|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tfunk
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Mods: This thread belongs in the Buy & Sell forum.
Here's a summary of this thread:
Sergio Stefanuto: Asks the question 'Atheists for Jesus, why?' and then quotes a book questioning Jesus' moral authority (in red, bolded font).
Warren Pease: Points out that the Sergio's original post indicates that Sergio isn't as much interested in answering the question(having a conversation) as giving his own biased 'opinion' (in the form of a copy-and-paste).
Sergio Stefanuto: Questions the relevancy of Warren Peace's post.
E-athlete: Funny..ahem.
Warren Pease: Points out that the OP is merely quoting from a book without contributing anything and is wary of getting into 'another long winded, pointless thread'. As he points out, 'any idiot' can copy-and-paste from a book, but Warren Peace seems more interested in having a conversation with somebody who can express their own opinions based upon knowledge (and knowledge not being based upon simply one book).
Sergio Stefanuto: Invites Warren Peace to read the book he/she quoted from. Invites Warren Peace to give his/her view on the quote from the book.
Tfunk: Quotes from Jesus. Makes a point about Korean society that seems irrelevant in the current context (of Warren Peace and Sergios posts). Quotes from Jesus again. Gives a quote to counter the vindictive quote attributed to Jesus in the first post. Puts forward the idea that the Atheists acceptance of Jesus (but not the church) is an accommodation of different worldviews.
Warren Pease: Expresses an interest in reading the book and admits his doubts against the implications of the quote given in the original post.
Eamo: Makes a pun based on Warren Peaces misspelling of 'fairly'.
Tfunk: Adds to Warren Peaces statement that Jesus may have not referred to himself as the Messiah by suggesting that only in Luke/Paul was this insinuated/referred to. Also makes a link, without any supporting quotes/evidence etc., that Jesus may have had a similar philosophy to some of the Eastern traditions (whatever 'Eastern' may mean). This seems to be in keeping with the idea that there may be a common meeting point between Atheists, Jesus believers and those from certain Eastern traditions.
Sergio: Quotes 'The Book*' again and claims that all quotes from the Bible to support his claim are relevant and authoritative by his interpretation and "will be handwaved away as metaphor, allegory".
*Atheism: the Case Against God
Buy from Amazon
Tfunk: Brings back the point that Jesus may only have claimed to be the Messiah in Luke/Paul and quotes from an Atheist website.
bcbenjammin: Gives the context for the quotes listed in the first post and points out that the OP was incorrectly ascribing them to Jesus' own words.
Warren Pease: Agrees with bcbenjammin.
Sergio Stefanuto: Ignores bcbenjammins' refutation of the interpretation implied by his quote from the book. Claims that bcbenjammin should read he book (when he himself said he had no patience to look at the Bible).
The OP offers no interpretation of peoples posts other than to say 'read the book'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tfunk wrote: |
The OP offers no interpretation of peoples posts other than to say 'read the book'. |
That's right, and you CAN'T argue that a book is likely serving a particular agenda unless you read it. How do you know the Koran lays out the tenets of Islam if you haven't read it? How do you know the Constitution of the United States is the foundational document of American law if you haven't read it word for word? Charlotte's Web is a book about a pig and spider? I don't officially know that because I only read the book jacket and read a review.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dawkins and his ilk are trash. They combine bad science with bad reason.
By scientific understanding Dawkins is a barely sentient primitive hominid from some third rate planet in a ditchwater neck of the galaxy in the backwoods of the universe. His mind is as much driven by instinctual urges as reason. His perceptions are limited to the visual light spectrum, his hearing to a certain frequencies. The knowledge he possesses his 1/100,000,000 of the knowledge of all humanity, whose knowledge in turn is 1/100,000,000the of the knowledge of the galaxy. Yeah, I should really listen to this guy's proclamations on the state of the universe on the basis of his 'science'. If you don't believe the truth of this statement then you are not thinking scientifically.
My science tacher (an agnostic) put it best- "There should be no conflict between science and religion, because there IS no conflict. Science does not attempt and should not attempt to answer the questions that religion/philosophy attempt to answer. Religion is ultimately about how people should treat one another. Science is about the natural processes of the universe."
I guess the big question is- Is personal testimony a valid form of evidence? Dawkins and Atheists (Not agnostics) ultimately say no. I believe personal testimony is a valid, although not conclusive, form of evidence.
Lastly- I should mention that it is very easy to criticize religion.
It is very difficulto to offer hope and a positive vision to the world.
Jesus may or may not be a great philosopher or treatise writer, but the proof is in the pudding- People responded and still respond to what He had to say. Not everything has to be a brilliant work of philosophy/intellectualism to be 'true'. Sometimes you have to listen to the gut.
Just my primitive hominidal two cents |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Dawkins and his ilk are trash. They combine bad science with bad reason.
By scientific understanding Dawkins is a barely sentient primitive hominid from some third rate planet in a ditchwater neck of the galaxy in the backwoods of the universe. |
You're talking about my home!
| Steelrails wrote: |
| My science tacher (an agnostic) put it best- "There should be no conflict between science and religion, because there IS no conflict. Science does not attempt and should not attempt to answer the questions that religion/philosophy attempt to answer. Religion is ultimately about how people should treat one another. Science is about the natural processes of the universe." |
Science shouldn't attempt to answer questions like the origin of the universe and life? Which religion will happily try to answer.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I guess the big question is- Is personal testimony a valid form of evidence? Dawkins and Atheists (Not agnostics) ultimately say no. I believe personal testimony is a valid, although not conclusive, form of evidence. |
Scientifically speaking, this would be 'bad science'.
| Steelrails wrote: |
Lastly- I should mention that it is very easy to criticize religion.
It is very difficulto to offer hope and a positive vision to the world.
|
I would add it is easier to offer an answer albeit wrong than to offer none.
Also how do you define your science teacher as agnostic but Dawkins as atheist?(just curious, as they could be the same thing) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tfunk
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These threads always seem to go off course from the subject of the title.
The common denominator is that people always begin asserting their own identity rather than examining the issue impartially.
Atheism = Scientist = Dawkins
VS
Christian = Fantasist = Anti-science
Two great big pigeonholes to shoot into. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
warren pease
Joined: 12 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
TFunk thanks for the summary. I swear to God (weak pun intended) that I almost micturated myself. The Buy/sell reference kinda went over my head but the rest of it was ef-in hilarious.
And, sadly, this thread has gone exactly where everyone knew it was going.
It's strange, but I really enjoy these types of conversations when I'm face to face with people. Everyone has a chance to round out their arguments and, hopefully, clarify their points. On here, sadly, it all just turns to pooh.
Steelrails No offense, and I do mean that, but what you wrote barely made sense. Aside from being completely off topic, you seemed intent on burying any point you may have had beneath long-winded, poorly thought out, and more ranty than argumentative statements.
Eamo I do not discount the possibility of the existence of fairies. However, I have it from the highest sources that there are none to be found in Korea.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bcbenjammin
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
Also how do you define your science teacher as agnostic but Dawkins as atheist?(just curious, as they could be the same thing) |
Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
i think these are typically the accepted definitions of these words, agnosticism is often misconstrued to include atheism, but it's more of a doubtful position, accepting uncertainty until a more concrete solid proof can be given for something. whereas atheist do not believe or deny the existence of gods. i've read some of dawkins, and though he talks like he is an atheist, he even rates himself on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being belief in no god at all, and gives himself like an 8 or 9 (this may be disputable, but i'm pretty sure it was in The God Delusion). so technically, Dawkins would be an agnostic, due to the existence of some doubt and lack of outright denial, but still professes atheism.
sorry to perpetuate the off topicness warren.
to get back on topic, i think the atheist for jesus is pretty much the same as jews for jesus, because neither of them believes in him in a christian sense, but think he is a good model to emulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bcbenjammin wrote: |
Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. |
I think many people these days who define themselves as atheists would see agnostic and atheist as interchangeable, that atheism is simply lacking belief. What you say about Dawkins kinda confirms his own beliefs on the matter. Few atheists lack certainty, in the sense you can't be 100% sure of anything. I kinda feel that Steelrails didn't know this about Dawkins or most atheists. But I'll wait for them to reply in their own time.
As for Jesus being a good model, I've seen better. Why revere him? Nothing he said was new nor original(and not always 'good'). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I actually read Dawkins book. Well, Chomsky 'read'. As for Atheists for Jesus, it does look like an interesting read.
I had to throw in a blast on Dawkins because him and his ilk- Harris, Hitchens and their 'new-atheist' wave seem to be getting a large amount of attention lately, but these three seem to lack the intellectual weightiness of previous atheist intellectuals.
We know Dawkins and his ilk's points are essentially such- that religion is both delusional and destructive. By forgoing religion, humanity would enter some bright shining new era.
I'm sorry, but that sounds almost like a religion to me. Which makes their books a big cheese. No offer of a substantial positive alternative. Just naysaying.
[quote]Science shouldn't attempt to answer questions like the origin of the universe and life? Which religion will happily try to answer. [quote]
If you think that is what religion is about you are missing the point. Religion is about how human beings should treat one another, WITH an explanation for where we came from.
| Quote: |
| Scientifically speaking, this would be 'bad science'. |
I should have followed my statement by including the fact that thinking about things in purely scientific terms can be destructive to one's thinking. Yes, it is bad science, but we also hang people based on personal testimony, and SOMETIMES what a person saw is true.
Lastly can someone please explain to me why religous texts are expected to be treatises on biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, and chemistry?
I mean that is really the point of the Torah or the Koran- to be a scientific text written for the befeit of the 20th century scientific community. Some might define such a latent view in one's mind as narcissism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bcbenjammin
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| As for Jesus being a good model, I've seen better. Why revere him? Nothing he said was new nor original(and not always 'good'). |
Well, you see, the reason people revere Jesus isn't because of what he said, as opposed to what he did. Also, if we read the Bible now, it's easy for us to say that we've heard it before, but that's because we've been raised in a culture steeped in Christianity and Christian morals (if you've grown up in a Western/European culture that is). However, given the time period and cultural context in which he said and did the things he said and did, he was quite ground breaking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Well, I actually read Dawkins book. Well, Chomsky 'read'. As for Atheists for Jesus, it does look like an interesting read.
I had to throw in a blast on Dawkins because him and his ilk- Harris, Hitchens and their 'new-atheist' wave seem to be getting a large amount of attention lately, but these three seem to lack the intellectual weightiness of previous atheist intellectuals. |
They have their appeal, and offer a popular counter-balance to the free reign religion has experienced in the media and politics. If they aren't weighty enough try watching Jonathan Miller's Brief Atheism Tapes where he interviews recent thinkers such as Colin McGinn, Arthur Miller(God rest his soul), Steven Weinberg and Daniel Dennet.
| Steelrails wrote: |
We know Dawkins and his ilk's points are essentially such- that religion is both delusional and destructive. By forgoing religion, humanity would enter some bright shining new era.
I'm sorry, but that sounds almost like a religion to me. Which makes their books a big cheese. No offer of a substantial positive alternative. Just naysaying. |
No positive alternative, yet that's the criticism you just placed at them for sounding like a religion?
I don't think Dawkins or his ilk do offer an alternative. Simply that current religious thinking is fundamentally flawed. The positive alternative would be a more secular society, but this is not for Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris to point out.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Science shouldn't attempt to answer questions like the origin of the universe and life? Which religion will happily try to answer. |
If you think that is what religion is about you are missing the point. Religion is about how human beings should treat one another, WITH an explanation for where we came from. |
The explanation that religion gives us for where we came from is unscientific. Religion continues to encroach on science whether it's evolution in the classroom or stemcell research.
Religion also fails in its attempt to treat people 'fairly', it may tell us how to treat each other, but is this how we should do so? Is religion the best moral guide, and if it is based on falsehoods should we still follow it?
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Scientifically speaking, this would be 'bad science'. |
I should have followed my statement by including the fact that thinking about things in purely scientific terms can be destructive to one's thinking. Yes, it is bad science, but we also hang people based on personal testimony, and SOMETIMES what a person saw is true. |
Certainly you can't go around analysing every little thing that happens to us. But the big questions have not been answered by religion, in fact religion gets it wrong most of the time or offers little explanation. Science doesn't have all the answers, but as a method it is by far the most reliable.
Your analogy with the eye witness testimony leading to death penalty simply shows why personal testimonies shouldn't be trusted over sound evidence. Would you really trust a medicine presented with anecdotal evidence over that presented with proper medical trials and protocols?
| Steelrails wrote: |
Lastly can someone please explain to me why religous texts are expected to be treatises on biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, and chemistry?
I mean that is really the point of the Torah or the Koran- to be a scientific text written for the befeit of the 20th century scientific community. Some might define such a latent view in one's mind as narcissism. |
Unfortunately that is how the texts have been used and continue to be. If you're looking for these texts to be moral guides I hope you are cherry picking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| warren pease wrote: |
Eamo I do not discount the possibility of the existence of fairies. However, I have it from the highest sources that there are none to be found in Korea. |
Fairies must exist, Warren, because nobody can prove that they don't. And as for magic elves, well, I'm the truest of true believers. As long as you've got your elf, that's the main thing.
Else, I'm awfully sorry that some posters felt the need to make some complaints about the thread. However, it's very much my position that (a) Jesus is given a ridiculous amount of respect by nonbelievers and (b) Atheism: the Case Against God is the best case against belief in skydaddies. It's just a straight-up, fully-fledged ass-whuppin!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AgDragon01
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
| bcbenjammin wrote: |
Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. |
I think many people these days who define themselves as atheists would see agnostic and atheist as interchangeable, that atheism is simply lacking belief. What you say about Dawkins kinda confirms his own beliefs on the matter. Few atheists lack certainty, in the sense you can't be 100% sure of anything. I kinda feel that Steelrails didn't know this about Dawkins or most atheists. But I'll wait for them to reply in their own time.
As for Jesus being a good model, I've seen better. Why revere him? Nothing he said was new nor original(and not always 'good'). |
The widest definition of atheism is "someone who is not a theist."
The widest definition of agnosticism is "someone who does not know."
you can be an agnostic atheist, and an agnostic theist. This is pretty basic stuff when it comes to the whole God debate.
Also, some people are stating that science doesn't claim to answer what philosophy/religion try to answer. This is incorrect - philosophy created science. Science can be accurately considered a specific pursuit of philosophy's general search for truth/wisdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
