The beginning of these shows is pretty awkward: the two or three of them just sitting there while the music plays. Good discussion though, as always.

checkmate

It's refreshing to see actual civilized discourse between two differing viewpoints, without all the shouting and name calling we typically see.

It's not often you hear that kind of argument, i.e. non-hostile questions from a Christian.

I like the Dawkins version better...

http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-What-if-youre-wrong

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, February 18th, 2009 10:49am PST - promote requested by jwray.

>> ^ponceleon:
I like the Dawkins version better...
http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-What-if-youre-wrong


Expanding upon that, Dawkins also talked about the nature of belief in The God Delusion.

What if the Christian version of things is correct (for instance). Pascal's wager would say that believing would be the safest course. The problem is, you cannot choose what you believe... you can only pretend. I can pretend to believe in the teapot, but I cannot convince myself it is real without actual evidence.

In that case it would still be pointless to pretend to believe in God, because "He" would still know that you were only pretending.

Expanding upon that, Dawkins also talked about the nature of belief in The God Delusion.
In that case it would still be pointless to pretend to believe in God, because "He" would still know that you were only pretending.


LOL psychologic you always make me laugh.

Belief is not subject to the will.

How does this kind of thing get so popular on the sift? It's painful listening to a Christian guy (who doesn't know why the bible says what it says) disussing things with a few other people who equally have no solid understanding of the bible.

I mean, half of the bible is dedicated to explaining the difference between the old and new testaments, and yet here we are with rediculious discussions like this. It blows my mind how people can claim to have read the thing, and still manage to remain so ignorant.

Ah well. I guess that's the internets.

>> ^r10k:
How does this kind of thing get so popular on the sift? It's painful listening to a Christian guy (who doesn't know why the bible says what it says) disussing things with a few other people who equally have no solid understanding of the bible.
I mean, half of the bible is dedicated to explaining the difference between the old and new testaments, and yet here we are with rediculious discussions like this. It blows my mind how people can claim to have read the thing, and still manage to remain so ignorant.
Ah well. I guess that's the internets.


Do enlighten us then... please, give us examples of where the bible explains the differences?

And if that is the case, then why should ANY of it be considered fact if any one part of it can be explained away as 'of the time'. The whole creation story can be described as 'of the time' because that's what they believed when they had no ability to explain it any other way.

Seeing as most Christians are still Creationists, it seems that regardless of whatever they might say, Christians still place high value on the Old Testament.

There wasn't anything too great about that video. The women were a little too weak about the big bang. We actually DO know that the big bang happened. We know a lot about the big bang. The big bang model has come up with predictions that we have since confirmed (e.g. cosmic microwave background radiation).

>> ^Aniatario:
Belief is not subject to the will.


That's true. But it is subject to knowledge and evidence.

Spoco2, if you genuinely want to know, go and do some reading. Get out of the land of 'second hand knowledge' and look into the thing for yourself.

>> ^r10k:
Spoco2, if you genuinely want to know, go and do some reading. Get out of the land of 'second hand knowledge' and look into the thing for yourself.


What kind of answer is that? She asked you a simple question. Your previous post was about how 'ignorant' people still remain after reading, and how the many people who voted are apparently missing something. Back up your premises with actual substance. It should be really easy for you to give a mere example, after all you apparently have a 'solid understanding' of the bible compared to us.

I can say a lot of things too, to prove them and show they are sound is what matters.


I am not saying you are wrong, simply because you did not give anything to work with.

They should have stuck with the simple retort "what if you're wrong and _____ religion is right?" because the caller clearly couldn't imagine himself being wrong. "But i lead a good christian life" doesn't work when you're standing before Zeus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

It depends on the mental fortitude of the person in question. Hypothetically speaking, let's say one of the dyed in the wool atheists who really believes that even 'if' God exists that he's the source of all human misery and the sole reason why human beings act like jerks. He also believes that God is inherently unjust, unfair, cruel, and vindictive. So he spends his entire life believing this, and then shows up at the pearly gates. How would he act?

Based on what we see here in the forum, the hypothetical atheist would probably start blaming God for everything, calling him a jerk, and telling him to take his afterlife and cram it.

If God exists and is a true higher power and intellect, then he's a magnanimous fellow and more than willing to forgive people for believing a load of crap that was foisted on them in ignorance. However, if the person continues to believe in thier crap even when they know it is a pile of crap then what can even God do with them? All he could do is let them go someplace they'd be happy continuing to believe in thier crap.

She asked you a simple question.

...after all you apparently have a 'solid understanding' of the bible compared to us.

I am not saying you are wrong, simply because you did not give anything to work with.

Modern intellectual standards are that claims are followed by evidence for those claims. It doesn't matter if you're a Hindu, Muslim, or whatever religion you are... "read my book" can't serve as evidence.

>> ^skhisma:
They should have stuck with the simple retort "what if you're wrong and _____ religion is right?" because the caller clearly couldn't imagine himself being wrong. "But i lead a good christian life" doesn't work when you're standing before Zeus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.


Or ALLAH. Considering there are nigh on 35,000 sects of Christianity, and hundreds of other religions, all professing to be the way and the only way, I find it ridiculous that any believer professes certainty that their faith is the "Truth".

>> ^r10k:

She asked you a simple question.

middle one is cute, kitteh does want.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
It depends on the mental fortitude of the person in question. Hypothetically speaking, let's say one of the dyed in the wool atheists who really believes that even 'if' God exists that he's the source of all human misery and the sole reason why human beings act like jerks. He also believes that God is inherently unjust, unfair, cruel, and vindictive. So he spends his entire life believing this, and then shows up at the pearly gates. How would he act?
Based on what we see here in the forum, the hypothetical atheist would probably start blaming God for everything, calling him a jerk, and telling him to take his afterlife and cram it.


I don't think that's a fair representation of atheism itself, though it may be true of certain individuals.

I'd say that if God exists then the most likely situation is that "He" created the universe via the Big Bang and then let everything play out from there.

So if I got to heaven then I guess my fate would be determined by the kind of person God wants in there. Does he want kind and loving people, or perhaps observant and intellectual people?

If it turns out that God only wants people who hold onto one specific religion out of hundreds of denominations based on its specific anecdotal evidence while rejecting all other anecdotal evidence then yea, I'm pretty much screwed in that case.

The Bible says that if you commit adultery then you should get stoned.

That doesn't sound so bad. =P

There is this great scene in Oz (HBO Mini Series) where one of the main characters is having a conversation with a neo-nazi white supremacist type. They are talking about the bible. At one point the main character says something along the lines of, "So you think Jesus was white? He was most probably middle-eastern in terms of ethnicity."

The white-supremacist opens up his American edition of the bible and points to a "picture" of a blond-haired Aryan featured Jesus and says something like, "look at the picture you dumb fuck."

What I find so amusing about this little scene is that people think like this, extremely literally, all around the world. Those people in this discussion saying "oh you should read the bible" should be countered with, "Which bible?"

To think that any single bible edition is in any way like another is a HUGE sign of the ignorance of both the origins of the bible, as well as the ultimate game of "telephone" that it represent. The "bible" that thumping-middle-america seems to think was written by god himself is actually just product from some publisher, who in turn got his content from a long line of sources, all of which made small changes along the way.

And that is just the English version. You have to realize that the Bible was likely written in something like Aramaic or some other dead semitic language. From there it was translated to endless languages, Latin, Greek, etc. etc. losing and gaining meaning in the process.

You might also want to look into the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of the earliest (if not the earliest) versions of the bible in existence. What's the problem? Well, they contain extra content which the Christian church leaders just decided to leave out. Are we to think that ever edition of the bible is correct and that every editor is "inspired by god" in his editorial management of the text? If it was just one line of bibles that ended in one "definitive" version, I could kind of see the logic there. The problem is that there are a gazillion (that is a technical term) version. Again, which is the "right" bible?

Personally, I think the Indian bible is the correct one. Look up that one. They are fairly certain that Jesus spent his "missing years" in India and there is a whole tradition based on that. I like it and I'm going with that one. Anyone who doesn't agree with me is unfortunately going to hell.

By the way, why aren't you guys voting on my video of the Rise and Fall of Nazi Dinosaurs. Yes, it is a shameless plug, but I really feel that video should be doing better than it is!!

>> ^r10k:

When I meet someone who really does want to know, I'm more than happy to help people fill in a few blanks..


Oh oh, lemme guess. SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!

Err, wait. Wrong fiction.

the atheist experience is actually loony yanks who live to close to fundamentalists.

I happen to prefer the Macintosh operating system over Windows.

Ok... Firstly... I'm a HE... why I'm regarded a she I don't know, even the dog in the photo is a he.

Anyway.

r10k, you're being a smartass who is not backing up their position one bit.

IF you know the bible so well, and IF there are sections in it which describe how other sections are no longer relevant, then tell me the book and verse (and version of the bible), I have many bibles in my home (no, I'm not religious), and I'll gladly look up those passages. I will NOT read the entire bloody bible just to try to find some passage that you say exists without you giving any indication of where said passage is.

I tried reading the bible once and got immensely bored with all the begating.

So, either point me towards ACTUAL portions of the bible that back up your claims, or stop being a smartass who likes to pretend they know it all.


>> ^r10k:

She asked you a simple question.

For all we know, this whole religion thing is a ploy to weed out the weak, insecure and stupid. If someone tells you there's a terrible place that you will go to when you die if you don't believe this and this and this and follow these rules, what do you do? Do you take the cyan or the magenta pill?

In my mind I like to imagine many Christians are going to hell for their decisions and especially for having the gall to tell others they're going to hell. The wrath of the possibility of a slightly devious and intelligent God be upon thee!

The video and comments remind me of one of qualiasoup's YT videos:

"When people make their own interpretations of the bible rather than going by what is written, they could find support for every point of view, even ones that clearly contradict each other. If everyone is allowed to interpret the bible to fit their point of view then the bible ends up supporting no point of view."

There is this great scene in Oz (HBO Mini Series) where one of the main characters is having a conversation with a neo-nazi white supremacist type...

Did you ever notice that people that make movies, TV shows, or other forms of entertainment seem to be COMPLETELY incapable of portraying a person of faith without resorting to this kind of stereotype? It's really quite prejudiced of them, and borders on being outright hate-speech.

Pick any drama, sitcom, movie, or other show and 99 times out of 100 when a 'Christian' is identified he will be some rabid, intolerant, bible-thumping jerk who is about the worst possible caracature dreams up in the minds of the writers. It's partly their fault because they're too lazy to actually try and portray people accurately and resort to stock cutouts that the stupid public don't have to think about. Regardless, it is about as fair and accurate as CNN or FOX news. There are a few exceptions but they tend to be in older media, not modern media. But by and large the media portrayal of religion (and Christianity in particular) today is almost totally slanted towards the 'people of faith are morons' side.

And if this forum is a barometer it looks like a lot of people are too stupid to resist the tide of propoganda. It's sad really, because the very people who THINK that people of faith are the brainwashed intolerant ones are the ones that are brainwashed and intolerant. They CLAIM to be tolerant, but then a person of faith comes along and its all "they need to be neutered so they can't reproduce..." and all that crap. Nice.

It's not hate speech, at least not most of the time. It's the love child of people who do not have the sensory, intellectual, and emotional apparatus trying to portray personal and spiritual complexity.

The dramatic art was and essentially still is tied to religion. For tragedy nd comedy to exist you need a feeling of belonging, which lies beyond any secular rationalization. The religions that dramatic art was tied to were various. Theater is half church half whorehouse, as is sometimes stated. Modern drama has neither side of this communion, that's why it mostly stinks.

I disagree in the sense that if the gross level of mis-representation and outright 'caracature' nature of the presentation of believers was duplicated in relationship to someone's race then it would definitely be classified as hate speech. For example, if every single black person on TV was grotesquely caracatured as a melon eating, fried chicken chomping, ebonic spouting gangsta-pimp then no-one would have any problem labeling the writers as a bunch of racists.

IMHO if you deliberately portray a huge group of people using only the worst possible negative stereotypes then that's hate speech. Hate speech folks. It's not just for racists anymore.

WinstonO everyone. /clap

dude the whole point is that religious people say they know what happens when we die. single yourself out like that and take the consequence; it's about faith not popularity so i don't see how anyone can claim holding a mirror to someone's attitude is hate speech. religion is voluntary. race is not.

i don't like you.

Winston, it's Poes Law. No matter what bat-shit insane characture of a religious nut you want to break out, it approaches and often mistaken with/for actual fundamental religous devout serious people.

Hate speech for the record is talking about killing abortion doctors or forcing schools to teach Creationism. WHat is more hateful then spreading ignorance and institutionalizing it in public schools?

it's about faith not popularity so i don't see how anyone can claim holding a mirror to someone's attitude is hate speech. religion is voluntary. race is not.

You don't get it. Hate speech is when you deliberately and maliciously cast groups of people in negative contrast based on stereotypes, prejudices, and the language of a propogandistic demagogue. Could be racial. Could be religious. Could be political. Doesn't matter what the subject matter it. Hate speech is the wrongful miscasting of large sections of a population with the intent to get people to 'hate' the group.

When you do that, you are actively seeking to whip up public opinion against the group in question. You create a demonic strawman caracature of your target, and lead people to make fun of it, persecute it, belittle it, and (at the worst) attack and destroy it. Human nature leads people to carry over this extremely negative behavior from the strawman to actual real people who are nothing like the rhetorical pinata.

Case in point. Some of you have been spoon-fed the caracature of the 'born-again fundamentalist' on TV, in movies, and other media and now reflexively treat ALL people of faith as if they were your caracature. The actual reality is though that the caracatured 'hate speech' version of religion you denigrate only applies to the tiniest, most infinitesimal particle of the religious world.

That's what hate speech does. It teached the weak-minded, the gullible, and the easily manipulated to 'hate' things that they really have no understanding of at all.

in so much as they cast themselves, it's voluntary.

hate speech involves things people don't choose.

there is a reason for the stereotypes you talk about.

You don't even understand what you're saying.