Atheism

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And both fail completely by not even getting their paganism right.

Whether you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of mankind or not isn't even the question. (I'm sorry for getting a little off-topic in that regard. You obviously know what my answer is to that question)

The question is if the story of Jesus' life is based on earlier pagan gods. And the answer to that question is a resounding no.

Except for the part where you're debunking stuff I never used as evidence, just paranoid strawmen that paint an incomplete picture. Don't tell me it's a resounding no. I don't give a sh*t when A) you talk in absolutes about something you've clearly barely researched and B) you only refute bullsh*t (and I use "refute" loosely). Lost in the "Aha! I can refute this particular claim!" euphoria is that fact that these kinds of stories, motifs, symbols, etc. were running rampant through dozens if not hundreds of myths before, during, and after the advent of Christianity. Joseph Campbell doesn't need to be 100% accurate when he's literally listing hundreds (thousands?) of myths that draw from the same structure. Because, don't get me wrong, there's a lot to be debunked on either side. Not every claim of Jesus parallel is true. But that's kind of missing the forest for the trees.

You also went ahead and ignored every other point I made, which DOES have bearing on this central debate. Please re-address them if you can.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
These are 52 areas where Bible-believers are persecuted everyday.

But I don't expect you to listen to a word of it, anyway. You'll always find something you can nit-pick and ignore everything.

I don't think you believe it. By the standards you set it seems unlikely that any real Christians have ever been persecuted in those countries. 99% of those Bible-believers are people you would consider pagans.

Everything is going to be all right now.

Originally posted by Oliver North
do you have a source for Columbia banning the Bible?

Originally posted by 753
it hasnt, neither has chiapas. I'd be surprised if the bible has been banned in a single one of those jurisdictions. it's just a list of places where christians often evangelical missionaries specifically have been attacked.

Indeed, thats what his web links were about too

not even anything about organized persecution, simply reports of a person being targeted or the motive behind a crime being religious

my point was, he still hadn't backed up claims he had made pages ago, and he continues on as if it didn't matter that what he said wasn't true.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Indeed, thats what his web links were about too

not even anything about organized persecution, simply reports of a person being targeted or the motive behind a crime being religious

my point was, he still hadn't backed up claims he had made pages ago, and he continues on as if it didn't matter that what he said wasn't true.

Heh. Didn't take long to be reminded of why I took almost a half-year hiatus from KMC. Still, it's nice to pop back in and shoot the sh*t.

_____________________

At this point in my life, I've seen, heard, or read most of the major arguments. The debate and/or philosophy behind religion/non-religion doesn't concern me. I just don't want it infringing on my life. I don't even need to identify as a friggin atheist. If I can live my life without going to church, having to defer to religious influences in my personal or professional life, and I'm not coerced into raising any potential kids religiously (I wouldn't need to specifically raise them atheist, either, for reference), I'd be good.

Tangent, sure, but w/e. It's not like we're going places in a hurry otherwise. And the one place religion still seems to affect my life is in social settings or attempts to date and such.

Originally posted by Digi
I just don't want it infringing on my life. I don't even need to identify as a friggin atheist. If I can live my life without going to church, having to defer to religious influences in my personal or professional life, and I'm not coerced into raising any potential kids religiously (I wouldn't need to specifically raise them atheist, either, for reference), I'd be good

Originally posted by Omega Vision
👆

Glad you agree. It's a shame that the only thing that makes many more militant - myself included at times - is the fact that religion does frequently infringe on our lives in unwanted or unintended ways. And not always in obvious ways.

But my new favorite is trolling those who are spiritual but not religious (i.e. hippies, usually). But I take a decidedly pro-Christian side, because it's more fun. It's ironically easier than debating from an atheistic viewpoint...less misconceptions to mire through, and some will acquiesce to Christianity more readily since it's the societal seat of power, so to speak.

Originally posted by Digi
Glad you agree. It's a shame that the only thing that makes many more militant - myself included at times - is the fact that religion does frequently infringe on our lives in unwanted or unintended ways. And not always in obvious ways.

But my new favorite is trolling those who are spiritual but not religious (i.e. hippies, usually). But I take a decidedly pro-Christian side, because it's more fun. It's ironically easier than debating from an atheistic viewpoint...less misconceptions to mire through, and some will acquiesce to Christianity more readily since it's the societal seat of power, so to speak.

I think that when/if I have children I might baptize them just for the sake of tradition, because Catholicism is part of my cultural background.

I honestly don't give a damn whether things like "In God we Trust" or "One Nation Under God" are included in our daily life, just as I don't substitute anything for "Oh my God!" or "God damn it" in my speech, and I prefer "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays." Where I take issue is when Right Wingers want to have our justice system defer to an obsolete code of laws (the Ten Commandments), and where just being an agnostic, never mind a full blown atheist disqualifies you from holding public office in most people's eyes. That predominately non-religious (because most Americans in my experience don't have particularly strong religious convictions) people still feel somehow uncomfortable around atheists and agnostics, people who spend maybe two hours of every week thinking about God and reading scripture, and who readily admit that when the word of the Bible conflicts with science, science wins--these people (yes, I realize this is entirely anecdotal, but I'm going to continue) still feel scandalized or at least unnerved at the notion of an atheist.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

I honestly don't give a damn whether things like "In God we Trust" or "One Nation Under God" are included in our daily life, just as I don't substitute anything for "Oh my God!" or "God damn it" in my speech, and I prefer "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays."

most militant atheists are assholes. just look at dawkins

edit: so assholes isnt a curseword, huh? fascinating

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think that when/if I have children I might baptize them just for the sake of tradition, because Catholicism is part of my cultural background.

My respect for you increased after reading this. I know you wouldn't do it because of "cover my bases, just in case" type of mentality. The fact that you would do it for the family and/or culture aspect of it means you don't have the high-and-mighty attitude of "being above all things religion."

Now if this type of attitude would expand to more groups...I could see stuff like a Christian attending synagogue with his Jewish friend every Friday and that Jewish friend attending Mass with the Christian every Sunday.

*******

Originally posted by 753
most militant atheists are assholes. just look at dawkins

edit: so assholes isnt a curseword, huh? fascinating

Originally posted by dadudemon
My respect for you increased after reading this. I know you wouldn't do it because of "cover my bases, just in case" type of mentality. The fact that you would do it for the family and/or culture aspect of it means you don't have the high-and-mighty attitude of "being above all things religion."

Now if this type of attitude would expand to more groups...I could see stuff like a Christian attending synagogue with his Jewish friend every Friday and that Jewish friend attending Mass with the Christian every Sunday.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Have you ever read about the Mughal Sultans? One of them, I can't remember his name--used to hold discussions where he invited Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists to debate their beliefs while he stood as moderator, listening and considering all points made. He did it not to prove that any one religion was "right" (of course, he was a Muslim), but just because he admired the passion of the respective representatives, and loved discourse.

No, I have never heard of him. But he sounds like a very likable person. You should find out his name....

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I have never heard of him. But he sounds like a very likable person. You should find out his name....

Originally posted by 753
most militant atheists are assholes. just look at dawkins

I agree, but many militant religious practicioners are also disgracing to their respective religions. I see it as a vocal-internet-troll mentality in which you visibility is directly related not with how right or informed you are, but about how you want to express your own pissed off opinions.

I'm not quite sure I see the point of something like baptism for purely cultural reasons. I'll take you at your word that it has nothing to do with a Pascalian [sic?] Wager, but what is the value of something like baptism if not for the explicitly religious reason? I know an atheist couple that had a Catholic wedding...so that they wouldn't incur the ire of relatives. It wasn't worth the trouble. I see that as a practical reason.

But is it really just "oh, this is what my family does"? Tradition for the sake of itself?

Originally posted by 753
most militant atheists are assholes. just look at dawkins

edit: so assholes isnt a curseword, huh? fascinating

Hmm.

Most Germans are assholes. Just look at Hitler.

Or, more generally, Most [group] are [modifier]. Just look at [someone 2-3 standard deviations off the bell curve for the particular modifier I'm stereotyping them as].

See the problem?

Dawkins needs to stop being the poster child for anything atheist. Seriously, it's ludicrous. He's a brilliant writer and biologist who mucks everything up when he tries to enact cultural movements within the atheist community. That's it.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not quite sure I see the point of something like baptism for purely cultural reasons. I'll take you at your word that it has nothing to do with a Pascalian [sic?] Wager, but what is the value of something like baptism if not for the explicitly religious reason? I know an atheist couple that had a Catholic wedding...so that they wouldn't incur the ire of relatives. It wasn't worth the trouble. I see that as a practical reason.

But is it really just "oh, this is what my family does"?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, I just like the ceremonial aspect. Have you ever attended an atheist wedding? If so, what was it like?

I don't know enough atheists. Among the ones I do, and those that are married, they acquiesced to either their family or a slightly more religious partner and had a religious ceremony. The girl from my anecdote still hasn't come out to anyone in her family, immediate or otherwise. It's unfortunate. I can't even say I'd be against a religious wedding myself. Well, I would be, but depending on who I'd be with, similar complications could sway us into the same conclusion.

I've met those who enjoy the rituals and ceremonies of some religions. I get that. But it still seems contradictory to me, especially if you actively don't believe in what it represents. Like a vegan believing eating meat is inhumane, but consuming bacon because his/her parents were pig farmers.

Because acts do have power. You'll either be lying to the baptizing priest about your intentions, or putting him into an uncomfortable situation of going through with a ceremony that the participants have no vested stake in. And you could be sending the wrong message to family or friends about how you want to raise the child. Ditto with your wife/partner. Or you could...

...you see where I'm going. It's not necessarily a harmless adherence to tradition when your views are opposed to the underlying purpose of what you're doing. Love of ceremony or standing on tradition doesn't seem like it should outweigh those factors.

My friends' wedding was beautiful; everyone enjoyed themselves. They had to lie to the priest's face about how they were going to raise their children. It bothered both of them.

It's your choice to make, of course. And, ultimately, not quite as dire as I'm making it out to be here. I just don't see it as such an easy decision.