The fatal flaw of Republicanism

[scott]

Dinosaurs Will Die

[Winehole23]

I would indeed pluck weeds out of a garden.

Are thinking, feeling people the same as weeds?

Phenomenul gets the parable backwards. The bible says "let both grow together until the harvest." But, y'all were talking about the Old Testament, so maybe this observation doesn't quite tally.

aside: the Deity in the bible becomes perceptibly more moral and pious as you go along. Wrath tempered by mercy. A tribal and somewhat provincial G-d becomes becomes more cosmopolitan and universal, in so doing more coming to resemble man's idea of his own piety and righteousness, and leaving behind, somewhat, the awful ecstasies of anger and cruelty.

[RandomGuy]

Well, they were really tall.

It's also hard to believe no one else in the world had a damn boat.

Or that there just isn't that much water around to flood the whole earth. Did god make more? Or did he melt the ice caps? Did he flood everything up to 29,000 feet? If so, did he pull some global warming to keep everything from freezing up there?

So many questions....

Magic. It was a miracle. The was kinda like the IS in that regard, i.e. bigger on the inside than the outside. That is how they kept 365,000 pounds of food for the elephants. They also had a magic way to keep 16,000 pounds of meat for the lions from rotting, and magically created all the genetic diversity needed for the species to begin again without dying off from inbreeding within a generation or two.

Afterwards he disguised all the evidence to make it look like it never happened.


Of course, if you are going to go heavy in on the magic, why not just give all the people a magic heart attack? It would seem a lot easier. But that is just me, what do I know?

[RandomGuy]

Phenomenul gets the parable backwards. The bible says "let both grow together until the harvest." But, y'all were talking about the Old Testament, so maybe this observation doesn't quite tally.

aside: the Deity in the bible becomes perceptibly more moral and pious as you go along. Wrath tempered by mercy. A tribal and somewhat provincial G-d becomes becomes more cosmopolitan and universal, in so doing more coming to resemble man's idea of his own piety and righteousness, and leaving behind, somewhat, the awful ecstasies of anger and cruelty.

There are also a lot fewer, and smaller, miracles, to coincide with the rise of writing and knowledge.

Kind of a big coincidence, of the order that is a bit hard to ignore. We figured out pretty quickly that earth was not resting on a huge tree, a huge turtle, or made from the bones of giants.

If a God could create the universe, but not enough evidence of his existence to provide sufficient proof to people once they have figured out the physical universe to the small degree we have so far, that would seem to be a pretty big shortcoming.

What we have left, are the religions that posit a conveniently unfalsifiable version of God/Gods.

It reminds me nothing so much of the Russian guy with the magic healing water. If it didn't cure you, it was because your negative vibes ruined the water. If you send his water to a lab for testing, their negative vibes took out the curing properties.

[Winehole23]

Of course, if you are going to go heavy in on the magic, why not just give all the people a magic heart attack? It would seem a lot easier. But that is just me, what do I know?

you've got the "no true scotsman act" down. teasing believers about logical inconsistencies based on what you assume their doctrine to be is not a little ridiculous, and beside the point.

[Winehole23]

making believers look silly is like shooting beef cows with a high-powered rifle and scope. let me know when you find some way to do it without making yourself look pitiless and cruel.

[Winehole23]

ridiculous too, tbh

[RandomGuy]

you've got the "no true scotsman act" down. teasing believers about logical inconsistencies based on what you assume their doctrine to be is not a little ridiculous, and beside the point.

I have not assumed anyone's doctrine, that is why I stick to asking questions.

FWIW, I will not really ever claim that pol pot and others aren't "real" atheists. They most likely were. I said at the outset I thought the whole exercise was pointless, well worn kabuki. Thanks for the name to the "they aren't real Christians" fallacy. That bit of googling got me a new term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The original point was that evangelical religiosity of the kind that actively and deliberately ignores or denies valid evidence, in order to maintain a preferred/established belief, seems to me to lead to all sorts of other things. That is, if you are willing to, when it is most important, do that, then it makes it all the easier to do it in other ways.

Going over certain ways in which that confirmation bias is readily demonstrable is a good way to show the underlying types of fallacies and inability to consider reality as it is, rather than as one would want it to be, then becomes fair game.

[RandomGuy]

making believers look silly is like shooting beef cows with a high-powered rifle and scope. let me know when you find some way to do it without making yourself look pitiless and cruel.

I try not to be.

At what point does one have a duty to help people though? If someone is holding such an obviously flawed opinion, but won't admit it, ala mouse or cosmored, is there some sort of moral imperitive to at least try to point out the logical consistencies to them, in the hope they might find their way out of the miasma?

I would agree with the warden from Cool Hand Luke at some point though.

Some men, you just can't reach.

[Winehole23]

At what point does one have a duty to help people though? If someone is holding such an obviously flawed opinion, but won't admit it, ala mouse or cosmored, is there some sort of moral imperitive to at least try to point out the logical consistencies to them, in the hope they might find their way out of the miasma?

your habitual, malicious teasing of Christians in this forum hardly compares, but no, I see no moral imperative there and agree that people generally can't be fixed, absent the will to fix themselves.

the power and persuasiveness of rational discourse is wildly misoverestimated.

[RandomGuy]

your habitual, malicious teasing of Christians in this forum hardly compares, but no, I see no moral imperative there and agree that people generally can't be fixed, absent the will to fix themselves.

the power and persuasiveness of rational discourse is wildly misoverestimated.

Sooooo.... I should just ignore the digs then?

Accept the idea that "these people are bad, they are atheists, therefore all atheists are bad" idea without challenge?

How would I go about disagreeing with an idea and not be "habitual" or "malicious".

Do tell.

[Winehole23]

disagree all you want. I'm just giving you some feedback on how the way you do it makes you look.

there's a way to disagree without being nasty. admittedly, the other way affords way more opportunities for haughtiness and spite.


aside: responding to umbrage with emotion and umbrage undercuts the appeal to reason you more broadly rely on.

[Phenomanul]

There was no such flood.

Why would the bible talk about something that didn't happen as if it did?

Alternately:

There is no evidence of any global flood that I am aware of. Please present some. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Red herring... Blake brought up Noah's flood... seriously dude. Do you need to constantly argue everything in order to stroke your own ego? Can you just accept the fact that you know NOTHING about a relationship with GOD or what that entails because you 1) refuse to believe in His existence 2) refuse to accept the merits of the book by which the tenets of Christian faith are measured/gauged/stipulated. And since you don't believe either in GOD's existence or the veracity of the Bible how then do you get off on trying to reconcile its passages without an understanding of the doctrines therein?

The fact that you read said book only to try to discredit it keeps you from attaining any real understanding. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledging that this is the dynamic at play.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, I think we all understand that ultimately you have to simply have faith to believe in any religion and not much else -- but as long as we have someone here who believes in the veracity of the bible more or less wholesale, I don't see the problem in asking about its seeming inconsistencies or lack of historical or archaeological corroboration.

[Winehole23]

sure. Phenomenul made his own bed, now he has to lie in it.

[Blake]

Red herring... Blake brought up Noah's flood... seriously dude. Do you need to constantly argue everything in order to stroke your own ego?

It was more of a side bar based on you lying about Gods grace.

if it was really that distracting for you, I'll start an entirely new flood thread.

Can you just accept the fact that you know NOTHING about a relationship with GOD or what that entails because you 1) refuse to believe in His existence 2) refuse to accept the merits of the book by which the tenets of Christian faith are measured/gauged/stipulated. And since you don't believe either in GOD's existence or the veracity of the Bible how then do you get off on trying to reconcile its passages without an understanding of the doctrines therein?

Your faith that I know nothing is strong.

Your logic that I need faith to understand Christian doctrine is stupid.

The fact that you read said book only to try to discredit it keeps you from attaining any real understanding. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledging that this is the dynamic at play.

you, you condescending piece of .

[Blake]

sure. Phenomenul made his own bed, now he has to lie in it.

He's being mean to me. Why aren't you scolding him?

[clambake]

not all to blame, tbh. phenom had this programming built in from the beginning.

[RandomGuy]

Red herring... Blake brought up Noah's flood... seriously dude. Do you need to constantly argue everything in order to stroke your own ego? Can you just accept the fact that you know NOTHING about a relationship with GOD or what that entails because you 1) refuse to believe in His existence 2) refuse to accept the merits of the book by which the tenets of Christian faith are measured/gauged/stipulated. And since you don't believe either in GOD's existence or the veracity of the Bible how then do you get off on trying to reconcile its passages without an understanding of the doctrines therein?

The fact that you read said book only to try to discredit it keeps you from attaining any real understanding. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledging that this is the dynamic at play.

Okay, Blake brought it up, for whatever reason.

You are the one talking about the Great Flood as if it happened.

The central argument of the OP is that some people, i.e. no few Republicans, believe things without evidence, and that leads them to develop a habit of doing so, which I think is a bad thing.

You might not be a Republican, but that specific example is useful in demonstrating the kinds of things I am talking about.

As for reconciling the passages in the Bible: that is not for me to do, it is for you to do. You are the one basing claims on what it says. I will not accept your burden of proof.

If I do not understand the doctrines, it would seem to be fairly straightforward to explain them.

As for a relationship with God, for all I know, God could very well exist. I just haven't seen any evidence that points in that direction. I am certainly not going to make the claim there is no God.

[Winehole23]

He's being mean to me. Why aren't you scolding him?

you're a big boy. you didn't need any help.

[Phenomanul]

You don't know what he [Joseph Stalin] believed on his deathbed.



For all you know, he could be in heaven waiting for you.


Awkward...

(sorry, back off topic. video is mildly amusing)

No, I definitely don't... the fact of the matter is that he surrounded himself with like-minded individuals and killed off anyone who wasn't. How could someone like him come to terms with a "biblical truth" (whether you believe it as such or not) if he literally had expunged his entire empire of anyone capable of conveying that message to him? Him dying in the same state of wickedness as the one he lived in is the most plausible and likely scenario given the extremely secularist people he chose to surround himself with.

[clambake]

No, I definitely don't... the fact of the matter is that he surrounded himself with like-minded individuals and killed off anyone who wasn't.

much like a flood.

[Phenomanul]

It was more of a side bar based on you lying about Gods grace.

if it was really that distracting for you, I'll start an entirely new flood thread.




Your faith that I know nothing is strong.

Your logic that I need faith to understand Christian doctrine is stupid.



you, you condescending piece of .

Anger issues.... strike a nerve did I?

[z0sa]

Christians should just come to accept that God is a ruthless murdering asshole sometimes. In fact, he may even be hypocritical at times. Guess what? He made man in his own image. It shouldn't surprise Christians sometimes he doesn't do the way they think he should. That's where the whole faith thing comes into play. Most already have accepted this I think, but they sweep it under the rug because it's, shall we say, not a strong selling point.

[RandomGuy]

disagree all you want. I'm just giving you some feedback on how the way you do it makes you look.

there's a way to disagree without being nasty. admittedly, the other way affords way more opportunities for haughtiness and spite.


aside: responding to umbrage with emotion and umbrage undercuts the appeal to reason you more broadly rely on.

(steps back and takes a deep breath)

Indeed. I try pretty hard not to be malicious, habitually or otherwise.

God knows (HA) I backspace/edit over enough bile to fill a book, and am certainly not infallible, i.e. "do tell".

Going down the path of FatFreddy is far too easy. As I have said before, I am something of a fan of a saying from the Q'uran, to paraphrase "The greatest war is the war against one's lower self".

I will try to do better.