atheism. what does it stand for? Biscuits, it seems!

Wiggles88

Im curious kidchameleon, oldrnwisr made some excellent points in post #472 as to why christianity is not harmless however you are still asserting that it is. So you clearly disagree with oldrnwisr in some way but as far as I can see you have not responded to said post. So I was wondering in what way do you think his analysis is flawed?

Kidchameleon

achtungbarry wrote: »

This is some serious mental gymnastics. there is simply no logic to what you are saying.

Seeing as we are going with bizarre analogies..... and biscuits.

If I were to claim: "Biscuits are not harmful to a person's health"

Then I admit: "Well chocolate biscuits which are a subset of biscuits are bad for a person's health"

Can I still claim that: "biscuits are not harmful to health" ?

The answer is no.

Just replace biscuits with Christianity and chocolate biscuits with Catholicism*




*If only the reverse was true.

But we know that biscuits are harmful so your analogy falls flat at the first hurdle, I think you must be misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Unless there is some magic biscuit that is perfectly good for you, then fine you could say that the magic biscuit itself is good. But if you were to spread chocolate on it then of course it becomes not very good for you. This is exactly what I'm saying about Christianity.

Christianity = Good biscuit

Catholicism = Evil Chocolate

Kidchameleon

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Im curious kidchameleon, oldrnwisr made some excellent points in post #472 as to why christianity is not harmless however you are still asserting that it is. So you clearly disagree with oldrnwisr in some way but as far as I can see you have not responded to said post. So I was wondering in what way do you think his analysis is flawed?

Ill get back to you later on that

achtungbarry

Kidchameleon wrote: »

But we know that biscuits are harmful so your analogy falls flat at the first hurdle, I think you must be misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Unless there is some magic biscuit that is perfectly good for you, then fine you could say that the magic biscuit itself is good. But if you were to spread chocolate on it then of course it becomes not very good for you. This is exactly what I'm saying about Christianity.

Christianity = Good biscuit

Catholicism = Evil Chocolate

You claim that Christianity is not harmful. This does not make it so.

I think oldrnwisr's post above demonstrates otherwise. He has provided very clear evidence that Christianity is quite harmful. I too await your response to his post with interest.

Pherekydes

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Christianity = Good biscuit

Catholicism = Evil Chocolate

You don't seem to be able to grasp that it's

Christianity = biscuit

Catholicism = Chocolate biscuit

In the end, all biscuits are bad for you.

Unless you're an atheist.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Again, somebody's interpretation is bad, probably not the original message itself. It would be wrong to assume that Christ's original message legitimized child abuse without any solid evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure that I can be any more clear than I was in the last post. Same for oldrnwisr's excellent post too.

Christianity says that christianity is the most important thing in the world and that it deserves unlimited reverence. Some people believe that and will do anything -- including covering up child abuse -- in order to preserve that reverence. This illusion of absolute knowledge, and the willingness to act upon it, are what make christianity (and many other religions) dangerous.

Does this make sense?

kiffer

Kidchameleon wrote: »

But we know that biscuits are harmful so your analogy falls flat at the first hurdle, I think you must be misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Unless there is some magic biscuit that is perfectly good for you, then fine you could say that the magic biscuit itself is good. But if you were to spread chocolate on it then of course it becomes not very good for you. This is exactly what I'm saying about Christianity.

Christianity = Good biscuit

Catholicism = Evil Chocolate

Woh there... biscuits, bad?
Magic biscuits, good?
Figrolls are practically fruit.

More seriously though, the chocolate isn't problem, the high calorie content of the biscuit is the problem... scrape off the chocolate and the biscuit is still fattening... if you use low gluten flour and take out the butter you don't have a biscuit you have a bland weak cracker...

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure that I can be any more clear than I was in the last post. Same for oldrnwisr's excellent post too.

Christianity says that christianity is the most important thing in the world and that it deserves unlimited reverence. Some people believe that and will do anything -- including covering up child abuse -- in order to preserve that reverence. This illusion of absolute knowledge, and the willingness to act upon it, are what make christianity (and many other religions) dangerous.

Does this make sense?

Can you say for sure that Jesus preached that or is that somebody elses interpretation

Kidchameleon

Pherekydes wrote: »

In the end, all biscuits are bad for you.

Would it be possible to create something that classifies as a biscuit yet be totally harmless to consume?

kylith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

But we know that biscuits are harmful so your analogy falls flat at the first hurdle, I think you must be misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Unless there is some magic biscuit that is perfectly good for you, then fine you could say that the magic biscuit itself is good. But if you were to spread chocolate on it then of course it becomes not very good for you. This is exactly what I'm saying about Christianity.

Christianity = Good biscuit

Catholicism = Evil Chocolate

The potato family then. Christianity is the potato family. One could try claim that the potato family is not harmful, after all how can potatoes and tomatoes be harmful? But nightshade is also in the potato family, and it is highly toxic. Therefore one cannot rightly claim that the potato family is harmless, as nightshade is a subset of the potato family.

Jimoslimos

Jernal wrote: »

What the heck happened here?

Oh. My.........WANT!

Now if someone could persuade the good folk at Jacobs to make a giant version of their Jaffa cake I would be very grateful, so much so that I would gladly sell/sign over my soul* to that person.





*Legal Disclaimer: The aforementioned soul is currently subject to an ownership dispute with the RCC. Value of my immortal essence may fall as well as rise. My soul is regulated by James Brown.

Tordelback

robindch wrote: »

This illusion of absolute knowledge, and the willingness to act upon it, are what make christianity (and many other religions) dangerous.

If that one sentence could be embraced by everyone, what a world it would be. Not that a comforting belief in a caring power or an afterlife, or the social support of a religious community are dangerous, but that the illusion of absolute knowledge, and corresponding authority ceded or conveyed, is the fatal element. If people could only distinguish between 'this is what I choose to believe' and 'this is true'.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can you say for sure that Jesus preached that or is that somebody elses interpretation

I very much doubt Jesus ever said anything about Christianity, any more than soldiers in 1914 talked about the First World War.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can you say for sure that Jesus preached that or is that somebody elses interpretation

Have a read of oldrnwisr's post again:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84575702&postcount=472

Especially the bit that after "Now, there are the teachings of Jesus himself. I have already explained to you in this post that Jesus' teachings are not harmless. But just to recap:"

I'm not quite sure why you're having such a hard time accepting what is written in black and white in the bible and what so totally clearly informs the policies and activities of the catholic and other christian churches.

Have you failed to notice that many religious people believe that their religion is massively important?

oldrnwisr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Good post oldrnwisr, I respect your interpretation. Well what harm is celibacy anyway? I think alot of people blame it on child abuse but of course that's ridiculous. Do you think Jesus said anywhere in the bible that its ok to abuse children and cover it up?

Thanks, but it's not my interpretation.

The point of the celibacy example was to show that the catholic church's positions, however you might disagree with the position or their interpretation of it, are justified with reference to the bible at every turn. It doesn't mean that their argument necessarily holds, just that it is based on the bible.

As for the child abuse, no I don't see anything in the bible to suggest Jesus would have condoned child abuse. However, as a side note, Moses does in Numbers 31:18

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its also worth noting that its believed there were many more gospels in the early days of the church which were ordered to be destroyed by Pope Damasus. One can only wonder why he wanted these destroyed but I can imagine there was content there that he didn't want the followers to know to suit what ever agenda he had.

OK, I think it's about time you explained yourself. In several places now, you have held to this internally contradictory picture of Jesus that you have in your head:

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can you imagine Jesus or god saying that to a child? I certainly cant. I don't give a crap what the bible says. Its a complete mish-mash of authors, translations and agendas, written over hundreds of years. It does not reflect true Christianity.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm not sure Jesus said it was ok to cover up child abuse. I'm not sure Jesus said priests couldn't marry. I'd bet he didn't say these things. In fact, Catholicism has been chopped and changed over the century's that its very very far from the original teachings of Christ.

Now, the first point to be made is that you are making an appeal to personal incredulity. You seem to be ignoring contrary evidence because you can't imagine that Jesus would have acted like that or said that.

Secondly, from the first quote above you say that "it does not reflect true christianity". And yet in the same paragraph you say "I don't give a crap what the bible says." How do you make this determination? If the bible is unreliable to you then how can you determine what "true Christianity" is or what Jesus would or would not have said. Without at least some base text to work on you can't make any determinations about Jesus character. You can't claim that Jesus would not have said this or condoned that.


Now, moving on to early christian writings. I think you have vastly overestimated Pope Damasus' role in the formation of the New Testament canon. Damasus only really important role (from a catholic/christian perspective) is the comissioning of the Vulgate (i.e. Latin translation) of the bible by his secretary Jerome. The idea that Damasus produced an official canon list is now highly disputed not to mind the idea that he destroyed the Apocrypha. The core of the NT canon had been referenced as early as Pope Clement 1. It was a debate about the fringe works which continued into 2nd and 3rd centuries. Also, many of the rejected gospels were rejected for their different takes on theology rather than on their informational content. For example, the gospel of Marcion attempts to reconcile the all-loving God of the NT with the genocidal maniac of the OT and attempts to suggest that the two are different entities and that the NT God sent Jesus to save humanity from the OT one. Similarly the gospel of Peter was rejected, in part, because of the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross but was instead assumed into heaven before he died.

In any case, the rejected gospels and other early christian writings have been discussed at length in academic circles. If you want to find out more I suggest you check out:

Early Christian Writings

Now, if you want to make the case for one or more of the aprocrypha or other non-canonical text being more authoritative and factual than those found in the NT then I'm all ears.

To summarise, as I have said time and again, we have very little information about the life of Jesus. The only texts we have to go on are anonymous and forged writings decades removed from the events they depict. We cannot say for certain what Jesus would or would not have actually said. However, within the framework of the NT canon, there are teachings of Jesus which show that Christianity is not harmless.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't see anything in the bible to suggest Jesus would have condoned child abuse.

I agree, but only so far as Jesus isn't reported in the current editions of the bible to have said anything that directly condoned child abuse, or covering it up.

But indirectly, he did when he made it quite clear that his religious views constitute the absolute truth and -- hat-tip to Jacob Bronowski here -- history has shown that believing that one possesses absolute enlightenment is unlikely to be an especially enlightening experience for anybody:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jl2w3xYFHQ

Kidchameleon

kylith wrote: »

The potato family then. Christianity is the potato family. One could try claim that the potato family is not harmful, after all how can potatoes and tomatoes be harmful? But nightshade is also in the potato family, and it is highly toxic. Therefore one cannot rightly claim that the potato family is harmless, as nightshade is a subset of the potato family.

Am I getting this right, your saying all potatoes must be bad because a few of them definitely are?

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

But indirectly, he did when he made it quite clear that his religious views constitute the absolute truth

Did he say this tho? Nobody can know for sure. Jesus wasn't after power. The church craves power, and those words sound like attempts at control. I'd bet the "absolute truth" lark was put there by the church.

robindch wrote: »

history has shown that believing that one possesses absolute enlightenment is unlikely to be an especially enlightening experience for anybody:

I agree.

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

I'm not quite sure why you're having such a hard time accepting what is written in black and white in the bible ?

Do you think that over the centuries, the church has chopped and changed the bible to suit their agenda? Do you think this is a possibility?

joseph brand

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Am I getting this right, your saying all potatoes must be bad because a few of them definitely are?

Read Kylith's post again. /sigh

Kidchameleon

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Im curious kidchameleon, oldrnwisr made some excellent points in post #472 as to why christianity is not harmless however you are still asserting that it is. So you clearly disagree with oldrnwisr in some way but as far as I can see you have not responded to said post. So I was wondering in what way do you think his analysis is flawed?

oldrnwisr used the bible multiple times to back up what he/she said in post #472. In post #525 he said:

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The only texts we have to go on are anonymous and forged writings decades removed from the events they depict.

Nuff said.

Kidchameleon

joseph brand wrote: »

Read Kylith's post again. /sigh

Mmmkay, I just did. Perhaps you could dumb it down for me further?

Kidchameleon

kylith wrote: »

The potato family then. Christianity is the potato family. One could try claim that the potato family is not harmful, after all how can potatoes and tomatoes be harmful? But nightshade is also in the potato family, and it is highly toxic. Therefore one cannot rightly claim that the potato family is harmless, as nightshade is a subset of the potato family.

I have said plenty of times that subsets of Christianity can be harmful (indeed Catholicism is very harmful) I am saying that Christianity is not harmful. Either you haven't read the entire thread or your trying to twist my words.

Delirium

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have said plenty of times that subsets of Christianity can be harmful (indeed Catholicism is very harmful) I am saying that Christianity is not harmful. Either you haven't read the entire thread or your trying to twist my words.

You're contradicting yourself there. If a subset of a larger group is harmful, you cannot say that the larger group is not harmful.

EDIT: a simple example would be as follows. There are 3 glasses of water on a table and one of them has been poisoned (and lets assume the glass is marked to distinguish between it and the safe glasses). This means you cannot say that the water on the table is safe to drink. You can only say that 2 of the 3 glasses are safe. Water being Christianity and each glass being a subset of Christianity.

oldrnwisr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

oldrnwisr used the bible multiple times to back up what he/she said in post #472. In post #525 he said:



Nuff said.

OK, perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous posts. Allow me to clarify.

In terms of Jesus' character, the best texts we have to go on are anonymous (i.e. the Gospels) and forged (e.g. 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians) written decades after his death. They contain inaccuracies (Mark Ch. 5) and contradictions (date of Jesus birth in Matthew and Luke). So the idea that we have any real idea of what Jesus would and would not have said in reality is ridiculous.

Christianity is a different story. It is a global religion with 2bn adherents and it is based on the bible. Whether or not the bible turns out to be factually sound or not is irrelevant to the question of whether Christianity is harmless. The supposed teachings of Jesus and Paul found in the NT as well as the barbarism of the OT show that Christianity is not harmless either in theory or in practice.

Hopefully that should clarify matters for you.

Wiggles88

Kidchameleon wrote: »

oldrnwisr used the bible multiple times to back up what he/she said in post #472. In post #525 he said:



Nuff said.

I'm a little bit confused so apologies if I have misunderstood your position. You make assertions about Christianity (that it is harmless) and about jesus' character (jesus wasn't after power etc.) but you also disregard the bible? If you are not using the bible as the source of what is Christianity than what is it you believe Christianity is? Without a basis "christianity" just becomes a meaningless word.

Now I don't believe for one second that the bible is in any way a reliable source and perhaps the historical cult figurehead Jesus was as you describe him but A) It is impossible for either of us to know that so I'm not sure where you are getting your description of Jesus and Christianity from if not from the bible and whether or not the bible is fact or fiction really has nothing to do with what is accepted as the teachings of Christianity.

HurtLocker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I have said plenty of times that subsets of Christianity can be harmful (indeed Catholicism is very harmful) I am saying that Christianity is not harmful. Either you haven't read the entire thread or your trying to twist my words.

:rolleyes:
I've a funny feeling when someone who pharses like that. Attacking one pathetic belief system such as catholism doesn't make your own or any other belief system more correct or less laughable. They are all stupid belief systems. All rubbish.

Christianity is harmful period. It teaches hate, many Christians like to just focus on the 'nice bits'. I always laugh when a Facebook friend puts up these little lovely extracts of the bible. Completely ignoring the horrors detailed in the bible found in every church. Haven't seen him quote Leviticus yet.

Members may be nice but when you look at the core of Christianity and the beliefs it has such as it view on homosexuality, general sexuality it is harmful.

Gbear

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.pimpthatsnack.com/project/174/1

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am saying that Christianity is not harmful.

As I indicated in the post you "thanked" but essentially ignored and ducked... this entirely depends on what you mean by "Christianity" and by "harmful".

"Christianity" means so many different things to so many people that even the Christian Encyclopedia itself recognises +33,000 branches of it.

Irreconcilable differences ARE harmful. Therefore if you take "Christianity" as an umbrella term then you are wrong because Christianity is therefore harmful given it has so many irreconcilable differences within it that it necessitates 33,000 branches of it.

Also as I said the more divorced from reality a world view is the more potential harm it contains.

However if one means by "Christianity" simply learning all one can about the life of Christ, choosing the good parts to incorporate into ones life and rejecting the bad parts, then clearly everyone would agree that "Christianity is not harmful" and in fact I myself would happily call myself "Christian".

The issue with your posts on this thread therefore... from the first one till the last.... is this need you appear to have to be entirely and impenetrably vague about what it is you are actually claiming/saying, and resisting all attempts at the extraction of anything remotely resembling a clarification.

Nothing at all is clear here except perhaps your wanton disregard for the value of open discourse.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Do you think that over the centuries, the church has chopped and changed the bible to suit their agenda? Do you think this is a possibility?

Here's a post from 23 hours ago, oddly on that exact topic. Hope this helps.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Mmmkay, I just did. Perhaps you could dumb it down for me further?

Given the attention you've paid to people's patient replies to your questions, and your unpleasant disregard for any questions that people here have for you, not to mention your prominent lack of interest in debating like an adult here in A+A, it seems quite unlikely that any point could be dumbed down sufficiently that you might appear to become aware of it.

Your options at this point are:

1. Stop trolling and debate like an adult.
2. Don't stop and immediately get carded or banned for trolling.

Your move, kid.

Popular Hardback

Some of them seem to be non stamp collectors that strangely spend their days complaining about stamp collectors and turn that into a hobby / obsession.