Throw in something about homosexuality and you got me. 
"Bart Simpson: I think sharing is overrated too. And helping others. And what’s all this crap I’ve been hearing about tolerance?
Homer Simpson: Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But I think I’ll go on the retreat anyway."
Esprix
RoboDude wrote:
What always bugs me about the Ten Commandments arguments is that the Fundies who try to sneak it past the legislature always seem to make the following claim:
“The Ten Commandments are a good moral edict whether you’re religious or not! Looky here:
[ul][li]Commandment 5: Honor thy father and thy mother[/li][li]Commandment 6: Thou shalt not murder[/li][li]Commandment 7: Thou shalt not commit adultery[/li][li]Commandment 8: Thou shalt not steal[/li][li]Commandment 9: Thou shalt not bear false witness[/li][li]Commandment 10: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s stuff[/ul][/li]Surely, you can’t object to these moral edicts!”
Of course, said Fundy lobbyists always leave out the first 4 commandments, which say things like, “I am the LORD your God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Goodness. Not this again. Y’know, there is a natural tendancy to believe that if there are two opposing extreme sides that the truth must be somewhere in between. But sometimes one side is 100% wrong and the other side is 100% right. This is one of those cases. The evidence supporting evolution is so overwhelming it can only be rejected by rejecting the validity of the scientific method. But, I’ll cut you some slack and assume that you were the product of the American public school system, and so probably didn’t learn anything about evolution and what you did learn was wrong.
If you have questions about evolution, try visting http://www.talkorigins.org, for a start. I have the feeling that don’t even have enough information for a debate yet.
Koff koff…
"Every non-fundie groans inwardly at hearing this, because the argument can be refuted in a few sentences. "
-Ben
…Lets see them :rolleyes:
Pascal’s Wager, as usually stated by fundamentalist christians, goes as follows:
If you do believe in Jesus Christ…
…and Jesus Christ does exist, you spend an eternity in heaven.
…and Jesus Christ doesn’t exist, then you lose nothing.
If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ…
…and Jesus Christ doesn’t exist, you lose nothing.
…and Jesus Christ does exist, you spend an eternity in hell.
Ergo, believing is a better bet than non believing.
The refutation, in one sentence:
How do you know that Christianity isn’t false, and that God (by which I mean Allah, Vishnu, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.) doesn’t send atheists to heaven and Christians to hell?
Come now, kniz. Do you really think that Pascal’s Wager is so irrefutable that you can roll your eyes at me contemptuously when I simply say that it can be refuted in a few sentences? You could, at the very least, have enough horse sense to figure out what the refutation is before you act like only an idiot could agree with it.
:rolleyes:
-Ben
How about the atheist equivalent of Pascal’s wager, which is asking ‘Why do bad things happen to good people?’, as if nobody has ever faced this question before. Of course, asking the question has to be followed by ignoring any answers that use religious themes, such as an afterlife, or people not being in a position to judge either ‘good people’ or ‘bad things’. It’s not so much that it’s not an interesting question, it’s more that people who bring it up (just like Pascal’s Wager), think that:
There’s also the argument which goes something like: ‘Assuming [usually expressed as “Since we know”] that there is no God, I will now prove that there is no God.’ A related example is saying ‘I will now prove that the Bible was not written by God, starting by analysing it as a text that was written by men’. This always makes for great arguments in which neither side even agrees on the terms of the argument, let alone the way to come to some sort of understanding.
Since when has an atheist ever used “good things to bad people” as an anti-religion argument? Or attempted to prove the existence of that which s/he assumes?
Okydoke buddy, yeah, I went to public school. But praise ye gods that I did not even pretend that I was there to learn. I became educated on my on time. I was not trying to get into a fact/fiction debate. I only meant to point out that when people who accept evolution attempt to preach it and convert people, well it pisses me off. If the idiots choose not to accept science, leave them the hell alone. If they want to argue, argue. All to often I see evolutionists with an almost evangelical attitude. I despise that. Actualy, I despise evangelism in general. Again, I don’t want to debate evolution, I honestly don’t care that much about it. But don’t talk down to me boy.
Just think how articulate he would be if he had pretended to be there for learning.
Oh, no offense intended, amateurvisionary. I’m a recovered religious person myself. But really, relax a little, slow down. You aren’t overdoing the coffee, are you?
Incidentally, some schools can be pretty good places, for those who know how to learn.
Catholic though I am, I’ve never thought Pascal’s Wager was a very persuasive argument for Christianity. Rather, it’s a logical argument for devotion to whatever religion offers you the best deal. That is, which god is offering the most pleasant afterlife for the least effort? THAT’s the god Pascal’s Wager leads us to.
But as for the other things Ben is tired of hearing…
A Christian who finds genuine joy in his faith is not going to dismiss what he’s experienced just because Ben finds it hokey. If Ben is tired of hearing this phrase, I suggest he clam up whenever he’s tempted to scoff at other people’s spiritual experiences.
Say Ben, are you ALSO tired of hearing that 2 + 2 = 4? Tired of hearing that “cat” is spelled C-A-T? Tired of hearing that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address? Well, TOO BAD! Those are FACTS, and nobody is obliged to stop stating FACTS, just because poor baby Ben is “tired” of hearing them. It’s ALSO a fact that “separation of church and state” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. If you don’t wish to be reminded of this fact, stop trying to tell “fundies” otherwise. In THIS instance, at least, THEY’RE 100% right and YOU are 100% wrong.
If “fundies” have tried to argue that Einstein was a Christian, they’re full of beans. And he certainly wasn’t a conventionally religious Jew. On the other hand, EInstein was one of those historic figures (Lincoln was another) whose statements on religion ran from A to Z. If Ben wanted to “prove” that Lincoln was an atheist who thought religion in general (and Christianity in particular) was a cruel hoax, he’d have NO trouble finding evidence of that in Lincoln’s writings. On the other hand, if Billy Graham wanted to prove that Lincoln was a devout believer, he could easily find plenty of evidence for THAT in Lincoln’s writings, too. So, what were Lincoln’s “real” beliefs? It varied! There’s no way to state simply what Lincoln believed.
I’m sure that Einstein would have had no use for the “fundies” who conveniently claim him for their side. But his thoughts on “God” were not nearly as simple, derisory or dismissive as Ben would have you think. He expressed a host of opinions on “God,” many of which contradict each other. His vision of God certainly bore little resemblance to Jehovah (Einstein’s God seems more of an abstract, unifying principle than a personal deity with any great interest in how we live our lives), but that’s a far cry from simply calling him an atheist and calling the subject closed.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by astorian *
4) A Christian who finds genuine joy in his faith is not going to dismiss what he’s experienced just because Ben finds it hokey. If Ben is tired of hearing this phrase, I suggest he clam up whenever he’s tempted to scoff at other people’s spiritual experiences.
[QUOTE]
Ben did mention that he’s getting tird of hearing about Pascal’s Wager in his travels through Great Debates. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to apply this context to the “list” he has begun constructing. Perhaps I haven’t been paying attention, but I haven’t noticed Ben popping into “witnessing” threads just to throw ice water onto the genuinely joyful testimonies of Christians. If a poster tries to use the statement “just because you’re blind, doesn’t mean other people can’t see” as an argument for why Ben should adopt the poster’s public policy preferences of interpretation of empirical data (and, oddly enough, when I’ve read such statements, the genuine joy hasn’t been quite so evident to me – not in the way I see it in Polycarp’s, or Tris’s posts, anyway), it fails as argument.
Context and accuracy will set you free, my friend. In order for Ben to be 100% wrong in the above example, Ben will have had to state that the Constitution DOES contain the term “separation of church and state”. That’s the accuracy part. The context part is that Ben is clearly tired of having this fact presented to him as though it has any relevance to whatever subject is currently under discussion, as he is convinced that it doesn’t. I, myself, hold the opinion that the fact can only be relevant in a debate about what words, terms and phrases appear in he text on the U.S. Constitution. And I don’t recall ever seeing such a debate in his forum.)
I’m not confident that Ben has ever explicitly called Einstein an atheist. If you get to claim that he has implied it in his OP, he should be allowed a similar claim that “fundies” have implied that Einstein believed in Jehovah.
Context.
Kaylasdad:
You're quite right, context makes a lot of difference. Unfortunately, Ben doesn't provide any context in the original post. He just makes a list of lines he's "tired" of hearing.
Do fundamentalists phone Ben while he’s having dinner, and yell “Separation of church and state isn’t in the Constitution”? When he’s sitting on a park bench, minding his own business, do fundamentalists run up to Ben and scream “Just because you’re blind doesn’t mean we can’t see”? When he’s sound asleep, do fundamentalists spray paint “Einstein believed in God” on his house?
Obviously not. The lines Ben claims to be tired of are NEVER the first line any proselytizer springs on the person he hopes to convert. THOSE are defensive lines, lines that Christians pull out when they sense they’re under attack.
So, I repeat: if Ben is "tired" of hearing "just because you're blind, it doesn't mean others can't see," there's a simple solution: he should refrain from denigrating the spiritual experiences of others.
If he's "tired" of being reminded that the Constitution says NOTHING, I can sympathize! It's ALWAYS tiresome to be wrong, and to have people point out that you're wrong! The solution is simple: don't make false claims about the Constitution, and the "fundies" won't have to correct you! Trust me, Ben, the "fundies" are probably as tired of setting you straight as YOU are of being corrected!
And finally, if you’re “tired” of people oversimplifying Einstein’s complex beliefs, to make it appear that he was on THEIR side… well, Ben, you could set a good example for the errant “fundies” by ceasing and desisting from that practice yourself.
Have a nice day, now.
Then why Ben is your statement linked to Jomo Mojo’s question concerning liberal Christians. It appears to me you are saying that what Jomo Mojo said about Liberal Christians can be refuted in a few sentences. In other words I took you to mean that you thought all Christians are fundies. I TAKE PARTICULAR OFFENSE TO THAT. However if that is not what you meant I retract what I said.
I don’t really think your argument in a couple of sentences refutes Pascals Wager, but if it makes you happy I’m not going to lie awake at night worrying about you burning in Hell. Sorry, I couldn’t resist that.
Gee, somehow I doubt Ben is lying awake worrying about that either, kniz.
Don’t know what number this is, but I was reminded of another stupid fundamentalist argument earlier this evening: “Salvation is a free gift from God.” No, it isn’t. If it was a free gift, God wouldn’t ask for anything in return.
Right, under attack in the “oh no, somebody is defending their rights from my infringement” sense.
It may not be in the Constitution, but it is in the Supreme Court rulings, and until those change, that’s effectively the same (note Stone v Graham, for example).
astorian
I see the GD context in Ben’s example of Pascal’s Wager (because he states it), and I extrapolate that context to also apply to his suggested FAQ. You evidently don’t agree with either the initial context or the extrapolation, or both. We’ll simply have to disagree on what is being observed.
But I’m going to challenge you on the issue of Ben being wrong on the “Separation of Church and State” term appearing in the text of the U.S. Constitution. All you ned to do to meet the challenge is to give me a cite of Ben claiming that the words appear in the text.
kniz
When Ben made his “(koff koff, etc.)” post, he was recapitulating and emphasizing that all non-fundies (including, one suspects, Liberal Christians) groan inwardly at hearing Pascal’s Wager being trotted out by fundies. He was not dismissing Jomo Mojo’s observation about Liberal Christians occupying an Unexamined Middle between Fundamentalism and atheism; he was simply clarifying that his example has no Unexamind Middle, because it was binary – you have your fundies, and you have your non-fundies. The fundies think Pascal’s Wager is the keenest bit of logic to come down the pike since William of Ockham brandished his Gillette Double-edge, and the non-fundies (not all of them atheists) roll their eyes when they get confronted with it yet again.
I’m not sure i see this right… is the “fundy” argument that because “seperation of church and state” does not appear in the constitution that we should begin incorporating church teachings into our laws (more they may already subtly be)?
i mean when you have a case like the faith-based initiatives, by saying “we shouldn’t do it cause of sep of church and state”, it’s just a shorthand way of saying “we don’t think the nation should actively support prosyletizing (sp?) especially when its going to be overwhelmingly in a christian direction”… I mean people say “we shouldn’t stop a group from helping kids just cause they hang a cross on the wall”… except it’s not just a cross on the wall, I mean i remember reading about G.W. ‘favorite’ group whatever it was and how in a hearing it stated it was proud to have converted some jews… i didn’t mean to get into this or hijack or whatever… just got started and couldn’t stop
Well yes, when they sense they’re under attack by those weapons of Satan, intelligence and reason. No wonder Ben hears them so often.
It may be just me but I would think that calling someone else’s spiritual experience of life “blind” might be construed as denigrating? And isn’t that what they’re doing?
**
As has been pointed out- I think quite existensivly- Ben was of course not suggesting that the Consitution has the phrase “seperation of Church and State” anywhere in it- kaylasdad made the point rather well I think.
And given that it’s pretty obvious that Ben made no false claim of any kind, your rant gets kind of silly, doesn’t it?
**
I can only chuckle.
**
[/QUOTE]