927 thoughts on “What Makes Something Right or Wrong?”
With all due respect, Gary, and as much as I would love to find a panacea, it has been my experience that most such Xian blogs have moderation in place – for an example, all of my comments on Colorstorm’s and Insanitybytes’ blogs, all of my comments are moderated, and at their option, many never see the light of day, some do, but with the blog-host’s added comments.
I agree wholeheartedly with Arch on this one. Even a supposed ”reasonable” christian like unklee has no genuine desire for open discussion. Thus he will moderate as and when he sees fit.
His aim is always to reinforce his own belief and , if possible, proselytize in his own special consensus orientated way – as he has been doing here at Nate’s spot – using his tried and trusted supposed ”expert methodology” that relies entirely on at least one major non evidence based presupposition for every claim.
His approach,though somewhat different to a rank fundamentalist such as Colorstorm, still maintains core beliefs that have nothing to do with any sort of verifiable evidence whatsoever.
There is absolutely no desire to seek a humanist, secular or materialist worldview on anything.
The biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth is at the root of everything. All roads lead to Calvary, one might say.
Consider:
In the time that we have all been discussing Christianity on Nate’s blog ( or any other’s for that matter) has any scientist, archaeologist, theologian or philosopher advanced the christian religion in a positive manner one iota?
Has there been a single thing that has made the world sit up and say: My goodness;’ maybe there is something to this stuff after all?’
Christianity is still the same rotten-to-the-core nonsense it always was, overtly or insidiously indoctrinated into kids, and unklee, like so many supposed reasonable christians, is simply just another somewhat delusional individual juggling an ever-increasing number of balls trying to make sense of what is, essentially just a load of balls.
Yeah, I agree with Ark and Arch about visiting fundamentalist’s blogs. If you do manage to get some comments through moderation the conversation soon gets shut down even when you engage politely. I think I might be viewed as sort of lightweight because I’m not terribly fiery most of the time. Even so, the conversation doesn’t take long to disintegrate. I don’t know if that’s because they don’t find me a worthy opponent or because they just don’t want to engage. This is coming from someone who very rarely even visits fundy blogs.
the conversation soon gets shut down even when you engage politely.
I can never fathom why they ban me? They tend to have mini breakdowns when I ask for verifiable evidence. It does not compute with these people.
Unklee simply got fed up with me for not agreeing with his evidence and his experts and simply banned me.
Spoilsport.
I didn’t even call him a Dickhead!
You can never have a grown-up, sensible conversation with anyone who considers you hate their god and are automatically destined for Hell.
“You can never have a grown-up, sensible conversation with anyone who considers you hate their god and are automatically destined for Hell.”
It sure makes it hard as hell for them to find any common ground on which to converse. On the very few occasions I’ve even commented on a Christian blog I get shut down. Your friend James even got fed up of me. Just stopped even responding. And I was nice and everything!
lol, yeah, gary good luck with your plan,. last nite I was watching more Christian t.v. and one preacher said that “it’s time for Christians to become the athiests worst nightmare.’ LOL.
personally, and I’m sure you are all aware, civility is not my strong suit. lol. but good for those of you that practice it.
I have to agree with ark :You can never have a grown-up, sensible conversation with anyone who considers you hate their god and are automatically destined for Hell.
I think that the key issue is lack of common ground. IT comes down to both sides of the debate being prepared to allow for the possibility that the others sides position could be correct.
From my observation in so many of these discussions neither side tends to allow for the possibility that the other sides position is correct. This means that the interchange tends to degenerate into ridicule with both sides being guilty.
That is my observation, now it may be that my observation is incorrect. But I see ridicule and belittling on both sides of these discussions. I know it is a popular pastime to ridicule UnKle E, but I give him credit for being more open to discussion than most people on either side of the debate. Whilst I tend to reach different conclusions to him, I do appreciate the manner in which he is prepared to engage in discussions.
Hey guys, I wonder if you’d be willing to help me with an experiment I’ve dared myself to perform. For a limited time (1 day?) I’m going to be arguing from a Christian perspective and will be trying to demonstrate that Christianity (a liberal version of it) is true. It is a common practice among scientists to try and disprove their own theory and I’ve been reading about scientists who have done just that. This has inspired me to try it out on a worldview (Christianity) and I’m hoping some of you will indulge me and argue against my points.
Here goes…
I’ll start with Ark’s challenge: has any scientist, archaeologist, theologian or philosopher advanced the christian religion in a positive manner one iota?
I’ll go with theologian Rev. Michael Dowd. I’m currently reading his book “Thank God For Evolution”. He is taking the science of evolution and infusing new life into Christianity by looking at religious concepts through the lens of scientific findings. For example, he demonstrates how humans can strive to achieve “evolutionary integrity” utilizing our socially advanced brains to deal with our old instincts left over from when we were lizards or furry little mammals.
“I see sacred views of evolution as the Good News (the ‘gospel’) of our time, personally and collectively. I thank God for the entire 14-billion-year epic of cosmic, biological, and human emergence, because an inspiring interpretation of the history of everything and everyone builds bridges, provides guidance, and restores realistic hope for individuals and families, for humanity, and for the body of life as a whole.” – Rev. Michael Dowd
Rather than focus on private revelations Dowd focuses on what has been publicly revealed to everyone. I think this is an example of someone advancing the Christian religion in a positive manner.
…
Okay. Not much to argue against so far.. I’ll have to try harder.
“I don’t know if that’s because they don’t find me a worthy opponent or because they just don’t want to engage.” – Just be secure in the knowledge, Ruth, that Tiribulus likes you —
“So why are we asked to use faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus if the evidence for it is “good”? Answer: It’s not good. In fact, its terrible; nothing but assumptions and second century hearsay.” – Gary
First, we should ask ourselves whether the item in question is possible or not. We all recognize that we need some absurd starting point to explain the existence of our universe. That could be infinity, something from nothing, or something from “The One”. Call it God or Ultimate Reality. Now if this Ultimateness is capable of starting our Universe it may also be capable of altering it. What if the teachings of Jesus were recognized as important by this One and it decided to alter reality, bringing life back to a dead man, as a means of making it certain that the teachings would not go unnoticed. Perhaps it is the practice of these teachings that is important and not the belief in them.
Since belief in the resurrection is not important to this God it would have no reason to provide us with any good evidence for it. Christians who focus on belief in miracles are completely missing the point. It is the subject matter surrounding the miracles that should be evaluated. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. If the resurrection of Jesus was a miracle that actually happened then we need to ask ourselves what was being taught by this man. Unfortunately his message was hijacked by Paul and some strange doctrines emerged, but a lot of the core principles remain: Love each other.
“Love never gives up.
Love cares more for others than for self.
Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have.
Love doesn’t strut,
Doesn’t have a swelled head,
Doesn’t force itself on others,
Isn’t always “me first,”
Doesn’t fly off the handle,
Doesn’t keep score of the sins of others,
Doesn’t revel when others grovel,
Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth,
Puts up with anything,
Trusts God always,
Always looks for the best,
Never looks back,
But keeps going to the end.”
1 Cor. 13
Er, with die respect, how does this positively advance christianity? This is just co-opting science and covering it with goddidit sprinkles.
I agree, I believe you will have to try harder.
To give you a bump start.
The thrust of the ”challenge” which was really more of an assertion, states Christianity is based on several core ”spiritual” ( being polite) foundations.
Have any of the aforementioned disciplines brought to light and/or verified any such claims?
Furthermore, is christianity genuinely advancing humankind and reducing suffering in a way that is better than secular humanism?
I doubt that the fundamentalist and conservative/orthodox Christian blog owners will be swayed by our skeptic arguments but I am targeting the “lurkers”. Say something to trigger doubt and curiosity in their minds. Just leave one comment. No need to stay and argue with the blog owner.
Example if the topic is Hell:
“I recently discovered that in ancient Egypt the name for the afterlife for evil-doers was the “Lake of Fire” and the place for the Greek afterlife was “Hades”. Isn’t it an odd coincidence that the terms “Hades” and “Lake of Fire” don’t show up in the Christian Bible until after the Greek occupation of Palestine in 300-200 BC? In fact, the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the Old Testament says very little if anything about the existence of an afterlife. Is it possible that Judaism and early Christianity borrowed these concepts from the ancient Egyptians and Greeks?”
It brings Christianity into sync with what is now known from science. It may not advance it to a position that is better than secular humanism, but it does advance it beyond what it used to be.
It brings Christianity into sync with what is now known from science. It may not advance it to a position that is better than secular humanism, but it does advance it beyond what it used to be.
I think you are playing devil’s advocate like a christian – by purposely misunderstanding the question.
Christianity is only advanced for its own sake if, as a revealed religion, it produces evidence of its claims.
It has been unable to provide any. Thus, is as it always was, reliant on faith through overt and or insidious indoctrination.
Finding Truth 
With all due respect, Gary, and as much as I would love to find a panacea, it has been my experience that most such Xian blogs have moderation in place – for an example, all of my comments on Colorstorm’s and Insanitybytes’ blogs, all of my comments are moderated, and at their option, many never see the light of day, some do, but with the blog-host’s added comments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Gary.
I agree wholeheartedly with Arch on this one. Even a supposed ”reasonable” christian like unklee has no genuine desire for open discussion. Thus he will moderate as and when he sees fit.
His aim is always to reinforce his own belief and , if possible, proselytize in his own special consensus orientated way – as he has been doing here at Nate’s spot – using his tried and trusted supposed ”expert methodology” that relies entirely on at least one major non evidence based presupposition for every claim.
His approach,though somewhat different to a rank fundamentalist such as Colorstorm, still maintains core beliefs that have nothing to do with any sort of verifiable evidence whatsoever.
There is absolutely no desire to seek a humanist, secular or materialist worldview on anything.
The biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth is at the root of everything. All roads lead to Calvary, one might say.
Consider:
In the time that we have all been discussing Christianity on Nate’s blog ( or any other’s for that matter) has any scientist, archaeologist, theologian or philosopher advanced the christian religion in a positive manner one iota?
Has there been a single thing that has made the world sit up and say: My goodness;’ maybe there is something to this stuff after all?’
Christianity is still the same rotten-to-the-core nonsense it always was, overtly or insidiously indoctrinated into kids, and unklee, like so many supposed reasonable christians, is simply just another somewhat delusional individual juggling an ever-increasing number of balls trying to make sense of what is, essentially just a load of balls.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, I agree with Ark and Arch about visiting fundamentalist’s blogs. If you do manage to get some comments through moderation the conversation soon gets shut down even when you engage politely. I think I might be viewed as sort of lightweight because I’m not terribly fiery most of the time. Even so, the conversation doesn’t take long to disintegrate. I don’t know if that’s because they don’t find me a worthy opponent or because they just don’t want to engage. This is coming from someone who very rarely even visits fundy blogs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can never fathom why they ban me? They tend to have mini breakdowns when I ask for verifiable evidence. It does not compute with these people.
Unklee simply got fed up with me for not agreeing with his evidence and his experts and simply banned me.
Spoilsport.
I didn’t even call him a Dickhead!
You can never have a grown-up, sensible conversation with anyone who considers you hate their god and are automatically destined for Hell.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“You can never have a grown-up, sensible conversation with anyone who considers you hate their god and are automatically destined for Hell.”
It sure makes it hard as hell for them to find any common ground on which to converse. On the very few occasions I’ve even commented on a Christian blog I get shut down. Your friend James even got fed up of me. Just stopped even responding. And I was nice and everything!
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol, yeah, gary good luck with your plan,. last nite I was watching more Christian t.v. and one preacher said that “it’s time for Christians to become the athiests worst nightmare.’ LOL.
personally, and I’m sure you are all aware, civility is not my strong suit. lol. but good for those of you that practice it.
I have to agree with ark :You can never have a grown-up, sensible conversation with anyone who considers you hate their god and are automatically destined for Hell.
LikeLike
I think that the key issue is lack of common ground. IT comes down to both sides of the debate being prepared to allow for the possibility that the others sides position could be correct.
From my observation in so many of these discussions neither side tends to allow for the possibility that the other sides position is correct. This means that the interchange tends to degenerate into ridicule with both sides being guilty.
That is my observation, now it may be that my observation is incorrect. But I see ridicule and belittling on both sides of these discussions. I know it is a popular pastime to ridicule UnKle E, but I give him credit for being more open to discussion than most people on either side of the debate. Whilst I tend to reach different conclusions to him, I do appreciate the manner in which he is prepared to engage in discussions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hey guys, I wonder if you’d be willing to help me with an experiment I’ve dared myself to perform. For a limited time (1 day?) I’m going to be arguing from a Christian perspective and will be trying to demonstrate that Christianity (a liberal version of it) is true. It is a common practice among scientists to try and disprove their own theory and I’ve been reading about scientists who have done just that. This has inspired me to try it out on a worldview (Christianity) and I’m hoping some of you will indulge me and argue against my points.
Here goes…
I’ll start with Ark’s challenge: has any scientist, archaeologist, theologian or philosopher advanced the christian religion in a positive manner one iota?
I’ll go with theologian Rev. Michael Dowd. I’m currently reading his book “Thank God For Evolution”. He is taking the science of evolution and infusing new life into Christianity by looking at religious concepts through the lens of scientific findings. For example, he demonstrates how humans can strive to achieve “evolutionary integrity” utilizing our socially advanced brains to deal with our old instincts left over from when we were lizards or furry little mammals.
Rather than focus on private revelations Dowd focuses on what has been publicly revealed to everyone. I think this is an example of someone advancing the Christian religion in a positive manner.
…
Okay. Not much to argue against so far.. I’ll have to try harder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I don’t know if that’s because they don’t find me a worthy opponent or because they just don’t want to engage.” – Just be secure in the knowledge, Ruth, that Tiribulus likes you —
Here, next time take this with you:
LikeLiked by 2 people
First, we should ask ourselves whether the item in question is possible or not. We all recognize that we need some absurd starting point to explain the existence of our universe. That could be infinity, something from nothing, or something from “The One”. Call it God or Ultimate Reality. Now if this Ultimateness is capable of starting our Universe it may also be capable of altering it. What if the teachings of Jesus were recognized as important by this One and it decided to alter reality, bringing life back to a dead man, as a means of making it certain that the teachings would not go unnoticed. Perhaps it is the practice of these teachings that is important and not the belief in them.
Since belief in the resurrection is not important to this God it would have no reason to provide us with any good evidence for it. Christians who focus on belief in miracles are completely missing the point. It is the subject matter surrounding the miracles that should be evaluated. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. If the resurrection of Jesus was a miracle that actually happened then we need to ask ourselves what was being taught by this man. Unfortunately his message was hijacked by Paul and some strange doctrines emerged, but a lot of the core principles remain: Love each other.
“Love never gives up.
Love cares more for others than for self.
Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have.
Love doesn’t strut,
Doesn’t have a swelled head,
Doesn’t force itself on others,
Isn’t always “me first,”
Doesn’t fly off the handle,
Doesn’t keep score of the sins of others,
Doesn’t revel when others grovel,
Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth,
Puts up with anything,
Trusts God always,
Always looks for the best,
Never looks back,
But keeps going to the end.”
1 Cor. 13
LikeLike
“I’m sure you are all aware, civility is not my strong suit” – SAY it isn’t SO!
LikeLike
“ust be secure in the knowledge, Ruth, that Tiribulus likes you —”
You have no idea how special that makes me feel…(in case that wasn’t apparent, this is extreme sarcasm).
LikeLike
[commentary]
This is harder than I thought… I am being way too liberal.
LikeLike
@ Dave
Er, with die respect, how does this positively advance christianity? This is just co-opting science and covering it with goddidit sprinkles.
I agree, I believe you will have to try harder.
To give you a bump start.
The thrust of the ”challenge” which was really more of an assertion, states Christianity is based on several core ”spiritual” ( being polite) foundations.
Have any of the aforementioned disciplines brought to light and/or verified any such claims?
Furthermore, is christianity genuinely advancing humankind and reducing suffering in a way that is better than secular humanism?
LikeLike
it’s funny cause it’s true
LikeLike
With ”die” respect?
Yes, this non-edit platform will be the metaphorical death of me. ”Due” respect, of course.
LikeLike
Evidence for Jesus outside of the Bible:
http://www.windowview.org/hmny/pgs/talmuds.30ce.html
Why would the Jewish Talmud record evidence that would help Christianity?
LikeLike
I doubt that the fundamentalist and conservative/orthodox Christian blog owners will be swayed by our skeptic arguments but I am targeting the “lurkers”. Say something to trigger doubt and curiosity in their minds. Just leave one comment. No need to stay and argue with the blog owner.
Example if the topic is Hell:
“I recently discovered that in ancient Egypt the name for the afterlife for evil-doers was the “Lake of Fire” and the place for the Greek afterlife was “Hades”. Isn’t it an odd coincidence that the terms “Hades” and “Lake of Fire” don’t show up in the Christian Bible until after the Greek occupation of Palestine in 300-200 BC? In fact, the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the Old Testament says very little if anything about the existence of an afterlife. Is it possible that Judaism and early Christianity borrowed these concepts from the ancient Egyptians and Greeks?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Ark
It brings Christianity into sync with what is now known from science. It may not advance it to a position that is better than secular humanism, but it does advance it beyond what it used to be.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t Tiribulus just the best? He’s like a big, fuzzy, teddy bear.
LikeLike
You got me there. All I can think of is evidence from absence. Absence of any current explanation for some phenomenon.
Christianity can be effective at getting people to “behave” because they feel they are answering to a higher/ultimate authority.
LikeLike
@Dave
I think you are playing devil’s advocate like a christian – by purposely misunderstanding the question.
Christianity is only advanced for its own sake if, as a revealed religion, it produces evidence of its claims.
It has been unable to provide any. Thus, is as it always was, reliant on faith through overt and or insidious indoctrination.
LikeLike
Evidence for god outside the Bible:
LikeLiked by 4 people
Ah, yes.Guilt and fear-based punishment and rewards. And its a short hop from here to Divine Command Theory.William Craig … you’re up.
LikeLiked by 1 person