Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Just a thought....




Just a thought. Carry on.
Posted by at

31 comments:

  1. Anna SetheDecember 11, 2008 at 6:15 AM

    I don't know. It's never good to forget parts of history.
    But what about taking him as serious as Homer? (not Simpson. I take Homer Simpson much more serious than Jesus...)

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousDecember 11, 2008 at 7:35 AM

    Tilia -

    That's an interesting question.

    Why not take him at least as serious as Homer, or Plato?

    What about taking him as serious (or more serious) than someone like Al Gore, who's man-made global warming is currently being disputed by over 31,000 scientists?

    How about Freud? The so-called 'father of psychology' has had many of his theories about the human psyche disproven. Which would you take more seriously - Jesus or Freud?

    Thanks for the intriguing question, Tilia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownDecember 11, 2008 at 7:50 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BeamStalkDecember 11, 2008 at 7:51 AM

    Socrates is a better example, especially if you want to go into the historicity of both people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WhatevermanDecember 11, 2008 at 7:52 AM

    As a first step in forgetting, I have today deleted Ray Comfort and Dan (Debunking Atheists) from my Favorites folder.

    Let the amnesia begin...

    ReplyDelete
  6. WhatevermanDecember 11, 2008 at 7:54 AM

    And by the way, I think that's a great idea, Tilia. Fundamentalism aside, I do think Jesus had ideas worth considering.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anna SetheDecember 11, 2008 at 8:02 AM

    laof,
    mentioning Freud just reminds me of my idea that everything bad comes from Austria...(I'm sort of part Austrian myself, so don't take me too serious on that.) I just don't like Freud, but luckily psychology moved on...

    I have no problems to look at Jesus as a kind of philosopher, maybe somehow like Sokrates (who didn't write anything himself, too).
    Both said some interesting things, in both cases we can't prove that they really said it or if their biographers just made it up to prove a point and both are more or less outdated. Thoughts evolve. Christianity was a big improvement compared to the bronze age cult of the old testament. But why still share the worldview of Paul and Peter?

    ReplyDelete
  8. nonmagicDecember 11, 2008 at 8:07 AM

    LOAF,

    I have a metric shit ton more evidence that Al Gore exists than that Jesus ever existed.

    Ditto for Freud.

    Who would I take more serious Jesus or Freud? Freud.

    Why? I've read both. Jesus, if he existed, was a prick.
    Freud may be have his prick-isk moments, but at least Freud tried to do some good in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. WhatevermanDecember 11, 2008 at 8:14 AM

    But why still share the worldview of Paul and Peter?

    I'm not a religious advocate, but if we view Christianity as a philosophy rather than the source of all truth, it becomes less "weird" that it would still have advocates.

    Platonists and Aristotelians still walk the Earth today (I myself see value in both but reject their fundamentals).

    ReplyDelete
  10. MiloDecember 11, 2008 at 8:24 AM

    Who says Jesus is part of history?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anna SetheDecember 11, 2008 at 9:29 AM

    milo,

    Who says Jesus is part of history?

    Personally, I don't care if Jesus was real or not (or how real he was), but people who believed he was real, had a big influence in European history. So I think he is part of history.

    ReplyDelete
  12. FroggieDecember 11, 2008 at 9:35 AM

    WeM,

    "I'm not a religious advocate, but if we view Christianity as a philosophy rather than the source of all truth, it becomes less "weird" that it would still have advocates."

    Well stated. That is quite thought provaking to me. Thanks.

    Now if the fundamentalists could look at it that way......

    ReplyDelete
  13. WhatevermanDecember 11, 2008 at 9:44 AM

    Froggie wrote Now if the fundamentalists could look at it that way......

    You and I both know this would be a cold day in hell indeed :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. ExPatMattDecember 11, 2008 at 11:02 AM

    WEM,

    "As a first step in forgetting, I have today deleted Ray Comfort and Dan (Debunking Atheists) from my Favorites folder."

    Having attempted to talk to Dan about evolution and reading his responses; I am extremely tempted to not return there either.....however, I can't help but hope that if the right combination of words were put in front of him, he may actually realize that evolution doesn't threaten his worldview - only the narrow, literalist version of it.

    We shall see.


    John, on the other hand, is a total lost cause and I may have to swear off his blog before I gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. WhatevermanDecember 11, 2008 at 11:12 AM

    EPM wrote I can't help but hope that if the right combination of words were put in front of him, he may actually realize that evolution doesn't threaten his worldview - only the narrow, literalist version of it.

    This is, really, the Holy Grail of those who criticize Debunking Atheists. It's what I was shooting for when I started reading and writing there.

    In the end, I'm getting sick of the sycophantic cheering for Sye, and of having to say the same things over and over again.

    I've tried, and something about Dan's last response to me put me over my limit. He doesn't deserve my civility any longer, but rather than demonstrate this, it's better if I just leave.

    Good luck there, 'Matt

    ReplyDelete
  16. MiloDecember 11, 2008 at 11:13 AM

    ExPatMatt,

    I agree with your assessment of John. What scares me is our government gives him a loaded gun to play with on weekends.

    ReplyDelete
  17. nonmagicDecember 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM

    Who is John?

    ReplyDelete
  18. ExPatMattDecember 11, 2008 at 11:24 AM

    NM,

    A walking, talking AIG apologetics machine.

    http://glorybetogod-john.blogspot.com/

    Thinks he can redefine science terminology based on Merriam-Webster dictionary listings

    Thinks that a list of creation 'scientists' proves...something

    Thinks there should be no separation of God from Government

    etc..

    Wait.

    Did I say 'thinks'?

    ReplyDelete
  19. MudleyDecember 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM

    I had forgotten... until you posted this.

    >:(

    ReplyDelete
  20. nonmagicDecember 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM

    LMFAO!!

    Ok, I had to see this guy's blog. From here:

    It's not hard to see what Paul is saying here. Those who say that the bible is just mens word can be assured by Pauls words.


    Sooo...if you think that the bible is just the word of man, be assured by this man named Paul that it isn't.

    That's xian logic at its brightest. Take the word of man that the bible is the word of a god.

    ReplyDelete
  21. FroggieDecember 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM

    WEM,
    "I've tried, and something about Dan's last response to me put me over my limit. He doesn't deserve my civility any longer, but rather than demonstrate this, it's better if I just leave."

    I've read a lot of your exchanges with Dan and I commend you for your fairness and civility. In fact, I was going to mention to you on a couple of occasions that I thought you were too accomodating, to the point where you defended him on a few points.

    Having said that, Dan has nothing to say that interests me anymore.
    He is trapped in his fractured logic.

    I can't tell you how funny I thought it was thazt Dan learned about Presuppositionalism about a week ago and now he is embracing it.

    This type of person will buy anything that seems to support their irrational beliefs.

    I would bet good money that Dan is the product of severe cultural conditioning from birth.

    It is a very rare occasion that these unfortunates can break the bonds of that type of conditioning.

    I do know a few that have pulled it off, and I consider them not only courageous, but heroic.

    When I sense that I am talking with a person like that I actually fear that if I would deconvert them that it may inflict even more harmful psychological damage to them since they have never developed normal coping skills and they would very defenseless without their crutch.

    ReplyDelete
  22. FroggieDecember 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM

    Ex,
    "A walking, talking AIG apologetics machine.....Thinks he can redefine science terminology based on Merriam-Webster dictionary listings."

    I know! What a jizzball!

    He is constantly blabbing that evolution is just a "Theory" by using the unscience venacular definition of the word.

    He absolutely refuses to see how the word is defined in it's scientific context. It's very stupid game he's playing but the funny part is that he thinks he's fooling somebody.

    ReplyDelete
  23. FroggieDecember 11, 2008 at 12:01 PM

    In fact, I wish I could get my hands around the neck of the person who coined the term scientific "theory." There must have been a better word to use to refer to the highest level of certainty of a scientific idea.

    What could we change that to?

    ReplyDelete
  24. ExPatMattDecember 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM

    NM,

    My thoughts exactly! In fact, my response was;

    "So, those who say the Bible was written by men can be assured by the fact that Paul (a man) wrote in the Bible that they can be assured that is wasn't written by men?

    Does it make you dizzy at all, going around in circles like this?"

    No response thus far.

    Froggie,

    I always try and use the term 'scientific explanation' but theory is so deeply ingrained that it's going to be tough to change.

    ReplyDelete
  25. MrFreeThinkerDecember 11, 2008 at 12:23 PM

    [This type of person will buy anything that seems to support their irrational beliefs.]
    Isn't that a bit of pot calling the kettle black?

    [I would bet good money that Dan is the product of severe cultural conditioning from birth.]
    He said that he used to be an atheist and fornicate and engage in other sinful activities.(until je was convicted by his guilt)

    ReplyDelete
  26. ExPatMattDecember 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM

    "He said that he used to be an atheist and fornicate"

    That's what they all say.

    ReplyDelete
  27. nonmagicDecember 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM

    MFT,

    Isn't that a bit of pot calling the kettle black?

    Explain what you mean by this and be precise.

    Also, don't run away from this question like you did the last one I asked you, unless your direct intention is to look like a coward. Then feel free.

    ReplyDelete
  28. nonmagicDecember 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM

    MFT said:

    He said that he used to be an atheist and fornicate and engage in other sinful activities.

    Pics or it didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  29. FroggieDecember 11, 2008 at 12:52 PM

    "Isn't that a bit of pot calling the kettle black?"

    No, the pot has the predominence of the evidence on it's side. The kettle has none.

    ReplyDelete
  30. BeamStalkDecember 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM

    "MFT said:

    He said that he used to be an atheist and fornicate and engage in other sinful activities.

    Pics or it didn't happen."

    Do you really want pics of dipshit Dan like that?

    ReplyDelete
  31. nonmagicDecember 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM

    Beam,

    LOL, absolutely not! I was joking!


    But then...how can I be absolutely sure I was joking...Ok, I'm gonna stop.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)