Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[dre]

Poppycock! That's just your opinion.

Well... that depends on how you define "opinion" Were going to need a half dozen pages of circular semantic arguments to nail that down.

[carepov]

Of course we do [know what religious people believe]. For example, most religious people believe in a God or God(s).

I agree about this asumption but I question almost every other one you claim, eg: worshiping the bible

I just told you my evidence. Most religious people don't switch religions from the one they were raised believing. You can't prove me wrong on that.

Spoken like a true zealot! Nice one.

Also, how can you say "This is the crux of my disagreement with you: we do not know what most religious folk believe." and yet you just make the exact same claim. It's ok when you do it and not me?

I said IMO, which implies that I could be wrong.

[dre]

I agree about this asumption but I question almost every other one you claim, eg: worshiping the bible

Do you mean real biblical literalists? If you do then your claim is true at least in the US.

A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."^[10]

The problem is... where do you draw the line? If the talking snake, and ark arent to be taken literally, what about the virgin birth? Or the resurrection? Or walking on water?

If you take the whole thing allegorically why not take the idea of Jesus as the son of god allegorically as well. Why not just believe he was a philopher that taught people some good things.

[eyeball]

Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally,

Is there any evidence to suggest that any more than a handful in a thousand of these have even read the damn thing?

[carepov]

Do you mean real biblical literalists? If you do then your claim is true at least in the US.

Thank you for supporting my claim. I agree with eyeball too when he suggests that many people would claim to be biblical literalists but don't even know what is in the bible. Also, I would expect there to be a smaller percentage of biblical literalists in Canada or any other western country.

The problem is... where do you draw the line? If the talking snake, and ark arent to be taken literally, what about the virgin birth? Or the resurrection? Or walking on water?

IMO, you "draw the line" when beliefs are harmful/benign:

Examples of harmful beliefs:

-women do not deserve equal treatment

-homosexuality is a sin

-condoms/birth control is bad

-death to infidels

-vaccines cause autism

Examples of benign beliefs (can be harmful if taken too far)

-Virgin birth

-Resurrection

-Other miracles

-Spread the word

-Pork is bad

-The existence of God/gods/spirits

-Reincarnation

-Karma

-Superstitions

-Astrology

-Santa/tooth fairy/groundhog day

-homeopathy and other "medical" quackery

And of course there are plenty of positive beliefs.

If you take the whole thing allegorically why not take the idea of Jesus as the son of god allegorically as well. Why not just believe he was a philopher that taught people some good things.

Yes, why not? I think that many people do indeed take the idea of Jesus as the son of god allegorically as well - it sounds like this is exactly what bleeding heart's father does.

[eyeball]

Anyone should be able to grok what Jesus was really all about in light of his antipathy towards power and wealth. He was amongst the greatest natural born humanists the world has ever known which of course is why he'd be nailed to a cross all over again should he somehow return in this day and age. 10$ says the second time around however they'd be nailing a few atheists up alongside him for good measure.

Edited October 8, 2013 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

The hilariously ironic thing about Jesus is that the Christian Right in America would chastise him for being a communist or have him killed today.

[Guest American Woman]

Is there any evidence to suggest that any more than a handful in a thousand of these have even read the damn thing?

Wouldn't it be pretty difficult to "interpret something literally" if they didn't read it?

[Guest American Woman]

The hilariously ironic thing about Jesus is that the Christian Right in America would chastise him for being a communist or have him killed today.

Wow. That's a good one. Never heard that before.

But yes, the Christian Right is on such a killing spree that I'm sure Jesus would have been just another of their many victims.

[eyeball]

Wouldn't it be pretty difficult to "interpret something literally" if they didn't read it?

You'd think so in the case of believers who've actually read the thing from cover to cover but I'm betting the closest most get to an interpretation of the bible is what they see on bumper stickers and TV.

[Mighty AC]

What's pedantic is insisting that 'I have a disbelief that there is a god' is somehow different from 'it's my belief that there is no god.'

The difference has been explain several times and your response was simply that you understand the example but aren't interested in beliefs. Not accepting the claim that a random number will be even does not equate to a belief that a random number will be odd. Not accepting a claim like "gods exist" does not equal acceptance of the opposite claim "gods do not exist".

[Guest American Woman]

Not accepting a claim like "gods exist" does not equal acceptance of the opposite claim "gods do not exist".

It does if one is an atheist. "Disbelief" = inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

[Mighty AC]

No, debate not over. Some people do base their belief on logic, just as I said. Some people's belief is based on faith, other people's belief is based on logic.

The idea of a belief being based on logic requires that some evidence exists to be logically evaluated. You've claimed that evidence exists that is just not being accepted. Do you have an example of evidence for the existence of a god?

[GostHacked]

You'd think so in the case of believers who've actually read the thing from cover to cover but I'm betting the closest most get to an interpretation of the bible is what they see on bumper stickers and TV.

What we may have with the New Testament and the King James versions, is the possibility that the interpretation was already done for them.

Edited October 8, 2013 by GostHacked

[Mighty AC]

No, debate not over. Some people do base their belief on logic, just as I said. Some people's belief is based on faith, other people's belief is based on logic.

The idea of a belief being based on logic requires that some evidence exists to be logically evaluated. You've claimed that evidence exists that is just not being accepted. Do you have an example of evidence for the existence of a god?

Since you are unwilling to provide examples of evidence that would logically lead one to believe in gods, I will proceed without it. It is possible to logically evaluate bad or incomplete information and end up with the wrong answer. That's why it is important to critically examine the evidence being evaluated. It is important to always work with the best and most complete information available. Christians who see evidence of a god do so because of an already held assumption that said god exists. This is backwards.

For example some see our lack of a definitive answer for the origins of the first self replicating organisms, as evidence for a god. Obviously, this fails on many levels, but this doesn't stop believers from claiming it as evidence. For starters, much more plausible theories already exist and can be demonstrated. Plus inventing an entity much more complex and improbable than the process attempting to be explained doesn't answer any questions, it just leads to more. If a god was required to create life, then what created the god?

The same people do not see this absence of knowledge as evidence for the Cosmic Gummy Bear, and this is because they haven't already been adopted into that belief system. Yet.. We'll get 'em one day.

In short, using bad evidence or the absence of evidence to support a predetermined outcome is not logic.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Mighty AC

[dre]

Thank you for supporting my claim. I agree with eyeball too when he suggests that many people would claim to be biblical literalists but don't even know what is in the bible. Also, I would expect there to be a smaller percentage of biblical literalists in Canada or any other western country.

IMO, you "draw the line" when beliefs are harmful/benign:

Examples of harmful beliefs:

-women do not deserve equal treatment

-homosexuality is a sin

-condoms/birth control is bad

-death to infidels

-vaccines cause autism

Examples of benign beliefs (can be harmful if taken too far)

-Virgin birth

-Resurrection

-Other miracles

-Spread the word

-Pork is bad

-The existence of God/gods/spirits

-Reincarnation

-Karma

-Superstitions

-Astrology

-Santa/tooth fairy/groundhog day

-homeopathy and other "medical" quackery

And of course there are plenty of positive beliefs.

I honestly dont have a rebuttal to any of that. I respect your opinion and I honestly think you have done a great job in this thread at being moderate and reasonable, and I think that if religionists in general looked at things the way that you do this whole thread would not even need to exist.

The problem for me is that the church has been on the wrong side of so many issues for so long... Im not sure people that think like you represent them at all.

[Moonlight Graham]

The idea of a belief being based on logic requires that some evidence exists to be logically evaluated. You've claimed that evidence exists that is just not being accepted. Do you have an example of evidence for the existence of a god?

Forget it, I asked her the same question a few times and she won't give a straight answer.

[Guest American Woman]

Forget it, I asked her the same question a few times and she won't give a straight answer.

It's not my evidence. I've said that repeatedly. There is a lot of evidence out there that people base their beliefs on. I've pointed out that some of it is personal. It's not my intent to provide the evidence. I've said quite clearly that one need not accept the evidence in order to recognize that some people base their beliefs on evidence and aren't just blindly believing in a god "without any evidence." If you and Mighty AC really are unaware that some people believe their is evidence, as I've said before, I don't care to invest in the extensive time and effort that it would take to provide it. If you truly are unaware of the evidence that people claim I have to wonder how knowledgeable you are regarding this topic. If you are interested, I trust that you would be able to find a lot of information on the topic. You could start here --> Seven world renowned physicists discuss the relationship between science and faith.

Seriously. Google "evidence that God[Allah/whatever] exists" and you'll come up all sorts of sites.

Again. You don't have to accept the evidence to recognize that some people base their beliefs on evidence. Again. That you dismiss the evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist to those who do believe it. It doesn't mean that all religious people believe in a god without evidence. That's my point.

My other point is that logic is either NOT ABSOLUTE as cybercoma claimed - or else neither belief in a god or, as you claimed, belief that there is no god can be argued logically.

My point is not about the evidence itself, thus it's not necessary for me to provide people's evidence.

I might not agree with Joe-down-the-street's evidence, but that doesn't mean it's a true statement to say that "Joe-down-the-street believes without any evidence."

Edited October 10, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

I might not agree with Joe-down-the-street's evidence, but that doesn't mean it's a true statement to say that "Joe-down-the-street believes without any evidence."

True you don't have to agree with it. But Joe-down-the-street could never gather enough proof or evidence to convince you to also believe what he does. You'd want something more substantial in order to even logically acknowledge that the claim may have some validity in it. Otherwise, it is faith, and therefor no logic needs to be applied.

[Guest American Woman]

True you don't have to agree with it. But Joe-down-the-street could never gather enough proof or evidence to convince you to also believe what he does. You'd want something more substantial in order to even logically acknowledge that the claim may have some validity in it. Otherwise, it is faith, and therefor no logic needs to be applied.

You don't have to believe what joe-down-the-street believes. That's my point. None of us have the answers. We are all basing what we believe on our evidence - or lack thereof. But again. If logic is absolute, neither side can logically argue what they believe to be true - or else logic is not absolute. People keep ignoring the actual points I am making - and likely because it goes against their arguments.

Edited October 10, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

If logic is absolute, neither side can logically argue what they believe to be true - or else logic is not absolute.

Logic is absolute. I'd say it is more on how logic is approached that is the question.

Edited October 10, 2013 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

Logic is absolute.

If that were true, then one could not "argue logically" that a belief in God or following Christianity [is] "idiotic" or "crazy."

[BubberMiley]

I love semantic discussions. This one, however, fails to distinguish between deductive logic (which is absolute) and inductive logic (which is predictive). Any attempt at applying logic to creation will ultimately be inductive because we don't have all the evidence. That means the conclusion has a margin of error and may be unreliable.

Evidence, of course, is the available information that indicates whether a belief is true. No one has sufficient evidence to logically deduce that God exists or doesn't exist, just as I have no clue whether there is an even or an odd number of jellybeans in that jar.

Evidence is not subjective and it is either good enough for deductive reasoning or it isn't.

[Mighty AC]

Again. You don't have to accept the evidence to recognize that some people base their beliefs on evidence. Again. That you dismiss the evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist to those who do believe it. It doesn't mean that all religious people believe in a god without evidence. That's my point.

Evidence has standards and we use critical thinking and reason to evaluate it. Should something qualify as evidence just because someone believes it to be? A belief based on bad or misused evidence is really a belief based on ignorance.

For example. John believes that storks deliver babies, even though storks haven never been seen doing so. John notes that stork populations and human birthrates in Lower Saxony from 1971 - 2000 correlate.

Of course, we know that correlation does not equal causation and that John is misusing the data. Claiming that the correlation is personal evidence to John hence his belief is evidence based is unsound. His belief is based in ignorance not evidence.

[carepov]

I honestly dont have a rebuttal to any of that. I respect your opinion and I honestly think you have done a great job in this thread at being moderate and reasonable, and I think that if religionists in general looked at things the way that you do this whole thread would not even need to exist.

Thank you I appreciate that.

The problem for me is that the church has been on the wrong side of so many issues for so long... Im not sure people that think like you represent them at all.

There have also been and are many religious movements that are doing great things for humanity. Religious people are as diverse as secular people. I'm quite sure that I do not represent the "typical religious person" but I do know for a fact that there are brilliant, tolerant and compassionate people in various faiths - they are the ones that inspire me to write these posts.

There are too few humanists in the world to be further divided into religious and secular.