Paul Watson |
Moff,
Another reason is that the leadership is chosen by the cardinals who are moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus the leadership is actively selected by God, so if he doesn't want them to be immoral, he shouldn't pick them. Or, the current leadership is the best he could find in the Church, which also goes to disagree with the morals part. So again, it's not necessarily that the Church has bad morals, but that it does not have better morals than anyone else.
Darkwing Duck |
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.)
Most religious people do not have post high school education in religion. Most scientist do. So, if one of the two groups is going to adhere more closely to what their area is supposed to be about, it'd be scientists. Some people in this thread have painted science as the wondrous process of unravelling the secrets of the physical universe, but most scientists don't actually pursue the discovery of new laws, rather they spend their work days doing well-known tests over and over again. They don't even make it a priority to develop new tests. "What is the sulfur content in this soil?". "Just a minute," blows a half inch of dust off a book in the back of his shelf, "let me find the page where that test is listed..". Most scientists are not doing what science has been described as in this thread.
Moff Rimmer |
The world (for some reason) needs to be either black or white for you, doesn't it?
I didn't vote for Obama nor do I approve of a lot of his policies. At the same time, I feel that he is (at the end of the day) some guy who is in a very difficult position doing the best job he knows how. But according to you, since I don't often agree with him I'm doing more harm by not marching up and down Washington DC until he gets kicked out of office.
You're not leaving your area -- even though you have been very vocal about how terrible all the Christians there are. Shoot, Colorado Springs (dubbed the "Christian 'Mecca'") seems to have a lot less wacked out Christians than you seem to have. And I'm sure that with your skill set you could leave at any time. Since you are not actively leaving your "organization" are you then endorsing all the Christians there?
Have you talked to the priest of your local Catholic Church to find out what their stand is on this and why they are choosing to stay with the church?
Kirth Gersen |
Most religious people do not have post high school education in religion. Most scientist do. So, if one of the two groups is going to adhere more closely to what their area is supposed to be about, it'd be scientists. Some people in this thread have painted science as the wondrous process of unravelling the secrets of the physical universe, but most scientists don't actually pursue the discovery of new laws, rather they spend their work days doing well-known tests over and over again. They don't even make it a priority to develop new tests. "What is the sulfur content in this soil?". "Just a minute," blows a half inch of dust off a book in the back of his shelf, "let me find the page where that test is listed..". Most scientists are not doing what science has been described as in this thread.
The difference in education is indeed a factor -- in order to get an advanced degree in a hard science, I was required not only to demonstrate that prior discoveries worked as claimed, but also to make some new contribution to scientific knowledge (in my case, it involved efforts to determine the mechanism for the incidence of renal failure in a specific country, and the ability to predict similar incidences elsewhere). So when I run a soil test now, it's backed up by the fact that I've shown those tests to work in the past.
If every religious person was required to demonstrate some awareness of contextual scriptural knowledge beyond rote recital of cherry-picked passages, then I suspect we might have a lot fewer people claiming that "God hates gays" and stuff like that.
thejeff |
Most religious people do not have post high school education in religion. Most scientist do. So, if one of the two groups is going to adhere more closely to what their area is supposed to be about, it'd be scientists. Some people in this thread have painted science as the wondrous process of unravelling the secrets of the physical universe, but most scientists don't actually pursue the discovery of new laws, rather they spend their work days doing well-known tests over and over again. They don't even make it a priority to develop new tests. "What is the sulfur content in this soil?". "Just a minute," blows a half inch of dust off a book in the back of his shelf, "let me find the page where that test is listed..". Most scientists are not doing what science has been described as in this thread.
What does this anti-science (or just anti-scientist) rant have to do with anything?
Other than misunderstanding the nature of scientific work entirely.
Darkwing Duck |
Darkwing Duck wrote:Most religious people do not have post high school education in religion. Most scientist do. So, if one of the two groups is going to adhere more closely to what their area is supposed to be about, it'd be scientists. Some people in this thread have painted science as the wondrous process of unravelling the secrets of the physical universe, but most scientists don't actually pursue the discovery of new laws, rather they spend their work days doing well-known tests over and over again. They don't even make it a priority to develop new tests. "What is the sulfur content in this soil?". "Just a minute," blows a half inch of dust off a book in the back of his shelf, "let me find the page where that test is listed..". Most scientists are not doing what science has been described as in this thread.The difference in education is indeed a factor -- in order to get an advanced degree in a hard science, I was required not only to demonstrate that prior discoveries worked as claimed, but also to make some new contribution to scientific knowledge (in my case, it involved efforts to determine the mechanism for the incidence of renal failure in a specific country, and the ability to predict similar incidences elsewhere). So when I run a soil test now, it's backed up by the fact that I've shown those tests to work in the past.
If every religious person was required to demonstrate some awareness of contextual scriptural knowledge beyond rote recital of cherry-picked passages, then I suspect we might have a lot fewer people claiming that "God hates gays" and stuff like that.
Should everyone who sings the praises of science be required to make new contributions to science or is that burden to be put only on people who work (as in "make a living in") science? There are many people who sing the praises of religion, but don't make a living in that field.
I'd be happy if all scientists were required to take a philosophy course (at the junior level) which covered the philosophical underpinnings of science and the relevant philosophical criticisms.
Kirth Gersen |
The world (for some reason) needs to be either black or white for you, doesn't it?
On the contrary, I accept partial guilt, and guilt by complicity, as part of my moral outlook -- if I stand by and don't help something, then while I'm not the sole perpetrator, I am enabling it. It would seem a lot more black/white to say "I didn't pull the trigger, therefore I'm not guilty."
I didn't vote for Obama nor do I approve of a lot of his policies. At the same time, I feel that he is (at the end of the day) some guy who is in a very difficult position doing the best job he knows how. But according to you, since I don't often agree with him I'm doing more harm by not marching up and down Washington DC until he gets kicked out of office.
Not exactly, but I am saying if you vote for him in '12 after seeing the last 4 years, you can't absolve yourself of responsibility.
You're not leaving your area -- even though you have been very vocal about how terrible all the Christians there are.
"Many," not "all."
And I'm sure that with your skill set you could leave at any time.
Not exactly -- the economy hasn't picked up to quite that extent. I am actively looking, though.
Since you are not actively leaving your "organization" are you then endorsing all the Christians there?
In a sense, yes -- I'm accepting partial moral liability for their shenanigans in exchange for steady work. It's a lousy deal, but better than accepting full moral liability for my dependents going hungry. Again -- it's not black and white, I'm choosing what I see as the lesser of two evils.
Have you talked to the priest of your local Catholic Church to find out what their stand is on this and why they are choosing to stay with the church?
I've talked with the Catholics I know, who say things like "Oh, it's horrible what happened, but I believe the Church and the Vatican and the Pope are blameless."
BigNorseWolf |
He's not playing chess with the English language. He's playing beer pong and he's losing.
Its not possible to loose at beer pong. Either way you wind up achieving the actual objective, which is to get drunk, not get the ball in the cup.
I suppose i could just feed the ball to the dog and then declare that the dog is in the cup from "a certain context" and then declare victory.
Moff Rimmer |
Moff,
Another reason is that the leadership is chosen by the cardinals who are moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus the leadership is actively selected by God, so if he doesn't want them to be immoral, he shouldn't pick them. Or, the current leadership is the best he could find in the Church, which also goes to disagree with the morals part. So again, it's not necessarily that the Church has bad morals, but that it does not have better morals than anyone else.
I was going to say something specific, but decided against it.
I don't necessarily see this as much different than getting any leader in any organization. Where I used to work, they did a lot of interviewing for the VP position did background checks and lots of other things and he is now burying the company. We spent a lot of time finding a pastor for our church. We prayed about it, "sought the Holy Spirit", interviewed people and felt that we found the right person -- who hurt our church tremendously. It took us seven years to get rid of him. Did God "err"? Did we "err"? We can focus on the negative (and many still do -- years later). But looking back on it, many people grew in positive ways as a result of that. So does that mean that the entire situation was "God's Plan"? Probably not. Ultimately it probably boils down to "S%** Happens".
But this kind of brings up the other thing --
"...but that it does not have better morals than anyone else."
Is anyone here advocating this? Just wondering why we are even going around and around on this.
Kirth Gersen |
Should everyone who sings the praises of science be required to make new contributions to science or is that burden to be put only on people who work (as in "make a living in") science? There are many people who sing the praises of religion, but don't make a living in that field.
I think that the strength of one's claims should probably be matched by the extent of his or her knowledge and participation. I believe based on past success that my mechanic probably knows more about cars than I do, but you won't find me on mechanics discussions claiming that he can build a perpetual motion machine.
Moff Rimmer |
"Oh, it's horrible what happened, but I believe the Church and the Vatican and the Pope are blameless."
Wow. Really? While I'm sure that there are some individuals who believe that, I'm fairly certain that the huge Catholic Church down the road from me doesn't endorse that. I guess that kind of explains some people's feelings on this.
Kirth Gersen |
"...but that it does not have better morals than anyone else."
Is anyone here advocating this?
Yes. The statement "morals come only from relion" is advocating this. The statement, "atheists have no reason to be moral whereas religious people do"* is advocating this.
* This statement is false in at least two ways, but never mind that; it's been made.
Kirth Gersen |
While I'm sure that there are some individuals who believe that, I'm fairly certain that the huge Catholic Church down the road from me doesn't endorse that.
Do they continue to accept the Vatican's authority? If so, they're complicit to some extent. Maybe they feel the church can still do more good than harm, although it's extremely hard to imagine any amount of good that could possibly make up for the sheer amount of suffering that's occurred out of this.
Paul Watson |
Paul Watson wrote:Moff,
Another reason is that the leadership is chosen by the cardinals who are moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus the leadership is actively selected by God, so if he doesn't want them to be immoral, he shouldn't pick them. Or, the current leadership is the best he could find in the Church, which also goes to disagree with the morals part. So again, it's not necessarily that the Church has bad morals, but that it does not have better morals than anyone else.I was going to say something specific, but decided against it.
I don't necessarily see this as much different than getting any leader in any organization. Where I used to work, they did a lot of interviewing for the VP position did background checks and lots of other things and he is now burying the company. We spent a lot of time finding a pastor for our church. We prayed about it, "sought the Holy Spirit", interviewed people and felt that we found the right person -- who hurt our church tremendously. It took us seven years to get rid of him. Did God "err"? Did we "err"? We can focus on the negative (and many still do -- years later). But looking back on it, many people grew in positive ways as a result of that. So does that mean that the entire situation was "God's Plan"? Probably not. Ultimately it probably boils down to "S@@% Happens".
But this kind of brings up the other thing --
"...but that it does not have better morals than anyone else."
Is anyone here advocating this? Just wondering why we are even going around and around on this.
I'm not sure why, either. I responded as a possible reason why the leadership was being focused on rather than the membershipm which was your question. The last part was intended to deflect responses along the "attacking the church" line rather than say something specific to your question.
Kirth Gersen |
Kirth Gersen wrote:Me?Moff Rimmer wrote:Yes."...but that it does not have better morals than anyone else."
Is anyone here advocating this?
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.
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?" 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.
Follow those lines of thought and see where they lead.
Moff Rimmer |
Moff Rimmer wrote:While I'm sure that there are some individuals who believe that, I'm fairly certain that the huge Catholic Church down the road from me doesn't endorse that.Do they continue to accept the Vatican's authority? If so, they're complicit to some extent. Maybe they feel the church can still do more good than harm, although it's extremely hard to imagine any amount of good that could possibly make up for the sheer amount of suffering that's occurred out of this.
I know that I have no idea. Although now I'm curious and may try and ask.
BigNorseWolf |
Wow. Really? While I'm sure that there are some individuals who believe that, I'm fairly certain that the huge Catholic Church down the road from me doesn't endorse that. I guess that kind of explains some people's feelings on this.
Almost no catholic I've talked to has known about, or even believed, Benedicts' role in covering up the child abuse scandal even after it was pointed out to them. When Ratzinger was head of the holy see (oddly enough, an organization formerly known as the inquisition) He sent a memo telling the priests involved to hide everything until 10 years after the child in question had turned 18, which was the statute of limitations.
In New York, where there was some of the most egregious cases of moving priests around and then letting them work with kids again, the priests that got nabbed where the ones who left the state... which stops the clock on the Statute of limitations.
Moff Rimmer |
Pretty much.
Hmmm.
At least one of those seemed to have been taken a little out of context.
The concept of "good" is abstract. You talk about things like "the greater good", but why? I know what you will say (and I agree with you), but there are those who would disagree just the same. Even the concept of "morals" -- what does that mean? What makes something more "moral" than another? Majority rule? Do my "morals" come from my ancestors from 20 generations ago that were passed down through the lineage? You talked about saying "it's a matter of conscience; others might say it's a personal benefit to get along well in a communal society". All that comes down to how we view the world. But where do we get that? Or do you really think that you started with an empty slate and figured out all your morals all by yourself?
My point in your second reference was more as a counter to other things that were being said, but also to explain how others might think. It was not meant to be an endorsement, nor do I feel that way. Sorry if that came across that way.
Kirth Gersen |
Or do you really think that you started with an empty slate and figured out all your morals all by yourself?
To some extent. I believe that the rudiments of a conscience are an evolutionary adaptation to millions of years of living in a communal society -- they've been observed in chimpanzees as well as humans. All I did, personally, was to make careful observations and attempt to draw correlations. Anyone willing to put the effort in could do the same thing. To me, your question sounds like "are you expecting me to believe that you somehow taught yourself how to turn on the TV?"
Moff Rimmer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, your question sounds like "are you expecting me to believe that you somehow taught yourself how to turn on the TV?"
lol (and I hate l33tsp33k.)
To some degree, perhaps. In many ways, I'm very much like you. "All I did, personally, was to make careful observations and attempt to draw correlations". I'm just not ignoring/discounting what came before me or how that might have affected/influenced who I am now.
Kirth Gersen |
I'm just not ignoring/discounting what came before me or how that might have affected/influenced who I am now.
I don't think I'm necessarily doing so injudiciously. When I look at my father and review conversations with him regarding morality, for example, I find very little overlap if any. Likewise, when people tell me what's "moral" and "immoral" according to their religion (whatever it may be), it's rare to find any commonality beyond "don't murder or steal."
BigNorseWolf |
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.
Its more along the lines of we're being more moral because we're not getting bogged down by the morals of some bronze age barbarian tribe.
Then again, many Christians are not getting bogged down by said morals, because you've effectively managed to free yourself from them by letting your morals lead your religion rather than the other way around.
BigNorseWolf |
Hi Kirth,
This is what I'm talking about which is more or less why a number of my posts read the way they did.
BigNorseWolf wrote:Its more along the lines of we're being more moral because we're not getting bogged down by the morals of some bronze age barbarian tribe.
That reason would apparently be only reading half the post.
Kirth Gersen |
This is what I'm talking about which is more or less why a number of my posts read the way they did.
Yeah, I can understand what he's trying to say, but cringed a lot in the manner he put it. You have to understand, in his estimation, your willingness to accept the genocide of the Amaleks (1 Samuel) as a cautionary tale (what happens when a group refuses to change their evil ways) -- rather than a straighforward reading of God commanding the murder of infants as a part of a tribal fued, for example -- is an example of you using your innate moral sense to impose morality on the text, rather than letting the text dictate morality to you.
I'd argue that's what religion SHOULD teach, but unfortunately often fails to -- the ability to find a moral message in almost any situation, especially when it involves use of allegory and/or cautionary tales. Many people, unfortunately, define morality as "whatever this book literally says," which I think you and I both agree is shortsighted and sad -- but we can't deny how common it is.
Moff Rimmer |
... rather than a straighforward reading of God commanding ...
Part of the "problem" with the Bible is that it is full of human errors and mess ups. It's not all about roses and rainbows. And in many cases it's hard to find a "point" to a lot of stories. (Personally I feel that many of the stories are there to say -- "This was bad, really bad. Let's not forget this so we don't ever go here again.")
Jagyr Ebonwood |
BigNorseWolf managed to irk Moff and Kirth with his most recent post, but I agree with that post completely. Let me see if I can rephrase it a bit.
The reason that I am wary of those who say they get their morality from God/the Bible is, essentially, the Abraham and Isaac moment. If someone truly fully believes in the god of the bible, there's the possibility that their own morality could be overridden by some internal or external anomaly. What happens if my Christian friend thinks he hears God commanding him to kill me in my sleep? According to the Abraham and Isaac story, he should be willing to do whatever God commands.
Atheism does not include any statements about morality. It is silent on the issue. It allows for objectivism, anarchism, humanism, whatever. The only thing it precludes is the idea of an absolute moral authority in a deity. In my opinion, that idea is a potentially very dangerous one, and athiesm is morally superior to theism on that one point. The rest of it is up in the air, because that's the only point where atheism has anything to say.
If we wanted to start talking about secular humanist morality versus theistic morality, that'd be a conversation with more meat to it.
Relevant links:
Euthyphro Dilemna
Matt Dillahunty on the Superiority of Secular Morality
BigNorseWolf |
Kind of. Your point in posting the first half would be...?
To explain a rationale for the conclusion before explaining the problem with the rationale. You cannot refute a line of reasoning that you don't understand. While changing your mind is, as I said above, hopeless, getting you to at least understand WHY people hold their positions is rare but possible.
The idea that someone is going to call themselves a christian but interpret the bible according to your morality rather than developing your morality based on the bible takes a little getting used to and it takes a long time to see that that's what's happening... in no small part because many Christians deny that that's whats happening at all.
"This was bad, really bad. Let's not forget this so we don't ever go here again."
That's your little cricket chirping, not the text.
BigNorseWolf |
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:The reason that I am wary of those who say they get their morality from God/the Bible is, essentially, the Abraham and Isaac moment.What does this mean?
Abraham, Issac, a really big knife ,a stone slab, a test of faith and some questionable parenting decisions.
A moral person would/should say "Begone Evil spirit in my head! If you want me to kill my own son you CAN"T be good!"
But a big part of christianity is handing over that sort moral judgement to a higher authority.
Kirth Gersen |
Part of the "problem" with the Bible is that it is full of human errors and mess ups.
You and I agree here 100% -- but Biblical literalists do not. Nor do hard-liners of any religion. And because Biblical fundamentalists have exploded since the late 1800s into a current majority position in this country at least, we can't discount their opinion. The religion of most religious people in the U.S. (and in Iran and Afghanistan for that matter) does not teach them that what you're saying is true, but rather the opposite.
--I'd reject the atheist - agnostic - believer spectrum we were talking about before as misleading and non-useful. In its place, I'd create a new spectrum of "how much of holy books does a person think is literally true, vs. allegory and/or false." On that scale, Moff, you and I are a LOT closer together than either of us is to any of the fundamentalists.
Moff Rimmer |
The idea that someone is going to call themselves a christian but interpret the bible according to your morality rather than developing your morality based on the bible takes a little getting used to and it takes a long time to see that that's what's happening... in no small part because many Christians deny that that's whats happening at all.
Not talking about "other Christians" -- am I saying that the Bible was meant to be a "moral guidebook"?
The Bible is many things. You can find examples (or lack thereof) of morals. That does not mean that the point or purpose of the Bible is to be a "moral guidebook".
Quote:"This was bad, really bad. Let's not forget this so we don't ever go here again."That's your little cricket chirping, not the text.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Moff Rimmer |
Moff Rimmer wrote:Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:The reason that I am wary of those who say they get their morality from God/the Bible is, essentially, the Abraham and Isaac moment.What does this mean?Abraham, Issac, a really big knife ,a stone slab, a test of faith and some questionable parenting decisions.
A moral person would/should say "Begone Evil spirit in my head! If you want me to kill my own son you CAN"T be good!"
But a big part of christianity is handing over that sort moral judgement to a higher authority.
My problem with this is that Christian "morality" (assuming such a thing truly is found in the Bible) really starts with Moses and Mount Sinai etc. Abraham was at least a few hundred years prior to this. There was no law and there was little if any guidelines at this point -- especially written down. (More than that, the point of the story is evidently lost on you, so I guess be content with your interpretation.)
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:The idea that someone is going to call themselves a christian but interpret the bible according to your morality rather than developing your morality based on the bible takes a little getting used to and it takes a long time to see that that's what's happening... in no small part because many Christians deny that that's whats happening at all.Not talking about "other Christians" -- am I saying that the Bible was meant to be a "moral guidebook"?
Usually when one identifies as Christian accepting the moral authority of the Bible is part of the package.
The Bible is many things. You can find examples (or lack thereof) of morals. That does not mean that the point or purpose of the Bible is to be a "moral guidebook".
That's one of its more universally believed purposes. If its not supposed to be a moral guidebook then what good is it?
I'm not sure what you mean here.Quote:"This was bad, really bad. Let's not forget this so we don't ever go here again."That's your little cricket chirping, not the text.
The text does not present the slaughter as a bad thing. Moses gets called out on doing bad things, like tapping the rock more times than he should to get water out of it and denied entry into the promised land because of it. You're only getting the feeling that its a bad thing because YOU know its wrong.
So as Kirth said above, your sense of morals is dictating how you interpret the text.
Moff Rimmer |
If its not supposed to be a moral guidebook then what good is it?
This is one of the best questions I've seen you ask so far. Not sure how genuine it is, but...
There are a lot of reasons. Here is some light reading to get you started. I'm not saying that I agree with the author 100%, but I feel that he has some good points to consider.
I especially like this quote -- "We may misconstrue the Bible either by paying attention only to one purpose, by reducing all the purposes to one, or by artificially isolating the purposes, as if we could adequately accomplish one in isolation from the rest." Yet this is exactly what a lot of people attempt to do.
BigNorseWolf |
This is one of the best questions I've seen you ask so far. Not sure how genuine it is, but...
Remind me again which one of us was inhibiting conversation?
There are a lot of reasons. Here is some light reading to get you started. I'm not saying that I agree with the author 100%, but I feel that he has some good points to consider.
Its a confusing illogical morass attempting to apply one triune standard of interpretation to very, very different books by bouncing different vs off of each other at random.
It also doesn't eliminate the problem of the bible allegedly being moral instruction.
It is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
I especially like this quote -- "We may misconstrue the Bible either by paying attention only to one purpose, by reducing all the purposes to one, or by artificially isolating the purposes, as if we could adequately accomplish one in isolation from the rest." Yet this is exactly what a lot of people attempt to do.
Here's the thing that will save you a LOT of trouble when you get ticked off at the atheists for thinking you're something/believe something you don't
When atheists say "Where is the real Christianity? " You stand up and say "Here it is! I am here, plain as day!"
The problem is that there are 200 different people right next to you doing the exact same thing.
Sometimes i feel like that Roman guy at the end of Spartacus when EVERYONE is popping up and saying "No! I'm the real Spartacus, he's a fake!" You think there is something special about you, some inherent rightness to your position that makes you stand out.
So does everyone else. You all look alike to me. Getting upset at me for not knowing your every theological position because you ID at christian is simply silly. There is no one true version of Christianity... or at least if there is it hasn't been revealed to the Christians. Why would it be revealed to he atheists? You have a LOT of disparate beliefs under the name of christian. Providing more information.. information i can only get by asking questions, is a requirement for meaningful discussion.
Kirth Gersen |
You all look alike to me.
I need hardly repeat, Moff, that the opposite is true for me. Personally, I find the willingness to view large swaths of the Bible as allegory puts you a LOT closer to my point of view than to that of someone like Jerry Falwell. What I find sad is that the fundamentalist view continues to wax, rather than wane.
Moff Rimmer |
Providing more information.. information i can only get by asking questions, is a requirement for meaningful discussion.
On one hand, you state that "You have a lot of disparate beliefs", but then you make assumptions about what Christians believe without "asking questions".
I'm more than willing to answer honest questions to the best of my ability. But you seem more intent on lumping me together with "some bronze-age barbarian tribe."
Moff Rimmer |
What I find sad is that the fundamentalist view continues to wax, rather than wane.
What I find equally "sad" is that many atheists seem to have taken this "fundamentalist view" as "universal". I'm about as far removed from say the Westboro church as you are from Stalin -- yet I continually get lumped in with these groups.
Kirth Gersen |
What I find equally "sad" is that many atheists seem to have taken this "fundamentalist view" as "universal". I'm about as far removed from say the Westboro church as you are from Stalin -- yet I continually get lumped in with these groups.
I think I've been fairly vociferous in doing otherwise:
I'd reject the atheist - agnostic - believer spectrum we were talking about before as misleading and non-useful. In its place, I'd create a new spectrum of "how much of holy books does a person think is literally true, vs. allegory and/or false." On that scale, Moff, you and I are a LOT closer together than either of us is to any of the fundamentalists.
That said, I'd suggest that you bring some of it on yourself by making blanket defenses religious people in general -- because when you defend "Christians" in the U.S. in general, you need to realize that you're potentially defending more fundamentalists than you are enlightened liberal theologans like yourself. According to one estimate, "Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals... make up about 60% of the US Christian population. They make up some 10% of the Christian population world wide."
Moff Rimmer |
That said, I'd suggest that you bring some of it on yourself by making blanket defenses religious people in general -- because when you defend "Christians" in the U.S. in general, you need to realize that you're potentially defending more fundamentalists than you are enlightened liberal theologans like yourself. According to one estimate, "Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Pentecostals... make up about 60% of the US Christian population. They make up some 10% of the Christian population world wide."
I'm not sure what to do with this. Truth is, I'm probably part of the "Evangelicals" for better or worse.
Here's my point of view. I came into this thread (years ago now) with some preconceived ideas that all Atheists are selfish, arrogant bastards whose agenda is the irradication of all religion -- or at least Christianity. (Probably not quite that extreme, but you get the idea.) Thanks to some discussions with yourself, Paul, and others -- mostly here -- I like to think that I've grown past this and really try to not come into a discussion with this in mind.
My goal here (if I even have one at this point) is to help other people (Atheists/Christian/whatever) not make the same mistakes I made early on here.
I am not going to change the look or face of Christianity. The best I feel I can hope for is to change how one person (at a time) views Christianity -- hopefully for the better.
nategar05 |
I have a lot to catch up with here so here we go:
Wait. How is atheism a belief not based on proof?
You are PRECISELY trying to shift the burden of proof.
Then you go on to say that, even though the bible can't explain all of existence, that in order to disprove god we should.Sorry. A rational mind doesn't rise to that level of hubris. The best we can give is an explanation that has worked so far. The ability to revise our beliefs based on newer/better data is something NOT shared by the religious and the rational.
Atheism is a belief not based on proof. Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. In fact there is no truly neutral position. Everyone believes something about these things. The existence of God can't be absolutely proven one way or the other. Ergo, atheism is a belief not based on proof. Put another way:
Definition of religion:
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Definition of atheism:
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Empasis mine.
I didn't say that to disprove God you should explain all of existence, but having any possibility of being able to explain any life form arising naturally would be a good starting point. Is that reasonable? As far as I know it doesn't look particularly hopeful for naturalists in that regard. When I get the chance I'll post more about what I don't see explained about these things.
As far as hubris goes: I certainly have issues with pride. I quite often have difficulty with not considering myself much more intelligent than most other people that I know, at least in real life (Though I do understand that I didn't earn or deserve any intelligence that I have). However, that doesn't mean that I can't or won't admit when I'm wrong. My beliefs about specific aspects of Christianity have changed quite a bit over the years, precisely because newer/better data is brought to my attention.
nategar05 |
I trust neither his knowledge nor his honesty. If you're trying to do solid physics with a semi plastic object you are by definition going to get some screwed up results.
As to his fusion theory... calling it batguano crazy is an insult to chiropterans everywhere whose droppings are at least useful for fertilizer. You do not get that kind of reaction outside of something without at least the mass of jupiter. Another oceans worth of water dumped on the planet would barely budge the crust, much less start a fusion reaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slice_earth.svg
Not to put too fine a point on this, but he's underestimating how freaking huge the earth is and how heavy it is. Another itty bitty layer on the surface water wouldn't do jack, even before you consider that water is less dense than everything below it. You wouldn't cause the movement or compression you need to get a fusion reaction.
even after ALL that how on earth do you get a sped up radioactive process so that it all makes SENSE as if radioactivity and gradualism were true? How do you loose precisely the correct number of neutrons in every single rock on the planet so that their relative dates match up with the relative dates of the sediment around them?
Did you actually read the theory and the section on radioactivity or did you rush through and assume you were right and therefore didn't need to read it? You posted a rebuttal quite quickly and I'm not sure you had time to properly read it. However, if you managed to thoroughly read and understand a theory in about 35 minutes that it's taken me many many months to understand, congratulations. You are mentally very well endowed.
Maybe he and I underestimate(d) the size of the Earth in relation to this theory. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, you underestimated the amount of energy available (described by the theory), the mechanics involved (described by the theory), to do the work (described by the theory), and cause all of the effects of a global flood (also described by the theory). An entire theory based only on one assumption and the laws of physics.
Also, he lists gravity as one of the primary forces involved throughout the flood and the main mechanism behind the Continental Drift phase and a whole lot more. So saying the Earth is too massive for a theory to be correct when the theory says that gravity did it isn't really helping your case that much.
As to rocks matching the sediments, as far as I knew there was a lot of circular reasoning and assumptions involved with dating the sediments, not to mention the assumptions behind dating the rocks.
nategar05 |
nategar05 wrote:I don't have time to get into specifics, but here:
Oh, and he spent quite a lot of time throughout the book explaining how rock acts at great depth, heat, and pressure, including much of the Earthquakes section. If the plasticity of rock would be a problem for plates not subducting I'd think he would know.
No. You can't do this.
A possibly legitimate objection to your question gets raised and you just dismiss it because your author spends a lot of time talking about rock so he'd know. The thousands of geologists who've studied subduction and plate tectonics for decades either never noticed or are all part of a conspiracy to hide it, but this guy can be assumed to have an explanation, even though you don't know what it is.
It's argument by authority, except he doesn't have any authority.
I apologize, I should have known better than to do that. It was an argument from authority. However, I only said that because I didn't have time to clarify. I don't take his word for it and leave it at that. I check things that he says. If he says that there are serious scientific problems with plates subducting, then I'll take it seriously and look into it. Yes, rock has plastic tendencies under the conditions that it's supposedly subducting. However, the mantle is still denser than the crust. That makes me think he may be on to something. See also, 15 reasons that plates can't subduct:
1. A subducting plate would experience too much resistance in diving down through just the top of the mantle. The blunt front end alone would stop movement. Also, the unspecified force needed to overcome these resistances would (if a pushing force) crush the plate or (if a pulling force) pull the plate apart.
2. Sediments, volcanoes, and plateaus have not been scraped off “subducting” plates in trenches.
3. Sedimentary layers in trenches are undisturbed. These layers would be mangled if plates subducted.
4. No known forces are available to break the crust into plates and separate those plates from their bases
5. One plate cannot even begin its dive under an adjacent plate that is 30–60 miles thick, because cliffs cannot be higher than 5 miles
6. Subduction cannot occur along an arc. Subduction is geometrically possible only along a straight line. (The arc-and-cusp pattern of ocean trenches shows subsidence, not subduction
7. Most volcanoes are on the wrong side of trenches if subducting plates produce volcanoes.
8. Below trenches are mass deficiencies, not mass excesses as subduction would produce.
9. Beneath trenches, earthquakes sometimes occur across a much broader region than the width of a plate.
10. Seismic tomography has not shown unambiguous subducted plates in even two dimensions. If plates subducted, seismic tomography could convincingly and dramatically show them in three dimensions.
11. Some Benioff zones are nearly horizontal. Subducting plates should always move on a downward slope.
12. Thick, buoyant continents would prevent subduction.
13. Trenches and ridges do not have corresponding lengths and locations as plate tectonic theory requires. For every square mile of crust that emerges from a ridge, a square mile of crust should disappear at a trench.
14. At three locations on earth, a trench (and, according to plate tectonics, a descending plate) intersects a ridge (where material is supposedly rising). Material cannot be going up and down at the same time.
15. Ancient trenches have never been found.
nategar05 |
If every religious person was required to demonstrate some awareness of contextual scriptural knowledge beyond rote recital of cherry-picked passages, then I suspect we might have a lot fewer people claiming that "God hates gays" and stuff like that.
That is absolutely true. It's hard for me to tell you just how much I'd like the "Christians" to actually increasingly understand and follow the Bible and, in the process, act increasingly like Jesus.
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.)
1. Huh? I can't speak for others, but I very much dislike infighting within Christianity. I dislike the denominational structure in the first place. Ideally, everyone who claimed to be a Christian would learn what the Bible really teaches on how we should live (Old Testament genocide questions aside, read the New Testament and think about how much better a society we'd live in if everyone actually did what it said.) and focus on loving other people. Just about everything else except the gospel message itself and learning to love God and other people is not important by comparison.
2. I never claimed that Christians (or any religious follower) are always more moral than atheists, nor have I claimed that it's a test of the truth. I agree that if a religion teachers morality its adherents should be moral, but I believe it says more about the individuals than the religion if they're not.
Put another way: there are two types of people in this world: relatively good people and relatively evil people. "Good" people will be "good" regardless of what religion they choose to believe. The same goes with "bad" people. "Bad" people can justify themselves to themselves by any number of methods, including butchering the Bible and twisting it to make it tell them what they want to hear.
My objection to atheism is that I still don't see how morality could have formed in a naturalistic universe in the first place. Morality is relative or absolute. If it's relative, it means nothing because people are different, so application would be impossible. If it's absolute, where did it come from? Atheists can be very good people, but that says nothing about the origins of morality. That's a very short form. I can elaborate if necessary.