Christian fundamentalists in Britain

[Kudistos Megistos]

I'm going to chime in here not having read what all's come before so forgive me if this has been brought up. I tend to stay away from religious debates because of the close-mindedness of many atheists. I've run into many people whose greatest argument is "There can't possibly be a God and you can't prove that there is" then just ignore everything I have to say about the subject.

Really?

I hear these stories a lot, especially from Americans: "an atheist said he was 100% certainly right and that there was no way that there could ever be anything that could be called God and then he tried to put me into a gas chamber".

But I have never heard any atheist, in real life, in the old media or on the interbutts, who has said "there can't possibly be a God". All of them agree that the chance of there being a God is lower than the chance of there not being a God, but I've heard none say what you just said.

Clearly, we live in different worlds.

The creation story in the Bible is honestly like any other creation story. It attempts to give an explanation of why things are the way they are. It might be largely fictional, especially in the time it took to do certain things. Biblical scholars agree with a large degree of certainty that Moses commissioned Genesis to be written along with the remainder of the Pentateuch. It was all oral tradition passed down in a father-to-son manner. I'm not sure anything can be taken as 100% fact until the story of Abraham. This includes Eden, the Great Flood, and the Tower of Babel. These stories were either made up to fill in a gap of history or composed of some half-truths of what really happened as a way to explain how it all went down.

I'm fairly sure that nothing before Abraham is true, except for things that might be true purely by co-incidence. Most of the stuff after Abraham is false too. It's interesting that the other literate cultures in the Middle East don't mention the huge, historic events that are mentioned in the Bible. The Egyptians, for example, say nothing about any conflict with the Jews, and Israeli archaeologists have found no evidence for the exodus.

How could you explain to a bunch of mentally underdeveloped proto-humans that their planets took billions of years to form and for them to evolve into what they are today. They have no concept of "billions" of anything nor evolution. The story of creation basically glosses over all that and just says "God made it in six days".

Was the order in which things were created also too hard for these people to understand? Genesis seems to imply that the Earth is older than the sun and that there were birds before land animals.

Evolution without a guiding force has some HUGE problems with it.

I don't see any problems with it at all.

However, I've noticed that a lot of creationists, no matter how intelligent or well-educated, seem to have very little knowledge about evolution and seem to believe that the theory of evolution states things that it absolutely does not state. I therefore can't help but wonder how many people are wilfully ignorant of the theory.

The Great Flood likely did occur.

Indeed it did. One occurred in Japan a few months ago, and in south-east Asia a few years ago. Many must have occurred in the eastern Mediterranean or in areas whose myths would have influenced the Jews. If you're thinking of saying that the kind of tsunamis we see today are not of the same order of magnitude, try to think of how the Japanese tsunami would have seemed to an ancient, primitive people who thought the Earth was the size of Belgium. Then imagine how this story would have been elaborated over time. They'd report the story as if the entire world had been flooded.

Since catastrophic tsunamis are so common, it's no surprise that myths of this kind should exist in many cultures.

So why are there different languages? It may have been possible that there once was one language that all men spoke and they've deviated over time. It's more likely that men developed over a wide area of the Earth and just began creating their own languages isolated from each other.

This is a very well studied topic. There's a whole field dedicated to it. I happen to find philology very interesting. However, in philology, the idea that all languages came from the same source is actually quite controversial. It's perfectly possible that complex language arose after humans split off from each other.

Can you honestly say you know EVERYTHING about science and evolution?

No, but I don't need to. I know enough for me to be confident that they offer a much better explanation of the world than any religious text does.

Can you explain how gravity works? Maybe you can, many cannot. There are plenty of atheists that know next to nothing about their world-view as well.

This is true, but trivial. Many people believe true things for the wrong reasons.

And the fact that many atheists don't know their shit doesn't let Christians or Muslims or Scientologists off the hook. It's merely a tu quoque.

Annnnnd Christians have far less to learn than we do. They only need one book. It's not a fair comparison!

I see this statement as a contradiction. If you think the Bible was written by "fallible humans" (some of it is), then why advocate looking at other literature, written by a different set of fallible humans, as a different moral guide?

Because other literature admits to being written by fallible humans, thus preventing people from saying that any or the views they choose to adopt are in fact the will of God.

There is also plenty of literature that doesn't contradict itself, isn't the work of primitive people and doesn't show massive historical inaccuracies. All moral guides are fallible, but some more than others.

You'd have to ask the Council of Trent why they included what they did.

I've just sent them an email. They haven't replied yet, but I assume their answer will be that they included what was most politically convenient.

The Old Testament was compiled as a set of laws and history of the Chosen people before Christ came. After that it requires faith to believe that the New Testament is a faithful account of the teachings of Jesus and what the first century of Christianity looked like.

It requires not so much faith as double-think.

There is a large amount of evidence to prove that there WAS a rabbi named Jesus (other than the shroud of Turin). That's as far as fact can take you. The rest is faith almost in the way that you have faith that the Earth will continue to revolve around the sun. You have no control over that and you just accept that it will continue happening.

For the Earth to stop revolving around the Sun in the near future would require either an unexpected cataclysmic event, and we have no evidence that one of those is going to happen, or a complete contradiction of everything we know about stars and Newton's first law of motion. It therefore seems to me that believing that the Earth will continue to revolve around the Sun, at least for as long as we are alive, is a very well-grounded belief.

To believe the Gospels means believing a set of miracles, most of which were present in other myths that were popular in that region at that time, and a set of books that not only contradict independent sources (there was no King Herod alive at that time, and if there were, it seems unlikely that no Roman historian would have cared to remark that he killed every newborn baby in Judea), but even contradict each other, and were written 100 years after the events they describe. It also requires believing in the wandering Jew (has anyone found him? He must be tired by now), since Jesus said he'd come back during the lifetime of at least one person present.

To compare believing in all of that to believing that the Earth will continue to revolve around the sun is somewhat questionable.

 

[DLPB_]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

I think you will find he did exist.

And I really don't understand why this is a thread based on Christian fundamentalists when they are the least of the religious problems in the UK and europe at the moment.

As I said before, God exists because the alternative explanations for the universe existing can be every bit as fantastic.

Sigh.

Edited to remain civil.

-Bosola

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

I think you will find he did exist.  Yes a lot of the bible is fiction but you should do your research before you think you know everything.

I love how you try to take every opportunity to take me down a peg. I also love how your seething hatred causes you to be overeager and make mistakes.

I didn't say that Herod didn't exist, I said he wasn't alive at that time. It looks like he died ever so slightly too early. If he was still alive, he was in his last years and knew it; some Jewish kid from a tiny village somewhere trying to usurp him wouldn't have been a concern since he'd have known that he'd be dead before the child was able to talk.

There is certainly no record of him ordering the mass murder of babies.

As I said before, God exists because the alternative explanations for the universe existing can be every bit as fantastic.  You don't know.  I don't know.  You think you know enough to make an informed opinion but you don't.  End of.

Wait, now you believe in God?

So that's why you were so vexed about my suggestion that humans might one day know how the universe was created! God lives in the gaps, so when we know everything, he disappears.

And I really don't understand why this is a thread based on Christian fundamentalists when they are the least of the religious problems in the UK and europe at the moment.

It's because the programme in question was about Christians.

Anyway, I made this thread because I was surprised that such people existed in such numbers. We all know that there are insane Muslims all over Britain; that isn't news to anyone. But it comes as a shock to many that a significant number of insane Christians exist.

Sigh.

Edited to remain civil.

-Bosola

 

[xLostWingx]

Faith in the Bible - No
Faith in God - Yes
Faith in man - No
Faith in morality (self) - Yes
Faith in morality (mankind) - No
etc.
etc.

It's hard for anyone to say "Christians this, and Christians that," just as it is hard to say Buddhists this, Muslims that, etc.  For every human being, there is a unique religious belief.  Yes, some beliefs resemble one another more than others, but there are likely as many differences between Christian X and Christian Y as there are between Christian X and Muslim X, or Muslim Y and Athiest X.  They aren't the same differences of course, but they're certainly enough to prevent them from being considered the same.

You're practically denouncing all members of all religions, billions of people in one fell swoop.  "Well, I'm fairly certain not one of these 4 billion people hold any reasonable beliefs."

 

[Bosola]

Will you two knock it off? I have better things to do than clean up this crap. Yes, we know the two of you don't like each other. Give it a rest.

admin edit: You are blue dammit, leave red alone.

Fine! I never wanted to be red anyway!

On a more pleasant note, I agree with Kudistos' objection to NFITC1 - very few atheists are as stubborn and arrogant as the ones he has in mind. Most of us keep ourselves to ourselves - but that's why you don't notice us.

In much the same way, the only Christians I've noticed are the aggressive evangelists, or those who keep telling me I'm going to go to hell for my lifestyle. I don't assume most Christians are nearly this nutty, though.

Also, on the matter of 'days' in the bible - the official Catholic position is that 'days' represent 'epochs'.

 

[Opine]

Really?
I hear these stories a lot, especially from Americans: "an atheist said he was 100% certainly right and that there was no way that there could ever be anything that could be called God and then he tried to put me into a gas chamber".
But I have never heard any atheist, in real life, in the old media or on the interbutts, who has said "there can't possibly be a God". All of them agree that the chance of there being a God is lower than the chance of there not being a God, but I've heard none say what you just said.
Clearly, we live in different worlds.

I have never met an agnostic I didn’t like. And I think those are more like what you describe. “We will never be able to prove it, and it's highly unlikely” is their motto.  But the professed atheists I’ve talked to are set on attempting to convert me, once they find out I am not an atheist. I find it as annoying as any other religious person trying to convert me. The ones I’ve met with just don’t want to accept that I don’t happen to believe what they believe.

But I’ll also state that I’ve met with a small sampling of atheists. I am sure there are ones out there not set on conversion. Just like how not all Christians are crazy fundamentalists. I just happen to have been unfortunate in the ones I’ve dealt with.

 

[Bosola]

More likely: you've encountered lots of atheists, but the ones who don't care about your religion haven't said much.

It's a simple principle. I only remember the people who zealously disagree with me, because they're the only ones who are going to raise my attention by making a fuss in the first place.

 

[nfitc1]

Kudistos, I'm not going to ignore you, but you've written too many points for me to logically confront at the moment. I'll get back to you.

On a more pleasant note, I agree with Kudistos' objection to NFITC1 - very few atheists are as stubborn and arrogant as the ones he has in mind. Most of us keep ourselves to ourselves - but that's why you don't notice us.

I'm just going to say that I've met many people that I've mentioned. Even in their casual conversations sometimes they'll go off on why they think God can't exist. Not to say that ALL of them are like that (in actuality they might be in the minority), just the ones that are seem to band together.

In much the same way, the only Christians I've noticed are the aggressive evangelists, or those who keep telling me I'm going to go to hell for my lifestyle. I don't assume most Christians are nearly this nutty, though.

Thank you for not lumping all of us into that category. I disapprove of hell-bound evangelism as well. Christians are called to win people to the faith rather than scare them away from punishment (which, oddly, at the beginning of Acts is exactly what the first apostles did).

Also, on the matter of 'days' in the bible - the official Catholic position is that 'days' represent 'epochs'.

This is the only thing that makes sense. "Epochs" is one of those nice unquantifiable words that means as long as you want it to mean. I don't like that people still teach that it was literally days.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

Faith in morality (self) - Yes
Faith in morality (mankind) - No

You're practically denouncing all members of all religions, billions of people in one fell swoop.  "Well, I'm fairly certain not one of these 4 billion people hold any reasonable beliefs."

No, no. I'm sure they hold some rational beliefs. Nearly all of them seem to agree that breathing air is useful, for example.

However, every single one of them holds unreasonable beliefs about the supernatural.

I have never met an agnostic I didn’t like.

I've met plenty.

Of course, I'm talking here about those self-professed agnostics who are unaware that agnosticism is an answer to a completely different question from theism and atheism and is therefore incompatible with neither. These people tend to adopt a very localised scepticism (they aren't agnostic about the tooth fairy) and confuse justified belief with blind faith.

If these people were consistent in their belief, they'd be Pyrrhonian sceptics, since they seem to assert that if one can't be 100% certain about something, one must be in a state of complete confusion. These people are usually first year philosophy students who think they're the world's greatest geniuses because they realised that we can't be completely certain about things.

Little do they know that they are nearly all atheists and that nearly all atheists are agnostics. Ho ho!

There are very few members of the top right group.

And yes, I'm aware that the word "gnostic" usually means something else and that it isn't a commonly accepted word for the position contrary to agnosticism, but it's a useful way of illustrating the concept and I'm commandeering it.

 

[DLPB_]

I have never met an agnostic I didn’t like.

nor have I, and I am one.  Agnostic is the rational viewpoint when presented with such a lack of facts.  Athiesm is slightly bigoted that it can simply say with almost absolute certainty what is and is not.  (ALMOST I said).  And religionists are the other way, often to the point where they believe fairy tales over logic.

Agnostics imho are the ones with a brain and real understanding because they have reached the conclusion that based on the available evidence there simply is no way to know or reach a conclusion.  I have many ideas and theories, and I have an idea of which are likely or unlikely, but that's all they are... ideas.  Science cannot answer the major questions, it just has ideas.  So do I. So does everyone.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

Athiesm is slightly bigoted that it can simply say with almost absolute certainty what is and is not.

Please explain what's wrong with saying things with almost absolute certainty. I'm dying to hear it.

(ALMOST I said).

Don't worry. Unlike some people, I wouldn't wish to use such intellectually dishonest debating tactics.

 

[Armorvil]

Please explain what's wrong with saying things with almost absolute certainty. I'm dying to hear it.

Because you can possibly be wrong in your statement, the almost being a margin for error ? If you ask me what's the color of the shirt of a person I've never seen, I'm not gonna say things like "it's blue", or "it's red". I'll just tell you that I don't know. It's the same if you asked me if a god exists : I'll tell you I don't know. I completely agree with DLPB here.

Also, this pic you posted (sorry for having to quote a pic, but it's hard not to in this case) :

is hardly clever. Being agnostic doesn't mean you're dumb, you know. I do know that apples grow on trees and that the Easter bunny doesn't exist. Doesn't keep me from saying that I don't know whether a god exists or not. The funny thing is, I was mostly agreeing with you until you brought up agnosticism So you can actually put me in the agnostic atheist category.

And the nice thing when you're an agnostic, is that you can be friend with both sides ^^ (if you can endure the fact that they'll try to convert you to their beliefs)

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

Because you can possibly be wrong in your statement ?

That's where the "almost" comes into play.

If you ask me what's the color of the shirt of a person I've never seen, I'm not gonna say things like "it's blue", or "it's red". I'll just tell you that I don't know. It's the same if you asked me if a god exists : I'll tell you I don't know. I completely agree with DLPB here.

In that situation one could not say anything with any certainty. But that's not a comparable situation to anything we're talking about.

Being agnostic doesn't mean you're dumb, you know. I do know that apples grow on trees and that the Easter bunny doesn't exist.

How do you know that apples grow on trees? Can you disprove Descartes evil demon?

And how can you know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? We all know that the Easter Bunny avoids being seen. Surely you're not saying that the fact that there is no evidence for the Easter Bunny and that the idea sounds silly is a reason to believe it doesn't exist? Because the same logic could be applied to God.

You can actually put me in the agnostic atheist category.

Then what is the problem? The picture is about people who would refuse to be put in the agnostic atheist category because they define themselves as superior to atheists.

BTW, I've noticed a pattern over the past few years

The self-proclaimed agnostics don't like the idea of degrees of certainty. To them, unless you can be 100% certain, then it's blind faith and you're an idiot and a faithhead for not sitting on the fence. They set up a false dichotomy between absolute certainty and useless guessing. There isn't; there's a continuum between very rational beliefs that are grounded in evidence and/or logic, and can be held with confidence, and completely idiotic positions of blind faith.

Most epistemologists today are giving some ground to scepticism. They admit that we can't have certainty. But they also say that we can have beliefs that are, to all intents and purposes, as good as knowledge. It's immature to throw a tantrum and say that if there's even the slightest possibility of being wrong, we should just say "I dunno lol" and adopt a position of complete bewilderment.

Actually, I've noticed something else, too.

A lot of agnostics assert the position that we can't know whether God exists with such certainty that it becomes a faith position. As I said to Seifer earlier, aren't you claiming to have knowledge if you say that we can't know something? After all, the implication is that you know that we can't know something. That's a claim to knowledge like any other. The most outspoken agnostics hold a faith-based position that we can't know certain things. It's hilariously ironic.

 

[Armorvil]

That's where the "almost" comes into play.

So you're not an atheist ; you're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who is 100% certain that god doesn't exist.

In that situation one could not say anything with any certainty. But that's not a comparable situation to anything we're talking about.

Actually, it's a lot more comparable than you think.

And how can you know the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? We all know that the Easter Bunny avoids being seen. Surely you're not saying that the fact that there is no evidence for the Easter Bunny and that the idea sounds silly is a reason to believe it doesn't exist? Because the same logic could be applied to God.

With this logic of yours, you can also put the "YUO CAN'T KNOW!!1" cap on the theist and atheist regarding this question.

Once again, if you have "degrees of certainty", then you're also unsure about this fact and thus, also an agnostic.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

So you're not an atheist ; you're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who is 100% certain that god doesn't exist.

 

[Armorvil]

You said it yourself : even you admit you're not 100% certain god doesn't exist. So you're actually as much an agnostic atheist as I am.

 

[DLPB_]

I've heard of being attacked for holding 1 belief or another, but seems kud has a real issue with people who don't commit to either position because they realise the evidence is way too lacking.

Maybe it is because agnostics are open minded and cannot be attacked as easily for a position, that some ultimately have an issue.  Well that is tough.  I find atheism closed minded, but nowhere near as ridiculous as religion.  But I find both rigid and closed minded because they both claim to know best when they can't. 

I can repeat that all day but agnostics have the best philosophy in this case, and that, is just a basic reality.  Until we have a lot more evidence, no position is good enough.  Good luck getting that evidence, because it exists outside of science.  It created science in the first place.

 

[Bosola]

There cannot be any 'proof' for atheism, because you can only prove the existence of things, not their non-existence.

On this basis, the onus has to be on the theist to provide a convincing case for his deity.

If he cannot provide it, we must treat his absentee father figure the same way we treat Anubis, Moloch, Hephaestus or Baal - things which probably don't exist, and which aren't worth worrying about.

 

[Kudistos Megistos]

You said it yourself : even you admit you're not 100% certain god doesn't exist. So you're actually as much an agnostic atheist as I am.

I am.

But you seem to be drawing a distinction between "atheists" and "agnostic atheists". Stop that. The distinction is between "agnostic atheists" and "gnostic atheists", who are subsets of the set of "atheists".

It really grinds my gears when people who make a big show of their agnosticism, people who falsely present it a middle ground between theism and atheism, redefine atheism and then attack the strawman they've just created. Not a single atheist I've ever heard would fit under your definition of atheist, so I'm going to dispute it.

And apart from anything else, you blatantly contradicted yourself. You called yourself an agnostic atheist (and thus, an atheist) and then said that atheists are people who are 100% certain that God doesn't exist. That's insane troll logic. If atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist, then there are no agnostic atheists. If there are agnostic atheists, then it is clearly false that atheists are people who are 100% certain that God exists.

Agnostic atheists are a subset of atheists and agnostic atheists are defined by not being 100% certain. This attribute of being 100% is mutually exclusive with the attribute that you claim atheists have. But a subset can not have attributes that are mutually exclusive with attributes of its superset.

I've heard of being attacked for holding 1 belief or another, but seems kud has a real issue with people who don't commit to either position because they realise the evidence is way too lacking.

Maybe it is because agnostics are open minded and cannot be attacked as easily for a position, that some ultimately have an issue.  Well that is tough.  I find atheism closed minded, but nowhere near as ridiculous as religion.  But I find both rigid and closed minded because they both claim to know best when they can't. 

I can repeat that all day but agnostics have the best philosophy in this case, and that, is just a basic reality.  Until we have a lot more evidence, no position is good enough.  Good luck getting that evidence, because it exists outside of science.  It created science in the first place.

2+2=4

Watch this, I'm gonna make Seifer try to argue that 2+2=5 just so that he can disagree with me!

There cannot be any 'proof' for atheism, because you can only prove the existence of things, not their non-existence.

On this basis, the onus has to be on the theist to provide a convincing case for his deity.

If he cannot provide it, we must treat his absentee father figure the same way we treat Anubis, Moloch, Hephaestus or Baal - things which probably don't exist, and which aren't worth worrying about.

Exactly.

But try telling that to the people who are de facto atheists but still, because of the culture they grew up in, give a special privilege to the Abrahamic invisible sky magician.

 

[xLostWingx]

Wait...so I'm Osama Bin Laden?  Excellent point KM

You say they hold no reasonable beliefs about the Supernatural - are you implying that there are reasonable beliefs about the supernatural OTHER than claiming there is no such thing?  I think I heard a story about you somewhere...what was it...oh yeah you were watching shadows in a cave with some friends.

- for my own amusement