Why is it so important to some people to disprove one's beliefs...

It is the teachings of Jesus Christ that a Christian is supposed to follow. It is the ideas and the words. My religion has been hijacked by the fundies... I don't go to a traditional church.. this past Saturday I went to a Hindu woman's prayers. Its about spirituality and humanity. Its how you tap into a higher power that's within yourself... The father, son, holy ghost... that holy ghost says the creater is within you... You have the ability to create love, peace, and happiness...

Dispelling beliefs to reach that ability to create is foolish... Leave it alone and move on people. It doesn't matter to me how you reach that peace within and around, just get there, hurry up because a lot of people are way ahead of you...

Love you all, but lets not fight... People lose lives over religion. Religion is an entity. Belief is personal.

such as myself, don't like the idea of a bunch of lunatics being in charge of the nut house.

The fundies do not and in fact act in the opposite manner which should tell us something about them.

Just as you prefer the parts that talk of peace, love, and charity, they focus more on the sections about violence, sin, and being judgmental. There's plenty of both kinds of messages in that book, unfortunately.

and when you get down to it, does it matter if you call it The Holy Spirit, Elohim, Tatsam Asi?

No need to fight over it. One thing I've learned is that you can't change a person's beliefs about religion unless the change has already happened within them. As the old Sufi story goes, don't waken the sleeping man;only those that are stirring from their sleep.

Most atheists I know, and I am one of them, are super aware of all religions, dogma, theology and liturgy. Most of them have already evolved away from religion. Why do Sufis perceive non-believers in Islam to be "sleeping"?

I don't mean that as a cut or an insult - simply that once you have seen the light you want to share it with other people. Whether that light is your particular religion or atheism. The urge to preach to convince is, in a way, a noble thing, no matter how annoying it might be.

Bryant

Sometimes when you have great sex you want to go telling people about your great experience but who wants to hear it? Next time I can use the excuse that I am trying to be noble and share my experience even if the person may not want to hear it.

With all kidding aside, I agree, preaching to someone who does not want to hear your preaching is annoying. But I cannot see why preaching is a noble thing to do.

I am all for spirituality but to try to convince others is going too far and it can be harmful. Other people have their own beliefs, don't feel the need to convince others, and don't want to be encroached by someone else's preaching. Why not leave them alone?

Diversity is a good thing and trying to convince everyone to be like you is not a good thing in my opinion.

We know nothing about some interesting cultures and religions of native people here in the Americas because of this need from the missionaries to "convince" their religions is better and convert people (sometimes by force). I think that is a shame! Even when it is without force.

It's okay to share your religion with people who see your light but let people who see the light in a different way have their space.

Obviously the desire to share can go to far. But if you think you've found the right answer to these great questions - an answer that not only is the correct one, but also one that makes your life better, why would you want to keep that to yourself?

Bryant

It's okay to share with your friends and family about your spirituality and why it makes you happy but to go door to door to convince others is not the right thing to do much less noble.

Sharing is one thing but preaching is another. Sharing is not the annoying part. Preaching is the annoying part.

Remember, what is correct for you may not be correct for someone else.

I see what you are saying and largely agree - but if Atheism is the right answer, it is by definition the right answer for everybone. Some religions are the same - other religions are more flexible.

Bryant

If you are an atheist its because you came to that conclusion and you found it to be right for you. Not for everyone. Anyone trying to impose their views, whatever that might be, is doing something wrong in my opinion.

Some religions want to preach to everyone. Some religions are even highly against preaching to people outside of their community.

The problem, in my opinion, is not religion or people's spirituality. You see the light, you are happy with your religion (whatever that might be) and that's great!

But I have a problem with proselytizing because I see it as an "agression" to diversity.

People are what they are and we should let them be if they want to be that way.

dangerous superstition because to do otherwise is a threat to diversity? What about the dominionists who clearly believe that their brand of Christianity should run the show here in America?

I don't know what you mean by an Aggression to diversity, but I suspect diversity can take care of itself (Dominionists aside).

Bryant

I didn't say atheists should do or think anything. I'm not an atheist and I cannot speak for an atheist to say what they should think about Christianity. You should ask an atheist about that.

I understand an atheist or an agnostic or any spiritual person who has serious concerns about the Christian right's influence in our government or any religious influence altogether. I am a theist and I see that as dangerous.

Atheists might have more of a beef with Christianity since some Christians sects feel the need to "save" people and tries to impose values atheists don't share, it tries to impose beliefs and how do you expect atheists to react?

My beef is with proselytism. What I mean by diversity? Religious diversity, cultural diversity, people with different points of view. Why the need to convert people to your religion? For what purpose? To save them? Save them from what?

Like I said in an earlier post, many cultures and religions don't exist today because of proselytism. We are robbed on information about so many rich cultures and religions. We know nothing about them because of religion and that is unfortunate!

I don't believe that the missionaries were the only ones destroying them. That said, that's the $64,000 question. Why did missionaries feel the need to share their truth and why do people today feel the need to prosolytyze? If their belief is that failure to accept Christ as their savior will lead to an eternity in hell, well, I can understand how, if you believed that, stepping on a few toes would be a small price to pay. If I believe your house is on fire than I might do anythign I can to rush you out of there, whether you believed it was on fire or not.

Some atheists may feel themselves in a similar boat - Religous theism is so dangerous and so hurtful that to get people out of it might require a little straight talk.

I largely agree with you that a "hard sell" approach to religious discussion is counter productive and leads to bad things. But I can understand how to others it might look different. In a way I think we just have to be tolerant if firm in their desire to preach the good word (whatever that might be) to us.

Bryant

The doctrine of eternal torment for a thought crime justifies all sorts of odious behavior, and basically makes it impossible to be a friend with an Evangelical unless you share their faith.

in his brilliant dissection of the evil Left Behind books. He comments on preaching the good word in several posts, including this on ( http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/07/lb_tactical_dec.html ) and this one ( http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/02/lb_hospitality_.html ) Actually I really like the whole review ( http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/left_behind/index.html ).

"I believe that evangelism, properly understood, is an invitation -- a form of hospitality. I believe that Christians are called to be salt and light -- not to be the kinds of people that no one wants to sit next to on an airplane.

L&J, to their credit, disagree. Rayford Steele -- their mouthpiece and LaHaye's Mary Sue avatar -- seems to recognize that the Great Commission and the obligation to spread the gospel do not require us to offend and scare off those around us. They seem to arrive at this conclusion for wholly pragmatic, tactical reasons, rather than principled ones (i.e., not because treating others with respect is the Right Thing To Do, but because treating them with disrespect doesn't seem to work), but let that slide. Whatever their reasoning, they have recognized that the willingness to be "fools for Christ" does not entail an obligation to be assholes for Christ."

Bryant

Let's say I'm "best friends" with an Evangelical Christian who believes that everyone who doesn't accept his theology will suffer an eternity of torment beyond human reckoning. Let's look past the obvious issues of worshiping such an evil deity.

One of the things that friends do is look out for each other. So my friend would obviously want to look out for me to "help" me avoid that endless torture. Think about a substance abuse intervention. Friends confront their afflicted friend, doing things that would normally be inappropriate to try and get them to change their ways; that's over something finite in scope. What would be justified in the name of stopping a harm that is, by definition, infinite? Even the Inquisition, in all its horror, would not even compare to the horror that its victims would suffer if not for their forcible conversion.

If my hypothetical friend were to decide to respect my right to be wrong and not try to change my friend, then what kind of friend are they? They're willing to let me do something incredibly foolish and harmful, literally letting me consign myself to a punishment of infinite scope without trying to help.

I see no way around the two horns of this dilemma. The doctrine of Hell is so odious, leads to such absurd conclusions, that I don't feel that I can really be friends with someone that honestly believes it.

I mean if they believe that all the nice people go to heaven, because being nice is a way of serving god even if you don't believe in him, than the problem doesn't arise (unless, of course, you are a jerk). Or at least it is drained of it's vitality.

Bryant

They then believe in a deity with a disturbing sense of "justice" - finite crimes cannot possibly "deserve" infinite punishment, as all finite crimes, no matter how horrible, still pale in comparison to an infinite punishment.

"I don't believe that the missionaries were the only ones destroying them. "

The missionaries were not the only ones but had a great share of this "damage".

"Why did missionaries feel the need to share their truth and why do people today feel the need to prosolytyze? If their belief is that failure to accept Christ as their savior will lead to an eternity in hell, well, I can understand how, if you believed that, stepping on a few toes would be a small price to pay. If I believe your house is on fire than I might do anything I can to rush you out of there, whether you believed it was on fire or not."

That is why I have a problem with that belief in "eternity in hell". First, nobody came back from the dead to tell the story of what happens after you die. If God punishes you for not having faith (explaining the Christian need for proselytism) then what depiction of an unjust God that is! God doesn't speak, missionaries have to speak on his behalf, so you might burn in hell for eternity for not buying the story? Such God is not worthy of our worship or praise.

That can be considered blasphemy for the depiction of a mean and unreasonable God.

I don't blame atheists for going above and beyond to reject this idea of God.

I like to think of a kind and just God, father figure, who is there as a guidance to help you follow a good life as a decent human being.

Again, I can't talk for atheists but I don't think they want to straight talk Christians out of faith. I think the atheist harsh words against religion are due to the Christian attitude of "knowing the truth" but only able to provide illogical or metaphysical explanations as proof to that truth. People are told to either believe or they are probably going to burn in hell. When people don't buy the story the reaction sometimes can be to mock it and providing some logical reason why the proselytizing Christian's arguments are BS.

Most of the time I am tolerant of missionaries who knock on my door because I can see their intentions are good and all people need to be treated with dignity. The only time I am intolerant are times when missionaries are persistent and keep trying even when I politely turn them down.

I never had problems with Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons since they go about their business most of the time. They are usually polite and have good intentions. There are some other groups who lack ethics and have questionable methods to "spread the word".

If there is no god then the atheistic position is right - whether or not one particularly cares for this fact.

"If atheism is right, then atheism is right."

Like I said, reality is non-negotiable.

You posted a tautology, and so didn't really add anything to the conversation.

"P -> P" isn't exactly a statement that will get you anywhere.

There is no 'right for you' when it comes to objective reality.

That depends on the nature of that objective reality and whether or not it can be known.

Some truly feel comforted and want to share their faith with you. They do not want to condemn you or judge. I have no problem with this group.

Others have faith based on fear and/or hate and are determined to cast that fear upon you. Rejection and/or ridicule is welcomed and just intensifies their faith. Most likely they are part of a group that uses these tactics to raise money.

Then there is a group where the person has been brought up to believe certain things were true and based most of their life on these beliefs. When they find the foundation is false it can cause them to become quite distraught.(Seminarian syndrome-some call it.)

as we can see from the various UFO cults and New Agey groups that have developed since the Enlightenment.

Whether it is escapism, wishful thinking or an innate sense of spirituality that drives the majority to believe in the supernatural, it is part of the human experience for many.

Even if there is no God
A brother still has an obligation
not to hurt his brother
by telling him
that there is no God.

If we find that something is not true, or even the likelihood of something is not true is high terms of probability, we have an obligation not to perpetuate a lie just because somebody else believes it.
I mean, we accuse freepers and Repugs of "denying reality" and "the facts" and then we turn a blind eye when our own are full of it.

I know this is going to make some people mad. I accept that. My intention is really not to "evangelize". In real life, I never confront a religious person unless they instigate. I really don't care.

But we come here for discussion. We come here to share our views. You can't evangelize on a discussion board when the sole purpose is to talk about your thoughts and opinions. And I just won't apologize for it. If god doesn't exist, it is up to us to falsify him.

This is a discussion board, not an agreement board. It is helpful to keep in mind how much we agree on while we have these discussions, but they are naturally going to gravitate to the points we don't agree on.

I'm a bit confused on your last sentance, though - by falsify do you mean prove false? Or am I missing something.

Bryant

is implying that the other guy's position is wrong.

When it comes to politics, no big deal. But religion is another beast. Now different religions, well, OK, you have this sort of liberal pseudo-religion that all people are really worshiping the same thing, the 'divine' or 'universal spirit' or whatever you want to call it. But it's those darn non-believers whose opinion of "I think you're all full of it" becomes some kind of attack, no matter how gently they try to state it.

You can't sugar-coat atheism without destroying what atheism means. Sorry.

If you are theist you believe atheists to be fundamentally wrong, and if you are an atheist you believe theists to be fundamentally wrong.

On the other hand there are different degrees of how important their "Wrong-ness" is to you. Somewhere betweeen "Yeah I guess those guys are wrong, but who cares?" and "Those guys must be made to acknowledge their error and accept the truth."

Bryant

whereas the theist only has faith and feelings in most cases.

In other words, belief, whether about deities or wrongness, is not something most atheists assert without some proof.

The difference is that Atheists are right, so more consideration should be paid to their point of view.

Bryant

:evilgrin:

You are entitled to your own beliefs, you are not entitled to your own facts.

When no evidence exists for something, it is a lie to call it proven. Likewise when facts actually DISPROVE things like, say, The Great Flood, or Young Earth Creationism.

Truth and facts matter, even if they chip away at or destroy unsupported personal beliefs.

Would you agree that it is a lie to call something disproven when it is not?

For example, the existence of gods isn't disproven, so much as utterly not proven at all.

When people thought the earth was at the center of the solar system, we disproved those beliefs.
When people thought that heavier objects fell faster, we disproved those beliefs.
When people thought that the speed of light was variable, we disproved those beliefs.

Why did we do it? Because those beliefs could be shown to be wrong, and part of the human condition is the quest for truth and the use of that truth to improve the state of our lives.

The point at which I tend to disagree with theists is when they insist that their beliefs have some special status that place them above challenge -- that they have a right to feel insulted or offended when someone not only disagrees with them, but challenges their faith and presents contradictory evidence.

Our search for truth has allowed us to move forward as individuals and as a society. When we finally abandon our belief in the supernatural, we will improve the human condition in ways we can only speculate about today.



Edit: seriously, one day I really need to learn how to type.

...letting things go and moving on. But, when it comes to Religion, even moderate religion, it contributes and fuels the fire of religious fundamentalism. Moderate religion is part of the problem and not the solution.

I had a misconception about "spiritualaity", it can however be both religious and non-religious. The non-religious aspect of being "spritual" is acceptable I suppose, but only in the modest sence. It also must go without saying that even the modest "sprituality" has the potential to lead to religious practices which brings us back to moderate religion and ultimately fundamentalism.

As being a person that has been to one end of the religious spectrum to the other and finally concluding at the point of Atheism, I have found no reason or purpose for religious practices (in any of its forms)in the 21st century.

These belief systems have to disproven and people need to be shown the reality of this behavior and its consequences. It will come to pass that religion is expelled into oblivion, we have only 3 major religions (that are all monotheistic/worship the same G-d) left with a handful of moderate ones too. But, those "moderate" religions, being that they are as meaningless as the 3 major ones, are not as hard to swollow as Christianity, Judeoism and Islam. The only thing that makes them even concievably acceptable to society is their tolerance and acceptence of all, I have not heard of a war started in the name of Buddah...have you?

Pooja, I feel that you have the ability to remain "spiritual" without the religion involved. By not involving yourself within the circles of fundamentalism you would ending your contribution to fundamental religions. That, in its self, would be benefical to everyone and a worthy contribution to reason and society..Humanist Spirituality is far more reasonable then the jesus complex.

"You can't believe X because other people who believe X also believe Y!"

It's bunk when Sam Harris makes that argument, and it's bunk when you make it.

The argument is "belief in X often leads to belief in Y". That's the problem with buying into irrational world views -- it's hard for many people to find an appropriate stopping point. This is especially true for religions like Christianity, whose teachings are geared towards moving the faithful deeper and deeper into fundamentalist ideology.

If a person believes X but not Y, it's downright silly to argue that they shouldn't believe X because other people have made unsound arguments that X implies Y.

In this case, Y is not "implied" by X, it's commanded by it. One cannot say that you believe in the bible -- or the god of the bible -- and then pretend that you are not commanded to practice all manner of brutality. You are told to kill those who violate god's laws (Exodus 31:15) or do not share your beliefs (Deut 13). Then you are told that the word of god is perfect (Psalm 19:7) and that god's law stands forever (Isaiah 40:8).

If say you are a Christian (i.e. you believe in the bible), then you are saying you believe in slavery, the complete subjugation of women, and death for adulterers, homosexuals and disobedient children. You're also big on mass-murder, genocide and the use of rape as a weapon of war.

These are not unsound arguments or implications. They are simply fact. The bible tells you to commit horrendous acts in the name of your god and reinforces this by continually reminding you of god's perfection.

You can choose not to believe in these things, that is your right. But truth in labeling would suggest you then call yourself a "quasi-Christian" or a partial believer.

What is truly disingenuous, though, is to imply that people who follow the bible "just happen to" also believe in a lot of other pretty horrible stuff. The truth is that the scariest fundamentalists on earth are practicing their faith by half-measures at best. A true follower of the bible would be out slaughtering people by the millions.

Edit: typo

There was another thread where this idea of Harris' was debated extensively.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=96489&mesg_id=96489

Needless to say, I disagree strongly with the assertion that Christians are required to "believe in slavery, the complete subjugation of women, and death for adulterers, homosexuals and disobedient children."

Obviously, you aren't "required" to believe anything. All bible-followers pick and choose what parts of the religion they are going to believe in. My point is that belief in the bible can lead you down a very dangerous path. It's the moderate Christians who "just happen to" believe otherwise. They've chosen to do this because they're better people than the psychopathic god they follow, but their choice can be easily shown to be a clear violation of the laws contained in the book on which they base their faith.

That's why I love reading this forum. It has some of the most articulate, thoughtful posters on DU.

I mean you tell us what the bible means and if we don't live up to what you believe the bible means we are quasi Christians? Which I guess you mean as a compliment since real Christians would be brutal murderers and worse.

Millions of people have read the bible and most of them have come to a different conclusion on what the point to the book is - so why is your interpretation the standard?

Bryant

particular breed of DU debater for two simple reasons. One, it permits an argument from ignorance. To engage in this type of reading, one needs only the passage in front of one; no need to deal with original languages or historical and social context or the transmission and translation history of the text. It's easy. (Of course, it also leads to absurdities. I was once told by a fundamentalist that maize was native to Palestine, not the Americas, because the KJV refers to "corn.")

The second reason results from the first: if there is no standard for interpretation, then any one person's interpretation is as "good" as any other's--and the woman who claimed that maize grew in Iron Age Palestine is just as correct as the person who groans and points out that "corn" is Brit for "grain."

Those who approach the Bible through the disciplines of textual, historical and linguistic analysis, on the other hand, must proceed according to certain scholastic standards, and their interpretation is judged by those standards. I've yet to see the sort of polemical website that furnishes so much cut-and-paste to this forum that meets those standards.

It's what the bible says, in clear terms that are highly resistant to interpretation. We can argue about the relative importance of certain chapters or passages, but you cannot deny the simple fact that all of the verses I cited actually do exist and are part of holy scripture.

When you say "millions of people have read the bible", what you really mean is that "millions of people have read some of the bible." I doubt a large percentage of bible-followers have read that book cover-to-cover. Even fundamentalists have been recently shown to have a vast ignorance of the contents of their holy book. (I'll look up the study later if you missed it).

I agree though that there are a few religious moderates who actually have read the entire bible and still refuse to adhere to its explicit calls for religious violence. They manage to create some sort of workable moral philosophy in spite of the religious doctrine they follow. They have chosen to incorporate ideas from outside their religion in order to resist its most horrific tenets.

In other words, the most important, practical, and moral part of their faith is their ability to choose which passages in their holy book they are going to reject completely. That sense of morality and justice comes from somewhere other than religious doctrine, since it necessarily has to precede any reading of scripture.

No matter how many of the faithful choose to resist biblical values with rationality and compassion, the fact remains that the bible contains within it the seeds of fanaticism and cruelty. The choice to believe in such a book is the choice to continually scrabble against a very slippery philosophical slope.

Edit: typo

It's bogus when talking about the Koran, and it's equally bogus when talking about the Bible. Interestingly, it's bogus for the very same reason - it takes passages out of context to come up with the most hostile interpretation possible, then argues that interpretation is the only valid one.

I'm no great fan of Christianity, but I really see no need to resort to such poor argumentation.

There y'go, the entire chapter, no quotes "out of context". Wanna tell me how the context here helps your argument? Or does Deuteronomy 14 say "haha -- only kidding!" Or maybe the preceding chapter says "Now we're going to talk about a bunch of crazy shit that no sane person should ever believe in."

Otherwise, saying that I'm "interpreting" the bible is what's really bogus. I'm just reading the bible. The "interpretation" comes when you somehow try to justify or soften books like Deuteronomy, Numbers or Leviticus.

Why Christ seems to have acted differently when he was around - and why most Christians take Christs example as more central than Deuteronomy, Numbers or Leviticus?

Many Christians believe that the law of Moses (contained in those books) was fulfilled in Christ - and I presume you have a comeback to that as well?

Bryant

But they are so in spite of their faith. They choose to give more weight to Jesus' words (actually some of Jesus' words) because those words fit much better with the moral philosphy they had before they were exposed to religion. (And before you say that children don't have an inherent moral philosophy, just try giving a bigger piece of cake to one of two siblings and watch the moral arguments fly.)

There is nothing in the Bible that says the New Testament supercedes or nullifies the Old. It is the choice of some Christians to believe that, and I, for one, am glad they do.

Edit: still learning to type

Or is your ire towards interpretation directed only towards religious works?

As I've stated repeatedly, when it comes to texts as savage and degenerate as the bible, I'm all in favor of interpretation as opposed to literal adherence.

My only point is that the decision to eschew fundamentalism comes from nothing expressed in Christian doctrine. It is something imposed on the faith by its moderate practitioners.

I disagree that a literal reading is more "pure" than an interpretive reading, and thus I disagree that "the decision to eschew fundamentalism comes from nothing expressed in Christian doctrine."

I'd be seriously interested in any part of the bible that even implies that you can ignore other laws expressed within it.

You're relying on the premise that a literal reading is superior to argue that a literal reading is superior.

You're not quite understanding my words if you arrive at your "superior" assessment. I've clearly said that a literal reading of the bible is far inferior from a moral standpoint.

You're also misunderstanding me if you feel that I'm asking for a "literal" reading to prove your point. I'm challenging you to come up with any interpretation for any passage in the bible that implies that Christians are free to ignore god's law as they see fit.

The fact that no one can do this is the source of my answer to the OP's question: Why do I want to disprove (more correctly: "challenge") your beliefs? Because your beliefs are contagious, and those beliefs in the hands of someone only slightly less moral or less rational than you can lead to disastrous consequences.

Perhaps I was overly influenced by my English teachers, but I find a literal reading of anything to be vastly inferior in a critical-thinking standpoint than a well-interpreted reading.

See, while you and I both agree that critical thinking is a good thing, the christian doctrine is not so hot on it. Christians have nothing in their holy scriptures that encourages or even allows the type of interpretation that you and I are in favor of.

The faithful have chosen to do this themselves, and that choice is the only thing that has kept the Christian belief system viable for so long. I have said repeatedly that this world view is morally and intellectually superior to a literalist view, since it clearly leads to better results for society. What this seems to indicate is that even more wanton rejection of Christian theology will lead to even better results.

It would be begging the question if I made the assertion that the bible is literally true and then used that assertion to prove other aspects of the bible. Taking your opponent's assertion and then showing what silly consequences arise is actually reductio ad absurdum.

My argument goes something like this:

1. Christians believe the bible contains the word of god.


2. Christians believe that god is the supreme being, therefore in their minds, the word of god is superior to all other statements regarding christian doctrine.


3. The bible contains no indication that some parts of the text are superior to others, or that some parts should be ignored. In fact, it states quite the opposite in many places.


4. Christians also state that many of the actions commanded in the bible would not be the actions of someone who truly follows the christian faith


5. Therefore, in order to truly follow the christian doctrine, you must not truly follow the christian doctrine

Reductio ad absurdum

Interpreting a portion as not an instruction for living today is different than ignoring it. Given that a literal reading results in contradictions too many to mention, it would seem that the work itself does require a reader to interpret it in a non-literal manner.

Just pick the most damning sections and ignore any that aren't damning.

Bryant

I just don't call myself a christian or theist when I do it.

Pick the nicest parts and ignore those that aren't as nice.

1. The bible is our preeminent religious text.


2. The bible contains glaring inconsistencies of logic.


3. The inconsistencies are god's way of telling us that must interpret his word for ourselves.


4. Therefore, in order to strictly follow the word of god, we must not strictly follow the word of god.

Edit: one day I'll type like a real boy!

Take the Constitution for example; conservatives will attempt to "strictly construe" it. The problem is that the Constitution tells you expressly not to do so in the Ninth Amendment.

The point of my original argument to the OP is that the casual follower of the bible can be led to fanaticism simply by following the bible. Unless they ignore or "interpret" the right passages, they will be taken down a very dark path.

That doesn't mean that I don't accept a variant of it with those paths blocked off.

:evilgrin:

Edit: I'm not posting plot details because it's a fantastic work and I would hate to spoil it for anyone.

Or ok - assuming you had convinced that the Bible if read and interpreted correctly leads one to become a murdering slave-raping inquisitor, what's the next step? What should I do with this knowledge?

What should society do with this knowledge?

Bryant

"completely invalidate it as having any applicability to the intellectual or moral discourse of a modern society", then by all means let's "eliminate" it.

How's that going? I mean how many people have accepted the jgraz way of reading the Bible?

Like a percentage?

Bryant

Luckily, truth is not subject to majority rule.

My argument goes something like this:

Christians believe the bible contains the word of god.

Assuming that you mean that the Bible is the word of God throughout, then this premise is incorrect. Some Christians, mostly fundamentalists, believe that the entire Bible is uniformly the word of God. If you mean that the Bible contains the word of God, but is not the word of God throughout, then kiss your argument good-bye right here.

Christians believe that god is the supreme being, therefore in their minds, the word of god is superior to all other statements regarding christian doctrine.

See abive.

The bible contains no indication that some parts of the text are superior to others, or that some parts should be ignored. In fact, it states quite the opposite in many places.

Actually, it states in several places that some parts are superior to others. Since you're such a scholar on the subject--I'm sure you've read the whole thing through several times, or you wouldn't be berating Christians who haven't--I'll let you find them for yourself.

Christians also state that many of the actions commanded in the bible would not be the actions of someone who truly follows the christian faith.

True. But then, those actions were "commanded" before there were any Christians, and not all Christians hold them to be "the word of God" in any case. Have you noticed any Christians sacrificing bulls in front of the National Cathedral lately?

Therefore, in order to truly follow the christian doctrine, you must not truly follow the christian doctrine

Reductio ad absurdum

Indeed it is, though not quite in the way you meant.

I chose my words very carefully: you believe that the bible contains the word of god. The problem is, you have no way of knowing which parts actually are the word of god and which parts are complete hooey. You just choose to believe the bits that make the doctrine look slightly less batshit crazy.


Oh no, I did my homework for my posts, now you do yours. Don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't back up your arguments with examples from your own holy text.


Are you honestly saying that anything that happened before there were Christians is null-and-void? That you are free to ignore the ten commandments? The entire Old Testament?

OK, if that's the new game, I'll play. Let's start a new thread where we restrict ourselves just to the Gospels, or, even better, just to the words of your Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ (you know, the parts in red). I especially like the part where he advocates stoning for people who dishonor their parents and then later says you cannot follow him unless you hate your mother and father.

Oh sorry, I forgot, that's "taking things out of context". We need to consider the entire bible before we can be sure which parts of the bible we don't need to consider.

At some point, don't you feel like just chucking the whole damn thing and simply admitting that all you want is to believe that you aren't going to die at the end of your life? That your dead relatives and pets are going to be waiting for you at the rainbow bridge and that all the bad people are going to be very very sad for a very long time?

And wouldn't that be a helluva lot easier if you weren't always being dragged down by having to continually make excuses for this crazy-ass book?


Edit: do you think prayer would help my typing?

I chose my words very carefully: you believe that the bible contains the word of god. The problem is, you have no way of knowing which parts actually are the word of god and which parts are complete hooey. You just choose to believe the bits that make the doctrine look slightly less batshit crazy.

Well, I suppose this is where we need to note that the first characteristic necessary to the scientific mindset is a habit of observation. Never mind the bullocks barbecuing on the steps of the National Cathedral--how many Christians do you know who use the Pentagram as an identifying symbol? As my great-uncle used to say, if it had been a rattlesnake, it woulda bitcha.

So, no, I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe "that the Bible contains the word of god." What the Bible does contain is between 65 (Protestant version) and 71 (Catholic version) separate and discreet compositions by at least as many authors, each of which has its own distinct purpose, viewpoint, cultural nuances and target audience. Together they record a history not of God's word, but of a culture's religious experience and growing ethical sophistication over the period from mid-seventh century BCE to around 100-110 CE. Insofar as the New Testament writers refer to and deliberately echo the Old Testament writings, the two can be said to have a coherent, if tenuous, relationship. Under these circumstances, it is inevitable that there will be discontinuities and contraditions. It's also inevitable, under those circumstances, that any meaningful exegesis will have to weigh the comparative importance and interpretations of some of the text. The literalist reading is, quite frankly, a reading based in ignorance; and its practitioners have no right to expect more careful readers to take it, or them, seriously.

Oh no, I did my homework for my posts, now you do yours. Don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't back up your arguments with examples from your own holy text.

Now, here we have a problem. See, if you're only using the "gotcha" websites you referenced in another thread as your sources, you haven't done your homework. At best, you've read Cliff's Notes, at worst cribbed off another student's failing paper. If you had done your homework, i. e., read the texts in question, then you would be aware that there are in fact many places where one Bible passage declares another inferior or null and void. So you either haven't read the assignment, or you're deliberately misrepresenting what you have read. You choose which one.

Are you honestly saying that anything that happened before there were Christians is null-and-void? That you are free to ignore the ten commandments? The entire Old Testament?

Actually, there was a churchman named Marcion who did just that--too much sex and violence in the OT for his taste. But again, this touches on the nullifications and supercessions mentioned above. Start reading.

I especially like the part where he advocates stoning for people who dishonor their parents and then later says you cannot follow him unless you hate your mother and father.

You really haven't read the passage, have you? I do think your faith in your websites is quite touching, though. Standing on the CyberWord!

And by the way, Shakespeare didn't advocate killing all the lawyers, either.

Edit: do you think prayer would help my typing?

Only if it kept your fingers off the keyboard.

you still offer no examples to back up your claim. If your understanding of the text is superior to mine, you won't have any problem pointing out exactly where the text refutes its previous claims that god's word is perfect.

And by the way, crashing inconsistencies in logic are not sufficient to show that the text allows for the type of interpretation you claim. You stated that the bible contains passages that explicitely say that parts of it are superior to others. Show me one.

Your ad hominem attacks on websites or source material are ridiculous. Either the text is in there or it isn't. I've read the entire book numerous times, and there is nothing in there to soften these statements. Why don't you try making an actual argument instead of relying on silly, distracting comments? What's that? You have no actual argument? I kinda thought so.

If your understanding of the text is superior to mine,

Sorry, there's no question at all about that one. Deal with it.

you won't have any problem pointing out exactly where the text refutes its previous claims that god's word is perfect.

Are you moving the goal posts here? Your previous conundrum was over whether one part of the Bible gave permission to ignore commandments in another part. That's not quite a question of whether "god's word is perfect."

And by the way, crashing inconsistencies in logic are not sufficient to show that the text allows for the type of interpretation you claim.

But I'm not using the text's contradicitons and inconsistencies to prove your original statement--that no one part of the Bible gives permission to ignore another--false. I'm using it to point out that a literal reading, free of cultural, linguistic, textual and historic context, is at best inadequate, at worst deceptive, and in all cases ignorant.

Your ad hominem attacks on websites or source material are ridiculous.

Do you know what ad hominem means? Claiming an ad hominem attack on a non-human object is, well, ridiculous. Otherwise, websites are texts, and are as subject to analysis and commentary as any other. Your cherished texts are no more immune from critique than--oh, I don't know--maybe the Bible?

You stated that the bible contains passages that explicitely say that parts of it are superior to others. Show me one.... I've read the entire book numerous times, and there is nothing in there to soften these statements.

If only you knew how many times I've heard "But I did read it!" from students whose book has been lying on the dorm room floor under a moldy pizza box for six months. See, this is kind of like your saying "I've been to Paris! I know Paris like the back of my hand! Uh--what Eiffel Tower?" The passages in question are both many and obvious, and could hardly be missed by someone who's "read the entire book numerous times."

On the other hand, you've shown that you're not particularly observant--you assumed me to be a Christian with my Pentagram avatar staring you in the face--and what you see is perhaps influenced by your agenda.

Psst! There's an elephant in your living room.

Someone needs to tell you that arrogance is only cute if you can back it up with actual intellectual rigor. I'm done teaching you remedial logic. Go away.

BTW: you do know there's a pref where you can turn off avatars? And even if I had them turned on, you wouldn't be interesting enough for me to cast my eyes 1/2 inch to the left to learn more about you.

(or mulierem) when you're cornered, don't you? :rofl:

Duplicate.

The Bible is not a straight beginning to end list of God's pronouncements or how we should live our lives. It is a collection of documents that show us the dialog between God and man and man's rebellion to God.

God gave Moses the Law. We read this pretty early on. The Law then goes on to contradict God, itself, and more. Conclusion: the Bible is flawed. No, man has amended and added onto the Law of God, which the Bible even tells us this. Joshua added to the Law,

-NIV Joshua 24:25

This leads to the question: what in the Bible is God, and what is man? Scripture interprets scripture. Many, many of the "contradictions" in the Bible appear during the period of judges, kings, David, and Solomon. Why is this? The same stories are told from several points of view. When you read Samuel I&II and Kings I&II, you will get one version of the story told form a pre-exilic view of the Israelites. In Chronicles I&II you will get slightly different views from post-exilic Davidic apologists. In the psalms, you will get yet another view of some of the events from David, and those who wrote with him. Then, in the Prophets, you will get the consistent voice of God on these subjects through His prophets. Then, Jesus will tie it all up and show you the way.

As I've used before, the best example is in the OT, which as many know is actually from the Hammurabi code. This was inserted at some point into the text by man. The prophets chat a bit about this, and Jesus, in the sermon on the Mount, strips away much of the error in the Law. He says,

Jesus is telling the people of the time that the Law they have been told is not correct. Jesus came to fulfill, ie be a living example of, the Law. The was one of Jesus' main purposes of being on Earth. If it was just to die for our sins on a cross, he could have done that over a quick weekend. :-)

So, this was a long way to show that what is being quoted is still out of context. It is in context with the chapter, but out of context with the Bible as a whole, which is how any passage must be read and understood.

I can point out how Jesus doesn't actually tie anything up, but actually adds to the confusion over God's word, but then we'd need to bring in the biblical scholars and the history of the church to explain that part. Eventually we'll get to a context that's large enough that no person can reasonably hold all of it in their mind at once, making it impossible to rationally consider.

Why go to so much effort when a much simpler explanation is available -- namely, that the book complete rubbish? All of the contradictions and ambiguities make perfect sense when considered in that light. Nothing requires explanation, illumination or the logical gymnastics that are so prevalent in this forum.

It's all rubbish. It's a primitive text written by primitive men who hadn't quite learned how to think or act in a civilized manner. And it's a tragedy that so many people waste so much time on it.

Then I would ask you to point out how what I wrote does not make sense, as it does to me. I'm not talking about church history and such, just what is in the Bible. The Bible is internally consistent and logical, when you study it. At the surface level it is very contradictory, but the point is to be always in God's Word, so it shouldn't be an easy read.

I'm curious as to which points you want to debate, as the major message and overlying theme are consistent. And, I would bet, that you could find several points here and there that aren't fully explainable as it is an ancient source, but it can be shown how the overall theme and message are very consistent and good.

Can you show me how my assertion (the bible is complete bunk) is a less reasonable interpretation of the text than yours? My conclusion deals with EVERY awkward point that the christians keep trying to defend:

Crushing Logical Contradictions? No problem -- it's bunk!
Commandments to kill, maim and destroy? Ignore them all -- they're bunk!
Jesus tells me to hate my parents? Total Bunk
That bad acid trip story of the apocalypse? Bunk bunk bunkety bunkbunk

My reading of the text explains the entire bible. Furthermore, it requires far fewer assumptions than any other explanation (God's word should be hard to read, Christians are expected to ignore the nasty bits, etc). And, it applies no matter how deeply or casually you choose to read the text. If we assume that both of our starting hypotheses have equal status, then mine is far more compelling (completeness, Occam's razor, etc).

They key point is that you aren't making a hypothesis and reasoning from evidence. You start by postulating that the bible is the word of a loving god and then work out from there. That saddles you with the burden of having to put lipstick on this literary pig in order to preserve your basic assumptions.

In fact, you have a much higher burden of evidence because your hypothesis necessarily leads to the conclusion that at least some of the extraordinary claims of the bible are true -- Jesus did rise from the dead, Moses parted the Red Sea, etc. In order to support your claim, you would have to show at least a little evidence that these things actually happened.

That's called predictive value. My hypothesis leads directly to the prediction that no supernatural act described in the bible can ever be shown to have actually happened. So far, my predictions have held. Of course, you can destroy my entire theory simply by providing evidence for a single supernatural event from the bible.

So there's the debate. Can you tell me why my interpretation of the bible is any less reasonable than yours? If not, can you at least provide a consistent list of assumptions that I would need to make in order to interpret the bible your way?

Your hypothesis definitely is possible and probable, I would never deny that. I think that my hypothesis is also possible and probable. Our disagreement falls into the realm of probability, where you see 0% or near 0% probability of the Bible being true and miracles having occurred. So, in a true debate format, you win. My burden of technical and scientific proof is pretty much insurmountable. I have some resources that show how some of the miracles are potentially possible, but I also allow for God's hand to be involved.

So, long story short, your interpretation is very reasonable and understandable, I'm not denying that.

Where I'm coming from is, yes, from the POV that the Bible is truly the Word that God wanted us to have. I also believe it is internally consistent and that scripture interprets scripture. I can show you that. And I think my point is reasonable, also.

Probably the best debate between our viewpoints would be that I could attempt show you how the Bible is consistent, how God (as presented in the Bible) is good, etc., but I could never prove to you God's existence. I would never attempt that, nor insult you by trying to force that upon you. I don't believe in Bible thumpin'. :-) But, if you wish to discuss aspects of the Bible and why I believe them, or what I believe passages mean within the context of my religion, I'm more then happy.

What you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong on this) is that you have a subjective understanding of the bible that is contrary to my objective assessment of the text. You bring to the text an already established belief that god exists and the s/he produced the bible in some way and this informs your interpretation of the laws and commandments.

The crux of my argument is also a subjective one, and it goes like this: "My way just makes so much more damn sense!" :) It's simple, easy to understand and it covers every aspect of the book. One of the things I like best about it is that I don't have to invest the kind of time you suggest. The interpretation of the bible is self-evident to me, and it requires no excessive studying or logical contortions.

That having been said, I'd be happy to hear your rationale for your belief, and it's entirely possible that you may change or at least soften my stance on this topic. I fear, though, that the key point of disagreement between us will be how applicable logic and reason are to your interpretation of your holy book.

Maybe my English teachers rubbed off on me a bit too much, but I also tend to think that literal readings are less honest to the text in question than interpretive readings.

potato, potahto...

I can read the text and apply any shades of meaning you think might apply. The final result is the same: unless I approach the reading with a pre-established belief in god and ignore basic logical concepts like Occam's Razor and the law of the excluded middle, I'll inevitably conclude that the book is complete and utter codswallop.

Occam's Razor (which applied in this case is more of an ontological preference than a logical rule) doesn't really help you when the very goal is to attain a deeper understanding of a text, rather than the simple surface understanding.

"My mother is a fish" is complete nonsense on the surface, but that doesn't mean that As I Lay Dying makes no sense (as loathe as I am to admit it, since I hated that book). Sure, it would be simpler to conclude that Faulkner was a raving drunk, but that doesn't do justice to his work.

Edit: Do you really think you're objective? You admit you have an agenda of eliminating religion, so don't you think it's possible that's influencing your reading?

Are you really saying that chapters like Deuteronomy 13 are written as some sort of metaphor? If so, would you mind enlightening me as to the true meaning of that chapter? From my point of view, much of the bible is seems to use a very straightforward style that makes it very hard to place a softening interpretation on it.

The deeper you go down that rabbit hole, trying to make sense of these illogical, brutal and contradictory passages, the more obvious it becomes that the whole thing is a huge con job -- unless, that is, you approach your reading with an already established belief in god (i.e. personal sense of the divine) and a predisposition toward accepting the text as having some sort of truth to offer.

Do you really think you're objective? You admit you have an agenda of eliminating religion, so don't you think it's possible that's influencing your reading?

I really do think I'm being objective, since my adoption of an antitheistic viewpoint came as a result of my reading the text and asking questions about it (and almost getting kicked out of my confirmation class). However, I will allow for the possibility that I was predisposed to go in that direction anyway.

As I just said, "My mother is a fish." doesn't make any sense at all standing alone. Similarly, if you tried to interpret the Establishment Clause without also reading the Free Exercise Clause, you would come up with an interpretation that is, to put it succinctly, completely wrong.

I can tell you that from my World Religions class and my own reading, I've concluded that many of the codes of behavior in the Bible are specific to that time and place. For instance, the concern about male homosexuality (remember, female homosexuality isn't mentioned) appears to be about having as many babies as possible - which makes sense when you think about a small group in a harsh environment with lots of enemies.

This is how I approach *everything* I read, including the Constitution - it's the principles that are important, not necessarily the expression of those principles. This is especially true in cases where a literal understanding of a portion of a text flies in the face of the overall principles of the text.

The fact that you have avoided the fananticism advocated in the bible does not mean that everyone will be as lucky. Your interpretation -- that parts of the bible are only specific to time and place -- raises the obvious question: why the hell are they still included in the book? If modern christians really feel as you do, why does their preeminent holy text still include it? Can't they at least put a warning label on the cover?

You're still stuck with having to deny this answer to the OP's question, "why is it important to oppose some people's beliefs?" Because any casual reading of the bible -- and many equally reasonable and thoughtful interpretations -- show that your preeminent holy doctrine commands its followers to commit acts of unspeakable brutality. And there is no major church or sect based on this book that explicitely tells its adherents to ignore those commands.

purports to describe, and one of its purposes was to create solidarity among a people who had been traumatized by exile and partly assimilated into the nations that conquered them (Babylon and Persia).

You say there are a few religious moderates who might have read the bible and not committed violence? Gosh - way to shoot yourself in the foot. Instead of acknowledging those few moderates who read the bible and aren't inspired to commit violence, I'd be focusing on those who read the bible and do commit violence (the majority, I assume, from your phraseology). I mean if reading the bible leads to violence, I would think that would be the key point you'd want to focus on.

Perhaps God is inspiring Christians to understand the work - so that reading the Bible is a conversation between the believer, the Bible, and the Creator.

Actually, it occurs to me that you aren't likely to accept that theory.

Bryant

If you're going to mock an argument, at least mock the right one.

;)

I mean you have a self congratelatory survey that shows that religious fundementalists don't kow the bible - but on what do you base the theory that most moderate christians haven't read the whole bible? Or is that just what we lay people call "wishful thinking?"

I've read the whole bible incidentally, although I spend a lot more time in the New Testiment than I do the old in my regular reading.

Bryant

I said, "I doubt that most moderates have read the entire bible." That is a statement of undeniable fact, since I actually do doubt that they have done so.

I offered no proof of that statement, other than the logical conclusions implied by the other arguments I made. That having been said, I think it's a reasonable assumption that most practitioners of Christianity have not read the bible cover-to-cover. Remember, most Christians are not Evangelicals, they're Catholics. I was raised Catholic, and I can tell you with certainty that I never met anyone in my church, outside of the priest, who had read the entire bible.

Admittedly, not a conclusive argument by any means. But it is the grounds for a reasonable hypothesis. Feel free to disprove it.

end up fundies or atheists.lol

but I agree that logically consistent readings of the bible lead to either rabid fundamentalism or atheism (and usually antitheism).

That there's something wrong with moderate Christians. Something false about them.

Bryant

but seriously, I don't think there is anything false per se...some moderates end up enabling extremism without realizing it.

Most "moderates" are simply following family and community traditions and enjoy the fellowship without giving much thought to why and what others believe in.

that if you're not out slaughtering infidels, raping your slaves and cutting your enemies' babies from their mothers' wombs, you're only slightly less hypocritical than the moderates.

I mean if I believe the Bible to be the word of God - does that require me to slaughter infidels, rape slaves (I suppose I'd have to get some first) and cutting my enmies babies from their mothers womb?

And if I'm not doing those horrible things, I must not really believe the Bible to be the word of God.

And if I don't really believe the Bible to be the word of God (even though I claim that I do), maybe I don't really believe that God exists (even though I claim that I do).

Why my failure to slaughter infidels, rape slaves, and cut my enemies babies from their mothers wombs practically makes me an atheist. Your logic is inescapable. Either I'm just a few short steps from being an atheist or I need to get a-slaughterin'!

One way around this I mentioned before - reading the Bible is a way of reaching out to God. There are three participants when I read - myself, the Text, and God, such that God isnpires me to pay attention to the bits about loving your enemy while putting less stock in the bits that say I should slaughter infidels.

Bryant

Yes, I do believe that in choosing not to act like a crazed psychopath you are, unfortunately, not completely adhering to the laws set forth in the holy scriptures. And I've stated repeatedly that I'm very glad that you choose to act as you do.

I like your philosophy of the three participants. That is a thoughful and humane approach to the Christian belief in god. But that belief is one of your own invention, or the invention of one of your religious teachers. It is in no way part of the Christian doctrine.

You'll forgive me if I choose not to rely on the hope that all readers of this depraved and brutal book will be as thoughtful as you are.

Again, you're using your unstated belief that a literal reading is more accurate to a text to argue that a literal reading is more accurate to a text.

It is not part of the Christian Doctrine - well who are you to tell me I'm a heretic?

Let me ask you a question -why have you decided that Dueteronomy saying kill the infidel is true Christianity while Jesus Christ saying "Turn the other cheek" isn't even on your radar screen?

Bryant

I am not stating a belief, I am stating a falsifiable hypothesis. As such, that hypothesis can be destroyed by presentation of contradictory evidence.

If you can present any evidence that you are not a heretic -- i.e. that you are not violating the laws as outlined in your preeminent religious text, then I will consider my hypothesis to be disproved.

If you can present evidence that your preeminient religious text states somewhere that "turn the other cheek" has some special status over "kill the infidels", then I will consider my hypothesis to be disproved.

If not, then I think you have to grant my assertion that christian doctrine, in and of itself, offers no protection for its followers against the most brutal of its commandments.

But what's that line? It is very hard to convince a man of something when his livelihood depends on him not being convinced. Obviously you aren't making any money off of this argument - but I would think you have invested a certain amount in this.

I will assume as a starting point that discussing the Christian Tradition is out of the question - the one and only authority I am allowed to cite as an authority on what Christianity is is the Bible? I can't bring in say Francis of Assissi or St. Augustine or C.S. Lewis?

Bryant

My only condition is this: if we both agree that the bible is the preeminent text of christian doctrine, then whenever a scholar is directly contradicted by the bible, we must assume that the bible is correctly stating the doctrine and the scholar is incorrect. Otherwise, it means that the scholar's work takes precedence over the core text of your religion, and we should really be worshipping him.

Nor do I feel like my faith requires me to. Rather I worship God, from who the Bible and all inspiration flows.

Bryant

"belief in X legitimizes belief in Y"

or even

"belief in X allows us no justification to criticize belief in Y"

etc.

:shrug:

You seemed comfortable with the notion of there not being one "true" interpretation of the Bible in the Historical Jesus thread. If you hold that, the arguments of the forms you posted aren't valid.

The positions seem rather complementary. Since there is no one "true" interpretation, then just about any interpretation is as valid as the next one, thus belief in X legitimizes belief in Y. Perhaps you could explain.

If X -> Y and X -> ~Y, then X doesn't legitimize Y. Since you argue that X -> *, then X cannot possibly legitimize anything.

which generally includes the idea that everyone's religious belief is relatively unassailable, then in the specific case, it certainly does follow, which is the opposite of what you initially said.

I might state it as, "Everyone's religious beliefs are unassailable on religious grounds," which leaves plenty of room to attack conservative Christians for their attempts to instill theocracy into our government, or attack YECs for holding a view that flies in the face of scientific knowledge.

..is obviusly your ideology.

So forgive me if I don't accept your assertion that it is "obviously bunk."

These discussions are much more productive without the ad hominem attacks.

"Belief is personal"

Belief is most certainly not personal. Peoples beliefs shape the way they act in society. And a lot of people have all kinds of fucked up religious beliefs that they act on, most notably by trying to legislate them upon others.

People try to disprove others beliefs for a variety of reasons. Sometimes because the others beliefs are dangerous to us or to them. Sometimes because generally people like to share knowledge and if we think they have a false belief we are likely to try to correct it. Sometimes because its our way of exploring wither we should adopt a belief (ie. testing a null hypothisis).

I agree with the point that lets not kill over religion. But I do not think it follows in any way that we should not discuss or try to disprove religious ideas. I will not stick my head in the sand and I wish others wouldn’t either.

We are a social species. That is we work together in order to advance ourselves in this world. This aspect of our nature goes to the very basis of our brains. It is not a fluke that we are social critters. It is the result of an evolutionary development that enables various species to be more adaptive to their environment. Instead of hardwiring instincts to deal with changing environments evolution came up with learned behaviors. And in order to learn more instructions a species has to stay associated with others of its kind longer in order to pass on accrued information.

We even have specific neurons that provide the impetus for our social and even altruistic natures. Called Mirror Neurons these recently discovered cells fire when they observe another performing an action. This results in an internalized sense of ourselves performing the same action or undergoing the same event. We learn by watching others. This is why when we see someone else get kicked in a sensitive location we wince in pain ourselves. We are connected by our brains.

This is the basis of caring. Why we care about each other. We have a social drive to work together and we are wired to internalize the plight of others.

When we are born we are a blank slate. We have to learn all the social intricacies that our species has developed. This is why humans have such a long developmental cycle. It is because we have shifted from instinctive behaviours to complex learned social behaviours. As we grow we create an intern sense of the world around us. This includes the rules of our society.

Initially we are dependent on our caregivers (parents, teachers, guardians etc) to provide us with a world view. We are utterly dependent on them to convey a sense of the world. Eventually we begin to accrue enough information that we can begin forming our own sense of the world. This culminates in our adelesents rebelling against their parents to some extent as they establish themself as having a fully developed world view.

But just because we have cast off the training wheels our guardians provided us with does not mean we stop learning by copying from others. But all the things we learn pass through our filters of what we have already learned. And this is where the desire to prove other people wrong comes in.

Because we are a social caring species when we observe others that are in danger we feel a desire to help them. Try this experiment sometime. Stand in the middle of a crowded mall (easy to find this time of year) and just suddenly collapse. Make it look like you slipped or fell or something. Watch how many people instantly rush to your aid. This tendency is true even in life threatening situations where the rescurers are placing themself in danger.

We have a natural tendency to help each other. This extends to world views as well as physical peril. And in the case of some religions the world view can carry with it a learned sense of physical peril in the form of damnation.

So a Christian that truly believes will see those who do not believe as being in mortal danger. If you were walking down the street and saw someone's house on fire and you furhter saw the owner of the house sitting undisturbed in the front window you would immediately try to draw their attention to the flames. If they ignored you you might become increasingly desperate to save them. Perhaps even going so far as to bust down the door and drag them out.

But what would happen if you did this only to find that even when they were outside they could not see the flames. This is the situation that exists in religious debate. We atheists see no fire. And in fact we see your behaviour and fear of this fire as somewhat dangerous to your and our health. So we become concerned and try to talk you out of your belief in this fire. Both out of concern for you and concern that you keep trying to knock our doors in.

I would be concerned if a Christian didn't hope to save me. It is a compliment. Annoying ... but a compliment. Its human nature. We care about each other. Sometimes caring causes problems. Hopefully we can all live with them though.

The Christians don't see the fire either. They've just been conditioned to believe that the fire is there, even though no one can see or feel it. That's why I feel somewhat less "complimented" when christians try to save me. It always seems to be more about justifying their own belief in invisible fire than helping me avoid it.