Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:07 am**

Cybrweez wrote:HLT, others have expanded on my original point. It seems you're the only one who really thinks there is no difference. There's a big differfence when no one even claims that some story is true, and another claims eye witness accounts and has actually affected people for millenia. The fact you don't believe the eyewitness accounts is a different matter. iow, just show me the eyewitness accounts of santa and the group of people who look out their windows in anticipation of his coming.

"eye witness accounts" from over 2000 years ago written over a hundred years after Jesus died by people that weren't even alive when Jesus was alive.
Santa, St Nick, was a real person.
Hence the whole "Saint" thing.
If anything Santa has more credibility.

Do you have any evidence of anyone seeing Jesus in the last 2000 years?
Thousands of people say they do.
Are they more believable than an 8 year old that swears he saw Santa on Christmas Eve?
Thousands show up to look at the image of the Virgin Mary that appears in a window as a shadow shape or on a piece of toast.
Is their belief of a manifestation of Mary more or less credible than Santa?

The only difference about what people have been told about Jesus in the last 2000 years and the story of Santa is......I have no idea. Sounds like the same train of thought. Brainwash the young.

I'm not trying to convince you that Santa is real but showing you that to many the claims associated with Jesus are also just a ludicrous.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:39 am**

aliantha wrote: My second question didn't have anything to do with Santa. Read it again: "Is there a difference to you between Muhammad and the Buddha? Why not?" My point was that a Christian wouldn't see much of a difference at all between Muhammad and Buddha -- they're founders of religions that he or she doesn't follow and probably doesn't know much about. But a Muslim or a Buddhist would be baffled, and perhaps even offended, at the Christian's cavalier treatment of his or her holy man. And almost to a person, the Christian will not be able to figure out why the other person is so upset.

I suppose religious people of *all* stripes have these types of blinders on. They think everybody should respect their own gods, but have very little interest in respecting the gods of others.

Ali, I think your assumption somewhat unfair. It seems to assume the uneducated Christian - who really may not be aware of any differences. But to the person who IS aware of those differences, it is not difficult to see that they must result in quite different, even opposite world views. A religion where God is One, not Three, a monolithic absolute master of Creation cannot possibly be confused with a religion that denies God altogether and seeks truth within the self, by all the Christians who know even only these most basic facts.

Don't paint us all with the brush of the ignorant rube fundamentalist from the Bible Belt.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:07 am**

I would like to go on record to say that Santa has done just as much for me as Jesus. And all Santa wanted was cookies and milk- not fingers in my wallet.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:17 am**

Zarathustra wrote:
Cybrweez wrote:I like everyone's definition of indoctrination - learning something you don't agree with. Of course, we never indoctrinate others ourselves, b/c we're only telling them the truth. Its everyone else saying something different that indoctrinates. I find it a bulletproof concept, and I'll take it and run with it.
That's not my definition.

Glad you raised this again, I'd meant to comment.

Of course we're indoctrinated, and of course we indoctrinate. The trick is realising you've been indoctrinated. Every social interaction, every depiction of a social interaction, indoctrinates us with the way society expects us to behave/think/feel/etc.

As long as you know this, as long as you recognise the reason that we are taught to behave or think in certain ways, its hold on you is ameliorated.

Once we recognise it for what it is, we're much freer to act on our own, either in line with, or contrary to, that indoctrination.

--A

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:58 am**

Avatar wrote:
Zarathustra wrote:
Cybrweez wrote:I like everyone's definition of indoctrination - learning something you don't agree with. Of course, we never indoctrinate others ourselves, b/c we're only telling them the truth. Its everyone else saying something different that indoctrinates. I find it a bulletproof concept, and I'll take it and run with it.
Glad you raised this again, I'd meant to comment.
Of course we're indoctrinated, and of course we indoctrinate. The trick is realising you've been indoctrinated. Every social interaction, every depiction of a social interaction, indoctrinates us with the way society expects us to behave/think/feel/etc.
As long as you know this, as long as you recognise the reason that we are taught to behave or think in certain ways, its hold on you is ameliorated.

Once we recognise it for what it is, we're much freer to act on our own, either in line with, or contrary to, that indoctrination.

--A

Av, you know what, we actually agree on something.

But I really believe that most people are really not much aware of what exactly their own indoctrination was. I went to public school - up to the 8th grade, and then my mom put us all in a Baptist school. And one things for sure - that school shouted it's indoctrination from the rooftops, and that it was indoctrination. Having been a certified public school teacher, I can say that the public school system - in NY and CA (two somewhat important states, don't you think?) from my personal experience as a teacher definitely indoctrinate, have a definite philosophy that they impart fanatically yet desperately deny that they hold any philosophy and claim to embrace all beliefs - something I'll bet many here actually believe, although I saw the complete contrary over my time as a teacher in the US.

The fundamental values that we hold and do not actually question are the hint that this is the case. Who here actually questions diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism, a right to happiness (or even it's pursuit), the supremacy of the individual? And I mean real thought, not quick answers.

I've mentioned CS Lewis quite a few times. I was 38 years old before I encountered him and he began teaching me to think for myself and to become consciously aware of what my premises are and on what basis I hold them. Before that time I flowed along with the world. I would've agreed with many of you on many things that I am now infamous here for daring to disagree with. I was rolling along with the indoctrination I continued to receive over my adult life from the media (and things I loved like Star Trek, which is also via the media, but the muddled philosophy of which had a profound impact on my own philosophy, likewise muddled from my early
years)

(Lewis) really was like Morpheus offering me the red pill - and I finally began
to really think for myself. And if there is any doubt of that, consider that I generally stand nearly completely alone against the vast majority here. It makes laughable the charges of blind faith and unthinking belief that are periodically leveled against me and my fellow believers.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:25 am**

Rus wrote:The fundamental values that we hold and do not actually question are the hint that this is the case. Who here actually questions diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism, a right to happiness (or even it's pursuit), the supremacy of the individual? And I mean real thought, not quick answers.

Of course we should question our fundamental values. We should question everything. But your assumption seems to be that because we subscribe to those ideals, we can't have questioned them sufficiently.

--A

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:46 am**

Avatar wrote:
Rus wrote:The fundamental values that we hold and do not actually question are the hint that this is the case. Who here actually questions diversity, tolerance, multiculturalism, a right to happiness (or even it's pursuit), the supremacy of the individual? And I mean real thought, not quick answers.
Of course we should question our fundamental values. We should question everything. But your assumption seems to be that because we subscribe to those ideals, we can't have questioned them sufficiently.

--A

I really believe most people haven't. When I read a debate or discussion of fifty or a hundred years ago, and find the same ideas expressed, and then see them thoroughly refuted, I see that there is nothing new under the sun. (tempted to mention the book of Ecclesiastes, but won't)

Just look at Harbinger, Finn, or Z or anyone expressing the most primitive understandings of faith, and talking as if there is no other understanding than these recent ones hardly 200 years old (10% of Christian history). If you can see that, then you will see that my assumption IS reasonable, at least as applied to some people here.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:34 am**

This post may veer slightly off the current topic.

I know you like to use the argument that the majority of Christianity these days is very far removed from the original faith and the teachings in the bible; I agree with you on that point, and indeed, I agree that Orthodox Christianity is most likely the closest that exists now to the religion as it was understood and practiced back in the 5th century or earlier.

However, while you hold up the reforms and changes that have caused other forms to deviate from the original church as evidence of how they do not represent true christianity, I do not think I've seen you address the same issues as regards Orthodoxy.

There are a number of fundamental tenets of Orthodoxy that were not dictated directly in scripture or through revelation, but were the result of voting by the early ecumenical councils, and subject to the very strong influence of the Byzantine Roman Emperors (sometimes directly, often through their selection of Patriarchs). The veneration of the Theotokos, and the specific nature of the relationships between father, son, and holy spirit, are among those things which came from this influence. Had the balance of power during certain periods of internal struggle in the Eastern Roman Empire been different, the Orthodox church could now hold wildly different opinions on the veneration of icons, to give another easy example. (Sainthood itself is a holdover from the pre-Christian Roman practice of deification of individuals.)

How do you see your faith aligning with these things? Did you consider and simply conclude that you agreed with the interpretation of scripture by the councils? Or do you accept the position of the early church that the voting of an ecumenical council is infallible and guided by god? The latter is a position I would consider difficult to defend, having no more evidence than the claim by the RCC that the decisions of the Pope are infallible.

[I fear I may just be exposing a deeper ignorance in myself with this line of questioning (I admit my own knowledge of the subject doesn't go far), but I hope that you can be provoked to give us a deeper understanding of how you see your own participation in the Orthodox faith.]

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:43 pm**

Hoping I haven't derailed Murrin's question, which is a good one, and recognizing all of this is way off-topic (sorry, Z

):

Harbinger wrote:I would like to go on record to say that Santa has done just as much for me as Jesus. And all Santa wanted was cookies and milk- not fingers in my wallet.

Rus, my comment wasn't an assumption -- it was an observation. And you are probably the worst offender.

rus: ali, what you said about Jesus is blasphemy according to the OC.

ali: I'm not Christian. Jesus isn't my god; therefore it's not blasphemy for me. Why should I respect your god when you won't give mine the same respect?

rus: Because the OC is The Truth. Your gods don't exist. No wait, they're demons.

ali: Leaving aside the Christian Church's practice of demonizing earlier religions to shore up its own position in the world...do you understand that you are blaspheming my gods when you tell me they are demons?

rus: That's pluralism. I reject pluralism. The only Truth is the OC.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Do you see why I'm talking about blinders? You guys are incapable of stepping out of your own worldview far enough to truly understand anybody else's.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:48 pm**

That would be because not accepting other views is part of the worldview they hold. You're not going to change things by chiding them for it. (And by this I don't mean to suggest that changing things is necessarily something to strive towards, as that itself can be disrespectful.)

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:23 pm**

rusmeister wrote: (Lewis) really was like Morpheus offering me the red pill - and I finally began to really think for myself.

I actually had the same experience once I started reading Robert Anton Wilson's "non-fiction." I put that in quotes because I do recognize him as a kook that does occasionally play tricks with the reader. I wouldn't say every book of his with the label non-fiction is completely fiction free.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:18 pm**

Murrin wrote:That would be because not accepting other views is part of the worldview they hold. You're not going to change things by chiding them for it. (And by this I don't mean to suggest that changing things is necessarily something to strive towards, as that itself can be disrespectful.)

I do than you for this, Murrin. I don't expect sudden agreement, but i do want better understanding. I'd be happy if people like those I mentioned would stop talking about my faith as something stupid, as something that hasn't thought about the reasonable objections raised here. And yes, it is incredible to me that people who can read SRD cannot grasp that if someone believes a particular world view to be actually the correct view, and others to have only incomplete pieces of truth, then logically, they cannot also act as if the other world views are equal in worth, though they might respect what is true in them. I think Christianity doesn't get even that incomplete respect from some of the atheist crowd here. I do not think unbelief to be merely simple or mindless, but I do think Christians here offer at least that incomplete respect to atheism. So a comment like Murrin's shows me that this isn't necessarily true of all unbelievers here.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:26 pm**

aliantha wrote:Hoping I haven't derailed Murrin's question, which is a good one, and recognizing all of this is way off-topic (sorry, Z ):

Harbinger wrote:I would like to go on record to say that Santa has done just as much for me as Jesus. And all Santa wanted was cookies and milk- not fingers in my wallet.

Rus, my comment wasn't an assumption -- it was an observation. And you are probably the worst offender.

rus: ali, what you said about Jesus is blasphemy according to the OC.

ali: I'm not Christian. Jesus isn't my god; therefore it's not blasphemy for me. Why should I respect your god when you won't give mine the same
respect?

rus: Because the OC is The Truth. Your gods don't exist. No wait, they're demons.

ali: Leaving aside the Christian Church's practice of demonizing earlier religions to shore up its own position in the world...do you understand that you are blaspheming my gods when you tell me they are demons?

rus: That's pluralism. I reject pluralism. The only Truth is the OC.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Do you see why I'm talking about blinders? You guys are incapable of
stepping out of your own worldview far enough to truly understand anybody else's.

No, Ali, the blinders are not mine. Your mischaracterization only proves that your observation is a false one. I said what I said precisely because I do grasp difference between Islam and Buddhism, when you effectively said that none of us do.

What's the use of trying to say anything to you if after all these years you still fail to understand me?

When you say "respect", it would appear that you mean, "treat as equal", "hold a certain level of doubt about my own faith being true". I can understand why you would want that, but that is a call, not for respect, but for skepticism.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:45 pm**

aliantha wrote:
rus: ali, what you said about Jesus is blasphemy according to the OC.

ali: I'm not Christian. Jesus isn't my god; therefore it's not blasphemy for me. Why should I respect your god when you won't give mine the same respect?

rus: Because the OC is The Truth. Your gods don't exist. No wait, they're demons.

ali: Leaving aside the Christian Church's practice of demonizing earlier religions to shore up its own position in the world...do you understand that you are blaspheming my gods when you tell me they are demons?

rus: That's pluralism. I reject pluralism. The only Truth is the OC.

rus: Your gods don't exist. No wait, they're demons.

What thread was that from?
And can someone explain to me why this fool hasn't been banned yet for making comments like that?

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 pm**

I believe that was not intended to be a direct quote, but rather an attempt by Ali to condense about 99 pages of back and forth (and counting only the current thread).

One need look no further than the man's sig line, however, to see the succinct version.

rus' signature wrote:"Eh? Two views? There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one." Bill Hingest ("That Hideous Strength" by C.S. Lewis)

He knows the answer. It is the OC faith. End of story. Everything else is just convincing us he is just as 100% Right as he already knows himself to be -- and if that won't work, at least convincing us that he isn't a kook for believing what he does.

The rub-- apparently it's very difficult to ingratiate onesself with those whose fundamental beliefs you categorically reject, when you have the added certainty that unless they turn from the path they are on, they are headed over a cliff of immorality, and clearly intend to take all of modern human society with it. So urgent, fervent, earnest... and very easily dismissed as zealous and alarmist, sort of like Peter without The Wolf.

dw

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:44 pm**

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:I believe that was not intended to be a direct quote, but rather an attempt by Ali to condense about 99 pages of back and forth (and counting only the current thread).

Exactly. It's the Reader's Digest version, if you will.

rusmeister wrote:When you say "respect", it would appear that you mean, "treat as equal", "hold a certain level of doubt about my own faith being true". I can understand why you would want that, but that is a call, not for respect, but for skepticism.

One more time: I wrote for a living for 20 years. I'm pretty good at meaning what I say. I ask you to respect that other people hold other beliefs than yours. I don't care whether you believe those beliefs to be valid, or beneath yours in the pecking order*. I personally don't care if you question your own beliefs or not -- I'm not trying to take them away from you. I'm just asking for the same courtesy from you.

*Don't think I didn't catch your religious ranking awhile back, even tho I didn't say anything about it at the time. I was glad to see that you'd put NeoPagans above atheists and agnostics, tho I thought we ought to be above those infidel Muslims at least.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:56 pm**

Yes dukkha, you're exactly right. That's why Jesus said the world will hate you. But wait, Jesus preached such good things right? If you follow Him, why would the world hate you?

Simple - b/c you would then believe they are all wrong. Not just about some little fact that is irrelevant, but about their world view, how they imagine the world "works". And look here how much it pisses people off. rus is "rude", or "arrogant", for only one reason - he believes his world view is correct and the rest are wrong. Others here profess the same, Z for instance (and I may even remember rus commending him for that), yet none get the abuse that rus does. Recently, harbinger and HLT are good examples - Jesus is myth, believing anything written about him is ridiculous and silly. Silence in response, or agreement. But wait, are you saying its wrong? How arrogant! How rude!

Talk about blinders.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:02 pm**

Sir Isaac Newton wrote:Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:09 pm**

Cybrweez wrote:Yes dukkha, you're exactly right. That's why Jesus said the world will hate you. But wait, Jesus preached such good things right? If you follow Him, why would the world hate you?

Simple - b/c you would then believe they are all wrong. Not just about some little fact that is irrelevant, but about their world view, how they imagine the world "works". And look here how much it pisses people off. rus is "rude", or "arrogant", for only one reason - he believes his world view is correct and the rest are wrong. Others here profess the same, Z for instance (and I may even remember rus commending him for that), yet none get the abuse that rus does. Recently, harbinger and HLT are good examples - Jesus is myth, believing anything written about him is ridiculous and silly. Silence in response, or agreement. But wait, are you saying its wrong? How arrogant! How rude!

Talk about blinders.

Why don't you try to respond to harbinger and HLT? Or the points they make? You're dodging the argument when it suits you and you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

Posted: **Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:14 pm**

rus said that about the demons. Second page of the Sold My Soul... thread. (Can't quote it while on my son's PSP. heh)

Kevin's Watch

Atheist Children