Techskeptic sent me a link to a great rant from an atheist explaining why she, as an atheist, is angry. She made some great and valid points. Several of the things that make her angry make me angry, as well. However, there are a few things that I disagree with. Let me start by posting what I agree with (these are pulled straight from her post).
I’m angry that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, “No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.” My President. No, I didn’t vote for him, but he was still my President, and he still said that my lack of religious belief meant that I shouldn’t be regarded as a citizen.
I’m angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry.
I’m angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it’s the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives.
I’m angry that so many believers treat prayer as a sort of cosmic shopping list for God. I’m angry that believers pray to win sporting events, poker hands, beauty pageants, and more. As if they were the center of the universe, as if God gives a shit about who wins the NCAA Final Four — and as if the other teams/ players/ contestants weren’t praying just as hard.
I’m especially angry that so many believers treat prayer as a cosmic shopping list when it comes to health and illness. I’m angry that this belief leads to the revolting conclusion that God deliberately makes people sick so they’ll pray to him to get better. And I’m angry that they foist this belief on sick and dying children — in essence teaching them that, if they don’t get better, it’s their fault. That they didn’t pray hard enough, or they didn’t pray right, or God just doesn’t love them enough.
I’m angry that children get taught by religion to hate and fear their bodies and their sexuality. And I’m especially angry that female children get taught by religion to hate and fear their femaleness, and that queer children get taught by religion to hate and fear their queerness.
I’m angry about the Muslim girl in the public school who was told — by her public-school, taxpayer-paid teacher — that the red stripes on Christmas candy canes represented Christ’s blood, that she had to believe in and be saved by Jesus Christ or she’d be condemned to hell, and that if she didn’t, there was no place for her in his classroom. And I’m angry that he told her not to come back to his class when she didn’t convert.
I’m angry — enraged — at the priests who molest children and tell them it’s God’s will. I’m enraged at the Catholic Church that consciously, deliberately, repeatedly, for years, acted to protect priests who molested children, and consciously and deliberately acted to keep it a secret, placing the Church’s reputation as a higher priority than, for fuck’s sake, children not being molested. And I’m enraged that the Church is now trying to argue, in court, that protecting child-molesting priests from prosecution, and shuffling those priests from diocese to diocese so they can molest kids in a whole new community that doesn’t yet suspect them, is a Constitutionally protected form of free religious expression.
There’s more. There’s a lot more that Greta is angry about. But those are the ones I agree with her on and am also angered by.
The post, as a whole, was hard to read. It was definitely driven by anger, but she really had no other way to get her point across.
Other things she is angry at include people trying to make abortion illegal, Americans who believe in creationism, pastors who counsel from the Bible, and Christians who try to speak up and let the world know that Christianity isn’t really what people think it is.
There’s a flip side to a lot of what Greta said – there are some things she’s angry that Christians do when Atheists do the same damn thing. But it’s okay for the atheists to be that way. They’re right. Christians are stupid and wrong.
I’m writing this from a middle perspective. It’s articles like these that feed my doubts, so I’m not writing this from a Christian perspective. I’m not sure there’s any Christian perspective left in me. But I do understand the Christian perspective and can still see where Atheism gets it wrong when talking about Christianity. But then – that was something else that made Greta angry. So I can’t win.
It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. If they’re fundamentalist, she’s angry. If they aren’t, and try to make people see the difference, she’s still angry.
What does she want?
It was argued on her page that they (atheists) don’t want the eradication of religion (primarily Christianity), but what other alternative is there? Seriously, I want to know. If the fundies are stupid, and the ones who aren’t fundies are stupid, then what’s left?
American law is based on both the Bible and common law, which was rooted in the Bible. If you do a little digging you’ll find that a Sir William Blackstone and his commentaries is said to be foundational to both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States. His law books were in great demand and the critical thought about the body politic at the time (common and civil law) were heavily influenced by his writing. Indeed, next to the Bible, the commentaries were to be studied to know how one should act in the country.
Here’s one interesting passage:
Reason and logic, according to the expert of common law at the time, were to be used to find the God given laws. Far from a secular concept of law, Blackstone put forth that laws were God-given (hence the conversation in the DOI about live, liberty and property as gifts from the Creator).
Continuing from the same site:
So, a man that believed that law came from God and the Bible influenced America’s institutions.
You see, God and the Bible are essential to this very country– and you can see it in the DOI. Who gives any person “inalienable rights”? From where do you derive the “right” for anything?
You can certainly make logical arguments about how murder takes away a free will to live, but from where do you get that free will? Who is to say that you deserve that will?
The DOI made the point that England did not have the right to tax Americans and take away their life, liberty and property because the people did not belong to them– they did not derive their rights to their person from England. They derived them from a higher authority: from God.
This is the foundation of our society. The concept that law is higher than any power in the land. That government doesn’t have the ability to take away these rights because they are not the giver of these rights.
Let me try to illustrate.
I run a blog, and on that blog I alone have the rights to create content, allow comments, shape the design, etc. You can comment because I allow you to comment. You can read because I allow you to read. Your rights are because I gave you those rights.
However, I cannot block you from seeing other sites on my hosting provider. I can’t block you from seeing other sites on the Internet. All of these are outside of my rights. You can follow a train of authority all the way up to every expanding rights.
The DOI clearly states that the highest level, according to those that left England and were our founders, that they believe that God was the highest level. He has complete ownership, responsibility and authority and government derives its authority from Him. This is foundational.
You can certainly say that there are secular reasons for laws, but not secular origins. You cannot prove that the Biblical laws were in any way influenced by the code of Hammaurabi. You can do comparative analysis of the time, but similarity does not equal causation. For all we know, Moses had a copy of Hammaurabi’s law, or he wrote it with God without Hammaurabi (since Hammaurabi was nearer to modern day Iraq and Moses was in Israel/Egypt it’s more likely that if Moses borrowed anything he would have taken it from his Egyptian upbringing).
But, and I made this point over at my site as well, the point is that the Bible was core to the founding of this country and laws. It’s foundational to the rule of law in this country, and there’s no way that the founders were all sitting about how they could reason a secular means to justify premeditated murder vs. self defense.
Your argument is silly. They were impacted by the Bible, the country’s founded on the Bible.
Min,
no one is saying there isn’t biblical influence in american law. There is. The point is it isn’t the sole source for any of our laws. It has been an evolutionary process. So attributing any of it to the bible is the same as attributing much of it to Roman political structure, or hammurabian code, or any of the multitude of other influences.
Its further important, more important in fact to recognize that the bible is a totally outdated document by which to try to extract any legislative meaning out of. Science to moving far far to fast to use that tired old book. Clashes between cultures in a global society is another reason to throw away a book the promote intolerance. The only way to provide continuity and security in a world like this is to recognize what is good and make it godless. It is the only way to debate christian perspectives versus muslim ones versus hindo ones. There is no one ‘winner’ when you do this. There is only a requirement of coming up with logical reasons for why you are doing what you are doing. “becuase God said so” or “because its in this book” is useless.
If you are going to quote Blackstone, shall I quote Jefferson? I notice a lot of use of the phrase “at the time”. and I agree. at the time american society mostly interacted with other christian societies, and wher it did not conflict erupted, every single time. superior technolgy and man power lead to great wins. so what?
we now are in a place where a relatively small group muslim fundamentalists can put the greatest military force in all of human history into a deadlocked quagmire. Why in the world would we continue to try to adhere to an old book for completely new circumstances? we can’t be smart until we cast off those ropes.
I dont understand your idea about who gave people rights or freewill. you are presuming, in the face of no evidence, that the sky daddy is there.
the answer to your question is, we did. We are a community of poeple. This community has evolved over millenia to find a system that works best. One that values free will above all (and sadly recently this has been cut down). Who gave me the right to free will? you did, everyone reading this did. Who gave them the right to give that right out? You did. Everyone reading this did.
Just becuase the bible influenced some of US law doesn’t mean it should stay that way if it become counter productive. Which is what we continue to experience.
You should stay away from absolutes, tech. Tell me, which of Hammurabi’s laws or Roman laws had Sunday blue laws? Which of them had laws against witchcraft? How
about the laws that people could not hold an office in certain states unless they confessed belief in the Old and New Testaments?
Since when do we base our laws on science? Ethics and morality are not a part of science. Science tells us how things happen, but not why. It also has no guidance into how people should live their lives. It has nothing to do with the difference between styles of murder– unless you’re saying what you actually think: that Science isn’t Science, but a religion. In that case, please differentiate Science the religion or moral entity from Science the rational, factual exposition into how the world works.
So, we should probably throw away Darwin’s Origin of the Species, since it caused the genocide of Hilter trying to create a master race? Can’t base any science or laws on that tired old thing.
And why is a book that promotes justice, gives us laws that are still in effect today, encourages love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, self-control something that’s outdated? Are any of these virtues wrong? Is it wrong to give real people hope?
Oh, because that’s worked every other time it’s been tried– Hitler’s Germany, USSR, Mao’s China. They were the epitome of liberty, they allowed everyone the privilege of believing what they wanted to, and they certainly excelled all the way around.
You mean the Jefferson that passed a bill granting freedom of religion in Virginia, not because he thought that the Anglican church was bad but because the Baptists (of which I am one) and other Protestant denominations did not want tyranny from the Anglican church?
Or the one that said this:
Maybe you speak of the Jefferson who, as the founder of the University of Virgina, a professional school of Theology and Ecclesiastical history? Or maybe the one that expected his students to attend religious services at the church that they were affiliated with? The one that sent federal funds to construct a Catholic school? Or how about the one that declared days of public fasting and thanksgiving that were punishable by monetary fine?
Again– key to the whole conversation is this. Up until the time the Protestant Christians in America demanded religious freedom– freedom of conscience to worship God how they saw fit– there was no freedom of religion. Not in Rome, not in Greece, etc. It’s totally a protestant idea (back to the opening of this comment).
Catch the news much? Even Rep. Jack Murtha (Democrat) said that the tide is changing and the war is being won. And, it was our technology that was getting in the way of winning.
The whole foundation of this country rests on the concept that “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them being life, liberty and property”– or did you miss this in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The country said God gave the rights. I’m sorry if my illustration didn’t click. I don’t know how else to explain this.
You know, I’m really beginning to think that I’m just not able to communicate effectively enough in this medium things of this depth. Perhaps we can get on IM or something of that nature that allows for a bit more back and forth because if you’re really interested in what I have to say and my point of view this just isn’t cutting it.
I’m gonna go quiet now because we’ve reached the limits of my knowledge about the origins of common law. If I can’t argue based on solid facts, I shouldn’t argue at all.
I’ll carry on reading, though, so keep up the good work.
MInTheGap: I know what you mean about forums like this not being easy to argue in. It’s too linear. What the world really needs is a hierarchical forum, so someone can respond to a given post many times, each time highlighting a particular logical error or dubious assumption.
Here are the 2 ways I could begin my response:
1) I agree with a lot of what Greta says…
or 2) I am a Christian…
Now, if choosing #2 makes one iota of difference in how you read my reply, or if #2 makes you automatically disregard any point I make before I make it, or if #2 makes you angrily reach for a pen and pad so you can frantically mark down all the stupid, illogical things I will say and then rebut them; but #1 doesn’t evoke any of these reactions, then consider whether you are reacting from a calm, reasoned position or whether your having a knee-jerk “fundamentalist” moment.
To say to a Christian (because from the posts, “religion” is really a euphemism for the Christian religion), “It’s O.K. for you to believe, but it isn’t O.K. for you to share, promote, defend, or live according to your beliefs, is to eradicate their religion.
It’s like saying to a lesbian, “It’s O.K. for you to believe you’re a lesbian, as long as you don’t say you’re a lesbian in a public forum, promote pride in being lesbian, seek out others who are lesbian, defend your right to be a lesbian, or live as a lesbian.”
Christian who do stupid things or bad things in the name of Christ are like politicians who do stupid things or bad things in the name of patriotism. They’re stupid and bad because they’re stupid and bad, not because they’re Christian anymore than the politicians are stupid or bad because they’re patriots.
We’ve passed the point of saying Black murderers are murderers because they’re Black and reached the point of saying Christian fools are fools because they’re Christian.
Fundamentalist atheism seeks official, privileged status just like fundamentalist Christianity. Each wants to be the default perspective for legal, scientific, and social decisions.
The solution isn’t to silence either or any side. The solution is to be able to argue it all out without bashing each other’s heads in.
We’ve tried trying to shut each other up (not good). Maybe we should try hearing each other out. I am a Christian. Do you really want to understand why or do you just want me eradicated?
Do you really want to understand why or do you just want me eradicated?
Sadly, after an eloquent post, you, and most Christians, share the same old misconception about atheists. You have spoken clearly and then displayed ignorance about an atheist perspective.
We don’t want you eradicated, we don’t want to make religion illegal, we don’t want to indoctrinate your kids, we don’t want the bible on a list of banned books.
We, in general, (and I certainly don’t claim that there are no ignorant atheists who do in fact want to ban the bible, i’m sure there are one or two) want:
1) to have a level playing field where people of other religions or no religion share the same opportunities, same benefits, same rights and respect and those in the majority religion (clearly the main crux of Greta’s post), and not have one particular set of fairy tales shoved down our throats (as Greta so clearly showed happens).
2) People of all religions to critically think about their positions. People use critical thinking skills for many of their choices and decisions… why not all choices?
3) We want to have a society that bases political decisions on data, on measurement, on things that we can try, and not one particular groups interpretation of one or another particular book or their faith that something is right or will work.
This is what atheists want. Data Driven Decisions.
What will you do if Islam keeps outpacing Christianity in growth?, will you start praying facing east 5 times a day because its what the majority religion has made into law?
Isn’t a purely secular government, one that lets you practice your religion and doesn’t let other peoples faith interfere with your own, a better solution?
Atheists simply don’t care what you believe. We only care when your beliefs start affecting people who do not share the same blind faith.
The problem, tech, is that though you state sane ideas, the implementation of those ideas in real life are the opposite of your stated goals.
- Atheists push for blind faith in the realm of evolution to be taught as the only truth in schools, without a said level playing field.
- Atheists advocate removing prayer or the mention of God from high school graduations (in violation of free speech, in my opinion), which implicitly favors no religion over the presence of religion.
- Regardless of whether different municipalities could choose to reverence whom they wish, Atheists attempt to say that it’s wrong for free expression, unless free expression is inclusive, knowing full well that no one can be that inclusive and the net result is removal of all.
As for critical thinking– it’s often wrong, and often insufficient.
- What does critical thinking do when presented with the problem of the poor? Practicality would say that since the poor are a drain on society, they should be rounded up and slaughtered.
- What does critical thinking do when presented with the problem of health? Since sick people can last years on medicare, best to eradicate them.
- What does critical thinking do when presented with crime? Best to remove them from society rather than burdening the public.
Some of these you hold to, and some you hold differently because of your personal belief of justice and morality– which are not critical thinking skills, but emotional reactions either placed in you by a Creator, or evolved over time for whatever purpose you believe.
Lastly, the problem with basing decisions purely on data and measurements is that there is not data for the character of a person. How would you measure how likely Hussein or Ahmadinejad to try to attack us? Would those measurements indicate that Russia may?
How about if the death penalty proved to be effective? Euthanasia lowered the price of medicare? How would you place a value on a life?
Moral questions, by their very nature, require us to make decisions that cannot be made by scientists.
As for the rest of your questions:
- I will keep spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ and watching lives change.
- No, I won’t bow 5 times a day.
- No, a purely secular government would not be the best government because it’s impossible. Every time it’s been tried it’s proven to simply persecute and outlaw Christianity. They cannot exist together because of their root worldviews.
For someone who doesn’t care what I believe, you sure spend a lot of time combating it. If you truly didn’t care, you wouldn’t have even commented on a post that’s almost a year old.
We want all of that, too (and I certainly don’t claim that there are no ignorant Christians who do in fact want to shove the Bible down your throats; I’m sure there are one or two).
Christianity is not a political movement (though it, like atheism is often used for political ends). Christianity is a religion which is based on a book (the Bible) and a person (Jesus Christ). During his earthly ministry, Jesus walked openly teaching, debating, questioning and being questioned. The early apostles of the church did the same thing. Paul in particular made a habit of going toe-to-toe with all of the philosophers of the time, and at the time Christianity was a marginalized, minority not the default religion of the empire.
The practical problem isn’t the levelling of the playing field, it’s getting both side to play and to play fair. If I refuse to discuss morality with you because you’re a “heathen” how I understand how you conclude the world would be better without Christianity. If you refuse to let me refer to the Bible because you reject it out of hand as a “set of fairy tales” how will you ever understand that I didn’t throw out my critical thinking skills the night I was saved.
Again, I propose letting everybody on the field to play. Instead of silencing discussion and creating religion-free zones, let’s allow, even encourage discussion about EVERY position, sect, doctrine, and approach.
Will we make better decisions with more or less data?
As far as the growth of Islam, that’s not my problem. My obligation as a Christian is to live according to the teachings of the Book and the example of the Person. I am supposed to share the Truth according to the example. God requires me to tell the Truth not to dictate how you or anyone else receive it.
A purely secular government is a religiously exclusive government. Some elite group of humanists decides what is or isn’t religious (vs. philosophical) or which practice is or isn’t an excessive display of religion and impose that system on everybody. No, that’s not better. It’s just as bad. Being jailed because you refuse to repeat the Lord’s prayer is wrong. Being fired because you wore a cross to work is wrong too.
You said, “We only care when your beliefs start affecting people who do not share the same blind faith.” Everything about everybody affects everybody else. And it’s supposed too. Insulating myself from your lack of faith is impossible. The points and questions on this site cause me to consider more closely what and why I believe. That’s good. Going back and forth with a real, live Christian I hope makes you think more critically as well.
Faith is not a discrete compartment in society or personalities. Cut it away and you cut away other influences that I doubt even the most evangelical of atheists would want to see disappear. My faith is a huge part of why I’m faithful to my wife. My faith is a huge part of why I’m honest with people. My personal faith is the reason I’m on this site. Exclude my faith and I will still be a husband, an employee, and a guy online; but I won’t be as faithful, as honest, or as civil. I know, because I’ve been me without Christ.
Again, again the solution is more discussion, not less.
Just to clarify. My post (#58) was in response to post #56 techskeptic “Do you really want to understand why or do you just want me eradicated?”
That right there is why so many people have problems with faith/Christianity.
You are basically saying that you can’t be a good person without God in your life, which is like saying 90% of the world can’t be a good person. It’s insulting, it’s stereotypical, and it’s simply not true.
By the way – thanks for stopping by and weighing in on things!
You’re implying, Amanda, that one statement equals the other, but that’s simply a fallacy.
That a -> b does not mean that ~a -> ~b. It’s simple logic.
And he further clarifies it by not saying “I wouldn’t be a good person” but by saying “I won’t be AS faithful, AS honest, or AS civil.” Not that these things would be missing altogether, but that they would not be present in the degrees that he has now.
And lastly, he backs up his conclusion with a personal comparison, which you can’t refute.
It really was a good comment on his part.
I don’t think any Christian here is saying “you can’t do good without Christ”, but that any good you did would amount to nothing compared to the holiness of God.
If you’re not able to be the best kind of human being that you possibly can be without God in your life… I have to wonder what kind of person you really are.
Now I’m not the best kind of human being that I can possibly be. I know that. I make choices that are selfish and hurtful to other people all the time. But I can choose to be better. I can choose to treat people better than I do.
If you can only be the best person you can possibly be because you’re being influenced by your faith or your religion, then I’m not sure that you *are* in fact being the best person you can be. You’re being the best person you think people want you to be, which is an entirely different topic of discussion.
Well, there are two trains going on here at the same time.
First, the logical one: Simply because person X states that they need A in their life to make them a good person does not mean that person Y needs that thing in their life. It’s a logical fallacy that you’re defending.
Second, the spiritual: How you treat people says nothing about a decision about character. Even the “bad” person can choose to do good things– that doesn’t make them good.
Regardless of how much good you try to do, you can never be perfect. It’s impossible. Christianity’s core states that, a relationship with Him will result in us becoming like Him in the end– achieving holiness through His Son. We don’t have to be bogged down in sin. We don’t have to lose the the flesh.
Since we’re talking about me and what I said about me, here are my two cents: Amanda is right.
I am absolutely saying that I am a better person because of Jesus Christ in my life. I am actually saying that I was a worse person and would be an even worse person if I did not have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
I am not saying that I am currently perfect, I am not. But yeah, I am saying that I need this relationship with Jesus to be as good as I am and to have hope of getting better.
An alcoholic who says I need AA to stay of the bottle and be a positive part of my family is applauded for being wise enough to acknowledge that he/she has a problem and for being responsible enough to get help. We don’t take offense that he/she implies that the other whatever-percent of the world who drink didn’t join AA.
Maybe this is why: Christianity is at heart not simply a category of affiliation, it is a personal relationship with another “person,” i.e., God; so when I say I’m better because I’m a Christian, you (my atheist friends) may think I’m saying I’m better because I joined this particular club that meets on Sunday mornings.
In fact, I’m saying I’m better because I am in a spiritual relationship that brings out the best in me and empowers me to overcome the worst aspect of my nature.
Why would that offend you?
@ Rev. Graves II:
Saying that works for you is fine. Unfortunately, there are a number of people who don’t stop there.
I’ll further use your AA analogy to explain. Most people in AA don’t assume that everyone without a drinking problem are in AA, or that those outside of AA must have a drinking problem. I have seen some who became very obnoxious when they joined AA. They thought that everyone who drank, no matter the frequency or quantity, were alcoholics. Basically, it was a case of them assuming that everyone had the same problems they were dealing with.
Someone joining a group and it making them a better person does not offend me in the least. Whether that group is a support group like AA, a religious one like a church, or one of those groups who helps battered women try to improve their lives and find some confidence. Any of those is fine as long as it truly makes them a better person. However, when that person starts saying I have to belong to the same group in order to be a better person when they can’t point out where I’m a bad person or even why some of my beliefs or actions are bad other than their group “says so”, then I question whether that group truly made them a better person.
Look like Amanda beat me to the punch on one important point and Berlzebub got to another. Sadly, the fact that Berle had to explain that means the the good reverend is not listening. That was teh exact point that Greta made in the original post, its the same point that the often vilified PZ Meyers makes. WE could care less what wackaloon worldview that you have, its when you impose that world view on other that it gets offensive. If your faith were truly like knitting, as you suggest, something personal to you, something that improved yourself without affecting those around you so strongly, then yeah, hey I’m all for it. But this isnt really what happens is it?
REV Graves:
I’m perfectly happy that you found a psychological mechanism which makes you behave as a better human. Other people use The Secret in the exact same way, others still use Islam in the exact same way.
And others like, me use the fact that we can only improve ourselves through our own actions. Since no supernatural existence has ever been shown to affect our progress or behavior, there is simply no reason to believe that a supernatural force actually does so. We are here, we have to live with each other, and the great majority of us best serve ourselves individually by being kind, altruistic and compassionate for those around us.
We all believe in something, the difference between you and I is that my beliefs are based on verifiable facts as best I can, not personal anecdotes, even if they are my own. I fully accept that my fallible human brain has fuzzy memory, time and geometric dilation (with respect to memory), is prone to optical and perceptive illusions and figments of imagination. This is why controlled studies of what is and what is not are the prefered way to access reality.
I find it great that your found something that makes you a better personl. As amanda pointed out, I find it absolutely freaky that you think that without this unprovable concept you would not be a good person. If one day irrefutable evidence opposing the theory of God comes around you would immediately revert to your old ways? Or would you have learned that you are happier and more peaceful in your new ways?
Why have I never been to jail? How come PZ Meyers hasn’t been locked away for burning down churches? Why isn’t Dawkins locked up for child molestation (Why are so many pastors locked up for that exact offense?). Clearly belief in god has nothing to do with being a good person for the population as a whole and clearly disbelief in god (or your god) has nothing to do with immorality.
I wish my strong stance against religion in society was not needed. I wish the the religious of the world just kept to themselves and working on self improvements and coudl actually base their political decisions on data and not their religious beliefs, but this is not to be, at least not now.
Back to your response to my comment:
Christianity is not a political movement (though it, like atheism is often used for political ends). Christianity is a religion which is based on a book (the Bible) and a person (Jesus Christ). During his earthly ministry, Jesus walked openly teaching, debating, questioning and being questioned. The early apostles of the church did the same thing. Paul in particular made a habit of going toe-to-toe with all of the philosophers of the time, and at the time Christianity was a marginalized, minority not the default religion of the empire.
Sadly you are wildly inaccurate here. Christianity is very much a political movement. Perhaps not your personal form of it. But it is very much influencing our political structure, and defining who is in power and what decisions are being made. People are voting because of an indoctrinated beleif system and not becuase someone is actually proposing a better solution to one problem or another.
If these are what the stories of Jesus say. Then great. Sadly “Because God says so” is not really a great debating mechanism and really doesnt allow for debate. Once again, this is why government should be completely secular. If there is a rational recource to do or not do something excellent. Right now we have a vice-presidential candidate talking about how the Iraq war is God’s will.
The practical problem isn’t the levelling of the playing field, it’s getting both side to play and to play fair. If I refuse to discuss morality with you because you’re a “heathen” how I understand how you conclude the world would be better without Christianity. If you refuse to let me refer to the Bible because you reject it out of hand as a “set of fairy tales” how will you ever understand that I didn’t throw out my critical thinking skills the night I was saved.
My problem may not be with you at all. Your critical thinking skill may remain mostly in tact (except on this one thing, but perhaps we all have our hangups). My problem is that we, as a country, are losing ground on every single subject except a powerful military because of irrational decisions like not teaching evolution, thereby making our biology and medical leadership defunct. We have an economy in the trash because we voted for a president that we would like to have a beer with (TWICE!) and says he believes in the same stories you believe in. We have people opposing abortion but not adopting, instead having 5 children of their own while 500,000 kids remain in the foster care system largely doomed for jail or homelessness, a millions of kids remain hopeless around the world. This list is endless, but you get thei gist. Religion, in general (and again perhaps not for you specifically) ameliorates the need for critical thinking and people get out of practice.
Again, I propose letting everybody on the field to play. Instead of silencing discussion and creating religion-free zones, let’s allow, even encourage discussion about EVERY position, sect, doctrine, and approach.
I’m sorry, perhaps you can point me to the place where someone is promoting the idea of silencing relifgious critics. Perhaps you can point me to some religion-free zones. I can certainly point you to candidates who think atheists are not American citizens (you may be voting for one in 2 months).
Will we make better decisions with more or less data?
Well more of course. But stories about an unprovable being truly is not data by any standard. This sort of ‘data’ from the religious is at best, simply opinions. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by data here.
As far as the growth of Islam, that’s not my problem. My obligation as a Christian is to live according to the teachings of the Book and the example of the Person. I am supposed to share the Truth according to the example. God requires me to tell the Truth not to dictate how you or anyone else receive it.
Yeesh. It always happens. At some point, i find the religious person to be so self centered. So, lemme get this straight… its not your problem if your grand daughter has to submit to female circumcisions or honor killing? Its not your problem if your grandson is beaten to a pulp for drawing a cartoon of Mohammad? I don’t think you mean what you said. Rethink about the spread of Islam, these things I mention are common practice in many Islamic states. (read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali). so when you tell my its not your problerm, honestly, you come off as kind of a bastard.
A purely secular government is a religiously exclusive government. Some elite group of humanists decides what is or isn’t religious (vs. philosophical) or which practice is or isn’t an excessive display of religion and impose that system on everybody. No, that’s not better. It’s just as bad. Being jailed because you refuse to repeat the Lord’s prayer is wrong. Being fired because you wore a cross to work is wrong too.
You’ve got this completely wrong. did you read the post? The point is that the Government is secular, not the society.
You said, “We only care when your beliefs start affecting people who do not share the same blind faith.” Everything about everybody affects everybody else. And it’s supposed too. Insulating myself from your lack of faith is impossible. The points and questions on this site cause me to consider more closely what and why I believe. That’s good. Going back and forth with a real, live Christian I hope makes you think more critically as well.
That is the whole reason I am here at all. Actually I find the other site, to be a better place for going back and forth with christians. Of course everything we do affects everyone else. That is accepted. But legislating on unverifiable beliefs is something I find pretty intolerable. Forcing one religion on a group of people is pretty intolerable. This is what Greta post was about.
Faith is not a discrete compartment in society or personalities. Cut it away and you cut away other influences that I doubt even the most evangelical of atheists would want to see disappear. My faith is a huge part of why I’m faithful to my wife. My faith is a huge part of why I’m honest with people. My personal faith is the reason I’m on this site. Exclude my faith and I will still be a husband, an employee, and a guy online; but I won’t be as faithful, as honest, or as civil. I know, because I’ve been me without Christ.
Yeah, as I said in the beginning, that is freaky. I;ve heard the same thing from many christians “I was a drug user going nowhere until I was saved”, “With no god, I would feel hopeless”, “If there was no god I would rape murder and kill”. Its pretty freaky to me that faith in this unverifiable thing is the tenuous thread between kindness and altruism and utter depravity for you religious folk. I suspect it is truly not the case. I suspect that if you found a good reason to truly doubt your faith you would still see that you life has improved by treating those around you better.
There are many good reasons not to believe in god. Its freaky to me that if you decided that one of these were strong enough you would return to depravity. I have no such qualms. I love my wife and child like nothing else in the universe. I treat her with as much kindness and respect as I can concentrate into this short life I have. There is no god driving that, no beleif required. I know that these are evolutionary traits that have formed over a very long time, but that doesnt make them less real.
Again, again the solution is more discussion, not less.
Of course, but this horse has been beaten for hundreds of years. Paley have been truly debunked. None of the advantages you enjoy today are are result of “God did it” theory. Which is why that very discussion you crave ought to be on things we can resolve ourselves without the slim possibility that a daddy that we can’t see might exist.
Min:
you seem to be under the impression that I am responding to something you said. Please check the date of Rev Graves first post and you will find who I am having a discussion with.
However if you feel like you would like to discuss this post further, perhaps you could answer 4 questions for me before we continue. I invite you to make a blog entry on this if you like, but please link to it here as I will not otherwise know if you answered them. Here we go:
1) What is evolution? (please describe in as much detail as you can. Please describe the predictions and how it could be falsified). I would invite you to simply answer off the top of your head and not make a research paper of it.
2) What is the evidence that is available that makes scientists think evolution is a real process?
3) What are the human ethical and moral implications of the reality of an evolutionary process with respect to the origin of man (hint: this is a trick question)
4) What are the predictions of God Did It theory and how is it falsifiable?
@Tech: You seem to be under the impression that you are the author of this blog, or you’re deluded into thinking that I’m somehow ignorant of who said what when. Either that, or your greatly mislead about how comments sections on blogs work.
If you want a private room to discuss topics between two people, there’s always private e-mail. When you enter a public forum to discuss matters, you waive the right to simply talk with another person about the topics, and allow for anyone else to get in on the discussion.
Again, I don’t have to answer your questions to participate in this discussion. This is not your comment thread, this is not your blog, and I don’t have to abide by your rules.
Second, thanks for demonstrating two of the “rules of winning a comment discussion without necessarily having winning ideas. That being, I’m going to write an over 1000 essay so that there are too many open fronts to actually have a discussion on any one point and half of my comment is simply repeating your comment. Good tactics both of them.
Lastly, when you actually address my logical arguments in my previous comment, then I’ll take the time to answer your questions. Until then, I don’t see them as germane to the conversation as a whole.
@ MInTheGap:
In what part of TS’s comment did he even come close to saying that he was the author of this blog? He simply gave you some things to answer before he would include you in his conversation. Perhaps Rev. Graves may deam to talk to you, but TS (like me) might have grown tired of you.
Since our little “debate” on Christian atheism, I’ve realized that it seems pointless to try to talk to you. Your kneejerk offensiveness to TS’s response to you is a case in point. He never insinuated that you couldn’t comment, just that he wasn’t going to respond to you unless you answered his questions first.
Honestly, I’m still trying to figure out what logical arguments you’re talking about. I didn’t see any.
@Berlzebub: He never claimed to be the author of this blog. He did layout out ground rules for discussion on this blog and on this thread, however:
This sentence states this: “If you’d like to discuss this post further, then answer these four questions.” The contrapositive would be “If you do not want to answer these questions, then you should not discuss this post further.” Hence my implication that he believes that he has the authority to regulate the debate.
And I’ll ignore the folly of “well, he’s not going to talk to you” at the same time he’s talking to me… and that was the main point. It really doesn’t matter what he says regarding ground rules, etc. If he chooses to ignore valid or strong criticism, he can go join his buddy Obama who has to have a teleprompter in order to sound coherent.
Tech insinuated that I was welcome into the discussion only if I answered his questions. Again:
And what logical arguments did I put forth?
#63:
#61:
Regardless that Rev. Graves claims in #64 that Amanda is right…
He doesn’t have grounds to make that claim, since he’s not an arbiter of logic. He can say what he meant by his statement (i.e. That he meant to say that all people cannot be good without God in their life.), but Amanda read that into what he said, and logically my analysis is correct.
And back to the primary topic of all of this, and the only reason I got involved, Rev. Graves’ primary point is that people in this debate are rejected out of hand simply because of who they are are what they claim to believe. They’re not accepted at the table. Their opinions (as illustrated by the book that tech wrote) are treated as uncritical thinking, and poor arguments are made but not acknowledged.
For example, the whole argument tech has here about taking PZ, et al and saying they’ve never been in jail, and comparing that to pedophiles that happened to be pastors is ludicrous. First, it wholly misses the whole “ideology vs. adherents” problem, but second, it takes the best of one class and compares it to the worst of the other class and tries to make conclusions off of them.
I noticed tech didn’t take Chairmen Mao and his mass killings, or take a look at any other atheist that’s eradicated Christians simply because of their beliefs. Nor did he, on his discussion of tolerance from Atheism toward Christianity, talk about why PZ decided that he had to desecrate other people’s beliefs openly.
I mean, with so much garbage passing for “critical thinking” you wonder why we can never have good discussion.
@MInTheGap:
Or perhaps TS just didn’t clarify enough. His use of “we” could have just included you and him.
As far as your “logic”, I’m actually not sure what you’re getting at. For one, what Rev. Graves said,
is an opinion. That’s what “my two cents” means in common vernacular. At least, that’s my understanding of it. If someone can point out where his opinion is wrong, he would possibly be willing to change his opinion.
Also, you pointed out the evidence as being what he said. Which is anecdotal. Rev. Graves has no idea what kind of person he would currently be if he wasn’t a Christian. That would be like me trying to say what kind of person I would be if I was a Christian. It’s simply an exercise in futility and conjecture.
Perhaps if you would point out the “poor arguments” I might be more inclined to listen. However, you’re simply making an assertion. Not providing why what you say is true. Also, what about my previous comment @ #65? Is anything I said there untrue?
I actually somewhat agree with you, here. PZ, Dawkins, me, TS, etc. have never been convicted of a crime (at least to my knowledge with the other three), but there are also prominent clergymen and the lower congregation who have never been convicted of a crime. Personally, I believe that religion or lack thereof does not play any part in a persons ethics. It’s their actions that reflect their actual ethics.
Because Chairman Mao is an example of how atheism nor religion have any part in the discussion. Mao, Stalin, etc. were simply power hungry humans. Even if they had believed in a deity they may have commited the same attrocities. Saying that atheism led them to do so is a fallacy when you examine the rest of their actions. The same can go with various actions of the church and its clergy in the past and present.
The reason PZ put a nail through a Eucharist was, because of an incident in Florida involving Webster Cook. People were claiming that Mr. Cook was holding the wafer (Jesus) hostage, and sending threatening letters to him. When PZ put the nail through the wafer and threw it into the trash, he also tore some pages from a copy of the Quran and The God Delusion, and threw them in also.
What PZ did was just a form of free speech. Of course, several pointed out in the process that they (the ones threatening Mr. Cook and PZ) were upset about the treatment of the wafer, but they somehow ignored the ritual cannibalism they were involved in if transubstantiation were true.
You mean like believing that not only there is a deity, but that deity is the one you worship and actually has the rules that you abide by? I agree. Every time I’ve tried to have a debate with you I’ve ended up feeling that it was pointless. You expect everyone to think that we could not be good people without the existance of your deity of choice, without even being able to prove its existance.
As I’ve noted before, you aren’t interested in finding a common ground. Hell, you even criticized us non-believers who participate in Common Ground. Now, you wonder “why we can never have good discussion”? Perhaps we could if you would talk to us, and not at us.
@Berlzebub: Good response.
Perhaps I did take Tech and read him incorrectly. Given the fact that it seemed Rev. Graves also didn’t want to address me, I may have put an assumption in there where it wasn’t warranted.
However, I assume that you can now see that, without clarification, both are equal assumptions.
Logic is separate from opinion. Opinion can change based on the person. I can say a given thing is a dog. That’s my opinion, but it could be a cat, whereas that would make it wrong.
Rev. Graves was weighing in on the topic of whether he meant to say “I believe Christianity is necessary to be a moral person” based on his statement that Christianity made him a better person. I was simply trying to prove that, like the topic of whether Tech meant I wasn’t allowed to participate in discussion or whether he meant he was just going to ignore me was up for grabs. One cannot make a logical conclusion either way without the primary source clarifying their point.
I assume that we understand ourselves now?
Not really. Only Rev. Graves knows what kind of situation he was in, and what influences his decisions. I have seen many people that were smokers “come to Christ” and cease smoking. Same with other vices at different levels. One cannot attribute this kind of wholesale change to chance.
And then there’s a level of probability and causality. What causes Rev. Graves to make the choices that he makes? It is reasonable to assume that if a given stimulus causes a given response that if that stimulus were absent the result would be the same (at best) or different (at worst).
Yes, the game of “What if” is for children, because there is no way to test and prove. However, you can also be sure that if there’s a stimulus that’s causing a separate set of responses– and that those responses are good responses– then the absence of the stimuli doesn’t mean that it’s guaranteed that he would be the same person– or better! Truth was, if his stimuli is helping him to make better decisions, without it he would probably make worse ones.
I provided one with my comment, which you agree with, at least in part. We both agree that you cannot take the actions of a human and blame that on the ideology (adherents vs. ideology)– which is something that Tech does a lot of.
I actually have no problem with what PZ did. He has his right to free speech as much as the next guy. What it did show was a hostility towards, not a tolerance of religion. Since the main thrust of Rev. Graves conversation is about communication, it would follow from that that offending a huge group of people is exactly what he’s talking about– even if I don’t find it offensive.
And this is where you’re trying to read my mind, rather than trying to talk with me. The point is that you have to nail down what is “good”– how is it defined? What does it mean? Can “good” change?
Depending on your definition depends on whether your above statement is true. I doubt we’ll find one person that would stand up and claim that they are good– and never do anything bad. And what do we do about that?
These are all the real questions.
Oh, here’s another few problems with tech’s comments, so you don’t think I could only find one:
Fallacy. Rev. Graves is right. Christianity does not just exist in America, it’s worldwide. It’s practiced in countries that are atheistic, islamic, secular, etc.
Show me one candidate for Pres. or lower who said “I am voting X because God says so.” First, it’s against the Constitution to have a religious test, so a candidate should legally be able to have the option of doing such, but this is a strawman. He’s inventing someone to rally against.
Lie at worst, misleading at best. The actual quote is:
First, this is a statement inside of a church. Second, it was asking for prayer that 1. The military would do what’s right. 2. That our leaders would carry out a plan that was God’s will. The last sentence can be read as a clarification of the second. As if she’s having a normal conversation and is clarifying what she said.
Tech is distorting her comments.
Leftist talking points– absurdity. There is no state that does not teach evolution, and most teach evolution as fact without question. There are universities that restrict entrants that don’t believe in evolution. This is just plain dumb– I’m sorry, but it is.
Research before you say stupid things, Tech. If you did, you’d see that, if there’s a governmental component to this mess that it happened in the 90′s, under Clinton. Not under Bush.
I don’t know of anyone that opposes adopting. And the idea of life beginning at conception is a medical truth, not a religious one.
That’s why the classic scientists and great thinkers throughout history were– oh, Christians. It seems that only now is it a qualification that you have to be an Atheist to have critical thinking skills. And that people of religion have decided that they don’t need to have them.
Do I need to continue? Do you understand why I say that this tactic is “victory by saying so much it’ll take you hours to reply?”
Hey berle,
thanks. As usual you pretty much said everything I would have said and said it calmer than I would have. I’m just talking to Rev Graves here and I am having a hard time distinguishing Min from a Poe or just a normal troll trying to score some lulz, which is why when he started in with the “Evolution is a faith” stuff I didn’t want to continue until he explained exactly what he thought evolution was. We have both seen how when you ask what a fundie thinks evolution is, it ends up being everything else but evolution. Not much point in discussing anything unless the actual topics are understood.
As for good atheists and bad pastors, sadly he once again totally missed the point. No one was comparing PZ to bad pastors, all I was saying is that atheism clearly doesn’t lead to immorality and religion clearly doesnt lead to morality. Its simply about the actions of the individuals. If you need God, like Graves seems to, to be a good person, so be it. Great. But it gets bizzare when people think that just because they need this psychological mechanism to not be a bad person, they assume that everyone else does. You know, the whole point of these recent posts.
I love you too, tech.
Fine of you to cherry pick one thing in my whole comment to complain about, and then release a “book” twice the size of my comment.
And I’m glad to see that we all are in agreement on the adherents vs. ideology, but you didn’t prove what you sought out to prove. I don’t know anyone in this discussion who was saying that atheism leads to immorality or that religion leads to morality. The statement was Rev. Graves felt that Christianity made him a better person than he would be without it. That was the only trend analysis made.
And my logical point to that was, this does not say that “If you are not a Christian, you will not do good.”
In high school math terms again…
p = “I am a Christian.”
q = “I am a good person.”
Rev Graves = p -> q
Tech/Amanda = ~ p -> ~q
The Tech/Amanda position is not defined as true. It could be true, but it might not be. The only statement that is true in the negative is…
~q -> ~p. If I’m not a good person, then I’m not a Christian.
This whole atheistic argument doesn’t conform to logic.
And, like I said to Berlzebub, we still need to define what “good” and moral means to have a basis of discussion. Otherwise we’re stuck swatting at trivialities like this one.
argh! ack! I cant resist! I tried but I can’t!
“And the idea of life beginning at conception is a medical truth, not a religious one.”
OH noes!!! where is the outcry on the huge medical crisis we are facing? 60-80% of fertilized but unimplanted cells get naturally aborted (about 3/4s of the way down, although have found other article holding this figure at 40%, doesn’t matter is). By your standard this is the largest human medical crisis in history! Is heaven littered with embryos? Why aren’t you crying out for medical research on this subject (probably because it requires a good understanding of evolution)?( more on this). According to your definition (the one for as long as I have been reading your tripe) life starts at conception and you can link to a creationist doctor or two who have testified in congress to this effect. Sadly (for you) this is hardly a medical conclusion and most doctors don’t share this silly opinion.
As to the rest of that rant, well here is my response:
1) Non-sequitor, read my post again
2) I was going to use the Palin quote you kindly provide in…
3) which part of saying that the Iraq war is “a task that is from God” is not like “Because god says so”. that was really a stretch for you. complete red herring that she was telling people to pray, or where she said it, she was saying that the Iraq war is a “a plan and that plan is God’s will”. you are pretty good and twisting the bible to say what you want it to, I am not surprised that you are doing it here. to any rational person, she is clearly calling the Iraq War Gods Will. I can pull out hundreds of examples like this from various candidate (including Obama BTW).
4) Evolution in schools? Perhaps you have been under a rock for the last decade. when you put a sticker on a science book that essentially tell you that everything contained inside is just a theory, you arent teaching science. What arent those stickers being put on physics books, math books and chemistry books? Our hold on keeping science in the science classes are attacked every single year. Visit this for the rest of you crap. Im not one for conspiracy theories, i guess you are.
You left out the rest of the paragraph, could you please find a single significant metric that US leads the world besides pollution (actually i think china just overtook us) and military spending?
5) straw man, never said anyone opposes adopting. I said they were hypocritical oafs becuase they are NOT adopting (and not rallying about a health crisis) while maintaining a religiously based POV that life starts at conception, and trying to force that opinion on everyone. Meanwhile millions of kids around the world suffer while they add new kids of their own to the population.
6) oh another non-sequitor and strawman. I specifically said that this may not apply to him. that means that i dont think religion makes all you critical thinking skills go out the window. try to keep up. Christianity was (and is) a predominant religion in the world, its pure statistics that make some of our great thinkers christian, by heritage if not by faith. BTW, Darwin is in that same pool of great thinkers. there have been plenty of non-christian great thinkers, religion itself may have little or nothing to do with it. Of course there have been many great thinkers who were not christian, shall we just ignore them?
shall I go on? You make it so easy.
Basically, did you read Greta’s post? Which part did she get wrong?
This is where we started. Amanda wrote:
“There’s a flip side to a lot of what Greta said – there are some things she’s angry that Christians do when Atheists do the same damn thing. But it’s okay for the atheists to be that way. They’re right. Christians are stupid and wrong.
I’m writing this from a middle perspective. It’s articles like these that feed my doubts, so I’m not writing this from a Christian perspective. I’m not sure there’s any Christian perspective left in me. But I do understand the Christian perspective and can still see where Atheism gets it wrong when talking about Christianity. But then – that was something else that made Greta angry. So I can’t win.
It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. If they’re fundamentalist, she’s angry. If they aren’t, and try to make people see the difference, she’s still angry.
What does she want?”
Here is what I think now, but didn’t think when I first started reading and replying to this blog:
Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.
Some of you have said that you really just want Christianity to play fair and stop using its preferred status to stifle your point of view. However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equal time, it’s not enough.
Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists (Yeah, I’m generalizing.) because it was a Christian who said it. People must be protected from our irrational beliefs. Any historical support is discredited because it must be mythological or doctored. Any scientists who support a Christian viewpoint are discredited, not because of faults in their data , but because the fact that they support a Christian viewpoint automatically makes them bad scientists. Even a personal testament to a life changed by God is rendered freaky and insulting in your minds.
For you, the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better. We are damned in your eyes regardless (religious allusion intended).
You don’t want a level playing field. You want everybody to play with your ball and let you win; or they can shut up and go home.
But that’s cool with me.
If that’s what you want, that’s what you want.
All I’m saying is Say That’s What You Want.
Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism. Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life. Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.
All I’m saying is: Atheists should admit that they (generalizing again) are fundamentalist zealots who want to eradicate all other (yeah, I said “other”) religions.
Finally back on track.. phew!
It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry.
Where do you get this idea? What part of the text leads you to believe this? If a christian adopts 10 orphans, do you think she would have a problem with this? If a christian donates money to their own church, do you think she has a problem with that? If a christian prays every night for anything, do you think she has a problem with that? Exactly what leads you to believe this? Its completely contrary to what she and most atheists believe. If you lose your religion it should not be because it was forced, it should be because you learned what evidence is , why it is important, and how we use it.
Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.
eh? could you list the chain of comments and events that got you there from where you were. Both I and Berle (as well as if you bother to read some Dawkins) have explained virtually the opposite of this. I do totally agree that by improving this world by teaching people how to avoid pseudoscience (homeopathy, water dowsing, astrology, etc), quackery (antivaccinationism, chiropractic, reiki, etc), and simple outright scams (see medis on my blog, kineseotape, bigfoot, WMD in Iraq, and a the Tesla Pill), that these tools will very likely result in far less reliance on made up deities and fairy tales (sorry i realize that you think God is real, but to me he stopped being when Santa Claus and the tooth fairy left). This is not the intentional eradication of religion, but that may be a side effect of improvement of our societies. This side effect simply eliminates an older side effect of the way we evolved. Belief on a Christian god or Muslim god would go away just like the belief in norse gods, greek gods, cthulu or quetzlquotl. Isnt Christianity an improvment over the greek beleif system?
However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equal time, it’s not enough.
Could you give a common example of when this happens?
Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists
Could you give a common example of this.
the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better.
Could you give an example of when anyone said this?
Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism.
I can not, because what I want is secular rule, while people have the freedom to believe what they want.
Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life.
I guess I can admit this. My specific system throws out God with the tooth fairy and leprecahns. I certainly have principles of morality that do not require magic creatures or arbitrary interpretations of a book (you Christians are up to 30,000 different interpretations derived from 9 major denominations). so yeah i can certainly admit this.
Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.
No you still have it wrong. What is fair for everyone and for all future generations is for no religion to be legislated, or systemically benefited (as Greta pointed out oh so clearly). It is the only way all religions can have an equal playing ground, it is the only way to keep debate based on tangible, verifiable quantities rather than God Vs Allah vs Zeus pointless discussions.
You seem to be under the same presupposition that you came here with, atheism is a religion. So tired, so overwhelmingly debunked (just to a quick google on that very phrase) and so sadly typical. Atheism is not a religion, its no religion. Atheists are liberals, atheists are staunch conservatives, atheists are pro-choice, atheists are pro-life, atheists have no book, no set of unverifiable positive claims about unseeable entities, they do not claim to knows something that is not understandable and then in the next sentence claim that something is not understandable.
I know you cant imagine a life with religion, but I live it quite happily and successfully, with a sense of freedom you clearly will never enjoy. I stand in awe of the universe around me and as Carl Sagan said, “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring”.
I encourage you and everyone to try it or at least try to actually think about it a little harder.
Tech – He was quoting me when he said that It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry.
I wrote that in the original post. Although he did go on to agree with that idea with things he wrote later on, I just wanted to clarify that you can’t ask him what he means by that because he didn’t write it.
@ MIn:
Thank you.
Casual conversations among more than two people are easier than debating with more than one person. Especially since all of you would be debating among yourselves. What Amanda pointed out above is a prime example. Rev. Graves quoted Amanda, and Tech assumed it was something Rev. Graves said.
Agreed. So, let’s just leave this out of the debate.
Yes we do.
And I know of current smokers who belong to a church. I also know of people who have quit by using a patch, the gum, and other means. At best, that seems to point to people needing a form of support to overcome those vices and addictions. Whether it be a group, such as a church, or some form of chemical means.
Also, in a form of the Anthropic Principle, Rev. Graves statement can only be taken at face value. Did he try other means of overcoming his vices. A study of other philosophies, having friends who intervene and point out why what he’s doing is wrong, etc. Perhaps the same outcome would have happened if he’d joined another religion instead of Christianity, or even if he chose no religion at all and instead started thinking more about how his actions affect others (philosophy). Again, Rev. Graves knows the circumstances that he was in, but he only has his current circumstances to compare them to. Which does not mean that it could only have been Christianity which changed his actions for the better.
You left out that there may be other stimuli that would have the same two effects, or even possibly give a better result. An example could be smoking. Perhaps someone with enough willpower to quit “cold turkey” would still have quit, but their resistance to starting up again wouldn’t be as good as if they had joined a support group to help them deal with the ongoing cravings.
Unless you think about the possibility of other stimuli, as I pointed out above.
Hopefully, what I said above will clarify my position.
Basically, there’s the matter of personal responsibility. Regardless of your reasoning for doing an action, you still have to take responsibility for following through with those actions. Yes, I can agree with that.
Ideology can be partially to blame, but the ideology taking the whole blame would be rare to never. The person not examining their actions, and how those actions affect others, would be where most of the problem lies.
I agree with it being free speech, and, to an extent, a hostility toward religious beliefs. Although, to refine it, I would say it was a hostility toward the dogma of religious beliefs.
PZ descrated the wafer in response to the threats that Webster Cook was receiving. To point out that the eucharist was just a symbol, PZ descrated it in a way worse than what Webster was being threatened for. However, he also included a few pages of the Quran and The God Delusion. If he had only drove a nail through the wafer, it might be possible to argue that it was hostile toward religion. However, including not only a symbol from another religion, but also something from atheism he pushed the idea that nothing is sacred. A symbol is a symbol is a symbol.
Your correct. I apologize for my assumption. I was going by previous comments and posts you’ve made, concerning why atheists perform their actions. Granted, you attributed it to Christian beliefs, but not actually to the existance of YHWH.
Concerning “good”, that is an excellent point, one that I would like to explore further. Good being a subjective term makes it difficult for two people to have the same definition, especially when they are on two sides of any debate. Both sides think their side is “good”. When examined further both sides would have to decide what “good” actually means, and then debate from there.
Very true. The best we could do is work at defining “good”. Only from there could you debate whether any action could be considered “good”.
That actually gives me an idea for a blog post.
Yes, it is practiced in many countries, with many governments, but in the U.S. it is part of the political movement. It’s currently being used to promote such political issues as Proposition 8 in California, avoiding stem cell research, and there’s even the possibility that religious belief was behind the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. So, while there is no “Christian Party” on the ballots, a large number of people seem to think that their beliefs should influence the law and the countries actions.
Dang it. I left out or included an extra [blockquote]. Hope you can understand it, MIn.
Hi. Did you miss me?
Techskeptic querried me on several points of my last post. Tech asked me to support those points, so below are those points and the support I offer in Tech’s own words.
1. I wrote “It seems to me that nothing any Christian does will not make her angry. “
As Amanda noted, I was quoting her. Tech’s response illustrates my point. Even when I quote another non-believer I (the Christian) have to be wrong.
2. In response to a question in Amanda’s initial post I stated, “Greta (and atheism as a movement) wants to eradicate religion, at least, or especially Christianity.”
Tech wrote, “This is not the intentional eradication of religion, but that may be a side effect of improvement of our societies. This side effect simply eliminates an older side effect of the way we evolved.”
Stab me with a dirty knife and say, “It wasn’t the knife that killed him it was the infection.” Dude, I’m still dead!
3. I wrote, ‘However, when a Christian offers a hypothetical world in which everyone gets equa”l time, it’s not enough.
In an earlier post, Tech wrote “We, in general… want: 1) to have a level playing field where people of other religions or no religion share the same opportunities, same benefits, same rights and respect and those in the majority religion…
But when I wrote back, “I propose letting everybody on the field to play. Instead of silencing discussion and creating religion-free zones, let’s allow, even encourage discussion about EVERY position, sect, doctrine, and approach.”
Tech wrote, “Religion, in general (and again perhaps not for you specifically) ameliorates the need for critical thinking and people get out of practice….
“…stories about an unprovable being truly is not data by any standard. This sort of ‘data’ from the religious is at best, simply opinions….
“Which is why that very discussion you crave ought to be on things we can resolve ourselves without the slim possibility that a daddy that we can’t see might exist.”
All of the above are quotes from different paragraphs in Tech’s post. The point is Tech ‘s own atheist words reject the offer of everybody talking unless they say only what Tech already wants to hear.
4. I said, “Nothing a Christian says will be O.K. with atheists”
Tech has said, “There are things christians do in the name of christianity and there are things the people do in the name of humanity. The problem is the doing it in the name of one religion or another.”
So, if two people do the same “good” thing, but one of them does it in the name of Christianity, the fact that he/she did it in the name of Christianity is a problem. Nevermind what was done.
5. I said that atheism (generalizing) holds that “the best Christian person in the world is bad, because she believes God makes her better.”
See above.
6. I wrote, ” Admit that you want to replace the unofficial dominance of religion in political and social life with the official rule of atheism.” And Tech responded, ” I can not, because what I want is secular rule, while people have the freedom to believe what they want.”
And that’s my point. The atheism put forth through these comments is a call for a form of “RULE” not dialogue, not coexistence, but dominance in which fundamentalist atheism dominates.
7. RG: Admit that you have a specific system of beliefs about God, the origin of life, the principles of morality, the qualities that make one a good person, and the purpose of life.
Tech: I guess I can admit this. My specific system throws out God with the tooth fairy and leprecahns. I certainly have principles of morality that do not require magic creatures or arbitrary interpretations of a book (you Christians are up to 30,000 different interpretations derived from 9 major denominations). so yeah i can certainly admit this.
Tech has also said, “Atheists are liberals, atheists are staunch conservatives, atheists are pro-choice, atheists are pro-life…”
And here’s where we return to the question of whether Atheism really want a level playing field.
If the evidence of Christians’ diverse range of beliefs demonstrates the fallacy of Christianity, how can the evidence of atheists’ diverse range of beliefs support the validity of Atheism.
Given the same evidence/ data about opposing views, a logical thinker should reach the same conclusion about both views.
8. I said, “Admit that you want that belief system to be legislated into politics, social policy, and the education of children while excluding or denouncing all other belief systems.”
Tech replied, “ No you still have it wrong. What is fair for everyone and for all future generations is for no religion to be legislated, or systemically benefited (as Greta pointed out oh so clearly). It is the only way all religions can have an equal playing ground, it is the only way to keep debate based on tangible, verifiable quantities rather than God Vs Allah vs Zeus pointless discussions.”
Atheism is a religious position. Call it no religion if you like because it excludes God, but that like saying communist countries have no economy because they exclude free markets.
When Tech says, “I encourage you and everyone to try it or at least try to actually think about it a little harder.”
How is that inherently better than me saying, “ I encourage you and everyone to try prayer or at least try to actually think about the grace of God a little harder.”
I know. It’s better because Tech’s right and I’m wrong. And that is a declaration of faith.
I don’t know how much longer I can keep up with you guys. I haven’t updated my church’s blog since I started talking to you. If I drop out soon (I’ll be sure to wait for you to respond.) know that I have not renounced my faith and that God and I both love you all — whether you like it or not.
That was a long post Reverend and I appreciate the thoughts. I’d rather not get into a exponentially growing comment so I’ll just try to sum up with a couple of point and questions. (although I did like that a pastor called me ‘Dude’!)
First off, you are not wrong on a subject because you are a Christian, ever. You may be shown to be wrong on something because you failed to supply proper evidence or facts to back up what you are saying (or right on something becuase you didnt fail to). Or becuase strong contradictory evidence is available, but not solely becuase you are a Christian, that would simply be an ad hominem. You aren’t trying to play the persecuted victim are you? (BTW its particularly weird that you think anything I say is because you are a christian, as I think Christianity is just as ludicrous as any other religion or new age crap, islam, wicca, the secret, etc)
For example, if you say that finding your faith leads you to live a better life, there is no reason to doubt you. I’m sure you perceive that to be true. Good for you! There is no reason to suggest that this is not the mechanism by which you found piece.
But just because this community you have joined makes you feel better doesn’t mean that it is better. There are plenty of people who suffer with their religion (just read a few posts here) or the religion foisted on them. Suffer from guilt, suffer from colleagues and former friends giving the crap about their beliefs, and suffer from being disadvantaged when they get out to some form of employment that requires understanding of concepts that go 100% against their dogma (i’m talking biology, geology, and astronomy here). So they suffer and then claim victimization instead of considering their beliefs vs the available evidence. Or they have decided to change their minds, become agnostic (or some other religion or even atheist) and then suffer once again because their former community outcasts them instead of respecting their beliefs.
There are plenty of other things that other people do that make them feel better but a) dont actually make them better and/or b)aren’t good or doesnt work for other people. Religion is just one example, homepathy is another, hallucinatory drugs are another. You get the drift. There are lots of people who are successful and happy in life because they operate by pure greed. Shall we formally implement a government based on pure greed?
I think i see a fundamental issue (from where I stand) with your thinking. Secularism is not atheism and you seem to be equivocating the two.
When you go grocery shopping, you are doing a purely secular activity, unless of course you are prone to Bible Dipping for banal activities like that. Seeing the doctor for a broken leg, also secular not atheism promoting. Driving your car to work, secular not atheism promoting.
Secularism and secularist activities by no means promote atheism. It seems to me you have confused the two. As long as you do so, you will not understand the power and advantage and safety and potential for prosperity that striving for a purely secular government can bring. Min is right to some degree, we may never get there, but it will be a big improvement in trying.
The US and Kuwait are the sole exceptions to the rule of highly religious countries being poor, uneducated, with little or virtually no civil rights. That rule shows itself in highly religious countries like Syria and pakistan, but also South, middle and west Africa which are mostly christian. I would look around you to see what you are wishing for. More religiosity has the potential to dramatically lower our exceptionalism with respect to the rest of the world.
Already we are only exceptional in the amount of money we spend on our military and on no other relevant statistic I can find. This only after religion has taken a stronghold within the government. I’m sure I dont need to list the examples of this.
Be well pastor. i hope you vote on evidence and not faith.
Mind if I summarise? Shared ground at this point appears to be as follows:
1) Everyone should have the freedom to discuss their religious stance (be they Christian, Moslem, atheist, etc).
2) No-one should have the freedom to impose those beliefs on others (be they Christian, Moslem, atheist, etc).
2a) That means no legislation or other government action that privileges one position over another.
3) In an ideal world, more people would hold [author]‘s beliefs. [Author] reserves the right to promulgate and encourage those beliefs, as long as such action would not contradict points 1, 2 and 2a.
Points of disagreement appear to be:
A) What constitutes “privileging one position”. Is it privileging atheism to ban government employees from using government resources to promote religion? Or is that just preventing them from breaching point 2a?
B) Which religious stance is correct? (Obviously)
C) How dangerous is it to blur the lines between religion and government?
D) Which religious or atheistic groups (if any) are currently in breach of, or aiming to be in breach of, points 1, 2 and 2a above.
That a fair summary? Anyone disagree with the “shared ground” section?
Well summarized. Any ideas how to resolve point of disagreement A?
While I agree with the 1-3, I see a problem with #1 and 2a. Here it is.
some 30% of science teacher are young earth creationists (i’m sorry I dont remember the exact stat, but it is alarmingly high). So when you say a statement that I agree with like :
“Everyone should have the freedom to discuss their religious stance (be they Christian, Moslem, atheist, etc).”
…science class is not one of those places, and neither is when you are trying to display impartiality in a court case, or display fairness in business. So yeah, everyone should have the right to discuss their beliefs, but not when they are teaching a class of other peoples kids, not when they are determining the guilt of hundreds of people, and not when they are trying to do the best for their employees and investors. When you do this, you are teaching one religion over another, or using a religion to prejudice decision making that affects hundreds of other poeple that may or may not believe the same thing as you.
I noticed above that the Rev. felt like his religion was being taken from him when laws arise that say you can’t have, what is essentially, preaching in school. He felt that censors his right to religion.
No one says you can’t pray in school, tons of schools even have student prayer meetings and so forth before and after school. Virtually no one has a problem with this (although personally I think prayer circles are a completely wackadoo activity, and as a total aside, would you stop this if you saw it happening?). Almost every atheist on the planet would completely endorse a comparative religion course in high school. But if a public school leads in prayer, for all its students, in class or in assembly then damn right, you are breaking 2A, while the reverend thinks that if you ban this practice you are breaking #1. Note once again, no one is talking about catholic schools, no one is talking about churches or families or what you do in your own time.
One more quick example: many fanatics think that the teaching of evolution in science class breaks 2A. This shows a complete disregard for what science is, how it works, and why we need to know it and teach it, in favor of a personal worldview.
so, yeah, I agree with 1-3, but its the implementation of 1-3 that I often take issue with, and so do fundies.
A-C is why I promote a secular approach (which, as I explained above is hugely different than an atheist one) to government, teaching, and business .
We will never come to a point where one groups religious beliefs are thought to be ‘correct’ by all of the people, even if it is forced. The only way to get there is by convincing argument and debate which I completely endorse. I’d believe in God today (or a god at least) if a disembodied hand came out of the sky and shook Min around a little.
or an amputee grew a leg back without medical intervention.
are either of these so tough for god? Would he have 100% belief if this happened and he simply wrote down which book to believe? Instead we have 100,000 different religions and a small group of atheists giggling at everyone else.
D would be an interesting topic though.