An evening without Richard Dawkins

[Seth]

Your opinion is that their delusion is OK with you and folks ought not rock the boat.

My opinion is that their delusion is a delusion. Whether it's OK with me, or you, is immaterial; it's a delusion. As such it leads to pathological behavior; they will not leave you be, no matter what you think.

If they won't "leave you be" after being firmly told to leave you alone, it qualifies as either "stalking" or "harassment," which is a crime.

And they have a perfect right to hold delusional beliefs, so long as they don't pose an imminent physical threat to themselves or others in so doing. That's called "freedom." They likely think you're just as delusional, and if you want to make presumptions of delusion the metric for shutting someone up, you're in greater danger than they are because they are in the majority and can therefore pretty much determine who is delusional and who is not. So be careful what you wish for.

Now, how many of "them" have truly refused to "leave you be" once you've told them you're not interested in receiving their message? My guess is zero.

My guess is you want to bitch about their free exercise of speech and religion that you happen to be exposed to because both you and they are in a public place, where they have every right to preach and you have absolutely zero right to be free from their speech. If you don't like being exposed to religious free speech in public places, then stay out of public places, because their right to worship and express themselves freely in such places is far more important than your pique at being exposed to it.

[Cormac]

Christianity is what Christ taught, which is why it's called "Christ-ianity," and Christ NEVER taught people to kill or burn anyone.

Hi Seth,

Would you care to specify your sources for your pure and authentic teachings of Christ, seeing as:
a) You reject Matthew, and
b) You are claiming to know what "True" Christianity is by declaring what it is not.

Which parts of the New Testament are valid, and which aren't?

[Cormac]

Thanks for not reading my reply.

I read it and I found it to be irrational.

I have quoted from the new testament which shows that the old testament still applies.

So you say. Modern Christians seem to have another opinion, given the fact that they eat pork, work on Saturday, and don't keep kosher. Who do we believe about what modern Christianity is and isn't? You? I don't think so.

I have pointed out that if it didn't still apply, it would not be lying on every pulpit of every christian church.

Again, so you say. But YOU don't get to dictate the rules to Christians. They can keep whatever historical references on their pulpits they like, and they can use and interpret them as they like, within the bounds of the secular law of the nation they're in.

I have quoted from the old testament's demand to kill witches.

So what? Who cares what you quoted. What's important is how modern Christians interpret their holy book and whether THEY kill witches, and as I've said several times, no modern Christian in any civilized country does so, nor do they support such acts. Therefore, they have rejected this particular "demand" and it no longer is part of their religious practices. That some very few barbaric savages somewhere may choose to interpret the Bible by ignoring both secular law and the New Testament and may choose to commit heinous crimes against humanity while claiming to be "Christians" doesn't mean that they are, or that every other Christian on the planet is culpable for their acts or is intent on burning their own local witches. You're trying to support a guilt-by-association fallacy and it's not working.

I have also pointed out that christianity cherry-picks from the bible to suit whatever angle is fashionable at the time.

So what? What business is it of yours how they choose to worship? You don't get to dictate to them how they practice their religion, and they are not accountable to you so long as they stay within the boundaries of the secular laws.

At the moment witch burning is out. That does not mean it is deleted. It just means the command is ignored just now.

So, what's your beef? It's "deleted" because Christians no longer practice it, and like many of the obsolete laws that pepper the secular law that are actually enforceable, albeit obsolete, they are nothing more than a historical artifact.

You just keep asserting stuff without backing it up. Repetition does not turn wrong assertions into valid ones.

Nor do red herrings, strawmen and guilt-by-association fallacies turn your lame argument into a valid one. You are using a Wayback Machine fallacy to impugn the character of modern Christians merely because bad things were done in the past by others. That's about as intellectually strong as wet toilet paper.

Why did you bring it up during a discussion about religion? What relevance does my Libertarianism have to the subject under discussion? Sounds to me like you're just setting up a red herring argument to deflect away from the debate by posting ad hominim comments.

Why? To point out that predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology. And I linked to an example. Also, where's the ad hominem?

The ad hom is right there in front of you. Again. You have not demonstrated that I'm "avoiding the bits that don't suit you" in this debate. I'm responding at length to the thrust of your arguments. If I miss a post or two or don't care to respond to a post that has no probative substance, that's your fault for not composing a compelling argument. Nor have you demonstrated that I'm "dismissing statistics" (because no statistics are in evidence for one thing), so you are making reference to my person, not to my arguments, as a supposed attack on my arguments. That is the very DEFINITION of "ad hominem," which means, literally, "to the person." Again, my Libertarian ideology has nothing whatever to do with a discussion about Christianity, so your attack can be nothing OTHER than an ad hominem fallacy.

And yet, despite christianty's supposed abandonment of the OT, and the supposed closure of hell:

1. All christian churches still read lessons from the OT.
2. The 10 Commandments are still Central to all christian faiths, (but not the other commandments)
3. Hell is still a core part of all Christianity that I am aware of. Sin enough, or fail to repent enough, or choose the wrong or no religion and get ready for ab eternal barbecue.

I can't work out where you're getting your inspiration foe your assertions otherwise.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

38,000 Xtian denominations.

[Seth]

Christianity is what Christ taught, which is why it's called "Christ-ianity," and Christ NEVER taught people to kill or burn anyone.

Hi Seth,

Would you care to specify your sources for your pure and authentic teachings of Christ, seeing as:
a) You reject Matthew, and
b) You are claiming to know what "True" Christianity is by declaring what it is not.

Generally, any good version of the New Testament highlights Jesus' actual statements, as opposed to statements or interpretations made by the Apostles. I'd be very interested to see any direct quotation by Jesus calling for the burning of witches.

Which parts of the New Testament are valid, and which aren't?

Well, we can start with the stuff Jesus actually said, or is alleged to have actually said.

But the point remains. No matter what some group of people claiming to be Christians might do, by way of burning witches or anything else, it's illogical, unreasonable, bigoted, prejudiced and hateful to imply that ALL Christians are culpable for some despicable act by an individual or group.

[Seth]

Thanks for not reading my reply.

I read it and I found it to be irrational.

I have quoted from the new testament which shows that the old testament still applies.

So you say. Modern Christians seem to have another opinion, given the fact that they eat pork, work on Saturday, and don't keep kosher. Who do we believe about what modern Christianity is and isn't? You? I don't think so.

I have pointed out that if it didn't still apply, it would not be lying on every pulpit of every christian church.

Again, so you say. But YOU don't get to dictate the rules to Christians. They can keep whatever historical references on their pulpits they like, and they can use and interpret them as they like, within the bounds of the secular law of the nation they're in.

I have quoted from the old testament's demand to kill witches.

So what? Who cares what you quoted. What's important is how modern Christians interpret their holy book and whether THEY kill witches, and as I've said several times, no modern Christian in any civilized country does so, nor do they support such acts. Therefore, they have rejected this particular "demand" and it no longer is part of their religious practices. That some very few barbaric savages somewhere may choose to interpret the Bible by ignoring both secular law and the New Testament and may choose to commit heinous crimes against humanity while claiming to be "Christians" doesn't mean that they are, or that every other Christian on the planet is culpable for their acts or is intent on burning their own local witches. You're trying to support a guilt-by-association fallacy and it's not working.

I have also pointed out that christianity cherry-picks from the bible to suit whatever angle is fashionable at the time.

So what? What business is it of yours how they choose to worship? You don't get to dictate to them how they practice their religion, and they are not accountable to you so long as they stay within the boundaries of the secular laws.

At the moment witch burning is out. That does not mean it is deleted. It just means the command is ignored just now.

So, what's your beef? It's "deleted" because Christians no longer practice it, and like many of the obsolete laws that pepper the secular law that are actually enforceable, albeit obsolete, they are nothing more than a historical artifact.

You just keep asserting stuff without backing it up. Repetition does not turn wrong assertions into valid ones.

Nor do red herrings, strawmen and guilt-by-association fallacies turn your lame argument into a valid one. You are using a Wayback Machine fallacy to impugn the character of modern Christians merely because bad things were done in the past by others. That's about as intellectually strong as wet toilet paper.

Why did you bring it up during a discussion about religion? What relevance does my Libertarianism have to the subject under discussion? Sounds to me like you're just setting up a red herring argument to deflect away from the debate by posting ad hominim comments.

Why? To point out that predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology. And I linked to an example. Also, where's the ad hominem?

The ad hom is right there in front of you. Again. You have not demonstrated that I'm "avoiding the bits that don't suit you" in this debate. I'm responding at length to the thrust of your arguments. If I miss a post or two or don't care to respond to a post that has no probative substance, that's your fault for not composing a compelling argument. Nor have you demonstrated that I'm "dismissing statistics" (because no statistics are in evidence for one thing), so you are making reference to my person, not to my arguments, as a supposed attack on my arguments. That is the very DEFINITION of "ad hominem," which means, literally, "to the person." Again, my Libertarian ideology has nothing whatever to do with a discussion about Christianity, so your attack can be nothing OTHER than an ad hominem fallacy.

And yet, despite christianty's supposed abandonment of the OT, and the supposed closure of hell:

1. All christian churches still read lessons from the OT.

And what lessons do "all christian churches" (sic) take from the OT, pray tell? Please be precise in your description of the precise passages and lessons taken from those passages, in context with all the other lessons taken from all the other passages taught to "all" Christians. Before you answer that, remember that thing called "parable" and the other thing called "cautionary tale."

2. The 10 Commandments are still Central to all christian faiths, (but not the other commandments)

And where in the 10 Commandments are believers instructed to burn witches?

3. Hell is still a core part of all Christianity that I am aware of. Sin enough, or fail to repent enough, or choose the wrong or no religion and get ready for ab eternal barbecue.

So? If God exists, and is in fact a "jealous God" as he proclaims in the Fifth Commandment, and hell awaits sinners, is it not Christian charity and love and concern for the immoral soul of each and every person that motivates Christians to warn non-Christians of the danger that they face should they die unredeemed of sin by refusing to accept Jesus' free gift of salvation?

You, like many Atheists, seem to think that it's Christians who are condemning sinners to an eternity of hell. They aren't. They are merely warning you that they believe God will do so, but that your salvation is at hand and all you have to do is accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. That's no more offensive than someone warning you that the elevator shaft you're about to step into has no elevator in it. Now, it may be that God is a right cruel bastard, but if so, that's all the more reason to accept Jesus' sacrifice and salvation, and all the more reason for Christians to be persistent in spreading the Gospel of Christ in hopes of saving souls from eternal damnation out of a sense of love, concern and altruism, now isn't it?

I can't work out where you're getting your inspiration foe your assertions otherwise.

That's probably because you aren't thinking critically about it and are being blinded by bias and prejudice. Engage your reasoning faculties, suppress your emotions and distaste and look at it from their perspective for a moment and their motives might become quite clear to you. They did to me.

[Feck]

Yep the NT has moved a long way from the blood sacrifice and apocalyptic message of the OT .....

[vjohn82]

your salvation is at hand and all you have to do is accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior

The mighty Seth speaks...

Bloody hell. You're a fruitcake aren't you? Accepting this premise of the blood cult that is Christianity is about as reasonable and logical as, er, calling someone a Mein Kampf fantasist if they had revealed that they had read it during their undergraduate studies.

[Cormac]

Christianity is what Christ taught, which is why it's called "Christ-ianity," and Christ NEVER taught people to kill or burn anyone.

Hi Seth,

Would you care to specify your sources for your pure and authentic teachings of Christ, seeing as:
a) You reject Matthew, and
b) You are claiming to know what "True" Christianity is by declaring what it is not.

Generally, any good version of the New Testament highlights Jesus' actual statements, as opposed to statements or interpretations made by the Apostles. I'd be very interested to see any direct quotation by Jesus calling for the burning of witches.

Which parts of the New Testament are valid, and which aren't?

Well, we can start with the stuff Jesus actually said, or is alleged to have actually said.

Given that the entire NT is at best hearsay, how do you identify those bits that he "actually said" from those that are more dubious?

"Alleged" is the key word here, I think.

But the point remains. No matter what some group of people claiming to be Christians might do, by way of burning witches or anything else, it's illogical, unreasonable, bigoted, prejudiced and hateful to imply that ALL Christians are culpable for some despicable act by an individual or group.

I agree with your general point that tarring all Christians with the same brush is unreasonable. I think most people here would as most of us have family and friends who are Christian, and most of them are probably good people.

But I don't think that is how this current debate started. I think the matter of burning arose as an example of where Christians have behaved in a reprehensible manner, and I don't think it was intended as a statement that all Christians behave that way.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The believers get lamer every year.

[Seth]

your salvation is at hand and all you have to do is accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior

The mighty Seth speaks...

Bloody hell. You're a fruitcake aren't you? Accepting this premise of the blood cult that is Christianity is about as reasonable and logical as, er, calling someone a Mein Kampf fantasist if they had revealed that they had read it during their undergraduate studies.

That is as it may be, but it's their religion to believe in and it's not up to you to tell them how to do so.

Oh, and you do understand that I'm simply forwarding the Christian argument, not stating it as a personal belief. I wanted to advise you because you're new here and probably haven't read my welcome thread, in which I explain that I may hold positions for the sake of argument that I do not personally believe in. Christianity is one of those subjects where my position is of interlocutor, and my restatement of their claims does not mean that I believe them.

And, your personal attack has been reported...

[Seth]

Christianity is what Christ taught, which is why it's called "Christ-ianity," and Christ NEVER taught people to kill or burn anyone.

Hi Seth,

Would you care to specify your sources for your pure and authentic teachings of Christ, seeing as:
a) You reject Matthew, and
b) You are claiming to know what "True" Christianity is by declaring what it is not.

Generally, any good version of the New Testament highlights Jesus' actual statements, as opposed to statements or interpretations made by the Apostles. I'd be very interested to see any direct quotation by Jesus calling for the burning of witches.

Which parts of the New Testament are valid, and which aren't?

Well, we can start with the stuff Jesus actually said, or is alleged to have actually said.

Given that the entire NT is at best hearsay, how do you identify those bits that he "actually said" from those that are more dubious?

"Alleged" is the key word here, I think.

I'm merely forwarding the argument, not rendering judgment on its veracity or accuracy. What's important in this context is what Christians believe about the NT, not what you or I believe about it.

But the point remains. No matter what some group of people claiming to be Christians might do, by way of burning witches or anything else, it's illogical, unreasonable, bigoted, prejudiced and hateful to imply that ALL Christians are culpable for some despicable act by an individual or group.

I agree with your general point that tarring all Christians with the same brush is unreasonable. I think most people here would as most of us have family and friends who are Christian, and most of them are probably good people.

But I don't think that is how this current debate started. I think the matter of burning arose as an example of where Christians have behaved in a reprehensible manner, and I don't think it was intended as a statement that all Christians behave that way.

And I pointed out that they aren't Christians, first of all, and that there was, and usually is no distinction made between people-burning barbaric savages in Nigeria, pedophile priests and their co-conspirators in the US and elsewhere, and the billions of perfectly harmless, peaceful, loving, good people who happen to subscribe to Christianity and Catholicism.

It is a commonplace canard for Atheists to cherry-pick some horrible example of human depravity committed by a Christian or Catholic and impute that character to everyone of religion while simultaneously ignoring the idiocy of that fallacious logic by, for example, getting all hot and bothered when I point out that it's estimated by credible research that as many as five MILLION children a year are molested in public schools by public school teachers, and yet we do not see an outcry against teachers, teachers unions, or public education and we don't see people tarring all teachers with that broad brush.

It's a rampant, obvious and commonplace hypocrisy and intellectual pygmyism by bigoted, prejudices Atheist zealots who cannot reason carefully, have no logical faculties, and are interested only in bashing anything remotely touching upon religion. They as much trolls looking for people of religion to demean and insult as the worst evangelical Christian zealot ever seen on an Atheist forum.

And it happens to be my pleasure to point out such intellectual pygmyism from time to time, just to demonstrate the fact that Atheists are not inherently more intelligent, more logical, or more capable of reason than a theist. In fact, they are some of the worst of the worst when it comes to mindless hatred, bigotry and prejudice, and they give atheism and atheists a bad name, which is highly detrimental to the cause of gaining public acceptance and tolerance for atheism.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Seth]

You wish. How about you fuck off instead?

[vjohn82]

How could the OT not apply? Without the OT there is no original sin and therefore no reason for Jesus to die for the weekend to temporarily fix it. Remove the OT and the assumptions on which the NT are grounded (however nebulous they are) are also removed. Would be like Harry Potter without Voldemort, pointless.

Now YOU'RE trying to tell Christians how to worship. That's irrational. What's important, the ONLY thing that's important, is how Christians ACTUALLY WORSHIP TODAY, and they DO NOT burn people, or advocate burning people, or keep kosher, or do most of the other things called for in the OT that Atheists like to drag out of the Wayback Machine as justification for bigotry and hatred.

Their interpretation of their holy book may be irrational to you, particularly if you want to be able to use particular now-discredited and unused OT commandments and practices as a reason to disparage and demean modern-day Christians, but it's not irrational to them, and what counts is what they do NOW, not what some other people did five thousand years ago.

The majority of anti-same sex marriage campaigning and homophobia comes from religious institutions.

Religion really behaves itself doesn't it?