.

That's my problem with religion; it's not an idea, it's a faith. You can change an idea, study an idea. You can't study your faith because it's not based on any rational principles. It's based on "I've decided in my head that my invisible friend is the king of the universe." and anything that contradicts that feeling is "bad".

If you are not learning anything from debates, than you either aren't paying attention, or you suck at learning.

[phattonez]

^^I have my own personal reasons for my faith that I can't really use in an argument. It's things that I've seen that no one else would understand that convinces me in my belief.

Now, I think that the other debates here are very worthwhile, and they are necessary for all of us. These religious debates are worthless, though.

[Dechipher]

^^I have my own personal reasons for my faith that I can't really use in an argument. It's things that I've seen that no one else would understand that convinces me in my belief.

Now, I think that the other debates here are very worthwhile, and they are necessary for all of us. These religious debates are worthless, though.

I disagree strongly. I enjoy these in particular, because it's such an integral part of our every day lives. Everywhere we go we are confronted with religion. It's interesting to see the viewpoints from intelligent individuals (ie Beldaran and AtmaWeapon) as opposed to complete morons who think that what they believe is right because the Bible tells them so or because they resent their Christian upbringing (although Beldaran tends to exude the vibe of the latter, and plenty of members here exhibit qualities of the former.)

[Glenn the Great]

^^I have my own personal reasons for my faith that I can't really use in an argument. It's things that I've seen that no one else would understand that convinces me in my belief.

I've used that same line in the past.

I've since admitted to myself that when I was saying that, what I really meant was that I couldn't figure out why I believed what I did, and was just grasping for air. It was just a copout to get people to shut up. It was a point that no one could argue with. It allowed me to give a reason for my beliefs without really giving a reason. The reason was fake, but no one could prove that.

[biggiy05]

Nobody learns anything from those worthless debates. They don't accomplish a thing.

It's activity in the forums and until I see Atma or Belderan burst into flames because they are debating over something then I don't see a problem with the thread.

If you don't like where the thread is going then don't keep reading it.

[AlexMax]

Nobody learns anything from those worthless debates. They don't accomplish a thing.

Personally, I don't do it to convince the fundie. I do it to convince other people in the thread, or even people who are silently reading this thread without responding. They are who count, people who are rational enough to change their minds.

And simply because we are loud in our beleifs, please don't confuse being loud for being fundimentalist. There is no such thing as a fundimental atheist. Bel and I are passionate about our atheism, (or else we wouln't keep drawing ourselves into argument), and there are those such as Dawkins who be just as passionate as the kookiest fundie. The difference between us and them is that we are well aware that we can be proven wrong. Fundimentalists, however, at least in their minds, are never wrong.


Bel, I think you might consider a little patience with religious folk. If you had put your GBA away and toughed it out for the rest of the session, and then talked to her calmly and quietly in private when it was over, it might have been better for everyone. (Not that I don't love to picture this scenario, because I totally agree with you on where you're coming from. I would be playing my GBA too. [Actually I'd probably be playing my DS.])

Better for everyone? Who exactly? This was an exchange between him and Mistress Morbidly Obese, and judging by my (albeit limited) glimpse of her in his story, she is probably not the one to give him the time of day after service, or if she would she would probably scold him for his lack of beleif or respect, as if they are owed any in the first place.

[rock_nog]

I don't see why people are so anti-debate. The point of debate is not, I think, to change other people's minds. It's to put your own theories to the test. Give people the opportunity to put holes in your arguments, and in exchange, you get the change to do the same to theirs. In the end, maybe your original beliefs are only reinforced, but hopefully, with good reason. Or, you may see that there are major flaws with your theory, and so you are forced to reevaluate your position. At any rate, I think it should be about personal growth.

That said, here's my newfound stance on the issue of religion. It's utterly unscientific. And I don't just mean that there's no evidence for it - most theories start out with some observation, and then a hypothesis is made to explain the observation, and then the hypothesis is tested. Not the God hypothesis, though. There is absolutely no observation that could possibly lead to the hypothesis that there is an omnipotent deity. It's utterly arbitrary. If it weren't for 2,000-year-old mythology, religion wouldn't even exist. No one in this day and age would have any reason for making up a belief in God if one hadn't previously existed.

From a scientific point of view, there is no more reason to test the God hypothesis than there is to test the hypothesis that the Greek gods are real, or that the color purple cures cancer. It's absurd, and it's arbitrary. I mean, the ONLY observation whatsoever is a collection of stories from several thousand years ago. Since when are we in the business of taking ancient mythology seriously?

[Aegix Drakan]

I don't see why people are so anti-debate. The point of debate is not, I think, to change other people's minds. It's to put your own theories to the test. Give people the opportunity to put holes in your arguments, and in exchange, you get the change to do the same to theirs.

Exactly the reason I get involved in most of these debates (Or at least read every post). You can't grow or learn if you don't ask questions. Same things with faith. If you don't question it, it can't grow stronger, or be reevaluated to make more sense.

[Grasshopper]

These debates aren't worthless...they give me something to read while poopin' :D

The real issue to me is that Belderan was told to do something he didn't want to do, and whether or not that was right or wrong. Not whether Belderan is an athiest or not. Why does that even matter? Christians, Muslims or whoever can refute authority just as well. And besides, he has that awesome Terminator avatar. The reason this debate spawned off on religion is because of name calling.

First off, everyone should want respect, and people should not be criticized for wanting it. So I don't think there is a need to be disrespectful to anyone in authoritive roles just because they are above you. Unless they do something that doesn't deserve repect, I will try and be respectful.

It was also pointed out that you attend a Baptist college. The Baptist, unlike some other denominations, do require you learn more about Christianity. So it shouldn't be surprising that you are required to have a church service, which has also be mentioned. Its a class just like any other class, and is required just like universities require you take orientation classes.

In my opinion though, you should have put the GBA away. I would not play my GBA while I'm in a sociology or history class, even if it has nothing to do with my major. I don't like either of those subjects, and don't care to learn about them, but the teacher is trying to teach to other people, and even with the sound turned down, its probably not good to play in class. I feel its disrespectful to the teacher. Some people don't like stuff like that disrupting class, other teachers don't care. To me, this church service is just like any other class. If you don't want to listen, don't. If you're not having tests on anything in it, then it doesn't really matter if you do or don't. But to flat out refuse a simple command, that's something my 6yr old nephew does when hes told to pick up his toys out of the floor.

Thats my $.02

[rock_nog]

Oh sure, respect, yeah, everyone deserves that. The authority to make commands to other people, that's a a different matter entirely. That has to be earned. And not only that, it absolutely requires the consent of the person being commanded. In this example, Beldaran did not give consent to be ordered around. No human being should be able to hold power over any other human being unless a mutual agreement is made. That's the entire basis of our system of government. And yes, while you may say that a system of government has nothing to do with our personal lives, I would argue that our system of government stems from an underlying philosophy which should permeate all aspects of life, that of freedom and individualism. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but that's simply the way I see it. Now, you might question the wisdom of an atheist attending Baylor, but that's a whole different can of worms.

[Beldaran]

For those who can't imagine why I'd go to Baylor, here are my reasons:

I would have had to wait an extra year before going to a state school in Texas because I needed residency. Out of state transfers, at the time, had almost no hope of getting into University of Texas. I could have gone to Texas State or or something, but why would I do that when I can go to such a nice university here at Baylor?

I'm getting an amazing education. I am on a first name basis with several of my engineering professors. Classes are small and intense. I will be lined up with an amazing job at graduation.

I have a kick ass scholarship. Even though Baylor is insanely expensive, it's actually cheaper for me to go here because of my scholarships and grants.

I don't particularly care that it's a religious school. However, I find chapel really offensive. It's not a class. It's a religious service. Nothing is learned. I just sit there and watch people sing and worship and talk about Jesus. It's pathetic. And now they want to force me to pay attention, not just be there. Well fuck that. If I can't play gameboy without being hassled, I'm going to just put my ear plugs in, bring a pillow, and go to sleep.

[phattonez]

If you do that make sure that someone takes a picture of it. It's not good enough without a picture. :)

[Lilith]

You think I'm a militant atheist who will never change right? Never say never. I am an atheist BECAUSE I change. I was a devout christian until age 18. Fortunately, I was smart enough to read books that disagreed with my viewpoints, and I was intellectual enough to entertain "dangerous" ideas.

lol, transparent much? you need to CALM DOWN

also, the next time you have to go to Chapel if you want to ~*rebel*~ I would recommend consuming 4 burritos and a bottle of ipecac before to show what you really think of RELIGION. This would be awesome and earn the respect of me and Ted, probably.

[rock_nog]

lol, transparent much? you need to CALM DOWN

also, the next time you have to go to Chapel if you want to ~*rebel*~ I would recommend consuming 4 burritos and a bottle of ipecac before to show what you really think of RELIGION. This would be awesome and earn the respect of me and Ted, probably.
LOL I would pay to see that. No, seriously, I would hop on a bus up to Waco just to watch the disgusting drama unfold.

[Beldaran]

man, great idea. I should eat all the foods that make me have gas and then sit up front and just fart everyone to fucking death. hahah brilliant. :)

[Darth Marsden]

So Baylor requires all students to spend 2 semesters in what they call "Chapel". It is a one hour long, twice a week, very stupid church service. I find it offensive and ridiculous that I am required to experience the propaganda of the local mystics, so I protest by blatantly playing my gameboy during the whole "service".

So today this fat idiotic lady comes up to me during church and says, "Would you please put that away?" I smile and inform her, "No." And I go back to playing Final Fantasy IV Advance. She then says, "Excuse me..." to which I do not respond because I find her irritating. She tries to get my attention several more times, before I find that she is making my game less enjoyable, so I turn around and say, "Is this against the rules? Will I be forced to not only be here, but to pay attention as well?"

Her: "On the first day of chapel, they explained that you must pay attention."

Me: "Oh, well I had my ear plugs in on the first day, and I was taking a nap so I didn't hear that." [I go back to playing Final Fantasy. She is starting to get angry.]

Her: "What's your name?"

Me: "I am not required to tell you my name."

Her: [getting more angry] "Do you want me to call campus police?"

Me: "Do you want to call campus police and tell them that someone is playing gameboy in church? I might go with you because that would be funny."

Her: "We can take that away from you, you know."

Me: "I suppose if a couple of your staff held me down and stole it you could, but legally you cannot. You are not a police officer, and I am not breaking a law. This is not a class and you are not a teacher. It is a religious event that I am forced to be at."

Her: "Tell me your name."

I say nothing. I go back to playing gameboy. She storms off. I can see that she is waiting by the entrance to get me after the service so I can't scan my student ID and be marked present, so I wait until it is really crowded and chaotic and I leave through another door.

She figured I would be one of those 18 year old freshman, all scared and intimidated by either her weight or her authority (or both), but really I am a 25 year old computer programmer who is too old and too experienced to be intimidated by someone with more bark than bite. I can smell a lack of authority from a mile away, so she can kiss my heathen, godless butt.

For those who can't imagine why I'd go to Baylor, here are my reasons:

I would have had to wait an extra year before going to a state school in Texas because I needed residency. Out of state transfers, at the time, had almost no hope of getting into University of Texas. I could have gone to Texas State or or something, but why would I do that when I can go to such a nice university here at Baylor?

I'm getting an amazing education. I am on a first name basis with several of my engineering professors. Classes are small and intense. I will be lined up with an amazing job at graduation.

I have a kick ass scholarship. Even though Baylor is insanely expensive, it's actually cheaper for me to go here because of my scholarships and grants.

I don't particularly care that it's a religious school. However, I find chapel really offensive. It's not a class. It's a religious service. Nothing is learned. I just sit there and watch people sing and worship and talk about Jesus. It's pathetic. And now they want to force me to pay attention, not just be there. Well fuck that. If I can't play gameboy without being hassled, I'm going to just put my ear plugs in, bring a pillow, and go to sleep.
Y'know, if we just cut out all the chatter about your views on religion, how several people think you're wrong to believe as you do and everyone is pretty much just insulting everyone else, these two bits are basically the whole thread.

Comments about this that I'd like to make:

You have your reasons for going to Baylor. I always thought you did - as far as I'm aware, everyone here has done what they wanted to, be it education, work, whatever. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, guys.

You're not a religious person. This was made very clear in that thread I started in which I was unsure in what I believed.* A fair number of us don't want to start that again, including me, mostly because reading all the responses made my head hurt.

You were following the rules. As far as we're aware, all you legally have to do is attend 'chapel'. You don't have to join in with anything, do you? You could, theoretically, just sit there and do nothing? If so, then there's very little wrong with what you were doing. Again, that's from what you've told us, but why would you lie about that? Re-reading your first post, it may well be that doing what you were doing is in fact against the rules. However, unless you're told so by a senior member of staff, I think you're safe.

You stood your ground. She challenged you, you challenged her back. Huzzah for you. If it turns out she had no actual power, then I'd say you did good. If she did have power and was in the right, I'm sure you'll apologize, right? Y'know, before arguing your case, 'cause that seems like something you'd do.

So, yeah. If you get done for playing your GBA (I guess it's either a GBA or a DS, and since you didn't actually say DS...), then take a book. If you get done for that, take an MP3 player. If you get done for that... etc. Stand for your rights! Or something.

* I'm still not really, but I kinda had to abandon that because it moved over from 'let's help Darth' to 'let's challenge Beldaran on his lack of faith'. I'm not bitter or anything, and I know that's the way things happen on forums, but still...

[Prrkitty]

Lively debate is, to me, a very interesting read/experience/etc. I can't deny I get uncomfortable when people start calling other people names (negative attitudes).

But good lively debates are good for the soul. It's how you expand your horizons.

[bigjoe]

as opposed to complete morons who think that what they believe is right because the Bible tells them so

I somehow feel called out by that one. Not because I'm a bible-pusher (That couldn't be farther from the truth.), but because there are many millions of people who use belief as a stepping stone to reach their goals. Why put a knife to their throat and send them to their deaths because of their ignorance, when you can be a mentor and a teacher?

By the way, when Atheists and Christians start agreeing with each other, you know something is awry. :scared:

[phattonez]

Wow, I think people have misinterpreted me completely. I said that religious debates are worthless because they devolve into Bel posting pictures of extremists and Atma picking out little things in Bel's arguments. It's really stupid and no one learns a thing. Obviously debate is good, in fact I enjoy debating other topics here, but the religious ones are retarded, and it's even worse when Bel uses that in other threads (i.e. when Bel says I can't use logic because I believe in God).

[biggiy05]

Wow, I think people have misinterpreted me completely. I said that religious debates are worthless because they devolve into Bel posting pictures of extremists and Atma picking out little things in Bel's arguments. It's really stupid and no one learns a thing. Obviously debate is good, in fact I enjoy debating other topics here, but the religious ones are retarded, and it's even worse when Bel uses that in other threads (i.e. when Bel says I can't use logic because I believe in God).

Maybe I missed this but what pictures?

If you don't like religious debates then don't read or post in them. It's not that hard.

[Glenn the Great]

Maybe I missed this but what pictures?

If you don't like religious debates then don't read or post in them. It's not that hard.

In a thread earlier this year, Beldaran posted a series of pictures and paintings depicting religious persecution throughout history. Pictures of muslims praying, people being burned at the stake, etc.

I'd shoot you a link, but of course I can't search these forums.

[AtmaWeapon]

^^I have my own personal reasons for my faith that I can't really use in an argument. It's things that I've seen that no one else would understand that convinces me in my belief. That was really his point and it's one I agree with too; religious faith (or lack thereof) is really indefensible by logic. You can have reasons for your degree of faith in something, but ultimately there are no universal facts that convert people one way or another.

If you consider only two states, atheist and religious, I have seen all four possible reactions to tragedy: I know a devout Christian woman who lost a husband to cancer, a son to a car wreck, and then a son to murder, and it only strengthened her faith. I know a once-Christian family that went through an awful car crash, blamed God and became atheist. I know quite a few atheists that went through tragedy and remained the same. I know a family that were athiests; the son went into a coma for no apparent reason, then a few days later was perfectly fine. The family became Christians after this.If death, illness, and other misfortunes don't have a consistent effect, I think it stands to reason that the factors that lead a person to their faith are completely internalized.

I don't think Beldaran's wrong for being an atheist, I think he's wrong for feeling superior for his choice. One or both of us is wrong, and there's really no way to know.

[Masamune]

I know a once-Christian family that went through an awful car crash, blamed God and became atheist.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE, ATMA! :o

[Beldaran]

I think he's wrong for feeling superior for his choice.

You stubbornly refuse to understand this idea that I don't think I'm superior to anyone. I just think my ideas are superior because religious ideas are not ideas, they are childish and inane fantasies that should be laughed at were they not so horrifically dangerous to society.


One or both of us is wrong, and there's really no way to know.

Except you have not one scrap of evidence to support your position that a magic wizard named Jesus controls the universe and I don't need evidence to demonstrate disbelief. In fact, the lack of evidence supports me even more.

[AtmaWeapon]

Except you have not one scrap of evidence to support your position that a magic wizard named Jesus controls the universe and I don't need evidence to demonstrate disbelief. In fact, the lack of evidence supports me even more.Ahh but that is where we have the stalemate.

Your wealth of evidence that a magic wizard named Jesus doesn't control the universe is exactly equal to my astounding proof that He does.

The scale is always balanced; Evidence for: 0, evidence against: 0.

Of course, that's contextual. From the Christian viewpoint, the Bible is adequate evidence. However, if one does not believe the Bible is valid it doesn't exactly hold as evidence. Likewise, no matter what mysteries of the cosmos scientists can uncover, a lot of religious people have no troubles believing that their deity can control these processes.

There's also the nagging issue that I don't need evidence to have faith in something. If scientists waited until they had conclusive evidence before testing their hypotheses, I don't believe there would be very much scientific progress. Surely they do their best to make educated guesses so as to not waste time or create dangerous situations, but if one can verify the result of an experiment without performing the experiment, what is the point of the experiment? Your point is silly.

Also Masamune what was so unclear? I pointed out that I've seen traumatic events and tragedy cause people to lose their faith, discover faith, or simply remain constant. Have you never seen anyone undergo a dramatic change following a traumatic event?

[DarkDragon]

But scientists don't necessarily have faith or confidence in something at the time they perform an experiment to test the hypothesis; in fact ideally the scientist's personal beliefs are completely disjoint from the experiment at hand. Whether the hypothesis is phrased "X will happen" or "X won't happen" doesn't matter, as the same information is produced by the experiment either way.

[Daarkseid]

Also Masamune what was so unclear? I pointed out that I've seen traumatic events and tragedy cause people to lose their faith, discover faith, or simply remain constant. Have you never seen anyone undergo a dramatic change following a traumatic event?

I think he was pointing out that it might seem strange for people to blame god while becoming Atheist. An atheist blaming god would seem absurd because he does not believe in god to begin with.

Except that the likely situation was that those people blamed god while they were still convinced of his existence, became disillusioned, then moved onto to not believing in god at all.

[rock_nog]

But scientists don't necessarily have faith or confidence in something at the time they perform an experiment to test the hypothesis; in fact ideally the scientist's personal beliefs are completely disjoint from the experiment at hand. Whether the hypothesis is phrased "X will happen" or "X won't happen" doesn't matter, as the same information is produced by the experiment either way.
Actually, it does matter since you can't prove a negative. So even if your hypothesis is "X won't happen," your experiment is to test the hypothesis "X will happen," and if it doesn't, then the experiment "does not support the hypothesis that X will happen."

Anyway, see, here's the thing about God. How is God different than any other imaginary deity that I could make up in my head right now? Why does the belief in God carry any more weight? I've got the same amount of evidence for the existence of my deities, the same number of observations that require them as an explanation... Like I've said - if you remove the Bible, which to me makes sense, because I don't see why a collection of 2,000-year-old-mythology should be given any credibility, you've got absolutely zero reason to even begin to suspect that an omnipotent, sentient creator even exists.

Sure, there are a lot of mysteries in this world. But do any of them even slightly suggest that the force behind them is sentient? If reality worked in the same way that it seems to work in that book of yours, maybe I'd see your point. But look around - there are no messages which seem to be from the Creator, no one credible claiming to have spoken with God, or angels, or anything of the sort, no prophets with miraculous powers. In fact, no miracles at all, at least none that can't be simply explained through random chance. Back then, they were drawing water from rocks, leveling cities with trumpets, walking on water... Nowadays what constitutes a miracle is a joke - 1 patient out of a group of 10 surviving a form of cancer that has a 10% survival rate.

You see what I'm driving at? The scientific method - observation leads to hypothesis, which leads to testing, which leads to evidence either for or against the hypothesis. Religious people say the lack of evidence puts atheism and religion on equal footing - it doesn't. That's because religious people just love to skip over that first step, observations, and just make up a hypothesis at random. So you see, the argument that both hypotheses are equally probable is all just a bit of smoke and mirrors. There are no observations that would ever lead the reasonable person to think that maybe an invisible man in the sky is needed to explain them.

Basically, what I'm asking is this - if the Bible had never been written, and if no one had ever told you about God, would the notion of an invisible man living in the sky ever even occur to anyone (who wasn't mentally insane)? I think not - and that's my point. If it weren't for people passing down stories for generations, the whole concept of religion would seem utterly foreign to us. And that's why the two hypotheses are not equally plausible. One relies on observation, and the other completely ignores it in favor of 2,000-year-old mythology.

[Darth Marsden]

'How could a just and kind God let this happen? (S)He wouldn't! Therefore, there is no God. QED.'

5 points to anyone who gets the reference, btw.

[AlexMax]

Ahh but that is where we have the stalemate.

Your wealth of evidence that a magic wizard named Jesus doesn't control the universe is exactly equal to my astounding proof that He does.

The scale is always balanced; Evidence for: 0, evidence against: 0.

The scale is not balanced in the least. Your god is the god of gaps in our knowledge. For every new discovery scientists make that is shown to contradict religion, there's always another 'blank' that you people rush to put him in. It's tiresome and ultimately unavoidable, since like I said, the fundimentalist is never wrong in his or her mind, so if one thing stops validating their beleifs, they'll simply switch to something else.


There's also the nagging issue that I don't need evidence to have faith in something. If scientists waited until they had conclusive evidence before testing their hypotheses, I don't believe there would be very much scientific progress. Surely they do their best to make educated guesses so as to not waste time or create dangerous situations, but if one can verify the result of an experiment without performing the experiment, what is the point of the experiment? Your point is silly.

This is a very ignorant (or perhaps dishonest) comparison between scientific and religious 'methods'. The scientific method is thus:


1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Reread the fourth step very carefully. Experimental tests of predictions by several independent experimentors and properly performed experiments. This is a forigen concept to fundimentalists, and in Christianity the fourth step in particular is covered by Matthew 4:7 and a number of other passages that explicitly discourages such experiments. Don't pretend like the methods used by scientists and fundimentalists are anything alike.

[AtmaWeapon]

Alex, do you really believe that a portion of the Gospel that illustrates Jesus' temptation by Satan:
5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]"

7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]" Has anything to do with whether Christians are supposed to pursue scientific research? If you honestly can't understand the metaphor here then you really need to stop posting because you have less mental facilities than a doorknob.

Your point was "Christians are discouraged from testing scientific hypotheses". Your verse supports the point "Christians are discouraged from testing God's existence by attempting to force God's hand into performing miracles." While there is a slight similarity, I'm fairly certain that enough people have attempted to independently verify "Will God save me if I jump off of a building?" to support an answer of "no". The situation at hand was actually "Will God save Jesus if He jumps off of a building?" but Jesus properly identified this experiment as stupid.

It would have been cooler to use a list tag for this list but it's clear that effort is too much for you, you'd prefer to copy/paste ideas you see other people put forth both into your posts and into your mind. I support this notion with the fact that this is not the first time you've said "the Bible says this" by citing a single verse that, when taken in context, refers to something else entirely.

Upon further reflection, I do agree I was incorrect by attempting to link religious faith and scientific faith; there is a fundamental difference. Religious faith is not meant to be tested, and is structured in a way that suggests testing faith will always disprove it much like how observation can alter a measurement. Scientific faith must be tested and only exists temporarily; science seeks to prove anything that is taken on faith. However, I feel there's a clear distinction between a hypothesis such as "If there is a God, He'll prove himself by saving me from this calamity" and "If we can cause a large amount of matter to be created from this reaction, we have new support for the Big Bang theory". The former makes the assumption that one completely understands the intentions and motivations of an omnipotent being that has explicitly stated that it will not stand for being tested; I'd like to say this is fallacy but I'd rather settle for just calling it silly. The latter makes no such assumption; the origin of the universe cares little about whether its secrets are discovered.

So yes, I am instructed to avoid attempting to scientifically verify God's existence by attempting to force Him to perform a miracle. I feel this places no restrictions on attempting to determine whether man was created from dust or progressively evolved from some base species; study of how God created the Earth is not forbidden and I believe it was done through scientific processes that we will one day learn to control (if we don't manage to destroy ourselves beforehand).

It is true that for many people God exists only in the places where our knowledge is lacking; these people earnestly seek to hinder scientific development in the name of protecting their beliefs and I stand in unison with you in contempt for them. I don't like the use of the term "fundamentalist" but I would like to separate myself from them so I'll use that term.

However, there are many like me who find God in the things we have learned as well; everything I see about cellular respiration, evolutionary development of species, the development of oil deposits we need for fuel from the fossils of giant lizards (possibly closer to birds!) that happen to please and awe our young; when I consider that God created all of these things it glorifies Him as an engineer on a level that is unsurpassed by any. The fact that we have trouble understanding <scientific concept> doesn't suggest to me that God doesn't want us to understand it but that He wants us to appreciate its complexity once we do understand it. The reason I revisit these threads is because it seems that some of you seem to suggest that no religious individual supports scientific progress, and I believe this is false.

I'd like to point out that the fact that answering questions tends to spawn new questions by mentioning it is not entirely the fault of fundamentalists. Science loves structured hierarchies*. Our body is made of organs, organs are made of tissue, tissue is made of cells, cells are made of smaller structures, these structures are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms, atoms are made of particles, particles are made of quarks... Each discovery led us to pat ourselves on the backs and then ask, "Is there more?". When we discovered the atom, we weren't satisfied, we wanted to know why atoms worked, so we worked out protons, neutrons, and electrons. That wasn't enough, we wanted to know why they worked, so we came up with quarks. Once we fully understand those, I am certain science will study why they work. I don't think this is motivated by religion but by the complexity of the universe.

Alex's intelligent errors this post:
Spelled "fundamentalist" wrong. Spelled "beliefs" wrong. Placed "methods" in quotes to signify they are something less than true methods, but accidentally used a sentence structure that makes this functionally equivalent to:
scientific 'methods' and religious 'methods'
thus weakening his own point. "H" is not a vowel, therefore not preceded by the article "an" unless it is silent. "An honest mistake" is correct, but not "an hypothesis". Spelled "experimenters" wrong. Spelled "foreign" wrong. Spelled "fundamentalists" wrong again. Seriously what gives you the right to call me ignorant when the only parts of your posts that don't commit sins against the Ghost of the English Language are the parts that quote me?

-----------------------------------------------------------
*I find this odd since the universe is supposed to move towards entropy, but it seems that somehow structure likes to assert itself as well.

[rock_nog]

Certainly there are some powerful forces at work in the universe. But nothing about these forces even remotely suggests that they are the result of a sentient, omnipotent being, much less a sentient, omnipotent being that cares for us and shows concern for our morality.

It seems far more likely to me that God is the result of our human tendency to anthropomorphisize things we don't understand.

[AtmaWeapon]

That is a valid and sound point and one with which I will not argue; to those who believe the only real difference about the perception is that where you say there is nothing to suggest the being, they believe that the powerful unknown forces are the justification.

It's really a matter of context; if you believe it makes sense then it does, if you don't believe it then it doesn't, and it's hard to convince anyone that the one they don't believe is right.

[Beldaran]

It's really a matter of context; if you believe it makes sense then it does, if you don't believe it then it doesn't, and it's hard to convince anyone that the one they don't believe is right.

This defense of religious people can also be made in defense of mental patients, which I think says more about one group than it does the other.

[rock_nog]

That is a valid and sound point and one with which I will not argue; to those who believe the only real difference about the perception is that where you say there is nothing to suggest the being, they believe that the powerful unknown forces are the justification.
The fact that you use the word "justification" is exactly what bothers me. You come up with a theory and then look for evidence to support that theory. What about those forces suggests sentience? Or concern for our lives? The fact of the matter is, you can't answer that question without referring to the Bible.

[Beldaran]

The same argument Atma is using was used thousands of years ago when people said that the fact that it rained during some months and not others was proof that god controlled the rain. It's just now we've evolved from wondering about the rain, to wondering about the big bang, sub atomic particles, and energy. It's still the same, tribal argument but with bigger words to make creationists feel smarter.

[AtmaWeapon]

This defense of religious people can also be made in defense of mental patients, which I think says more about one group than it does the other.So subtle with your trolls aren't you? This kind of response is in the same vein as "You know who ELSE believed in <random subject>? That's right, HITLER!". The similarity of the argument implies nothing about the mental state of the groups involved, your herring is just a few shades too red here. Make a point, then support it. I tire of your random "oh yeah?" responses.


The fact that you use the word "justification" is exactly what bothers me. You come up with a theory and then look for evidence to support that theory. What about those forces suggests sentience? Or concern for our lives? The fact of the matter is, you can't answer that question without referring to the Bible.Did you read my words at all or did you just stop when I said "justification"? Your point is a restatement of my point. Also it'd pay to clarify which forces you are discussing; if we are talking gravitational or electromagnetic forces then yes I agree, I'd be extremely surprised to find out that they have cares.


The same argument Atma is using was used thousands of years ago when people said that the fact that it rained during some months and not others was proof that god controlled the rain. It's just now we've evolved from wondering about the rain, to wondering about the big bang, sub atomic particles, and energy. It's still the same, tribal argument but with bigger words to make creationists feel smarter.Except I have never disagreed with any statement you have made about any scientific topic on the grounds of "my religion forbids this research". You are trying to weaken my arguments by using fanatics, ancient peoples, and thinly veiled insults, and that is how kids on a playground argue. If your ideas are so superior, why is it that you must resort to verbal sticks and stones to debate?

Seriously if you are not even going to bother to hide the fact that all you are going to do is troll me then I'm going to quit biting.

The point I've made several times and all of you ignore is that it is impossible to debate on matters of faith. I believe what I believe, and I have challenged any of you to point out how it interferes with scientific thought. Unrelated and irrelevant challenges that have been made are: Ancient man was ignorant of modern science Fanaticism has caused irrational behavior This or that group is stupid I have disappointed a guy that's spent so long on 4chan and chat rooms that he can't properly spell any word longer than 5 letters The scientific methodIt's my fault for digressing into too many topics at once, so I'm going to get back to this core point and stick with it. Not once have I implied that atheists are somehow corrupt or inferior by virtue of their beliefs, but this point has been made against me with no support. The ancient Roman Catholic Church was a group of people hundreds of years ago and their actions are totally unrelated to me; they do not prove I am corrupt. The persecution of ancient scientists was done by men hundreds of years ago; their actions say nothing about my life. The Salem Witch Trials were performed by men in the not-so-distant past; their actions have nothing to do with my life and say nothing about me. The Westboro Baptist Church is a group I hold in contempt and has nothing to do with me; their actions say nothing about me.

The short point is if you wish to claim my scientific integrity is corrupted by my choice of beliefs, perhaps you would do well to support that conclusion with statements I've made that indicate a willing avoidance of scientific research due to some religious obligation. That'd be a much better attack than implying that something some people did around a campfire eight thousand years ago has anything to do with that point.

[rock_nog]

For the record, I DID read your entire post - it just seemed to me that your use of the word justification indicated you had missed my previous point. The forces I am referring to are the forces like electromagnetism, gravity, etc., as well as the forces which brought this universe into being.

The thing is, it just seems we're talking across purposes. I dunno, maybe I'm not doing a good job explaining myself. I'm just... I think there's a major flaw in your logic, in that you start out believing that God exists, and then look for evidence to support that thing which you already believe. I just don't understand how anyone can claim religion and atheism are equally plausible when it's so hard to imagine anyone in this day and age coming up with the idea of God without having been previously told about God.

If you could somehow show me that people could come up with the notion of a sentient Creator without either having been told about it or having read it in the Bible, then you could make the argument that religion and atheism are on equal footing. As it is, I favor atheism, and it's not a matter of faith, it's because I can't come up with any other theory about the universe without going back to ancient mythology. Which reminds me, I don't think faith today means the same thing as faith did back when the Bible was written, but that's a topic for another thread.

[Beldaran]

I'll start out by flatly disagreeing with you about the nature of my responses and reassert that everything I have said is pertinent to something you said and that you have done little except to continue to accuse me of being "mean", which I don't accept as a valid argument on any issue.



The point I've made several times and all of you ignore is that it is impossible to debate on matters of faith. I believe what I believe, and I have challenged any of you to point out how it interferes with scientific thought.

This is very easy to address.




The point I've made ... is that it is impossible to debate on matters of faith.

First of all, we are not disagreeing on matters of faith. We are disagreeing on matters of philosophy, which is open to debate. My philosophy is that using reason and evidence is superior to believing in magic. Your position is that believing in magic does not contradict scientific thought.

The reason it is impossible to debate between matters of faith, ie christianity is better than islam, is because faith is irrational and intellectually illegitimate. There is no rational way to support christianity over islam because neither belief is based on reason. The only way to argue about faith is with swords and AK-47's.



I believe what I believe, and I have challenged any of you to point out how it interferes with scientific thought.

Science requires skepticism, experimentation, observation, and reason. Faith insults and undermines these activities. Faith is the willingness to betray your mind and hand it over to the whims of your emotions. People who have accepted faith of any kind in anything have opened the floodgates for an invasion of mysticism, charlatanism, occultism, and political manipulation.

By itself, this is bad enough. But what is worse, people of faith feel compelled to spread this corruption. They are rarely happy unless they are trying to suck others into their world of depravity. It is this effect that causes faith to be so truly evil. Faith helps to foster a society controlled by zealots and mystics.

Asking how faith interferes with scientific thought is like asking how being racist interferes with being tolerant.

[rock_nog]

*edit* Also I think psychics have had several thousand years to verify their powers but it seems no one has managed it yet. They blame it on the mysteries of their art but it's really weird how whatever fuels psychic activity gets a lot less cloudy when a credit card number has been exchanged.
I thought that statement was very interesting - the same thing could be said for Christianity - it's been 2000 years, and what does it have to show but a 2000-year-old book? Sorry, but I think after a certain point in time, you've gotta admit the lack of new news on the God phone has gotta mean something.

EDIT: Oh, and sorry for my enthusiasm for the topic, as demonstrated by my constant postings. It's just, I've been "unaffiliated" in terms of religion of a number of years, and just very recently, suddenly I was reading a religious debate on digg, and all of the sudden it all clicked for me.

[Beldaran]

Good point. Also, the original christians were convinced that Jesus was coming back in a few months or years. I bet they'd be pretty pissed off to discover that not only has jesus not come back, but after the roman empire tortured them to death, it adopted their crazy ideas as its official religion and touched off 1500 years of brutality and persecution in the name of jesus. yay for not thinking skeptically about things!

[phattonez]

As another point of debate, do you think that the notion you have of Chrisitians as evil people who try to kill others come from the Roman part or the truly Christian part? Maybe it's the Roman history. Anyway, I'm going away from this debate again, but I wanted to bring in something relevant and interesting.

[Beldaran]

the notion you have of Chrisitians as evil people who try to kill others

You have invented this fact. I have said many, many times that I don't think christians are by default evil, stupid, or whatever. I think their belief system is evil and stupid and they are suffering from its infection. My mother is a devout evangelical christian. I love her. She's very kind and caring. She also think homosexuality should be illegal. It's a tragedy that she will probably never escape from the thumb of mysticism that has locked her mind away from new ideas. Hopefully you will someday activate the part of your brain that questions insane stories of magic and super powers and stop taking ancient tribal mysticism so seriously.

[AtmaWeapon]

OK I'm seeing some hope here because finally I'm starting to see some points I can work with and arguments I can let rest because the points have been made.

I'm going to jump between people but I trust you can keep track of whether you said what I'm quoting or not.


If you could somehow show me that people could come up with the notion of a sentient Creator without either having been told about it or having read it in the Bible, then you could make the argument that religion and atheism are on equal footing.This is a chicken and egg problem; the fact that religion exists could be true for one of three reasons: The religion is inspired by some superhuman being that revealed itself. Religion was somehow instinctual. Someone charismatic or powerful developed the system of belief, and others followed.Reason 1 is obviously what the religious would believe, but is implausible from an atheist's viewpoint so is useless in this discussion. I think we can agree reason 2 is implausible as well; while I'm amazed at the behavioral patterns that can be instinctive, I think religion would have more universal characteristics if this were true; even the situations where environment seems to have affected the development of a religion supports it as something affected by socioeconomic climate rather than evolution. Reason 3 is at least something that all parties can agree on: somewhere, sometime a person thought of the religion by themselves. If this were not true then how would the religion exist unless 1 or 2 happened?

"Equal footing" is tough to define as well; there's many more factors than origin to consider.


First of all, we are not disagreeing on matters of faith. We are disagreeing on matters of philosophy, which is open to debate. My philosophy is that using reason and evidence is superior to believing in magic. Your position is that believing in magic does not contradict scientific thought.This statement, while somewhat strongly worded, makes sense and I agree; perhaps the reason why we make no progress is we aren't really arguing the same point.


The reason it is impossible to debate between matters of faith, ie christianity is better than islam, is because faith is irrational and intellectually illegitimate. There is no rational way to support christianity over islam because neither belief is based on reason. The only way to argue about faith is with swords and AK-47's[sic].The first statement is too biased to consider. The bolded statement is a textbook definition of the reason why I insist logic provides no facilities to debate religion. The italicized statement is an indicator of a poisoned mind; hatred and violence are completely against the teachings of Jesus, and lesser Jihad is supposed to be invoked only when the opposing force is attempting to corrupt or eradicate Islam. There are people that pervert religions to fit their purposes and use it as an excuse for their violence, but I believe the only way to argue about faith is to state your beliefs and leave it at that.

If you get into a true argument, you are attempting to force your beliefs upon another, and if you are forced to believe something your faith is not genuine. I do believe that it is silly for you to be forced to attend chapel against your wishes; I don't really believe in aggressive evangelism and it's really counterproductive to make someone say they are a Christian just so you stop harassing them.


Science requires skepticism, experimentation, observation, and reason. Faith insults and undermines these activities. Faith is the willingness to betray your mind and hand it over to the whims of your emotions. People who have accepted faith of any kind in anything have opened the floodgates for an invasion of mysticism, charlatanism, occultism, and political manipulation.

By itself, this is bad enough. But what is worse, people of faith feel compelled to spread this corruption. They are rarely happy unless they are trying to suck others into their world of depravity. It is this effect that causes faith to be so truly evil. Faith helps to foster a society controlled by zealots and mystics.I disagree with the spirit of your statements, but agree that you will find no shortage of evidence to support them. I think the two bolded statements are the core statements worth discussing.

The first is true, if a person is not careful religion can breed fanaticism, and this leads to all of the things you listed. I won't attempt to refute it, but I do believe it's not what the religion is supposed to do. I believe that, at least the doctrine I follow, one must be careful to avoid these pitfalls, but many people join a church for a sense of "belongingness" for lack of a better word. Pursuit of finding a place where one belongs causes the individual to take actions they might otherwise have not taken. This effect is seen in fraternities and all manner of secret societies. The problem is most people are not strong enough to decide upon their doctrine and sever contact with groups that pervert that doctrine; they go with the flow for fear of being shunned.

Once again, the core problem is that there are always people who will pervert a religion for their own means, and their followers are the dangerous sort of people you mention.

The second statement points out exactly why I don't practice aggressive evangelism. Leaders of perverted religions seek to increase their numbers; the leaders seek power rather than enlightenment and there is strength in numbers. Larger congregations mean larger amounts of money, power, and influence. I believe that the more aggressive a religion's evangelism is, the more likely it seeks something less like than peace and goodwill towards men and more like peace (wealth) and goodwill (fear) towards the (human) leader.

I do believe we probably share a contempt for aggressive evangelism.


I thought that statement was very interesting - the same thing could be said for Christianity - it's been 2000 years, and what does it have to show but a 2000-year-old book? Sorry, but I think after a certain point in time, you've gotta admit the lack of new news on the God phone has gotta mean something.A fair point, but once again the validity depends on context. I had a ridiculously long explanation but I think brevity is clarity here. I debated posting that because I figured someone would crosspost it in an attempt to weaken my stance, but I believe there is a subtle difference. Psychics have no common source for their knowledge; I'd be willing to speculate that if you were to take a sample group of psychics and ask all of them to describe the source of their power, you'd find a wide variety of explanations. On the other hand, Christians turn to the Bible as their source of evidence, and it's less likely you'd find widely different opinions about the origins of the Bible.

Whether you believe in its divine nature or not, the Bible has a clear plot. It states early on that it will be a record of God's interaction with the Jews and the fulfillment of His promise to provide a savior to correct the problem of man's sinful nature. From this viewpoint, there's little reason for work on the Bible to continue past the resurrection; God's promise is fulfilled and Jesus has taught His ways. The portions of the text following the resurrection serve to clarify or expound upon Jesus' teachings and provide an epilogue in Revelation. It really wouldn't make sense for God to come down several centuries later and be all "Oh wait guys I forgot to tell you this..." In fact, it'd be downright suspicious.

Of course, the Bible doesn't really hold as scientific evidence for the validity of Christianity, but this is due to the nature of religious matters. We have math texts that are every bit as ancient that are scientifically valid: this is because mathematics can be verified and validated. How do you verify and validate "this man did not die but ascend directly to Heaven"? If the Bible were less than a hundred years old it'd be very easy to figure out if it was truth or fiction because odds are the resurrection of a man would have made the headlines somewhere. However, the age and subject matter of the Bible mean that at best we can match the names of emperors to dates and say that parts of the Bible are historically accurate. The portions on which the religion is based are impossible to verify because there would need to be several independent unbiased eyewitness accounts, and I anticipate you wouldn't agree that having the accounts of four disciples of Jesus counts as unbiased.

Finally, the last statement worth discussing:
Hopefully you will someday activate the part of your brain that questions insane stories of magic and super powers and stop taking ancient tribal mysticism so seriously.I am glad you are really excited about this tribal mysticism analogy but it doesn't really hold for Christianity in general, which is where you keep applying it. There's no mysticism in what Jesus taught us to do; he preached asceticism, pacifism, and sympathy, none of which require mystical practices. Indeed, we were warned to avoid witchcraft and other practices because they led to evil. I have no doubt that there are Christian denominations that practice mysticism, but I can't seem to come up with an instance where Jesus encouraged any kind of practice other than not being a jerk.

My question remains unanswered: how is my mind closed to science by my religion? We've thoroughly discussed how there are many people who practice in the ways you despise, but you've done little to support the notion that all followers of religion are as such.

[Beldaran]

Ok, I know I have been fairly rude and unfair in this and past debates. It's because discussing religion intelligently feels to me like it lends it credibility. It's like a wine tester sniffing a turd and trying to comment on it without gagging and spitting.

I feel like this discussion is suddenly getting more focused and to the point and so I will try my best to respond with a little bit of mature decorum, as though we were actually discussing this face to face, in which case I know I would be much more reluctant to offend you. I know that's a double standard, but I find that often my rather profound awareness of manners tends to melt away under the heat of the internet.


There's no mysticism in what Jesus taught us to do; he preached asceticism, pacifism, and sympathy, none of which require mystical practices.

You are not telling the whole story. Jesus told us all these nice acceptable things, and then left with "by the way, I'm also the son of god and you should worship me and sell everything you own because after I commit suicide I'm coming back to judge you and decide whether or not to damn you eternally." It smacks very much of occultism, and in fact for many years, young christianity was largely ignored as one of many random, unsubstantiated cults.



Indeed, we were warned to avoid witchcraft and other practices because they led to evil.

This is not a valid argument. Jesus forbade witchcraft, yes... but he supplanted it with his own magic story. He wanted you to believe in his magic, not someone else's. This does not somehow validate magic as a reasonable notion.



but I can't seem to come up with an instance where Jesus encouraged any kind of practice other than not being a jerk.

He encouraged believing in god, which is mysticism. Further, and perhaps more insanely, he encouraged believing he was god, which is even worse than mysticism.



My question remains unanswered: how is my mind closed to science by my religion?

We haven't addressed this because you changed your question. Originally, it was "how does faith contradict science?" I think I answered this sufficiently. Now it is different. Now you want to know how your mind is closed to science by religion.

Your mind is not closed to science by religion. However, the two are logically inconsistent. They are a contradiction. And unfortunately, your openness to religion leaves you vulnerable to irrational ideas and behavior because you have hamstrung your defense mechanism (reason) and reduced it to worrying about math equations and atoms, and forbidden it from exercising its power in other matters. You use the power of reason to learn about the physical world, but you won't extend that use to thinking about the origins of the universe. You know that belief, real belief in god, requires at some point a violation of reason.

As a person of faith, you must accept an elaborate and specific truth that has profound implications for your life, with no scientific evidence to support it.

Religion does not close your mind to scientific truths, but what it does is leaves a wedge in the door, so unscientific lies can enter your mind without passing through the filter of scientific thinking. I'm sure you are very adept at filtering out ideas that you find unscientific. If I told you that I was secretly communicating with aliens that commanded me to kill little boys, you would probably call the police on me instead of help me to please the aliens.

And yet, 2000 years ago a scraggly Jew with no knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, evolution, or the scientific method... a carpenter who lived in the desert and who had never read a book that wasn't religious, claimed he was the king of the universe and that you should become his devoted follower. He commanded you to worship him above all things and live your life in his name.

And you believed him, because religion has left the back door of your mind open to intellectual burglars like Jesus, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, and the no money down real estate infomercial guy.

I urge you to more fully embrace science and close that door. Not because I hate religious people or because I'm bitter about some event in my life, but because science is beautiful and truthful and real. It is the only approach to knowledge that allows you to completely throw out your ideas and rebuild them based on new evidence. I have great confidence in the theory of gravity, but if we discover it is wrong I will cheerfully throw it out and study the new theory.

A muslim would never cheerfully abandon Allah because his mind has dysfunctionally latched on to a belief. His unreasonable death grip on his ideology cannot be broken by appeals to reason, because reason is not in the driver's seat. It would seem, from reading the news, that such attachment can only be broken by a car bomb from a competing ideology.

[rock_nog]

This is a chicken and egg problem; the fact that religion exists could be true for one of three reasons:

1. The religion is inspired by some superhuman being that revealed itself.
2. Religion was somehow instinctual.
3. Someone charismatic or powerful developed the system of belief, and others followed.
Here's the problem. The only scenario under which a belief in God is even remotely plausible is scenario 1. If the answer is either 2 or 3, then it's far more likely that religion is merely a human construct.

However, scenario 1 itself is highly unlikely. Why? It's like I said earlier - why would God reveal himself to people thousands of years ago, and then never contact anyone since? Back in the day, God was on the horn with us all the freakin' time. What happened? I would suggest that over the years, we got less gullible, events got documented more accurately, and previously mysterious phenomena have been scientifically explained.

Personally, I tend to go with scenario 2 - it's known that young children tend to anthropomorphisize things they don't understand. Because of this, I have no reason to take the ramblings of an ancient culture who didn't understand science seriously.

People just don't get divine messages anymore - and I think the reason is that they never did. There's a basic misunderstanding of faith. God doesn't "refuse to prove that he exists." Back in the day when the religious texts were written, there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's minds that God was as real as you or me. Faith was not blind belief in the face of facts to the contrary. Faith was holding out hope that this God person was on your side and not your enemy's. Faith was the belief that your God was stronger than your enemy's God. Faith was believing that when bad things happened to you, your God was doing it for a good reason.

They invented religion to explain all of the mysterious forces of the universe. Well, now through science, we understand those forces, and have eliminated one of the major functions of religion. Yet, we still cling desperately to those religions, giving them new interpretations, new definitions.

And yes, religion is scientifically and logically flawed. We keep saying - the way the scientific method works is, you observe some phenomenon, then you come up with the simplest hypothesis you can to explain that phenomenon. Religion skips the observing part, and leaves that to 2,000-year-old dead people. If God was talking to you personally, like He used to talk to people personally, that'd be something, but no, you just believe in Him because you were told to.

Let me demonstrate the scientific method, with something often cited by religious people as proof of God's existence. How about the Big Bang? Okay, what created the Big Bang? We don't know; it's a mystery. Well, let's make a hypothesis. Well, my guess is that is was a powerful, mysterious force that we don't understand. Now, a scientific person would leave it at that. But wait, here comes a religious person. The religious person will take his biases into account when trying to explain this. "It was God! See, a powerful, mysterious force, that sounds like God to me!" Oh, but here comes rationality again. Just because God could be an explanation, doesn't mean that God is an explanation. Why complicate things? Why assume that this force is sentient? Why assume that this force cares about human morality (especially as humans won't even come into existence for another 15 billion years)? See, there's the flaw. The religious person adds unnecessary variables into the equation in an attempt to make reality match his preconceived notions. Neither sentience nor concern for human morality are necessary to explain the origin of the universe, and yet you would throw those in anyway. It's not scientific, and it's not logical. In fact, especially if you add the morality part, it sounds utterly absurd. Why the hell should the force that created the universe care about what a small group of sentient bipeds do on an insignificant little speck of a planet orbiting an insignificant speck of a star in an insignificant speck of a galaxy?

[AlexMax]

Alex, do you really believe that a portion of the Gospel that illustrates Jesus' temptation by Satan:Has anything to do with whether Christians are supposed to pursue scientific research? If you honestly can't understand the metaphor here then you really need to stop posting because you have less mental facilities than a doorknob.

Your point was "Christians are discouraged from testing scientific hypotheses". Your verse supports the point "Christians are discouraged from testing God's existence by attempting to force God's hand into performing miracles." While there is a slight similarity, I'm fairly certain that enough people have attempted to independently verify "Will God save me if I jump off of a building?" to support an answer of "no". The situation at hand was actually "Will God save Jesus if He jumps off of a building?" but Jesus properly identified this experiment as stupid.

It would have been cooler to use a list tag for this list but it's clear that effort is too much for you, you'd prefer to copy/paste ideas you see other people put forth both into your posts and into your mind. I support this notion with the fact that this is not the first time you've said "the Bible says this" by citing a single verse that, when taken in context, refers to something else entirely.

Before I begin, the reason you truely want me to stop posting is because I don't seem to be giving ground. The spelling errors in particular is simply one thing you can call attention to to attempt to discredit me. I don't really need to spell out which other religions do this to their opponents, do I? Quit trying to play e-bully.

Now, to address your rebuttle to the bible verse. Yes, it's one statement that you claim was taken out of context. Except this isn't a single statement. This statement is reinforced many times throughout the bible in different contexts, in both the old and new testiments. The underlying message is pretty clear, and it's not just christianity that relies on this lack of reliability, it's every religion, without exception. And what is funny is that in spite of that statement being taken out of context, you then go on to base the entire rest of your post on the underlying meaning that I was trying to address through that supposedly out of context verse.

There was more here. However, I think that Beldaran has covered anything I was about to say and more, and I'd much rather see how you respond to his point then go over nitpicking me over and over again.

[AtmaWeapon]

Beldaran's wordsOK, your points are clear and for the most part the only logical defense I can make is "atheists say this, religious people say that" which is not worth expounding upon. I agree with the validity of your points but disagree with the statements, I think we've both stated our case on most of them.

I will defend the fact that I am not actively researching the origins of the universe by pointing out a man can only learn so much. There are hundreds of fields of scientific research. I focus most of my attentions on computer science, and actually lately I focus much more intently upon software engineering. There's a little bit of overlap, as many of the engineering methods were chosen as the result of the theory behind them, but I digress.

There are scientists studying the origin of the universe with all of the powers at their disposal right now, and I applaud them. It's a topic that interests me only as far as it interests the average man, and I eagerly await the results of their discoveries. I imagine that in the mean time, they only care about advancements in computer science so far as it can help them with simulation and modeling of the early universe. This is the only time our courses of study overlap: when they require the use of a computer to help with their research.

To simultaneously address rock_nog's point, my religion does lead me to believe that God exists as the explanation for that which lies outside the boundary of our explanation. I feel I have adequately prepared myself for the dangers Beldaran named. If scientists can describe and recreate the forces that caused the big bang (which from what I understand is starting to fall out of vogue in favor of other theories) then I will acknowledge that "God did it" isn't a valid answer to "What caused the initial 'bang'?". If any questions about what caused the force that caused the bang linger, the scientists who study such things will descend upon that issue and I will answer the question with "God did it" until they make a solid discovery.

Surely you don't suggest I should devote time to studying everything I don't know?

AlexMax's post was so devoid of content it could have really had two sentences and been done, but I'll address it in bullet list form since it seems to be effective: Spelled "truly" wrong. ...in particular is are one thing... You are not unique in not giving ground, AlexMax, you jumped into this argument at random intervals and you're acting like the only discussion in this thread has been between me and you. In reality, the primary discussion is between me, Beldaran, and rock_nog and you are off in this separate thread only vaguely referring to their discussion. Neither Beldaran or rock_nog are backing down from their beliefs either, which is a good sign that discussions of this nature are silly to start with and even more silly the longer they go on. Spelled "rebuttal" wrong. Spelled "testaments" wrong. You are wrong, the one statement you quoted is one statement. If you'd like to introduce a similar attitude in the numerous other contexts that you imply exist, please introduce them citing verses and the context to show that you actually understand both. I believe I completely deflated your argument by pointing out your suggestion that Jesus said "Do not pursue scientific research" was based upon an out-of-context verse that actually meant "Do not attempt to force God's hand.". If you can find a context and verse in which it is stated that man should avoid the pursuit of knowledge my defense will be invalidated. All you have done with this post is say "nuh uh the BIBLE says it it's all in there!". I am not here to defend myself from points you haven't made, and I refuse to find the verses for you so you can make the points.I don't nitpick over your posts because I am compelled to always ridicule grammatical errors. Beldaran and rock_nog have made a few spelling and grammatical errors over the course of the discussion. There are two differences between a Beldaran post and an AlexMax post that lead me to ignore Beldaran's errors. First, Beldaran tends to devote more time and effort to each post, and in general there's less than one error per page of post, which is completely acceptable. In contrast, you have yet to produce half a page of content but have made approximately 10 spelling errors; that's practically one every other line. Second, when Beldaran feels like making a point, he can construct a solid statement that leaves no vectors of attack but puts me in the position of defending my statement against his. I have enjoyed the last page or so of this thread because I feel like I have switched from attacking points to defense of my own, and this is how I test if I am truly happy with and truly understand my faith. On the other hand, your statements tend to consist of the weak arguments one typically finds in the first pages of any "Christianity sucks" thread on Gamefaqs or some other high council of intellectualism. These arguments are themselves either copy/pasted from prominent Geocities websites or are the best the poster's memory can recall from this argument they heard this guy say on TV one time. In short, they are the arguments that are among the first any Christian ever hears in their life.

Beldaran, on the other hand, has learned to know better than to ask me why God supports genocide by pointing out an ancient war between the Jews and <insert enemy here>. Instead, he and rock_nog are attacking my stance by questioning the credibility of the Bible and supporting the likelihood that it is a completely man-made construct.

A Christian that attempts to deny those statements must rely on flawed reasoning. I have noticed that there are some striking similarities between the Middle-Eastern religions, and in some interesting cases Judaism seems to have developed some new beliefs that are characteristic of the civilization that had conquered them at the time. I think this does call the Bible's validity into question and there is no way to reasonably attack that point without resorting to a faith-based argument, which only works on people that have similar faith. I personally resolve this argument with a decision that even if the Bible were revealed to be a man-made work of fiction I still agree with Jesus' principles and will continue to live by His teachings (though I might drop the capitalization of pronouns in that case). This is the only true way to end these arguments, by pushing the opponent to the point that the only defense is to say "this is what I believe, and I will not waver".

Atheism has reason and logic on its side, and I'm not convinced there is a feasible way to attack it via reason and logic. Religion has faith on its side, which is considered irrelevant by both reason and logic, but has very high value to those that have it. In the end, I feel like the only differences in an atheist's views and mine are that the atheist is content to believe in random chance initiating certain processes and I am content to believe the process was initiated by the intervention of a deity.

[rock_nog]

Atma, I really want to know, what the heck is so compelling about the Bible that you have such faith in it? What separates it from the holy books and stories of any other religion?

On another note, I disagree with the differences between religion and atheism. Atheists are NOT content to believe anything. Atheists are in pursuit of the truth. I think the difference is that atheists are willing to change their model of the universe in light of new evidence. A true scientist would never end a debate by saying "This is what I believe, and I'm not wavering." A true scientist would have no beliefs, and would be willing to say "Wow, you made a really good point there. I guess I'll have to revise my theories."

The difference, in a nutshell, is this. A religious person, in the face of proof that there is no God, would say "I still believe! You cannot shake my faith!" An atheist, however, in the face of proof of the existence of God, would say "Oh, well, I guess I was wrong. My mistake."

[Beldaran]

EDIT: rock nog posted while I was typing.

Well said, Atma. With regards to the origin of the universe, I didn't mean the actual specific physics research, but just the notion that it arose through natural processes. A person who believes god caused the big bang has decided to insert god where current scientific knowledge ends. If and when that knowledge expands, they will be forced to move god back to the next line of defense.


the atheist is content to believe in random chance initiating certain processes and I am content to believe the process was initiated by the intervention of a deity.

I think this is inaccurate. Atheists are not content to believe in anything, and that's our main point. It is illogical to just believe in something as though it were true when you don't have any evidence.

As an example, an atheist does not "believe in evolution" any more than he "believes" in gravity. It's just a recognition of a very high probability of truth based on solid scientific research.

[Glenn the Great]

An atheist, however, in the face of proof of the existence of God, would say "Oh, well, I guess I was wrong. My mistake."

I think that this example better characterizes an Agnostic.

Maybe I need to take another careful look at Webster's current definition of Atheist, but I've always taken it to mean a person who has come to the conclusion that there is no God or similar religious concept.

Agnostics on the other hand, do not believe in God, but have not ruled out the possibility of such an entity existing.

My personal feeling is that the Agnostic is the one who acts the most like a true scientist, keeping an open mind and not jumping to a conclusion.

That being said, I don't think that it is unscientific to be an advocate for a hypothesis, such as Beldaran's belief that there really is no God. However, this advocation should be measured responsibly. Saying that you tend to believe that God doesn't exist and saying that the belief in God is inherently stupid and primitive are two different things.

[Revfan9]

I urge you to more fully embrace science and close that door. Not because I hate religious people or because I'm bitter about some event in my life, but because science is beautiful and truthful and real. It is the only approach to knowledge that allows you to completely throw out your ideas and rebuild them based on new evidence. I have great confidence in the theory of gravity, but if we discover it is wrong I will cheerfully throw it out and study the new theory.

;\ Why do I seem to be the only one who thinks that claiming "Science is the only true method" is equally as arrogant as claiming "The Universe was made by a piece of fudge because that tree over there told me so"?

People do whatever they need to do to get them through the day. God acts as something to thank, rather than to thank pure coincidence. God also acts as something to blame, rather than blaming yourself or society, seeing that blaming yourself for your actions is something that humans don't like to go anywhere near. Do you need an omnipotent creator to give your existence justification? Fine. Do you need to reject all other ideas around you and accept only what you already know? Go ahead. What goes on in your own mind doesn't hurt anyone, except maybe yourself. Different ideas and faiths aren't a problem. People are.

I, for example, believe that I'm an extremely stupid and arrogant person who has never been, and will never be, right about anything he/she has ever done, or ever will do. That crate I put up on the top shelf fell and killed 3 people? Well, I'm an idiot. Who cares? I'm too stupid and ignorant than to have known better. In that respect, it may be wise for you more, intelligent people to completely ignore everything that I say and brush me off as some kid with a keyboard and an empty head.

[Rainman]

;\ Why do I seem to be the only one who thinks that claiming "Science is the only true method" is equally as arrogant as claiming "The Universe was made by a piece of fudge because that tree over there told me so"?

Yes, claiming that people should believe in things for objective, provable reasons is arrogant. :rolleyes: I wonder who we should put more trust in a scientist who objectively explores the universe through experimentation or a priest who says that his friend God did it. Also, why find out the real reasons for things and use that to grow and learn when you can just say thank or blame god?

[Glenn the Great]

I, for example, believe that I'm an extremely stupid and arrogant person who has never been, and will never be, right about anything he/she has ever done, or ever will do. That crate I put up on the top shelf fell and killed 3 people? Well, I'm an idiot. Who cares? I'm too stupid and ignorant than to have known better. In that respect, it may be wise for you more, intelligent people to completely ignore everything that I say and brush me off as some kid with a keyboard and an empty head.

Alright, so suppose that a box that you put on the shelf falls and hits my head. Would it be alright with you if instead of blaming you for it, I blame your parents for giving birth to you? Because I'd be willing to settle for that.

[rock_nog]

Glenn, I disagree, because at least my understanding has always been that an agnostic considers all possibilities equally valid and equally likely. Whereas for me, my current model of the universe has no room for God, but as I can adapt to changing circumstances, if facts suggest otherwise, I will revise my stance. This is the problem I see with things like faith and beliefs - no matter what new facts might come to light, it's nearly impossible to change them. I mean, what kind of person, in light of facts that don't support their view, says "Well, the facts must be wrong, because I'm right." Now THAT right there is arrogance (in response to the statement about atheists being arrogant).

[AtmaWeapon]

OK Beldaran and rock_nog you kind of both said the same thing with respect to the definition of an atheist, so I'll address both at once by saying I think perhaps it's a semantic difference, but one significant enough that I probably need to revise my definition of atheism. It seems you've taken offense to my phrase "putting your faith in science" and I misunderstood why you took offense.

rock_nog asked two questions I'd like to address:
Atma, I really want to know, what the heck is so compelling about the Bible that you have such faith in it? What separates it from the holy books and stories of any other religion?

A religious person, in the face of proof that there is no God, would say "I still believe! You cannot shake my faith!"The first is a personal question, really. I went through a proto-goth phase where I did my best to avoid people, and at some point I realized I was depressed and walking down a stupid path. I decided I needed a drastic change in my lifestyle, and my requirements combined with a particularly personal event caused me to choose Christianity. I find other holy texts fascinating and I do like to study them (I'm particularly interested but haven't really bought anything regarding Buddhism), but honestly the only thing that separates it from the others is the fact that it is my personal belief that it is the holy text that contains the correct instructions.

For the second point, I disagree that I would do such a thing. I think the concept of concrete proof or disproof is ridiculous, but let's assume someone manages to conduct an experiment that we can agree conclusively disproves God's existence; I'd be faced with no choice but to revise my beliefs about this issue. As I stated before, I'd still follow the same system of ethics and morality because I agree with them, but there'd be no more divine motivation.

There are a lot of people who wouldn't be willing to change in that case, but I assure you I'd feel as much contempt for them as you would if that situation arose. I guess an analogous situation I'd apply is wishing on a shooting star; I know there is nothing mystical about it and it is the result of a rock or satellite or unfortunate alien spacecraft burning in the atmosphere, but this doesn't stop me from making a wish. I know the star has no effect on my life, but the tradition is fun to believe.


As an example, an atheist does not "believe in evolution" any more than he "believes" in gravity. It's just a recognition of a very high probability of truth based on solid scientific research.I like this statement because it covered some doubts about your beliefs I had; there's some nagging issues about some theories that are accepted as truth but I think this sufficiently points out you are aware of this and willing to accept evidence against them.

So, to, am I somewhat skeptical of my faith to an extent. I feel like you have to be willing to look at other views and ask yourself if you like them, otherwise you are in danger of becoming fanatical. I've looked at other systems of beliefs and really the only others that appeal to me are Buddhism and I believe Taoism (though I don't remember much about Taoism). Both emphasize that one should practice self-sacrifice and strive to be considerate to others, and these qualities are what particularly appeal to me about Jesus' teachings. Atheism just doesn't do it for me, primarily because of many of the atheists I have encountered. They seem to have an agenda every bit as repulsive as that of the Christians they despise, and I don't want to be associated with them.

Basically the people I speak of are those who would answer "yes" to "Should there be a Church of Atheism?", and I think both of you would agree with me that the concept is acceptably ironic but also stupid. To imply that the good intentions of promoting reason and rational thought would overcome man's natural greed for power and influence is particularly odd considering the Christian church was founded on promoting peace and goodwill towards men but these were not enough to overcome man's greed for power and influence.

I think the issue of who is being arrogant is moot. When you place yourself under any belief system, you are stating that you firmly believe that every other system is wrong. Atheism may be based on reason, but it is just as arrogant to say "I know that God does not exist" as it is to say "I know that God does exist". I feel like discussion of who is the most arrogant is not a good idea because unless you are willing to change to another system of belief, you have to be arrogant to accuse another.

Revfan9 I understand your point but I think your example overdid its hyperbole by a bit. If the box you placed on a shelf killed 3 people there would most certainly be a lot of people that cared, and an investigation to determine if you should be held responsible for their deaths. I've tried the "God is a substitute for random chance" here and I think I understand why that isn't good enough for Beldaran now. He feels like this is silly because in the example you listed, people would blame God for that box falling and not investigate it further, which would leave your (possibly) criminal negligence unpunished and you'd continue making dangerous mistakes. In my opinion, there's no problem with blaming God, but there's also no reason to avoid investigating whether someone besides God did it as well. Rainman hits this nail on the head.

I think I kind of understand Glenn is making some kind of metaphor but I honestly don't see where he's coming from.

Finally, rock_nog's last post is something I've been getting at for a while: the truly enlightened individual accepts evidence that contradicts their beliefs and modifies their beliefs. The fanatical individual ignores contradictory facts and insists the facts must be wrong. Of course there's no harm in verifying and validating the facts through experimentation, but eventually one has to accept the results of the experimentation.

For example, I hold young-Earth creationists in contempt because their theory is completely contradictory to piles of scientific facts that have been verified several times by several groups over several decades (and in some cases centuries). Their problem is they hold on to the idea that a strict literal interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. I believe God did not set out to write a Physics and Biology textbook when He decided to have the Bible written, and that the days in Genesis serve the simple purpose of indicating that the world was created in a specific order over a period of time. This is extremely interesting because it meshes well with scientific understanding that the universe was created over a period of time, and particularly the formation of the Earth and its lifeforms followed a specific order. God could have had the entire universe created at once, but had he done so our scientific evidence would clash with the Biblical account of creation. There are arguments that carbon dating could be fooled because God could have created rocks that date to older than they are, but why would God go to such effort when he took 7 metaphorical days to create the universe instead of willing it all into existence? There's a lot of other issues I have and I've had to hold my tongue around many of my friends, but it really seems to me that God first created the physics of the universe, then he used the rules to create the universe.

Of course I could be wrong, but seriously think of T-Rex eating coconuts instead of flesh and you just know there has to be something wrong with the theory!

*edit* Also Beldaran, something about your last few posts has helped me find a lot more respect for your views. I don't know what it was, but some issue I had with you has been solved. I used to think your views were both invalid and incorrect, now I think they are simply incorrect. The points that I disagree with are completely matters of faith and I feel ethically obliged to avoid opening an argument over those.

[Aegix Drakan]

I think the issue of who is being arrogant is moot. When you place yourself under any belief system, you are stating that you firmly believe that every other system is wrong.

Not necessarily. I'm an Agnostic Christian (I.E. I look for the answers I believe in most, but I generally follow Christianity as a guide), but even so, I do not think any system is worse than any other (unless of course, they demand human sacrifices, or other terrible things). In fact, I base my morals on Christianity because of its message of pacifism, and love for all others. As a "Healer Idealist" Personality type, I find this message highly appealing.

I just go with whatever I feel makes the most sense to me. I don't think any sytem is better or worse than another. And of course, I don't doubt science at all. :P But as it still can't prove/disprove God's existance, so that point is moot. Also, if there was undeniable, incontrovertible, absolute proof that denied god's existance, I'd just adapt my ideas to fit this, and proceed with life in more or less the same way I do now.

[rock_nog]

Aha... Well, I kinda feel like this is all winding down... So I'll just close with a quick clip of Richard Dawkins which I think explains the atheist point of view very well (much better than my endless ramblings, certainly).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg#

[AlexMax]

First, so you would shut your blithering mouth (http://aspell.net/win32/).

Second, I realize that I am not the focus of this conversation. However, I don't think that should prevent me, or anyone else, from participating in it if they have something to say. Consider me the peanut gallery, if you will.


There are two differences between a Beldaran post and an AlexMax post that lead me to ignore Beldaran's errors. First, Beldaran tends to devote more time and effort to each post, and in general there's less than one error per page of post, which is completely acceptable. In contrast, you have yet to produce half a page of content but have made approximately 10 spelling errors; that's practically one every other line.

Length of post does not necessarily correlate to how long I've been working on it. I type out my post as I think it, and then go back and revise it, and often times delete whole sections of it if I read back on it and come up with a suitable counter-argument for it. I estimate that if I shat out everything that came to my mind, I would probably have a post length rivaling yours, or perhaps even exceeding it. On the contrary, I find that when you use huge walls of text, you actually say very little.

In the end, I had been working on the post for over an hour and I ended up using an argument I probably should not have, however the problem is that when talking about religion, it's hard to not take the argument into a philosophical realm. I've already taken that trip and have made my own decisions, but it's one that I also consider mental masturbation and one that accomplishes very little in terms of convincing people one way or the other. I suppose that I try to keep my arguments real world, the ones that you so eloquently put as "Gamefaqs examples", simply because no amount of intellectual posturing will make your positions any less absurd to me, and hopefully to the other people reading this thread.

I mean, let's take an obvious example. "You can't say for sure if there's no god, especially my christian god." sounds nice if you're starting a philosophical debate, but when you live in the real world and there are tons of other religions out their, each one with his or her own doctrine, all it takes it a few seconds of thought and it ends up much easier to belive that there are no deitys and that they're all full of shit, occam's razor and all that. That also might be a commonly used 'gamefaqs argument' as you put it, but that doesn't make it any less valid, or any less convincing.


Aha... Well, I kinda feel like this is all winding down... So I'll just close with a quick clip of Richard Dawkins which I think explains the atheist point of view very well (much better than my endless ramblings, certainly).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg#

Don't ever bring out Richard Dawkins in front of a deeply religious person. His arguments are the ones that they are most likely to have talking points for, and he pretty easy to mischaracterize or take out of context. Regardless of how well he has presented his arguments, and regardless of how convincing he is to us, any fundamentalist worth his salt already has him "covered" so to speak.

[rock_nog]

Oh... Well... Um... Alright, anybody attacking the clip I just posted, attack the argument itself, not the character of the person who made it. I am not about to sit here and listen to endless ad hominem arguments which never really address the issue.

Actually, it would be kind of interesting to hear a fundamentalist response - though in all likeliness it would have nothing to do with what was actually said. *sigh* I hate when that happens in a debate - you ask someone a direct question, and, knowing they're beat, they go and try to twist your words. Especially when you only asked the question in the first place to try and understand the other side's position.

[AlexMax]

Oh... Well... Um... Alright, anybody attacking the clip I just posted, attack the argument itself, not the character of the person who made it. I am not about to sit here and listen to endless ad hominem arguments which never really address the issue.

Surprisingly, they can also attack his argument. The thing is, whenever you reference someone or something else for your atheist arguments, that always opens you up to being called a 'sheeple', and allows someone who can put a lot of words on a page to write a 5 page explanation nit picking about why his stance is bunk. And then it's up to you to defend someone elses stance. Unless you have a biblical knowledge of his works, his interviews, and such, it will be trivial for someone like Atma to reference something else he said in another interview or in another one of his books to make you look like an idiot for 'following' this guy, or a standpoint that doesn't quite jive with you, and once he's found one of those he can naturally follow up with a "Well then why do you believe anything this guy says" or something similar.

One thing you tend to learn after a while is that fundies don't play nicely. You can see how viciously Atma has tried to sideline me in this thread, imagine that happening to you because of an argument you made that backfired on you.

[Beldaran]

The irony of a person who believes the bible calling me a "sheep" for "following" a revered character is brain melting.

[ZTC]

As another point of debate, do you think that the notion you have of Chrisitians as evil people who try to kill others come from the Roman part or the truly Christian part? Maybe it's the Roman history. Anyway, I'm going away from this debate again, but I wanted to bring in something relevant and interesting.

That would be the Roman Catholics...
... they make a lot of claims and crap claiming to the the Christian religion, when it's not. I would still like to see how your next session of chapel turns out, Bel.

[Beldaran]

Well I just got back from chapel. I saw that lady. I looked her in the eyes and she didn't do anything. Apparently she knows I'm simply not obligated to tell her my name and without that she can't really do anything.

[AlexMax]

That would be the Roman Catholics...
... they make a lot of claims and crap claiming to the the Christian religion, when it's not. I would still like to see how your next session of chapel turns out, Bel.

I often talk with a good friend of mine about religion. He's a really far out there fundamental nutjob, the "lay on hands" and "speaking in tongues" type.

You want to know what he called Roman Catholics?

Pagans.

:lol:


The irony of a person who believes the bible calling me a "sheep" for "following" a revered character is brain melting.

Sometimes the irony lost on them, but I suspect that they don't really care either way, since it once again tries to reinforce their point that their religion is somehow on equal ground with science. This is one point that I feel that most atheists take for granted and give in on far too often, since it oversimplifies science and...over-complicates I suppose...their religious beliefs.


Well I just got back from chapel. I saw that lady. I looked her in the eyes and she didn't do anything. Apparently she knows I'm simply not obligated to tell her my name and without that she can't really do anything.

Good to see things went OK. Did you bring your GBA with your this time?

[Glenn the Great]

Did you bring your GBA with your this time?

This is a very important point. It was very important that you had your Gameboy out where she could see you playing it, or else she might have stood there thinking that she succeeded last week by making you rethink your actions and thus not bring it again.

[Beldaran]

When I saw her, I was not sitting. It was after the service. I did have my GBA in my backpack, but you know, obviously that's kind of irrelevant.

I really don't want to push the issue anymore. I have some rather amazing scholarships that I don't want to lose, so I don't want my name to come up anywhere. ;)

[Beldaran]

When I saw her, I was not sitting. It was after the service. I did have my GBA in my backpack, but you know, obviously that's kind of irrelevant.

I really don't want to push the issue anymore. I have some rather amazing scholarships that I don't want to lose, so I don't want my name to come up anywhere. ;)

[AtmaWeapon]

OK no one wants to read a wall of quotes so I'm referencing by author and post number.

rock_nog #106:

Eh how long is it, is it objective or hostile, and is there a transcript available? I don't really like sitting in a chair listening to some guy talk and having to take notes if I want to discuss it with someone, but if there's text somewhere I'll definitely give it a go.

Also it's officially the "chill out" portion of the night so I don't really want to watch something that might inspire a long post.

AlexMax #107:

Mostly you start off crying about how unfair it is that I judged your argument based on its spelling but it's good to see you are actually making an effort to at least let the computer make your posts better. Keep in mind that the spell checker is only aware of words that are spelled wrong, and some words sound the same but are spelled differently depending on their meaning. Their efforts are great, but they're far from a full-fledged spelling and grammar checker (did you see what I did there?). Also encouraging me to read your posts is a bad idea the count is up to 4 in the same sentence-paragraph now that I'm discussing your points :(

I don't really know what you mean by "real world examples"; all I recall without having to look back at all of your posts is a Bible verse that was taken completely out of context, with the unsupported promise that the sentiment was repeated several times throughout the Bible, which remains unsupported.

Also your final example starts with a bias; it is certainly ridiculous to start a philosophical debate with a loaded point such as "You can't disprove any god, especially mine." Such a statement implies you have compelling evidence that places the existence of your god as more likely than the existence of another, and I would never assert this in a scholarly debate. It's more appropriate to start with a less biased statement such as "No god's existence can be disproved.", because this wouldn't lead anyone to believe I have special evidence that I can reveal. Furthermore, "All it takes is a few seconds of thought" is not a way to support your point. It takes very little research to see that a large portion of the world thinks differently than you and has arrived at a different conclusion. I make no suggestion that any particular opinion is correct, but I find it curious that you start by indicating no opinion holds more weight than another and end by suggesting your opinion is the most correct. Your argument contradicts itself.

Do not respond to other people's questions in my name; I honestly haven't paid any attention to Richard Dawkins and the only information I have on the man is that he's some kind of bigshot atheist and he is referenced a lot. I hardly have him "covered" and I'm actually curious about what he says that is so compelling.

rock_nog #108

You won't hear a fundamentalist response out of me. Before you get upset because your words have been twisted, look at the name of the person who posted; his name starts with the same letter as mine so you might have got confused. He has no authority to make my points for me, and I'd appreciate it if you'd get upset over what I say rather than what someone presumes I will say.

AlexMax #109

Allow me to viciously sideline this post, I appreciate the introduction of the particularly stupid "fundie" slang because the more you resort to loaded words and spite the easier it is to discredit your arguments.

Once again, you attempt to save me the effort of typing a post by making my argument for me, but you are either very poor at logic or you severely underestimate my ability. I base several of my beliefs on the testament of men that lived thousands of years ago. For further guidance, I sometimes seek the wisdom of theologists that have made a life out of studying Biblical matters. Would it be wise for me to suggest that atheists are somehow weak-minded for "following" the arguments of similar scholars? Not only would it be fallacious, but anyone who pointed out that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus would completely destroy my argument; there is no recovery from an error so grave and I'm afraid I'd have no right to continue in this discussion.

Please return to making your own arguments, only predicting my responses in such cases as you feel making a preemptive counterpoint will save us all some effort. Instead, you are attempting to discredit me based on arguments I have not made.

At least I'm trying to sideline you for acts of poor spelling, grammar, and fallacious logic that you actually commit. I don't believe you have much room to say I don't play nice because I've been double-teamed for quite some time now, and so far I've been quite civil with everyone but you. I am sorry but if I am to let your air of superiority slide I expect your posts to at least match the intellectual quality of Beldaran's worst posts (which are still upper-crust) and you've got quite a ways to go.

Also I don't care if Richard Dawkins manages to contradict himself unless it's over something critical and the contradiction is temporally close. Since he's quite popular and respected by a community that prides itself on reason, I imagine the types of things that I would find are difficult to use because they would represent an Ad Hominem To Quoque fallacy, and fallacies make weaksauce arguments. Atheism is a progressive faith that constantly redefines what it believes (I mean this in the scientific sense, not a sarcastic or negative sense) and I'd imagine at some point Dawkins has said something he later took back. Unless it's something fundamental like "God exists I really mean it!" I doubt he's contradicted himself in a manner that can't be satisfactorily explained by the dynamic nature of atheism.

Beldaran #110

In this post Beldaran realizes the error AlexMax assumes I would make and why it would be stupid for me to make it.

Beldaran #112

As much as I love drama this is cool; believe it or not I am kind of ill that they force you to go to chapel (even though I feel they have the right to do so I think it's rude to exercise the right), and I think it's likely she went and whined to someone about how she SO was going to bust you to a friend and the friend was like "...for what?"

AlexMax #113

Does that guy handle snakes because those snake handler people are really out there... they'll get bitten from time to time and then refuse medical treatment because they figure the will of God will take its course.

I believe you'd be surprised how similar we feel towards people like that, Alex. (And I am not delusional with visions that you feel nothing but love for your fellow man towards them I'm expecting something more like "shock and disgust".) I know this kind of contradicts the efforts that I have taken to appear tolerant, but I feel like they have taken a Biblical passage that was meant to mean "believers will do great things" and interpreted it as "believers will do dangerous things if they know what's good for them".

There was a neat documentary done by a reporter who actually lived with them and became a snake handler for a while, until some mysterious force (likely his wife) snapped him out of it. It's worth a watch but it is really old and I don't remember the name, though I'm willing to bet it was called "The Holy Ghost People".

Beldaran #115

I think you made the right choice this time. As tempting as it is, I'm sure if you motivate the woman to find a way to get back at you she will manage to find a way to cause you trouble in a display of revenge that demonstrates she probably needs to pay more attention in chapel than you do.

*edit* Also seriously what is with the forums, if I get a database error then all is well and the post was made :confused:

[Beldaran]

believe it or not I am kind of ill that they force you to go to chapel (even though I feel they have the right to do so I think it's rude to exercise the right),

THANK YOU.

This is my only point about chapel. I don't think it's illegal or unconstitutional or something like that I am forced to attend. It is doubtless a requirement made up by a deeply religious alumni that donated a million dollars or something. While it's not illegal, it's just tacky.

They know there are atheists at their school (I am a member of the Baylor Atheist and Agnostic Society). They force them to attend chapel. It's just petty.

Personally, I find the service to be incredibly offensive. It would literally, and I do mean literally, be like making one of the matronly, conservative women on the faculty watch hardcore lesbian porn for one hour, two days a week. It's that offensive.

[AtmaWeapon]

I guess I should have said that at the start but I got kind of distracted by the "tribal mysticism" and overall internet tough guy attitude. I think it's cool that you acknowledge that they have the right to make you attend because at first it seemed to me that you thought it was a great injustice that they could make you attend chapel, when it seemed to me the only injustice is that they do make you attend chapel.

I mean seriously, I've always felt like the only time faith has any value is if the individual makes a conscious decision to believe in whatever it is the faith is placed. If you force a person to involuntarily make that decision, the faith is not genuine and you have accomplished nothing. I've noticed a startlingly high percentage of atheists and ex-Christians list aggressive evangelism as one of their primary beefs with Christianity, and I think if the church really wants to spread it needs to understand that there is no such thing as "turning someone to Christ", people turn to Christ by themselves. This is the something that Christians as a whole don't seem to grasp and it's really counter-productive to their goals of evangelism.

On the one hand, I feel like it's a good sign they allow an Atheist and Agnostic Society, but on the other hand I have a bad feeling they "support atheists" much like Southern restaurants used to "serve blacks"; it's fashionable to be diverse and they can always pretend like they care about your needs by allowing you to have a society. I do hope I am wrong.

Also, if I dress up like a woman and act like I don't enjoy it can I get a screening with maybe 2 or 3 bathroom breaks (I have a... bladder problem).

[rock_nog]

Atma, I wasn't talking about you personally. I was making a statement about fundamentalists. I've known one or two, and I swear, they will resort to lying to make their point because to them, the end justifies the means. Honestly, I have a hard time understanding the concept of beginning by assuming that you're right (hence why religion bothers me so much).

Oh, and the Dawkins video I posted was online like a minute or so, just a brief summary of his position. The gist of it is, someone asks him what if he's wrong about religion, and then his response is that with the number of religions out there, no matter what religion he picks, the odds are overwhelmingly likely that he's wrong, and that it's silly for the person who asked him to assume that she had any more chance of being right than he did. Of course, he puts it much more eloquently than I did... Which was the reason that I posted it.

[Rainman]

(I am a member of the Baylor Atheist and Agnostic Society)

Man, I wish we had one of those at my school. We've got just about every religious sect out there, but not a single atheist organization on campus. Oh well, too late to get one started now I guess.

[AlexMax]

AlexMax #113

Does that guy handle snakes because those snake handler people are really out there... they'll get bitten from time to time and then refuse medical treatment because they figure the will of God will take its course.

I believe you'd be surprised how similar we feel toward people like that, Alex. (And I am not delusional with visions that you feel nothing but love for your fellow man toward them I'm expecting something more like "shock and disgust".) I know this kind of contradicts the efforts that I have taken to appear tolerant, but I feel like they have taken a Biblical passage that was meant to mean "believers will do great things" and interpreted it as "believers will do dangerous things if they know what's good for them".

There was a neat documentary done by a reporter who actually lived with them and became a snake handler for a while, until some mysterious force (likely his wife) snapped him out of it. It's worth a watch but it is really old and I don't remember the name, though I'm willing to bet it was called "The Holy Ghost People".

I don't doubt that you feel similar toward people like him. Thing is though, he's really good at presenting an argument, and if you actually sat down and discussed things with him you would be hard pressed to disagree with him, heck he was even capable of stirring my emotions at one point until I realized he was snowing me out during most discussions with the verbal equivalent of a wall of text.

And he suggests to people who doubt him to check the book of Acts. It's got a few passages that relate to those two things in particular. He claims that a lay on hands is the reason he was born in the first place (he was about to die, and he miraculously survived) and claims that he has healed both himself and other people with his lay on hands (not with any consistency of course, he referenced the passage I mentioned above as well as many others when questioned). He also knows that not many people follow him, and explains it away as it being said as such in the bible. I simply thought it was really funny what he thought of Catholics in particular, it's sort of an "Oh snap" moment, especially considering the fact that we were discussing things in my residence where my Catholic roommate was right across the hall.

[Sam Atoms]

I'm just not sure whose team I want to be on in this little skirmish. :(

The one that wins, pal, the one that wins.

Both sides have been arguing back and forth for hundreds of years, and will be doing it for hundreds more, without really getting anywhere new.

Just remember, it's all fun and games until someone's church (or abortion clinic) gets firebombed.