Smelling The Coffee: 2010

True enough. I am just pointing out where HE was coming from. I'm sure you all knew it already, but I couldn't figure what the hell he was on about.Sorry for further drealing this thread.......

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Well if we are willing to forego the mystical mumbo-jumbo aspects of being a Christian I could be described as a "Christ Proponent".In ICANT's eyes it seems I am very nearly as much a Christian as you are!!!! Fuck!!!

or.....that John the apostle is as much of a christian as a Tibetan Monk

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Or Superman. Or Dracula. Or Osama Bin Laden.

This is true, CS, acccording to the Free Online Dictionary: The context of the written fundamentals of the New Testament (more exemplary of Icant's application) renders a narrower contextual definition than, say, when using it in the context depicting (abe: for example), a Christian culture or a Christion nation. Edited by Buzsaw, : add phrase and update message title

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Some general replies, I'm reminded of Jonathan Miller's joke;

quote:

---

I'm not a Jew... I'm Jew-ish.

---

I think you'll find that Superman is a Methodist.Thanks to CS and Straggler for answering ICANT. I fear may have said something intemperate otherwise. I have to admit, after some experience with ICANT, that I see exactly where ICANT is coming from. He is, as he always does, trying to make excuses for Christianity by throwing up a shameless "No True Scotsman" defence. Apologies for the lengthy cut'n'paste, but I think one or two around here might benefit from reading that. This is exactly the argument that ICANT and Buz are making. It insulates Christianity and Christians everywhere from any criticism, as they just handwave and say "Ah well, he's not a REAL Christian.". I think you are absolutely right. I think that it is common (although not universal) for religious believers to think in this way. They are the REAL Christians, others are misguided at best, damned at worst. This kind of thinking plugs in all to easily to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Just because it is endemic though, doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out these flaws in logic. The intensity of this them-and-us mentality is, in my view, one of the primary differences between religious moderates and extremists. I believe that this kind of thinking is at the roots of most religious violence and factionalism. It is also one of the root causes of the current wave of Islamic terrorism.It is well known that Muslims are not supposed to kill other Muslims. This means that would-be Islamic terrorists must find some way of rationalising the Muslim deaths their actions might cause. How? Simple; the potential victims are not REAL Muslims. So that's OK. After all, if they were good Muslims, they would be on the terrorists' side. They would already be out fighting Jihad, not wallowing in the decadent filth of western society. The Quran only forbids killing REAL Muslims... so... that's all fine. Bombs away!There can be no doubt that Islam is more guilty than most religions in this regard, but the similarities in thinking between religious extremists of all stripes are striking and worrying. Thankfully, most American Christian fundies are more intent on massacring biology textbooks than people.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

What makes it all the worse is, as I tried to point out in my "How many churches are necessary?" thread, is that each sect reads the bible just a wee bit different, each claiming THEY are right and have THE TRUTH.

---

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl SaganFor me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

It's all part of the Big Plan. When the last two "real" Christians kill one another in a thumping contest over whether "love thy enemy" means we should take out the Moslems first or the Jews, then Jesus will come out of his hole in the ground, and not see his shadow, and summer will begin.

Hi Granny. What worries you about extremist fundi Christians? What do you consider worrisome religious extremist relative to Christianity these days? I mean, how can you possibly compare the global Christian extremists a threat to you? Many folks consider me to be a religious extremist.Why is it that some of you people incessantly compare the threat of Islam to Christianity in these modern times? It appears to be a paranoia among some of you. Why?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The extremist fundamentalist Christian who recently murdered an abortion doctor outside of a church comes to mind.

There is an article on Wiki dealing with Dominionism. Leaving out the real extremists, this is what it says (in part):

Dominionism as a broader movement

​

In the early 1990s, sociologist Sara Diamond and journalist Frederick Clarkson defined dominionism as a movement that, while including Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism as subsets, is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right. In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron writes,

​

In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus. (p. 14, emphasis in original)

​

According to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right" (p.138, emphasis in original). In 1995, she called it "prevalent on the Christian Right." Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."

​

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:

​

1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

Is that enough? Or shall we delve into the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, which states (in part):

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...

​

Governing Goals

​

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Now, I do science--specifically archaeology--and I don't want some theocrat telling me what I can and can't find in my research.Can you imaging "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"?

• Geology--those fools can't get the age of the Grand Canyon right. GONE!
• Archaeology--can't find any evidence of a global flood. GONE!
• Astronomy--that big bang stuff, and all those really old ages. GONE!
• Genetics--all those similarities to chimps, and common descent. GONE!
• Egyptology--those Egyptians didn't notice the global flood. GONE!
• Planetary sciences--all those annoying facts we can't explain away. GONE!
• Radiometric dating--those fools can't get the dating right either. GONE!
• Biology--they started that evilution stuff and figured out how the eye really developed. GONE!
• Paleontology--millions of inconvenient fossils that are all fakes. GONE!
• Physics--that pesky 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. GONE!
• Linguistics--can't get the development of languages right. It was Babel what done it! GONE! And most particularly,
• Evolution (by which we mean any science that we disagree with). GONE!

No thanks. I'll stick with the Enlightenment, which showed we no longer have to kowtow to the various shamans and theocrats, whether they be "extremist fundi Christians" or some other kind.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The following is one reason. the entire article from this month's issue of Church & State Magazine Page not found - Americans UnitedCharles Colson & and a bunch of ultra right wing Christians are attempting to turn this country into a Christian Thocracy

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Why would there need to be a 'who' determining toxicity? I was the one making the statement which was one of a seeming correlation. By toxic I meant, in general terms 'antisocial'. No, taking your children to Sunday School is not in itself enforced ignorance. Prohibiting your child from having access to religious literature from other religions would be.Does this happen in your nation? Yes, I think it probably does.
Does it happen in mine? I think it does, but it is somewhat more difficult. Atheists, agnostics, those that simply 'don't have a belief' (There are people that just don't care about the subject), people who are 'spiritual' but that don't believe in a god or gods. Religious entities and supplies of fanatics, iron deposits, good road infrastructure, certain strategic cities that were able to hold out against long sieges, engineering feats, gunpowder technology research, using jews to lend and borrow at interest (and then in a radically secular move disbanding with the silly religious notion prohibiting usury entirely (the Muslims are trying their own methods for getting around usury prohibitions, and like the Christians and the Jews before them - they are hypocritical at worst and just silly at best)) and subsequent modernisation are all factors. Or - Christianity has been given historically more leeway than it technically should have been given because of the obvious religious bias of the people in charge and now people are trying to bring it back to its proper place - on the other side of the wall and being a religion whose identity lies in persecution, the Christians have decided to feel persecuted by this.And vice-versa for Islam.Granted - there is some overcompensation in all directions, but we sinful humans remember? We can't be expected to get it perfect. Your concerns are awfully domestic.Nevertheless is your proposed solution to this 'problem' you raise to join in with the mutual fearmongering and distrust? I'm not entirely sure that's going to work all that well.

Hi Modulous. Thanks for responding. There's a big difference in toxic and antisocial. Now, a new can of worms which begs the question of what applies to antisocial and to what extent does a religion become anti-social. Are home schooling parents anti-social? What would be some examples of inordinant anti-social religious restriction? So if one's religion is mono-theistic, it would be anti-social to restrict one's young impressionable children from Muslim, Wicca and poly-theistic religions as well as vise versa? It appears that you consider all religions anti-social, for example, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and others which discourages proselytation of other religions into their cultural circles.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I don't think it's really all that important to the point I was raising. The same things that make anything anti-social. Not that it matters to the point I was raising particularly. It isn't a necessary conclusion, though any given parent might also be killing neighbourhood cats, intimidating immigrants, and deflating tyres. You seem to be asking the wrong questions relative to the point I was raising. Let me try again with a concrete example.If religious beliefs/practices/customs etc tend to get passed from parent to childandIf children are particularly credulousandIf one such practice was beheading those that have turned their back on the religion in question.andIf that religious group and their teachings of other religions is the only exposure a person gets as a child.Then that child is likely to grow up with the belief it is right to behead people for apostasy.One solution proposed, is to provide a child with access to other religious views unbiased by ingroup thinking. Not to tell them what to believe, or even what not to believe, just to show them what it is others believe. To actually give them a choice in what they believe rather than have them indoctrinated by omission.This act alone, goes the argument, will suffice to weaken the more extreme religious ideas that it seems to me rely on telling untruths and witholding real information about other religions.Time and again, you see Arab Muslims saying all kinds of crazy things about Western Christian life. It looks crazy because it is based on a two dimensional world of propaganda. The best way to fight propaganda is free information. It isn't perfect, unfortunately.Unless you belong to a religion that cannot withstand its children being exposed to learning about the articles of Christian faith, the Pillars of Islam, the rituals of Judaism, the ideas of humanist philosophers, the Buddhist path etc etc from someone who isn't out to prove them all wrong - I certainly can't see a reason why anyone would object to that. That isn't what I'm saying, at least.I am saying that if one's religion is one of those that tells biased stories about Islam, Wicca or Hinduism then your religion is probably one of the toxic ones.And I'm saying that specifically preventing a child from accessing this information would be enforced ignorance. Enforced ignorance might be considered anti-social but that puts into a topic quite different than the one I was discussing. I'm not talking about proselytation. I'm talking about acquiring factual information. Is your religion against a child learning

quote:

---

1. Life as we know it ultimately is or leads to suffering/uneasiness (dukkha) in one way or another.
2. Suffering is caused by craving. This is often expressed as a deluded clinging to a certain sense of existence, to selfhood, or to the things or phenomena that we consider the cause of happiness or unhappiness. Craving also has its negative aspect, i.e. one craves that a certain state of affairs not exist.
3. Suffering ends when craving ends. This is achieved by eliminating delusion, thereby reaching a liberated state of Enlightenment (bodhi);
4. Reaching this liberated state is achieved by following the path laid out by the Buddha.

---

(courtesy of wiki)
Are the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.Can you imagine the look on a fundamentalist (male) Muslim's face when he learns that his son had been reading about this stuff for the past three hours? Can you not foresee there maybe some conflict here?And despite it being part of their holy scripture, many Muslim children are simply never exposed to the Gospel as understand by secular sources or by a Jesus-lensed Fundamentalist NT Christian! If more of them were, don't you think more of them would become Christians themselves? Even by your own definitions of what would be a toxic religion wouldn't you agree that if everyone was given a chance to read the gospel and to learn how Christians view it that would rid the world of some less savoury, primitive perhaps, religious viewpoints?I'm just saying let's expose them to all the biggies, and give them hints about some of the smallies and then we give them the resources to explore all of mankind's ideas about cosmology and spirituality in their own time without worry of being told off, beaten, ostracized etc etc.It's a kind of 'Educate them all and let the message that 'speaks to the heart' most sort them out." situation.