"can someone tell me what question I am dodging?

Or how in fucks name Obi did not start this discussion?"

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..........

Sorry, everyone fell asleep from boredom at your ramblings or else ceased caring about them posts and posts ago.

I'm just up late (early?) killing time and watching some Dickens...and enjoying some wine (Chardonnay, not bad, I think I preferred the amontillado, but there's a place for both...see, even rambling about alcohol is more interesting than the SC Troll Game...then again, what isn't improved with a bit of alcohol? Was it not Homer, yes, the great Homer J. Simpson who said--"TO BEER! THE CAUSE OF--AND SOLUTION TO--ALL OF LIFE'S PROBLEMS!" Words of wisdom...you could learn from that, SC, aspire to be as wise and learned as Homer J.)

"By order of Godwin's Law, you hereby lose the troll argument."

Godwins law was broken on page 3 buddy. Around the same page where you brought up this fucking argument.

"Or do you want to keep prattling on and trolling us along and along? If you are, can you come up with some more interesting and original material? Only thing worse than a troll is a tedious, repetitive, un-creative troll..."

I was trolling krellin, Then I was making an argument that noone particularly liked, if you don't like me going over the same things, you might want to not saying the same fucking thing yourself every time.

Or you could have avoided BRINGING UP THE ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE

OK guys, though I promise I don't give a rats ass. I am going to be the impartial judge and settle this shit for you. I"m gonna look back and determine who brought it up first so you can both quit whining like children.

The cases are real. The people are real. My ruling is final.

No whining.

"you yourself define your terms," especially since you didn't bother to do so until a half hour ago. "

Um, history, and I am assuming most other humanities. The first and second paragraphs you define your terms. Critics can have issues with your definitions but everyone defines their terms.

I defined my term because I think the webster dictionary definition is completely ridiculous in this context AND I was working under a different working definition the entire time.

IF the definition of genocide includes the partial systematic deftruction of an ethnic group, then yes, it is Genocide. But I think that definition in context is ridiculous. What ancient war was not genocide in that context. Today we can say the munich bombing was not a genocide because the people were defined by a nation state not an ethnicity (although we were killing exclusively Germans). Because that label didn't exist in ancient times is every war a Genocide while Munich and Dresden any different?

If a partial systematic destruction of an Ethnicity is indeed Genocide in the bronze age, then yes it was genocide without a doubt, but I think that definition is silly.

LOL, your response...

"You brought up this argument! You! You! You!"
"Everyone's bored, SC."
"You! You! You!"
"You're not exactly thrilling us with a plethora of persuasive powers here, SC."
"YOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!"
"What is your argument for--"
"SAYING IT OVER AND OVER MAKES IT SO YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU!!!"

Ah, the guy said Pip has "Great Expectations!"

:D

Isn't that great, when the title of something's said in the work itself...it's like waiting for the title of a Bond film to be said in-movie...it's just so satisfying!

Sorry, what'd I miss?

"YYYYOOOOOOUUUUUU!"

Oh, right. Nothing substantial or new or remotely interesting or valid then. OK. :)

"No whining. "

If I win

I maintain SC's quote implied it, YJ, given the context of the previous forum posts to which said quote refers.

But, again--at this point, more interested than DVD and drink than a troll fight with SC.

ah so now you are changing what you actually said. So you never denied it in your words, let alone forcefully denied it several times. Its beautiful watching it work.

"If I win"

If he loses--"YYYYOOOOOOUUUUUU!"

O.o

weren't you leaving to watch something pretentious while drinking a warm glass of milk.

Yeah you brought it up first obi when you said "perverted reading of Samuel 1."

SC wins, qq both of you, drink a warm glass of milk and go to bed.

lol @ warm glass SC. I wonder if i saw that out of the corner of my eye and it made me write it. I do that all the time.

Yes, I did see that he said on page 2 something about "obi being wrong about the bible before" but that's really not enough to go on. NO WHINING.

Alright, if that's the ruling...may I at least have, YJ, the agreement that my statement WAS precipitated by his comment beforehand?

If not--ah well, SC can gloat, I'll simply have to live with having a life, wine...

And not being the one who advocated for genocide, infanticide, and so on.

But I'll concede the "who first" game if YJ says that's the ruling. :)

>this thread
http://hypnothai.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/scarjo_popcorn.gif

Do you just have your popcorn gifs bookmarked, PE?

lol I'm sure it was, obi. But I'm betting if it weren't 5:30 in the morning you wouldn't be caring about my affirmation one way or the other.

God knows I wouldn't be here giving it at a reasonable hour.

I have the links tattooed to my arms.

^LOL, true...

@FD:

ID deserves recognition, but not in science. Evolution is stuck with Zeno's paradox, by definition. But evidence consistently presents itself, filling gaps, and defending evolution as a consistent and comprehensive theory that fully explains the diversity of life. For this reason, science adheres to evolution.

However, ID is interesting as a philosophical problem. Suppose, for example, there were some gap for which no evidence were ever uncovered? One example might be the emergence of sexual reproduction. My understanding (admittedly ~10 years out of date) is that there are three or four competing hypotheses, and it may be that we never have sufficient evidence for one to dominate. In that case, evolution proposes _possibilities_, but not an answer.

Philosophically, there is room to say that evolution does not have an answer because it simply is not what happened. There is room for ID, therefore, in this case. The problem in saying that ID is science is that it wants to insert itself in the absence of evidence. ID is a possibility, sure. But it isn't (and could not be) scientific because science can't work with the requirement that no evidence could ever turn up.

To become a scientific hypothesis, its proponents need to phrase the problem in a way for which new evidence could be discovered to support or undermine it. But they have not done so. For example, Prof. Behe's original examples of irreducible complexity have all been resolved (some of them were actually known at the time that he raised the question -- though, since he is in a different field, this is somewhat forgivable, IMO). If he had based ID, as an hypothesis, on those examples, ID would be debunked, at this point. But he didn't! So it is not debunked, except insofar as the scientific community is concerned. Instead, he has positioned it as an idea that is, in fact, undefeatable, scientifically. No scientific idea is undefeatable. Ergo, ID is not a scientific idea.

The recognition that ID should receive is as a philosophical enigma. "How can we know that there is no extra-evolutionary fiddling around with DNA between generations?" It is useful, therefore, as an exercise in thinking about epistemology (the limits of human knowledge and knowability). But it is not a science, and won't become one, as long as the current generation of ID proponents are running the show, because they won't express ID scientifically.

Holy cow! I read the first page and responded without seeing that there were FIVE MORE PAGES of comments! Sorry peeps.

You are arguing about people who lived thousands of years ago, in an age where the morals are very different from what they are today.

For example, in Babylon it was the law that sons who hit their fathers get their hands chopped off, and architects whose houses fell down were executed. If you look at the customs of ancient people in modern terms then you will always find a lot to fault, but that is completely normal.

There is no doubt that the Israelites committed what we consider nowadays as genocide. But do not look upon them evilly. They did what was normal during their time. Learn from their mistakes and go forward.

I should say however, that this argument certainly does not condone more recent genocides, such as Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews. These events happened in a time when genocide as an act of war was disavowed.

Except this book is supposed to be a timeless tale of moral instruction. If morals change and are subjective, then we can dismiss the Bible as a sadistic tale of military triumphalism, followed by a story about a bizarre apocalyptic Egyptian sorcerer who claimed to be god in human form.

I never said I agreed with the proposition that the Bible is a source of everlasting moral authority. Personally, I am not religious. I was merely looking at it from a historical standpoint. I feel that the most reasonable way to be a Christian is to look at the Bible, understand the background behind the actions and words of the biblical figures, and pick the good ideas and follow them. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has been explaining and refining Catholicism over the ages and while they often do not come to the correct conclusions, they don't treat the Bible 'as is', and this is an attitude that I believe is good. After all, there are some values that are universal and are as morally appropriate 2000 years ago as they are now, and some that have been superseded or disavowed.

I absolutely condemn the excesses and crimes some Catholic clergymen have committed. I'm not talking about their specific actions but rather their view that the Bible is not an absolute font of authority.

I do realise this is a very loose interpretation of the Bible. It is much harder to defend the fundamentalists, and if you should argue that the fundamentalist approach is wrong, I wholeheartedly agree.

We have plenty of better sources of moral authority than the Bible, and really the Bible - both loose & strict interpretations of it, has inspired very little that isn't evil. It does more harm than good. Today people are trying to force vile biblical notions of morality on the rest of us, and they can't hide behind the excuse that the vast array of crimes glorified in the bible are from a different time so they cannot be held against it. The bible has no business being used as a guide for social behavior. It's a despicable book.

1. We have plenty of better sources of moral authority than the Bible

True.

2. and really the Bible - both loose & strict interpretations of it, has inspired very little that isn't evil. It does more harm than good.

I am afraid that I cannot agree there: Christians have done many good works including numerous charities and funding community services such as schools and hospitals.
I want to defend Christian-denominated schools here: I have been to them for 11 years in Hong Kong and their curriculum is secular, except for a standalone class called 'religious studies' where the ideas of Christianity are taught (but not purported to be fact). Also sermons take place during some assembly periods but it is viewed by most students as a formality. So please don't tell me that all Christian schools are places of indoctrination and brainwashing.

3. Today people are trying to force vile biblical notions of morality on the rest of us

Of course, there has been much evil that has been brought about by people who rely on the Bible as argument, but such people who wish to dominate others and exert authority will grasp onto any form of argument to justify themselves. The Nazis didn't use the Bible as their fount of authority, but nonetheless wrought unimaginable evil, and tried to force their doctrine upon the whole of Europe. Ultimately I believe it is the human desire to impose their beliefs upon others, not the Bible specifically that causes indoctrination.

4. and they can't hide behind the excuse that the vast array of crimes glorified in the bible are from a different time so they cannot be held against it.

It depends on interpretation. If preached literally, I wholeheartedly agree with you - it is indeed hypocritical that you read the words condemning gay marriage, claiming that 'That is the word of God, and so gay marriage is evil' and then ignore the next paragraph that mandates slavery. I hate fundamentalists too, and I suspect that they raise your ire too.
If we look at mainstream Christianity, it can be clearly seen that the main focus is love. Jesus is stated as saying that the two most important commandments are to love God and to love your neighbours as you love yourself. The first one is understandable seeing as this is a religion, and if you have a problem with other people's own beliefs I cannot say anything. The second one is generally treated by Christians nowadays as the pillar of how to treat other people. Of course it does not require a holy book to tell you that - in China Confucius, a few centuries before Jesus, had a similar idea, and it is also obvious from an atheist standpoint. If we look at Christianity from this angle, focusing on the main idea of brotherly love as most Christians do, it doesn't seem as threatening does it :)

5. The bible has no business being used as a guide for social behavior.

If you mean not necessary, that's fine. I believe that were all the copies of the Bible destroyed some centuries ago the core teachings and ideas of Christianity today would not be much changed. So even from a Christian standpoint, while it would be nice to have a book that guides you on how to treat others, it isn't strictly necessary. From an atheist standpoint it is self evident.

6. It's a despicable book.

If you mean the glorious bloodbath and extreme laws in the Old Testament, certainly. I have no idea why people still study the Old Testament for religious purposes - I think its main purpose should be to provide a background to the events in the New Testament.
Assuming you follow the text of the New Testament, it is true that Jesus and his disciples sometimes said things that we would find unacceptable today. But it isn't at the level of 'despicable' wherein you would treat it like Mein Kampf.

I hope I have addressed your arguments fully. Naturally, it is hard to change anyone's minds, but who doesn't like some mental stimulation now and then?

@krellin - I'm not sure if this preacher or anyone is saying that being gay and being black are the same. I think what he is trying to say is that people who discriminate often use arguements that are taken from the bible that don't stand up very well to scrutiny. It doesn't matter IMHO if someone 'choices' their lifestyle or not. I don't happen to accept your premise that homosexuality is a choice, but let's run with it anyway. Fat people, or ginger haired people or woman, could choose to slim, dye their hair or have a strapadictomy, but why should they? Should it is better for them not to suffer discrimination so they don't have to?

Gobbledy, thanks for addressing my post. I'll try to be as fair.

"Christians have done many good works including numerous charities and funding community services such as schools and hospitals."

Let's not get carried away about Christian hospitals. My wife works for a Christian hospital, and like all so-called "non-profit" hospitals their records are online for all to see. These tax exempt "good works" make billions in profits. Their executives/management make absurd amounts of money in bonuses and salaries. The hospital my wife works for is currently pushing through changes which would take away people's retirements and force employees to pay through the nose for their already substandard health insurance. These are businesses. They aren't good works. It is widely reported that they do very little in actual charity care to low income people, which is the very reason they get their coveted tax exempt status.

As for Christian schools, I'll take your word for it that your school in Hong Kong was decent. How many aren't. I won't say all focus on indoctrination but a lot of them do. And Christians in general are doing serious damage to science education in the United States. Again, I hate anecdotal evidence, but my wife went to a Catholic high school. They taught abstinence only sex education, to the extent they talked about sex at all. The openly preached against abortion, and fired a teacher for being lesbian. They also mandated theology class, which was more indoctrination.

I'm not saying all schools are like that, but our hypotheticals don't really provide information about the broader trends. Christian schools also get away with not providing services to special needs kids, and being selective about who they admit, which is how theyre able to claim they're supposedly better at instruction than public schools.

"The Nazis didn't use the Bible as their fount of authority, but nonetheless wrought unimaginable evil"

European fascist movements around Europe portrayed themselves as defenders of Christianity, the Nazis included.

Francisco Franco said:

"“Adolf Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many were found to exalt his life. Over his mortal remains stands his victorious moral figure. With the palm of the martyr, God gives Hitler the laurels of Victory.”"

Francisco Franco called Hitler a defender of Christianity, and Franco is hailed as a Christian hero even today, by mainstream conservative publications like the National Review. He was certainly hailed by the Pope. The Croats, arguably worse than the Nazis on a per capita basis, were vehemently Catholic and the church was tightly interwoven with the Ustasha regime. The Vatican signed a Concordat with the NSDAP. The Lutheran Church was also very cooperative.

I know there has been some revisionism trying to portray the NSDAP as pagan or even atheist. It's not even slightly true. SA members were required to attend Christian services in uniform, and Nazi belts said "Gott mit uns". Church attendance skyrocketed under NSDAP leadership.

"If we look at Christianity from this angle, focusing on the main idea of brotherly love as most Christians do, it doesn't seem as threatening does it :)"

Except it's highly questionable whether that's either the main idea in the NT or the principle followed by most Christians. I'll give you the best example. While Christians might want to claim that its only fringe "fundamentalists" who oppose gay rights in the US, the fact is frequent church goers oppose gay marriage by an overwhelming majority, around 75%. The only "religious" group in America in which a majority supports same-sex marriage are people without any religious affiliation.

Now, you can claim that Christianity isn't about attending services, but I think that's about as true as me claiming being a Communist isn't about paying dues or attending meetings. The fact is church attendance reflects religious conviction, and is a central part of the faith. If the people who are most Christian in actions are the least tolerant or accepting of brotherly love, then the whole notion that Christianity is a guide to brotherly love goes out the window.

"But it isn't at the level of 'despicable' wherein you would treat it like Mein Kampf. "

It has abysmal proscriptions for practically every issue that it bothers to touch on, particularly social equality. It was used as the principle means of argument in defense of slavery, while slavery's opponents were almost exclusively atheists, freethinkers, and nonconformists of various types. It's attitudes toward women are indefensible. It really has very little than can interpreted in a positive light, and whatever positive can be gained from it is really overwhelmed by all the damage it has done.