Harvard Pro-Sex and Anti-Sex Crusaders Make Us Want to Ignore Them, Have Sex
Yesterday, Harvard's Lena "I lowered my mouth over his cock and slid my lips over his shaft easily" Chen (our Favorite Person Ever) debated the merits of pre-marital sex with Janie Fredell, the co-president of True Love Revolution (which, believe it or not, is not a 60's band you've never heard of, but a campus abstinence group). We sent correspondent Alterrell Mills to get the scoop.
The highly-anticipated "debate" between Lena "I lowered my mouth over his cock and slid my lips over his shaft easily" Chen and the co-President of the True Love Revolution, Janie Fredell, was truly not worth the wait. Before the event, I met with an overeager Janie who emphasized that it was "a discussion, not a debate about sex and dating." And here I was, thinking we had a regular Lincoln and Douglass on our hands! Discussion, indeed.
Janie arrived early, while Lena came right on time. Both ladies held true to form in terms of appearance; Lena wore a mini-skirt that left little to the imagination, while Janie was more modestly dressed in jeans.
The ladies started off by defining their sexuality. Janie stated that she was abstinent, and that the kind of guy she was interested in was "chivalrous, strong yet gentle" and ultimately worth the wait. Janie wants a man who respects her ambitions, and values more than just sex in their relationship. She also added that she could get sexual gratification from "a battery-operated plastic object." Lena replied, "I derive great joy from battery-operated objects."
Ewww.
After the jump: let's talk about sex, baby.
On their definition of sex:
LC: "Anything involving penetration, manual penetration"
JF: "[Laughs] Ditto!"
LC: "Stress Relief"
JF: "I go for a run"
Janie mentioned how sex causes a release of oxytocin that clouds judgment. This is like a conservative pseudo-science similar to creationism. Well cloud my judgment if you can find me a fix of endorphins/ hormones that are equally as good.
"Why should we care about love, it's just love?"
"True love is unconditional appreciation for their existence, more spiritual than physical."
This sentiment seemed to occur throughout the evening as many questions pertained to sexual-and emotional-gratification. Janie spoke of only being able to receive emotional gratification from a human, but that sexual gratification could be achieved elsewhere (like, from one of Rick Santorum's dogs?). Lena's view was of course that she should be able to do "whatever the hell she wanted" if it felt good.
When asked by audience members, Janie said that she'll know she has found the right person when "the stars have aligned," having an emotional and intellectual connection. When asked if true love was destined, she at first said you have to find the right person and then countered that "not everyone will find their true love." Lena conceded that true love was worth waiting for, but stated that there could be more than one true love. If we are not destined to find a true love, then why not just get in all the lovin' now?
Then a couple elitist nerds came out of the woodwork. Audience members cited Immanuel Kant and his absolutes and proceeded to confound other audience members as well as the panelists. One audience member wanted to know why she had received a Valentine's Day card and candy from TLR, encouraging her to wait for marriage but not offering support for her sexual decisions. The virginal remained, defending their TLR-ness, while the less true seemed to leave of out boredom. Maybe TLR just aren't having sex because they can't keep people interested? I could be wrong, as Janie mentioned that the TLR's membership "could get plenty." A weird boast.
The lackluster debate made me feel like I should not have waited but actually done something more casual and fun.
Highlights:
JF: "I've never been widowed." In response to, "What if your one and only true love were to die?"
Woman in audience: "Do you worry that you are bringing all of your past into your marital bed." She further insinuated that her bed would consist of a more than a group, but a crowd.
JF: "I want a virgin!" Said by many guys, but this was in response to her future husband. How about 72 virgins?
JF: "What do you think, I haven't had sex?" Well I guess it wouldn't be appropriate to say don't knock it (boots, beds, sheets) until you try it-Oh, wait, that's counter to TLR.
LC: "Signing my life away." Lena's view of marriage.
JF: "Two becomes one." Janie likes the Spice Girls as well as commitment.
LC: "If you pay, I'll consider it a date. My guys always pay." This sounds creepy, almost mafia-like. Lena was in fact using working girl jargon, where date/party equal paid sexual encounters (but with Lena, you never really know). This was in response to a male in the audience asking about what constitutes a date.
JF: "My mother found out by seeing me on TV." Sounds like something Lena would have said, but alas it is how Mrs. Fridell found out about her daughter's lack of sexual activity.
And then these words of wisdom. LC: "If we can cure cancer, we can find the G-spot."
Overheard: "Well, that wasn't as good as I thought it would be."
-- Alterrell Mills
121 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Harvard, lena chen, Sex, true love revolution
October 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Lena’s WASPy future mother and father-in-law are cringing right now. “I felt a shudder. Did a goose walk over my grave, Janice?” “I don’t know, but I felt it too.” Little do they know…
October 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“Janie mentioned how sex causes a release of oxytocin that clouds judgment.”
I think I read that in Aquinas, except without the biochemistry.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“Janie mentioned how sex causes a release of oxytocin that clouds judgment.”
I think I read that in Aquinas, except without the biochemistry.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
In debates like this, whores always loose in the minds of the public. Seriously, who wants someone that everyone else has already had?
October 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
great coverage, IG. i’m actually quite impressed with you.
October 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Honestly, I bet some day this Chen character will realize she’s a total whore, start dating some dude and try to hide her past because she realizes she’s got emotional issues. Then, one day when he’s bored at work, he types her name into google and he will find this very post.
Let me help google: LENA ho CHEN lena CHEN LENA CHEN WHORE WHORE SLUT
October 26th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Has anyone seen the comments on Lena’s page. They are so absolutely over-the-top that she must have written them all herself. Like this one:
“Wow, I’ve been reading your site for the past few weeks and I’m hooked. I can’t tell if it’s just your hotness, the great writing and personal insight, that mirrors some of my own tendencies, or a mixture of both. I can’t wait to read more, ignore the “haters” and keep doing a great job. You rock. Holla!”
It is also rather odd that they are all signed by normal-sounding first names and not weird nicknames like on IG.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Has anyone seen the comments on Lena’s page. They are so absolutely over-the-top that she must have written them all herself. Like this one:
“Wow, I’ve been reading your site for the past few weeks and I’m hooked. I can’t tell if it’s just your hotness, the great writing and personal insight, that mirrors some of my own tendencies, or a mixture of both. I can’t wait to read more, ignore the “haters” and keep doing a great job. You rock. Holla!”
It is also rather odd that they are all signed by normal-sounding first names and not weird nicknames like on IG.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I think I know who left that comment on Lena’s page.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Lena is a ludicrous figure in a bunch of ways, but the number of people who always show up the comments of these posts just to call her a whore is a little dispiriting.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Is that just a really bad picture of her or is she actually that busted up in real life?
October 26th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I wonder what Lena Chen talked about during her Harvard interview.
October 26th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
This was awesome coverage– well done, IvyGate… or whatever this dude’s name is.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Look kiddies, I’m down on Lena Chen and her turgid, self-aggrandizing prose as much as the next guy, but there’s no need for the rampant misogyny. Speaking of which, Mr. Mills, I find it hard to believe you’ve never masturbated, so why is the thought of a woman getting off with a vibrator so disgusting to you?
October 26th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Clear case of religiously deluded individual vs. slutty, but logically coherent hedonist
October 26th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
is hardly ‘logically coherent.’ say what you want about religious girl, but that slut is flipping batshit insane.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Her stance is logically coherent. She doesn’t babble on about absurd notions of spiritual love and shit. Maybe Lena herself is a self-promoting attention whore (no pun intended), but her viewpoints aren’t constrained by religious brainwashing and imposed restrictions from a 5000 year-old book of fairy tales. The other bitch’s perspective is completely untenable given its motivations. Lena is simply stating what fucking makes sense: bang if it doesn’t hurt anyone. Of course, I’ll qualify the stance by stating that one’s main objectives should constitute more than just physical pleasure and I’ll mock those like Lena who seem to put too much importance on it.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Her stance is logically coherent. She doesn’t babble on about absurd notions of spiritual love and shit. Maybe Lena herself is a self-promoting attention whore (no pun intended), but her viewpoints aren’t constrained by religious brainwashing and imposed restrictions from a 5000 year-old book of fairy tales. The other bitch’s perspective is completely untenable given its motivations. Lena is simply stating what fucking makes sense: bang if it doesn’t hurt anyone. Of course, I’ll qualify the stance by stating that one’s main objectives should constitute more than just physical pleasure and I’ll mock those like Lena who seem to put too much importance on it.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
well put.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
The fact that you think the Bible is “5000″ years old, and is full of fairy-tales, shows how far up your ass your head is. kiss.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Aren’t we passed this? Isn’t it clear that the bible is fiction? It clearly says man was created on the seventh day. But we HAVE a fossil record. You can see it at any museum.
Also, I think the slut is hot.
October 26th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
the bible is fiction - that’s why they keep it in the fiction section at barnes and noble.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
@ @ sasha: You shouldn’t take everything you read literally. Some writings are a bit more sophisticated.
@ steve-o: Um… they keep it in the religion section, and more specifically in the Christianity section, and more specifically in the bible section.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Is the Bible 6000 years old? Doesn’t fucking matter. It’s not only full of fairy tales (no geological evidence for and all against the Flood, the Exodus, Adam and Eve, etc..). It’s also full of atrocious and contradictory philosophical claims and disgusting moral advice (read it, it’s actually quite amusing). Not to mention the whole flat Earth deal (that’s in there too). Seriously, if God wrote that or even inspired it, he’s pretty fucking ignorant regarding his own creation.
It should be illegal for Ivy League students to consider the Bible valid in any context, let alone a manual on how to lead one’s life. And oh yea Sasha, I’m surprised you didn’t offer a sanctimonious offer to pray for me as well.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Are we allowed to actually post comments on here? WTF is up with the censorship ? My rational postings get cyber deleted, WTF?
October 27th, 2007 at 1:04 am
The point of the photo in this post was probably to show what a WHOOOOOOOOOORE (!!!) Lena is, but she’s looking good! That dress looks cute.
And what’s the deal with this Janie Fredell person?
“JF: ‘What do you think, I haven’t had sex?’”
“TLR’s membership ‘could get plenty.’”
Sounds like she has something to prove. To everyone.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:18 am
@ @ sasha: You clearly know little about the Bible. There is actually much evidence for the flood, which is why it’s documented in multiple books, not just the Bible. The Bible does not say the earth is flat; that’s a result of people’s own interpretations of imagery. And the Sermon on the Mount has quite impeccable moral advice. Try reading it, rather than attempting to stifle debate.
Love,
Reason
October 27th, 2007 at 1:21 am
@ @ sasha: You clearly know little about the Bible. There is actually evidence for the flood, which is why it’s documented in multiple books, not just the Bible. The Bible does not say the earth is flat; that’s a result of people’s own misinterpretations of imagery. And the Sermon on the Mount has quite impeccable moral advice. Try reading it, rather than attempting to stifle debate.
Love,
Reason
October 27th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Evidence for the flood??!?! I can’t even argue such ignorant inanity. FYI: Vague, slightly corresponding stories does not constitute evidence. That’s not even mentioning how Noah’s ark could not possibly hold every animal and the fact that the geological record shows no such catastrophic event and how exactly did all of our diversity come from one inbreeding family? Oh yea, God cursed Ham, I forgot.
I agree, the Sermon on the Mount is great and alot of what Jesus said was great. But that doesn’t dismiss the sickening anecdotes and moral ideals described in the Babble (i.e. if a man has a guest over and doesn’t offer his daughter for sex, he should be stoned to death and if a child is insubordinate, he should be stoned to death and the rampant misogyny permeated throughout the Babble as well). Oh yea these are not literal right? Well if you’re morality is derived from religion/God and the manual encourages these obviously immoral acts that you define as not literal because you consider them immoral, then you’re using an independent code of morality.
I’m not trying to stifle debate. I’m merely stating painfully obvious ideas. Remove yourself from the indoctrination of your youth and stop internalizing this delusional notion that reason and faith are reconcilable. They’re not. Read Richard Dawkins not the babbling of an archaic, goat-fucking, racist tribe please.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Yes, scientific evidence for the flood, not anecdotes. Look it up. And I don’t mean evidence for Noah’s ark, just the flood.
A major part of Jesus’s existence, according to Christian belief, was to fulfill the law, which allowed many Old Testament rules to change. You don’t have to buy into any of this if you don’t want to, but it’s worth mentioning.
Also, I’ve read Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion. He’s entertaining.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Yes, scientific evidence for the flood, not anecdotes. Look it up. And I don’t mean evidence for Noah’s ark, just the flood.
A major part of Jesus’s existence, according to Christian belief, was to fulfill the law, which allowed many Old Testament rules to change. You don’t have to buy into any of this if you don’t want to, but it’s worth mentioning.
Also, I’ve read Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion. He’s entertaining.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:50 am
And you seem to have as much spunk as he does. Religion really fires you up, doesn’t it? ;)
October 27th, 2007 at 2:09 am
You have no idea, I can go for days. I enjoy you dodging the morally despicable ideas of the OT. Actually, in Matthew 5:17, he approves of the law of the OT. The NT isn’t comprised of solely “Love thy neighbor like yourself.” There’s too many to mention here. One final note: I can’t take a creationist seriously. If you actually believe in the Noachian deluge, that’s sad. And oh yea, why did God have to drown millions of people again?
October 27th, 2007 at 2:09 am
I think problem with these types of debates is that they become needlessly nubilous when they are overun by religious zealots. The real issues get replaced by gospel. Forget about religion and let’s talk about what really counts: venereal disease. I’ll bet a few slides of medical photos would have swayed the audience to Janie’s side real fast. People probably wouldn’t have talked to Lena for a few days after that.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:18 am
True dat. I wonder what filthy infections Lena must have by now from slurping on long things. Bah, just another token minority.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:29 am
I didn’t mean that in an offensive way. Lena was there to defend promiscuous sex, but after seeing a few jpegs of ganaria, people would be like, “you came here to defend THAT!”
The internet isn’t properly transmitting the humor I see in that (no pun).
October 27th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
What luck, so can I! We referred to the same verse. Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. This meant that He would die for our sins such that we need not heed to such rules any longer. But of course, like anything else, one can interpret it differently. As for morally problematic ideas in the OT, we can discuss if you want. But that doesn’t change my original point, which was that you shouldn’t take everything in the Bible literally or confine it to a single interpretation in order to condemn it as a “fairy tale.” It’s a weak argument.
Define creationist. Because most people have a very narrow definition. I am a creationist in the sense that I believe in a God that created things. I am not a creationist in the sense that the world was created in 6 days, evolution did not occur, and all science is ignored, yadda yadda yadda. I do have sense.
One final note: If you cannot “condescend” yourself to respectfully discuss such issues with people of different viewpoints, then I can’t take you seriously.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
And “apologies for contributing to the devolution of this thread” made a great point. The best reason for abstinence is health, not the Bible. So I’m not sure why we’re even having this discussion…
October 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
And “apologies for contributing to the devolution of this thread” made a great point. The best reason for abstinence is health, not the Bible. So I’m not sure why we’re even having this discussion…
October 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Note regarding “fulfill the law”: It was an acknowledgement that man is imperfect and cannot live up to such strict rules. So man was being given an alternate route. This probably sounds confusing, so we can discuss it more off of this site if you want.
October 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I find it interesting that you’re defending religion under the name “Reason.” A little irony there…
October 27th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I find it interesting that you’re defending religion under the name “Reason.” A little irony there…
October 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Not really. If you have reasons for believing in God (not just faith), then you’re as reasonable as the next man.
October 27th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
And I chose this name because some people were making unreasonable (ignorant) comments about religion.
October 27th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I actually don’t want to argue with you. It’s impossible to argue with someone who puts their hands over their ears and constantly utters “nah-uh” to all appeals of logic (that’s what faith is and I’m not being unreasonable characterizing it as such).
I do agree however that there are rational expositions regarding the existence of a creator (commonly referred to as God). But arguments based on reason can not be applied to a personal God as that espoused by Christianity or any other religion (read Aquinas’ 5 proofs, he says nothing about the Bible). To believe in the God of the Bible requires blind faith, a compartmentalization of your mind into science and faith based viewpoints, mild schizophrenia, and years of childhood indoctrination.
Here’s a thought experiment: I’m going to write a book in 2007, let’s say my name is Paul. I’m going to make up endless tales of a fantastic being, the personification of God perhaps. I’m going to attribute miracles to him, I’m going to detail his preaching around the world. Then, in 4007, archaeologists will find my manuscript and people will have a choice: believe the lies I conjured up so many years before or dismiss them as pure fantasy. Why is the story of Christianity any different? I’m sure you’ll purport that you’ve had personal experience, but the mind is an incredibly complex structure. Creating such vivid, yet imagined, circumstances as love from an absent God is child’s play to the mind.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:09 am
I don’t want to argue with you either. So hopefully this will be over soon. I agree that it’s rather ridiculous to have simply faith without anything else to back it up. I’m not here to suggest that the Bible is a flawless work of God. I am here to suggest that: 1. reason can lead to belief in God, as you also noted, 2. reason can also lead to belief in at least parts of what the Bible says, and 3. blindly dismissing others’ beliefs is as bad as blindly dismissing reason. In other words, you are not in a position to know that, say, there is no creator or that some inspired word of the creator was not written. Your arguments against such a belief (at least given thus far) hold little traction.
RE: “arguments based on reason can not be applied to a personal God as that espoused by Christianity” — Why not? Because you think there’s no reasonable way to believe the Bible? OK, forget the Bible itself; you don’t have to blindly accept the Bible as truth to believe anything it says. Jesus was real, many events in the Bible were real, and “reasonable” people have found arguments for Jesus’s resurrection (see Simon Greenleaf). Also, “reasonable” people have claimed to experience God. Whether they’re right or confused, do they really have *no* reason to believe what they believe?
I think you do mischaracterize faith somewhat. Faith should not ignore reason. Faith should enhance or add to reason. Reason should always be a starting point.
I’m guessing you are the second person who came along, not the original person I was talking to, but I didn’t come here to preach the Bible. I pretty much came to explain that arguments against the Bible used in previous comments were basic and not very effective.
If you’d like to ignore me and assume I’m some brainwashed idiot (at Harvard, no less), that’s fine. I’d say for the future, though, that it’s worthwhile to be open to discussion. I like to hear others’ thoughts on this subject (when they’re respectfully articulated, that is).
October 28th, 2007 at 1:28 am
No this has been the same person all along. In regards to the Bible, there is absolutely no valid reason for anyone to give the Bible credence over any other religious text. How for example, did you differentiate between believing in both NT and OT not just OT or the Christian bible rather than the Koran? You didn’t do so with an analytical study based on evidence and reason. You just so happen to choose the exact same viewpoints that you were indoctrinated with as a child. I don’t blame you. I was there too, but I realized how arbitrary and absurd those beliefs are. I also don’t fully dismiss personal experience as a route to God. I understand the palatability and strength of these events and the subsequent convictions derived from them. But alas, there is a far more plausible explanation (Occam’s Razor anyone?) for these experiences. Read up on the God machine for some eye-opening lab work. These people have reasons to believe, but that doesn’t make it valid or concordant with science, which BTW has a pretty good track record (far better than religion, heliocentrism anyone?).
Faith is the antithesis of reason. It is believing something in the absence of evidence. And I beg you to refrain from contending that a resurrection can fall in the reasonable arena. It is a miracle, an event defined as against natural law. Belief in the Bible rests solely on these unnatural principles. Thus belief in the Bible and the religions derived from it are thus unreasonable.
I do surely think you’re brainwashed and that you’re suffering from an incredibly prevalent mind virus and semi-delusional state. However, I’m not naive enough to assume this type of thinking and apologist stance pervades your entire life. Francis Collins, Newton, even the ID crazies are all very capable scientists and religious.
One final note: I do actually respect the fact that you have at least broached the issue with a modicum of intellectual thinking. I am incredibly puzzled that smart,liberal Christians like yourself exist, but I admire you for actually having an opinion. Those that refuse to even attempt a discourse on the issue are, in my opinion, the most frustrating. Although I must qualify this considering your professed belief in the Flood. You actually might be fucking crazy.
But I only went to Cornell, the godless Ivy.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Dear @Reason(s),
I have to wonder why you’ve bothered posting here. You clearly aren’t much into Biblical studies — or, if you are, you really suck at it. And I can’t believe you’d be so ignorant as to think you’ll actually change anybody’s mind by posting your inanities on Ivygate. Whatever the reason, your comments lack both sense and sensitivity and show just as much bullheaded obstinacy of belief as the most fervent evangelist. If you have a problem with the Bible, express it politely and intelligently; otherwise, fuck off. May I add that, as a Jew, I find your criticism of the Old Testament (or the Bible, as I am fond of calling it) infuriating, particularly since you clearly have no knowledge of Talmudic interpretation. For example, you mention as an example of the OT’s moral poverty the law requiring execution by stoning for a rebellious son. The Talmud records that, in order for such a penalty to be incurred, many conditions had to be met that are not mentioned in the text — for example, the moon had to be at a certain stage, the son had to have committed certain crimes, etc. The Talmud states that such a punishment was never carried out, and never will be. The law was intended merely to teach parents the importance of instilling morals in their children. Make an effort to study things before you sound off on them.
With all that said — Janie is a fool. I agree with other posters that the best reason to abstain is to avoid contracting something that once belonged to Lena Chen.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Another apologist. I’m not purporting to be a Biblical scholar and I don’t give a shit if you’re a Jew or Christian, they constitute the same inanity. Get your head out of your ass and read the Bible or the Torah scrolls (whatever you want to call it) with impartiality. You can quote Talmudic revisions all you want, but the Bible is still a worthless piece of crap that actually makes far worse scientific claims than moral one (read literally or metaphorically, doesn’t matter). I have a problem with the Bible and that passion may be interpreted as obstinacy. I learned the Bible, I believed in that garbage until I was 20 years old and had been properly acquainted with science.
Religion is child abuse and a virus that needs to be eradicated. It’s a divisive and explosive force, a trait manifested wonderfully in Islamofacsism and all forms of Palestine based Zionism (I have no problem with the Jewish state being in Uganda).
Finally, I only argue in this argumentative fashion because I have no sympathy towards the religious viewpoint. Imagine if someone attempted to argue that the Greek gods gave their lives substance and that there was sufficient reason to believe in them. You’d approach that situation in the same manner that I approach modern religion. Not to mention the pragmatic, not just intellectual, lunacy that religion engenders. Remember: Today’s religion is tomorrow’s myth.
I don’t think I’m going to change your mind, I simply like religious discourse.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Thanks, d10.
@ @ Reason: Dang, how old are you now if you believed until you were 20? You already graduated from college, right? Why did you believe so long, and what changed your mind?
RE: “Imagine if someone attempted to argue that the Greek gods gave their lives substance and that there was sufficient reason to believe in them. You’d approach that situation in the same manner that I approach modern religion.” — No, I wouldn’t. I’d be respectful. Sorry, there’s no excuse for rudeness. I also like religious discourse. Respectful religious discourse.
Anyway, I think your approach only hurts you because you really do come across as a kind of crazy extremist who’s too angry to notice when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Extremism, in any direction, is not so becoming.
For all your craziness, though, this has been somewhat interesting, and I respect your fervor.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:59 am
P.S.– I’ve been properly acquainted with science, and I always find it interesting when people cannot reconcile science with God. I’m guessing that means they never had any reason (*reason*, as opposed to faith) to believe in the first place. Which makes me wonder how one could believe for 20 years. I’ve always questioned what I’ve been taught and not accepted anything unless I felt I had good reason to.
October 28th, 2007 at 3:41 am
May you all be touched as well. Only then will you hear the true voice of reason.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:50 am
All men are endowed with two heads. May they listen to the bigger and better one.
October 28th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Dear @d10,
Look, asshole. I’m not an apologist. I’m not arguing that the Bible is true, or that there is a transcendent God, or anything of the sort. That’s not pertinent, because all I’m arguing is that you’re a stupid fucker who’s making all sorts of claims without properly studying what he’s talking about. You claim to have “learned” the Bible, but you clearly have not committed to anything beyond cursory and highly prejudicial examination. Not only are you offensive and close-minded, you are a poor excuse for a scholar and for an Ivy League student. And your definition of “discourse” is a joke.
For what it’s worth, consider that religions are not the only philosophies that have caused massive suffering and cruelty. So have Communism, Fascism, social Darwinism, and many others. The factor that unites destructive philosophies is not their content but the attitude of their adherents — specifically, their fervent conviction that believers of other doctrines are misguided and inferior. As I attempted to point out above, you are no less an illustration of this deadly superiority complex than a Crusader would have been.
October 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
forget about the religious debate please for a moment, can we talk labels? Look at this: every third person called Lena Chen a slut. Granted, her personal life is publicly aired, but its no more or less slutty than most peoples. And Janie Fredell as religious fanatic nut? Yes, this is how they are presenting themselves, but I would hope one of the things our grossly expensive institutions did was teach us to be a bit less judgmental/closeminded, and a little more open-minded and wary of perjorative terms.
October 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
janice’s view of sex is completely outdated and unrealistic in modern times. what if she wants to have a career? she’s going to wait until she’s 30 to have sex? janice is probably going to be the do-good christian and get married right out of college under the guise of “true love” and throw her harvard education out the window.
how will she differentiate between “true love” and “i want to have sex already so i think i’m in love”?
i’m not saying to throw morals out the window and be like lena chen (she’s an extreme case), but in a serious relationship, janice may think she has a spiritual/emotional/intellectual connection, but without a physical one, there’s half of the equation missing.
October 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
janie’s view of sex is completely outdated and unrealistic in modern times. what if she wants to have a career? she’s going to wait until she’s 30 to have sex? janie is probably going to be the do-good christian and get married right out of college under the guise of “true love” and throw her harvard education out the window.
how will she differentiate between “true love” and “i want to have sex already so i think i’m in love”?
i’m not saying to throw morals out the window and be like lena chen (she’s an extreme case), but in a serious relationship, janie may think she has a spiritual/emotional/intellectual connection, but without a physical one, there’s half of the equation missing.
October 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
How did err find pictures of gonorrhea on the web spelling it phonetically?
October 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I love you, d10. You made my day. That is all.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
“How did err find pictures of gonorrhea on the web spelling it phonetically?”
Who needs the internet when your mom will show me up close?
October 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
If this is how they represent themselves then why go through the trouble of inventing alternative descriptions. The fact is, when someone says slut you know exactly who they’re talking about, and when they say God nut you also know who, and in both cases you clock in at six letters or less. It’s more about efficiency than degradation.
Now you try! I’ll be dick, but don’t be surprised if more than one person on this forum answers.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
If this is how they represent themselves then why go through the trouble of inventing alternative descriptions. The fact is, when someone says slut you know exactly who they’re talking about, and when they say God nut you also know who, and in both cases you clock in at six letters or less. It’s more about efficiency than degradation.
Now you try! I’ll be dick, but don’t be surprised if more than one person on this forum answers.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
In regards to my “cursory study” of the Bible, certain passages in the Bible require no amount of bias to notice their absolute moral and scientific inanity. IN the story of creation (let’s assume it’s metaphorical), God, the omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe incorrectly lists the dating of several things: the Earth is older than the Sun and trees were the first form of life, to name a few. There’s no interpretation, even one that accounts for the days as representing eons, that dismisses the incorrect ordering. In the moral realm, I don’t need a theology degree to be appalled at the behavior of Lot’s daughters after they escaped Sodom and Gomorrah. God first takes joy in turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for turning around then he ignores the incest that BOTH of Lot’s daughters engage in. Surely you’ll say something of free will and God refraining from interference, but he clearly seems willing to do so in other Biblical instances. My understanding of these passages (namely disgust) are not a result of any prejudice, just seeing what’s written.
I also take issue with your claim that I’m offensive. You sir have engaged in numerous ad hominem attacks while I’ve merely disparaged your beliefs. I’ve attacked the irrational faith based viewpoints that you hold, not you as a person. Now I have projected your obvious delusion as a result of these viewpoints, but I also conceded that this delusion probably doesn’t pervade your entire life. In my view the Christian doctrine itself is far more offensive to the Jews. Namely, that the Jews are not only deficient in not accepting Christ, but also that this apostate stance will earn them eternal damnation. I don’t give a shit that liberal Christians will dismiss this, Christianity is based on redemption (ONLY) through Jesus.
Finally and this is also a response to Reason, religion is a philosophical position that should be considered completely separate from the other ideologies that you have listed. You contend that only the fervor of the adherents of a philosophy define the ability of that philosophy to engender violence. This isn’t true. Those other ones are based on reasoning and mostly faulty reasoning. Usually these idealogies ignore scientific precepts, like social Darwinism ignoring the genetic similarity of all races. One can argue, without appealing to faith or a divine authority, for and against Communism. Both sides can articulate arguments using historical EVIDENCE and logical reasoning. But one can’t placate the religious with evidence or logic. Appeals to divine authority, manifested in holy books such as the Koran and the Bible, trump all attempts to come to concordant agreements. Who is a zealot going to listen to: you with your reason and magnanimity or the fucking Creator of the universe who decides one’s eternal home? Faith can never be reasoned with because it has no logical basis. It’s believing in something simply because a book said so.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
this is why The Crimson disabled comments on its website.
let me put it this way–she’s got a post on her blog that says something to the effect of “I went to the bathroom the next morning and a condom fell out.” Like sending a hot dog through the Ted Williams tunnel…
October 28th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
@ Reason:
Evidence for a flood during a period of climactic change in the middle east? that just couldn’t be, unless of course “I” were to make it so.
and to this:
“Not really. If you have reasons for believing in God (not just faith), then you’re as reasonable as the next man.”
you should try calling yourself “reason” or “my own reason”, not “Reason”, as they are quite conceptually distinct from each other, and you certainly are not representing the latter.
@ D’08
Infuriated because of “@ reason”’s portrayal of the old testament? You really have no ground to stand on, as the Talmudic interpretation is exactly that, an interpretation. The analysis and debate of Talmudic interpretation constitutes at least 20 times more information than the actual old testament. Why? Because as some of the most rational thinkers throughout recorded history, the Jewish people understood that to take the bible at anything near its word would be to ceaselessly plunge their own culture into chaos.
“I will sweep away everything in all your land,” says the LORD. “I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity,” says the LORD. “I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD’s guidance or seek my blessings.” (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)
Sounds like a cool guy….
October 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
@ Reason:
Evidence for a flood during a period of climactic change in the middle east? that just couldn’t be, unless of course “I” were to make it so.
and to this:
“Not really. If you have reasons for believing in God (not just faith), then you’re as reasonable as the next man.”
you should try calling yourself “reason” or “my own reason”, not “Reason”, as they are quite conceptually distinct from each other, and you certainly are not representing the latter.
@ D’08
Infuriated because of “@ reason”’s portrayal of the old testament? You really have no ground to stand on, as the Talmudic interpretation is exactly that, an interpretation. The analysis and debate of Talmudic interpretation constitutes at least 20 times more information than the actual old testament. Why? Because as some of the most rational thinkers throughout recorded history, the Jewish people understood that to take the bible at anything near its word would be to ceaselessly plunge their own culture into chaos.
“I will sweep away everything in all your land,” says the LORD. “I will sweep away both people and animals alike. Even the birds of the air and the fish in the sea will die. I will reduce the wicked to heaps of rubble, along with the rest of humanity,” says the LORD. “I will crush Judah and Jerusalem with my fist and destroy every last trace of their Baal worship. I will put an end to all the idolatrous priests, so that even the memory of them will disappear. For they go up to their roofs and bow to the sun, moon, and stars. They claim to follow the LORD, but then they worship Molech, too. So now I will destroy them! And I will destroy those who used to worship me but now no longer do. They no longer ask for the LORD’s guidance or seek my blessings.” (Zephaniah 1:2-6 NLT)
Sounds like a cool guy….
October 28th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
@God: I’m delighted to have been promoted two class years. That’s very generous of you. Your characterization of the Talmud, however, is incorrect. Much of the content of the Talmud, including much of what is used to interpret Toratic law, existed prior to the period of Rabbinic debate that began in the last couple of centuries BCE. It was known as the Oral Torah and, though it was only put into writing hundreds of years after the inception of the Pentateuch or Written Torah, it is a premise central to the Jewish understanding of the Bible that the Written Torah is nonsensical without the Oral Torah.
@@d10: How can you say I have “irrational faith based viewpoints” when you don’t even know what my beliefs are? As I went to great lengths to stress, my argument that you are a hateful and ignorant individual has nothing to do with my religious faith — which, frankly, inclines towards Spinozism rather than traditional transcendentalism. You infuriate me, not because I believe in the literal truth of the Bible (I don’t), but because you are arrogant and uninformed. And may I add that calling someone’s beliefs delusional — in this case, an unmerited charge since I don’t actually hold the beliefs you think I do — DOES qualify as ad hominem attack if you don’t take great care to phrase it politely and back it up with intelligent argument. You did neither, which is why I do not feel bad when I call you, for example, an ignorant asshole.
As far as your claim that philosophy and religion are entirely separate, that’s an awfully wishful viewpoint. You might argue the difference between ethical philosophy and metaphysics/religion, but my point was not to split hairs on what constitutes an ideology, it was that even “reasoned” philosophies have the potential to cause incredible harm. Communism, indirectly or directly, has probably caused in excess of 100 million deaths over the last century, thanks to reasonable people like Chairman Mao. Of course, you could say that political philosophy does not cause harm when properly and reasonably considered. But I would argue that the same goes for religion, and that all the jihads and Crusades that have scourged mankind are caused by ignorant yet zealous people such as yourself. Whatever the case, you have contributed nothing to “discourse,” and I don’t believe you understand what the word means.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:07 am
@ Blasphemous — j/k! @ “God”:
So if I understand you (I’m not sure if I do), you agree that there could have been a flood… so what’s your point again? I never said that this had to be a miraculous, divinely-induced flood. I just said there’s evidence that a flood occurred.
There’s no distinction between “reason” and “Reason.” Names should simply be capitalized.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:15 am
(Note that I mentioned evidence for a flood because @ Reason suggested a flood was impossible. Which seems a ridiculous claim. Perhaps he meant a worldwide flood?)
October 29th, 2007 at 1:22 am
(Note that I mentioned evidence for a flood because @ Reason suggested a flood was impossible. Which seems a ridiculous claim. Perhaps he meant a worldwide flood?)
October 29th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Ok, last post tonight (this morning, that is). In reference to some points @ Reason made earlier:
“You just so happen to choose the exact same viewpoints that you were indoctrinated with as a child.” — You certainly are presumptuous, aren’t you? You don’t know anything about me.
“And I beg you to refrain from contending that a resurrection can fall in the reasonable arena.” — You obviously didn’t look up Simon Greenleaf. Tisk, tisk!
“It is a miracle, an event defined as against natural law.” — Yes, that IS the point…
“Belief in the Bible rests solely on these unnatural principles.” — No… it doesn’t. The Bible is not merely a book of miracles.
“Thus belief in the Bible and the religions derived from it are thus unreasonable.” — That’s a stretch. You have poor logic.
“I do surely think you’re brainwashed and that you’re suffering from an incredibly prevalent mind virus and semi-delusional state.” — Thank you. You’re so kind! I think you’re suffering from a bitterness bug. Hope you feel better soon. :)
October 29th, 2007 at 2:30 am
So I realized I should elaborate on one of the things I just said:
“Thus belief in the Bible and the religions derived from it are thus unreasonable.” — That’s a stretch. You have poor logic. “Unnatural” and “unreasonable” are not interchangeable. The fact that things are “unnatural” does not mean one cannot reason that they occurred. You’ll probably argue that reason is a construct of human nature and is limited to the natural world. But if something supernatural interferes with the natural world, it is open to analysis by reason.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:42 am
I’ll probably respond tomorrow night. After that I think I’ll be finished. I have fellowship research proposals to fill out (fucking NSF).
October 29th, 2007 at 2:53 am
And if nature cannot explain what is observed, that is when reason resorts to the supernatural. People have different ways of reasoning out the phenomena they experience. But they are still using reason. To this you might say that religion has traditionally filled in the gaps in science, and that new developments in science then fill the gaps without God. But given a sufficient understanding of science, if there are still phenomena unexplained, reason can lead to the supernatural.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:02 am
This is all a distraction from the obvious point made above: many of the comments on Lena Chen’s blog are obviously fake.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:53 am
why are you guys talking about God when there’s dirt way more interesting (i.e. Lena Chen)?! Seriously, I don’t think there are any plausible reasons to remain a virgin until marriage. You have to take the car out for a test drive before you buy it…
October 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
“And if nature cannot explain what is observed, that is when reason resorts to the supernatural. ”
So you have put God in the same category as ghosts, wiji boards, and superstition… If a black cat walks under a latter on Friday the 13th then God might exist.
The only objective of science is to explain the natural world, and in doing so it ties the hand of the human imagination. Is it any wonder, then, that there are conflicts between science and religion?
October 29th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
I’ll sum up my major points
-to d10: Being an arrogant and times offensive atheist is not tantamount to being a religious fundamentalist. At worst, I mock your sacred beliefs. Fundamentalists want to throw you in the ocean.
-The Bible, no matter what interpretation, is a book of moral and scientific filth. The God of the Old Testament kills people indiscriminately and seems to enjoy it. Jesus was somewhat better but if one part of the Holy Trinity is a raving, murderous lunatic, then you’re religion is fucked.
-Finally, religion (or faith) and science are polar opposites. You can not justify faith, and I don’t give a shit what Greenleaf and his law based bullshit attest to. Faith has no basis and thus no reason. Give me a premise based justification for believing that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. These is none. You simply have to have faith in the testimony of those that “witnessed” it. And your contention, Reason, that the supernatural is a viable alternative to science is surely wishful. You’re probably the type of person who watches MindFreak and thinks Criss Angel actually cut himself open or watches Uri Geller and think he has magical powers. The whole scope of possible natural explanations should be exhausted before tentatively accepting a supernatural belief. Unfortunately, no parapscyhologist, despite numerous attempts and James Randi’s million dollar challenge, has ever had a successful experiment. In regards to humanity, the only rationally tenable supposition of God’s interaction would be our initial creation. Evolution filled in that gap. What else is left? Ghosts, leprechauns, spoon bending? Please. These so-called phenomenon are the result of a credulous mind desperate for a world beyond nature.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
i am sorry to whoever said the chen girl is hot, i have to strongly disagree. she’s busted, ugly ugly ugly. great legs she has, though.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“Finally, religion (or faith) and science are polar opposites.” — Religion does not equal faith. And religion (or perhaps we should be using the word spirituality because religion is a social construct) is certainly not the opposite of science, just as faith is not the opposite of reason (even Steven Pinker agrees on this point). They come from different realms. Which is why they don’t conflict if you have an understanding of each.
“The only objective of science is to explain the natural world” — Right…
“The whole scope of possible natural explanations should be exhausted before tentatively accepting a supernatural belief.” — Granted.
“the only rationally tenable supposition of God’s interaction would be our initial creation. Evolution filled in that gap.” — That’s obviously a subject of debate, a la Francis Collins, isn’t it? Whether evolution and natural selection are sufficient. That’s not a legitimate debate in everyone’s mind, but it’s certainly there. That aside, there are other phenomena beside our very existence that continue to suppose God’s interaction.
Anyway, I’m not that interested in debating whether God exists because its rather pointless. Returning to the takeaway points:
1. Abstinence is a health issue.
2. You do not need a Bible to be abstinent.
3. Confining something to a certain interpretation is a weak way of condemning it. It’s a straw man type of argument.
That’s all, folks!
October 31st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ’some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:28 pm
This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ’some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ’some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:31 pm
This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ’some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ’some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ’some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?
October 31st, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I am not solely anti-christ, I’m also anti-Judiasm, anti-Islam (the most so) and anti-faith. I am all those things b/c I’m pro-science and pro-logic. In your emotional (people like you can’t have motivations besides emotion) diatribe, you did hit something right. I don’t give a shit about your belief system. To me, it is tantamount to Greek myth or Scientology. It’s ridiculous. In any philosophical or political arena, I will surely mull over dissenting viewpoints becuase rational arguments can be articulated (i.e. I’m republican but I can concede points to liberals). You however can not provide a suitable argument that a ghost fucked a virgin then she popped out a half-man half-God who died then became a zombie to save me. I don’t respect lunacy. I’m sorry.
And seriously, learn how to comment less than 6 times dumbass.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
And next time, put down your fucking SAT verbal list. Your prodigious verbosity will subsequently culminate in ubiquitous aversion from those perusing your fatuous and inane comment.
October 31st, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Hey, I thought we were all done. Can we officially end the religious discussion?
:: THE END ::
But I’m all for discussing politics (since you mentioned you’re a Republican), which may be even less related to the subject of this post.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:44 pm
“And next time, put down your fucking SAT verbal list. Your prodigious verbosity will subsequently culminate in ubiquitous aversion from those perusing your fatuous and inane comment”
…….talk about overblown oratory and pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and pontifical hooey…heed your own advice, asshole.
and i don’t need to provide any argument to a stubborn idiot who lives in his own self-deluded world of rhetoric. no respect, whatsoever. you are a fucking disgrace to the ivy circle.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:02 am
Clearly, noting overt sarcasm is not one of your strong suits. I am an atheist who abhors religious thought. Plently of people, ever increasingly so, share my position. I have never stated that I can not respect religious individuals. There’s a distinction. Although I’d rather have someone mock my beliefs than tell me I’ll suffer eternal damnation. But why don’t you ignore that minor point?
You seem incredibly angry and willing to attack me rather than my perspective. You must be emulating Jesus (again overt sarcasm).
November 1st, 2007 at 9:42 am
You don’t need to verbally state anything, it’s noticeably implied throughout your abhorrent diatribe. I never said I didn’t share your position. All I said was tone it down and show some considerations with respect to other people’s views/opinions/belief systems. If you’ve learned anything in Philosophy (specifically ‘reason’) it would be best to approach any reasonable argument dispassionately.
You just jumped down REASON’S (whoever she is)throat and blatantly attacked her view/opinion in a manner that was uncalled for. Read over what you wrote.
November 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
It’s ok, @ above. I certainly understand @ Reason’s position and don’t take what’s been said here personally. I was trying to tell him from the beginning that his approach was ineffective (trying to help!), but he does not seem receptive to constructive criticism. All I can do is try to give respect and hope that it rubs off. Until then, this still seems to hold: “If you cannot ‘condescend’ yourself to respectfully discuss such issues with people of different viewpoints, then I can’t take you seriously.”
November 1st, 2007 at 1:47 pm
AI AI AIIIII VIVA MEXICO
November 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Isn’t it time to acknowledge the idleness of this debate?
If @Reason believes his own words, that the religious are a duped mass, lacking the capacity for independent and logical thought, then wouldn’t such a debate be a frivolous waste of his time?
And to Reason et al, you had to accept at some point that your religions didn’t articulate their true meaning when held to intense scrutiny. This is why you claim the Bible should not be taken literally. So you must have found something in religion that doesn’t hinge upon the scientific precepts of God’s methods. It is, therefore, disingenuous of you to debate the issue now as if you’ve personally ironed out all of the many wrinkles and inconsistencies contained in the Bible, instead of accepting them on faith.
So can’t we all agree that a) religion has necessarily placed itself outside the realm of deductive reasoning, and b) Lena is slutty for reasons we don’t entirely understand.
I mean, does she really just enjoy sex? Really? In a sex etiquette article she proposes that the guy should pay for her taxi ride home. But when I go to a concert I have to buy my own ticket. Shouldn’t Lena, also, pay her own taxi fair?
November 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
First off, if this debate is a waste of his time, @Reason does not have to participate. He said he likes religious discourse, and it’s his choice to engage in it.
RE: “…you had to accept at some point that your religions didn’t articulate their true meaning when held to intense scrutiny.”
I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t accept belief systems that don’t stand up to scrutiny. I believe the only thing I’ve said here about my personal beliefs is that I believe in God. I haven’t said anything about my own views or whether I accept of the Bible.
“This is why you claim the Bible should not be taken literally.”
Given that we do not know how it was meant to be interpreted, there are numerous ways to interpret it. I’m simply saying that we shouldn’t limit our understanding of it to a literal interpretation (or any single interpretation).
“So you must have found something in religion that doesn’t hinge upon the scientific precepts of God’s methods.”
Can you clarify this statement please? I believe you’re saying I must be taking something in my “religion” on faith and not on science or reason. But I haven’t told much of what I accept with regards to religion. So this doesn’t follow…
“It is, therefore, disingenuous of you to debate the issue now as if you’ve personally ironed out all of the many wrinkles and inconsistencies contained in the Bible, instead of accepting them on faith.”
When did I suggest that I personally ironed everything out? And when did I say I accepted everything? Again, people are making assumptions about my beliefs. That is the root of the problem I was originally addressing. @Reason was making assumptions about how a book had to be interpreted and then about the thought processes (or lack thereof) of people with certain beliefs. This issue is much more nuanced.
November 1st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Sorry, typo: “I haven’t said anything about my own views of, or whether I accept, the Bible.”
November 1st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
well said.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 am
“I’m not sure what you mean.”
I was only making the simple point that you cannot counter @Reason’s objections regarding, for example, Noah’s Arc - that such a thing would be too large to remain buoyant. The Bible simply doesn’t provide such details and so you are at a loss here, but must have decided that God is omnipotent so God found a way.
“Can you clarify this statement please?”
Certainly. When you accepted your religious views, did you first sit alone in an attic, crunching numbers and cross-analyzing scholars until a proof of God emerged? My point is that religion is a personal experience and you were clearly able to accept your religious views for personal reasons despite some minor discontinuities (Noah’s Arc, for instance). So because you have accepted the Bible, even with its “wrinkles,” you are in no position to object to someone else’s objections to said wrinkles… because you must have ignored them… because you had to… because the Bible is unclear about these things.
In closing, the reason this argument cannot evolve is because @Reason is challenging religion with deductive reasoning, when religion, at its best, follows from inductive reasoning.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:43 am
…I apologize if my remarks don’t apply to you personally. I am admittedly speaking more to the universal idea of a Christian.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 am
“In closing, the reason this argument cannot evolve is because @Reason is challenging religion with deductive reasoning, when religion, at its best, follows from inductive reasoning.”
-Your closing is rather interesting and is definitely grounds for another highly controversial debate. I’ll reply to this after work.
-dn
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
@ to Reason:
Points taken, but again, they don’t apply to everyone. The people who accept everything unquestioned may also be the people who haven’t given the whole issue thought from a scientific standpoint. Whereas, I have gone out of my way to research, to read people like Richard Dawkins, to get as much of the story as possible. Making assumptions about beliefs or how people reached them is a dangerous road to follow, I think.
On that note, I think this discussion can continue because I challenge the idea that religious beliefs can only result from inductive reasoning. One does not have to begin with the supposition that the Bible is divinely inspired, for instance; one can come to that conclusion with his own reasoning. Here’s just an example: “The Bible predicts and then documents Jesus’s coming and resurrection. We already have evidence that Jesus existed and that certain events documented in the New Testament occurred. And there is evidence that the resurrection is real given the testimony of multiple witnesses who saw him after he died (Simon Greenleaf’s law argument; you don’t have to accept it, but it’s an argument). A resurrection is supernatural, so it must come from some God. How did those writing the Bible know it would happen? God probably told them. Therefore, God probably inspired the writers of the Bible.” That’s just a rough example, but just because one person’s reasoning doesn’t match yours does not mean it is not deductive reasoning.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
To clarify the deductive-ness of that, it rests on the principle that resurrection (after 3 days, during which the body starts to rot) is not natural and cannot be explained by science. If resurrection is observed, then it cannot be natural and must come from another source (or not have actually occurred). However, I think @Reason’s principle is more like: Anything that is not natural or cannot be explained by science cannot be true. If that were the principle, then the argument I gave would indeed fall apart, and the conclusion would be that the witnesses were lying, or whoever documented their testimonies were lying– the observation could not have been real, even if there were overwhelming evidence that it was real. That’s one of the problems with deductive reasoning; you have to know all the axioms beforehand. But it’s often not clear what the full range of axioms are. We don’t know that “unnatural” things, unexplained by science, cannot occur because we only see our world from a human viewpoint and could be missing something larger. So using that as a given throws all notions of spirituality into the toilet from the beginning.
Perhaps some inductiveness comes into the argument I gave, in the sense that based on a limited evidence of something unnatural, we conclude that unnatural things can happen. The actual conclusion should be unnatural things can happen, or this unnatural thing did not actually happen. So again, there is no definitive conclusion because we have limited axioms to work with.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
CORRECTION!: However, I think @Reason’s principle is more like: Anything that is not natural or cannot be explained by science cannot be true. If that were the principle, then the argument I gave would indeed fall apart, and the conclusion would be that the witnesses were lying, whoever documented their testimonies were lying, the observation could not have been real, or Jesus naturally came back to life (if there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus was resurrected, even if a natural explanation conflicts with science).
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
I don’t have my own definition for deductive reasoning. It is a well defined term and I use its literal meaning.
I agree that your 12:02 post contains reason. In fact, it contains reason by induction. Your twice-use of the word “probably” cinched it.
The difference is that deduction consists of self-consistent arguments built over a finite set of axioms. Induction is invoked once one’s axioms prove to be insufficient at determining a single outcome. (In other words, you are forced to choose the most probable, or just your favorite - the point is that the choice isn’t determined by your initial set of axioms). You have not shown that the conclusion you came to above is the only possible answer, but rather suggested this to be true based on likelihood. This is a textbook case of inductive reasoning.
“That’s one of the problems with deductive reasoning; you have to know all the axioms beforehand”
This is why religion is at best inductive. It doesn’t mean you can’t use deduction, but it does mean that at some point you will have to resort to induction, and this will always be the weak part of your argument (because it can always be challenged). Deduction, on the other hand, is always sound. It’s interesting that it would require a God-like omniscience in order to deduce the existence of God. You would have to be God to offer a proof of God.
And I would be wary about invoking Simon Greenleaf. His arguments are designed to manipulate the procedures and practices of an American courthouse, which has a standard of proof that is much lower than… well, almost anything.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Ok, I was trying to give you some leeway, but sticking to the strict definition of deductive reasoning, then, the reality is that none of us are using it. @Reason is not using deductive reasoning if he concludes that there is not God. How does he know? He doesn’t. Most reasoning is inductive because we do not have the omniscient power to evoke deductive reasoning in these instances.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Have you ever heard the saying “Take it outside”? How about you taking this off-site? Thanks.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
no, no, keep it up. Eventually we might beat Aleksey Vayner for most comments on an article.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:00 am
“This is why religion is at best inductive. It doesn’t mean you can’t use deduction, but it does mean that at some point you will have to resort to induction, and this will always be the weak part of your argument (because it can always be challenged).”
-To say that faith/religion is based on inductive logic isn’t entirely accurate. More specifically, it hinges on Bayesian inference (see Baye’s theorem). To say that inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic isn’t also not 100% true. While conclusions arrived at by inductive logic don’t necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premises (and as such they are never binding), they can be cogent. Further, there are weak and strong inductions.
But more importantly, inductive logic lies at the root of the scientific method that has done so much to advance humanity in the last 5 centuries. Properly-applied scientific method is inductive reasoning in its purest form. Kind of ironic, since religion and scientism don’t normally co-evolve. A paradox then?
To Reason:
You asserted that there are noticeable supporting ‘evidences’ for many of the stories in the Bible. Inferentially, they aren’t factual evidence. Only theories. However, I’ll qualify your stance by saying that deductive reasoning cannot be used to prove the existence or non-existence of God. It is ontologically, cosmically, deductively impossible.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 am
Correction: To say that inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic IS also not 100% true.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:18 am
Yes, what I should have said at the beginning was that deductive logic cannot show us either way whether God exists. I got to that eventually, but my first comment was confusing, so sorry about that. I was showing that the same type of reasoning could be used to believe in God or not, but even if that starts deductively, the deduction eventually is lost due to uncertainty. The major point is that there is not a distinction in the type of logic.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I agree that most reasoning is inductive. You would be paralyzed with indecision if not for induction. But take physics: Starting with Newton’s laws as axioms one can deductively infer all of statistical mechanics. Add Heisenberg and you have quantum mechanics for free. Then an easy inductive argument allows you to apply these theories to nature. So physics and math are islands of deduction, which only require a single, simple inductive argument for their application.
I take issue with the statement, “inductive logic is weaker than deductive logic IS also not 100% true.” In the literal sense it is weaker.
Finally, the fact that religion follows from inductive arguments is a subtle, but not superficial point. It means there are alternative explanations that have not strictly been ruled out. This is a trivial observation from a logicians point of view, but it is nontrivial from a religious perspective when you considers the canon of Christianity, that God is the ONLY truth.
I will leave you to discuss this amongst yourselves.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I wonder if either Lena or Janie have taken into consideration that the Bible expresses that sex IS marriage? (1 Corinthians 6:16) So basically, Lena is getting married and divorced over and over again, and probably could be considered a polygamist… and if Janie ever does have sex with anyone, whether it’s legal marriage or not, she’s basically marrying that person (or those people, depending on if her mind ever changes).
Actually, my real point isn’t even marital status. It’s that promiscuity truly does affect your heart, especially in girls. I think it affects one primarily in a spiritual way, but it also causes a lot of baggage. Most guys out there would rather end up for life with a girl like Janie over a girl like Lena. I speak from experience from Janie’s point of view (although I waited til I was “married” - see definition above). Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I wonder if either Lena or Janie have taken into consideration that the Bible expresses that sex IS marriage? (1 Corinthians 6:16) So basically, Lena is getting married and divorced over and over again, and probably could be considered a polygamist… and if Janie ever does have sex with anyone, whether it’s legal marriage or not, she’s basically marrying that person (or those people, depending on if her mind ever changes).
Actually, my real point isn’t even marital status. It’s that promiscuity truly does affect your heart, especially in girls. I think it affects one primarily in a spiritual way, but it also causes a lot of baggage. Most guys out there would rather end up for life with a girl like Janie over a girl like Lena. I speak from experience from Janie’s point of view (although I waited til I was “married” - see definition above). Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)
November 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, especially when they unconditionally love you ;)”
that’s a matter of opinion/perspection.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“Oh, and I know for a fact that the “How will she know what she wants or what to do?” argument is totally bogus… experimenting with one person over and over again is the most fun you can have, es