Evangelicals & Jesus

[GostHacked]

Monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans, are all primates. We are all related to one another. However it seems we share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, so we have a closer relation to the chimpanzee than all other primates.

[scouterjim]

Monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans, are all primates. We are all related to one another. However it seems we share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, so we have a closer relation to the chimpanzee than all other primates.

Some more so than others, methinks.

[ToadBrother]

Monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans, are all primates. We are all related to one another. However it seems we share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, so we have a closer relation to the chimpanzee than all other primates.

We're related to monkeys, bananas and E. coli. It just happens that we're more closely related to monkeys than bananas.

[WIP]

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread:

Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to. They have to. Why? Because the bible is a mass of contradictions. Even those who are nice, generous, etc. (i.e. what some people might say is a "good christian following the teachings") is simply doing a selective interpretation which ignores anything in the bible that might be interpreted as 'bad'.

I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode, where the Flander's character is questioning his faith, and says "I follow every part of the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts!" (paraphrasing).

And, in the end if someone wants to identify themselves as a Christian who follows the social gospel that is taught in most of the New Testament, it's not going to matter whether there are verses that contradict those teachings. It seems simple enough that we are not all intended to think the same way or find meaning from the same things in life. I noticed an article recently on Tom Rees's Epiphenomena blog: Why we are all different (and not all religious) which picks apart the notion of a god-gene, similar to his other critiques of god virus arguments. Our individual religiosity or irreligiosity may be more of a reflection on our basic psychological makeup and which belief system suits our needs best: Atheists are disagreeable and unconscientious

[betsy]

I guess my point in answer to this thread is once again about the mirror I hold up to atheists like Jonsa (who initiated this topic), Segnasaur and others who only clearly demonstrate how Atheism is religion to a lot of atheists. You can scream bloody murder that it is not a religion - however, if it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck and it looks like a duck....it is a duck!

Your position is full of ironies!

Your "critical" thinking and pseudo-analysis of Christianity and Christians, from the hypocrisies, selective interpretations, contradictions, emotion-based responses etc.., ironically, all these exist in your own atheistic religion.

For starter, you can't even unanimously agree to the very simple doctrine of your Bishop Dawkins that you are related to monkeys!

What's so complicated about that?? Some of you are clearly resisting that very idea of being related to the monkey - Dawkins accused Wendy Wright of that very same thing, - or some of you don't understand your own doctrine.

Ironic, isn't it!

Bishop Dawkins threw the accusation to Wendy Wright that she responds with her emotion.....and yet, when Wendy Wright pointed out that he seems to be hostile to those who disagree with his theory, what was your Bishop's response? "Not hostility. Annoyance."

He further explained his annoyance. Showing that he responds with his emotions.

Not only is it ironic, but for Dawkins to negate his assertion with his response - in a span of a few seconds - is....so bizarre (for lack of a better word at the moment).

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

Who threw the first tantrum in that interview? The first adhominem? Your Bishop.

Who fired the first disparaging question that -ironically only served to question your Bishop's state of mind? Of course, your Bishop.

All those....emotion-based responses! Do I need to point out who's prone to behave like the good Bishop here? Who tends to go on a personal attack and adhominems?

His flock.

Then there's the hypocrisy issue. For all the lofty holier-than-thou attitude being displayed by Dawkins and his flock....it's not for you to throw the hypocrisy-pie at Christians' faces. Hypocrisy - way up there along with contradictions - is clearly one of your main "virtues."

Edited March 20, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

I guess my point in answer to this thread is once again about the mirror I hold up to atheists like Jonsa (who initiated this topic), Segnasaur and others who only clearly demonstrate how Atheism is religion to a lot of atheists. You can scream bloody murder that it is not a religion - however, if it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck and it looks like a duck....it is a duck!

Your position is full of ironies!

Oh Betsy, Betsy, Besty ...... ironies? Have you read some of your own posts? Atheism is not a religion. You can keep thinking that, but you would be wrong. Atheists don't congregate, there is no organization, there is no church or place of worship, there is no preacher there is no clergy, there is no mantra, there is nothing that shows atheism is a religion, yet alone an organized religion.

Your "critical" thinking and pseudo-analysis of Christianity and Christians, from the hypocrisies, selective interpretations, contradictions, emotion-based responses etc.., ironically, all these exist in your own atheistic religion.

So because Christianity is full of contradictions, and atheists can disagree with each other, that shows that atheism is a religion?

For starter, you can't even unanimously agree to the very simple doctrine of your Bishop Dawkins that you are related to monkeys! What's so complicated about that?? Some of you are clearly resisting that very idea of being related to the monkey - Dawkins accused Wendy Wright of that very same thing, - or some of you don't understand your own doctrine.

OH, this is where GOD comes in and you can say 'GOD did it'. And it seems Betsy, that you don't even understand that doctrine enough, but yet here you are speculating on what atheists think and beleive all the while giving atheists crap that they don't even know themselves. That's irony Betsy.

Edited March 20, 2011 by GostHacked

[ToadBrother]

I guess my point in answer to this thread is once again about the mirror I hold up to atheists like Jonsa (who initiated this topic), Segnasaur and others who only clearly demonstrate how Atheism is religion to a lot of atheists. You can scream bloody murder that it is not a religion - however, if it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck and it looks like a duck....it is a duck!

A religion without a credo, without a theology, without a clergy, and with only one single common feature; a lack of belief in gods.

Now, I'll grant you, some atheists are positively proselytic. Certainly guys like Hitchens and Dawkins can be stridently so. But if proselytism is all it takes to make a religion, then football and comic books are religions.

Edited March 20, 2011 by ToadBrother

[WIP]

I guess my point in answer to this thread is once again about the mirror I hold up to atheists like Jonsa (who initiated this topic),

When did Jonsa become an atheist? What he describes of his beliefs in that other thread is a closer match to agnosticism or perhaps deism. I'm guessing that his notions are a little too nuanced for your liking, since your attempts to save his soul apparently failed.

For starter, you can't even unanimously agree to the very simple doctrine of your Bishop Dawkins that you are related to monkeys!

What's so complicated about that?? Some of you are clearly resisting that very idea of being related to the monkey - Dawkins accused Wendy Wright of that very same thing, - or some of you don't understand your own doctrine.

Ironic, isn't it!

Actually, that's one of the few things we all agree on, so how much have you actually been paying attention here? If you know of an atheist creationist could you provide a name and a possible source?

You should have noticed the things we don't agree on: what sort of values to live by, whether or not religious beliefs should be considered delusional thinking etc....if you were really reading what atheists have written you would already be aware of this, and the fact that we do agree on basic scientific consensus, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Bishop Dawkins threw the accusation to Wendy Wright that she responds with her emotion.....and yet, when Wendy Wright pointed out that he seems to be hostile to those who disagree with his theory, what was your Bishop's response? "Not hostility. Annoyance."

He further explained his annoyance. Showing that he responds with his emotions.

Not only is it ironic, but for Dawkins to negate his assertion with his response - in a span of a few seconds - is....so bizarre (for lack of a better word at the moment).

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

Who threw the first tantrum in that interview? The first adhominem? Your Bishop.

Who fired the first disparaging question that -ironically only served to question your Bishop's state of mind? Of course, your Bishop.

Well, I seen enough in the first video. I doubt anyone can put up with viewing all 7. This bimbo doesn't even grasp the basics of biology which she is trying argue about with a biologist who has researched the field for many decades of his life. She is objecting to the evidence of human origins because it conflicts with her religious beliefs and doesn't like her imagined implications that it reduces the position of man to being just another product of evolution instead of her wish of special divine creation. Well, even if there is a case that believing in evolution makes people utilitarian (as if that's a bad thing), it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

The scientific evidence of human origins cannot change to match the wish-fulfillment of religionists; the evidence leads to where the evidence leads, just like a proper murder investigation. Christians who want to remain relevant in the 21st Century have to harmonize their religious beliefs with the scientific evidence, not try to make the evidence fit their notions of how it should be!

All those....emotion-based responses! Do I need to point out who's prone to behave like the good Bishop here? Who tends to go on a personal attack and adhominems?

His flock.

I didn't find his irritations with this imbecile to be that outrageous! What were you expecting...Mr. Spock? Sure, we all have emotions, it's part of the brains basic hardwiring to receive neurochemical inputs from the amygdala; but fyi, if you want evidence that Richard Dawkins is dogmatic, you would find better evidence in his writings on religion and philosophy than his books on evolutionary theory.

[WIP]

Oh Betsy, Betsy, Besty ...... ironies? Have you read some of your own posts? Atheism is not a religion. You can keep thinking that, but you would be wrong. Atheists don't congregate, there is no organization, there is no church or place of worship, there is no preacher there is no clergy, there is no mantra, there is nothing that shows atheism is a religion, yet alone an organized religion.

And where atheists do congregate, such as atheist and secular humanist associations, many non-joining atheists would probably be turned off by what they would find! At least that was my experience when I followed the new atheist advice to become out and active as an atheist a couple of years ago, when I joined a secular humanist group and an online atheist facebook-type group. The atheists I was meeting were not the kind of people I had much in common with or liked the company of.

An article I posted yesterday from Epiphenomena in a meta-analysis of the differences between religious believers in America and Europe. The believers in secular European countries are not as inclined to be conscientious, compassionate and cooperative, possibly because religion is less popular in Europe than in America. The same factors could be at play if and when a study is done of atheists, especially organized atheists, since atheism in America is treated as a major character fault, unlike the European attitude of non-belief. That might explain why a lot of active atheists seem to act like fundamentalists in the way they deal with conflicting beliefs.

[segnosaur]

Re: Mother Teresa and her scummy acts...

Moot argument. It's not addressing the point. My reply to this is the same as my previous reply to you.

Actually, yes indeed it is addressing the point.

You had asked for a source for my information (quite a reasonable request). I provided the source, and indicated why they are reputable sources. If you are still basing your claim on the question "how accurate are the reports", then it is you who is at fault.

Really, what exactly were you expecting as proof? A signed letter from the pope? A video confession by Mother Teresa saying "ha ha suckers!!"? (Although something tells me that even if such evidence were provided, you would still disregard it not because it would be untrustworthy, but because your beliefs are so ingrained that you are willing to lie in order to protect them.)

So, in short:

- People who worked with mother Teresa indicated that for decades she collected money under false pretenses, and that her actions directly lead to suffering and death

- Those abuses were reported in the mainstream media

- You (and others like you) prefer to ignore facts and lie in order to protect someone who was, in effect, a real scum bag.

If you wonder why many people have such a low opinion of religious people, perhaps you should look in a mirror. Your actions are pretty much the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la" whenever someone provides anything resembling the truth to you.

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread:

Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to.

And you think atheists are not selective?

There's nothing to be selective of. There's no master 'atheist text', no central teachings.

There may be differences in the way people deal with their atheism (some more vocal than others) but that doesn't mean they're being "selective".

Oh, and by the way, even if atheists were being "selective" (they aren't, but lets pretend they were) that doesn't necessarily excuse the christians from being selective, even if they are claiming to be following the "true teachings of jebus".

Edited March 20, 2011 by segnosaur

[Shady]

You (and others like you) prefer to ignore facts and lie in order to protect someone who was, in effect, a real scum bag.

Complete nonsense. Everything you've posted has been debunked. Mother Teresa hardly lived a life of priviledge. And to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous. For what reasons you and people of your ilk seek to destroy the life and reputation of good people like her I'll never know. How about you start with real criminals. And when you're done with all them, you can get to the likes of the evil, evil, Mother Teresas of the world.

You're acting like a crazy person. Some might even say a type of religious zealot. You know, the kind you claim to despise.

[betsy]

Complete nonsense. Everything you've posted has been debunked. Mother Teresa hardly lived a life of priviledge. And to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous. For what reasons you and people of your ilk seek to destroy the life and reputation of good people like her I'll never know. How about you start with real criminals. And when you're done with all them, you can get to the likes of the evil, evil, Mother Teresas of the world.

You're acting like a crazy person. Some might even say a type of religious zealot. You know, the kind you claim to despise.

Amen!

[betsy]

A religion without a credo, without a theology, without a clergy, and with only one single common feature; a lack of belief in gods.

Collective single belief: no God/gods. It's all in the attitude. Besides, you've got a preacher! Bishop Dawkins. I think he aspires to be Pope.

Btw, that title is only on loan until he can come up with his own.

[betsy]

When did Jonsa become an atheist? What he describes of his beliefs in that other thread is a closer match to agnosticism or perhaps deism. I'm guessing that his notions are a little too nuanced for your liking, since your attempts to save his soul apparently failed.

Well pardon me if I couldn't tell the difference anymore. As one of the atheists explained before in another thread - atheists have their own different interpretations.... or nuances. Even Hitchens explained what type of atheist he is!

Actually, that's one of the few things we all agree on, so how much have you actually been paying attention here?

Nope. Not the monkey-business.

If you know of an atheist creationist could you provide a name and a possible source?

I wasn't talking about any atheist-creationist. I was referring to the evolution monkey-business.

Well, I seen enough in the first video. I doubt anyone can put up with viewing all 7. This bimbo doesn't even grasp the basics of biology which she is trying argue about with a biologist who has researched the field for many decades of his life. She is objecting to the evidence of human origins because it conflicts with her religious beliefs and doesn't like her imagined implications that it reduces the position of man to being just another product of evolution instead of her wish of special divine creation. Well, even if there is a case that believing in evolution makes people utilitarian (as if that's a bad thing), it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

The scientific evidence of human origins cannot change to match the wish-fulfillment of religionists; the evidence leads to where the evidence leads, just like a proper murder investigation. Christians who want to remain relevant in the 21st Century have to harmonize their religious beliefs with the scientific evidence, not try to make the evidence fit their notions of how it should be!

I didn't find his irritations with this imbecile to be that outrageous! What were you expecting...Mr. Spock? Sure, we all have emotions, it's part of the brains basic hardwiring to receive neurochemical inputs from the amygdala; but fyi, if you want evidence that Richard Dawkins is dogmatic, you would find better evidence in his writings on religion and philosophy than his books on evolutionary theory.

Well, we see what we like to see, don't we?

I saw a somewhat flustered Dawkins (splotchy red....rapid eye blinking, trying to maintain his composure). His tone got insulting. Actually he admitted to annoyance rather than hostility. I guess he remembered he's on camera.

Annoyed because she was refuting his claims. And wouldn't budge. I guess he thought it would be a walk in the park dealing with a "bimbo" on this issue. Dawkins didn't fare well in that debate with Wright. He was the first one to throw adhominem to boot.

She asked good questions too. My favorite runs along something like this: Why is it so important to you that everyone should accept what you say.

It was the first time I saw Wright - never heard of her before that. I looked her up and she's President of Concerned Women of America. You go gurl! Wooohoooo!

Of course you probably didn't see that part. Can't wait to see how Dawkins will handle Craig. If Wright could get him to that brink....we might see spittle flying when he encounter Craig.

Edited March 20, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

Collective single belief: no God/gods. It's all in the attitude.

This would come as a shock to me. I'm an atheist and the only way you can describe my world view is a lack of belief in gods. Not just your god, but all of them.

Besides, you've got a preacher! Bishop Dawkins. I think he aspires to be Pope.

I said Dawkins was strident. I generally disagree with his delivery, with his seemingly endless desire to tweak any believer's nose, and I can assure you that he is no leader to me. I'm an atheist of my own accord, and owe no one for it, in particular Dawkins, or Hitchens, or any of the rest. I came by my atheism on my own.

Btw, that title is only on loan until he can come up with his own.

Save that kind of joke for someone that it might be intended for. You seem to think you understand atheists, but all you seem to do is confirm your lack of imagination and lack of ability to judge anyone else save by your own limited view of things.

[betsy]

Well, I seen enough in the first video. I doubt anyone can put up with viewing all 7. This bimbo doesn't even grasp the basics of biology which she is trying argue about with a biologist who has researched the field for many decades of his life.

I didn't find his irritations with this imbecile to be that outrageous! What were you expecting...Mr. Spock? Sure, we all have emotions, it's part of the brains basic hardwiring to receive neurochemical inputs from the amygdala; but fyi, if you want evidence that Richard Dawkins is dogmatic, you would find better evidence in his writings on religion and philosophy than his books on evolutionary theory.

Bimbo! Imbecile! You were able to conclude that in just the first video? One out of 7? About what, 3 minutes of footage?

When she first opened her mouth to disagree, that's about it eh? Sealed her fate, eh? I guess that's what you get for disagreeing. So what happens when you refuse to convert? Or refuse to renounce your God?

And we're supposed to get scared of Theocracy?

[betsy]

Save that kind of joke for someone that it might be intended for. You seem to think you understand atheists, but all you seem to do is confirm your lack of imagination and lack of ability to judge anyone else save by your own limited view of things.

My opinion of atheists have been influenced so far by....observation and experience on this board.

Similar in a way to scientific research, no?

[ToadBrother]

My opinion of atheists have been influenced so far by....observation and experience on this board.

And how do I fit into this particular mold? I certainly have no hate-on for religious people (I'm married to a Catholic and we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on abortion or assisted suicide). I don't blame religion for all the woes of the world (though it has been at times a willing servant). I have no desire to convert anyone from their own religion, and want them to afford me the same courtesy. I will, of course, state my opinion and where I see religious beliefs impinging upon liberties, education or good government, will certainly make my views known. I am a strong supporter of separation of church and state, and all that that means, and an advocate of secularism because that, as it turns out, has been the only successful way for people of multiple faiths to live together without one attempting to control or limit the activities of all the others.

Similar in a way to scientific research, no?

No, a scientific study would use a lot larger sample size than three or four people at one location.

[Shady]

Atheists don't congregate, there is no organization, there is no church or place of worship, there is no preacher there is no clergy, there is no mantra, there is nothing that shows atheism is a religion, yet alone an organized religion.

Actually there are atheists organizations, and there are preachers and mantras. They even take out advertisements on buses and buildings spreading their messages and denouncing others!

Nothings funnier than prosthelytizing atheists! Oh the irony.

[scorpio]

Collective single belief: no God/gods. It's all in the attitude.

Where do you place agnostics then?

[ToadBrother]

Actually there are atheists organizations, and there are preachers and mantras. They even take out advertisements on buses and buildings spreading their messages and denouncing others!

Nothings funnier than prosthelytizing atheists! Oh the irony.

Does having atheists not hiding in the shadows bother you? Do you feel threatened by atheist advertisements on buses?

[segnosaur]

Complete nonsense. Everything you've posted has been debunked.

Ummmm... no, it hasn't.

The only one who has attempted to deal with Mother Teresa in this thread was betsy, and all she did was:

- State that she didn't read any of the references I provided

- Never actually produced any information actually contradicting what I posted. Never stated how much she collected, nor how much of that money actually went to help the poor. All she stated was that she 'helped the hungry', a completely vague and useless statement

- Basically stuck her fingers in her ears and shouted 'la la la... I'm not listenning'.

Mother Teresa hardly lived a life of priviledge. And to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous.

Ummm... I never claimed she lived a "life of privilege". (I never said she was partying it up on a boat in the Caribbean, or that she was living like Charlie Sheen.) To claim that I thought she lived a 'live of privilege' is a giant red herring. Quite dishonest. I guess you didn't read the part in the bible about "thou shalt not lie'.

What I said was that the money she collected was done under false pretenses. The image she cultivated was that she was trying to help the sick and poor, but that money that was collected found its way into general church revenue, and that if you gave to her to 'help the poor' your money was just as likely used to cover up sex abuses by priests as it was to feed a starving resident of India.

See: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18277&st=15&p=640340entry640340

Of course, I could point out that while she wasn't exactly "partying it up", her work did have her hanging out with many world leaders and receiving many accolades. Many people might think that such recognition, even if it didn't have monetary rewards, would have value itself.

For what reasons you and people of your ilk seek to destroy the life and reputation of good people like her I'll never know.

Simple, because she was not a good person.

Neither was Bernie Maddoff.

But you know what the difference between Mother Teresa and Bernie Maddoff was? People eventually figured out that Maddoff was a bad person.

How about you start with real criminals.

I'm quite willing to criticize "real criminals". But here's the thing... people already know that "criminals are bad". Most people don't know that Mother Teresa was also bad.

You're acting like a crazy person. Some might even say a type of religious zealot.

Well, I'm dealing with intellectually dishonest people like you and Betsy. I provide proof of Mother Teresa's less-than-admirable qualities. I point out that the information comes from reputable sources. And what do I get?

"La la la... I'm not listening".

[bloodyminded]

Possibly, so maybe he would like drink those Lattes with the Liberals huh

Sure, no doubt; though don't make the mistake of thinking "elitist" is synonymous with Liberal (large or small 'l'). Perhaps you've never been to a meeting of the Young Conservatives in your region? I heartily recommend it.

[bloodyminded]

For starter, you can't even unanimously agree to the very simple doctrine of your Bishop Dawkins that you are related to monkeys!

What's so complicated about that?? Some of you are clearly resisting that very idea of being related to the monkey - Dawkins accused Wendy Wright of that very same thing, - or some of you don't understand your own doctrine.

Ironic, isn't it!

I can't speak for the others here, but since you quoted me directly, and are now responding to what you think I said (but did not) let me clarify:

I never said we aren't related to monkeys.

What I said was we are not descended from chimpanzees.

Can you really not understand the distinction?

[bloodyminded]

Complete nonsense. Everything you've posted has been debunked. Mother Teresa hardly lived a life of priviledge. And to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous. For what reasons you and people of your ilk seek to destroy the life and reputation of good people like her I'll never know. How about you start with real criminals. And when you're done with all them, you can get to the likes of the evil, evil, Mother Teresas of the world.

You're acting like a crazy person. Some might even say a type of religious zealot. You know, the kind you claim to despise.

I think this is really unfair to segnosaur.

Are there certain human beings so sacred that criticism of them is simply detestable, automatically?

If so, you might do us the kindness of preparing a list of these august ne-er-do-wrongs, so that we might avoid the accidental slandering of their perfect names in future.

Edited March 21, 2011 by bloodyminded