Sorry, but if someone is "adult" enough to decide to have sex (obviously I'm not discussing rape victims here), they should be "adult" enough to know how to do so responsibly...
I totally agree, but all forms of birth control do occasionally fail.
|
However, one of the biggest sticking points I have with Christianity in general is the need to have faith in order to be saved. That point is hammered home throughout the New Testament, but it's hard for me to reconcile with the concept of a loving or forgiving God, especially given that many people may never be exposed to Christian teaching. (I stand by my Lear analogy, because to me this position sounds vain, rather than merciful.)
Moff, if that, in particular, is not your belief, how do you reconcile that with scripture? Or, if it's a more nuanced position, I, for one, would be interested in elaboration.
I have elaborated on this a couple of times in this thread -- but I don't really expect you to read the entire thing at this point. I really did a lot of research and "soul searching" with this especially since Sebastian asked the question.
(I'm not sure what the "faith" part has to do with the question, but I'll try and address the "never exposed" question.)
Here's the answer -- I don't know.
Actually, it's a lot more complicated than that. The truth is that our "guidebook" doesn't really say. At least not in any "clear" way. But here's what I've been able to piece together from the Bible, Jesus' teachings, and what I feel I "know" about God.
Everything that researched ultimately pointed me to the same thing -- God/Jesus wants everyone to choose him. He wants a choice to be made. At which point there is a fair amount of "faith" involved. I guess that I have "faith" that God will give everyone the ability to make that choice. How or where? I don't know. The Bible implies that simply looking at nature, people should be able to "see" God. Possibly there are people who literally "see" God -- talking with a number of missionaries it sounds like this happens at times. 1 Peter talks about witnessing to people in the afterlife -- kind of a "pergatory" concept. Perhaps it's something else entirely different. I don't know. But I have faith that God has it all worked out. Because, you're right -- condemning people to hell simply because someone wasn't born in the "right" family isn't really the God that I understand being taught in the Bible. But then there's the question of why isn't this rather important bit of information included in the Bible. The way I see it, he could have said -- "Don't worry about it -- I've got it covered" which takes all the responsibility away from us. On the other hand, if says that they are condemned unless people get out there and preach "the good word", then God becomes an uncaring, wrathful God.
The ultimate truth is that no one knows for sure. The Bible doesn't really say. The way I see it, either God exists and He has it all worked out or He doesn't and it doesn't really matter.
What I don't get is that for the most part, atheists believe that there is no "point".
No externally-mandated divine point, yes. We are quite capable of giving our own lives meaning, just like everybody else.
That there is no "god".
That's correct.
That there is no afterlife.
Also correct.
That once you die, that's it.
Not exactly. Once you die you begin to rot. Left to your own devices, you'll even bloat and split open. But so far as your consciousness goes? Yeah. It's all over.
There are some that seem to feel that they must push all others into this happy line of thinking -- even though, in the end it truly doesn't matter.
I can't speak for others, but to me it does matter. I don't need a deity to give me opinions or goals, or infinite rewards after death to strive, for or infinite punishments to fear. I'm quite capable of making my own meaning, setting my own goals, and so forth. I bet you are too. We all have our fears, our loves, our dreams, our nightmares.
So why even talk to the believers? Well, we disagree. It's a simple matter and rational people should be able to resolve their disagreements. It's no different than having a conversation about the Roman Empire or the Holocaust. If someone appears to have erroneous notions about these topics, why would one not speak to them about this? Maybe they're right and you'll find you were in error. Maybe you're right and they'll find out that they're in error. Isn't that the kind of exchange we owe one another and ourselves?
Also, from a practical point of view, there's this.
|
|
So why even talk to the believers? Well, we disagree. It's a simple matter and rational people should be able to resolve their disagreements. It's no different than having a conversation about the Roman Empire or the Holocaust. If someone appears to have erroneous notions about these topics, why would one not speak to them about this? Maybe they're right and you'll find you were in error. Maybe you're right and they'll find out that they're in error. Isn't that the kind of exchange we owe one another and ourselves?
Discussing and disagreeing about things is fine. I even understand why Christians can be so pushy in their beliefs (even though I disagree with most of their methods). But why are some atheists pushy to the point where they feel I must believe as they do?
|
|
So why even talk to the believers? Well, we disagree.
And just for the record, while I disagree with some of what you have said, you have been rather civil and I've learned a fair amount from you. Some things that I'd never heard of before -- like that the "proof" that the Exodus didn't happen is because of lack of evidence of "poo". I've heard a lot of "reasons" why the Exodus didn't happen, but never that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Discussing and disagreeing about things is fine. I even understand why Christians can be so pushy in their beliefs (even though I disagree with most of their methods). But why are some atheists pushy to the point where they feel I must believe as they do?
Why are some geologists so pushy they feel that you must believe as they do? Why are historians of early 20th century Germany so pushy they feel that you must believe as they do?
We are treating religious notions like we would any other class of notions. If we think someone to be in error, then don't we have an obligation to engage them?
I'm not saying that we need to be jerks about it, but it's my experience that even the famous non-believers that believers frequently bring up as being especially jerky (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) are not particularly jerky at all. Indeed, they're generally less hostile than restaurant reviewers. This suggests a level of heightened defensiveness and a thin skin pertaining to one's own religion receiving criticism that is deeply unhelpful to having good exchanges.
You should see my sister in law. She's hell on wells intent on crushing the faithful. It's like Richard Dawkins angry and drunk.
When people with a scientific worldview make it their life's purpose to bash believers and paint them with the same brush it gets rather tiresome and it's rather surprising. I mean it's right out the window with the whole skeptical foundations of science and WHACKITY WHACK!
No that Christians aren't out there doing the same thing.
But I would like to point out that none of the believers in here are whaling on the atheists.
Perhaps someone needs to take a few deep breaths...
I just wish the measured Christians had a little more clout in the world and the witch burners didn't get so much attention.
|
|
Why are some geologists so pushy they feel that you must believe as they do? Why are historians of early 20th century Germany so pushy they feel that you must believe as they do?
We are treating religious notions like we would any other class of notions. If we think someone to be in error, then don't we have an obligation to engage them?
I understand what you are saying and I feel that you are right to do so when it comes to history, origin of life, origin of the earth, "evidence" that the exodus didn't happen, etc.
But belief really isn't like your other "classes of notions". And perhaps that's where the problem is.
|
I have been lurking here for a while. I mostly have enjoyed what has been said here, but I would like to politely disagree with one thing. It has been stated that we cannot know the mind of divinity. I respectfully disagree, I believe that the scriptures and the teaching of the prophets can help us understand the mind of God. After all, the Bible describes God as our Father in Heaven and I think he is just as knowable as our earthly father is, often times more so. Let me give you an idea of what I'm talking about.
Love they neighbor as thyself.
As I have loved you, love one another.
Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy
I tell you these things that you may learn wisdom, that when you are in the service of your fellow man, you are only in the service of your God.
To me, this means that God wants us to look out for each other and help each other out. It could be summed up by the famous saying "be excellent to each other." In fact a 2007 study published in Psychological Science found that people given religious primes are more generous than people given neutral or secular primes and that this was true whether the subject identified themselves as a believer or not.
According to the report, "priming is an experimental procedure used by cognitive and social scientists, mainly in psychology and economics, to obtain indicators of social tendencies by implicitly inducing relevant thoughts." In the two studies 68% of people given religious primes were willing to give $5 or more to an total stranger, when given $10 by the researchers, as opposed to 22% of people who were either given neutral or secular primes, such as social responsibility. This study indicates that we are at least subconciously wired in such a way that religion acts as a positive motivator, even in people who claim nonbeliever status.
Personally I like the comments by the researchers. They said "we did not anticipate such a subtle prime, simply getting participants to unscramble sentences with a few key words, having such a large effect on people’s willingness to give money to strangers. These are compelling findings that have substantial impact on the study of social behaviour because they draw a causal relationship between religion and acting morally – a topic of some debate. They by no means indicate that religion is necessary for moral behaviour, but it can make a substantial contribution."
|
|
I also think some of you might like to read a physcists take on the question why does religion still exist?
And just for the record, while I disagree with some of what you have said, you have been rather civil and I've learned a fair amount from you.
That's a compliment I'm rarely paid. Civility? Moi?! :)
Some things that I'd never heard of before -- like that the "proof" that the Exodus didn't happen is because of lack of evidence of "poo". I've heard a lot of "reasons" why the Exodus didn't happen, but never that one.
People go to the bathroom. Archaeologists find it centuries later, along with their trash dumps, graves, and the like. If an Exodus as described in the Bible happened (and the Bible is relatively specific about whens and wheres here...though the failure to name the Pharaoh is odd), it would have left traces. We're capable of finding trails of much smaller movements than a whole nation and we'd certainly have noticed all the piled-up debris from what amounts to a tent city standing in place for nigh-on forty years.
Finkelstein and Silberman have a whole chapter on this and other issues with the Exodus story. It's very good and layperson-friendly. They even go into why the story was likely formed when it was.
|
I also think some of you might like to read a physcists take on the question why does religion still exist?
Awesome article! thanks for the link. This thread has taken the most interesting turn--and I don't think I've ever seen it grow so quickly in such a short span of time (20+ posts a day! for the last four days).
|
|
Finkelstein and Silberman have a whole chapter on this and other issues with the Exodus story. It's very good and layperson-friendly. They even go into why the story was likely formed when it was.
Without reading the article (don't have time right now), how/why/when did the Hebrews leave Egypt and make it to Israel/Canaan? There is evidence that they were in Egypt, right? And that they were slaves, right? And they weren't there at some point, right? So what is the secular explanation?
I understand what you are saying and I feel that you are right to do so when it comes to history, origin of life, origin of the earth, "evidence" that the exodus didn't happen, etc.
But belief really isn't like your other "classes of notions". And perhaps that's where the problem is.
If you mean to say that you personally segregate out a section of claims which you hold to a lower standard of scrutiny, or to no scrutiny, then that's certainly your business. My orbital mind control satellites are on the fritz and I'll have to take responsibility for the fact that I used a shady contractor and he gave me poor work. :)
But how does one decide what issues are to be matters of belief and which are matters of evidence? It's fine if you want to be an honest fideist and say you are sustained by faith and faith alone. But how did you get there? And how does that work when matters of faith slam their heads into matters of evidence?
If you mean to class religious opinions as aesthetic opinions then I don't think that's necessarily unreasonable in all cases. I suppose the claim that the Bible is an uplifting piece of literature could be considered a religious claim. But really all that's being said here is that it has that effect upon the speaker. I would agree that while there's room to argue about personal taste, it's not strictly speaking a matter of evidence. (Or rather it is, but it's only about its subjective effect on the speaker.) There's no unified literature upliftment theory which predicts which books shall be uplifting or the like.
Not all religious notions fit into that category, though. Either the Exodus happened or it didn't. It's a claim about the universe that's accessible to everybody, not just to one's personal subjective experience. It's a claim on the same order as that the World Trade Center's two towers were destroyed in 2001. We can apply the same tools to it to discover the truth of the matter and having that option, why would we not? Likewise we can apply the same tools we use upon Beowulf to the Bible to learn more about its construction and dating. Having them, why would we not use them? Galileo, a Christian, said something to the effect that he did not believe that God gave man brains and expected they not be used.
So why not use these tools wherever they can be applied? I don't know, Moff. I'm aware you're one of the more liberal Christians in the thread, so maybe you don't have any religious beliefs that fall into the Exodus/WTC area of inquiry. If that's the case, ok. None of this would be of any concern to you. If it's not, though, then why not use the tools?
Without reading the article (don't have time right now), how/why/when did the Hebrews leave Egypt and make it to Israel/Canaan?
Depending on what Hebrews you mean, probably at least dozens of times. In eras of famine or instability, Egypt was the place to go for safety and stability.
There is evidence that they were in Egypt, right? And that they were slaves, right? And they weren't there at some point, right? So what is the secular explanation?
There is some evidence of Semitic inhabitation of Egypt along the east bank of the Nile, in the land of Goshen. I'm not sure of the claim that they were slaves. To fully answer your questions I think I should reread the relevant chapter of the book (it's been six or seven years now and this is not my particular field of intense historical interest, only one of many) and work out a general summary. I have the time to do so, but it'll take me a few hours at least.
I shall so endeavor.
|
|
I'm kind of annoyed. It's like it has devolved into "maybe if I point out as much wrong as possible or show how 'bad' Christians are, then I'll show how 'right' atheists are." I mean, does no one else see this? houstonderek did...
But don't let facts get in the way of Christian bashing, by any means...I mean what is your point? Maybe if you point out how illogical or stupid Christians are, that will make your point for you. Maybe you think that showing how irrational Christians are, that you will somehow "prove" that atheists are "right".
Moff, I'm not a Christian, far from it, if I walked into a church I'd probably burst into flames, but my point is I am tired of Christians being blamed for every ill in the world. Especially when, in the 20th and 21st century, the most they've really been on a large scale is kind of annoying.
Christianity/the West has had its "Age of Reason", which is why the atheists can spout off without being tortured to death (a la Torquemada). Another religion I can think of hasn't, and institutional atheism (in the form of Communism) killed far more people than even Fascism (by 20x) in just a forty year span.
Christian mythology isn't a problem any more. The U.S. is in no danger of becoming a Christian Theocracy, and Christian bashing for the sake of Christian bashing (particularly when saying anything negative about the radical form of another religion featured prominently in the news these days is SO un-PC) is, frankly, getting on my nerves.
Edit: Sorry, I misread the first line, so I thought you were asking what my point was. :)
|
Finkelstein and Silberman have a whole chapter on this and other issues with the Exodus story. It's very good and layperson-friendly. They even go into why the story was likely formed when it was.Without reading the article (don't have time right now), how/why/when did the Hebrews leave Egypt and make it to Israel/Canaan? There is evidence that they were in Egypt, right? And that they were slaves, right? And they weren't there at some point, right? So what is the secular explanation?
Um, actually from what I've heard, the Hebrews probably weren't in Egypt, at least not how the Bible states it. The Egyptians didn't use huge gangs of slaves to build their monuments, instead every citizen had a duty to the Pharaoh to donate time and effort to build monuments. And considering the Egyptian records mention NOTHING even close to the Exodus story in their extensive histories, it's a bit doubtful.
|
|
I totally agree, but all forms of birth control do occasionally fail.
Sorry, but if someone is "adult" enough to decide to have sex (obviously I'm not discussing rape victims here), they should be "adult" enough to know how to do so responsibly...
TS, all I ask is an effort is made to prevent it in the first place. Like I said, I'm all for reproductive choice, and if an honest attempt to not get pregnant in the first place is made, then I have no ethical issue with abortion to rectify the small chance the pill, rubber, whatever, didn't work.
My point was, people need to start taking responsibility in a proactive way in their lives (in general, not just while having sex), and stop being reactive.
|
|
TS, all I ask is an effort is made to prevent it in the first place. Like I said, I'm all for reproductive choice, and if an honest attempt to not get pregnant in the first place is made, then I have no ethical issue with abortion to rectify the small chance the pill, rubber, whatever, didn't work.
My point was, people need to start taking responsibility in a proactive way in their lives (in general, not just while having sex), and stop being reactive.
houstonderek is wise, and his home is Houston.
|
|
Atheism is no more responsible for the deaths in the USSR then Theism is responsible for the deaths during the Crusades, the Inquisition and 9/11.
Tell that to the Christian bashers, please. You never comment when they go off on their rants, but every time I've pointed out this little tidbit, you're right there to remind me of something I already know.
I am AWARE that people kill, not ideologies. Apparently, a lot of your fellow Travelers didn't get the memo.
|
|
Theism is not Christianity. Theism is one element of Christianity, but it is not the only element.
When we blame Christianity for something, we generally point to specific acts of Christian doctrine. If you want to blame Communists for something, point out the acts of Communist doctrine, rather then just saying 'Oh, it's Atheisms fault!'
Also, if you are aware of it, why are you constantly making the logical error?
|
|
Further, while people do kill in the name of ideologies and philosophies, Atheism is not an ideology (neither is Theism). Nor is it a philosophy (neither is Theism).
Christianity, Islam, Communism, Buddhism, Liberal Democracy. Those are examples of ideologies and philosophies that people have died because of. Or killed because of. Or done terrible things in the name of.
|
|
But how does one decide what issues are to be matters of belief and which are matters of evidence?
That is tricky. I don't know if this will help, but I'll see if I can ramble something coherent...
When it comes to history -- go for it. I don't know myself that much about the specifics. Maybe there was a great Exodus as was mentioned in the Bible. Maybe there wasn't. (I'll talk a little more about that later.) But I believe that the Hebrews felt that it happened. I believe that they believed that the there was an Ark of the Covenant. I believe that they believed that there was a literal 10 commandments written in stone placed inside. Will science or archeology prove me wrong some day? Perhaps.
But my faith in God is not based on the literal historical "value" placed on the Bible. It's not based on one "thing" that can be proven or disproved. It is something far more nebulous. But it works for me. And it appears to work for quite a few other people.
Regarding the Exodus story --
First -- there are a lot of other points to be gleaned from the stories surrounding that. Even if it was possible to "prove" that it didn't happen the way it was written about in the Old Testament, the "point" may have simply been far different than simply a historical record.
Second -- there are a lot of things that will make it difficult (at best) to truly "prove" that the event didn't happen. The Sinai Penninsula is a truly large place. No one really knows where "Mount Sinai" is. We haven't (to my knowledge) dug up the entire place. The "path" isn't as clear as many would believe. Then they were in the "wilderness". What does that mean? It could have been a good amount of Saudi Arabia. No one really knows for sure. And that's a whole lot of digging to do to be sure. Maybe they kept their refuse in one very specific spot. It's like looking for a proverbial needle in a haystack. Then with regard to the Pharaohs. While they kept meticulous records, I'm sure that if the event(s) in question happened that the pharaoh at the time would want it recorded his mistake(s) for all time. In addition, I had heard (granted this might be wrong) that especially when a new pharaoh who was not of the previous line came into power that he would often do his best to wipe out all previous record of the previous pharaoh(s). As I understood it, it was kind of a god complex in that none was greater than the current pharaoh and any implication to the contrary was met with swift action.
|
|
Further, while people do kill in the name of ideologies and philosophies, Atheism is not an ideology (neither is Theism). Nor is it a philosophy (neither is Theism).
Christianity, Islam, Communism, Buddhism, Liberal Democracy. Those are examples of ideologies and philosophies that people have died because of. Or killed because of. Or done terrible things in the name of.
So how about Anti-Christian? Or more generically -- Anti-Religion? Is that an "ideology" or "philosophy" that people do crappy things in the "name" of? Or do atheists not need a reason to be crappy?
(I really don't think that atheists are "bad". But this almost implies that people need a "philosophy" for poor behavior. And therefore further implies that atheists are somehow "immune" to poor behavior because they say they don't have a philosophy. What "philosophy" gives atheists the "right" to bash Christians?)
|
|
Sure, one can be crappy in the name of 'anti-religion'. There can be plenty of crappy atheists out there, but I'd be amazed if the only reason they were crappy was because of their atheism.
People don't need a philosophy for poor behaviour, sure. But mass exterminations certainly do. Atheism, on it's own, cannot supply a philosophy for that.
But why are some atheists pushy to the point where they feel I must believe as they do?
Dunno. I can't figure it out either -- and I'm an atheist, as far as most gods go! In fact, the "Christian-baiting" that houstonderek so acerbically detests is sort of keeping me from posting anything substantive here.
P.S. Emperor -- When I say "let them have their faith," I mean it as in "stop annoying people by telling them to believe otherwise." It was not intended in any sort of condescending way, just for the record.
|
|
Theism is not Christianity. Theism is one element of Christianity, but it is not the only element.
When we blame Christianity for something, we generally point to specific acts of Christian doctrine. If you want to blame Communists for something, point out the acts of Communist doctrine, rather then just saying 'Oh, it's Atheisms fault!'
Also, if you are aware of it, why are you constantly making the logical error?
Well, considering nothing JESUS said encourages violence, I'd have to say Christian philosophy (or, at least, its main "philosopher") cannot be blamed for any doctrinal misbehavior.
Marxism is an atheist philosophy. You cannot separate Atheism from Marxism, dogmatically. And, frankly, while I may have neglected to do so in the post in question, I've been quite clear on pointing out that institutional atheism (i.e. atheist dogmatism, particularly in modern Communism) is the culprit, not atheism itself.
Edit: Oh, wait, I DID say "institutional atheism". :P
|
|
But why are some atheists pushy to the point where they feel I must believe as they do?Dunno. I can't figure it out either -- and I'm an atheist, as far as most gods go! In fact, the "Christian-baiting" that houstonderek so acerbically detests is sort of keeping me from posting anything substantive here.
Dude, don't let me keep you from posting. You should know better than to think I want to silence opinion and debate. I just like calling out hypocrisy when I see it.
You cannot separate Atheism from Marxism, dogmatically.
Incorrect. I don't buy into the whole "gods" thing, but that doesn't automatically make me a Communist. You may need to review those Venn diagrams...
It's even worse than that. The Christians say you're going to hell if your not a Christian, but the fundies say you're going to hell if you're not a fundie, and especially if you're a Catholic or a Mormon, the conservative Catholics say you're going to hell if you're not a conservative Catholic, the Muslims say you're going to hell if you're not a Muslim, the Jews say the Christians are going to hell because they worship a false god, and I don't know what the Buddhists and Hindus say but it probably has something to do with the other religion's members being reincarnated as cockroaches or something.
Did you miss anyone to misrepresent? Let's take a rather complicated concept that isn't really documented well in any text and make false assumptions. That'll show how wrong religion is.
Let me preface my reply by saying that, like most people, I was not always and atheist. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic tradition, attended a Catholic high school, and have been exposed to a lot of other traditions through my interactions with people and through the media for all of my life. So I know a thing or two about Christianity and its various denominations and beliefs.
My brush may have been a bit broad and sloppy but I was trying to make a point without a lot of howevers and except-fors.
The fact is that fundamentalists (not all of them, but at least the talkative ones) do believe that you can only be saved if you are a Christian, and in some cases you have to have a born again experience.
And many of them regard Catholics, mainline Protestants, and especially Mormons as apostates on the highway to hell.
There are a lot of Conservative Catholics - note that I didn't say just "Catholics" - around who want to be more Catholic than the Pope and want the Church to go back to the position that salvation is only possible through the Catholic Church and its sacraments. Last I heard (and granted it was quite a while ago) the Catholic Church believed that it was entirely possible for a non Christian to get to heaven by living an explary life, though a bit difficult.
Jews in the US nowadays seem to be a pretty liberal bunch for the most part, but traditionally they have regarded the worship of false gods and prophets (like that Jesus fellow) to be a really big no-no. First commandment and all.
Muslims believe that in order to be right with God, you have to acknowledge that there is but one God and Mohamed is His prophet, plus do a few other things. In their eyes Christians are guilty of worshiping many gods (the Trinity) and worshiping a prophet as a god (that Jesus fellow again). No seven virgins for them when they die!
Again, I don't know much about Hindus and Buddhists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have their share of fundamentalists in their midst.
It would all actually be funny, if it all wasn't historically so tragic.
No matter what you believe or don't believe, you're on somebody's highway to hell.
And it was pretty obvious to me that you aren't the hell and brimstone type, this wasn't directed at anything that you said.
|
|
You cannot separate Atheism from Marxism, dogmatically.Incorrect. I don't buy into the whole "gods" thing, but that doesn't automatically make me a Communist. You may need to review those Venn diagrams...
What I meant, and I didn't phrase it well, I admit, is that atheism is a cornerstone of Marxist philosophy. I didn't mean to imply all atheists are Marxists.
I apologize for my poor phrasing there.
|
People don't need a philosophy for poor behaviour, sure. But mass exterminations certainly do. Atheism, on it's own, cannot supply a philosophy for that.
You seem to imply that only those of faith are (and/or were) the only people out there that go around "exterminating" large portions of the populace...
This thread repeatedly cites the inquisition for example, which happed a LONG LONG time ago. I think most Christians are past thinking like that...
What about all these little dictators that run around killing their own people? Some may "publicly" claim to follow this or that faith, but I suspect it is little more than just lip service, and they are in fact either agnostic, or outright atheists...
So what's their philosophy?
People don't need a philosophy for poor behaviour, sure. But mass exterminations certainly do. Atheism, on it's own, cannot supply a philosophy for that.What about all these little dictators that run around killing their own people? Some may "publicly" claim to follow this or that faith, but I suspect it is little more than just lip service, and they are in fact either agnostic, or outright atheists...
Aren't you just repeating the implication you found so objectionable in Uzzy's post?
What I don't get is that for the most part, atheists believe that there is no "point". That there is no "god". That there is no afterlife. That once you die, that's it. But that isn't really good enough. There are some that seem to feel that they must push all others into this happy line of thinking -- even though, in the end it truly doesn't matter.
Well, maybe it doesn't matter at the very end, but in the meantime, it matters a LOT. I see people in the US today who would like nothing more than to turn the country into a young-earth-creationist-keep-the-women- barefoot-and-pregnant-lock-the-gays-in-the-closet-and-throw-away-the-key theocracy. They and their slightly less doctrinaire fellow travelers have an increasing lock on one of the two major political parties (which seems to be doing a slow-mo implosion partially as a result, but there is no guarantee that this will continue). And there are a lot of countries that ARE theocracies, and I for one don't like what I see in those places. As I said in an earlier post, I don't have much of an issue with run of the mill Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, etc. other than a difference of opinion about the existence of their deity - its specifically Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism that sticks in my craw.
It is currently pretty late, so this may not be my most elegant of posts.
I'm kind of annoyed. It's like it has devolved into "maybe if I point out as much wrong as possible or show how 'bad' Christians are, then I'll show how 'right' atheists are." I mean, does no one else see this? houstonderek did...
Firstly and most importantly.
I do not hold any greater concerns over christianity than i do over any of the three monotheisms. I do have greater concerns at this time about monotheism than other forms of religion at this time, but that is very much to do with the world we find her self in.I do not christian bash.
I mean what is your point? Maybe if you point out how illogical or stupid Christians are, that will make your point for you. Maybe you think that showing how irrational Christians are, that you will somehow "prove" that atheists are "right".
It has nothing to do with 'proving' anything about atheism. Atheism is purely a lack of belief in gods that is all. It could be argued that I am trying to prove rational enquiry to be a superior standpoint to theism, but I do not consider them mutually exclusive, merely very uneasy bedfellows.
If there is a reason beyond the interest in discussion, which i believe is the primary drive, I guess it is a desire to protect people from the worst elements of the religion itself.
Even if this were true, why even bring it up? What is your point? To show just how "wrong" Christians are? Maybe this somehow "proves" that Christians bring up their children poorly? This is obvious "proof" that atheists are just far more moral than us pathetic Christians. Or maybe something else?
Then we go on...
Firstly, houston called me on that, and I corrected myself to a supportable fact. If you'd like i'll even try to dig out the citation for it
Well the point is that many groups of politically active Fundamentalist Christians attempt to influence governmental decisions, on both a state and federal level about the teaching of sex education. They push for 'abstinence only' education, despite the fact that this is provably a considerably less successful form of education than mixed contraception and abstinence. They make this argument from a self assumed position of moral superiority, while at the same time being less able to stick to their own morals than many of the supposedly immoral groups in society. When a group pushs for political change based on faith, that is provably negative, then people should speak up.
It obviously wouldn't help at this point to disagree with you. This is wrong and not what I believe. But apparently YOU know so much more about what I truly believe than I do myself. And, again, what is the point? Is your point that the idea of repentance simply cannot happen? Is your point that the person who lived a moral life and chose the way he did shouldn't be responsible for his choices? Or is your point just to prove how foolish Christians are by believing this way -- even though it isn't correct.
You may not believe it. I have to my knowledge never said anything about your personal beliefs. I have made no claim to know them, or commented on them.
However, the creed, the doctorine of faith common to most protistant churchs and I believe the catholic church does contain the following.
'We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.'
It is also true that jesus taught that those who truly repent will be have their sins forgiven.
The bible is pretty clear on it in many places
Matthew 3:2 - John the Baptist taught, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
Mark 1:15 - Mark's summary of Jesus' message includes: "Repent, and believe in the gospel."
Luke 13:3 - Unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
Mark 6:12 - Jesus sent the apostles to preach that people should repent.
Acts 2:38 - In the first gospel sermon, Peter preached, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you for the remission of sins..."
Acts 17:30 - God commands all men everywhere to repent.
Revelation 3:19 - "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent."
Disbelief, denial of the Holy Spirit, these things are considered the highest of sins by many Christians, even expressly by digital elf earlier in this thread.
Regardless of what you choose to believe, the bible does make it fairly clear that an exemplary atheist is going to be punished, while a mass murderer who finds god is going to go to heaven.
My point is that punishing those who use their brains to follow the evidence available (which supposedly was played by that entity), but not punishing the blindly obedient is the action of an immoral entity. That is the point. If you believe that atheists do not go to hell for their disbelief, but frankly, that belief is not backed by scripture or the opinion of a great many Christians, especially fundamentalists.
You've done this. And more. But what I don't get is why you still do it. Why continue bashing Christians and their beliefs? Perhaps through your eloquence I will magically see the error of my ways and "repent" of believing in a God that doesn't exist. And I will find salvation through your words.
I do not Christian bash. I have not said that you are a bad person because of your beliefs. I have not to my knowledge made any direct comment about your personal take on Christianity.
Pointing out the flaws of a belief structure, especially when it and some of those who claim to be paragons of it cause great suffering, is not an attack on the individual believers, but an attack on the idea itself.
Saying that some of the elements of the bible are blatantly immoral is no more an attack on you as a Christian, than saying that instructions in the koran to stone an adulteress is a moral travesty.
Tell me, do you believe i should close my eyes and mouth to the suffering of those who are stoned to death as adulterers and apostates? If you believe I should ignore such things, well I question your right to make any claim of morality. However, if I should speak out, why should I give Christianity as a religion any less of a hard time when it does things that are immoral?
Once again you are telling me what I believe. This is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. Not only that, but even if I did, it wouldn't change your feelings in the least. This is presented as "fact". It's not even close. If you want to believe that, fine. But do not imply that this is how I or other Christians think or believe. And once again I am finding that I don't know why you are posting this stuff. It is rude (at best) and without a point other than to fulfil some kind of superiority complex. I am not learning anything from your posts -- other than you don't have a clue what I believe.
Then you post the following...
Not at all, I am telling you the cost I see when i am shown that 'offer of eternal life' an offer that no evidence is provided for, just to put iceing on the cake. It is the 'real' cost, at least from my point of view.
I do not think or suggest that is 'what you think'. I mean, if your perception of the deal you make with god were the same as mine, you would likely be an atheist.What you could be learning is another way of looking at your relationship with god. Seeing things from many sides can be a very healthy thing. At the end of the day, while i disagree with the premise that gods exist, i do know a fair old bit about many of them, along with a fair old bit about many forms of ritual magic. I can look at it from many perspective.
In this case, I am sharing my perspective on one god, whose 'actions' and 'motives', I find especially suspect. Take on the perspective, or don't, it your choice.
Using words like "bigot" are not generally a good way for people to listen to your point. Even assuming that it is true. Maybe name calling will make your point for you. But then that point is still elusive. Did you remember your pitchfork?
Then there's the following...
Old testament biblical law is racist, sexist, homophobic, endorses slavery and has some very choice things to say about apostates and members of other faiths. Many sections of biblical history endorse acts of genocide, both by god and in his name. To claim that the bible does not contain intensely bigoted passages seems to me an argument of self-deception or ignorance.
There is not pitchfork waving here, only the point that the bible is not a good guide to morality for any modern human. I refer you to my comment on stoning of adulterers.In short, in this post you have managed to spend most of your time doing EXACTLY what you set out to accuse me off. I.E. Attribute inaccurate statements about my personal beliefs and opinions to me.
Well, maybe it doesn't matter at the very end, but in the meantime, it matters a LOT. I see people in the US today who would like nothing more than to turn the country into a young-earth-creationist-keep-the-women- barefoot-and-pregnant-lock-the-gays-in-the-closet-and-throw-away-the-key theocracy. They and their slightly less doctrinaire fellow travelers have an increasing lock on one of the two major political parties (which seems to be doing a slow-mo implosion partially as a result, but there is no guarantee that this will continue). And there are a lot of countries that ARE theocracies, and I for one don't like what I see in those places. As I said in an earlier post, I don't have much of an issue with run of the mill Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, etc. other than a difference of opinion about the existence of their deity - its specifically Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism that sticks in my craw.
It sounds to me, and I could be mistaken, but it sounds like what's bothering you isn't so much the beliefs themselves, but rather the attempts at eroding the separation of church and state. Am I reading that right?
|
|
Matthew 10:34 is certainly an.. interesting bible passage. And sure, Jesus may not have advocated violence, but given that there has been 2,000 years of development in Christian thought since then, he's not the be all and end all of Christian Theology. Certainly later theologians have advocated violence, and violence has been committed in the name of Christianity.
Now, while Atheism is a part of Marxist theory, it's certainly not a cornerstone of it. So much so that some Catholics have taken on Communist ideals, particularly in Liberation Theory. Infact, they seem to draw upon a certain passage in the bible, Acts 2:44-45. That goes something like this.
'And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.'
Selling all goods and giving them to each man, according to his need? That sounds rather familiar.
By the way, Marxist thought had little to do with what occurred under Stalin's rule of Russia. Stalin's rather monstrous personality, on the other hand, did.
|
|
Aren't you just repeating the implication you found so objectionable in Uzzy's post?
I don't think I am...
I was just pointing out, that a dictator that is an atheist, can have a philosophy for mass extermination. And that Christians are not the cause of all the great travesties this man-kind has experienced (past or present)...
Which seemed to me, to be the implication...
|
|
People don't need a philosophy for poor behaviour, sure. But mass exterminations certainly do. Atheism, on it's own, cannot supply a philosophy for that.You seem to imply that only those of faith are (and/or were) the only people out there that go around "exterminating" large portions of the populace...
This thread repeatedly cites the inquisition for example, which happed a LONG LONG time ago. I think most Christians are past thinking like that...
What about all these little dictators that run around killing their own people? Some may "publicly" claim to follow this or that faith, but I suspect it is little more than just lip service, and they are in fact either agnostic, or outright atheists...
So what's their philosophy?
Oooh, seems like you missed the point.
Atheism, just like Theism, is not a philosophy, doctrine, belief system or way of life. It is simply a belief (or more accurately, the lack in a belief). Atrocities have never been committed in the name of Atheism or Theism.
The Soviet Union is often brought up as an example. However, Stalin did not enforce collectivisation because of atheism. He did it because he needed to control the countryside, which had a long tradition of rebelling against whomever was in power. Further, he needed the food grown there to feed his workers who were embarking on the various five year plans. This all stemmed from Stalin's total need for security, which led to him creating the totalitarian state, and thus depriving everyone else of security.
The Inquisition did not occur because of theism. It occurred because of Christian Doctrine, mainly from the desire to root out heresy against the church, particularly in groups that could challenge the authority of the church (hence the Albigensian Crusade). The reasons why it occurred are many and complex, but it would be a mistake to say that it occurred due to theism.
It sounds to me, and I could be mistaken, but it sounds like what's bothering you isn't so much the beliefs themselves, but rather the attempts at eroding the separation of church and state. Am I reading that right?
Well, maybe it doesn't matter at the very end, but in the meantime, it matters a LOT. I see people in the US today who would like nothing more than to turn the country into a young-earth-creationist-keep-the-women- barefoot-and-pregnant-lock-the-gays-in-the-closet-and-throw-away-the-key theocracy. They and their slightly less doctrinaire fellow travelers have an increasing lock on one of the two major political parties (which seems to be doing a slow-mo implosion partially as a result, but there is no guarantee that this will continue). And there are a lot of countries that ARE theocracies, and I for one don't like what I see in those places. As I said in an earlier post, I don't have much of an issue with run of the mill Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, etc. other than a difference of opinion about the existence of their deity - its specifically Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism that sticks in my craw.
That and all that it implies. See above, plus abandoning a 500 year tradition of using reason to advance ourselves, in favor of locking ourselves into the belief system of a group of desert nomads who lived several thousand years ago.
Zombieneighbours:
I would like to point out that a lot of Jesus' words are often quoted, without explanation or consideration of context by the quoter that Jesus was addressing a first century AD Jewish audience. I don't know if they were intended for everyone at every time. I get the impression that a lot of people do.
But I am not so sure on that count myself.Edit:
John the Baptist was addressing practically the same people at the same time.
I know, but those words are the foundation of the the christian faith. And a great many people do take them word for word as being accurate and convaying his meaning literally.
|
|
People don't need a philosophy for poor behaviour, sure. But mass exterminations certainly do. Atheism, on it's own, cannot supply a philosophy for that.You seem to imply that only those of faith are (and/or were) the only people out there that go around "exterminating" large portions of the populace...
This thread repeatedly cites the inquisition for example, which happed a LONG LONG time ago. I think most Christians are past thinking like that...
What about all these little dictators that run around killing their own people? Some may "publicly" claim to follow this or that faith, but I suspect it is little more than just lip service, and they are in fact either agnostic, or outright atheists...
So what's their philosophy?
Oooh, seems like you missed the point.
Atheism, just like Theism, is not a philosophy, doctrine, belief system or way of life. It is simply a belief (or more accurately, the lack in a belief). Atrocities have never been committed in the name of Atheism or Theism.
The Soviet Union is often brought up as an example. However, Stalin did not enforce collectivisation because of atheism. He did it because he needed to control the countryside, which had a long tradition of rebelling against whomever was in power. Further, he needed the food grown there to feed his workers who were embarking on the various five year plans. This all stemmed from Stalin's total need for security, which led to him creating the totalitarian state, and thus depriving everyone else of security.
The Inquisition did not occur because of theism. It occurred because of Christian Doctrine, mainly from the desire to root out heresy against the church, particularly in groups that could challenge the authority of the church (hence the Albigensian Crusade). The reasons why it occurred are many and complex, but it would be a mistake to say that it occurred due to theism.
You cannot discount the historical, secular, reasons for the Inquisition, either. The Papacy was still a secular entity wrapped in "Christian" dogma (seriously, a Borgia was Pope at the time), and the Church was in full property acquisition mode.
Ferdinand and Isabel were put out that the Jews in Grenada, Andalusia and Extremadura favored the Muslims (possibly the most enlightened Muslim culture ever known, Muslims, Christians and Jews actually did peacefully coexist there) during the wars of the Reconquista. The Inquisition had much less to do with faith or religion than it did with the political and economic punishment of anyone who opposed the Royal family.
The Renaissance is not a great period to blame anything on religion, the Popes barely paid more than lip service to religion, and were secular despots interested in their material well-being.
Now, a century later, you can blame Cromwell for all kinds of religious shenanigans, but in Spain, in 1492, religion was just a thin veil for very secular evil.
That and all that it implies. See above, plus abandoning a 500 year tradition of using reason to advance ourselves, in favor of locking ourselves into the belief system of a group of desert nomads who lived several thousand years ago.It sounds to me, and I could be mistaken, but it sounds like what's bothering you isn't so much the beliefs themselves, but rather the attempts at eroding the separation of church and state. Am I reading that right?
Well, maybe it doesn't matter at the very end, but in the meantime, it matters a LOT. I see people in the US today who would like nothing more than to turn the country into a young-earth-creationist-keep-the-women- barefoot-and-pregnant-lock-the-gays-in-the-closet-and-throw-away-the-key theocracy. They and their slightly less doctrinaire fellow travelers have an increasing lock on one of the two major political parties (which seems to be doing a slow-mo implosion partially as a result, but there is no guarantee that this will continue). And there are a lot of countries that ARE theocracies, and I for one don't like what I see in those places. As I said in an earlier post, I don't have much of an issue with run of the mill Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, etc. other than a difference of opinion about the existence of their deity - its specifically Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism that sticks in my craw.
See, and there's where you lose me. That was totally uncalled for. I absolutely agree that it is important to keep a separation of church and state. Most of the atrocities that are done in the name of religion are politically connected. We need to keep that connection cut. All people should be free to worship or not as they please and should not be discriminated against based on race, gender, or sexual preference. Because a political group claims to embrace the same faith that I do, I get tarred with the same brush as them and dismissed as intellectually inferior? This conversation is going in circles, and I am getting way too upset over this. I'm out. I may check back in in a couple of days when I've cooled down a bit.
I know, but those words are the foundation of the the christian faith. And a great many people do take them word for word as being accurate and convaying his meaning literally.Zombieneighbours:
I would like to point out that a lot of Jesus' words are often quoted, without explanation or consideration of context by the quoter that Jesus was addressing a first century AD Jewish audience. I don't know if they were intended for everyone at every time. I get the impression that a lot of people do.
But I am not so sure on that count myself.Edit:
John the Baptist was addressing practically the same people at the same time.
(1)
I think if you took the time to attend some theology classes you would see that the context is a central issue in studying Christian scripture.The problem seems to be that the Christians who you're hearing are not Christians who are aware or don't care about this element of their belief system.
Additionally, understanding what it was like at the time of Jesus does not automatically resolve the general gist of the scriptures into a post-modern friendly version, it just leads to some provacative discussion about possible meaning.
In the end Christians will still take their own positions, or those of their preachers and priests, and those positions can sit across a spectrum that is so dizzying that you would be embarrassed about your generalizations if you truly understood it.
(2)
Everyone knows, and even fundamentalists have to admit it, that Jesus often spoke in metaphor. It's impossible to take Jesus literally. This, perhaps, is why his sayings are so fascinating. I'd go even further to say that if I was God, and I did want to give people a message, doing so in metaphor would be an excellent choice because metaphor has a density of meaning that literalism can never approach - conveying the complexities of science, for example, often necessitates the creation of metaphors. Added to this, it is more flexible. It can better stand the test of time.