# arrogant atheists



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2014)

So I'm listening to Sam Harris in _Beyond Belief_ and I swear he's saying that deists are stupid yet he mentions that a lot of the 911 hijackers were educated.

Is that what "we" sound like?


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 14, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> So I'm listening to Sam Harris in _Beyond Belief_ and I swear he's saying that deists are stupid yet he mentions that a lot of the 911 hijackers were educated.
> 
> Is that what "we" sound like?


I have listened to him few times. Never found much substance in between his emotional pipe bombs.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 14, 2014)

I'd have to hear what you are referring to.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 14, 2014)

This also reminds me of something Hitchens once said in a debate. 

"Religion forces nice people to do unkind things, and also makes intelligent people say stupid things."

Does that seem arrogant? I would be more concerned with whether or not the statement is true.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> This also reminds me of something Hitchens once said in a debate.
> 
> "Religion forces nice people to do unkind things, and also makes intelligent people say stupid things."
> 
> Does that seem arrogant? I would be more concerned with whether or not the statement is true.




When my daughter says something wrong, stupid as it may be, I just tell her that it's wrong.  Is that condescending?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 14, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> When my daughter says something wrong, stupid as it may be, I just tell her that it's wrong.  Is that condescending?



I wouldn't think so. I'm also pretty sure Hitchens and Harris aren't talking about kids or the mentally handicapped who lack the mental capacity to know any better.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 14, 2014)

I don't think so, quite the opposite in fact. I see you guys as critical thinkers.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 14, 2014)

Is diest and diesm the same? I was surprised at this. Not what I was expecting

Deism (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/, derived from the Latin word deus meaning "god") combines a rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority with the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.[3][4][5][6][7] Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment – especially in Britain, France, Germany and the United States – who, raised as Christians, believed in one god but became disenchanted with organized religion and notions such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and the supernatural interpretation of events such as miracles.[8] Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions.[9]


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I wouldn't think so. I'm also pretty sure Hitchens and Harris aren't talking about kids or the mentally handicapped who lack the mental capacity to know any better.




They use stupid alot.  I think it's unnecessary.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 14, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> They use stupid alot.  I think it's unnecessary.



Well I just gave you two different instances of atheists, one of them very prominent, referring to theists as intelligent. It is the beliefs and the things theists say that are called stupid. Have you looked up the definition of stupid? What adjective would you use?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Well I just gave you two different instances of atheists, one of them very prominent, referring to theists as intelligent. It is the beliefs and the things theists say that are called stupid. Have you looked up the definition of stupid? What adjective would you use?


I wouldn't use stupid -


> adj. adjective
> 1.Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
> 2.Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
> 3.Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless.


I just don't see where that definition would apply to -


> It is the beliefs and the things theists say that are called stupid.


All 3 of those apply to the physical person and/or their actions, not as to the accuracy/logic etc of their words or beliefs.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

Some are.  Not the few I know from here.  But, It's generally the approach.  Bill Maher is a good example.  There is one occasional poster on here who comes across as such (not in this thread, yet).

It's the idea that "we have it figured out, and you can't think for yourself."  That alone is kind-a arrogant.

I also think some of it is a reaction to the condescension of believers.  I got a lot more to say on that matter as well, but, it seems that folks who don't believe in he11 get very upset when somebody thinks they are going there........and folks who believe in he11 come across as a "judge" who wants to send oppsing beliefs that direction.


----------



## Israel (Dec 15, 2014)

I started to peruse a writing of his given me by one of my beloved atheist friends at work. It was on, or in some sort of reference to ethics.
Unabashedly he proclaims how his study of ethics had made him a "better man".
I will search out the quote later, if I can find it.
My obvious question to him would be "without an external, or pre-existent standard (in whatever sense that would care to be viewed) available to measure such, how could one declare in any certainty (except pernicious vanity) which way they were moving?"
But, I suppose he enjoys his "rah rah" section as much as the next man, unlike his more nobly behaved, and honest eponymous colleague, Christopher Hitchens.
As to intelligence and faith it neither helps nor hinders. Unless one is allowed to make it of such.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> It is the beliefs and the things theists say that are called stupid.



You have to assume a superior position in order to make such a judgement.  

I am guessing you admit you don't have it figured out (origins/God/etc, I assume you are agnostic, if you are an atheist, you have zero ground to stand on here because your conclusion is no more substantiated than that of a deist).  You have to assume that is the only possible conclusion to declare another postition stupid, and even then, you have to assume such a position is arrived at through a lack of ability or effort on the opposing position's part.



I just think we don't think alike.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

Oh......and, the SouthPark episode "Go, God, Go part II" kind-a addresses Hitchens arrogance, and takes some very good shots at it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Some are.  Not the few I know from here.  But, It's generally the approach.  Bill Maher is a good example.  There is one occasional poster on here who comes across as such (not in this thread, yet).
> 
> It's the idea that "we have it figured out, and you can't think for yourself."  That alone is kind-a arrogant.
> 
> I also think some of it is a reaction to the condescension of believers.  I got a lot more to say on that matter as well, but, it seems that folks who don't believe in he11 get very upset when somebody thinks they are going there........and folks who believe in he11 come across as a "judge" who wants to send oppsing beliefs that direction.





> Some are.


There's no question about that. Sometimes in discussion/debates I just want to crawl under a rock and hide at some of the things A/As say for fear that I will be viewed as having the same mind set.
But one thing is true that arrogance is a human thing not a believer or nonbeliever thing.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> But one thing is true that arrogance is a human thing not a believer or nonbeliever thing.



Agreed.  And, as far as wanting to crawl under a rock, I get that too.  It definitely goes in all directions, and is not limited to religion.

For instance, Ohio State fans are the most arrogant college football fans in the country, with USC fans running a close 2nd.  Alabama fans are the best, Roll Tide!


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I wouldn't use stupid -
> 
> I just don't see where that definition would apply to -
> 
> All 3 of those apply to the physical person and/or their actions, not as to the accuracy/logic etc of their words or beliefs.



We could start going down the list of pretty absurd things that theists say, do, and believe. Things that they should really know better. Superstitions in general are pretty stupid (and sometimes dangerous) even if there is no deity involved. Maybe it just goes with the territory.

If flying a plan into a skyscraper because you think you're acting on behalf of an invisible being that is going to reward you in another life or burying a child alive so your building doesn't fall down isn't considered stupid then what on earth would be?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

Broad sweeping generalizations do not prove the point.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> I started to peruse a writing of his given me by one of my beloved atheist friends at work. It was on, or in some sort of reference to ethics.
> Unabashedly he proclaims how his study of ethics had made him a "better man".
> I will search out the quote later, if I can find it.
> My obvious question to him would be "without an external, or pre-existent standard (in whatever sense that would care to be viewed) available to measure such, how could one declare in any certainty (except pernicious vanity) which way they were moving?".



I've asked this same question (I don't think here...). Those of no particular faith seem to be hesitant to answer: those that do only muse the idea with expansive amounts of rhetorical nonsense that, at it's base, says, "Well, nowhere." I'm not classifying all folks, just the ones I've met.



Israel said:


> But, I suppose he enjoys his "rah rah" section as much as the next man, unlike his more nobly behaved, and honest eponymous colleague, Christopher Hitchens.
> As to intelligence and faith it neither helps nor hinders. Unless one is allowed to make it of such.



I agree to that last one, wholeheartedly.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

> ar·ro·gance
> noun \Ëˆer-É™-gÉ™n(t)s, Ëˆa-rÉ™-\
> 
> : an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people
> ...





> pre·sump·tu·ous
> adjective \pri-ËˆzÉ™m(p)-chÉ™-wÉ™s, -chÉ™s, -shÉ™s\
> 
> : too confident especially in a way that is rude : done or made without permission, right, or good reason
> ...



Seems to be more than enough going around that earns many the title of arrogant and presumptuous. 

But that's just my take on it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> If flying a plan into a skyscraper because you think you're acting on behalf of an invisible being that is going to reward you in another life or burying a child alive so your building doesn't fall down isn't considered stupid then what on earth would be?


I nominate post #18.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 15, 2014)

Sam Harris was great in Meet the Fockers.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I've asked this same question (I don't think here...). Those of no particular faith seem to be hesitant to answer: those that do only muse the idea with expansive amounts of rhetorical nonsense that, at it's base, says, "Well, nowhere." I'm not classifying all folks, just the ones I've met.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I've asked this same question


I'll give it a shot -
You gave two choices - external and pre-existent. 
Wouldn't the fact be that there are dual/multiple standards of ethics?
Societal standards and individual standards? 
Some of which can and have changed?
Some of which depending on what society you live in are not the same?
Some of which may be considered ethical by society but not considered ethical by individuals? And vice versa?
As for those with faith is it not exactly the same way?
Got any slaves? Why not? Only because its illegal?
Was it "ethical" for women to wear pant suits to church not so many years ago? How about now?
"Ethics" has always been and will continue to be a moving target as societies and individuals change and differ.


> Unabashedly he proclaims how his study of ethics had made him a "better man".


He MAY have been talking about that through his studies he came to understand the above and that "ethics" differ in people, cultures, places and times so as not to judge others according to "his" ethics.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> We could start going down the list of pretty absurd things that theists say, do, and believe. Things that they should really know better. Superstitions in general are pretty stupid (and sometimes dangerous) even if there is no deity involved. Maybe it just goes with the territory.
> 
> If flying a plan into a skyscraper because you think you're acting on behalf of an invisible being that is going to reward you in another life or burying a child alive so your building doesn't fall down isn't considered stupid then what on earth would be?



Yeah.  Those things are pretty stupid. If a little kid talks about a talking donkey people might just say "Oh, how cute" but if a grown up talks about a talking donkey in the Bible it's as if his belief demands respect for no reason.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  Those things are pretty stupid. If a little kid talks about a talking donkey people might just say "Oh, how cute" but if a grown up talks about a talking donkey in the Bible it's as if his belief demands respect for no reason.



His belief does deserve respect, no different than your beliefs deserve respect. 

Respect does not equal the ability to push others to abide them in their own lives, though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> We could start going down the list of pretty absurd things that theists say, do, and believe. Things that they should really know better. Superstitions in general are pretty stupid (and sometimes dangerous) even if there is no deity involved. Maybe it just goes with the territory.
> 
> If flying a plan into a skyscraper because you think you're acting on behalf of an invisible being that is going to reward you in another life or burying a child alive so your building doesn't fall down isn't considered stupid then what on earth would be?


Lets go back to the definition of stupid and apply it to flying a plane into a skyscraper -


> adj. adjective
> 1.Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
> 2.Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
> 3.Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless.


1. Was the pilot a slow learner? Couldn't tell ya.
2. Careless mistake? Seemed to be pretty much on purpose. Was it a poor decision? Depends on who you ask. It certainly made a statement. Its resulted in many American deaths. Causing the US to go broke. Etc....
3.Lack of intelligence? Sure fooled us. Foolish? Careless? See #2.
Notice the definition of stupid DOESN'T include WHY an action was done. 
I know Im being technical or nit picky but if we are going to tell a Christian to go look up the definition of faith then definitions should apply to us too.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  Those things are pretty stupid. If a little kid talks about a talking donkey people might just say "Oh, how cute" but if a grown up talks about a talking donkey in the Bible it's as if his belief demands respect for no reason.



No idea or belief should be off limits to questioning, or being challenged or even ridiculed. Some beliefs really are stupid and evil and we shouldn't shy away from saying so.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets go back to the definition of stupid and apply it to flying a plane into a skyscraper -
> 
> 1. Was the pilot a slow learner? Couldn't tell ya.
> 2. Careless mistake? Seemed to be pretty much on purpose. Was it a poor decision? Depends on who you ask. It certainly made a statement. Its resulted in many American deaths. Causing the US to go broke. Etc....
> ...



a :  slow of mind :  obtuse
b :  given to unintelligent decisions or acts :  acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c :  lacking intelligence or reason :  brutish
2
:  dulled in feeling or sensation :  torpid <still stupid from the sedative>
3
:  marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting :  senseless <a stupid decision>
4
a :  lacking interest or point <a stupid event>


I'll go out on a limb and say that flying a jet into a skyscraper so that you can get a reward in an afterlife for which there is no evidence provided by a god for which there is no evidence is stupid. Doing it in order to kill as many people and spread as much suffering as you can is evil.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> His belief does deserve respect, no different than your beliefs deserve respect.
> 
> Respect does not equal the ability to push others to abide them in their own lives, though.



His belief deserves respect? On what grounds?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

Making a moral equivalncy between flying a plane into a building and "love thy neighbor" is also on the obtuse side.  

Let's face it, all sorts of beliefs have all sorts of implications for those who do not share those beliefs.  I would think the stupidity of it all should also be measured against the net impact on humanity.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

Honsetly, comparing believing in talking donkeys to mass murder is also a bit ridiculous.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Making a moral equivalncy between flying a plane into a building and "love thy neighbor" is also on the obtuse side.



I'm quite sure I didn't make any such moral equivalency. In fact I don't recall making any mention of "love thy neighbor" at any time in this thread. What is your basis for this statement?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

Christians are often accused of seeing the world in black and white.

Questioning and challenging beliefs is good and healthy, and I welcome it.  It stregnthens my faith, or it helps me learn where I may be missing something.  I am always open to seeing my blind spots.

I have difficutly comprehending the logic that puts a little old lady sitting in church giving money to the poor in the same bucket as zealots who kill people.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I'm quite sure I didn't make any such moral equivalency. In fact I don't recall making any mention of "love thy neighbor" at any time in this thread. What is your basis for this statement?



Post 18 generalizes all belifs together with the first paragraph, and the 2nd paragraph introduces extremes.  Those in paragraph 1 become "guilty by association."

Love thy neighbor is in paragraph 1.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> His belief deserves respect? On what grounds?



The same that you would demand respect for yours under. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, or that it should change your beliefs; merely that he has the same right that you do to yours. 

I do draw a line, which I referenced in that post, and that exists the moment you try to convert or impose others to your beliefs. 

That's why I hate blue laws. They're a forced subscription to uniquely Christian ideas, with reference to a specific day on a calendar, where not everyone is of that belief structure. It would be no different than Catholics trying to pass a law that only fish may be served on Fridays, or Jews saying that all meat had to be kosher, or Muslims saying that no one is allowed to eat or drink in public during Ramadan. 

I'm fine with those groups having those beliefs and rites unto themselves, but we have major issues when they try to make ME abide their beliefs. 

Again, respect does not equal adoption. 

You can hold his beliefs to be stupid, or silly, or whathaveyou, in your own mind, but you are no better than he for ridiculing him for his beliefs in support of your own.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

I should clarify that I think flying a plane into a skyscraper is stupid too.....so we have some common ground there.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> a :  slow of mind :  obtuse
> b :  given to unintelligent decisions or acts :  acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
> c :  lacking intelligence or reason :  brutish
> 2
> ...


I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I look at it like -


> b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
> c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish


They didn't carelessly fall into the pilots seat and accidently run into a tall building.
It required preparation, planning, deceit, coordination, training etc etc. That's the opposite of stupid or unintelligent.
I would venture to say getting a reward in heaven wasn't the reason they did it. It was merely an added bonus in their mind. While we may be the infidel I don't think it was a coincidence they picked THIS infidel.
I am in no way defending what they did, I just don't think "stupid" is the reason for it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I look at it like -
> 
> They didn't carelessly fall into the pilots seat and accidently run into a tall building.
> It required preparation, planning, deceit, coordination, training etc etc. That's the opposite of stupid or unintelligent.
> ...



That was the point Sam Harris was making when he brought up that many of the hijackers were college educated, some with secondary degrees. Smart, intelligent people can do some stupid things for stupid reasons.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The same that you would demand respect for yours under. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, or that it should change your beliefs; merely that he has the same right that you do to yours.
> 
> I do draw a line, which I referenced in that post, and that exists the moment you try to convert or impose others to your beliefs.
> 
> ...



I would agree with you that he has a right to believe whatever he wants to believe. It is his mind after all. But saying someone has a right to hold a belief is quite different from the claim that the belief itself is deserving of respect. I wonder, do you consider all beliefs to be equally deserving of respect?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Christians are often accused of seeing the world in black and white.
> 
> Questioning and challenging beliefs is good and healthy, and I welcome it.  It stregnthens my faith, or it helps me learn where I may be missing something.  I am always open to seeing my blind spots.
> 
> I have difficutly comprehending the logic that puts a little old lady sitting in church giving money to the poor in the same bucket as zealots who kill people.



There's probably some little old ladies in Westboro.  I'm sure some of that money goes to poster board and paint for horrible picket signs.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Post 18 generalizes all belifs together with the first paragraph, and the 2nd paragraph introduces extremes.  Those in paragraph 1 become "guilty by association."
> 
> Love thy neighbor is in paragraph 1.





atlashunter said:


> We could start going down the list of pretty absurd things that theists say, do, and believe. Things that they should really know better. Superstitions in general are pretty stupid (and sometimes dangerous) even if there is no deity involved. Maybe it just goes with the territory.
> 
> If flying a plan into a skyscraper because you think you're acting on behalf of an invisible being that is going to reward you in another life or burying a child alive so your building doesn't fall down isn't considered stupid then what on earth would be?



Not only did post 18 not say anything about "love thy neighbor" none of it had anything to do with "love thy neighbor". How did you come to interject that into what I said? I'm really not seeing where you got this or why you would think I would equivocate loving your neighbor with killing people. That doesn't make any sense. Maybe you misspoke?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I should clarify that I think flying a plane into a skyscraper is stupid too.....so we have some common ground there.


A military strategist would say 19 casualties to inflict over 3000 deaths was far from "stupid".
Would you consider dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "stupid" or justified by the reasons WE had?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Not only did post 18 not say anything about "love thy neighbor" none of it had anything to do with "love thy neighbor". How did you come to interject that into what I said? I'm really not seeing where you got this or why you would think I would equivocate loving your neighbor with killing people. That doesn't make any sense. Maybe you misspoke?



REad your first paragraph...."any supersitition" with or without deity.  The general idea is the belief falls into such category.  

Unless you are saying you do not qualify belief as superstition.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That was the point Sam Harris was making when he brought up that many of the hijackers were college educated, some with secondary degrees. Smart, intelligent people can do some stupid things for stupid reasons.



Exactly. It was an example of what an otherwise intelligent brain is capable of when hopped up on religion. They had subjugated the reasoning capacity of their minds to superstitions. Without their religious beliefs they wouldn't have done what they did. The choice to accept on faith what they would otherwise have no reason to believe is ultimately what cost their lives and the lives of many others.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> A military strategist would say 19 casualties to inflict over 3000 deaths was far from "stupid".
> Would you consider dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "stupid" or justified by the reasons WE had?



Ultimately, killing over ideology (as in WWII) is as irrational as killing for god.  Is that the same as stupid?  Maybe.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Exactly. It was an example of what an otherwise intelligent brain is capable of when hopped up on religion. They had subjugated the reasoning capacity of their minds to superstitions. Without their religious beliefs they wouldn't have done what they did. The choice to accept on faith what they would otherwise have no reason to believe is ultimately what cost their lives and the lives of many others.



Just don't do it.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> There's probably some little old ladies in Westboro.  I'm sure some of that money goes to poster board and paint for horrible picket signs.



Not knowing or following where the money goes is not relevant to one's belief system.   

Westboro is not a good sample of the body of believers, in fact, they are a very small %.  I do not think that is an applicable example.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That was the point Sam Harris was making when he brought up that many of the hijackers were college educated, some with secondary degrees. Smart, intelligent people can do some stupid things for stupid reasons.


Of course that's just a judgment of what one would consider a stupid thing or a stupid reason.
Sitting up in a tree all day waiting for a deer to walk by seems awfully stupid to some.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Not knowing or following where the money goes is not relevant to one's belief system.
> 
> Westboro is not a good sample of the body of believers, in fact, they are a very small %.  I do not think that is an applicable example.




They may know exactly where the money is going and approve.  Little old ladies aren't always sweetie pies.

The point is that without belief based in faith, there's no opportunity to turn that belief into something ugly.  It's the belief based on faith.  That's where it starts.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> REad your first paragraph...."any supersitition" with or without deity.  The general idea is the belief falls into such category.
> 
> Unless you are saying you do not qualify belief as superstition.



Go back and read it again. I didn't say "any superstition". I didn't say the word any at all. What I said was "Superstitions in general" by which I mean more some than others. "Love thy neighbor" is not a superstition and on its own has no relation to superstition. It's just a moral precept. An atheist is perfectly capable of adopting "love thy neighbor". No superstition or belief in the supernatural required. It's an odd parallel you tried to draw between that and killing people and it certainly isn't an equivocation that I was guilty of.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I would agree with you that he has a right to believe whatever he wants to believe. It is his mind after all. But saying someone has a right to hold a belief is quite different from the claim that the belief itself is deserving of respect. I wonder, do you consider all beliefs to be equally deserving of respect?




Yeah, pretty much. My beliefs are no less valid than theirs or yours nor are they more valid. Especially when those beliefs have to do with things like the existence of a god. 

I believe that a person has a right, inherent in their lives, to believe whatever they wish. They can even choose to believe something in direct contravention of evidence. Like other rights, however, the end is where they begin to infringe upon another. You can believe whatever you wish, and act however you wish upon them, IMO, provided that you are the only one to suffer the consequences of that decision. 

So believe that alcohol on Sunday is bad, and don't drink it yourself, but don't forbid anyone else from enjoying, or purchasing, their own drink on Sunday as they so choose. Believe that your pastor is capable of laying hands and working miracles to heal you of your cancer, but when it comes to a minor child, get some treatment or you will be charged with neglect. Believe that the sky is pink, if you wish, but don't expect everyone else to believe it with you, and hold harmless those that don't agree. 

Going one further, you can believe that believers are wrong to have the faith that they do, but you do not have the right to ridicule them for it without invitation. If they engage you in discussion then you owe it to them, as they do to you, to be respectful of the opposing viewpoint as you are respectful to them in every other way. 

You don't walk up to a person and presume to start calling them an idiot, for whatever other criteria you wish, so you shouldn't walk up to a person of faith and call them an idiot for believing. Your belief, or lack thereof, does not invalidate theirs, nor does theirs invalidate yours.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course that's just a judgment of what one would consider a stupid thing or a stupid reason.
> Sitting up in a tree all day waiting for a deer to walk by seems awfully stupid to some.



Until you kill a deer.  Then it makes sense.  

There's an equation for me that I use to justify hunting time:  Meat/resources spent.  When it gets passed a certain point, I'm spending resources for amusement.  Calling my amusement stupid is a matter of opinion.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Go back and read it again. I didn't say "any superstition". I didn't say the word any at all. What I said was "Superstitions in general" by which I mean more some than others. "Love thy neighbor" is not a superstition and on its own has no relation to superstition. It's just a moral precept. An atheist is perfectly capable of adopting "love thy neighbor". No superstition or belief in the supernatural required. It's an odd parallel you tried to draw between that and killing people and it certainly isn't an equivocation that I was guilty of.



"Love thy neighbor because I want to please god" is as irrational as "Kill thy neighbor to please god".  Why not just use a better method for determining a course of action.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> A military strategist would say 19 casualties to inflict over 3000 deaths was far from "stupid".
> Would you consider dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "stupid" or justified by the reasons WE had?



I would consider it both stupid and evil but that is a whole other discussion. 

What was stupid was ending their life in order to commit an evil act with the unwarranted expectation they had something to gain from it in some other dimension they had no evidence even exists. There is nothing intelligent about that. They could have had 10 phd's on the wall but that decision was not intelligent.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I would consider it both stupid and evil but that is a whole other discussion.
> 
> What was stupid was ending their life in order to commit an evil act with the unwarranted expectation they had something to gain from it in some other dimension they had no evidence even exists. There is nothing intelligent about that. They could have had 10 phd's on the wall but that decision was not intelligent.



You assume that the only reason they bought off on the whole thing was the 72 virgins in paradise. We could both speculate on the same limited evidence, but the reasons a person does anything are usually as varied as the people doing them. 

Likely they were all men of their faith, sure, but maybe they were also motivated by earthly notoriety because of their attack. Maybe they were motivated because it would bring about the war, on earth, that most of them had been wanting for a while. Maybe they just wanted to kill people because they liked the thought of killing people and dying in attack that large was worth the cost/benefit analysis results. 

Saying that all 19 people did anything because of 1 root cause, and only 1, is oversimplifying in order to support an earlier assumption, IMO.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, pretty much. My beliefs are no less valid than theirs or yours nor are they more valid. Especially when those beliefs have to do with things like the existence of a god.
> 
> I believe that a person has a right, inherent in their lives, to believe whatever they wish. They can even choose to believe something in direct contravention of evidence. Like other rights, however, the end is where they begin to infringe upon another. You can believe whatever you wish, and act however you wish upon them, IMO, provided that you are the only one to suffer the consequences of that decision.
> 
> ...



When I've seen those "ghost investigator shows" and they are yelling into an empty room I think that it's stupid.  If I met one of those guys in person and they asked me what I thought about what they do, I would have no problem telling them that I thought it was stupid.

If I were talking about the ghost hunters with my friend and neighbor who I know believes in ghosts I would call them stupid. In doing so I suppose I would be calling my friend stupid.  I'm OK with that.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, pretty much. My beliefs are no less valid than theirs or yours nor are they more valid. Especially when those beliefs have to do with things like the existence of a god.
> 
> I believe that a person has a right, inherent in their lives, to believe whatever they wish. They can even choose to believe something in direct contravention of evidence. Like other rights, however, the end is where they begin to infringe upon another. You can believe whatever you wish, and act however you wish upon them, IMO, provided that you are the only one to suffer the consequences of that decision.
> 
> ...



So if someone from NAMBLA explains their beliefs to you about having sex with children as long as they don't act on the belief you think the belief is just as deserving of respect as any other belief? The principle that you are espousing is that no matter how objectionable, absurd, or evil an idea may be we should treat the belief itself with respect because someone has a right to believe it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You assume that the only reason they bought off on the whole thing was the 72 virgins in paradise. We could both speculate on the same limited evidence, but the reasons a person does anything are usually as varied as the people doing them.
> 
> Likely they were all men of their faith, sure, but maybe they were also motivated by earthly notoriety because of their attack. Maybe they were motivated because it would bring about the war, on earth, that most of them had been wanting for a while. Maybe they just wanted to kill people because they liked the thought of killing people and dying in attack that large was worth the cost/benefit analysis results.
> 
> Saying that all 19 people did anything because of 1 root cause, and only 1, is oversimplifying in order to support an earlier assumption, IMO.



I guess it's just the evidence.  They left a long trail of evidence pointing to why they were involved.  True, one of them may have just wanted to be part of a suicide plot for psychotic reasons and used the guise of Jihad to have that opportunity. 

It's that "Jihad" even exists that's under scrutiny.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I would consider it both stupid and evil but that is a whole other discussion.
> 
> What was stupid was ending their life in order to commit an evil act with the unwarranted expectation they had something to gain from it in some other dimension they had no evidence even exists. There is nothing intelligent about that. They could have had 10 phd's on the wall but that decision was not intelligent.


Orrrrr it was genius. Cant forget we don't actually know for a fact.
At one point it was an unwarranted expectation that you wouldn't fall off the edge of the earth.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> "Love thy neighbor because I want to please god" is as irrational as "Kill thy neighbor to please god".  Why not just use a better method for determining a course of action.



He didn't add "because I want to please god". I would agree that lessens the morality of it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> So if someone from NAMBLA explains their beliefs to you about having sex with children as long as they don't act on the belief you think the belief is just as deserving of respect as any other belief? The principle that you are espousing is that no matter how objectionable, absurd, or evil an idea may be we should treat the belief itself with respect because someone has a right to believe it.



No don't have to respect them.  You may even revile them publicly, but what might go on in my own head is my business.  

I know better than to say everything that goes on in my head publicly .  I suppose as soon as you put a fish sticker on your car you're asking for it.

I had to look up NAMBLA.  Not a fan.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> He didn't add "because I want to please god". I would agree that lessens the morality of it.




I figured it was implied for a Christian.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You assume that the only reason they bought off on the whole thing was the 72 virgins in paradise. We could both speculate on the same limited evidence, but the reasons a person does anything are usually as varied as the people doing them.
> 
> Likely they were all men of their faith, sure, but maybe they were also motivated by earthly notoriety because of their attack. Maybe they were motivated because it would bring about the war, on earth, that most of them had been wanting for a while. Maybe they just wanted to kill people because they liked the thought of killing people and dying in attack that large was worth the cost/benefit analysis results.
> 
> Saying that all 19 people did anything because of 1 root cause, and only 1, is oversimplifying in order to support an earlier assumption, IMO.


Agreed. Or all the above. They easily could have got to their 72 virgins in a much simpler way if that was their only motivating factor.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Orrrrr it was genius. Cant forget we don't actually know for a fact.
> At one point it was an unwarranted expectation that you wouldn't fall of the edge of the earth.



Suppose the rest of humanity followed their example and took on faith all manner of gods and started killing themselves and each other en masse in an effort to serve the gods they had assumed. Would that raise or lower your opinion of the intelligence of the species?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> So if someone from NAMBLA explains their beliefs to you about having sex with children as long as they don't act on the belief you think the belief is just as deserving of respect as any other belief? The principle that you are espousing is that no matter how objectionable, absurd, or evil an idea may be we should treat the belief itself with respect because someone has a right to believe it.



Belief is harmless. It's the act that is vile and reprehensible. 

You can try to paint me as supporting NAMBLA, but that's not "belief" that is action and I find it disgusting. 

However, so long as no one is victimized, they can believe whatever they wish.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Suppose the rest of humanity followed their example and took on faith all manner of gods and started killing themselves and each other en masse in an effort to serve the gods they had assumed. Would that raise or lower your opinion of the intelligence of the species?


First is this a true or false statement -


> At one point it was an unwarranted expectation that you wouldn't fall of the edge of the earth





> Would that raise or lower your opinion of the intelligence of the species?


I would question their intelligence.
Then I would question my intelligence for thinking differently.
Then I would wait and see who proved to be the intelligent ones.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> When I've seen those "ghost investigator shows" and they are yelling into an empty room I think that it's stupid.  If I met one of those guys in person and they asked me what I thought about what they do, I would have no problem telling them that I thought it was stupid.
> 
> If I were talking about the ghost hunters with my friend and neighbor who I know believes in ghosts I would call them stupid. In doing so I suppose I would be calling my friend stupid.  I'm OK with that.



If they invited your opinion on what they do, then I'd say you're valid. 

If you interject yourself into their lives in order to castigate them for their beliefs then you are not.

But, that's also just my opinion, and I don't expect anyone to abide it. You basically asked me for my opinion on it, which is why you got it. 



ambush80 said:


> I guess it's just the evidence.  They left a long trail of evidence pointing to why they were involved.  True, one of them may have just wanted to be part of a suicide plot for psychotic reasons and used the guise of Jihad to have that opportunity.
> 
> It's that "Jihad" even exists that's under scrutiny.



On the point of Jihad we agree, that it's a horrible manifestation of belief, but again the belief was harmless. It's the act that results that isn't. 



WaltL1 said:


> Agreed. Or all the above. They easily could have got to their 72 virgins in a much simpler way if that was their only motivating factor.



Could have, and probably would have, too. At least that's what Occam would have us believe.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You assume that the only reason they bought off on the whole thing was the 72 virgins in paradise. We could both speculate on the same limited evidence, but the reasons a person does anything are usually as varied as the people doing them.
> 
> Likely they were all men of their faith, sure, but maybe they were also motivated by earthly notoriety because of their attack. Maybe they were motivated because it would bring about the war, on earth, that most of them had been wanting for a while. Maybe they just wanted to kill people because they liked the thought of killing people and dying in attack that large was worth the cost/benefit analysis results.
> 
> Saying that all 19 people did anything because of 1 root cause, and only 1, is oversimplifying in order to support an earlier assumption, IMO.



No assumption is needed. They put pen to paper and left no doubts what their minds were focused on. I'm not saying there were no other factors involved but their faith was central to their world view and their actions.

http://www.annaqed.com/en/islamic-terror-data/the-letter-the-911-terrorists-left-behind


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> On the point of Jihad we agree, that it's a horrible manifestation of belief, but again the belief was harmless. It's the act that results that isn't.



If murder is the manifestation of a belief then the belief is not harmless and the belief is not deserving of respect.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> First is this a true or false statement -
> 
> 
> I would question their intelligence.
> ...



My question would be was their expectation reasonable based on the evidence they had available at the time? Perhaps it was for the flat earth folks. Is it for people that assume something which has no evidence whatsoever who kill themselves and others based on that assumption? I would be hard pressed to think of anything more stupid than that. Especially in light of the fact they had an education that should have provided them with the framework to know better than leap to such conclusions. It's easier to forgive Mohammed of his misdeeds than OBL.


Maybe in the scenario I described you would look and say "Ah yes, they are smarter than I thought!". But I doubt it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> No assumption is needed. They put pen to paper and left no doubts what their minds were focused on. I'm not saying there were no other factors involved but their faith was central to their world view and their actions.
> 
> http://www.annaqed.com/en/islamic-terror-data/the-letter-the-911-terrorists-left-behind



I searched, and other than inferring the virginal blessings in heaven, there is no direct mention of them in here. 

Rather, it's more war poetry than anything else, combined with procedural document. 



atlashunter said:


> I would consider it both stupid and evil but that is a whole other discussion.
> 
> What was stupid was ending their life in order to commit an evil act with the unwarranted expectation they had something to gain from it in some other dimension they had no evidence even exists. There is nothing intelligent about that. They could have had 10 phd's on the wall but that decision was not intelligent.



This was your post that I quoted earlier, and while faith is root to what they're doing, the manifesto is less about that than the mechanics of, and justification, for war to be waged.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> If murder is the manifestation of a belief then the belief is not harmless and the belief is not deserving of respect.



It's the worst manifestation of the belief.  Is the point "just don't have beliefs based on faith"?  

Does it always lead to wrongdoing?  

If a grown adult wants to believe in ghosts or Bigfoot does it necessarily trickle into other things they do in life?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> If murder is the manifestation of a belief then the belief is not harmless and the belief is not deserving of respect.



No, the act is harmful and not deserving of respect. The person is harmful and not deserving of respect. Again, respect does not translate only as acceptance. 

I guess the best way that I can say this is to respect their right to have the belief, not necessarily the belief itself.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> If murder is the manifestation of a belief then the belief is not harmless and the belief is not deserving of respect.


A belief without the action does not cause harm.
A loaded rifle without some action causing it to fire causes no harm.
The belief and the loaded rifle have the POTENTIAL for harm only.
No action it was harmless.
Action taken it was harmful.
A soup spoon can be harmful if you jab it in someones eye.
Just sitting in the kitchen drawer its pretty harmless.


----------



## Israel (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> It's the worst manifestation of the belief.  Is the point "just don't have beliefs based on faith"?
> 
> Does it always lead to wrongdoing?
> 
> If a grown adult wants to believe in ghosts or Bigfoot does it necessarily trickle into other things they do in life?



That's a good question.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Belief is harmless. It's the act that is vile and reprehensible.
> 
> You can try to paint me as supporting NAMBLA, but that's not "belief" that is action and I find it disgusting.
> 
> However, so long as no one is victimized, they can believe whatever they wish.



I'm not painting you as supporting NAMBLA. I'm making the point that a belief isn't deserving of respect simply by virtue of someone having the right to hold that belief. No idea is exempt from examination and if warranted disdain and scorn.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> A belief without the action does not cause harm.
> A loaded rifle without some action causing it to fire causes no harm.
> The belief and the loaded rifle have the POTENTIAL for harm only.
> No action it was harmless.
> ...



How about "thinking a certain way".  Are thinking certain ways more or less likely to result in malevolence when taken to the extreme?  No one will mass murder for Bigfoot.  No one will create a charitable foundation for the poor for Bigfoot.

It's something about religion in particular that lends itself to destructive kookiness. Kissing stones and reading entrails is kind of cute.  They won't necessarily lead to holy war but they can. That's the scary part.

Is it possible to make a rational argument for world war over ideology?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I'm not painting you as supporting NAMBLA. I'm making the point that a belief isn't deserving of respect simply by virtue of someone having the right to hold that belief. No idea is exempt from examination and if warranted disdain and scorn.



I don't know...... 

That sounds a little "Thought Policey".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I'm not painting you as supporting NAMBLA. I'm making the point that a belief isn't deserving of respect simply by virtue of someone having the right to hold that belief. No idea is exempt from examination and if warranted disdain and scorn.



And on the last two we disagree. Who, or what, gives YOU the right to choose for another what to believe?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> They may know exactly where the money is going and approve.  Little old ladies aren't always sweetie pies.



What is the driver?  Is it belief?  Why does one little old lady want to feed the poor and the other want to throw folks in hades?  I don't think belied can be blamed for such things.



ambush80 said:


> The point is that without belief based in faith, there's no opportunity to turn that belief into something ugly.  It's the belief based on faith.  That's where it starts.



I disagree.  Folks can turn anything ugly.  It's human nature.  See above comments about the driver?

Why can one Bama fan get along fine with an Auburn fan, while another goes and poisons a tree?

Am I a "tree poisoner" because I like Bama?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I searched, and other than inferring the virginal blessings in heaven, there is no direct mention of them in here.
> 
> Rather, it's more war poetry than anything else, combined with procedural document.
> 
> ...



Wow. Line items 1, 2, 13, and 14 were strictly tactical. All of the rest are referencing God and their faith.

The very first religious reference states "Read al-Tawba and Anfal [traditional war chapters from the Quran] and reflect on their meanings and remember all of the things that God has promised for the martyrs.".

That their promised reward was a motivating factor in summoning up the courage to do what they did is not an assumption. It's right there in black and white for anyone to read.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> What is the driver?  Is it belief?  Why does one little old lady want to feed the poor and the other want to throw folks in hades?  I don't think belied can be blamed for such things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Absolutely agree. 

Belief is, of itself, neutral. It is neither good nor bad. It is the act, based on said belief, that is good or bad. 

Believing, on its own, never hurt anyone.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Wow. Line items 1, 2, 13, and 14 were strictly tactical. All of the rest are referencing God and their faith.
> 
> The very first religious reference states "Read al-Tawba and Anfal [traditional war chapters from the Quran] and reflect on their meanings and remember all of the things that God has promised for the martyrs.".
> 
> That their promised reward was a motivating factor in summoning up the courage to do what they did is not an assumption. It's right there in black and white for anyone to read.



A motivating factor, which is all my point is. It was not THE motivating factor.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Go back and read it again. I didn't say "any superstition". I didn't say the word any at all. What I said was "Superstitions in general" by which I mean more some than others. "Love thy neighbor" is not a superstition and on its own has no relation to superstition. It's just a moral precept. An atheist is perfectly capable of adopting "love thy neighbor". No superstition or belief in the supernatural required. It's an odd parallel you tried to draw between that and killing people and it certainly isn't an equivocation that I was guilty of.




"Love thy neighbor" is the 2nd greatest commandment in Christianity, and is foundational to our belief system.  Whether you are capable is irrelevant to the point.   The point is, if my belief is paralel to superstition, then that basic principle (love thy neighbor) just got lumped into suicide plane flyers because I come to it through my belief in Jesus.  How you come to it is not the point (and fwiw, I believe you are likely a good neighbor).

My point overall is that there is WAY too much variance within sets of beliefs to consider belief stupid, or assume it is the driver of stupid behavior.  I think evil/stupidity/ignorance are the primary drivers, not faith.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> How about "thinking a certain way".  Are thinking certain ways more or less likely to result in malevolence when taken to the extreme?  No one will mass murder for Bigfoot.  No one will create a charitable foundation for the poor for Bigfoot.
> 
> It's something about religion in particular that lends itself to destructive kookiness. Kissing stones and reading entrails is kind of cute.  They won't necessarily lead to holy war but they can. That's the scary part.
> 
> Is it possible to make a rational argument for world war over ideology?


I agree that religion seems to be the "wild card". 
Its why I find the subject so interesting.
My opinion is the answer is "yes and no". While that they have religion in common their actions for the most part are just as individualistic as anybody else's.
And religious wars etc aren't started by the common or average religious person they are always started by some "upper echelon" folk who deem it to be necessary.
The average Christian, I think, wants to go to work, raise a family, have a good life and believe in God. The end.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> "Love thy neighbor" is the 2nd greatest commandment in Christianity, and is foundational to our belief system.  Whether you are capable is irrelevant to the point.   The point is, if my belief is paralel to superstition, then that basic principle (love thy neighbor) just got lumped into suicide plane flyers because I come to it through my belief in Jesus.  How you come to it is not the point (and fwiw, I believe you are likely a good neighbor).
> 
> My point overall is that there is WAY too much variance within sets of beliefs to consider belief stupid, or assume it is the driver of stupid behavior.  I think evil/stupidity/ignorance are the primary drivers, not faith.



Yes.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

BTW, this is a good thread.....enjoyin' it!


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And on the last two we disagree. Who, or what, gives YOU the right to choose for another what to believe?



The only one for whom I am deciding what to believe is me. I've made that clear in no uncertain terms. If someone wants to believe it's kosher to have sex with little boys they are free to believe that. What I will not be told is that beliefs I find absurd and morally repugnant deserve my respect.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> The only one for whom I am deciding what to believe is me. I've made that clear in no uncertain terms. If someone wants to believe it's kosher to have sex with little boys they are free to believe that. What I will not be told is that beliefs I find absurd and morally repugnant deserve my respect.



And therein lies the confusion. The belief doesn't. The person does. I know I said that you had to respect the beliefs earlier, but I was referring to the person's right to believe, not the beliefs themselves. 

Perhaps I could have been more clear about that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> My question would be was their expectation reasonable based on the evidence they had available at the time? Perhaps it was for the flat earth folks. Is it for people that assume something which has no evidence whatsoever who kill themselves and others based on that assumption? I would be hard pressed to think of anything more stupid than that. Especially in light of the fact they had an education that should have provided them with the framework to know better than leap to such conclusions. It's easier to forgive Mohammed of his misdeeds than OBL.
> 
> 
> Maybe in the scenario I described you would look and say "Ah yes, they are smarter than I thought!". But I doubt it.





> Is it for people that assume something which has no evidence whatsoever who kill themselves and others based on that assumption?


I don't agree that there is no evidence. The Bible is evidence. While I reject it as to what it is claimed to be, its still evidence.
That may be why we differ on what is "stupid" or not.
Christians dont believe in God because of "nothing" they believe because of the Bible. And it does exist and therefore is evidence. There is a difference.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't agree that there is no evidence. The Bible is evidence. While I reject it as to what it is claimed to be, its still evidence.
> That may be why we differ on what is "stupid" or not.
> Christians dont believe in God because of "nothing" they believe because of the Bible. And it does exist and therefore is evidence. There is a difference.



There's also the anecdotal testimony of witnesses, and their own personal experiences with it.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> "Love thy neighbor" is the 2nd greatest commandment in Christianity, and is foundational to our belief system.  Whether you are capable is irrelevant to the point.   The point is, if my belief is paralel to superstition, then that basic principle (love thy neighbor) just got lumped into suicide plane flyers because I come to it through my belief in Jesus.  How you come to it is not the point (and fwiw, I believe you are likely a good neighbor).
> 
> My point overall is that there is WAY too much variance within sets of beliefs to consider belief stupid, or assume it is the driver of stupid behavior.  I think evil/stupidity/ignorance are the primary drivers, not faith.



A biker gang could adopt the same precept as their number 1 greatest commandment but that wouldn't mean the precept itself has anything to do with bikers or motorcycles. It's just something they adopted. Likewise there is nothing about the precept itself that requires faith. Maybe faith brought you to it. Seems a bit odd that you wouldn't be able to figure out you should be good to other people without having Jesus tell you so but I'm glad you've taken it up nonetheless.

The fact remains I never suggested that all moral precepts in christianity or any other religion are bad. It's a mixed bag. There are some moral teachings in the bible and there are some immoral teaching. You don't need superstition or faith to have good morals.

I don't deny that people of faith can be moral. The finest man I ever knew was a christian. But it wasn't his faith that made him a wonderful human being.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't agree that there is no evidence. The Bible is evidence. While I reject it as to what it is claimed to be, its still evidence.
> That may be why we differ on what is "stupid" or not.
> Christians dont believe in God because of "nothing" they believe because of the Bible. And it does exist and therefore is evidence. There is a difference.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's also the anecdotal testimony of witnesses, and their own personal experiences with it.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I don't deny that people of faith can be moral. The finest man I ever knew was a christian. But it wasn't his faith that made him a wonderful human being.



Then, the opposite would also be true?  Horrible humans beings are not made such by their faith.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't agree that there is no evidence. The Bible is evidence. While I reject it as to what it is claimed to be, its still evidence.
> That may be why we differ on what is "stupid" or not.
> Christians dont believe in God because of "nothing" they believe because of the Bible. And it does exist and therefore is evidence. There is a difference.



What is it evidence of? You may as well say the trees are evidence too. Trees, therefore God... just because someone says something is evidence that doesn't make it so and believers are notorious for using bad evidence no matter how many times it gets shot down. I was guilty of it too when I was a christian.

I'm not saying all believers are stupid. And I'm sure Sam Harris didn't claim that either. That said some people are stupid and a heck of a lot of things people believe are stupid. Maybe it comes off as arrogant to state it but it's the truth. I would agree it is best to treat people with respect. Beliefs on the other hand must be held open to questioning and cannot be shielded from challenge in the name of respect. Especially those beliefs that are taken on bad evidence.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

stringmusic said:


>




Then you have to examine the quality of the evidence.  Is Jack and the Beanstalk _good_ evidence of a giant beanstalk any more than the Bible is evidence of an Ark?  Is the Patterson film _good _evidence of Bigfoot?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Then, the opposite would also be true?  Horrible humans beings are not made such by their faith.



But good, smart people will do bad things because of faith and that's a fact.

They won't get there through reason.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> What is it evidence of? You may as well say the trees are evidence too. Trees, therefore God... just because someone says something is evidence that doesn't make it so and believers are notorious for using bad evidence no matter how many times it gets shot down. I was guilty of it too when I was a christian.
> 
> I'm not saying all believers are stupid. And I'm sure Sam Harris didn't claim that either. That said some people are stupid and a heck of a lot of things people believe are stupid. Maybe it comes off as arrogant to state it but it's the truth. I would agree it is best to treat people with respect. Beliefs on the other hand must be held open to questioning and cannot be shielded from challenge in the name of respect. Especially those beliefs that are taken on bad evidence.



Who's to say your beliefs, or theirs, are better? You could punch holes all through it and they might still believe, so what purpose have you served?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Then, the opposite would also be true?  Horrible humans beings are not made such by their faith.



There are plenty of cases where they are but it isn't a necessary component.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Who's to say your beliefs, or theirs, are better? You could punch holes all through it and they might still believe, so what purpose have you served?



Because beliefs arrived at by reason are superior to mere faith beliefs.  I suppose it's the same as my neighbor telling me I "I've seen and heard ghosts.  I know they don't make "sense" but I believe."  It's belief not only in the face of the conflicting evidence presented by reality but also the willingness to suspend reason to continue that belief.

I rubbed kissed my magic crankbait in front of a friend once an he said "Are you serious?" I said "I suppose not."  If I said "Yes, I'm serious." I suppose I would be subject to ridicule.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Who's to say your beliefs, or theirs, are better? You could punch holes all through it and they might still believe, so what purpose have you served?



Good question. When you have competing views how do you sort that out and weigh the merits of the competing claims?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> What is it evidence of? You may as well say the trees are evidence too. Trees, therefore God... just because someone says something is evidence that doesn't make it so and believers are notorious for using bad evidence no matter how many times it gets shot down. I was guilty of it too when I was a christian.
> 
> I'm not saying all believers are stupid. And I'm sure Sam Harris didn't claim that either. That said some people are stupid and a heck of a lot of things people believe are stupid. Maybe it comes off as arrogant to state it but it's the truth. I would agree it is best to treat people with respect. Beliefs on the other hand must be held open to questioning and cannot be shielded from challenge in the name of respect. Especially those beliefs that are taken on bad evidence.


Here's an analogy as to how I view it as evidence -
You have crime scene. Dude is laying there shot to death with ONE bullet hole in his forehead.
Nearby is found a 9mm casing. 5 feet away is a .45 casing. There are both picked up as evidence. At that point based on the one hole in his forehead only one of those casings is good evidence. Don't know if it was a 9mm or .45 until you dig the bullet out and find out FOR SURE. One of the casings was good evidence. The other one was a coincidence. But until you knew for sure, they were both evidence.
As I said I personally reject the Bible for a number of reasons, probably for all the same reasons you do, but my/our rejection of it doesn't make it no evidence at all. Until we know FOR SURE it remains as evidence.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And therein lies the confusion. The belief doesn't. The person does. I know I said that you had to respect the beliefs earlier, but I was referring to the person's right to believe, not the beliefs themselves.
> 
> Perhaps I could have been more clear about that.



Yeah you should have because if you go back and look I repeatedly made the distinction.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Then you have to examine the quality of the evidence.  Is Jack and the Beanstalk _good_ evidence of a giant beanstalk any more than the Bible is evidence of an Ark?  Is the Patterson film _good _evidence of Bigfoot?


And that's what Atlas has repeatedly said that Christians lack.

We've discussed how good the evidence is plenty of times. 
"Our side" pulls evidence that supports the bible and "your side" pulls evidence that tries to disprove the bible.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Here's an analogy as to how I view it as evidence -
> You have crime scene. Dude is laying there shot to death with ONE bullet hole in his forehead.
> Nearby is found a 9mm casing. 5 feet away is a .45 casing. There are both picked up as evidence. At that point based on the one hole in his forehead only one of those casings is good evidence. Don't know if it was a 9mm or .45 until you dig the bullet out and find out FOR SURE. One of the casings was good evidence. The other one was a coincidence. But until you knew for sure, they were both evidence.
> As I said I personally reject the Bible for a number of reasons, probably for all the same reasons you do, but my/our rejection of it doesn't make it no evidence at all. Until we know FOR SURE it remains as evidence.



Yeah I don't know if that analogy works. You're still left with determining what is true by way of evidence. And in your analogy you have two falsifiable pieces of evidence. With the bible it's not quite the same is it? Some of it can be falsified and has been but much of its claims are constructed in a way to not be falsifiable and that is the basis that it is sold on. First assume that it is true, then use the assumed truth of it to deny any and all facts to the contrary.

A prime example:

http://creation.com/about-us



> Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> And that's what Atlas has repeatedly said that Christians lack.
> 
> We've discussed how good the evidence is plenty of times.
> "Our side" pulls evidence that supports the bible and "your side" pulls evidence that tries to disprove the bible.




Is it too simplistic to say that the evidence of talking donkey claims in the Bible is the Bible itself?  Is that rational?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Is it too simplistic to say that the evidence of talking donkey claims in the Bible is the Bible itself?  Is that rational?



I wish they would hold their god to the same standard they would set for other gods. What would it take to convince a christian that Thor is real? A heck of a lot more than it takes to convince them El is real.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah I don't know if that analogy works. You're still left with determining what is true by way of evidence. And in your analogy you have two falsifiable pieces of evidence. With the bible it's not quite the same is it? Some of it can be falsified and has been but much of its claims are constructed in a way to not be falsifiable and that is the basis that it is sold on. First assume that it is true, then use the assumed truth of it to deny any and all facts to the contrary.
> 
> A prime example:
> 
> http://creation.com/about-us





> You're still left with determining what is true by way of evidence


That's why I purposely used 2 different calibers. What determined what was true was digging the bullet out of his head. The knowing for sure if it was 9mm or .45.
When we know FOR SURE the Big Bang or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Pillsbury Doughboy  created life then we'll know which evidence was hogwash and which wasn't. 
We aren't there yet.
Flawed evidence is still evidence.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

In the talk someone put forth that there will never be a world that operates purely on reason.

That's sad and defeatist.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> That's why I purposely used 2 different calibers. What determined what was true was digging the bullet out of his head. The knowing for sure if it was 9mm or .45.
> When we know FOR SURE the Big Bang or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Pillsbury Doughboy  created life then we'll know which evidence was hogwash and which wasn't.
> We aren't there yet.
> Flawed evidence is still evidence.




No one is going to commit murder for the FSM or the Doughboy.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> That's why I purposely used 2 different calibers. What determined what was true was digging the bullet out of his head. The knowing for sure if it was 9mm or .45.
> When we know FOR SURE the Big Bang or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Pillsbury Doughboy  created life then we'll know which evidence was hogwash and which wasn't.
> We aren't there yet.
> Flawed evidence is still evidence.



I still don't see what your basis is for even calling it evidence. What is it evidence of?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I wish they would hold their god to the same standard they would set for other gods. What would it take to convince a christian that Thor is real? A heck of a lot more than it takes to convince them El is real.


Now THAT I agree has no logic or reasoning or facts behind it. I might even agree it would give the appearance of "stupid" in the manner you use it. Cant prove 1 god is real, cant prove any of them are real or not real, all of them have the exact same evidence going for them yet believe 1 and reject the others.
I'll never understand that one.
That's where I agree indoctrination over rides critical or logical thought.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I still don't see what your basis is for even calling it evidence. What is it evidence of?


Your claim that Christians/religious have no evidence whatsoever for what they believe.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> No one is going to commit murder for the FSM or the Doughboy.


What are they paying?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Now THAT I agree has no logic or reasoning or facts behind it. I might even agree it would give the appearance of "stupid" in the manner you use it. Cant prove 1 god is real, cant prove any of them are real or not real, all of them have the exact same evidence going for them yet believe 1 and reject the others.
> I'll never understand that one.
> That's where I agree indoctrination over rides critical or logical thought.



There it is. A Christian might not tell a Hindu that Ganesh is stupid but they would call the FSM stupid because they know that no one REALLY believes in the FSM.  It's just made up to illustrate a point.  Christians may not even call a Druid's belief in the healing power of crystals stupid.  Maybe because if they make that judgement about someone else's spirituality they leave themselves open to criticism.

Then why is it OK for Christians to call Jihadists stupid?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Your claim that Christians/religious have no evidence whatsoever for what they believe.



Huh? The bible is evidence that they have evidence? Or evidence that they have no evidence?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> In the talk someone put forth that there will never be a world that operates purely on reason.
> 
> That's sad and defeatist.


Do you disagree though?
Humans have emotions that over ride reason quite often.
Like you said before once you go over your meat/cost ratio you continue to hunt. Reason will tell you to go to the grocery store, emotion will tell you heck no I enjoy it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> What are they paying?



???

If the FSM is valid then anything that I could make up is equally valid.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you disagree though?
> Humans have emotions that over ride reason quite often.
> Like you said before once you go over your meat/cost ratio you continue to hunt. Reason will tell you to go to the grocery store, emotion will tell you heck no I enjoy it.



I need amusement.  I could find it in all kinds of things.  I choose deer hunting.  We could make a rational argument about the value of deer hunting as entertainment.  Ultimately it will be a matter of personal preference which is outside of reason.  

It's not that big a deal.

Denying people birth control in certain parts of the world because of faith is a big deal.  Sam called it "Genocidaly stupid"


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

Philosophically, is praying for an answer on par with rocks, paper, scissors?


----------



## Israel (Dec 15, 2014)

Prayer is the engagement of a person by a person. You can know nothing of prayer until you do.
One can imagine "what it is", may say one has observed it, has even heard the words of it. Even believe they know "how to do it".
Just like life.


----------



## Israel (Dec 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you disagree though?
> Humans have emotions that over ride reason quite often.
> Like you said before once you go over your meat/cost ratio you continue to hunt. Reason will tell you to go to the grocery store, emotion will tell you heck no I enjoy it.


One might even venture that the seeking of pleasure alone is the reason "reason" is engaged. Allowing itself to believe it is lead man to emotion's wing man status.
And a flat spin is very hard to recover from.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> ???
> 
> If the FSM is valid then anything that I could make up is equally valid.





> ???


It was tongue in cheek. You said -


> No one is going to commit murder for the FSM or the Doughboy.


And I asked what are they paying as in what are they paying to have someone to commit murder for them.
Bad joke. Maybe it was my Italian blood speaking.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> One might even venture that the seeking of pleasure alone is the reason "reason" is engaged. Allowing itself to believe it is lead man to emotion's wing man status.
> And a flat spin is very hard to recover from.


That's funny because I actually had that same thought. We can come up with lots of ways for making our pleasures seem reasonable.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> One might even venture that the seeking of pleasure alone is the reason "reason" is engaged. Allowing itself to believe it is lead man to emotion's wing man status.
> And a flat spin is very hard to recover from.



I consider death as the end. Reasonable but surely not pleasurable.


----------



## Israel (Dec 16, 2014)

660griz said:


> I consider death as the end. Reasonable but surely not pleasurable.


Behold, I tell you a mystery...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 16, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> There's no question about that. Sometimes in discussion/debates I just want to crawl under a rock and hide at some of the things A/As say for fear that I will be viewed as having the same mind set.
> But one thing is true that arrogance is a human thing not a believer or nonbeliever thing.



My thoughts too.  It cuts both ways.  There's arrogance exhibited on both sides, and in my opinion any time it's exhibited it hurts the position of those who engage in it.  

Sad to say, but I've been guilty of it.  Maybe we all have to some degree or another.  For me as a Christian to do so is wrong, because it is the antithesis of the nature my belief calls me to reflect.  That horse is mighty high, but you would be suprised how easy it is to get on.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Good question. When you have competing views how do you sort that out and weigh the merits of the competing claims?



I'm not the one calling people idiots, or stupid, for their beliefs and advocating it as a lifestyle. 

What gives you the right to do that to another human being?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> There are plenty of cases where they are but it isn't a necessary component.



.....and I go back to my example of the moron 'Bama fan who poisoned those trees at Auburn.  Bama ain't evil because he did something incredibly stupid.

It seems obvious that it's what the individual does with something that makes it good or bad, not the thing itself.  This goes with religion, politics, sports, or anything where the possibility for passionate response exists.

We do not clamor for the end of sports because that dude poisoned trees, or those Dodgers fans beat that guy up, or because people riot when their favorite team wins.  We don't hold political nonsense to the same standard.

It ain't belief that's dangerous, stupid, whatever you want to call it.  It's individuals.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

There are plenty of examples of folks doing horrible things over sports, politics, employment, religion, etc.  Let's be honest that stupidity/evil is a human condition, not a faith based action.

That is the driver.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> .....and I go back to my example of the moron 'Bama fan who poisoned those trees at Auburn.  Bama ain't evil because he did something incredibly stupid.
> 
> It seems obvious that it's what the individual does with something that makes it good or bad, not the thing itself.  This goes with religion, politics, sports, or anything where the possibility for passionate response exists.
> 
> ...





JB0704 said:


> There are plenty of examples of folks doing horrible things over sports, politics, employment, religion, etc.  Let's be honest that stupidity/evil is a human condition, not a faith based action.
> 
> That is the driver.



I would agree with you, but religion, by the nature of it dealing with deities and the end of life topics, has the capacity to make people a little more fervent in their behaviors than those lone wolf fans of sports teams. 

If it weren't, the crusades would have had about 3 people waging war, the Inquisition would have been laughed out of Spain, and the Salemites would have realized the folly in their treatment of suspected witches. 

It's true that crazy, or over-zealous is not a unique aspect to religion or faith, but it's dishonest to suggest that they haven't found a path to turn more people, with more conviction in each, than any other topic.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I would consider it both stupid and evil but that is a whole other discussion.
> 
> What was stupid was ending their life in order to commit an evil act with the unwarranted expectation they had something to gain from it in some other dimension they had no evidence even exists. There is nothing intelligent about that. They could have had 10 phd's on the wall but that decision was not intelligent.




You know Atlas, you keep throwing the term "evil" around.  
I just gotta ask.  What is your definition of "evil"?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If it weren't, the crusades would have had about 3 people waging war, the Inquisition would have been laughed out of Spain, and the Salemites would have realized the folly in their treatment of suspected witches.



People start wars for all kinds of reasons.  At the time, religion was the convenient excuse.  We can't blame war on faith if folks find other reasons to war as well.  War ain't a faith based endeavor.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> People start wars for all kinds of reasons.  At the time, religion was the convenient excuse.  We can't blame war on faith if folks find other reasons to war as well.  War ain't a faith based endeavor.



Not in modern times, at least not universally. See the war, jihad, waged by radical Islam and tell me that it's not faith based. 

I don't think religion was just a convenient excuse. Since kings were ruling by divine right any war they waged was a holy war, even if they desired only to expand their kingdom or punish a previous enemy. It all came back to the divine right to wage it. 

Once we started abandoning monarchies I would agree with you that the reasons for war became as varied as the peoples themselves. 

That doesn't change the fact that faith, not Christianity, but all faith, is responsible, but not solely and I concede that point, for more deaths by human action than anything else. 

It's not just about war. How many people refuse medical treatment, or did in history, because God would heal them? Whomever they hold God to be. Yes, there are plenty of people who are responsible in their faith and recognize the healthy limits it has, and still go to the doctor to get medical treatment rather than praying alone, or don't wage holy wars, but you can't wipe the stain clean, created by those who have abused religion and faith, by pointing out the exceptions. Even though there are fewer of the crazies, the damage they do is undeniable, and the reasons they do so often include faith or religion.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 16, 2014)

God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13).

So, how can God starting wars in ancient times be 'gospel' and God starting wars in modern times fictitious/caused by man, etc.?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

660griz said:


> God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13).
> 
> So, how can God starting wars in ancient times be 'gospel' and God starting wars in modern times fictitious/caused by man, etc.?



The New Testament occurred.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Once we started abandoning monarchies I would agree with you that the reasons for war became as varied as the peoples themselves.



That's the point.  When we drop one reason for evil we find another.  We can use all kinds of examples of faith based evil......but, it is a human thing, not the faith, that causes the evil.

People are responsible for their own actions.  Again, anything that inspires passion will lead to this sort-a stuff.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The New Testament occurred.



Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

660griz said:


> Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).



Then the father clearly wanted folks to love their neighbor as themselves.  Hard to go to war under those conditions unless it is pure defense.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> That's the point.  When we drop one reason for evil we find another.  We can use all kinds of examples of faith based evil......but, it is a human thing, not the faith, that causes the evil.
> 
> People are responsible for their own actions.  Again, anything that inspires passion will lead to this sort-a stuff.



I agree, if you give them something to latch onto these same people will probably do horrible things with that, as well. 

However, failing to give proper weight to a topic that preaches about eternal life in paradise, or torment in Hades, because there are other areas where people get fanatic is, and I mean no insult here, hiding one's head in the sand because it's something they like themselves.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree, if you give them something to latch onto these same people will probably do horrible things with that, as well.
> 
> However, failing to give proper weight to a topic that preaches about eternal life in paradise, or torment in Hades, because there are other areas where people get fanatic is, and I mean no insult here, hiding one's head in the sand because it's something they like themselves.



I ahve known 1000's of religious folks in my life who have never been close to committing murder or crusading on behalf of their religion.  I've seen bad things happen on account of it, but nothing like flying planes into buildings.

The faith-based good I've seen has outweighed the bad, by a long shot.  Ignoring the good is also an act of seeing what we want to see.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

Religion is also not like being a Bama fan or a Republican because it offers the prospect of being right or righteous.  It claims to be the arbiter of right and wrong whether interpreted correctly or not (which could be argued is impossible).  

How is it used in the phrase "Southern by the grace of God"?  Could someone pray about being a Democrat and feel especially right?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Religion is also not like being a Bama fan or a Republican because it offers the prospect of being right or righteous.  It claims to be the arbiter of right and wrong whether interpreted correctly or not (which could be argued is impossible).



Politics offers the same.



ambush80 said:


> How is it used in the phrase "Southern by the grace of God"?  Could someone pray about being a Democrat and feel especially right?



Sure.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I ahve known 1000's of religious folks in my life who have never been close to committing murder or crusading on behalf of their religion.  I've seen bad things happen on account of it, but nothing like flying planes into buildings.
> 
> The faith-based good I've seen has outweighed the bad, by a long shot.  Ignoring the good is also an act of seeing what we want to see.



I'm not ignoring the good. I even said earlier that the good outnumber the bad, but that the bad minority has killed more, maimed more, and generally done much worse, than all of those positives combined. 

Sure, not all of their "crimes" have the flair and penache of flying a plane into a building, but I, personally, view denying a child, single child, chemotherapy in favor of God's will to be just as atrocious. 

They are both equally as destructively ignorant as the other.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Then the father clearly wanted folks to love their neighbor as themselves.  Hard to go to war under those conditions unless it is pure defense.



Unless thy neighbors need killing.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

660griz said:


> Unless thy neighbors need killing.



"...as thyself."


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Sure, not all of their "crimes" have the flair and penache of flying a plane into a building, but I, personally, view denying a child, single child, chemotherapy in favor of God's will to be just as atrocious.
> 
> They are both equally as destructively ignorant as the other.



Yes.  But, both are driven by ignorance.  Faith is a convenient excuse.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2014)

I always go back to the Flood -
Hitler = Evil
Stalin = Evil
God and the Flood = God did it therefor its justified or not to be questioned.
I think THAT is the example that faith can have on rationality etc
All of a sudden WHO did it becomes more important than WHAT was done.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

Walt, yes.  The flood example is one of a creator hitting a "reset" button within our traditions.  It is not a mandate to go killin' folks.  Christianity is very clear where it stands on violence, and doing good by folks.  Only an insane person would read the flood story and believe he is now commanded to go drown folks.

.....bad people do bad things with good things, faith is often just a convenient excuse people use to act on impulses which already exist.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, both are driven by ignorance.  Faith is a convenient excuse.



One could argue that religion encourages ignorance. One could argue that the root of ignorance is arrogance, as well. 

I delineate faith and religion, mind you. Faith takes place in the person, religion takes place in a group.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Walt, yes.  The flood example is one of a creator hitting a "reset" button within our traditions.  It is not a mandate to go killin' folks.  Christianity is very clear where it stands on violence, and doing good by folks.  Only an insane person would read the flood story and believe he is now commanded to go drown folks.
> 
> .....bad people do bad things with good things, faith is often just a convenient excuse people use to act on impulses which already exist.


I agree with you.
Im talking strictly on how it is viewed. You described it as hitting the reset button.
Keeping in mind both are an extermination (or attempt to) of people, would you describe Hitler as attempting to hit the reset button?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> One could argue that religion encourages ignorance. One could argue that the root of ignorance is arrogance, as well.



Sure.  But, wouldn't one have to be aware of what is involved with a particular faith before making such a broad generalization?  Claiming to have such information ("they are ignorant") can also be arrogance in viewing one worldview superior than another.

An individual may interact with his religion to the extent that it allows him to exercise his faith.  This is not ignorance, it is personal expression of beliefs.  

"Don't ax no questions" is ignorant, and is not really a part of Christian doctrine.  In fact, the opposite is true.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I delineate faith and religion, mind you. Faith takes place in the person, religion takes place in a group.



Agreed.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Im talking strictly on how it is viewed. You described it as hitting the reset button.
> Keeping in mind both are an extermination (or attempt to) of people, would you describe Hitler as attempting to hit the reset button?



This is tricky, for sure.  I'm gonna try and answer this as straight as I can.

Hitler was trying to "purify" a region.  Ultimately, he had biases he was acting on, and used charisma to work towards that goal.  His bias lacked authority, but his charisma (watch his speeches and the audiences' reaction....) gave him opportunity and ability.  From a black and white perspective, yes, he was hitting a reset button, no, he had no authority to do so (universally speaking) because he was not responsible for the existence of those he was trying to wipe out.

The flood is an act of a creator.  Looking up from a human view it comes across as awful because we relate to those who would have been wiped out.  But, if it was the act of a creator, did the authority for the action exist?  Can you build a shed on your property and go blow it up if you deem necessary?  Yes.  Can you raise cattle and slaughter them as you see fit?  Yes.  Does the shed or the cow think that's cool?  HECK NO!

I cannot justify the flood in terms that work on a human level, humanity is the victim from our perspective.  If I did not believe in God, it would be my primary argument against the existence of a benevolent creator.  The talking donkey would be my primary argument against the Bible.  But, I do believe in God, so I gotta think there is a level which exists where it made sense.....but I also know it will never make any sense to me, or you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  But, wouldn't one have to be aware of what is involved with a particular faith before making such a broad generalization?  Claiming to have such information ("they are ignorant") can also be arrogance in viewing one worldview superior than another.
> 
> An individual may interact with his religion to the extent that it allows him to exercise his faith.  This is not ignorance, it is personal expression of beliefs.
> 
> "Don't ax no questions" is ignorant, and is not really a part of Christian doctrine.  In fact, the opposite is true.



Absolutely. One has to understand both sides of the argument/discussion. This is why I took many of the religious courses I did, and continue to learn about them now. 

I don't mean ignorant in the derogatory sense of the word. I mean willfully ignoring things all around them. One could also argue that atheists and agnostics are equally ignorant of evidence all around them, as well. 

Like the fundamentalist ignoring carbon dating of the earth to many billions of years instead of 6000 and the fact that dinosaur bones don't occur in the same geologic layers as do humans. 

Or the A/A ignoring the spontaneous remission of a cancer patient as a possible miracle. 

Then there's the ones who ignore the value in other's lives simply because they worship a different God, or do so a little differently.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

SH, I think we are most likely on the same page here.  

I used to believe the earth was 6k years old because that # was taught to me from birth, then I started reading the other side.  My faith did not suffer when began to see the evidence against such a position, I just figured there was a gap in the original position and the folks who taught that to me were taught that themselves......which is an example of what you are talking about.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not the one calling people idiots, or stupid, for their beliefs and advocating it as a lifestyle.
> 
> What gives you the right to do that to another human being?



I've already answered this question in this thread. Feels like I've answered it multiple times. And besides that my critique has been focused on the beliefs themselves. You already acknowledged the distinction so not sure why you are continuing to ask what give someone a right to form and express opinions about others and their beliefs. It's a right you've already acknowledged.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> SH, I think we are most likely on the same page here.
> 
> I used to believe the earth was 6k years old because that # was taught to me from birth, then I started reading the other side.  My faith did not suffer when began to see the evidence against such a position, I just figured there was a gap in the original position and the folks who taught that to me were taught that themselves......which is an example of what you are talking about.



I know we are. I came from a similar starting point. 

Call it what you will, a gap, an oversight, or a metaphor. It is ignorance to believe such in contravention of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Again, I'm not trying to condemn them for it, just calling it what it is. 

As I said earlier, I can be called ignorant for choosing to believe that spontaneous remissions happen because we don't know the human body with 100% certainty, rather than accepting it as a possible miracle.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> "...as thyself."



What are you trying to say?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I've already answered this question in this thread. Feels like I've answered it multiple times. And besides that my critique has been focused on the beliefs themselves. You already acknowledged the distinction so not sure why you are continuing to ask what give someone a right to form and express opinions about others and their beliefs. It's a right you've already acknowledged.



Then you misunderstand the right I speak of. You have a right to your opinion of their faith, but not to approach them, without invite, and tell them that opinion or belittle them for it, at least the way I understand rights. 

You imposing your views on them is the exact reason you find offense in what they do, imposing their faith upon your life.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

660griz said:


> What are you trying to say?



Not many folks believe they themselves need killin'


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> This is tricky, for sure.  I'm gonna try and answer this as straight as I can.
> 
> Hitler was trying to "purify" a region.  Ultimately, he had biases he was acting on, and used charisma to work towards that goal.  His bias lacked authority, but his charisma (watch his speeches and the audiences' reaction....) gave him opportunity and ability.  From a black and white perspective, yes, he was hitting a reset button, no, he had no authority to do so (universally speaking) because he was not responsible for the existence of those he was trying to wipe out.
> 
> ...


I will let you off the hook 
The fact that you see its a tricky one means you understand my point and that's good enough for me.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> It ain't belief that's dangerous, stupid, whatever you want to call it.  It's individuals.



The history of faith and those places in the world where faith is the most seriously taken demonstrate otherwise. Faith without action may be a victimless vice but in the real world faith informs action.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The New Testament occurred.



That explains why there haven't been any religious wars waged by christians in the last 2,000 years.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> That explains why there haven't been any religious wars waged by christians in the last 2,000 years.



Yea.....they were lovin' on those neighbors 

Ignorance is the "bad guy" here.  Not the new testament.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Ignorance is the "bad guy" here.



I do agree with this part.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, both are driven by ignorance.  Faith is a convenient excuse.



If a religious text tells believers to kill apostates and they do it their faith is not an excuse it is the reason.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> If a religious text tells believers to kill apostates and they do it their faith is not an excuse it is the reason.



Can you do this from a Christian perspective without being ignorant of half the Bible?

Again, we can't lump all faiths in together on this one (I believe I mentioned that very early in this thread).


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Then you misunderstand the right I speak of. You have a right to your opinion of their faith, but not to approach them, without invite, and tell them that opinion or belittle them for it, at least the way I understand rights.
> 
> You imposing your views on them is the exact reason you find offense in what they do, imposing their faith upon your life.



I don't recall violating any mans person or property in order to express my views. How exactly does exercising freedom of speech deprive someone of their right to hold a particular belief?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Sure.  But, wouldn't one have to be aware of what is involved with a particular faith before making such a broad generalization?  Claiming to have such information ("they are ignorant") can also be arrogance in viewing one worldview superior than another.
> 
> An individual may interact with his religion to the extent that it allows him to exercise his faith.  This is not ignorance, it is personal expression of beliefs.
> 
> ...



Are you sure about that?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2013/08/27/anti-intellectualism-and-the-bible/


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Can you do this from a Christian perspective without being ignorant of half the Bible?
> 
> Again, we can't lump all faiths in together on this one (I believe I mentioned that very early in this thread).



Sure I can. But I'm curious to know if you agree or disagree with what I said? If the Koran says kill apostates and people do it is their religion blameless?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2013/08/27/anti-intellectualism-and-the-bible/



1 Peter 3:15.  

Hard to do that without asking questions.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Sure I can.



No, you can't.  The NT is not a good place to look for affirmation if one is considering violence.




atlashunter said:


> But I'm curious to know if you agree or disagree with what I said? If the Koran says kill apostates and people do it is their religion blameless?



I guess, but I don't know anything about the Koran.  We could have a situation like a christian using the OT to kill folks, while completely disgregarding the 10 commandments and everything Jesus says.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> "Don't ax no questions" is ignorant, and is not really a part of Christian doctrine.  In fact, the opposite is true.



“Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'“


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> “Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'“





That is just a commentary on faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> I don't recall violating any mans person or property in order to express my views. How exactly does exercising freedom of speech deprive someone of their right to hold a particular belief?



When you volunteered to call them an idiot, or stupid. If they invite you into the discussion then it's fair game, but that's not the way it sounded earlier. It sounded like you volunteer your opinion, and attempt to do so in the most offensive way possible. 

How would you like to be called stupid because someone didn't agree with your beliefs?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> That is just a commentary on faith.



"Blessed are those...."

Absolutely espousing that faith based on no evidence is virtuous.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> When you volunteered to call them an idiot, or stupid. If they invite you into the discussion then it's fair game, but that's not the way it sounded earlier. It sounded like you volunteer your opinion, and attempt to do so in the most offensive way possible.
> 
> How would you like to be called stupid because someone didn't agree with your beliefs?




I think its fair to call someone's beliefs stupid if they are or if they come by them in a stupid way.  

If you saw someone sawing off the branch that they are sitting on would you say they were stupid?  What if they believed that some magical power would circumvent gravity, keeping them safe?  Would that be enough reason to "respect" their belief and not call it stupid?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> "Blessed are those...."
> 
> Absolutely espousing that faith based on no evidence is virtuous.



What is evidence to you is not evidence to me, and vice versa.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> What is evidence to you is not evidence to me, and vice versa.



What evidence is Jesus talking about?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> No, you can't.  The NT is not a good place to look for affirmation if one is considering violence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Matthew 5

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored fire.


This doesn't sound like a man who is suggesting that old testament law no longer applies. In fact he is saying it will be even more stringent.

But this is all beside the point. Your faith may be that you only believe and follow the NT and your interpretation of the NT is 100% sunshine and roses. There are muslims who will prefer verses in the Koran that say there is no compulsion in religion and look for a way to turn a blind eye to the verses that advocate violence. But to suggest that someone else with a different interpretation who reads a verse commanding violence and acts upon it that faith has no role in what they do, that just isn't true.

For those who think they no longer are bound by the commandments in the old testament it's a moot point that they don't do what it says because they don't believe it. And it is very curious to me that if christian doctrine is so clear that OT law no longer must be followed why do so many of them insist on dragging the 10 commandments into our court rooms? If someone believes the OT law does still apply as Matthew claims Jesus said and they kill any of the various groups of people the bible says are to be put to death it is simply dishonest to pretend that faith played no part in their actions. It's no different from a muslim that kills an apostate because their book says to. Faith isn't the excuse. Faith is the reason.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> That is just a commentary on faith.



Yes it is. It is a commentary that says it is better to believe without evidence than it is to withhold belief in the absence of evidence. It's an appeal to credulity. An appeal to ignorance.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What evidence is Jesus talking about?



In the specific situation, most likely testimony.  To contemporary folks, history.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> When you volunteered to call them an idiot, or stupid. If they invite you into the discussion then it's fair game, but that's not the way it sounded earlier. It sounded like you volunteer your opinion, and attempt to do so in the most offensive way possible.
> 
> How would you like to be called stupid because someone didn't agree with your beliefs?



If you think being characterized in a way you don't like or agree with constitutes a violation of your rights then we have very different understandings about what rights are and are not.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> It's an appeal to credulity. An appeal to ignorance.



How would anyone believe anything without some sort of evidence?  Personal testimony, creation, history, etc. all qualify as evidence.  Your decision to not accept it does not impact what it is.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  I get it.....but, that's your qualifier.

Later in the NT we have discussion of nature acting as evidence of a creator.....giving testimony to his qualities.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> When you volunteered to call them an idiot, or stupid. If they invite you into the discussion then it's fair game, but that's not the way it sounded earlier. It sounded like you volunteer your opinion, and attempt to do so in the most offensive way possible.
> 
> How would you like to be called stupid because someone didn't agree with your beliefs?



And by the way I don't know why you keep acting as if I came in here calling christians stupid when I haven't. I started off in this thread showing atheists who have said the opposite. I do try to avoid attacking the individual although I'll readily admit I sometimes do. Not because people aren't indeed idiots or stupid at times and not because I think anyone has some sacred right to not be insulted or offended. But because it is more productive to stay focused on the beliefs themselves which as far as I'm concerned are 100% fair game.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> This doesn't sound like a man who is suggesting that old testament law no longer applies. In fact he is saying it will be even more stringent.



He is using "thou shalt not kill" as an example.....that doesn't support your case that the NT supports religious violence.  The last verse you listed seems to be speaking directly to living in peace with your contemporaries.  Ultimately, he sets God up as the judge, not an individual.  Jesus certainly never advocates violence, and his teachings are contrary to such.




atlashunter said:


> But this is all beside the point. Your faith may be that you only believe and follow the NT and your interpretation of the NT is 100% sunshine and roses. There are muslims who will prefer verses in the Koran that say there is no compulsion in religion and look for a way to turn a blind eye to the verses that advocate violence. But to suggest that someone else with a different interpretation who reads a verse commanding violence and acts upon it that faith has no role in what they do, that just isn't true.



Back to my assertion, you cannot advocate for religious based  violence as a Christian without disgregarding half the Bible.  Just not possible.  I cannot hae an intelligent conversation about Islam because I know very little about their texts.

If some idiot wants to cherry pick OT verses in order to justify killing somebody, then I contend that his disposition is the driver because he fails to view the whole picture which would contradict his actions.

Somebody brought up burning witches......the NT specifically says to not worry about those outside the faith.  How can you "not worry" about it and then kill them?



atlashunter said:


> For those who think they no longer are bound by the commandments in the old testament it's a moot point that they don't do what it says because they don't believe it. And it is very curious to me that if christian doctrine is so clear that OT law no longer must be followed why do so many of them insist on dragging the 10 commandments into our court rooms? If someone believes the OT law does still apply as Matthew claims Jesus said and they kill any of the various groups of people the bible says are to be put to death it is simply dishonest to pretend that faith played no part in their actions. It's no different from a muslim that kills an apostate because their book says to. Faith isn't the excuse. Faith is the reason.



You have to stretch a lot to believe Jesus is teaching folks to kill according to OT law.  Again, a person ahs to want to kill in order to view it as such.  Re-read the scriptures you posted, they are about folks who act harshly towards others.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> How would anyone believe anything without some sort of evidence?



Ask a 3 year old coming out of Sunday school who says the bible is true and Jesus loves them.

I might get a warm feeling in my gut when I read the book of Mormon and call that evidence of the truth of the claims in the book but that doesn't make it so.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> We could start going down the list of pretty *absurd* things that theists say, do, and believe. *Things that they should really know better.* Superstitions in general are *pretty stupid *(and sometimes dangerous) even if there is no deity involved. Maybe it just goes with the territory.
> 
> If flying a plan into a skyscraper because you think you're acting on behalf of an invisible being that is going to reward you in another life or burying a child alive so your building doesn't fall down isn't *considered stupid* then what on earth would be?




Multiple times in this one post alone, and also why I said calling people's beliefs, not Christians alone, stupid.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> He is using "thou shalt not kill" as an example.....that doesn't support your case that the NT supports religious violence.  The last verse you listed seems to be speaking directly to living in peace with your contemporaries.  Ultimately, he sets God up as the judge, not an individual.  Jesus certainly never advocates violence, and his teachings are contrary to such.
> 
> Back to my assertion, you cannot advocate for religious based  violence as a Christian without disgregarding half the Bible.  Just not possible.  I cannot hae an intelligent conversation about Islam because I know very little about their texts.
> 
> ...



The short answer to this is the bible contradicts just as the koran does. Yes someone can cherry pick all the bad parts. You can cherry pick the good parts. Or maybe it's just honest differences in interpretation and emphasis. Regardless of your interpretation I think you can't deny that there are plenty of others with faith whose interpretation differs from yours and there are plenty of verses in there that if taken seriously can and have lead people to violence.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Multiple times in this one post alone, and also why I said calling people's beliefs, not Christians alone, stupid.



None of those statements are calling the individual stupid (although I don't deny it may be warranted). My focus was on the acts, statements, and beliefs. Once again, you have already acknowledged the distinction between respect for belief and respect for the individual so why do you continue trying to conflate the two?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> None of those statements are calling the individual stupid (although I don't deny it may be warranted)



Because you do. 

If you left your post to nothing but the red, you would be right that I am the one conflating. 

But then you add the part in blue and do it yourself.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because you do.
> 
> If you left your post to nothing but the red, you would be right that I am the one conflating.
> 
> But then you add the part in blue and do it yourself.



Ah so it isn't enough that I refrain from calling the individual stupid when I am addressing their beliefs. I'm not even allowed to entertain the thought that they might be.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Ah so it isn't enough that I refrain from calling the individual stupid when I am addressing their beliefs. I'm not even allowed to entertain the thought that they might be.



No, it's that you can't stop from saying it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, it's that you can't stop from saying it.




Is there any time that the word stupid is appropriate?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> In the specific situation, most likely testimony.  To contemporary folks, history.



Ok.  Lets talk about testimony and history as it applies to Bigfoot.

Is it good evidence?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Is there any time that the word stupid is appropriate?



None that I can find, but if he wants that to be his opinion, then so be it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> None that I can find, but if he wants that to be his opinion, then so be it.



There's never a time to use this word?


_1stu·pid
adjective \Ëˆstü-pÉ™d, Ëˆstyü-\

: not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things

: not sensible or logical

: not able to think normally because you are drunk, tired, etc.
Full Definition of STUPID
1
a :  slow of mind :  obtuse
b :  given to unintelligent decisions or acts :  acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c :  lacking intelligence or reason :  brutish
2
:  dulled in feeling or sensation :  torpid <still stupid from the sedative>
3
:  marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting :  senseless <a stupid decision>
4
a :  lacking interest or point <a stupid event>
b :  vexatious, exasperating <the stupid car won't start>
â€” stu·pid·ly adverb
â€” stu·pid·ness noun _

Can we call the Ferguson, MO looting stupid?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> There's never a time to use this word?
> 
> 
> _1stu·pid
> ...



I must have missed the question, I read that to apply specifically to arguments of faith. 

I can go line by line with you on the definition and illustrate why I don't think it applies, if you wish.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, it's that you can't stop from saying it.



Not only can I, I did in the post you originally quoted. The point was that refraining from it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be warranted or out of bounds if you didn't refrain. It may be counter productive to go there but if it's true it's true. Even if it isn't true everyone is entitled to their opinion. You've insisted on that.

The bottom line is I didn't do what you accused me of. I think you are trying to conflate the two and construct a straw man in order to try to sway me from what you consider an offensive attack on beliefs. Initially you said all beliefs are equally deserving of respect and then you backed off of that and tried a different tactic. You're welcome to walk on eggshells when it comes to religion but you're going to be disappointed if you expect the same from me.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Ok.  Lets talk about testimony and history as it applies to Bigfoot.
> 
> Is it good evidence?



No.  But, we are discussing two different types of claims, no matter how hard you may try and squeeze them into the same box.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

No, the Ferguson thing isn't stupid. It's not in their best interest, but they have logic to support it, none that we'd agree with probably, but it does exist.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

If you were to tell me that life came from Bigfoot, then we would have to consider whether or not you considered bigfoot God.

I have a very close friend who is a biologist who gets asked regularly how she can be a scientist and a believer at the same time, and she always says she can't understand how anybody can be a scientist and not believe 

I think it's all in how you view what's in front of you.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> No.  But, we are discussing two different types of claims, no matter how hard you may try and squeeze them into the same box.



Elaborate?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Not only can I, I did in the post you originally quoted. The point was that refraining from it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be warranted or out of bounds if you didn't refrain. It may be counter productive to go there but if it's true it's true. Even if it isn't true everyone is entitled to their opinion. You've insisted on that.
> 
> The bottom line is I didn't do what you accused me of. I think you are trying to conflate the two and construct a straw man in order to try to sway me from what you consider an offensive attack on beliefs. Initially you said all beliefs are equally deserving of respect and then you backed off of that and tried a different tactic. You're welcome to walk on eggshells when it comes to religion but you're going to be disappointed if you expect the same from me.



I did acknowledge that I misspoke when I said that beliefs had to be respected, mainly because we're doing this via text and you can easily miss my inflection. 

If we were in person, I'm sure you would have understand that I was referring to the act of belief being the right of the individual and that is deserving of your respect. You don't have to respect that their belief is that the sky is pink, but you should respect that they have the right to said belief. 

That respect should extend to not voicing unsolicited opinions about their beliefs, as you would, more than likely, expect from them. 

Would you not be offended if someone just came up to you on the street corner, and could instantly identify you as an atheist, and called you stupid, or worse, without having asked them for their thoughts on the matter? 

That's what I'm discussing here. That you're in my estimation, violating due respect for an individual's right to believe as they wish about whatever they wish, by imposing your view upon them in such a condescending manner. 

I do agree with the proverb that opinions are like excretory orifices. Everyone has them. However, having one does not entitle you, or give you the right, to push it into someone else's face, in either application. 

If they invite you to do so, then that's between you and them, but what you've seemingly, and I could be wrong, advocated doing is searching people out and thrusting your opinion, phrased intentionally harshly, in their faces.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If you were to tell me that life came from Bigfoot, then we would have to consider whether or not you considered bigfoot God.
> 
> I have a very close friend who is a biologist who gets asked regularly how she can be a scientist and a believer at the same time, and she always says she can't understand how anybody can be a scientist and not believe
> 
> I think it's all in how you view what's in front of you.



You make it sound like the grandness of the claim makes it immune to certain types of scrutiny.

She should come here and explain her evidence.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Elaborate?



Post 203.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, the Ferguson thing isn't stupid. It's not in their best interest, but they have logic to support it, none that we'd agree with probably, but it does exist.



It's logical or it isn't.  Can you give me a hypothetical, logical argument that supports the looting?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You make it sound like the grandness of the claim makes it immune to certain types of scrutiny.



Not really, I am just quoting her.  Scrutinize away.



ambush80 said:


> She should come here and explain her evidence.



It has a lot to do with the intricacy and delicacy of life as she has studied it.  I doubt I would get her on a hunting forum.  I can try, though.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I did acknowledge that I misspoke when I said that beliefs had to be respected, mainly because we're doing this via text and you can easily miss my inflection.
> 
> If we were in person, I'm sure you would have understand that I was referring to the act of belief being the right of the individual and that is deserving of your respect. You don't have to respect that their belief is that the sky is pink, but you should respect that they have the right to said belief.
> 
> ...



So are you against billboards and bumper stickers as unsolicited opinions?


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> There's never a time to use this word?
> 
> 
> _1stu·pid
> ...




faith (feÉªÎ¸)
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith.
3. (Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. (Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason



How is it intelligent and reasonable to adopt an unshakeable belief in something absent  evidence and reason? How is it intelligent and reasonable to adopt unshakeable belief in claims that are strongly contradicted by a preponderance of evidence? What is intelligent and reasonable about the proposition that it is ok to accept something because of the evidence but better to believe without evidence?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> So are you against billboards and bumper stickers as unsolicited opinions?



No, that's different. That's personal property and can be decorated any way they wish, I don't have to look at it. That's not as easy to do when someone singles you out in person and proceeds to tell you that you're an idiot, or stupid, for believing a certain thing, unsolicited.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> It's logical or it isn't.  Can you give me a hypothetical, logical argument that supports the looting?



I can give you logic that they've used to support it, but you're under no obligation to think it valid nor subscribe to it. 

How about:
A) My family is hungry, or wants a new TV, 
B) Looting is going on and I have a fair chance to blend into it and thus get away with my crime, 
C) So I join the looters. 

Or were you looking for justification of those looters, supposedly, only doing so over outrage over the case? 

A) This case came about because of people ignoring black plight in the area.
B) Looting and rioting are sure attention getters
C) Looting and rioting will bring attention to black plight in the area. 

I'm not saying that it's the best tactic, just that they used some logic, with dubious facts and assumptions, to get where they wanted, or needed, to be.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Not really, I am just quoting her.  Scrutinize away.
> 
> 
> 
> It has a lot to do with the intricacy and delicacy of life as she has studied it.  I doubt I would get her on a hunting forum.  I can try, though.


You aren't much of a friend if you would feed her to this crowd


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I did acknowledge that I misspoke when I said that beliefs had to be respected, mainly because we're doing this via text and you can easily miss my inflection.
> 
> If we were in person, I'm sure you would have understand that I was referring to the act of belief being the right of the individual and that is deserving of your respect. You don't have to respect that their belief is that the sky is pink, but you should respect that they have the right to said belief.



Fair enough. 




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That respect should extend to not voicing unsolicited opinions about their beliefs, as you would, more than likely, expect from them.



I disagree. I do not need permission or solicitation to express my disdain of religion. Religion has done far too much damage in this world to expect people to treat it with reverence out of the fear that someone might be offended if they voice their opposition to it.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Would you not be offended if someone just came up to you on the street corner, and could instantly identify you as an atheist, and called you stupid, or worse, without having asked them for their thoughts on the matter?



I might take offense depending on what they said but there is nothing they could say that would constitute a violation of my rights.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's what I'm discussing here. That you're in my estimation, violating due respect for an individual's right to believe as they wish about whatever they wish, by imposing your view upon them in such a condescending manner.
> 
> I do agree with the proverb that opinions are like excretory orifices. Everyone has them. However, having one does not entitle you, or give you the right, to push it into someone else's face, in either application.
> 
> If they invite you to do so, then that's between you and them, but what you've seemingly, and I could be wrong, advocated doing is searching people out and thrusting your opinion, phrased intentionally harshly, in their faces.



Last I checked we are having this discussion in a forum dedicated to the topic at hand. If you find my views or tone offensive that is fine. You're free to click elsewhere. Nobody is forcing you to take part and I'm not showing up unsolicited on your doorstep to share with you the good news of what I believe. I don't know of any atheists that do that. We leave that to the theists. 


Alright guys that's it for me on this one. I've enjoyed it but already literally lost more sleep than I can afford in order to participate. Time to get back to real life. Hope you all have a great Christmas and Happy New Year with your loved ones. I'll try to drop back in when time allows!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 16, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I disagree. I do not need permission or solicitation to express my disdain of religion. Religion has done far too much damage in this world to expect people to treat it with reverence out of the fear that someone might be offended if they voice their opposition to it.
> 
> ...



Not amongst those that know that they will get your opinion. Again, having an orifice does not entitle one to waive it around in public. 

I'm not saying that you should be fearful of offending someone, though given the post you quoted I can see how you would think that. 

Imagine just going up to someone and telling them that the sweater they're wearing makes them look fat. To you this may be no less factual than seeing someone on the sidewalk, them having just left the service at the church you just happen to be in front of, and telling them that they are stupid for believing in a fairy tale. It's just not cricket. If they begin to talk to you about faith, or ask you about it then it's fair game, IMO. 

It's not a violation of rights, per se, to go around telling people your opinions, but it's just not respectful to them if they didn't solicit you for it. I'm sorry, I can't really explain it any better than that, right now. I think not only are within our rights to have our beliefs, but I think we are within our rights to have an expectation to having them in peace and without fear of unwarranted confrontation, but I can't justify the position right now. 

Sure, the Christians of the past, but let's not single them out as that would also be unfair, so all religions and belief structures; they have all committed horrible acts, as have people of no religious or theological belief. That does not give you carte blanche to, essentially, assault their beliefs for it. They weren't alive to have given offense, and you weren't alive to have received it. 

I'm not offended, nor do I think you're out of bounds in here. You're exactly right, mere presence in this forum is soliciting these very discussions. I'm speaking of life in the world, and voicing your opinions on an individual person without having been invited to do so. 

Stay safe, and have a happy holiday season, Atlas.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I can give you logic that they've used to support it, but you're under no obligation to think it valid nor subscribe to it.
> 
> How about:
> A) My family is hungry, or wants a new TV,
> ...



I can't come up with a rational argument in support of theft.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Not really, I am just quoting her.  Scrutinize away.
> 
> 
> 
> It has a lot to do with the intricacy and delicacy of life as she has studied it.  I doubt I would get her on a hunting forum.  I can try, though.



I meant specifically about Bigfoot; as if I started talking about Bigfoot as the originator of the Universe that people should listen and be respectful.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I meant specifically about Bigfoot; as if I started talking about Bigfoot as the originator of the Universe that people should listen and be respectful.



Same with the FSM, you are taking the God concept and putting a face and a name to it.......then adding a claim you saw it in the woods.

I have family and friends who have "seen" black panthers in Ga.  Do I believe they saw a black panther, nope.  Do I make fun of them for what they are saying, nope.  These are generally good people and decent hunters who saw something.

Edit: I don't believe they saw a black panther


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I can't come up with a rational argument in support of theft.



The ones I provided I don't even buy into myself, but they do follow logic, just based on faulty assumptions.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 23, 2014)

I'm watching session 5 of _Beyond Belief_ and Paul Davis just said something funny.

He was describing a belief where the Earth sits on top of an elephant which sits atop a giant turtle.  When asked what does the turtle sit on his reply is "it's turtles all the way down".  Later when he deals with idea of infinite regression he says that at the bottom of the turtles is a giant, levitating super turtle.  He then goes on to say "....and that's is what we are dealing with in regards to believers."


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 23, 2014)

winner of the 2012 Project Reason Video Contest:


"To live with questions that may never be answered or answers that may never be questioned."


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 23, 2014)

It's turtles all the way down. 

I like it.


----------



## Israel (Dec 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'm watching session 5 of _Beyond Belief_ and Paul Davis just said something funny.
> 
> He was describing a belief where the Earth sits on top of an elephant which sits atop a giant turtle.  When asked what does the turtle sit on his reply is "it's turtles all the way down".  Later when he deals with idea of infinite regression he says that at the bottom of the turtles is a giant, levitating super turtle.  He then goes on to say "....and that's is what we are dealing with in regards to believers."



It does appear there's a de facto adversarial relationship, doesn't it?
But really, there isn't...and I realize that assertion in itself sets up for more.
You are as much "mine" to attempt to change, coerce...as I allow myself to be yours...or as much as we may care to reverse that statement.
I have only one place to occupy.
It's so much easier to enlist the notion of the "us vs the them" from either side, very tribal, very primitive.
Ya ever watch men go at it? It's usually not long before, especially in the frustrations, that a third party is dragged in for comfort...the "hey that guy will never believe will he...?" or the "see, those believers are crazy...aren't they?"  Seeking affirmation in whatever form from one another...and if it's not found, the easy falling back into those with whom we may find it.
"Believers" even do it with one another when vexed.
Sometimes it's obvious and overt...others, perhaps less so.
Staying in ones own lane is becoming more apparent, and for me at least, more clearly beneficial and indeed, compulsory.
I have a very small garden to tend, and complaints become weeds I can only uproot by repentance.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 24, 2014)

Israel said:


> It does appear there's a de facto adversarial relationship, doesn't it?
> But really, there isn't...and I realize that assertion in itself sets up for more.
> You are as much "mine" to attempt to change, coerce...as I allow myself to be yours...or as much as we may care to reverse that statement.
> I have only one place to occupy.
> ...


Yes and as time goes on, I think this becomes less and less a relative statement -


> "....and that's is what we are dealing with in regards to believers."


So now a days what exactly is it that we are "dealing with"?
For me, unless I project myself into a discussion/debate etc about the only thing I have to "deal with" is maybe stopping for a few minutes while a cop directs traffic for church letting out.
At one time I agree religion/Christianity ran the show. Laws, school curriculum, science, who could marry who etc etc.
Its just not true any more.


----------



## Israel (Dec 24, 2014)

Opponent du jour?


----------



## Israel (Dec 24, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes and as time goes on, I think this becomes less and less a relative statement -
> 
> So now a days what exactly is it that we are "dealing with"?
> For me, unless I project myself into a discussion/debate etc about the only thing I have to "deal with" is maybe stopping for a few minutes while a cop directs traffic for church letting out.
> ...



I suppose, vis a vis a previous exchange we had...the believer's complaint: "they are ruining my christmas..." finds no less equivalence in the unbelievers "they are thwarting the progress of my world..."

I guess what can be ruined will be, what can be thwarted, likewise.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 24, 2014)

Israel said:


> It does appear there's a de facto adversarial relationship, doesn't it?
> But really, there isn't...and I realize that assertion in itself sets up for more.
> You are as much "mine" to attempt to change, coerce...as I allow myself to be yours...or as much as we may care to reverse that statement.
> I have only one place to occupy.
> ...




It was a 20 hour conference on atheism. Many of the speakers had strong opinions.

It was kind of like a revival.


----------



## Israel (Dec 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> It was a 20 hour conference on atheism. Many of the speakers had strong opinions.
> 
> It was kind of like a revival.



Didja's sing?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 24, 2014)

Israel said:


> Didja's sing?




I didn't go.  I'm watching it on youtube.  They don't sing.  They talk on and on and show slides.


----------



## Israel (Dec 25, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I didn't go.  I'm watching it on youtube.  They don't sing.  They talk on and on and show slides.



Sounds like they have a "hope" of something to be of their efforts.
Powerpoint included, huh?
Powerpoint.
And words. Lots of words?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 25, 2014)

Israel said:


> Sounds like they have a "hope" of something to be of their efforts.
> Powerpoint included, huh?
> Powerpoint.
> And words. Lots of words?



They hope that belief in god(s) will cease to exist in their lifetimes.


----------



## Israel (Dec 27, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> They hope that belief in god(s) will cease to exist in their lifetimes.


Perhaps. But not a second later.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 27, 2014)

Israel said:


> Perhaps. But not a second later.



After that it won't matter.  And if you say you you know what happens after then your a liar.  Sorry.  That's the correct word for it.


----------



## Israel (Dec 27, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> After that it won't matter.  And if you say you you know what happens after then your a liar.  Sorry.  That's the correct word for it.


That's correct.
There's no life times...just life, and "not" life.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 27, 2014)

Israel said:


> That's correct.
> There's no life times...just life, and "not" life.



I agree.


----------



## GA native (Apr 23, 2015)

You don't think it is possible to be educated and stupid? Have you looked at our federal government lately?


----------

