you've repeated this same tired message a dozen times already. be less boring.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Congratulations you two on finally finding some common ground. Even if you appear to be bonding over some 17yr old girl's freshman year video essay at a liberal arts college.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Still miffed that both easter and christmas are not christian inventions originated from pagan festivals.....
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Not miffed at all. I'm factoring in that given the amount of thought you (and Dan) obviously put into it, it only seems natural that the tail is wagging the dog on this one. That from your perspective a germanicization (angilcization) of historical events; such as celebrating the fact that the crucifixion and resurrection happened during the week of Passover, be seen the other way around; i.e. as the holiday co-opting your myth, as opposed to individual cultures and heritages adding their flavor to the Holiday celebration, after the fact.
Also from your perspective/understanding :-) :
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
".....the fact that the crucifixion and resurrection happened...."
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
I knew you'd get a kick out of that as I wrote it, but knowing you wouldn't be happy with either component of that statement, I decided not to bother self-sensoring. Yes fact. Documented. See photo-evidence below.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
No, the laughing gif was more a representation of you whilst typing these lines.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Ha! Projection much?
Anyway, your inability (unwillingness, really) to comprehend aside, we've discussed before that this is a matter of personal belief. Of faith. I realize this will be hard for you to grasp as an 'atheist' [application for official religious status still pending, eh?]. ;-)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
*sigh*
Well, as you said it is a matter of faith, so why call it a "fact" then?
Also, as I explained to you and your peers a lot of times, there is no need to put the term atheist into inverted commas, doing it makes the theist just look pathetic, as does your little meme btw., being self confident (or not) has nothing to do with faith but is a very personal thing.
Oh and I can answer the question above: because if you would substitute "fact" with a more fitting term like "myth" it would look shitty, wouldn't it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Tautological statements above regarding faith not equaling fact and therefore equating to myth are great for you, sure, but maybe remind yourself that folks have their faith confirmed all the time..which is also 'a very personal thing' as you out it. And those first generation Christians definitely saw something that so marked them, that they chose death in the colosseum rather than renounce it. It must bother you..that undeniable Jesus-shaped hole we talked about last time, when we try to chalk Him up as myth.
And you are correct that I called you, 'atheist' per your previous request only.. when your predictable tirades on Christian belief come like clockwork on Christmas and Easter and show you to be more active than passive. More 'anti-' than 'a-'. I've said it before, I look forward to you impressing us all the day you go after Buddha or Mohammed with such conviction. But singling out Christianity (again, like clockwork on the biggest holidays) due to your passing familiarity is just kinda..cheap.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Tautological statements above regarding faith not equaling fact and therefore equating to myth are great for you...."
"Myth" was the word I found to be closest to the truth regarding your statement, but please feel free to tell me which term (other than fact or any other term that fits the definition of "fact") you find suitable and I am happy to use it.
"...folks have their faith confirmed all the time."
How?
"...when your predictable tirades on Christian belief come like clockwork on Christmas and Easter and show you to be more active than passive."
Tirades? I only commented on your miffed reply to this video. Get a grip snowflake. You, as always, started the tirade.
If anything I am "anti" people claiming fiction for fact, people can believe whatever they like but shouldn't be offended if others pick on the flaws in their argumentation.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Everything will be perceived as flaws in logic from your pov. From mine, you'd have more respect from me on the issue if you claimed to be agnostic. Being a- or anti-theistic means you feel you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt it's all bollocks. As I've said before, your faith in this knows no bounds and for the low low price of 35$CDN I'm sure there's a society you can join where you get together with folks to bond over jebus-bashing or whatever you call it. Now if you're wondering why I'm not picking on Dan, it's because he would have learned a while ago that before Marxist ideology can succeed, God needs to be killed. Supplanted by the state. His posting this is almost predictable. But you.. why aren't you trying to save us from all other religions (also), chief?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
Not sure why you're dragging my name into this but since you did I'm gonna give my basic take...
Marx criticized the capitalist system not gods.
He was from 19th Century Germany & criticized religion for being part of the societal structure that upheld capitalism which he saw as oppressive. If he was around today he'd likely criticize a whole bunch more things that perform the same function.
Some radical commie revolutionaries have gone after religion in the past but I don't really agree with your take on Marxists ideology's re: any god, or with how you project that onto people based on blind assumptions.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Ok. I'll need to take your word on this cause I'm not clicking on your vid link (to not mess up my Youtube algorithm further than it already is). As for dragging your name into it. Be nice Dan. It's your video thread; strategically timed as it is. I'm gonna need you to step up and own this. It's Orthodox Easter this week if you feel like having another go. Here, let me start the ball rolling:
translation:
pig: Happy Easter
lamb: F#@k off
hnngh. ;-)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
if you want a peaceful holiday keep my name out your mouth
happy easter
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Quoting Will Smith? Anyway, thanks.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Everything will be perceived as flaws in logic from your pov."
I beg to differ
"From mine, you'd have more respect from me on the issue if you claimed to be agnostic. Being a- or anti-theistic means you feel you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt it's all bollocks."
AGAIN 100% INCORRECT! I said this at least a hundred times before: I don't have proof, nobody does. The atheist simply sees no reason to believe that one or more deities as described in the various publications of the different religions exist or are necessary to describe the world, better: universe, we live in. Nothing more nothing less.
To make it 1st grader easy for you: Ask an atheist whether god exists, they will reply they don't know (if they are honest). As should the believer btw.
You try to equal atheist with antitheist, which is skeptoid level pathetic.
"As I've said before, your faith in this knows no bounds...."
Now this IS bollocks! I don't have a faith, you do. "Not believeing" is not a belief system as much as you would like it to be. Like "non smoking" does not make you an addict. Again skeptoid level pathetic!
"Now if you're wondering why I'm not picking on Dan..."
Couldn't care less really. But interesting you mention "God needs to be killed." Why would this be your concern? The "allmighty(ies)", should they exist, would have the tools to fight this on their own, they wouldn't need an army of inferior fife forms to do it for them.
Also the russian church stands fully behind the invasion of Ukraine (reminds me of WW2, btw) so they must be marxist then.
Now it is time to answer the question (you raised the issue, now you desperately try to avoid it):
"...folks have their faith confirmed all the time."
How?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
We'll have to agree to disagree then. Our definitions are different since I'll side with those who feel atheists are typically passive, peacefully going about their non-belief, which.. you don't. You got to love the hypocrisy. So many atheists, lamenting for years they just wanted to be left alone and not be persecuted.
"Again skeptoid level pathetic!" Stop it. You're making me blush here. Seriously, you trying to weapinize his name is funny af. Now, I will agree, it's not an all or none game. Accepting faith or lack thereof (for any religion) can be a gradient as opposed to 0 or 1. I'm only choosing to point out that you routinely like to dump on Christianity. One day maybe tell us why. Dawkins had a reason that goes back to his childhood apparently.
And as for:
""...folks have their faith confirmed all the time."
How?"
You said it before. This can be 'very personal'. For some it can be as simple as the setting sun. For others, it can be the beauty of the rising sun, after the darkness the night before should have swallowed you whole. ('darkness' above is allegory in case you read that with a literal-minded german accent or something).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
" which.. you don't."
ONLY if I see untrue, or ridiculous statements. The only difference to other atheists is that I voice my opinion.
"I'm only choosing to point out that you routinely like to dump on Christianity."
Only if the before applies. I also commented on other religions.
Aprreciating a sunset has nothing to do with respective religion anyone can do it. Did you deliberately choose such a shallow example?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
-"ONLY if I see untrue, or ridiculous statements. The only difference to other atheists is that I voice my opinion." Check. So anti-theist it is. Glad it's finally settled. Will be eagerly waiting for your video on Buddha next.
-'Only if the before applies.' I forgot that you previously mentioned that you feel personally assaulted during the holidays. I recall recommending you move to a sharia-compliant country as a rememdy, but you didn't do it. So I guess now we'll be waiting for next Christmas when you're spotted running around the shopping malls telling little kids that Jesus was really born on 15 September and that Santa isn't real. Maybe take out an ad in your local paper, heheh.
-'Aprreciating a sunset has nothing to do with respective religion..' I indicated above you'd glance at my comment and miss the point entirely. So, ja, ja.. Danke mein kohl
Let's recap as I still see you questioning my questioning you. This isn't a trailer for a movie where you jump in and say 'I prefer 'x''. Whenever you spout erroneous statements as fact, in the case above reversing the fact that a germanic or anglo flavour was added, locally, to the Christian holiday of Pasqua (subsequently named Easter in English); which occurs around the conclusion of Passover, don't be cross (ha, I made an pun!) when somebody takes the time to correct you. Peace.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Watch the recent video about logical fallacies, you are a "master" in applying them. My best guess is that this is because you actually are pretty insecure about this whole belief system you grew up in but dare not disappoint your peers, could also be that you simply don't have any real reasonable arguments though.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
100% professional psychoanalysis, dc. Hard to believe you do this for free!
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Lols @daftcunt. Like I said before. Projection much?
Yarp. Couldn't get past the first one before bursting into laughter. Hello kettle?
You're limited comprehension of Christianity seems to have made you the expert. Literally thinking the egg came fist in this instance. (I mean it did..cause birds are descended from reptiles..but you know what I mean). Remember that time you said I can't believe in evolution and the Bible? Thanks professor. Gosh, your argument is weak.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Remember that time you said I can't believe in evolution and the Bible?"
I can't but the statement makes sense if we read the bible as it most probably (considering when scripture originated) was intended to be read: literally, not metaphorically.
Christianity and other religions evolved to a state where they were forced to claim "oh, scripture is to be read metaphorically" because otherwise it makes no sense at all.
The more theocracy got pushed into a tightening corner where the book couldn't any longer sufficiently explain scientific findings and claim that many things were not simply "created" any longer the more it became a metaphor and the more it needed explaining to be justified. Some refer to this as "god of the gaps".
I am by no means an "expert" in christianity or islam or others, and I don't think I have to be, I take a rather simplistic view, I ask myself: Are there things in our universe that need one or more creators to be explained? I can't see any. If you can good* on you, that is why I asked you the question earlier in the conversation, but "the sunset or sunrise" isn't really a good example without further explanation (which you can't or don't want to give, you probably just assume I won't understand, whilst I assume you simply can't). I am really gobsmacked by this, you brought it up after all, probably because it is very important to you but then you can't go into further detail, hence I called it shallow.
* but is it really? Because when we think about it, if the explanation we are satisfied with is "(a) creator(s)" the desire for further research and inquiry stops, which is exactly what theocracy (including christianity) wanted in the past, and even nowadays some of them still do, including some christian sects.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Thanks @daftcunt for your patience the last couple of days while we celebrated Easter here with family (first time in 2yrs in Quebec, Canada where 20 of us could get together). Ok. Finally you've got some better-defined questions/points I can try to answer:
On biblical literalism. Wrong. The Tora and New Testament are both steeped in symbolism; and written so a shephard from 4k years ago could understand. Let's start 'in the beinning' heheh. For instance, I've discussed with priests and scholars 'the first day paradox'; i.e. the separation of darkness and light, many of whom agree this would have taken millions of years. A modern-day 'Christian Scientist' for instance would say this had to do with Earth settling into the standard rotation of 23 hours 56 minutes 4.091 seconds we enjoy today. It's a fair point. I mean, how do you define a day if the earth/mudball isn't spinning. I've heard others argue convincingly that because they are not biblical literalists (such as contemporary Hacidic Jews or Jehova's witnesses), that they experience no inner conflict as science continues to do better and better at explaining some of the mysteries of the universe. For instance, I'll tell you that when Shumacher-Levy plowed into Jupiter instead of Earth back in 1992, many folks had their faith re-affirmed.
Suddenly, you didn't just need to be the right distance from your star (i.e the Goldylocks zone), you also needed to be in a planetary system with a big-brother with a larger gravitational pull to take the beating from rogue asteroids etc. A beating that you would never survive. So, more time for life to establish itself on Earth, evolve and thrive. This in turn made the life in the cosmos that much more preciouls and rare (mathematically). Definitely something that affirmed the faith of those who believe in intelligent design too. So, yeah. no. Not bound by literalism. Otherwise, you miss the beauty of the message, missing the forest, for the trees. Unless that's your thing. Taking it one step further, Science recently produced a map of the known universe. So who's to say if our being in a planetary system per above, can't be extrapolated outwards, so that this one new physical law/requirement for intelligent life (as we know it) here at our little blue marble, Sol-3, isn't part of a suite of even more laws/requirements at the galactic or pan-galactic level; ie. just a gear in a very very complex machine that science is still working to unravel.
Milky Way • <== You are here (wow!)
It's very possbible the above makes intelligent life even rarer than we imagined. Where you say fluke, others would say divine intervention. I'm comfortable to get past that difference between us and move on. Needless to say I could never share more personal examples of affirmations I've experienced in my life, here on this site, for.. reasons.. But, hopefully you my colouring inside the lines and trying to keep it related to the rising sun in places. ;-)
That last paragraph of yours, if this is your personal experience (to date), is extremely unfortunate. Some of the best scientists/university professors were religious or even priests. I will share that I was lucky enough to study Vertebrate Embryology where our instructor also happened to be a Jesuit priest. He's dead now. But I still remember asking him (on my honour) to let me write our 3hr final exam early; otherwise I'd have it back-to-back (same day) with Biochemisty 101 and would certainly fail. The gentleman came in with his newspaper on Saturday; and I wrote for 75% on both courses, and found out that sure-enough; he didn't change a single exam question for my classmates (who I never told). I still admire his scientific knowledge and what he taught me about negotiating honorably and fairly; which I try to carry with me to this day.
Anyway, sorry for the long-winded reply, but.. you asked. And hopefully you understand that we've both had very different experiences, obviously, and that's why I'll always call for balance and fairness when I see you singling out what you apparently feel is the easy target as far as religions go.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Somehow I can't seem to save my intended reply (only text). That is weird.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Would have responded in detail but your text/screen cap issue makes it impossible for me to quote you back. Sufficed to say you end with calling what I say above bullshit. So maybe shouldn't waste my time casting pearls, eh?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Sorry couldn't reply in text for some reason. I just ask questions about things you said that don't make sense to me, I even googled "first day paradox" to no avail.
You could easily reply by numbering paragraphs....
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Yeah, but I'm not that desperate to communicate further on this issue given your concluding statement above. I continue to be amused however at your taking full advantage of the liberties and freedoms afforded you by living in a Christian founded republic, to criticize for instance, while simultaneously aspousing that man would be good without God (first). There are plenty of Sharia compliant places for instance where you could set up shop and continue your.. crusade (hnngh), against the local deity and see what happens. ;-)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Going back to the "but other religions are worse" argument? Come on!
Again: I think more explanation is necessary to make sense of what you are saying, nothing more, nothing less.
My questions to your examples were rather simple, I believe (pardon the pun):
What is the "frist day paradox"?
Do you think you would become a bad person when suddenly there was undeniable proof no god existed, would you stop to adhere to "christian values"?
tbh I don't think so. I think evidence points to: The "way" of christian societies was altered by people. People were fed up, theocracy was forced to come in line and adapted accordingly.
Did your teacher trust you because of your belief or because of you? Would he have acted differently if he suspected you to be an atheist or sikh or muslim?
Do you think the universe was built for us and around us and (a) god(s) make(s) conscious decisions as to where to send a comet so that life is made possible or protected?
What if there was undeniable proof you are wrong and there is only one god who actually prefers sharia to christian values, would you fall in line?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Parag1. yup. I'm about as predictable as you pushing santa down a flight of stairs in December. You started it, so...
'nothing more, nothing less'. I owe it to you, do I?
?1. I feel bad that you spent time googling it. It's just a casual term I whipped out myself, in reference to how some argue that 'the first day' in Genesis may have lasted more than 24h. i.e. what's a day if the earth is formless and not spinning. separation of the light from the dark, etc. Sorry it's troubled you so. Have a milkbone ;-)
?2. 'tbh I don't think so. I think evidence points to: The "way" of christian societies was altered by people. People were fed up, theocracy was forced to come in line and adapted accordingly.' [BB: that's an interesting point. Do you think that judeo-christian doctrine; the 10 commandments and Christ's golden rule (do onto others) has had nothing to do with the formation of the society you presently live in? If so, how arrogant are you. I think many people are held 'in check' by the laws of God (and derviative laws of man). To say otherwise is to say the chicken came before the egg. And we said it didn't. Because birds are descended from reptiles. And reptiles have been laying eggs for millions and millions of years. (you have to say that last bit doing your best Carl Segan impersonation).]
?3-?4. I dunno. Maybe dig him up and ask. I only raised his example because you said religion and science were incompatible.
?5. No, that sounds kind of developmentally-delayed. That's all you got from what I said? I merely said that needing to belong to a system of planets made the probability of life even rarer. And that some would see this as an affirmation of their faith. Pay attention pup.
?6. What are you, crazy? Not gonna happen. I have trouble-enough with just one wife.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Thanks for your reply. I don't want to be obnoxious (and I honestly don't think I am) but just interested how you try to meake sense out of something I can't.
"'nothing more, nothing less'. I owe it to you, do I?"
You don't owe me nothing, neither do I owe you anything, you can skip out of the conversation at any point, worst that can happen is a sarcastic comment, I won't sink to other member's level and threaten anyone on here.
"some argue that 'the first day' in Genesis may have lasted more than 24h."
Didn't you say you were not a creationist (I ask this because only to a creationist this actually would present a conundrum, wouldn't it)? Of course the "first day" actually lasted millions of years, did it not? The person(s) who wrote genesis did not know that, though, did they, it was their interpretation, based on the knowledge of the era, of how it could have happened.
"Do you think that judeo-christian doctrine; the 10 commandments and Christ's golden rule (do onto others) has had nothing to do with the formation of the society you presently live in?"
Well, no of course I don't, however, I again give the credit to the people rather than a deity. If the 10 commandments have actually been written by a creator rather than (a) human(s), why would the most important one rank 3rd? Why would a confident, omnipotent creator need to tell us the 3 first ones at all? Why would they feel the need to be worshipped once a week?
" I think many people are held 'in check' by the laws of God (and derviative laws of man)."
This is possibly true, hence my question to you (which you consistently refuse to answer):
Do you think you would become a bad person when suddenly there was undeniable proof no god existed, would you stop to adhere to "christian values"?
I don't understand the chicken and egg reference in this context, though.
"I dunno. Maybe dig him up and ask. I only raised his example because you said religion and science were incompatible."
Come on, I asked your opinion and you know it. And "religion and science do not mix" ONLY applies if we read the bible literally, which I believe we have to and you believe we don't, this is a big part of why I am intersted in this convesation in the first place.
"I merely said that needing to belong to a system of planets made the probability of life even rarer. And that some would see this as an affirmation of their faith."
I know you did and that is why I brought it up. Now we do NOT need to belong to a system of planets to make life possible, a simple heat source like a sun and a single planet in the "sweet spot" that is composed of the necessary components would suffice. What you wrote I understood differently: The planets have been "put there" for a reason, like to protect us, hence people see it of a confirmation of their faith that a comet hit jupiter rather than earth. My question was: In this context would people also see it as a confirmation of their faith that life as we experience it on earth was only made possible by a comet hitting the earth?
Lastly regarding sharia: You divert with a humorous remark about one wife being enough trouble (and I wholeheartedly agree) but I believe sharia doesn't obligate one to have more than one wife and that you also (maybe inadvertantly and please correct me if I am wrong) answered my question. Of course you wouldn't, neither would I btw!
And this says a lot, I think!
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Don't take it personal either it's just responding to your paragraphs above asking me to explain and re-explain my position is getting a little boring. One last time and you can have the final reply next since it's not getting us any closer to agreement.
-no one called you obnoxious. you're extremely committed to your position. but, you do seem to have some blind spots that you seem unwilling to improve on. A kind of whataboutism that you're unwilling to turn inward.
-No one ever suggested that, but it did sound kind of like a demand; so you're not completely unaware. Agree it's best everyone stays chill. Questioning/Testing assumptions to get to the truth is always a fun exercise, as long as one side isn't so firmly entrenched that it's a waste of time for the other.
-No I said I (and many) are not biblical literalists. You keep conflagrating the 2 given the distance and distain you mantain for faith in general.
-I think you give people too much credit. We can be perfect little (or big) monsters when we want.
-Your acknowledging there was even some impact of judeo-christian tennants on western society is a small miracle in and of itself. I am not evading the question. You just continue to disregard my answer. Yes, we'd be worse off. Good people don't need rules. The rest of us,..do (and I continue to say that with the highest respect and veneration for these rules). And how would you define good without God, actually?
-Again, this is our disconnect. If you've only encountered biblical literalists til now you're right to go head-to-head with them. They're wrong on many levels, parsing out 1 sentence (pardon the pun) as gospel, while conveniently ignoring the one before or after. Keep up the good fight, daft. You saying 'I believe we have to', above, doesn't necessarily make it so, right?
-But I didn't say that, did I. We're not talking e.g. silicone-based microbes from space. I said having a larger planet in the neighborhood to hoover-up debris gives a world more time do develop complex and intelligent life. I'm happy to accept that our planet has a copper core and the iron in our blood came from space. Not conflicted in the least. Dude, I'm starting to think Orthodox Christianity might be for you, haha. Look it up, maybe.
-Yes. That would be my first excuse, obviously. But Dawa; including spreading the religion by forceful means would be the true reason. You decide you want to be an atheist after being born to a Christian family? Ok, fair enough, there's the door. Honor killings and executing of those who don't adhere to your particular religious law or practices on the other hand? Yeah, no. Hard pass.
And like I said above, you get the final reply on this thread. Make it a good one, eh?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Aww. Little kids in Christian countries around the world will be sad but this is indeed a proper observation on commercialization of the holidays. Nothing new as I recall getting and enjoying a chocolate egg (with prize) or chocolate bunny or 2 when I was a kid. Glad you're putting so much thought into this. Do you celebrate Easter, Dan?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
nah I don't really celebrate easter. eating chocolate is an all year activity these days.
I just thought the meme was funny in how cynical it is. I can't even tell if it's someone mocking easter or if a believer made it, that part cracks me up.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Apparently in germanic cultures (this includes anglos) the egg thing goes way back, or did you not watch your own super-informative video before posting it. ;-) Again, this would just be local cultures infusing the holiday with their own (local) tradition/flavor.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
interesting. Each year I try to learn a bit more about Easter. I watched the videos but never really got a handle on it all yet. Need to watch an expert's lecture or something.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
lols. unless you're planning on converting or anything, I really wouldn't waste my time if I was you. Otherwise, fyi, this is the big one for many Christians. Bigger than Christmas even since it's about the 'new covenant' with God. We Orthodox celebrate a week after the Catholics (this year); since the events took place during passover which is currently underway. A nice time for quiet contemplation on the sacrifice that was made (in our belief) to redeem mankind.
Comments
(Old Spike)
you hide your sanity quite successfully....
(Site Administrator)
you've repeated this same tired message a dozen times already. be less boring.
(Site Administrator)
Congratulations you two on finally finding some common ground. Even if you appear to be bonding over some 17yr old girl's freshman year video essay at a liberal arts college.
(Old Spike)
Still miffed that both easter and christmas are not christian inventions originated from pagan festivals.....
(Site Administrator)
Not miffed at all. I'm factoring in that given the amount of thought you (and Dan) obviously put into it, it only seems natural that the tail is wagging the dog on this one. That from your perspective a germanicization (angilcization) of historical events; such as celebrating the fact that the crucifixion and resurrection happened during the week of Passover, be seen the other way around; i.e. as the holiday co-opting your myth, as opposed to individual cultures and heritages adding their flavor to the Holiday celebration, after the fact.
Also from your perspective/understanding :-) :
(Old Spike)
".....the fact that the crucifixion and resurrection happened...."
(Site Administrator)
I knew you'd get a kick out of that as I wrote it, but knowing you wouldn't be happy with either component of that statement, I decided not to bother self-sensoring. Yes fact. Documented. See photo-evidence below.
(Old Spike)
No, the laughing gif was more a representation of you whilst typing these lines.
(Site Administrator)
Ha! Projection much?
Anyway, your inability (unwillingness, really) to comprehend aside, we've discussed before that this is a matter of personal belief. Of faith. I realize this will be hard for you to grasp as an 'atheist' [application for official religious status still pending, eh?]. ;-)
(Old Spike)
*sigh*
Well, as you said it is a matter of faith, so why call it a "fact" then?
Also, as I explained to you and your peers a lot of times, there is no need to put the term atheist into inverted commas, doing it makes the theist just look pathetic, as does your little meme btw., being self confident (or not) has nothing to do with faith but is a very personal thing.
Oh and I can answer the question above: because if you would substitute "fact" with a more fitting term like "myth" it would look shitty, wouldn't it.
(Site Administrator)
Tautological statements above regarding faith not equaling fact and therefore equating to myth are great for you, sure, but maybe remind yourself that folks have their faith confirmed all the time..which is also 'a very personal thing' as you out it. And those first generation Christians definitely saw something that so marked them, that they chose death in the colosseum rather than renounce it. It must bother you..that undeniable Jesus-shaped hole we talked about last time, when we try to chalk Him up as myth.
And you are correct that I called you, 'atheist' per your previous request only.. when your predictable tirades on Christian belief come like clockwork on Christmas and Easter and show you to be more active than passive. More 'anti-' than 'a-'. I've said it before, I look forward to you impressing us all the day you go after Buddha or Mohammed with such conviction. But singling out Christianity (again, like clockwork on the biggest holidays) due to your passing familiarity is just kinda..cheap.
(Old Spike)
"Tautological statements above regarding faith not equaling fact and therefore equating to myth are great for you...."
"Myth" was the word I found to be closest to the truth regarding your statement, but please feel free to tell me which term (other than fact or any other term that fits the definition of "fact") you find suitable and I am happy to use it.
"...folks have their faith confirmed all the time."
How?
"...when your predictable tirades on Christian belief come like clockwork on Christmas and Easter and show you to be more active than passive."
Tirades? I only commented on your miffed reply to this video. Get a grip snowflake. You, as always, started the tirade.
If anything I am "anti" people claiming fiction for fact, people can believe whatever they like but shouldn't be offended if others pick on the flaws in their argumentation.
(Site Administrator)
Everything will be perceived as flaws in logic from your pov. From mine, you'd have more respect from me on the issue if you claimed to be agnostic. Being a- or anti-theistic means you feel you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt it's all bollocks. As I've said before, your faith in this knows no bounds and for the low low price of 35$CDN I'm sure there's a society you can join where you get together with folks to bond over jebus-bashing or whatever you call it. Now if you're wondering why I'm not picking on Dan, it's because he would have learned a while ago that before Marxist ideology can succeed, God needs to be killed. Supplanted by the state. His posting this is almost predictable. But you.. why aren't you trying to save us from all other religions (also), chief?
(Site Administrator)
Not sure why you're dragging my name into this but since you did I'm gonna give my basic take...
Marx criticized the capitalist system not gods.
He was from 19th Century Germany & criticized religion for being part of the societal structure that upheld capitalism which he saw as oppressive. If he was around today he'd likely criticize a whole bunch more things that perform the same function.
Some radical commie revolutionaries have gone after religion in the past but I don't really agree with your take on Marxists ideology's re: any god, or with how you project that onto people based on blind assumptions.
(Site Administrator)
Ok. I'll need to take your word on this cause I'm not clicking on your vid link (to not mess up my Youtube algorithm further than it already is). As for dragging your name into it. Be nice Dan. It's your video thread; strategically timed as it is. I'm gonna need you to step up and own this. It's Orthodox Easter this week if you feel like having another go. Here, let me start the ball rolling:
translation:
pig: Happy Easter
lamb: F#@k off
hnngh. ;-)
(Site Administrator)
if you want a peaceful holiday keep my name out your mouth
happy easter
(Site Administrator)
Quoting Will Smith? Anyway, thanks.
(Old Spike)
"Everything will be perceived as flaws in logic from your pov."
I beg to differ
"From mine, you'd have more respect from me on the issue if you claimed to be agnostic. Being a- or anti-theistic means you feel you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt it's all bollocks."
AGAIN 100% INCORRECT! I said this at least a hundred times before: I don't have proof, nobody does. The atheist simply sees no reason to believe that one or more deities as described in the various publications of the different religions exist or are necessary to describe the world, better: universe, we live in. Nothing more nothing less.
To make it 1st grader easy for you: Ask an atheist whether god exists, they will reply they don't know (if they are honest). As should the believer btw.
You try to equal atheist with antitheist, which is skeptoid level pathetic.
"As I've said before, your faith in this knows no bounds...."
Now this IS bollocks! I don't have a faith, you do. "Not believeing" is not a belief system as much as you would like it to be. Like "non smoking" does not make you an addict. Again skeptoid level pathetic!
"Now if you're wondering why I'm not picking on Dan..."
Couldn't care less really. But interesting you mention "God needs to be killed." Why would this be your concern? The "allmighty(ies)", should they exist, would have the tools to fight this on their own, they wouldn't need an army of inferior fife forms to do it for them.
Also the russian church stands fully behind the invasion of Ukraine (reminds me of WW2, btw) so they must be marxist then.
Now it is time to answer the question (you raised the issue, now you desperately try to avoid it):
"...folks have their faith confirmed all the time."
How?
(Site Administrator)
We'll have to agree to disagree then. Our definitions are different since I'll side with those who feel atheists are typically passive, peacefully going about their non-belief, which.. you don't. You got to love the hypocrisy. So many atheists, lamenting for years they just wanted to be left alone and not be persecuted.
"Again skeptoid level pathetic!" Stop it. You're making me blush here. Seriously, you trying to weapinize his name is funny af. Now, I will agree, it's not an all or none game. Accepting faith or lack thereof (for any religion) can be a gradient as opposed to 0 or 1. I'm only choosing to point out that you routinely like to dump on Christianity. One day maybe tell us why. Dawkins had a reason that goes back to his childhood apparently.
And as for:
""...folks have their faith confirmed all the time."
How?"
You said it before. This can be 'very personal'. For some it can be as simple as the setting sun. For others, it can be the beauty of the rising sun, after the darkness the night before should have swallowed you whole. ('darkness' above is allegory in case you read that with a literal-minded german accent or something).
(Old Spike)
" which.. you don't."
ONLY if I see untrue, or ridiculous statements. The only difference to other atheists is that I voice my opinion.
"I'm only choosing to point out that you routinely like to dump on Christianity."
Only if the before applies. I also commented on other religions.
Aprreciating a sunset has nothing to do with respective religion anyone can do it. Did you deliberately choose such a shallow example?
(Site Administrator)
-"ONLY if I see untrue, or ridiculous statements. The only difference to other atheists is that I voice my opinion." Check. So anti-theist it is. Glad it's finally settled. Will be eagerly waiting for your video on Buddha next.
-'Only if the before applies.' I forgot that you previously mentioned that you feel personally assaulted during the holidays. I recall recommending you move to a sharia-compliant country as a rememdy, but you didn't do it. So I guess now we'll be waiting for next Christmas when you're spotted running around the shopping malls telling little kids that Jesus was really born on 15 September and that Santa isn't real. Maybe take out an ad in your local paper, heheh.
-'Aprreciating a sunset has nothing to do with respective religion..' I indicated above you'd glance at my comment and miss the point entirely. So, ja, ja.. Danke mein kohl
Let's recap as I still see you questioning my questioning you. This isn't a trailer for a movie where you jump in and say 'I prefer 'x''. Whenever you spout erroneous statements as fact, in the case above reversing the fact that a germanic or anglo flavour was added, locally, to the Christian holiday of Pasqua (subsequently named Easter in English); which occurs around the conclusion of Passover, don't be cross (ha, I made an pun!) when somebody takes the time to correct you. Peace.
(Old Spike)
Watch the recent video about logical fallacies, you are a "master" in applying them. My best guess is that this is because you actually are pretty insecure about this whole belief system you grew up in but dare not disappoint your peers, could also be that you simply don't have any real reasonable arguments though.
(Site Administrator)
100% professional psychoanalysis, dc. Hard to believe you do this for free!
(Site Administrator)
Lols @daftcunt. Like I said before. Projection much?
(Old Spike)
nope.
(Site Administrator)
Yarp. Couldn't get past the first one before bursting into laughter. Hello kettle?
You're limited comprehension of Christianity seems to have made you the expert. Literally thinking the egg came fist in this instance. (I mean it did..cause birds are descended from reptiles..but you know what I mean). Remember that time you said I can't believe in evolution and the Bible? Thanks professor. Gosh, your argument is weak.
(Old Spike)
"Remember that time you said I can't believe in evolution and the Bible?"
I can't but the statement makes sense if we read the bible as it most probably (considering when scripture originated) was intended to be read: literally, not metaphorically.
Christianity and other religions evolved to a state where they were forced to claim "oh, scripture is to be read metaphorically" because otherwise it makes no sense at all.
The more theocracy got pushed into a tightening corner where the book couldn't any longer sufficiently explain scientific findings and claim that many things were not simply "created" any longer the more it became a metaphor and the more it needed explaining to be justified. Some refer to this as "god of the gaps".
I am by no means an "expert" in christianity or islam or others, and I don't think I have to be, I take a rather simplistic view, I ask myself: Are there things in our universe that need one or more creators to be explained? I can't see any. If you can good* on you, that is why I asked you the question earlier in the conversation, but "the sunset or sunrise" isn't really a good example without further explanation (which you can't or don't want to give, you probably just assume I won't understand, whilst I assume you simply can't). I am really gobsmacked by this, you brought it up after all, probably because it is very important to you but then you can't go into further detail, hence I called it shallow.
* but is it really? Because when we think about it, if the explanation we are satisfied with is "(a) creator(s)" the desire for further research and inquiry stops, which is exactly what theocracy (including christianity) wanted in the past, and even nowadays some of them still do, including some christian sects.
(Site Administrator)
Thanks @daftcunt for your patience the last couple of days while we celebrated Easter here with family (first time in 2yrs in Quebec, Canada where 20 of us could get together). Ok. Finally you've got some better-defined questions/points I can try to answer:
On biblical literalism. Wrong. The Tora and New Testament are both steeped in symbolism; and written so a shephard from 4k years ago could understand. Let's start 'in the beinning' heheh. For instance, I've discussed with priests and scholars 'the first day paradox'; i.e. the separation of darkness and light, many of whom agree this would have taken millions of years. A modern-day 'Christian Scientist' for instance would say this had to do with Earth settling into the standard rotation of 23 hours 56 minutes 4.091 seconds we enjoy today. It's a fair point. I mean, how do you define a day if the earth/mudball isn't spinning. I've heard others argue convincingly that because they are not biblical literalists (such as contemporary Hacidic Jews or Jehova's witnesses), that they experience no inner conflict as science continues to do better and better at explaining some of the mysteries of the universe. For instance, I'll tell you that when Shumacher-Levy plowed into Jupiter instead of Earth back in 1992, many folks had their faith re-affirmed.
Suddenly, you didn't just need to be the right distance from your star (i.e the Goldylocks zone), you also needed to be in a planetary system with a big-brother with a larger gravitational pull to take the beating from rogue asteroids etc. A beating that you would never survive. So, more time for life to establish itself on Earth, evolve and thrive. This in turn made the life in the cosmos that much more preciouls and rare (mathematically). Definitely something that affirmed the faith of those who believe in intelligent design too. So, yeah. no. Not bound by literalism. Otherwise, you miss the beauty of the message, missing the forest, for the trees. Unless that's your thing. Taking it one step further, Science recently produced a map of the known universe. So who's to say if our being in a planetary system per above, can't be extrapolated outwards, so that this one new physical law/requirement for intelligent life (as we know it) here at our little blue marble, Sol-3, isn't part of a suite of even more laws/requirements at the galactic or pan-galactic level; ie. just a gear in a very very complex machine that science is still working to unravel.
It's very possbible the above makes intelligent life even rarer than we imagined. Where you say fluke, others would say divine intervention. I'm comfortable to get past that difference between us and move on. Needless to say I could never share more personal examples of affirmations I've experienced in my life, here on this site, for.. reasons.. But, hopefully you my colouring inside the lines and trying to keep it related to the rising sun in places. ;-)
That last paragraph of yours, if this is your personal experience (to date), is extremely unfortunate. Some of the best scientists/university professors were religious or even priests. I will share that I was lucky enough to study Vertebrate Embryology where our instructor also happened to be a Jesuit priest. He's dead now. But I still remember asking him (on my honour) to let me write our 3hr final exam early; otherwise I'd have it back-to-back (same day) with Biochemisty 101 and would certainly fail. The gentleman came in with his newspaper on Saturday; and I wrote for 75% on both courses, and found out that sure-enough; he didn't change a single exam question for my classmates (who I never told). I still admire his scientific knowledge and what he taught me about negotiating honorably and fairly; which I try to carry with me to this day.
Anyway, sorry for the long-winded reply, but.. you asked. And hopefully you understand that we've both had very different experiences, obviously, and that's why I'll always call for balance and fairness when I see you singling out what you apparently feel is the easy target as far as religions go.
(Old Spike)
Somehow I can't seem to save my intended reply (only text). That is weird.
(Site Administrator)
Would have responded in detail but your text/screen cap issue makes it impossible for me to quote you back. Sufficed to say you end with calling what I say above bullshit. So maybe shouldn't waste my time casting pearls, eh?
(Old Spike)
Sorry couldn't reply in text for some reason. I just ask questions about things you said that don't make sense to me, I even googled "first day paradox" to no avail.
You could easily reply by numbering paragraphs....
(Site Administrator)
Yeah, but I'm not that desperate to communicate further on this issue given your concluding statement above. I continue to be amused however at your taking full advantage of the liberties and freedoms afforded you by living in a Christian founded republic, to criticize for instance, while simultaneously aspousing that man would be good without God (first). There are plenty of Sharia compliant places for instance where you could set up shop and continue your.. crusade (hnngh), against the local deity and see what happens. ;-)
(Old Spike)
Going back to the "but other religions are worse" argument? Come on!
Again: I think more explanation is necessary to make sense of what you are saying, nothing more, nothing less.
My questions to your examples were rather simple, I believe (pardon the pun):
What is the "frist day paradox"?
Do you think you would become a bad person when suddenly there was undeniable proof no god existed, would you stop to adhere to "christian values"?
tbh I don't think so. I think evidence points to: The "way" of christian societies was altered by people. People were fed up, theocracy was forced to come in line and adapted accordingly.
Did your teacher trust you because of your belief or because of you? Would he have acted differently if he suspected you to be an atheist or sikh or muslim?
Do you think the universe was built for us and around us and (a) god(s) make(s) conscious decisions as to where to send a comet so that life is made possible or protected?
What if there was undeniable proof you are wrong and there is only one god who actually prefers sharia to christian values, would you fall in line?
(Site Administrator)
Parag1. yup. I'm about as predictable as you pushing santa down a flight of stairs in December. You started it, so...
'nothing more, nothing less'. I owe it to you, do I?
?1. I feel bad that you spent time googling it. It's just a casual term I whipped out myself, in reference to how some argue that 'the first day' in Genesis may have lasted more than 24h. i.e. what's a day if the earth is formless and not spinning. separation of the light from the dark, etc. Sorry it's troubled you so. Have a milkbone ;-)
?2. 'tbh I don't think so. I think evidence points to: The "way" of christian societies was altered by people. People were fed up, theocracy was forced to come in line and adapted accordingly.' [BB: that's an interesting point. Do you think that judeo-christian doctrine; the 10 commandments and Christ's golden rule (do onto others) has had nothing to do with the formation of the society you presently live in? If so, how arrogant are you. I think many people are held 'in check' by the laws of God (and derviative laws of man). To say otherwise is to say the chicken came before the egg. And we said it didn't. Because birds are descended from reptiles. And reptiles have been laying eggs for millions and millions of years. (you have to say that last bit doing your best Carl Segan impersonation).]
?3-?4. I dunno. Maybe dig him up and ask. I only raised his example because you said religion and science were incompatible.
?5. No, that sounds kind of developmentally-delayed. That's all you got from what I said? I merely said that needing to belong to a system of planets made the probability of life even rarer. And that some would see this as an affirmation of their faith. Pay attention pup.
?6. What are you, crazy? Not gonna happen. I have trouble-enough with just one wife.
(Old Spike)
Thanks for your reply. I don't want to be obnoxious (and I honestly don't think I am) but just interested how you try to meake sense out of something I can't.
"'nothing more, nothing less'. I owe it to you, do I?"
You don't owe me nothing, neither do I owe you anything, you can skip out of the conversation at any point, worst that can happen is a sarcastic comment, I won't sink to other member's level and threaten anyone on here.
"some argue that 'the first day' in Genesis may have lasted more than 24h."
Didn't you say you were not a creationist (I ask this because only to a creationist this actually would present a conundrum, wouldn't it)? Of course the "first day" actually lasted millions of years, did it not? The person(s) who wrote genesis did not know that, though, did they, it was their interpretation, based on the knowledge of the era, of how it could have happened.
"Do you think that judeo-christian doctrine; the 10 commandments and Christ's golden rule (do onto others) has had nothing to do with the formation of the society you presently live in?"
Well, no of course I don't, however, I again give the credit to the people rather than a deity. If the 10 commandments have actually been written by a creator rather than (a) human(s), why would the most important one rank 3rd? Why would a confident, omnipotent creator need to tell us the 3 first ones at all? Why would they feel the need to be worshipped once a week?
" I think many people are held 'in check' by the laws of God (and derviative laws of man)."
This is possibly true, hence my question to you (which you consistently refuse to answer):
Do you think you would become a bad person when suddenly there was undeniable proof no god existed, would you stop to adhere to "christian values"?
I don't understand the chicken and egg reference in this context, though.
"I dunno. Maybe dig him up and ask. I only raised his example because you said religion and science were incompatible."
Come on, I asked your opinion and you know it. And "religion and science do not mix" ONLY applies if we read the bible literally, which I believe we have to and you believe we don't, this is a big part of why I am intersted in this convesation in the first place.
"I merely said that needing to belong to a system of planets made the probability of life even rarer. And that some would see this as an affirmation of their faith."
I know you did and that is why I brought it up. Now we do NOT need to belong to a system of planets to make life possible, a simple heat source like a sun and a single planet in the "sweet spot" that is composed of the necessary components would suffice. What you wrote I understood differently: The planets have been "put there" for a reason, like to protect us, hence people see it of a confirmation of their faith that a comet hit jupiter rather than earth. My question was: In this context would people also see it as a confirmation of their faith that life as we experience it on earth was only made possible by a comet hitting the earth?
Lastly regarding sharia: You divert with a humorous remark about one wife being enough trouble (and I wholeheartedly agree) but I believe sharia doesn't obligate one to have more than one wife and that you also (maybe inadvertantly and please correct me if I am wrong) answered my question. Of course you wouldn't, neither would I btw!
And this says a lot, I think!
(Site Administrator)
Don't take it personal either it's just responding to your paragraphs above asking me to explain and re-explain my position is getting a little boring. One last time and you can have the final reply next since it's not getting us any closer to agreement.
-no one called you obnoxious. you're extremely committed to your position. but, you do seem to have some blind spots that you seem unwilling to improve on. A kind of whataboutism that you're unwilling to turn inward.
-No one ever suggested that, but it did sound kind of like a demand; so you're not completely unaware. Agree it's best everyone stays chill. Questioning/Testing assumptions to get to the truth is always a fun exercise, as long as one side isn't so firmly entrenched that it's a waste of time for the other.
-No I said I (and many) are not biblical literalists. You keep conflagrating the 2 given the distance and distain you mantain for faith in general.
-I think you give people too much credit. We can be perfect little (or big) monsters when we want.
-Your acknowledging there was even some impact of judeo-christian tennants on western society is a small miracle in and of itself. I am not evading the question. You just continue to disregard my answer. Yes, we'd be worse off. Good people don't need rules. The rest of us,..do (and I continue to say that with the highest respect and veneration for these rules). And how would you define good without God, actually?
-Again, this is our disconnect. If you've only encountered biblical literalists til now you're right to go head-to-head with them. They're wrong on many levels, parsing out 1 sentence (pardon the pun) as gospel, while conveniently ignoring the one before or after. Keep up the good fight, daft. You saying 'I believe we have to', above, doesn't necessarily make it so, right?
-But I didn't say that, did I. We're not talking e.g. silicone-based microbes from space. I said having a larger planet in the neighborhood to hoover-up debris gives a world more time do develop complex and intelligent life. I'm happy to accept that our planet has a copper core and the iron in our blood came from space. Not conflicted in the least. Dude, I'm starting to think Orthodox Christianity might be for you, haha. Look it up, maybe.
-Yes. That would be my first excuse, obviously. But Dawa; including spreading the religion by forceful means would be the true reason. You decide you want to be an atheist after being born to a Christian family? Ok, fair enough, there's the door. Honor killings and executing of those who don't adhere to your particular religious law or practices on the other hand? Yeah, no. Hard pass.
And like I said above, you get the final reply on this thread. Make it a good one, eh?
(Site Administrator)
(Site Administrator)
Aww. Little kids in Christian countries around the world will be sad but this is indeed a proper observation on commercialization of the holidays. Nothing new as I recall getting and enjoying a chocolate egg (with prize) or chocolate bunny or 2 when I was a kid. Glad you're putting so much thought into this. Do you celebrate Easter, Dan?
(Site Administrator)
nah I don't really celebrate easter. eating chocolate is an all year activity these days.
I just thought the meme was funny in how cynical it is. I can't even tell if it's someone mocking easter or if a believer made it, that part cracks me up.
(Site Administrator)
Apparently in germanic cultures (this includes anglos) the egg thing goes way back, or did you not watch your own super-informative video before posting it. ;-) Again, this would just be local cultures infusing the holiday with their own (local) tradition/flavor.
(Site Administrator)
interesting. Each year I try to learn a bit more about Easter. I watched the videos but never really got a handle on it all yet. Need to watch an expert's lecture or something.
(Site Administrator)
lols. unless you're planning on converting or anything, I really wouldn't waste my time if I was you. Otherwise, fyi, this is the big one for many Christians. Bigger than Christmas even since it's about the 'new covenant' with God. We Orthodox celebrate a week after the Catholics (this year); since the events took place during passover which is currently underway. A nice time for quiet contemplation on the sacrifice that was made (in our belief) to redeem mankind.