Judgemend day! Beware!

[thalbergmad]

Indeed and longer standing members will remember that photo of you appearing from your tent.

Thal

[Bob]

Well, yesterday evening I had a little bit of a "rapture discussion" with a friend of mine who feels very passionately about the rapture.  My friend was upset because she felt that this individual, and "cooks" like him, give all of Christianity a bad name.  So, when somebody who is off in his own world predicts the rapture and it doesn't happen, then everybody thinks all of Christianity is wrong for believing in the rapture at all, when, as my friend stated, the Bible clearly states that no man knoweth the day ... etc..

Anyhoo, I started thinking a bit, since I was in the car with somebody talking about the rapture, and started asking a couple of questions that I haven't thought of before.  I do wonder what the point of the rapture is, exactly.  I mean, what's God supposedly thinking?  I don't claim to understand everything the rapture is supposed to be (and I think I understand that different people think it's different things), but my fundamental question is based on it seeming to me that whatever the rapture is supposed to be is basically the same thing as --to those who believe in the rapture-- what is believed happens to everybody when we die anyway.  We are judged and sent to heaven or hell ... right?  So, I do wonder, what's the point of the rapture at all when, if we just lived out our lives as normal, we'd supposedly all face that judgement anyway?  And, if it's something different, like earth becomes a fantastic place to be ... what about all of those people in times before us who faithfully believed in the rapture, lived their lives accordingly, died and got sent to heaven ... and then the rapture comes on earth and, what, they are just missing the party?  

I think it's nuts.  I had a group of kids once who terrified about disappearing because they were just told that in church recently.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture
I'm not reading through all that.  I wasn't aware 1992 was another rapture year.

Maybe it's there because it keeps the beginning-middle-end concept going.  Everything needs to have an end so they wrote one in.


A better reason?  From what I can tell...  It's the behavior right now.  Pay in advance, even if there is nothing on the end later....  You go to heaven or hell.  One or the other.  It's either going to be great or terrible.  If you're a good person, you better do a little better in order to deserve going somewhere great.  If you're bad, you can still change.  And of course no one wants to go to hell... for eternity.  *Bob wonders if that's a little bit harsh considering maybe 80 years of life compared to 'forever.'*  So the bottom line is you better be good and keep being good otherwise you might not go to heaven.

And that's paying up front right now.  Since no one really knows what if anything is on the side.... There might not be any reward or consequence for your behavior now.

Education/behavior/motivation philosophy would say reward/punishment isn't going to solve things in the long run.  They're extrinsic.  Take them away and the behavior will go away.  

And on the more cynical side.... In another time, maybe closer to when the Bible was written... Who would tell you what you should do in order to be good?  The church.  Catholic church then I guess, if that was the only thing.  A group of peasants get the heck scared out of them... unless they just do whatever the church wants.  Then they can go to heaven.  If not... then they're going to hell... forever!   And donations probably wouldn't hurt.  Power and money. 

And if you disagree with the rapture idea or don't believe in it... Then you're going to hell of course. 

[Bob]

I am uncomfortable with anything that appears to give favourable treatment to people who believe in some celestial entity and his son.

Thal

"What?"

Better watch out.  His dad's in the mafia.

[m1469]

A better reason?  From what I can tell...  It's the behavior right now.  Pay in advance, even if there is nothing on the end later....  You go to heaven or hell.  One or the other.  It's either going to be great or terrible.  If you're a good person, you better do a little better in order to deserve going somewhere great.  If you're bad, you can still change.  And of course no one wants to go to hell... for eternity.  *Bob wonders if that's a little bit harsh considering maybe 80 years of life compared to 'forever.'*  So the bottom line is you better be good and keep being good otherwise you might not go to heaven.

Yeah, but if people really thought about it, I mean *really* actually thought about it, they would realize that Jolly Old Saint Nick is already keeping everybody inline with his naughty and nice list ... I mean, you either get a gift or a lump of coal with that.  So, that's pretty important.

[ongaku_oniko]

Define "authority".

By authority, I was referring to the fact that you often state your personal opinions as if they were facts wihout any evidence.

Tons of evidence.

Saying "Tons of evidence" doesn't cut it. That's not evidence at all. You won't be freed from blame if you said you had "tons of evidence" in court.

That its authors were not guided by the God the book itself promotes. Also, why are you condemning my post, when you don't even know what its claim is?

It's not that I don't know what you are claiming. It's simply that they way you've made the claim is ridiculous and illogical; a physical object cannot be "not true". It simply shows how little thought and critical thinking you put into your posts.

Define "full of oneself". BTW, who gave you authority to tell me how I should behave?

I don't know why you have that in quotes; I never said "full of oneself".

No one, I'm simply annoyed by your posts, just as you were mine in the other thread.

And your evidence for this and your next sentence is?

So are you saying you don't claim to be intelligent? Because I'm not going to go dig up posts from the Sorabji thread for you. Go read back yourself if you forgot your own claims. The evidence for saying that you aren't intelligent is in the your plethora of idiotic posts with no substance or proof, such as the first two posts in this thread.

So what do they do? Do they include 100-page essays in every single post they write? Just like you?

I don't claim myself to be intelligent. In fact, if I were even a little bit intelligent, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with the likes of you. Also, I have never written a 100-page essay, let alone "in every single post". False accusations leading to an ad hominem attack isn't a very effective form of argument, either.

BTW, strictly speaking, a statement can not be idiotic and substantiated at the same time.

So what? Intelligence does not equal rationality. See https://psychcentral.com/lib/2010/what-intelligence-tests-miss/. And, while I'm not entirely sure about it, your statement here smacks of a logical fallacy known as "argument from authority".

I'm not sure what you're saying with the first sentence. Are you trying to claim that your statement on the Bible being "not true" is substantiated? If so, you're even less intelligent than I thought. Up until now, you've not even given one piece of evidence that the bible is not true. Do you even know the definition of true?

Yes, intelligence does not equal rationality. Do you think you are the more rational than all christians? Seriously?

Reported.

Interesting! You said I'm not intelligent, claimed I'm full of myself, and deemed my comment idiotic; this is another example of how you run around condemning people and making judgments about them, while claiming no one is entitled to do the same.

Good for you; although I'm not sure what you would be reporting about; but that's none of my business anyway.

At the very least, I attempt to point out to evidence for my beliefs; I don't make blanket statements like "you are an idiot" without attempting to explain anything. I don't deny that I am hypocritical at times though, we all are.

Don't worry thal; I won't argue about the truthfulness of the Bible, because I personally don't believe in it myself. But I don't think some arrogant jerk can just come and tell 2 billion people that their belief is wrong. At the very least, christianity teaches people to do good; something self-claimed intelligent and rational people rarely do.

I have read in the morning paper that Harold Camping was "unavailable for comment".

How strange.

Thal

Perhaps he was the only one to be raptured? :D:D

[thinkgreenlovepiano]

Perhaps he was the only one to be raptured? :D:D

Yeah on the newspaper I was reading it says "he was not seen after 6 pm"...
:O :O 

 

[Bob]

Yeah, but if people really thought about it, I mean *really* actually thought about it, they would realize that Jolly Old Saint Nick is already keeping everybody inline with his naughty and nice list ... I mean, you either get a gift or a lump of coal with that.  So, that's pretty important.

Santa Claus only gives coal.  That's the worst it gets.  It's not "coal for all eternity."  Hmm..... *Bob wonders how long "eternity" would actually be.... Say the Earth is around for another 5 billion years... Would that be it?  Or if humans evolve into something else?  And everyone else who's ever existed is just out in eternity somewhere?* 

*Bob is confused.*

That lump of coal isn't looking so bad though.  In fact, if you're really bad, you'd end up with a pile of coal and could use that for fuel.  Not so bad, eh?  Maybe Santa could bring some other types of fuel like gasoline or natural gas gas.  Or solar panels or something.  And really... Where is Santa Claus getting all that coal?  Not everyone is on the Nice list.   There must be a significant amount of children on the Naughty list.  That requires a lot of coal -- Where's all that coal coming from?  What type of mining operation does he have going on?  And are the workers?  Elves, of course.  The same elves making the toys.  For room and board and nothing more apparently.  What kind of safety standards is Santa practicing having mining operations going on?  You never hear about any elf mining accidents, but it's not likely they would report them.  Does Santa have any oversight?  He's got to have some kind of arrangement with another country.  There isn't any land in the Arctic.  Where's he getting all this coal from?  And what's the arrangement with that foreign country in order to get that coal?  Is he paying them in toys?  Outsourceing elf work?  Those elves should probably get a union.

[m1469]

Santa Claus only gives coal.  That's the worst it gets.

Wow.  Just ... wow.  You have *obviously* never read the Claus diaries.  First of all, he still eats the cookies.  Second of all, the point is that you are on his naughty list and that's sometimes pretty difficult to change, no matter how nice you've been or are being.  So, yeah, you might as well call it eternity.  Can you imagine, everyday, you're hoping for a brand new remote control helicopter, and if you had only that one thing, you would be in bliss ... and so you walk the dog every morning, you say nice things to people and gather flowers for your Mommy, and then one day Wilma-Sue punches you in the stomach, you by reflex punch back, and Santa happens to know that you've been naughty, and that's it ... you're getting coal.  Except, you're not certain you're in for coal.  You're still holding out for that helicopter and then, BOOM ... you wake up on Christmas morn, and there you have it ... a lump of coal.

That lump of coal isn't looking so bad though.  In fact, if you're really bad, you'd end up with a pile of coal and could use that for fuel.  Not so bad, eh?  Maybe Santa could bring some other types of fuel like gasoline or natural gas gas.  Or solar panels or something.  And really... Where is Santa Claus getting all that coal?  Not everyone is on the Nice list.   There must be a significant amount of children on the Naughty list.  That requires a lot of coal -- Where's all that coal coming from?

Again, wow.  Haven't you ever heard of the Claus theory?  Google it.  Basically --let me summarize this for you-- there is a theory, and this is most likely very scientific and provable, that there was an Ark of coal, and that this is underneath the earth's crust in a certain anonymous country.  Santa, and all of his elves (who DO have a union, btw, according to ordinance 124.A, last amended in 1978) have a tunnel going underneath the sea to that Ark of coal.  In fact, that is one of his whole points of operation ... there is major trade, etc.., ok, but now I'm getting sidetracked.  I'm sorry, I just feel extremely passionately about this because I think it's important that people are aware, and I'm always so surprised to find out about the fact that so many people in the world really just have no idea about this.  

Anyway, the Claus theory is based on the suspicion that Santa is, in fact, the source of nearly all evil, but it's really mysterious because he has all those cute elves and those rosy red cheeks and that big belly and white beard ... and, let's face it, he's got a flying sled and reindeer as pets ... and a wife ... anyway, he's got a really good cover.  But, his whole operation is actually to be getting coal, and he disguises this operation by also giving toys.  But, when he goes into houses to distribute coal, he also steals toys and THAT'S what he gives to other kids!!  He doesn't make toys!  He steals them and ACTS like his operation pumps those things out all year long.

The Claus theory also states that Santa is doing this for some future purpose.  He is actually distributing coal for the sake of a master plan that he has for using it in the future, and needs these lumps of coal to be adequately dispersed by the year 2089.  Well, I could really go on and on about this, but I won't for now.

Cheers!

[ongaku_oniko]

I think that instead of arrogantly mocking religion like this, you should try to get to know it a bit better first. It's really sad how many people think they know everything about religion, when they really know nothing at all. Even most "Christians" never actually read the bible from start to finish, both the old and new testaments.

It's really frustrating to see how ignorance leads people to give outrageously stupid examples to attack religion, when those examples don't even reflect what the religion teaches or how it works.

Do you guys even know what Christianity is?

Once in grade 8 during my social studies class, we were asked to do a religion project with different groups doing different religions. Of the choices, there was christianity, jehovah's witnesses, and catholicism. What? I tried to explain to the teacher (who was a christian) that both jehovah's witnesses and catholics are actually christians as well, but he just won't listen.

Christianity doesn't teach that anyone who donates to the Church will be saved and anyone who doesn't will go to hell... that is your own delusional thinking about what you think it is.


I'm not here to teach christianity, but before you make ridiculous accusations and attacks, actually learn about what the religion teaches. This doesn't only go towards christianity, but any religion.

Remember, it takes faith to believe that ther is no god as well. It takes faith to believe in "science",. And remember, what you think is "science" may not actually be "science" at all.

[ahinton]

I think that instead of arrogantly mocking religion like this, you should try to get to know it a bit better first. It's really sad how many people think they know everything about religion, when they really know nothing at all. Even most "Christians" never actually read the bible from start to finish, both the old and new testaments.

It's really frustrating to see how ignorance leads people to give outrageously stupid examples to attack religion, when those examples don't even reflect what the religion teaches or how it works.

Do you guys even know what Christianity is?

Once in grade 8 during my social studies class, we were asked to do a religion project with different groups doing different religions. Of the choices, there was christianity, jehovah's witnesses, and catholicism. What? I tried to explain to the teacher (who was a christian) that both jehovah's witnesses and catholics are actually christians as well, but he just won't listen.

Christianity doesn't teach that anyone who donates to the Church will be saved and anyone who doesn't will go to hell... that is your own delusional thinking about what you think it is.


I'm not here to teach christianity, but before you make ridiculous accusations and attacks, actually learn about what the religion teaches. This doesn't only go towards christianity, but any religion.

Remember, it takes faith to believe that ther is no god as well. It takes faith to believe in "science",. And remember, what you think is "science" may not actually be "science" at all.

One does not have to be a non-Christian to recognise that, whatever the extent or otherwise of the actual or alleged veracity of this, that or the other part of the Bible, the Bible itself is, as I have said before, an incomplete (as we have it) literary work written by a number of authors without overall editorial control over a period of several decades some two millennia ago within the social, cultural, scientific, &c. milieu of the Middle East of that era, it vacillates between historical chronicling and literary fantasy and, since it was completed, it has been translated and retranslated into all manner of languages all of which, like the language in which it was originally written, have metamorphosed beyond all recognition, just as has that social, cultural, scientific &c. milieu; the Bible can therefore be realistically accepted only when the recipient is duly mindful of all those caveats and their significance. To state this is by no means to "mock" any religion or indeed to undermine the value of the Bible - merely to try to put into some kind of sensible perspective.

That aside, your points are well made and taken.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

actually learn about what the religion teaches

But since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional. And mind you, I have studied religion, and was born and raised and actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.
It is always illuminating to see the vehement attacks from religious people du moment someone states he/she does reject any or all religion. Atheists are usually, if indeed not always, rather more acceptive of the fact that someone else is religious... The morale of "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself" is something that doesn't figure much in any religion, and for obvious reasons.

I would add that most Christians are not Christians and neither would want to be (i.e. live like a faithfull Jew lived 2000 years ago)



all best,
gep

[m1469]

Yeah, my Santy post was only partial mock and then mostly just for fun.  I actually didn't mean everything I put in that as a tie to religion, but just got into "story telling" mode and went with it.  Some people do actually think of the Bible as a story and nothing more ... well, that's not what I am trying to say when I said I went into "story telling" mode and went with it.    Honestly.  

Okay, but seriously, I am actually not an atheist.  But, I have almost never found that individuals start a discussion on religion because they want to change anything about the way they believe, or are interested in what other people believe.  Generally, there is no interest in group consensus, but in personal conviction, and "discussions" really are more about expressing one's own thoughts and opinions and that's it.

*goes to pray*

[birba]

Was m1469 being fecetious about the claus theory?!
I only know the 2 santa claus theory and it has nothing to do with coal...I know, don't tell me, I fell for it again...

[oxy60]

I ... actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.

all best,
gep

Really? Wow! Where might that be?

And Alistair, how about some credit for King James?

[ahinton]

Really? Wow! Where might that be?

And Alistair, how about some credit for King James?

Ah, just because he was Scottish? But why him over and above other Biblical translators, especially as the "King James Bible" was merely named after him rather than actually translated by him?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Judgement Day is subject to a Super Injunction here in England, so we won't get to hear of it until it is too late.

Oh, yes you will - and if not on Twitbook you'll read all about it in a Scottish newspaper where the laws governing their journalists are by no means all subject to the English jurisdicature.

Best,

Alistair

[ongaku_oniko]

But since each and every religion teaches whatever it teaches based on a false assumption (the presence of a higher being giving down that what is teached), one might conclude that each religion is basically self-delusional. And mind you, I have studied religion, and was born and raised and actually still live in what counts as the Bible Belt in The Netherlands.
It is always illuminating to see the vehement attacks from religious people du moment someone states he/she does reject any or all religion. Atheists are usually, if indeed not always, rather more acceptive of the fact that someone else is religious... The morale of "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself" is something that doesn't figure much in any religion, and for obvious reasons.

I would add that most Christians are not Christians and neither would want to be (i.e. live like a faithfull Jew lived 2000 years ago)
all best,
gep

Proof? You can't just say it was based on a FALSE assumption if you have no proof. At most you can say that it has no evidence. And it's not an assumption, more of a claim. A claim without evidence. But you can't say it's 100% false.

By the way, I am NOT christian or religious. I do believe that there's a god, but nothing more.

It is always illuminating to see the vehement attacks from religious people du moment someone states he/she does reject any or all religion.Atheists are usually, if indeed not always, rather more acceptive of the fact that someone else is religious...

I findquite exactly just the opposite. You are vehemently attacking all those who believe in a religion so bluntly without proof or evidence. How many religious people are attacking you? None so far.  

The fact is, many, if not most athiests think that they are somehow superior to religious people, and think that because they believe in "science" that they are right. And they always laugh and ridicule religious people. I don't think that's very accepting. I haven't seen many religious people laugh and ridicule athests; they might try to convince you to believe god, but they won't outright laugh at you or attack you, unless you did the same to their religion beforehand.

@Ahinton: If you were trying to tell me something, perhaps you should write in English next time =/

From the little I could understand, I don't think the bible is as bad as you think. There wouldn't be so many professors studying it if it had absolutely no credibility. Sure, the languages have changed overtime, but there are many people who study ancient languages. Just because we don't speak that way now doesn't mean no one understand those languages. These people can then translate for a some-what accurate reflection of the original text. And many of the original texts have been found, like the dead-sea scroll, so I think the translations would be fairly accurate. Of course they always contain their biases, but for the most part, it is a well-written book.

[ahinton]

Proof? You can't just say it was based on a FALSE assumption if you have no proof. At most you can say that it has no evidence. And it's not an assumption, more of a claim. A claim without evidence. But you can't say it's 100% false.

By the way, I am NOT christian or religious. I do believe that there's a god, but nothing more.

I findquite exactly just the opposite. You are vehemently attacking all those who believe in a religion so bluntly without proof or evidence. How many religious people are attacking you? None so far.  

The fact is, many, if not most athiests think that they are somehow superior to religious people, and think that because they believe in "science" that they are right. And they always laugh and ridicule religious people. I don't think that's very accepting. I haven't seen many religious people laugh and ridicule athests; they might try to convince you to believe god, but they won't outright laugh at you or attack you, unless you did the same to their religion beforehand.

You just cannot seem to travel more than a couple of millimetres without getting hung up on the notions of attacking and being attacked, can you? How very sad, when in almost every case it is so signally inappropriate!

@Ahinton: If you were trying to tell me something, perhaps you should write in English next time

What I wrote was by no means intended for your sole benefit but, since you have raised this question, pray tell us all in what language you believe it to have been written...

From the little I could understand, I don't think the bible is as bad as you think. There wouldn't be so many professors studying it if it had absolutely no credibility. Sure, the languages have changed overtime, but there are many people who study ancient languages. Just because we don't speak that way now doesn't mean no one understand those languages. These people can then translate for a some-what accurate reflection of the original text. And many of the original texts have been found, like the dead-sea scroll, so I think the translations would be fairly accurate. Of course they always contain their biases, but for the most part, it is a well-written book.

I didn't say that the Bible was or is "bad"; I merely pointed out the various caveats that need to be borne in mind by everyone from Biblical scholars to casual readers when it is being read, in terms of the conclusions that might be arrived at from reading its various chapters as we currently have it.

Best,

Alistair

[ongaku_oniko]

You just cannot seen to travel more than a couple of millimetres withough getting hung up on the notions of attacking and being attacked, can you? How very sad, when in almost every case it is so signally inappropriate!

If you only read the post from the person I was quoting from, he was he one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me.

Whether it's appropriate or not is not for you to say, but certainly your use of the word "seen" after "cannot" is inappropriate. Whatever, there is no point in arguing with a hollow shell that's nothing but a dictionary with no ability for critical thinking.

[ahinton]

If you only read the post from the person I was quoting from, he was he one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me.

I've read it all and,as a consequence, am only too well aware of who brought up what and when; since I've noted your having raised the spectre of "attacks" on several past occasions in various different contexts, I have no reason to change my mind on this now.

Whether it's appropriate or not is not for you to say, but certainly your use of the word "seen" after "cannot" is inappropriate.

It was a typo for "seem", which it now is; apologies for any confusion.

Whatever, there is no point in arguing with a hollow shell that's nothing but a dictionary with no ability for critical thinking.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, but getting paranoid about "attacks" - as you seem to have a habit of doing - is hardly the most sensible or convincing manner in which to set about conducting a legitimate and valid argument about anything in any event.

I rest my case.

Best,

Alistair

[ongaku_oniko]

I've read it all and,as a consequence, am only too well aware of who brought up what and when; since I've noted your having raised the spectre of "attacks" on several past occasions in various different contexts, I have no reason to change my mind on this now.
It was a typo for "seem", which it now is; apologies for any confusion.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, but getting paranoid about "attacks" - as you seem to have a habit of doing - is hardly the most sensible or convincing manner in which to set about conducting a legitimate and valid argument about anything in any event.

I rest my case.

Best,

Alistair

Great, but perhaps you should explain what exactly a "withough" is before you put your case to rest.

You just cannot seem to travel more than a couple of millimetres withough getting hung up on the notions of attacking and being attacked, can you? How very sad, when in almost every case it is so signally inappropriate!

[nataliethepianist]

I would love to know what Harold's credentials are, because if it takes one person to make the whole world believe they're going to die, than is it easy? If so, how hard do you think it would be to make everyone believe Beethoven is still alive? 

[Bob]

Oh Beethoven's still alive.  I saw him.  Yeah.  At a 7-11.  He was buying beef jerky.  Whistling Ode to Joy.  I said hello but he just ignored me.  I thought it was pretty rude of him.

[nataliethepianist]

I would wave next time, or throw something at him to get his attention. I am sure his hearing has gotten even worse, if that's possible.

[m1469]

I would wave next time, or throw something at him to get his attention. I am sure his hearing has gotten even worse, if that's possible.

nahhh ... I'm sure he's worked that all out by now.  He was probably actually just ignoring Bob, maybe he was just embarrassed that he was buying beef jerky and Bob saw him.  :-  That's very normal behavior among beef jerky buyers ... same with slim jim's and salamis and such.

[gep]

You can't just say it was based on a FALSE assumption if you have no proof. At most you can say that it has no evidence

But neither can you say that if a kid tells you he got presents from Santa he is basing himself on a false asumption (i.e. the assumption that Santa is real and giving presents), for you cannot prove Sanat does not exist.
Over the many millennia that humanity has been inventing religion (basically since the time of the cave paitings, but probably long before that), ther have been thousands of different belief systems, each of which has had its factions and groups, each of which evolved over time, and each of which has the only, the whole, the undisputable, the unquestionable and certainly the undoubtable Truth. Basic logical reasoning would indicate that the chances of any one of them being true while all the others are partly or wholly wrong is, let me put it mildly, to be considered at least tentativly doubtful.

By the way, I am NOT christian or religious. I do believe that there's a god, but nothing more.

I think that sentence is at least partly paradoxal.

You are vehemently attacking all those who believe in a religion so bluntly

Err, what?? I do not attack anyone! Rather, you own personality seems extremely fragile! Anyone should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe; I am totally for the freedom of religion. Fact is that most religious people are basically for the freedom of their religion, but less so (if not even opposed to) that same freedom for other's.

that because they believe in "science" that they are right

I certainly believe in the scientific method, yes. Facts first, explanation later, based upon known facts. Doing so, I believe I may be wrong, or have incomplete knowledge. As opposed to quite a large fraction (at least) of religious people, who are always Right, and have all the Answers.

And they always laugh and ridicule religious people. I don't think that's very accepting. I haven't seen many religious people laugh and ridicule athests; they might try to convince you to believe god, but they won't outright laugh at you or attack you, unless you did the same to their religion beforehand.

Really?....

Of course they always contain their biases, but for the most part, it is a well-written book

So is Lord of the Rings. Your point being?

Addendum 1: I just watched a Dutch Youtube clip in which a schoolteacher tell the kids that "accepting the evolution theory leads to Hitler". For those capable of Dutch:

I'd call that an attack...

Addendum 2: the Dutch Minister of Internal Affairs recently stated that "the increase of anti-semitism is caused by the secularisation". Which I would consider both a slight misjudgement of history and present-day factuality. (Anti-semitism is increasing in The Netherlands, but almost entirely in the Islamic part of the populace). 

all best,
gep

[ahinton]

perhaps you should explain what exactly a "withough" is before you put your case to rest.

It is, as well you know, a typo for "without" and, as such, requires no article, definite or indefinite, before it as you appear to imply - and it took you long enough to find, did it not?! I would be most surprised if you actually needed an "explanation" but, now that you have one, said case remains rested (as previously).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

But neither can you say that if a kid tells you he got presents from Santa he is basing himself on a false asumption (i.e. the assumption that Santa is real and giving presents), for you cannot prove Santa does not exist.

But surely he does exist! I wrote to him only recently and received his response!

Oh, Santa; sorry - must read more carefully...

Over the many millennia that humanity has been inventing religion (basically since the time of the cave paitings, but probably long before that), ther have been thousands of different belief systems, each of which has had its factions and groups, each of which evolved over time, and each of which has the only, the whole, the indisputable, the unquestionable and certainly the indubitable Truth. Basic logical reasoning would indicate that the chances of any one of them being true while all the others are partly or wholly wrong is, let me put it mildly, to be considered at least tentatively doubtful.

Indeed. That said, humanity has been inventing music for at least as long if not longer, yet the absence of factions and groups until relatively recently has meant that the problem doesn't apply here...

I think that sentence is at least partly paradoxical.

That's because it is; it's hard to imagine how someone can believe in God without being religious, but perhaps o_o knows something that the rest of us do not...

Err, what?? I do not attack anyone! Rather, you own personality seems extremely fragile!

As a rule, one has only to submit the slightest and mildest challenge to anything written by o_o for accusations of attack being brought out of his defensive armoury; there have been several previous examples, as I wrote earlier.

Anyone should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe; I am totally for the freedom of religion.

Which means that you can believe in J S Bach as most of the rest of us do!

Fact is that most religious people are basically for the freedom of their religion, but less so (if not even opposed to) that same freedom for others'.

...which reminds me of Sorabji's definition of Fascism as anyone else's Fascism other than one's own...

I certainly believe in the scientific method, yes. Facts first, explanation later, based upon known facts. Doing so, I believe I may be wrong, or have incomplete knowledge. As opposed to quite a large fraction (at least) of religious people, who are always Right, and have all the Answers.

Sadly, such arrogance of thought is by no means confined to religious people!...

Your point being?

You are assumping that there is one, then?...

Addendum 2: the Dutch Minister of Internal Affairs recently stated that "the increase of anti-semitism is caused by the secularisation". Which I would consider a slight misjudgement both of history and of present-day factuality. (Anti-semitism is increasing in The Netherlands, but almost entirely in the Islamic part of the populace).

As a matter of interest, do you sense a parallel increase of anti-Islamic feeling amongst the Jewish community in the Netherlands? Anyway, was anti-semitism in 1930s/40s Gerrmany an inevitable and sole consequence of "secularisation"? The question neither needs nor deserves an answer, does it?!...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

https://www.dgoodinfo.com/2011/05/judgement-day-21-mei-2011-end-of-world.html
Ah, so 21 May was Judgement Day, but the world will end 21 October. Really, no kidding. You are NOT allowed to express ANY doubt unless you have rockhard proof that the message is untrue. Otherwise you will be nothing but a violent, unrespecting attacker! And I point out the earth quake in Japan, the hurricanes in the US, the Iceland volcane and the pimple under my nose.

That said, humanity has been inventing music for at least as long if not longer, yet the absence of factions and groups until relatively recently has meant that the problem doesn't apply here...

Well, thankfully there are some things that make humanity not an entire failure...

Which means that you can believe in J S Bach as most of the rest of us do!

At least His writings are timeless, ever-new, inspiring, comforting, uplifing, strenghtening, etc etc etc...

Sadly, such arrogance of thought is by no means confined to religious people!...

Sadly true. The religious way of thinking is basically human, and not confined to specific religions. One need only hear the average politician speak for a few minutes to know the truth of your remark. Or the famous "man in the street" with an opinion about somtehing he hasn't got a clue about nor is interested to get one.

As a matter of interest, do you sense a parallel increase of anti-Islamic feeling amongst the Jewish community in the Netherlands?

Not to my knowledge. I'd think that an increase of simillar intensity would have shown, though...

was anti-semitism in 1930s/40s Gerrmany an inevitable and sole consequence of "secularisation"?

How about most of history? The Nazi hunt for Jews was the most recent huge hate wave, but do not forget what happened, for ex, in the whole of Europe during the periods of plague-epidemics. Which, also, is just an example. And I understand that people like the Klu Klux Klan are intensly religious.

all best,
gep

[cygnusdei]

Oh, it's twue. It's twue. It's twue, it's twue! 

[ongaku_oniko]

You've yet to give any evidence that the bible, or indeed any religion is based on a false assumption.

But neither can you say that if a kid tells you he got presents from Santa he is basing himself on a false asumption (i.e. the assumption that Santa is real and giving presents), for you cannot prove Sanat does not exist.

Your example fails to model religion. In fact, it models science more than it does religion; the kid sees evidence that he has received presents on december 25th, thus he incorrectly deduces that Santa gave him the presents.

There is nothing in your example that has anything to do with assumptions, let alone false ones.

Over the many millennia that humanity has been inventing religion (basically since the time of the cave paitings, but probably long before that), ther have been thousands of different belief systems, each of which has had its factions and groups, each of which evolved over time, and each of which has the only, the whole, the undisputable, the unquestionable and certainly the undoubtable Truth. Basic logical reasoning would indicate that the chances of any one of them being true while all the others are partly or wholly wrong is, let me put it mildly, to be considered at least tentativly doubtful.

Your "basic logical reasoning" fails on so many levels;

1. If god exists and wants some people to know the truth, then there will be one that is true. Whether the rest are false or not does not make this either less or more likely.

In other words, the fact that there are many religions does not mean that they're all false, as you seem to imply.

2. You're assuming that all religions are invented.

3. While the chances that any single religion being correct purely based on probability without knowing anything else is low, that doesn't mean anything.

For example, if there are 1,000,000 balls in a bucket numbered from 1 to 1,000,000, what are the chances that you'll pick ball number 1? Not very high. But that doesn't mean you won't pick up any ball, simply because the chances for any single ball are low. Understand? Besides, what if I told you that ball number 1 is bigger than the rest? What are the chances of getting it now?

Picking a religion isn't like a lottery ticket, you can have evidence that one is more likely than another. Athieism is just one of the many choices. If that's what you prefer, that's okay, but it doesn't make everything else false.

4. You fail to realize that believing that there is NO GOD takes faith as well; there is no evidence or proof that there is no god. Using your logic, the probability that athiests are correct is just as low.

I think that sentence is at least partly paradoxal.

If that's what you like to think. But again, believing that there is no god takes just as much faith as believing in a god.

Err, what?? I do not attack anyone! Rather, you own personality seems extremely fragile! Anyone should be free to believe whatever they wish to believe; I am totally for the freedom of religion. Fact is that most religious people are basically for the freedom of their religion, but less so (if not even opposed to) that same freedom for other's.

Again, you were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me. You can claim whatever you want, but it is a fact that you said religion is based on a false assumption (accusation without proof) and that it is self-delusional. What kinds of "vehement attacks" have religious people made worse than your comments?

I certainly believe in the scientific method, yes. Facts first, explanation later, based upon known facts. Doing so, I believe I may be wrong, or have incomplete knowledge. As opposed to quite a large fraction (at least) of religious people, who are always Right, and have all the Answers.

What are facts? How do you obtain facts first? Do you really think that is what the scientific method is about? Go search up Dr. Michio Kaku. Listen to some of his physics lectures. You'll realize that real scientists rarely use the scientific method, if ever. Believe in the scientific method? Don't make me laugh. Believing in the scientific method without knowing its limitations is just as bad as believing in religion.

Really?....

Yes, really. If you think otherwise, you either have a really bad case of selective memory or a really bad case of selective reading. Just look in this thread alone; how many people have ridiculed religion? How many religious people have ridiculed athiests?

So is Lord of the Rings. Your point being?

My point was that what ahinton said about the bible does not undermine its value.

Lord of the Rings is a good book too. I don't see your point.

It's sad to see that people mistaken athieism for science. They think that to be scientific is to not believe in god. It's just ridiculous.

[gep]

You've yet to give any evidence that the bible, or indeed any religion is based on a false assumption.

I would not like to say that everything in the Bible, or of any religion, is wrong, just that the basic assumption (the existence of a God) is flase. This based on the total and utter lack of even the slightest shred of evidence for the existence of a God.

In fact, it models science more than it does religion; the kid sees evidence that he has received presents on december 25th, thus he incorrectly deduces that Santa gave him the presents.

Sante: behave in a certain way according to given rules, and in the end Santa will decide if you get presents or not.
God: behave in a certain way according to given rules, and in the end Godwill decide if you get saved or not.

You're assuming that all religions are invented.

At least you get some things correctly understood...

For example, if there are 1,000,000 balls in a bucket numbered from 1 to 1,000,000, what are the chances that you'll pick ball number 1? Not very high. But that doesn't mean you won't pick up any ball, simply because the chances for any single ball are low. Understand? Besides, what if I told you that ball number 1 is bigger than the rest? What are the chances of getting it now?

But you can prove the existence of that ball no. 1 by searching through them until you find it. You cannot search through all religions until you find the true one. If I'm wrong there, I'd be happy to read your evidence for the truth of any one religion.

Picking a religion isn't like a lottery ticket, you can have evidence that one is more likely than another.

Please provide that evidence.

You fail to realize that believing that there is NO GOD takes faith as well

Of course it is a position of faith. And?

there is no evidence or proof that there is no god

And? You cannot prove that there is no Santa Claus either.

you were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", not me.

You are quite blind to your own writings it seems. I disagree with you, if that is a "vehement attack' to you, so be it. Apparently you were raised in North Korea...

Believing in the scientific method without knowing its limitations is just as bad as believing in religion.

I am quite aware of "knowing the limitations", it's one of the things I LIKE about science.

They think that to be scientific is to not believe in god.

Wrong on my part at least. Being scientific means asking for at least some indications that anything you state is true. There are no, I repeat no, indications whatsoever as far as I know that there exists a God. Hence I cannot do anything but reject the notion of a God.

If god exists and wants some people to know the truth,

Which would be so very easy indeed for God, yet he doesn't do so.

Mind your blood pressure!

all best,
gep

[ongaku_oniko]

Keep at it with the accusations without proof. It's very scientific of you.

So far not even one of your arguments have been backed by evidence.

EDIT:

You know what? Since there's no way to convince arrogantly stubborn people anything, I won't bother anymore.

But let's go back to my original statement, the reason why you started arguing with me:

I was trying to tell people to stop mocking and attacking religion/religious people especially if you're ignorant about what they believe in.

Since you believe in freedom of religion, surely you will agree with my statement? Then why are you even arguing with me?

[lostinidlewonder]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=20205.0
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=25974.0

etc etc

[Bob]

I would wave next time, or throw something at him to get his attention. I am sure his hearing has gotten even worse, if that's possible.

Oh I yelled pretty loud.  I shouted, "Hey!  Hey Ludwig!"  I think he was ignoring me.  I yelled several times too.

It may have actually been a Slim Jim.  That or beef jerky.  I couldn't tell.  I was able to salvage the stick from his corn dog though.  I plan on putting that up on Ebay soon.  It's got to be worth millions.

I just wonder why, with all the artwork and the scholarly research, that we were never told that Beethoven was actually a black man. 

[gep]

Since there's no way to convince arrogantly stubborn people anything,

Yes, you have made me quite aware of that...

I was trying to tell people to stop mocking and attacking religion/religious people especially if you're ignorant about what they believe in.

Indeed it is wise to try and understand other people's beliefs. I would recomend it to you.

However, there is also something called 'freedom of speech'. You may have heard of it.

So:

Since you believe in freedom of religion

I do. I fully belief that everybody should be free to have his own faith, and bring it to expression insofar it is applied to him/her. I do not belief that freedom of religion should go so far as to tell other people how they should live accoring to anyone else's faith (as in 'my religion tells me you should, as a woman, wear a head scarf'). I also do fully believe in freedom of speech. Which means that you are free to believe whatever you wish to believe, and everybody else is free to agree or disagree.

surely you will agree with my statement? Then why are you even arguing with me?

I am as free to argue with you as you are to argue with me. From what you write in this thread and others, it seems you feel that even the slightest indication of disagreement with you is to be considered a 'vehement attack'. You will need to do quite some mental growing to get rid of that stance, and if not I fear your life may get complicated and difficult. Something I would not like to happen. But really, you do need to learn than in the real world people may disagree with you, and do so quite harshly. And not all will display the kind of patience and good manners so far displayed to you...

all best,
gep

[thalbergmad]

Anyone else getting the deja vu vibe??

[ongaku_oniko]

What can I say?

I find it funny how gep continues with the plethora of ad hominem accusations without any bit of evidence whatsoever, other than his own delusional thinkings, when he accuses (again, without any evidence whatsoever) that others are delusional. LOL. I really feel sorry for you, gep.

Sure, you have the right to argue, it's not like I'm stopping you. But what are you arguing for? Just for the sake of telling everyone how stubbornly ignorant you are? How unaccepting of religion you are? How you feel superior to all religious people?

I always welcome opinions that differ from mine, however, they need to be substantiated with evidence and logic. If you just say "the Bible is not true", or "religions are based on a false assumption", I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.

It's not about not accepting different opinions, it's about showing how flawed these people who believe themselves to be so intelligent are.

PS:
GJ for putting your own words into quotes; that's not gonna fool anyone. You were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", own up to it. Do a quick ctrl + f search if you are intelligent enough to know how, and see who was the first to bring it up.

[ahinton]

What can I say?

Far too much, as evidenced by the remainder of your post which I will not waste valuable forum space by quoting here.

...(...yawn...)...

Best,

Alistair

[ongaku_oniko]

Far too much, as evidenced by the remainder of your post which I will not waste valuable forum space by quoting here.

...(...yawn...)...

Best,

Alistair

If you would not like to waste valuable forum space, please, stop posting.

[ahinton]

If you would not like to waste valuable forum space, please, stop posting.

...(...zzz...)...

Best,

Alistair

[Bob]

Yeah, my Santy post was only partial mock and then mostly just for fun.  I actually didn't mean everything I put in that as a tie to religion, but just got into "story telling" mode and went with it.  Some people do actually think of the Bible as a story and nothing more ... well, that's not what I am trying to say when I said I went into "story telling" mode and went with it.    Honestly. 

Okay, but seriously, I am actually not an atheist.  But, I have almost never found that individuals start a discussion on religion because they want to change anything about the way they believe, or are interested in what other people believe.  Generally, there is no interest in group consensus, but in personal conviction, and "discussions" really are more about expressing one's own thoughts and opinions and that's it.

*goes to pray*

I'll openly mock Santa.  He needs to lose weight too.


*Tomorrow morning Bob wakes up to find a large lump of coal at the foot the bed.*

[Bob]

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday


It's October 21st now. 


*Bob thinks that guy doesn't look like the Terminator at all.*

*Bob eyes his computer suspiciously and decides to think about adding more RAM.*

[Bob]

Anyone else getting the deja vu vibe??

Is is October 21st yet?  Oh no.  Not yet.  I have a good predication of what will happen.  Then he'll say March 21, 2011.

[Bob]

Wouldn't it be even more amusing if that guy was a math major?

[gep]

What can I say?

I find it funny how gep continues with the plethora of ad hominem accusations without any bit of evidence whatsoever, other than his own delusional thinkings, when he accuses (again, without any evidence whatsoever) that others are delusional. LOL. I really feel sorry for you, gep.

Sure, you have the right to argue, it's not like I'm stopping you. But what are you arguing for? Just for the sake of telling everyone how stubbornly ignorant you are? How unaccepting of religion you are? How you feel superior to all religious people?

I always welcome opinions that differ from mine, however, they need to be substantiated with evidence and logic. If you just say "the Bible is not true", or "religions are based on a false assumption", I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.

It's not about not accepting different opinions, it's about showing how flawed these people who believe themselves to be so intelligent are.

PS:
GJ for putting your own words into quotes; that's not gonna fool anyone. You were the one who brought up "vehement attacks", own up to it. Do a quick ctrl + f search if you are intelligent enough to know how, and see who was the first to bring it up.

You must be every diaper manifacturer's wet dream...

I'll think I'll stop reacting to you posts since it can't be healthy for you to have a hundred tamtrums a day. Perhaps once you're potty trained and have moved on beyond the emotional discrontrol of the spoiled two-year old we'll speak again. Mind you, the avarge life span for a Dutch male is presently just over 80, which means that if you wish to speak to me again there are only some several decades left for you to get to the level of primary school.

Now that is an ad hominem attack. Hope you survive...

all best,
gep

[ahinton]

Now that is an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem or ad infant...oh, never mind!

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

ad infant

Ad parvulum vexare, strictly speaking...

[ahinton]

Ad parvulum vexare, strictly speaking...

Indeed so; I cut short the word that I used as a means of cutting off the sentence for the purposes of conveying appropriate boredom with the subject...

I am now minded to quote a passage from years ago that was attributed by a minor English novelist to a disaffected public school boy and his despondency over learning Latin - and to add a further quatrain thereto:

Latin is a language
As dead as dead can be;
It killed the ancient Romans
And now it's killing me.

Though some good men from Nieuwaal
Could manage it quite well,
Provided that they knew all
The words and how to spell.

And then there's the motto of the smoker trying very hard to give up smoking:

Per ardua ad ashtray.

Reverting to the original topic (and not before time!), I note that no one has yet contrived to mend that judge.

Ah, well...

Best,

Alistair

[ongaku_oniko]

As long as the world remains in such a state where people obtain happiness by harming and hurting others as opposed to helping others, I doubt we're that far off from an "apocalyse". Except the few good people in the world probably won't be raptured.