Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

[Hespera]

Well, in regard to deities, it is a yes/no question. If you don´t answer this question positive, you answer it negative. You might escape having to answer... which is often (falsly) labeled as agnosticism... but you either do believe or you don´t.

So in regard to basketball, I might be a soccer supporter. But in regard to gods, I am a no-godian. (To use Polycarp_fan´s funny label)

With regard to "deities" it isnt a question at all.

Unless maybe you are a abasketballist

 

[MoonLancer]

"They"?

You guys aren't doing it, too?

I don't remember condoning slavery or murder.

Thank you --- please don't.

I have been careful to insert the word "today" in enough of my posts that it is clear that I'm talking about two things here:

1. You guys here on this Internet --- (and you know who you are) --- the ones who claim the Bible condones murder, genocide, and slavery.
2. 2009.

was the bible created in 2009? using the word today you assume that the bible at some point changed. Did the bible change?

by using "today" your showing that secular paradigm changed the way we view the world.

 

[Freodin]

It´s sooo easy.

"People interprete the Bible in a certain way. They are wrong."

"People did interprete the Bible in a certain way. They were also wrong."

"I interprete the Bible in a certain way. I am always correct."

 

[Nathan Poe]

No --- I'm trying to show the danger this planet would face if you guys ran this world the way you guys interpret It.

Except we don't interpret it that way -- We're hypothesizing how "you guys" who claim to follow the Bible would run the world if you were given the chance.

I interpret the Bible as mythology -- what danger would the planet face if I ran the world according to that belief?

I'm not interested in the least about what they thought --- I'm interested in what you think.

I think they -- as with many fundamentalists then and now -- are a danger to themselves and others.

Looks like history backs me up on that one.

In my opinion, they thought wrong --- but you guys are thinking just like they were.

Becuase that was the point of this little exercise. It's people like you who claim to follow the Bible as God's Word in all things, but quickly distance yourself from people who've done likewise in the past.

Just FYI, the Bible does not say to hang them, or burn them --- again, that's your interpretation --- not mine.

True, it just says kill them. It's actually not specific as to how. However, a Bible expert such as yourself should have no problem reading Scripture and seeing how God handled similar situations.

I'll be frank here --- you guys scare the living snot out of me --- you really do.

Nothing worse than seeing your own faults reflected and magnified, is there, AV?

The way you guys think we Christians should walk, talk, and think, based on how you guys interpret the Bible, it's no wonder we were thrown to the lions.

You were thrown to the Lions because Nero needed a scapegoat to draw suspicion off himself for the great Roman fires.

Honestly, AV, if you guys interpreted history like... well, frankly, like you do, it's no wonder people laugh at fundamentalism.

 

[Hespera]

No --- I'm trying to show the danger this planet would face if you guys ran this world the way you guys interpret It.I'm not interested in the least about what they thought --- I'm interested in what you think.

In my opinion, they thought wrong --- but you guys are thinking just like they were.If you say so.Just FYI, the Bible does not say to hang them, or burn them --- again, that's your interpretation --- not mine.

I'll be frank here --- you guys scare the living snot out of me --- you really do.

The way you guys think we Christians should walk, talk, and think, based on how you guys interpret the Bible, it's no wonder we were thrown to the lions.

What you are trying to show and what you are showing are two different things.

What you ARE showing is that you want to put it off on non Christians that which Christians have done in the name of your book.

WE dont see it as any more than a historical novel that too many people take too seriously with horrible consequences.

Your If / then scenario is completely senseless. And tiresome. If you like to scare yourself with imaginings, keep it to yourself svp. Dont include others and insult them with it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"They"?

You guys aren't doing it, too? Thank you --- please don't.

I have been careful to insert the word "today" in enough of my posts that it is clear that I'm talking about two things here:

1. You guys here on this Internet --- (and you know who you are) --- the ones who claim the Bible condones murder, genocide, and slavery.
2. 2009.

1. So when did the Bible change from condoning (and in some cases, ordering) these practices to condemning them?
2. When can we expect the Bible to change again?

 

[Hespera]

It´s sooo easy.

"People interprete the Bible in a certain way. They are wrong."

"People did interprete the Bible in a certain way. They were also wrong."

"I interprete the Bible in a certain way. I am always correct."

All you need is a Urim and a Thummim, or some equvalent.

 

[Hespera]

"They"?

You guys aren't doing it, too?Thank you --- please don't.

I have been careful to insert the word "today" in enough of my posts that it is clear that I'm talking about two things here:

1. You guys here on this Internet --- (and you know who you are) --- the ones who claim the Bible condones murder, genocide, and slavery.
2. 2009.

So why dont you quote for us the relevant passages on killing witches etc, and then tell us what the true literal interpretation is?

While you are at it, you would know the ones that seem to condone slavery and genocide, can you quote them along with the true literal interpretation?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then, in your opinion, it was done in spite of the Bible --- wasn't it?

Does any one person's opinion trump what Scripture plainly says, AV? Because I and others have offered opinions on Genesis 1 -- you've never given them much weight before.

Not if it was murder --- the Bible does not justify murder.

No, but the Bible does justify killings which we, in our opinon, would consider murder.

That doesn't explain the 19 women who were hanged.

Actually, AV -- it was 15 women and 3 men hanged.

1 man pressed to death with heavy stones.

1 woman and 1 man died in prison before trial.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you want to include "according to the Bible", then you are going to have to say it wasn't murder, since the Bible does not condone death by homicide.

According to the law and the Bible, it was not murder. But you asked for my opinon. Did you honestly want it, or not?

If you say it wasn't murder, then you have to agree that their exectutions were justified.

Why? Is every execution justified?

If you agree that their executions were justified, then you agree with me that if you ran the world like you interpret the Bible, we would be either slaves, in hiding, or awaiting execution ourselves.

Wrong as usual, AV -- faulty premises make for faulty conclusions.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What do you call peace that is required?

Civilization.

I don't have to love someone in order to not kill them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then I rest my case --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, we would all either be slaves, hanging on a rope, burning at a stake, or in hiding.

I interpret the Bible as mythology -- what danger is the world in?

You guys had your chance -- and it was the rest of us who were the slaves, hanging, burning, and hiding.

 

[Skaloop]

Nice try.

When people distort reality to create 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism' there must be something missing in their understanding of the English language, don't you think?

No, I don't. I also don't think reality is being distorted. Rather, reality is being accommodated. The reality is, there are people who lack a belief in any god. Those people are generally called atheists. I also dislike the strong/weak descriptors, but they can be useful in demonstrating the degree to which one lacks a belief.

Atheist is an absolute, not a relative. It denotes someone who believes that there is no God.

Again, I disagree. There are relative levels of atheism. For instance, if my friend tells me they found 100 dollars on the sidewalk, I probably wouldn't believe that. If they said they found a billion dollars on the sidewalk, I definitely wouldn't believe it. There is a relative strength to my disbelief. Sure the exact word atheist is pretty black or white but the actual condition of being an atheist is full of gray. This reality is not reflected by your strict dictionary definition.

If anyone uses it any other way, then their knowledge of the language is somewhat lacking. It is not my fault that I know what the word actually means, and others do not. Neither does that make me prescriptive in the use of language.

It pretty much does. People do know what the word means because they use it to mean something. Sure, if it's just one person assigning random meanings to various words, it gets to be meaningless, but where a word evolves and changes within a large portion of the speakers of the language, then how they use it is one of its meanings, whether in the dictionary or not. It's not their fault that you aren't up-to-date enough with the development of English that you don't know its non-dectionary meaning.

This is just illustrative of the confusion that arises from imprecise use of language. 'Atheist', 'theist' and 'agnostic' are mutually exclusive. If used properly, that is.

A theist does not need to claim 100% certainty. S/he only needs to believe.

And if they acknowledge that they are not 100% certain, then they are agnostic as well.

Here's an example that I have used before to illustrate how one can be atheist and agnostic at the same time. I live in Vancouver, my brother lives in San Francisco. At this moment, I do not believe that he is in Vancouver. If you asked me if he was in Vancouver, I would unhestitatingly say "no." If he were coming, he would have called me, or let me know so we could meet up. He would have told our parents, who would have told me. So no, I do not believe that my brother is in Vancouver. That is similar to the atheist stance.

However, it is certainly possible that my brother was sent up here on an emergency business trip and hasn't been able to get ahold of me. Maybe he's coming and wants it to be a surprise for me. So it is possible that my brother is in Vancouver, and right now, there is no way for me to know. That is similar to the agnostic stance.

I don't and can't really know if my brother is in town, but I don't believe that he is.

So, what are the "proper definitions" of atheism and agnosticism that make them mutually exclusive?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, what are the "proper definitions" of atheism and agnosticism that make them mutually exclusive?

In the atheist's mindset, he doesn't believe in A, because A doesn't exist, and never did.

In the agnostic's mindset, he doesn't believe in A, because he hasn't seen enough evidence to warrant believing it.

To put it another way, the atheist says in his heart [and mind], there is no God; whereas the agnostic says in his mind, there [probably] is no God.

Should God actually show up, the agnostic would be surprised, whereas the atheist would be shocked and disappointed.

In my opinion.

 

[mpok1519]

You guys are the evidence in this conversation --- assuming I can get an honest answer from you.

I even created a poll for it.

Some of you guys are smart enough to stay out of the conversation, though.

Stick to read-only if you don't want to be pwned.

does read-only pwn exist? Does conversation and fish exist?

does cre-materia ex nihlism prove God enjoys milano cookies?

 

[Hespera]

In the atheist's mindset, he doesn't believe in A, because A doesn't exist, and never did.

In the agnostic's mindset, he doesn't believe in A, because he hasn't seen enough evidence to warrant believing it.

To put it another way, the atheist says in his heart [and mind], there is no God; whereas the agnostic says in his mind, there [probably] is no God.

Should God actually show up, the agnostic would be surprised, whereas the atheist would be shocked and disappointed.

In my opinion.

Your opinion would be wrong in my case. We'd ALL be shocked, I think, one way or another. i would be delighted. Why on earth would you think anyone would be disappointed?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Your opinion would be wrong in my case. We'd ALL be shocked, I think, one way or another. i would be delighted. Why on earth would you think anyone would be disappointed?

I think the only person to be disappointed if God were to appear would be AV himself.

 

[Skaloop]

In the atheist's mindset, he doesn't believe in A, because A doesn't exist, and never did.

In the agnostic's mindset, he doesn't believe in A, because he hasn't seen enough evidence to warrant believing it.

To put it another way, the atheist says in his heart [and mind], there is no God; whereas the agnostic says in his mind, there [probably] is no God.

Should God actually show up, the agnostic would be surprised, whereas the atheist would be shocked and disappointed.

In my opinion.

So you not only know the hearts and minds of men, but also how'd they'd react, across the board, in hypothetical situations?

 

[Split Rock]

No --- I'm trying to show the danger this planet would face if you guys ran this world the way you guys interpret It.I'm not interested in the least about what they thought --- I'm interested in what you think.

I have already said I would not interpret The Bible that way, nor ever use it for criminal justice. That does not change the fact that Christians in the past interpreted it just the way you claim we would and created the Hell on Earth you say you fear. And they did it all in the name of God utilizing God's Word as their justification.

In my opinion, they thought wrong --- but you guys are thinking just like they were.

I agree they were wrong. No, we do not think like they did.

If you say so.

Yes I do. Is it really so hard for you to let go of a false assumption, just because it sounds so good to you? I wonder if that affects your interpretation of scripture as well.... hmmm?

Just FYI, the Bible does not say to hang them, or burn them --- again, that's your interpretation --- not mine.

That was The Church's interpretation, not mine.

I'll be frank here --- you guys scare the living snot out of me --- you really do.

Now you know how we feel about Fundamentalists and Evangelical Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, we do not think like they did.

Then how do you explain the accusations against the Bible of supporting genocide, slavery, and incest?

One poster that used to post here a lot went head-to-head with me on the slavery issue, and I made this point to him:

Cliffs Notes on the Civil War:

• Lee was on the pro-slavery side.
• Grant was on the anti-slavery side.
• God broke the tie.