The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

[Chris]

@housecat

Chris, what would give you, or anyone else, the impression that as long as you don’t say anti-Christian things in a Happy Easter thread on Easter, then it’s free game after that?

Please re-read the post I was responding to, then read my response in that context.

[bob]

@heimuoshu

…have you read “A critique of pure reason” by Kant?

Yeah, I probably did back in High School actually. Don’t remember a thing.

I have seen lots of people have toxic religious experiences (both in the east and the west) and I understand Taiwanese people fairly well. Many of them are consumate rip off artists and and a good deal of the rest are sitting ducks, precisely because they don’t question authority and tradition.

[antarcticbeech]

@Fortigurn

[quote=“antarcticbeech”]So, you believe the story of Jesus’ resurrection to be true yet you would not claim it is true? Is that correct?

No. I believe it to be true and I would claim it is true.[/quote]

Well, according to your own rules you are advised to present your evidence.

@Fortigurn

* Any truth claims made in this thread make themselves vulnerable to challenge or criticism; you are advised to check your sources and present your evidence.

Or, perhaps not.

@Fortigurn

* No truth claims made in this thread are obliged to use or cite any sources at all, nor are they obliged to present any evidence whatsoever; if all you want to do is express your personal opinion, go right ahead

It is interesting that none of the faithful are making the case using evidence. And it is also interesting that in the original post it was only those of us who wanted to challenge the claim that were urged to become familiar with the evidence and cite it accordingly, as though the burden of proof is with us. As far as I am aware the scholarly support - an oral tradition of eyewitnesses claiming to have seen something - is very scant evidence indeed for any event let alone a miraculous one.

[housecat]

@antarcticbeech

As far as I am aware the scholarly support - an oral tradition of eyewitnesses claiming to have seen something - is very scant evidence indeed for any event let alone a miraculous one.

You’d have had a great time in Rome today! (In the ironically aptly named “Circus Maximus.”)

[Fortigurn]

[quote=“urodacus”]So how is that not covered in MT’s original (now deleted) comment about the Alleged resurrection?

Surely that’s what alleged means, isn’t it?[/quote]

Indeed. Do you understand yet that the objection to the post was not its content but its place in the original thread? Both Maoman and made that absolutely explicit, more than once. I invited anyone to make a new thread with exactly the same content as that post. No one did.

Not to be put off, I started a new thread on Easter and the resurrection myself, openly inviting unbelievers to say absolutely whatever they like about the subject. I even linked to a massive armoury of ammunition for unbelievers to use in their criticism of the resurrection, and I deliberately hobbled the believers by declining to offer them resources in kind, and by saying ‘No respect towards anyone’s beliefs (religious or otherwise), is to be expected, nor need be shown’.

And as for bob’s anti-Christian persuasion messages, how is that any worse than an evangelist’s pro-Christian persuasion attempts?

They’re no worse than a rude Christian evangelists persuasion attempts, but not that many Christians I know try persuading people by saying ‘Are you an atheist? If so, are you mental? If you’re an atheist, you’re clearly insane and a danger to society’. Nevertheless, on this part of the forum bob is not only permitted to post such messages, he is encouraged to do so.

I am not sure if the discussion in this forum really has reached a middle, balanced point since I relinquished the reins of moderation to our learned friend Fortigurn.

The discussion in this thread and the ‘Religion sucks’ thread is not aimed at reaching a middle, balanced point; that was not my objective in starting either thread. I certainly see no evidence that it has ever been the aim of this part of the religion and spirituality forum. However, I have been interested to see that it has reached a level more sophisticated than the usual mud slinging.

@antarcticbeech

Well, according to your own rules you are advised to present your evidence.

@antarcticbeech

Or, perhaps not.

Exactly. If you see me filling this thread with claims that Jesus was raised, you’re entirely at liberty to confront me with a request for evidence. Of course I haven’t been doing so. I responded to a question about who here believes in the resurrection. I said that I do. And of course if I do ever decide to assert such a claim, I’m at liberty to do so without providing any evidence for it, and you’re at liberty to point out that this is a significant weakness in my claim.

@antarcticbeech

It is interesting that none of the faithful are making the case using evidence.

That’s hardly surprising. The atheist position is that it didn’t happen. Furthermore, there’s no evidence which could possibly be made available for Popperian falsification. This means there’s no evidence which Christians can bring which objectively proves the resurrection; atheists are under no obligation whatsoever to accept any evidence Christians present, so Christians are best off not bothering.

@antarcticbeech

And it is also interesting that in the original post it was only those of us who wanted to challenge the claim that were urged to become familiar with the evidence and cite it accordingly, as though the burden of proof is with us.

The amazing thing about this forum is how often what I write is presented as the complete opposite of what I actually wrote. I did not say that at all. What I said was ‘Hey anyone wanting to challenge the resurrection claim, let me help you out by presenting the most commonly cited and referred to arguments by atheists’. I then said I wasn’t going to post the same convenient kind of list for the opposing side. As I should have predicted, making a post which was so obviously biased towards helping the atheists, has resulted in the claim that I am making unrealistic demands on them. It’s like ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass’ in here.

I did not urge anyone to become familiar with the evidence and cite it accordingly, then attempt to disprove that evidence. I didn’t urge anyone to become familiar with the evidence at all. I simply gave the atheists a nice long list of articles well respected in the atheist community as presenting the best arguments against the resurrection. For this, you complain?

@antarcticbeech

As far as I am aware the scholarly support - an oral tradition of eyewitnesses claiming to have seen something - is very scant evidence indeed for any event let alone a miraculous one.

Correct.

[BigJohn]

[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Charlie Jack”][quote=“BigJohn”]God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea.

The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.

Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.

If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.

OK, got it?[/quote] Yeah, I got it: straw man argument.[/quote]

Not actually a straw man argument. A straw man argument is the misrepresentation of an opponent’s view, with a view which is easily refuted. The argument BJ quotes is a combination of different fallacies, mainly various subgroups of the non sequitur (an argument in which the conclusion does not proceed logically from the premise):

• God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea: argumentum ad populum (argument from appeal to what many people believe), and fallacy of the appeal to consequences (‘it feels good therefore it is true’); both non sequiturs

• The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is: argumentum ad populum; a non sequitur

• Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible: illegitimate argument from authority (there is a form of argument from authority which is legitimate; this isn’t it)

• If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree: non sequitur[/quote]

Actually Fortigurn, you haven’t made a single point; you’ve just rambled off a bunch of Latin that helps you feel like you’re a smart guy. And you’ve totally missed the bpat on every point, BTW.

Point 1 is about human psychology, not metaphysics. Even you should have been able to see that.

Point 2 is about mass belief and indoctrination. It is not a conclusion with a premise. It is a statement of opinion.

Point 3: So, you are saying that people don’t believe in the resurrection of JC just because it is in the Bible? So, what is their source and the authority of that source?

Point 4 is not a non-sequitur. It is a statement of social rules, not a logical proof.

[BigJohn]

@Charlie Jack

[quote=“BigJohn”]The bottom line is, people believe in a deity or deities because they are told to at a young, impressionable age. That is, anyway, the main overall reason.[/quote] You make cartoons out of us.

I used to be religious, so that statement of why people believe applies to me as well, or did.

In any case, obviously my original post was reductionist. It was meant to stir up the pot. Yet, I still believe there is a lot of truth in it.

I think that although it is clear to me that people start believing in deities because they are told to / taught to, why they continue to do so after reaching adulthood is another matter. And I think that a believer is better qualified to answer that than a non-believer.

[BigJohn]

@Fortigurn

[quote=“BigJohn”]They may be irrelevant to you, but to say that they are irrelevant to all Christians here is a bit arrogant.

I don’t think it is arrogant; of all the Christians posting here, none of them have used these arguments. What I think is arrogant is slapping down a series of arguments no one here has used and asserting their relevance to the discussion at hand.
[/quote]

First of all, none of my original statements were in fact arguments. So therefore treating them as such positions you in logical nowheres-ville.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

They are relevant to religion, and therefore to religious people.

They’re only relevant if people are actually making them. If I say ‘Atheists say they’re angry every day because they don’t have love in their hearts, which is why they want Christians to be rounded up and shot’, it’s an utterly stupid thing to say if it’s not remotely representative of what atheists actually say.[/quote]

I am talking about why people are religious, not why they say they are. And I am not accusing anyone of making Christian assertions. The closest I came to that is about the resurrection being believed because it’s in the Bible. Are you disputing that point?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

BTW, it’s also a bit much to say you can only use Christian arguments to analyze Christianity.

I didn’t say that at all.[/quote]

You said that my arguments would be irrelevant to Christians if I didn’t address Christian arguments.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

That is absurd, because by doing so they are breaking social conventions.

Evidence please. Which social conventions? Children of religious people overwhelmingly grow up religious; children of atheists overwhelmingly grow up atheist. In both cases the reason is exactly the same; their views were formed significantly by their parents, before they were in a position to form their own independently.[/quote]

Fair point.

@Fortigurn

People are atheists because they lose or never had a faith in god or gods.

Well exactly; children born to atheist parents overwhelmingly grow up atheist. How surprising!

How about converts to atheism (or agnosticism) like me? Or like many of my close friends?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

No, I am saying they are told as children to be Hindus by Hindus all around them, just as some children are told to be Christian by Christians. The bottom line is, people believe in a deity or deities because they are told to at a young, impressionable age. That is, anyway, the main overall reason.

I agree, and as I’ve pointed out that is the main overall reason why people are atheists. Ironically however, more people deconvert from religion to atheism than convert from atheism to religion; I wonder who’s more open minded and genuinely prepared to change? [/quote]

That would seem to validate my point that people do so out of a loss or lack of faith.

[BigJohn]

@housecat

I also believe in the resurection. If I didn’t believe in Christ’s resurection from the dead, then I would surely not bother to believe in any other bit of Christianity, or anything else for that matter. It’s kinda pivital.

Because it’s in the Bible?

[Fortigurn]

@BigJohn

Actually Fortigurn, you haven’t made a single point; you’ve just rambled off a bunch of Latin that helps you feel like you’re a smart guy.

Can we avoid motive judgments and personal slights please? You initially presented these as reasons why Christians believe, phrased as statements Christians make; ‘God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea’ (not a statement an atheist would make). You haven’t provided any examples of Christians saying that these are reasons why they believe, which to my mind is a bad start.

Unfortunately you missed the point of the objections I made to the arguments listed. You initially presented these as reasons Christians give as to why they believe, and the purpose of my initial reply was to demonstrate why all of them are bad reasons to believe. I thought you were going to be pleased that I was saying ‘These are illogical reasons for belief’.

Point 1 is about human psychology, not metaphysics. Even you should have been able to see that.

Of course it’s about human psychology. My reply had nothing to do with metaphysics, it simply pointed out that using this as an argument to validate personal belief is illogical. I am sure you agree with me on this, don’t you?

Point 2 is about mass belief and indoctrination. It is not a conclusion with a premise. It is a statement of opinion.

It is a statement with a premise and a conclusion:

• Premise: People say that the Bible is the Holy Book
• Conclusion: The Bible is the Holy Book

Of course it’s a statement of opinion. It’s also logically flawed. My point was that using this as an argument to validate personal belief is illogical. I am sure you agree with me on this, don’t you?

Point 3: So, you are saying that people don’t believe in the resurrection of JC just because it is in the Bible? So, what is their source and the authority of that source?

Of course people don’t believe in the resurrection just because it says so in the Bible. There are a host of other factors involved; socio-environmental, emotional, psychological. There are people who believe in the resurrection even though they believe the Bible is almost completely unreliable as a historical record. There are people who believe in the resurrection even though they don’t believe the Bible is inspired. There are people who believe in the resurrection because they’ve been programmed to by their social environment, or because they have an emotional or psychological need to believe. Often it’s a combination of factors. It certainly is in my case.

In any case, my point was that using this as an argument to validate personal belief is illogical. I am sure you agree with me on this, don’t you?

Point 4 is not a non-sequitur. It is a statement of social rules, not a logical proof.

It is a non-sequitur; the conclusion (‘you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree’), does not proceed logically from the premise (‘If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds’). Anyone asserting this statement needs their head read. And since when was this a ‘statement of social rules’? Where is this statement being made? Which society has encoded this as a ‘social rule’?

@BigJohn

First of all, none of my original statements were in fact arguments. So therefore treating them as such positions you in logical nowheres-ville.

Of course they’re arguments; an argument is a process of reasoning to assert a fact, and all of those qualify (‘X is true because Y’).

@BigJohn

I am talking about why people are religious, not why they say they are.

Then you phrased your statements completely wrongly. All of your statements were made as statements of fact, and they were clearly statements no atheist would ever assert as fact. You should have prefaced each one of them with ‘It’s my opinion that people think’, like this:

• It’s my opinion that people think God exists, because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea
• It’s my opinion that people think the Bible is the Holy Book, because people say it is
• It’s my opinion that people think Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible
• It’s my opinion that people think that if you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree

And I am not accusing anyone of making Christian assertions.

If that wasn’t the case, then your entire list is pointless. But the very first one said ‘God exists, because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea’. Who would make such a statement? An atheist or a Christian? Your next statements were the same. Who, other than a Christian, would make such assertions? Would an atheist ever say ‘Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible’?

The closest I came to that is about the resurrection being believed because it’s in the Bible. Are you disputing that point?

No I am not disputing that point.

@BigJohn

You said that my arguments would be irrelevant to Christians if I didn’t address Christian arguments.

Read what I wrote with care, please. What I said was that unless the arguments you list as arguments made by Christians are actually arguments made by Christians, then they would be irrelevant to Christians. I didn’t ask you to address Christian arguments. I made this abundantly clear using an analogy. If I say ‘X, Y, and Z’ are arguments made by atheists, but no atheists actually make these arguments, then my arguments are irrelevant. Do you understand what I’m saying here?

@BigJohn

How about converts to atheism (or agnosticism) like me? Or like many of my close friends?

How about them? I said children born to atheist parents overwhelmingly grow up atheist, not ‘Atheists are overwhelmingly people born to atheist parents’.

@BigJohn

That would seem to validate my point that people do so out of a loss or lack of faith.

Well of course they do. I don’t think that was ever in dispute.

[BigJohn]

@Fortigurn

[quote=“BigJohn”]Actually Fortigurn, you haven’t made a single point; you’ve just rambled off a bunch of Latin that helps you feel like you’re a smart guy.

Can we avoid motive judgments and personal slights please?[/quote]

Of course!

[quote=“Fortigurn”]
You initially presented these as reasons why Christians believe, phrased as statements Christians make; ‘God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea’ (not a statement an atheist would make). You haven’t provided any examples of Christians saying that these are reasons why they believe, which to my mind is a bad start.[/quote]

I’m saying that that’s why they believe, not why they say they believe.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Unfortunately you missed the point of the objections I made to the arguments listed. You initially presented these as reasons Christians give as to why they believe, and the purpose of my initial reply was to demonstrate why all of them are bad reasons to believe. I thought you were going to be pleased that I was saying ‘These are illogical reasons for belief’.[/quote]

No,not the reasons they give, but my opinion of the underlying reasons. You have misinterpreted me.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Point 1 is about human psychology, not metaphysics. Even you should have been able to see that.

Of course it’s about human psychology. My reply had nothing to do with metaphysics, it simply pointed out that using this as an argument to validate personal belief is illogical. I am sure you agree with me on this, don’t you?[/quote]

I never said that the statement validated personal belief.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Point 2 is about mass belief and indoctrination. It is not a conclusion with a premise. It is a statement of opinion.

It is a statement with a premise and a conclusion:

• Premise: People say that the Bible is the Holy Book
• Conclusion: The Bible is the Holy Book

Of course it’s a statement of opinion. It’s also logically flawed. My point was that using this as an argument to validate personal belief is illogical. I am sure you agree with me on this, don’t you?[/quote]

No, it is a statement of cause and effect: people say the Bible is the Holy Book, so other people believe it.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Point 3: So, you are saying that people don’t believe in the resurrection of JC just because it is in the Bible? So, what is their source and the authority of that source?

Of course people don’t believe in the resurrection just because it says so in the Bible. There are a host of other factors involved; socio-environmental, emotional, psychological. There are people who believe in the resurrection even though they believe the Bible is almost completely unreliable as a historical record. There are people who believe in the resurrection even though they don’t believe the Bible is inspired. There are people who believe in the resurrection because they’ve been programmed to by their social environment, or because they have an emotional or psychological need to believe. Often it’s a combination of factors. It certainly is in my case.

In any case, my point was that using this as an argument to validate personal belief is illogical. I am sure you agree with me on this, don’t you?[/quote]

So, you are saying people would believe in the resurrection of JC if it wasn’t in the Bible?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Point 4 is not a non-sequitur. It is a statement of social rules, not a logical proof.

It is a non-sequitur; the conclusion (‘you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree’), does not proceed logically from the premise (‘If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds’). Anyone asserting this statement needs their head read. And since when was this a ‘statement of social rules’? Where is this statement being made? Which society has encoded this as a ‘social rule’?[/quote]

No, it is not intended as a statement of logical proof, but rather as an encapsulation of social conditions. And many societies have social rules that are not formally written down but are nevertheless very important. For example, rich people get better protection from the police, men are more tolerated in being very sexually active then women, etc. It is quite clear that one must always tread lightly when it comes to others religious beliefs, and that non-believers or other kinds of believers can easily be ostracized if they “say the wrong thing” i.e. piss off religious people.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

@BigJohn

First of all, none of my original statements were in fact arguments. So therefore treating them as such positions you in logical nowheres-ville.

Of course they’re arguments; an argument is a process of reasoning to assert a fact, and all of those qualify (‘X is true because Y’).

@BigJohn

I am talking about why people are religious, not why they say they are.

Then you phrased your statements completely wrongly. All of your statements were made as statements of fact, and they were clearly statements no atheist would ever assert as fact. You should have prefaced each one of them with ‘It’s my opinion that people think’, like this:

• It’s my opinion that people think God exists, because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea
• It’s my opinion that people think the Bible is the Holy Book, because people say it is
• It’s my opinion that people think Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible
• It’s my opinion that people think that if you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree[/quote]

It’s not up to you to dictate how I should phrase my statements. Or was that your opinion? Then you phrased it all wrong!

In any case, I did not provide proofs or premises, merely conclusions which had some internal logical relationship.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Read what I wrote with care, please. What I said was that unless the arguments you list as arguments made by Christians are actually arguments made by Christians, then they would be irrelevant to Christians. I didn’t ask you to address Christian arguments. I made this abundantly clear using an analogy. If I say ‘X, Y, and Z’ are arguments made by atheists, but no atheists actually make these arguments, then my arguments are irrelevant. Do you understand what I’m saying here?[/quote]

I wasn’t making an argument, I was stating conclusions.

[bob]

@Fortigurn

[quote]And as for bob’s anti-Christian persuasion messages, how is that any worse than an evangelist’s pro-Christian persuasion attempts?

They’re no worse than a rude Christian evangelists persuasion attempts, but not that many Christians I know try persuading people by saying ‘Are you an atheist? If so, are you mental? If you’re an atheist, you’re clearly insane and a danger to society’. [/quote]

That is a deliberate mis-characterization. I’ve gone on for pages (well, paragraphs at least) on this forum expressing my sympathy for the anxiety and longings that would drive a person into the arms of that socialized delusion we call religion. I “suffered” a spot of that myself at one time. I explained that I don’t do the “Are you crazy?” thing in a rude tone but rather in a compassionate one. I’ll go on to say that I feel compassion for the poor deluded souls here on forumosa who apply one means of reasoning to most of their lives, only to abandon it almost completely in another. Actually, that is what is so fascinating about this whole thing. I mean I understand completely that you aren’t stupid, but you continue to believe stupid things. And I mean practically right on the very surface of it stupid things You can believe that people actually spoke with god and that god performed miracles, or you can believe that garden variety delusions and hallucinations combined with a liberal sprinkling of good old fashioned story telling to produce, eventually, the bible. The difference is that the first line of reasoning has nothing to do with anything anyone in the sciences can prove while the second one is shit that is happening ALL the time. And I don’t dismiss for an instant the beauty and wisdom that religious thought sometimes gives rise to. The thing though is that either god said that stuff or people made it up. If they made it up then it came from people, which is essentially what humanism asserts (that the answers lie with us). It is a rock solid, VERY well thought position and I am definitely not RUDE to assert it because, again, I am of the “sincere” opinion that religious belief is deluded. I am further of the belief that delusions eventually lead to disaster. We live in very complicated, dangerous times and the last thing we need is some religious authority praying to god for answers and then coming back with responses that they either hallucinated or made up and sharing it like it is some kind of divination. The whole spectacle, for example, that the pope puts on is absolutely obscene. A vile insult to any concerned, sane human being. Almost as bad as that evil moron Bush “praying” before invading Iraq. I guess God told him to ramp up the holy war. Let’s face it, that is the kind of thing god seems to be saying a lot of these days.

Please NEVER lump me in with aetheists. I have asked that of you now several times. What I am is an agnostic humanist.

BTW, I thought it was cute the conversation you and maoman had about the original respones to the original thread and how they were helpful in revealing character. Everything a person does reveals character I suppose but what kind of character did THAT reveal? A tad insensitive I suppose but perhaps determined and principled too, bit of a toss up there, not like, say, smoking in a place where people have expressed the fact that they find it uncomfortable and offensive. I wouldn’t bitch in a bar about smoking, but I’ll bitch here. I wouldn’t bitch in a church about Christianity either.

Maybe all of this will someday inspire a television sitcom. “Religion and the City.” Fortigurn could be the writer and star of the show. The pilot would observe him as he made his way through the traffic and the smog, lost in thought, deliberating precisely the sort of issues discussed here before finally distilling the essence of the quandry in a single question:

“Is religion like a bar?”

[heimuoshu]

You being dismissive over the Kant book indicates to me nothing more than the fact that you value your beliefs more than others and you are completely unwilling to investigate what you can not grasp. I bet Potter falls into your category of favorite books. Nothing wrong with that I guess.

[bob]

@heimuoshu

You being dismissive over the Kant book indicates to me nothing more than the fact that you value your beliefs more than others and you are completely unwilling to investigate what you can not grasp. I bet Potter falls into your category of favorite books. Nothing wrong with that I guess.

You being insistant that I need to read Kant to recognize a snake oil salesman when I see one book indicates to me nothing more than the fact that you value your pretensions more the humble reasoning of the common man and you that are completely unwilling to consider the possibility that you are full of crap.

Let me have a look here:

Musicophilia - Oliver Sacks
The Languge Instinct - Steven Pinker
This is your brain on Music - daniel Levitan
Revenge of the Lawn - Richard Brautigan
Formosun Odyssey - Johh Ross
Eight Dictionaries - Including a 1962 version of the Oxford Learners Dictionary.
Not Sars Just Sex - Gits Ferari
The Oil Sands of Alberta - Gits Ferrai

Gits ferrai is a modern day Holden Caufield. A muscle bound, fifty year old Holden Caufield, only with an extra dollop of dementia and let loose on an unsuspecting new culture. The implications are horrifying and the books are truly fascinating.

That is the stuff I can actually reach from my perch here. There might be a harry Potter book in the back somewhere but I seriously doubt it.

[heimuoshu]

@bob

[quote=“heimuoshu”]You being dismissive over the Kant book indicates to me nothing more than the fact that you value your beliefs more than others and you are completely unwilling to investigate what you can not grasp. I bet Potter falls into your category of favorite books. Nothing wrong with that I guess.

You being insistant that I need to read Kant to recognize a snake oil salesman when I see one book indicates to me nothing more than the fact that you value your pretensions more the humble reasoning of the common man and you that are completely unwilling to consider the possibility that you are full of crap.

Let me have a look here:

Musicophilia - Oliver Sacks
The Languge Instinct - Steven Pinker
This is your brain on Music - daniel Levitan
Revenge of the Lawn - Richard Brautigan
Formosun Odyssey - Johh Ross
Eight Dictionaries - Including a 1962 version of the Oxford Learners Dictionary.
Not Sars Just Sex - Gits Ferari
The Oil Sands of Alberta - Gits Ferrai

Gits ferrai is a modern day Holden Caufield. A muscle bound, fifty year old Holden Caufield, only with an extra dollop of dementia and let loose on an unsuspecting new culture. The implications are horrifying and the books are truly fascinating.

That is the stuff I can actually reach from my perch here. There might be a harry Potter book in the back somewhere but I seriously doubt it.[/quote]
You truly believe that the humble reasoning of the common man is sufficient to rip relligion apart. I now understand much better. The common man is represented by an IQ of 100 or less. Doubt if his reasonong is sufficient to determine wheter people are crazy or not unless of course it is only HIS belief.
Oh Harry Potter???
I thought you were a humanist?
Ever heard of Charles Potter? No relation to Harry by the way.

[bob]

@heimuoshu

You truly believe that the humble reasoning of the common man is sufficient to rip relligion apart.

BINGO!

[Dr_McCoy]

[quote]May the Lord have mercy
On the people in England
For the terrible food
These people must eat.

And may the Lord have mercy
On the fate of this movie
And God bless the mind
Of the man in the street.[/quote]
Frank Zappa

Once you’ve taken logic to its logical ends, what do you have left? Once you’ve eliminated the possible, what do you have left?

[bob]

Boundless mystery.

[BigJohn]

@bob

[quote=“heimuoshu”] You truly believe that the humble reasoning of the common man is sufficient to rip relligion apart.

BINGO!

[/quote]

Not rip it apart, but expose the pretentiousness of it, as it exists in an organized, institutional way. I don’t mean to say that religious people as individuals are pretentious.

And yes,it has been reason that has done this. Using adjectives like “humble” and “common” doesn’t change that fact.

[heimuoshu]

@BigJohn

[quote=“bob”][quote=“heimuoshu”] You truly believe that the humble reasoning of the common man is sufficient to rip relligion apart.

BINGO!

[/quote]

Not rip it apart, but expose the pretentiousness of it, as it exists in an organized, institutional way. I don’t mean to say that religious people as individuals are pretentious.

And yes,it has been reason that has done this. Using adjectives like “humble” and “common” doesn’t change that fact.[/quote]
The problem is that the humble and common should not be so convinced that their reasoning does not have holes in it. Certainly a humanist should have read Potter (not Harry) but this was ignored in the responses because it indicates the general lack of desire or unwillingness to actually investigate the accuracy of your position. It gives one some power to indicate thier brilliance by mocking those who are religious without having any substance to back it up.
Organised humanism is as pretentious but most wouldn’t notice it.