tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post6493382793910321480..comments2023-05-13T11:26:20.678-04:00Comments on SkeptiKyle: Vaginas and Other Things God Doesn't LikeKylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-71014870653067995802013-01-08T14:21:05.165-05:002013-01-08T14:21:05.165-05:00I see my habit of not clearly stating all of my pr...I see my habit of not clearly stating all of my premises has gotten me into trouble again! I agree completely that mere out-of-box thinking is not enough to qualify someone as "smart", though I do think it plays a role in intelligence. My comments about "recognizing and accepting the evidence", "measuring of shadows...latitudes" etc. were my rather poor attempts to convey why I think those people tended to qualify as smart. These were not individuals who rebelliously said "Oh yeah well I think it's...round! Yeah, round, just because." Rather, the first people to assert the earth's roundness (the Pythagoreans) did so because they had an excellent grasp of geometry and (for their time) astronomy. They proposed the round earth on rational/empirical grounds, because that was the conclusion brought to them by the evidence. The only others to accept it at the time were those both capable of understanding the geometry etc. that provided the round earth conclusion and open-minded enough to understand that if the evidence contradicts ones beliefs, it is the beliefs in need of change. What are we to conclude about those capable of understanding the evidence (which we can probably agree is good start towards a loose definition of smartness) but still incapable of wrapping their heads around it (pun appreciated)? I usually find that this kind of person doesn't accept the evidence because they find the conclusions unpleasant and/or accepting it would require too big of a change in their currently-held belief system. They're absolutely smart, so smart that they rationalize away any evidence that contradicts their convictions. Whether or not Kyle is kicking the nearest dog (good one!), this doesn't mean he's wrong or that his points (some of which have fairly weighty philosophical implications, though lightly expressed) don't merit considering. I think we can both agree that most believers in just about anything have little to no idea of the philosophical underpinnings involved in those beliefs, but we cannot dismiss their arguments on those grounds. Neither can we dismiss them because the ideas are expressed in ways we find objectionable. So I guess I'm just asking that we all exercise the Principle of Charity here :) Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10673176701502105848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-60457804126078146782013-01-05T21:55:02.622-05:002013-01-05T21:55:02.622-05:00Guess I will have to respectfully disagree. The pe...Guess I will have to respectfully disagree. The people who first bought into the round earth dont automatically move to the front of the class. They appear to have been right about the whole shape thing though(I think). They do get an A in thinking out of the box (in my opinion). And some but not all of them most certainly make smartest in the world rank (kind of a subjective class unless we could agree on a measuring stick). I just cant make thinking out of the box the only criteria for being smart. I think some of those who just couldnt wrap their head around (pun intended) the round thing probably made the top ranking (dont know them any of them really). My point was I dont think any of the simplistic g/God bashing here is new or out of the box. Thus, Flatlander not Roundlander. The poor guy just had a conservative Midwest dirtfarmer upbringing. He has realized there is more than that (outta the box points there), but he is just kicking the dog(sometimes I'm dyslexic) closest to him that has a sign on it/him/her that says 'kick me, I wont bite back'. The rants/logic/bashing presented is only slightly above that of the AHA 'love' letters Kyle posted about. Pretty sure none of the authors makes my smartest in the world list. Between them and the responses I was in tears. Was even funnier than iSheep and iHaters discussing iPhones. But I digress.<br />Liked the comment about the reason the smartest philosophers are religious. At first I thought it was counter-intuitive or maybe a paradox, then I thought it kinda made sense. Am trying to remember what Ayn Rand said about a paradox. Something about when you encounter a seeming paradox examine your premise, I think. Guess I need to review my definition of smart, philospher, and religious for starters. Dakinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06598547699114123657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-734804656272675932013-01-04T14:00:44.953-05:002013-01-04T14:00:44.953-05:00You know, Kyle, I like Dakin's comparison to o...You know, Kyle, I like Dakin's comparison to our current situation and the Round vs. Flat Earth debate. However there seems to be a strange inversion going on. The smartest people on the planet were either A. the people who figured out that the earth was round, and/or B. Those capable of recognizing and understanding the evidence presented to them, and so the quickest to accept the Round Earth "theory", which involved a lot of measuring of shadows on different latitudes and observations of ships etc. The "Flatlanders", meanwhile, clung to the belief that the earth was flat, because it was so written and passed down and seemed so darn obvious. Since you are a person who changed his views from what was so written, passed down, and seemingly obvious, thereby proving the fact that you are both resistant to dogma qua dogma and that your confidence in a given view is proportional to the evidence (as presented to you), you are a Roundlander Atheist instead :) I grant that there are many very smart Flatlanders about very many subjects, but as one of my philosophy professors once told me, many of the smartest philosophers (and I'd generalize to any subject) are religious, but only because you must have an amazing brain in order to examine the fundamental nature of the world and still perform the mental gymnastics necessary to still be religious. If you can do that, you can rationalize away the evidence for a round-earth as well!Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10673176701502105848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-1530924515411117932012-12-13T16:48:55.427-05:002012-12-13T16:48:55.427-05:00Guess I invented a term. I am imagining your appro...Guess I invented a term. I am imagining your approach and zeal for atheism is similar to what many of the smartest people on the planet felt when the " world is round concept " was introduced. Thought the term atheist religion might yank your chain abit too. :)<br /><br />didnt really think the post was too long, just that the the whole bible as the subject matter of the post is way way too complex. When you think of the thousands of pages that have been written discussing the different things you have touched on here I think it is difficult for real bible scholars to respond. Dakinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06598547699114123657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-6620700172280936462012-12-12T23:46:47.681-05:002012-12-12T23:46:47.681-05:00Since I've never heard the term "Flatland...Since I've never heard the term "Flatlander Atheist" before and googling proved inconclusive, we'll have to discuss that one in person sometime...Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-43554570316571716272012-12-12T23:43:54.572-05:002012-12-12T23:43:54.572-05:00First of all, I appreciate the comments. Contrary ...First of all, I appreciate the comments. Contrary to Abby's first point, I don't think my way is the only way of seeing things. Now, I tend to think that my way is correct most of the time, but doesn't everyone think they're right until they're convinced otherwise? I wholeheartedly believe in discussion and debate over differing viewpoints, I just present things the way that I see them. But you're welcome to disagree and be wrong :-)<br /><br />As for Abby's other points:<br />2. I obviously don't think God is a master puppeteer, but some people do. I appreciate that you're smart enough to think otherwise, but you're also smarter than the average bear.<br />3. I don't think that reasonable Christians (such as yourself) view the culture in the Bible as ideal; that's not the point I'm attempting to make. My main point is that people try to use the Bible as some form of a moral compass, and it's clearly not suitable for that. When you're God, YOU get to make the rules. If you think that shellfish and homosexuality are bad, you can just as easily say that slavery and misogyny are bad. I would argue that God/Jesus should not have been constricted by the culture as they should have been shaping the culture themselves.<br />4. Great point--I think it's indisputable that some stuff has gotten lost in translation over the years. Of course, this begs the question as to why such a powerful being couldn't cobble together a clearer collection of words so we could avoid all this confusion...<br /><br />On to the Points from Pops:<br />1. This post was definitely too long, I agree. There's just so much ridiculous stuff in the Bible that it's hard to be concise.<br />2/3/4. I don't write with a specific audience in mind. My main goal is to point out how ridiculous religion is in most forms while being mildly entertaining. I'm not directing this blog at anyone in particular, just expressing my thoughts on religion as a whole (and usually Christianity in particular).<br />5. I try to preface projections with something like "some Christians believe..." but I'm sure I probably don't do that as much as I should.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08731818234198573872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-17050328846639037682012-12-11T02:20:16.855-05:002012-12-11T02:20:16.855-05:00I forgot to say that I did think the humor in this...I forgot to say that I did think the humor in this post was actually humorous at times, but still somewhat over the top and disrespectful.<br />Also,some good points were made that I would like to see some more response from those who disagree.<br />It is quite difficult to make a short comment as volumes could be written several topics mentioned.<br />It will also be difficult making much of an impression on the author of the main body of work as he appears to be a member of the Flatlander Atheist religion. :)Dakinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06598547699114123657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-60962087259345200402012-12-11T02:03:11.737-05:002012-12-11T02:03:11.737-05:00Abby,
I'm not sure Kyle would lay a strong cla...Abby,<br />I'm not sure Kyle would lay a strong claim to any of the 4 items above being his words anymore than you want to lay claim that your beliefs are what he appears to think ALL Christians bethinklieve. Kinda but not exactly. You do make a coherent, convincing explanation for item 4, and I think those points need to be recognized in the blasphemous ramblings. However, if you were to give a definition of 'contorted passage' one might have field day with that. I dont t think your explanation makes the point that women are treated equally,fairly, or respectfully in the bible.<br />A lot of the ramblings are misc. items that do seem ridiculous in todays world and I think the idea is the sheer volume of the misc. stuff somehow demonstrates the major doctrines are rubbish as well. But the point needs to be made and then move on.<br />I think the whole discussion would be better served if those who care could agree on a few points.<br />1. Keep the bashing to 5-10 major points of Christian or religious doctrine.<br />2. Be specific whether you are speaking about Christianity, religion, spirituallity or whatever. Flipping around between these subjects in the same paragraph can be a little funky.<br />3. I know everybody understands this,but, EVERYBODY OF A PARTICULAR RELIGION DOES NOT BELIEVE THE SAME THING. There are denominations,moderates,liberals, lefts, rights,extremists,etc. And the party doing the bashing(Kyle, this means you)(and Abby I don't think Kyle said exactly '2. that if God exists, it is as a master puppeteer controlling humans' every action;<br />3. that Christianity holds up the culture of the Bible times as ideal')should not project one factions ideology across to wide an area.<br />4. In order to keep the blog from being a bog it might be more fruitful for the basher to restrict themselves to key elements that are more broadly agreed upon in general within the religion.<br />Some examples which Kyle touched on might be:<br />a. Why is this God quite so needy and insecure that his people should be so disrespectful of their peers.<br />b. If this god is so "omni" why does he have to make deals with the devil" in order to give this gift to his people?<br />c. Is this gift really free?<br />d. How should we view the bible? My understanding is from a historical viewpoint the composite we have today has a somewhat dubious compilation. I still feel it is a great work of literature and history, was a creditable handbook for living in its day, and still has value in the present time. But its a pick and choose to apply it to current times. To view it in the mainstream Christian perspective I was brought up on is an untenable position. I cant see how I can be give it "omni" status without being an extremist.<br />e. All the rest of the core doctrine we are supposed to take on faith. I don't have any problems believing in higher beings,and miracles I dont understand, but i do have a problem with the annual sermon on screw science and logic, higher beings are perfect or Omni and stuff like that. Oh yeah, "just believe" and "its free agape". <br />5. Dont presume to know quite so much of the other sides viewpoint. Phrases like 'my understanding of' or "I dont understand how" or 'How does this' might sometimes be usefulDakinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06598547699114123657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-231068770575127994.post-34775573724273113522012-12-06T09:19:33.846-05:002012-12-06T09:19:33.846-05:00My major disagreements are:
1. that your way is th...My major disagreements are:<br />1. that your way is the only way of seeing things;<br />2. that if God exists, it is as a master puppeteer controlling humans' every action;<br />3. that Christianity holds up the culture of the Bible times as ideal and therefore can't move beyond it (Jesus, Paul, and the prophets certainly don't think their culture was ideal, so why should we?);<br />4. that we can pick up a translation of a document written 2-6 millennia ago and expect to transplant it to the 21st century without any effort to understand the context and language issues involved.<br /><br />For the moment I choose to address #4 (with supporting examples for #3). We can't even read your buddy Bill Shakespeare or Jane Austen without doing some language study because the English language has changed so much between us & them. Read some Jane Austen and then try to tell me she uses the word "nice" the way we do today.<br /><br />1 Corinthians 11 as cited above is widely recognized as a contorted passage. One of the major issues for Paul is: do Christians have to be Jews first? The answer was and is no. Another question that everyone in the New Testament was wrestling with is, what do the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus change? Sometimes Paul, being human, can't separate the questions properly. You, as many before you (the Amish, etc), got lost in the Jewish mental gymnastics of women's hair and missed the underlying point: Paul says it's OK for WOMEN to pray & prophesy IN MIXED WORSHIP! They just have to cover their heads like good Jewish women and not wear their hair like temple prostitutes. I (as one of those reasonably intelligent Christian females) therefore understand this passage to make the opposite point that you are making. Women having equal worship leadership with men was groundbreaking and unprecedented in most places in the biblical world. (Kudos to African & American tribes elsewhere.) Paul knows this to be the right direction, as he says elsewhere that there is no longer male nor female in Christ Jesus, but naturally this bucking of cultural trends provokes a lot of uproar. So Paul falls back on his Jewish roots to give this radical female leadership a modicum of social acceptability. <br /><br />Conservative folks who like to keep women in their place will not like this interpretation at all, but it is widely accepted among respectable scholars.AbbyAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13763546776927129892noreply@blogger.com