Owuor is lying, never prophesied no Nepal Quake

[Bella]

Terminator:

I can't put my finger on your "religious beliefs", so if I may ask: what do you think of something like Shinto, which, in some ways, is very "African" (and in fact makes "African superstitions" look space-age) but is practiced by some quite "high-tech" people?

I am a heathen who embraces the human condition.  With all its contradictions.   I generally don't believe in gods.  But I could understand why someone would believe in them. 

I think superstition is part of us.  When I am watching a game, I find that I think that tightening the anal sphincter would improve the chances of my team winning. 

Perfectly rational people can believe stuff that is clearly not true.  Compartmentalization allows the rational Japanese guy to function normally despite superstitious beliefs.

While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents.

Termie, that last statement paints with a broad brush. I can assure you that both I and many others I know of, pretty much defied parents beliefs. My religion is chosen. 100%. I do agree that your statement is true generally of people who only identify culturally with a certain religion, (I don't think you used culturally Christian the same way I understand it, since you are atheist, I always thought it meant a non-committed Christian who nonetheless would accept basic Christian beliefs as valid/true....lukewarm, etc) which often is the vast majority. But people who deeply believe, enough to make personal sacrifices or change their lives, do so because of a deeply felt and very personal decision. I can only compare it to the decision you make in a relationship after you have fallen in love. Very different from pursuing a girl that your parents think is pretty....that kind of think. This decision cannot be made on the basis of parental beliefs, it usually comes when the person is personally convinced, for whatever reason, that this religion or that religion is true.

[Bella]

Terminator:

You are  right only if you see "old Christianity" in terms of anything to do with God; but the most significant (in terms of influence and impact) part of "old Christianity" had very little to do with God.   In those terms, much of "old Christianity" is best viewed in the same way that one would view a large corporation today: in terms of wealth, power, pussy, ... for the men who lead.

To my mind, the essence of Christ's message boils down to:

(a) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

(b) Love God above all else.

So, as I see it, to the extent that anybody goes along with those, they are Christian, even if they are "Muslim", or "Hindu", or whatever.   That is why I am always amused by the little skirmishes here by the SDAs, the Catholics, Protestant wings, ....

The following post is adhominem. How exactly do you figure that "love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Love God above all else" have NOTHING to do with God? You are a funny guy. So what DOES have to do with God in Christianity, per your "assessment"? Please point out the terrible God bits of Christianity.

EDIT: I have deleted my "adhominem", but I think you should drop the arrogant attitude you carry around with you whenever you discuss our religion. You are a secular humanist, I get that, of the fundamentalist variety. You think the world is black and white with traditional Christianity black and wild sexual freedom the absolute white value, everything else, including Islam (even if it is stricter) gets to be middle-of-the-road or tolerable...just as long as it is not traditional Christianity. I find discussions with genuine atheists better than anti-Christians. Just saying.

[vooke]

While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents. 

You have a way of injecting atheistic arguments into a debate naturally. You have thrown this severally before so am sure you picked it up somewhere; that since beliefs are essentially 'inherited' they are biased. You are not the first

First, note it equally applies to atheism. Communist countries are good examples. Not only is there absence of theism, there is clear teaching of atheism, no-God which is passed down.

Secondly, any belief system must necessarily be passed down by others. Take education. You can't possibly make a serious case against knowledge since it was largely passed down to you. Very few significant changes in the body of knowledge. Supposing you was God, how would you communicate religion and your dictates to men?

[Bella]

While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents. 

You have a way of injecting atheistic arguments into a debate naturally. You have thrown this severally before so am surrounded picked it up somewhere; that since beliefs are essentially 'inherited' they are biased.

First, note it equally applies to atheism. Communist countries are good examples. Not only is there absence of theism, there is clear teaching of atheism, no-God which is passed down.

Secondly, any belief system must necessarily be passed down by others. Take education. You can't possibly make a serious case against knowledge since it was largely passed down to you. Very few significant changes in the body of knowledge. Supposing you was God, how would you communicate religion and your dictates to men?

Ok, I see what you mean, since humans learn from other humans, be they parents, teachers, peers, book-authors...etc etc.

Take for example our online debates on scientific topics. None of us has sat down in a lab or whatever and tested E=mc squared or whatever. We just believe the books that the scientists have written. Personally, this is why I find accusations of "arguments from authority" somewhat silly unless I am talking to an actual physicist or biologist or whatever, and at that, one who himself insists only on speaking on the basis of his own experiments or those he has personally authenticated/replicated. It is not to call someone unintelligent that I dismiss the assertion, it is just to point out that the person is debating me on the basis of arguments from authority, even while he points out that my argument is from authority. But I think that as long as we insist on arguing about topics about which we cannot even pretend to be experts, it is only logical, indeed necessary, that all such discussions can ONLY proceed on the basis of "arguments from authority". Or perhaps I find it easier to think this way because my own profession is about making arguments from authority, be that the law-maker, custom, books of professors...etc.

[Bella]

I prefer modern Christianity not so much for what it stands for, but rather its effect.  I find medieval Christianity indistinguishable from ISIS to be honest.  Yet the Christian societies were able to become better because Jesus' teachings were generally not as harsh and inhumane than Mohamed's.

I think Islam started off as the more progressive of the two.  But the Jihadist culture seems to have ultimately overshadowed whatever good aspects they may had.  While Hamas has a positive impact on many Lebanese lives, I think most people, including Kenyans will agree the world would mostly be a  better place without this belief system.

Terminator, I don't think this is accurate, either about Islam "starting off as the more progressive of the two" or comparing medieval Christianity to ISIS, unless we are talking about conflict/war. Ordinary mideaval Christianity was not like ISIS, its a farer comparison to compare it to Saudi Arabia or Iran, but ISIS? Islam started immediately with war and proceeded to conquer all of Arabia and North Africa and what is today Turkey and Eastern Europe and even Western Europe, triggering the crusades. I don't see how that is more progressive when Christianity did not begin or spread the same way. Islam did take over the schools of Byzantium and preserved the philosophy of Aristotle at a time when Western Europe was in decline. However, despite ideas from all over, and from other cultures, pre-Christian, or Asian or what-have-you, Western Europe nurtured science from infancy and sponsored it before it could take off independently. Indeed other cultures had nice ideas that stalled, none of them were able to create anything like modern science which is a child of medieval Europe and its philosophical suppositions about nature and about the nature of evidence/inquiry (the primacy of empiricism, for example, and the intelligibility of nature), however crazy that sounds to modern ears. That's cause we are trained to hear only certain aspects of that part of history dubbed "the dark ages" but that's not all of it. There are books (which I haven't personally read, except bits of pdfs and excerpts here and there) by Historians of science which I will find and post for you. I think you will find it interesting just how uniquely Western Christianity was placed to make it possible for modern science to develop, something no other culture in history managed despite superior ideas.

[MOON Ki]

The following post is adhominem. How exactly do you figure that "love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Love God above all else" have NOTHING to do with God? You are a funny guy. So what DOES have to do with God in Christianity, per your "assessment"? Please point out the terrible God bits of Christianity.

Emotion has clouded your mind.   First, nowhere did I say or even imply anything of the sort.  If you read carefully, you will note that I put quotation marks around certain words and terms.   Consider the difference between

Christianity

and

"Christianity"

Much of what has been done in the name of Christ and much that continues to be done in the name of Christ has vey little to do with God or Christ.   That was my point, and I stand by it.     The "Christian Church", and especially the "Roman Catholic" element, is a huge business that runs a fantastic con; but that's how the latter has been for hundreds of years.

You are a secular humanist

I consider myself a Christian, in the sense I have given above---doing what I can with respect to the essence of Christ's message.   Of course, I am also a lot of other things. 

I find discussions with genuine atheists better than anti-Christians.

So what do you think of popes throughout history?

[Bella]

The "Christian Church", and especially the "Roman Catholic" element, is a huge business that runs a fantastic con; but that's how the latter has been for hundreds of years.

Nonsense. Christianity in general, and yes, the Catholic church too, has done far more good for human beings in the name of Christ than you can hope to read about, but don't let objectivity get in the way of your animus.

So what do you think of popes throughout history?

Which ones? All 266 of them, including the martyrs, humanitarians, rescuers of the poor, or just the 10 bad ones you like to pick as the example of Catholicism? Do you know ANY other popes in History besides those favorite 10? Or do the rest simply not matter because their lives were not "juicy"?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents. 

You have a way of injecting atheistic arguments into a debate naturally. You have thrown this severally before so am surrounded picked it up somewhere; that since beliefs are essentially 'inherited' they are biased.

First, note it equally applies to atheism. Communist countries are good examples. Not only is there absence of theism, there is clear teaching of atheism, no-God which is passed down.

Secondly, any belief system must necessarily be passed down by others. Take education. You can't possibly make a serious case against knowledge since it was largely passed down to you. Very few significant changes in the body of knowledge. Supposing you was God, how would you communicate religion and your dictates to men?

Ok, I see what you mean, since humans learn from other humans, be they parents, teachers, peers, book-authors...etc etc.

Take for example our online debates on scientific topics. None of us has sat down in a lab or whatever and tested E=mc squared or whatever. We just believe the books that the scientists have written. Personally, this is why I find accusations of "arguments from authority" somewhat silly unless I am talking to an actual physicist or biologist or whatever, and at that, one who himself insists only on speaking on the basis of his own experiments or those he has personally authenticated/replicated. It is not to call someone unintelligent that I dismiss the assertion, it is just to point out that the person is debating me on the basis of arguments from authority, even while he points out that my argument is from authority. But I think that as long as we insist on arguing about topics about which we cannot even pretend to be experts, it is only logical, indeed necessary, that all such discussions can ONLY proceed on the basis of "arguments from authority". Or perhaps I find it easier to think this way because my own profession is about making arguments from authority, be that the law-maker, custom, books of professors...etc.

Here is how I understand argument from authority.  A certain big name supports an idea, therefore it is valid.  That is how I understand it.

When one refers to scientific consensus, it not just on the basis of unfounded belief in the authority of the figures behind it.  At least not in my case. 

There are principles set in place by a history of observation.  While they are generally accepted, they are not set in stone and one is absolutely free to challenge them.

Suppose I have a degree in physics(which incidentally I do), is that enough reason for anyone believe anything I say on the subject?  Should I tell people to zip until they get a degree?  Can I not be wrong on the subject?

The best software engineer I ever worked with was straight from high-school(never set foot in college).  Should the yahudi zip his mouth and ideas until he gets a degree? 

I think the way to go about it, is to justify whatever you are saying whenever asked.  One can spot argument from authority from 73(just a random number) miles away.

In the information age, I believe most knowledge is out there in plain sight for anyone interested in putting in an effort to learn.

[Bella]

Here is how I understand argument from authority.  A certain big name supports an idea, therefore it is valid.  That is how I understand it.

When one refers to scientific consensus, it not just on the basis of unfounded belief in the authority of the figures behind it.  At least not in my case. 

There are principles set in place by a history of observation.  While they are generally accepted, they are not set in stone and one is absolutely free to challenge them.

Suppose I have a degree in physics(which incidentally I do), is that enough reason for anyone believe anything I say on the subject?  Should I tell people to zip until they get a degree?  Can I not be wrong on the subject?

The best software engineer I ever worked with was straight from high-school(never set foot in college).  Should the yahudi zip his mouth and ideas until he gets a degree? 

I think the way to go about it, is to justify whatever you are saying whenever asked.  One can spot argument from authority from 73(just a random number) miles away.

In the information age, I believe most knowledge is out there in plain sight for anyone interested in putting in an effort to learn.

I have never asked ANYONE to shut up about anything. Quite the opposite, it's when I have supported my assertions by citing the experts who have done the experiments that those accusations come flying. At that point, "arguments from authority" seems to be no less than "Those are not your own arguments", which is just a fancy way of saying "Shut up". Its because of the information age that I can cite them or know about them in the first place.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Here is how I understand argument from authority.  A certain big name supports an idea, therefore it is valid.  That is how I understand it.

When one refers to scientific consensus, it not just on the basis of unfounded belief in the authority of the figures behind it.  At least not in my case. 

There are principles set in place by a history of observation.  While they are generally accepted, they are not set in stone and one is absolutely free to challenge them.

Suppose I have a degree in physics(which incidentally I do), is that enough reason for anyone believe anything I say on the subject?  Should I tell people to zip until they get a degree?  Can I not be wrong on the subject?

The best software engineer I ever worked with was straight from high-school(never set foot in college).  Should the yahudi zip his mouth and ideas until he gets a degree? 

I think the way to go about it, is to justify whatever you are saying whenever asked.  One can spot argument from authority from 73(just a random number) miles away.

In the information age, I believe most knowledge is out there in plain sight for anyone interested in putting in an effort to learn.

I have never asked ANYONE to shut up about anything. Quite the opposite, it's when I have supported my assertions by citing the experts who have done the experiments that those accusations come flying. At that point, "arguments from authority" seems to be no less than "Those are not your own arguments", which is just a fancy way of saying "Shut up". Its because of the information age that I can cite them or know about them in the first place.

Ok.  I understood you to mean that since none of us is an expert, then all our arguments are from authority.  I just thought that is a much more broader definition of it than I believe to be fair.

To me, an argument from authority is not just one quoted from someone else.  But rather the connotation behind the idea that because that someone else an expert his argument is valid.  As opposed to being valid merely because his argument is good.