Atheist Book Report: Mere Christianity: ch 2

[jchristopher83]

people cant have different opinions about NY... Man is this guy the reason why every athiest is converting to believing in God? if I was an athiest this guy would make me wanna get baptized and drunk in the Holy Spirit and never do drugs or masterbate ever again

[senseiern]

Troll. Not hardly. I was merely attempting a joke to lighten the attitude. It is unfortunate that you are so irritated that you could not take time to laugh.

[senseiern]

Please tell me again why you wear glasses. One of the flaws of watching youtube on a blackberry is the limited comments access.

Man can live outside of society. It was easier when man's ability to patrol the entire earth was non-existent. But the point is, man is more authoritative over his own body than society is. And more to the point, society's rule are not a moral code.

[senseiern]

My attempt to interpret a water buffalo would be the equal of Michael Keaton translating Japanese in "Gung Ho". But because I do not know what the motivation, does not mean I cannot genuinely dismiss the idea of self-sacrifice. Maybe the lion called the buffalo a gnu.

[WineisyourFriend]

Respond to this video... And just like that you've said "I'm not interested in a real conversation. I just want to make fun of your shades and act like a prick online"

Fine. At one point you say I can't tell if an animal is risking its safely to save its young, then you postulate that the lion called the buffalo a gnu, and that's why it risked its life. If you're not interested in a real discussion, then I'm not interested in your comments,...troll.

[senseiern]

Hmmm. If you do not fear these people whom you called Christians, then you would not hide your identity.

As for society. Society is a creation of man. Never has a creation been greater than its creator. My adherence to societal rules, if I were not a believer, would be out of fear of the mob if I crossed them. It would not be a moral code, but a survival code, of which I would rebel where possible.

[WineisyourFriend]

@senseiern I clearly told you that I DO fear those assholes. Can you read?

And the "creation of society" is easily greater than any one individual man. No individual man can create a society. Are you even trying?

[senseiern]

Wrong. If there is no higher authority I must answer to, then there is no moral code I am beholden to.

How dare you compare me to spiteful fear mongers who would take actions of violence for your ignorance?

[WineisyourFriend]

@senseiern Do you live in a society? Do you live among other people? Then yes..there IS a moral code you are beholden to. Try to go on a killing spree and see if there are no consequences. Seriously, I find your type to be very feeble minded. And what are you talking about "fear mongers who would take actions of violence..."? What are you referring to here? Christians? Really, you lost me there.

[senseiern]

As for Christian love, eh, deal with it. Either you are right and there is no moral code I need adhere to, or if Lewis is right, I failed to meet the standard of the moral code.

[WineisyourFriend]

@senseiern Wrong. I never claimed there is no moral code, and do not believe that. I simply believe its origin is from humanity, not imaginary gods. And yes, you did fail.

And the glasses serve to hide my ID only from thumbnail images. Anyone who watches the vid would obviously recognize my voice, mannerisms, etc. But the folks I'm hiding from....also loving christians like you...for the most part don't click to watch vids like this, and wouldn't recognize me simply from a thumbnail.

[senseiern]

In that case, those around you intent on identifying you would be able to do so by the unique hairstyle, near harlequin mouth, and distinct cheekbones. The glasses are dorky. Might you consider a paperbag or a V mask?

Until we consulted with those familiar with Islamic cultures, we did, and still often do, completely misunderstand, and to our detriment, mis-read their plans and actions.

[WineisyourFriend]

@senseiern You're reaching here. We can, and frequently do, fully understand the motives and intentions..or at the very least, emotions of those we cannot verbally communicate with. The same is true of animals. We know when our pet dog is happy or sad. We know when they're scared or nervous. You gonna tell me that because I don't speak dachshund that I don't know if my dog is scared, hungry, happy, etc? Anyway, you can ignore the evidence if you like. It doesn't change the truth.

[senseiern]

And, to further emphasize the communication barrier, the animal we have worked with most to learn to communicate with is primates. ANd the best we get from them is, "I want a banana." Even Cocoa crying because of a dead kitten may have been mis-interpreted

[senseiern]

As an example, you cannot tell the difference between "Ich liebe Dich" and "Ich hasse Dich" unless you understand German, or can use somethign that translates German for you. How much moreso would you not be able to understand a water buffalo unless you can communicate with it. So, please stop with using the animal kingdom as your justification of human action until you can understand the animal language.

[WineisyourFriend]

@senseiern What is your interpretation of the actions of those animals? Are they just trying to score some time on a reality show? What? If they aren't trying to rescue their young, at great risk to themselves, then what are they doing? What is your alternative hypothesis?

[senseiern]

Please remove the glasses. They aren't cool. You look like a dork, because they look like they belong to someone with a bigger head. Or, at least push them up flush with your face.

Second, you make a mistake with the buffalo video. You and many others are putting human emotions and ideals into the animal kingdom. Until we learn to communicate with animals, there is no way we can understand the motives of the animals. Perhaps you've seen "Madagascar" one too many times.

[WineisyourFriend]

@senseiern So nice of you to begin with a petty attack on my appearance. The glasses, fyi, are to somewhat hide my identity, because religious zealots in my community would go apeshit over finding a resident atheist. It's not about looking cool. But thank you for the christian love.

And you make a mistake yourself with your second criticism. Would you also claim that Americans couldn't possibly understand the actions of the Taliban because they don't speak the language?

[djasbestos]

You/he could also consider that it's possible to play a piano (or a guitar) quite well without having sheet music ;) Ad lib! Learn as you go! Much like the morality of "savage" peoples like the Native Americans, who were, as far as Lewis is concerned, "morally illiterate".

I look forward to more on this, as I have read this book and "weak-sauce objections" / "false comparisons" is a good summary of the book, haha. Better than Strobel or Boyd, but Lewis still takes too much at face value.

[nemo3590]

I know you're worried about this being boring, but I'm thoroughly interested. I've always meant to read Mere Christianity, but never felt I could be bothered with it at the moment. This is a good way to see what it says and the rebuttals.

Sure, it might be more entertaining if you went the Coughlan route and called Lewis an AIDS-infested, cum-gargling, monkey-butt-fucking twat every other sentence. But that doesn't seem to be your style. ;-)

Your style suits you very well.

[VarmitC]

Aren't morals defined by the individual? Is it even possible for morals to be empirical? I understand a little philosophy, and I can't imagine that morals could ever be a law. So, doesn't the fact that C.S. Lewis's has a false premise negate the entire book to begin with?

[dewinthemorning]

If CS Lewis implies that in the past, religious people were doing bad things, but not any more, that will mean that religion is evolving, changing. I would agree. It's part of human society's social evolution. Our views on racism and mysogyny also evolved.

[lanastompanato]

@dewinthemorning That is not at all what that would mean.

[dewinthemorning]

@lanastompanato

What would it mean. then?

[lanastompanato]

It would mean the political acts, military acts, etc are not what religion is about. people who are religious don't give up their humanity, they still eat, sleep, fight, vote and the rest. But the doing of those things aren't religion, the examples of things like Crusades, etc aren't what religion is about. Religion isn't what is evolving. Maybe the structure of church bureaucracies evolves, but that isn't what religion is either.

[dewinthemorning]

@lanastompanato

I stand corrected. Religion is an idea. We have to think what is there in primitive Christianity, that could influence such diverse people like Calvin, Loyola, the pope who instigated the crusades, and the pope who instigated the Inquisition. "It's what works, man.", as WIYF says here.

[rtottenc]

I am really enjoying this series. Please continue it.

Also, and I should have mentioned this on your previous video, I also went to see "How to train you dragon". I found it to be enjoyable.