Bill O'Reilly: No True Christian would kill Norwegians.

robindch

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I believe I was born with an innate sense of something which I now call God.

Read up on Hyperactive Agency Detection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hyperactive-agency-detection/

Lots of people do this, and it's believed by many to form part of the emotional basis for religion.

mewso

What was that about Bill O'Reilly again? Oh yeah don't bring up Hitler next time Bill as we all know that no true Atheist would commit genocide.

Mance Rayder

TheLoneRanger wrote: »

All religions are not made by God they are infact a man made taxation on faith. Look at the way women are depicted and generally despised by religions? do you ever wonder? women are infact the stronger of the species and are submitted to tryanny by religious orders to control the masses the worlds religions are a discredit and abuse of the good name of God

I Agree with the first part of what you are saying. Bar the women are stronger part, I am not saying they are not stronger just that some people are stronger then others, their gender notwithstanding.

TheLoneRanger

Faith in what a pre-determained belife sewn into the fabric of our childhood so neatly that we belive its our own decision ?

Mance Rayder

TheLoneRanger wrote: »

Faith in what a pre-determained belife sewn into the fabric of our childhood so neatly that we belive its our own decision ?

It's not a predetermined belief. It's the detection of the presence of something higher and above all things. I am sure a baby does not understand gravity. yet they do feel the effects of something which they will later learn is gravity.

Faith is something that developes later according to ones decisions, environments and personality.

CerebralCortex

CiscoStudent wrote: »

It's not a predetermined belief. It's the detection of the presence of something higher and above all things. I am sure a baby does not understand gravity. yet they do feel the effects of something which they will later learn is gravity.

Faith is something that developes later according to ones decisions, environments and personality.

So are you a contra-causalist, compatibilist or hard determinist?

Mance Rayder

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So are you a contra-causalist, compatibilist or hard determinist?

I am the sum of my nature, my experience's, my environment and my instincts. If you can quantify them then you are a greater man than I.

raah!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Well maybe you could help me out, I find it impossible not to view the
dogma's of christianity (& islam) as total black or white frankly, & view
deviation from this (which, of course, is usually justified in some fashion)
as nothing but a re-hash of the moral laxity exemplified by the casuists
Pascal was mocking all those years ago. Why is it alright for christians
nowadays not to follow the teachings of Jesus, what casuistry can you
conjure up to dissuade, say, my primitive reading of Matthew 19:16-28,

I know nothing, but can very clearly see that he says "if you want to be perfect". The question now remains is that 'is it black and white that all christians have to be perfect in following christian dogma?'. Seeing as though being perfect is impossible, perhaps it means all christians should strive for moral perfection, but that it is not necessary for them to be perfect (in striving or otherwise) to be Christian. Again, I have not studied this in depth, and what I have put there is not so much casuistry as it is completely worthless due to my lack of former scholarship. Perhaps philologos would be more helpful here.

What I can say, with respect to calling people 'christians', is that obviously we can't take it to mean 'perfectly following the dogma' but naturally must also be aware that there are cultural Christians. This is a case where there is a cut off point, somewhere but also degrees. One of those 'borderline cases' which confuse logical statements and cause such confusion in people defining themselves as Christians. Cultural Christians are definitely 'less' Christian than proper, more Christian, Christians. But it depends on what your definition of Christian is.

Also, there is a massive difference between failing to follow something due to inability (i.e, vegetarians having to eat somethign and some amount of suffering be caused by that), and decidign that you don't want to follow the full shebang.

Mance Rayder

raah! It is well known that Christians in general believe all people are sinners and it is impossible to be perfect. It is well known that a Christian believes that a perfect Christian cannot be a friend of the world and a friend of Christ.

Therefore a Christian in my book, is someone who strives to be Christlike , yet within the confines of what they need to do to live in the modern world. "A man cannot live on bread alone" and regarding money and taxes and civic duty "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's".

Morbert

Bill had a point regarding the lack of equivalence between muslim and Christian terrorists. But I don't think his "no true scotsman" argument holds up. Though I will have to look into it some more before I commit to an opinion.

raah!

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-27.html

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/

I don't know who ann coulter is, and I don't like Sam Harris, but excerpts from Brevik's manifesto from both of these are sufficient to show that this is as 'religiously motivated' as the bombings in the north of Ireland.

Turtwig

raah! wrote: »

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-27.html

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/

I don't know who ann coulter is

A physicists student who doesn't know who Ann Coulter is should be punished with the death penalty. She is a revolutionary cutting edge physicist, raah! man you really need to see! She's a hero dude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg7IhR0ccgo

magicbastarder

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Babies know certain things when they are born, the claim is obviously
that a baby innately knows god exists, regardless of whether you say
any words at all. Unless there's actual evidence for or against this claim
it's wholly a matter of opinion, I await with eagerness the factual evidence
against this notion as I think you would have us believe.

would you not agree that it's a bit of a leap to suggest that since a baby knows how to defecate, it also might know who created the universe?

it's just as logically sound to suggest that a baby would innately know what time the futurama reruns are on sky 1 at.

'baby knows x' does *not* imply that 'baby also knows y'.

Mance Rayder

Malty_T wrote: »

A physicists student who doesn't know who Ann Coulter is should be punished with the death penalty. She is a revolutionary cutting edge physicist, raah! man you really need to see! She's a hero dude.

Ann Coulter, The woman who insists on calling Barack Obama by his middle name, B. Hussein Obama. In some sort of feeble minded 8 year old attempt to link Obama to the Saddam Hussein.

She is the epitome of stupid. I am not suprised Fox gives her a soapbox.

raah!

Malty_T wrote: »

A physicists student who doesn't know who Ann Coulter is should be punished with the death penalty. She is a revolutionary cutting edge physicist, raah! man you really need to see! She's a hero dude.

Can't really have the sound on here. Nevertheless, those links are for the exceprts from the manifesto, not the scholarship of those two people. Neither of whom I would place any great value on. That's what I get for taking links from blogs!

Mance Rayder

magicbastarder wrote: »

would you not agree that it's a bit of a leap to suggest that since a baby knows how to defecate, it also might know who created the universe?

it's just as logically sound to suggest that a baby would innately know what time the futurama reruns are on sky 1 at.

'baby knows x' does *not* imply that 'baby also knows y'.

Why choose defecate to make your point? why not eating?

Anyway, a baby being born with the capacity to be aware of God does not mean the baby knows God created the universe. God is believed to be in all things by Christians, not sitting in the sky. Futurama is not considered to be in all things. Therefore it is foolish to suggest the a Christian would consider a baby to have prior knowledge of such. However it is born with the capicity to understand such things given time and learning.

Besides nobody sugessted that 'baby knows x' implies that 'baby also knows y' .

I was using babys innate senses as an example. not Evidence.

CerebralCortex

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I am the sum of my nature, my experience's, my environment and my instincts. If you can quantify them then you are a greater man than I.

Ever heard of this? The reason I mention it is that your "nature" etc. can be summed up it's series of interactions within the universe. Still didn't answer my question.

BlaasForRafa

I'm sure plenty of christians have been guilty of murder, Bill O'Reilly is a moronic tool

Mance Rayder

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Ever heard of this? The reason I mention it is that your "nature" etc. can be summed up it's series of interactions within the universe According to Some theorists. Still didn't answer my question.

FYP

I am not a mathematician so these calculations mean little to me.
It looks like some adjustment to Jean Baudrillard's simulation and simulacra theory to me. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, If you have a point why not detail it yourself as I have been doing instead of hitting me with a link to some pdf?

The reason I did not answer your question is because I do not wish to be labeled. Your question is multiple choice, are you A,B or C? It's not one I care to answer.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

This is all that is important. If you define being a christian as "following such and such a teaching" then if someone does something which is "contrary to such and such a teaching" then in doing so they were not being a christian. Of course, the definition of what it is to be christian varies, but this short counter example is enough to show that it does not fall within the scope of this "fallacy".

This is completely different from universal claims about a certain class of people which are not entailed in the definition of that class. And thinking they are the same demonstrates the same inability to think which most people on the internet demonstrate when they fly about the place talking about this or that "fallacy" without any reference to context or content.

Furthermore wicknight, I think you are demonstrating somewhat of a bias when you say you've never met a christian who turned the other cheek, or did any of those other christian things. This really is the stuff of the extremely bigotted. No christian is perfect, but many are very christian. What you are saying amounts to "every christian I've ever met is really nasty".

No, what I am saying is that every Christian I've ever met abandons the principles of Christianity when it suits them.

By true Christian I do not mean someone who follows such and such teaching, and thus I can then defined anyone who fails this as not a true Christian. Even Christians would say no person is perfect, thus by this definition the only true Christian would be Jesus, someone who never failed the standards.

But that is not what I mean. What I mean by true Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus and actively tries to follow them. The key point is tries. Someone who tries and fails I would still consider a true Christian.

On the other hand, someone who regularly abandons such principles when it doesn't suit them, I would not consider a true Christian. And based on that concept I've never met a true Christian. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I haven't met them. Every Christian I've interacted with for more than a brief encounter has shown active pursuit of behavior contrary to Jesus' teaching.

raah! wrote: »

It also does not look very well for you rationalists and brights to be constantly jumping on any tradgedy as an example of "why everyone should hate such and such".

Who mentioned anything about hating. That smacks of your stereotyping more than mine (another example of what I'm saying above btw).

Mance Rayder

Wicknight wrote: »

No, what I am saying is that every Christian I've ever met abandons the principles of Christianity when it suits them.

By true Christian I do not mean someone who follows such and such teaching, and thus I can then defined anyone who fails this as not a true Christian. Even Christians would say no person is perfect, thus by this definition the only true Christian would be Jesus, someone who never failed the standards.

But that is not what I mean. What I mean by true Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus and actively tries to follow them. The key point is tries. Someone who tries and fails I would still consider a true Christian.

On the other hand, someone who regularly abandons such principles when it doesn't suit them, I would not consider a true Christian. And based on that concept I've never met a true Christian. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I haven't met them. Every Christian I've interacted with for more than a brief encounter has shown active pursuit of behavior contrary to Jesus' teaching.

I agree, I think true Christians by your definition, one which I also adhere to, are very very rare indeed. I find an abundance of people claiming to be Christians involved in all sorts of very un-christian pursuits. Displaying their vanity, arrogance, snobbery, greedy traits etc. quite openly and without shame.

Some of the worst offenders as far as being Blatent and in your face are the American style evangelicals, especially those involved in TV franchises asking for donations "sowing seeds of 100 dollars" and all that nonsense. The Catholic and Anglican Church's are certainly guilty of being very unChristian.

I do think there are Good and bad people everywhere and denomination is not a factor in deciding whether a person will be good or bad.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

No, what I am saying is that every Christian I've ever met abandons the principles of Christianity when it suits them.

By true Christian I do not mean someone who follows such and such teaching, and thus I can then defined anyone who fails this as not a true Christian. Even Christians would say no person is perfect, thus by this definition the only true Christian would be Jesus, someone who never failed the standards.

But that is not what I mean. What I mean by true Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus and actively tries to follow them. The key point is tries. Someone who tries and fails I would still consider a true Christian.

On the other hand, someone who regularly abandons such principles when it doesn't suit them, I would not consider a true Christian. And based on that concept I've never met a true Christian. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I haven't met them. Every Christian I've interacted with for more than a brief encounter has shown active pursuit of behavior contrary to Jesus' teaching.

I can only say that that's very unfortunate. But yes, it's very difficult to be a christian, things like "love your enemy" are completely contradictory to our natural instincts, and , by your moral philosophy, impossible.

And if every christian you've met has actively pursued things like "hating their enemies" then your statement still amounts to "every christian I've met has been a nasty character", whatever kind of definition you are working under this is a strange thing to say. It's perhaps related to the nature of your interactions with them, or your perception of how they acted etc.

Who mentioned anything about hating. That smacks of your stereotyping more than mine (another example of what I'm saying above btw).

Stereotyping is not unchristian. Neither are generalisations. I've discussed this with sponseredwalk. Anyway, even if it was, you would have no reason to say that I "wasn't trying to forgive my neighbour", maybe I was just trying and failing. Furthermore, pointing out that certain people do such and such is not exclusive to forgiving them. And yes, you can exchange the word hate for something less heavy like "not like" or "ban from society" if you'd like.

There's nothing unchristian about pointing out that almost every time some religious people are involved in some sort of terrible incident brights all across the internet jizz their pants in righteous indignation. I hope you're not going to pretend that this doesn't happen. It does happen, and is something which everyone should be resistant to.

MagicMarker

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Why choose defecate to make your point? why not eating?

Anyway, a baby being born with the capacity to be aware of God does not mean the baby knows God created the universe. God is believed to be in all things by Christians, not sitting in the sky. Futurama is not considered to be in all things. Therefore it is foolish to suggest the a Christian would consider a baby to have prior knowledge of such. However it is born with the capicity to understand such things given time and learning.

Besides nobody sugessted that 'baby knows x' implies that 'baby also knows y' .

I was using babys innate senses as an example. not Evidence.

The point is a baby does not have the capacity to be aware of god, a baby's cognitive capacity develops as they grow which allows them to learn about such a thing over time.

You saying a baby has the capacity to be aware of god is like me saying a baby has the capacity to be aware of the Andromeda galaxy.

CerebralCortex

CiscoStudent wrote: »

FYP

I am not a mathematician so these calculations mean little to me.
It looks like some adjustment to Jean Baudrillard's simulation and simulacra theory to me. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, If you have a point why not detail it yourself as I have been doing instead of hitting me with a link to some pdf?

The reason I did not answer your question is because I do not wish to be labeled. Your question is multiple choice, are you A,B or C? It's not one I care to answer.

Well then to hell vith you!

muppeteer

Malty_T wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI

To be fair there is a good bit of "we don't know yet" in relation to very low dose environmental radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

That said coulter is still as mad as a bag of badgers.

Gordon

Pygmalion wrote: »

No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.

L.O.L.

No true sane person would say that.

sponsoredwalk

magicbastarder wrote: »

would you not agree that it's a bit of a leap to suggest that since a baby knows how to defecate, it also might know who created the universe?

it's just as logically sound to suggest that a baby would innately know what time the futurama reruns are on sky 1 at.

'baby knows x' does *not* imply that 'baby also knows y'.

This is the conversation we've been trying to have:

CiscoStudent wrote: »

When I said I have alway "Known" I did not realize that people would get so hung up on this word.

I merely meant that I believe I was born with an innate sense of something which I now call God. I was not born able to speak, But I was born with the facilities and senses required for this, I believe the same of my faith.

Just as every piece of literature discussing the concept of innate anything
in people from birth speaks with the same slightly loose language it just
has to be clear what is meant. If you don't believe me just go & read
some discussions on the concept of innatism etc...

MagicMarker wrote: »

The point is a baby does not have the capacity to be aware of god, a baby's cognitive capacity develops as they grow which allows them to learn about such a thing over time.

You saying a baby has the capacity to be aware of god is like me saying a baby has the capacity to be aware of the Andromeda galaxy.

Do you deny that babies have an innate sense of grammar, or an innate
sense of morality? If not then why is it so hard to understand the concept
that people could also be born with an innate sense of god (in some form
or other)? Is it not at least logically possible regardless of whether you
agree with it or not? If you think the concept of having an innate sense of
grammar is in any way equivalent to knowing what time Futurama starts
(or an innate concept of what Andromeda is) then just let us know that.

sponsoredwalk

Morbert wrote: »

Bill had a point regarding the lack of equivalence between muslim and Christian terrorists. But I don't think his "no true scotsman" argument holds up. Though I will have to look into it some more before I commit to an opinion.

I'm pretty sure Bill's claim has nothing to do with the No True Scotsman
concept. What responsibilities or moral code does being a Scotsman place
on a person? Nothing. What responsibilities or moral code does being a
christian place on a person? Something. If a lifelong pacifist committed to
peace goes & blows up a bus killing loads of a certain group of people
knowing full well it will lead to big problems I'm pretty sure they were
not really a pacifist nor committed to peace in any metaphysical sense.
No true peace-loving pacifist would go & do these things, that's true just
by definition.

I think you'd have to find something in the dogma of christianity that
plainly justifies such things (vague interpretation is just as bad as the
casuists frankly) to show how a true christian, despite contemporary
rhetoric, could go & do these things - then I think it would apply to this
concept. Some of the people more knowledgeable in the horrendous parts
of the bible might make a case it's possible, would like to see how that
pans out as I couldn't argue either way scripturally, but I think that's the
only way it could be shown to be valid.

On the NTS page it gives an example of how no true democracies could
start a war, well this example is only valied because it's entirely possible
within the definition of what a democracy is for it to start a war. I just
don't see the parallel with christianity (& am shocked to be defending
O'Reilly ). I could be wrong! (Please! :pac:)

magicbastarder

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Why choose defecate to make your point? why not eating?

Anyway, a baby being born with the capacity to be aware of God does not mean the baby knows God created the universe. God is believed to be in all things by Christians, not sitting in the sky. Futurama is not considered to be in all things. Therefore it is foolish to suggest the a Christian would consider a baby to have prior knowledge of such. However it is born with the capicity to understand such things given time and learning.

Besides nobody sugessted that 'baby knows x' implies that 'baby also knows y' .

I was using babys innate senses as an example. not Evidence.

because i'm a dirty scatological atheist.

babies have much more pressing issues to deal with, such as acquiring language or learning how to see. abstract concepts like god would be a distraction.
please present me with evidence that newborn babies have a concept of god, otherwise it's just wishful thinking on your part.

MagicMarker

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Do you deny that babies have an innate sense of grammar, or an innate
sense of morality? If not then why is it so hard to understand the concept
that people could also be born with an innate sense of god (in some form
or other)? Is it not at least logically possible regardless of whether you
agree with it or not? If you think the concept of having an innate sense of
grammar is in any way equivalent to knowing what time Futurama starts
(or an innate concept of what Andromeda is) then just let us know that.

I don't see any reason to believe that babies have an innate sense of grammar, no idea as far as morality is concerned.

And no, I don't think it's at least logically possible that a baby would have an innate knowledge of an external supernatural force that created the universe. I think such a thing is as logical as believing a baby has an innate knowledge of the andromeda galaxy, what peanut butter tastes like or whether or not Meryl Streep is worthy of her accolades.