Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

Message 191

You're doing a stellar job moderators!

I stopped participating here back in December because you let Faith spew her ever more disgusting filth all over this whole forum.

If Kleinman's rude arrogant bullshit is the accepted standard of behavior at EvC then I see no benefit in continuing.

My problem here is I want to have a place where we can civilly have a conversation around our views. I am not interested in discussions with those who accuse me of lacking integrity, being stupid or even lying. There does seem to be an attitude of some of the non-theists around here, that theistic views are ridiculous and that those that hold them are themselves ______. (fill in the blank with any number of insulting or patronizing adjectives).

Edited by GDR, : forgot a bracket

A civilised discussion does not preclude calling out nonsense.

It would be far better for you to apply a little critical thinking to your own views rather than attacking others for pointing out your irrationality.

I rest my case.

In that case I enter in evidence the entirely civilised Message 27 which received no reply.

This may not be the place but I am one of the biggest offenders and you did bring it up. This is your fault.

theistic views are ridiculous and that those that hold them are themselves ______.

Sorry GDR but this is fact. Religious people are weak minded and are unable or unwilling to understand that belief in phantasms is unrealistic, unscientific, mentally malicious and has been and continues to be a substantial threat to the conduct of human affairs.

Harsh, I know, but the reality of human history cannot be denied. Theists and all of their various -isms are dangerous to the species and need to be countered, ridiculed, vilified at every opportunity. Which I personally don't do as often as I could/should because though I'm an asshole I am a lazy asshole.

Still, the fact is you guys are nuts.

GDR writes: There does seem to be an attitude of some of the non-theists around here, that theistic views are ridiculous and that those that hold them are themselves ______. (fill in the blank with any number of insulting or patronizing adjectives).

Yes, it gets like that sometimes. I can only apologise when (not if) I've done that to you. As far as I'm concerned, you're the acceptable face of Christianity, despite your ______.

The trouble is we're surrounded by nutters, wackos, delusional idiots and crackpots - loads of them think they know stuff that Nobel Laureates would be made from. Just at the moment we have a guy here that thinks he can prove mathematically that evolution is impossible and another with no training at all in the subject is writing a book on cosmology and telling real physicists that they're wrong. A catholic can't even accept documented statements about his faith verifiable from the Vatican. Phat gets crazier every day and Faith, well come on...

The one thing they have in common is an irrational belief so they try to make science's discoveries fit their belief - or try to discredit them if they can't.

And all believers are incapable of skepticism. All of them, even you, the best of 'em. You can't tolerate evidence that seems to contradict a belief. Those of us interested in establishing facts find that intolerable. One-way thinking is simply not allowed in rational discussion.

Just as a single tiny example. It's a fact, a simple fact, that the bible is written by anonymous authors. The authors did not put their names on their work. But time and again you ignore that as though it does not matter. It really does. And time and again you put the best possible spin on the evidence. It's not necessary and it's not good practice and it drives us mad. it makes fair argument impossible.

Anyway, it gets to us, sorry.

Because at the same time you posted this Message 163

AZPaul3 writes: Sorry GDR but this is fact. Religious people are weak minded and are unable or unwilling to understand that belief in phantasms is unrealistic, unscientific, mentally malicious and has been and continues to be a substantial threat to the conduct of human affairs. Harsh, I know, but the reality of human history cannot be denied. Theists and all of their various -isms are dangerous to the species and need to be countered, ridiculed, vilified at every opportunity. Which I personally don't do as often as I could/should because though I'm an asshole I am a lazy asshole. Still, the fact is you guys are nuts.

Well, I think that it is just as nuts to believe that our existence is simply the result of endless processes driven by random chance is the absolutely ridiculous. We also know that highly intelligent people of science are theists, such as John Polkinhorne and Francis Collins.

We also know how much human destruction has been brought about by atheistic regimes and that most of the damage done by theistic regimes was in a time when pretty much everyone was theistic. Christianity is based on the the teachings of Jesus who teaches that we are to treat others as we wanted to be treated. Not a lot of damage done when we adhere to that.

Tangle writes: The trouble is we're surrounded by nutters, wackos, delusional idiots and crackpots - loads of them think they know stuff that Nobel Laureates would be made from. Just at the moment we have a guy here that thinks he can prove mathematically that evolution is impossible and another with no training at all in the subject is writing a book on cosmology and telling real physicists that they're wrong. A catholic can't even accept documented statements about his faith verifiable from the Vatican. Phat gets crazier every day and Faith, well come on...

Sure, I have a big problem with fundamentalism and I have no trouble presenting my POV but I don't find it necessary, (although maybe if you dig deep enough somebody can find an exception seeing as how I'm human) to be insulting. They are their beliefs just as you and I believe they are wrong.

Tangle writes: The one thing they have in common is an irrational belief so they try to make science's discoveries fit their belief - or try to discredit them if they can't.

I think that science should inform our theological beliefs. My theology does not inform the little I know about science.

Tangle writes: Just as a single tiny example. It's a fact, a simple fact, that the bible is written by anonymous authors. The authors did not put their names on their work. But time and again you ignore that as though it does not matter. It really does. And time and again you put the best possible spin on the evidence. It's not necessary and it's not good practice and it drives us mad. it makes fair argument impossible.

Well, Paul actually did say this is Paul writing this, but the thread in question is about the authorship of the Gospels. I read a very large book on the subject written by a Cambridge professor and scholar, and as a historian and theologian, who has spent his life researching this stuff in their original languages. He has gone through all of the ancient writings that we still have to help form his conclusions. It is very difficult to have a discussion if it is decided at the outset that he really doesn't have anything of worth to say.

quote:

---

Because at the same time you posted this Message 163

---

I certainly did not post that. Although I suppose I should point out that the person who did is far worse than even my less moderate responses.

Indeed, none of my posts even appears on that page so I cannot think what you are referring to.

My apologies. This is the post I was referring to. Saw a 0 when it was a 9. Message 438

And clearly you failed to understand it or the trap.

The expected answer was “yes” - and I had no intention of disputing that.

GDR writes: They are their beliefs just as you and I believe they are wrong.

This is the maddening thing. There is no equivalence between their wacko beliefs and the discoveries of science. They are just wrong. And that's the end of it. To allow them the idea that that it's ok to believe something that is factually wrong is not ever going to be accepted as ok.

I think that science should inform our theological beliefs.

I'm glad that it actually does - in that it's wiping out the worst excesses of religious belief and moderating it. But really, science and religion have no point of contact - all it can tell you about your beliefs are that they're wrong.

My theology does not inform the little I know about science.

I regard you as the exception. But in fact theology can't inform science. It has absolutely nothing to contribute.

Well, Paul actually did say this is Paul writing this, but the thread in question is about the authorship of the Gospels. I read a very large book on the subject written by a Cambridge professor and scholar, and as a historian and theologian, who has spent his life researching this stuff in their original languages. He has gone through all of the ancient writings that we still have to help form his conclusions.

No, I have said it many times and it's not arguable. Your professor would agree - the stories are not attributed. We can make educated guess but that's all.

It is very difficult to have a discussion if it is decided at the outset that he really doesn't have anything of worth to say.

The point is that there are many conflicting positions on this. It's an area of very divided opinion with not enough actual evidence to support any position - no matter how eminent. To take one side is ludicrous, to point out difficulties with particular positions is necessary.

What it leaves is massive areas of doubt. Nothing remotely enough to make life choices on. Scepticism is the only valid position.

Tangle writes: This is the maddening thing. There is no equivalence between their wacko beliefs and the discoveries of science. They are just wrong. And that's the end of it. To allow them the idea that that it's ok to believe something that is factually wrong is not ever going to be accepted as ok.

OK, but they believe that you are factually wrong. I realize that in the case of creationism there is a barrier that can’t be avoided in the way that 6 day creation myth contradicts scientific evolution. However, it is possible to refute their beliefs without being insulting, demeaning and/or patronizing.
I would add that this is supposed to be a forum to debate the issue. It is EvC and not just E.

Tangle writes: I'm glad that it actually does - in that it's wiping out the worst excesses of religious belief and moderating it. But really, science and religion have no point of contact - all it can tell you about your beliefs are that they're wrong.

It cannot tell me that. Science has nothing to say as to whether we are, or are not, the result of intelligence. Science works only with physical evidence although from my very limited perspective QM seems to becoming almost metaphysical. As far as the resurrection is concerned no one is claiming that it isn’t outside the realm of science, but it only becomes impossible if one starts with a strictly materialistic belief. If however we are the result of intelligence then resurrection becomes open to consideration.

Tangle writes: I regard you as the exception. But in fact theology can't inform science. It has absolutely nothing to contribute.

Essentially I agree, however from what I understand Newton believed in science as he was a theist which caused him to understand that there is order that can be discerned in the universe. In the end though, I agree.

Tangle writes: No, I have said it many times and it's not arguable. Your professor would agree - the stories are not attributed. We can make educated guess but that's all.

Well the Gospels do have a name attached to them. However, you may call it an educated guess, but the point is that it isn’t just a guess but an educated, (in the case of Bauckham highly educated), subjective conclusion as to the most probable author.

Tangle writes: The point is that there are many conflicting positions on this. It's an area of very divided opinion with not enough actual evidence to support any position - no matter how eminent. To take one side is ludicrous, to point out difficulties with particular positions is necessary.

Fair enough but I would venture to say that nobody else has ever come close to Bauckham in the degree of scrutiny that has been applied to his relatively recent research.

Also, it has only been in the last 50 years or so that there has been much interest in doing historical research on Jesus and the New Testament. In his book Bauckham does outline dissenting positions and allows in some cases that they may be correct. Bauckham’s research did involve reading all the work that had been done prior to writing what he did. I would add that there is now more ancient material available, and as well thanks to the internet, the work of other scholars is far more accessible than it had been.