Oh, certainly not. I don't even think they fall into the same catagory.

And what is that "thing" in your opinion?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Then we're in agreement as to that point. I see it as allegory.

__________________
"artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians use them to cover the truth up" "V" in V for Vendetta

672 days to go.
http://www.backwardsbush.com/?gclid=...FRQxSgodT0dCxw

Thank you for answering.

To avoid any miscommunication, such as wondering if I'm "suggesting that everyone who does research will have the same beliefs and opinions about what their findings mean", allow me to explain further what I meant.

You said: "Amusingly enough, I know Christians who do the same sort of thing to Atheists. I guess no matter what you believe, nothing quite says "fun" like doing a lot of research yourself and then using it to humiliate and confuse someone who has different beliefs and opinions then you because they haven't done as much research."

So let's say that mr. A (who happens to be a non-Christian) claims to have researched the earth's movement and that mr. B (who happens to be a Christian) claims to have researched the same. Mr. A came to the conclusion that the earth moves around the sun while mr. B came to the conclusion that the earth doesn't move at all.
Let's also say that mr. A now wants to use his research to humiliate and confuse mr. B "who has different beliefs and opinions". There are multiple possibilites here - which is why I asked what I asked.

The first option is that mr. A could be using his research to humiliate the conclusion that mr. B reached through his research. In that case, any humiliation would be due to research, not to "beliefs and opinions". But you would certainly appear to have used "beliefs and opinions" as being synonymous with research.

Another option is that mr. A could be using his lack of religious faith to humiliate the religious faith of mr. B. In this case, the "beliefs and opinions" of neither would of course have anything to do with research - but since mr. A claims to be using his research for this purpose, he obviously doesn't have a clue and confuses his research with beliefs.

A third possibility is that mr. A could be using his research to humiliate mr. B for whatever reason but most probably, as you state, because mr. B wouldn't appear to have done the same amount of research. However, in this case, mr. A's research would be totally disjoint from mr. A's "beliefs and opinions".
Like in the first option, "beliefs and opinions" doesn't - or rather shouldn't - matter here. "Shouldn't", because the measure of mr. B's humiliation would solely be the degree by which mr. B equates research - either his own "research" or research in general, including mr. A's research - with his personal "beliefs and opinions".

And that's where I trust Mark Twain to be able to humiliate the "blind". Because equating "beliefs and opinons" with research is pretty much the prerogative of the religiously blind.

Anyway .. carry on with the real topic.

Well, since apparently that comment failed to convey the meaning I intended, I'll give it another shot.

I was attempting to point out that people of various positions, opinions, convictions, beliefs, persuasions (whatever) often enjoy using their research to taunt those who disagree with them.

For example, person 'A' holds to one position on the nature of the earth, person 'B' holds to another. How they arrived at these positions is, for our purposes, irrelevent. If person 'A' goes and performs research to back up his position, he may then confront person 'B' in a debate. In general, if only one of the two people has supporting facts immediately at hand, it doesn't matter who actually has the correct position: the person with the data at hand will come out looking intelligent and obviously right; the person who doesn't have any facts handy (perhaps because he was preparing for debate) will come out looking like a dimwitted, dogmatic, ignoramous.

Now I've seen atheists do this Christians and Christians do it to atheists. One party gathers a collection of data that appears (at least if properly formatted and edited) to strongly support their position. Then they seek out or attempt to lure in the other party, who has no such research immediately available and isn't prepared for a real argument. Even if they arrived at their position by researching the options, its doubtful that they can rattle off the facts, dates, findings and numbers from memory. Then they proceed to intellectually crush the other party in debate, and go away feeling more intelligent, logical and clever than that stupid, ignorant boob they ambushed.
I remember particularly a repulsive Christian video showing a group of "creation scientists" ambushing atheists with an arsenal of facts and research that (at least on the surface and without any counter-argument what-so-ever) destroyed their evidence for biological evolution.

If your goal is to honestly try and help someone come to a better understanding of reality, to truly educate and inform for their own benefit, then this can be a good thing.
But if you're goal is trash someone else's position and make them feel like a looser, just so you can get a "rush" of feeling intellectually superior, then I think its disgusting no matter what your issue or position on it is.

Hence my response to the comment:

The natural thirst to create.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I guess i could never disabuse you of your comfort you find in the bible. I guess i would only wonder at the value of being exclusive to the bible, rather than taking the entirety of human experience and knowledge when seeking knowledge about ourselves and the universe, the bible being only a very small part of this experience.

I don't agree that empathy for fellow humans is central to Christianity. I think it is secondary, at best, to the christian desire top please god, otherwise why would so many christians harm other humans to please god?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

But the bible hardly ranks anywhere near other more important moral documents - human rights declarations, etc... the bible, and all religious texts that claim absolute knowledge and promise rewards and punishments according to the sincerity of ones 'faith' in such texts, are indeed, a great source of human immorality.

That makes no sense. If their is no divine source for the bible than what do you have to 'hold on to' as a christian person. If the bible has no intrinsic value beyond that of any other book whyhave so many people killed and be killed for it? That makes christianity seem crazier than i already think it is. At least if christians believe it has a divine origin i can comprehend their fanaticism, but without even that, im at a complete loss to understand why anybody would take religiin seriously at all. Or any more serious than Plato's Republic, the works of Shakespeare, or the Harry Potter series.

So you wont listen to people who don't share your faith, in other words. That makes it sound like little more than a cult...

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Example of Jesus' love for his enemies:

Luke 19:27 - But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

But, at least the Book of James says it is ok to give into your temptations:

James 1:2 - My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

See this is why you have a problem with Christianity. You are holding a belief about the religion that frankly isn't right. I have said this so many times and I will say it again: it is impossible to please God more. Every Christian is taught from the time they are in Sunday school through adulthood that God loves everyone equally and infinitely. He can not love a person more and there is no way to gain more favor with him. Actually this belief you have is border line heretical. And one of the main commandments of Christianity is "to love your neighbor as yourself." I don't know how much more empathetic you can get. Christians do good works, have empathy, and all that jazz because it is there "right, duty, and joy" as the language of the church goes.


I'm not exclusive to the Bible. Truth is not only found in the Bible, but when i find something that seems to contradict what i hold as a theological truth in the Bible then i will take the Bibles word over the other source

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

I agree with you on many levels. However, my study of religion was only to understand why some people use it as a tool to kill & enslave others. When I rail against religion, it is mostly against the literalists & the fire & brimstone crowd who would infuse religion into secular society. I find it a dangerous precedent. I think we all can plainly see the results of radical Islam. There are numerous great examples of Christians committing similar atrocities. There are so many valid reasons to kill other people----the forced acceptance of mythology doesn't seem very valid to me, and the world would be better off w/o these dogma.

Of course, that's just one man's opinion. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

You've just "proved" my entire point.

Thank you, Tim.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Only if your point is that logic is a limited system which cannot fully describe our world and that trying to disprove or otherwise denigrate spiritual beliefs using logic and reason is a waste of time.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

what a great post

thanks

Oh, come now, Mr. Twain.
Snipping quips of dialog out of parables?
Quoting only half a sentence?

What is up with that?