Jesus Camp

[AlonzoMourning23]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/jesuscamp/trailer/

That's the official trailer.

Holy war is coming. Thank you, Jesus.
That's the tone of a disturbing new documentary called "Jesus Camp." The film, by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, takes us to a Bible camp called "Kids On Fire," where the children of evangelical Christians are indoctrinated in a militant faith that sees nonbelievers as opponents and secular government as an enemy to overthrow.

I saw a preview of the movie last week (it opens at the Lagoon Cinema in Uptown on Oct. 6, if the Rapture hasn't come by then). And I will leave the film criticism to others. But "Jesus Camp" shows what may be in store for us when millions reject the idea of separation of church and state and want to create a Christian State ready to do battle for Christ.

We get kids in combat fatigues, their faces painted in camouflage colors, who sob, speak in tongues and pray for Jesus to re-make America in his image. Or, more accurately, to re-make it according to the plan of the adults who are turning these children into good little Evangelical mujahaddin.

Pumped up in the Lord, the kids grab hammers and smash crockery labeled "government," sending the shards flying while adult leaders urge them to "give up your lives for Jesus" and "break the power of our enemies in government."

It's not clear who the enemies are, but we know who they aren't: There's a scene showing the kids praying before a cardboard cut-out of President George W. Bush.

"They're so usable," Camp Pastor Becky Fischer says, without irony. "Today is a fulfillment of prophecy," she tells the kids. "We've got to stand up and take back the land. This is a generation of purity and righteousness and holiness, and you are going to serve the Lord all the days of your life."

The Lord and George Bush, too. It is a powerful team.

If you wonder why I am talking about a film about people in the Bible Belt, you haven't been paying attention. "Jesus Camp" (go to jesuscampthemovie.com to learn more) is about a North Dakota camp attended by kids from throughout the country.

"They start taking control in small slices," says the only person in the film who raises warning flags, a liberal talk-radio host named Mike Papantonio. "How anybody can say, 'This doesn't affect me,' is completely absurd."Jesus Camp" is not an "attack" film. In fact, Rev. Fischer is enthusiastic about its portrayal of her efforts. But the movie will give nonevangelicals a sobering glimpse of how a potent mix of politics and religion is being used to restore America to the kind of country "it was meant to be." Or on making it into a place ruled by zealots who have no tolerance for religious diversity and who believe (in Fischer's words) that democracy doesn't work.

"If the Evangelicals vote, they determine the election," one mega-church pastor brags, smugly. "It's a fabulous life."

It's also a tone-deaf life.

When a precocious 9-year-old girl, on fire for the Lord, accosts some elderly black men and asks what will happen to them when they die, they answer they expect to go to Heaven. Rattled, and without a reason to preach, she walks away and mutters: "I think they were Muslims."

Muslims are the enemy, along with liberals and the shadowy forces of secularism and humanism who want us to believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

Holy War is coming, TV preacher Pat Robertson said last week, while Muslims protested against Pope Benedict and "Christian" lobbying groups urged Congress to permit the use of torture. All while here, on the prairie, Christian groups were urging voters to "make wise Biblical choices about how to vote in November."

Well, Christians, maybe it's time to pray for peace and to vote not just on Biblical principles, but specifically on New Testament principles, such as the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

But that, of course, was back in the days before he started wearing camouflage.


http://www.startribune.com/357/story/696232.html

[lily]

That is some scary shit!

[Cobra]

Poor kids, adults should have the right to believe however they wish. Even as out there or radical as some of their views may be but I do feel sorry for their kids who are forced to follow in their belief system. Not saying the government should interfere but it’s always sad to see a kid raised to be a KKK member or any other radical group who’s teachings are not conducive to functioning in today’s society.

[lily]

I've seen a lot of people complain that they indoctrante the young in Islam to hate, how is this any different? If this hate is going to stop, it has to stop with our youth.

Praying to a cardboard cut out of Bush is just plain scary!

[Cobra]

Praying to a cardboard cut out of Bush is just plain scary!

Not to mention I bet God doesn't like it all that much either. Worshiping false idles and all.

[Mayberry]

These whackos are just a tiny fraction of the muslim radicals. I was unable to find any numbers, but I'm sure there can't be more than a couple hundred in the country. But it is pretty scary.

[AlonzoMourning23]

These whackos are just a tiny fraction of the muslim radicals. I was unable to find any numbers, but I'm sure there can't be more than a couple hundred in the country. But it is pretty scary.


Here's the website for the organization that runs it): http://kidsinministry.com/

But considering the following of the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (and his Liberty University), and the belief of many that armageddon is near, I think that the wackos present a much larger percent of the population than appearances indicate.

[BoogyMan]

I've seen a lot of people complain that they indoctrante the young in Islam to hate, how is this any different? If this hate is going to stop, it has to stop with our youth.

Praying to a cardboard cut out of Bush is just plain scary!


Ahh, and because you can find a few nuts in the ranks you assume that all of Christendom is like this? You must be doing so as you have pretty much equivocated all Christians with radical islam based on the few in this documentary.

[lily]

Ahh, and because you can find a few nuts in the ranks you assume that all of Islam is like this? You must be doing so as you have pretty much equivocated all Muslims with radical islam based on the few you read about.

[BoogyMan]

Ahh, and because you can find a few nuts in the ranks you assume that all of Islam is like this? You must be doing so as you have pretty much equivocated all Muslims with radical islam based on the few you read about.


Once again your lack of research does your argument a mischief. I have made it VERY clear that in most of my posting about Islam that I am talking about radical Islam. You make no such distinction.

[Technocrat]

I've seen a lot of people complain that they indoctrante the young in Islam to hate, how is this any different? If this hate is going to stop, it has to stop with our youth.

Praying to a cardboard cut out of Bush is just plain scary!


Ahh, and because you can find a few nuts in the ranks you assume that all of Christendom is like this? You must be doing so as you have pretty much equivocated all Christians with radical islam based on the few in this documentary.




Not all are as militaristic as the above, no. However, many are, and the level of nuttery is directly proportional to the seriousness with which one takes the belief.

Almost 50% of Americans believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. More and more become Fundies. That's a problem.

The fundamental problem is not the radicalism itself, but the core religion behind it. Fundamentalism in religion couldn't exist without the generous philosophical backing of traditional Christianity and it's focus on irrational obedience to Faith.

[BoogyMan]

Much the same could be said for the rabid anti-religion crowd and their irrational dependance on self.

[Technocrat]

Much the same could be said for the rabid anti-religion crowd and their irrational dependance on self.



Not quite. First, there's no rabid anti-religion crowd with an irrational dependence on the self. That doesn't even make sense, but if you could clarifiy, what do you mean to say bad about reliance on the self? What does that mean in this context?

Are you saying anti-religious people are reliant on the self, but religious people aren't?

And how is relying on the self irrational? It's clearly irrational to have Faith in the supernatural, but if you would elaborate on the irrationality of belief in the self, go ahead.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Here the organizer of the bible camp states her vision for the children of america

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECP9qzjmF0

Here's a short ABC clip on the movie, with interviews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1_9lR9EpM

An interview with a kid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G8_jzmta90

This one disturbed me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKqMCSoBWzQ

[lily]

The future abortion clinic bombers of tomorrow.

[BoogyMan]

Not quite. First, there's no rabid anti-religion crowd with an irrational dependence on the self. That doesn't even make sense, but if you could clarifiy, what do you mean to say bad about reliance on the self? What does that mean in this context?

Are you saying anti-religious people are reliant on the self, but religious people aren't?

And how is relying on the self irrational? It's clearly irrational to have Faith in the supernatural, but if you would elaborate on the irrationality of belief in the self, go ahead.


Yes, techno, there is a huge anti-religion crowd who are rabid in their belief that those of faith should be verbally assaulted at every opportunity and that they should have no input to the broader process of definition by which our societal norms are defined. You are a part of that anti-religion crowd.

This more discussion than I intended to ever have with you again, especially in regard to faith as you have made it clear that you despise and disdain those of faith. Thus crafting a discussion of anything based upon faith with you would be little more than an exercise in learning the breadth of your ability to insult and to present the bigotted ideologies to which you subscribe.

Your immediate branding of faith as irrational undermines your self proclaimed grasp on the concept of reason and rationality in general.

[Technocrat]

Yes, techno, there is a huge anti-religion crowd who are rabid in their belief that those of faith should be verbally assaulted at every opportunity and that they should have no input to the broader process of definition by which our societal norms are defined. You are a part of that anti-religion crowd.

Incorrect. You imply that they believe religious people should all be verbally assaulted. This fallacy arises since you intrinsically tie the person to the religion, all the while believing that religion is sacrosanct (a sacred cow) that cannot be touched and must be respected.

It isn't and doesn't need to be; more importantly, it shouldn't be. It's dangerous.

Most Christians can't take and don't like criticism; when their religion is criticized, people, like you, take it personally. Often, people like you attack those who criticize religion because they are trying to prevent you from forcing your religion on others.

In essense: "religious persectution cries are really the cries of people who are being prevented from persecuting others in the name of their religon."

That's the real problem.



This more discussion than I intended to ever have with you again, especially in regard to faith as you have made it clear that you despise and disdain those of faith.

Of course I despise it; it's imbecilic. It's entirely justified to mock and dislike stupid religious beliefs. Christianity is no different from someone trying to make public policy based on the keen advice given to him by what he thinks are faeires living at the bottom of his lake.That would necessarily deserve ridicule.


Thus crafting a discussion of anything based upon faith with you would be little more than an exercise in learning the breadth of your ability to insult and to present the bigotted ideologies to which you subscribe. [/quote

Translation: "If it opposes Christianity and doesn't treat it like a sacred cow, it's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil and bigoted."

Christians themselves are often bigoted because their religion is inherently bigoted. They don't realize this because they were brainwashed from youth to have faith in their version of the faeries in the lake.

[quote]
Your immediate branding of faith as irrational undermines your self proclaimed grasp on the concept of reason and rationality in general.


Lets dissect your comment and analyse it. The forum members here can easily then see how full of shit you are. Observe:

1. You claim my branding of faith as irrational undermines my own grasp of reason and rationality.

That's incorrect.

Definition of Faith

Faith (religious):

1, Belief that is not based on proof. Faith is also any belief in that for which there is no evidence and often in spite of evidence and rational argumentation.

Those who first propounded faith, and those who propound it's virtues now, have explicitly said what faith is: belief without logical reasoning or evidence. In fact, most of the Saints of Christianity decried reason as the enemy of faith.

Definition: Irrational
1.without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2.without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.


Thus, Faith (as in religious) is irrational. It is a strong belief in that for which there's no evidence and no logic proof. It is officially belief just because you want to believe, regardless of the truth value of the subject matter. That's irrational because something which is rational is a believe based on either logical proof, evidence and a sound argument that ties them togther. I am sorry of reality doesn't agree with your version of the faeries at the bottom of the lake. That's not my problem.

The notion that my saying Faith is irrational undermines nothing except your own credibility. You haven't the foggiest understanding of the topics you of which you speak.

[Mayberry]

Wow, so billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc... are all irrational.

[Technocrat]

Wow, so billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc... are all irrational.


Indeed. Some are more irrational than others. I don't particularly think that the quantity of people who hold a delusion as valid make the delusion any less irrational.

Any religion that touts "spiritual" or metaphysical God-dleegook faith are essentially promoting irrationality.

Some forms of Buddhism are not as bad, though, for not all forms of them are actually based on said faith in things which don't exist.

[BoogyMan]

Wow, so billions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc... are all irrational.


Indeed. Some are more irrational than others. I don't particularly think that the quantity of people who hold a delusion as valid make the delusion any less irrational.

Any religion that touts "spiritual" or metaphysical God-dleegook faith are essentially promoting irrationality.

Some forms of Buddhism are not as bad, though, for not all forms of them are actually based on said faith in things which don't exist.


Translation of Technocrats rant:

You don't think like I do, therefore you must possess a lesser intellect and since I despise that which you stand for you are beneath contempt.

Back to reality now:

You havent got a leg to stand on with that whole waste of keystrokes you posted which does nothing but tell people that since you find no value in faith, that it must be truly worthless. Fortunately you are not the standard of valuation.

Your branding of faith as irrational undermines your credibility, because you set yourself up and standard by which rationality is determined. I am completely correct and fully understand that rationality and reason go hand in hand. I find your argument lacking, and its premise laughable.

Tell me techno, do believe that there is a planet called Pluto? You haven't seen it yet you believe in it I am sure.

There are many who propound the idea that faith and rationality are incompatible but none so hostile and puerile as the arguments that I have heard you make here. I don't and won't subscribe to your one negates the other belief. It is a belief, by the way.

I find rationality and proof for my faith around me daily. You choose not to. It is as simple as that.

[Technocrat]

Translation of Technocrats rant:

You don't think like I do, therefore you must possess a lesser intellect and since I despise that which you stand for you are beneath contempt.

Straman Fallacy. No one said anything about "disagreement = lesser intellect." Good try though.

The real argument is that religion X is based on Faith, Faith is defined as Y, and Y is irrational, therefore, the foundation of X is irrational. In simplest terms in a logical proof:

1. Faith is the belief in that for which there is no evidence or logical proof. This is substantiated by looking at the definition of Faith as I have provided.

2. A belief is irrational if it is held, but has no evidence to support it, since rational means essentially "supported by evidence and logical reasoning." This means the belief is irrational if it's "faith-based."

4. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are based on Faith. This is obvious and has been admitted by the core founders and current proponents of said religions. The elementy of Faith is that "God exists" despite zero evidence, and likely improbability of it being true, as well as belief in "facts" which are directly contradicted by scientific evidence.

5. Therefore, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are irrational beliefs.


Back to reality now

I am afraid you never were from reality.


You havent got a leg to stand on with that whole waste of keystrokes you posted which does nothing but tell people that since you find no value in faith, that it must be truly worthless. Fortunately you are not the standard of valuation.

So you seriously contend that belief in X, when X has no evidence to support it, is a valid system of epistemology?

Let's put in another way: do you feel the same way, say, in the case of Thor? Zeus? Faeries? What about Lepreuchans? Do they exist on Faith too? Or does the validity of Faith decrease proportional to whether or not you hold the belief?

Should we all believe in Pastafarianism because of Faith?

Are all beliefs equal?



Your branding of faith as irrational undermines your credibility, because you set yourself up and standard by which rationality is determined. I am completely correct and fully understand that rationality and reason go hand in hand. I find your argument lacking, and its premise laughable.

Incorrect. My definition of rationality is the only definition of rationality. Now your argument is devolving into pure sophistry, where everything is "subjective."

As to the second part of your paragraph, congratulations. You won the Duh Award. Of course reason and rationality go hand in hand; no one implied it doesn't. That's not the point, though. The point is that you really don't comprehend what Rationality or Reason are; if you did, you would clearly understand that Religious faith is irrational. You do not, because you don't want to see it. You are brainwashed by your boyhood parents or preist. Perhaps both.

Rather sad that those types of people ruin young lives. My argument is based on solid logic and adequate evidence. Yours, however, is truely lacking.


Tell me techno, do believe that there is a planet called Pluto? You haven't seen it yet you believe in it I am sure.

Pluto isn't a planet. It was mislabled and largely stayed classified as one due to nostalgia. It's actually a rogue kuiper belt object that got stuck in that orbit, IIRC.

Never has it really fit in with any reliable definition of a planet, and definitions of planets are in fact a bit subjective.


There are many who propound the idea that faith and rationality are incompatible but none so hostile and puerile as the arguments that I have heard you make here. I don't and won't subscribe to your one negates the other belief. It is a belief, by the way.[/quote

Appeal to Style Fallacy. That I am "hostile" and "mean" is irrelevant; I am indeed correct. Faith and Rationality are indeed incompatible. That's a fact. One requires the other to be subservient. You cannot be, on issue X, both rational and faith-based. This is obvious, since to hold faith in X means that you belief it regardless of the evidence for or against, lack of availability. You hold the belief ON FAITH.

Rationality deems this inappropriate.

I really couldn't care less of what you approve or to what belief you subscribe. That's entirely your problem that you have to work out. Some people think that the earth is flat; they belief this on faith. Some believe the earth is 6000 years old; also this is held on faith. They are morons.

[quote]
I find rationality and proof for my faith around me daily. You choose not to. It is as simple as that.

Provide some of this "evidence" and "proof." It's probably bullshit, like your entire argument. LoL.

Edit: If we took he above poster's logic seriously--that is, the logic that "faith" is just as good as real evidence, then we would have to say all beliefs are just as valid. This is especially true when we add his other statement that you can just "make up" evidence as you see fit, and as long as you believe it's evidence, you can ignore everyone else who shows you it isn't. For instance, if someone believed faeries lived at the bottom of his pool on faith, that's just as good as someone showing there's not any. After all, he can clearly say "you just can't see the evidence." To him, blades of grass blowing westward can obviously imply faeries live at the bottom of his fish pond.

Again, the belief of someone who says we live in a giant computer Matrix simulation must be taken seriously and respected if we go by the "argument from faith." The belief becomes effectively unassailable if we accept faith and subjective evidence verification.

If we went by your logic of everyone being able to make up whatever evidence he "feels" is evidence, any belief would be fair game to have, which is absurd.

[BoogyMan]

Straman Fallacy. No one said anything about "disagreement = lesser intellect." Good try though.
[quote]

Your whole posting in this regard is dripping with the bile of an overfed superiority complex, so yes, it is a correct assessment.

[quote=technocrat]
So you seriously contend that belief in X, when X has no evidence to support it, is a valid system of epistemology?

Let's put in another way: do you feel the same way, say, in the case of Thor? Zeus? Faeries? What about Lepreuchans? Do they exist on Faith too? Or does the validity of Faith decrease proportional to whether or not you hold the belief?

Should we all believe in Pastafarianism because of Faith?

Are all beliefs equal?

Wow, now this is an impressive attempt to redirect the discussion. Might I add that I am truly impressed that at least at this point you havent yet reverted to a foul mouthed tirade.


Incorrect. My definition of rationality is the only definition of rationality. Now your argument is devolving into pure sophistry, where everything is "subjective."

As to the second part of your paragraph, congratulations. You won the Duh Award. Of course reason and rationality go hand in hand; no one implied it doesn't. That's not the point, though. The point is that you really don't comprehend what Rationality or Reason are; if you did, you would clearly understand that Religious faith is irrational. You do not, because you don't want to see it. You are brainwashed by your boyhood parents or preist. Perhaps both.

Now this is truly funny. YOUR definition is the only one to which you subscribe and since your belief system is superior, it must be correct. Faith is no more irrational than your insistance that self is supreme.

Rather sad that those types of people ruin young lives. My argument is based on solid logic and adequate evidence. Yours, however, is truely lacking.

Aha! We have a winner. What particular life choice have you made that underlies your hatred of those who live by faith? Its there, what is it?


Pluto isn't a planet. It was mislabled and largely stayed classified as one due to nostalgia. It's actually a rogue kuiper belt object that got stuck in that orbit, IIRC.

Never has it really fit in with any reliable definition of a planet, and definitions of planets are in fact a bit subjective.

Duck and weave, duck and weave.

Appeal to Style Fallacy. That I am "hostile" and "mean" is irrelevant; I am indeed correct. Faith and Rationality are indeed incompatible. That's a fact. One requires the other to be subservient. You cannot be, on issue X, both rational and faith-based. This is obvious, since to hold faith in X means that you belief it regardless of the evidence for or against, lack of availability. You hold the belief ON FAITH.

Rationality deems this inappropriate.

I really couldn't care less of what you approve or to what belief you subscribe. That's entirely your problem that you have to work out. Some people think that the earth is flat; they belief this on faith. Some believe the earth is 6000 years old; also this is held on faith. They are morons.

You are correct in the bounds of your chosen system of belief.


Provide some of this "evidence" and "proof." It's probably bullshit, like your entire argument. LoL.

Ahhh, the foul mouthed attack I was waiting for. You never fail to entertain the masses! These tactics only work on people whom you can anger with their childish obfuscation and attack. It doesn't work on me and never will.

[Technocrat]

Ok, since explaining things to you gets nowhere, since you don't learn by that method, let's try the socratic method.

What do you think Rational means? What does Faith mean?

[Technocrat]

Aha!Â*Â*We have a winner.Â*Â*What particular life choice have you made that underlies your hatred of those who live by faith?Â*Â*Its there, what is it?

What do you think? Why could I possibly be against it, other than---it's not real and wrong?" Why must there be another reason. The only reason I am against it is that it's just wrong. It's contrary to reason and to all evidence.

I also hate it because most of the 'morality' in Christianity is atrocious. Religion causes more harm than good.


Duck and weave, duck and weave.

Um no, it's called question and answer. If you want to ask a question, do try and learn how to form one. Your question was incorrectly organized. You asked me if I still belief pluto is a planet. It wasn't a planet, and it isn't now.


You are correct in the bounds of your chosen system of belief.

Again, so you believe that rationality and empiricism are only "just another equally valid" system of epistemology? How do you propose to have any discussion of any topic if you throw logic and empiricism away? What you are left with is subjective emotivism.

Are you going to be consistant and say that Christianity is just as valid as the Cult of Aries? Or what about Zorostrianism? What about belief in faeries? What about Santa Clause? Are they valid beliefs if you have "faith" they are real? Or just as valid as any mutually incompatible belief system? Since your criterion is not 'logic and evidence'Â*Â*based, Islam must be just as true as Christianity, the only difference being that you don't believe it.

The fundamental problem with your argument is that it doesn't rely on logic OR evidence-based reasoning. I can give you a word for word standard definition of "rationality" and compare it to the standard definition of "faith", and then quote bishops, priests, and popes on "reason as the enemy of faith," and you will STILL ignore it and claim the opposite.

Again, I understand why; you were brainwashed since youth. It's not your fault. You need help to overcome the delusion impounded into you by your parents. You are a child requiring light to lead him out of the cave.


Ahhh, the foul mouthed attack I was waiting for.Â*Â*You never fail to entertain the masses!Â*Â*These tactics only work on people whom you can anger with their childish obfuscation and attack.Â*Â*It doesn't work on me and never will.

Style over substance fallacy. My argument is right, and yours is wrong, whether I end my sentence with a "you're a diptard" or a "weaslewoggit." Vulgarity has no impact on the validity of a statement; my arguments are strong with and without them.

If you consider bullshit a vulgarity,though, that's pretty prudish. [please refrain from personal attacks]

Oh no! a CUSS!

[BoogyMan]

Aha!Â*Â*We have a winner.Â*Â*What particular life choice have you made that underlies your hatred of those who live by faith?Â*Â*Its there, what is it?

Armchair psychology, I see. What do you think?


Duck and weave, duck and weave.

Um no, it's called question and answer. If you want to ask a question, do try and learn how to form one. Your question was incorrectly organized. You asked me if I still belief pluto is a planet. It wasn't a planet, and it isn't now.


You are correct in the bounds of your chosen system of belief.

Again, so you believe that rationality and empiricism are only "just another equally valid" system of epistemology?


Ahhh, the foul mouthed attack I was waiting for.Â*Â*You never fail to entertain the masses!Â*Â*These tactics only work on people whom you can anger with their childish obfuscation and attack.Â*Â*It doesn't work on me and never will.

Style over substance fallacy. My argument is right, and yours is wrong, whether I end my sentence with a "you're a diptard" or a "weaslewoggit." Vulgarity has no impact on the validity of a statement; my arguments are strong with and without them.

If you consider bullshit a vulgarity, that's pretty prudish. Did you come from a strict Puritan home or something where you were forced to wear black and do nothing by pray all day to God Almighty!?

Oh no! a CUSS!


Egads, your statements once again are "I am right, and you are wrong, because I say so."

Typical schoolyard tactic really.

[Technocrat]

I ask one more time:

1. What is Rationality?

2. What is Faith?


Should be very simple.

[BoogyMan]

I ask one more time:

1. What is Rationality?

2. What is Faith?

Should be very simple.


You have a specific belief in regard to this that you wish to hold all those who have faith up to. What I have been trying to tell you is that not everyone subscribes to your belief.

I will not play your game with your religion cannot be rational ideology.

I believe Descartes said "I think therefore I am" not "I think therefore any other thought is anathema."

You would do well to consider that point.

[Technocrat]

You have a specific belief in regard to this that you wish to hold all those who have faith up to. What I have been trying to tell you is that not everyone subscribes to your belief.

That's irrelevant. Whether or not reality exists or logic matters isn't a matter of opinion. Whether the Earth is 6000 years old or billions isn't a matter of opinion. Whether faeries exist at the bottom of a lake isn't a matter of opinion.

All are matters of fact. These cncepts are discovered by using reason and tying together evidence.


I will not play your game with your religion cannot be rational ideology.

By definition, it's not rational. You can do all the philosophical dancing babble-talk Sophistry you want, but it won't change this basic fact. Christianity is based on Faith; this is true. The definition of faith makes it self-evident that it's opposed to rationality. Denying this to be true is just dishonesty on your part. You religious types are so desperate to validate your false beliefs that you will actually lie and throw away logic altogether to protect your thesis. The worst kind of Sophistry, that is.

What you won't do is answer a simple question. You would do well to consider that point.

Again, I repeat:

What is Rationality?

What is Faith?

What is the basis of Christianity?

Give me definitions and then compare the two.

If you can't do this, I can only assume you comprehend the point but are too dishonest to admit it.

[BoogyMan]

That's irrelevant. Whether or not reality exists or logic matters isn't a matter of opinion. Whether the Earth is 6000 years old or billions isn't a matter of opinion. Whether faeries exist at the bottom of a lake isn't a matter of opinion.

All are matters of fact.

And they must be so because Technocrat believes them so to be.

No, all are matters of heated debate that you would like to present as fact.Â*Â*Except for the faeries, that seems to be a favorite of yours.

What you won't do is answer a simple question. You would do well to consider that point.

Again, I repeat:

What is Rationality?

What is Faith?

What is the basis of Christianity?

Give me definitions and then compare the two.

If you can't do this, I can only assume you comprehend the point but are too dishonest to admit it.


Ahh once again, if I refuse to play your silly game by your rules I must be dishonest.Â*Â*Once again we are at the point of "I am right, because I say so."

You can assume anything you wish but understand that a fools errand starts with such assumption.

[Technocrat]

No, all are matters of heated debate that you would like to present as fact.Â*Â*Except for the faeries, that seems to be a favorite of yours.

Um, no. They aren't in heated debate. They are already factually established.Â*Â*Reality exists, the earth is billions of years old, faeries are ficticous.

That you think there's real debate about these things is quite scary, and means you are in need of far more help than I orginally estimated. The situation is far more urgent. You are sliding down the dark path of Sophistry, and I must bring you to the light and out of Plato's cave.



Ahh once again, if I refuse to play your silly game by your rules I must be dishonest.Â*Â*Once again we are at the point of "I am right, because I say so."

Ahh no, it's called "substantiation of the argument." YOu claim that Faith is not irrational, yet you refuse to provide evidence for this claim. There's a simple way to show that faith is not irrational--that is, by providing definitions of both and comparing them.

Therefore, if you fail to answer the question, I can only accept your concession.

This is not a game at all, but rather quite serious. YOu make a claim, you provide evidence, you reason logically to the conclusion. That's the only valid way to go about this. However, I doubt you really want to discuss anything, since you admit that you feel "logic and empiricism" are silly little rules that don't apply to you.

Well, if logic and evidence requirements don't apply to you, then what's the point of discussing anyting on a debate forum? Anything goes!

[bobbylien]

No, all are matters of heated debate that you would like to present as fact. Except for the faeries, that seems to be a favorite of yours.
I'm sorry but anyone who trys to say the world is 6000 years old is a moron.


Ahh once again, if I refuse to play your silly game by your rules I must be dishonest. Once again we are at the point of "I am right, because I say so."
Sounds like somebody has lost this debate. Techno has been giving up strong points and you've just been repeating that same crap without giving ANY proof to support your claims.

[Technocrat]

Sounds like somebody has lost this debate. Techno has been giving up strong points and you've just been repeating that same crap without giving ANY proof to support your claims.


That's the beauty of his reasoning--there is none.
He needn't provide any supporting evidence or logic for his argument, since that would be playing by our rules. And we just can't have that! So instead of proving me wrong (since he can't, and I dare him), he will defeat me by sheer attrition. Tha tis, he'll just keep repeating the same mindless shit untill I give up from exhaustion.

Thank godless I have no life, so I have time to blow.

:D

I fear we'd have to mentally retard ourselves to understand the profundity of his intellect.

[BoogyMan]

No, all are matters of heated debate that you would like to present as fact.Â*Â*Except for the faeries, that seems to be a favorite of yours.
I'm sorry but anyone who trys to say the world is 6000 years old is a moron.


Ahh once again, if I refuse to play your silly game by your rules I must be dishonest.Â*Â*Once again we are at the point of "I am right, because I say so."
Sounds like somebody has lost this debate. Techno has been giving up strong points and you've just been repeating that same crap without giving ANY proof to support your claims.


Techno has been give HIS belief.Â*Â*He has a full speel worked out that he has used many other places to bash people of faith.Â*Â*I wont play his game. I can count you among the "I am right because I say I am" crowd now as well.

[BoogyMan]

Sounds like somebody has lost this debate. Techno has been giving up strong points and you've just been repeating that same crap without giving ANY proof to support your claims.


That's the beauty of his reasoning--there is none.
He needn't provide any supporting evidence or logic for his argument, since that would be playing by our rules. And we just can't have that! So instead of proving me wrong (since he can't, and I dare him), he will defeat me by sheer attrition. Tha tis, he'll just keep repeating the same mindless shit untill I give up from exhaustion.

Thank godless I have no life, so I have time to blow.

:D

I fear we'd have to mentally retard ourselves to understand the profundity of his intellect.


Dare me? Hahahahahahahah

[jack_wf]

I understand the logic Techno is applying to the problem with "faith".Â*Â*He is saying that included in the definition of faith is the fact that it is not based on evidence, therefore, it must be irrational.Â*Â*OK

I'll try to give Boogyman a little help here -

Answering your questions Techno (i wish I knew how to quote)

These are all taken from the same dictionary – http://dictionary.reference.com

What is Rationality?
1. the state or quality of being rational.
2. the possession of reason.
3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
4. the exercise of reason.
5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.


What is Faith?
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.


What is the basis of Christianity?Â*Â*The basis of Christianity is an acceptance of Christ’s payment for sin, simply put.Â*Â*The tenants of Christianity are complex, and can be approached with reason and rationality.

In defense of Christianity I must say a few words.Â*Â*Christianity is not religion.Â*Â*Christianity is not the issue here.Â*Â*It is the truth about Christ that is the issue.Â*Â*Jesus Christ did live on the earth - fact.Â*Â*There is proof of His existence.Â*Â*Specific accounts of evidence would be too much for this post; maybe you can prove me wrong.

So the issue is not faith, the issue is, was Christ who He said He was?Â*Â*You must label him, based on what is recorded in history, not just Biblical history, as lunatic, liar, or Son of God.

There have been so many different interpretations of scripture over the hundreds of years, and so much deviation from the truth.Â*Â*There are nut-jobs, wackos, and such.Â*Â*I will be the first to admit there are problems in the Church. It is good to see someone is actually concerned with those issues as I am. No, Christianity is not militant.Â*Â*Christ came to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.Â*Â*He humbled himself, even to death on the cross.Â*Â*That is the ultimate picture of how we should be; willing to die for the sake of seeing others come back into a relationship with God.Â*Â*Not to kill those who disagree.Â*Â*(By the way, in Matthew Jesus said if you hate your brother, it is more or less the same as committing murder.)

I know my reasonable conclusion to the truth about Christ is not a popular view with some people.Â*Â*I do not hate or even dislike those that cannot see the truth.Â*Â*The world has departed so much from the truth, that the truth appears unreasonable (irrational).Â*Â*That was the intention of the ‘enemies’ of Christ. The enemies of Christ are not flesh and blood.Â*Â*Our “warâ€� is not with our fellow man.Â*Â*If we are to have a “warâ€� it is to be with those supernatural forces.Â*Â*I know that sounds like I am leaving reality, but once again, the world’s departure from the truth has left the truth as appearing irrational.Â*Â*

I would like to further discuss the reasoning behind the supernatural in another post.Â*Â*

This one has gone long enough.Â*Â*

Bottom line:Â*Â*faith=the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.Â*Â*Rationality=a reasonable view or practice. It is reasonable to conclude that God created us to have a relationship with Him and Christ makes that relationship possible by His death on the cross as payment for our disobedience to God.Â*Â*

[BoogyMan]

I understand the logic Techno is applying to the problem with "faith".Â*Â*He is saying that included in the definition of faith is the fact that it is not based on evidence, therefore, it must be irrational.Â*Â*OK

I'll try to give Boogyman a little help here -

Answering your questions Techno (i wish I knew how to quote)

These are all taken from the same dictionary – http://dictionary.reference.com

What is Rationality?
1. the state or quality of being rational.
2. the possession of reason.
3. agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
4. the exercise of reason.
5. a reasonable view, practice, etc.


What is Faith?
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.


What is the basis of Christianity?Â*Â*The basis of Christianity is an acceptance of Christ’s payment for sin, simply put.Â*Â*The tenants of Christianity are complex, and can be approached with reason and rationality.

In defense of Christianity I must say a few words.Â*Â*Christianity is not religion.Â*Â*Christianity is not the issue here.Â*Â*It is the truth about Christ that is the issue.Â*Â*Jesus Christ did live on the earth - fact.Â*Â*There is proof of His existence.Â*Â*Specific accounts of evidence would be too much for this post; maybe you can prove me wrong.

So the issue is not faith, the issue is, was Christ who He said He was?Â*Â*You must label him, based on what is recorded in history, not just Biblical history, as lunatic, liar, or Son of God.

There have been so many different interpretations of scripture over the hundreds of years, and so much deviation from the truth.Â*Â*There are nut-jobs, wackos, and such.Â*Â*I will be the first to admit there are problems in the Church. It is good to see someone is actually concerned with those issues as I am. No, Christianity is not militant.Â*Â*Christ came to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.Â*Â*He humbled himself, even to death on the cross.Â*Â*That is the ultimate picture of how we should be; willing to die for the sake of seeing others come back into a relationship with God.Â*Â*Not to kill those who disagree.Â*Â*(By the way, in Matthew Jesus said if you hate your brother, it is more or less the same as committing murder.)

I know my reasonable conclusion to the truth about Christ is not a popular view with some people.Â*Â*I do not hate or even dislike those that cannot see the truth.Â*Â*The world has departed so much from the truth, that the truth appears unreasonable (irrational).Â*Â*That was the intention of the ‘enemies’ of Christ. The enemies of Christ are not flesh and blood.Â*Â*Our “warâ€� is not with our fellow man.Â*Â*If we are to have a “warâ€� it is to be with those supernatural forces.Â*Â*I know that sounds like I am leaving reality, but once again, the world’s departure from the truth has left the truth as appearing irrational.Â*Â*

I would like to further discuss the reasoning behind the supernatural in another post.Â*Â*

This one has gone long enough.Â*Â*

Bottom line:Â*Â*faith=the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.Â*Â*Rationality=a reasonable view or practice. It is reasonable to conclude that God created us to have a relationship with Him and Christ makes that relationship possible by His death on the cross as payment for our disobedience to God.Â*Â*




Well said Jack, I have refrained from using scripture with techno however as he despises and rejects it.

[Technocrat]

The definition of Faith I am using is as follows:

1. Firm belief in something for which there is no proof
2. Complete trust
3. Something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially system of religious beliefs [...] on faith : without question.


According to a combination of these three relevant definitions, one sees that Faith as it applies to Christianity is like Faith as it applies to Mormons believing that, when their men die, they will become Masters of an alternate universe.

Faith is a belief in something, and firmly held, for which there is no evidence or proof to substantiate the belief. One has complete, unwavering, unquestioning belief that X, without evidence, is true.

What is Reason and hence a Reasonable belief?

1. Reasonable Belief: "a statement offered in explanation or justification" [...] which has "a sufficient ground of explanation [...] logical defense."

2. Rational Belief: This is similar; it means "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason."

Therefore, a belief is "rational" via the use of and agreement with requisite evidence and logical connections between the pieces of evidence that lead to a conclusion justifying the belief.

A belief that exists strongly, despite or regardless of evidence for and to the contrary, and for which there are myriad logical errors connecting the pieces, is not a rational belief. Let us examine Christianity.

For the entire concept of Christianity to be a sound (rational) belief, it must at least have evidence that:

A.) Christ existed
B.) God existed

If it fails on either one of those two points, then there's no chance that Christianity is valid.

A. The first one I can see, for there is at least some evidence that Christ, at least as some historical figure, existed. I will therefore give it the benefit of the doubt there.

B. The notion of God existing, however, is more problematic. God is a supernatural creature, a thing of pure metaphysics. It is not something that is falsifiable in the abstract; one cannot falsify a supernatural creature any more than one can falsify the existence of deistic goats that have parades in Hades or the existence of an undetectable human soul.

This is a severe problem; If God is unfalsifiable, and if God cannot be verified, then to believe in it is irrational, since that would entail belief without evidence, without logical proof. Let's look at some of the arguments from God; one of which is the argument from Biblical Authority.


1. Christianity, as you have said, is a complete, trusting relationship with God in which you absolutely believe everything he says on his word. This is compounded by the fact that there's zero objective evidence to show God even exists. The only evidence for his existence is the Bible, and that type of evidence is called Circular Logic. Observe:

1. God exists.
2. How do you know?
3. The Bible says so.
4. Who authored the Bible?
5. God through Man.

Clearly, the Bible is inadequate for determining whether or not God exists, since using it as evidence would be begging the question. For those who attempt to use scripture to prove the existence or validity of their religion, their belief is therefore called irrational. It's irrational because the premises used do not lead to the conclusion. That is, "The Bible says so, therefore God exists" Is not logical. Since there's no means of empircially falsifying an abstract God concept, the notion is a useless metaphyical abstract. The belief is thus unsubstantiated.

2. There are no other arguments for God's existence that themselves prove anything. There is zero logical proof deducable that God exists. That there is no empircal evidence for God, and people believe it anyway, the belief itself fails the test of rational justifcation of belief. It's therefore not rational.

CHristianity fails, but not uniquely. Belief in Santa Clause, Unicorns, Lepreuchans, and faeries at the bottom fo the pond are not ratioal either, so don't feel bad. Anyone who believes those regardless of empirical evidence or probability for their existence is also acting irrationally. It's human natuer.


Christianity Reconsidered:

Since I know you people will not accept my conclusion that God is a figment of the human imagination, I will attack the issue of it's rationality from another perspective; logic and observations of the Christian God's characteristics within the Bible, assuming that the Bible is a fair depiction of him.

1. Christian doctrine rests on the following principles, all of which may be compared to rules of logic as well as empirical observations of the real world.

A. The Resurection, the Crucifixation
B. The Virgin Birth
C. The Miracles
D. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost trifecta.
E. Original Sin and the Salvaton

Some of these are related, but let us compartmentalize a bit for clarity:

A. In Christian theology, Christ died on the Crucifix to save mankind, but then came back to life days later. Crucifixion was a roman death penalty in which the person is allowed to die slowly on the cross. According to Christianity, Jesus was a man. Since men cannot die and then be resurected spontaneously (resurection is biologically impossible for Homo Sapien (which Jesus was), it is therefore logically impossible for this event to have occured.

Principle falsified. Continued belief is therefore irrational.

B. In Christian theology, it is held that Christ is the son of the Virgin Mary, and that God somehow impregnated Mary with Jesus. Jesus was born, but his mother was a virgin. Now, assuming this is around what, the Iron Age, there was no such thing as Invitro Fertalization or some means of cloning technology. There's no evidence that she somehow got some artificial insemination procedure, and even if they DID do that then, the existence and likelyhood of that occuring itself undermines Christian theology, for the reason Mary got pregnant is that God impregnated her.

Therefore, since the only other explanation given is that "God waved his magic wand and impregnated Mary" and since magic doesn't exist (and even more importantly, no one can provide empircal evidence that a virgin ever gave birth to anyone in the first place), it's highly unlikely that she somehow got pregnant without having sex. We only have the word of the Bible to say she did and that God was responsible for it. Return to the above critique of "The Bible says so, therefore it must be true." This belief is also irrational, since it has no evidence, and the evidence they do present is circular or the metaphysical equivalent of "Because I said so."

C. Miracles. They are propounded as existing all over the place in the Bible. What is a miracle?

1. An extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.

Essentially, a mircal is an event caused by divine intervention that cannot have occured by natural means.

Historically, and according to all scientific investigation, there are no such things as miracles; there's simply no evidence they exist. In fact, if one goes by the above definition of "miracle," it is by definition unsubstantiatable by empircal evidence or science. It cannot be verified by science. Why? God did it. God is a metaphysical agent beyond the scope of empircal observaton. Since he or his actions cannot be verified as the actual cause of any event, and since all events can be explained by a naturalistic, mechanistic theory, God is an entirely superfluous explanation in addition to being unfalsifiable.

God could be causing the miracle; However, by the standards of evidence required to prove this (none, personal feelings, The Bible), one could just as easily say Barny the Purple Dinosaur causes mircales. Any argument in favour of a magic, undetectable by science, invisible, unfalsifiable deity doing something could prove anything doing just the same thing. Perhaps Wahabi the spicy banana peel is really doing it. Who knows? Who cares? You can't prove it or disprove it. You can show the probability of it is highly unlikely, yes.

Continued belief that magic beings creating miracles occures, but with no evidence to show any magic being is actually created the miracles. Since all miracles are either uprovable that they actualy happened, and ones that are are clearly falsified (walking on water miracle) and explained naturally by science, thus aren't really miracles, belief in actual miracles is irrational.


D. This one is truely my favourite, and in honestly, the most mind-boggling aspect of Christianity. Christians firmly believe in something thats a) not biologically possible, and b) illogical. That is, they believe something which flies in the face of basic arithmetic.

According to dogma, God exists, Jesus exists, and the holy ghost exist. For the sake of argument, let's assume ALL THREE individuals exist. The belief still makes no logical sense.

1. Within, God is jesus and jesus is God. All are the holy ghost as well.
2. However, each unit (of the 3) is actually just one.
3. At the same time, though, Christians purport that they are all distinct individuals.

This is where the reality dissociation takes place in Christianity. They claim that three individuals exist, yet all three individuals are actually the same exact individual. This is logically impossible. It's mathematically undoable. Not only that, having three distinct bodies all being the same exact person violates the principle of identity.

Explanation according to the number points above:

1. Rule of identity. A=A. Jesus can be Jesus, God can be God, and even Jesus can be God, or God Jesus, but neither God nor Jesus can be totally different individuals, yet all the same individual, simultaneously. There are several ways I can think of to rationalize this. Jesus and God can be one and the same if God is either schizophrenic and jesus is not an entirely different body at all (just in his head), or if God is jesus's alter ego (also not an actual individual side) and thus in his head.

Another possibility is that either God exists and Jesus exists independently as totally different entities.

It is logically impossible for being A to be independent of being B, yet both A adn B be exactly the same entity. 1+1+1 does not equal both 3 and 1. In fact, it doens't equal one ever. So three separate beings cannot EVER be one distinct, unique being. Christianity claims this impossibility to be a "truth." Belief in this "truth" despite the fact that it's logically invalid in addition to having zero empircal evidence to support it, other than "The Bible says so," means the belief is irrational.


Rebuttal potential:

1. A key thing to understand is that some might say: "Well, God can do it because he can do whatever he wants; he's omnipotent. Additionally, he's so far beyond our comprehension, we can't understand his nature!"

Ok, let's assume that's true for the sake of argument. If we assume that he's so far beyond our comprehension that our empircal understanding of biology, or comprehension of logical principle and mathematics are default thought wrong, and scripture right, assuming just that is itself irrational. In essense, it would be ignoring and throwing logic and evidence out the window.

If he's so far beyond understanding, then any evidence or logic we could use to try to understand him is usless. If it's useless, then belief in said deity is itself useless, pointless, and irrational. Why? Well, if he's not understandable, there's no justification for saying he exists or comming up with all of those nice little detailed descriptions of him! I guess they're all pulled right out of yo ass.

The first one's a bit more clever; God is knowable, understandable, yet omnipotent, so he can do anything. However, omnipotent doesn't mean one can do anything in reality; it means one can do anything without the realm of logical possibility. For instance, it's logically impossible for a square circle to exist, or a square triangle.

It's not logically possible for 2 distinct beings in body to be the same person. If they were, they logically wouldn't be the same. You can have 1 being with multiple personalities, and multiple personalities all being the same in the body. But you can't have multiple personalities that are all the same body, but different and unique in body and personality. Therefore, even if God WERE omnipotent, it would still be impossible for Jesus, God, and the holy ghost to all be dinstinct individuals, yet all the same God. That violates the above laws. Again, omnipotence won't make God do the logically impossible. Continued belief would therefore be irrational.

E: Original Sin. This doctrine is the foundation for the existence of Jesus, the "sin" of man, and the entire basis for the salvation doctrine, including the crucifixion.

According to mythology, two nonexistent people called Adam and Eve lived in a magical garden. This magical garden was owned and operated by God Inc. The headmananger of God Inc.'s garden ordered Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge (because upper management wanted to keep them stupid, obviously). They did, were fired, and were then thrown out of magical garden.

Yea. The story really is that stupid. It's not just you thinking it's stupid. But it gets worse. God Inc. decides that it's a fair, just punishment for ALL children of Adam to suffer his wrongs, his sins (needless to say, these sins were all invented by God in the first place). Sin is transmitted via Adam's seminal fluid. Yea. Because sin works like that. LoL.

Moving on. Since the sin moves down the line, all mankind is inhernetly evil; by the first century or so, Jesus pops his hippie head out of the woodwork and claims to be the savior of mankind. How does he save mankind? By convincing the his friend Judas to get the Romans to kill him. Because somehow dying on a cross will erase magical sins transmitted through sexual intercourse. The supreme irony is that Christians somehow THANK God for this; they claim he gave them a sacrifice.

This makes no sense. Why? Well, since Christians claim that Jesus is God, and God, Jesus is a God. God's are immortal. A sacrifice entails giving something up. When you sacrifice life, you give up life. Immortal beings cannot really die, so the "sacrifice" is illusory. It simply is retarded. It's even more retarded when one understands that God/Jesus created the concept of sin and all the suffering in the first place. Essentially, God as Mr. Hyde, made the problem, so he sent his alter ego Jesus--aka Dr. Jekyl, to reem the population of sin he created by giving up himself as a false sacrifice.

To get himself into a position to kill himself to save mankind from the problems he started, he had to have someone betray him to the Romans. Judas was the scapegoat, or shall I said, Jesus's bitch. Judas did what he did as part of a prophecy; in order to save mankind, Jesus/God required Judas to do what he did. However, Judas is demonized by Christians, which is irrational itself because if Judas didn't do what he did, CHrist wouldn't have been crucified, and no one would have been saved. Dur....lose you yet?

Well, it gets worse. Since God is supposedly all good and omniscient and omnipotent accordng to Christianity, all this horseshit was rather superfluous, since God could have avoided bitchslapping Judas, done away with the whole pointless fake sacrifice in the first place by snapping his fingers to signify he changed his mind with the whole orignial sin shit. No, he choose the the most unnecessary, convoluted nonsensical way of going about it.

The biggest element of absurd irony in the whole myth people take seriously is that now, Jews and Judas are demonized for doing just what God told them to do. Amazing. Yet God is all loving, all good. That's not even worthy of further investigation. It's too stupid.

That's retarded. The Ultimate in retarded strategies.


F. I didn't put this one above, but its worth noting. Noah and his magical ark. Apparently, Christians believe that Noah built a little boat all by himself, stocked it with provisions, storehouses, and all the animals on earth, two by two. Not only is this technologically unfeasble for the time, there's no way he could have gotten all those animals together, put them in one place, made them get along, and survived on the trip. It defies logic. It's irrational.

Anyone who seriously believes any of these key aspects of Christianity is either lying or absurdly incompetent. There is little or nothing of Christian theology that makes any form of logical sense. There's no evidence for ANY of it empircally. Since there is no evidence, and due to a lack of any rational nature of the beliefs, there's no reason to belief it...other than faith.

It's no coincidence that, over the centuries, Christian theologians have seen Christianity as the enemy of Reason. Faith is inherently irrational. All of the above are held as "truth" or "real" despite the evidence or in total disregard to the lack of evidence for them. Most are entirely beyond any form of rational analysis.

While someone said you can approach religon with reason, is a true statement. It is not that same as faith is diametrically opposed to reason. One can reasonably approach Christianit and conclude it's wrong or irrational to believe. Faith in it is still irrational, whether you approach it using reason or not; that the actual belief is rational is what matters; the belief clearly isn't.

[Technocrat]

The types of unfounded, unsubstantiatable beliefs espoused by Christianity as the unwavering "truth" are dangerous. Their influence corrupts youth, causes vast harm, and actively suppresses the rational faculties of people who take the religons seriously.

Blind belief in an absolute truth based only on "faith" that it really is the truth is harmful to the public, and these people who have created the "Jesus Camp" are evil. They need to be stopped at all costs before they do real harm to those children and perhaps others when they brainwash the kids to go blow people up.

[bobbylien]

I can count you among the "I am right because I say I am" crowd now as well.

You show me proof that the world is 6000 years old because EVERY fact shows that it is much much older. Many christians(including myself) believe that the world is more than 6000 years old because honestly.. you'd be an idiot not to believe it.
I'm sorry boogyman but techno is typing up huge replies and you are just repeating the same crap. He has clearly won this debate.

[piratemonkey]

Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.Â*Â*- Ambrose Bierce

Belief in the supernatural, by definition, is irrational.Â*Â*If there were logical proof of what we choose to "believe" in, no belief would be needed, since I could prove it to you.

To claim that belief in a religion is rational misunderstands the nature of faith and the definition of belief.

[BoogyMan]

I can count you among the "I am right because I say I am" crowd now as well.

You show me proof that the world is 6000 years old because EVERY fact shows that it is much much older. Many christians(including myself) believe that the world is more than 6000 years old because honestly.. you'd be an idiot not to believe it.
I'm sorry boogyman but techno is typing up huge replies and you are just repeating the same crap. He has clearly won this debate.


I see, a huge reply covers an irrational hatred and fear and counts for a winning entry among liberals. Gotcha.