This one actually IS for the Christians.

[Despanan]

That's right HP: Monsters are real. If you throw holy water on Kontan it burns his flesh.

[KontanKarite]

Despanan can only be killed with silver bullets.

[Despanan]

Way to tell everyone. Ass.

[KontanKarite]

Hey HP, get John Constantine on the case, quick sharp!

[Despanan]

It really is your only chance.

[KontanKarite]

Or we'll kill you. You know, cause you believe in an imaginary invisible man in the sky and all.

[Despanan]

I just love feeding Christians to lions...and then r@ping those lions right in the friggin' mouth.

[KontanKarite]

Oh Atheism, I'm getting so fucking hot right now. My dick is so hard. I want to just hate fuck a Christian without their consent right now!

[Corpsey]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Bring it. One Corpsey is already pining for the Fjords, I wouldn't mind seeing what Corpsey 2: Christian Boogaloo has to offer.

Corpsey One couldn't be bothered reasoning or explaining everything in detail as the effort was not worth an Internet conversation. Corpsey Two has plenty to offer, seeing as it is his major from memory.

[Despanan]

Moses wandered the desert for 40 years, Corpsey one gave up after ONE post.

[KontanKarite]

His major? You mean to say that because it's his major, it somehow gives Christianity legitimacy because some professors think the shit is true?

Hey, did you know that perfectly rational and reasonable people STILL avoids breaking mirrors, opening umbrellas inside buildings, and are still superstitious?

We can all agree that the Greek gods are just a silly joke, right? Norse gods aren't real and other gods aren't real. Exactly what makes Christianity so special and different? Its mythology is just as outlandish. So what's the deal here? What makes Christianity stand out from the other imaginary fairy tales?

[Despanan]

Well for one thing, Christians killed all the other fairytale fans and stole their holidays.

That counts for something, right?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Moses wandered the desert for 40 years, Corpsey one gave up after ONE post.

I keep trying to come up with something witty to say to this, but this post is just RUNNIN' SHIT.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Well for one thing, Christians killed all the other fairytales fans and stole their holidays.

That counts for something, right?

Ah yes. Might makes right. They were just better thugs. That totally makes Christianity legit.

[Despanan]

It's hard to argue when they break out the thumbscrews.

[HumanePain]

Just a friendly reminder where I got my "Orwellian" comment from:



"So why keep around these books, who's words and chapters encourage and bolster fanaticism, nationalism, and xenophobia? Why continue to attach belief to a contradictory jumble of texts written by pissed-off desert nomads? Why keep around books that demand their readers abandon their reason and blindly submit their lives to a grand authority figure?"

Look familiar? Next would be Mein Kampf, then Mother Jones, then the Huffington Post, then...you get the idea. Banishing books requires someone to be the one to choose what the rest of us can and can't read, when we should all be allowed to choose for ourselves.


That was the thrust of my jab. Love ya Des! :kiss on the cheek: ("Here he is! Yeah! (points) The guy I just kissed on the cheek! His...oh man...it was his BUTT cheek! Ptew!)

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Just a friendly reminder where I got my "Orwellian" comment from:



"So why keep around these books, who's words and chapters encourage and bolster fanaticism, nationalism, and xenophobia? Why continue to attach belief to a contradictory jumble of texts written by pissed-off desert nomads? Why keep around books that demand their readers abandon their reason and blindly submit their lives to a grand authority figure?"

Look familiar? Next would be Mein Kampf, then Mother Jones, then the Huffington Post, then...you get the idea. Banishing books requires someone to be the one to choose what the rest of us can and can't read, when we should all be allowed to choose for ourselves.


That was the thrust of my jab. Love ya Des! :kiss on the cheek: ("Here he is! Yeah! (points) The guy I just kissed on the cheek! His...oh man...it was his BUTT cheek! Ptew!)

That's a stupid argument and I'll tell you why. Despanan isn't LOOKING to use legislature to ban the bible and he's not imploring a nation of atheists to burn your favorite fairytale. Despanan is asking YOU why you would ever cleave to such a fucked up book. He's asking that since the book itself is demonstrably fucked, why anyone of the faith would use it to make social policies and laws.

We're just saying that Christianity should be about as important as being a Buddhist or a pagan. Orwellian... pffft. You're clearly mistaken and for the record, I'll let Despanan give you an e-spanking. I'm just trying to help you understand what you're talking yourself into before he hands you your ass later.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

... Despanan is asking YOU why you would ever cleave to such a fucked up book.

And I answered that question.

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

He's asking that since the book itself is demonstrably fucked, why anyone of the faith would use it to make social policies and laws.

As to not using it to make social policies and laws, I am behind you 100%, secular government is the fairest and most reasonable. But he was not saying "why use them to make laws?" what he said was "why keep them around?". That is when I defended keeping it around (along with other books, even those written by Hitler).

[KontanKarite]

You misread what he wrote. Bad choice of words on his part, but the point still stands.

[Corpsey]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Well for one thing, Christians killed all the other fairytale fans and stole their holidays.

That counts for something, right?

Correction, "Christians" stole the fairytales from other religions and then the other fairytale fans were forced to join the "Christians", then the rest were slaughtered, all in the name of love.

I don't follow that kind of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Despanan

Moses wandered the desert for 40 years, Corpsey one gave up after ONE post.

Don't cast your pearls before swine (a.k.a. Don't make the effort for ones who wouldn't care about the material provided).

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

And I answered that question.
As to not using it to make social policies and laws, I am behind you 100%, secular government is the fairest and most reasonable. But he was not saying "why use them to make laws?" what he said was "why keep them around?". That is when I defended keeping it around (along with other books, even those written by Hitler).

Please excuse my poor choice of words, however If you'd bothered to read just a little further in the exact same post:

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'm sure Zeus had some terrific teachings too, but we don't make burnt offerings to him anymore. We read his holy words as literature and laugh at silly stories. We need to do that with Christ and Muhammed, Yahweh and Allah.

Kinda hard to read banned literature, also:

Originally Posted by Despanan

I don't want to "vote the church away" so stop trying to stuff my argument with straw.

and

Originally Posted by Despanan

Honestly, I have no problem with Jesus (except when he did weird stuff like magically whither a fig tree because he wanted a snack but it didn't have any figs for him). I have a problem with people believing that he was divine, because all the evidence says he was not, and people base public policy on his divinity and not his philosophy.

AND:

Originally Posted by Despanan

Without divinity attached to them, Jesus's teachings can be approached rationally, and properly cherry-picked for worthy ideas.

I'm getting really sick of you people claiming I believe things I don't believe, and that I'm saying things I haven't said. I've told everyone multiple times that I don't want to ban religion or burn/suppress literature. How many more times do I have to say it before you catch on?

For that matter, why would you automatically assume that I wanted the bible/Christianity suppressed? Even ignoring my earlier posts, I've always come out on the side of free speech. I'm against banning Burkas and Minnarets. Why would I be for banning Christianity?

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Correction, "Christians" stole the fairytales from other religions and then the other fairytale fans were forced to join the "Christians", then the rest were slaughtered, all in the name of love.

I don't follow that kind of Christianity.

Yet those same "Christians" believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ, believed that the Bible was the Word of God, and like you, based their lives on it's teachings.

Face it, the common denominator in both of these cases is the belief in the veracity and divinity of those particular fairy-tales.

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Don't cast your pearls before swine (a.k.a. Don't make the effort for ones who wouldn't care about the material provided).

I take offense to that. I care deeply about the truth. That's one of the reasons I don't believe in God.

By all means if you have a logical, reasonable, and factually correct argument, I will give it due consideration, and if I find it to be adequate I will alter my position to account for this new data. Granted, I doubt you'll be able to find evidence to convince me of the presence of the divine, or the holiness of your scriptures (as both of these things are, by definition, unverifiable) but you may change my position on how internally inconsistant I find the bible to be.

Besides, telling me that: "[The Contradictions] exist because of misuse of the bible, poor translation and taking the scripture out of context. I could disprove most of these if necessary..." and then not doing it is intellectual cockteasing.

Comeon bro, don't give my brain blue-balls.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Don't cast your pearls before swine (a.k.a. Don't make the effort for ones who wouldn't care about the material provided).

This is a total bullshit argument and you know it. Thing is, you got nothing to say on the matter. If you had a point, you'd have no problem presenting it.

We're not assholes who will ignore your points, we're just dudes who will take your points, find holes in them if we can, and let you know about them.

But you're turning this into an affront on your faith, dismissing us as maniacal, unreasoning enemy atheists and walking away from a good debate. We're not being unreasonable here, you just can't reason your position at all.

[Despanan]

You know what, looking over this, I just noticed something. at one point I said:

Originally Posted by Despanan

You can have ALL of Jesus's teachings WITHOUT Jesus, and they will be better for it. They be better teachings because instead of being based on Divine Command they are based on honest reason, compassion, and social consensus. They will be good teachings because they are the socially responsible, human thing to do...not because his his dad is going to come along and kick your ass if you don't follow them.

You can have all that hippy-dippy-turn-the-other-cheek-brotherhood-kumbiah bullshit and you can throw out the barbaric, ludicrous stories because you don't need the divine mandate to back them up.

To which Saya responded:

Originally Posted by Saya

I'd argue that many people need philosophies as a guidance. If it comes from Jesus, Confucius or Plato, what do I care, as long as they are being good? How can I say its wrong, if it inspires them to be better people? I think I'd still be a good person if I wasn't a Buddhist, but I would not be the person I am now, and I'm not sure if I'd be as good as a person or nearly as open minded as I am. Its not a crutch, but the lives, wisdom and teachings of other Buddhists certainly inspire me, as do other people in other religions. But its a hard thing to explain because its so extremely personal, I can't describe what religious experience feels like. And I suspect that other practitioner would argue the same thing. You can study all you want about other religions, but a practitioner of that religion is going to have a far more intimate knowledge of what they follow than you ever can. You can point out inconsistencies in a text, but when faith isn't reliant on a book, is beyond words, you can't break that kind of faith. And if they're not bothering anyone, there's absolutely no point in trying to.

Notice anything? I basically said that the worthier philosophies found in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) were fine. It was the idea of Jesus being a deity, and his teachings being divine was the problem.

Saya responded with a straw-man that "People need philosophies" (I never argued against this, in fact I argued FOR it).

Then surprisingly enough, instead of a discussion on merits of said philosophy, she went off on a tangent about the "religious experience" the "inspiration" she draws from "the lives, wisdom, and teaching" and how a practitioner is going to have more "intimate knowledge" of their faith than an outsider can ever hope to, and they can never be persuaded otherwise regardless of the factual inconsistencies found in their texts (ie: their own philosophy) because "You can't break that kind of faith".

You guys following me? Saya seems more interested in defending the idea of a perfect, charismatic, inspirational teacher, than in defending logic and consistency of the teachings of said Charismatic.*

In a nutshell, she's not arguing that people need philosophies because they're good philosophies that will enrich their lives, she's saying that people NEED inspirational teachers. That we need our teachers, and texts to be super-human in order to appeal to us, emotionally and thus make us better people.

HP also touches on this idea here:

An alcoholic or drug addict really, really needs help, but may not have the money for expensive, non-religious rehabilitation. As mentioned before, because of their natural endowment or because of damage caused by their affliction, the easiest, quickest, most powerful counter agent to their addiction is to believe in a higher, divine power, since their own human frailty could not break the bonds of addiction.

Now, if they realized that they are going to try and break their own addiction through sheer will power, they are back where they started from, because their ego is battered into believing they have failed again and again to wield self control. A divine, universally powerful strength from outside however can help them break their bonds.

ie: an alcoholic needs a magic feather, in order to break his addiction. He needs the emotional reaction which results from the idea of supernatural power to break his addiction.

However, like Dumbo, Jesus doesn't really cure the Alcoholic of his craving. He just allows him to believe in himself. Most likely, there is no God, and therefore, most likely, all the people who AA helped to defeat their addiction did it on their own (regardless of what they may believe).

At it's core, the religious argument is an appeal to emotion. We see evidence of this every day, in the ritual and pageantry that goes on during a religious service. The experience, the euphoria, which results, is the same type which comes from seeing a really good play, or watching a totally awesome movie, or going to a badassed concert where everyone is "really feeling it". It is an exercise in communal thinking, and indeed it's power is awesome.

However, one cannot rely on emotions to dictate philosophical or judicial principals, specifically BECAUSE these emotional experiences rob us of our reason. Many people feel emotional revulsion when they see two men kissing, does that then make it right to forbid such an act from taking place?

Following a teachers example or creed because you are "inspired" by his charisma, to the point where you place that teacher far above yourself and the rest of humanity, is a dangerous proposal at best, because the emotion which results blinds you to whatever inconsistencies may be found in that particular philosophy.

All in all, Marx was right when he said religion is the opiate of the masses, and some of you people are dosing, HARD.

Stop it. I know it feels good, but it's dangerous.

*Interestingly enough, in normative Buddhist philosophy, practitioners are specifically warned against this mode of thinking.

[KontanKarite]

Despanan wins. Flawless victory.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Despanan wins. Flawless victory.

Do you base this on the reasonableness of my argument, or is it an emotional response to how fucking awesome I am?