Christian myth vs. other mythologies

[Nancy Allen``]

If we have the inerrant word of God at our fingertips, don't you think we should be following that? I'm not sure I can answer that. In today's society it seems to be some from column A and some from column B. But if every word of what is scripture was to be followed, I myself would probably say no, and I think today's Christian would also say no.

[Achilles]

What does "column A" and "column B" mean? Also, what do you mean by "today's Christian"?

 

Is today's Christian represented by the moderates who fail to recognize the threat from their extremist brethren or by the extremist themselves?

 

It seems like you might be having some difficulty synthesizing "the big picture" here.

[Nancy Allen``]

Did I tell you about that police drama where a witch was persecuted by Christians? In our society that would be seen as extremist. Would someone like Bush be extremist? I'm not sure I'd say he's extremist, I'd say he's a idiot, and he hurts Christianity by his posturing over it, saying God told him to invade Iraq and the like. What about something like Jesus Camp? I can understand the fear that comes from something like this, but Christians preach about being in a spiritual war all the time. This however takes it far beyond the lengths others would take it, and in any case they're wrong in praying to Bush, I checked.

 

By today's Christian I mean the type who does not burn sacrifices in 'guilt offerings', ect, who don't practice God's ways in being a God of anger, a just God, who would smite a people for their acts. Oh sure you get the odd extremist, or maybe they are truely living how scripture says they're meant to, but for the most part they don't. They take some of the scripture to heart, or even most of it, and deem the rest as not applying to them.

 

Big picture? Explain this to me. Something like a call to arms for Christians to wage war on what is deemed intolerant?

[Achilles]

No, what I mean is that you seem to completely forget salient points from earlier conversations. If I had the patience to run the gambit one more time, I might make the effort. However, I don't, so you will just have to go on thinking that Bush is really a misunderstood moderate and the Evangelical movement is being blown out of proportion by those that don't see that our elected officials don't really think that it's their mission from God to prepare the Earth for Christ's return.

[Nancy Allen``]

No, what are you saying? That Bush is trying to orchastrate Christ's return? That people such as this Jesus Camp mob believe that is what they're meant to be doing?

[Achilles]

Yes on both counts. Don't take my word for it, take theirs.

 

Google is your friend. Let me know if you find anything that contradicts what I said.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'll have a look right away, but tell me something: If religion is a fallacy and not meant to be real then why is there such concern over it?

[Achilles]

Nancy, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I know I've already answered this specific question at least once. I don't have the ambition to do it again.

 

I know this is a lot of information to take in, but if you can't keep up, then maybe you ought to slow down a little. I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you may have, but I refuse to repeat myself. Fair enough?

[Nancy Allen``]

Yeah, okay, anything specific I should be looking for? I can't find anything about Bush wanting to try and bring about Christ's return.

[Achilles]

Try googling "George Bush rapture". I seriously doubt that you'll find anything taken from the pages of peer-reviewed journals and most anything you see from the big news sources is going to be sanitized for public consumption. Unfortunately this means you're going to have to rely on your own critical thinking skills to ferret out the legitimate independent journalism from the ultra-liberal wingnut BS.

 

Try this with a little independent fact-checking.

[Nancy Allen``]

Certainly Bush using religion to justify his means is wrong, and for him to try and bring about Christ's return is something that would be scary. I don't know how he thinks he'll be able to do it, maybe fulfil the signs that would bring Christ. By the same token there are passages where people try and test Christ, to get him to show his power and he wouldn't. If Bush is trying to do the same thing then there's every possibility that he'll fail.

 

Reading that however Rice is even worse than Bush, saying what she said. It gives weight to Bush wanting to bring about Christ's return.

[Jae Onasi]

Hi all,

 

I've posed this question a few times (and a few different ways) over in Kavar's Corner but I've yet to have anyone respond. Jae made reference to the Senate Chambers as being a more intellectually rigorous forum, so I thought I might try my luck over here.

.

 

You'll certainly find more folks who share your belief here.

[Spider AL]

You'll certainly find more folks who share your belief here.

 

Hmm, if you're referring to atheism Jae, it's not a belief, but a lack of belief. A lack of belief in gods.

 

If you're not referring to atheism, what are you referring to?

[Achilles]

You'll certainly find more folks who share your belief here.

I was just hoping to find people that could actually debate. Seems the quickest way to kill a thread in Kavar's Corner is ask a well-reasoned question.

 

Edit: or ask someone to back up a claim with something that resembles logic or evidence.

[Jae Onasi]

Achilles, you'll find debate here, no worries, and I'm sure you'll enjoy this forum very much, and if you were thinking I meant that comment as a barb, I wasn't. Kavar's was never intended as a Senate replacement--it's a different environment in SWK. And you'll get a reply from me over there at least hopefully soon--searching for a new job and dealing with that upheaval to my family had to take precedence over taking the time to do the research needed for threads in either the Senate or Kavar's. I enjoy reading the debates very much, but I've discovered engaging in some of them is not a stress-relieving activity for me, and I've got way too much stress atm. One of these months RL will finally release its death grip on me....sigh.

 

@Spider AL--I know you are very specific with that terminology (and I don't think that's a bad thing), but if you cannot definitively _prove_ there is no God, then is it not just your _belief_ that there is no God?

I don't have a ton of time at the moment to do any kind of extensive semantic discussion, so a brief answer on how you view that distinction is probably going to be more than sufficient for me, at least, at this time.

[Spider AL]

if you cannot definitively _prove_ there is no God, then is it not just your _belief_ that there is no God?

We've been over that many times in the Senate Jae, as I'm sure you must remember. The old "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so atheism is just another belief system" fallacy is very old, and very discredited.

 

1. You don't need to prove that something definitely doesn't exist in order to lack a belief that it exists. For example, I don't need to prove that Harry Potter doesn't exist before rationally stating that I'm an "a-harrypotterist". It's not that I "believe Harry Potter to be fictional", it's that I lack belief in Harry Potter. I act in the world as if Harry Potter does not exist. It is as close to KNOWING that something doesn't exist, as we can get.

 

This is what we call the "default position". A total lack of belief pending evidence to support belief.

 

2. You cannot prove that ANY imaginary thing "does not exist". It's impossible to prove that things "don't exist". Thus the question of whether one can "prove that god doesn't exist" is fallacious and irrelevant anyway.

 

3. Stating that "atheism is just a belief" is technically incorrect (as noted in post #63) but it is also logically fallacious in that it implies an EQUIVALENCE between the belief that god exists (irrational, based upon zero evidence) and the atheist stance, which is that we lack belief in gods. Because there's no evidence that there are such things as gods. (logical, rational, etcetera.)

 

And the two are not equivalent in any way. One is pure rationalism, the view that until some shred of evidence is presented to suggest the existence of a thing... one shouldn't believe in it. And the other is pure irrationality, the idea that one can believe in any darn thing, regardless of whether there's any evidence or not.

 

Belief in the Christian god (or the muslim god, judaic god, whatever) is exactly... and I do mean EXACTLY equivalent to belief in the tooth fairy. Or Zeus. Or Odin, Thor, Anubis, Typhon, Hermes, the Grinch... Batman...

 

They all have the same amount of evidence in their favour. Zilch.

[Jae Onasi]

It's splitting frog hairs, but I see your viewpoint.

[Achilles]

It's not splitting hairs at all. It's a very important distinction that a lot of people miss.

[Spider AL]

It's splitting frog hairs, but I see your viewpoint.

As Achilles says, that's simply incorrect.

 

But more than that, belitting such an important distinction by calling it "splitting hairs" is rather theistically self-serving.

 

Perhaps I can put it a little more starkly for you:

 

Point #1: Christians have an irrational belief that the judeo-christian god exists.

 

Point #2: Atheists totally lack belief in gods. This is a rational default position. It is the only rational position.

 

Point #3: A lack of belief in a thing does not equal "a belief in the lack" of a thing. I don't "believe there are no gods", the question "is there a god?" does not arise in my mind, because no evidence has ever been presented to me that suggests there even MIGHT be a god.

 

-

 

Since there is no evidence to suggest the existence of gods, it is fair to say that we are as close to knowing that there are no gods as humans can be. We are as close to knowing that there are no gods as humans ever will be. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to be any more certain that gods don't exist than we are now. Why? Because there is zero evidence for the existence of gods. We simply couldn't have LESS evidence than we do now. This is as close to an absolute as we will ever get.

 

So I for one would be perfectly comfortable saying "I know God doesn't exist", because in colloquial terms it's correct. We're as close to knowing as humans can ever be. Just as I know there isn't a giant purple cucumber hovering above my house, I know there are no gods. Just as I know that the Sentient Slices of Cheddar Cheese from the island of Mandango don't exist, I know there are no gods. I lack belief in these things totally, therefore I act in the world as if they do not exist.

 

Let me put it yet another way: Perhaps you'll be able to see the faintly ludicrous quality of someone coming up to you and asking "Do you believe that flying purple polka-dotted elephants DON'T exist?"

 

Well to suggest that atheism is a "belief that god doesn't exist" is similarly ludicrous. Both technically incorrect and incorrect in all the rest of its substance as well.

 

So frankly, any attempt to equate atheism to religious belief systems by stating "atheism is just a belief" is... absolutely laughable.