Really? There's a difference?

[Ringel05]

You sure are big on self justification and self glorification. You want to have a rational and reasonable academic discussion then act academic not judgmental, you want to be treated as you deserve then continue to be judgmental and dismissive of others beliefs. Now do you get the point or will it take a figurative 2 x 4 to pound it in?

Academics don't back off their conclusions and sugar coat them for sensitive sissies. That would be anti-intellectual. If you are too sensitive for big boy words and arguments, that's a YOU problem.

Again you self justify and attempt to place yourself on a pedestal, a very shaky one. Real academics don't self justify their bias in a honest exchange of ideas, thanks for confirming your non academic status.

Nobody knows what the hell you are talking about. Are you done soothing yourself? Good.

Crap! You have a PhD in projection!! Now that's impressive.

Done masturbating? Good. Now, since you are such a smart person armed with so many good arguments (you just don't feel like stating them, of course), then feel free to meet my argument with argument.

I will argue that the Bible is a bronze age book of fables, and you take the contrary position and argue that it is not.

who goes first? Please, professor, take it easy on me...

Masturbating? Please don't include me in your weird fantasies.......

As for you proposed argument it's simple, since the Bible scientifically falls under the realm of the metaphysical there is no argument or evidence that is scientifically valid that either proves or disproves the veracity of said tome. Hence it is your opinion that the Bible is a bronze age book of fables so the argument is a waste of time and energy as all that can possibly be achieved is the verification that your opinion is yours.
Now do I have a problem with your opinion? Of course not, why would I, however the point I've been attempting to drive home is your approach to valid and respectful discussion is neither academically valid or respectful to some. It has the appearance of attack and destroy tactics, not an exchange of ideas. Me, I could care less but if you want to act like some so called Christians with your approach then I'll treat you the same way I treat them, with disdain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ince the Bible scientifically falls under the realm of the metaphysical there is no argument or evidence that is scientifically valid that either proves or disproves the veracity of said tome.

Funny, you just stated my point for me: There is no way to prove whether it is true or not. And let's be clear: nobody is disputing ordinary claims like, a guy named Peter went fishing, or Jesus ate a meal one time. What is in dispute are the magical fables that contradict what we know about the physical universe.

There is no way to test if any of this magical stuff is true or not.

Therefore, it is to be considered fables. The alternative is to consider it "not fables", therefore true, which would be absurd to do, by any rational process.

Wow, that went swimmingly.

 

[Ringel05]

ince the Bible scientifically falls under the realm of the metaphysical there is no argument or evidence that is scientifically valid that either proves or disproves the veracity of said tome.

Funny, you just stated my point for me: There is no way to prove whether it is true or not. And let's be clear: nobody is disputing ordinary claims like, a guy named Peter went fishing, or Jesus ate a meal one time. What is in dispute are the magical fables that contradict what we know about the physical universe.

There is no way to test if any of this magical stuff is true or not.

Therefore, it is to be considered fables. The alternative is to consider it "not fables", therefore true, which would be absurd to do, by any rational process.

Wow, that went swimmingly.

Define fable......... What you mean by it. The simple story (possibly true or fictitious) conveying a moral or set of morals or a fictitious story?
Since you cannot prove it's fictitious just as it can't be proven to be true then it falls into an either or, not a one or the other so calling the Bible a set of fables is neither true or false hence is subjective in it's interpretation. I respect the belief of both sides as being theirs but will attack biased and demeaning delivery and obvious hypocrisy regardless of who engages in one, the other or both. You want a real, honest discussion? Stop putting those you're trying to engage automatically on the defensive, that's my whole point. They used to teach that when I was in school, now I have no idea what they teach.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ince the Bible scientifically falls under the realm of the metaphysical there is no argument or evidence that is scientifically valid that either proves or disproves the veracity of said tome.

Funny, you just stated my point for me: There is no way to prove whether it is true or not. And let's be clear: nobody is disputing ordinary claims like, a guy named Peter went fishing, or Jesus ate a meal one time. What is in dispute are the magical fables that contradict what we know about the physical universe.

There is no way to test if any of this magical stuff is true or not.

Therefore, it is to be considered fables. The alternative is to consider it "not fables", therefore true, which would be absurd to do, by any rational process.

Wow, that went swimmingly.

Define fable......... What you mean by it. The simple story (possibly true or fictitious) conveying a moral or set of morals or a fictitious story?
Since you cannot prove it's fictitious just as it can't be proven to be true then it falls into an either or, not a one or the other so calling the Bible a set of fables is neither true or false hence is subjective in it's interpretation. I respect the belief of both sides as being theirs but will attack biased and demeaning delivery and obvious hypocrisy regardless of who engages in one, the other or both. You want a real, honest discussion? Stop putting those you're trying to engage automatically on the defensive, that's my whole point. They used to teach that when I was in school, now I have no idea what they teach.

Since when does anyone have to prove something is fictitious in order to rationally and correctly proceed as if it fictitious? In what bizarre world of unlogic is this the case? Should I also be required to prove leprechauns to be fictitious, lest I insult someone's delicate sensibilities to declare them fictitious? No, it is fair and correct to proceed under the assumption that extraordinary claims requure extraordinary evidence. And in these cases, there is not a shred of evidence. It appears we are in agreememt that there can be no evidence.

You have it upside down. In the realm of reason, it is correct to proceed as if all the magical bullshit in the Bible is precisely that: magical bullshit.

 

[Ringel05]

ince the Bible scientifically falls under the realm of the metaphysical there is no argument or evidence that is scientifically valid that either proves or disproves the veracity of said tome.

Funny, you just stated my point for me: There is no way to prove whether it is true or not. And let's be clear: nobody is disputing ordinary claims like, a guy named Peter went fishing, or Jesus ate a meal one time. What is in dispute are the magical fables that contradict what we know about the physical universe.

There is no way to test if any of this magical stuff is true or not.

Therefore, it is to be considered fables. The alternative is to consider it "not fables", therefore true, which would be absurd to do, by any rational process.

Wow, that went swimmingly.

Define fable......... What you mean by it. The simple story (possibly true or fictitious) conveying a moral or set of morals or a fictitious story?
Since you cannot prove it's fictitious just as it can't be proven to be true then it falls into an either or, not a one or the other so calling the Bible a set of fables is neither true or false hence is subjective in it's interpretation. I respect the belief of both sides as being theirs but will attack biased and demeaning delivery and obvious hypocrisy regardless of who engages in one, the other or both. You want a real, honest discussion? Stop putting those you're trying to engage automatically on the defensive, that's my whole point. They used to teach that when I was in school, now I have no idea what they teach.

Since when does anyone to prove something is fictitious to rationally proceed as if it fictitious? In what bizarre world of unlogic is this the case? Should I also prove leprechauns to be fictitious, lest I insult someone's delicate sensibilities to declare them fictitious? No, it is fair and correct to proceed under the assumption that extraordinary claims requure extraordinary evidence. And in these cases, there is not a shred of evidence.

You have it upside down. In the realm of reason, it is correct to proceed as if all the magical bullshit in the Bible is precisely that: magical bullshit.

You are dealing in subjectives, most often designed to illicit an emotional rather than logical response and you claim it's rational? Really?

 

[Ringel05]

ince the Bible scientifically falls under the realm of the metaphysical there is no argument or evidence that is scientifically valid that either proves or disproves the veracity of said tome.

Funny, you just stated my point for me: There is no way to prove whether it is true or not. And let's be clear: nobody is disputing ordinary claims like, a guy named Peter went fishing, or Jesus ate a meal one time. What is in dispute are the magical fables that contradict what we know about the physical universe.

There is no way to test if any of this magical stuff is true or not.

Therefore, it is to be considered fables. The alternative is to consider it "not fables", therefore true, which would be absurd to do, by any rational process.

Wow, that went swimmingly.

Define fable......... What you mean by it. The simple story (possibly true or fictitious) conveying a moral or set of morals or a fictitious story?
Since you cannot prove it's fictitious just as it can't be proven to be true then it falls into an either or, not a one or the other so calling the Bible a set of fables is neither true or false hence is subjective in it's interpretation. I respect the belief of both sides as being theirs but will attack biased and demeaning delivery and obvious hypocrisy regardless of who engages in one, the other or both. You want a real, honest discussion? Stop putting those you're trying to engage automatically on the defensive, that's my whole point. They used to teach that when I was in school, now I have no idea what they teach.

Since when does anyone have to prove something is fictitious in order to rationally and correctly proceed as if it fictitious? In what bizarre world of unlogic is this the case? Should I also be required to prove leprechauns to be fictitious, lest I insult someone's delicate sensibilities to declare them fictitious? No, it is fair and correct to proceed under the assumption that extraordinary claims requure extraordinary evidence. And in these cases, there is not a shred of evidence. It appears we are in agreememt that there can be no evidence.

You have it upside down. In the realm of reason, it is correct to proceed as if all the magical bullshit in the Bible is precisely that: magical bullshit.

Also the "realm of reason" is nothing more than a Doxastic logic. Look it up.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
Really? There's a difference?

no

moderation would be crossing from one spectrum to another to achieve a reasoned balance for all concerned that has never occurred within the three desert religions prevented by their surreptitious written accords - their religions are nothing more than geysers erupting forever the same never to resolve the underlying reason for their existence.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

We already know how extremists arise..... Thanks for being a perfect example.

What a sissy copout... And you might want to check your dictionary. I think it's broken. Free exchange of ideas is not extremism. Inviting scrutiny and criticism of ideas is not extremism. It's precisely the opposite. The "extremist" is someone like you who refuses to discuss ideas and rejects all new information out of hand.

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

But it is okay for the government to promote the Global Warming and Homosexual Religions when the last president even showed his true colors by putting the rainbow on the white house? Yeah, I see how the values of one side is totally up the butt, while shutting down the other sides argument....

 

[Czernobog]

What a sissy copout... And you might want to check your dictionary. I think it's broken. Free exchange of ideas is not extremism. Inviting scrutiny and criticism of ideas is not extremism. It's precisely the opposite. The "extremist" is someone like you who refuses to discuss ideas and rejects all new information out of hand.

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

But it is okay for the government to promote the Global Warming and Homosexual Religions when the last president even showed his true colors by putting the rainbow on the white house? Yeah, I see how the values of one side is totally up the butt, while shutting down the other sides argument....

First of all, homosexuality isn't a religion; it's a sexual orientation. Second, the government isn't "pushing" homosexuality. I don't believe you can point to s single policy, or law implemented by the last administration to force anyone to declare themselves as homosexual. The question of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage is the same as abortion. You can have whatever opinion, or belief in. Your. personal. Life that you like. However, you cannot force other people to behave in their personal lives as if they agree with you, and you are not allowed to let that personal opinion colour your professional behaviour, if you run a business open to the public.

I really do not understand why these two simple points are so difficult for dominionists, and religious fanatics to comprehend.

 

[Pogo]

But it is okay for the government to promote the Global Warming and Homosexual Religions when the last president even showed his true colors by putting the rainbow on the white house?

Another non sequitur.

If POTUS Rump expresses condolences to the victims of the Lost Wages shooting, is he "showing his true colors" that he's a country music fan? Same thing.

Also, hate to break this to ya but what the White House splashes with its lights is not "the government". Any more than the White House Christmas decorations are "the government". Any more than expressing condolences to shooting victims is "the government'.

 

[Flopper]

Extremists that are acting on their beliefs do not listen to the opposition.

While that may be factually correct, i've always viewed this sort of statement as an intellectual copout. You do understand that they were not born "extreme", right? And that all humans eventually die and are replaced by new humans... right? So combating extremism doesn't have to about trying to have rational debate with existing extremists, and instead can be about changing the overall culture (which includes the moderates) that new people are born into. this is done by replacing bad ideas with better ideas.

And this would include the public excoriation of extremists and extremism. While those being flogged may not change, the public flogging still sends a message to others.

I agree that change is a slow process but it is occurring now. The two factors bringing that change about is globalization and democracy. No matter how hard extreme conservative elements fight, it is spreading throughout the Muslim world. Women's right to vote, sexual equality, secularization, religious freedom were unthinkable 60 years ago in Muslim countries. The very existence of Muslim terrorism in the Muslim world is testament to the spread of these ideals.

 

[BreezeWood]

The very existence of Muslim terrorism in the Muslim world is testament to the spread of these ideals.

that they now have to use physical means than mere mental persuasion by terror is indeed their downfall that in the past has prevailed but in a new era (they) may have to reconcile to the other train of thoughts that together may indeed lead to the spiritual path of remission to the pure and simple. life as meant to be lived.

 

[Flopper]

The very existence of Muslim terrorism in the Muslim world is testament to the spread of these ideals.

that they now have to use physical means than mere mental persuasion by terror is indeed their downfall that in the past has prevailed but in a new era (they) may have to reconcile to the other train of thoughts that together may indeed lead to the spiritual path of remission to the pure and simple. life as meant to be lived.

 

[BreezeWood]

The very existence of Muslim terrorism in the Muslim world is testament to the spread of these ideals.

that they now have to use physical means than mere mental persuasion by terror is indeed their downfall that in the past has prevailed but in a new era (they) may have to reconcile to the other train of thoughts that together may indeed lead to the spiritual path of remission to the pure and simple. life as meant to be lived.

.

the religious fanatics are running out of ammo ....

 

[Czernobog]

The very existence of Muslim terrorism in the Muslim world is testament to the spread of these ideals.

that they now have to use physical means than mere mental persuasion by terror is indeed their downfall that in the past has prevailed but in a new era (they) may have to reconcile to the other train of thoughts that together may indeed lead to the spiritual path of remission to the pure and simple. life as meant to be lived.

One could say the same about any religion (Christianity) that requires the force of secular law in order to convince society, as a whole, that their religious-based morality is appropriate, and should be adopted by all. Just sayin...

 

[ding]

The very existence of Muslim terrorism in the Muslim world is testament to the spread of these ideals.

that they now have to use physical means than mere mental persuasion by terror is indeed their downfall that in the past has prevailed but in a new era (they) may have to reconcile to the other train of thoughts that together may indeed lead to the spiritual path of remission to the pure and simple. life as meant to be lived.

One could say the same about any religion (Christianity) that requires the force of secular law in order to convince society, as a whole, that their religious-based morality is appropriate, and should be adopted by all. Just sayin...

Including the religion of atheism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Also the "realm of reason" is nothing more than a Doxastic logic.

Wrong. When I say it, I don't mean "a set of acceptable beliefs by my "particular" brand of reasoning". So you can flush your label, thanks.

I mean valid reasoning to a conclusion, with premises based on evidence. Such a process does NOT ever end with, "There is no God", or, "That is a fable". The starting point is a position of no belief, or, more accurately, no determination. I can form a perfectly sound argument that my new car is going to start tomorrow morning. Using this argument, I will make the determination to proceed as if my car is going to start tomorrow morning. In NO way am I compelled, and certainly not required (your error) to prove to anyone that it is impossible that my car will not start tomorrow, in order to correctly proceed with my determination. Similarly, I can make a strong argument that unicorns do not exist, and then proceed under the determination that they do not. I do not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is impossible for them to exist, in order to correctly adopt the determination that they do not.

In such a way, it is correct to proceed as if the Bible is a book of bronze age fables. Gun to my head? 99.99999% sure. And notice you will see no faith or even a place for it in any of that.

 

[sakinago]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates bitch and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your fucking religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!

Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Judge people not as the individual but as the collective you lump them into? Or better yet judge them by the worst of that collective? I think your in the minority on that one. For good reason too

Yet again, here you are still obsessed with religion. That tells me it’s more about hating religion than it is just not believing in god for you. You are compelled in trying to disprove god and hate on religion. And not just live and let live. Instead you seem to rather just be a contrarian/opposition to all religion instead of just being atheist. You might as well just become a satanist. News flash: as an atheist you don’t have to hate religion.

I never thought I’d say this to anyone, but maybe take a break and move to politics for a little.

 

[Czernobog]

The very existence of Muslim terrorism in the Muslim world is testament to the spread of these ideals.

that they now have to use physical means than mere mental persuasion by terror is indeed their downfall that in the past has prevailed but in a new era (they) may have to reconcile to the other train of thoughts that together may indeed lead to the spiritual path of remission to the pure and simple. life as meant to be lived.

One could say the same about any religion (Christianity) that requires the force of secular law in order to convince society, as a whole, that their religious-based morality is appropriate, and should be adopted by all. Just sayin...

Including the religion of atheism.

First, atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position. Just because you keep incorrectly calling atheism a religion, doesn't make it so. Second, atheism makes no attempt to force anyone to be atheist, by force of law. So, your observation is absurd all around.

 

[Ringel05]

Also the "realm of reason" is nothing more than a Doxastic logic.

Wrong. When I say it, I don't mean "a set of acceptable beliefs by my "particular" brand of reasoning". So you can flush your label, thanks.

I mean valid reasoning to a conclusion, with premises based on evidence. Such a process does NOT ever end with, "There is no God", or, "That is a fable". The starting point is a position of no belief, or, more accurately, no determination. I can form a perfectly sound argument that my new car is going to start tomorrow morning. Using this argument, I will make the determination to proceed as if my car is going to start tomorrow morning. In NO way am I compelled, and certainly not required (your error) to prove to anyone that it is impossible that my car will not start tomorrow, in order to correctly proceed with my determination. Similarly, I can make a strong argument that unicorns do not exist, and then proceed under the determination that they do not. I do not have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is impossible for them to exist, in order to correctly adopt the determination that they do not.

In such a way, it is correct to proceed as if the Bible is a book of bronze age fables. Gun to my head? 99.99999% sure. And notice you will see no faith or even a place for it in any of that.

Not even a good rationale but fully expected as I'm "questioning" your belief system, that observation is based solely on known, empirical psychological evidence. An unknown cannot be proven or disproven and I'm quite certain you lack any empirical evidence to back up your claim, your argument is based on accepted beliefs and what is unscientific falsehoods. Every day we proceed on faith that everything will go as it always has yet every day for someone somewhere it doesn't.
From a purely scientific standpoint just because we have no proof that something exists or not doesn't negate the possibility of it's existence so in essence not believing in something unseen is the same as believing in something unseen, it's a choice one way or the other.