Rotwang

I think it's a bit misleading to describe all those countries as "Christian", since many of them are secular democracies, albeit with large proportions of Christians. (I would argue that the "good kind" of secularism has its origin in the Radical Reformation, though I don't know enough about history to say this with any confidence.)

Nothing really. Ignore me, I'm just being bitchy.

Ah, I see.

By whose estimation?

If you say so.

I don't think Abasio was suggesting that your subconciousness was controlling external events. But we're all vulnerable to confirmation bias: for example, when bad things happen to you when you've done something bad you remember it, but when similar bad things happen when you haven't done anything to "deserve it", or when you do something bad but receive no kind of Karmic retribution, you forget it. And the end result is that the correlation between doing bad things and receiving appropriate punishments seems a lot more statistically significant than it actually is, because you're looking at a skewed sample. I'm not saying that this is definitely what happened in your case, it's just something that you need to bear in mind. I remember years ago, when the BBC used to broadcast Simpsons episodes every weekday, mostly repeats, I would often think of some particular joke or event from the show and then the episode in question would be shown within the next couple of days. I tried an experiment where I would write down every episode of The Simpsons that I thought of, and see if those episodes were more likely to be shown shortly after than would be expected by random chance. Then after trying to do that for a while, I was still seeing episodes that I'd thought of in the recent past - but I hadn't remembered to write them down when I'd thought of them. I concluded from this that I actually thought of Simpsons episodes a lot more often than I realised, and that I usually only remembered having done so when I was reminded of it by a subsequent coincidence. At least, that seems like a more plausible explanation than that I have the lamest X-men superpower ever.

Have you heard this? It's very good IMO.

Good catch. Topic title edited.

Well, the important thing is that you kept it civil.

Pardon?

On this point Baptists agree with all major Protestant and Anabaptist denominations (and with Paul's epistles, for that matter). Correct. You didn't write "If I don't confine my eternal faith in christ then I'm probably going to burn right? There's your donkey and carrot." until after I pointed out that Baptists believe in Sola Fide. You wrote that my preachers "encourag[e me], like a donkey with a carrot, to be good with promises of eternal bliss." You were wrong. Is this supposed to be an example of a dogmatic statement I've made? A post in which I dispassionately say what my religion is, in response to the question of what my religion is? Do you know what the word dogmatic means? Let's have a look at the third definition given there, shall we? But I'm the one who's dogmatic? Sure...

+1

Do you really think this is going to fool anyone? You're the one who called my religious beliefs (which I've barely mentioned in this thread, by the way) "lunacy", posted baseless stereotypes about my "type" and accused me of having sand in my vagina. But I'm the one who needs to keep it civil? Sure. Yes. No. It's not what you wrote, though, is it? See, if I were you right now I might take a moment to reflect on the fact that I wasn't familiar with the basic tenets of what I'd been calling "lunacy". But not you. You just soldier on. Why? Are you suggesting that I'm the one who's dogmatic? If so, would you care to provide some statements of mine that you consider dogmatic? I could do the same for you, if you'd like.

Done.

That's not what I asked. Oh, that's fine then. You can say whatever you like and it'll be perfectly civil, as long as you're joking around. Baptists, like most other denominations that emerged from the reformation, believe in salvation through grace, not works. "[E]ncouraging you, like a donkey with a carrot, to be good with promises of eternal bliss" is nonsense. Right. All that matters to you is that Christians are definitely wrong, whatever the heck it is they're wrong about. What was that you were saying about my type being dogmatic? You don't see a problem with calling for civility while you accuse me of having sand in my vagina and calling my friends rapists?

No what? Yes what? Baptists don't preach this. You have no idea what you're talking about. If you didn't mean to imply that nothing known back then was correct, then what exactly is the relevance of the fact that I agree with the "halfwits" who lived before the invention of the lightbulb? It's nothing personal for me either. I'm just pointing out that your arguments are very stupid, that you're a hypocrite and that you don't possess even a superficial knowledge of the subject on which you're pontificating. For the children, you see.

And what of the type of people who go around calling all believers "irrational", "cooks" [sic] etc.? Who accuse all religious folk of blind faith and dogmatism in the same breath that they state things they couldn't possibly know as if they were verifiable facts?

Haha, very funny. Do you really think this is going to fool anyone? You're the one who called my religious beliefs (which I've barely mentioned in this thread, by the way) "lunacy", posted baseless stereotypes about my "type" and accused me of having sand in my vagina. But I'm the one who needs to keep it civil? Sure. Such civility. So you have no idea what Baptists actually believe, then? What a surprise. How silly of me - obviously everything people believed before the invention of the lightbulb was stupid. I'm sure that someone whose worldview is founded on logic would never believe in any pre-19th Century superstitions such as gravity or calculus.

Neither is yours. So is mine. Evidently. Wow, what logical rhetoric. Clearly you're putting that education of yours to great use.

Truly bizarre. I'm the guy who's spent part of this thread arguing against things that support my worldview (e.g. #26). You're the guy who mocked someone for posting a crackpot Youtube video to support his case, and then posted a crackpot Youtube video to support your case two hours later. But apparently I'm the one who's "very eager to disprove anything not supporting [my] worldview"? Right... Notorious among whom? I actually know quite a few of my "type", and I can tell you that they're a lot less dogmatic than the average internet atheist.

I don't know, I'm not a Biblical scholar. As far as I know the majority opinion is that Mark's Gospel was written sometime around 60-70 AD, and that those of Matthew and Luke were written shortly after; the latter two used Mark as a source and also a lost document known as Q. John's was written in the late first or early second century. I know of no reason to doubt that the authors sincerely believed what they wrote.

Perhaps you could point out how your trying not to be mean to Radi manifests itself, because I can't see it. Why is pointing out that someone's source has no credibility malicious when I do it to you, but not when you do it to Radi?

How so?

Perhaps you should tell that to the guy who wrote this: Huh? I did offer an alternative, two historians who are relatively1 reputable. 1 Relative to Atwill, that is.