The Bible is a book.

LOL that's not bad.

Actually, you make some valid points. The problem is of course, that the religious are unlikely to bring anyone to their faith (face it, if someone isn't Christian already, it's doubtful a forum war is going to do the trick).

On the other hand, the method that anti-Christians use to "debunk" faith is more likely to drive people to religion than achieve their goal because, well, who likes insulting, arrogant twits? lol And they're sure not going to convince anyone of anything, because well, no one is really here to be convinced of anything.

There are two other trends I've noticed in these conversations:
* Quite often religious people tend to ignore science, accepting the Bible as their sole authority (or alternately, their religious dogma). That often makes them gullible candidates for any nonsense a pulpit-pounder wants to throw out, because often, the church members never actually open the Bible.

That said, there are some exceptions. There are some people who actually read their bibles and seem to be fairly well versed in it. There are also some who are quite educated scientifically and have come to a scientifically-based foundation for their faith (of course, such are held in high disrespect by the anti-God group because well, they disagree). But again, such well-versed/educated seem to be in the minority.

* On the other hand, the anti-God/anti-religious people seem for the most part to be totally clueless about the Bible. All they do is parot what they've read or heard from others (or based their opinions upon by reading isolated passages or watching oh-so-accurate movies. LOL). They have never really put any effort into examining the book in an unbiased manner, and have certainly never read the Bible all the way through. If they have done any study at all, it's usually with pre-formed opinions and their "research" is already tainted by a desire to prove the book wrong, rather than checking to see if it makes sense. One can never arrive at accurate conclusions by entering a research project with pre-formed opinions (unless of course, they stumble across it by sheer luck... which is unlikely).

That said, there are some exceptions. There are some who have examined both sides of the issue and for one reason or another found religion/the Bible to be unacceptable from their viewpoint. They don't disrespect others for their faith, they simply do not accept it as based on reality. That is their right of choice as a human being. That's what we call "free will" and it's a right of every person on the planet.

But as far as forum debates go, it all boils down to useless... unless of course, one counts the humor aspect.

You like to categorize people.

That's because they're so categorizable.

Actually, I don't like to categorize people at all. But I call 'em as I see 'em. And when people act in manners that are obviously bigoted and disrespectful of others (no matter what their arguments)-- they categorize themselves.

That's because they're so categorizable.

I dunno, I'm profoundly religious. Of course, I also back up my arguments with logic and evidence, and my religion takes science into its own understanding.

So I guess I'm just Anti-ignorance.

One of the most intelligent statements I have seen to date (and I'll have to paraphrase as I don't have it written somewhere):

Any spiritual person who ignores science is a fool. Any scientist who ignores the spiritual is an even bigger fool.

I know that'll probably open up a can of worms and lots of posts totally misunderstanding what the guy was talking about, but I like it.

It can be dangerous to categorize people. It leads to over/underestimation, it leads to assumption, it leads to prejudice.

Each person is different than the next. Two people might share similar opinions, but for different reasons. Two people might have come to the same place from different paths.

I try not to make generalizations about people. I might have opinions about people, but they are based on that person's actions and reactions. Not due to any broad generalized category someone pidgeon holed them into.

How fair would that be?

I have no issue with what you posted here.

Of course... spiritual can mean any faith. If you were specifically referring to christianity... then there would be an issue.

On the other hand, the method that anti-Christians use to "debunk" faith is more likely to drive people to religion than achieve their goal because, well, who likes insulting, arrogant twits? lol And they're sure not going to convince anyone of anything, because well, no one is really here to be convinced of anything.

That said, there are some exceptions. There are some people who actually read their bibles and seem to be fairly well versed in it. There are also some who are quite educated scientifically and have come to a scientifically-based foundation for their faith (of course, such are held in high disrespect by the anti-God group because well, they disagree). But again, such well-versed/educated seem to be in the minority.

* On the other hand, the anti-God/anti-religious people seem for the most part to be totally clueless about the Bible. All they do is parot what they've read or heard from others (or based their opinions upon by reading isolated passages or watching oh-so-accurate movies. LOL). They have never really put any effort into examining the book in an unbiased manner, and have certainly never read the Bible all the way through.

If they have done any study at all, it's usually with pre-formed opinions and their "research" is already tainted by a desire to prove the book wrong, rather than checking to see if it makes sense. One can never arrive at accurate conclusions by entering a research project with pre-formed opinions (unless of course, they stumble across it by sheer luck... which is unlikely)

In my long experience in these discussions... Most of the ones I've encountered don't even understand the basic rules of logic... You're conveniently sticking a mischaracterization on non-believers for the sake of your own self-serving arguments [note: not just arguments... self serving arguments? LOL]... I'm going to call bullshit on your assertion... In my own experience all around the internet... Your clever stereotype couldn't be more off base, trust me... Once we start seeing them whine about "anti-God" rhetoric and "Christian persecution", the gloves are going to come off... Just so you know.

I have degrees in English and History, I've made the study of religion a main focus of my recreational reading and have included everything from Moody's Life After Life to Bertrand Russell and J.D. Crossan.

Wayfinder also forgets about people who were forced educated - those that spent the first 18 years of their lives reading the bible cover to cover and then decided they did not believe in God.

I have to say the first twelve years of this were useless memorization but when I got into a more liberal but still Catholic school where they actually taught the real history behind the bible as well as teaching more about the Tora, Budism and other religions that I was much more interested (though not convinced).

It was Bertrand Russell and his essay on "Why I am not a Christian" that sealed the deal for me.

.

However Burnman, you misjudge. Twice now.

You focused on the "categorizations" and you ignored the sections where I pointed out "there are exceptions".

Then you went further to quote where I said (in obvious jest... see the smiley?) "That's because they're so categorizable" and you failed to quote the very next line which said, "I don't like categorizing people.... they categorize themselves."

I believe judging to be the greater sin. Maybe it would be beneficial to step back and examine what I'm talking about. (Do my statements accurately examine the general trend of this and other such threads? Or are they totally off base?)

If they're generally accurate, I don't see the problem. Nothing wrong with telling someone they need to bathe. Might even be an act of friendship.

And I think your entire post pretty much supports the points I was making... just so you know.

You didn't say: a) whether you've ever read the Bible all the way through or b) Whether your recreational study of religion was done with an unbaised attitude, without pre-formed opinion.

I appreciate and respect that you have opinions and I also respect a person doing personal research (in fact, I feel it's pretty essential for human growth). But I also appreciate that you don't seem to be able to state those opinions without making personal attacks against the individual.

I am neither omniscient nor all-wise. Unless you are, I think we both are still capable of error.

I didn't misjudge what you said. Let me give you an example.

"Black people steal. Except for the nice ones."

Here's a racist generalization with an exception.

Oh? How's that - what did I say that supported your gross, inaccurate stereotyping of non-believers?

What, as opposed to your gross, inaccurate stereotyping of believers?

Sometimes I wonder if you re-read your own posts. Seriously. Nothing personal, but it's like the skunk calling others stinky.

And then after that, we can try another fun question: Do atheists ever ignore evidence that seems to support the existence of God? Are they biased and tunnel-visioned?

Oh, I did acknowledge that some believers are educated and intelligent, but maybe you suffer from the very same selective reading you're accusing me of having. The lunatic fringe who repeat the same, tired, ignorant assertions regarding atheists do not represent the majority of believers, but that doesn't make them less ignorant.

What, as opposed to your gross, inaccurate stereotyping of believers?

LOL. Cindy, you totally ignored and side-stepped my question which was:

Which is exactly what you've done in message after message. And since this isn't getting anywhere, forgive again if I back out of this pointless discussion. There's no benefit to this. You keep pointing the finger at others and don't realize you're consistently doing the very same thing you're accusing them of... and that's a waste of time.

.........., the uncompromising certitude and proselytization by believers is the real root cause of the insults -- and from that same experience, I'd say the weight of twits goes by far over on the believers' side. Most of the ones I've encountered don't even understand the basic rules of logic. Most don't even have the sense to avoid Pascal's Wager.


..................

Can you show one post from anyone in any of these forums that are proselytizing a religion?

I ignored nothing. In fact, I was responding directly to your inaccurate stereotyping of non-believers.

Take a freakin' stand why don't you?

Don't pout because I really do think for myself - it's a balloon that I just had to pop for you.

I'll discuss this all day long, Way.

This is another standard tactic through the years and around the Net whenever believers run into people who won't stand in awe of their deity - they decide to run away and cry about personal attacks

I'm sure you're a great guy. I just happen to think you don't have a clue on the topic at hand and engage in devious debate tactics. It's nothing new at all.

My statement was general, Kevn, referring to years of religious debate on the internet. Did you attend the Wayfarer School of Reading Comprehension?

My statement was general, Kevn, referring to years of religious debate on the internet. Did you attend the Wayfinder School of Reading Comprehension?