EEVblog #833 - Mailbag

[zapta]

Freedom of religion includes that you dont choose for others their religion. Even if they contain some of your DNA.

Well, so Dave should be imprisoned for teaching his son electronics because he is choosing a hobby/profession for him.

I hope that you are just trolling here.

I would prefer any day of the week a believer than mind his own business over an atheist with ideology like yours.

[Fungus]

ie. You still haven't figured out that you're the one with the burden of proof, not the Atheists.   

No burden of proof whatsoever. He can live his life the way he chooses and believe whatever he wants without a permission from anybody else. Feel free to do the same.

Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless".  It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.

2000-year old superstitions are not a basis for modern government: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

[zapta]

Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless".  It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.

And so is atheism. The danger is the dogma and the urge of some people to enforce their view point on others. It's symmetric in this respect as well.

2000-year old superstitions are not a basis for modern government: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

Good to know it's settled now that the war was not for oil. ;-)

Anyway, remember this rule:  good atheist >  atheist jerk.

[ivaylo]

Anyway, remember this rule:  good atheist >  atheist jerk.

Deep... Realized how much I need to learn. Still digesting the axioms vs deduction dichotomy (but I think I got all the symmetry stuff!) You think I can join your party or church or wherever they teach all this (of course it would be best if the government didn't know about it)?

[Fungus]

Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless".  It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.

And so is atheism. The danger is the dogma and the urge of some people to enforce their view point on others. It's symmetric in this respect as well.

What's "Atheist dogma"?    Evidence-based beliefs (aka "Atheism") ares the polar opposite of dogma.

Anyway, remember this rule:  good atheist >  atheist jerk.

Can we debate that after a US presidential candidate can be openly Atheist? 

PS: Remember this rule:  good person >  jerk.   No need to bring 'atheism' into it.

[miguelvp]

ie. You still haven't figured out that you're the one with the burden of proof, not the Atheists.   

No burden of proof whatsoever. He can live his life the way he chooses and believe whatever he wants without a permission from anybody else. Feel free to do the same.

Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless".  It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.

2000-year old superstitions are not a basis for modern government: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

Already did, but I guess your English reading comprehension skills might not be great.

...

A much more important point is: Is religion harmless?

Of course not.
...

...
I did say that religion is not harmless. Specially the churches and organizations that surround it.
...

Also I did say that I don't follow the religion and I don't believe on the myths and miracles, as for Jesus being real, most scholars agree that he was a real person in history.

There are still a few that follow the "Christ myth theory" among those scholars, but there are not many on that camp. In general it's accepted that he was a man that actually existed. Of course that doesn't mean that all that is said about him is true, because historical texts have been modified and embellished by the Church. But the core of the texts is undisputed.

Satan, angels etc nope I don't believe they exist although they are interesting stories, they are mythical and needed back then to explain unexplained phenomena back in that time because man kind needs to fill in those holes and they were not equipped with the knowledge we now have. All of the cultures in history did this.

Myself I do like Hinduism and Buddhism better than Catholic believes. It's more in tune with physics.

I do find Mythology fascinating as in how human beings plugged those gaps trying to understand their environment. There is a lot of value on that, and makes up for pretty good story telling.

Anyways, if you want an openly Atheist to be elected, then vote for that person or run for office to change things.
If you can't because you are not a US citizen, then change things in your corner. I'm pretty sure Communist parties exist everywhere and they are probably openly Atheist and they do get elected (not much as socialists but they do have some representation in Europe). The other parties, I'm not sure that will fly, maybe the green party?

So run for office if you think you can do better and make a difference.

Edit: If you are not from the US we do have a saying that states:
"Clean up your own backyard before you go knocking on your neighbor's door"

[rrinker]

ie. You still haven't figured out that you're the one with the burden of proof, not the Atheists.   

No burden of proof whatsoever. He can live his life the way he chooses and believe whatever he wants without a permission from anybody else. Feel free to do the same.

Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless".  It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.

2000-year old superstitions are not a basis for modern government: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

 Makes me need to put this here:

 Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

[Fungus]

No burden of proof whatsoever. He can live his life the way he chooses and believe whatever he wants without a permission from anybody else. Feel free to do the same.

Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless".  It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.

Already did, but I guess your English reading comprehension skills might not be great.

Um, I was replying to a guy called "zapta" but I guess your reading comprehension skills might not be great.

as for Jesus being real, most scholars agree that he was a real person in history.

What "scholars" are those? Name one. What hard evidence do they base their belief on?

In general it's accepted that he was a man that actually existed.

No it isn't.

But the core of the texts is undisputed.

Like what? The Great Roman Census that forced Jesus and Mary to go to Bethlehem? A huge, military-enforced, empire-wide migration of people that went completely unnoticed by every writer other than the guy who wrote the Bible? Uhuh.

Herod's killing of every male child under the age of two? We know a lot about Herod, his public works, buildings he commissioned, etc. because the Romans had regular reports about him sent back to Rome (from multiple writers) and we still have those documents. The Romans rulers would have taken great interest in a genocide.

And so on...

If your only "evidence" is a work of fiction then I've got some Harry Potter books you might find fascinating.

Edit: If you are not from the US we do have a saying that states:
"Clean up your own backyard before you go knocking on your neighbor's door"

The US is the country who could make the biggest change to the world. Imagine if they'd spent the $15,000,000,000,000 they've spent in Iraq/Afghanistan on something like energy research or something like that...they'd have even more power over the middle east than they do now, the price of US manufacturing would have dropped to a point where they can compete with China on price (cheap electricity makes all sorts of new manufacturing methods possible); The entire world would be a more hopeful place.

But noooo...Bush couldn't see that. He only say Gog and Magog at work over there and had to defend his Christian nation from the demons. At any price.

[zapta]

PS: Remember this rule:  good person >  jerk.   No need to bring 'atheism' into it.

Perfect!  You are now ready to receive the second rule:

good_believer > atheist_jerk

[tszaboo]

Freedom of religion includes that you dont choose for others their religion. Even if they contain some of your DNA.

Well, so Dave should be imprisoned for teaching his son electronics because he is choosing a hobby/profession for him.

I hope that you are just trolling here.

I would prefer any day of the week a believer than mind his own business over an atheist with ideology like yours.

Well, that got personal 
IDK really what is your problem. How many times did I say: They are free to choose whatever they want!
What, do you fear, that if the decision is made a few years later, than they would decide something else?
BTW, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but do you see me sending the pirates to the schools to doctrinate the children to be a good Pastafarian? Did you decide over the internet, that I'm an atheist, just because I want children to have real freedom of choice (and pull a straw man)?
I didn't questioned your belief system, I didn't questioned intelligent design, I didn't said anyone should stop believing. You call me a jerk.
mod: and compare me with terrorists.

[Fungus]

PS: Remember this rule:  good person >  jerk.   No need to bring 'atheism' into it.

Perfect!  You are now ready to receive the second rule:

good_believer > atheist_jerk

Sure, the problem is the bad believers. There sure are lot of those.

Seriously: How can people be so bad at believing? How can so many people base their lives on beliefs that don't stand up to minimal analysis.

[zapta]

... You call me a jerk.

No, I didn't.

mod: and compare me with terrorists.

I compared your proposal to imprison parents that teach religion to the intolerance of the Taliban. It's pretty much symmetric.

[Fungus]

... You call me a jerk.

No, I didn't.

He wasn't very clear. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was me he was calling the jerk.

Lesson 3: If you're going to call somebody a jerk, don't mess around or play word games. Point a finger and say it.

[Circlotron]

Nope, nothing to do with my "agenda".
No other lobby group gets to open the senate parliament every day with their propaganda:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so050
I have no problem with religious groups petitioning parliament etc in the same way that any other group has the right to, it's in fact their right, and I'll fight for that right.
But when they get special treatment like that, special "respect", and the ability to reinforce their doctrine at every parliament session, that crap has to stop.

That linked reference where it quotes the so-called Lords Prayer "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven." I find it incredibly amusing and ironic that these pompous clergymen are so unbelievably ignorant of the texts that they claim to be the guardians of that they they fail to realise in another reference to "God's Kingdom" specifically Daniel 2:44 that this Kingdom is said to be going to erase and replace every form of human government now existing, including the very parliament that they are swanning in front of, gushing over it's virtues. Whether you believe that or not is immaterial; just that the pretence and ignorance of these men is amazing.

[Circlotron]

There are still a few that follow the "Christ myth theory" among those scholars, but there are not many on that camp. In general it's accepted that he was a man that actually existed. Of course that doesn't mean that all that is said about him is true, because historical texts have been modified and embellished by the Church. But the core of the texts is undisputed.

Many people make claim that the church has altered the Bible, but if that were so you would think they would have changed it to say what they wanted it to say. The fact is, the church has a long history of persecuting and killing people that wanted to look into the Bible, which would seem to indicate that there are (unchanged) things in it that they very much didn't want people to see. If you made an effort to help ordinary people see these things it was pretty much a death sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe

[SeanB]

Not that it was translated, but that the translation was full, which allowed people to see any dogma that was there from tradition, but which was not really supported by the actual scriptures. It does not go down well with those in power if the power base is eroded from the spreading of knowledge. Ignorant sheep are preferred as they are easier to shear than goats.

[ErikTheNorwegian]

Many say that  the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons. The selectively they read and live after this crayz book is stagering... Beates every comon sense. Ex.The bibel advise  brutal killings  as a comon thing in the bibel.  "Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto the gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."



http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=Stone+to+death

[zapta]

http://www.opencircuits.com/Main_Page free as in beer

I didn't see much stoning recently in the name of Christianity. That's what counts for me.

[Fungus]

http://www.opencircuits.com/Main_Page free as in beer

I didn't see much stoning recently in the name of Christianity.

Thus proving that basic morality doesn't come from religion.

[Circlotron]

Many say that  the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons.

Christianity is not; Judaism is. That's the same people that won't ride on an elevator with regenerative braking on a Saturday because they consider that is doing work.

[zapta]

Many say that  the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons.

Christianity is not; Judaism is. That's the same people that won't ride on an elevator with regenerative braking on a Saturday because they consider that is doing work.

Didn't see recently many stoning  in the name of Judaism either.

[miguelvp]

Many say that  the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons.

Christianity is not; Judaism is. That's the same people that won't ride on an elevator with regenerative braking on a Saturday because they consider that is doing work.

All three of them come from the same roots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Relationship_with_other_literature

But Christians never supported stoning. Jesus opposed the stoning practices of the times and they actually tried to trick him into deciding the stoning of a woman, but he knew the law very well. 1st they didn't bring the man as required, 2nd Rome removed the authority from Israel to use capital punishment, 3rd he didn't fall for the trap.

It's very unclear to me that even Moses who apparently wrote the law and that being a Jewish law, by the way, would actually determined it carried out by lapidation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

Yes, the laws back then and even currently carried out but abolished are barbaric.

But I can't see any account that Christians actually did that.

[zapta]

Many say that  the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons.

Christianity is not; Judaism is. That's the same people that won't ride on an elevator with regenerative braking on a Saturday because they consider that is doing work.

Didn't see recently many stoning  in the name of Judaism either.

Ehh no.. today they use american made machinegus and helicopters, thanksetc... plus killing children...

Well, we can look at what side targets non combatants but this doesn't belong here. Also, those orthodox Jews you was referring to don't serve in the military.

Equating all religious communities to dilute the atrocities of one you want to defend is dishonest.

[EEVblog]

Anyways, I do follow the man, not the churches that formed around him.

How can you "follow the man" when the only information about "the man" was written at least several generations after his death?
Not a single word from the holy book came from him.
Sorry, as much as you might like to think you are, you aren't following "the man" but the words of people several generations after him that didn't even know him.

[miguelvp]

Anyways, I do follow the man, not the churches that formed around him.

How can you "follow the man" when the only information about "the man" was written at least several generations after his death?
Not a single word from the holy book came from him.
Sorry, as much as you might like to think you are, you aren't following "the man" but the words of people several generations after him that didn't even know him.

Because that is what I choose to do as a free man. Do I really care if it's all real or not? nope, but it's a good model for me.

As for the historicity, I know wikipedia is not the ultimate source but they do have a ton of information regarding the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Evidence_of_Jesus

But regardless, I do follow my interpretation of the man as I follow a recipe of a cookbook, not to the letter. On top of that I do shape my overall behavior based on other religions too, I'm a firm believer of Karma for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

Anyways, I don't care what others do, I'm just stating what works for me, but we are all different and unique, so to each their own.