If you are looking to get into a pissing match with a Christian, it is pretty god damned easy. In fact it can get tiresome after a while. The challenge isn't really there anymore. For this reason I like to spend more and more of my Internet time where the Christians are less and less likely to be. Any place with factual knowledge keeps their numbers pretty slim. About the only place I'll venture on to a message forum are sites like RichardDawkins.net which almost always have stimulating news and at least fairly smart people there talking about it. However, you can never fully shake the Christians...
So, I am commenting on a forum post and mention something about the intellectual compromises people must make to both recognize indisputable scientific fact yet still cling to their god myth of choice. Of course there is a Roman Catholic believer lurking and he throws me a light challenge. I throw the guy a bone and roll on. Not enough. He wants me to tell him specifically where he has made intellectual compromises. Fully knowing that this would soon escalate into an ad infin itum diatribe, I responded. Here is a reposting.
From "Mariner"
Russ
Can you give me some examples of the intellectual compromises I must have made? I appreciate you know nothing about me so it might be hard for you to pin it down, but seeing as you are sure I must have made some then I am hoping you can throw some zingers my way.
Regarding the Bible, I agree that left to their own devices some people might get confused. That's why Jesus founded a Church first. That Church existed for four hundred years before the canon of scripture was officially established and both before and since it holds the authority on teaching on faith and morals. It has been consistent in those teachings for 2000 years. Those parts of the Bible that are history, those that are ancient stories, those that are testimonies or poems or songs - they are well understood by the Catholic Church. The 3000 denominations (its actually more like 30,000 but maybe you missed a zero) are all pretty new, given that the first major split didn't happen for over a 1000 years. Every Christian who stands by a Bible alone position does so in a tradition that is little more than 150 years old.
And my religion is not the religion of my birth.
Regards
My Response
Alright man, I am not sure if you are just looking for a fight or mental stimulation, but here we go. I'll just stick to the one paragraph above because this has already been covered by much more learned folks than I and I am not going to go through your Bible line by line with you.
First, I find it incredibly entertaining that it's always the "other" sects, denominations, religions, guy next door, whatever, that didn't get the Christianity thing "right". It's the believer du jour (that's you, sir)that has always got it all figured out. Everyone else is misguided. If the toll to get through the Pearly Gates is your own personal and perfect understanding of his "word" and you have followed the narrowly defined and "proper" means of worship, and further abided by all of the official covenants, holidays, sacraments, confessions, eucharists, saint worship, Lent, said your Hail Mary's, never ate meat on Fridays, and dutifully turned your head while your priest did the alter boy, it's gonna be a god damned lonely place up there in the clouds.
YOU sir are the WINNER! You have won an all expenses paid trip to eternity! CONGRATULATIONS! But watch yourself, god doesn't have much to do since you were the only one smart enough to figure the whole deal out. And he sure as shit isn't wasting his time worrying about all of his clones "down here". He brought you in to his world and he can damn well kick your ass out!
Next...
So, Jesus founded the religion that was based on his own resurrection before he was ever crucified? Oh okay, right... no intellectual leaps there...
Next...
The canon of scripture. The very book you folks claim as "holy" is the result of compromise, condemnation and inclusion of various books of scripture recognized as being meaningful. It is the result of some of the longest fucking committee meetings in the history of our species! Your book is not the supreme manifestation of the Lord Thy God through the hands of mortal followers. It is a bureaucratic amalgamation of documents patched together in an attempt to keep as many followers happy as possible. What do you think Barnabus and Mary Magdalene would have to say about that?
And, "consistent for 2000 years"? What the fuck was the Council of Trent, eighteen years of circle jerking? BTW, that whole mess finally finished up in 1563. It is now 2010, did you find some kind of new "spiritual math" to get that 2000 year number?
Next...
As for your number of denominations, you are right! I tend to lump similar groups of you superstitious freaks into the same bunch. My bad. There are at least 33,000 of them. FYI, that does not help your stand much here... And don't go leaning on the age of your church with that smug little grin. The Jews have you all beat, by a long shot.
"Every Christian who stands by a Bible alone position does so in a tradition that is little more than 150 years old". Yeah yeah, I know, you already covered the you got it right thing.
You actually signed up for that religion? WOW!
I'll stop there man. I could shred you for hours but, I really am not a bad guy. I work hard, I have SIX little Atheist kids running around and no "god" to scare the shit out of them with.
It seems to me that it is YOU that has the questions no matter how much you profess your perfect worship of god. Why else would you be challenging very smart people on the RICHARD DAWKINS WEBSITE?
Do me a favor, follow this link: Google Link
There are 43,000 Videos on, about, by or against Richard Dawkins. Watch at least five of his lectures and then get back to me.
From "Mariner"
Russ,
Clearly the most likely options we have about the truth or non-truth of the various religious claims in the world are that either one of them is right or none of them. I stand by the Catholic Christian claim. Your incredulity at anyone choosing one faith over another rather than just believing them all is a little confusing. The interesting fact is that while many faiths and Christian denominations reject totally any other claim to God part from their own, declaring those outside it damned, the Catholic Church recognises the partial validity of all faiths (and indeed the good works of those who have none) and declares no-one damned, leaving the salvation of any individual to the mercy of God. We hope for our salvation and hope to receive the gift of it through recognising God, recognising Jesus Christ and his sacrifice and by entering into the sacramental life. We demonstrate our faith by our example. Observances, feast days and appropriate worship are all helps to keep our faith but have little bearing on salvation by themselves. The last item on your salvation criteria is a cheap shot, although consistent with the way I find many on this site try to gain points.
Jesus founded the religion that was based on his own resurrection before he was ever crucified because He was God and knew. If you've accepted God, then no intellectual leap is required at all.
The canon of scripture is comprised of the Old Testament (the recognised Jewish scriptures of the time - the scripture that is referred to by Christ) along with the writings of the early apostles and their followers - the New Testament. We could get into a big argument about who wrote what and when, but if God had a plan to reveal truth to the world then it is not a big leap to consider the idea that some of the writings at the time would have been divinely inspired. Nor, given the gift of freewill, should it be surprising that they had to be sifted out from other accounts and letters that were not accurate. Of course I am not saying that someone interested in looking at how that process happened should just accept that it did because God was involved, as the facts about the likely authenticity of of the accepted Gospels and the lack of authenticity of those rejected are compelling by themselves. That there were committees and disagreements should not be automatically categorised as cynical or manipulative, it can equally be argued that this makes the decision more authentic, because considerations were properly weighed up. And so they should have been, given how important the issue was.
The Council of Trent was not the Council that defined all teaching. Not sure what you mean there? It clarified certain things, expanded on others - as many of the Councils have done - but the essential truths of faith and morals stood before it and stand now. Agreed some teachings are older than others, as theology is complex and modern life brings new moral dilemmas and certain things are not understood straight away - many things are not understood now - so the unpacking of revelation will continue. The point is that they are consistent. There is no teaching on faith or morals that has been reversed. Consistent doesn't mean exactly the same, it just means in one direction, building truth upon truth, consistent.
Te fact that there are 33,000 Christian denominations creates a problem with perception for those looking from outside, but if the Catholic Church is right about what it teaches then those multiple splits, in truth, only prove that freewill is alive and kicking. And the Catholic faith is inextricably linked to the Jewish faith (whether Jews accept that or not) so the claim by Catholics is actually a consistent relationship with God that goes back 3,500 years.
Not sure why you feel you have to 'shred me', as jibes and sarcasm don't really strengthen your argument. Just give me some examples of the intellectual leaps I must have made and we can take it from there.
My Response
No, it is not like the possibility of a supreme being is option one, two, three or none, all having equal weight. It is absolutely certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt that pretend, fantasy, superstition and myth are just that. Your version of god is no more likely to be true than The Mighty Thor. It is ridiculous, silly, and juvenile to place a myth, ANY myth on par with reality. Period. I am not "incredulous" that someone would choose one fantasy over another, I am "incredulous" when those that have chosen fantasy assume they have a rightful place next to fact.
Sir, a full TEN PERCENT of your clergy are pedophiles. Hardly a cheap shot, it is reality. Your "religion" was seen as the manifestation of god through these mortal men. They used this unusual power to rape children and destroy innocence. Cheap shot my ass.
"Jesus founded the religion that was based on his own resurrection before he was ever crucified because He was God and knew. If you've accepted God, then no intellectual leap is required at all." If you can actual make such a statement, you are delusional indeed.
If there were a god wouldn't she have simply written scripture in such a way as it did not need multiple councils consisting of years upon years of debate that ended in a rubber stamping of what they had laying around?
It is impossible to build truth upon myth. No matter how long you work at it.
We deal in reason and fact. It is not up to the us to prove your myth wrong. It is your myth, you want to convince somebody that your fantasy is in fact reality, then the burden is upon you.
I have played nice with the myth believers for over 30 years. I am tired of accepting the self righteousness of people like you with a smile and rolling on through life. For myself, a change has come. The religious indoctrination by you and those like you is destroying our world. You are a threat to humanity.
At first, I assumed that you were just a guy on the edge. You needed a little push to see reason. I mean, why else would somebody pass hours away on a forum of the Richard Dawkins website? I see that is not the case. You should be ashamed.
From "Mariner"
Russ, your first line was about how religious people are always saying that people who don't subscribe to their faith are wrong. What do you expect them to say? That was the only point I was making.
The abuse reference is still a cheap shot because it had nothing to do with the discussion and to suggest that a Catholics who takes his faith seriously would be expected by the Church to turn a blind eye to a crime is fairly offensive and quite inaccurate. Aside from that, the number of priests worldwide accused of sexual abuse over a fifty year period is somewhere between 2.5% and 5%. the amount guilty can only be lower. These figures are comparable with any other institution in the world with access to children where statistics are available, such as schools, children's homes, other religious groups. Statistics for today show that the figure has dropped well below the average. In America the latest figures show less than 0.5% of priests accused of abuse in 2006. None of this excuses what happened but you need to get your facts right if you can.
Regarding intellectual leaps - you obviously think that to believe in God requires an intellectual compromise that makes anyone who does so not worthy of engaging respectfully with. You then use that as the basis to undermine any subsequent logic derived from that initial concept. A question to try and get under that would be, why, in a universe that at the very least has the appearance of having been created, is the existence of a Creator less likely than the conclusion that the universe formed itself?
Regarding the formation of the Bible, your proposition brings up a fair question, but also why can't God have established a church through real people, using their intellect and artistry and real memories to write the gospels and then use their intellect and wisdom and relationship with Him to discern whether further writings were also genuine accounts? Just because it didn't happen the way that you suggest it should, doesn;t mean that it didn;t happen another way. The reason you are not interested in that possibility is because you are not interested in seeing if there is any logical chain that can be followed IF the initial premise that there is a God is accepted (even temporarily for the purpose of investigation). You hold the idea of a God in contempt and so do not explore the possibilities that might follow otherwise.
Why should I be ashamed of attempting to engage in discussions with people who are supposed to be intelligent and place their views on a discussion board? I understand your disappointment that you did not topple me with your first salvo, but now what? I have not personally insulted you (as you have me), I have been on these forums for a while and it is striking how much rhetoric and even vitriol comes attached to the responses. Whatever 'gloves-off' approach is sanctioned by the New Atheists, open disrespect does not help your arguments and win you converts. If you've had 30 years of bad experience of religious people then that's a shame, but if they disrespect you for your atheism then tell them so and challenge them to behave more appropriately. If you are fed up because not everyone agrees with you then get over it. Move on politely, don't take it out on me. Apart from a few of my opinions, you don't know anything about me.
My Response
Mariner, you certainly have insulted me and all non-theist. I have even pointed out exact phrases that are offensive and you have chosen to ignore them. Funny how you folks always cry foul when like is returned with like. Here is a quote from your "good book":
"Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?" (Mathew 7, I think)
If YOU choose to take offense when someone decides not to play along with a fantasy tale, that is your problem, not mine. As I have stated in other posts, your chosen fantasy has no more value than any other. You have no facts at all, you only have belief. My point is that when attempting to engage people who choose to only deal with logic, reason and fact, on their turf, you cannot get offended if they choose to not partake in your suspension of reality.
There are BILLIONS of people on this earth whom will gladly share in your hypothetical arguments with you (see above response including your mega kudos). I am not one of them, unless you happen to be a child questioning the existence of the Tooth Fairy. If you are an adult, I'll be polite, to start, when I dismiss your fantasy. However when you start making offensive statements like (paraphrasing because I am too tired to research and quote directly) "Athiest's life has no meaning", or "Athiests are inherently immoral", you are going to get the stick instead of the carrot.
Your figures on the rampant pedophilia within the Roman Catholic clergy ranks is simply wrong. Further, the assumption that "if X number of priests are publicly accused, then certainly the number of guilty are less" is preposterous, repugnant, and again, ENTIRELY OFFENSIVE in any possible way you look at it. Because of your Clergy's unprecedented (for most human beings) stature in your communities as the human embodiment of god on earth (particularly for children), we are finding that the actual public reports of such criminal behavior are grossly out of alignment and a tiny fragment of the actual numbers of child rape that has happened, and is indeed happening. Your shrugging off of this rampant criminal indecency as a sad statistical anomaly that happens in all human interaction is sickening. Part and parcel as to why it has reach the level it has. YOU, and people like you, are a huge part of this problem.
As for you not being happy with me not taking your god myth seriously, all you have to do is develop a hypothesis, back it with verifiable fact, and submit your theory to me for peer review. I will point out in advance that if you begin this hypothesis with something like "in a universe that at the very least has the appearance of having been created, is the existence of a Creator less likely than...". Nope, sorry, that is not the way it works. You cannot just make up a statement, or regurgitate a myth tale and then use that as the basis for a hypothesis. You must begin with factual truth or at least an assumable truth that can be validated with inquiry. You are not even in the ball park yet. Hell, you are playing tiddly-winks and using it to develop a Chess strategy.
Again, this is the wrong place to do such and expect your desired participation or be offended when it does not come.
You see sir, it wasn't 30 years of bad experiences, it was 30 years of your kind of self righteousness, assumption, discrimination, and verbal offense. It is so ingrained in you people that you don't even realize you are doing it when you are doing it. My youthful assumption that clarity, charity, empathy and understanding would be returned in kind was WRONG. It just took me a while to figure that out.
From "Mariner"
Russ,
So your argument is that God is a myth - fact, no discussion permitted - and therefore anything anyone who believes in God might say to provoke a discussion about why they think belief in God is a reasonable stance, is essentially worthless? And because they believe in this fairytale they do not even deserve to have someone calmy and politely point out their errors, but only deserve 'I can't believe you just said that' type of responses and frequent use of words like delusional, dangerous and self-righteous. A yes or no will do. If no then perhaps some illustration of where the wriggle room for someone like me is. If your answer is going to be another explosion then save your blood pressure and just let it go. I'll find someone else.
Second, re the abuse cases, I should have included the phrase 'found guilty' rather than just 'guilty'. My statement does make perfect sense then as you cannot have more people convicted than you have accused. Whether there are more cases beyond what is known well I am sure there are some, but we don't know for sure. We certainly don't know how many and for the current US figure of accused priests at less than 0.5% to jump to your figure of 10% (especially when we have such a climate where victims probably feel more able to talk about things than ever before - as well as lawyers eager for their fees) would seem a highly unlikely situation. Where did you get that 10% from anyway? But don't make the mistake of thinking my clarification means I'm making excuses for anyone, that itself is an assumption that you cannot verify. It's like saying that people who disagreed with the Iraq war aren't supporting the troops. Its a misdirection, conflating one intention with another. You made great claim on facts and I am just trying my best to stick to what I either know to be true or believe to be true.
Last, you should have researched back on what I was saying on the other thread because I certainly did not say that atheists lives were meaningless or that they were inherently immoral. I understand this is the statement many atheists 'hear' when someone like me makes the proposition that I did, but its not what I said at all.
My Response
Mariner,
You are just trolling here. I should not have engaged you from the start.
As for the child rape you seem to be defending, there are many sources available. I have not written an in depth article, yet. You may start with the work done by John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Their report was commissioned by the Catholic Church, and then dismissed as biased by the Catholic Church when they didn't like the findings. Of the 10,667 cases that that they could absolutely verify were brought to the Church's attention only 1,021 instances were actually reported to the police. Just one example of the tiny fragment that actually makes it to the accused side of your argument you are basing your scewed numbers on.
My "blood pressure" is fine. I can sleep well at night. The mental "hop scotch" you are required to go through to do the same is sickening.
And yes, it seems you are finally starting to get it. If you are going to place any myth next to fact it will be treated the same. Your zombie worship holds no more weight than the existence of the "boogy man", Santa Clause, Ra, Thor, Zeus, Atlas, Aesir, Apollo, Flidais, Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone, Pele, Dilga, Yhi, The Great Pumpkin, The Tooth Fairy, The Abominable Snowman, or the second, third or fourth assassins of Kennedy.
Sorry, no free logic pass for you.
Share This!
