< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Is there a place for a Christian in Project Reason?

 
glacier
 
Avatar
 
 
glacier
Total Posts:  288
Joined  13-11-2014
 
 
 
26 February 2015 15:13
 
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 01:49 PM

Thanks for being honest.  If that’s the consensus here, then I cannot and should not attempt to make common cause with you.

I wouldn’t judge an entire forum by a single poster who happens to be a fundamentalist atheist. Just because people use “reason” to justify their statements doesn’t make them any more true than another person’s statement that he justifies by “faith.” Faith is believing something is true without actually doing the dirty work yourself. This can apply to notions about God, but also about anything else.  For example, claiming that the ” vast majority of the conflicts in the world belong to the followers of the Abramic God” is a faith statement. It may be true, but then again, it’s more likely false, hence the reason most atheists, even on here, would never make such a silly statement of faith toward linking religion with war.

 
Pattertwig
 
Avatar
 
 
Pattertwig
Total Posts:  121
Joined  23-02-2015
 
 
 
26 February 2015 15:15
 
Glacier - 26 February 2015 02:13 PM
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 01:49 PM

Thanks for being honest.  If that’s the consensus here, then I cannot and should not attempt to make common cause with you.

I wouldn’t judge an entire forum by a single poster who happens to be a fundamentalist atheist. Just because people use “reason” to justify their statements doesn’t make them any more true than another person’s statement that he justifies by “faith.” Faith is believing something is true without actually doing the dirty work yourself. This can apply to notions about God, but also about anything else.  For example, claiming that the ” vast majority of the conflicts in the world belong to the followers of the Abramic God” is a faith statement. It may be true, but then again, it’s more likely false, hence the reason most atheists, even on here, would never make such a silly statement of faith toward linking religion with war.

Thank you, Glacier.  Sounds like I’m in the right place, then. 

From what I surmise from my experience so far, those I referred to as intellectual dregs of atheism and you refer to as fundamentalist atheists, are often the first to respond with their one-liners (Twitter has begotten a generation of twits!), but they don’t constitute the majority, and even if they did, there are enough old school thinking atheists to make this place worth my time anyway.

[ Edited: 26 February 2015 15:26 by Pattertwig]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17892
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
26 February 2015 15:30
 
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 02:06 PM

For many, atheism is nothing but codified ignorance, hatred and authority worship.

Apologist projection. 

That’s why many atheists (but fortunately not all) have moved to I KNOW BECAUSE I READ IT ON THE INTERNET arguments.

Even the stupid atheists are able to understand that religion is nothing but ignorance, myth, magic and superstitions even if they read it on the internet.

 
 
GregD
 
Avatar
 
 
GregD
Total Posts:  117
Joined  31-07-2014
 
 
 
26 February 2015 15:38
 
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 12:17 AM

I’m asking if there are atheists in this forum that might work on a common project with a Christian, e.g. for removing the divisive God clause from the PoA. 

I’m quite adept with the scriptures, Bible and others, and I’m not a bad writer.  Also have about 21 credit hours of upper division bio classes, a minor in chemistry, so unless there’s calculus involved, I’ve got a fairly good mind for the sciences.  So I can explain in both biblical and biological terms why, for example, the fundy idiocy about stem cell research being a kind of “murder” falls not only afoul of Science but of Biblical teachings.  I can explain why calling homosexuality “the sin of Sodom” is a damnable heresy from Bible teachings, as well as a story that inspires unjustifiable violence against innocent gays, a type of “Blood Libel.” (I actually got a fundamentalist board group to admit they were mistaken on that and to pledge to stop using the Sin of Sodom hate language.)

So my question isn’t whether there’s place for Christians on this discussion board, but whether my skills and agendas overlap with yours to the point that some of you might be interested in actually working with me on a project?

I’m not playing innocent here.  I hold beliefs many of you probably consider bigoted, and I won’t pretend otherwise.  But there are doubtlessly folks you disagree passionately on some issues that you can make common ground with on others.  And I’ve always thought that surrounding oneself with folks that share all your beliefs is intellectual incest.  GAD is right that I’m an “Apologist” although I didn’t come here in that capacity.  I’m a compulsive apologist because I’m a technical writer who became a criminal defense attorney. 

My crim defense sensitivity means (1) if I see someone say something I know to be untrue or unfair about any group, I tend to speak up.  I denounced Romney in LDS circles when he made statements to the effect that a president needs to be someone who believes in God.  Just as I denounce Sam for saying that someone who is LDS should not be entrusted with higher office.  It’s shallow argument based on stereotype.  Sam should have looked to Romney’s actual career as governor and showed how Romney’s religion made him, whatever Sam was saying that mormonism makes someone that disqualifies them.  My tech writing sensitivity means (2) that if someone asks a question that requires deep understanding, I want to show off my ability to explain it.  But then if I find out that the person didn’t really care but just asked the question in bad faith, I get pissed at them.  Ignore them or talk about them in third person until I calm down.  I don’t like having my time wasted.

But if you don’t want me explaining religion to you, then don’t freaking ask, and I won’t.  I’d much rather talk about endosymbiosis, or how Margullis’ findings demand a reconception of survival of the fittest, since noncompetitive interactions between species have resulted in some of the most significant changes such as the Eukaryotic cell.  (Nothing theistic there).

Count me in.  I can cover calculus.  If you can enthusiastically support the idea that religion is a personal choice, then I would be happy to stand with you.

 
Pattertwig
 
Avatar
 
 
Pattertwig
Total Posts:  121
Joined  23-02-2015
 
 
 
26 February 2015 15:38
 
GAD - 26 February 2015 02:30 PM
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 02:06 PM

For many, atheism is nothing but codified ignorance, hatred and authority worship.

Apologist projection.

In the wake of the Patriot Act, some Americans have asked, who protects us from the people who protect us?

 

That’s why many atheists (but fortunately not all) have moved to I KNOW BECAUSE I READ IT ON THE INTERNET arguments.

—-
Even the stupid atheists are able to understand that religion is nothing but ignorance, myth, magic and superstitions even if they read it on the internet.

That’s almost exactly what I said.  The trouble is that they then come, full of intellectual confidence, over to blogs and serve approximately the same function as the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj6-5wMAjpgDon’t Think! traps on Planet Vogon.

 
 
Pattertwig
 
Avatar
 
 
Pattertwig
Total Posts:  121
Joined  23-02-2015
 
 
 
26 February 2015 15:44
 
GregD - 26 February 2015 02:38 PM

Count me in.  I can cover calculus.  If you can enthusiastically support the idea that religion is a personal choice, then I would be happy to stand with you.

Absolutely. One project I’d like to tackle is to highlight the scriptures that actually teach that principle, from the Tenach (Old Testament), New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants.  Scriptures where God actually demands that people be allowed the personal choice of whether to believe.

Any other projects where you’d like my help, please let me know.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17892
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
26 February 2015 16:01
 
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 02:38 PM
GAD - 26 February 2015 02:30 PM
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 02:06 PM

For many, atheism is nothing but codified ignorance, hatred and authority worship.

Apologist projection.

In the wake of the Patriot Act, some Americans have asked, who protects us from the people who protect us?

 

That’s why many atheists (but fortunately not all) have moved to I KNOW BECAUSE I READ IT ON THE INTERNET arguments.

—-
Even the stupid atheists are able to understand that religion is nothing but ignorance, myth, magic and superstitions even if they read it on the internet.

That’s almost exactly what I said.  The trouble is that they then come, full of intellectual confidence, over to blogs and serve approximately the same function as the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj6-5wMAjpgDon’t Think! traps on Planet Vogon.

Calling bullshit on bullshit isn’t the issue the issue is when people argue that some bullshit is more special then other bullshit.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2900
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
26 February 2015 16:02
 

If the debates with theist have shown me anything, it is that most believers have to be taught the difference between facts and faith. Too many actually argue the literal truth iof scripture and bend over backwards to make reality fit their beliefs. They also get chuffed if others don’t accept their spiritual experiences, revelations and insights at face value.

I am all for discussion scripture from a historical, cultural and artistic point of view, but I find it embarrassing when ancient texts, many times translated, often self-contradictory, are being considered as absolute truth. Humanity changes, so does religion and our perception of God.
At its core, Atheism is a rebellion against ancient, prescribed beliefs.

 
 
Pattertwig
 
Avatar
 
 
Pattertwig
Total Posts:  121
Joined  23-02-2015
 
 
 
26 February 2015 16:10
 
GAD - 26 February 2015 03:01 PM
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 02:38 PM

[quote author=“GAD”]

Calling bullshit on bullshit isn’t the issue the issue is when people argue that some bullshit is more special then other bullshit.

that’s very well said but not applicable to.anything i said. Are you quoting.that from another context?

 
 
Pattertwig
 
Avatar
 
 
Pattertwig
Total Posts:  121
Joined  23-02-2015
 
 
 
26 February 2015 16:18
 
Twissell - 26 February 2015 03:02 PM

If the debates with theist have shown me anything, it is that most believers have to be taught the difference between facts and faith. Too many actually argue the literal truth iof scripture and bend over backwards to make reality fit their beliefs. They also get chuffed if others don’t accept their spiritual experiences, revelations and insights at face value.

I am all for discussion scripture from a historical, cultural and artistic point of view, but I find it embarrassing when ancient texts, many times translated, often self-contradictory, are being considered as absolute truth. Humanity changes, so does religion and our perception of God.
At its core, Atheism is a rebellion against ancient, prescribed beliefs.

I’m not.much for modern prescribed beliefs either.

Since even Hitchiker’s guide to the galaxy strikes on an occasional eternal truth, why not the ancients?

Prove all things, hold fast to.that which is good.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2900
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
26 February 2015 16:19
 

Maybe as a project, we could build an electric Monk?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17892
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
26 February 2015 16:24
 
Pattertwig - 26 February 2015 03:10 PM
GAD - 26 February 2015 03:01 PM

Calling bullshit on bullshit isn’t the issue the issue is when people argue that some bullshit is more special then other bullshit.

that’s very well said but not applicable to.anything i said. Are you quoting.that from another context?

It is applicable to what you said because people like you are the ones complaining that calling bullshit bullshit is unfair/unreasonable to your beliefs and make the arguments for special bullshit status and then complain that people who reject your special pleading bullshit didn’t spend enough time/effort to reject said bullshit properly.

 
 
Gregoryhhh
 
Avatar
 
 
Gregoryhhh
Total Posts:  2008
Joined  31-08-2014
 
 
 
26 February 2015 17:30
 
GAD - 26 February 2015 03:24 PM

. . . people like you are the ones complaining that calling bullshit bullshit is unfair/unreasonable to your beliefs and make the arguments for special bullshit status and then complain that people who reject your special pleading bullshit didn’t spend enough time/effort to reject said bullshit properly.

Thanks for explaining that GAD - i can’t spend any more time/effort with people who find ways to apologize for their bible or Christianity. As i’ve said, i spent 12 years as a born again evangelical studying their bible in the Hebrew and Greek - it’s not reasonable nor logical, it’s crap. (dont ask why it took 12 years to see shit)
gregory

 
 
Pattertwig
 
Avatar
 
 
Pattertwig
Total Posts:  121
Joined  23-02-2015
 
 
 
26 February 2015 23:14
 
Gregoryhhh - 26 February 2015 04:30 PM

Thanks for explaining that GAD

GAD explained something?  You made sense of this?

. . . people like you are the ones complaining that calling bullshit bullshit is unfair/unreasonable to your beliefs and make the arguments for special bullshit status and then complain that people who reject your special pleading bullshit didn’t spend enough time/effort to reject said bullshit properly. [44 words]

Ah, now THAT is the style that I’ve come to expect of GAD trying to articulate a complex idea.  I can’t make head or tail of it.  OK, consulting Richard Landham, Revising Prose (a book I’d recommend second only to Cicero for someone who wants to learn to write intelligibly)

Mr. Landham says break the gibberish down into a laundry list format, breaking at every preposition or use of the verb “to be”, and indenting at every conjunction:

GAD - 26 February 2015 03:24 PM

. . . people
like you
are the ones complaining
that calling bullshit bullshit
is unfair/unreasonable
to your beliefs
[ . . .] and make the arguments
for special bullshit status
[ . . .] and then complain
that people
[ . . .] who reject your special pleading bullshit didn’t spend enough time/effort
to reject said bullshit properly.

Then reform with fewer words and moving parts, remembering that “to be or not to be” is not an interesting question, and try to use verbs that do something rather than boring the shit out of everyone.

Please correct if I’ve misunderstood you, GAD:

“people like you” = you theists
“are the ones complaining” = complain
that calling bullshit bullshit /  is unfair/unreasonable / to your beliefs = that your bullshit religious beliefs deserve special status, that it’s unfair/unreasonable to call them “bullshit.”

With that glump translated, the rest of GAD’s sentence actually makes sense, but could be improved by reducing the word count further:

when we reject your special pleading bullshit, you complain we didn’t properly review your bullshit.

All together now, the reformed GADitian version (I don’t have my Urim and Thummim, so please correct if I got it wrong:

You theists complain that your bullshit religious beliefs deserve special status, that it’s unfair/unreasonable to call them “bullshit. When we reject your special pleading bullshit, you complain we didn’t properly review your bullshit.

Could be improved. Let’s change one of the complain usages to insist, to keep from getting monotonous.  Also, religious beliefs is redundant.

“You theists insist your religious bullshit deserves special status. That it’s unfair/unreasonable to call your bullshit bullshit. When we reject your bullshit special pleading, you complain we didn’t properly review your bullshit status plea.”   35 words.

44 words reduced to 35 words.  Lard factor 26%, rounding up, and I think my translation makes a lot more sense.  Assuming that’s what GAD meant to say, which may be giving GAD too much credit.

So tell me, GAD, did I misunderstand your meaning or have I acquired the gift of interpretation of GAD?

If I misunderstood you, please rephrase; this should be amusing.

So I was wondering what sort of poor creature would look up to GAD as a spokesperson to express the ineffable, and use “Disturbing Ignorance” as his signature line.  Apparently one who says:

Gregoryhhh - 26 February 2015 04:30 PM

Thanks for explaining that GAD - i can’t spend any more time/effort with people who find ways to apologize for their bible or Christianity.
gregory

Webster wept, man.  Greg actually thinks that the meaning of Apologist is “one who apologizes”?  Please tell me you are being ironic.

As i’ve said, i spent 12 years as a born again evangelical studying their bible in the Hebrew and Greek

For Darwin’s sake and in the name of all that is Secular, please take a few weeks to brush up on English before you engage me in a war of words.

- it’s not reasonable nor logical, it’s crap.

That pronoun, “it” has dangled right off the edge of a cliff, fell out, hatched, and now wanders blindly around the neighborhood, asking, are you my referent?

Word to the wise: if you cannot remember what “It” refers to in your sentence, chances are you readers can’t tell either.  Take the time to figure out what you’re saying, then say it, then stop talking.

[ Edited: 26 February 2015 23:48 by Pattertwig]
 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
26 February 2015 23:18
 

Many of the atheists or agnostics on this forum are very well-versed in the Bible.  The majority used to be Christians.  I Bible-studied my way into and then out of faith over the course of a decade as an adult.  It was reading the Bible, plus commentaries from various perspectives, that did it.

 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›