162 replies to this topic

[segnosaur]

The Christian right in all their god given righteousness expounds upon the teachings of Jesus and what the bible says to justify their political and social positions, yet they think it perfectly acceptable to be selective about which teachings they adhere too.

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread:
Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to. They have to. Why? Because the bible is a mass of contradictions. Even those who are nice, generous, etc. (i.e. what some people might say is a "good christian following the teachings") is simply doing a selective interpretation which ignores anything in the bible that might be interpreted as 'bad'.

I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode, where the Flander's character is questioning his faith, and says "I follow every part of the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts!" (paraphrasing).

It just makes me puke when I hear people like Huckabee righteously spew shit.

Makes me want to puke too... not because I think he's misusing the bible, but because is statements are so ridiculous.

[betsy]

You look at the quality of the sources.

As I pointed out, much of the criticism of Mother Teresa is coming from main stream sources (like the BBC). Many of the people who are actually doing the criticizing are former volunteers, people that would have had first hand knowledge. We're not talking about some anonymous nobody sitting in his basement posting stuff on his Facebook page. Sources like broadcast networks and news magazines have a certain reputation to uphold. They may not be perfect, but they usually try to 'get things right', and in this case multiple sources have all confirmed the same thing.


Rationalist may be an organization which has an anti-religious agenda, but the individual writing the article is actually from India and is more that capable enough to judge what 'effect' Mother Teresa has on the people of India.

And even if you discount his statements, the same information is still confirmed by sources associated with Stern magazine, the BBC and Slate.


Why exactly do you make that assumption?

Remember, Obama was awarded the prize, probably for no other reason than "He's not Bush". Or the year they gave the prize to Wangari Maathai, who had been making bizarre "AIDS is a western conspiracy" type statements.

So yes, sometimes they do give the award for people for political or other reasons, and/or may not properly vet the recipients.



And they probably did. But as I mentioned before, when you're fighting a "legend" you are often fighting a loosing battle regardless of how much proof you have. Why? Because of the whole circular reasoning thing people are unwilling to break: She's famous because she did good work. How do you know she did good work? She must have because she's famous.


Ummmm... the statements from her former workers are not edited or taken out of context. If you actually watched the Hell's Angel documentary I published, it contains an interview with very direct statements. How exactly can you take comments like "They reused needles at her clinics without sterilizing them" out of context?


Ummm... no, its not.

This isn't just one single isolated incident staining decades of good work. As I pointed out before, these "abuses" carried on for decades, and covered her actions over multiple parts of the globe. You can point to her failings in India, Haiti, Ireland, the U.S., etc.


In that case what you're doing is your modifying the term "Christian" to be something that it is not.


But the problem, as I mentioned before, is that "his teachings" are not as clear as you seem to be believing.

The bible is really a horrible miss mash of junk crammed together, with many contradictions and segments that condone some pretty evil behavior. The fact that you seem to be interpreting the bible "in some way" does not mean that there are other, just as valid interpretations that exist that mean the exact opposite. (For example, in post 10 and 13 I quoted some bible verses that suggest Jesus was against forgiveness and condoned slavery and/or social inequality, something that I'm sure most christians would be horrified by.)


Aaaaaannnndddd.... back to that. Just as I predicted.

What exactly are you basing your claim "tried her best to feed the hungry" on? Do you have the balance sheets showing how much money she collected? Do you have the figures showing how many got fed on a daily basis? How can you make the claim she "did her best" without knowing that? Which of course is the problem. Her religious order did nothing to release those figures. Instead, what we do have are interviews with former workers who point out they collected millions of dollars (exactly how much is unknown, we just know what individual workers dealt with), and people familiar with her clinics/charity work who said "none of this money got used by us".

You're suggestion that she "tried her best to feed the hungry" is based on nothing but her legend. Its a little ironic that you would demand "proof" that Mother Teresa was a big sack of crap, yet when it comes to defending her, all you need is her legend. Facts? Who needs them, when you're dealing with the "legend" of Mother Teresa.

So, does that mean you think suffering is a 'good thing', and if someone is in extreme pain they should never ever be given drugs to control the pain because "suffering is good"? If you saw someone that was in extreme agony, you'd say "Yipee! You're closer to god!"

Moot argument. It's not addressing the point. My reply to this is the same as my previous reply to you.

[betsy]

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread:
Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to.

And you think atheists are not selective?

Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens describes himself as an antitheist and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens says that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens


Like Christian religion, you've got your denominations too.

but that "an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation

Best part is....you don't have a Bible as reference. You can come up and make up your own....custom-made to suit yourself. Relativists' utopia!

Edited by betsy, 19 March 2011 - 05:53 AM.

[betsy]

Because the bible is a mass of contradictions. Even those who are nice, generous, etc. (i.e. what some people might say is a "good christian following the teachings") is simply doing a selective interpretation which ignores anything in the bible that might be interpreted as 'bad'.

Furthermore, this whole monkey-business evolution has given me a headache.
Talk about contradictions!

On this debate between Dawkins and Wright, Dawkins clearly stated that we're related to the monkeys, whether we like it or not.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

But at the thread CREATION, there was quite an exchange involving 3 atheists! Jaw-dropping!

The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that.

Dre agrees with Dawkins. But....and this is a big BUT.
Tadaaaaaa.....

Anyone who ridicules the theory of evolution by asserting that humans are descendant from monkeys or apes simply demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge and understanding.

And Bloodyminded supported the claim of Jonsa!

Dre was just being humorous. He knows we aren't descended from chimps.

Ayayayayaya....

Edited by betsy, 19 March 2011 - 07:15 PM.

[betsy]

I come across statement like this:

I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode, where the Flander's character is questioning his faith, and says "I follow every part of the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts!" (paraphrasing).

And this, written by the same poster involved in the evolution monkey-business above:

If I understand you correctly, Christians are hypocrites who on the one had accept Jesus as the son of god and his innerrent word while on the other are selective about his teachings and have been this way throughout history.

Okay. can't really argue with that.

What I found interesting is the attitudes of those that identify themselves as evangelicals. Seems irony is lost on themselves.

Oh, lost irony indeed.

[GostHacked]

Monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans, are all primates. We are all related to one another. However it seems we share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, so we have a closer relation to the chimpanzee than all other primates.

[scouterjim]

Monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans, are all primates. We are all related to one another. However it seems we share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, so we have a closer relation to the chimpanzee than all other primates.

Some more so than others, methinks.

[ToadBrother]

Monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans, are all primates. We are all related to one another. However it seems we share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee, so we have a closer relation to the chimpanzee than all other primates.

We're related to monkeys, bananas and E. coli. It just happens that we're more closely related to monkeys than bananas.

[WIP]

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread:
Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to. They have to. Why? Because the bible is a mass of contradictions. Even those who are nice, generous, etc. (i.e. what some people might say is a "good christian following the teachings") is simply doing a selective interpretation which ignores anything in the bible that might be interpreted as 'bad'.

I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode, where the Flander's character is questioning his faith, and says "I follow every part of the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts!" (paraphrasing).

And, in the end if someone wants to identify themselves as a Christian who follows the social gospel that is taught in most of the New Testament, it's not going to matter whether there are verses that contradict those teachings. It seems simple enough that we are not all intended to think the same way or find meaning from the same things in life. I noticed an article recently on Tom Rees's Epiphenomena blog: Why we are all different (and not all religious) which picks apart the notion of a god-gene, similar to his other critiques of god virus arguments. Our individual religiosity or irreligiosity may be more of a reflection on our basic psychological makeup and which belief system suits our needs best: Atheists are disagreeable and unconscientious

[betsy]

I guess my point in answer to this thread is once again about the mirror I hold up to atheists like Jonsa (who initiated this topic), Segnasaur and others who only clearly demonstrate how Atheism is religion to a lot of atheists. You can scream bloody murder that it is not a religion - however, if it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck and it looks like a duck....it is a duck!

Your position is full of ironies!

Your "critical" thinking and pseudo-analysis of Christianity and Christians, from the hypocrisies, selective interpretations, contradictions, emotion-based responses etc.., ironically, all these exist in your own atheistic religion.

For starter, you can't even unanimously agree to the very simple doctrine of your Bishop Dawkins that you are related to monkeys!
What's so complicated about that?? Some of you are clearly resisting that very idea of being related to the monkey - Dawkins accused Wendy Wright of that very same thing, - or some of you don't understand your own doctrine.
Ironic, isn't it!

Bishop Dawkins threw the accusation to Wendy Wright that she responds with her emotion.....and yet, when Wendy Wright pointed out that he seems to be hostile to those who disagree with his theory, what was your Bishop's response? "Not hostility. Annoyance."
He further explained his annoyance. Showing that he responds with his emotions.
Not only is it ironic, but for Dawkins to negate his assertion with his response - in a span of a few seconds - is....so bizarre (for lack of a better word at the moment).

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

Who threw the first tantrum in that interview? The first adhominem? Your Bishop.

Who fired the first disparaging question that -ironically only served to question your Bishop's state of mind? Of course, your Bishop.

All those....emotion-based responses! Do I need to point out who's prone to behave like the good Bishop here? Who tends to go on a personal attack and adhominems?
His flock.

Then there's the hypocrisy issue. For all the lofty holier-than-thou attitude being displayed by Dawkins and his flock....it's not for you to throw the hypocrisy-pie at Christians' faces. Hypocrisy - way up there along with contradictions - is clearly one of your main "virtues."

Edited by betsy, 20 March 2011 - 05:52 AM.

[GostHacked]

I guess my point in answer to this thread is once again about the mirror I hold up to atheists like Jonsa (who initiated this topic), Segnasaur and others who only clearly demonstrate how Atheism is religion to a lot of atheists. You can scream bloody murder that it is not a religion - however, if it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck and it looks like a duck....it is a duck!

Your position is full of ironies!

Oh Betsy, Betsy, Besty ...... ironies? Have you read some of your own posts? Atheism is not a religion. You can keep thinking that, but you would be wrong. Atheists don't congregate, there is no organization, there is no church or place of worship, there is no preacher there is no clergy, there is no mantra, there is nothing that shows atheism is a religion, yet alone an organized religion.

Your "critical" thinking and pseudo-analysis of Christianity and Christians, from the hypocrisies, selective interpretations, contradictions, emotion-based responses etc.., ironically, all these exist in your own atheistic religion.

So because Christianity is full of contradictions, and atheists can disagree with each other, that shows that atheism is a religion?

For starter, you can't even unanimously agree to the very simple doctrine of your Bishop Dawkins that you are related to monkeys! What's so complicated about that?? Some of you are clearly resisting that very idea of being related to the monkey - Dawkins accused Wendy Wright of that very same thing, - or some of you don't understand your own doctrine.

OH, this is where GOD comes in and you can say 'GOD did it'. And it seems Betsy, that you don't even understand that doctrine enough, but yet here you are speculating on what atheists think and beleive all the while giving atheists crap that they don't even know themselves. That's irony Betsy.

Edited by GostHacked, 20 March 2011 - 08:17 AM.

[ToadBrother]

I guess my point in answer to this thread is once again about the mirror I hold up to atheists like Jonsa (who initiated this topic), Segnasaur and others who only clearly demonstrate how Atheism is religion to a lot of atheists. You can scream bloody murder that it is not a religion - however, if it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck and it looks like a duck....it is a duck!

A religion without a credo, without a theology, without a clergy, and with only one single common feature; a lack of belief in gods.

Now, I'll grant you, some atheists are positively proselytic. Certainly guys like Hitchens and Dawkins can be stridently so. But if proselytism is all it takes to make a religion, then football and comic books are religions.

Edited by ToadBrother, 20 March 2011 - 08:35 AM.

[WIP]

I guess my point in answer to this thread is once again about the mirror I hold up to atheists like Jonsa (who initiated this topic),

When did Jonsa become an atheist? What he describes of his beliefs in that other thread is a closer match to agnosticism or perhaps deism. I'm guessing that his notions are a little too nuanced for your liking, since your attempts to save his soul apparently failed.

For starter, you can't even unanimously agree to the very simple doctrine of your Bishop Dawkins that you are related to monkeys!
What's so complicated about that?? Some of you are clearly resisting that very idea of being related to the monkey - Dawkins accused Wendy Wright of that very same thing, - or some of you don't understand your own doctrine.
Ironic, isn't it!

Actually, that's one of the few things we all agree on, so how much have you actually been paying attention here? If you know of an atheist creationist could you provide a name and a possible source?

You should have noticed the things we don't agree on: what sort of values to live by, whether or not religious beliefs should be considered delusional thinking etc....if you were really reading what atheists have written you would already be aware of this, and the fact that we do agree on basic scientific consensus, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Bishop Dawkins threw the accusation to Wendy Wright that she responds with her emotion.....and yet, when Wendy Wright pointed out that he seems to be hostile to those who disagree with his theory, what was your Bishop's response? "Not hostility. Annoyance."
He further explained his annoyance. Showing that he responds with his emotions.
Not only is it ironic, but for Dawkins to negate his assertion with his response - in a span of a few seconds - is....so bizarre (for lack of a better word at the moment).

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

Who threw the first tantrum in that interview? The first adhominem? Your Bishop.

Who fired the first disparaging question that -ironically only served to question your Bishop's state of mind? Of course, your Bishop.

Well, I seen enough in the first video. I doubt anyone can put up with viewing all 7. This bimbo doesn't even grasp the basics of biology which she is trying argue about with a biologist who has researched the field for many decades of his life. She is objecting to the evidence of human origins because it conflicts with her religious beliefs and doesn't like her imagined implications that it reduces the position of man to being just another product of evolution instead of her wish of special divine creation. Well, even if there is a case that believing in evolution makes people utilitarian (as if that's a bad thing), it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

The scientific evidence of human origins cannot change to match the wish-fulfillment of religionists; the evidence leads to where the evidence leads, just like a proper murder investigation. Christians who want to remain relevant in the 21st Century have to harmonize their religious beliefs with the scientific evidence, not try to make the evidence fit their notions of how it should be!

All those....emotion-based responses! Do I need to point out who's prone to behave like the good Bishop here? Who tends to go on a personal attack and adhominems?
His flock.

I didn't find his irritations with this imbecile to be that outrageous! What were you expecting...Mr. Spock? Sure, we all have emotions, it's part of the brains basic hardwiring to receive neurochemical inputs from the amygdala; but fyi, if you want evidence that Richard Dawkins is dogmatic, you would find better evidence in his writings on religion and philosophy than his books on evolutionary theory.

[WIP]

Oh Betsy, Betsy, Besty ...... ironies? Have you read some of your own posts? Atheism is not a religion. You can keep thinking that, but you would be wrong. Atheists don't congregate, there is no organization, there is no church or place of worship, there is no preacher there is no clergy, there is no mantra, there is nothing that shows atheism is a religion, yet alone an organized religion.

And where atheists do congregate, such as atheist and secular humanist associations, many non-joining atheists would probably be turned off by what they would find! At least that was my experience when I followed the new atheist advice to become out and active as an atheist a couple of years ago, when I joined a secular humanist group and an online atheist facebook-type group. The atheists I was meeting were not the kind of people I had much in common with or liked the company of.

An article I posted yesterday from Epiphenomena in a meta-analysis of the differences between religious believers in America and Europe. The believers in secular European countries are not as inclined to be conscientious, compassionate and cooperative, possibly because religion is less popular in Europe than in America. The same factors could be at play if and when a study is done of atheists, especially organized atheists, since atheism in America is treated as a major character fault, unlike the European attitude of non-belief. That might explain why a lot of active atheists seem to act like fundamentalists in the way they deal with conflicting beliefs.

[segnosaur]

Re: Mother Teresa and her scummy acts...

Moot argument. It's not addressing the point. My reply to this is the same as my previous reply to you.

Actually, yes indeed it is addressing the point.

You had asked for a source for my information (quite a reasonable request). I provided the source, and indicated why they are reputable sources. If you are still basing your claim on the question "how accurate are the reports", then it is you who is at fault.

Really, what exactly were you expecting as proof? A signed letter from the pope? A video confession by Mother Teresa saying "ha ha suckers!!"? (Although something tells me that even if such evidence were provided, you would still disregard it not because it would be untrustworthy, but because your beliefs are so ingrained that you are willing to lie in order to protect them.)

So, in short:
- People who worked with mother Teresa indicated that for decades she collected money under false pretenses, and that her actions directly lead to suffering and death
- Those abuses were reported in the mainstream media
- You (and others like you) prefer to ignore facts and lie in order to protect someone who was, in effect, a real scum bag.

If you wonder why many people have such a low opinion of religious people, perhaps you should look in a mirror. Your actions are pretty much the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la" whenever someone provides anything resembling the truth to you.

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread:
Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to.

And you think atheists are not selective?

There's nothing to be selective of. There's no master 'atheist text', no central teachings.

There may be differences in the way people deal with their atheism (some more vocal than others) but that doesn't mean they're being "selective".

Oh, and by the way, even if atheists were being "selective" (they aren't, but lets pretend they were) that doesn't necessarily excuse the christians from being selective, even if they are claiming to be following the "true teachings of jebus".

Edited by segnosaur, 20 March 2011 - 01:45 PM.