Suddenly, SinFest = Huge Piles of Fail.

[Kittyboymuffin]

*falls over* I hate it when my parodies are accidentally so spot on you'd have to be told they're ment as a spoof ...

[Wipperwill]

Sometimes it sounds like you only care about the method of their preaching, and other times its the message itself.

First, let me be absolutely clear... I am both usually vehemently opposed to the method of their "preaching", and to the message itself. I say "usually" because there are instances of each that I find at least somewhat more acceptable.

From the way you put it, the first case is laudable, the second case is hypocritical.

I disagree entirely, and challenge you to defend that statement. There is nothing the least bit "hypocritical" in having logic, data, and history on your side and saying "Your ideas, beliefs, or opinions are batshit crazy, childish, ridiculous, dishonest, malicious, demonstrably fallacious, intellectually anemic, poorly founded, and generally both unimaginative and weak."

Hypocritical would be saying "My imaginary friend is obviously real and superior, while your imaginary friend is obviously a fraud. Therefore, my morals and values trump your morals and values."

Complaining about others being zelous when you yourself are no different just sets off bells to me.

Again... I think you're confusing zealousness and zealotry. They're as different as "enthusiasm" and "fanaticism".

Still... Even if we stick to "zealousness" on either side, I see no intellectual difficulty in distinguishing between being zealous about freeing & enlarging people, and being zealous about enslaving and reducing people... Even if the second group is either clever and malicious enough, or simple-minded and deluded enough to call their activities "freeing and enlarging".

Just because Spanish missionary priests said and believed they were "saving" indigenous infants souls by baptizing them and then bashing their brains in, neither the statement nor the belief would make it "no different" from, say, 'Doctors without Borders' providing medicine and health services to indigenous infants.

I agree that people shouldn't impose thier values on others but society's rules will have its way.

Well... There's the idea of the need to agree upon a "social contract" that allows us to live peacefully together, and there's the idea of imposing arbitrary restrictions on the harmless behaviors of others based on the falsified mandates of an imaginary Sky Wizard.

The first almost always comes down to forming agreements not to allow individuals or groups to infringe upon the freedoms of others, while the second almost always comes down to individuals or groups demanding the "right" to infringe upon the freedoms of everyone else.

Now... Enjoy your trip, and let's see if you actually dig this up when you get back

What you are saying is that thier ideas are crap and yours are right...but arent we talking about religion? How can you prove there is no god? Or that there is? What I'm trying to say is that you oppose thier viewpoint but use the same methods they do to try and get your point cross. That sounds wrong to me, taking the low road as it were.

/Quote " I see no intellectual difficulty in distinguishing between being zealous about freeing & enlarging people, and being zealous about enslaving and reducing people... " /Unquote.

You can't distinguish between the two...What you call slavery is another person's lifestyle...What you call enlightenment is to them ignorance. There aren't too many religions in the US and most modern countries that enslave people. Those that do prey on people that want to be enslaved. There I said it...there are people that want to be enslaved. This should come as no shock to you considering that you equate christianity with slavery.
-------
/Quote "Well... There's the idea of the need to agree upon a "social contract" that allows us to live peacefully together, and there's the idea of imposing arbitrary restrictions on the harmless behaviors of others based on the falsified mandates of an imaginary Sky Wizard." Unquote./

Majority rules, and makes the rules too. The only mandate for social rules is for people to get along, using religion or a base set of morals or whatever to minimize conflict.. You seem to me to be advocating the same methods to covert people to your view that they use. I have to ask what makes your way better than thiers?

I would be interested in hearing what made you so bitter about christianity. Lapsed Catholic? Cult brainwashing survivor? Reformed church of Cthulu ?

----
My underway sucked, long hours, little appreciation. Some of the days were nice tho. They are cutting back on ship billets to send even sailors over to Iraq on shore. Means more work for us. I did find out that we are going to the Portland Rose Festival in May or June sometime. Lots of nice friendly women there. There'll be some booze and women aplenty I tell ya.

[Wipperwill]

Idiots are typically and statistically much "happier" than are people of considerable intelligence. The grossly ignorant are typically happier, in a superficial sense, than those possessed of greater education. Moving to the archaic medical definition of "idiocy", we find people who are typically happier yet.

Ever heard the phrase "grinning like an idiot"? How about "Ignorance is bliss"? The uncomprehending peace of the untroubled brow?

How can you seriously suggest that the lot of mankind is better when people bask in the artificial joy of ignorance and delusion?

If that's the case, why bother with education, religion, government, art, literature... Anything at all? Surely by now, we can just build some robots to load us up with euphoric drugs. Let's all live short lives of unbridled joy until we drown, blissfully unaware, in pools of our own waste.

So what you are saying is that Idiots aren't really happy, they just think they are happy? Just superficially tho, deep inside they are really unhappy? You can only be truely happy if you are knowledgable and intelligent. It almost sounds that you think they are delusionally happy. That they should really be unhappy for some reason.

And do I understand it that you don't think humanity is better off when people are happy (even due to idiocy)?

If the "lot" of mankind isn't to be happy, what is it? When has knowledge ever trumped wisdom when it comes to being happy? I'm sure there are examples but I can't imagine a majority.

That last paragraph is a little over the top.

[Honor]

There are a few "arguments" that, it seems, must be answered anew every time the subject comes up...

I would be interested in hearing what made you so bitter about christianity. Lapsed Catholic? Cult brainwashing survivor? Reformed church of Cthulu ?

Simply put, growing up in the United States. Had I grown up in Saudi Arabia, I'd likely focus more on Islam. But, to be fair, it doesn't take much careful reading of my writing on the subject to notice that I'm not specific about it. It's religion I'm against.... Not just or particularly or specifically Christianity.

What you are saying is that thier ideas are crap and yours are right...

No. What I'm saying is my views are logical and feasible and well founded in reality, while theirs are illogical, infeasible, and poorly founded in fantasy.

...but arent we talking about religion? How can you prove there is no god? Or that there is?

The fact that you can't disprove something that makes absolutely no logical or scientific sense doesn't make it equally likely to a theory that does make logical and scientific sense.

Any fairly clever child over the age of ten should be able to construct an argument that is both wrong and not capable of being proved or disproved. It's not incredibly difficult.

Can you prove Pliny the Elder didn't have five penises? Can you prove there isn't a giant purple basset hound at the core of the Andromeda Galaxy? Can you prove the non-existence of a planet made entirely of cheese orbiting Betelgeuse? Would you therefore suggest that we should give full and equal consideration to the views of those who "believe" that you should be prevented by law, on pain of death, from drinking orange juice because of these "equally valid truths"?

What I'm trying to say is that you oppose thier viewpoint but use the same methods they do to try and get your point cross. That sounds wrong to me, taking the low road as it were.

I'm not sure if you're unfamiliar with my methods of argument, or with the methods of religionists... But where one references science and logic and another references "the magic book", they are absolutely not the "same methods".

You can't distinguish between the two...What you call slavery is another person's lifestyle...What you call enlightenment is to them ignorance.

I believe... I... Hmm... Let me see... Yes! Yes, I did address that already:

Even if the second group is either clever and malicious enough, or simple-minded and deluded enough to call their activities "freeing and enlarging".

Now, let's not go circular, shall we? Let's keep this in context with the items already mentioned above... Simply saying "No... We're the enlightened ones! You're the ones who are ignorant!" isn't enough... Especially when all you're bringing to the debate table is "But the magic book says..."

So what you are saying is that Idiots aren't really happy, they just think they are happy?

What I'm saying is precisely what I said. The implication was made that being religious was better because religious people were happier, so I pointed out that it's completely beside the points... That that particular brand of "happiness" was demonstrably comparable to the "happiness" of idiocy or drunkenness... Certainly subject to a logical comparative value judgment.

It almost sounds that you think they are delusionally happy. That they should really be unhappy for some reason.

Um, no. This bears exactly the same validity of someone who's been told that perhaps people shouldn't be drunk all the time, or lobotomized at birth saying "So you want people to be unhappy?!?"

And do I understand it that you don't think humanity is better off when people are happy (even due to idiocy)?

No. I do not think humanity is better of when people are happy due to idiocy... Primarily because idiocy is not the only, or even -best- path to happiness.

When has knowledge ever trumped wisdom when it comes to being happy? I'm sure there are examples but I can't imagine a majority.

This makes no sense. Wisdom is the beneficial combination of knowledge, experience, and sound judgment... When has anyone ever achieved wisdom without knowledge? When has knowledge ever hindered wisdom?

That last paragraph is a little over the top.

Not in the least. If closing our eyes tightly and deluding ourselves that everything will be fine after we die is "good" then why wouldn't a short life of unabated drug induced euphoria be "better"?

[Seth Marati]

Can you prove the non-existence of a planet made entirely of cheese orbiting Betelgeuse?

So it isn't just the moon that's made of cheese?

When has knowledge ever trumped wisdom when it comes to being happy? I'm sure there are examples but I can't imagine a majority.

This makes no sense. Wisdom is the beneficial combination of knowledge, experience, and sound judgment... When has anyone ever achieved wisdom without knowledge? When has knowledge ever hindered wisdom?

This reminds me of a poster for a local Baptist church I saw in the union building at my university that said something to the effect of "knowledge without wisdom is perverted and dangerous." I can't remember the actual phrasing (and I'm away on break right now, so I can't go and check), but it used a trio of words as dramatic as "ghastly" and "insidious". It disgusts me how these institutions promote a mistrust of learning at centers of higher education, though it's hardly surprising that they would, seeing as conservative religious parties wouldn't take too kindly to an educated population. Fortunately, most of the people who'd see it likely won't be affected by it, but odds are at least one person will be (especially considering some of the people I've seen on campus who apparently can't be bothered to think about these things at all), and thinking about that that makes me a little upset.

[Wipperwill]

Perhaps I meant to say that knowledge without wisdom is hollow.Now about delusion and drug use and a happy life... There is no set way to live life. What makes me happy doesn't necess make you happy. A short life of drug induced euphoria might just be some people's cup of tea, and far better than thier alternative. If someone wants to believe in heaven and hell whats wrong with that? Why do they deserve your scathing scorn?
I understand you don't want people telling you what to believe but shouldn't you give them the same courtesy?

[Honor]

If someone wants to believe in heaven and hell whats wrong with that? Why do they deserve your scathing scorn?
I understand you don't want people telling you what to believe but shouldn't you give them the same courtesy?

First, no. Bullshit. If this were a zero sum game and all bets were equal, then we wouldn't have terms in our language like "crazy" or "delusional" or "tinfoil hat".

It's acceptable to bag on the "beliefs" of people who think they should all suicide in matching sneakers so they can get to the mother ship... But not people who think they have to eat the magic cookie so they can get to the theme park. It's ok to laugh at people who "believe" they can talk to animals or toasters or ghosts... But not people who "believe" they can talk to god or angels or special ghosts. It's ok to cage someone if they believe the Wizard of Oz is real and should rule our lives... But not if they give the bible the same idiotic stature.

It's always perfectly ok with the religionists if they deride and belittle and dismiss everyone else's irrational, deluded, absolutely baseless "beliefs"... It's just their "beliefs" they think everyone should be entitled to.

And you know... This might even be ok, in some fucked up world, if their "beliefs" were one little shimmering iota more logical, reasonable, acceptable, or rational than any of the other examples I've listed above. But they're Just. Fucking. Not.

They have a constitutional right to believe in childish, weak-minded, short-sighted bullshit... But I have no constitutional obligation to refrain from pointing and laughing at them.

Not all points of view are equally valid, or worthy of equal respect.


But even beyond that, no again.


Those terribly, terribly few who can simply do that - simply believe, for themselves -usually do get "the same courtesy" from me.. I say "usually" because, every now and then, you just can't help laughing at the guy in the pointed tinfoil hat... Or, at very least, shaking your head and thinking "that's so sad." But, mostly, if they don't bother others, I don't bother them.

The problem is that so few of them are happy enough just to wallow by themselves. They have to bother others.

And precious few of those who aren't happy to just wallow by themselves are benign...

There's always at least a little added misery and suffering for others in there. There's always some parent who's got to tell her kid - who may be homosexual - that homosexuals are dirty and evil and sinful.

That jews or muslims, or even blacks and mexicans, aren't as good as "us", because god doesn't love them the same, because they're dirty sinners. That her body is dirty, and sex is sinful, and masturbation is disgusting, and orgasms are shameful.

That she's "just a girl" and she should by god get used to the idea of obeying her father, because someday she'll have a husband to obey. That, if a sperm touches an egg, it magically and instantly becomes a fully functional human being who's rights trump the mother's... Up until she's born, then she can be abused, neglected, beaten, or killed... But not before, because mom's just breeding stock that belongs to her husband and she exists only at his pleasure and sufferance.

It's always that science is full of shit, and dinosaurs coexisted with humans on the ark, and evolution is a fantasy, medicine is a crock, and global warming isn't real... And if we pollute the planet into an oily, sludgy, asthmatic seizure and destroy half the world in war, that's perfectly ok... Better than ok, in fact, because the world's got to get destroyed before our imaginary friend will come back and take us all to jesusland.

They sit in church and marvel in rapturous joy at how all-knowing and all-powerful their god is, but then they leave church and decide they've got to beat a homosexual to death for existing, or cut a little girl's clitoris off so she won't sin by enjoying sex, or bomb an abortion clinic into oblivion, or burn the old lady that someone called a witch, or fly a fucking airplane into an office building because that same all-knowing and all-powerful god obviously can't design people the way he wants them, or handle sin on his own.

He's powerful enough to take me to heaven forever... But he needs my help in dealing with you.


So, no... Their fucked up little violent apocalyptic fantasies don't deserve the same fucking courtesy... Not until they can either back up their bullshit with something stronger than one magical storybook, or learn to play nice and get along with everyone else.

[PopeMac]

The problem is that people don't take time to think for themselves - they just believe whatever people tell them they should. For example, the biggest problem - irrational hatred of various groups of people - shouldn't even exist within Christianity, because the basic point Jesus was trying to get across was that maybe people should just be nice to each other for a change. If people actually paid attention to what was going on in the New Testament, they would notice that Jesus actively sought out people that everyone hated or looked down upon, such as tax collectors and prostitutes. Seriously, if you're supposed to love your enemies, then you can't really hate anyone, because anyone you hate is your enemy. Anyway, I'm probably starting to sound overly preachy, so I'll stop now.

Also, a side note: I don't know enough about other religions to say anything about religion in general. I'm only talking about what I personally believe.

[Kittyboymuffin]

Yeah ... To paraphrase Douglas Adams, "Humans, who are almost unique in their ability to think for themselves, are also noteworthy for their apparent disinclination to do so." For instance, I just borrowed a quotation for the sake of saying "Me too!"

[Honor]

The problem is that people don't take time to think for themselves - they just believe whatever people tell them they should.

From church to the voting booth to the supermarket, that is, indeed, the biggest problem...

But then... When they do try to think for themselves, we sometimes don't get the most inspirational results, either...

For example, the biggest problem - irrational hatred of various groups of people - shouldn't even exist within Christianity, because the basic point Jesus was trying to get across was that maybe people should just be nice to each other for a change. If people actually paid attention to what was going on in the New Testament...

See... If people actually paid attention to the New Testament, what they'd notice is that either Jesus of Nazareth was completely schizophrenic, or we have no real idea what he said or didn't say... Because the Council of Nicaea would have us believe that nobody even bothered to write any of it down for at least a generation after his wholly unexpected - to him and his followers - death.

Does that make sense to you? "Reverend" Sun Myung Moon is crazy as a shit house rat, and a flock of zombies five times the size of the white house press corps write a full sonnet every time he belches or farts... Jesus of Nazareth supposedly walked on water, healed people like Dr. McCoy on steroids, pulled a semi-trailer full of food out of his hat, and rose from the dead, and nobody thought it might be good to take some notes?

Anyway. Part of what makes G's representations of so many different Jesus's is that the bible handles him the same way... The four canonical gospels can't seem to agree on anything about him except his name. All through the bible, one minute he's John Lennon singing about peace and love, and the next, he's Jim Jones hurling fire and brimstone. One moment, he's sweeping away all that came before, and the next, he's railing about how not one letter, not one dot of the Old Testament (and this is the Jewish Old Testament he's talking about, let's not forget) shall be considered to have changed because of his coming.

Peace and Love Happy Fun Time Jesus is a modern perversion... A veryselective reading of the bible. He himself said all the old laws still apply... You can still sell your daughter into slavery, you still wipe out the men and rape the women if you conquer an enemy, and you're still going down if you eat lobster.

Also, a side note: I don't know enough about other religions to say anything about religion in general. I'm only talking about what I personally believe.

I highly recommend it. It'll make your head explode into catshit.

The vast majority of the people in the world fall under three banners, and the story of those three is like an incredibly bad soap opera... Three crazy brothers, each bent on destroying the family fortune in his own way, in order to "save" it...

In the myriad forms of Buddhism, we have a "religion" whose founder repeatedly and emphatically maintained that it was not, and should never become a religion... Just a wise way of living life.

In Hinduism, we have the most intelligent and thoughtful creation myth of them all... Saying, basically, "Only the Gods know what really happened, and perhaps even they don't know."

Older, but somewhat similar, we have Jainism... Perhaps the most peaceful and beautiful of surviving religions, but probably not for me, since they'd take issue with my steak dinner.


Anyway. Yeah. It's an interesting subject... But I still really wish humans were advanced enough to let go of it, already... Like a child out growing Santa Clause and finding her own social and developmental reasons to be "good".

[Wipperwill]

If someone wants to believe in heaven and hell whats wrong with that? Why do they deserve your scathing scorn?
I understand you don't want people telling you what to believe but shouldn't you give them the same courtesy?

First, no. Bullshit. If this were a zero sum game and all bets were equal, then we wouldn't have terms in our language like "crazy" or "delusional" or "tinfoil hat".

It's acceptable to bag on the "beliefs" of people who think they should all suicide in matching sneakers so they can get to the mother ship... But not people who think they have to eat the magic cookie so they can get to the theme park. It's ok to laugh at people who "believe" they can talk to animals or toasters or ghosts... But not people who "believe" they can talk to god or angels or special ghosts. It's ok to cage someone if they believe the Wizard of Oz is real and should rule our lives... But not if they give the bible the same idiotic stature.

It's always perfectly ok with the religionists if they deride and belittle and dismiss everyone else's irrational, deluded, absolutely baseless "beliefs"... It's just their "beliefs" they think everyone should be entitled to.

And you know... This might even be ok, in some fucked up world, if their "beliefs" were one little shimmering iota more logical, reasonable, acceptable, or rational than any of the other examples I've listed above. But they're Just. Fucking. Not.

They have a constitutional right to believe in childish, weak-minded, short-sighted bullshit... But I have no constitutional obligation to refrain from pointing and laughing at them.

Not all points of view are equally valid, or worthy of equal respect.


But even beyond that, no again.


Those terribly, terribly few who can simply do that - simply believe, for themselves -usually do get "the same courtesy" from me.. I say "usually" because, every now and then, you just can't help laughing at the guy in the pointed tinfoil hat... Or, at very least, shaking your head and thinking "that's so sad." But, mostly, if they don't bother others, I don't bother them.

The problem is that so few of them are happy enough just to wallow by themselves. They have to bother others.

And precious few of those who aren't happy to just wallow by themselves are benign...

There's always at least a little added misery and suffering for others in there. There's always some parent who's got to tell her kid - who may be homosexual - that homosexuals are dirty and evil and sinful.

That jews or muslims, or even blacks and mexicans, aren't as good as "us", because god doesn't love them the same, because they're dirty sinners. That her body is dirty, and sex is sinful, and masturbation is disgusting, and orgasms are shameful.

That she's "just a girl" and she should by god get used to the idea of obeying her father, because someday she'll have a husband to obey. That, if a sperm touches an egg, it magically and instantly becomes a fully functional human being who's rights trump the mother's... Up until she's born, then she can be abused, neglected, beaten, or killed... But not before, because mom's just breeding stock that belongs to her husband and she exists only at his pleasure and sufferance.

It's always that science is full of shit, and dinosaurs coexisted with humans on the ark, and evolution is a fantasy, medicine is a crock, and global warming isn't real... And if we pollute the planet into an oily, sludgy, asthmatic seizure and destroy half the world in war, that's perfectly ok... Better than ok, in fact, because the world's got to get destroyed before our imaginary friend will come back and take us all to jesusland.

They sit in church and marvel in rapturous joy at how all-knowing and all-powerful their god is, but then they leave church and decide they've got to beat a homosexual to death for existing, or cut a little girl's clitoris off so she won't sin by enjoying sex, or bomb an abortion clinic into oblivion, or burn the old lady that someone called a witch, or fly a fucking airplane into an office building because that same all-knowing and all-powerful god obviously can't design people the way he wants them, or handle sin on his own.

He's powerful enough to take me to heaven forever... But he needs my help in dealing with you.


So, no... Their fucked up little violent apocalyptic fantasies don't deserve the same fucking courtesy... Not until they can either back up their bullshit with something stronger than one magical storybook, or learn to play nice and get along with everyone else.

Whew! How do you lift that huge brush yer waving?

First off lets get it out there : its not acceptable to "bag" on people's beliefs whether its suicide in sneakers or drinking the blood of christ. To do so is mean spirited. For you or for them. Especially if thier beliefs dont affect you. So what if they think women should be barefoot and pregnant, gays should be "de-programmed". Piss on them. In this country there are enough reasonable people that you shouldnt have to worry about being stoned in a pit for your beliefs. Are you gonna have to hide some of your beliefs? Sure, life aint fair but you deal with it.

Second : Ignorant and immature people will ridicule that which scares or confuses them. Get enough of them together and you have societie's consensus. Like it or not, you live in this society, you follow its rules or be ostrasized. Anyone can try to change that consensus but unless you have the masses behind you, force is generally out. That leaves reasoned argument or emotional appeal. How many assholes changed you to thier way of thinking? Not many I bet. But it seems you are using thier tactics to try to get your point across. You wont convert anyone that way, only get people who already agree with you to nod thier head, and the others to start thinking you are the asshole. Not good.

I read a good deal of hate in your writing. Hate only destroys, it never builds anything lasting of worth. Let it go.

By the way, in case you wonder...I am an atheist with agnostic leanings.

[Seth Marati]

It's late, I'm sleepy, and I can't delve into this as deeply or as eloquently as I might like, but here I go:

First off lets get it out there : its not acceptable to "bag" on people's beliefs

And why not? Beliefs are little more than the ideas that a person holds about the world - in this case, with regard to how it operates and how it should operate. These sound like some pretty important ideas to me, and if they're implausible or destructive, don't you think we should contest them? Or should we let bad ideas go unchecked so we don't have to worry about hurting the advocate's feelings?

Especially if thier beliefs dont affect you. So what if they think women should be barefoot and pregnant, gays should be "de-programmed".

Major fucking contradiction here, man. And an especially bad one at that, considering how the person you're addressing is both a woman and gay. If someone holds beliefs like these, odds are they're going to work at putting them into practice. Can't you see the capacity for harm in this instance? Even if they aren't especially outgoing or militant in their beliefs, they can still do some damage, like in the case of a mother discouraging her daughter from doing anything that might hinder her proper subservience to her eventual husband (you know, like autonomy about the direction she'll take in life, or not feeling ashamed of her sexuality), or a preacher expressing sentiments that encourage most of his congregation to hate gays and the remaining few to feel ashamed of their sexual orientation. Why shouldn't we respond to ideas that we (and hopefully any decent person) would find distasteful?

And just in case you or anyone else thinks that contesting such ideas goes against the principle of "free speech", let me draw an important distinction. We can't legally *punish* someone for holding or expressing an idea, even if we find it abhorrent. But just because we can't punish them doesn't mean we have to automatically *respect* their ideas. Free speech doesn't mean we automatically genuflect towards any opinion that's expressed; in fact, it means exactly the opposite. If we had to respect every idea that was expressed, it would effectively prevent us from responding to them, which would place a limit on what we were allowed to say and actually limit free speech. We can sure as hell offer an opinion on anything that's being expressed, and if we really want to support the ides of free speech, we probably should.

In this country there are enough reasonable people that you shouldnt have to worry about being stoned in a pit for your beliefs.

Reasonable democratic society or no, the legislative consensus isn't going to do shit for you when a few ignorant, malevolent, backwards fucks decide to get together and beat the shit out of you for being the wrong religion, color, or sexual orientation. Ideas affect people at a personal level as well as a public one. And there may be reasonable people in this country, but there are also a ton of unreasonable people making things harder every step of the way. Look at the "creationism in school" debates, fundamentalists who oppose certain medical procedures or research, or any piece of legislation that includes consideration for the divine in its premise. Bad ideas can certainly influence us for the worse.

By the way, how do you think problems like those mentioned above can be or have been corrected? Could it be that thinking, reasonable people stood up and told them "No, you're wrong"? And, also, what about people who live in other countries? You know, humanity at large? Some of them have really horrible things happen to them as a result of someone else's beliefs. And don't think America is insulated from that possibility by virtue of being America. Without people who speak out and contest dangerous, poorly thought-out ideas, we could very well degenerate into a country like the ones we snub our noses at. By the way, some of the Muslim countries we tend to scorn so much actually spend some time, hundreds of years ago, outdoing the western world in terms of science, and literature, and philosophy; it was the onset of religious fundamentalism that contributed so much to their decline.

Are you gonna have to hide some of your beliefs? Sure, life aint fair but you deal with it.

If I had a nickel for every time the phrase "deal with it" was uttered on the internet and made me want to brain its user with a shovel... (Which isn't quite the case in this instance, but I'd just like to mention how I have no small amount of disdain for the phrase.)

Basically, what you're saying is that contesting bad ideas is pointless and that we should just bend over and accept their effects as they bang us up the ass (and not in a tender loving way). Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Second : Ignorant and immature people will ridicule that which scares or confuses them. Get enough of them together and you have societie's consensus. Like it or not, you live in this society, you follow its rules or be ostrasized.

Wait a minute. I thought you said we had enough reasonable people in our country that we wouldn't have this kind of problem. Now you're saying that it is an issue, but we have to play by the rules anyway? Which is it?

How many assholes changed you to thier way of thinking? Not many I bet. But it seems you are using thier tactics to try to get your point across. You wont convert anyone that way, only get people who already agree with you to nod thier head, and the others to start thinking you are the asshole.

So being argumentative is an assholeish tactic now? Damn, I wish I'd known a lot earlier. I've been stinking up my own discourse for years.

Where do you suppose people get their ideas, anyway? Do they just sprout fully formed from people's heads, like Athena did with Zeus? Or is it more likely that people form their ideas after observing the world, considering other people's ideas, and weighing them against each other? Assuming it's the latter, I'd say it's pretty important that we keep a free discourse of ideas going and work to discredit the bad ones that keep popping up, or else they'll continue to influence impressionable minds and we'll have a hell of a time undoing (or even surviving) the effect.

I read a good deal of hate in your writing. Hate only destroys, it never builds anything lasting of worth. Let it go.

I hope you don't think the sort of total permissiveness you seem to be advocating represents the opposite of hate, i.e., love. To me, it seems to resemble apathy more than it does any positive quality.

By the way, in case you wonder...I am an atheist with agnostic leanings.

That's nice, but it does little to influence my opinion of your ideas. Much like how I can find a religious person's ideas agreeable, I can find an atheist's ideas disagreeable. Just to provide an example, I admire the late Fred Rogers (who was a Presbyterian minister) much more than I do my atheistic, drug-dealing, self-mutilating former neighbor.

[Wipperwill]

Nice reply, I'll spend some time thinking about my response.

[Kittyboymuffin]

Another example of atheists whose ideas you disagree with: Josef Stalin and Pol Pot. Each of them had mass executions in their country of choice in the name of atheism.

[Wipperwill]

I'm not as elegant as some of the speakers here so I'll try to keep it simple.

Forcing beliefs on others is wrong. Luckily my country has pretty lax standards compared to some with reguard to beliefs. Just because someone believes one way doesn't mean they will force people to follow them. For example : Keeping women barefoot, pregnant and chained in the kitchen. Believe it all you want, but I'ld like to see someone do this to Honor. Everyone has the capacity for harm, but we can't let them act on it. At the same time you can't lock people up becuase them might hurt someone.

I believe that everyone deserves a minimum respect, and that includes the right to have ideas I dont particularly like. Bailing people out of the housing crisis for example....bad idea. I don't want my money given to someone who was greedy and stupid. Other folks think we should spend tax money to help them. Do I like it? No. Do I respect their right to believe that? Yup. Will I ridicule them? No. The idea I might, not the person. Its disrespectful. Even if they do it to me, its not about what they do, its about what I do.

I'm not saying you shouldn't stand up and fight for what you believe. You shouldn't have to sell your soul or honor to do it though. One of the rules we have is the right to express our beliefs and convince others to come around to them. If I made it sound like you should roll over and give up, that wasn't my intention.

[PopeMac]

Peace and Love Happy Fun Time Jesus is a modern perversion

Not really. Early Christians tended to be peaceful communists. One historian (sorry, but I forget which) said that early Christians would welcome anyone into their community, no questions asked. They also shared everything equally among the entire community, even with people who were obviously taking advantage of them. All that changed when Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome, and in doing so removed all the important stuff and added in all kinds of unnecessary ritual to make it acceptable to the Roman people.

Because the Council of Nicaea would have us believe that nobody even bothered to write any of it down for at least a generation after his wholly unexpected - to him and his followers - death.

I strongly oppose the idea of organized religion. I agree that it is mainly just a tool to control people. The Council of Nicea established Christianity as an organized religion, and in doing so, turned it into a tool for Constantine to use to keep the Roman people in line. My guess is that most of what was written while Jesus was around was not acceptable to the people in charge, so they suppressed it. In particular, the Gospels that were chosen as canon were probably each chosen for a specific purpose. I'm sure there are things in there that never happened, but the events that the Gospels agree on are, I believe, probably fairly accurate. Also, concerning that bit about the death of Jesus being unexpected to both him and his followers, I think you're only half right. It's clear from the Gospels that his followers did not see that coming, but Jesus probably did. Even if he was just making everything up, he had to realize that he was majorly pissing off the people in charge, and that doing that sort of thing never ends well.

The four canonical gospels can't seem to agree on anything about him except his name.

That's not really true. The first three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in particular are quite similar. From Wikipedia: "thirteen-fourteenths of Mark, four-sevenths of Matthew, and two-fifths of Luke describe the same events in similar language." Matthew and Luke probably both used Mark's Gospel when writing their own, which accounts for the similarities. The differences arise from their different points of view - Matthew, for example, was probably Jewish, so he included the stuff about keeping Jewish law.

Anyway, it's getting late, so I think that's all for now. If there's anything from your last post that you think I missed, feel free to point it out.