Then don't be here. If you yourself are not willing to listen and learn (and possibly be convinced of) something different then you are doing more harm than good. I've learned a lot through this thread. I've actually changed my thinking because people have been willing to discuss instead of dictate. Don't screw it up because you don't have any hope for rational discourse.
Wait...you're going after BNW for screwing up "rational discourse" in this thread? And trying to dictate who gets to stay?
I'm sorry if that article upset you -- I truly am. But unlike some other people in this thread, you are better than this.
|
I can appreciate what you were possibly trying to do -- but why would you think that posting an article about the evil Catholic church would help accomplish this?"possibly?" So...now I lying?
How about because the Catholic Church was specifically being discussed before Dr. Anal checked in? Like it or not, the Catholic Church has displayed a pattern of systematically covering up terrible, terrible crimes -- and covering up molestation seems a whole let less "civil" than discussing it.
On the other hand, if that isn't the direction you would like to see the discussion go, ripping into me isn't the best way to get there. I suppose the irony of calling for civility between attacks is probably lost on you?
My apologies.
Creating the link with just the word "D'oh" seemed a bit off. Especially without any other indication that it was to supplement any other part of the discussion.
I feel "attacked" here just by being a Christian. I don't (and won't) post articles talking about some Atheist that did some really bad or really stupid thing. Because I don't feel that it helps matters at all. I know some truly outstanding Atheists -- why would I (even remotely) want to lump them in with something negative? By not bringing up the article, does that mean that I therefore endorse said actions? Not at all. Am I then "covering it up"? Not really.
Here, let's get it out in the open -- "Molestation of boys/children/women/people is wrong." Discuss? What is there to discuss? I truly hope that there isn't some a+%$+~@ that thinks that this is ok. You want to discuss that they were embarrassed by this? They are. So was Clinton. How does this help the discussion?
Ok, I'm attacking again. I'm sorry. I was wrong for going on the offensive.
Then don't be here. If you yourself are not willing to listen
Says the person ignoring what i said and not only jumping to a false conclusion but adhering to that concussion after being told point blank that the conclusion was false.
and learn (and possibly be convinced of) something different then you are doing more harm than good. I've learned a lot through this thread. I've actually changed my thinking because people have been willing to discuss instead of dictate. Don't screw it up because you don't have any hope for rational discourse.
When someone tells me religion has been a positive force I try to discuss evidence and rational.
When someone tells me that geocentrism is just as valid as heliocentrism I'm going to dictate.
Or better yet, why not just ask the question?
Darkwing duck, will you.. oh wait. Wrong question. Ahem.
Or you could just cut to the chase and tell us what your religion/philosophy/whatever is.<---- Tried that
|
|
Then don't be here. If you yourself are not willing to listen and learn (and possibly be convinced of) something different then you are doing more harm than good. I've learned a lot through this thread. I've actually changed my thinking because people have been willing to discuss instead of dictate. Don't screw it up because you don't have any hope for rational discourse.Wait...you're going after BNW for screwing up "rational discourse" in this thread? And trying to dictate who gets to stay?
I'm sorry if that article upset you -- I truly am. But unlike some other people in this thread, you are better than this.
It's not the article that upset me -- well it did upset me but not in that way... (am I making any sense?)
Having it posted here really makes it seem like you are saying that all Catholics are wrong for being part of this organization. Especially since you didn't comment about how the leaders or the people who covered it up need to be punished. Since this is a "religious" discussion, posting that here makes it sound more like you are saying that the religion is wrong rather than the act in question is wrong. Boy Scouts wanted to cover that up as well. Yet we don't link an article about that here because it's not about religion. Neither is the article you posted. The article is about individuals who are hiding behind their organization to do some truly evil things.
I guess I'm saying that that article is probably better placed in the "Civil A~!~+%& Discussion".
|
|
Says the person ignoring what i said and not only jumping to a false conclusion but adhering to that concussion after being told point blank that the conclusion was false.
Part of that was because posts were flying and getting crossed (and I didn't feel like editing them).
But is the "concussion" (I like that typo) you are referring to that your "mammal/bird" question was directed at one person and not to Christians in general? Or was there something else?
(I guess I REALLY didn't like that "litmus" test. I've heard it a lot and it grows old.)
|
|
Or you could just cut to the chase and tell us what your religion/philosophy/whatever is.<---- Tried thatMine? I'm a Christian. Are you looking for more than that?
Or DW? He's said that he's an Atheist. It looks to me like he has a similar philosophy towards religion as I have towards atheism. More than that -- I'd say he's yanking your chain to see just how far you'll go.
Hey moff -- sorry for flying off the handle there. I really wasn't trying to imply anything. I saw the article and it reminded me of some of kirth's posts, and I just wanted to get away from what I perceived to be needless and counter-productive pedantry. I definitely see how it came across -- another reminder to think before I post.
|
|
Hey moff -- sorry for flying off the handle there. I really wasn't trying to imply anything. I saw the article and it reminded me of some of kirth's posts, and I just wanted to get away from what I perceived to be needless and counter-productive pedantry. I definitely see how it came across -- another reminder to think before I post.
You and me both.
Especially since you didn't comment about how the leaders or the people who covered it up need to be punished. Since this is a "religious" discussion, posting that here makes it sound more like you are saying that the religion is wrong rather than the act in question is wrong
Its not a matter of "Rar! catholics are all evil!" Its a matter of "Ermm.. remind me why religions idea of what's good is better than mine again?"
Religion does not seem to help people behave. One of the values of religion is SUPPOSED to be moral teaching, which appears to be lacking in effectiveness.
The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its etymology.[1] An argument only constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology, thus distinguishing an alleged "true" (etymological) meaning from the workaday use.[2] - wiki.
You're treating English as 100% objective and Astronomy as 100% subjective.
Do I think the Bible is wrong? Whose interpretation of the Bible and what definition of "wrong"What's older, Land Mammals or birds?
Pi = 3
The bible is repeatedly factually wrong.
Ofcause now we'll get a discussion about how Greek maths is oppressing hebrew maths or something ;)
The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its etymology.[1] An argument only constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology, thus distinguishing an alleged "true" (etymological) meaning from the workaday use.[2] - wiki.
You're treating English as 100% objective and Astronomy as 100% subjective.
Do I think the Bible is wrong? Whose interpretation of the Bible and what definition of "wrong"What's older, Land Mammals or birds?
Except that the definitions I used aren't just the definitions from 100 years ago, but are used by modern scholars.
Which is older? I assume you're including dinosaurs as birds, so the answer is obvious isn't it.
I think you're falling into a fallacy of your own - that if I'm defending religion, I must be religious. I'm not. Your fallacy is common among the atheist religion.
Atheism is not a religion. Religions are bundles of positive beliefs about the world, such as "there are gods, there are angels, there is an afterlife, there is sin, sin can be removed by belief in the big JuJu up the mountain."
Atheism is simply the absence of a single belief, I.E. in theistic deitys.
Religion also almost always has hierarchies, ritual, dogmas, taboos, superstitions.
Athiesm has none of these things.
Almost Religions are based upon faith(belief despite evidence), while almost all atheists reject faith as a way of examining the world.
They couldn't be more different as ideas.
|
|
Its not a matter of "Rar! catholics are all evil!" Its a matter of "Ermm.. remind me why religions idea of what's good is better than mine again?"
So, what did the article say that the religion's idea of what's good was? The religion, mind you. Not individual people's wacked out ideas.
And did someone here say that religion's idea of "good" is better than your definition? Or is this some extra baggage that you thought you'd throw in?
And regarding the "values of religion" -- so you are basing the "moral teachings" of ... millions? ... of people based on the failings of ... how many?
Saying "religion does not seem to help people behave" seems to be a bit off. I can then say that "lack of religion does not seem to help people behave" and give the Columbine shooting as a reference. Does that then take into account all the truly wonderful people who don't have religion yet have just fine morals? But you don't seem to have an issue doing exactly that with people with religion.
If I were to find an article about a religious group (individual, family, whatever) that went above and beyond the call of duty to truly help others out, does that therefore mean that all people of the same religious group are going to be the same way? Yet you imply that if you can find even a little bad, then the entire system is "lacking in effectiveness".
So, what did the article say that the religion's idea of what's good was? The religion, mind you. Not individual people's wacked out ideas.
Well that's a bit of a problem. Whats the difference between a religion and the collection of individuals whacky ideas?
What's really problematic for catholics is that they have a well established hierarchy, and that hierarchy said "hide and deny, it will be better for the church"
And did someone here say that religion's idea of "good" is better than your definition? Or is this some extra baggage that you thought you'd throw in?
Its kind of implicit in any claim to follow a policy based on a religions ideas.
And regarding the "values of religion" -- so you are basing the "moral teachings" of ... millions? ... of people based on the failings of ... how many?
No, I'm testing their claims of having a pipeline to the lord and author of morality.
Saying "religion does not seem to help people behave" seems to be a bit off. I can then say that "lack of religion does not seem to help people behave" and give the Columbine shooting as a reference.
First off, I'd take that. I'm perfectly fine with writing religion or atheism out of the equation all together. Neutrality on the faith issue and atheism as the guiding principle are pretty indistinguishable.
Secondly, one was a Jewish Lutheran who admired hitler, and the other was an atheist as far as i can tell, but I don't have anything definite.
Does that then take into account all the truly wonderful people who don't have religion yet have just fine morals? But you don't seem to have an issue doing exactly that with people with religion.
But I'm not advocating a force making the non religious more moral.
Yet you imply that if you can find even a little bad, then the entire system is "lacking in effectiveness".
If one wants to toss morality into the benefits of religion they have to demonstrate a significant increase in the morals of the believers.
(well, short of getting 100 babies and putting them on an island lord of the flies style and having half be raised religious... but I'm not allowed to do experiments with children after the dingo incident...)
Darkwing duck, will you.. oh wait. Wrong question. Ahem.
Or you could just cut to the chase and tell us what your religion/philosophy/whatever is.<---- Tried that
I know! I know! He is a practicing obsfuscator.
It's funny to see him NEVER answering questions that would put him at a disadvantage, wave away arguments and drown them under a ton of subjective ethnologic smudge.
Nevertheless, whatever the mathematic trick, the Earth still orbits the sun, and he will still get his foot hurt if he lets go of that bowling ball, even if he doesn't believe in gravitation.
Please, sir Duck, tell us agaion that science is an opinion among others. I so love fantasy.
BNW, this is the best offer you're going to get -- TAKE IT!
I'm going to ignore you....
Bugleyman, you win the internetz, all of it, forever. The contest in now over, we can all go home ;)
Edit: Beckett seems to have deleted the original, but hey, never mind.
Atheism is not a religion.Actually, I believe that in america, it is a religion, legally. Regardless, (and I don't care), it is at best symantecs, as Atheism fills the exact same practicle space.
Yes and under american law, pizza is a vegetable. Your laws and reality do not always meet up Beckett.
They really don't fill the same space. Now secular humanism, a collection of positive ideas about the world, that fills the same space, as religion.
Religions are bundles of positive beliefs about the world, such as "there are gods, there are angels, there is an afterlife, there is sin, sin can be removed by belief in the big JuJu up the mountain."
Religion also almost always has hierarchies, ritual, dogmas, taboos, superstitions.
Oddly, and this is more to point out the redundency, secular science fills these criteria completely. . .
A. science is not atheism. It is possible to be both an atheist and accept science, and to be an atheists and not accept science.
B. Where is science strict Hierarchy? Where is it pope or dalai lama? Where is science ritual? Where is sciences dogma? It superstition? Its taboos?
I don't believe in god(s), I don't believe that an afterlife exists, etc are not statements of faith shared by a community of believers? What about Right and Wrong?Athiesm has none of these things.
Almost Religions are based upon faith(belief despite evidence), while almost all atheists reject faith as a way of examining the world.
They couldn't be more different as ideas.
Only one of those statements has anything to do with atheism, and that is the negative statement of 'I do not be in gods.' It would be entirely possible for every one in the world to not believe in gods, but to believe in an after life and strictly speaking you'd be living in a world full of atheists.
Atheists are not more a 'religion' than atoothfairyists, or ateapotists, You wouldn't claim that every person in the world who doesn't believe in the Celestial Teapot was a religion would you.
To complicate affairs still further, it is technically possible to be both an atheist, and religious. I think if memory serves, Kirth is an example of this, as an atheistic Buddhist (I am sure he'll correct me if I am wrong), one could even be an atheistic Christian.
I suppose in the most loose sense that even describes me. I mean I was raised within the CoE(Church of England not cult of ecstacy with would have been more awesome ;)), I do consider some of the teaching of jesus to be really pretty good ways to try and me a better person, i'll even go so far as to say that most of the morally objectionable stuff in Christianity comes from Paul, not Jesus.
I do love the architecture, community, music, art and poetry of the church. I even wish to be married in my local church when I finally have enough money to afford the wedding. But I don't believe a single bit of the supernatural baggage.
We are not a 'community of believers. We do not have a belief in common(or if we do, it probably has nothing to do with gods, more likely something like “choco-pops are yummy”). I suppose you could call us a community of disbelievers.
Its not a matter of "Rar! catholics are all evil!" Its a matter of "Ermm.. remind me why religions idea of what's good is better than mine again?"So, what did the article say that the religion's idea of what's good was? The religion, mind you. Not individual people's wacked out ideas.
And did someone here say that religion's idea of "good" is better than your definition? Or is this some extra baggage that you thought you'd throw in?
And regarding the "values of religion" -- so you are basing the "moral teachings" of ... millions? ... of people based on the failings of ... how many?
Saying "religion does not seem to help people behave" seems to be a bit off. I can then say that "lack of religion does not seem to help people behave" and give the Columbine shooting as a reference. Does that then take into account all the truly wonderful people who don't have religion yet have just fine morals? But you don't seem to have an issue doing exactly that with people with religion.
If I were to find an article about a religious group (individual, family, whatever) that went above and beyond the call of duty to truly help others out, does that therefore mean that all people of the same religious group are going to be the same way? Yet you imply that if you can find even a little bad, then the entire system is "lacking in effectiveness".
Moff, can you show one tenet of atheism that can actively encourage an individual to hurt some one else?
I can show many tenets of religions that do lead individuals to be hurt.
Islam - "Adultery is punishable with corporal or capital punishment" genuinely and commonly leads to flogging and imprisonment, and more rarely stoning.
Christianity - "Homosexuality is a sin" genuinely and commonly leads to family break up, and worse outcomes for homosexual young adults in Christian families.
State Shinto - "The emperor is a god, and his commands divine" led to suicide bombing.
What is the comparison in atheism. How does, "I don't believe in god"
lead to large subsections of atheists to do something like 'I should cut of my daughters cliterous'?
|
I deleted that post because I didnt want to start a war of symantics. I understand that atheism and science are not the same, but I also believe that a lot of atheists, (particualrly the more militant or "hard atheists") are under the mistaken impression that science proves atheism and disproves the various theisms.
But as for your last question, I personally believe that atheism has played a massive part in the greatest evils in the world more directly than theism has all the commonly attributed ones to religion. Communism a heavily atheistic inspired belief has taken uncountable lives, has led to the absolute worst forms of brutality, murder, genecide, science, physical and mental torture, and more.
I don't know of any religion that specifies anything about the female circumsion, so that would be fully on the secular political, cultural, and traditional side, not the religion.
In western history, most political rulers where atheist, using "religion" only for political influence. No, there are some pretty great evils on both sides.
I deleted that post because I didnt want to start a war of symantics. I understand that atheism and science are not the same, but I also believe that a lot of atheists, (particualrly the more militant or "hard atheists") are under the mistaken impression that science proves atheism and disproves the various theisms.
Science does disprove christian fundamentalism. They're a sizable and VERY vocal chunk of Christianity in America.
But as for your last question, I personally believe that atheism has played a massive part in the greatest evils in the world more directly than theism has all the commonly attributed ones to religion.
There is no god-------??? something happens???------> communism.
Can you fill in the blank there? There doesn't seem to be any relationship between the lack of deities and the choice of an economic system. I could make a better case for communism based on Christianity.
I deleted that post because I didnt want to start a war of symantics. I understand that atheism and science are not the same, but I also believe that a lot of atheists, (particualrly the more militant or "hard atheists") are under the mistaken impression that science proves atheism and disproves the various theisms.
But as for your last question, I personally believe that atheism has played a massive part in the greatest evils in the world more directly than theism has all the commonly attributed ones to religion. Communism a heavily atheistic inspired belief has taken uncountable lives, has led to the absolute worst forms of brutality, murder, genecide, science, physical and mental torture, and more.
I don't know of any religion that specifies anything about the female circumsion, so that would be fully on the secular political, cultural, and traditional side, not the religion.
In western history, most political rulers where atheist, using "religion" only for political influence. No, there are some pretty great evils on both sides.
I deleted that post because I didnt want to start a war of symantics. I understand that atheism and science are not the same, but I also believe that a lot of atheists, (particualrly the more militant or "hard atheists") are under the mistaken impression that science proves atheism and disproves the various theisms.
Of the top of my head, I can name only one individual who holds that opinion, at a guess I could find maybe twenty more who would be qualified to even speculate in that area(I know of their existence though not their exact beliefs based on Hitchen citing them as the source of that belief) and come to such a conclusion. They are rare people at the cutting edge of cosmology and quantum physics who my understanding is consider certain facts about the nature of the universe to be evidence that the existence of god is even more unlikely that the levels of unlikely hood we normal atheists apply to it.
I don't think I have ever heard a normal atheists, even antitheists, make the claim that 'science proves atheism'. I mean, sure science and maths have disproves(beyond any reasonable doubt) many specific claims of religion
Fresh and salt water do mix, the world wasn't made in six days, Pi is not 3, and so on and so forth.
I'll even go so far as to say that reasoned thought has pretty much pinned down that atheism should be our default starting point and that without independently verifiable extra-ordinary evidence we shouldn't buy into an claims of religion. I'll add to that a fairly categorical statement that no such evidence has ever been provided.
But short of being very tired, a little drunk or just getting turned around by words, I would not claim atheism is proved by science. Such a statement certainly wouldn't be reflective of my views.
And I am unaware of even a single person here who holds such a view.
But as for your last question, I personally believe that atheism has played a massive part in the greatest evils in the world more directly than theism has all the commonly attributed ones to religion. Communism a heavily atheistic inspired belief has taken uncountable lives, has led to the absolute worst forms of brutality, murder, genecide, science, physical and mental torture, and more.
How exactly does not believing in a magic sky daddy lead anyone to commit torture or genecide? How do you get from ' I do not believe in god' to “I should hurt this person for X”?
And what possible reason could you have for believe that it is more likely it was atheism that led the horrors of starlin's reign, rather than say it being an authoritarian tyranny.
I mean it certainly seems unlikely it was atheism that made it possible for Russia to become an authoritarian state, I mean, for a start, Germany (predominantly Christian), Japan, (Shintoism and Buddhism), Italy (catholic christianity) had all become terrible and violent, and genocidal autocracies in that time period. Oh and the catholic church backed the rise to power of both hitler and Mussolini. More than that, Russia was a predominantly Christian, had been taught to treat the head of state as gods representative on earth for generations.
While it appears true that Starlin himself might have been an atheist, atheism was not a prerequisite for becoming a great dictator, leaders of japan, Mussolini, and fascit officals, and hitler, and the nazi party certainly didn't appear to be atheist. Starlin had trained at seminary and on taking power ruthlessly built a cult of personality around himself, utilising all of the tools of control inherent in religion.
In fact, what did all of these great and terrible autocracies have in common? Magical thinking and dogmatic adherence to an ideology. Just the way religions teach you to think.
I don't know of any religion that specifies anything about the female circumsion, so that would be fully on the secular political, cultural, and traditional side, not the religion.In western history, most political rulers where atheist, using "religion" only for political influence. No, there are some pretty great evils on both sides.
It is an element of Islam as practised. Levels of female genital mutilation are very significantly lower in non Islamic communities with otherwise similar cultures.
I deleted that post because I didnt want to start a war of symantics. I understand that atheism and science are not the same, but I also believe that a lot of atheists, (particualrly the more militant or "hard atheists") are under the mistaken impression that science proves atheism and disproves the various theisms.Science does disprove christian fundamentalism. They're a sizable and VERY vocal chunk of Christianity in America.
But as for your last question, I personally believe that atheism has played a massive part in the greatest evils in the world more directly than theism has all the commonly attributed ones to religion.There is no god-------??? something happens???------> communism.
Can you fill in the blank there? There doesn't seem to be any relationship between the lack of deities and the choice of an economic system. I could make a better case for communism based on Christianity.
By comparison
Homosexuality is wrongbadfun ---> I don't want my son/daughter to burn in hell ---> I will try to force them to be straight for their own good
OR
Homosexuality is wrongbadfun ---> I don't want to burn in hell ---> I will try to streight, even if it destroys my mental health and happiness cause hell would be worse.
a bunch of stuff, but what I wanted to get at is too far down to appear in a quote blurb
Stalin was definitely an atheist, as were all of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party.
In other news, Citizen Big Norse Wolf, there is something that has been bothering me about your posts for, well, ever: Could you please find a way to include the name of the poster you're quoting? It gets confusing sometimes, especially when you've got two or three arguments all going at the same time.
a bunch of stuff, but what I wanted to get at is too far down to appear in a quote blurbStalin was definitely an atheist, as were all of the leaders of the Bolshevik Party.
In other news, Citizen Big Norse Wolf, there is something that has been bothering me about your posts for, well, ever: Could you please find a way to include the name of the poster you're quoting? It gets confusing sometimes, especially when you've got two or three arguments all going at the same time.
Starlin is one of the many people in the world I actually know far less than I would like about, so I will bow to your greater knowledge Comrade.
Certainly his public statements paint him as such (but they would have to, after all he was a Bolshevik), but he was prior to that studying as a priest. If you know of personal diaries or the like that demonstrate his atheism in other contexts, that would be interesting to see.
Ofcause his personal atheism, really doesn't matter as there is no evidence it was his atheism that made him commit atrocities, and plenty of non-atheists also commited atrocities.
A couple of questions occur to me that I find more compelling than most of the ones we've already gone in circles around. They are not meant to be offensive in any way; I am actually curious, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around them. (Unfortunately, they're probably going to come across in tone as somewhat Inquisition-like, because I'm at a loss for how to phrase them more politely and less directly without turning the post into a pages-long wall of text -- apologies in advance for that.)
1. Given that in the contemporary U.S., the Bible-as-narrative-not-as-literal-fact viewpoint is a minority one, why do moderate Christians (like most of those in the thread) take the stance that they represent "Christians" in general, and "true" Christians in particular -- when in fact, in this country, the majority of the population views the moderates as "not True Christians(TM)"?
2. Given that moderate Christians agree that (a) molesting children is evil, and (b) institutionalized cover-ups of the same are as bad, if not worse -- why do these same moderates insist that the Catholic Church -- the largest Christian sect on Earth -- is a statistically tiny outlier, and therefore not worth criticizing when looking for evidence that organized religion does not effectively instill morality?
Why is one athist committing an immoral act the equivalent of the entire Catholic Church functioning, de facto as an organized child prostitution ring and getting away with it? (Not everyone in the Church, but the organizationation itself -- the leadership resposible has not been ousted by the members as a whole, and are still considered by the members to be moral leaders.)
|
|
Moff, can you show one tenet of atheism that can actively encourage an individual to hurt some one else?
It seems that you think that someone can't do evil in the name of atheism. Here a quick list I found.
I think the biggest fear is epitomized in the following quote -- "if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" Which was said by an Atheist.
There's plenty of mud to throw around. Can we stop now?
It seems that you think that someone can't do evil in the name of atheism. There's plenty of mud to throw around. Can we stop now?
There have been plenty of evil atheist mofos, that's for sure. To my mind, the telling difference is that no one (to my knowledge) ever made the claim that atheism is the best method ever devised to instill morality in people. That claim has been made, and persistently defended, for religion.
I make no claim that atheists are more moral than Christians -- I believe that claim would be false. I do make the claim that large majority religious groups are not obviously more moral than other equally-sized groups.
|
|
1. Given that in the contemporary U.S., the Bible-as-narrative-not-as-literal-fact viewpoint is a minority one, why do moderate Christians (like most of those in the thread) take the stance that they represent "Christians" in general, and "true" Christians in particular -- when in fact, in this country, the majority of the population views the moderates as "not True Christians(TM)"?
1. I'm not sure what your point here is.
2. Am I coming across as the "voice" of Christianity?Sometimes I feel that getting people to see "Truth" ranks up there with attempting to cure stupidity.
|
|
To my mind, the telling difference is that no one (to my knowledge) ever made the claim that atheism is the best method ever devised to instill morality in people. That claim has been made, and persistently defended, for religion.
In many ways, it seems like the "dangers" of atheism is the selfish, individualistic nature of Atheism. (As seemed to be demonstrated by the above examples.) Because they are not for a larger group, and since there are no "guides" to fall back on, the evil that can be done seems even more indiscriminate. Since "Atheism" has no moral guidelines to speak of, it won't ever be "devised to instill morality in people".
At the same time, it's difficult (at best) to separate "morals" from "religion". Where do we all (for the most part) get our "morals"? From our families more than any other source. It's also a good bet that somewhere along the family line, people in everyone's family had a religion at some point or another. So did the family line of morals come from religion? Does an atheists morals originate from religion? Hard to say really.
Starlin is one of the many people in the world I actually know far less than I would like about, so I will bow to your greater knowledge Comrade.
Certainly his public statements paint him as such (but they would have to, after all he was a Bolshevik), but he was prior to that studying as a priest. If you know of personal diaries or the like that demonstrate his atheism in other contexts, that would be interesting to see.
Ofcause his personal atheism, really doesn't matter as there is no evidence it was his atheism that made him commit atrocities, and plenty of non-atheists also commited atrocities.
Third paragraph first: Oh, defintely.
Stalin did go to a seminary but I'm not sure that's indicative of much--I don't imagine Tsarist Russia had tons of choices in the way of secular institutions of higher learning. It's been years since I read Isaac Deutscher's biography, but IIRC, even inside the seminary he was organizing Marxist circles and he was kicked out in his late teens or early twenties.
I don't know tons about Uncle Joe (I'm a Trotskyist) but I have read pretty widely in Bolshevik history and other than his education in an Orthodox seminary, I don't recall ever reading anything that indicated that Stalin was in the least bit religious. Unless you want to call Marxism a religion, in which case, yeah, he was.
|
|
First, "the selfish, individualistic nature of Atheism" is offensive nonsense.
As I said before, there is plenty of mud to throw around. There have been plenty of "offensive nonsense" statements thrown my way recently as well. I never said that people cannot be for a larger group that are not defined in religious terms. Nor did I imply any of the other things you mentioned. All that you mentioned applies equally to religious as well as non-religious. We're not talking about political groups. We're not talking about racial groups. We're talking about religous "groups". And since (as has been said many times here) Atheists don't have a "group", it is by nature an association of individuals.
(I probably shouldn't have used the word "selfish" though. Sorry about that.)
|
|
Score draw. Game called on account of a pitch invasion by the crowd. ;-)I just got back from a several-month hiatus from the Paizo boards, and I can't tell you how happy I am to see this thread still going strong.
Hi Moff, hi Bugley! Hi new faces.
So, where are we? What's the current score? ;)
Don't be too happy yet. The generally dynamics of the thread seem to have changed from "the glory days".
;-)
Hi new faces.
So, where are we? What's the current score? ;)
I won because I am sexy and French and I have nice goggles.
|
|
You're right that atheism doesn't have moral guidelines to speak of, but that's because it isn't trying to fill that role.
(I thought I was done.)
I know this and you seem to know this, but it keeps being brought up by Atheists as this great thing that Atheists have no moral code to live by. Generally as a direct comparison as to the "evils of religion". It just comes across as "we're more moral because we don't have a moral code". Which is silly, not correct, and this line of "reasoning" really needs to stop.
|
|
Don't be too happy yet. The generally dynamics of the thread seem to have changed from "the glory days".
;-)
Oh dear. I haven't gone back and read any of the posts. Is it now customary to slap someone's mother before engaging in discussion with them?
What's the issue of the day?
Let's see...
Christians are immoral because of child sacrifices in the Bible.
Atheists are immoral because ... well, because they just don't have any morals.
Genesis 1 says quite clearly that the earth was created in seven days and that birds came before mammals by one whole day.
And I think that someone said that the universe is actually Pluto-centric.
I'm probably missing a few details in there somewhere.
I know this and you seem to know this, but it keeps being brought up by Atheists as this great thing that Atheists have no moral code to live by. Generally as a direct comparison as to the "evils of religion". It just comes across as "we're more moral because we don't have a moral code". Which is silly, not correct, and this line of "reasoning" really needs to stop.
As far as I can tell, the claim is not, and never has been, that "atheists are more moral." However, the claim that HAS been made is that "all morality comes from religion."
A strong, positive claim ("morals come only from religion") requires strong, positive evidence (e.g., "leaders of largest religious denominations should be, on the whole, demonstratively more moral in their behavior"). A weak negative claim (e.g., "that doesn't seem to be true") can rest on weak negative evidence (e.g., "there are plenty of exceptions on either side").
Does an atheists morals originate from religion? Hard to say really.
Easy to say, if you find a moral atheist and ask him or her. Of course, that means one must be willing to accept that an atheist can actually be moral, which many people (present company very pointedly excluded from that lot) do not.
Typically, the answer is something along the lines of "I look at what people do, and then look at which things cause suffering and misery later on, and I correlate them." Why do so? Some might say it's a matter of conscience; others might say it's a personal benefit to get along well in a communal society. Maybe one or two might say, "because that's what my parents taught me," but most people who accept their parents' moral teachings without reasoning through them themselves will also accept their parents' religion likewise. None of those reasons involve religion, however.
|
|
By the way, why this --
... "leaders of largest religious denominations should be, on the whole, demonstratively more moral in their behavior"
Why not "members of largest religious denominations should be, on the whole, demonstratively more moral in their behavior"? Otherwise, why not apply this to other things? Does Obama speak for you as to what it means to be "American"?
(I'm not saying that said "members" are "more moral" -- just wanting to figure out why the focus is on the few people at the top as to what defines if an organization is "moral".)
"... can you show one tenet of atheism that can actively encourage an individual to hurt some one else?"
Sure -- the lack of any tenet other than "I don't believe in God," means that a person might be an atheist and a moral exemplar, or might be an atheist and a baseball fan, or might be an atheist and a mass murderer. Examples of all three are easy to come by.
But again, that's a negative claim. A strong, positive claim: "morality comes only from religion" has been outright asserted as fact, and has yet to be shown to be at all true.
|
|
"... can you show one tenet of atheism that can actively encourage an individual to hurt some one else?"Sure -- the lack of any tenet other than "I don't believe in God," means that a person might be an atheist and a moral exemplar, or might be an atheist and a baseball fan, or might be an atheist and a mass murderer. Examples of all three are easy to come by.
But again, that's a negative claim. A strong, positive claim: "morality comes only from religion" has been outright asserted as fact, and has yet to be shown to be at all true.
The implied message from the rhetorical question quoted (especially when taken in context where he then listed a bunch of "evil" things from religions) was that atheists are more moral.
I'm not arguing your points. I'm saying that the implied message was made.
Why not "members of largest religious denominations should be, on the whole, demonstratively more moral in their behavior"? Otherwise, why not apply this to other things? Does Obama speak for you as to what it means to be "American"?
(I'm not saying that said "members" are "more moral" -- just wanting to figure out why the focus is on the few people at the top as to what defines if an organization is "moral".)
If I elect Obama as the Supreme Pontiff of America on Earth, and defend him in that role, then yes, I am saying that he speaks for Americans. If I pointedly protest his leadership and vote against him, then I'm disagreeing with that statement.
Similarly, if the Catholic Church as a whole elects the Pope as Supreme Pontiff of Christ on Earth, then yes, the Pope gets to speak for Catholics. If the members of the church refuse to acknowledge his authority, or toss the bum out, then he obviously doesn't speak for those people.
The largest denimination is important here because it alone represents approximately half of all Christians on Earth (the other half -- you Protestants and the Orthodox sects -- most definitely get a free pass from this particular example of evil). Still, when 50% of all Christians accept the Pope's moral authority, and when the Pope's morality consists of protecting child abusers, that's a pretty clear demonstration of a fundamental lack of the "superior morals" that keep getting promoted. Add in those Muslims who support oppression of women (again, not "all Muslims"), and you still get a majority of the religious people in the world who are actively promoting or complicit (aiding and abetting) in gross immorality.
I'm saying that the implied message was made.
It was a pretty stupid claim. But the outright statement, "At the same time, it's difficult (at best) to separate 'morals' from 'religion'," does a lot more than just imply.