Blasphemy a crime under UN resolution

[Humphrey]

thing is though that they're consistent and sincere in their belief while you have millions of people who would tick christian on a census form and be functionally identical to agnostic/atheist in their behaviour

Yeah well, Pope Benedict XVI believes in the Big Bang theory and Evolution and no-one would claim that he isn't consistent and sincere in his beliefs, or that he isn't serious about religion. Ditto the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Biblical literalism was a novelty which arose in the 17th century only to yield in the 18th century to an appreciation of the multi-vocality of scripture. Literalism started to come back in the 19th thanks largely to Benjamin Jowett but it' got completely out of control in the 20th century. Things have actually got more bat shit crazy as time went on. You can see that by comparing what the creationists at the Scopes Trial believed with what they believe now.

[Senethro]

lets hope we're beginning another century where the lid is kept on them for a while

unfortunately it was the printing press that enabled the last bunch and the internet may cause another state change in media and information distribution this itme

[elyettoner]

Exactly the same thing. Of all people, you chose Flew, a notoriously outspoken atheist and a philosopher. Why not mention the bloke in the Takeaway who found god? He's an example. Of course, he's a example with a lot less clout than Flew, which is exactly why you chose him.

I used the example of Flew because I thought you'd probably have heard of him. What would be the point of using an example you don't know that I could have invented? I'm not saying "Hey! Look! Flew converted so there must be a god!" I'm using him as evidence (an example) that people have recognised there's a god because of evidence (incidentally, whether you accept that evidence yourself or not is beside the point).

I'm not going to go into intelligent design - it's been done before, I can see little point in going over the same old ground again.

Oh it's the damned liberal media again. Did you even read it? There's only so much bias you can put on a fact.
Facts: Flew is 86,was an atheist and an established philosopher, swayed by (of all the arguments that exist) the worst kind of childishly simplistic creationist god-of-the-gaps-but-not-really-because-we-can-explain-the-gaps-but-fuck-it-it's-what-we-do fallacy. Confesses to this argument swaying him, not in his own words but ghost written by a christian apologist who just happens to agree with everything he says?
Alaram bells! Philosophers do not have ghost writers!

Of course I read it, you lifted most of what you said about Flew from it without question. All articles have some degree of spin, which is why I'd respect your opinion more if you didn't base it on one article which just happens to be the fourth hit on Google for "Anthony Flew". Seriously, is this how you write essays?

Whether Flew wrote the book himself is beside the point; he stopped being an atheist because of evidence and he's since confirmed that in a number of articles (presuming, that is, that he did actually write them this time!), including this one http://www.bethinking.org.uk/science-ch ... ws-the.htm (his words actually start about a third down the page).

I'm a Christian because of a number of reasons; some of them being that the scriptures of other religions don't stand up to the level of historical scrutiny that the Bible does (this has been discussed elsewhere on here, so I'm not going to enter into that one here), I don't think creation would work if God were not triune, the experience of a personal relationship with him (never had that with another God).

Nothing to do with the fact you were brought up in predominately christian society? Why is that Muslim parents beget Muslim children? I mean, if the silly Koran doesn't "stand up to historical scrutinty" then these kids would surely see that christianity is the way and the truth?

Brought up in a predominantly Christian society? You haven't a clue where I was brought up. What happened to needing evidence? But if you assume I'm either British or American - how, again, can you say that? Britain and America are no longer predominantly Christian societies. And if you presume people become Christians because of the society in which they live how do you explain converts in predominantly Muslim countries? There are a fair amount of them, probably more than you realise and given persecution certainly a lot more than statistics show. The underground church in China, where Christianity is persecuted heavily, is one of the fastest growing in the world. All this about people being Christian because that's the society they've lived in is utter nonsense. Dawkins might have you believe it, that doesn't make it true.

Oh but the entire dead of Jerusalem rising up and wandering around without a SINGLE historical mention of this anywhere else, that's fine, that I can understand.

I don't know what you're referring to here.

[Senethro]

lol

[Haunted]

I'm not going to go into intelligent design - it's been done before

It has, but it's the punchline that just keeps on giving. Gravity is only a theory you know.

Of course I read it, you lifted most of what you said about Flew from it without question.

What is it about Flew I have said that you disagree with exactly? You have mentioned lots about bias but nothing about facts.

All articles have some degree of spin, which is why I'd respect your opinion more if you didn't base it on one article which just happens to be the fourth hit on Google for "Anthony Flew". Seriously, is this how you write essays?

Blimey the fourth hit (crikey so it is)? Seriously I didn't know that. I remember reading it when it came out. However, this is hardly tabloid spin we are talking about here. Is it worth me mentioning that the only source you have provided is a ghost written book of dubious motive?

Whether Flew wrote the book himself is beside the point

No it's a point worth mention. Philosophers write their own words.

he stopped being an atheist because of evidence

No, my point is it clearly isn't a case of a well thought out conclusion based upon logical conjecture, he was sold by intelligent design for Jupiter's sake! MAGIC!

and he's since confirmed that in a number of articles (presuming, that is, that he did actually write them this time!), including this one http://www.bethinking.org.uk/science-ch ... ws-the.htm (his words actually start about a third down the page).

His words here are an incoherent review, not of The God Delusion, but of the contents page and introduction only.
He's wandering all over place moving discontinuously between something about Einsteinian pantheism and some backwater bible college in Los Angeles.

Look at what else he's written:
"What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence."
He's all over the place.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007 ... -book.html
This is a personal source and one open to bias I will admit.

Brought up in a predominantly Christian society? You haven't a clue where I was brought up. What happened to needing evidence? But if you assume I'm either British or American - how, again, can you say that? Britain and America are no longer predominantly Christian societies.

I'll admit to presuming you were of western origin (a reasonably safe bet I reckon), though feel free to correct (something I notice you didn't actually do...)

And if you presume people become Christians because of the society in which they live how do you explain converts in predominantly Muslim countries?

How do you explain Muslim converst in predominantly Christian countries? "There are a fair amount of them, probably more than you realise and given persecution certainly a lot more than statistics show."

Dawkins might have you believe it, that doesn't make it true.

You'll have to be specific here, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I don't know what you're referring to here.

Matthew 27:51-53

[Humphrey]

Matthew 27:51-53

"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

...and Mark did sayeth, 'gee whizz, i'll be sure to mention this in my gospel', and John did sayeth 'blimey, this has to get mentioned', as did Luke; but lo, in the end the only one who could be bothered to note it down was Matthew, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[RedCelt69]

Whether Flew wrote the book himself is beside the point

No it's a point worth mention. Philosophers write their own words.

Scuse the intrusion, but that line got me thinking about possible examples where that might not be true. Only one sprang to mind. Would you describe Plato as Socrate's ghost writer?
I know the answer. The books are written by Plato and credited to Plato (unless one or more of his students wrote some of it... which I believe they did... but getting off the point). What I'm curious to know is how closely Socrate's own position is portrayed... and how often Plato made subtle changes to speak with his own voice. Unless the two of them were agreed on absolutely everything. Which is a tad unlikely. Especially as Plato didn't think Socrates should drink the hemlock. There's that tangent again. I'll shush.

Look at what else he's written:
"The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence."

I wish his writings looked to me like the work of intelligence. I love how he knocks evolution without understanding it. By chance, indeed. Has he ever mentioned the tornado-passing-through-the-scrap-yard misconception?

[Craig]

Also, another interesting thing I noticed, there was no discussion of evolution; instead they were all anti big bang. At one point they were sitting around saying 'yeah sure, a big explosion came along and created everything; you would have to be a fool to believe that!'. Reminded me of Fred Hoyle.

I think you disrespect Hoyle by saying that - not only was Hoyle a scientist who made some important contributions to cosmology, but his biggest philosophical reason to reject the Big Bang theory was that a beginning implied a cause and thus a creator. This is not necessarily true, but I feel you've lumped him in with the ID/creationists here, which was his opposite intention.

[Frank]

Also, another interesting thing I noticed, there was no discussion of evolution; instead they were all anti big bang. At one point they were sitting around saying 'yeah sure, a big explosion came along and created everything; you would have to be a fool to believe that!'. Reminded me of Fred Hoyle.

I think you disrespect Hoyle by saying that - not only was Hoyle a scientist who made some important contributions to cosmology, but his biggest philosophical reason to reject the Big Bang theory was that a beginning implied a cause and thus a creator. This is not necessarily true, but I feel you've lumped him in with the ID/creationists here, which was his opposite intention.

Perhaps I'm being willfully silly, but what would 'no beginning' imply? No cause, or rather, a recursive series of causes?

[Humphrey]

I think you disrespect Hoyle by saying that - not only was Hoyle a scientist who made some important contributions to cosmology, but his biggest philosophical reason to reject the Big Bang theory was that a beginning implied a cause and thus a creator. This is not necessarily true, but I feel you've lumped him in with the ID/creationists here, which was his opposite intention.

Hi Craig

I'm sorry about that; I'm something of a Fred Hoyle fan so it wasn't my intention to disrespect him. The sole reason for that comment was because it was him who coined the term 'big bang' as a derogatory remark and proposed the 'steady state' theory as an alternative. Actually I would go so far as to say he should have got a Nobel prize for establishing the concept of nucleosynthesis in stars. The reason he didn't get it is because he made too many controversial remarks, which is scandalous in my opinion. Nobel schnobel.

[elyettoner]

What is it about Flew I have said that you disagree with exactly? You have mentioned lots about bias but nothing about facts.

The assumption that he cannot be accepted as an example of someone coming to believe in a god from evidence simply because he didn't write his own book. You might believe the evidence as "magic", but that's a subjective opinion which, yes, is arguable but doesn't discount Flew as an example. The fact that he's written, however badly, other articles in which he's affirmed his change of heart shows that this is the case.

I don't particularly wish to defend Flew, but perhaps his inability to write well was the reason for having the book ghost written?

How do you explain Muslim converst in predominantly Christian countries? "There are a fair amount of them, probably more than you realise and given persecution certainly a lot more than statistics show."I'll admit to presuming you were of western origin (a reasonably safe bet I reckon), though feel free to correct (something I notice you didn't actually do...)

I don't deny that I'm British, I just found it amusing that you made that statement without evidence while demanding so much of it yourself.

I also don't deny that there have been Muslim converts in Western countries (I don't agree those countries are predominantly Christian), but I think there is a difference. As far as I'm aware, those preaching Islam or converting to Islam don't face death in the West for doing so. For those in many predominantly Muslim countries this is the case, even if the law protects them. In this country, people who are not brought up Muslim know more or less the basics of what Islam is about, which is certainly not the case in mainly Muslim countries. Additionally, those converting to Christianity in countries where death or severe persecution (we're not talking a few insults, here) need to be very sure that they're doing the right thing.

Matthew 27:51-53

Ah, right. You've got me there, it seems rather odd. I've just read an explanation that it may have been a metaphor symbolic of Christ conquering death, which doesn't sound very convincing to me either. It's absence from John may be explained by him focussing on Jesus and his inability to include everything on him (John 21:25) means he's unlikely to mention other things. I'm not sure you can discount the entire source, however, because of one unsubstantiated claim. If we did that we'd abandon most of what we know about history.

[Senethro]

are there many muslim nations that prosecute christian converts that aren't fuckwit monarchies, theocracies or barely veiled dictatorships?

Matthew 27:51-53

Ah, right. You've got me there, it seems rather odd. I've just read an explanation that it may have been a metaphor symbolic of Christ conquering death, which doesn't sound very convincing to me either. It's absence from John may be explained by him focussing on Jesus and his inability to include everything on him (John 21:25) means he's unlikely to mention other things. I'm not sure you can discount the entire source, however, because of one unsubstantiated claim. If we did that we'd abandon most of what we know about history.

well darn how come everything turns into a metterfer or non-literal interpretation when its troublesome

[Haunted]

The assumption that he cannot be accepted as an example of someone coming to believe in a god from evidence simply because he didn't write his own book.

I never said he couldn't be used as an example, just that he is a very bad example for reasons explained above.

You might believe the evidence as "magic", but that's a subjective opinion which, yes, is arguable but doesn't discount Flew as an example.

But we can discount people who believe in intelligent falling just fine though right? Because that's totally different.

I don't particularly wish to defend Flew, but perhaps his inability to write well was the reason for having the book ghost written?

In which case you dictate, however, a ghost writer isn't a machine that types what you say, depending on what actually happened Varghese could've written the whole book (which would explain the noticeably different style to Flew's previous works) with very little actual input from Flew.

I don't deny that I'm British, I just found it amusing that you made that statement without evidence while demanding so much of it yourself.

The statement I made was actually a question, albeit one that implied a certain background but I was making an educated guess. Given that we are on an English speaking message board for a UK university I'd say it was a good one, and behold it was. What was your point here again?

I also don't deny that there have been Muslim converts in Western countries (I don't agree those countries are predominantly Christian)

You would dispute that the USA is not predominantly christian?

but I think there is a difference.

You'd have to otherwise your original point would be worthless.

As far as I'm aware, those preaching Islam or converting to Islam don't face death in the West for doing so.

So their conversions are not as strong because they aren't willing to risk death for the key to eternal paradise? Making anything illegal merely drives it underground and the prospect of eternal life is more than worth the risk of Earthly tortures.

For those in many predominantly Muslim countries this is the case, even if the law protects them.

Holy sweeping generalisation batman! You mean places like Indonesia? The world's largest Muslim country that is home to over 17.5 million Christians?

In this country, people who are not brought up Muslim know more or less the basics of what Islam is about, which is certainly not the case in mainly Muslim countries.

I think you give the British public a little too much credit.

Ah, right. You've got me there, it seems rather odd. I've just read an explanation that it may have been a metaphor symbolic of Christ conquering death, which doesn't sound very convincing to me either. It's absence from John may be explained by him focussing on Jesus and his inability to include everything on him (John 21:25) means he's unlikely to mention other things. I'm not sure you can discount the entire source, however, because of one unsubstantiated claim. If we did that we'd abandon most of what we know about history.

If any other historical document made an explicit reference to the dead rising up and wandering around meeting other people, then we could rightly throw the whole thing into dispute. I've always been impressed by how people know when the bible moves seamlessly from being literal to being metaphorical. And isn't funny how more passages become metaphorical over time than become literal? It's almost as if they are making it up as they go along.

[the Empress]

Sorry to go back to p1. Just watched the Deborah 13 vid, and wow. The most revealing part was the dad saying 'yeah I've got a tribe now. We're a team.' The whole thing is creepy. How can you're kids be socialised if they don't have friends? Or at least the chance to make them? The home-schooling too - the parents aren't experts so they're probably denying their kids advanced mathematics, science and music at the the least. Not to mention how unhappy the girl seemed. (NB: Recently I learned that although I was christened Catholic my dad didn't take us to church etc. because his experience of Catholic teachings were so awful, very you're going to hell/fire and brimstone).

Another point that struck me was the brother refusing to dance to the Katy Perry song 'I kissed a girl' because he didn't agree with it. While I can understand his desire to introduce her to the rest of life, I found his choice of exposure bizarre: kids where youth workers were intervening and a club for 18+. Maybe this was influenced by knowing his family would see the documentary. I would definately interpret their upbringing as abusive though.

[elyettoner]

I also don't deny that there have been Muslim converts in Western countries (I don't agree those countries are predominantly Christian)

You would dispute that the USA is not predominantly christian?

It depends what you mean by predominantly Christian. If you mean that it's the biggest religion then I would not dispute that. If you mean that it is the biggest belief system or that there are more Christians than non-Christians I'd disagree.

As far as I'm aware, those preaching Islam or converting to Islam don't face death in the West for doing so.

So their conversions are not as strong because they aren't willing to risk death for the key to eternal paradise? Making anything illegal merely drives it underground and the prospect of eternal life is more than worth the risk of Earthly tortures.

The intention behind the statement was to indicate there are people who become Christians where Christianity isn't preached because of severe persecution. I'd also suggest that there are fewer people who are likely to have converted on a whim or without having carefully considered it because of the consequences.

For those in many predominantly Muslim countries this is the case, even if the law protects them.

Holy sweeping generalisation batman! You mean places like Indonesia? The world's largest Muslim country that is home to over 17.5 million Christians?

The key word is "many".

If any other historical document made an explicit reference to the dead rising up and wandering around meeting other people, then we could rightly throw the whole thing into dispute. I've always been impressed by how people know when the bible moves seamlessly from being literal to being metaphorical. And isn't funny how more passages become metaphorical over time than become literal? It's almost as if they are making it up as they go along.

Historians accept sources that have small portions of bizarre things in them, they merely choose not to accept that particular piece of information. Why? Because many of the other events described are corroborated elsewhere. Much of what is contained in Matthew is corroborated in three other Gospels and in the earlier epistles, some of which contain what are thought to be early hymns or creeds often from the years immediately following Jesus' death. In this case, Matthew cannot be thrown out because it contains two or three uncorroborated verses.

I agree with you about calling something a metaphor just because it's difficult to explain, clearly bad practice. Having said that, there are instances in the Bible which are clearly allegorical. That God uses allegory to explain things is evident from Jesus' parables. In this instance Matthew is obviously intended to be a historical account and to me it seems bizarre to claim that this passage is metaphorical.

[Senethro]

how is it that practicitoners of the largest single religion in the world still feel persecuted in countries that are majrotiy christian?

unless of course you're saying that catholics are in fact pagans because of all the idol worshippping but that would take a jack chick level of crazy (who we also saw in Deb13!)

[Humphrey]

If any other historical document made an explicit reference to the dead rising up and wandering around meeting other people, then we could rightly throw the whole thing into dispute. I've always been impressed by how people know when the bible moves seamlessly from being literal to being metaphorical. And isn't funny how more passages become metaphorical over time than become literal? It's almost as if they are making it up as they go along.

If I might interject here. One of the great (and frustrating) things about ancient sources is that people in those ages simply did not think about history in the same way we do. We think about it scientifically. We demand that it be a reasonably accurate record of what occurred. An ancient writer on the other hand, has absolutely no problem embellishing his or her accounts and adding in fictional details. There is a pretty seamless blurring of fact and fiction. A modern has an unhealthy obsession with 'the truth', ancients simply don't give a shit; it would get in the way of a good story. Three examples.

1. In 'The Jewish War' Josephus tells us the following about the rebellious Israelites:

With their insatiable hunger for loot, they ransacked the houses of the wealthy, murdered men and violated women for sport; they guzzled their loot washed down with blood and from mere satiety, they shamefully gave themselves up to effeminate practices, plaiting their hair and putting on women’s clothes, drenching themselves with perfumes and painting their eyelids to make themselves attractive. They copied not merely the dress, but also the passions of women, devising in their excess of licentiousness unlawful pleasures in which they wallowed as in a brothel. Thus they entirely polluted the city with their foul practices. Yet though they wore women’s faces, their hands were murderous. They would approach with mincing steps, and, whipping out their swords from under dyed cloaks, they would impale passers-by. Flavius Josephus – the Jewish War (iv.ix.10.)

Does that mean there was literally murderous cross dressing during the fall of Jerusalem?. No. Its a common classical motif designed to portray your enemies in the worst light to a Roman audience.

2. Similarly, we are told by Tactius for example that Fabius Valens acquired a ‘long and luxurious train of harlots and eunuchs, advancing at a pace too sluggish for battle’ (Tacitus, Hist III 39-40). Probably not literally true; it's another device to demonstrate his decadence.

3. We are told by Suetonius that the Emperor Tiberius "taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his little fishes, to play between his legs while he was in his bath. Those which had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio." Does that mean Tiberius actually taught small boys to suck him off in the bath tub. Well....maybe. The story also appears in Tacitus. Basically we will never know.

It gets worse when you move into religious territory. The cult of the Emperor Augustus maintained, for example, that his mother Atia fell asleep in the temple of Apollo and a snake glided up to her and she became pregnant by Apollo. etc etc...

[elyettoner]

how is it that practicitoners of the largest single religion in the world still feel persecuted in countries that are majrotiy christian?

unless of course you're saying that catholics are in fact pagans because of all the idol worshippping but that would take a jack chick level of crazy (who we also saw in Deb13!)

Don't recall saying anything about being persecuted. I'd hardly call a bus campaign persecution and don't recall the last time someone was killed for being a Christian in this country. You really should stop putting words in people's mouths.

I did doubt that Christianity was a faith professed by the majority in the West. I reckon there are more atheists in the West than there are Christians and certainly not everyone who claims to be Christian is, thus you can't trust statistics. I've used the example of my Gran on here before; she said she was a Christian in the last census when she thinks the idea of a god is crazy. She equates "Christian" with "British". But saying that does not amount to saying we're persecuted.

[Senethro]

yah should have voice my thoughts more fully

k how about this

How is it you have a persecuation complex without even the persecution? Few other majority groups can do this.

[Haunted]

It depends what you mean by predominantly Christian. If you mean that it's the biggest religion then I would not dispute that. If you mean that it is the biggest belief system or that there are more Christians than non-Christians I'd disagree.

Christian persecution complex (CPC) strikes again.
About 77% of the US is Christian, I'd call that majority.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/us.html
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research ... ndings.htm
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... on+Complex
Just for fun
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/12/22/c ... omplex.htm

The intention behind the statement was to indicate there are people who become Christians where Christianity isn't preached because of severe persecution.

Of course it is preached, just not in plain sight. Again, *insert other religion here* suffers the same in *insert country where other religion isn't cool here*. So far there is nothing to distinguish your religious group from any of the others.

I'd also suggest that there are fewer people who are likely to have converted on a whim or without having carefully considered it because of the consequences.

LOL, that's right, converting to christianity is something that takes only a deep metaphysical journey of self discovery, but Islam is just something you do on a rainy afternoon.

The key word is "many".

Take a look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_World.svg
Are you referring only to the dark green states (all SEVEN of them) only when you speak of christian persecution?
Muslims have a majority in 57 countries
Total Muslim population: ~1.5 billion
Muslim population of dark green states: ~326 Million
Muslim population of other states: ~ 1.174 Billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Islam

Yes, the totalitarian sharia run states are the minority, and you won't find me defending them on anything.
Do any nations persecute Muslims? Of course they do:
Myanmar, Cambodia, India oh yeah and THE BOSNIAN GENOCIDE.

Historians accept sources that have small portions of bizarre things in them, they merely choose not to accept that particular piece of information. Why? Because many of the other events described are corroborated elsewhere. Much of what is contained in Matthew is corroborated in three other Gospels and in the earlier epistles, some of which contain what are thought to be early hymns or creeds often from the years immediately following Jesus' death. In this case, Matthew cannot be thrown out because it contains two or three uncorroborated verses.

I never said 'thrown out' I said thrown into dispute, or question if you will. We discussed the historicity of the gospels and the pauline epistles on a previous thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28756&p=315496#p315496 though feel free to come back to anything I said there.

I agree with you about calling something a metaphor just because it's difficult to explain, clearly bad practice. Having said that, there are instances in the Bible which are clearly allegorical. That God uses allegory to explain things is evident from Jesus' parables. In this instance Matthew is obviously intended to be a historical account and to me it seems bizarre to claim that this passage is metaphorical.

If someone were making the distinction between literal and metaphorical in the way that christianity does it would look exactly the same as if they were just making it up as they went along so that it can sort of fit in with reality. If the cap fits...