UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[photon]

You guys are agreeing with each other...

[Reggie Dunlop]

Good morning!

Just checking in... it's Monday, February 6th. Anyone spot Jesus yet? What? Nobody? All-righty then.

Carry on.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

It's quite simple actually. Prove your god or STFU.

Bravo Reggie.

A clear indication that you really are too ignorant and conceited to grasp the substance of my response. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to add, so perhaps you would do best to heed your own advice here.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are both wrong in asserting that the opposite of "faith" is "doubt". In actual fact, the opposite of faith is certainty, and certainty is a very dangerous position to be in. A certain man is one who is not prone to think otherwise, even in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Isn't it interesting that many of those who claim to have faith behave the same way as you describe those who are certain?

Originally Posted by photon

You guys are agreeing with each other...

I thought we were too, up until he said that the poster being referenced was not an atheist, but an agnostic atheist. That's along the same lines as saying "That's not a dog, it's a border collie."

All agnostic atheists are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Theist sez: "lol no u r wrong, those stories r just symbolic"

This is a massive oversimplification, but it is understandable given that we naturally have a tendency to read ancient literature much like a newspaper or even a novel. The literature contained in the Bible was all written at a time when the highest appreciable commodity in any composition was in its contemporary meaning. The Jewish and Christian notion of "scripture" was always governed by a sense that it repeatedly and consistently required interpretation. This is where the biblicists have strayed so far off track, in their insistence that the so-called "word of God" is fixed for all time. Quite to the contrary, for hundreds and thousands of years it was rather understood as the product of a complex cypher.

I think that part of the real problem is that so many of us have failed to grasp the real significance of symbols and metaphors—even those that were never intended in the first place. There is real value in literature, song, art, etc. through a sensitivity to metaphor. This is something that the biblical writers and editors recognized a long, long time ago.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Problem is that the stories make as much sense being symbolic as they do being intended literally.

I think it really depends on what you are looking for and what you expect to find. Symbols and meaning are certain to change over time, and relative to those who perceive them—or create them.

For example: I have often thought that the creation story in Genesis 1:1–2:4 could actually be highly supportive of and meaningful to a naturalistic worldview. There is no question that the man who wrote—or most likely re-wrote—this story believed it plainly: He envisioned a real god who really spoke everything into existence over a real period of six 24-hour days. Obviously, that amounts to nonsense. What I find much more significant is the more subtle celebration of order over chaos that every civilized person appreciates and takes for granted in the undertaking of his or her daily life. The story is founded in a much older Sumerian or Babylonian myth about the defeat of the chaos monster. The Hebrew version in the Bible holds to this theme by using verbs that indicate division, compartmentalization and structure in the process by which god "creates". It is the imposition of order and sense over a hostile and senseless universe.

You don't have to believe in god to be able to appreciate order, or perhaps the illusion of order. We depend upon it for the survival of our civilization; on one level (and certainly not the only one) the primitive and scientifically naive story of creation affirms as much.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Bravo Reggie.

A clear indication that you really are too ignorant and conceited to grasp the substance of my response. You obviously have nothing worthwhile to add, so perhaps you would do best to heed your own advice here.

Unfortunately, your meandering gobbledy#### poorly masks the inherent BS of the subject matter.

[TorqueDog]

Textcritic, I don't mean the be rude, but what exactly was the point you were trying to make? You said quite a lot without actually going anywhere with it.

My comments were made specifically regarding the video posted, that Christians get their "objective moral code" from the teachings in the Bible. Yet every time it can be demonstrated that the Bible is hardly moral, people pick and choose what to interpret literally, and what to interpret as a symbolic lesson (which as I said often doesn't make sense either) or even throw bits away entirely.

[Textcritic]

nm.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Why? Why bother? If there is no greater power to judge why do I need to be remembered as a good person? I can be remembered as a sodomizing, baby killing, racist, midget murdering jerk. Eff the people who knew me. Does the memory of who I was resonate through history?

Who the hell are you to decide if I'm a good person or not? You're an atheist, where does your idea of if I'm a good person or not come into things?

And this response is exactly why the UBC study results were what they were.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Textcritic, I don't mean the be rude, but what exactly was the point you were trying to make? You said quite a lot without actually going anywhere with it.

Hmmm. That is a problem.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

My comments were made specifically regarding the video posted, that Christians get their "objective moral code" from the teachings in the Bible. Yet every time it can be demonstrated that the Bible is hardly moral, people pick and choose what to interpret literally, and what to interpret as a symbolic lesson (which as I said often doesn't make sense either) or even throw bits away entirely.

Okay, fair enough. I didn't actually watch the video posted, but I will certainly go back and do so.

I think that what I was getting at is that far too often people are far too dismissive of ancient literature—not just biblical literature—on the basis that it is primitive, "immoral", or somehow irrelevant and meaningless. In actual fact, I'm fairly certain that there is and always will be much to be learned and appreciated in the thoughts and observations of a primitive society. So many things tend to be lost amid our own sense of moral and intellectual superiority.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Knalus

And this response is exactly why the UBC study results were what they were.

It is? I was just drunk and yelling. I distrust atheists as much as I distrust religious people. You're all on par with rapists to me, I don't trust humanity.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

...My comments were made specifically regarding the video posted, that Christians get their "objective moral code" from the teachings in the Bible.

Somewhat true. Most Christians pay lip service to this notion, but in actual fact morality is almost entirely social / cultural. The "moral code" that Christians cull from the Bible is most frequently the result of a very poor understanding of the texts that they are actually reading. As the video you posted seems to imply, most Christians are rightly repulsed by the atrocities committed in the name of God that are recorded in the Bible. Because of this many engage in a system of interpretive gymnastics that effectively serves to rehabilitate the texts, but in my opinion, that is a poor methodology.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

...Yet every time it can be demonstrated that the Bible is hardly moral, people pick and choose what to interpret literally, and what to interpret as a symbolic lesson (which as I said often doesn't make sense either) or even throw bits away entirely.

Yeah, I get that. My problem is that the perception this creates among people tends to make them needlessly dismissive in the process. Your own response implies that because the so-called "biblical moral code" is barbaric and outdated, this effectively renders the entire collection worthless, meaningless, and of little more than antiquarian interest. This is what I take issue with, and my point is that there is value in the text for those who are willing to pay attention.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yeah, I get that. My problem is that the perception this creates among people tends to make them needlessly dismissive in the process. Your own response implies that because the so-called "biblical moral code" is barbaric and outdated, this effectively renders the entire collection worthless, meaningless, and of little more than antiquarian interest. This is what I take issue with, and my point is that there is value in the text for those who are willing to pay attention.

If you mean worthless in the sense of defining our morals, or our understanding of the universe, then I would say that I stand behind that. I don't see how a text that attempts to explain our existence by leveraging the concept of a being whose basic existence cannot be demonstrated to begin with provides any value.

As Carl Sagan once said, "In many cultures, the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must - of course - ask the next question, 'Where did God come from?' If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we decide that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?"

I see no harm in answering a question with "We don't know yet", but what I do see harm with is making up an answer for the sake of comfort, and closing the investigation. Religion promotes this lack of questioning, and it is something I see not only lacking value, but harmful in one's endeavour to gain a deeper understanding of our world.

Similarly, a text which contains such a vast array of contradictions throughout its pages would not serve to be a very useful guide on any subject, nevermind one that is purported by many to provide an objective moral framework. You and I do agree on something, that morality is undoubtedly subjective.


BUT, if you mean the books have value simply as a collection of texts, then I suppose that depends on who is the one reading them. I don't read Harlequin romance novels, but my grandmother sure seemed to enjoy them when she was alive. I read the Bible and it only served to push me further away from the beliefs I was once indoctrinated with.

Come to think of it, maybe the Bible does have value....

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Somewhat true. Most Christians pay lip service to this notion, but in actual fact morality is almost entirely social / cultural. The "moral code" that Christians cull from the Bible is most frequently the result of a very poor understanding of the texts that they are actually reading. As the video you posted seems to imply, most Christians are rightly repulsed by the atrocities committed in the name of God that are recorded in the Bible. Because of this many engage in a system of interpretive gymnastics that effectively serves to rehabilitate the texts, but in my opinion, that is a poor methodology.


Yeah, I get that. My problem is that the perception this creates among people tends to make them needlessly dismissive in the process. Your own response implies that because the so-called "biblical moral code" is barbaric and outdated, this effectively renders the entire collection worthless, meaningless, and of little more than antiquarian interest. This is what I take issue with, and my point is that there is value in the text for those who are willing to pay attention.

There is also value in Aesop's Fables, Shakespearean sonnets, The Three Little Pigs and The Cat in the Hat.
That does not make them just, and the cults that follow them are basically benign.
Value in the texts of ancient novella should not give them more of a leg in society than the previously mentioned.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If you mean worthless in the sense of defining our morals, or our understanding of the universe, then I would say that I stand behind that. I don't see how a text that attempts to explain our existence by leveraging the concept of a being whose basic existence cannot be demonstrated to begin with provides any value.

As Carl Sagan once said, "In many cultures, the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must - of course - ask the next question, 'Where did God come from?' If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we decide that God always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?"

I see no harm in answering a question with "We don't know yet", but what I do see harm with is making up an answer for the sake of comfort, and closing the investigation. Religion promotes this lack of questioning, and it is something I see not only lacking value, but harmful in one's endeavour to gain a deeper understanding of our world.

Similarly, a text which contains such a vast array of contradictions throughout its pages would not serve to be a very useful guide on any subject, nevermind one that is purported by many to provide an objective moral framework. You and I do agree on something, that morality is undoubtedly subjective.


BUT, if you mean the books have value simply as a collection of texts, then I suppose that depends on who is the one reading them. I don't read Harlequin romance novels, but my grandmother sure seemed to enjoy them when she was alive. I read the Bible and it only served to push me further away from the beliefs I was once indoctrinated with.

Come to think of it, maybe the Bible does have value....

I spent 10 years in an Evangelical church before I left. Mostly due to questioning that was promoted within my church. Question it and come to your conclusions was what was taught every Sunday morn. We were never asked to take what was preached as the absolute truth. I left because of the hypocriscy within organised religion and have never gone back.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

I spent 10 years in an Evangelical church before I left. Mostly due to questioning that was promoted within my church. Question it and come to your conclusions was what was taught every Sunday morn. We were never asked to take what was preached as the absolute truth. I left because of the hypocriscy within organised religion and have never gone back.

Do you still believe in a religious God?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Dion

I spent 10 years in an Evangelical church before I left. Mostly due to questioning that was promoted within my church. Question it and come to your conclusions was what was taught every Sunday morn. We were never asked to take what was preached as the absolute truth. I left because of the hypocriscy within organised religion and have never gone back.

As a member of the church, wasn't the existence of a supreme god taken as granted? I can't imagine you were asked to question your belief in God regularly.

I spent the first ten years, four of those in Sunday school, as a member of the Catholic church and my experience was incredibly different from yours.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

As a member of the church, wasn't the existence of a supreme god taken as granted? I can't imagine you were asked to question your belief in God regularly.

I spent the first ten years, four of those in Sunday school, as a member of the Catholic church and my experience was incredibly different from yours.

Some took the existance for granted while others like me didn't. The fact that religion can't prove that God exists asks members to accept his existance on faith alone. You'd be a fool if you didn't question the existance of God. Every Sunday when my pastor finished his sermon he would ask the congregation to take what he said into the world and question it.

I was never one to merely accept things without alot of questioning. Over the years I had disagreements on the churches stances on different issues as pertaining to scriptures. My pastor knew of those as I had made him aware of the issues I had. I was never forced to leave at any time nor was there any pressure put on me to change the beliefs I had. Nor was I ever asked to step down from any positions I held within the church. There were others like me and some left earlier than I did. Over the 10 years I saw a revolving door of people coming and leaving.

The fact I disagreed with some of the scriptures probaly means that I don't believe in a religious God. It's funny how many ways scriptures can be interpreted and yet you are considered wrong if it doesn't coincide with the churches interpretation. Off to Hell you go with all the other sinners. If that's the case there's going to be one hell of a party going on. Friends shaking hands with one another along with Thor and I running the bar

I don't doubt my experience is different from yours and many others. Different denominations seem to approach God and religion in different ways.

[Reggie Dunlop]

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Dion

Some took the existance for granted while others like me didn't. The fact that religion can't prove that God exists asks members to accept his existance on faith alone. You'd be a fool if you didn't question the existance of God. Every Sunday when my pastor finished his sermon he would ask the congregation to take what he said into the world and question it.

I was never one to merely accept things without alot of questioning. Over the years I had disagreements on the churches stances on different issues as pertaining to scriptures. My pastor knew of those as I had made him aware of the issues I had. I was never forced to leave at any time nor was there any pressure put on me to change the beliefs I had. Nor was I ever asked to step down from any positions I held within the church. There were others like me and some left earlier than I did. Over the 10 years I saw a revolving door of people coming and leaving.

The fact I disagreed with some of the scriptures probaly means that I don't believe in a religious God. It's funny how many ways scriptures can be interpreted and yet you are considered wrong if it doesn't coincide with the churches interpretation. Off to Hell you go with all the other sinners. If that's the case there's going to be one hell of a party going on. Friends shaking hands with one another along with Thor and I running the bar

I don't doubt my experience is different from yours and many others. Different denominations seem to approach God and religion in different ways.

The standards by which you or I would hold evidence to is not the same as the church's standards for evidence of a God. It's even called 'faith', yet some would put it to you that the existence of God is undeniable because of all the 'evidence' around them.

As far as being a fool not to question the existence of a God, I don't disagree, I've never stated that religion was the domain of the wise. Hey, where is Calgaryborn anyway?