FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
I hate Seth's assertion at about 35 minutes in that mocking Christians is not only alright, but necessary. This is just after he stated that religions shouldn't get undue respect, and I agree... but they should at least be given the respect that we want our own beliefs to get. And so I don't agree with his assertion about mockery, either, because it's not fair. Stating that it is alright to belittle others' beliefs through ridicule takes away our ability to complain when it is done to ours, because that would make us both hypocritical and holders of a double-standard.

It seems like every single public atheist (such as Matt Dillahunty and Richard Dawkins along with Seth) always wants to self-justify mocking Christians. It's clearly unethical -- it doesn't benefit a greater number of people than it hurts, it isn't something that we'd want done unto us, it isn't a virtue... but then again, when public atheists say that mockery is a good thing, they don't frame it in terms of ethics or fairness. It's always an appeal to popularity, said as bait for cheers from atheists who approve. It doesn't matter if every atheist approves of ridiculing people -- that doesn't make it right.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 04:12 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 03:58 PM)Thomas Wrote:  Seth is on solid ground here.
Simply put, If original sin didn't happen the entire Christian narrative collapses.
Specifically, the Jesus dying for mankinds sins.

No.

He would only be on solid ground if the scientist was a creationist (YEC, OEC, or PC). Since he believes in evolution, I can only assume he's a TE or an EC. TEs and ECs reject the common understanding of original sin*. TEs and ECs say that sin was created by God because God created an imperfect being. Sin became sin when God's image was placed upon humans.

*that because of Adam and Eve's sin everyone is now tainted by sin and is fallen

TEs and ECs view sin as original in nature; however, natural actions didn't become sin until there was an understanding of what sin was. What this means is that sin was always a part of humanity and it's because of this that humanity is fallen and damned; not because of someone else who sinned before us.

Seth was dishonest with his assessment of the guy. He should have learned what he believes theologically before saying the things he did. Although, I can't say one way or another what that scientist believes... heck, Seth may have actually researched his theology and Seth's statements may be intellectually honest. I, however, don't see a scientist who is a Christian and believes in evolution as believing the things Seth accused him of.

Dudes name was Francis Collins... The simple fact of it is, bro, is that the whole original sin as desribed in the Bible, was wrong, so if there was no Adam and Eve, no Snake, no tree of knowledge, or anything mythical that hints towards original sin, it couldn't have happened.

You have to go through quite a lot of Mental Gymnastics to square the huge circle of the origin of species if it never happened that way, not to mention find a reason why God intentionally made up a false story, or wrote it in metaphor for people that he Planned wouldn't have enough knowledge of that fact that it didn't happen like that.

Adam and Eve sinned, which caused the original sin to come into existence. If you take out Adam and Eve, and the whole commiting the sin part, then there was no reason why God should have given out Original Sin.

The amount of squaring the Circle, KC, and then, as if that wasn't bad, the pure mental gymnastics you have to dish out to come up with original sin as well, begs the question: Why the hell is Evolution so important that it couldn't have happened ANY OTHER WAY ( such as creation) for "God's perfect plan" to work.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
25-07-2012, 04:52 PM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2012 04:58 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 04:45 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 04:31 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I know you don't play "name that fallacy" very often, KC, but I do so I'll help you out a bit here.

It's not a slippery slope. A slippery slope is when you shoot down someone's proposal by telling them that, although their proposal is acceptable, it will lead to future proposals that are unacceptable.

If Seth had said "here's a story which clearly isn't true, so let's believe the whole bible is untrue" then it might resemble a slippery slope, but since a proposition isn't being made, it's not. That would be a fallacy of composition (believing that something about a part must be true of the whole or of every part, like thinking that your computer monitor must be for input because your keyboard and mouse are).

But Seth isn't making that statement. What he's saying is that if the story that explains original sin isn't true, then we're left without an explanation for Jesus dying for the whole world. If all we needed was any sinless person to die needlessly, then a newborn baby's death would cover everyone's sin. But that baby has a sin nature passed on from Adam, and so it can't be seen as a perfectly sinless sacrifice... unless Adam never existed to give it a sin nature.

If the story about Adam is merely allegorical, then we're still left asking why we should assume that people have a sin nature or why Jesus was necessary to be our sacrifice. If a sinful nature is not something passed on physically through sperm (because we're all genetically tied to an original sinful person), then Jesus' birth from a virgin isn't necessary, either.

And there are theological reconciliations for that as well. Don't want to get into it because that's getting way off subject.

I'm saying Seth should have researched what this guy believes before making claims about what he believes. Like I said, that's not fair.

Also, saying one thing happens and because of this one thing then something else has to happen because of that is too a slippery slope.

Not believing in Adamic original sin does not negate Christ's sacrifice. To say it does is a slippery slope unless it is explicitly stated by the accused party.

I don't believe in Adamic original sin, yet I do believe in the necessity of Christ's sacrifice because He redeemed our fallen and sinful nature.

Yes, saying "because one thing happens something else has to happen" is a slippery slope. But I don't understand what "thing happening" Seth said leads to "another thing happening necessarily".

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 04:54 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
Does anyone besides me wish this thread was about Erin Andrews instead of Seth Andrews?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
25-07-2012, 04:59 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 04:48 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I hate Seth's assertion at about 35 minutes in that mocking Christians is not only alright, but necessary. This is just after he stated that religions shouldn't get undue respect, and I agree... but they should at least be given the respect that we want our own beliefs to get. And so I don't agree with his assertion about mockery, either, because it's not fair. Stating that it is alright to belittle others' beliefs through ridicule takes away our ability to complain when it is done to ours, because that would make us both hypocritical and holders of a double-standard.

It seems like every single public atheist (such as Matt Dillahunty and Richard Dawkins along with Seth) always wants to self-justify mocking Christians. It's clearly unethical -- it doesn't benefit a greater number of people than it hurts, it isn't something that we'd want done unto us, it isn't a virtue... but then again, when public atheists say that mockery is a good thing, they don't frame it in terms of ethics or fairness. It's always an appeal to popularity, said as bait for cheers from atheists who approve. It doesn't matter if every atheist approves of ridiculing people -- that doesn't make it right.
At least we aren't secretly( and sometimes not) condemning people of different opinions to enternal toture.

It maybe unethical, but I don't give out reverence, and respect, I decided long ago that it should be earned.

Religion, not only has it lost my respect, but it has caused humanity great harm, and should be treated with hostility because of the potential harm it could inflict.

I am not protesting churches, but I not treat the practice as a good one, or one that should be mock free. Religious people can make fun of Atheism all they want, Its not something I am going to kill over, or blow myself up over.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2012, 05:13 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
I can't wait to watch it!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PeacefulSkeptic's post
25-07-2012, 05:54 PM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 04:59 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(25-07-2012 04:48 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I hate Seth's assertion at about 35 minutes in that mocking Christians is not only alright, but necessary. This is just after he stated that religions shouldn't get undue respect, and I agree... but they should at least be given the respect that we want our own beliefs to get. And so I don't agree with his assertion about mockery, either, because it's not fair. Stating that it is alright to belittle others' beliefs through ridicule takes away our ability to complain when it is done to ours, because that would make us both hypocritical and holders of a double-standard.

It seems like every single public atheist (such as Matt Dillahunty and Richard Dawkins along with Seth) always wants to self-justify mocking Christians. It's clearly unethical -- it doesn't benefit a greater number of people than it hurts, it isn't something that we'd want done unto us, it isn't a virtue... but then again, when public atheists say that mockery is a good thing, they don't frame it in terms of ethics or fairness. It's always an appeal to popularity, said as bait for cheers from atheists who approve. It doesn't matter if every atheist approves of ridiculing people -- that doesn't make it right.
At least we aren't secretly( and sometimes not) condemning people of different opinions to enternal toture.

It maybe unethical, but I don't give out reverence, and respect, I decided long ago that it should be earned.

Religion, not only has it lost my respect, but it has caused humanity great harm, and should be treated with hostility because of the potential harm it could inflict.

I am not protesting churches, but I not treat the practice as a good one, or one that should be mock free. Religious people can make fun of Atheism all they want, Its not something I am going to kill over, or blow myself up over.

This is just more self-justification. Acknowledging that you're doing something wrong because "they did it first" or "they do it, too" or "they do it but to a greater extreme" doesn't make your act right. Like the old cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right", or to quote the bible, "don't repay evil with evil" (I know, it's the bible, but it's still a good saying).

It's totally cool to side against respect, and I agree that respect should be earned. Instead of "respect", perhaps we should just grant the religious common courtesy. I used respect because Seth used it, but common courtesy is what I'm actually asking for. You don't have to treat a religious person with undue dignity or special treatment, but you should still treat them like human beings with feelings like yours.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2012, 04:31 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 05:54 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  ... You don't have to treat a religious person with undue dignity or special treatment, but you should still treat them like human beings with feelings like yours.

I confess I have a tendency to treat religious people with pity. Invariably (but not entirely) they are victims of childhood indoctrination.

However, practicing priests, mullahs, imams etc. I treat with disdain as I would with any child-abuser.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
26-07-2012, 07:14 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
The problem with the mockery hypothesis is that it assumes thoughtful, intelligent self-introspection. Peeps mock me for my Gwynnie thing, and we get to the core of a consistent philosophy. Everybody knows I'm ridiculous, but I love her and cannot express this love in any other meaningful way, so there it is.

It is the hope of Seth et al that others can come to such a self-realization. Compassion does not mandate preserving inconsistent philosophies, especially after it has been shown that said philosophies result in physical detriment such as segregation, mutilation, torture, isolation and even death.

Only person gonna die cause of Gwyneth is me. The rest of you can get a laugh out of the deal and move the fuck on. Seems to be a big component of this atheism thingy, to get the rest of humanity moving the fuck on. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
26-07-2012, 07:27 AM
RE: FreeOK2 - Seth Andrews
(25-07-2012 04:48 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  It's clearly unethical -- it doesn't benefit a greater number of people than it hurts, it isn't something that we'd want done unto us, it isn't a virtue...

Something is unethical if it isn't covered by utilitarianism, kantianism or virtue ethics? There are other ethical frameworks. Smile
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: