• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I find those accusing other of using Ann's MO, the most "Ann-ish" myself.

(Skeptic Griggsy has aphasia... it's a writing problem, not a comprehension problem. I knew what he meant and others did too.)

Lots of religions have "signs" that prove to believers they are true-- glossolalia (speaking in tongues), stigmata, burning in the bosom, "non reactive" mind, etc. This is only "proof" that a religion is true is you have "faith" that the religion is true an are looking for such "proof". It's a mind trick used by every woo to prove that their beliefs have a basis in reality.

Similarly, some of those who consider themselves skeptics have opinions that they appear to think of as "objective facts" when they are nothing more than assertions not supported by evidence or shared by others.
 
Many years ago I was dragged to a small theater where this physic was doing a lecture. At one point all the lights were turned off at his instruction and the audience were told to concentrate on him only sitting on a stool on stage and they would see spirits floating around him. After a few minutes the lights were turned back on and this fraud asked the 150-200 people in the audience how many spirits they had seen. At least 30-40 people claimed to have seen something. At this stage I walked out and waited for my 'friend' outside. People will see what they want to see. Feel what they want to feel, it's human nature to the uneducated or the gullible and vulnerable.
 
I imagine associating physics with the art of fraud that psychic entails would need some kind of punishment. But hanging?
 
You guys are worse than the biblical god! One little blunder and you spend an eternity roasting in hell. :faint:
 
skeptigirl said:
And if you are a mere woman, turn your head and you will be a pillar of salt!
Click to expand...

God didn't turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she was a woman, but because she disobeyed God.

If you are going to criticize a religion, don't criticize it for what you want it to be. It makes you look foolish and ignorant.
 
CFLarsen said:
God didn't turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she was a woman, but because she disobeyed God.

If you are going to criticize a religion, don't criticize it for what you want it to be. It makes you look foolish and ignorant.
Click to expand...
All religions from all over the world can and are criticized, simply because their all balderdash, mans wishful thinking and his being afraid of the 'dark'.
I wish god would turn my wife into a lifelong supply of beer for me. I have no need of salt as I already have a problem with blood pressure.
:p
Wasn't Lot willing to have his own daughters pack raped? Maybe he should have been turned to salt, not his wife. :eek:
 
CFLarsen said:
God didn't turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she was a woman, but because she disobeyed God.

If you are going to criticize a religion, don't criticize it for what you want it to be. It makes you look foolish and ignorant.
Click to expand...

And how do you you know that disobedient women were not turned into salt, and disobedient men into lead, or something? It could just as well have been connected to her being a female, as it could have been about her disobedience. Maybe Lot, being a man, would not have been punished at all for the horrible disobedience of looking back at his home being destroyed? We don't know, do we, since he didn't. Maybe god turned her into salt not because she was disobedient, but because she was a disobedient woman!
 
Last edited:
ambnp said:
All religions from all over the world can and are criticized, simply because their all balderdash, mans wishful thinking and his being afraid of the 'dark'.
I wish god would turn my wife into a lifelong supply of beer for me. I have no need of salt as I already have a problem with blood pressure.
:p
Wasn't Lot willing to have his own daughters pack raped? Maybe he should have been turned to salt, not his wife. :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that religions shouldn't be criticized. I'm saying that if the criticism is to be taken seriously, it has to criticize the real religious claims, not the ones we invent.

If I were to criticize Danish protestants for their belief in St. George, why would anyone take that seriously? They don't worship St. George.

That's not criticism, that's prejudice. It's precisely as ignorant as the darkest religious fundamentalists. Or, possibly even worse - since we ought to know better.
 
Last edited:
ambnp said:
Wasn't Lot willing to have his own daughters pack raped? Maybe he should have been turned to salt, not his wife. :eek:
Click to expand...

Yes, he did, and he also, later on, had sex with his daughters, but he wasn't punished for such things at all, but Lot's poor wife was punished only for turning her head... so if someone interprets the whole thing as having a tad to do with misogyny, as Skeptigirl did, I think it's not completely crazy to say that that someone probably does have a point.
 
-Fran- said:
Yes, he did, and he also, later on, had sex with his daughters, but he wasn't punished for such things at all, but Lot's poor wife was punished only for turning her head... so if someone interprets the whole thing as having a tad to do with misogyny, as Skeptigirl did, I think it's not completely crazy to say that that someone probably does have a point.
Click to expand...

Then, skeptigirl should have used those examples which do show misogyny, and not invent one that didn't.

There is absolutely no need to invent points of criticism when it comes to religion.
 
CFLarsen said:
Then, skeptigirl should have used those examples which do show misogyny, and not invent one that didn't.

There is absolutely no need to invent points of criticism when it comes to religion.
Click to expand...

Maybe. She sure could have found a more clear example (though I don't think this example is so completely free from the misogyny of the bible as you say it is), I agree, because there sure are plenty to be found... But, I do think, correct me if I am wrong, that you were quick to jump on her on this one because... well, you don't like her???

Throughout the bible it's easy to find examples of that women were judged harsher for lesser crimes and on looser grounds by both god and people - if the punishment is then not at least partly connected to the actual gender of the person... then what? I do think, though we might keep being in disagrement about that, that the story of Lot's wife IS an example of that (at the same time as it is about many other things as well). I do think that if Lot had been the one looking back, god would just have twisted his ear a bit and said "now now naughty boy, don't look back and keep running!"
 
CFLarsen said:
Then, skeptigirl should have used those examples which do show misogyny, and not invent one that didn't.

There is absolutely no need to invent points of criticism when it comes to religion.
Click to expand...
Where do you see skeptigirls invention? Lots wife is a perfect example of what the authors of the O/T think of women. Their always blamed for the misfortune of the men. Look no further than the story of Adam and Eve.
The woman is blamed for Adam's fall and punished by birth pains. Adam by comparison escapes almost unscathed.
 
-Fran- said:
Maybe. She sure could have found a more clear example (though I don't think this example is so completely free from the misogyny of the bible as you say it is), I agree, because there sure are plenty to be found... But, I do think, correct me if I am wrong, that you were quick to jump on her on this one because... well, you don't like her???
Click to expand...

Personal preferences has nothing to with the argument made. Stick to the latter, please.

-Fran- said:
Throughout the bible it's easy to find examples of that women were judged harsher for lesser crimes and on looser grounds by both god and people - if the punishment is then not at least partly connected to the actual gender of the person... then what? I do think, though we might keep being in disagrement about that, that the story of Lot's wife IS an example of that (at the same time as it is about many other things as well). I do think that if Lot had been the one looking back, god would just have twisted his ear a bit and said "now now naughty boy, don't look back and keep running!"
Click to expand...

ambnp said:
Where do you see skeptigirls invention? Lots wife is a perfect example of what the authors of the O/T think of women. Their always blamed for the misfortune of the men. Look no further than the story of Adam and Eve.
The woman is blamed for Adam's fall and punished by birth pains. Adam by comparison escapes almost unscathed.
Click to expand...

Men are punished for disobeying god as well. The point of the pillar of salt is not to punish women, but to punish for not obeying god.
 
CFLarsen said:
Personal preferences has nothing to with the argument made. Stick to the latter, please.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that personal preferences has something to do with it for YOU! So don't tell me to keep personal preferences out of it, I wasn't expressing a personal preference. I was saying that YOUR personal preferences seems to influence YOUR arguments, don't turn it around on me. And I'm just gonna stick to what I want to, OK? And if it isn't OK with you... well *shrug*

CFLarsen said:
Men are punished for disobeying god as well. The point of the pillar of salt is not to punish women, but to punish for not obeying god.
Click to expand...

My whole point was that yes, they do get punished also, but in many cases not as harshly as women even when their crimes is more severe. My whole point is that I don't fully agree with you about the point of the pillar of salt, so you don't need to repeat your point of the point of the pillar of salt. I got what you said the first time, and I do not agree!!
 
A further example. A woman is to be stoned to death for adultery, or even if she's not a virgin on the wedding night, she can be sent back to her family in shame who then can stone her to death. What is the equivalent punishment for a man?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom