The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

[busterman62]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Finally caught up with this thread. Great reading.

Side A is attempting to define what side B is/does/thinks while side B is PO'd because they are not that way. Meanwhile,Side B is attempting to define what side A is/does/thinks while side A is PO'd because they are not that way. Both side A and side B are upset because the can't understand why the other side is incapable of simply accepting the definition given them since it's clearly the correct one. Apply. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Please carry on, I just refilled my popcorn bowl

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

As with Lynah's angle, Unicef and Doctors without borders are not atheist charities.

Out of all this, Foundations Beyond Belief appears to be the only legitimate one. It was only founded in 2011...very late in the charitable process. Also they are on track to do $4m this year...which puts the whole foundation on par with a single good sized Christian donation. So no, I would not call charity a natural atheist trait. Good to see someone caught fire...and I hope other atheists get tired of the comparison. Its definitely welcome and here's hoping the 7 million member atheism movement takes it beyond this effort going forward.

Serious questions about how We are Atheism/Atheists giving Aid have handled their $61k in 2013 donations...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...4cd9ba-d25f-11e4-8b1e-274d670aa9c9_story.html

2013 we are atheism tax statement...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...zbuaAP&usg=AFQjCNGnxGVzZI_zyPL2dMBCXs4-sSGcXg

UNICEF was founded by Ludwik Rajchman, born and raised agnostic, though his family is descended from "assimilated Polish Jews." He was sort of a switch hitter in this discussion.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So you're willing to separate the atheist from his acts, saying they weren't because of his atheism. Meanwhile everything good done by Christians is because of their Christianity. (Though conversely, anything bad done by a Christian is because they aren't really a Christian).

And the founding fathers were from countries and a time where it was a crime not to be Christian. Nothing bolsters the faith like the penalty of imprisonment or death for blasphemy.

Professed atheists make up roughly 3% of the U.S. population. Christians make up 70%. The growing "unaffiliated" (17% and rising) almost certainly are people like me who were raised Christian and have fallen away for whatever reason. Point being, in a country that was 90%+ Christian as recently as 25 years ago, it's disingenuous to ascribe everything good that happens to the religion without similarly ascribing everything that goes bad to that religion as well. If Christianity is the cause of the U.S.'s strength, it is also the cause of its darksides. If Christianity gave us NASA, it also gave us McCarthyism.

And in a country that would elect a gay Hispanic Muslim before a professed atheist, it's hardly surprising that most people don't flaunt their atheism in the public sphere. The lack of atheist specific charities is not an indictment on atheism any more than the lack of video game specific charities is an indictment of anyone who plays video games.

If 10% of donations to charity X come from atheists, who only make up three percent of the population, dis it matter what religion, if any, charity X is affiliated with?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Finally caught up with this thread. Great reading.

Side A is attempting to define what side B is/does/thinks while side B is PO'd because they are not that way. Meanwhile,Side B is attempting to define what side A is/does/thinks while side A is PO'd because they are not that way. Both side A and side B are upset because the can't understand why the other side is incapable of simply accepting the definition given them since it's clearly the correct one. Apply. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Please carry on, I just refilled my popcorn bowl

While I'm not sure that's exactly what's going on in this discussion, it certainly happens enough in "debates." Dr. Mrs. Kepler and I were talking about why arguing on message boards is so much more infuriating than arguing in person, even assuming the intelligence and education of your debate partner is a wash. One thing that came up was how often we feel like the other person is asserting their assumptions about our beliefs or motivation as facts to be included in the discussion, even when (a) their assumptions are nonsense and (b) even if they had assumed correctly, it would still be irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm sure I do this as much as I have it done to me. The question is: why does that happen so often in forums when it doesn't seem to happen nearly as much in person? Are people just that much ruder given the anonymity of the internet (or is that line of argument itself just an example of the phenomenon)? In theory it seems like having arguments "in print" would be much better, since it produces a checkable record and ought to reduce confusion and honest mistakes. It also gives people time to fact check or look up terms and examples they are unfamiliar with.

So, why does it tend to suck instead? Is it the "ninja battle" problem, where there are people on the sidelines willing to jump in with pot shots or irrelevant points that hinder coherence? Or does the lack of synchronicity between people make it more likely that we'll throw off flippancies because we're distracted or in a rush to do something else? Would side chat rooms help? Am I just imagining the whole effect and others don't see it?

 

[unofan]

While I'm not sure that's exactly what's going on in this discussion, it certainly happens enough in "debates." Dr. Mrs. Kepler and I were talking about why arguing on message boards is so much more infuriating than arguing in person, even assuming the intelligence and education of your debate partner is a wash. One thing that came up was how often we feel like the other person is asserting their assumptions about our beliefs or motivation as facts to be included in the discussion, even when (a) their assumptions are nonsense and (b) even if they had assumed correctly, it would still be irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm sure I do this as much as I have it done to me. The question is: why does that happen so often in forums when it doesn't seem to happen nearly as much in person? Are people just that much ruder given the anonymity of the internet (or is that line of argument itself just an example of the phenomenon)? In theory it seems like having arguments "in print" would be much better, since it produces a checkable record and ought to reduce confusion and honest mistakes. It also gives people time to fact check or look up terms and examples they are unfamiliar with.

So, why does it tend to suck instead? Is it the "ninja battle" problem, where there are people on the sidelines willing to jump in with pot shots or irrelevant points that hinder coherence? Or does the lack of synchronicity between people make it more likely that we'll throw off flippancies because we're distracted or in a rush to do something else? Would side chat rooms help? Am I just imagining the whole effect and others don't see it?

It's the in print part. Or more precisely, the having a record part - same thing would happen wherever there's a recording.

People tend to be very imprecise in their wording, and may convey something they either don't mean or didn't intend to convey. If there's no evidence, it can be smoothed over by appealing to both the speakers and the audience's faulty memory (oh I never said that, you must've misheard).

But when it's in writing, you can't do that. Now you're automatically on the defensive having to explain why you said that, and most people won't admit "I was wrong." But it's there in writing, so they either have to move the goal posts, attack the reader's perception, or basically stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they never said what they said..

There's a reason any attorney with their pay will advise people to never put anything in writing if they can help it. It's easy to walk back unrecorded conversations. It's less easy to walk back written records.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

It's the in print part. Or more precisely, the having a record part - same thing would happen wherever there's a recording.

People tend to be very imprecise in their wording, and may convey something they either don't mean or didn't intend to convey. If there's no evidence, it can be smoothed over by appealing to both the speakers and the audience's faulty memory (oh I never said that, you must've misheard).

But when it's in writing, you can't do that. Now you're automatically on the defensive having to explain why you said that, and most people won't admit "I was wrong." But it's there in writing, so they either have to move the goal posts, attack the reader's perception, or basically sick their fingers in their ears and ignore it.

There's a reason any attorney with their pay will advise people to never put anything in writing if they can help it. It's easy to walk back unrecorded conversations. It's less easy to walk back written records.

OK, that makes sense, but do you think it trains people to choose their words more carefully? If I'm arguing to win, I want to spend less time on defense. If I'm arguing For The Sake Of Truth, I want to be clear.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

While I'm not sure that's exactly what's going on in this discussion, it certainly happens enough in "debates." Dr. Mrs. Kepler and I were talking about why arguing on message boards is so much more infuriating than arguing in person, even assuming the intelligence and education of your debate partner is a wash. One thing that came up was how often we feel like the other person is asserting their assumptions about our beliefs or motivation as facts to be included in the discussion, even when (a) their assumptions are nonsense and (b) even if they had assumed correctly, it would still be irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm sure I do this as much as I have it done to me. The question is: why does that happen so often in forums when it doesn't seem to happen nearly as much in person? Are people just that much ruder given the anonymity of the internet (or is that line of argument itself just an example of the phenomenon)? In theory it seems like having arguments "in print" would be much better, since it produces a checkable record and ought to reduce confusion and honest mistakes. It also gives people time to fact check or look up terms and examples they are unfamiliar with.

So, why does it tend to suck instead? Is it the "ninja battle" problem, where there are people on the sidelines willing to jump in with pot shots or irrelevant points that hinder coherence? Or does the lack of synchronicity between people make it more likely that we'll throw off flippancies because we're distracted or in a rush to do something else? Would side chat rooms help? Am I just imagining the whole effect and others don't see it?

The easy answer is "Yes".

IMO, the big issue is that many of the subtleties of conversational discussions are lost here in the Cafe. Sarcasm is probably the best example of this. In addition, I think we tend to fill in the blanks in others persona's with what we choose based on extremely limited information. Granted this is also done in person but these tend to be based upon more available info (body language, inflection, etc). These, along with the anonymity factor (it's so much easier to call you an arsehole when you're not sitting next to me), time constraints, etc. all make volatile topics that much more contentious. It's rather easy when the subject matter is pretty straight forward (you know, like BC sucks) but when you get into controversial subjects (Does MN suck more than BC?) a board discussion is much more difficult than a those conducted in person. Just my $0.02

 

[unofan]

OK, that makes sense, but do you think it trains people to choose their words more carefully? If I'm arguing to win, I want to spend less time on defense. If I'm arguing For The Sake Of Truth, I want to be clear.

It should, but most people are idiots. The average iq on this board is certain to be above average given its niche, but as far as the internet as a whole, the YouTube commentators vastly outnumber everyone else.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The easy answer is "Yes".

IMO, the big issue is that many of the subtleties of conversational discussions are lost here in the Cafe. Sarcasm is probably the best example of this. In addition, I think we tend to fill in the blanks in others persona's with what we choose based on extremely limited information. Granted this is also done in person but these tend to be based upon more available info (body language, inflection, etc). These, along with the anonymity factor (it's so much easier to call you an arsehole when you're not sitting next to me), time constraints, etc. all make volatile topics that much more contentious. It's rather easy when the subject matter is pretty straight forward (you know, like BC sucks) but when you get into controversial subjects (Does MN suck more than BC?) a board discussion is much more difficult than a those conducted in person. Just my $0.02

There is nothing controversial about whether MN sucks more than BC. It is a meaningless question. They both suck infinitely.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

There is nothing controversial about whether MN sucks more than BC. It is a meaningless question. They both suck infinitely.

I stand corrected. Feels shame.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I stand corrected. Feels shame.

Don't feel bad. Cantor took a decade to prove it.

 

[burd]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

There is nothing controversial about whether MN sucks more than BC. It is a meaningless question. They both suck infinitely.

Some infinite suckage is worse than others. If you can deny that, you have not hated the real Mn gophers.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Some infinite suckage is worse than others. If you can deny that, you have not hated the real Mn gophers.

∞ + 1

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So you're willing to separate the atheist from his acts, saying they weren't because of his atheism. Meanwhile everything good done by Christians is because of their Christianity. (Though conversely, anything bad done by a Christian is because they aren't really a Christian).

And the founding fathers were from countries and a time where it was a crime not to be Christian. Nothing bolsters the faith like the penalty of imprisonment or death for blasphemy.

Professed atheists make up roughly 3% of the U.S. population. Christians make up 70%. The growing "unaffiliated" (17% and rising) almost certainly are people like me who were raised Christian and have fallen away for whatever reason. Point being, in a country that was 90%+ Christian as recently as 25 years ago, it's disingenuous to ascribe everything good that happens to the religion without similarly ascribing everything that goes bad to that religion as well. If Christianity is the cause of the U.S.'s strength, it is also the cause of its darksides. If Christianity gave us NASA, it also gave us McCarthyism.

And in a country that would elect a gay Hispanic Muslim before a professed atheist, it's hardly surprising that most people don't flaunt their atheism in the public sphere. The lack of atheist specific charities is not an indictment on atheism any more than the lack of video game specific charities is an indictment of anyone who plays video games.

If 10% of donations to charity X come from atheists, who only make up three percent of the population, dis it matter what religion, if any, charity X is affiliated with?

UNO unleashed! I've already said there are quite a few Christians behave the opposite of what Jesus espoused. If behavior is opposed to the golden rule, there's a problem.

But overall its hard not to give Jesus followers credit...Christianity's impact on society has been pretty amazing. 1) Christians have helped at undeniably unparalleled levels the unfortunate and otherwise pushed for compassionate change (i.e., health care, poor, hungry, anti slavery, child labor). 2) These activities have been directly accomplished by churches/monasteries and or initiated by church leaders. 3) This has been done in such abundance and consistency with Christianity given credit. So the behavior is there, its been extremely consistent, it has been accomplished those defined as steeped in Christianity, and they've given credit to Christianity. 4) All this makes sense because its pretty much at the top of the list for Jesus...who is the God that these charitable people worship.

I do not give the same kind of credit to atheists. They just have not provided the same consistency of positive impact...even when accounting for their small numbers. I wish atheists would provide 1/30 of the charitable contributions of Christians (the population ratio of the two groups). Its an extremely high bar I know...but that's the comparison at issue. But anything that gets atheists closer to the behavior that Jesus espoused is a greatly welcome sight. So my question is...if atheists are all about charity and giving...why don't atheists reach out to partner with Christians rather than just being negative towards them?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

So my question is...if atheists are all about charity and giving...why don't atheists reach out to partner with Christians rather than just being negative towards them?

Obviously that question goes both ways.

But I was listening while stuck in traffic this morning to a BBC story on the #growingupmuslim hashtag and how one of the unintended consequences has been that many Jews have contacted Muslims to compare the rather startling (and funny) similarities in their experiences as kids. I've always thought a Muslim-Jewish alliance would be an excellent way to combat the idiotic hate spewed by radicals on both sides about the supposed "inherent" evil of the other.

Anyway, the same could also be said for atheists and believers. Just because we disagree on a few rather abstruse ontological issues doesn't mean we should allow the discourse between the groups to be defined by our differences. If the attitudes you have expressed can be taken as in any way indicative of believers in general, we should have a very large intersection of values concerning social justice. The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start for common ground. Jesus gets full marks for a fairly profound early draft of the Rights of Man.

So you're invited to join me in a Believer-Atheist alliance for ethical values. The question of the source of those values can be set aside for now. When people are good enough we will have the leisure to return to the question of where that good comes from.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I do not give the same kind of credit to atheists. They just have not provided the same consistency of positive impact...even when accounting for their small numbers. I wish atheists would provide 1/30 of the charitable contributions of Christians (the population ratio of the two groups). Its an extremely high bar I know...but that's the comparison at issue. But anything that gets atheists closer to the behavior that Jesus espoused is a greatly welcome sight. So my question is...if atheists are all about charity and giving...why don't atheists reach out to partner with Christians rather than just being negative towards them?

Speaking from personal experience, I'v given to a number of faith-based organizations that help the needy. I'm an atheist who isn't looking to only help those who look like me or hold opinions similar to mine. The Christian-based ones are what's accessible to me for goods donations. I know I'm not alone in this even amongst my friends, so how does that change your obviously pompous attitude towards these various groups? Isn't there something in the Bible about being humble and all that? You're failing that tenet in spades with your continued Supreme Religion posts.

 

[unofan]

UNO unleashed! I've already said there are quite a few Christians behave the opposite of what Jesus espoused. If behavior is opposed to the golden rule, there's a problem.

But overall its hard not to give Jesus followers credit...Christianity's impact on society has been pretty amazing. 1) Christians have helped at undeniably unparalleled levels the unfortunate and otherwise pushed for compassionate change (i.e., health care, poor, hungry, anti slavery, child labor). 2) These activities have been directly accomplished by churches/monasteries and or initiated by church leaders. 3) This has been done in such abundance and consistency with Christianity given credit. So the behavior is there, its been extremely consistent, it has been accomplished those defined as steeped in Christianity, and they've given credit to Christianity. 4) All this makes sense because its pretty much at the top of the list for Jesus...who is the God that these charitable people worship.

I do not give the same kind of credit to atheists. They just have not provided the same consistency of positive impact...even when accounting for their small numbers. I wish atheists would provide 1/30 of the charitable contributions of Christians (the population ratio of the two groups). Its an extremely high bar I know...but that's the comparison at issue. But anything that gets atheists closer to the behavior that Jesus espoused is a greatly welcome sight. So my question is...if atheists are all about charity and giving...why don't atheists reach out to partner with Christians rather than just being negative towards them?

Atheists cover the spectrum of the overall population, frankly just as Christians do. 3% of 300,000,000 is still 9,000,000. Within that group there will be sinners and saints, pompous asshats and humble men. My point is, and has consistently been, that atheists (and agnostics, and the unaffiliated) are the exact same as any other sufficiently large group of people. You're ascribing to atheists characteristics that cannot be attributed based on their atheism alone.

And to your charitable giving argument, individuals are giving more money on an inflation adjusted basis today than they ever have before. This is at the same time that religion is diminishing (again, Christianity has fallen from 86% to 70% since 1990, while the non-religious atheists, agnostics, and unaffiliated have risen to a combined 23% from 8% in the same time span). So either Christians are giving significantly much more than they did in even the recent past, or the non religious give plenty, too.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Dr. Mrs. Kepler and I were talking about why arguing on message boards is so much more infuriating than arguing in person, even assuming the intelligence and education of your debate partner is a wash.

no eye contact, no body language, no tone of voice, no danger of being punched in the nose when you are deliberately obnoxious....

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

no eye contact, no body language, no danger of being punched in the nose when you are deliberately obnoxious....

Sure, all those things explain why people are more strident. I get that. But I'm looking for the specific error (or strategy) of putting words in your opponent's mouth. Why does that seem to be an internet disease?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Sure, all those things explain why people are more strident. I get that. But I'm looking for the specific error (or strategy) of putting words in your opponent's mouth. Why does that seem to be an internet disease?

People see routines in other people's trains of thought. This guy's a [liberal/conservative], therefore he believes X, Y and Z for issues A, B, C, etc. The person with whom you're talking to at that moment may not have said anything on those issues, but you're applying cultural/political norms to people (Bell Curve thought process) as you want to cut to the quick of the discussion. The problem is that not everybody adheres to the norms, and therefore discussions get derailed and turn into ALL CAPS typing matches.