Why fanatics can't see the absurdities in their beliefs.

reply to post by adjensen


Unfortunately I don't know much about which scholars believe what... I really don't read that kind of material...

So I can't really form an opinion of dawkins...

Anyways heres the link



Its a bloody long video.... 5 parts in the series... but it was very interesting...

And in my humble opinion.... Craig lost... bigtime!

reply to post by adjensen


Ooh! Thanks to you I just found this! I hope it's good!

Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig Debate

reply to post by jiggerj

A star for your humor, that was funny.

Just one thing though - son of God, spirit filled without measure, was/is Jesus, and when you try to tear him down, you tear down you, and me, as children of God, and brothers of Jesus, just so you know.

“God has given you a spirit with wings on which to soar into the spacious firmament of Love and Freedom. How pitiful would it be then, if you were to cut off your own wings with your own hands and suffer your soul to crawl like an insect upon the earth?”
~ Kahlil Gibran

Originally posted by cartesia

Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Interesting title, one could say that you yourself are a fanatic who can't see the absurdity in his beliefs. By your logic, no one should believe anything because belief is where learning stops.

So tell me what's the point of learning anything if you refuse to believe anything you learn?

Scientists don't believe in science, they develop models that seem to fit. they acquire data that backs up claims.

science isnt about believing, its about knowing or being able to determine something. This is often a point that religious people fail to understand. its also often a point that many claimed science-based thinkers fail to understand. The point is science is not a belief that something is so, its more like 'these experiments have shown suchandsuch. Some people take it to the level that they believe the explanation will apply to all future situations in which the same phenomenon is seen, but this is not something that can be proven - its a perfect example of the difference between believing and knowing.

Yet even "knowing", by that rationale, is limited to whatever data is available at the time. Thus, the only thing truly "known" is limited to what has been observed up to date.
Even the most stringent scientist must exorcise some degree of faith when postulating a theory. Especially when there are conflicting theories or evolving ones. A theory by its very definition is still conjecture based on speculated facts.

Originally posted by Akragon
Anyways heres the link

Its a bloody long video.... 5 parts in the series... but it was very interesting...

And in my humble opinion.... Craig lost... bigtime!

Umm...

That's Craig Evans, who is not William Lane Craig, the person I was talking about.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by adjensen

 

Ooh! Thanks to you I just found this! I hope it's good!

Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig Debate

And that is Christopher Hitchens, not Richard Dawkins...

Geez, does anyone even read any more?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
Anyways heres the link

Its a bloody long video.... 5 parts in the series... but it was very interesting...

And in my humble opinion.... Craig lost... bigtime!

Umm...

That's Craig Evans, who is not William Lane Craig, the person I was talking about.

Haha whups... my bad

See what I mean though...

I don't know anything about scholars and their beliefs... he looks like the same guy

:bnghd:

Originally posted by jiggerj
...I agree with you 99%. The difference is that atheists will admit when something seems out of the ordinary. The information within our DNA definitely seems out of the ordinary. It doesn't adhere to any scientific model of how things should progress naturally. But! This is where the religious JUMP to the conclusion of an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible being who created the whole universe, who lives in another dimension called heaven, who is perfect in every way, and who was never born and will never die.

The atheist simply claims, we don't know yet how the information got in our genes. Whatever the possibilities are (intelligent aliens seeding the planet, a scientist in another dimension created this dimension in a petri dish, our microscopic universe being a part of a living animal in a higher dimension) the god premise will always be the very very last on the list of possibilities - to the point where we will claim it to be impossible.

It seems to me that - If...God Is...then...He/She/It doesn't want me/us to know Who, Where, What or How...God Is.
Too many different stories... Too many different "interpretations"... And every "different interpretation" points at "all other interpretations" and says - "They're Wrong."

ETA: Ooops! Sorry - Appears I only tagged onto your reply...and not necessarily "on topic".

reply to post by jiggerj


Great post OP. Here's an article I happened to read this morning on Alternet about the same subject.....

Have You Ever Wondered What Compells Your Conservative Relatives to Vote the Way They Do?

www.alternet.org...

Here is a small bit from it.....

"....most political debates, at least the way they’re usually conducted, are useless because the underlying issues aren’t what they appear to be on the surface. Politics, he says, is ultimately about our stance on fundamental moral beliefs and group loyalties–things that aren’t usually influenced by facts, figures, or rational policy debate."

The interview is with an author that has determined that our group affiliations influence our voting actions more then our own self-interest. Such that, we will vote/believe/act the way our group does even when we will hurt ourselves by such action. This fits in nicely with the source you have quoted OP and add another dimension to the puzzle of how to argue a point.

The answer is basicly, that you can't. Once an idea, one that threatens the belief system of our group, is presented we will close off all reason, willingness to listen and just parrot the 'party line' so to speak. Once that passion is arroused all reason, sanity and compassion go out the window.

Now I ask how do you. how do you have reasoned discourse under this "survival"(??) mechanism - how can we work to common purpose with those that see the world very differently?

Originally posted by stupid girl
reply to post by watchitburn

 

I totally concur with you on all points except this one:

Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by stupid girl

 

These people are just plain unreasonable, and the cause for the countless murders, genocides and atrocities attributed to religions throughout our history.

I attribute it to prejudice, power-lust and greed.

And the Abrahamic regilions are all about Prejudice (we - heaven, everybody else - hell); Power-Lust (do what I tell you - not matter what you think - I'm right, you're wrong) and Greed (God requires you to pay me for your salvation.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Ok, very good. Now pick any parable from the New Testament, seriously, pick one and I'll peel it like an onion for you and reveal it's logos, the root of which is logic.

You have it backwards the root of LOGIC is LOGOS.

Origin:
1325–75; Middle English logik < Latin logica, noun use of neuter plural (in ML taken as feminine singular) of Greek logikós of speech or reason. See logo-, -ic

Hay all. Been on this forum awhile now but this is my 1st post.

I must say im very concerned about the religious people being offended. Us scientists are not going to physically harm you like religious people have done in the past and still do today.

Hear is a question to all regarding beliefs and the answer will very clearly show you which path you are on regardless of what you believe stubburnly.

Question. Hypothetical (Although very real in the sense that it is reality today and in the past)

On one hand you have God, I will use the Christian God as example.
God tells you (the believer) and all other believers to 'Go forth and locate the non-believers, if you cannot convert them to Christianity then you are COMMANDED to put them to the death. If they are female you may have your way with them (Rape) and if you so please murder them when you are done or take them on as slaves. All said dead non-believers property is now yours and added to your assets.

IF YOU FAIL TO DO THIS THEN YOU WILL BURN IN A PIT OF SULFAR FOR ALL ETERNATY!!!! NO IFS NO BUTS. BURN BABY BURN!!! so says God.

On the other hand you have a panel of Human Lords who preside over the governing of 'Human Law'
The Human Lords say if you do what God commands you will be arrested, tried and sentenced. Probably for the rest of your life, or put to the death depending on the geographical setting and laws made out by said Human Lords to govern that geographical area.

Gods says YOU WILL BURN IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW MY COMMAND.

Human Lords say you do this and you will be sentenced by a court of law.

----

Who do you follow? Gods Law/Command or Human Law?

Are you really a Christian or are you a Family Traditionalist? And like all families, only you can bag them out.

And no if your thinking Jesus got rid of all that he didnt. He commanded all followers to 'Go forth and anyone that does not want me to rein over them, bring them before me and slaughter them' Luke 19.26 or 19.27.
A Death Cult is still... A Death Cult.


Coomba98

Listen up jigger, the title of your thread and the premise of the OP is insulting for a whole host of reasons, which an old timer like you shouldn't have to have explained to him, just put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and look at it through the eyes of the people you're insulting. It's certainly not the work of a civilized gentleman that's for sure, and it also contains within it it's own atheist fanaticism, bias and presumptuousness, but for some reason you can't see it, I guess your brain is just hard wired that way.

I'd like to talk about the mind and philosophy of Jesus and how the whole foundation of his "argument" was based in and on a rock of absolute reason and logic, but that's not for this thread, and he even counsels us not to do that, not to chuck out those precious pearls of wisdom to simply be trampled under the feet of ignorant men.

What if YOU are the one with the blind spot? Is that even possible? Could it be?

How do you even presume to know precisely what it is that we believe?

What is the absolute objective reality IS "spirit and truth" or the experience of reality as it is? What if it's you and the rest of the atheist hoards, ripping and tearing away at something that they don't understand, who are the real fanatics..?

Oh I know all about the right wing ultra conservative Christian fundamentalist evangelical extremists, and I have the sneaking suspicion that Jesus wouldn't be too pleased with just about the whole lot of them.

Anyway, i'd better digress before I start to work up an intense dislike for you, because up until now I generally like your often playful sense of humor and charm, and it's sad for me to see it turning so ugly.

God Bless,

NAM

Originally posted by coomba98
Hay all. Been on this forum awhile now but this is my 1st post.

I must say im very concerned about the religious people being offended. Us scientists are not going to physically harm you like religious people have done in the past and still do today.

Hear is a question to all regarding beliefs and the answer will very clearly show you which path you are on regardless of what you believe stubburnly.

Question. Hypothetical (Although very real in the sense that it is reality today and in the past)

On one hand you have God, I will use the Christian God as example.
God tells you (the believer) and all other believers to 'Go forth and locate the non-believers, if you cannot convert them to Christianity then you are COMMANDED to put them to the death. If they are female you may have your way with them (Rape) and if you so please murder them when you are done or take them on as slaves. All said dead non-believers property is now yours and added to your assets.

IF YOU FAIL TO DO THIS THEN YOU WILL BURN IN A PIT OF SULFAR FOR ALL ETERNATY!!!! NO IFS NO BUTS. BURN BABY BURN!!! so says God.

On the other hand you have a panel of Human Lords who preside over the governing of 'Human Law'
The Human Lords say if you do what God commands you will be arrested, tried and sentenced. Probably for the rest of your life, or put to the death depending on the geographical setting and laws made out by said Human Lords to govern that geographical area.

Gods says YOU WILL BURN IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW MY COMMAND.

Human Lords say you do this and you will be sentenced by a court of law.

----

Who do you follow? Gods Law/Command or Human Law?

Are you really a Christian or are you a Family Traditionalist? And like all families, only you can bag them out.

And no if your thinking Jesus got rid of all that he didnt. He commanded all followers to 'Go forth and anyone that does not want me to rein over them, bring them before me and slaughter them' Luke 19.26 or 19.27.
A Death Cult is still... A Death Cult.


Coomba98

Again, just look at this and read it through, How utterly ignorant and disgraceful and presumptuous.

You guys many of you are f''d and you call us fanatics? Gimma a break, how pathetic!

reply to post by jiggerj
Well, that being said, you yourself are a fanatic for trying to convince others that they are fanatics for believing in God! Atheists have beliefs, they believe in nothingness, it is a religion all the same, and I get a kick out of how they are just as tyrannical in their beliefs as fanatics, always mocking, always shouting others down, always trying to convince others there is no God, passing out literature, writing articles, pass the tithe, fanatics all the same!

I was a Christian up until about 13 years of age.

Was told not to go back to church because I had to many questions about biblical morality and biblical contradictions. So in a way my brain WAS wired for the 1st 13 years of my life to 'believe Christianity'.

Could not believe a 'Good' group of people would do something like this. Ive always been a logical person that seeks evidence. Even if said evidence comes from an adult to a young child.

So I have looked through the eyes of the otherside, in fact thats where i started.

Yes I am an Aethist but that word is just a word created by religious people to degrade people of science. Is there a word for someone who is not racists? No thats what we call normality. Is there a word for people who dont believe in Astrology. No again thats just being normal.

Don t get me wrong its not that I dont dislike religious people, that is incorrect. I dislike the reasoning behind said beliefs and the actions taken as a result of said beliefs. Alot of people I know are religious but are very good people. Although they are religious they still follow mans law first and formost before they follow Gods law.
So i suppose they are humanists who are just filling in the gaps because they either 1. dont want to know so this is good enough or 2. not enough time in the day, so they fill in the gaps with what they see as a pobability which then over time said opinion turns into belief.

Again im not insulting people, just evaluating your reasoning. Which in turn leads to beliefs.

Jesus was a very good person, to the jews that followed him and to the government of Rome when it suited him.
Same could be said to someone like Hitler. He was a very very good person to his inner circle and very good to his followers. So long as they did what he said and believed what he believed.

Yes I too may have some blind spots, only human. However I find myself to be a very logical person. If you want me to believe something in the subject of history, space, gravity, sports and even religion I will still require evidence of this.

Faith is not always blind, its actually very visual in an abstract sense. Faith is 'Trust'. Faith comes in degrees. You can have complete faith/trust or abit of faith/trust.

How many time have you had 'faith' in someone to do something? And they failed.

Faith or trust is a result of prior neurological behaviour that is in essence, a conclusion with some weight.

Fanatics!! Religion breeds fanatics in the thousands/millions. Quiet common. However, non-religious people breeding fanatics, now thats a rare card!

Coomba98

It's absurd.


Edit to add: God Bless (whatever it might mean it's well intentioned, honestly.).

NAM

>

Which God?

That's always the next question, the next deflection..

This one! .

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Yes, but what if the very motive or catalyst to creation was/is to generate the framework by which a shared mutual experience becomes possible, and we and everything that is, is here because of the love of God.

I would have to say: which god? I'm not an atheist; I have a fondness toward deities from a plethora of religions.

Well I guess the most high God, if you want to be specific, as in

"But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."

..does no one see the irony?

So you do us an honor, dear atheist friends, because you give us someone to love, as Jesus loved!

And you can hate us all you want, nothing is going to change the fact that we are all part of the one same human family and children of a loving God no matter what anyone "thinks" about it, we're still left in the same predicament, which is why I'd like to be the first Christian, to cross over the divide, extend a warm welcoming and humorous hand to you my brother, who just so happens to hold a slightly different worldview but who nevertheless shares the same fundamental experience of being alive on the unconditioned ground of all being and becoming, when all differences are set aside in the name of something nameless, invisible - then we know something rather extraordinary, about each other, from one another, and about ourselves in terms of what REALLY makes us tick.

For me I've been to the "space of nothing" and the only thing worth doing from that POV, when all is said and done and the tears have been wiped away from our eyes, is to love. Nothing else motivates or catalyzes the creative, playful and humorous human IMPULSE to forever realize something better than that which came before.

Ironically again however, if that weren't funny enough - we can only take the splinter from our brother's eye after we've already taken the plank out of our own, then it just comes out automatically, as we begin to see face to face and eye to eye.

It doesn't matter, in other words. God is equally satisfied and even moreso when we the human being, begotten in the fullness of time and history from a commonly shared originating first/last cause in eternity (and therefore still present) - are set free for the sake of freedom, to freely and fully love as we are loved, even first loved by God by virtue of our very inclusion in the fist place, and for some among us, this causes wellsprings of joy and gratitude to burst forth for no reason relative to an eternal being that we cannot possibly even begin to understand, only rationally and logically infer. However, once the inference has been made and the knowledge converted to experience through an authentic communication of love, and we laugh, shrug, and embrace one another in spite of our differences and our mutual ignorance and uncertainty, as the brothers that we really are regardless and no matter what anything thinks about anything, then, ironically, we realize precisely the same outcome as that envisioned by Jesus himself!

"I have only one commandment.

Love one another as I have loved you."

Doesn't sound so unreasonable... however unreasonably reasonable it may be.

Thoughts? Amen? And please don't call me a new age hippy Jesus freak or any such presumptuous nonsense, k? Thanks.

Originally posted by coomba98
Hay all. Been on this forum awhile now but this is my 1st post.

I must say im very concerned about the religious people being offended. Us scientists are not going to physically harm you like religious people have done in the past and still do today.

"Hay all"?

"Us scientists"?

Obviously, you're not a scientist of the English language, lol.

Actually, as someone who actually has degrees in a scientific discipline, I have a hard time believing you've even been to university, much less employed as a scientist.

Sorry, that's just the skeptic in me, lol.

Originally posted by jiggerj
When we consider the story of how all of the graves opened up during the time of Jesus being crucified and the dead roamed the city, those without the connections in the brain can see the absurdity in this claim. It's not that the religious won't see the insanity in this story, it's that they CAN'T see it. Their brains aren't wired for critical thinking when it comes to their beliefs. They can defend this story in a way that makes sense to them, but still seems very crazy to the non-believer. The religious can (and I've seen this sooo many times) simply refuse to consider that this story is beyond impossible. They don't do it deliberately, it's just a matter of brain connections preventing them from seeing the truth. They change the topic when confronted with this story, or they turn the discussion in another direction. To claim this story as false would take a major re-wiring of the brain.

You either read the Bible wrong or you were told something that is incorrect. But not ALL the graves are said to open. But so I don't misrepresent what the Bible says I will post the verses here: Matt 27:52, 53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

1) It would indicate that only the graves in the immediate area opened not ALL in every grave yard.
2) It says Many not ALL the bodies of the SAINTS. I don't think there were a whole lot of SAINTS at that time. Seeing Israel has been in a perpetual rebellion against God for over a 1000 years by the time this happened and even today they are still in the same state. There were few that arose and they would have been ones who recently died for anyone in the city to recognize them. The wording of "many bodies of the saints" indicates that not ALL the bodies of the saints arose but many did.
I mean if their forefather Abraham had arisen no one would have known it was him. But what about the prophet of God who held Jesus in his hands and said he that he was told he would not die until he saw Israels salvation. and the woman who also prophesied over him at the time of his birth?
Well I am just saying it would have been people at that time that had recently died who were saints under their belief in Christ as their King. Not all the saints of all times. the term "Slept" was only used speaking of those who were saved under the ministry of Christ and later Paul. there are a few instances of it in the writings of David. But mainly it is used in speaking about deceased Christians.

As far as critical thinking. I am very critical of the words and teachings of men when it comes tot he Bible most are just out for the money but there are few who are true servants of God who are not in it for the money and their teaching is in line with the word, their fellowships are small, and they are humble men.

I have seen studies on people who are studying under programs that promote self study and those who sit in a class under a teacher and you can see that the brains of those in the self study program are active in many parts of their brains all at once while those in class rooms are pretty much limited to one or two areas as if they are sleeping.

So Neural studies don't impress me that much.

FYL (for your learning)

WEBSTER Dict. 1913

Fanatic /Fa·nat ic/ a. [L. fanaticus inspired by divinity, enthusiastic, frantic, fr. fanum fane: cf. F. fanatique. See Fane.] Pertaining to, or indicating, fanaticism; extravagant in opinions; ultra; unreasonable; excessively enthusiastic, especially on religious subjects; as, fanatic zeal; fanatic notions.

Fanatic /Fa·nat ic/ n. A person affected by excessive enthusiasm, particularly on religious subjects; one who indulges wild and extravagant notions of religion.

So what can we conclude:

Anyone that would support a person to be over enthusiastic about the achievements of science and education is a fanatic.

anyone with extravagant opinions like the OP is a fanatic.

And those who are members of ATS because we indulge in conspiracy theories and extaravagant notions, opinions and UFO's would be considered a Fanatic.