Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I take it this is as close to a meet you half way as I'm going to get in here. Sounds good to me blueline976.

Huh?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Huh?

A compromise.

Originally Posted by malac

A compromise.

Why is he talking about a compromise?

He feels bad for calling everyone morons I guess. :p

Originally Posted by Replicon

The "isn't that too easy" type argument is a criticism of the intellectual bankruptcy of saying "god dunnit" instead of just saying "we don't know YET how this works."

I believe I heard him respond to an argument about God being bigger than the universe (or something along those lines... I cannot see the original video unfortunately). It can then easily be ascribed to any argument where God is the greatest/beyond the universe (which is a fact when speaking of the absolute) , and yet people like him throw in a logical, yet purely arbitrary excuse. It may sound plausible, but in the correct paradigm it has no bearing at all.

Edit to add: How is the modern "god dunnit" gambit any different from not knowing what's going on way out there in the ocean and just saying "Oh, Poseidon dunnit" when there's a storm?

Modern "god dunnit"? That expression is one I don't prefer to use at all because it is even more ambiguous, however I can see some truth in it. It probably means something different in the way that people commonly use that expression though, and in that sense I'd have to disagree.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

...Then I'm gonna kill myself by building a time machine and drown myself in Noah's flood for being a non-believer. Oh wait, it never happened.

I really didn't want to post on this thread again, but I have to disagree.
A lot of Christians (including myself) don't take the bible stories so literally, more of a lot of allegories aiming to create better morals in people.

And I do believe in evolution. The theory that Christians don't believe in these scientifically-proved ideas/truths is stupid. Who says we can't do so while believing in a God at the same time?

The "modern god dunnit" is a generalization of "since we don't yet know what makes X work, it must have been God." I think I might know what you mean by the ambiguity though. On the one hand, you can think of it directly (why is the sky blue? because god dunnit) or more indirectly: if there is a creator, then regardless of the chain of "cause-effect" that makes it all work, that creator ultimately created the chain of cause-effect, so eventually, "god dunnit" becomes true. But I think if there is a creator, he would WANT us to study how his creation works. If instead of skipping right to god dunnit, you learn more and more about the cause-effect chain, and how it all works, then the more you know about it, the closer you are to god. So yes, skipping right to "god dunnit" IS too easy (a cop-out), and I don't really see any childishness in calling that out. This is independent of whether or not there even is a god.

But the more direct, and more braindead, version of the "god dunnit" disease manifests itself in a lot of "the universe is complex, therefore it must be that god dunnit" types of arguments in favour of ID, which completely gloss over the "ok, but god is complex, so who created god?" side of the argument. If there is a point where a "complex" thing doesn't need a creator, then there's no real reason to choose one stopping point on the recursion (god doesn't have a creator) over another (the universe doesn't have a creator).

Ultimately, some of the arguments I've heard, which translate to "well science doesn't know everything" kind of fall apart. To quote Dara O'Briain: "Science KNOWS it doesn't know everything... otherwise, it'd stop!" Religion thinks it knows everything, but it doesn't. Otherwise, "faith" wouldn't exist. Faith, by definition, exists in the lack of concrete knowledge.

And yes, I do believe that saying "well, god is bigger than the universe" is kind of a cop-out. Look through history, and you will find that people have always put god just outside of the attainable realm. The ancient greeks assumed the gods lived atop of mount Olympus. Then eventually, someone climbed up there, and there were no gods. So god moved to a new appartment in the sky. Today, there are airplanes everywhere in the sky, and no god there either.

So now, god is in some unattainable dimension (don't worry, we'll get there too eventually haha). Always out of reach. I suppose there is nothing wrong with such adjustments, just like there is nothing wrong with science adjusting to new discoveries and new findings that show that old understandings are incorrect. However, the difference between science and religion in this respect is that when science changes the books to reflect new findings, it's progress, while religion will continue to bump up against the fact that with each revision of understandings, the "current cutting edge" will diverge further and further from the bible, which is the word of god. Of course, humans have never been above revising the bible (e.g. Nicea), but when it happens, it's a devastating blow. Thus is the fate of a field that believes they know "The Truth".

Well sure, if you're going to take the Bible allegorically, then I believe in it too, just like I believe in Harry Potter.

Although I ignore God's word at my discretion of course. The stuff about stoning disobedient children or the endorsement of slavery or forcing women to marry their rapists... that isn't allegorical at all.

Anything to make it fit. It's still all true.

Originally Posted by Yungen

A lot of Christians (including myself) don't take the bible stories so literally, more of a lot of allegories aiming to create better morals in people.

I don't understand this kind of thinking.

Originally Posted by Yungen

I really didn't want to post on this thread again, but I have to disagree.
A lot of Christians (including myself) don't take the bible stories so literally, more of a lot of allegories aiming to create better morals in people.

And I do believe in evolution. The theory that Christians don't believe in these scientifically-proved ideas/truths is stupid. Who says we can't do so while believing in a God at the same time?

Apart from what Invader said above, there are indeed Christians who believe a global flood occurred, "biblical or not." Where they see real evidence for one, I'm not sure. My mentioning of Noah's flood was a sort of tongue-in-cheek response to the claim that the Bible is "scientific."

Originally Posted by Invader

I don't understand this kind of thinking.

1) It's possible to recognize both the historical context of the text's origins AND its value.
2) Christianity =/= The Bible

To quote Joseph Campbell, "Religious fundamentalism is fundamentally irreligious." Scriptural literalism will only lead you away from whatever truths the texts and teachings of your faith have to impart.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

1) It's possible to recognize both the historical context of the text's origins AND its value.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

2) Christianity =/= The Bible

The bible is the holy book of the religion. It is touted as "the word of God" by the religion's followers. What, then, are you trying to say?

And we disagree on how a religion should be followed. What you are describing sounds like making other derivative religions, being that the practitioner would be ignoring the literal messages of the old faith. If, for instance, God transfers information to a human being that says "Pray five times a day as part of your faith," I'd be more inclined to believe that following their faith means praying five times a day, as opposed to interpreting that into some other obscure message.

God works in mysterious ways, which do not include transferring discrete data packets to human beings. Inspiration always includes interpretation.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Christianity =/= The Bible

Exactly. Christians do not really care what the Bible says. Christians come to their beliefs, values and morals pretty much the same way that a non religious person would. The difference is that Christians (or people of any other religion for that matter) will point back to their magic book to prove that god agrees with them. In the cases where the Bible diverges from their beliefs, it's just a story/metaphor/parable/taken out of context/does not apply anymore.

Leaving things open to interpretation will always allow the interpreter to select whatever is beneficial to their cause, whether that be inner peace for those who cannot accept death or world conquest for those who wish to dominate other human beings. Do you not understand what's off about this idea?

I'm saying it requires interpretation for the prophet, not just the practitioner. Visions typically don't come in tidy syntax or following narrative conventions. The transliterated oral histories and palimpsests of mixed and matched texts that constitute much of The Bible did not emerge fully formed, and more importantly, Christianity as it stands does not derive solely or wholly from the text. When Christ said "Let not a letter be stricken from the law" then skipped off with his followers to break the Sabbath, he wasn't being hypocritical or declaring himself exempt; he was leading by example. A big part of any religion is cultivating discernment, and Christ specifically denounced the litigious approach of the Pharisees as a means to that discernment.

Forgive me if I'm being slow here, but aren't the consequences presented in the bible kind of... I don't know, contrary to the notion that it's ok to "break" the law? You present a side to this subject I haven't before considered, so I want to understand.

I've yet to meet a stupid atheist.

Where do you live? I meet them often.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm saying it requires interpretation for the prophet, not just the practitioner. Visions typically don't come in tidy syntax or following narrative conventions. The transliterated oral histories and palimpsests of mixed and matched texts that constitute much of The Bible did not emerge fully formed, and more importantly, Christianity as it stands does not derive solely or wholly from the text. When Christ said "Let not a letter be stricken from the law" then skipped off with his followers to break the Sabbath, he wasn't being hypocritical or declaring himself exempt; he was leading by example. A big part of any religion is cultivating discernment, and Christ specifically denounced the litigious approach of the Pharisees as a means to that discernment.

And when Jesus said 'not one jot or tittle' of the Old Testament is wrong, was that also a metaphor?

Originally Posted by Xei

And when Jesus said 'not one jot or tittle' of the Old Testament is wrong, was that also a metaphor?

No, that just doesn't apply any more.

So, what exactly is christianity again?

Originally Posted by XeL

So, what exactly is christianity again?

Belief in some pretty fucking weird shit that we only consider to be normal because it is proclaimed in ancient texts and preached to children every Sunday.

Originally Posted by XeL

So, what exactly is christianity again?

It's kinda like Islam.

But with Pork.

Think of it as a kind of 'Islam-HD'. Even call it 'Piglam' in your head if you like.

Write that down in your copy books now.