Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

First, you are not eppie, but your arguments are more lucid so it was gracious of you to answer in his stead. :)

Clark's third law. However, I don't see the parallel. Are you implying that Christ was resurrected by some advanced technology that existed two thousand years ago but which we don't understand?

No. My point is that we've learned a bunch, and what is common to us would be miraculous to even the sophisticated Romans of 2000 years ago.

No. People mistakingly thought dead have 'come back to life' on many occasions. This is common in cases of death by hypothermia, hence the expression, "they're not dead till they're warm and dead." However, think it through; if he was only "seemingly dead" then he wasn't "resurrected". If that is what you intended to imply by the quotes around 'resurrected', then you are accepting the possibility that the central thesis of Christianity (that Christ, be he man or god, died for our sins) is false. How can any belief system founded on a false thesis be true? If it contains truths, then isn't that in spite of rather than because of its basis? And shouldn't it be replaced with a new system, one that is based as much as possible on truth and that incorporates the truths of the discredited system? Again, you seem to be implying, quite strongly, that Christianity is false, based on myths.

This is for each person to decide for themselves, right. It's pretty hard to prove what did or did not happen to one hapless Jew some 2000 years ago. Many people have thought about it for the past 2000 years, and have come up with hundreds of variations on this one mans life and philosophy. It's more complicated than one Christianity that you (and Jester) keep trying to lump together. Your not trying to convince me that Atheism is the only correct belief, and I'm not trying to convince you that Christianity is the only correct belief. I just want people to have the right to believe what they like without "believers in a deity" being ridiculed as cretins, or likewise Atheists being labeled as immoral.

Apparently, your definition of 'Christianity' is as idiosyncratic as your definition of 'Christians'. Perhaps you are thinking in terms similar to Jefferson's? I think that, while his opinions were very advanced for the start of the nineteenth century, he lacked the foundation of modern science to give him an alternative basis for his world view.

Again, there is no need to focus on my particular beliefs. I'm describing the domain of beliefs surrounding Christianity, and there are some issues I have a strong opinion against (such as tying a creed to the power of government).

Actually, my ancestors of that time were living in centrally heated houses with running water. They were growing grapes and making wine on homesteads, many of which were granted to them as a reward for military services under one Gaius Julius Caesar.

Yes. But, eppie and my ancestors were still building henges and dancing around fires driving away evil spirits.

There you go again, redefining terms to suit your opinions. While it is common to use the word in colloquial phrases like "It's a miracle the Red Sox won the series.", the strict definition of a miracle is a supernatural occurrence which cannot be explained by natural causes (even if we don't know what those causes could be). For things which are not yet explained by our current understanding, I prefer 'ignorance', it's more honest, since it doesn't imply the pseudo-knowledge that 'miracle' does.

You use a scientific definition for miracle, while I reserve the right to be unscientific whenever I think science lacks the vocabulary. Such as in art, or discussing concepts beyond the natural world.

I had a friend who would sometimes answer a question sarcastically with, "I don't know. Nobody knows." Since you couldn't explain a phenomenon with science, that phenomenon was not explicable by science is an implication that should only be made in jest.

Yeah. But, that's not what I'm talking about. I mean things like the parapsychology research done at SRI. Their research has been inconclusive, and for scientists its considered mostly cuckoo. Meaning... No one seriously approaches the topic.

First, a belief in the supernatural is not more complex, it is less so.

Nice try. That is not what I said. I said that when approaching unanswered problems it is best to keep and open mind, which is not tied to any dogma of religion or science.

Second, a mind needs to be open, yes, but it also needs to be skeptical. The bigger a claim, the bigger the proof needed to substantiate that claim. I don't reject pyramid power because it is paranormal, I reject it because, in every controlled test reported, it has failed. Very similarly, I reject cold fusion. If either is ever supported by a repeatable successful test, then I will revise my opinion.

I agree that skepticism and discernment are needed in ample supplies.

Sorry, this is the god of the gaps argument. In grad school, we used to jokingly describe problems as 'impossible' and 'trivial'. As soon as an impossible problem was solved, it became trivial. You appear to be doing the same thing with 'miracle' and 'scientific'. When something is explained, it transitions.

Not really. This is keeping non-overlapping magisteria. I might look at a fractal and see the math, or I might see the beauty, or I might see both simultaneously.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how teaching people a world view based on a lie can be good. What it does do is give the resulting people a false sense of certainty in their beliefs. Unlike the scientific viewpoint which is built on uncertainty and doubt and which allows for the existence of conflicting viewpoints, religious indoctrination allows no contradiction. Once one is truly convinced that he is doing god's will, then any opposition must be destroyed and any action is justified. The stronger the belief, the less room there can be for tolerance, for acceptance, for mercy.

Who said anything about lying? Teach them the truth. Teach them to hold that truth skeptically, and practice it with wisdom.

As to immoral, that is a religious concept.

We have a code of mores. Where did it come from? Why? How do we continue to imprint it on our children? How do we enforce it? These are not scientific questions. These are questions of social cohesiveness. Blaming all "bad" behavior on certain positive philosophies is pretty much crap. When people stop caring about what is right, and what is wrong, then we'll be living in a very selfish, brutal world. Even with humanities 10000+ year quest to build civilizations, our worst natures emerge and repeatedly destroy what we've built. From Eastern cultures, to African, to European, to Pre-Columbian new world ones (including the ones without deities). I blame the "bad" on human nature, because without civilization in general we are selfish and brutal.

Why is this person a vegetarian?

I don't know, but they feel really very guilty when they disappoint their other vegetarian friends. Maybe they love animals, maybe they've been to a slaughter house. I used the example to describe belief systems other than religiously based ones, where a person seeks to adhere to a particular set of behaviors. Within the adherence to any belief system, you will have posers, people who do it to be cool, true believers (for all kinds of reasons), as well as those who do it well, and those who suck at it.

Funny, I seem to have missed that part of the social life of chimps and gorillas. Or have they all converted to Christianity?

No. Most are atheists, or bad examples of whatever creed they believe in. :) My opinion is that without the human pursuit of bettering ourselves, or the boundaries of social mores, we degenerate into poo flinging apes. In other words, yes, I did live one year in the same dormitory as the college football team.

If eppie replies to the previous post, I'm going to refer him to the answers I gave you. :)