Brian37 vs Ciarin

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 vs Ciarin

As I stated in the other thread, I do not, and hope that you dont either, take this brawl personally, if you chose to partisipate. It is not aimed at you the person, but merely the claims you put forth.

So, if you would start off by giving me a discription of what your position is, we can start from there.

Keep in mind it will get bloody(metephorically speeking). But please understand that after the match is over, we can still have a beer together(meaning we can agree on other issues and be friends outside this dissagreement).

IN THIS CORNER, IT'S THE SULTAIN OF SILLYNISS, THE EINSTIEN OF IDOCY, THE MASTER OF MORONICNESS.......BRIAN37!

IN THE OTHER CORNER, ITS THE DEFENDER OF DEITIES, THE CYBORG OF THEISM ........."CIARIN"

LETS GET READY TO MUMBLE!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Gauche

Ciarin wrote:

Gauche wrote:

 

I could easily say "tell me where odin is and when we go there I assure you he will not be there". That's proof enough. But then you would just say "Ah, but Odin lives beyond the stars in the enchanted realm of the ethereal plain, so your proof is not proof."

 

I cannot tell you where Odin is because I do not have a lojack device implanted on him.

Okay, the point I was driving at though was that since there's no evidence to speak of, you can adjust your story about odin ad hoc to ensure that no observation can contradict it. You can characterize it in an incoherent manner rendering it truly meaningless. There's absolutely no standard.

But even if you formulated your notion of gods in a testable coherent manner the claim would be equally unworthy of evaluation because it wasn't formed on the basis of evidence. All you've done is use subjective preference to select a set of arbitrary claims from a myriad of available arbitrary claims. If that's the method you use to discern fact from fiction then you may as well just pick randomly, it could yield better results. Or at least admit that you just believe whatever makes you happiest (which isn't necessarily a crime and doesn't even seem to be frowned upon in most places).

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:So you proved

Ciarin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So you proved that the Christian God doesn't exist or that Satan doesn't exist?

 

Nope.

 

 

Then wouldn't a Christian's personal experience with Jesus neglect Odin since the two are mutually exclusive?

 

 

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Okay, the point

Gauche wrote:

Okay, the point I was driving at though was that since there's no evidence to speak of, you can adjust your story about odin ad hoc to ensure that no observation can contradict it. You can characterize it in an incoherent manner rendering it truly meaningless. There's absolutely no standard.

But even if you formulated your notion of gods in a testable coherent manner the claim would be equally unworthy of evaluation because it wasn't formed on the basis of evidence. All you've done is use subjective preference to select a set of arbitrary claims from a myriad of available arbitrary claims. If that's the method you use to discern fact from fiction then you may as well just pick randomly, it could yield better results. Or at least admit that you just believe whatever makes you happiest (which isn't necessarily a crime and doesn't even seem to be frowned upon in most places).

 

I know. it was a joke, man.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Then

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Then wouldn't a Christian's personal experience with Jesus neglect Odin since the two are mutually exclusive?

 

Nope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:latincanuck

Ciarin wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Fish wrote:

This statement is false.  There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the gods you believe in, and gods in general, do not exist. 

 

Prove Odin doesn't exist then.

 

Odin is a god in the Norse Pantheon. google it.

 

And, don't expect to disprove him, because you can't. You can't prove a negative. At least be honest about it.

Here is the problem, there is no need to prove that Odin doesn't exist,

 

I only ask people to prove he doesn't exist when they claim they have evidence for his non-existence. For example:

 

"There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the gods you believe in, and gods in general, do not exist. "

Are you Paisley in disguise because you love to avoid the most direct questions and dance around and avoid the main topic.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Ciarin

latincanuck wrote:


Are you Paisley in disguise because you love to avoid the most direct questions and dance around and avoid the main topic.

 

 

No, I'm Plaid.

 

And no I don't dance or avoid topics and questions. If you'd like to show me where you think I have, that'd be great. Also, thanks for the off-topic question that has absolutely no merit and adds nothing to what we're discussing.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
fishpasteplay wrote:Brian

fishpasteplay wrote:

Brian still happens to be arguing, rather then being constructive.

 

Lets actually make some progress here shall we? Ciarin, could you explain to us what your personal reasons are for considering your UPG less likely to be natural circumstance then divine intervention?

 

I can not.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Ciarin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Then wouldn't a Christian's personal experience with Jesus neglect Odin since the two are mutually exclusive?

 

Nope.

 

But since the Christians have personal experience and you can't disprove their God, doesn't that mean that their God exists and not yours?

 

 

 

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Ciarin

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Then wouldn't a Christian's personal experience with Jesus neglect Odin since the two are mutually exclusive?

 

Nope.

 

But since the Christians have personal experience and you can't disprove their God, doesn't that mean that their God exists and not yours?

 

 

 

 

Nope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So why is your personal

So why is your personal experience above theirs?

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I cannot tell

Ciarin wrote:

I cannot tell you where Odin is because I do not have a lojack device implanted on him.

 

Wouldnt a simple "Valhalla" answer, have worked? ^_^

What Would Kharn Do?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:latincanuck

Ciarin wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 

Are you Paisley in disguise because you love to avoid the most direct questions and dance around and avoid the main topic.

 

 

No, I'm Plaid.

 

And no I don't dance or avoid topics and questions. If you'd like to show me where you think I have, that'd be great. Also, thanks for the off-topic question that has absolutely no merit and adds nothing to what we're discussing.

Actually it's more of a rhectorial quesitons but hey, well actually I have asked what evidience you have outside of your own mind that your gods are real and not mythological or made up fantasy? Second part if there is a natural answer to it, why do you feel the need to inject some made up god to a perfectly natural answer? Since you have made a positive claim of there being gods why not give us the description of how you came to view this as being true.

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:So why

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So why is your personal experience above theirs?

 

It's not. I think I went over this already.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Ciarin

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

I cannot tell you where Odin is because I do not have a lojack device implanted on him.

 

Wouldnt a simple "Valhalla" answer, have worked? ^_^

 

And what if he's not there? He could be in Gladsheim, or Valaskjalf, or he could be visiting the Giants. Who knows?

 

Besides the guy would've just replied "Those are made up places that no one can go to and verify". So I thought a joke was better.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Besides the guy

Ciarin wrote:

Besides the guy would've just replied "Those are made up places that no one can go to and verify". So I thought a joke was better.

 

Which is precisely where you add "Well... go kill yourself and find out"

What Would Kharn Do?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Actually

latincanuck wrote:

Actually it's more of a rhectorial quesitons but hey, well actually I have asked what evidience you have outside of your own mind that your gods are real and not mythological or made up fantasy?

 

And I answered it.

Quote:

Second part if there is a natural answer to it, why do you feel the need to inject some made up god to a perfectly natural answer?

I think injecting some made-up god makes more sense.

 

Quote:

Since you have made a positive claim of there being gods why not give us the description of how you came to view this as being true.

 

I don't really know, I thought it was a good idea at the time(and I still do).


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Gauche

Ciarin wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Okay, the point I was driving at though was that since there's no evidence to speak of, you can adjust your story about odin ad hoc to ensure that no observation can contradict it. You can characterize it in an incoherent manner rendering it truly meaningless. There's absolutely no standard.

But even if you formulated your notion of gods in a testable coherent manner the claim would be equally unworthy of evaluation because it wasn't formed on the basis of evidence. All you've done is use subjective preference to select a set of arbitrary claims from a myriad of available arbitrary claims. If that's the method you use to discern fact from fiction then you may as well just pick randomly, it could yield better results. Or at least admit that you just believe whatever makes you happiest (which isn't necessarily a crime and doesn't even seem to be frowned upon in most places).

 

I know. it was a joke, man.

I thought that it might be a joke but you also tried to validate your beliefs with random weather events so I didn't really want to take anything for granted.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I thought that

Gauche wrote:

I thought that it might be a joke but you also tried to validate your beliefs with random weather events so I didn't really want to take anything for granted.

 

I didn't try to validate anything with random weather events. I was asked to tell some of the UPG I have experienced. Whether or not it's valid to other people is irrelevant.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Gauche wrote:I

Ciarin wrote:

Gauche wrote:

I thought that it might be a joke but you also tried to validate your beliefs with random weather events so I didn't really want to take anything for granted.

 

I didn't try to validate anything with random weather events. I was asked to tell some of the UPG I have experienced. Whether or not it's valid to other people is irrelevant.

Don't you consider the weather event to be evidence of the truth of what you're saying and what you believe?  I know that you were asked and I'm sure you know from the outset that no one else is going to accept it as such but it's still valdidation regardless of those facts.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Ciarin

Gauche wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Gauche wrote:

I thought that it might be a joke but you also tried to validate your beliefs with random weather events so I didn't really want to take anything for granted.

 

I didn't try to validate anything with random weather events. I was asked to tell some of the UPG I have experienced. Whether or not it's valid to other people is irrelevant.

Don't you consider the weather event to be evidence of the truth of what you're saying and what you believe?  I know that you were asked and I'm sure you know from the outset that no one else is going to accept it as such but it's still valdidation regardless of those facts.

 

Yes, I think it's valid, but it's only valid for me and I can't use it as validation to anyone else.


fishpasteplay (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:fishpasteplay

Ciarin wrote:

fishpasteplay wrote:

Brian still happens to be arguing, rather then being constructive.

 

Lets actually make some progress here shall we? Ciarin, could you explain to us what your personal reasons are for considering your UPG less likely to be natural circumstance then divine intervention?

 

I can not.

 

Then could you describe for us the experiences themselves in further detail?  Besides those you've already layed out.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Gauche

Ciarin wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Gauche wrote:

I thought that it might be a joke but you also tried to validate your beliefs with random weather events so I didn't really want to take anything for granted.

 

I didn't try to validate anything with random weather events. I was asked to tell some of the UPG I have experienced. Whether or not it's valid to other people is irrelevant.

Don't you consider the weather event to be evidence of the truth of what you're saying and what you believe?  I know that you were asked and I'm sure you know from the outset that no one else is going to accept it as such but it's still valdidation regardless of those facts.

 

Yes, I think it's valid, but it's only valid for me and I can't use it as validation to anyone else.

Okay, but "validate" doesn't necessarily mean "persuade". To me "validate means to present evidence that something is true. You consider what you're saying to be true, and you consider the weather events to be evidence of that. It seems odd to me that you want to talk about my improper use of the word "validate" when we could be discussing how preposterous the idea is that one could surmise such a thing predicated on variations in something as inconstant, unreliable, and dependent on processes that are poorly understood and seemingly random as weather patterns.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
When I first saw this thread

When I first saw this thread I thought it was a one on one battle, and decided to stay out of it. Today I'm bored, noone is posting, so I decided to briefly read throught the argument at hand. The first few interferences I ignored, but they just came too commonly. And then I saw something that annoyed me.

Christos wrote:
I've always wondered why there are still believers.

And I've always wondered why there are still believers of your religion.

Christos wrote:
 These pagan religion died.

Obviously not.

Christos wrote:
 Then 20th century people bring these dead religions back to life. Why is that necessary?

I hope you realize that christianity has died over and over again throughout the centuries. The various offspring of the original factions are practically unrecognizable from their ancestors. Therefore your argument applies as much to the religions today as the religions of yesterday. You just refuse to accept it.

Christos wrote:
These gods are dead. They don't exist. It's a crazy joke.

Neither do yours. 

Christos wrote:
 Your religions had their time, were defeated philosophically by monotheism, and faded into oblivion.

*Snort* That's why they're still there eh?

Christos wrote:
 Your religion disappeared for a reason.......it's wrong. Completely wrong.

And your religion is on the way out for the same reasons.

Christos wrote:

Well, believe it or not, I've never had a Big Mac. I do eat meat. Here is the difference: I eat meat because people need to be fed. However, I don't eat the meat as a pleasing sacrifice to God. I don't eat it as a useless sacrifice to some dead germanic god.

No, you eat bread and pretend it's human flesh. You drink wine and pretend it's human blood. There is only semantic difference between your religion and his. He's not sacrificing animals to a god and leaving the meat to rot, he's simply adding a ritual to the consumption of food that he already partakes in. Your response is quite frankly laughable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
I'm a she.

I'm a she.Eye-wink


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Oops.*faceplant*I have to

Oops.

*faceplant*

I have to start paying attention to avatars and such.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And

Vastet wrote:

And I've always wondered why there are still believers of your religion.

Oh Vastet, you probably didn't read this thread carefully enough. I'm not a Christian. Whoops

And pagan religions did die. That's why its called neo-paganism. It's a modern reincarnation of an ancient religion. You know, they read books and brought it back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism#Historicity

Vastet wrote:

I hope you realize that christianity has died over and over again throughout the centuries. The various offspring of the original factions are practically unrecognizable from their ancestors. Therefore your argument applies as much to the religions today as the religions of yesterday. You just refuse to accept it.

That is ridiculously false. Study Christianity a little bit brother. The religion has split into factions, but the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are very similar to ancient Christianity. Orthodox liturgy is virtually the same as it was 1500 years ago. The Creeds are exactly the same. Or how it takes hundreds of years for the Catholic Church to change anything significant. They didn't start doing mass in the vernacular until the second half of the 20th century with Vatican II. Orthodox and Catholic sects of Christianity are also the two largest sects.

And Christianity has never died. I don't know what you're talking about. Tell me one time period since 50 CE that Christianity didn't exist as a religion.

Vastet wrote:

And your religion is on the way out for the same reasons.

I'm sorry, what religion? Fuck man, stop making false assumptions.

Vastet wrote:

 

No, you eat bread and pretend it's human flesh. You drink wine and pretend it's human blood. There is only semantic difference between your religion and his. He's not sacrificing animals to a god and leaving the meat to rot, he's simply adding a ritual to the consumption of food that he already partakes in. Your response is quite frankly laughable.

Hey, it's more incorrect Christian comparisons. Stop making stupid assumptions.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Stop making

Christos wrote:

Stop making stupid assumptions.

 

Irony alert!


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Are you still ignoring

Are you still ignoring Seneca Ciarin?


 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Ciarin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Then wouldn't a Christian's personal experience with Jesus neglect Odin since the two are mutually exclusive?

 

Nope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the beauty of a syncretistic system - you like something, you use it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Christos wrote:Vastet

Christos wrote:

Vastet wrote:

And I've always wondered why there are still believers of your religion.

Oh Vastet, you probably didn't read this thread carefully enough. I'm not a Christian. Whoops

For one thing, you're the one who called themselves "Christos". Name a single religion that isn't related to christianity that the term can apply to. You're guilty of false advertising. You can hardly blame me for making a logical assumption.

For another, it frankly doesn't matter what religion you follow. They are all the same.

Christos wrote:

And pagan religions did die. That's why its called neo-paganism. It's a modern reincarnation of an ancient religion. You know, they read books and brought it back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism#Historicity

And guess what? That means they're not extinct. Hence, not dead. Furthermore, you cannot prove that those religions did not continue in secret.

Christos wrote:

Vastet wrote:

I hope you realize that christianity has died over and over again throughout the centuries. The various offspring of the original factions are practically unrecognizable from their ancestors. Therefore your argument applies as much to the religions today as the religions of yesterday. You just refuse to accept it.

That is ridiculously false.

No, it isn't.

Christos wrote:
 Study Christianity a little bit brother.

Take your own advice.

Christos wrote:
 The religion has split into factions, but the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are very similar to ancient Christianity.

Similar is not the same. You fail.

Christos wrote:
Orthodox liturgy is virtually the same as it was 1500 years ago.

The roots of christianity extend a lot further back than 1500 years. You fail again.

Christos wrote:
The Creeds are exactly the same.

Three for three.

Christos wrote:
 Or how it takes hundreds of years for the Catholic Church to change anything significant.

It can't justify any change at all and remain true to it's origins. Furthermore, the catholic church is not the origin of christianity.

Christos wrote:
 They didn't start doing mass in the vernacular until the second half of the 20th century with Vatican II. Orthodox and Catholic sects of Christianity are also the two largest sects.

Pretty significant changes. Change means the death of the previous form. Original christianity is long dead. You have merely solidified my case. Again.

Christos wrote:

And Christianity has never died. I don't know what you're talking about. Tell me one time period since 50 CE that Christianity didn't exist as a religion.

Many people throughout the ages have had the same name as I. That doesn't mean they are me, or that I am them. Learn basic logic.

Christos wrote:

Vastet wrote:

And your religion is on the way out for the same reasons.

I'm sorry, what religion? Fuck man, stop making false assumptions.

Yours. And everyone else's. It doesn't matter what religion you follow, the result is the same.

Christos wrote:

Vastet wrote:

 

No, you eat bread and pretend it's human flesh. You drink wine and pretend it's human blood. There is only semantic difference between your religion and his. He's not sacrificing animals to a god and leaving the meat to rot, he's simply adding a ritual to the consumption of food that he already partakes in. Your response is quite frankly laughable.

Hey, it's more incorrect Christian comparisons. Stop making stupid assumptions.

Quite your stupid false advertising, and make yourself clear before you accuse others of making unreasonable assumptions. Asshole.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, I've made several

Vastet, I've made several posts on these forums and this thread that I'm not a Christian. I was a little too harsh on you for assuming that I'm a Christian. My mistake.

I'm not sure what to say to your posts about Christianity. You just seem like a confused child who knows nothing about the subject trying to aruge with a big person. Sure, Christianity changed. That doesn't mean that Christianity died by changing.

You also wrote a lot about "original Christianity." So Vastet, tell me all about Original Christianity. Tell me everything, since you seem to be a top notch scholar on the matter.

Furthermore, you still didn't tell me one period since 50 CE where Christianity didn't exist. C'mon, think hard, I'm sure you'll come up with something. Remember, Christianity changing doesn't mean the religion died.

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Christos wrote:Vastet, I've

Christos wrote:

Vastet, I've made several posts on these forums and this thread that I'm not a Christian. I was a little too harsh on you for assuming that I'm a Christian. My mistake.

I don't necessarily read every single post on this forum. It was also quite clear that I stopped reading the thread where I did, else I would have had a lot more to say I'm sure.

Christos wrote:

I'm not sure what to say to your posts about Christianity. You just seem like a confused child who knows nothing about the subject trying to aruge with a big person. Sure, Christianity changed. That doesn't mean that Christianity died by changing.

Yes, it does. You're just a child who refuses to accept death. It happens, get over it.

Christos wrote:

You also wrote a lot about "original Christianity." So Vastet, tell me all about Original Christianity. Tell me everything, since you seem to be a top notch scholar on the matter.

I'm not here to write a fucking book. Look it up. Every town has a library. You obviously have access to a computer. Do it yourself.

Christos wrote:

Furthermore, you still didn't tell me one period since 50 CE where Christianity didn't exist.

I didn't have to. I showed you why. Now you're just making an idiot of yourself.

Christos wrote:
C'mon, think hard,

Maybe you need to start thinking altogether. Contrary to what you may believe, it doesn't take a lot of effort to understand basic logic.

Christos wrote:

I'm sure you'll come up with something. Remember, Christianity changing doesn't mean the religion died.

Yes, it did.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Oh Vastet, I don't believe

Oh Vastet, I don't believe in the afterlife. So I guess that means I have accepted death. 

You've made it abundantly clear that you know nothing significant about Christian history. You couldn't tell me anything about Christianity immediately after the death of Christ. Nothing.

Christianity after the death of Christ looked just like Second Temple Judaism with the added belief of Jesus as the Messiah. Christianity began to transform into a Gentile religion with Paul and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. The religion changed, but it did not die. There, that wasn't hard. I didn't need to write a book.

It's ok, you don't know anything about Christian history. That's fine. It's not the most important topic to study. I think I'm done talking to someone who pretends to be a historian.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10633
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Christos wrote:Oh Vastet, I

Christos wrote:

Oh Vastet, I don't believe in the afterlife. So I guess that means I have accepted death. 

Like an afterlife even enters my mind. You're just further proving you don't know the meaning of the words death and change.

Christos wrote:

You've made it abundantly clear that you know nothing significant about Christian history. You couldn't tell me anything about Christianity immediately after the death of Christ. Nothing.

ROTF

Guess it just flew right over your head. Ah well. Some people are just too far gone.

Christos wrote:

Christianity after the death of Christ looked just like Second Temple Judaism with the added belief of Jesus as the Messiah. Christianity began to transform into a Gentile religion with Paul and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. The religion changed, but it did not die. There, that wasn't hard. I didn't need to write a book.

It's ok, you don't know anything about Christian history. That's fine. It's not the most important topic to study. I think I'm done talking to someone who pretends to be a historian.

Apparently you just aren't qualified to have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time continuing it. Maybe one day when you've actually looked into the origins of christianity and you've also learned that change is death, you'll be better qualified. Let me know when you finally get it, and we can continue this.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
After reading through this

After reading through this thread the only things that really get to me. First is the whole sacrifice thing, it sounds like an awesome barbeque. Anyone here who eats meat had better get off their high horse about the sacrifices. Killing an animal and then eating it is not morally different than killing an animal and then eating it and also throwing in some religious stuff while you are at it. Just a few hours ago I ate a Hebrew National hot dog. The cow that hot dog came from was killed by having its throat slit, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Second is claiming that early Christians were not violent like the polytheist were. Early Christianity and senseless violence went hand in hand. Don't pretend that they were a bunch of peacenics.

Lets see how friendly and peaceful the early Christian emperor Theodosius was:

Theodosius wrote:

We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retributions of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment.

Theodosius wrote:

We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates.

By 435 anyone who wasn't a Jew or a Christian received the death penalty for heresy. So let us not pretend that early Christians were any better than the people they replaced. The polytheists used there monopoly on state power to kill Christians, later the Christians used their monopoly on state power to kill off the polytheists.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:Are you still

Christos wrote:

Are you still ignoring Seneca Ciarin?

 

 

 

He hasn't been bothering me so there's no need to ignore him.

 

Are you still ignoring my question about what you believe?


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
So much for a structured

So much for a structured debate...


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:After

Jormungander wrote:

After reading through this thread the only things that really get to me. First is the whole sacrifice thing, it sounds like an awesome barbeque. Anyone here who eats meat had better get off their high horse about the sacrifices. Killing an animal and then eating it is not morally different than killing an animal and then eating it and also throwing in some religious stuff while you are at it. Just a few hours ago I ate a Hebrew National hot dog. The cow that hot dog came from was killed by having its throat slit, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I eat meat and I'm opposed to animal sacrifice because I don't think it's effective. I'd even go so far as to say that no matter what your problem is, animal sacrifice is not a solution. Also I don't think that just because you're killing an animal that the door is open to do absolutely anything to it; people have an ethical responsibility to slaughter animals humanely. I worked on a ranch once and I actually had the occasion to see a person sacrifice a lamb in an islamic ritual. The animal died very peacefully probably more so than it would have had it been killed in an abattoir or something, but that doesn't mean that animal sacrifice isn't a stupid thing to do.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Christos sounds like an

Christos sounds like an agnostic pantheist or deist. But, why is his username Christos?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:people have an

Gauche wrote:

people have an ethical responsibility to slaughter animals humanely.

 

We what now? o_O?

What Would Kharn Do?


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I eat meat and

Gauche wrote:

I eat meat and I'm opposed to animal sacrifice because I don't think it's effective.

I'd say it's pretty effective if you like eating meat.

Quote:

I'd even go so far as to say that no matter what your problem is, animal sacrifice is not a solution.

 

Hmmm...I've never read animal sacrifice being used to solve a problem before. Interesting, where did you come up with this?

 

Quote:

Also I don't think that just because you're killing an animal that the door is open to do absolutely anything to it; people have an ethical responsibility to slaughter animals humanely.

Which means you're against factory farming, yes? As far as I can tell raising an animal on a farm and killing it with a trained and experienced slaughterer seems pretty humane to me.

 

Quote:

I worked on a ranch once and I actually had the occasion to see a person sacrifice a lamb in an islamic ritual. The animal died very peacefully probably more so than it would have had it been killed in an abattoir or something, but that doesn't mean that animal sacrifice isn't a stupid thing to do.

 

Why is animal sacrifice stupid then? Because it has some religious ceremony tied to it? What difference does it make to you? The animal gets eaten either way. It's no different than a christian saying grace before a meal; we just happen to do the religious stuff when the animal dies.

 

Now, I realize that you think religion is stupid and irrational so by that line of thinking anything done with religion tied to it is stupid. So if that's what you meant then fine. Otherwise I'd like to see an explanation on exactly why it's stupid.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I eat meat and

Gauche wrote:

I eat meat and I'm opposed to animal sacrifice because I don't think it's effective.

Effective? Effective for what? Appeasing Gods?

Quote:
Also I don't think that just because you're killing an animal that the door is open to do absolutely anything to it; people have an ethical responsibility to slaughter animals humanely. I worked on a ranch once and I actually had the occasion to see a person sacrifice a lamb in an islamic ritual. The animal died very peacefully probably more so than it would have had it been killed in an abattoir or something, but that doesn't mean that animal sacrifice isn't a stupid thing to do.

The intended purpose for slaughtering an animal has no bearing on how "humanely" the animal was treated. If you're worried about the ethical treatment of animals, then you should be protesting where your meat comes from, where the animals are deprived of light, water, and air and constantly tortured; they suffocate in their own piss. Thus, the sausage that ends up on your plate suffered immeasurably more than any animal in pretty much any animal sacrifice, assuming that those theists/mystics saved the poor little creature from some factory farm. So, what exactly are you trying to say here? On one hand, you stated that we "have an ethical responsibility to slaughter animals humanely," but, on the other hand, you said animal sacrifice is a "stupid thing to do." From where I'm sitting, it looks like you unconsciously juxtaposed two completely unrelated arguments.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Effective? Effective for what? Appeasing Gods?

If one thinks that the gods are going to reciprocate in some way then no, it's not effective. If the person believes that they'll receive good fortune or something because of it then that's just sophomoric. But for the sake of argument let's assume that they don't want anything in return and they're in it strictly for the god pleasing. I still don't think it's effective because there really isn't a reason to think that it actually does appease the gods. Isn't it equally likely that it angers the gods? Since we're not going to get any indication that the gods are appeased or angered I'd say that it's as effective at appeasing the gods as anything would be, which is probably not at all since these gods probably don't exist to be appeased in the first place.
 

butterbattle wrote:
The intended purpose for slaughtering an animal has no bearing on how "humanely" the animal was treated.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Depending on your purpose for slaughtering an animal you may be required to treat it in a more or less humane fashion. If I want to slaughter a chicken and sell it at the market labeled "organic" "free range" "certified humane" then I have to treat the animal better. If I wanted to get foie gras from a goose then i have to treat it a little worse. So your reasons for slaughtering are relevant when discussing humane treatment.
 

butterbattle wrote:
If you're worried about the ethical treatment of animals, then you should be protesting where your meat comes from, where the animals are deprived of light, water, and air and constantly tortured; they suffocate in their own piss. Thus, the sausage that ends up on your plate suffered immeasurably more than any animal in pretty much any animal sacrifice, assuming that those theists/mystics saved the poor little creature from some factory farm.

Don't you think it's  a little presumptuous to assume that you know what I eat an where I get it? Don't you even want to ask first?

butterbattle wrote:
So, what exactly are you trying to say here? On one hand, you stated that we "have an ethical responsibility to slaughter animals humanely," but, on the other hand, you said animal sacrifice is a "stupid thing to do." From where I'm sitting, it looks like you unconsciously juxtaposed two completely unrelated arguments.

I was trying to point out that as we evaluate the concept of ritualistic killing we shouldn't be swayed to an excessive degree in favor of it simply because in some cases it may be more humane. It's my belief that animals should be treated humanely and I try to do that but someone engaging in animal sacrifice is fulfilling the purpose of a ritual. The humane treatment is just an excuse, it's coincidental. If the ritual called for the animal to be treated badly then the person would do that instead. I only brought it up because people were going on about how much nicer sacrifice is for the animal than the normal way, which is just a rhetorical ploy.

But none of that has anything to do with whether or not animal sacrifice actually accomplishes anything. And by that I mean accomplish anything that wouldn't be accomplished by killing the animal without a ritual. Yeah you get food out of it, but you get food out of killing an animal anyway even if you don't dance around it like a damn fool afterward.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I'd say it's

Ciarin wrote:

I'd say it's pretty effective if you like eating meat.

This is the 21st century, there are lots of ways to get a meal without ritualistic animal sacrifice.  The ritual is extraneous it isn't justified

 by the meal that would have followed anyway without the ritual.

 

Quote:

Hmmm...I've never read animal sacrifice being used to solve a problem before. Interesting, where did you come up with this?

 

I hate to quote wikipedia because it's wikipedia but these are the first two sentences from the page about animal sacrifice.

"Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. It is practised by many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature."

I'm not introducing a radical idea here. I think it's pretty well established that people engage in animal sacrifice because they want the gods to reciprocate in some way favorable to them.

Quote:

Which means you're against factory farming, yes? As far as I can tell raising an animal on a farm and killing it with a trained and experienced slaughterer seems pretty humane to me.

I never said that was inhumane.

Quote:
Why is animal sacrifice stupid then? Because it has some religious ceremony tied to it? What difference does it make to you? The animal gets eaten either way. It's no different than a christian saying grace before a meal; we just happen to do the religious stuff when the animal dies.

 

Now, I realize that you think religion is stupid and irrational so by that line of thinking anything done with religion tied to it is stupid. So if that's what you meant then fine. Otherwise I'd like to see an explanation on exactly why it's stupid.

These things have to be taken in the proper context. Had you said that you engaged in animal sacrifice 1500 years ago I wouldn't think it was stupid. I would just think that you had no way of knowing any better. But today you probably should know better.

In the middle ages they would have a suspected criminal reach into a cauldron of boiling water or oil and retrieve a stone from the bottom then divine the persons guilt or innocence from the severity of the burns. Was that stupid? Absolutely, because there's no connection between the burns and the person's culpability. Just like there's no reason to think that there's any connection between killing an animal and how happy the gods are, or what the natural course of events that follow will be. That's why it's stupid.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Fishpasteplay (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Christos sounds like a

Christos sounds like a christian to me actually, just not of a major sect.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
For the record I don't

For the record I don't sacrifice animals to appease anything. It's way to honor the gods. You take your best crop(be it plant or animal) and you dedicate the eating of it to the god or gods. If the animal was mistreated or killed badly it wouldn't be worthy to be a sacrifice. That would be like going to McDonald's and dedicating the burger and fries to the gods(i.e. a really crappy offering).

 

Would you want someone to give you a shitty gift, or a nice gift? There's no reason to believe mistreating an animal would be a good offering, and if you were to somehow find out that a god wants a shitty offering, he probably isn't worth being honored in the first place.

 

Most people in this modern society are ignorant of just how awful factory farming is, either that or they don't care. I know better. So I prefer better(which is sometimes in the form of ritual sacrifice). I don't consider it stupid at all. It gives you an appreciation of the food you're eating and the reality that you must kill to eat. Buying a plastic wrapped steak doesn't do that. Today we can eat meat all day everyday and not think about it at all, because of factory farming. In the past, meat was a special commodity, not everyone could afford to eat it. It helps to not take things for granted sometimes.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote: It's way to honor the

Quote:
It's way to honor the gods.

It is a way to ignore that rabbit's feet justify the mundane need to eat by equating it to Superman vs Kriptonite.

It is a way for you to ignore the fact that you have to kill to survive. Name me one thing that does not die?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote: It's

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
It's way to honor the gods.

It is a way to ignore that rabbit's feet justify the mundane need to eat by equating it to Superman vs Kriptonite.

It is a way for you to ignore the fact that you have to kill to survive. Name me one thing that does not die?

 

Actually lots of the old roman gods required burnt offerings usually the fat and the undersirable parts do you do that as well? After all it was about appeasing the gods,not honoring the gods, as well when you "sacrifice" an animal do you do it yourself? Do you inspect the animal itself as well after you slit it's throat and then slice it's belly open to inspect the insides to make sure it's healthy? If it's not healthy do you sacrife a pig in order to ask forgiveness to your gods (again another tradition in roman and various other religious animal sacrifices) for attempting to give them an unhealthy animal?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:If one thinks

Gauche wrote:

If one thinks that the gods are going to reciprocate in some way then no, it's not effective. If the person believes that they'll receive good fortune or something because of it then that's just sophomoric. But for the sake of argument let's assume that they don't want anything in return and they're in it strictly for the god pleasing. I still don't think it's effective because there really isn't a reason to think that it actually does appease the gods. Isn't it equally likely that it angers the gods? Since we're not going to get any indication that the gods are appeased or angered I'd say that it's as effective at appeasing the gods as anything would be, which is probably not at all since these gods probably don't exist to be appeased in the first place.

Okay.

Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Depending on your purpose for slaughtering an animal you may be required to treat it in a more or less humane fashion. If I want to slaughter a chicken and sell it at the market labeled "organic" "free range" "certified humane" then I have to treat the animal better. If I wanted to get foie gras from a goose then i have to treat it a little worse. So your reasons for slaughtering are relevant when discussing humane treatment.

Oh, it appears that I actually agree with you. Your purpose for raising an animal would inevitably affect how you treat the animal. However, from your earlier comments, I thought you were implying that the purpose itself somehow makes the slaughter more or less humane.

Quote:
Don't you think it's  a little presumptuous to assume that you know what I eat an where I get it? Don't you even want to ask first?

It seemed fairly unnecessary. Unless you're a subsistence farmer or something, you'll most likely consume dozens of pounds of several kinds of meat from factory farms yearly.  

But, since you brought it up, where do you buy your meat? If you eat meat at restaurants, where do you eat?

Quote:
I was trying to point out that as we evaluate the concept of ritualistic killing we shouldn't be swayed to an excessive degree in favor of it simply because in some cases it may be more humane. It's my belief that animals should be treated humanely and I try to do that but someone engaging in animal sacrifice is fulfilling the purpose of a ritual. The humane treatment is just an excuse, it's coincidental. If the ritual called for the animal to be treated badly then the person would do that instead. I only brought it up because people were going on about how much nicer sacrifice is for the animal than the normal way, which is just a rhetorical ploy.

But none of that has anything to do with whether or not animal sacrifice actually accomplishes anything. And by that I mean accomplish anything that wouldn't be accomplished by killing the animal without a ritual. Yeah you get food out of it, but you get food out of killing an animal anyway even if you don't dance around it like a damn fool afterward.

That makes a lot more sense. In fact, most of your previous comment didn't mean what I thought it meant. Hahaha.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Badbark
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote: For the record

Ciarin wrote:

For the record I don't sacrifice animals to appease anything. It's way to honor the gods. You take your best crop(be it plant or animal) and you dedicate the eating of it to the god or gods. If the animal was mistreated or killed badly it wouldn't be worthy to be a sacrifice. That would be like going to McDonald's and dedicating the burger and fries to the gods(i.e. a really crappy offering).

 

Would you want someone to give you a shitty gift, or a nice gift? There's no reason to believe mistreating an animal would be a good offering, and if you were to somehow find out that a god wants a shitty offering, he probably isn't worth being honored in the first place.

 

Most people in this modern society are ignorant of just how awful factory farming is, either that or they don't care. I know better. So I prefer better(which is sometimes in the form of ritual sacrifice). I don't consider it stupid at all. It gives you an appreciation of the food you're eating and the reality that you must kill to eat. Buying a plastic wrapped steak doesn't do that. Today we can eat meat all day everyday and not think about it at all, because of factory farming. In the past, meat was a special commodity, not everyone could afford to eat it. It helps to not take things for granted sometimes.

If someone killed and ate an animal to honour me I would regard it as pretty much the shittiest gift I had ever received. I would be more honoured by a denotation to charity or another act of kindness. Maybe your gods might feel the same way?

Most people in modern society have progressed past religious animal sacrifice.