The Passion rotten so far

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I see no need to address accusations and unjustified inquiries into my positions. I asked a question, and that was the straight answer you gave before you belaboured upon Boris' points.

Have you stopped beating your boyfriends?

I don't have boyfriends.

You do however quote out of context, and partially.

I gave a full answer, you chose to quote part of it. Seems the Jesuitical part of Catholicism is appealing to you.

The reasons you have chosen your particular religion, and the particular sect of that religion, must surely be important- otherwise, why not Wicca, or Flying Roll Jezreelism, or the International Society for Krishna Consciousness?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No doubt influenced by the fact that you live in New York.

Four years out of 27. Sorry, that's not it. I don't think you're particularly familiar with Buddhists, though.

Ever hear of the concept of negative soteriology? Everything in Buddhism is structured more on personal fulfillment, rather than getting close to God. So it is little surprise for me to hear that atheists like Buddhism.

And you don't "Get close to God" because it makes you feel more fulfilled? I doubt that. All moral philosophy is ultimately about personal fulfillment, whether it be gussied up as religious "doing good for the soul" or whatever. Nobody converted to a religion because they thought it would end up being less fullfilling.

Thank you. That's precisely what I was looking for.

Somehow I doubt that. You were looking to cast a wide net over atheists by making an unsupportable claim that their belief should lead them to behave badly, and you've been proven wrong. These disingenuous arguments you engage in really are surprising--I'd think honesty debate would matter more for you. After all, it was Aquinas who coined the phrase "Pious Fraud."

So why be an atheist then? Why not just be a utilitarian?

Why are you relating them? Atheism and Utilitarianism aren't necessarily coterminous. Granted, Utilitarians are probably more likely to be atheists, but I can't see why a Deist or pagan couldn't be a Utilitarian. A Christian certainly couldn't, unless there was a great amount of liberties applied to their interpretation of their religion's dogma.

The answer lies in the common thread of the argument--atheism isn't about a moral philosophy, it's solely a stance on the existence or non-existence of a deity. So asking why a Utilitarian is an atheist is essentially asking why anyone is an atheist. And the answer is simply that they don't believe in a god. I'd think this would have been simple enough to grasp by now.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are other reasons why I am not Catholic, for example, but none of my reasons here have to do with personal opinion.

Everyone's beliefs are based on personal opinion. Your belief in the doctrines of Christianity are totally based on your opinion that it's the "truth." You may like to deny this point by hiding behind the doctrine being proscribed by your god, but that dog won't hunt--your acceptance of them are based on opinion, and if in your opinion the doctrines were wrong, you wouldn't ascribe to them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Molly:

So let's see.

Taking your last post, and the latest one.

You appear to be unfamiliar with atheism, or what it actually is.

Accusation.

you still seem unable to comprehend that atheism in itself is not a philosophy

Again, accusation.

how I believe in taking personal responsibility for my beliefs and their consequences? I've actually had to make the effort to work out my principles and ethics for myself.

Implies I do not.

Christian religionistas like you are more familiar with banning and anathemas and excommunication

Accusation

As solid, as say, faith in Tarot cards, or astrology, or knocking on wood.

Insult.

I think you claim too much solely for theism

Misrepresentation. I say that Theists have Free will to apply moral responsibility. Nowhere do I claim that it is only Theists who believe this.

Is it a habit you had before you espoused your sect's beliefs, or one you acquired with their religious instruction?

Again, accusation.

The Christian Bible has been used to justify any number of immoral actions- from genocide to slavery and apartheid.

Accusation.

Of course, you'll just whip out your trusty and much used 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and say, 'ah, well they aren't real Christians'

Accusation.

then with so many Christian sectaries leaping up and down shouting that their way is the only way,

Implies I do so also.

Seems the Jesuitical part of Catholicism is appealing to you.

Accusation.

why not Wicca, or Flying Roll Jezreelism, or the International Society for Krishna Consciousness?

Bona-fide troll.

Is it any wonder why I snipped your post?

[Ben Kenobi]

Your belief in the doctrines of Christianity are totally based on your opinion that it's the "truth."

No. They are based on Scripture, and on the teachings of the church. None of the positions that I have cited, have I come upon my own, I have instead seen them in scripture, and argued as such.

I could not be so original Boris, as to devise my own teachings.

your acceptance of them are based on opinion, and if in your opinion the doctrines were wrong, you wouldn't ascribe to them.

I do so with the arguments from Catholicism for a number of different reasons. Either there is not scriptural reference, or they come quite late into the history of the church. And again, these arguments have been considered, and examined, why else would I be going tonight to the Mass? Why would I go to an RCIA class?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. They are based on Scripture, and on the teachings of the church. None of the positions that I have cited, have I come upon my own, I have instead seen them in scripture, and argued as such.

I could not be so original Boris, as to devise my own teachings.

Wait, you said in your respone to molly above, when he said:

how I believe in taking personal responsibility for my beliefs and their consequences? I've actually had to make the effort to work out my principles and ethics for myself.

That it:

Implies I do not.

So he's correct, and you don't!

Regardless, your belief in Christianity is still an opinion, Ben. You don't seem to grasp this point. Your opinion is that Scripture is correct, so that's why you follow Christian tenets. If you thought Christian tenets were wrong, would you believe in them? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

I do so with the arguments from Catholicism for a number of different reasons. Either there is not scriptural reference, or they come quite late into the history of the church. And again, these arguments have been considered, and examined, why else would I be going tonight to the Mass? Why would I go to an RCIA class?

This isn't refuting my point whatsoever, and isn't even really addressing it. See above.

[Ben Kenobi]

Four years out of 27. Sorry, that's not it. I don't think you're particularly familiar with Buddhists, though.

Then where did you meet the Buddhists?

As for my familiarity, I'm familiar enough.

And you don't "Get close to God" because it makes you feel more fulfilled? I doubt that. All moral philosophy is ultimately about personal fulfillment, whether it be gussied up as religious "doing good for the soul" or whatever. Nobody converted to a religion because they thought it would end up being less fullfilling.

I converted because I believe it to be the truth. A warm fuzzy feeling when you first go is not going to sustain you.

Somehow I doubt that. You were looking to cast a wide net over atheists by making an unsupportable claim that their belief should lead them to behave badly, and you've been proven wrong.

No, again you assume what I wanted, based on your perspective.

You do not know my mind, so don't presume. All I wanted is an answer based on loving your enemies, and I have recieved the answer I wanted. I am satisified, but clearly, you are not.

These disingenuous arguments you engage in really are surprising--I'd think honesty debate would matter more for you. After all, it was Aquinas who coined the phrase "Pious Fraud."

Another accusation. I should really keep a collection for my clipboard.

Why are you relating them?

You brought it up. Curious I am as to why you mentioned them, so I asked.

And the answer is simply that they don't believe in a god. I'd think this would have been simple enough to grasp by now.

Fair enough. I prefer to ask rather than presume the whys.

I have to go, I am late.

Night all.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your opinion is that Scripture is correct, so that's why you follow Christian tenets.

No. Not my opinion.

Manuscript evidence argues in favour of the accuracy of scripture.

You've heard this argument before.

So he's correct, and you don't!

Thinking something through is different from invention. But again, I have to go.

Night.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then where did you meet the Buddhists?

As for my familiarity, I'm familiar enough.

Many different places, including college in Maryland. And I've met Buddhists who hail from all different places here. Let's not get into a debate about who has greater exposure to a wide variety of beliefs--I'll win.

I converted because I believe it to be the truth. A warm fuzzy feeling when you first go is not going to sustain you.

First, glad to see you admit that your belief is based on an opinion. Second, do you honestly not believe that Christianity gives the most personal fulfillment to you of any possible tenet? Do you not achieve personal fulfillment in practicing your religious doctrine? If not, I'd be amazed, and I actually might have to feel sorry for you...

No, again you assume what I wanted, based on your perspective.

No, I took your statements at face value when you accused atheism of promoting religious intolerance, which is false. If you didn't mean what you said, then stop making disingenuous arguments.

You do not know my mind, so don't presume. All I wanted is an answer based on loving your enemies, and I have recieved the answer I wanted. I am satisified, but clearly, you are not.

Wait, you started this whole thing with a presumption of the minds of atheists, and you get your panties in a twist when someone presumes what you are saying based on your statements? Rich!

Another accusation. I should really keep a collection for my clipboard.

Hey, when you've done stuff the warrant the accusations, you expect not to be called on them? If you don't want to be accused os disingenuous arguing, then stop doing it.

You brought it up. Curious I am as to why you mentioned them, so I asked.

I never said they were coterminous, as I stated before. I merely cited Utilitarianism as an example of a philosophy an atheist might follow, to highlight the fact that atheism isn't a moral philosophy.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned


AH, I read your post with interest. I am not sure though that Catholic doctrine says that Christ suffered more than any other human.

It was a common subject of parish sermons and school teaching - Jesus suffered more than anyone ever.

Gibson was trying to prove that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Accusation.


Bona-fide troll.

Is it any wonder why I snipped your post?

'I would argue that the ideal for Atheists is to reject all forms of Christianity, and to belittle believers.'

Obi Gyn

No, it is no surprise you snipped my post, because it is clear you still do not grasp the concept, that unlike the various strands of humanism, atheism is not in itself, a moral philosophy, nor is it the rejection of the Christian deity or religion alone. And more to the point- you can be an atheist and not abuse Christians- although I confess, you make it mighty tempting. After all, the above quote from you makes it fairly clear you claim to know what atheism is, or purports to be, and what the ideal is that individual atheists aim for.

I'll say it again- there are no club rules for atheism, no dogma, no orthodoxy, no ritual, no pope, or bishop, or pastor. Scary isn't it, the thought of personal responsibility?

My question as to why you don't believe in Krishna Consciousness or Wicca or any sect of Christianity from the one you do adhere to, is quite valid:

if that particular supernatural being, why not another?

Or several?

After all, if you were say, a Hindu, you'd be expounding why Hinduism is the revealed truth- not that different with you acting as pundit for your particular sect of Christianity.

I must say, I don't think much of the way you belittle the nature of Buddhism though- you might want to check that tendency to denigrate other people's faiths.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. Not my opinion.

Manuscript evidence argues in favour of the accuracy of scripture.

You've heard this argument before.

Yes, we have. And throughout, your "proofs" amounted nothing more to subjective opinion of what the evidence told you. There is nothing to validate the supernatural claims of scripture that supercedes similar "evidence" for the existence of Zeus and Aphrodite, for the truth of Allah, the rightness of Brahma or the claims of Mormons.

Face it, your acceptance of Christianity and rejection of other beliefs--and your acceptance of a particular brand of Christianity--is based on your opinions that the gospels are accurate and truthful. Your claims to their being truthful have been of the "well, in this part, it mentions this town, and we know this town really existed, ergo God is real" variety. I don't need to expound on the large logical leap one has to make for that.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov



What in Buddhism makes any reference to a God, Ben? Nothing. Now, Buddhists can be theists, sure--but most I've met have no belief in a deity.

most buddists are theists

it is just that here in america, Zen Buddism, the main one that is less diestic, is predominant

all other main buddhisms are predominantly theistic, as is buddism overall

you can look it up in a stat book

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

you can look it up in a stat book

Why don't you support it yourself, Jon Miller?

The fact is that Buddhism is itself an atheist philosophy in the sense that is without a god, being completely silent on the issue. Many Buddhists describe themselves as agnostic, but this is hairsplitting, as pointed out earlier, since this form of "agnosticism" is just the negative variety of atheism.

There are Buddhist theists, naturally. But this is again because Buddhism is a moral philosophy rather than a theistic doctrine.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Why don't you support it yourself, Jon Miller?

The fact is that Buddhism is itself an atheist philosophy in the sense that is without a god, being completely silent on the issue. Many Buddhists describe themselves as agnostic, but this is hairsplitting, as pointed out earlier, since this form of "agnosticism" is just the negative variety of atheism.

There are Buddhist theists, naturally. But this is again because Buddhism is a moral philosophy rather than a theistic doctrine.

That is b*ll****. Mainstream Asian Buddhists, be they Theravada or whatever, are theists. It's only the crazy Western hippy Buddhist fringe that says otherwise.