posted 11-14-98 10:48 PM ET        

My view of an Atheist. I look upon an atheist as a person who believes in science too much then his faith. I see this in people who think that god has given up on them or they have a high I.Q and think that science
tells all. The number of these people has doubled in this century.
But there are others that no matter how much there life has fallen they still believe. An atheist might call these people dumb or something else. But if you look around and actually look at the lives of people who pray an believe you can see that there life is changing for the better. If you look at atheist and there place in history you can see that they start to believe too much in themselves and eventually something happens. Maybe that is the cause of some great empires falling.The truth will only be known when we die. Some Atheist have high intellectual minds so they find
there belief in science. Maybe that is why Jesus picked average ordinary people to be his followers.
An Atheist also banishes the bible but if you ask the catholic church about it they will tell you that the bible is myth based on stories that they believe to be true it doesn�t have to be accurate. An atheist always brings this to discussion. even though the bible factor had been explained by the. church When an atheist looks at miracles they automatically try to disprove it. But when some atheist look at aliens they try to prove it which is kind of funny because they belive in one thing and discard the other.When an atheist talks about people and why believing is dumb they feel that they are not offending anybody. But when somebody talks about an atheist that way they feel offended. Some atheist look
upon actors,celebertes,etc in a great way. So why can a person look upon some thing higher then himself like god in a great way ? Thank you for reading my views.

posted 11-14-98 11:35 PM ET            

Screaming or preaching will not do you any good when discussing something with someone that you disagree with. Even though there are atheists who don't understand that, it is each person's responsibility to engage in debate in the most thoughtful and reasonable way that they can. That includes you, Aga1. The best way to argue with someone is by understanding their position. When you say "you have no Faith!" to an atheist, most would take it as a compliment.

posted 11-15-98 12:00 AM ET            

But I do know this: This world is scary, religion is safe, if perphaps(and I do not know) blind. People who feel safe have a postive image which helps them.

I have seen good christian do great things, in the name of God(but it could just be them).

I've seen prayer bring cooler tempature, at summer camp, between going into and coming out of meeting, about 30 minutes( but an old saying says "Don't like the weather, wait a minute").

What we can prove of the bible is true( but it was recorded be people with less general knowlege than my grandpa, which is a truly scary thought)

Thousand of people claim to have seen aliens( but not sighting stands up to peer review), which just shows how dumb we still are.

posted 11-15-98 01:45 AM ET            

Second of all, my view on extremists. DHE's definition of religious extremists: anyone who attempts to serve their religion through violent, non peaceful methods, often times violating their own religious doctrine to punish heretics. Christian extremists claim to be Christian, but anybody who knows the true meaning of the word realizes that their claims are wholly false. I mean, seriously, there aren't that many ways to interpret "Thou shalt not murder".

posted 11-15-98 04:06 AM ET            

--But when some atheist look at aliens they try to prove it which is kind of funny because they belive in one thing and discard the other.--

What about religious people? They try to debunk evoution, but some fight to believe in alien encounters.

--But if you look around and actually look at the lives of people who pray an believe you can see that there life is changing for the better.--

Maybe. Or maybe the praying just makes them feel better. And I consider that to be somewhat bad- how many homeless people rely on God to deliver, and don't try to help themselves? How many people rely on faith to cure cancer, not chemo therapy?

--If you look at atheist and there place in history you can see that they start to believe too much in themselves and eventually something happens. Maybe that is the cause of some great empires falling.--

Elaborate. You just said that atheism is responsible for the downfall of great cultures and civilizations. Do you have proof? Looking through history, it seems that RELIGION has caused the destruction of it's fair share of civs.

--Some atheist look upon actors, celebertes, etc in a great way.--

What? And religoius people don't?

--When an atheist talks about people and why believing is dumb they feel that they are not offending anybody.--

How do you know? Have you been in this position? I know that I am offending other people, just as I am offended whenever I see a bumper sticker which says something about Jesus or God or something.

--However, there are FAR more religious people in the world than atheists, and there are FAR more religious extremists than atheist extremists (maybe not in proportions, but in numbers).-- Octopus

posted 11-15-98 02:38 PM ET            

People frequently dismiss miracles out of hand because they're too impossible to believe. The religious would say "that is exactly the point". The religious have a right to dismiss the views of a Skeptic, because he is just as misguided (he believes something with no evidence) as the "gullible fools" he is trying to protect.

posted 11-15-98 03:54 PM ET            

Larry, that's not the point. I'm asking for evidence about the facts of those miracles - did Jesus walk on water ? I can't prove that he didn't, I can just say I have never observed anything like this, and ask you to prove that he did.

posted 11-15-98 04:05 PM ET            

"If you look at atheist and there place in history you can see that they start to believe too much in themselves and eventually something happens. Maybe that is the cause of some great empires falling."

Can you substantiate this ? The western roman empire, for example, fell with christianity its state religion.

"An atheist always brings this to discussion. even though the bible factor had been explained by the. church"

The catholic church has taken a more reasonable stand on the interpretation of the bible, but there are
1) enough peoiple who take it word by word
2) massive misinterpretations, like basing the supremacy of the pope on the bible. That's very ridiculous - if you want, I can back that up.

"But when some atheist look at aliens they try to prove it..."

posted 11-17-98 12:01 AM ET            

"Aga1, why do you think your little rant does not constitute another religious thread ?You are attacking the views of atheists with some very - well, let's be nice and say "strange" - points. I don't know wehther you count me as an agnostic into the atheist lot, but some of those things.."

posted 11-17-98 10:10 AM ET            

I think there maybe life on other planets, I don't really think they are coming here in saucers kidnapping Mulder's sister.

Being an athiest means you have to accept that when you die you die. There isn't an afterlife. Makes you think about your life a bit more carefully. In fact if you think about that too much I think you'd go mad.

posted 11-17-98 12:31 PM ET            

1) Maya starts "This Godless Universe" and says, basically, that if you don't agree you've totally missed the point (i.e. calling those who disagree dumb, from Aga1's perspective).
2) Aga1 posts in Maya's thread because he strongly disgrees, and gets a very negative reaction.
3) Aga1 says "enough of this!" and starts his own "non-religious" thread (about as non-religious as Maya's, from Aga1's perspective).

posted 11-17-98 12:43 PM ET            

2. The negative reaction... it was just the usual religious discussion. Aga1 brought it in there, and others replied.

3. This may be as non-religious in his view, I just can't follow that view. Maya's thread was about 1., Aga started with things like the belive of atheists (or agnostics) in aliens. Nothing of this was in Maya's post.

"The atheist self-congratulation society was meeting there, discussing how short-sighted those who disagree are."

posted 11-17-98 02:29 PM ET            

You're right, if Jesus flew an airplane, people would have considered it a miracle... But He did not. He walked on water. We have no physics that can explain that, and I would go so far as to say that it defies the physics that we do know. Therefore, if it happened, it was miracle to them, and it is a miracle to us. The New Testament is the most textually reliable ancient document that has ever existed. It is also the most unique, and supported by overwhelming prophesy (written AT LEAST 100 years before, possibly as much as 1,200). I won't go into all of it lest my English teacher come over hear and tear me away from the computer, but I have examined the evidence, and I think that it is reliable. This being the case, and since there is no evidence that says the miracle could not have happened, there is more evidence to support that it did and I accept it. Now, I ask you to bring any evidence at all that this miracle did not happen.

Also, this has been shown in other forums and it would do us well that we all recognize it. The O's stand for a small fraction of the knowledge in the universe. The X stands for what we know.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOXOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Is it reasonable to believe that a higher being may exist beyond what we 'know'? Is it reasonable to think that because we have not found certain things to be true within the past thousands of years that they cannot be true? No, that would be unreasonable. Just because we cannot see/explain/understand something, it does not begin to offer evidence that it cannot be. That applies to all sides of this discussin (including mine, yes, I recognize that.)

posted 11-20-98 05:45 AM ET            

You say and are very correct about this:

"The danger of communicating in a text-based medium is that you cannot use tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. to guarantee that your statements will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended. Things are very easy to misinterpret, which I think Aga1 did. "

"Since you feel that my post was insulting to you, you also understand that those words can be used in an insulting manner."

Don't you see the difference ? Maya said that if you come to a certain conclusion, you have missed the point. This is just saying that a certain interpretation of what she had said was wrong.

The steps it takes to get what I said wrong:

1. The "rant" thing: "I don't care how many people do something that can be misinterpreted, it can still be misinterpreted."

As you can't use tone of voice etc, one should look at the context in which something is said. Clearly, it can be misinterpreted, but by looking at the context it can be easily avoided.

2. I only asked Aga1 why he thinks his thread is non-religious, given the differences to Maya's thread. A question! Once again, you have to twist that to get to the conclusion that I had said "the thread should not be here." Or even: "What I thought was inappropriate were the comments by Roland and JB saying, essentially, that Aga1 didn't have a right to be offended by your thread."

3. "I can't read that sentence [strange points...]without associating it with some sort of personal attack."

There is a clear difference between attacking points and a person. So far, this has always worked for me to avoid insulting people. You (and probably aga, I don't know about him) are really the first one I meet on this board after almost 2000 posts of mine to have that problem.

4. I only stated that you seemed to misunderstand it. You coined the pharse "The
atheist self-congratulation society was meeting there, discussing how short-sighted those who disagree are." And therefore, you understand Aga's position. I only saiud this was not what it was about.

You have to go through some steps of twisting my words or those of others to come to your conclusion. I could be insulted by giving some comments a twisted interpretation as well, I just don't do that. Your points were directly aimed at me, ad personam:

"While this may be impossible for you to believe..."
"don't bother" [to reply]...
"if..., you've got some linguistic difficulties."

"Since you feel that my post was insulting to you, you also understand that those words can be used in an insulting manner."

What bothers me is:

a) you accuse me of insulting people
b) this is, at best, the result of misunderstandings
c) and in that course, you attack me directly. This is not what I have done, and this does not go together with you taking the highground there.

posted 11-17-98 05:41 PM ET            

A UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. I would be very, very surprised if these don't exist.

You see something flying, and you cannot identify if. Thus, it is a UFO. A person who has never before seen an airplane, upon seeing one overhead, sees a UFO, per definition.

Just a little detail that bugs me once and a while. I know exaclty what you mean, though. UFO has another, if inaccurate, definition in the popular culture.

posted 11-17-98 10:21 PM ET            

Maybe my choice of words was a little harsh, but I think I'm basically right on this one. JB's statement: "Maya did NOT attack views. She simply answered the oft asked question of how an atheist can live such an empty life. You, on the other hand, bluntly attacked a view." If I wrote a little blurb of text on why everything that JB believed was total BS, and said "if you simply respond that some of JB's ideas are valid, then you obviously missed the point of this text" then I think it would be fair to say that I had insulted JB (no offense intended to you, by the way, JB, I'm just using you as an example).

posted 11-17-98 10:34 PM ET            

I just figured out what you meant here. I wasn't accusing the atheist thread of irrationality. I was saying that Aga1's efforts (for example, starting this thread) might be characterized that way, which would be detrimental to his cause.

posted 11-23-98 05:23 AM ET            

Maya's quote from the godwinson thread: "Don't worry, as long as Octopus doesn't think "black" when you say "white" and "white" when you say "black", you should be just fine! (I'm kidding here Octopus, don't take this the wrong way!) =)"

This has been my perception of your "complaint" as well. Just now, I think I start to see your point.

The problem I have is the following:

You took negative interpretations of several things. When people say someone has missed the point, it can only be the point those people thought of. Everyone can come to a different conclusion. Therefore I think your assumption: "When someone suggests that I didn't "get the point" or "comprehend" or "understand" something, I consider that
to be an insult to my intelligence." is a bit unfair IMO. Even more so, if you start doing exactly the same thing that you complain about by saying those who do not understand you have "lingusitic difficulties".

While different interpretations are always possible, there are interpretations I can understand and interpretations I cannot understand. That's the way it is for me.

So to sum it up:

1. What I've said was not intended to insult anyone.
2. I tried to phrase my comments in a way to avoid insults.
3. While everything can be misunderstood, I fail to follow your line of reasoning/interpretation, and I get, as Maya, the impression that you take "black" for white".

Any complaints about this are pointless as this is only my very personal view - my intent, my attempt, my understanding. If you don't like it, lay out your line of reasoning - fine.

The only thing that bothers me is a) when you say that a certain understanding is obvious (like "I can't read that without taking insult...") - for me it simply isn't, and b) when you do the same thing you complain about.

Octopus: "I just said "I've been misunderstood", but then I go on to say that accusations based on misunderstanding are insulting. Hypocritical, huh? The difference, of course, is that I feel the misunderstanding of my point stems from the fact that I haven't been clear enough in articulating it."

Perfectly claer. But I do not think that I haven't been clear enough - that's all. That does not prohibit that I apologize to someone who might have taken insult, as I have done to aga. I just will continue to say that I don't understand your and (probably) aga's view/interpretation/whatever.

posted 11-18-98 09:54 PM ET            

To begin, let's see what I really said:
" Now if you reply, please don't quote me your favourite part of Genesis or tell me that God loves me anyway, for if you feel like doing this, I think that you completely missed the point of this text. And, btw, if I wanted that, I would have posted it in one of the religious threads. =)"

Now, let's put that in context. The whole point of the thread was to present a text by Adrian Barnett (This godless universe). Shining1 asked me what was my favourite quote and this, while technically not a quote, was one of the text that marked me the most when I read it (and still does). I felt it puts in words what I always felt without being able to express it so admirably. People then started to reply to this, telling us that they shared (or didn't, which is perfectly fine) the view expressed in that text, and also started to post quotes that they found compelling (which was much more to the point of the thread).

The "warning" quoted above and the title of the thread, "This godless universe (nope, this is _not_ another religious thread!) =)", were expected to invite people not to use that thread to start another god exist/ doesn't exist debate, but instead to share their own quotes and feelings about them. As such, and as understood by the majority of people reading the thread, the message "Now if you reply, please don't quote me your favourite part of Genesis or tell me that God loves me anyway, for if you feel like doing this, I think that you completely missed the point of this text", didn't apply at all to the fact that if you don't agree with me, "you completely missed the point of this text" (which would be wrong). It had to do, instead, with the fact that this text (while expressing an atheist point of view) isn't about telling theists that god doesn't exist and that they are wrong, but instead about what us atheist may feel, how we look at the universe around us. Thus, I was only asking theists not to start preaching to keep us from ending in hell (or whatever, depending on their religion).

Most people took the hint and started to talk about whether or not they felt the same way that me after reading it. Some also started to post their own quotes, which was the whole point of the thread, even if it wasn't wrote in big red shinning letters. Then, out of nowhere, came Aga1 with twelve completely unrelated questions about science, trying to prove that god indeed existed. While I'm not going to comment here on the said questions themselves, I'm simply going to say that, as noted above, it was completely in the wrong thread (as Octopus noted himself). Thus, this is the reason why, I think, it was not very well received by the other posters.

Did little Maya was clear enough this time? Let me say it again just to make sure that you all digested that: the obviously meant-to-be-funny "warning" ,"if you [felt] [�] like doing this ["quote me your favourite part of Genesis or tell me that God loves me anyway"], [�] you completely missed the point of this text", was simply about the fact that I didn't want that thread to turn into a religious thread (hence the title of said thread) and not at all about that you're dumb if you disagree with me (well, you are indeed, but that's beside the point).

WAIT! Take a deep breath and make you eyes look at my last comment between parenthesis at the very end of the last paragraph. That is a little thing that I would like to refer to as a strange thing called "humour". That "thing" is not meant to be taken seriously and is even supposed to be, dare I say it, "funny". Those "things" are supposed to lighten up the mood of the discussion. Which brings me to another point: quotes. Some of them are meant to be taken seriously, to make you think, to make to wonder. On the other hand, some are meant to be sarcastic, ironic, or whatever� in short, "funny". Maybe I should include a warning before a post a quote, something like: Warning, funny quote ahead, people without a sense of humour should close their eyes, scroll down without looking and hope that they have scrolled far enough when they open their eyes again so that they won't be able to see that oh-so-very-offensive quote. Or maybe not. =)

Clear enough???

You though I would be finished by now wouldn't you? Nope, here we go again� =)

Aga1:
"I look upon an atheist as a person who believes in science too much then his faith. I see this in people who think that god has given up on them or they have a high I.Q and think that science tells all." [Aga1]

I would just like to say that your definition of atheism seems flawed to me. An atheist is no "a person who believes in science too much then his faith" or someone "who think that god has given up on them". An atheist is someone who doesn't not believe than god does even exist. Thus he has no faith (in god) and does not think that god had given up on him, since he does not even believe that god exist.

"But there are others that no matter how much there life has fallen they still believe. An atheist might call these people dumb or something else." [Aga1]

Nope, we call them "theist", but "dumb" is a good equivalent. =) (Humour, remember?) =)

"But if you look around and actually look at the lives of people who pray an believe you can see that there life is changing for the better. If you look at atheist and there place in history you can see that they start to believe too much in themselves and eventually something happens. Maybe that is the cause of some great empires falling.The truth will only be known when we die." [Aga1]

I don't think the obvious flaw in that arguments needs to be pointed out.

"An Atheist also banishes the bible but if you ask the catholic church about it they will tell you that the bible is myth based on stories that they believe to be true it doesn't have to be accurate. An atheist always brings this to discussion. even though the bible factor had been explained by the. Church" [Aga1]

I'm glad that you see the Bible that way and do not take it literally. As for why us atheists always brings that up, well, it's because the masses of believers who take the Bible literary reach a very high number, and most of the theists who end up in religious debates are among them.

"When an atheist looks at miracles they automatically try to disprove it." [Aga1]

Of course we do. Science thrives on sceptical inquiry into new ideas. If not, it would never advance. When new theories are presented, scientists fall on them like a pack of ravenous hyenas, looking for weak spots and problems. Every time something new happens, scientists try to see how it fits into the accepted theories and laws of science. If it does not, then it may be two things. Either that event is not what is seems to be, or the theories must be changed to reflect reality. Thus, it's only natural from us to look at those so-called "miracles" or any other "supernatural" events that way and, like it or not, what we have found doesn't fall into the "theory must be changed" category.

"But when some atheist look at aliens they try to prove it which is kind of funny because they belive in one thing and discard the other." [Aga1]

It depends on which aliens you refer to! =) If it's about that fact that intelligent life exist elsewhere in the universe, well, yes, most of us believe that it does. However, it is just that, a belief. If you are talking about the (grey or green, I don't remember) aliens that are supposed to visit us, abduct people, in short, those Area-51 or X-Files kind-of aliens, then you will find that we look at them in the exact same way that we look at miracles and other supernatural events.

"When an atheist talks about people and why believing is dumb they feel that they are not offending anybody. But when somebody talks about an atheist that way they feel offended." [Aga1]

I never said that "believing is dumb". You are free to believe in whatever you wish, and I respect your right do it, for who am I to tell you what to think, just as you should (and I guess you do) respect my right not to believe in your god.

"Some atheist look upon actors,celebertes,etc in a great way. So why can a person look upon some thing higher then himself like god in a great way?" [Aga1]

There is, I believe, a big difference between something that exist, and something that may or may nor exist. But of course, that does not in anyway refrain you from looking "upon some thing higher then [yourself] [�] like god in a great way" if you believe than said being (in this case, god) exists.

"Now if you look at mayas thread it says the same thing and it attacks the views of belivers by telling a view of an person.I am a person so i made statements on my views which made it to do the samething as mayas thread did olny attacking athiests views." [Aga1, on a reply to Roland]

I hope that by now you have seen that my thread was not in anyway attacking "the views of believers".

" Thank you for reading my views." [Aga1]

Thank you for reading mine. I hope this cleared the confusion you had with my previous thread.

JB:

"Oh really? I have never heard of an atheist strapping a bomb to his back and obliterating a city block in the name of Science. I haven't heard of a war over atheism." [JB]

LOL

Roland:

"Aga, I DEFINATELY make a good lawyer." [Roland, in a reply to Aga1]

LOL I would hope so! =)

Octopus:

"Basically, the premise of the thread (from the way I read it) was "see, it's obvious! If you don't agree, you didn't understand." There was also an implicit "religious believers need not apply" associated with the thread."

and

" If I wrote a little blurb of text on why everything that JB believed was total BS, and said "if you simply respond that some of JB's ideas are valid, then you obviously missed the point of this text" then I think it would be fair to say that I had insulted JB. [�] But, understand that saying "I'm right. If you disagree, you misunderstood. Take your views somewhere else, you're not welcome here" is a pretty arrogant thing to do. " [Octopus]

As I said to Aga1 I hope that what I said above cleared the confusion you had with my thread.

Done�

-Maya

posted 11-18-98 10:05 PM ET            

LOL

posted 11-18-98 11:59 PM ET            

I don't think you had any conscious intent to offend anyone, but I suspect that the comments you make, even the ones with humorous intent, could be found offensive by some believers. Does this mean that you shouldn't say things that someone might find offensive? Of course not! What it does mean, though, is that nobody should be surprised or angered when somebody IS offended by them. Religion, as I'm sure you understand, is a very touchy subject for a lot of people.

Also remember that in any debate, each participant inherits the past deeds of the side that they join. Atheists frequently use intellectual elitism to try to make believers feel foolish. While I'm not accusing anyone on this board of that specifically, it is an activity that occurs, and even a hint of it can be very offensive to people (I personally find this offensive, because I think it betrays the position, since atheism can easily be argued on its merits).

posted 11-19-98 01:39 AM ET            

Tolls and Roland: My guideline for saying that the New Testament is textually accurate to the originals is defined by the bibliographical test for the reliability of ancient documents. If you have another test for determining reliability of such literature (and there are a few more, all of which the NT does very well in) please bring them up, we'll compare the reliability of the NT to your ancient literature. The bibliographical test works as follows: It is not intended to prove that one ancient text is more reliable than another, but just to show that the odds of it being reliable are much better. The bibligraphical test compares the time from when a book is finished, until the time that the first full manuscript copies of it are made (obviously less years is better as there is less time in copying for there to be a mistake), then counts the number of manuscripts from that time (if there are lots of copies that are similar, it shows that the copies are more reliable than if there were only a handful.) So you have a certain number of manuscripts a certain amount of years after the book was finished. You mentioned Suetonius, Plutarch, and Tacitus. Let's compare them with the NT by the bibliographical test:

BOOK: YEARS AFTER FINISHED: # OF COPIES IN THAT YEAR:
New Testament 25 years(AD 100 - AD 125) over 24,000

Suetonius 790 years (AD 160- AD 950 8 copies

Tacitus 900 years (AD 100-AD 1000) 20 copies

(I sure hope that looks right!)

I don't have the data for Plutarch, but I guarentee that the NT whoops some on it. ("Tacitus" by the way includes his Annals and his minor works. I took the best of both worlds to give his workings the benifit of the doubt... didn't help much.) Clearly, the bibliographical test shows that the reliability of the NT is hundreds if not thousands of times greater than the other ancient texts. If you have another test, I'm confident my NT will excel at it as well. Until then, consider your ancient texts worthless compared the New Testament in their odds for reliability.

Kay, I must attend to the other threads. It's been wonderful and I love you all! Oh hey, one last thing:

posted 11-19-98 03:51 AM ET            

Speaking of Maya ... Maya .. were those "LOL"'s I saw back there ??? LOL

OCtopus had a good point about the textual nature of forums .. that's why SMILEYS help !!! See they are actually useful sometimes !!!

Anyway .. Back to the quote .. I stated some of my point in that thread, which is now completely messed up (I'll admit adding oil to the flames) .. So anyways .. the point of the quote was to express MAYA'S views on life, the universe and everything .. she didn't say anything about how that everyone should believe in her quote/text .. Admitedly, even some Athiests didn't feel anything for the quote as I had predicted in the original thread !!! As for athiests all being devoted to science, this isn't the case either, although there is a strong co-relation (for more details, look at my posts in that thread) !!!

Athiests come in different varieties just like religious people !!! We all dont' believe in a higher being, but that is where our similarities end !!!

Personally, I don't even think I could say that God doesn't exist 100% for sure .. but I don't know if God does either .. and in the end, he was created by some sort of unexplained random force .. the argument God has always been there just doesn't hold any water for me at all !!! I personally don't want to waste my time in something I don't believe or can't rationalize !!! It's just a waste of my time !!! It may even be true that we were created by something, just as we create living things in labs every day .. but ultimately, whatever might have created us was created out of randomness !!! Those were posibilities that I can't rule out, but I personally don't think they're likely .. the evidence I have been presentated in my life leads me to think that we grew from the evolution of simpler organism from a long long time ago here on Earth .. and that there is nothing that created us !!!

I believe there is no God, but as Larry can attest to, I respect your decisions to believe in God !!! I don't agree with it and think it is a waste of your precious time, but that is your decision to make !!!

Anyways, I have really said all I had to said in the other threads on abortion and religion etc etc .. and I think this debate has worn thin due to inability to accept others for who they are and what they do or don't believe by a few fanatics on both sides !!!

Some of you are so blinded by your stand (both Athiests and Religious people) that you can't bring yourselves to understand the other perspective !!!

Just browsing through this thread, I know LarryBoy and Maya for example both put their points in calm rational ways .. they are both well spoken and theral with their arguments .. some of the others on the other hand, don't see this as a debate, but more as a personal attack on them .. this it just unfortunate .. I personnaly couldn't be bothered with the debate anymore because it just started to become a yelling match:

-I'm right
-No I'm right
-No me
-You're wrong
-blah blah balh !!!

well .. I'm really sick of it .. for every one great post, there are 2 other I have to go through that are total nonsense .. and then 5 more that are exact duplicates of things that were said in other threads !!!

posted 11-19-98 07:02 AM ET            

Maya: "No offence, but if you would be so kind as to allow me to repeat myself, "you completely missed the point" of my other thread."

Does that mean we did a bad job defending your position ?

Octopus: "What I thought was inappropriate were the comments by Roland and JB saying, essentially, that Aga1 didn't have a right to be offended by your thread."

Could you please say where I wrote that ? All I said was I can't understand the reason why he is offended - if I may quote myself: "This may be as non-religious in his view, I just can't follow that view." And I tried to explain what was a misunderstanding of his IMO.

Larry: "My guideline for saying that the New Testament is textually accurate to the originals..."

I don't know about Tolls, but this is not the problem I have. On the accuracy about the FACTS (my problem) as well as on the accarucy of "copying:"

It is very unclear how the four evengelia originated. Some say the synopticists had a common masterdoc, others say they copied from one another. The origin of Johannes (what is he called in english ?) is unclear as well. There are many non-canonical texts (apocryphs or so).

So it is not that clear that the new testament is an accurate translation of the original texts. Even more so, I wonder whether they are describing what has happened correctly. With "reliable", I mean reliable on the facts. You can check roman historians vs one another, foreign historians (eg greek, later persian, for example), check with archeological evidence, with inscriptions etc.

The story about Jesus is, however, almost exclusively described in the new testament. In other works, eg Flavius Josephus, there is only a short note on him - or nothing at all. The Quumran documents have lead a jewish scientist to an interesting hypothesis: The "true" description of Jesus was with the Essanians, but they (and their side of the story) perished in the judean war in about 65/70. Some of those documents refer to the keeper of truth, maybe a brother of Jesus, and the evil liar, which may be Peter or Paul. That scholar concludes that Paul, as a roman citizen, had drawn up the image of a conciliatory jewish leader (jesus) in support of the roman authorities.
Whether that theory is correct or not, it shows how little we know whether the story of the new testament is realiable on the FACTS.

posted 11-19-98 10:01 AM ET            

Now, as to historicity, I have to say that the gospels aren't much cop, but the letters and Acts are quite handy, but not as good as a proper history. Not surprising, since they were not intended as history, but as religious texts.

posted 11-19-98 10:27 AM ET            

LOL .. I personally think that the sexiest trait a woman can have in my perspective, after integrity, is rationality !!! =) again !!!

posted 11-19-98 10:36 AM ET            

DJ: "I personally think that the sexiest trait a woman can have in my perspective, after integrity, is rationality !!! =) again !!!"

Ok, let's try this:

I am not!!! sure about this =) For me (!!!), intellectual capability (?!?!?!) may come first !!! Or what ???
(I really think intelligence makes a woman attractive; If I look at the majority of men, however, that makes me feel like a pervert...)

posted 11-19-98 12:43 PM ET            

1. Describing something as a "rant" can easily be understood to have negative connotations. Implying that Maya's "non-religious" thread was okay but Aga1's is not says that you thought the thread should not be here.
2. I can't read that sentence without associating it with some sort of personal attack.
3. Aga1 (as I explained before) obviously DID think that the other thread attacked his views.
4. While this may be impossible for you to believe, it is possible to completely understand someone's position and still disagree with it. I understand both the intention AND the way the thread could be read.

So, in closing Roland, I'll say "If you're just going to post 'I don't see it', don't bother, because that just shows you completely missed the point of this post".

posted 11-19-98 01:10 PM ET            

"1. Describing something as a "rant" can easily be understood to have negative connotations. Implying that Maya's "non-religious" thread was okay but Aga1's is not says that you thought the thread should not be here."

It is usual on this board to refer to long or opinion-loaded posts as rants. I have done that for posts I agree with. So given the context, I say YOU imply that meaning. If you understand it that way, fine. It's not the way it was meant. And again, I can't follow your logic on this: I just said that Aga's post was (directly) religious - it therefore is in contradiction with his title, but I've never said it shouldn't be there. I enjoy opinions that I do not share.

"2. I can't read that sentence without associating it with some sort of personal attack."

I said his points are strange. I did not say HE was strange or anything like that. I claim the right to attack other opinions in a discussion - as everyone has the right to attack mine. But there is a difference between attacking the opinion or the person - have I said anything "ad personam" ?

"3. Aga1 (as I explained before) obviously DID think that the other thread attacked his views."

And I obviously think that this is NOT the case, and Maya has explained in detail why.

"4. While this may be impossible for you to believe, it is possible to completely understand someone's position and still disagree with it. I understand both the intention AND the way the thread could be read."

Ah yes ? And what you say there is not ad personam ? I'll stay with dealing with opinions, and I gotta say: From my view, though it is clearly spoiled with linguistic problems, I can understand someone's position, but it may still be a misunderstanding. There can be comprehandable and not comprehandable misunderstandings, is that right from a linguistic point of view ?

"So, in closing Roland, I'll say "If you're just going to post 'I don't see it', don't bother, because that just shows you completely missed the point of this post". "

Now this is very interesting. I say to aga and you in essence, you misunderstood what Maya said. You tell me if I misunderstand what you say to shut up. Apart from that, I decide for mayself whether I bother to reply or not. Who are you to tell me not to post a certain reply ? From my view (spoiled with linguistic failures, I know), you are denying to me what you want to see granted ( and which I never wanted to deny) to aga and you.

"If you really can't understand why that sentence can be read as if it had an insulting intent (whether I meant it or not), you've got some linguistic difficulties."

Again, you are telling me there in essence that I'm stupid if I do not understand your glorious words. My understanding, of course. What if I had said to aga or you: "If you don't see the point in Maya's thread, you got some linguistic difficulties" ?

In the end your post is a lot more insulting and ad personam than anything I have said.

posted 11-19-98 05:08 PM ET            

"If you don't see the point in Maya's thread, you got some linguistic difficulties". My point is that this has more or less already been done, except the implication is a lack of reasoning power, not a lack of linguistic facility.

I understand the philosophy of those who find Maya's quote to be fulfilling or uplifting or whatever. I disagree with it. I do not disagree with it on religious grounds. I disagree with it on "aesthetic grounds".

I have no interest in attacking you personally. If you read my posts in this thread and the other religious threads, I think you will see that I have been a proponent of open debate on this issue, and debate on the issues, not the people involved.

I don't really have any interest in continuing these sorts of posts, either. I posted because you "cannot follow your interpretation of Maya's thread" and "can't understand the reason why he is offended". I thought that I would try to help you understand. Obviously, I've failed. As for this:

"This may be as non-religious in his view, I just can't follow that view". No, it's NOT non-religious in his view. It is as non-religious in his view as Maya's thread was, i.e. not at all. He felt that Maya's "non-religious" thread was religious, and insulting.

"It is usual on this board to refer to long or opinion-loaded posts as rants". I don't care how many people do something that can be misinterpreted, it can still be misinterpreted.

posted 11-20-98 12:16 PM ET            

First, you are right that context can frequently be used to give meaning to ambiguous words or phrases. However, when I read your posts in this thread I put them in a context of hostility towards Aga1's position (whether you intended it or not, that is how it came across to me), and therefore the context makes your position more "insulting", not less.

Even if a misinterpretation of your words is required to have a negative reaction to them, it is still possible. I believe that you said a couple of times that you didn't understand why Aga1 had the reaction he did. I suggest that he DID make that misinterpretation. It is an UNDERSTANDABLE misinterpretation to make.

' "Since you feel that my post was insulting to you, you also understand that those words can be used in an insulting manner." Don't you see the difference ?' Frankly, no. I used the words I did specifically because I was TRYING to provoke a reaction from you, saying almost the same thing that Maya did. Saying "you missed the point" of something implies that you are incapable of understanding that thing. I found that phrase of Maya's to be insulting in the context I read it in. I don't think Maya intended it that way, but humor is a dangerous business.

Since you seem to enjoy how I need to take a "tortured" interpretation of what you say to make my points, I'll show you some of your own:

"While this may be impossible for you to believe..."
Since "may" is not a certainty, I allow for the possibility (even probability) that you will believe it.

"don't bother" [to reply]...
This was more or less taken from Maya (with a bit of artistic license), so complain to her, not me, if you find the idea offensive.

"if..., you've got some linguistic difficulties."
In a conditional sentence, if the condition is not true then the other part does not hold. It was my hope that you WOULD understand, and I conditioned the "insult" on your lack of understanding. Since you can at least start to understand how that language can be insulting, the "linguistic difficulties" part wouldn't apply.

So, does that pedantic BS convince you not to be insulted? It probably shouldn't. You've got just as much right to be offended by my posts as anyone has to be offended by anyone's. That's my point.

posted 11-20-98 12:42 PM ET            

"So, does that pedantic BS convince you not to be insulted?"

Maybe it's a professional desease of mine to look at words too exactly. For example, I have said you could have been insulting etc; to get it clear, I am NOT insulted by your statements, I'm just bothered. I have also said your comments are more direct than anything I've said; I can very well see the meaning of your conditional statements: not _entirely_ direct, but still _more_ direct.

Again, I've never before run into someone with your interpretational skills on these boards (this is just a bit sarcastic, to make it clear, as is this very part in brackets - ah yes: ), but I agree with you on one thing: I stop the pedantic BS here.

Weekend, here I come...

posted 11-22-98 04:17 PM ET            

Some quotes from "This godless universe (nope, this is _not_ another religous thread!) =)":

Maya: "... I think that you completly missed the point of this text."
Roland: "If it just makes you feel lonely and nothing else, you have, as Maya said, (almost) "completly missed the point of this text"."
DJ RRebel: "...religious people can sometimes not comprehend..."
DJ RRebel: "You guys bring up good points, unfortunately you can't speak on behalf of all athiests though ... not even all athiests truly understand Maya's quote !!!"

[Aga1 enters the debate]

DJ RRebel: " If you have to ask those questions, then you've completely missed the entire point of the text !!!"
DJ RRebel: "My point is that religious mind is normally one who will not seek scientific enlightment !!!"

[Octopus enters and suggests that religious debates be carried out in the "Religion" threads, where there are well understood ground rules. Octopus also points out that he doesn't find Maya's text compelling.]

Maya: " Well, I guess the title of the thread wasn't clear enough..." [maybe we should judge a thread by its contents, not its title, eh Maya?]
DJ RRebel: "Octopus ... lol .. I guess you didn't read my other post then !!!" [indicating the post I have above about "not even all atheists"]
[DJ RRebel then goes into a discussion about how more intelligent people tend toward atheism]

Okay, so what's my problem? I consider myself to be a pretty intelligent person. When someone suggests that I didn't "get the point" or "comprehend" or "understand" something, I consider that to be an insult to my intelligence. I feel that if someone suggests that someone else didn't understand something, it is insulting to their intelligence. I feel that I also have a responsibility to the cause of Atheism to prevent our school of thought as coming across as a bunch of intellectual elitists (which happens all too often in debates about atheism). I consider the quotes above to be be insulting because they indicate that disgreement comes from a "lack of understanding". Personally, I find that form of argument to be highly inappropriate, and I never engage in it (at least not consciously).

I consider it good argumentative form to point out flaws in others reasoning. I consider it good form to show a logical argument for why one side's position is the correct one. I don't find it good form to be insulting to the opposition. I consider ineffective arguments to be pointless (no religious person is ever going to be convinced to abandon his or her religion because of atrocities carried out be other people who claim to be religious). I also find it unpleasant when arguments are not carried out in the appropriate places, because the venue frequently affects the debate. I would have preferred if Maya's text had been put into one of the openly religious threads, so that anyone would have felt completely free to post their responses to it. Failing that, I would have preferred it if Maya's thread had remained a quotes thread, and a separate "commentaries" thread had been started, where again anyone would have felt free to contribute. As it happened, I think that Aga1's reaction to Maya's thread was completely predictable (even if it wasn't what the people in "This Godless Universe" wanted), given that the thread HAD turned into another religious debate.

Now if any of you think it takes an extreme twisting of words to find "completely missed the point" insulting, then I guess I disagree with you. To me, that is insulting on its face, unless it is patently obvious that it wasn't intended. From the quotes above, I believe that the phrase was used by several people in a completely serious way. I can certainly understand why. I am a rational and reasonable person who has come to the conclusion that atheism is the correct philosophy. Therefore, that conclusion MUST be a rational and reasonable one (since a rational and reasonable person like myself arrived at it). In all my debates with religious people, I fight to keep those sorts of preconceptions from infecting my arguments.

Now, in fairness, some of the things I have said were a little harsh as well. "The atheist self-congratulation society was meeting there, discussing how short-sighted those who disagree are" was meant as a humorous exaggeration, and several atheists (I believe) didn't see it that way, but took offense at it. That is certainly their right, and I take full responsibility for what I posted. I, in fact, pointed this out to DCA in this thread.

Now, if any atheists who posted in the other thread want to say "but that's not what I MEANT", feel free to. But my point is: that is not how it comes across, at least to me. I don't think any verbal gymnastics are required to understand that. You will be a more effective advocate for your cause if you can understand the philosophy and potential reactions of your opponents.