The worst things that have ever been written

[Jonathan]

I will also withdraw my prediction that chrisd would win sinewav's forum-based tron, whatever that was called. How dare he make anything having to do with Catholics look good!

[Phytotron]

To use Phytotron's example, you have to know the length of the unicorn's horn and the fashion of the fairies and what they symbolize so they're less mysterious.

No, that wasn't my example at all. You completely missed my point, which was this: Unicorns and fairies are mythological creatures. They don't exist. Therefore, trying to divine, interpret, or quibble over their specific characteristics is a pointless exercise. Likewise, the Bible is myth (largely plagiarized from preceding myths) and gods don't exist. Theology, therefore, seems pointless folly to me, especially as it concerns attempting to apply that theology to the real world. Worse, that's where it moves from pointless to dangerous—and that includes the "good parts."

now that archaeologists have stopped going out into the field with a trowel in one hand and a Bible in the other.

...or the Illiad

I don't get it. I don't think you got what I was saying, either. I don't get your single-binding simile, either. Don't bother trying to explain it.

Ask people why they became atheists and most of them name one specific detail in the bible...

Bullshit. What's likely happening is, like now, you're coming at them in the context of a conversation about Christianity, at least half the time with you instigating it, as opposed to having a generic conversation about theism. Naturally, if you come at an atheist talking about Christianity, that's what most are going to dispute. It's more entertaining, too. Plus, due to the society we live in, many have backgrounds in Christianity, like Jonathan, Lucifer, and sinewav. I don't—another reason I probably care less than them; it's not that personal for me (although its real-world implications certainly can be).

That sort of context is what you see with, say, Dawkins or Hitchens. Their atheism—or in the case of Hitch, antitheism—is not based on a disbelief in or objection to Christianity specifically; it's just a matter of fact that they live in and speak to a society where Christianity is the most popular of the religions. If they were in the Middle East they'd mostly be addressing Islam (as Hitch does anyway); if they were in India they'd mostly be addressing Hinduism, and just making side comments about Christianity. In the case of Dawkins, he has a particular bone to pick with Christian creationists assaulting evolutionary biology, for obvious reasons given his field, so naturally he's going to be more focused on that.

Additionally, when giving a book tour talk or lecture, there's only so much time alloted, and given the predominant audience, of course Christianity will garner most of that time—plus, again, it's more entertaining. On top of that, on Hitch's book tour for God Is Not Great, instead of doing the usual talk and Q&A, he asked that someone local challenge him in a debate at every stop. Many of these takers happened to be Christians. Well, what do you expect them to debate? And of course both are and were brought onto television and radio programs specifically for the purpose of addressing Christianity—that's on the producers and hosts.

Both have made this point explicitly. And both have spent a considerable amount of time and print addressing stuff unrelated to Christianity, both in their books and Dawkins's documentaries (see The Enemies of Reason, for example). You just fail or refuse to acknowledge it. And that's only referring to their work related to religion and other superstition, nevermind all of Dawkins's scientific work, and Hitch's voluminous work on literature and politics. Indeed, it's a shame so much of that is ignored, because they're both superb in those areas.

Moreover, after all, a case for and discussion of atheism is rather short and dull. Why atheism? Because there is no reason or evidence in support of the existence of any sort of god. End of. It's hardly worth there being a word for it. We don't have any special words for disbelief in unicorns or fairies, or the people who don't believe in those things. It's only that there are so many people that believe in gods that the word a-theism, a modification of theism, exists.

Anyway, this distinction is the point I originally made, and have all along, repeatedly. Atheism and disbelief in Christianity are two different, though overlapping, subjects. It's just for you that they're not. I still don't know why you refuse to acknowledge or accept that. Get over it.

what the chosen people were supposed to do with at least equally violent non-believers to survive and overcome their enslavement

The Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians, let alone built the pyramids. The pyramids were mostly built by conscripted Egyptian workers who wanted to follow their Pharaoh to heaven, for if he or she didn't make it via the pyramid, neither would they. That's some motivation.

You see? Why the hell should one bother "interpreting" events that never occurred? It's dumb.

What if, in 2000 years, someone murders some random person and claims Richard Dawkins said he should do so?

This about sums it up. How could you concoct such a thing? Do you not see the inanity of it?

you don't see the inanity of blaming religion for someone's crimes, that's why I chose to use such an example

Bill Maher: Atheism Is Not A Religion!

the consequences of the Christian religion in America are pretty unreal, with people using the bible to justify all sorts of terrible behaviour and ideas (and often further their own agendas).

America isn't as religious, and those who are religious aren't as fundamentalist, as you and other Europeans would like to believe it is, as part of your fashionable anti-Americanism. About 80% self-identify as religious, though it's probably a good bit less. Only about 50% are Protestant, and only about a third self-describe as conservative or evangelical, and it's probably fewer. Still pretty religious, but not as much as you all would like to believe. The problem is the power structure, but that's a different subject.

[Word]

No, that wasn't my example at all. You completely missed my point

No, I got that (the first time), I just tried to explain that you always keep that distance to theology and then condemn it. To me, theology is a science like any other and taking it seriously helps to understand religious belief in a way a believer does. Evolution seems magical too if you don't conclude or know that there is something like natural selection.

I don't get it. I don't think you got what I was saying, either. I don't get your single-binding simile, either. Don't bother trying to explain it.

I will, nonetheless. While their methods were rudimentary by today's standards, the first archaeologists drew inspiration from those texts and tried to find the places and relics of the people in them. Of course they made some mistakes we smile at, but I think we also have lost the kind of curiosity they personified.

You see? Why the hell should one bother "interpreting" events that never occurred? It's dumb.

Because the point of the story doesn't have to be "Egyptians were evil so God punished them" but "The people of Israel had to suffer for a long time, and God gave them hope and ultimately liberated them - God is merciful". Maybe it's unimportant where these events occured, but it matters what they mean to the affected people.

[Bytes]

In which case you treat the bible as a series of parables, deliberately fictious but with a depth of meaning you can apply to many situations.

[Jonathan]

Here we go again…

To me, theology is a science like any other and taking it seriously helps to understand religious belief in a way a believer does.

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Psychology ≠ taking religion seriously, by the way.

Evolution seems magical too if you don't conclude or know that there is something like natural selection.

We found out about natural selection. Evidence has been stacking up ever since.

[Word]

We found out about natural selection. Evidence has been stacking up ever since.

I didn't claim otherwise. This was about the possibility that some things could seem more plausible to you if you don't consider theology a pseudo-science. Sure, you can say that about any pseudo-science, and some fanatics even deny the existence of evolution, but then they're obviously not sticking to facts that can easily be disproved. In theology, as in most humanities, a subject is less tangible than in, say, biology. The difference between texts about a Spaghetti monster and theology is that theology discusses ethical and moral problems (in the context of the respective belief), among other things.

[sinewav]

I didn't claim otherwise.

Anyone else notice how this has become Word's new debate tactic? He's going to make a fine theologian, directing people in one direction with his rhetoric without making any kind of specific claim. At least he's learning something from the bible: how to be slippery, haha.

[Word]

Anyone else notice how this has become Word's new debate tactic

No, I honestly think he wants to misunderstand what I said here. I have never denied evolution. Most things would sound implausible if you take away the other side of the equation, and in religion's case, it's theology. In fine art, it would be the existence of brushes, light and color, and in music, it would be the way a soundwave comes into being - or the sheer fact that there is something like a soundwave. It's the reason why people were scared when they listened to Wells'/Welles' 'War of the worlds' for the first time, or when they saw the train film by the Lumière brothers. Theology makes religion more comprehensible.

[sinewav]

Ok, I agree with your claim that theology is like a science for a religion, in the same way that any specialized medicine has specific studies (cardiology, urology, etc...). The major difference is, this "science" of theology exists in a closed system and is completely useless outside of it. You can interpret religious texts all you want, but they don't tell you anything about reality. You can't even apply it to other religions. It always has been and shall remain forever in the company of poetry critiques.

[Word]

theology exists in a closed system and is completely useless outside of it[...]but they don't tell you anything about reality

One could argue that abstract art and a lot of avantgarde music isn't useful either by these standards (or is that what you implied when you mentioned poetry critiques?). That all these fields are somewhat transcendent disqualifies them.

[sinewav]

theology exists in a closed system and is completely useless outside of it[...]but they don't tell you anything about reality

One could argue that abstract art and a lot of avantgarde music isn't useful either by these standards (or is that what you implied when you mentioned poetry critiques?). That all these fields are somewhat transcendent disqualifies them.

Yes, abstract art and avant-garde music does not tell you anything more about reality than the bible. They appeal to our internal realities rather than external ones, and it is precisely that which makes them subjective, not objective. Religion simply cannot compete with reality, and any claims it makes, whether true or not, are not based on tangible phenomena. This is the opposite of scientific studies. Theology isn't a science, or a useful science outside the closed system it originates.

[Phytotron]

Maybe it's unimportant where these events occured, but it matters what they mean to the affected people.

It never fooking happened!


As to all the rest, just unbelievable. Theology is not anything approaching a science, in any meaningful definition of the word science—or even theology, for that matter. As Jonathan pointed out (and you sidestepped and redirected), science is necessarily naturalistic. It deals with only the observable, experimental, predictable, and repeatable. That's everything religion and theology are not. Done. You can't just go around redefining words to suit your arguments and try to lend those arguments credibility by association with those words. That's classic snake oil hucksterism. Classic. So, anything that you said related to that assertion is therefore empty, useless, dismissed. That's why the Catholic and Anglican churches are so ridiculous these days. Just give it up; you have hardly a shred left. Drop the other shoe, already. At least literalists like AiG are consistent, not trying to create some mealy-mouthed (Mehl im Maule behalten, apparently), wishy-washy, continually-revised hybrid in a pathetically desperate and laughably vain attempt to remain relevant by resolving and reconciling their archaic myths and superstitions with a modern scientific understanding of reality.


Also, I'm not sure you realize how much you stepped in it by comparing theology to "l'art pour l'art," "ars gratia artis," "art for art's sake"—as opposed to didacticism. Funny.

[Word]

Also, I'm not sure you realize how much you stepped in it by comparing theology to "l'art pour l'art," "ars gratia artis," "art for art's sake"—as opposed to didacticism.

Yeah, I do. I said from the start that the bible was inherently good, so I didn't contradict myself there. I shouldn't have called it a "science like any other" though, I didn't mean it like that.

[Vogue]

I said from the start that the bible was inherently good,

haha what

[Mkay1]

Tron-times and fort fix.