All of jeff_gray2's Comments + Replies

1: The Bottom Line. since Yeishu probably genuinely believed he would go to Heaven, he doesn't deserve more honor than John Perry

2: Eliezer, whose bias will this article help overcome? Seriously?

Christians won't accept your premise that Jesus died forever. Atheists presumably don't honor him. Muslims honor him as a prophet, and presumably (many islamic 'fundamentalists') don't honor atheist victims of 'jihad*'. 'The church of Judea[sic]' never had much affinity with Jesus to begin with, & Everyone else who uses the 'Jesus was a great moral teacher' sch... (read more)

1Rixie
It's not necessarily solely for the purpose of overcoming bias. He's also telling the truth and letting us see things in a different light. I think he's saying that atheists should (to a certain extent) honour him, and Christians should believe that he died forever. I'm not familiar with the other religions, but just because someone believes something now, doesn't mean that that will never change. Isn't the whole point of this blog to spread truth around?
8Raw_Power
Nitpicking: I don't believe Muslims would fail to be humbled by such a man. A suicide bomber knows he is taking the easy way out of a life where he expects to succumb to sin (suicide bombers are usually notorious sinners [citation needed, I don't remember where I read that]) by taking a path he was told would guarrantee him a place in Paradise (more importantly, away from Hell). To the likes of him, a man who does what Perry did, with the beliefs with which he did it, commands respect. Though I am purely speculating here: if those alledged Muslims are anything like, say, Fred Phelps, there is no telling whether they would adopt this perspective. More importantly, while "Jesus dying forever" is not a valid hypothesis for them, you seem to be underestimating a Christian's Willing Suspension Of Belief For The Sake Of Speculation.

caledonian

evolution is contingent. so are we. what's your point?

eliezer

are you a student of ancient hebrew? (aramaic & greek too, if we're talking about the new testament.) fair enough if you are, but otherwise your claims of implicit authority on comparative literary criticism lie somewhat shallow.

*similarly

and Rolf "the first reaction should be to see whether it's possible to enact more effective methods"

Your first reaction is to assume we're following more or less the right course of action? I suppose it would be heartbraking to "give up" if its not working

  1. Development aid for Africa may be ineffective, but relatively small marginal spending on medical care in Africa could have large returns on mortality, life expectancy, preventing diseases like malaria, etc etc etc. Of course, if present infrastructure/political systems cannot handle the increased populations such medical care would allow...

  2. Is it really that hard to say 'no' after TRILLIONS ($,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$) have been given away? This magnitude must signal we all really care about those poor savages! Western governments transfering their own people's m

... (read more)

People don't think about the real weak points of their beliefs for the same reason they don't touch an oven's red-hot burners; it's painful.

Eliezer, unless I missed the analogy, people gloss the weak points to avoid finding themselves in error and avoid the pain of getting 'burned' by woeful ignorance. Perhaps I give humanity too much credit, but I think this is not the primary disincentive for most religious people. Laziness & Apathy are the first stage, where most people drop any thoughts they had of re-evalutating 'their' beliefs.

I observed this ten... (read more)

link to 1981 Time magazine interview with the president of Argentina - source of Eliezer's quote about democracy absent the people's will.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954853,00.html?promoid=googlep