Watch National Geographic

[mox 298]

Actually SMR, the Orthodox Church survived because they cooperated with Stalin during WW2 and after. During and post-WW2, the Russian Orthodox Church worked with the KGB to suppress other religions, such as Judaism. Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox had no problem throwing fellow believers under the bus if it meant their own survival. Even now, the Orthodox Church maintains close ties with the FSB. That's their legacy, and why they survived.

[SMR 368]

Actually SMR, the Orthodox Church survived because they cooperated with Stalin during WW2 and after. During and post-WW2, the Russian Orthodox Church worked with the KGB to suppress other religions, such as Judaism. Like the Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox had no problem throwing fellow believers under the bus if it meant their own survival. Even now, the Orthodox Church maintains close ties with the FSB. That's their legacy, and why they survived.

That may be true in the upper echelons, but at the lower levels, religious persecution was the reality. The communists were typically pragmatic. If an alliance with the Orthodox church made sense, it was done. That doesn't change the reality of the persecution that took place on the basis of atheism.

[LvivLovers 39]

So 2,000 years ago the population of the earth was about 300 million. There were at least a couple million or so in the Middle East, possibly more. (these are off the top of my head, I could be off by a couple million or so.) Given the limitations of carbon dating, you're allowing yourself to believe that this artifact with the imprint of a bearded man who had been executed by the most common capital punishment of the day could be based on a single man (who may or may not have even existed) within plus or minus several hundred years. And this is even assuming that it's some kind of rubbing off an actual person, and not just a bas relief. It's quite a leap of faith even for a believer.

Although there might have been a couple million people in the middle easy, there weren't that many people executed. As far people executed in the this particular manner...probably not common at all...maybe even completely unique (crown of thorns and other wounds apparent). I think it's either a complete fraud done on purpose or that it's from the historical Jesus that had many followers. It just doesn't add up that it was some random guy who happened to die in the same manner and they decided to take his burial cloth. If the shroud comes from that time, and you were a follower of his, why wouldn't you get it directly from the person you were following? Everyone can draw their own conclusions, but if it dates to that period, then just to me personally, it seems most likely to come from the person that people followed as Christ.

Up until the 14th century there is no record of the shroud. But even supposing it dates from approximately 30AD, that's only about 600 years that somebody's been carrying it around. Before then it seems to have languished.

Due to the scientist who was so adamant that the shroud of Turin was a fraud doing a 180 and thinking it very well could be real, there has been quite a bit of renewed interest. One of the recent things that came out is that someone claims to have found older records in the vatican referring to the shroud...some two hundred years before the supposed carbon dating to the 14th century. That could prove that at least the carbon dating is wrong by two hundred years...unless you want to believe the fraud was concieved 200 years before the shroud...personally that again seems unlikely to me though. As far to there not being much mention of it, I'm not surprised. It was supposedly in the care of the Knights of Templar or other secret sects. In any case if a group really wanted to keep a relic of this importance safe, I'm not surprised that they would also keep it secret. Many things have temporarily been lost throughout history only to resurface later. In any case, that's just a tangential argument. If it dates back to the 1st century then it dates back to the 1st century so I hope at some point in the future they can retest it using a non-contaminated sample.

But you're also discarding the alternative that the reason somebody carried it around for so long is because *they* were fooled into believing it was the real thing.

No...I'm not discarding that possibility. I've been saying it would have to have been an intentional fraud if it's not the real thing. I don't think it's likely it would date all the way from the time of Jesus but oops, they got the wrong shroud. Fact is, that would be hard to make that mistake by accident. Jesus, according to believers, rose from the dead and thus was not in the shroud any more. Any other body would have still been in it. Not likely someone would overlook that.

During the period of time that Christ is said to have lived, you couldn't swing a cat without hitting a self-proclaimed prophet. Religion was big business back in the day, and the Romans hated every one of them. So even if it does come from the period, it could actually be a depiction of any number of prophets. And remember that Christianity didn't even catch on until long after Christ is said to have died.

I've never heard of any other historical accounts of any prophet dying in the way that Christ did with those specific wounds. Also, another prophet would not have gotten up out of the burial cloth.

This is what's so inexplicable to me. I don't understand how you can adhere to a religion without adhering to the entirety of it. I get why you would think that it's silly to believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, because it's absolutely silly. But in the same vein, the idea that a man who is his own father was born to a woman who was a virgin, performed miracles such as raising the dead, was eventually killed but then literally came back to life and then literally took to the sky and flew up to heaven--why isn't that silly?

I'm really not wanting to get into a debate on religion. But I will just say it's even more preposterous to me to think that the whole universe evolved from a big bang from a gas cloud that just always existed somehow with no creator and that the universe slowly is going from chaos into order just randomly on its own. I don't know about you, but my personal experience has been that things go from order to chaos...don't upkeep your house for a short amount of time and see what happens. Broken things don't fix themselves, etc. In any case, it's not worth getting into you. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change your mind on this and you definately won't change mine...so why bother?

This is also inexplicable to me. By the standards set forth in Christianity, either all of the bible is true, or none of it is true. Jesus even said that you are either a believer or you aren't. So if you believe that Christ died for your sins based on biblical scripture, then you must also believe that if your children are disobedient you must stone them, as commanded in Deuteronomy. (and remember, the New Testament does not supersede the Old Testament. Jesus said he was here on earth to fulfill the old prophesies, not to discard them.)

Shouldn't be inexplicable. I'm a conservative and usually vote Republican but I don't always believe everything along party lines either. There's more than one flavor of Christianity as well as quite a few individuals who are able to think for themselves even though they are Christians. Who says it has to be all or nothing? Maybe some people believe that the Bible must be 100% correct, but I don't. Who knows what things are lost to translation, whether or not the write authors/writings are included in the Bible, that there were no mistakes, etc. I take it for what it is and leave all the possibilities open. As for Jesus himself, yep...I'm a 100% believer so I don't see any conflict there. As for stoning children, I don't really want to get into all the history/details, but believe in Jesus does not mean you have to stone disobedient children. There's a difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament...the laws of the OT are not the laws Christians follow today despite what you might think! For example, originally only Jews could be saved for example. But really, I don't have the time to get into a general debate on religion and I can guarantee you I'm not the most knowledable person on the subject by a long shot. I do know that I firmly believe what I believe and nothing is going to change that. Originally, all I was going to comment on was the shroud of Turin because I'd seen quite a bit on it recently (like on the History Channel hahaha).

For now. Until we atheists come to power, and then watch out!

And you better take care when you do that you don't get smited by the Almighty!

[mox 298]

That may be true in the upper echelons, but at the lower levels, religious persecution was the reality. The communists were typically pragmatic. If an alliance with the Orthodox church made sense, it was done. That doesn't change the reality of the persecution that took place on the basis of atheism.

Well I guess we're at a stalemate here then. I've shown why the religious persecutions in the USSR (specifically under Stalin) weren't "in the name of atheism," and in fact I've yet to find a historian who doesn't agree with me. Never was atheism used as a justification--as I said, Marx would spin like a top in his grave if atheism had been used as a justification, because it completely flies in the face of Communist ideology. It was always about Marxist and Soviet style socialism. With all due respect, you really should read up on this, specifically TCM.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Well I guess we're at a stalemate here then. I've shown why the religious persecutions in the USSR (specifically under Stalin) weren't "in the name of atheism," and in fact I've yet to find a historian who doesn't agree with me. Never was atheism used as a justification--as I said, Marx would spin like a top in his grave if atheism had been used as a justification, because it completely flies in the face of Communist ideology. It was always about Marxist and Soviet style socialism. With all due respect, you really should read up on this, specifically TCM.

I believe it was all about control. The ROC brainwashing machine had to be controlled according to the Communist so they could do their own brainwashing.

[SMR 368]

Well I guess we're at a stalemate here then. I've shown why the religious persecutions in the USSR (specifically under Stalin) weren't "in the name of atheism," and in fact I've yet to find a historian who doesn't agree with me. Never was atheism used as a justification--as I said, Marx would spin like a top in his grave if atheism had been used as a justification, because it completely flies in the face of Communist ideology. It was always about Marxist and Soviet style socialism. With all due respect, you really should read up on this, specifically TCM.

Well, any stalemate could be resolved if you would provide a source for a definition of atheist that doesn't include communists. That's really the stalemate. You're stonewalling because there is no reasonable definition of atheist that doesn't include Russian communists. Whether or not they considered themselves as such is beside the point (on a side note, many Russian communists did consider themselves atheists, I have met a good number. Further, many Russians saw communism as explicitly atheistic).

Further, as I mentioned, you need to consider the communist reasoning. Whether or not they called themselves atheists, they saw religion and belief in God as bad. That was the basis for the persecution. I suppose you could argue that communists didn't deny the existence of God but simply believed religion was bad, but that is logically a stretch. The only logical justification for believing that doing the will of an omnipotent being is detrimental is that said being does not exist. Otherwise, enlisting his help would undeniably be a good idea.

[mox 298]

Due to the scientist who was so adamant that the shroud of Turin was a fraud doing a 180 and thinking it very well could be real, there has been quite a bit of renewed interest. One of the recent things that came out is that someone claims to have found older records in the vatican referring to the shroud...some two hundred years before the supposed carbon dating to the 14th century. That could prove that at least the carbon dating is wrong by two hundred years...unless you want to believe the fraud was concieved 200 years before the shroud...personally that again seems unlikely to me though.

The beauty of science is that it's self-correcting. The scientist who originally performed the carbon dating was adamant that the shroud originated in the 14th century. Yet when faced with the evidence, he backed down from this claim and admitted the original study had been flawed. Science is awesome that way, and you see science self-correcting all the time. You can't say this about religion, unfortunately.

I've never heard of any other historical accounts of any prophet dying in the way that Christ did with those specific wounds. Also, another prophet would not have gotten up out of the burial cloth.

One of the reasons you haven't heard of any other prophets is because Christianity (and to some extent, Judaism) have pretty much wiped out or suppressed any records of such. The Catholic Church is probably the biggest source of suppression, picking and choosing very carefully which documents were to be canonical sources, and which were to be discarded. The Gospel of Mary, for example.

Not that I would expect the Roman Catholic Church to include documents from other men who claimed to be prophets, but I think the saying that the winner gets to write history holds true here. You haven't read about a lot of other prophets because they didn't make the cut.

I'm really not wanting to get into a debate on religion. But I will just say it's even more preposterous to me to think that the whole universe evolved from a big bang from a gas cloud that just always existed somehow with no creator and that the universe slowly is going from chaos into order just randomly on its own.

Actually, the "big bang" theory of a singularity at the beginning of time has been mostly disproved. In fact, the originator of this theory, Steven Hawking, has renounced it. Science is always self-correcting.

(there still was a "big bang," but it didn't necessarily have to be the beginning of time or the universe.) But the real question is, why is the idea of the big bang so preposterous? We've shown it to be mathematically possible, and we have tons and tons of observations that show the models hold up. We've shown the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old, and thanks to the Hubble we're actually able to see out about 13 billion light years. This means that we're actually able to see and observe the universe as it was only 700 million years ago! And this 700 million year old universe looks just like the universe our mathematical models predict a 700 million year old universe should look. So while the idea of the big bang might sound preposterous, scientists have proven the model.

Magic tricks like sawing a lady in half look preposterous to us too, until we see how it's actually done. If the natural creation of the universe is preposterous, it's only because you haven't allowed yourself to be in on the trick.

I don't know about you, but my personal experience has been that things go from order to chaos...don't upkeep your house for a short amount of time and see what happens. Broken things don't fix themselves, etc. In any case, it's not worth getting into you. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change your mind on this and you definately won't change mine...so why bother?

This is a really popular argument against a natural universe these days. But if things in nature only ever go from order to chaos, then either every single snow flake (water droplets that form into a 6-pointed geometrical lattice) is created individually by God, or we have an example of order coming from chaos. Since we can scientifically show how snowflakes are created using the laws of physics and chemistry, we know that snow flakes don't need God to form. Ripple patterns in sand dunes is another chaos->order example. There are thousands of examples of chaos going to order in nature, all of them explainable through science. If God really does make snow flakes, we can at least prove that he doesn't need to.

There's a difference between the New Testament and the Old Testament...the laws of the OT are not the laws Christians follow today despite what you might think!

This is exactly my point! Why even have the OT if you don't live by it? Jesus made it very clear that he was not superseding the old rules. He never said to toss the old rules out, only that he was now providing a way to heaven through him. So yes, I agree, the laws of the OT are not the laws followed by most Christians today. They pick and choose those that fit them. In fact, they pick and choose the OT laws that suit them. An eye for an eye. Don't be gay. Or the 10 Commandments. Why are the 10 commandments still vehemently endorsed by Christians, but Leviticus and Deuteronomy are conveniently ignored?

But really, I don't have the time to get into a general debate on religion...all I was going to comment on was the shroud of Turin because I'd seen quite a bit on it recently (like on the History Channel hahaha).

Well dammit...I guess I need to head over to MENA.

And you better take care when you do that you don't get smited by the Almighty!

Heh! Well sheesh, at least he'd finally show himself.

[mox 298]

Well, any stalemate could be resolved if you would provide a source for a definition of atheist that doesn't include communists. That's really the stalemate. You're stonewalling because there is no reasonable definition of atheist that doesn't include Russian communists.

I don't understand what you mean. The simplest definition of atheism is a rejection of deism. It takes no positions on society, economics, government, literature, education, or religion beyond the fact that it rejects the latter.

Whether or not they considered themselves as such is beside the point

So by this position, we can infer that the women who were burned in Salem were witches, even if they didn't consider themselves witches? (I'm not trying to be a smartаss here (well maybe a little ), I just really don't understand what you're saying.)

Further, as I mentioned, you need to consider the communist reasoning. Whether or not they called themselves atheists, they saw religion and belief in God as bad. That was the basis for the persecution. I suppose you could argue that communists didn't deny the existence of God but simply believed religion was bad, but that is logically a stretch. The only logical justification for believing that doing the will of an omnipotent being is detrimental is that said being does not exist. Otherwise, enlisting his help would undeniably be a good idea.

If you're going to say that Soviet religious persecution was done in the name of atheism, you also have to concede that Soviet religious persecution was also done in the name of a graduated income tax, or private property abolishment or centralization of a planned economy, or free education or communal agriculture.

Were poets and writers persecuted under the banner of atheism, or were they persecuted under the banner of a graduated income tax? What about university professors, doctors, bankers, even soldiers? What about the ethnic cleansings? Committed under the banner of atheism or communal agriculture?

You can't just pick one aspect of Communism and say that this is why these people were persecuted. It wasn't about the one thing, it was about the entire package as a whole.

[LvivLovers 39]

The beauty of science is that it's self-correcting. The scientist who originally performed the carbon dating was adamant that the shroud originated in the 14th century. Yet when faced with the evidence, he backed down from this claim and admitted the original study had been flawed. Science is awesome that way, and you see science self-correcting all the time. You can't say this about religion, unfortunately.

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Pope+finally+forgives+Beatles+past+excesses/2791452/story.html

One of the reasons you haven't heard of any other prophets is because Christianity (and to some extent, Judaism) have pretty much wiped out or suppressed any records of such. The Catholic Church is probably the biggest source of suppression, picking and choosing very carefully which documents were to be canonical sources, and which were to be discarded. The Gospel of Mary, for example.

Not that I would expect the Roman Catholic Church to include documents from other men who claimed to be prophets, but I think the saying that the winner gets to write history holds true here. You haven't read about a lot of other prophets because they didn't make the cut.

That's just common sense and the way life is. If you're a dime a dozen (which seems to be your claim anyway), why would anyone care? As for the Catholic Church probably being the biggest source of supression...that's just an insubstantiated claim...you have some statistics to back up such a statement?!

Actually, the "big bang" theory of a singularity at the beginning of time has been mostly disproved. In fact, the originator of this theory, Steven Hawking, has renounced it. Science is always self-correcting.

(there still was a "big bang," but it didn't necessarily have to be the beginning of time or the universe.) But the real question is, why is the idea of the big bang so preposterous? We've shown it to be mathematically possible, and we have tons and tons of observations that show the models hold up. We've shown the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old, and thanks to the Hubble we're actually able to see out about 13 billion light years. This means that we're actually able to see and observe the universe as it was only 700 million years ago! And this 700 million year old universe looks just like the universe our mathematical models predict a 700 million year old universe should look. So while the idea of the big bang might sound preposterous, scientists have proven the model.

So my question is? What WAS at the beginning? Did something come from nothing or did something always just exist or what? I'm not so much interested in the details of what processes took place, over how long, or what manner. I want to know what was there in the beginning? What existed with no creator?

Magic tricks like sawing a lady in half look preposterous to us too, until we see how it's actually done. If the natural creation of the universe is preposterous, it's only because you haven't allowed yourself to be in on the trick.

So who is in on the trick? Someone knows what was at the beginning and how it was done?

This is a really popular argument against a natural universe these days. But if things in nature only ever go from order to chaos, then either every single snow flake (water droplets that form into a 6-pointed geometrical lattice) is created individually by God, or we have an example of order coming from chaos. Since we can scientifically show how snowflakes are created using the laws of physics and chemistry, we know that snow flakes don't need God to form. Ripple patterns in sand dunes is another chaos->order example. There are thousands of examples of chaos going to order in nature, all of them explainable through science. If God really does make snow flakes, we can at least prove that he doesn't need to.

Interesting argument...but without the laws of physics and chemistry, could the snowflakes form? I would argue that it is God that created the laws themselves...that's one of the beauties of the universe. I believe He created the mechanisms themselves which in turn create everything else. Who says everything must be created directly? In any case, there's a big difference between something as simple as snowflakes, crystals, sand, etc. and something like complex organisms.

This is exactly my point! Why even have the OT if you don't live by it? Jesus made it very clear that he was not superseding the old rules. He never said to toss the old rules out, only that he was now providing a way to heaven through him. So yes, I agree, the laws of the OT are not the laws followed by most Christians today. They pick and choose those that fit them. In fact, they pick and choose the OT laws that suit them. An eye for an eye. Don't be gay. Or the 10 Commandments. Why are the 10 commandments still vehemently endorsed by Christians, but Leviticus and Deuteronomy are conveniently ignored?

Each person interprets things their own way. Some people do still follow (or follow more closely) OT laws. But I guess part of religion self-correcting itself would be that beliefs change. Either that or you could argue that we've gotten more lax or corrupted as time has gone on. That's not a fault of religion or the Bible...that's just the fault of humans that are flawed.

Religion can obviously pose an endless number of discussions/questions...I'm sure there are quite a few things for which no one has an answer...especially me. As I've said, I consider myself particularly un-educated on the subject...I've always believed in the big idea but never wanted to get involved in all the details specifically because I figure no one really knows and thus, there's no real point in speculating.

Heh! Well sheesh, at least he'd finally show himself.

Well...I'm confident it will happen one of these days. Hopefully not in 2012 though.

[SMR 368]

I don't understand what you mean. The simplest definition of atheism is a rejection of deism. It takes no positions on society, economics, government, literature, education, or religion beyond the fact that it rejects the latter.

And the simplest definition of religion is a belief in God. That doesn't mean that if someone has positions on society, economics, government, literature, or education they can't be religious. That's what I am saying. A person can have views on all of those things and still be an atheist. The fact that communists believed many other things doesn't make them not atheists.

So by this position, we can infer that the women who were burned in Salem were witches, even if they didn't consider themselves witches? (I'm not trying to be a smartаss here (well maybe a little ), I just really don't understand what you're saying.)

No. That's a terrible misrepresentation of my logic. You are reducing my logic to saying that if someone claims something about themselves, they are wrong. I said that you need to objectively evaluate what someone actually is, independent of what they call themselves. That doesn't mean that if someone says something about themselves they are wrong. That means some communists may not have called themselves atheists, but they still might be. We're discussing whether or not they were, independent of what they called themselves.

Similarly, what the Salem witches said about themselves is not really the key of the argument. You need to look at other evidence to determine whether or not they were witches. Honestly, you have a terribly bad habit of using completely non-parallel and irrelevant analogies.

If you're going to say that Soviet religious persecution was done in the name of atheism, you also have to concede that Soviet religious persecution was also done in the name of a graduated income tax, or private property abolishment or centralization of a planned economy, or free education or communal agriculture.

Were poets and writers persecuted under the banner of atheism, or were they persecuted under the banner of a graduated income tax? What about university professors, doctors, bankers, even soldiers? What about the ethnic cleansings? Committed under the banner of atheism or communal agriculture?

You can't just pick one aspect of Communism and say that this is why these people were persecuted. It wasn't about the one thing, it was about the entire package as a whole.

Soviet religious persecution was done on the basis of atheism (not in the name of it). Soviet persecution (but not religious persecution) was also done on the basis of many other things. How does the fact that people were persecuted for other reasons have any impact of the fact that people were persecuted for religious reasons on the basis of atheism? I have not suggested that all Soviet persecution was religious or on the basis of atheism, only that some of it was. You have not denied that fact but only asserted that I should concede that other persecution took place, a claim I do not dispute.

Mox: I have a simple assertion that I would like you to acknowledge or dispute: In Soviet Russia communists, who believed there was no God, persecuted religious people because they wouldn't deny their beliefs.

[mox 298]

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Pope+finally+forgives+Beatles+past+excesses/2791452/story.html

Hehe! So I guess the Beetles are in good company with the child molesters huh? (I heard this story on the radio this morning, hopefully you laughed as much as I did. )

So my question is? What WAS at the beginning? Did something come from nothing or did something always just exist or what? I'm not so much interested in the details of what processes took place, over how long, or what manner. I want to know what was there in the beginning? What existed with no creator?

Another beauty of science is that science doesn't claim to know everything. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. We know what happened literally microseconds after the big bang, but not before. Which does actually make room for a God to have kicked it all off. So yes, a pre-big-bang God who decided how it was all going to go cannot at all be rejected. But there's a caveat: this God would have had to kick everything off and then left it alone. In other words, if there's a God who started the big bang, he abandoned you about 13.7 billion years before you were even born.

So who is in on the trick? Someone knows what was at the beginning and how it was done?

Well, we're in on most of the tricks. As I said, we have a pretty good idea what was going on within milliseconds of the big bang. Of course we're not in on the big trick that started it all (kind of the David Copperfield hiding the Statue of Liberty trick, if you will), but maybe someday we'll figure it out. The point is that at least science is comfortable with saying we don't know. Christians claim to know, with absolutely no evidence other than a myth that is almost a complete plagiary of the Babylonian creation myth (complete with earth-destroying flood of which we have no geological evidence).

Interesting argument...but without the laws of physics and chemistry, could the snowflakes form? I would argue that it is God that created the laws themselves...that's one of the beauties of the universe. I believe He created the mechanisms themselves which in turn create everything else. Who says everything must be created directly?

Here's where you and I completely agree. As I said, there very well could be a God who set up all the rules. We can't disprove it, so it remains a possibility. But this hypothetical God who created physics and quantum mechanics et al would have set the universe in motion and remained completely outside of it. So as long as we remain effectively in a closed system (the universe), we cannot detect this God. But likewise, as long as he remains outside the system, he can't directly affect us either. His only influence is what he set into place 13.7 billion years ago.

In any case, there's a big difference between something as simple as snowflakes, crystals, sand, etc. and something like complex organisms.

Sure. But these are all clear cases of order rising out of chaos. And in fact there's some very promising work going on right now that theorizes that the first organic molecules might have formed on the surfaces of silicate crystals--sort of (but not exactly) like how modern CPU's are etched into silicon. If true, it's only a small hop from crystalline order forming from chaotic silica, to the first organic molecules. From that point on it's all sunlight and cell division baby. (science really is pretty effing awesome and tons of fun! )

Theory aside though, you're correct that nobody knows exactly how life formed. We've all but proven how natural selection allowed us to evolve from single-celled organisms, but we've yet to show how single celled organisms got their start. It's yet another mystery that science doesn't claim to know the answer to. But there's no proof that "God created Adam..." either, and yet millions of Christians cling to this fiction as if it's truth. I'd rather not know than to be fed stories.

Each person interprets things their own way. Some people do still follow (or follow more closely) OT laws. But I guess part of religion self-correcting itself would be that beliefs change. Either that or you could argue that we've gotten more lax or corrupted as time has gone on. That's not a fault of religion or the Bible...that's just the fault of humans that are flawed.

Religion would be self-correcting if its rules (i.e The Bible or the Koran, etc) were rewritten from time-to-time to eliminate outdated scripture and inserted new. But that doesn't happen. A strict interpretation of the Bible pretty much condemns you to eternity in a fiery lake right along with me. The Bible is there *because* humans are corruptible. It's to keep you from getting yourself into the kind of trouble you seem to be getting yourself into. You have only one way into heaven, and that's through Jesus. And Jesus specifically says that the OT still applies. So is Jesus lying to you, or are you rejecting part of his teaching? And if you're rejecting part of his teachings, remember that he also said that you are either with him or against him, there's no middle ground. See what I mean? Once you start unraveling part of it, the whole thing starts to fall apart.

Well...I'm confident it will happen one of these days. Hopefully not in 2012 though.

Now the Mayans. Those dudes were on to something!

[mox 298]

And the simplest definition of religion is a belief in God. That doesn't mean that if someone has positions on society, economics, government, literature, or education they can't be religious. That's what I am saying. A person can have views on all of those things and still be an atheist. The fact that communists believed many other things doesn't make them not atheists.

Which is actually what I've been trying to say. Let's try a thought experiment.

Let's say I have a system of beliefs, and let's call that system of belief ALPHA. This system of beliefs encompasses the following ideas: A, B, C, D, E, F, G. So basically, if I believe ALPHA, then it follows that I also believe (for example) C. (It does not follow, however, that if I believe "C" that I automatically believe ALPHA.)

Ok.

Now let's say that in order to further my ALPHA agenda, I must murder lots of people who believe in BRAVO. Now it just so happens that one of the core beliefs of BRAVO is a belief in "H." "H," as it happens, is in complete opposition to "E," which as I said is a central idea within ALPHA.

So if I, the ALPHA believer, go out and murder all of the BRAVO's, am I doing it because of a belief in ALPHA, or am I doing it because of a belief in "E" ?

My argument is that ALPHA is murdering in the name of ALPHA, not E. As I understand, you're arguing that even though I am trying to advance the agenda of ALPHA, I am actually murdering in the name of "E." This just doesn't follow.

Similarly, what the Salem witches said about themselves is not really the key of the argument. You need to look at other evidence to determine whether or not they were witches. Honestly, you have a terribly bad habit of using completely non-parallel and irrelevant analogies.

Look, I'm really not trying to distort your argument, I just don't understand it. I used the analogy as a way to say "is this what you mean?"

Mox: I have a simple assertion that I would like you to acknowledge or dispute: In Soviet Russia communists, who believed there was no God, persecuted religious people because they wouldn't deny their beliefs.

It should be clear from my previous posts that I dispute this. There was no Catholic-style "recant your beliefs or be tortured/murdered" inquisition. The Catholic inquisitors gave most of their victims the choice of recanting their beliefs to die a quick death, or hold to their beliefs to die a slow death. The Soviets basically came in and said "all your church are belong to us" and also just outright killed or imprisoned priests and believers. They killed millions of believers, but they certainly did not give them the opportunity to "deny their beliefs" before they did it. And by the way, Stalin also killed a lot of people who refused to participate in collective farming, or because they were bad farmers, or just because he thought they might ought to be killed. He also killed teachers, poets, writers, politicians, peasants, aristocrats, soldiers, and any other segment of society you can think of. Not a single person was unaffected by Stalin's brutality, but it wasn't because he was a radical atheist.

[SMR 368]

Which is actually what I've been trying to say. Let's try a thought experiment.

Let's say I have a system of beliefs, and let's call that system of belief ALPHA. This system of beliefs encompasses the following ideas: A, B, C, D, E, F, G. So basically, if I believe ALPHA, then it follows that I also believe (for example) C. (It does not follow, however, that if I believe "C" that I automatically believe ALPHA.)

Ok.

Now let's say that in order to further my ALPHA agenda, I must murder lots of people who believe in BRAVO. Now it just so happens that one of the core beliefs of BRAVO is a belief in "H." "H," as it happens, is in complete opposition to "E," which as I said is a central idea within ALPHA.

So if I, the ALPHA believer, go out and murder all of the BRAVO's, am I doing it because of a belief in ALPHA, or am I doing it because of a belief in "E" ?

My argument is that ALPHA is murdering in the name of ALPHA, not E. As I understand, you're arguing that even though I am trying to advance the agenda of ALPHA, I am actually murdering in the name of "E." This just doesn't follow.

Well, to go along with your abstraction, the question is, why are ALPHAs killing BRAVOs? If the reason is that ALPHAs believe in E and BRAVOs believe in H, then I would say that the ALPHAs are killing on the basis of E. That is, if ALPHAs didn't believe in E, they wouldn't be killing BRAVOs because there would not be an ideological disparity.

It should be clear from my previous posts that I dispute this. There was no Catholic-style "recant your beliefs or be tortured/murdered" inquisition. The Catholic inquisitors gave most of their victims the choice of recanting their beliefs to die a quick death, or hold to their beliefs to die a slow death. The Soviets basically came in and said "all your church are belong to us" and also just outright killed or imprisoned priests and believers. They killed millions of believers, but they certainly did not give them the opportunity to "deny their beliefs" before they did it. And by the way, Stalin also killed a lot of people who refused to participate in collective farming, or because they were bad farmers, or just because he thought they might ought to be killed. He also killed teachers, poets, writers, politicians, peasants, aristocrats, soldiers, and any other segment of society you can think of. Not a single person was unaffected by Stalin's brutality, but it wasn't because he was a radical atheist.

Sorry, I think you got stuck on the denying their beliefs part which wasn't my intention. You're right, communists didn't really give a formal opportunity to recant. But you missed the essence of the assertion. So I'll rephrase it more clearly.

In Soviet Russia, communists, who believed there was no God, persecuted religious people because they believed in God.

[mox 298]

Well, to go along with your abstraction, the question is, why are ALPHAs killing BRAVOs? If the reason is that ALPHAs believe in E and BRAVOs believe in H, then I would say that the ALPHAs are killing on the basis of E. That is, if ALPHAs didn't believe in E, they wouldn't be killing BRAVOs because there would not be an ideological disparity.

Heh, you keep flying closer to the point I'm trying to make, but I just can't seem to reel you in. Let's look at it in another sense. The collective farmer was killed because he refused to participate in collective farming. Collective farming is a core Soviet ideal. But was the farmer killed under the banner of collective farming? No! He was killed under the ideal of Soviet Communism. Yes, he was killed because of his opposition to one of the core beliefs in the system (just like the Priest was killed because of his opposition to atheism) but it was only one of a set of many beliefs that made up the whole. You can certainly say that religion was persecuted because it stands against a core belief of atheism (and I haven't denied this), but you can't say that they were persecuted in the name of atheism. They were persecuted in the name of Soviet Communism.

In Soviet Russia, communists, who believed there was no God, persecuted religious people because they believed in God.

Ok sure. I could quibble a little with the wording, but sure. But don't celebrate victory quite yet. Soviet Communists who believed that dogs who wear hats are cute also persecuted religions people, but it does not follow that they only persecuted religious people who thought dogs who wear hats don't look cute.

Religion was persecuted in the Soviet Union because religion didn't fit into Marxist society, just like farmers who refused to participate in collective farming were persecuted because privatized farming does not fit into a Marxist society. You're trying to fit religious persecution into a narrower mold than it really belongs in.

[SMR 368]

Heh, you keep flying closer to the point I'm trying to make, but I just can't seem to reel you in. Let's look at it in another sense. The collective farmer was killed because he refused to participate in collective farming. Collective farming is a core Soviet ideal. But was the farmer killed under the banner of collective farming? No! He was killed under the ideal of Soviet Communism. Yes, he was killed because of his opposition to one of the core beliefs in the system (just like the Priest was killed because of his opposition to atheism) but it was only one of a set of many beliefs that made up the whole. You can certainly say that religion was persecuted because it stands against a core belief of atheism (and I haven't denied this), but you can't say that they were persecuted in the name of atheism. They were persecuted in the name of Soviet Communism.

Ok sure. I could quibble a little with the wording, but sure. But don't celebrate victory quite yet. Soviet Communists who believed that dogs who wear hats are cute also persecuted religions people, but it does not follow that they only persecuted religious people who thought dogs who wear hats don't look cute.

Religion was persecuted in the Soviet Union because religion didn't fit into Marxist society, just like farmers who refused to participate in collective farming were persecuted because privatized farming does not fit into a Marxist society. You're trying to fit religious persecution into a narrower mold than it really belongs in.

You seem to have gotten stuck on the idea that it matters in what "name" the persecution is. The fact is they killed the priests because they believed in God and the communists didn't. While communist philosophy is complex, God is the only item on which the priests necessarily disagreed.

You seem to be contending that the fact that communists didn't believe in God had nothing to do with the fact that they persecuted those who did on the sole basis of religious belief. That, to me, stretches the limits of plausibility. When ALPHAs start persecuting anyone who believes H, the fact that ALPHAs believe E (the counterpoint of H), is hardly tangential. You can argue motivations forever to little avail (since mindreading is impossible), but a logical analysis of cause and effect suggests that belief in E is a relevant fact.