Colour me shocked (http://uk.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11201273.htm) :kingmeh:
What's the skinny on this Atwill dude?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_conspiracy_theory
Best I can find that doesn't take you to one of his PR sites.
I'd bet that if you bothered to dig through the edit history, his books were added by him.
It looks like alex jones for atheists to me.
Still, it would please me to see this confirmed :lulz:
[Disclaimer: I am not against religious feelings, I am against organised religion. And that includes ALL of them.]
Quote from: Cain on October 09, 2013, 10:40:05 AM
He's got more citations on atheist forums than he has in academic publications or expertise in history.
When I read the phrase "atheist forums" I hear booing and hissing in the back of my head like an automatic reflex.
Didn't James Cameron claim he had discovered the tomb of Christ a few years back and that he had lived a long and healthy life and was married with three kids?
This guy is pretty bullshitty in the history and classics community. He's trying to create a ground shaker but has nothing to stand on. He barely did any research and is relying on the words of others to hold his argument up. Bad bad bad bad bad. Also, if this is correct, this would basically say that there were no proto-Christians following Christ's death during the 1st and 2nd Century, which is utterly false. Whether or not he was the Messiah, chances are there was a real man who said some real things that sparked a movement in Judaism. This much we know for sure, because it's well chronicled on the Roman side of history.
Once we can confirm a copy of the Census of Quirinius from AD 4, we should be able to put more pieces of the puzzle together. However, our largest issue at hand is determining if the Roman contemporaries that mentioned Jesus or Christ by name, namely the Jewish writer Josephus (who was in a client-patron relationship with the known and noted anti-Semitic Flavian emperors Vespasian, Titus (wrecked the temple in AD 70) and Domitian (total psychopath, my graduate school writing sample is on him)) and the senator Tacitus, are actually legitimate or if they were added in during the translation period. The majority of Latin texts were translated to Greek by the Orthodox Byzantines starting from about 550 to 1100, but they weren't known for their corruption of the Classics. They also held one of the largest libraries in Europe until the Ottoman sack of Constantinople in 1453, which was then brought in pieces to Western Europe. So if the books weren't already translated poorly by Catholic scholars prior, they may have been translated into the vulgate moving into the 16th and 17th Century, when the King James Bible was drafted, and half of what we know today is lost.
In short, this is a sticky situation for anyone to enter. Pretty much any tool can write, "JEEBUS IS A LIE!" and smear the walls with typical propaganda, or, as educated people, we can wait for true evidence to surface. With the discovery of a large cache of papyrii in Morocco and Ethiopia recently, we may be able to find more answers soon.
Did I go over the top again?
Quote from: Suu on October 09, 2013, 12:33:53 PM
Did I go over the top again?
Not at all. Appreciated!
NP.
Shit like this has been coming up A LOT lately, because there's a good deal of atheists that want to prove a point. The problem is that they aren't historians, they're armchair librarians and archaeologists looking for conspiracy theories on the internet to build their argument, and it's killing them. I'm not saying this guy has no historian background, but the fact that he is willing to cite online forums over solid sources alone is a pretty shitty practice. My professors would have shot me.
Yeah, I figured it had to be bullshit, otherwise someone from the BBC would have interviewed the pope by now but it's a damn fine new tool in my christian-trolling toolkit, nonetheless.
Thanks to you I also have some more acid to throw in athiest's faces now, too.
All bases covered 8)
I also do parties.
As far as I can tell, there may have been a Jesus. It seems very likely that much of the biblical Jesus is an amalgam of non-fiction and fiction, but we simply don't have any sort of irrefutable proof at this point. Its kind of like the whole question of if there was a King David, King Solomon or even a nation of Israel before the return from Babylon. There could have been, but it appears that the biblical account is, at the very least a mishmash of fiction and non-fiction.
Either way, it seems credible to say that the Jesus of the Bible is fiction... perhaps based on some real dude, perhaps not. However, for Christianity, the biblical Jesus must be 100% true. If he isn't the Son of God, if he didn't perform miracles, if he didn't die as a perfect sacrifice to cover the sins of man with his perfect blood... well then he was just some Jewish dude and the whole thing falls apart. Indeed, if Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon etc aren't 100% real, then things equally fall apart. The whole religion is based on an intricate connection between the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, where the type (the historical stuff) are prophetic models for the anti type (the fulfillment of those prophecies through Jesus).
For example, Moses was the mediator of the Law covenant between YHVH and the nation of Israel. This, in the Christian view, is a model for the later New Covenant between God and all People with Jesus as the mediator. If Moses never existed, if he never climbed Mt. Sinai etc. then the whole thing is rubbish.
If David never existed then Jesus cannot be genealogically proven to be of the Tribe of Judah and therefore legitimate heir to the throne.
To dismantle conservative Christianity, it doesn't matter if Jesus was a physical dude... everything in the Bible MUST be true. For the more liberal interpretations... well hell, he could just have been a groovy philosopher or fiction (ala Plato) and they'd be fine.
No, Suu, not over the top at all. Highly educational, thank you!
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 09, 2013, 01:52:25 PM
As far as I can tell, there may have been a Jesus.
This is where I stand, although what the fuck a spanish dude was doing in prehistoric judea is beyond me. I've yet to hear a convincing argument either supporting or refuting his existence. I did read of some interesting connections to egyptian astrology but the thing that throws me completely is all the magical powers / friendly zombie shit. I mean, if god created reality then did he really think it was such a crap system he had to throw it out for his avatar? It's kind of like playing GTA with the cheat codes on - his highscore is meaningless.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 02:23:36 PM
The thing that throws me completely is all the magical powers / friendly zombie shit. I mean, if god created reality then did he really think it was such a crap system he had to throw it out for his avatar? It's kind of like playing GTA with the cheat codes on - his highscore is meaningless.
:lulz:
Solid gold, that.
If you like that, you might like the main hook I've been using to bait christians with for years. It's best applied at the "tipping point" where they're starting to really lose their shit at you.
The great big, glaringly obvious logical fallacy - "Jesus died for our sins"
Thing is, Jesus never actually died. Given that Jesus was just an avatar for god, who is all powerful and blessed with cheat-code superpowers including infinite lives cheat and seeing into the future hack
So god sent himself to earth, knowing he was going to get nailed. He basically committed consequence-free suicide (consequence-free in that he didn't actually die for real) in order to balance the books on humanities wickedness. Who's books? Oh, yeah, that's right - his own books. So all he really had to do was write it off in the ledger and save himself all that passive aggressive grandstanding. I mean, he'd already chucked the rulebook out the window when he did the walking on water gag or when he got everyone drunk at the H2O kegger party so why did he have to do something totally fucking meaningless to scrub the sins score?
In my experience there is no more effective way to get a christian to throw a punch at you.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
If you like that, you might like the main hook I've been using to bait christians with for years. It's best applied at the "tipping point" where they're starting to really lose their shit at you.
The great big, glaringly obvious logical fallacy - "Jesus died for our sins"
Thing is, Jesus never actually died. Given that Jesus was just an avatar for god, who is all powerful and blessed with cheat-code superpowers including infinite lives cheat and seeing into the future hack
So god sent himself to earth, knowing he was going to get nailed. He basically committed consequence-free suicide (consequence-free in that he didn't actually die for real) in order to balance the books on humanities wickedness. Who's books? Oh, yeah, that's right - his own books. So all he really had to do was write it off in the ledger and save himself all that passive aggressive grandstanding. I mean, he'd already chucked the rulebook out the window when he did the walking on water gag or when he got everyone drunk at the H2O kegger party so why did he have to do something totally fucking meaningless to scrub the sins score?
In my experience there is no more effective way to get a christian to throw a punch at you.
Weeeell, he did die for a couple-tree days, didn't he? I like your line of reasoning a lot though.... I usually just say I've already joined a fishing club. :)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
If you like that, you might like the main hook I've been using to bait christians with for years. It's best applied at the "tipping point" where they're starting to really lose their shit at you.
The great big, glaringly obvious logical fallacy - "Jesus died for our sins"
Thing is, Jesus never actually died. Given that Jesus was just an avatar for god, who is all powerful and blessed with cheat-code superpowers including infinite lives cheat and seeing into the future hack
So god sent himself to earth, knowing he was going to get nailed. He basically committed consequence-free suicide (consequence-free in that he didn't actually die for real) in order to balance the books on humanities wickedness. Who's books? Oh, yeah, that's right - his own books. So all he really had to do was write it off in the ledger and save himself all that passive aggressive grandstanding. I mean, he'd already chucked the rulebook out the window when he did the walking on water gag or when he got everyone drunk at the H2O kegger party so why did he have to do something totally fucking meaningless to scrub the sins score?
In my experience there is no more effective way to get a christian to throw a punch at you.
Try it on a Nazarene. They'll just listen to your opinion, perhaps politely disagree, then move on with their day.
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Quote from: Suu on October 09, 2013, 12:53:11 PM
NP.
Shit like this has been coming up A LOT lately, because there's a good deal of atheists that want to prove a point. The problem is that they aren't historians, they're armchair librarians and archaeologists looking for conspiracy theories on the internet to build their argument, and it's killing them. I'm not saying this guy has no historian background, but the fact that he is willing to cite online forums over solid sources alone is a pretty shitty practice. My professors would have shot me.
Yet another reason I don't really want to associate myself with Atheist groups. There's too much crazy and shysterism going on there.
The wonderful world of "Skeptics" is also, sadly, getting sketchier and sketchier all the time.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
If you like that, you might like the main hook I've been using to bait christians with for years. It's best applied at the "tipping point" where they're starting to really lose their shit at you.
The great big, glaringly obvious logical fallacy - "Jesus died for our sins"
Thing is, Jesus never actually died. Given that Jesus was just an avatar for god, who is all powerful and blessed with cheat-code superpowers including infinite lives cheat and seeing into the future hack
So god sent himself to earth, knowing he was going to get nailed. He basically committed consequence-free suicide (consequence-free in that he didn't actually die for real) in order to balance the books on humanities wickedness. Who's books? Oh, yeah, that's right - his own books. So all he really had to do was write it off in the ledger and save himself all that passive aggressive grandstanding. I mean, he'd already chucked the rulebook out the window when he did the walking on water gag or when he got everyone drunk at the H2O kegger party so why did he have to do something totally fucking meaningless to scrub the sins score?
In my experience there is no more effective way to get a christian to throw a punch at you.
If anyone really died for our sins, it was Judas.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Suu on October 09, 2013, 12:53:11 PM
NP.
Shit like this has been coming up A LOT lately, because there's a good deal of atheists that want to prove a point. The problem is that they aren't historians, they're armchair librarians and archaeologists looking for conspiracy theories on the internet to build their argument, and it's killing them. I'm not saying this guy has no historian background, but the fact that he is willing to cite online forums over solid sources alone is a pretty shitty practice. My professors would have shot me.
Yet another reason I don't really want to associate myself with Atheist groups. There's too much crazy and shysterism going on there.
The wonderful world of "Skeptics" is also, sadly, getting sketchier and sketchier all the time.
It's just another blanket to crawl under for fart-huffing, IMO.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:03:55 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
If you like that, you might like the main hook I've been using to bait christians with for years. It's best applied at the "tipping point" where they're starting to really lose their shit at you.
The great big, glaringly obvious logical fallacy - "Jesus died for our sins"
Thing is, Jesus never actually died. Given that Jesus was just an avatar for god, who is all powerful and blessed with cheat-code superpowers including infinite lives cheat and seeing into the future hack
So god sent himself to earth, knowing he was going to get nailed. He basically committed consequence-free suicide (consequence-free in that he didn't actually die for real) in order to balance the books on humanities wickedness. Who's books? Oh, yeah, that's right - his own books. So all he really had to do was write it off in the ledger and save himself all that passive aggressive grandstanding. I mean, he'd already chucked the rulebook out the window when he did the walking on water gag or when he got everyone drunk at the H2O kegger party so why did he have to do something totally fucking meaningless to scrub the sins score?
In my experience there is no more effective way to get a christian to throw a punch at you.
If anyone really died for our sins, it was Judas.
If anyone "died for our sins" then god is basically admitting to accepting human sacrifice as a bribe. So basically he's Quetzalcoatl with a beard instead of feathers
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Suu on October 09, 2013, 12:53:11 PM
NP.
Shit like this has been coming up A LOT lately, because there's a good deal of atheists that want to prove a point. The problem is that they aren't historians, they're armchair librarians and archaeologists looking for conspiracy theories on the internet to build their argument, and it's killing them. I'm not saying this guy has no historian background, but the fact that he is willing to cite online forums over solid sources alone is a pretty shitty practice. My professors would have shot me.
Yet another reason I don't really want to associate myself with Atheist groups. There's too much crazy and shysterism going on there.
The wonderful world of "Skeptics" is also, sadly, getting sketchier and sketchier all the time.
The majority of so-called skeptics are actually pseudo-skeptics. I prefer zeteticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi#Pseudoskepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi#Pseudoskepticism)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
If anyone "died for our sins" then god is basically admitting to accepting human sacrifice as a bribe. So basically he's Quetzalcoatl with a beard instead of feathers
I am now picturing the Abrahamic God with a beard made of feathers.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:03:55 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
If you like that, you might like the main hook I've been using to bait christians with for years. It's best applied at the "tipping point" where they're starting to really lose their shit at you.
The great big, glaringly obvious logical fallacy - "Jesus died for our sins"
Thing is, Jesus never actually died. Given that Jesus was just an avatar for god, who is all powerful and blessed with cheat-code superpowers including infinite lives cheat and seeing into the future hack
So god sent himself to earth, knowing he was going to get nailed. He basically committed consequence-free suicide (consequence-free in that he didn't actually die for real) in order to balance the books on humanities wickedness. Who's books? Oh, yeah, that's right - his own books. So all he really had to do was write it off in the ledger and save himself all that passive aggressive grandstanding. I mean, he'd already chucked the rulebook out the window when he did the walking on water gag or when he got everyone drunk at the H2O kegger party so why did he have to do something totally fucking meaningless to scrub the sins score?
In my experience there is no more effective way to get a christian to throw a punch at you.
If anyone really died for our sins, it was Judas.
If anyone "died for our sins" then god is basically admitting to accepting human sacrifice as a bribe. So basically he's Quetzalcoatl with a beard instead of feathers
In which case, what he did with Judas is even worse.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Ah, so there are genuine christians then... that's somehow refreshing to know.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Ah, so there are genuine christians then... that's somehow refreshing to know.
They are considered an aberration in America. EVERYONE hates their ass. :lulz:
If Jesus ever came back, the WBC would set fire to his hippy-ass
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
If you like that, you might like the main hook I've been using to bait christians with for years. It's best applied at the "tipping point" where they're starting to really lose their shit at you.
The great big, glaringly obvious logical fallacy - "Jesus died for our sins"
Thing is, Jesus never actually died. Given that Jesus was just an avatar for god, who is all powerful and blessed with cheat-code superpowers including infinite lives cheat and seeing into the future hack
So god sent himself to earth, knowing he was going to get nailed. He basically committed consequence-free suicide (consequence-free in that he didn't actually die for real) in order to balance the books on humanities wickedness. Who's books? Oh, yeah, that's right - his own books. So all he really had to do was write it off in the ledger and save himself all that passive aggressive grandstanding. I mean, he'd already chucked the rulebook out the window when he did the walking on water gag or when he got everyone drunk at the H2O kegger party so why did he have to do something totally fucking meaningless to scrub the sins score?
In my experience there is no more effective way to get a christian to throw a punch at you.
That's only true for the Christian sects that accept the Trinity specifically as Jesus = God. There are a number of different interpretations on this idea though. For example, when Jesus was baptized, he was in the water, the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit was in the air in the form of a Dove and God's voice came from Heaven "This is my Son, The Beloved". So there are a number of interpretations which indicate that either they are equal but different, completely different or 3 different apsects of a whole.
JW's for example, don't accept the Trinity doctrine at all. They believe that there is God (Jehovah/YHVH), the first being created by God ("The Word"/"Michael"/"Jesus"), and God's Active Force (the Holy Spirit). In their view, Jesus came to earth as a perfect man (not born of man, thus not born of sin). This perfect man had no reason to die (death is the wage of sin, no death/no sin).
Now this is where you get into the whole type/anti-type thing. In the Mosaic Law, every Jew had to follow the law perfectly. This was, of course, not possible since they were all human and thus sinners. When they sinned, they had to offer blood to cover the sacrifice. The blood of doves, goats, sheep, cows etc based on the severity of the sin. However, since this was animal blood, it had to be offered again and again because animal blood isn't equal to human blood.
With Jesus, we have a perfect man who perfectly fulfilled the Mosaic Law and then was sacrificed. His perfect blood, was therefore a perfect ransom. Sin came through a perfect man (Adam) and only the blood of a perfect man (Jesus) could pay that price.
The Resurrection of Jesus, was not a resurrection of his flesh and blood. It was, instead a resurrection of his spirit, which explains why he could fuck with the Apostles afterward in a David Blane kind of way.
Ironically, JW's tend to use the same tactics against Christians that Atheists do... they tear apart the obvious bullshit. However, they tend to replace it with slightly less obvious or more convoluted BS which works really well for converting some kinds of people.
Its pretty easy to use the bible to prove that the Christian idea of Hell is not supported by the Bible. Instead of this being proof that the whole thing is BS, they use it as proof that the other versions of Christianity are BS.
Insidious Buggers...
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Ah, so there are genuine christians then... that's somehow refreshing to know.
They are considered an aberration in America. EVERYONE hates their ass. :lulz:
Why? they sound lovely.
Quote from: Faust on October 09, 2013, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Ah, so there are genuine christians then... that's somehow refreshing to know.
They are considered an aberration in America. EVERYONE hates their ass. :lulz:
Why? they sound lovely.
They make other Christians look bad, and they also make people who hate on Christians look bad. There's nothing worse than an exception when you're in the middle of screeching about how awful Christians are.
They're terribly inconvenient.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 09, 2013, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Ah, so there are genuine christians then... that's somehow refreshing to know.
They are considered an aberration in America. EVERYONE hates their ass. :lulz:
Why? they sound lovely.
They make other Christians look bad, and they also make people who hate on Christians look bad. There's nothing worse than an exception when you're in the middle of screeching about how awful Christians are.
They're terribly inconvenient.
Lumping any group of people into one assumption is always going to be a losing game.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 09, 2013, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Ah, so there are genuine christians then... that's somehow refreshing to know.
They are considered an aberration in America. EVERYONE hates their ass. :lulz:
Why? they sound lovely.
They make other Christians look bad, and they also make people who hate on Christians look bad. There's nothing worse than an exception when you're in the middle of screeching about how awful Christians are.
They're terribly inconvenient.
It also depends on the specific church. My grandma was a Nazrene and her church tended to be more judgmental (and generally mental) than the Nazerenes I knew from other churches. But overall, they seem kind of like the American version of the Church of England.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 09, 2013, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Ah, so there are genuine christians then... that's somehow refreshing to know.
They are considered an aberration in America. EVERYONE hates their ass. :lulz:
Why? they sound lovely.
They make other Christians look bad, and they also make people who hate on Christians look bad. There's nothing worse than an exception when you're in the middle of screeching about how awful Christians are.
They're terribly inconvenient.
It's sort of why the GOP hated Clinton so much...He went and DID what THEY just talked about (reducing the deficit), which took away their EXCUSE.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 09, 2013, 03:30:59 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 09, 2013, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 09, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
What the fuck is a Nazarene and how do you make them froth with rage? :eek:
Nazarenes are a small sect, mostly in the American Southwest, who try to actually do what Jesus said. They don't get mad, as far as I can tell. The don't preach, they lead by example. They consider hating ANYONE to be a sin. They don't believe it's their place to get in your business.
I like 'em. I had one for a neighbor for 2 years, nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. My daughter and I checked out their church, and the pastor was giving them shit about charity on a day-to-day level.
Sermon drifted from there, but ended with "You can't hate and still be a Christian".
Ah, so there are genuine christians then... that's somehow refreshing to know.
They are considered an aberration in America. EVERYONE hates their ass. :lulz:
Why? they sound lovely.
They make other Christians look bad, and they also make people who hate on Christians look bad. There's nothing worse than an exception when you're in the middle of screeching about how awful Christians are.
They're terribly inconvenient.
Sounds awfully familiar to their namesakes story...
Just read the article. Mirroring what Cain pointing out that the guy cites atheist blogs and forums and Suu's in depth analysis of why he's full of shit, the whole concept is very.... conspiratorial. It was the Early Roman Empire. Even without Christianity, there were plenty of cults popping up here, there, and everywhere. There's no real reason to think that Christianity specifically was concocted by patricians in order to keep Jews in line and pay their taxes when the Romans at the time were very effective at just sending in a legion and killing the shit out of everyone. Unless you want to argue that Mithras was also concocted by the patricians in order to get the legions to do precisely that. The whole "there are literary clues for the alert reader to know" angle is also laughable. This guy sounds like Dan Brown, but instead of Jesus getting laid, there's no Jesus to get laid. I'm sure this will make him a bit of money though, and approving ooks from the [not] skeptical [enough] community.
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
I seem to recall the "Josephus" thing from tiny ads in magazines like FATE and the like from 20+ years ago. I guess someone decided to slap on some new paint and file the serial numbers off.
Besides, didn't The Passover Plot pretty much cover this territory in the first place?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Faithfools.
Niggers.
Spics.
Kikes.
Yeah.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Certainly. When a religion that says the state religion is false becomes popular amongst both your slaves and your soldiers its time to switch gods at least officially.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
If you like that, you might like the main hook I've been using to bait christians with for years. It's best applied at the "tipping point" where they're starting to really lose their shit at you.
The great big, glaringly obvious logical fallacy - "Jesus died for our sins"
Thing is, Jesus never actually died. Given that Jesus was just an avatar for god, who is all powerful and blessed with cheat-code superpowers including infinite lives cheat and seeing into the future hack
So god sent himself to earth, knowing he was going to get nailed. He basically committed consequence-free suicide (consequence-free in that he didn't actually die for real) in order to balance the books on humanities wickedness. Who's books? Oh, yeah, that's right - his own books. So all he really had to do was write it off in the ledger and save himself all that passive aggressive grandstanding. I mean, he'd already chucked the rulebook out the window when he did the walking on water gag or when he got everyone drunk at the H2O kegger party so why did he have to do something totally fucking meaningless to scrub the sins score?
In my experience there is no more effective way to get a christian to throw a punch at you.
Try it on a Nazarene. They'll just listen to your opinion, perhaps politely disagree, then move on with their day.
They sound like amazing people I wan to look more into their sector.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 08:47:59 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Certainly. When a religion that says the state religion is false becomes popular amongst both your slaves and your soldiers its time to switch gods at least officially.
If Christianity would have hit 100 years before or after it did, it would have never spread. It hit during a weak religious period in the early empire when the State Religion was basically worshiping the Emperor, which not everyone agreed with. 100 years earlier, the Mithras cult was in full swing, 100 years after, Zoroastrianism was starting to filter in, and so were Egyptian cults followed by Sol Invictus, which despite what you may have heard, was actually a sub-cult of Apollo. Constantine didn't make it up to help people convert to Christianity.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Faithfools.
Niggers.
Spics.
Kikes.
Yeah.
... teabaggers
dems
racists
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 08:12:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Faithfools.
Niggers.
Spics.
Kikes.
Yeah.
... teabaggers
dems
racists
Spags.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 08:12:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Faithfools.
Niggers.
Spics.
Kikes.
Yeah.
... teabaggers
dems
racists
So, wait. Are you really drawing THAT particular equivalence?
Religion is a choice and a set of thoughts much like political alignment and racism unlike ethnicity which cannot be changed and is in born.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 10, 2013, 02:57:38 PM
Religion is a choice and a set of thoughts much like political alignment and racism unlike ethnicity which cannot be changed and is in born.
Waiting to hear the point of that.
I mean, bigotry is okay, if the subject of the bigotry is something a person has control over? Meaning that it's not the bigotry that's the problem, but the subject of the bigotry? "Fair" bigotry is okay?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 02:59:48 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 10, 2013, 02:57:38 PM
Religion is a choice and a set of thoughts much like political alignment and racism unlike ethnicity which cannot be changed and is in born.
Waiting to hear the point of that.
I mean, bigotry is okay, if the subject of the bigotry is something a person has control over? Meaning that it's not the bigotry that's the problem, but the subject of the bigotry? "Fair" bigotry is okay?
Not disagreeing with you. Im a faithfool myself. I think pents point is the same. The religious are immune but making general assumptions and maligning a bagger is ok.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 02:44:35 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 08:12:06 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 09, 2013, 08:42:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 09, 2013, 08:17:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 09, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Also, if the Romans had invented Christianity, it was probably one of the biggest blunders they could have possibly made, other than treating their Hun mercenaries like dirt.
Whether or not the Romans "invented" christianity, it's common knowledge* that the Romans were the ones responsible for its political success, globally. It was actually a really shrewd move but, unfortunately for the Romans, it turned out to be too little too late. A bandaid on the severed head of an empire that had already gone USA-2020 by then.
*common knowledge of the type - which faithfools are immune to
Faithfools.
Niggers.
Spics.
Kikes.
Yeah.
... teabaggers
dems
racists
So, wait. Are you really drawing THAT particular equivalence?
Nope. That was all you.
Well, you know us faithfools. We're dumb, that way. We draw a distinction between "a racist word" and calling someone a "racist". You know, if we were smart, like those non-faithfools, we'd realize that the REAL racists are the ones who point bigotry out.
Silly faithfools. Not even like real people.
I didn't call you anything. Just like (I'm assuming) you never called me niggers or spics or kikes
My point was that "faithfools" was not an insult based on the way someone was born, something they have no control over but, rather based on a stupid way they CHOOSE to think. So calling someone "faithfool" is more akin to calling someone "teabagger" than calling them "nigger"
And I'm not disputing the fact that they're real people. I'm merely labelling their preferred brand of stoopid in a derisory way.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 03:43:44 PM
I didn't call you anything. Just like (I'm assuming) you never called me niggers or spics or kikes
My point was that "faithfools" was not an insult based on the way someone was born, something they have no control over but, rather based on a stupid way they CHOOSE to think. So calling someone "faithfool" is more akin to calling someone "teabagger" than calling them "nigger"
And I'm not disputing the fact that they're real people. I'm merely labelling their preferred brand of stoopid in a derisory way.
It's still fucking stupid. It's one of those things that people say that they think is clever, but actually makes clever people cringe, like "Obummer".
It's also inherently bigoted against any ethnicity for whom their faith is an integral part of their ethnic identity, such as Jews and Native Americans.
Make you sound like you grew up with no pants or dental care.
It is ALSO, as an added bonus, divisive, alienating, and clannish, and is merely a device to allow one group to feel a sense of superiority over another group, which is, unlike religion, the actual root of genocide and similar evils.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 03:53:22 PM
It is ALSO, as an added bonus, divisive, alienating, and clannish, and is merely a device to allow one group to feel a sense of superiority over another group, which is, unlike religion, the actual root of genocide and similar evils.
So it's different from "Teabagger" how exactly?
What you seem to be saying is that ALL insults are inherently wrong. Or is it more, just the ones you don't like?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 03:53:22 PM
It is ALSO, as an added bonus, divisive, alienating, and clannish, and is merely a device to allow one group to feel a sense of superiority over another group, which is, unlike religion, the actual root of genocide and similar evils.
So it's different from "Teabagger" how exactly?
Teabaggers gave themselves that name. They chose it. Then they wanted to back out of it because they figured out it has other connotations, but it was too late.
However, "Teabilly", which I am partial to, falls into the same category. The difference? I am bigoted against teabillies, and I'm OK with that.
:spittake:
Didn't realise they gave themselves the nickname - even dumber than I thought
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 03:55:51 PM
What you seem to be saying is that ALL insults are inherently wrong. Or is it more, just the ones you don't like?
No, I'm way more OK with clever insults that aren't unfunny puns repeated ad nauseam by multitudes like lines from Monty Python.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 04:00:30 PM
:spittake:
Didn't realise they gave themselves the nickname - even dumber than I thought
It was actually mind-boggling, at the time. I remember the exact WTF moment and screaming at the teevee "YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME, HOW DO THEY NOT KNOW!!!?"
Also, if you're going to be bigoted, it's best to make a conscious decision and make sure you're OK with it. If you are OK with being bigoted against all people of faith, go to town, but it may cost you some friendships.
I now have a fit of the giggles. I will never look at a news article about the Teabaggers the same again :lol:
I'm not an expert on US Politics, but I think some people call themselves Teabaggers. It's only an insult when used to describe a person who doesn't agree with them. Faithfool, on the other hand, sounds bad to everyone.
"Fascist" might be closer to the kind of word you are looking for (an insult that isn't inherently wrong).
The difference is that unlike faithfool, fascist (or teabagger) is an actually useful word in serious conversation, sometimes, and can't be easily replaced.
I use "faithfool" all the time cos it's blunt (I don't do subtle) and describes exactly the subset of spirituality that I hate, ie the intellectual quicksand that is "faith" but if it's putting noses out of joint I'll drop it.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 04:03:16 PM
Also, if you're going to be bigoted, it's best to make a conscious decision and make sure you're OK with it. If you are OK with being bigoted against all people of faith, go to town, but it may cost you some friendships.
I can be civil to people of faith, hell I can even enjoy their company, but I'd never trust one as a friend
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 04:11:33 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 04:03:16 PM
Also, if you're going to be bigoted, it's best to make a conscious decision and make sure you're OK with it. If you are OK with being bigoted against all people of faith, go to town, but it may cost you some friendships.
I can be civil to people of faith, hell I can even enjoy their company, but I'd never trust one as a friend
I certainly wouldn't let my daughter marry one.
For me there's generally the two aspects to a religion - faith & spirituality
faith is pretty much believing (like actually believing) that all the invisible man, raising the dead shit is really real
spirituality is the message - be nice to people, don't kill or steal or lie, help out a brother or sister in need
spirituality without faith is pretty much me
spirituality with faith is a good guy but a bit deluded (I'd sort of trust them but wonder about their mental health)
faith without spirituality is someone I'd happily kill in cold blood
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 04:11:33 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 04:03:16 PM
Also, if you're going to be bigoted, it's best to make a conscious decision and make sure you're OK with it. If you are OK with being bigoted against all people of faith, go to town, but it may cost you some friendships.
I can be civil to people of faith, hell I can even enjoy their company, but I'd never trust one as a friend
You sound like a cranky Christopher Hitchens.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 04:11:33 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 04:03:16 PM
Also, if you're going to be bigoted, it's best to make a conscious decision and make sure you're OK with it. If you are OK with being bigoted against all people of faith, go to town, but it may cost you some friendships.
I can be civil to people of faith, hell I can even enjoy their company, but I'd never trust one as a friend
Wow.
My best friend is Jewish. I think your attitude is pretty repulsive, and yeah, comparable to racism or sexism.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
For me there's generally the two aspects to a religion - faith & spirituality
faith is pretty much believing (like actually believing) that all the invisible man, raising the dead shit is really real
spirituality is the message - be nice to people, don't kill or steal or lie, help out a brother or sister in need
spirituality without faith is pretty much me
spirituality with faith is a good guy but a bit deluded (I'd sort of trust them but wonder about their mental health)
faith without spirituality is someone I'd happily kill in cold blood
So you're also a hypocrite, and a presumptuous one at that, who presumes to define people's spiritual relationships.
AMAZING.
Id be interested to know where you draw the line where belief in the bearded guy becomes mental illness. Reason being is that religiosity is kinda hardwired into the human brain. Does god exist? You know probably not. At least not the type of god usually implied. Are we going to stop believing in him? No. Humans generally need some sort of meaningful narrative to the cosmos. Irrational perhaps. But its not mental illness if its generally not detrimental and is the norm.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 10, 2013, 05:46:40 PM
Id be interested to know where you draw the line where belief in the bearded guy becomes mental illness. Reason being is that religiosity is kinda hardwired into the human brain. Does god exist? You know probably not. At least not the type of god usually implied. Are we going to stop believing in him? No. Humans generally need some sort of meaningful narrative to the cosmos. Irrational perhaps. But its not mental illness if its generally not detrimental and is the norm.
Eh that's taking the conclusion way way too far. Some human brains are predisposed to religiosity, it's true, but you can't extrapolate that to all of humanity.
I just want to know why it's okay to be biased against people for something they choose, instead of something they were born as.
Specific things, yeah, if those specific things are harmful to others (teabaggers, moral majority, KKK, Nazis, etc).
But I could just as easily say "All people that listen to rap are criminals and thugs" and be just as accurate as referring to people who believe in God(s) as "faithfools".
Also, on a totally unrelated note, "faithfools" sounds like "Clintoon" or "Obummer". It's almost clever, which makes it worse than not being clever at all.
More to the point, it's part of a uniform.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 05:54:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 10, 2013, 05:46:40 PM
Id be interested to know where you draw the line where belief in the bearded guy becomes mental illness. Reason being is that religiosity is kinda hardwired into the human brain. Does god exist? You know probably not. At least not the type of god usually implied. Are we going to stop believing in him? No. Humans generally need some sort of meaningful narrative to the cosmos. Irrational perhaps. But its not mental illness if its generally not detrimental and is the norm.
Eh that's taking the conclusion way way too far. Some human brains are predisposed to religiosity, it's true, but you can't extrapolate that to all of humanity.
Fair enough but my question still stands. Where does pent draw the line?
Because while strength of belief may vary having one is fairly common.
So the delusional belief that some dude on a power trip is giving you instructions on behalf of an invisible giant has absolutely no potential for abuse?
Fair enough, it's a free planet but if someone's free to believe in retarded shit, I'm fucking sure I'm free to rip the piss. People are free to believe whatever the fuck they want, I'm under no obligation (moral or otherwise) to respect those beliefs.
Theres the potential for abuse in anything. But the majority of people who have that delusional belief are fairly harmless.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
So the delusional belief that some dude on a power trip is giving you instructions on behalf of an invisible giant has absolutely no potential for abuse?
Instructions? :lol: I can't even listen to my boss, and he's RIGHT THERE.
QuotePeople are free to believe whatever the fuck they want, I'm under no obligation (moral or otherwise) to respect those beliefs.
That's true. Here in the States, we have lots of people who feel the very same way.
You can tell who they are, too.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
So the delusional belief that some dude on a power trip is giving you instructions on behalf of an invisible giant has absolutely no potential for abuse?
Fair enough, it's a free planet but if someone's free to believe in retarded shit, I'm fucking sure I'm free to rip the piss. People are free to believe whatever the fuck they want, I'm under no obligation (moral or otherwise) to respect those beliefs.
Some people hold a delusional belief that they are smarter and more rational than other people, and therefore have a right to make decisions for them. That is every bit as dangerous.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:14:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
So the delusional belief that some dude on a power trip is giving you instructions on behalf of an invisible giant has absolutely no potential for abuse?
Fair enough, it's a free planet but if someone's free to believe in retarded shit, I'm fucking sure I'm free to rip the piss. People are free to believe whatever the fuck they want, I'm under no obligation (moral or otherwise) to respect those beliefs.
Some people hold a delusional belief that they are smarter and more rational than other people, and therefore have a right to make decisions for them. That is every bit as dangerous.
More dangerous, really.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 05:58:41 PM
I just want to know why it's okay to be biased against people for something they choose, instead of something they were born as.
Specific things, yeah, if those specific things are harmful to others (teabaggers, moral majority, KKK, Nazis, etc).
But I could just as easily say "All people that listen to rap are criminals and thugs" and be just as accurate as referring to people who believe in God(s) as "faithfools".
Also, on a totally unrelated note, "faithfools" sounds like "Clintoon" or "Obummer". It's almost clever, which makes it worse than not being clever at all.
More to the point, it's part of a uniform.
Allll of this. Every last bit. It's just another means to avoid
actually thinking.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:14:49 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:14:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
So the delusional belief that some dude on a power trip is giving you instructions on behalf of an invisible giant has absolutely no potential for abuse?
Fair enough, it's a free planet but if someone's free to believe in retarded shit, I'm fucking sure I'm free to rip the piss. People are free to believe whatever the fuck they want, I'm under no obligation (moral or otherwise) to respect those beliefs.
Some people hold a delusional belief that they are smarter and more rational than other people, and therefore have a right to make decisions for them. That is every bit as dangerous.
More dangerous, really.
Yes, I'd have to agree with you on that.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:16:05 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:14:49 PM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 06:14:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:08:05 PM
So the delusional belief that some dude on a power trip is giving you instructions on behalf of an invisible giant has absolutely no potential for abuse?
Fair enough, it's a free planet but if someone's free to believe in retarded shit, I'm fucking sure I'm free to rip the piss. People are free to believe whatever the fuck they want, I'm under no obligation (moral or otherwise) to respect those beliefs.
Some people hold a delusional belief that they are smarter and more rational than other people, and therefore have a right to make decisions for them. That is every bit as dangerous.
More dangerous, really.
Yes, I'd have to agree with you on that.
Yay, we're agreed on something!
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 10, 2013, 06:12:52 PM
Theres the potential for abuse in anything. But the majority of people who have that delusional belief are fairly harmless.
Religion these days is, admittedly, fairly harmless but I'm convinced the reason for that is because less and less people are falling for it. When everyone believes it, historically, it's been a different story. Thing is, if the stories are true, then surely it's the most important thing, to the point that very little else matters. To my mind it would follow that instead of a theocracy being a bad thing, it would be the only sensible course of action. Only theocracies, historical and current, are generally deemed to be a very very bad thing. Why is that?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:22:38 PM
Religion these days is, admittedly, fairly harmless but I'm convinced the reason for that is because less and less people are falling for it.
Actually, I think it's because most people see the benefit of secular rule over that of squabbling religions. At least in the West.
Theocracies are deemed to be a very very bad thing by some people. I feel its important to point out that - although I'm not one of them - there's a large number of people who would violently disagree, particularly outside of western societies.
There's also entire schools of theological thought which argue that the church should stay out of matters of governance for reasons ranging from 'concern with the material world to such a degree is unseemly' to 'God's will shall come about no matter what, so engaging with the process is presuming control where you should cede it to His divine plan'.
And all of this is entirely separate from whether it is justified to talk about people as though they are subhuman because they have a different answer to an unanswerable question than the one you believe in.
Yeah, okay, I've probably said a lot of things that point to faith-people as subhuman. This is tongue in cheek. Really, I hope you all know that I wouldn't literally kill someone in cold blood. It's just how I rant. I see them as dupes. People who have fallen for a line in bullshit. The bullshit itself, however, I tend to view as insidious. I was taught it as an impressionable child. Took me years to snap out of it so I can totally understand why a lot of people didn't.
I realise this is coming across as a u-turn or backtracking and that's fine. I'm kind of working through my thoughts right now. It isn't the believers I'm really down on, they're like, I dunno, mentally injured or something. It's the institution that did it that I'm not comfortable with.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:37:43 PM
I see them as dupes. People who have fallen for a line in bullshit.
So, sorta like sheeple?
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
You're right. I still can't help finding the whole notion hilarious but I guess laughing at the afflicted is a bit rude :oops:
So where does that leave a person who leaves the religion of their birth for another nonatheist faith?
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
You can't mix science and religion. They are by definition mutually exclusive, and attempting to apply one to the other always ends in tears.
For example, I offer the Institute for Intelligent Design.
And why is this?
Because if God is everywhere, you can't take your God detector to a no-God zone to zero it.
And if the spags DID prove God's existence, then their faith is DESTROYED, because the definition of faith in a religious context is "belief without proof".
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
Because science requires natural explanations for natural phenomena it can neither support nor falsify hypotheses that angels ghosts or spirits whether benevolent or evil cause storms rainbows illnesses and cures. Such supernatural explanations are simply outside the bounds of science as are religious matters which are issues of personal faith. -my biology text book
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 10, 2013, 08:27:53 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
Because science requires natural explanations for natural phenomena it can neither support nor falsify hypotheses that angels ghosts or spirits whether benevolent or evil cause storms rainbows illnesses and cures. Such supernatural explanations are simply outside the bounds of science as are religious matters which are issues of personal faith. -my biology text book
I think that denying the evidence in front of our faces (germ theory, etc), is pretty fucking stupid, and not only unnecessary for belief, but harmful to it.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 08:22:47 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
You can't mix science and religion. They are by definition mutually exclusive, and attempting to apply one to the other always ends in tears.
For example, I offer the Institute for Intelligent Design.
And why is this?
Because if God is everywhere, you can't take your God detector to a no-God zone to zero it.
And if the spags DID prove God's existence, then their faith is DESTROYED, because the definition of faith in a religious context is "belief without proof".
This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.
Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:41:56 PM
This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.
Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.
Usually people tend to prefer one over the other, usually at the expense of the other. However, I am a Holy Man™, and such indulgences are not my fate.
Instead, I have become a bit of a deist. God set it up, and made the rules accessible. It's our job to figure out the rules. Therefore, the hardshell Baptist idea that "There are some things man was not meant to know" is a blasphemy, and not going to the doctor because "it's God's will" is sacrilege.
As far as your petty sins, who has time for that? Not God. And what sort of deity gives a FUCK if you believe in him? It would be like suddenly having the ants in the yard killing each other in your name. Odd, but not terribly important.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 08:38:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 10, 2013, 08:27:53 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
Because science requires natural explanations for natural phenomena it can neither support nor falsify hypotheses that angels ghosts or spirits whether benevolent or evil cause storms rainbows illnesses and cures. Such supernatural explanations are simply outside the bounds of science as are religious matters which are issues of personal faith. -my biology text book
I think that denying the evidence in front of our faces (germ theory, etc), is pretty fucking stupid, and not only unnecessary for belief, but harmful to it.
Well thats true but not what i took from it. I figure it was more of a thing to be like look this is a science class dont waste the professors time with questions that have nothing to do with science. Its from the first chapter.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 10, 2013, 08:50:03 PM
Well thats true but not what i took from it. I figure it was more of a thing to be like look this is a science class dont waste the professors time with questions that have nothing to do with science. Its from the first chapter.
Yeah, whoops, misread your post. My bad, carry on.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:41:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 08:22:47 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
You can't mix science and religion. They are by definition mutually exclusive, and attempting to apply one to the other always ends in tears.
For example, I offer the Institute for Intelligent Design.
And why is this?
Because if God is everywhere, you can't take your God detector to a no-God zone to zero it.
And if the spags DID prove God's existence, then their faith is DESTROYED, because the definition of faith in a religious context is "belief without proof".
This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.
Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.
The word god itself is fairly meaningless for debate. It means different things to different people.
For example. Some tribe worships the sun. Well them their god actually exists gives life and is for all intents immortal but isnt going to pay much attention to your blood sacrifice.
Science is a really great reality tunnel, because it reflects the real, actual universe we live in. There's not much to be said against it1. However, one reality tunnel is sort of meager fare for a person.
1 Except when they deep-sonar'd Loch Ness. The fuckers. Give me my Goddamn monster back, you shitbags! THANKS FOR PEELING THE VINYL BACK AND MAKING THE UNIVERSE THAT MUCH LESS COOL THAN IT WAS BEFORE. And NOW they're after Bigfoot. LEAVE HIM ALONE, ASSHOLES! HE ISN'T BOTHERING YOU!
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 08:45:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:41:56 PM
This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.
Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.
Usually people tend to prefer one over the other, usually at the expense of the other. However, I am a Holy Man™, and such indulgences are not my fate.
Instead, I have become a bit of a deist. God set it up, and made the rules accessible. It's our job to figure out the rules. Therefore, the hardshell Baptist idea that "There are some things man was not meant to know" is a blasphemy, and not going to the doctor because "it's God's will" is sacrilege.
As far as your petty sins, who has time for that? Not God. And what sort of deity gives a FUCK if you believe in him? It would be like suddenly having the ants in the yard killing each other in your name. Odd, but not terribly important.
See the thing with that is it's a belief in god, sure, but it's not a god that influences your decision making process on a day to day basis. If it's a case of I don't matter to god and god doesn't matter to me, then that's not "faith", at least not in the sense I understand the term. Faith to me is "Do/don't do x" "Why?" "cos god will kill/jack you off if you do/don't"
If someone's already in a position where they'll go along with whatever x happens to be "cos god" then there is a serious vector for abuse. It's like having a bunch of trojan's installed in a bunch of windows machines - The religious leader has a "botnet" of humans, trying to spam copies of themselves to other uninfected ones or carry out a ddos attack.
Fair enough, it's the exception rather than the rules these days but I'm not sure it was always that way.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 09:03:51 PM
See the thing with that is it's a belief in god, sure, but it's not a god that influences your decision making process on a day to day basis.
The only time I can think of having that run my day-to-day decisions is if I'd been ordered to be a death camp guard or something, where I'd have to either go along with it or become a victim of it. The whole POINT of agency is to FIX SHIT YOURSELF, not to wait for big sky daddy to fix it for you.
Pretty sure God wasn't cheering William Jennings Bryan along when he was claiming that whales are fish and humans aren't mammals. It would be like watching your teenage son suddenly decide that your REAL intent for him was for him to wear diapers forever.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 09:07:18 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 09:03:51 PM
See the thing with that is it's a belief in god, sure, but it's not a god that influences your decision making process on a day to day basis.
The only time I can think of having that run my day-to-day decisions is if I'd been ordered to be a death camp guard or something, where I'd have to either go along with it or become a victim of it. The whole POINT of agency is to FIX SHIT YOURSELF, not to wait for big sky daddy to fix it for you.
Pretty sure God wasn't cheering William Jennings Bryan along when he was claiming that whales are fish and humans aren't mammals. It would be like watching your teenage son suddenly decide that your REAL intent for him was for him to wear diapers forever.
Problem is the prehistoric people who
invented god received god's holy word wrote down a lot of bizarre shit that probably didn't even make much sense in the prehistoric context, never mind nowadays
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 09:25:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 09:07:18 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 09:03:51 PM
See the thing with that is it's a belief in god, sure, but it's not a god that influences your decision making process on a day to day basis.
The only time I can think of having that run my day-to-day decisions is if I'd been ordered to be a death camp guard or something, where I'd have to either go along with it or become a victim of it. The whole POINT of agency is to FIX SHIT YOURSELF, not to wait for big sky daddy to fix it for you.
Pretty sure God wasn't cheering William Jennings Bryan along when he was claiming that whales are fish and humans aren't mammals. It would be like watching your teenage son suddenly decide that your REAL intent for him was for him to wear diapers forever.
Problem is the prehistoric people who invented god received god's holy word wrote down a lot of bizarre shit that probably didn't even make much sense in the prehistoric context, never mind nowadays
Actually, what they wrote down made PERFECT SENSE if you lived in a small population in a desert, surrounded by other, hostile tribes and little or no sense for field sanitation.
For a low-tech culture, the laws for governing the tribes (out of Exodus) make a hell of a lot of sense. However, once you get past the "will we survive next dry season" stage, they suddenly become a bit outmoded.
Bingo! There's also the issue that I'd kinda expect cavemen to swallow all the - kindom of naria meets the exorcist - mumbo jumbo. People who have watched men bouncing about on the moon and emailed their pals on mobile phones? It's kinda like, at what point do you tell your kid there's no such thing as the tooth fairy? Surely before they've organised a trip to the fucking moon, with no adult supervision?
Here's where it breaks down...
A significant proportion of people who would define themselves as religious do not sheepishly follow their church. Protestantism was largely founded on the idea that a personal relationship with God can be infinitely more fulfilling. The reason there are so many sects within religions boils down to disagreement, which you wouldn't have if people blindly submitted to authority. Some people might. Most people don't; they self-edit, they pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, and which they don't. That's why you'll never beat a fundamentalist with bible quotes. They are fundamentally committed to the pieces they like. The pieces they don't, they are happy to ignore.
Loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention, because loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention in any group. Faith is a personal thing, and even within the same church, let alone the same religion, you'll find people who have varying beliefs.
Religion doesn't make sense to you... and that's fine. I get that you've had bad experiences with it. But projecting the bad experiences you've had and assuming that it is the same for everyone else is patronizing. I would expect that most of the people on this board who have faith, have examined that faith and thought extensively about it. I doubt anyone likely to read your posts here will have uncritically absorbed religious beliefs. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who have, but again, that's not something which is a necessity with the entirety of all religious experience.
Spirituality can be damaging, but it can also be profoundly helpful. Particularly when dealing with death and loss, but also as a gateway into all sorts of deeper ethical dilemmas. Quite aside from that, holy books can often be moving and beautiful. Just saying 'go with your gut' is fine, but there's a lot of times my gut doesn't know what to think, and then I tend to fall back on the philosophy and theology I've read to come up with an answer. I don't even consider myself to be religious or spiritual, but I've found uses in my day to day life for the ideas I've picked up from them along the way.
The Chao Te Ching is a great example of what religion can provide in modern life, IMO. Complicated ideas illustrated in brief through metaphor.
Like Roger keeps saying, there is no way to know whether there's a God or not until we find out the hard way. Continuing to use these tooth fairy/sky daddy strawmen is just... wrongheaded. It can not make sense to you and make sense to other people and both attitudes are equally valid. The difference between calling someone a 'faithfool' and calling someone a 'teabagger' is that the teabagger's positions can be taken apart through rational argument and discourse. You won't know if you're right or the religious individual is until you are dead. You might have strong beliefs on the subject, but hey, so do they. That's the nature of belief.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:41:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 08:22:47 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
You can't mix science and religion. They are by definition mutually exclusive, and attempting to apply one to the other always ends in tears.
For example, I offer the Institute for Intelligent Design.
And why is this?
Because if God is everywhere, you can't take your God detector to a no-God zone to zero it.
And if the spags DID prove God's existence, then their faith is DESTROYED, because the definition of faith in a religious context is "belief without proof".
This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.
Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.
What you just said is that god isn't falsifiable.
In science, you can't ever prove anything, you can only falsify it. If there is no way to falsify it, then it's outside of the scope of science. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it has to be testable. The goal of testing is to see if you can prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can't, that doesn't make it proven, it just makes it less likely to be false. If you can't test something, it's not science.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 10, 2013, 10:09:40 PM
Here's where it breaks down...
A significant proportion of people who would define themselves as religious do not sheepishly follow their church. Protestantism was largely founded on the idea that a personal relationship with God can be infinitely more fulfilling. The reason there are so many sects within religions boils down to disagreement, which you wouldn't have if people blindly submitted to authority. Some people might. Most people don't; they self-edit, they pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, and which they don't. That's why you'll never beat a fundamentalist with bible quotes. They are fundamentally committed to the pieces they like. The pieces they don't, they are happy to ignore.
Loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention, because loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention in any group. Faith is a personal thing, and even within the same church, let alone the same religion, you'll find people who have varying beliefs.
Religion doesn't make sense to you... and that's fine. I get that you've had bad experiences with it. But projecting the bad experiences you've had and assuming that it is the same for everyone else is patronizing. I would expect that most of the people on this board who have faith, have examined that faith and thought extensively about it. I doubt anyone likely to read your posts here will have uncritically absorbed religious beliefs. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who have, but again, that's not something which is a necessity with the entirety of all religious experience.
Spirituality can be damaging, but it can also be profoundly helpful. Particularly when dealing with death and loss, but also as a gateway into all sorts of deeper ethical dilemmas. Quite aside from that, holy books can often be moving and beautiful. Just saying 'go with your gut' is fine, but there's a lot of times my gut doesn't know what to think, and then I tend to fall back on the philosophy and theology I've read to come up with an answer. I don't even consider myself to be religious or spiritual, but I've found uses in my day to day life for the ideas I've picked up from them along the way.
The Chao Te Ching is a great example of what religion can provide in modern life, IMO. Complicated ideas illustrated in brief through metaphor.
Like Roger keeps saying, there is no way to know whether there's a God or not until we find out the hard way. Continuing to use these tooth fairy/sky daddy strawmen is just... wrongheaded. It can not make sense to you and make sense to other people and both attitudes are equally valid. The difference between calling someone a 'faithfool' and calling someone a 'teabagger' is that the teabagger's positions can be taken apart through rational argument and discourse. You won't know if you're right or the religious individual is until you are dead. You might have strong beliefs on the subject, but hey, so do they. That's the nature of belief.
So much this.
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 11:16:40 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:41:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 08:22:47 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 10, 2013, 08:14:56 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 10, 2013, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 06:47:48 PM
Not a word I'd use (annoys me prolly as much as faithfools does you) I always thought it related to people who were more like "someone think for me pls" than necessarily a religious connotation.
What I mean is "dupes" in that they've fallen for a line in bullshit. Same idea as if they fell for a 419 scam or similar. Thing is (and this is where I'm kinda u-turning) it is a very good and (more importantly) very well delivered line in bullshit. Most are brought up with it from birth so I guess you don't really have to be an imbecile to believe it.
Also, it isn't falsifiable. In the end, it's a matter of personal preference.
I don't think that follows. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean you can make stuff up.
Maybe the rules are different when not only you don't know but can't possibly know something? That still sounds suspicious but I can't quite articulate why.
You can't mix science and religion. They are by definition mutually exclusive, and attempting to apply one to the other always ends in tears.
For example, I offer the Institute for Intelligent Design.
And why is this?
Because if God is everywhere, you can't take your God detector to a no-God zone to zero it.
And if the spags DID prove God's existence, then their faith is DESTROYED, because the definition of faith in a religious context is "belief without proof".
This is going to sound weird but I think that if you can't take an hypothetical God detector to a no-God zone even in principle, then God doesn't exist. Or rather, the word God becomes useless as a description of something in reality... and now I'm trying to mix science and religion again. Dammit.
Maybe the reason I feel uncomfortable making shit up in the face of helpless ignorance is that I like to keep my worldview nice and simple. In other words, an aesthetic preference.
What you just said is that god isn't falsifiable.
In science, you can't ever prove anything, you can only falsify it. If there is no way to falsify it, then it's outside of the scope of science. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it has to be testable. The goal of testing is to see if you can prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can't, that doesn't make it proven, it just makes it less likely to be false. If you can't test something, it's not science.
Yep. And when the testing results in your favor nothing is proven its supported. Because some exception or effect or another might not have been thought up yet or your instrumentation may be significantly improved upon by future generations. Astronomers used to think theyd never figure out what the hell stars were. Them we built better equipment and went oh. Yeah that kinda makes sense.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 10, 2013, 09:52:57 PM
Bingo! There's also the issue that I'd kinda expect cavemen to swallow all the - kindom of naria meets the exorcist - mumbo jumbo. People who have watched men bouncing about on the moon and emailed their pals on mobile phones? It's kinda like, at what point do you tell your kid there's no such thing as the tooth fairy? Surely before they've organised a trip to the fucking moon, with no adult supervision?
Okay. And since that version of God is no longer required, maybe a more adult version of God is in order, yes? One that doesn't have to outlaw pigs and birds from the diet, because you aren't cooking on camel shit anymore, thus allowing you to kill all the trichenosis spirochetes, maybe?
IE, God doesn't need to be a complete dick or hold your hand for you, because you're no longer, culturally, a 2 year old trying to stick a fork in an electrical outlet.
So maybe there IS such thing, only he/she/it is done doing our thinking for us. Grow up or die choking on your own waste, right? Just like in the cold war, it was grow up or die under a never-ending radioactive winter?
Re: the OP/article (I have a LOT of catching up to do): While I have no doubt Jesus was fictionalized, either partly or entirely, making this stuff up to appeal to JEWS is stupid. For one thing, Judaism considers God formless and forbids idolatry, and so can't venerate a man who walked around and took up space and farted. This is why Jews don't accept "'Jews' For Jesus" as Jews, but see it as yet another weasel attempt at evangelicism.
And saying "Oh yeah, your messiah came and went and you missed it, BUT WE DIDN'T"...well, try that on ANYBODY. :lol:
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 11:16:40 PM
In science, you can't ever prove anything, you can only falsify it. If there is no way to falsify it, then it's outside of the scope of science. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it has to be testable. The goal of testing is to see if you can prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can't, that doesn't make it proven, it just makes it less likely to be false. If you can't test something, it's not science.
Just because I can't use the scientific method to find that answer, that still doesn't mean I get to make stuff up. It feels to me like that is breaking some kind of rule.
I'm guessing it is an aesthetic rule I made up myself for myself to follow, because I can't articulate an objective justification to that rule.
That rule would be something like asking myself "do I have to believe this?" where most other people would ask "am I allowed to believe this? why the fuck not, no one can prove me wrong!"
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 10, 2013, 10:09:40 PM
Here's where it breaks down...
A significant proportion of people who would define themselves as religious do not sheepishly follow their church. Protestantism was largely founded on the idea that a personal relationship with God can be infinitely more fulfilling. The reason there are so many sects within religions boils down to disagreement, which you wouldn't have if people blindly submitted to authority. Some people might. Most people don't; they self-edit, they pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, and which they don't. That's why you'll never beat a fundamentalist with bible quotes. They are fundamentally committed to the pieces they like. The pieces they don't, they are happy to ignore.
Loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention, because loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention in any group. Faith is a personal thing, and even within the same church, let alone the same religion, you'll find people who have varying beliefs.
Religion doesn't make sense to you... and that's fine. I get that you've had bad experiences with it. But projecting the bad experiences you've had and assuming that it is the same for everyone else is patronizing. I would expect that most of the people on this board who have faith, have examined that faith and thought extensively about it. I doubt anyone likely to read your posts here will have uncritically absorbed religious beliefs. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who have, but again, that's not something which is a necessity with the entirety of all religious experience.
Spirituality can be damaging, but it can also be profoundly helpful. Particularly when dealing with death and loss, but also as a gateway into all sorts of deeper ethical dilemmas. Quite aside from that, holy books can often be moving and beautiful. Just saying 'go with your gut' is fine, but there's a lot of times my gut doesn't know what to think, and then I tend to fall back on the philosophy and theology I've read to come up with an answer. I don't even consider myself to be religious or spiritual, but I've found uses in my day to day life for the ideas I've picked up from them along the way.
The Chao Te Ching is a great example of what religion can provide in modern life, IMO. Complicated ideas illustrated in brief through metaphor.
Like Roger keeps saying, there is no way to know whether there's a God or not until we find out the hard way. Continuing to use these tooth fairy/sky daddy strawmen is just... wrongheaded. It can not make sense to you and make sense to other people and both attitudes are equally valid. The difference between calling someone a 'faithfool' and calling someone a 'teabagger' is that the teabagger's positions can be taken apart through rational argument and discourse. You won't know if you're right or the religious individual is until you are dead. You might have strong beliefs on the subject, but hey, so do they. That's the nature of belief.
Thanks for completely conflating faith and spirituality, after I'd gone to great pains to draw the distinction I'm making between the two terms for the purposes of this discussion. Fair enough, disagree on my usage of the ambiguous as hell terms. You choose option b - ignore that and tell me why I'm wrong.
Note: this a discussion about whether or not it is good form to take the piss out of people who believe in invisible sky gnomes. There is no right and wrong.
Organized religious thought- which, you know, rarely includes the term 'sky gnomes'- informs spirituality. I may have conflated the two terms, but the points raised stand. You can take the piss out of it, yes. I still think talking the way you've talked makes you look like an ignorant jackass for the reasons raised in my above post.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 11, 2013, 12:44:02 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 10, 2013, 10:09:40 PM
Here's where it breaks down...
A significant proportion of people who would define themselves as religious do not sheepishly follow their church. Protestantism was largely founded on the idea that a personal relationship with God can be infinitely more fulfilling. The reason there are so many sects within religions boils down to disagreement, which you wouldn't have if people blindly submitted to authority. Some people might. Most people don't; they self-edit, they pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, and which they don't. That's why you'll never beat a fundamentalist with bible quotes. They are fundamentally committed to the pieces they like. The pieces they don't, they are happy to ignore.
Loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention, because loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention in any group. Faith is a personal thing, and even within the same church, let alone the same religion, you'll find people who have varying beliefs.
Religion doesn't make sense to you... and that's fine. I get that you've had bad experiences with it. But projecting the bad experiences you've had and assuming that it is the same for everyone else is patronizing. I would expect that most of the people on this board who have faith, have examined that faith and thought extensively about it. I doubt anyone likely to read your posts here will have uncritically absorbed religious beliefs. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who have, but again, that's not something which is a necessity with the entirety of all religious experience.
Spirituality can be damaging, but it can also be profoundly helpful. Particularly when dealing with death and loss, but also as a gateway into all sorts of deeper ethical dilemmas. Quite aside from that, holy books can often be moving and beautiful. Just saying 'go with your gut' is fine, but there's a lot of times my gut doesn't know what to think, and then I tend to fall back on the philosophy and theology I've read to come up with an answer. I don't even consider myself to be religious or spiritual, but I've found uses in my day to day life for the ideas I've picked up from them along the way.
The Chao Te Ching is a great example of what religion can provide in modern life, IMO. Complicated ideas illustrated in brief through metaphor.
Like Roger keeps saying, there is no way to know whether there's a God or not until we find out the hard way. Continuing to use these tooth fairy/sky daddy strawmen is just... wrongheaded. It can not make sense to you and make sense to other people and both attitudes are equally valid. The difference between calling someone a 'faithfool' and calling someone a 'teabagger' is that the teabagger's positions can be taken apart through rational argument and discourse. You won't know if you're right or the religious individual is until you are dead. You might have strong beliefs on the subject, but hey, so do they. That's the nature of belief.
Thanks for completely conflating faith and spirituality, after I'd gone to great pains to draw the distinction I'm making between the two terms for the purposes of this discussion. Fair enough, disagree on my usage of the ambiguous as hell terms. You choose option b - ignore that and tell me why I'm wrong.
Note: this a discussion about whether or not it is good form to take the piss out of people who believe in invisible sky gnomes. There is no right and wrong.
Even the most ignorant and hateful Southern Baptists I've had the misfortune of interacting with didn't believe in "invisible sky gnomes." Mostly they believed in themselves, they believed they were Right, and that anyone who didn't agree with them 100% was worthless trash. They're problem wasn't that they (allegedly) believed in a higher power, but that they were
dicks.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 11, 2013, 11:50:16 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 11:16:40 PM
In science, you can't ever prove anything, you can only falsify it. If there is no way to falsify it, then it's outside of the scope of science. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it has to be testable. The goal of testing is to see if you can prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can't, that doesn't make it proven, it just makes it less likely to be false. If you can't test something, it's not science.
Just because I can't use the scientific method to find that answer, that still doesn't mean I get to make stuff up. It feels to me like that is breaking some kind of rule.
I'm guessing it is an aesthetic rule I made up myself for myself to follow, because I can't articulate an objective justification to that rule.
That rule would be something like asking myself "do I have to believe this?" where most other people would ask "am I allowed to believe this? why the fuck not, no one can prove me wrong!"
There are three things that people make decisions based on (outside of "I want this"): Politics, Science, and Belief. People that favor one of the approaches tend to think it is the best approach or even the ONLY approach to anything, even though the rules for one do not apply (as opposed to being wrong) for the other two.
Try running a government on scientific principles. Go ahead. I dare ya. We've already seen the hilarity of trying to explain the empirical world in religious terms. So why would hammering belief into a scientific context be any different?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 11, 2013, 12:44:02 PM
Note: this a discussion about whether or not it is good form to take the piss out of people who believe in invisible sky gnomes. There is no right and wrong.
Set A = all people.
Set B = all people who have religious beliefs.
Since all members of set B are also members of set A, and since set A is the target group for piss extraction, then the answer to your question is "yes, it is good form". However, the reason they are targeted is because they belong in the set "all people", and if you think YOU aren't in set B, then you have another thing coming, good sir.
Everyone knows that gnomes are Earth elementals.
Pfft. Sky gnomes. What did they do, fuck some sylphs and have babies?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 11, 2013, 12:44:02 PM
Quote from: Demolition Squid on October 10, 2013, 10:09:40 PM
Here's where it breaks down...
A significant proportion of people who would define themselves as religious do not sheepishly follow their church. Protestantism was largely founded on the idea that a personal relationship with God can be infinitely more fulfilling. The reason there are so many sects within religions boils down to disagreement, which you wouldn't have if people blindly submitted to authority. Some people might. Most people don't; they self-edit, they pick and choose which bits they want to believe in, and which they don't. That's why you'll never beat a fundamentalist with bible quotes. They are fundamentally committed to the pieces they like. The pieces they don't, they are happy to ignore.
Loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention, because loudmouths with extremist views get a lot of attention in any group. Faith is a personal thing, and even within the same church, let alone the same religion, you'll find people who have varying beliefs.
Religion doesn't make sense to you... and that's fine. I get that you've had bad experiences with it. But projecting the bad experiences you've had and assuming that it is the same for everyone else is patronizing. I would expect that most of the people on this board who have faith, have examined that faith and thought extensively about it. I doubt anyone likely to read your posts here will have uncritically absorbed religious beliefs. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who have, but again, that's not something which is a necessity with the entirety of all religious experience.
Spirituality can be damaging, but it can also be profoundly helpful. Particularly when dealing with death and loss, but also as a gateway into all sorts of deeper ethical dilemmas. Quite aside from that, holy books can often be moving and beautiful. Just saying 'go with your gut' is fine, but there's a lot of times my gut doesn't know what to think, and then I tend to fall back on the philosophy and theology I've read to come up with an answer. I don't even consider myself to be religious or spiritual, but I've found uses in my day to day life for the ideas I've picked up from them along the way.
The Chao Te Ching is a great example of what religion can provide in modern life, IMO. Complicated ideas illustrated in brief through metaphor.
Like Roger keeps saying, there is no way to know whether there's a God or not until we find out the hard way. Continuing to use these tooth fairy/sky daddy strawmen is just... wrongheaded. It can not make sense to you and make sense to other people and both attitudes are equally valid. The difference between calling someone a 'faithfool' and calling someone a 'teabagger' is that the teabagger's positions can be taken apart through rational argument and discourse. You won't know if you're right or the religious individual is until you are dead. You might have strong beliefs on the subject, but hey, so do they. That's the nature of belief.
Thanks for completely conflating faith and spirituality, after I'd gone to great pains to draw the distinction I'm making between the two terms for the purposes of this discussion. Fair enough, disagree on my usage of the ambiguous as hell terms. You choose option b - ignore that and tell me why I'm wrong.
Note: this a discussion about whether or not it is good form to take the piss out of people who believe in invisible sky gnomes. There is no right and wrong.
It's a bullshit distinction, is why, and you're presuming to make it for
other people.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on October 11, 2013, 11:50:16 AM
Quote from: Not Your Nigel on October 10, 2013, 11:16:40 PM
In science, you can't ever prove anything, you can only falsify it. If there is no way to falsify it, then it's outside of the scope of science. In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it has to be testable. The goal of testing is to see if you can prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can't, that doesn't make it proven, it just makes it less likely to be false. If you can't test something, it's not science.
Just because I can't use the scientific method to find that answer, that still doesn't mean I get to make stuff up. It feels to me like that is breaking some kind of rule.
I'm guessing it is an aesthetic rule I made up myself for myself to follow, because I can't articulate an objective justification to that rule.
That rule would be something like asking myself "do I have to believe this?" where most other people would ask "am I allowed to believe this? why the fuck not, no one can prove me wrong!"
Do whatever you want with it, I don't care and what you decide for yourself has no effect on anyone else.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on October 11, 2013, 02:44:00 PM
Even the most ignorant and hateful Southern Baptists I've had the misfortune of interacting with didn't believe in "invisible sky gnomes." Mostly they believed in themselves, they believed they were Right, and that anyone who didn't agree with them 100% was worthless trash. They're problem wasn't that they (allegedly) believed in a higher power, but that they were dicks.
And this. Religion, including Atheism, is just a tool people who have decided they're Right use to shit on other people. The real problem is that they have decided that they're smarter and better than anyone who disagrees with them, and therefore have a right to decide how everyone else should think. Whether they use religion or some other tool to facilitate their delusion is irrelevant.
-
Quote from: Cain on October 11, 2013, 07:33:01 PM
Update: Atwill is officially a moron (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/story-of-jesus-christ-was-fabricated-to-pacify-the-poor-claims-controversial-biblical-scholar-8870879.html):
QuoteAt the 'Covert Messiah' conference, to be held at the Conway Hall in Holborn a week on Saturday, Mr Atwill will present his theory that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they entirely fabricated the story of Jesus Christ.
Outlining his ideas in a blog posting on his website Mr Atwill writes: "Christianity may be considered a religion, but it was actually developed and used as a system of mind control to produce slaves that believed God decreed their slavery."
Mr Atwill says that acts of insurrection by Jewish sects, who were awaiting the arrival of a so-called 'warrior Messiah' in Palestine, were a perpetual problem for the Roman Empire and that after the Empire had exhausted all traditional means of dealing with the problem they resorted to psychological warfare.
"They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system," Atwill told PRWeb.com
"That's when the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented.
So what are the chances the one and only time in all of Roman history something like this is prepared...and the fabricated religion turns out to be Christianity?
You'll also note a complete and utter lack of documented evidence to support the notion of these mysterious, unnamed, first-century Roman aristocrats.
Also, peaceful Messiah? Uh yeah, he just hung around with a Zealot, and said "I come not to bring the peace, but a sword". Real peaceful, right.
:um:
I gotta show this shit to my classical history professor. Mind control for slaves? Really?
From what I have gathered, Christianity was the urban religion for rich brats, the new "it" thing, like Scientology today. It was not practiced by slaves or poor workers. It was an underground cult for much of its early years.
Did you come to that conclusion after researching many studies?
-
Quote from: Suu on October 11, 2013, 08:08:10 PM
It was not practiced by slaves or poor workers.
So all that early Christian grafitti in Roman slave quarters was put on the wall by the masters?