Blasphemy Challenge

[Beady]

Thank you. However, I contend that the "Baloney Detection Kit" is not a rulebook for atheists in the same manner or to the same extent that the Bible is for Christians.

You asked for a rulebook for critical thinking, not a bible, and I gave you one. Personally, I feel the ties of reason that bind me to the rules of critical thinking are stronger than the ties of blind faith that bound me to religion. For one thing, I made a conscious and reasoned choice to adopt the rules of critical thinking as a way to conduct my life. I cannot see how it would be reasonable to even temporarily or partially abandon these rules. It seems to me that to disavow the rules of critical thinking is to eliminate any substantive difference between you and a religious believer. To do so as a matter of convenience is hypocrisy.

The Baloney Detection Kit is a compilation and distillation of these rules. No, it is not divinely inspired, neither is it the final word on the subject, nor is it immune to revision. It is, however, a basic toolkit and framework for anyone attempting to construct a solid and focused argument for either himself or someone else, based on reason and logic.

Yes, it's possible to conduct a reasoned and logical argument without consulting the BDK but, how did you put it...?

If I'd known about this then I wouldn't have needed to struggle all those years on my own shedding my unreasoned belief in religion.

BTW, the thought occurs to me, since you apparently have never even heard of this booklet before, and are also apparently completely unfamiliar with its contents, are you really in a position to make a contention about what it is and is not?

 

[juryjone]

But we're not just atheists, here. "We" are supposed to be critical thinkers above and beyond everything else, and critical thinkers do have a rulebook.

Did my original quote say anything about "we"? I was comparing Christians to atheists, period.

You asked for a rulebook for critical thinking, not a bible, and I gave you one.

Um, no, I didn't.

BTW, the thought occurs to me, since you apparently have never even heard of this booklet before, and are also apparently completely unfamiliar with its contents, are you really in a position to make a contention about what it is and is not?

BTW, do you realize how confrontional and condescending this sounds? As a matter of fact, I have read The Demon-Haunted World, so I'm well aware of the presence of the Baloney Detection Kit. I have not read it. I really don't think I'm less of a critical thinker for not having read the booklet. Some people can benefit from reading it, I'm sure, while others have no need to consult a booklet, because they arrived at the same conclusions themselves.

I can't say whether I might benefit from reading it, but I can say that I don't need no stinkin' rulebook.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

While it is handy not to have a rulebook, I am trying to find the intolerance in "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless one is predisposed not to tolerate one's self.

DR

Talk about cherry picking. You left out all the parts where you are instructed to follow the rules about how to get your ticket to heaven and who to be intolerant of while you are at it. I suggest reading all the references to non-believers, homosexuals, and the entire bool of Lot.

Happy reading!

 

[Beady]

Did my original quote say anything about "we"? I was comparing Christians to atheists, period.

I'm an atheist, and I try to follow the rules of reason and logic. Since you presume to speak for me, how do I compare?

"You asked for a rulebook for critical thinking, not a bible, and I gave you one."

"Um, no, I didn't."

#55, above: "Where can I purchase this rulebook?"

...but I can say that I don't need no stinkin' rulebook.

From the same paragraph in #55, above: "If I'd known about this then I wouldn't have needed to struggle all those years on my own shedding my unreasoned belief in religion."

It appears that someone has hacked your account.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why do 99% of the threads in this forum get derailed like this?

 

[Beerina]

Beady....

Several facts mess up your position....

1) The correlation between charitible giving and a socieity's religiocity are inversely proportional. That's right, countries that are the most secular, the most atheist give the highest proportions of the GDP to charity and aid.

As taxation, I do believe, and not voluntary contributions. The loss of voluntary contributions (and hence private control over the distribution) leads to the typical mass fraud and waste.

In any case, as governments grow in size and take over more and more of cradle-to-grave stuff, "need" for religion evaporates, as is well-documented. And it's not necessarily something to brag about.

 

[Nancarrow]

Nice, but is denying the holy spirit worse then making a zombie porn flick called Jesus rises again?

Has the latter ever been done?

If not, I finally have a purpose to my life!

 

[Beady]

Why do 99% of the threads in this forum get derailed like this?

All threads eventually get derailed, in all forums, unless someone steps in and either censors the content or locks the thread (or bans one or more of the participants). This type of drift is called "conversation," and it appears that you, yourself, have probably sent this thread off in the least-related of all the tangents so far.