If you had never been taught that snakes and donkeys talk

[Zzyzx]

.
Nearly everyone in modern societies is exposed to supernatural stories as part of their culture's religious orientation. Different cultures and different times favor different supernatural tales and promote different supernatural beings. Some favor leprechauns, some demons, some "gods" and "goddesses".

The young are taught the stories of favored supernatural beings – and learn that such beings account for all unknowns (up to and including human death and "afterlife"). This "religious training" or indoctrination typically occurs before young people have developed judgment and discernment – and while they are easily influenced by "authorities" (parents, teachers, preachers and "leaders").

Christian children are taught that bible stories of incredible events are true – a pair of all the world's animals lived for months on an "ark" and all others (including humans) were killed by a flood "to the tops of mountains";a person lived for three days "in the belly of a fish" and emerged to preach; dead bodies came back to life miraculously; a religious leader walked on water and calmed stormy seas with a command; etc, etc.

Many go through life not questioning the incredible tales – assuming that they are true because that is what they were told.

Questions for debate:

1. If you were not taught to believe the incredible tales were true, would you consider such stories in a book to be truthful and accurate?

2. If similar incredible stories are presented in a book OTHER than the bible, do you accept them as truthful and accurate? Why?

[Flail]

Obviously indoctrination is required to believe all such supernatural tales as irrefutable truths....Santa is another example of course...and but for the disindoctrination of society around that myth,we would all still be leaving cookies by the mantle.

One can always determine those things which lack evidence in that they are invariably supported by indoctrination and superstition and mythical accounts rather than rational proofs.

[drs]

.
Nearly everyone in modern societies is exposed to supernatural stories as part of their culture's religious orientation. Different cultures and different times favor different supernatural tales and promote different supernatural beings. Some favor leprechauns, some demons, some "gods" and "goddesses".

The young are taught the stories of favored supernatural beings – and learn that such beings account for all unknowns (up to and including human death and "afterlife"). This "religious training" or indoctrination typically occurs before young people have developed judgment and discernment – and while they are easily influenced by "authorities" (parents, teachers, preachers and "leaders").

Christian children are taught that bible stories of incredible events are true – a pair of all the world's animals lived for months on an "ark" and all others (including humans) were killed by a flood "to the tops of mountains";a person lived for three days "in the belly of a fish" and emerged to preach; dead bodies came back to life miraculously; a religious leader walked on water and calmed stormy seas with a command; etc, etc.

Many go through life not questioning the incredible tales – assuming that they are true because that is what they were told.

Questions for debate:

1. If you were not taught to believe the incredible tales were true, would you consider such stories in a book to be truthful and accurate?

I would not believe unless GOD Himself taught me, and now I know the bible is truthfull and accurate.

No one truly believes in CHRIST unless GOD puts His SPIRIT in them and allows that person understanding.


Luke 24

The Scriptures Opened

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.� 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

2. If similar incredible stories are presented in a book OTHER than the bible, do you accept them as truthful and accurate? Why?

Depends, example the Koran, I believe it was dictated to Mohommad by a angel, the olny diference is that the angel that gave the Koran to Mohommad was a fallen angel(demon).


The people were already warned against this happening.




Matthew 24

And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.



Galatians 1

Only One Gospel

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

2 Corinthians 11

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

[Zzyzx]

.

Obviously indoctrination is required to believe all such supernatural tales as irrefutable truths....

One can always determine those things which lack evidence in that they are invariably supported by indoctrination and superstition and mythical accounts rather than rational proofs.

I would not believe unless GOD Himself taught me, and now I know the bible is truthfull and accurate.

No one truly believes in CHRIST unless GOD puts His SPIRIT in them and allows that person understanding.

<snip bible quotations offered as "evidence">

These adjacent posts seem to confirm the existence and effects of indoctrination.

The claim that "no one truly believes in Christ unless 'god puts his spirit in them" IS an example of indoctrination. Unless taught that position, it is extremely unlikely that a person would conjure up the notion on their own – even after reading religious promotional literature (without external coercion).

The statement is also a claim that "god" determines who will believe (and be "saved") by choosing which people to "put his spirit in them".

The "understanding" referred to appears to be further reflection of indoctrination.

[drs]

.

Obviously indoctrination is required to believe all such supernatural tales as irrefutable truths....

One can always determine those things which lack evidence in that they are invariably supported by indoctrination and superstition and mythical accounts rather than rational proofs.

I would not believe unless GOD Himself taught me, and now I know the bible is truthfull and accurate.

No one truly believes in CHRIST unless GOD puts His SPIRIT in them and allows that person understanding.

<snip bible quotations offered as "evidence">

These adjacent posts seem to confirm the existence and effects of indoctrination.

The statement is also a claim that "god" determines who will believe (and be "saved") by choosing which people to "put his spirit in them".

The "understanding" referred to appears to be further reflection of indoctrination.

I am 36 now and I did not come to faith untill I was 31, and I was not taught or enlightened by people, GOD Himself as shown me the truth.

The claim that "no one truly believes in Christ unless 'god puts his spirit in them" IS an example of indoctrination. Unless taught that position, it is extremely unlikely that a person would conjure up the notion on their own – even after reading religious promotional literature (without external coercion).

It is interesting that you put extremely unlikely that a person would conjure up that notion on their own.

Which is exactly right, I did not conjure it on my own, CHRIST has taught me.



A few scriptures with proper understanding from the gospel can explain all this.



No one comes to CHRIST unless GOD draws him.

John 6

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’[e]Therefore everyone who has heard and learned[f] from the Father comes to Me


The truth is hidden from most.

It is quite clear in scripture that no one can no GOD unless CHRIST reveals the truth to them.


Matthew 11

Jesus Gives True Rest

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.�



And here we have the indwelling of FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT into the believer.


John 14

Jesus Promises Another Helper

15 “If you love Me, keep[d] My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
Indwelling of the Father and the Son

19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.� 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?�
23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

[cnorman18]

I guess the most direct answer here would be a quote from my rabbi, the same rabbi I quote in my signature: "What kind of stories have talking animals? ...Fairy tales!"

A few points:

(1) Belief in God does not necessarily entail a belief in the literal truth of the Bible. Very few liberal Jews or liberal Christians hold such a belief.

(2) Literalistic beliefs of this kind are most probably a result of "indoctrination." Religious belief itself is not, or at least not necessarily.

JoeyK just started a thread based on a recent survey which shows that most religious people change their affiliation and/or beliefs several times during their lifetimes. If religious beliefs were purely a product of "indoctrination," that would not be the case.

(3) Stories like Noah's Ark, the serpent in the
Garden, and Balaam's talking donkey are, in my experience as both a liberal Christian and a liberal Jew, more often considered folklore and teaching story than as literally true - and that is how I was taught as a child. Even in Sunday school, these tales were taught as literature and not history.

Before we get to my fourth point: The facile assumption that all or most religious people are no more than indoctrinated idiots is getting very, very tiresome around here. I'm not, and I am not all that exceptional. I have spent my entire life around religious people, including religious professionals, and they include some of the most intelligent, reflective, and deep-thinking people I have ever known.

Which brings us to

(4) The approach of strictly objective materialism is a fine one, but it is certainly not the only one that is available or intellectually respectable; and atheists and nontheists may not on that account claim to have a monopoly on intelligence, rationality, or reflective thought.

It's easy to beat up the fundamentalists, and we do plenty of that here. I've grown rather bored with it myself. I'd like to see a little more engagement with varieties of theism that aren't quite so fatuous and easily refuted.

It seems to be that the general subject of religion contains more potential topics than "Look how stupid this is" and "Prove that God exists." The first is barely worth anyone's attention and has been done to death here; the second is not, reports from the front to the contrary, objectively and conclusively provable or resolvable. If those were all we had to talk about here, I'd be logging on about once a month - or not at all.

[Zzyzx]

.

I guess the most direct answer here would be a quote from my rabbi, the same rabbi I quote in my signature: "What kind of stories have talking animals? ...Fairy tales!"

I agree. However, many bible believers, including members of this forum, steadfastly maintain that bible stories are LITERALLY TRUE – and are "the word of god".

(1) Belief in God does not necessarily entail a belief in the literal truth of the Bible. Very few liberal Jews or liberal Christians hold such a belief.

I understand and agree. Liberal theists are under-represented in these forums.

(2) Literalistic beliefs of this kind are most probably a result of "indoctrination." Religious belief itself is not, or at least not necessarily.

Again, I agree.

JoeyK just started a thread based on a recent survey which shows that most religious people change their affiliation and/or beliefs several times during their lifetimes. If religious beliefs were purely a product of "indoctrination," that would not be the case.

Perhaps the indoctrination is most effective in producing a fear of a supernatural being – and the "switching religionists" maintain worship of that god to avoid "going to hell". Many (most, all?) Christian sects appear to adhere to the "damnation vs. salvation" concept.

(3) Stories like Noah's Ark, the serpent in the Garden, and Balaam's talking donkey are, in my experience as both a liberal Christian and a liberal Jew, more often considered folklore and teaching story than as literally true - and that is how I was taught as a child. Even in Sunday school, these tales were taught as literature and not history.

You went to a different Sunday school than the vocal fundamentalist / literalist types who "defend the faith" (meaning the literal bible) here.

It might be interesting to know how many members WERE taught that the bible stories were literally true. Many of them STILL (presumably as chronological adults) defend each and every "miracle" tale as being true – and the bible as being the "word of god" (often "inerrant" or "infallible") – and the gospels as "independent" and "historical".

THAT is the view of religion that most Non-Theists appear to condemn or attack. Liberal Theists are in the minority of theists posting to these threads. Fundamentalists / literalists are vocal with "in your face" and "you are going to hell" versions of the "Christian message".

Before we get to my fourth point: The facile assumption that all or most religious people are no more than indoctrinated idiots is getting very, very tiresome around here.

I agree. Would the indoctrinated idiots step to one side. Would indoctrinated PEOPLE step to one side. Hmmmmm . . . . nobody is indoctrinated (except those who are ex-theists acknowledging that the WERE indoctrinated).

I'm not, and I am not all that exceptional.

Errrr . . . Cnorman you are VERY exceptional. Finding you in a "Field of Fundies" is like finding my youngest brother at school – he was the head sticking up above all the rest.

I have spent my entire life around religious people, including religious professionals, and they include some of the most intelligent, reflective, and deep-thinking people I have ever known.

Do the religious people and professionals with whom you have associated include some (many?) who are among the most ignorant, shallow and self-righteous people you have known?

Have you known highly intelligent, reflective and deep-thinking Fundamentalist Christians (or fundamentalist followers of other religions)?

(4) The approach of strictly objective materialism is a fine one, but it is certainly not the only one that is available or intellectually respectable; and atheists and nontheists may not on that account claim to have a monopoly on intelligence, rationality, or reflective thought.

Speaking as a Non-Theist, I do NOT make any claims regarding monopoly for any group on intelligence, rationality or reflective though. Those traits are distributed through people of all ages, races, religions, and political persuasions; perhaps not quite evenly distributed – but not exclusively distributed.

It's easy to beat up the fundamentalists, and we do plenty of that here. I've grown rather bored with it myself.

Yes, as someone said, "Beating up Fundamentalists is no more challenge than beating up my little brother" (that did NOT apply to MY "little brother" who was a very successful collegiate unlimited wrestler).

HOWEVER, a new crop of Fundamentalists arrives regularly – claiming to know "truth", to be superior to "infidels", to have "killer arguments" (such as Pascal's Wager) that will overwhelm "Atheists". They often fancy themselves as "fighting giants" (evil giants, no doubt – perhaps the offspring of "angels" mating with human females) in the name of chivalry and honor and god and country – perhaps never to discover that they fight windmills, Don Quixote style.

I'd like to see a little more engagement with varieties of theism that aren't quite so fatuous and easily refuted.

As you and I have discovered over the past couple of years, there is little to debate when neither of us claims to possess special knowledge about life or "afterlife" or supernatural beings.

Perhaps other Non-Theists wish to debate against liberal, non coercive views that are not put forth as absolute knowledge.

My primary interest is to provide reasoned alternatives to traditional (conservative, fundamental, literal) dogmatism – and to assist proponents of such to discredit themselves and the religion they seek to promote or defend.

Moderate and liberal theists do not tend to make irrational claims or to argue that they possess absolute truth. While the liberal may say "I believe", the fanatical says "I KNOW (and you are inferior if you doubt my word)".

It seems to be that the general subject of religion contains more potential topics than "Look how stupid this is" and "Prove that God exists." The first is barely worth anyone's attention and has been done to death here; the second is not, reports from the front to the contrary, objectively and conclusively provable or resolvable. If those were all we had to talk about here, I'd be logging on about once a month - or not at all.

I have suggested that the forum initiate an "Honors Section" (or some such thing) by invitation only for those who have demonstrated ability to debate rationally, civilly and honorably. Admission could be by majority vote of participants and removal by similar vote (or super majority).

[cnorman18]

.

I guess the most direct answer here would be a quote from my rabbi, the same rabbi I quote in my signature: "What kind of stories have talking animals? ...Fairy tales!"

I agree. However, many bible believers, including members of this forum, steadfastly maintain that bible stories are LITERALLY TRUE – and are "the word of god".

No argument here, of course. See below.

(1) Belief in God does not necessarily entail a belief in the literal truth of the Bible. Very few liberal Jews or liberal Christians hold such a belief.

I understand and agree. Liberal theists are under-represented in these forums.

Yes, we've both observed that before. More's the pity. We have a few, but our ranks are thin.

(2) Literalistic beliefs of this kind are most probably a result of "indoctrination." Religious belief itself is not, or at least not necessarily.

Again, I agree.

Some, apparently, don't. Again, see below.

JoeyK just started a thread based on a recent survey which shows that most religious people change their affiliation and/or beliefs several times during their lifetimes. If religious beliefs were purely a product of "indoctrination," that would not be the case.

Perhaps the indoctrination is most effective in producing a fear of a supernatural being – and the "switching religionists" maintain worship of that god to avoid "going to hell". Many (most, all?) Christian sects appear to adhere to the "damnation vs. salvation" concept.

In the liberal denominations, Hell is downplayed to the point that it hardly exists as an acknowledged doctrine. When it is cited at all, it generally seems to be reserved for the egregiously evil - the Hitlers and Mansons and child torturers of the world.

In my experience, the fear of Hell is a nonissue among liberal Christians. As I mentioned awhile back, I learned about Hell as a child, but it was always with the subtext, "But you don't have to worry about that." First, on the ground that I was a good kid; my frequent screwups and misbehavior were punished as usual, but I was never once threatened with Hell. Second, on the ground that I believed in Jesus, and so was in no danger of it. That was an assumption, not a prescription. It was taken for granted that I was a Christian, not pounded into me that I HAD to be.

From what I've seen, only fundamentalists make a big deal of Hell. Here in Texas, at least, if you have that attitude, you're not a Methodist or an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian. You're a Baptist or a Pentecostal.

All that said, I would bet that most of the denomination-switching among liberal Christians (where I would also bet it's most common) is for intellectual/theological reasons. I knew any number of Presbyterians who became Methodists because they couldn't buy into Calvinism, for instance. Sometimes it's for aesthetic reasons, or just a matter of taste; my own sister was raised Methodist and became an Episcopalian because she liked the services better. Weekly communion with real wine instead of grape juice, more formal services, and so on. Even then - and even when it's for purely social or business reasons (you hang or work with a crowd you like, and they're all Lutherans - it happens), that sure doesn't show that the "indoctrination" took.

Most liberal lay Christians aren't all that concerned with theology and supernaturalism, anyway. To them, it's more about ethics and service and applying the teachings of Jesus. You don't hear hellfire-and-brimstone sermons or see "faith healing" services in those churches. When Methodists have a "revival," it's not about saving souls. It's about increasing membership or financing the new building.

(3) Stories like Noah's Ark, the serpent in the Garden, and Balaam's talking donkey are, in my experience as both a liberal Christian and a liberal Jew, more often considered folklore and teaching story than as literally true - and that is how I was taught as a child. Even in Sunday school, these tales were taught as literature and not history.

You went to a different Sunday school than the vocal fundamentalist / literalist types who "defend the faith" (meaning the literal bible) here.

Thank God, to coin a phrase.

It might be interesting to know how many members WERE taught that the bible stories were literally true. Many of them STILL (presumably as chronological adults) defend each and every "miracle" tale as being true – and the bible as being the "word of god" (often "inerrant" or "infallible") – and the gospels as "independent" and "historical".

That would strike most liberal Christians as very odd. The point is the message of Scripture, not its literal truth.

As I've said once or twice, when I became a Jew I didn't leave all my beliefs as a Christian behind: I only confirmed those that I found most vital and discarded those that weren't.

THAT is the view of religion that most Non-Theists appear to condemn or attack. Liberal Theists are in the minority of theists posting to these threads. Fundamentalists / literalists are vocal with "in your face" and "you are going to hell" versions of the "Christian message".

True; and I don't object to opposing those views (obviously - I oppose them myself often enough).

I just wish we could talk about something ELSE a little more often. For instance, I have seen literally hundreds of threads about the Bible here, and virtually all of them were ONLY about its literal truth. I can count the number of conversations about the Bible that ignore that issue on one hand.

I agree that there are heaps of fundamentalists here, and I agree with and will join in opposing them; but I object to the fact that both sides allow them to set the agenda for discussion to the virtual exclusion of other points of view.

Before we get to my fourth point: The facile assumption that all or most religious people are no more than indoctrinated idiots is getting very, very tiresome around here.

I agree. Would the indoctrinated idiots step to one side. Would indoctrinated PEOPLE step to one side. Hmmmmm . . . . nobody is indoctrinated (except those who are ex-theists acknowledging that the WERE indoctrinated).

And a few theists who never were. In a way, that's my point. There is little acknowledgment here that we exist.

I'm not, and I am not all that exceptional.

Errrr . . . Cnorman you are VERY exceptional. Finding you in a "Field of Fundies" is like finding my youngest brother at school – he was the head sticking up above all the rest.

As I say, I question that. I may be a rare bird HERE, but there are plenty like me. There are multiple websites for potential and actual converts to Judaism, I know many converts, and know of many more. And, as I say, as a Christian in a liberal denomination, I found unthinking, blind literalism to be very much the exception rather than the rule. When I was a minister, my most thoughtful and sometimes irreverent sermons were often the best received - even among poorly-educated and elderly rural folk.

I have spent my entire life around religious people, including religious professionals, and they include some of the most intelligent, reflective, and deep-thinking people I have ever known.

Do the religious people and professionals with whom you have associated include some (many?) who are among the most ignorant, shallow and self-righteous people you have known?

In my denomination and similar ones? Very few. I have known a number of preachers with huge egos, but that's not quite the same thing.

There are, of course, fundamentalist types in every denomination. They rather often leave those churches for others that share their attitudes. In my first church, there was one (1) such woman, who was convinced that she was holier than the rest of us and eventually withdrew and became a Pentecostal. The reaction among the other members was a good-natured allusion to "people who are so heavenly-minded that they're no earthly good." That was a common expression, and I heard it often in many places.

Have you known highly intelligent, reflective and deep-thinking Fundamentalist Christians (or fundamentalist followers of other religions)?

A few. Very few. Most eventually dropped those beliefs, or dropped those characteristics. Like most things, there is a certain amount of self-selection there. You don't join or stay in the NRA if you don't like guns, and you don't root for the Cowboys if you don't like football.

(4) The approach of strictly objective materialism is a fine one, but it is certainly not the only one that is available or intellectually respectable; and atheists and nontheists may not on that account claim to have a monopoly on intelligence, rationality, or reflective thought.

Speaking as a Non-Theist, I do NOT make any claims regarding monopoly for any group on intelligence, rationality or reflective thought.

And there YOU are rather a rare bird, are you not? Not unique, to be sure; but such attitudes are common here, and just as you feel compelled to oppose fundamentalist claims and attitudes, I feel compelled to oppose those "fundamentalist atheist" ones.

Those traits are distributed through people of all ages, races, religions, and political persuasions; perhaps not quite evenly distributed – but not exclusively distributed.

Agreed. Would that we all could acknowledge that fact.

It's easy to beat up the fundamentalists, and we do plenty of that here. I've grown rather bored with it myself.

Yes, as someone said, "Beating up Fundamentalists is no more challenge than beating up my little brother" (that did NOT apply to MY "little brother" who was a very successful collegiate unlimited wrestler).

HOWEVER, a new crop of Fundamentalists arrives regularly – claiming to know "truth", to be superior to "infidels", to have "killer arguments" (such as Pascal's Wager) that will overwhelm "Atheists". They often fancy themselves as "fighting giants" (evil giants, no doubt – perhaps the offspring of "angels" mating with human females) in the name of chivalry and honor and god and country – perhaps never to discover that they fight windmills, Don Quixote style.

It has been noted that their very screennames often betray such an attitude. I decline to give examples, but I'm sure they spring readily to mind.

I'd like to see a little more engagement with varieties of theism that aren't quite so fatuous and easily refuted.

As you and I have discovered over the past couple of years, there is little to debate when neither of us claims to possess special knowledge about life or "afterlife" or supernatural beings.

Not on those topics; but my point is that there are others. I recall a nice debate about the propriety of of certain kinds of "evangelism"" for instance, which entail sitting through sermons in order to receive charitable assistance. Of course, we didn't disagree there, either.

But in a way, that's my point. Isn't it as valuable to discover, as you and I have, the points where responsible religion and responsible skepticism/humanism have common values and common interests? Even in political debate, it is not uncommon - and surely not unproductive - to seek and find common ground.

There has been very little of that here. I would like to see more.

Perhaps other Non-Theists wish to debate against liberal, non coercive views that are not put forth as absolute knowledge.

There are plenty, and you and I can name them; for some, any theistic belief at all is unacceptable.

But my point, or one of them, is - does debate always have to be against? Can we not, at least occasionally, affirm other beliefs and approaches as worthwhile and even admirable, even when we do not share them? You and I certainly do. Can we not sometimes debate to find where we agree?

That happens here from time to time. More often would be good. There is no rule that says we must let extremists set the agenda, nor that we must always set out to disprove, discredit and deny.

I am not blaming only the nontheists here. It would be a wonder, yea, indeed a miracle, if fundamentalists would acknowledge that honest skepticism and critical thinking are admirable qualities and an honorable approach, as opposed to condemning them outright as mere sinful obstinacy and "anti-supernatural bias," among other, more pejorative, things. That would go a long way toward encouraging "rational and civil debate."

My primary interest is to provide reasoned alternatives to traditional (conservative, fundamental, literal) dogmatism – and to assist proponents of such to discredit themselves and the religion they seek to promote or defend.

I have no argument with that, of course.

My own interest is to demonstrate that there are alternatives to that kind of belief, and that those do not constitute the whole of religion.

Moderate and liberal theists do not tend to make irrational claims or to argue that they possess absolute truth. While the liberal may say "I believe", the fanatical says "I KNOW (and you are inferior if you doubt my word)".

That is common enough here, certainly; but I think that even among fundamentalists, that subtext is sometimes, "I KNOW (and I want to share this knowledge that gives me such peace and assurance)." Assuming that those amount to the same thing is sometimes accurate, but sometimes it isn't.

It seems to be that the general subject of religion contains more potential topics than "Look how stupid this is" and "Prove that God exists." The first is barely worth anyone's attention and has been done to death here; the second is not, reports from the front to the contrary, objectively and conclusively provable or resolvable. If those were all we had to talk about here, I'd be logging on about once a month - or not at all.

I have suggested that the forum initiate an "Honors Section" (or some such thing) by invitation only for those who have demonstrated ability to debate rationally, civilly and honorably. Admission could be by majority vote of participants and removal by similar vote (or super majority).

An interesting idea. It strikes me, though, that if we all took the rules and principles of this forum seriously, and enforced them (members AND moderators) without compromise or equivocation, that it could all be like that. That is its intent, after all.

No criticism of my fellow moderators implied; they are the best I've ever seen. But it seems to me that if a member is clearly a toxic influence, consistently generating complaints, reports, ill feeling and personal animosity, whether or not that member is technically in violation of the rules, that member ought to be gone. There are members on both sides of the theist/nontheist fence to whom that might apply.

If we want to foster an atmosphere of civil debate, fouling that atmosphere with uncivil attitudes and unethical and provocative tactics ought to be a violation of the rules in itself.

It is, of course; Rule 14. In my opinion, habitual violation of that rule should be grounds for banning all by itself.

[Easyrider]

CNorman: If someone believes God can create a universe, as you believe, then IMO they have no basis for denying that God can't speak through a donkey.

Am I wrong?

[Scotracer]

What I love about the talking serpent in Genesis is that if you take it literally (and really, if you take the entire bible as metaphorical you would be quite confused to what it all meant to existence) then all it says is that a talking snake persuaded Eve to eat of the fruit.

This snake is not said to be satan in any part of Genesis - just Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made." (English Standard Version - KJV replaces "crafty" with "Subtle"). Now, when Yahweh caught them after the act (and this somehow validates omniscience?) he said the serpent would crawl on its belly and eat dirt - NO mention of the removal of voice capabilities.

From this we get:

1- The serpent was just a snake

2- Snakes can still talk, according to Genesis - even without the required organs