so, you think that doctors are so very smart that they know about everything? Would you take your child to a florist if they were ill or take your car to a lumberjack to get it fixed?
People can be very delusional and still be smart. It's called compartmentalization.
I find it interesting that you would rather slate most doctors than accept that belief in God might not be delusional.
BTW I never said doctors know everything. I said by definition they are smart. The process by which they become doctors is there to get rid of the not so smart. As for the compartmentalization, you are talking about the same compartment. They are smart when it comes to someone’s health and they are delusional when it comes to someone’s health.
I think it says more about levels of faith in the area of the survey than it says about the veracity of religious claims.
We should be clear on this poll that it is not something I have brought up but rather the author. He chose what information to put forward and what to leave out. What I see in the above is reminiscent of something I once heard:
‘you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse … to explain this strange fact of life.’
Maybe this was a bias poll. I can accept that but why was it included? And why were we not given the whole picture? Something to think about.
You are quibbling over word choices and attacking the style of the author but have yet to make a single post addressing the validity of what he says.
I am not quibbling over word choice, that is what is happening to me with this ‘subliminal’ thing. I am raising the point that the style used by the author seems to be designed to make you agree with him when his points might fail. What is the result of that? Someone who agrees with the author because they don’t want to be called delusional but rather intelligent! A hollow victory IMO.
And if he hadn’t started out by trying to show that he wasn’t calling people stupid or uneducated, you would probably have complained that he was treating believers like idiots. There’s just no way to win with people who are intent on finding fault.
My point is that neither is necessary and both can be used to persuade someone without their knowing it. Like with good cop, bad cop both are an act to get a result. If you claim to be trying to reach people on an intellectual level then give them credit due an intelligent person.
No one is taking disjointed passages out of the Bible like the ones you mentioned. And Christians continually use passages out of the Bible to prove their points. The author is not trying to say that the Bible says something other than what it clearly says in context. Claiming that things are being taken out of context while not pointing to specific examples from the disputed article is dishonest.
- Exodus 21:20-21 – God says that it is OK to own slaves, and it is also OK to beat them.
- Colossians 3:22-24 – Slaves need to obey their masters.
- Ephesians 6:5 – Slaves need to obey their masters just as they would obey Christ.
- 1 Peter 2:18 – Slaves need to obey their masters, even if their masters are harsh .
There are your examples. 2 verses from Exodus, 2 from Colossians, 1 from Ephesians and one from 1 Peter. Notice how the verses are disjointed, notice how none have context attached and notice how the author does not read the actual verse but chooses to interpret it. Whether his interpretation is correct or not is irrelevant. He opens up the risk of incorrect, bias interpretation when he could have easily read out the verse and let the audience make up their own mind.
He does give references so credit is given there.
I will address this point when I get to it.
The fact that you can find Biblical passages to support almost any idea just shows how conflicted and inconsistent the text is.
That is one way of looking at it but most large bodies of text can be abused. It doesn’t mean that the text is inconsistent or conflicted. I aim to expand on verses quoted as I get to them.
Christians take what they want from the Bible and where it contradicts itself, they say that the passage they like is a clarification of the one it completely contradicts. They decide what they want the Bible to say and disregard where it doesn’t say that or says something completely different.
This is a gross generalization but in some cases it is true.
You are splitting hairs. The author is showing the conclusion that he arrives at and asks if the reader agrees. What is wrong with that? I have read hundreds of books supporting the Bible and Religion and they often use similar techniques. If the author used the words you suggest, I don’t see it making any real difference to believers who read it and get offended because their beliefs are being called into question. No matter how an atheist phrases his case against religion and God, it will be attacked like this.
One is neutral and one is not. Just because someone does this in the bias of religion does not make it right. You see it as splitting hairs but it is uncessessary IMO and the points should be persuasion enough.
You are attacking the style of the author and questioning his honesty and intent. You have yet to make a single post regarding the content. I don’t see how you can claim that you are discussing what he wrote. What point of his have you addressed at all?
I am limiting my analysis to the article in question. It was this technique that got my attention in the first place. Surely I am allowed to discuss what I like. If you don’t care for it then you are free to stand back until I get to the questions if that is what you want to discuss.
What you are using is a tactic known as poisoning the well. You are doing everything you can to discredit the author on his style and any other thing you can nit pick about before you address the issues. It appears that it is important to you to demean the article and author so that anything he has said is tainted from the outset.
Im glad you mentioned this. Please re-read what I have posted so far. Instead of poisoning the well I have so far been trying to neutralize the poison that I see in the article. The author’s poisoning of the well is exactly what I have been trying to communicate thus far. It is not a neutral article with several interesting points to consider, there is an unhealthy dose of poison thrown in too.
What I want is a neutral start but due to this poison, any attempt by Christians to answer the questions will be seen, before they are even written, as ‘desperate inventions from a deluded mind.’
Far from poisoning the well I am trying to counter the poison already there or at the very least identify the poison to others.