View Full Version : Christians no longer allowed to be foster parents in the UK
Savant
03-01-2011, 11:19 PM
A Christian couple facing a foster parenting ban because of their views on homosexuality were told by a court yesterday that gay rights ‘should take precedence’ over their religious beliefs.
Owen and Eunice Johns heard that their values could conflict with the local authority’s duty to ‘safeguard and promote the welfare’ of those in foster care.
The grandparents have already fostered 15 children and were praised by social workers as ‘kind and hospitable people’ who ‘respond sensitively’ to youngsters.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361469/Christian-beliefs-DO-lose-gay-rights-Judges-ruling-devout-foster-couple-lose-case.html#ixzz1FOfMyyrf
The Pentecostal Christians, who have been carers since 1992, had applied to Derby City Council in 2007 to restart fostering after a break.
But social workers raised concerns that their attitudes to homosexuality would conflict with the new Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
Traditional: The couple insisted they are not homophobic at the High Court but do not recognise civil partnerships between gay couples as marriage
The couple decided they were ‘doomed to failure’ and sought a clarification of the law over whether their religious beliefs excluded them from becoming foster carers.
Their case, heard last year, was supported by senior clergy including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey who, in an open letter, warned that gay rights were taking precedence over the rights of others.
During the case, the Equality and Human Rights Commission argued that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral views.
Yesterday the retired couple’s request for a ruling that faith should not be a bar to becoming a carer was denied at the High Court in London.
Their case was heard by one of the most senior members of the family court, Lord Justice Munby, who was sitting alongside Mr Justice Beeston.
It was ruled that there was no discrimination against them as Christians but that their views on sexual morality may be ‘inimical’ – or harmful – to children. In that situation, they ruled: ‘The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence.’
The Johnses are considering an appeal but campaigners fear the ruling will be used as a blueprint for other councils to stop devout Christians from becoming foster parents.
The couple, who have four grown-up children and six grandchildren, had applied to be respite carers offering short-term placements for children aged between five and ten.
Mrs Johns, a retired nurse, said: ‘This is a sad day for Christianity. The judges have suggested that our views might harm children. We do not believe that this is so. We are prepared to love and accept any child.
‘All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.’
She added that the couple have visited her nephew, who is gay, and his partner in San Francisco.
Her husband added: ‘We wanted to offer love and stability and security to a vulnerable child. Eight-year-olds we have looked after want to play, not talk about their sexuality.’
Yesterday the council denied that it had sought to discriminate against Mr and Mrs Johns on the grounds of religious belief, but added that it ‘welcomes the judgment’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361469/Christian-beliefs-DO-lose-gay-rights-Judges-ruling-devout-foster-couple-lose-case.html#ixzz1FOfXumFw
Debaser11
03-02-2011, 04:15 AM
So can Muslims no longer adopt based on this logic? They're not going to be anymore liberal about sex than this Christian couple. Well, I guess that hardly comes up because they have healthy birthrates and feel no guilt and no compulsion to adopt.
This is another case of it would be funny if it weren't true.
Grumpy Cat
03-02-2011, 04:46 AM
So can Muslims no longer adopt based on this logic? They're not going to be anymore liberal about sex than this Christian couple. Well, I guess that hardly comes up because they have healthy birthrates and feel no guilt and no compulsion to adopt.
This is another case of it would be funny if it weren't true.
Muslims are allowed to be homophobic. Don't you know? Only Christians are not allowed.
Canada legalized gay marriage and is trying to force the Catholic church to perform them even though they have been steadfast in saying "no", but they would never do the same to the Muslims or Jews, they have the freedom to refuse on religious grounds. Probably no gay couple would even walk into a synagogue or a mosque, but a Catholic church when they get shut down they run to the "Human Rights" court about it.
Aemma
03-02-2011, 04:55 AM
Good grief. Can people not just have an opinion on a still-controversial issue without it meaning anything more than it is just an opinion on a still-controversial issue?
The world has become stupid.
Grumpy Cat
03-02-2011, 04:55 AM
Good grief. Can people not just have an opinion on a still-controversial issue without it meaning anything more than it is just an opinion on a still-controversial issue?
The world has become stupid.
Don't you know PC is gospel??? :coffee:
Seriously, these people volunteered to give unfortunate kids a healthy home and they were shut down. Now you never know what kind of whackjob foster home those kids will end up in.
Debaser11
03-02-2011, 04:58 AM
Yeah, the whole "human rights" crap is a scam. Not that I'm against every cause they believe in, but the whole idea of such "rights" (such as the "right" to an education, the right to the same goodies as other people who worked for them, the "right" to not be offended, the "right" to equal anything (aside from equal protection under the law)) is so completely bogus. But dumb people really seem to latch onto "human rights" wholesale.
The concept is a perversion of natural law which seems to rest on much more legitmate ground.
Aemma
03-02-2011, 04:59 AM
Don't you know PC is gospel??? :coffee:
Seriously, these people volunteered to give unfortunate kids a healthy home and they were shut down. Now you never know what kind of whackjob foster home those kids will end up in.
I know. And it's seriously disturbing!
Modern secular culture is largely hostile to Christianity to begin with, yet it pretends to be tolerant and understanding or all. Diversity of opinion, unless it be a Christian opinion, is important.
What's rather funny is that the couple have been foster parents for close to 20 years, something that the court utterly ignores. Imagine that, trying to instill a bit of morality in a child! Shocking. Christian morality, at that. Even more shocking. :eek:
Well, this is the end result of the counterculture of last century; it's bearing this sort of pathetic result.
Savant
03-02-2011, 05:06 AM
Ahh, but you haven't even covered the special rights you have as a white person. Your "white privilege" is an entirely different set of rights...
NzAein4X37g
Yeah, the whole "human rights" crap is a scam. Not that I'm against every cause they believe in, but the whole idea of such "rights" (such as the "right" to an education, the "right" to not be offended, the "right" to equal anything (aside from equal protection under the law)) is so completely bogus. But dumb people really seem to latch onto "human rights" wholesale.
The concept is a perversion of natural law which seems to rest on much more legitmate ground.
Aemma
03-02-2011, 05:10 AM
Yeah, the whole "human rights" crap is a scam. Not that I'm against every cause they believe in, but the whole idea of such "rights" (such as the "right" to an education, the "right" to not be offended, the "right" to equal anything (aside from equal protection under the law)) is so completely bogus. But dumb people really seem to latch onto "human rights" wholesale.
The problem is it's not what one may typically think of as "dumb people" who believe in these notions being sancrosanct. Many that I know are not only well-meaning but they're also well educated! Hell *I* used to be one of them! :(
But I do agree with you D11. I have come to realise that there's a whole lot more scamming happening in that "human rights" arena than some of us ever realised, me for one. Funny (and sad) how notions which might have had good intentions in the beginning have only come back to bite us all in the bum.
Óttar
03-02-2011, 05:10 AM
Abrahamism should be regarded as a mental illness.
Debaser11
03-02-2011, 05:11 AM
Yeah. I spent too much time on the Huffington Post today asking a bunch of liberal crybabies what sort of inherent priviledge I have over non-whites. They could only respond with ad hominems and non sequiturs. It's insane. The idea of someone helping out whites (a private scholarship) was offensive to these people.
Christianity needs to have more vocal defenders. I was always a pretty lousy Christian, but these days I'm finding it easier to defend Christianity even if I don't really have any major attachment to its beliefs and religious institutions.
Why? Christianity is one of the foundations of the Occident, and here you have people chopping Christianity into pieces, laying the axe to the root as it were, so as to bring about the creation of the synagogue of satan (or whatever you want to call it, the new world order is another term of choice).
A Christian couple wanting to adopt children should be applauded not punished by a verminous court.
Take away Christianity and replace it with what? Well, this story is your answer.
Debaser11
03-02-2011, 05:21 AM
The problem is it's not what one may typically think of as "dumb people" who believe in these notions being sancrosanct. Many that I know are not only well-meaning but they're also well educated! Hell *I* used to be one of them! :(
But I do agree with you D11. I have come to realise that there's a whole lot more scamming happening in that "human rights" arena than some of us ever realised, me for one. Funny (and sad) how notions which might have had good intentions in the beginning have only come back to bite us all in the bum.
Oh, believe me. I don't doubt that they are educated. In fact, I'd suspect most white people who think about "human rights" are the educated ones. There's a greater propensity to think in such a backward manner regarding these political topics if you are "educated." (This is particularly true if you're a liberal arts/humanities major.) I used to be "educated" in the complete sense of the word, too. But our education system (within the whole West) is one big indoctrination system. That much is apparent by the number of like opinions that come out of universities regarding very complex issues along with the propensity for "educated" people to resort to ad hominem attacks when someone on the conservative side makes an argument they do not like. It's practically the calling card of the left. I don't think modern liberals even know what an ad hominem even is because so much of their ideology hinges on the idea that character defamation is a valid way to approach an argument.
Obviously, there is common sense to the basic ideas that people expouse on this forum. No one can dispute that. But why do so many people who are "educated" and who are generally very agreeable and well-meaning people believe what they believe to our collective dismay? The answer is that they never get to hear our side. The people representing our side are always men with white hoods over their faces burning black churches or something. They never get to take a college course where a professor is making our types of arguments--pro-Western arguments. And chances are by the time they do hear an echo of our point of view, years of brainwashing has rendered them incapable of even trying to see the logic of our side. They'll immediately skip over argument and begin with the usual character defamation.
Muslims are allowed to be homophobic. Don't you know? Only Christians are not allowed.
Canada legalized gay marriage and is trying to force the Catholic church to perform them even though they have been steadfast in saying "no", but they would never do the same to the Muslims or Jews, they have the freedom to refuse on religious grounds. Probably no gay couple would even walk into a synagogue or a mosque, but a Catholic church when they get shut down they run to the "Human Rights" court about it.
- I have never understood why would homosexuals marry in a house of God when its not accepted? Especially when they are not believers of the faith it strucks me as nothing but flamboyant behavior. The law doesn't require people to marry within a Church.
Its amazing that people theese days think they can toy with religion and the words of God and still think of it as legitimate. People are treating the house of God as a mere catering interior to their own needs and wishes.
And its always interesting how the people that are attacking Christianity the most for its "intolerance" are never saying a mere critical word against Islam where Imams openly critisize homosexuality in sharp contrast to the Church today that has been gagged by the state and popular opinion.
ibmaiIGr56w
Beorn
03-02-2011, 11:07 AM
There's the fact I can't stand militant homosexuals.
There's the fact I don't like blacks fostering white children.
But which one annoys me more? There's only one way to find out.
http://cdn.caughtoffside.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Harry-Hill-Fight-AP-WDC5.jpg
Murphy
03-02-2011, 11:16 AM
This was always going to happen.. especially after the Catholic adoption agencies shut down because they refused to allow homosexuals to adopt. The signs are everywhere.
And its always interesting how the people that are attacking Christianity the most for its "intolerance" are never saying a mere critical word against Islam where Imams openly critisize homosexuality in sharp contrast to the Church today that has been gagged by the state and popular opinion.
ibmaiIGr56w
Where Muslims openly threaten homos, that is. Christians tend to criticize, unless they're like the ghoulish Fred Phelps.
Murphy
03-02-2011, 11:40 AM
Christians don't condemn homosexuals for being homosexuals. Personally, I don't know if it's learned or if it's something that cannot be helped (genetic etc.). But either way it's the acts themselves that are sinful not the attraction. Even if homosexual attraction is something that cannot be helped deciding on how to act of that attraction can be.
If I find a woman attractive it does not mean I am forced to act on that attraction. I hold homosexuals to the same standard that I hold my self.
Christians don't condemn homosexuals for being homosexuals.
Hate the sin and not the sinner, as the saying goes? :)
p-black
03-12-2011, 01:26 PM
This is a very sad news to hear especially for the Christians. I believe that as Mr and Mrs Johns said, they are willing to love and accept any child, that is why I feel sorry for them because i think there was a misunderstanding in this case. If the couple are willing to give security , stability, care and love for these children then they should not be deprived of such privilege.
Thorum
03-12-2011, 10:14 PM
"The grandparents have already fostered 15 children..."
Wow, how did I miss this bit of good news? They should be prevented from adopting!! I wonder if the 15 children were taught about all religions, myths and non-religious beliefs and allowed to decide which suits them?
Any guesses?
Norbert
03-13-2011, 04:11 AM
Muslims are allowed to be homophobic. Don't you know? Only Christians are not allowed
You mean White Christians.
Debaser11
03-13-2011, 06:53 AM
"The grandparents have already fostered 15 children..."
Wow, how did I miss this bit of good news? They should be prevented from adopting!! I wonder if the 15 children were taught about all religions, myths and non-religious beliefs and allowed to decide which suits them?
Any guesses?
So your religion of secular humanism is superior to one that has been tried for over two thousand years? I really don't understand where someone like you comes off implying that because someone is Christian and wants to pass such values and traditions on to another generation that they should be disqualified from adopting.
What is wrong with being a Christian? Notice I didn't ask you "what's wrong with discouraging free thought?" or "what's wrong with myopic fundamentalism?" but simply "what's wrong with being a Christian?" as if being one in and of itself is some kind of liability rather than a source of personal strength.
I get it. You only want children to be taught what YOU believe.
How convenient and non-hypocritical of you. *sarcasm off*
Do you think religion is some accessory akin to a tattoo? I mean, it baffles me that people who I take to be interested in Western preservation would be so hostile to a value system that has sustained Europe for so long even if such a system is not their own or the one they find to be the most optimal.
So your religion of secular humanism is superior to one that has been tried for over two thousand years? I really don't understand where someone like you comes off implying that because someone is religious and wants to pass those values and traditions on to another generation that they should be disqualified from adopting.
I get it. You only want children to be taught what YOU believe.
How convenient and non-hyocritical of you. *sarcasm off*
Do you think religion is some accessory akin to a tattoo? I mean, it baffles me that "preservationists" would be so hostile to a value system that has sustained Europe for so long.
Putting 4 people in the same hospital bed and using unsterilized needles was also "tried" for a thousand years. In hindsight, Not the best idea, now was it? I can't speak for all atheists, but I for one celebrate Christmas not because of jesus but because it has always been an expression of Europeanism and should be preserved as such. Religion is akin to a tatoo In the sense that once It is ingrained onto someone, it cannot be easily taken off.
Children's brains are very impressionable, very easy to influence. The consequences, on the other hand, are sometimes almost impossible to undo. teach the children basic math, history, grammar, and when they grow old enough to decide, they will do so without anyones help. And if your religion is truly the correct one and if your god is as real as you claim he is, surely you wouldn't need to indoctrinate children. Let them come to the supposed truth of Christianity themselves.
Having grown up in a religiously fundamental home, I understand why such families are unsuitable for foster care. A kid would get the best advantage in life from a religiously neutral or non-religious parents.
Abrahamism should be regarded as a mental illness.
I think religion can cause mental illnesses to develop.
Joe McCarthy
03-13-2011, 08:42 AM
I used to think this sort of thing only happened in Sweden. But it's predictable. 'Tolerance of different views', despite what we may hear to the contrary, is always predicated on those differing views having enough clout to fight off persecution. As Christians become a tiny minority in Europe they can expect to become the new Jews.
I used to think this sort of thing only happened in Sweden. But it's predictable. 'Tolerance of different views', despite what we may hear to the contrary, is always predicated on those differing views having enough clout to fight off persecution. As Christians become a tiny minority in Europe they can expect to become the new Jews.
Considering their common roots, perhaps the two groups should fuse to increase their political clout. But I think even that won't be enough to stem the sweeping tide of rationalism as knowledge increases.
Fortis in Arduis
03-13-2011, 11:08 AM
Considering their common roots, perhaps the two groups should fuse to increase their political clout. But I think even that won't be enough to stem the sweeping tide of rationalism as knowledge increases.
The above religions attempt no explanation of consciousness.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 01:00 PM
You mean White Christians.
The foster parents in the case are black..
Beorn
03-13-2011, 01:25 PM
A kid would get the best advantage in life from a religiously neutral or non-religious parents.
A kid would be better advantaged in being raised by people with no opinions at all.
A kid would be better advantaged in being raised by people with no opinions at all.
That's what I was saying, in effect - with regards to religion. Which is what we're discussing now, isn't it? We're not talking about opinions about whether PS3 or Nintendo Wii are the best.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 01:34 PM
Sorry Loki but I don't think raising a child to believe that he/she is nothing but a clump of cells and his/her worth is only measured in how useful they are to the global economy is the best way to rear a child.
But that's just me.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 01:35 PM
Ps3 is the best
That's only because of MGS 4. PS2 was the best with MGS 3. But the PS3 can play both so it wins.
Beorn
03-13-2011, 01:38 PM
That's what I was saying, in effect - with regards to religion.
But you do have an opinion about religion. Your opinion is negative. You would be conveying a negative opinion towards your children.
But you do have an opinion about religion. Your opinion is negative. You would be conveying a negative opinion towards your children.
I wasn't talking about my opinion. I was referring to neutral parents being the best. Do you understand the meaning of the word "neutral"?
Groenewolf
03-13-2011, 01:42 PM
But I think even that won't be enough to stem the sweeping tide of rationalism as knowledge increases.
So I presume you do not mean rationalism as understood in a philosophical context. But if you do, then I have to ask your opinion about the relation between empiricism and rationalism. Since the two work on different assumptions. Rationalism that truth can not be learned from observation but only from reasoning. And empiricism that truth can be learned from careful observation and that reasoning alone can be flawed.
Sorry Loki but I don't think raising a child to believe that he/she is nothing but a clump of cells and his/her worth is only measured in how useful they are to the global economy is the best way to rear a child.
But that's just me.
Neither do I.
That's only because of MGS 4. PS2 was the best with MGS 3. But the PS3 can play both so it wins.
Honestly, MGS 4 alone is reason enough to get a ps3
So I presume you do not mean rationalism as understood in a philosophical context. But if you do, then I have to ask your opinion about the relation between empiricism and rationalism. Since the two work on different assumptions. Rationalism that truth can not be learned from observation but only from reasoning. And empiricism that truth can be learned from careful observation and that reasoning alone can be flawed.
ra·tion·al·ism
[rash-uh-nl-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2. Philosophy .
a. the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
b (in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.
3. Theology . the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
4. Architecture . ( often initial capital letter )
a. a design movement principally of the mid-19th century that emphasized the development of modern ornament integrated with structure and the decorative use of materials and textures rather than as added adornment.
b. the doctrines and practices of this movement. Compare functionalism ( def. 1 ) .
^^ I'm referring to the first definition.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 01:52 PM
Neither do I.
That's exactly what atheism promotes. Let us not dance around it.
Thorum
03-13-2011, 01:54 PM
That's exactly what atheism promotes. Let us not dance around it.
Atheism promotes nothing. If there were no religions, we would have no need for the term/label Atheist. Religions promote something.
That's exactly what atheism promotes. Let us not dance around it.
I disagree, but this is a strawman since I was not talking about atheism.
Beorn
03-13-2011, 01:58 PM
I wasn't talking about my opinion.
Neither was I.
I was referring to neutral parents being the best. Do you understand the meaning of the word "neutral"?
Of course. But I am of the opinion that in matters of religion and raising a child, neutrality is a word that does not exist.
Groenewolf
03-13-2011, 02:02 PM
Atheism promotes nothing.
So modern atheism does not promote the philosophy that there is only the material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) world?
Neither was I.
Yes you were. You said, and I quote: "But you do have an opinion about religion. Your opinion is negative."
Of course. But I am of the opinion that in matters of religion and raising a child, neutrality is a word that does not exist.
If your opinion is that neutrality does not exist with regards to religion, then you are uninformed or - more likely - religiously biased.
Beorn
03-13-2011, 02:11 PM
If your opinion is that neutrality does not exist with regards to religion, then you are uninformed or - more likely - religiously biased.
Not at all. Just simply parroting what I see.
Nobody is neutral towards religion and raising children.
Not at all. Just simply parroting what I see.
Nobody is neutral towards religion and raising children.
This isn't a matter of neutrality. This is a matter of cultivating In children critical reasoning skills and the desire for knowledge. I see religion as a direct obstacle to that. If jesus died for your sins and you're already saved, what's the point in reading further philosophy, history, and psychology, especially when much of it is so complicated and the bible is so simple?
But if you call observable reality and the scientific method a bias, then yes, I am an extremely "biased" person.
So modern atheism does not promote the philosophy that there is only the material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) world?
A common misconception. You see, atheism cannot promote something. It has no, tenets, no doctrines, no commandments, and no requirements.
Atheism makes no assertions. Atheism doesn't say "there is no god". Atheism merely points out that right now there is no good reason to believe in one. That may change in the future, and it very well may not.
Would you consider not-smoking to be a habit, or not riding your bicycle to be a sport? Of course not. Religion is something because it makes certain positive claims. Atheism does not make a single positive claim
Atheism doesn't say "there is no god".
At least in part, it certainly does/can, according to all the definitions that I've encountered, such as that of the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Likewise, the Cambridge dictionary lists this definition for 'atheist':
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
The definition of 'atheism' found at dictionary.com is essentially the same:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
I think merriam Webster and dictionary.com have it right. It is a disbelief, or a non belief. You see, philosophy and religion operate on positive statements, which in turn become beliefs. Disbelief in god is not a positive statement because there are no assertions in it. Religion makes assertions. Atheism simply doubts them, but does not make any assertions of it's own. Like i said, a disbelief is not an assertion, but a negation of an assertion.
Sorry for being so ineloquent, I hope you kind of get my point. I think about these things in Russian, so I kind of have translate it in my head.
At least in part, it certainly does/can, according to all the definitions that I've encountered, such as that of the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Likewise, the Cambridge dictionary lists this definition for 'atheist':
The definition of 'atheism' found at dictionary.com is essentially the same:
Christians like to portray atheism as a religion, as a mocking way of throwing back criticism. It is lame. But more importantly, can they apply the same arguments to the term "non-religious"?
I think merriam Webster and dictionary.com have it right. It is a disbelief, or a non belief.
Both of these definitions include one that makes an assertion:
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
Disbelief in god is not a positive statement because there are no assertions in it. Religion makes assertions. Atheism simply doubts them, but does not make any assertions of it's own. Like i said, a disbelief is not an assertion, but a negation of an assertion.
The above definitions agree that the term 'atheism' can refer to either the assertion that a god/gods does not/do not exist, or to disbelief in said god/gods.
This situation is one readily accepted in atheist circles, members of which regularly make the distinction between negative and positive forms of atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism).
Sorry for being so ineloquent, I hope you kind of get my point. I think about these things in Russian, so I kind of have translate it in my head.
You were not ineloquent at all, you were simply wrong. Your blanket statement that 'atheism does not ... ' is wrong according to dictionary definition and self-described atheist usage.
Christians like to portray atheism as a religion, as a mocking way of throwing back criticism. It is lame. But more importantly, can they apply the same arguments to the term "non-religious"?
According to the definitions I've referenced, they could/do overlap, in that one can be simultaneously non-religious and an atheist. Given the two different meanings that 'atheism' can have though, it's best to maintain a distinction in general usage - I've encountered people that strongly stress that they are not atheists but are non-religious/irreligious/have no religion.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 03:16 PM
Loki atheism is a religion. This is common knowledge.
Atheism promotes nothing.
Atheism promotes nothingness not nothing.
I see religion as a direct obstacle to that.
Order of Preachers, meet Emil. Emil, meet the Order of Preachers.
If jesus died for your sins and you're already saved, what's the point in reading further philosophy, history, and psychology, especially when much of it is so complicated and the bible is so simple?
This is why you shouldn't listen to Protestants. They give you funny ideas. Christ died for our salvation this is true but we are not automatically "saved". Salvation is a work in progress. I was saved, I am being saved and I will be saved in the future.
And philosophy, history and psychology can all play crucial parts in that process though I for one believe the best answer is simplicity. I can read Aquinas on the Trinity (and enjoy it at that! I do like understanding things deeper) but for me it's enough that the Church says so.
According to the definitions I've referenced, they could/do overlap, in that one can be simultaneously non-religious and an atheist. Given the two different meanings that 'atheism' can have though, it's best to maintain a distinction in general usage - I've encountered people that strongly stress that they are not atheists but are non-religious/irreligious/have no religion.
It is interesting that Christians insist on self-identifying, but atheists and/or other non-religionists are not allowed to do so. But that does not surprise me. Christian thinking originates from a presumably elevated moral position - i.e. arrogance.
Jägerstaffel
03-13-2011, 03:18 PM
Loki atheism is a religion. This is common knowledge.
Atheism promotes nothingness not nothing.
It is a common lie that Christians spread.
And atheism does not promote anything. All atheism is, is a lack of a thing. That is it. There is nothing else. No doctrine. No requirements. No tradition. Just a lack of godbelief.
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 03:22 PM
Atheism promotes nothing. If there were no religions, we would have no need for the term/label Atheist. Religions promote something.
And atheism does not promote anything.
Sure it does. The humanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) variant promotes the, IMO fallacious, idea that there is an ontological bifurcation between humanity and the world. The naturalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29) variant promotes the, IMO fallacious, notion of strong determinism.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 03:24 PM
It is a common lie that Christians spread.
Please do not call me a liar. I would not name you a liar. Ignorant perhaps but not a liar. That would be uncharitable ;).
I'm sorry but the days where atheism was simply a non-belief in God is no long true. In the modern world atheism is a religion with priests, ceremonies and evangelisation programs. It's a religion.
Sure it does. The humanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) variant promotes the, IMO fallacious, idea that there is an ontological bifurcation between humanity and the world. The naturalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29) variant promotes the, IMO fallacious, notion of strong determinism.
What Thorum suggests is that atheism only exists in conjunction with religion - as a way of distancing itself from religious thinking. If religion did not exist, there would have been no need for atheism.
It is interesting that Christians insist on self-identifying, but atheists and/or other non-religionists are not allowed to do so.
Not allowed? In what way are they not allowed?
Not allowed? In what way are they not allowed?
By Christians. You guys insists on defining what atheism is to us who are not religious, in order for you to have an easier way of attacking us.
As for myself - I consider myself to be an atheist. I have no dogma. I do not think about God, or about the lack of him in my life. I just don't think about gods at all. It's not part of my life. I attend no religious ceremonies and don't have holy books that I read religiously. I don't think I could be accused of belonging to a religion. Could I?
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 03:35 PM
What Thorum suggests is that atheism only exists in conjunction with religion - as a way of distancing itself from religious thinking. If religion did not exist, there would have been no need for atheism.
Yeah, but it's still a doxic position. As such, it carries just as much metaphysical baggage as does any religion. This is not, in an of itself, a bad thing. But it's extremely disingenuous to, as the New Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism) do, to position Atheism as being somehow qualitatively different than any other doxa. In the 2,500 year history of atheistic philosophy, it was always recognized as a position of the same order as its theistic cousins. The denial of this is what tends to incense us philosophy types, since it's a baseless claim that's just riddled with holes.
Jägerstaffel
03-13-2011, 03:35 PM
I'm with Loki on this.
Theists tend to look for reasons to fit me to a religion because it is easier for them to say that I have chosen the wrong religion over the One True Religion. However, my lack of godbelief is not a defining characteristic of my life or how I conduct myself. I do not attend any religious ceremonies, proselytize, or consider god in my daily life. To call my position a religion is a massive stretch of the imagination.
Jägerstaffel
03-13-2011, 03:37 PM
Please do not call me a liar. I would not name you a liar. Ignorant perhaps but not a liar. That would be uncharitable ;).
.
Calling a spade a spade is not an insult.
Yeah, but it's still a doxic position. As such, it carries just as much metaphysical baggage as does any religion. This is not, in an of itself, a bad thing. But it's extremely disingenuous to, as the New Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism) do, to position Atheism as being somehow qualitatively different than any other doxa. In the 2,500 year history of atheistic philosophy, it was always recognized as a position of the same order as its theistic cousins. The denial of this is what tends to incense us philosophy types, since it's a baseless claim that's just riddled with holes.
Perhaps by our theistic cousins? Hence we come back to the point that I raised earlier - that of religionists not allowing atheists any self-identification. I do not know of any atheists who call themselves religionists. This idea comes exclusively from religionists.
By Christians. You guys insists on defining what atheism is to us who are not religious, in order for you to have an easier way of attacking us.
You'll have to take up what other individuals say with those individuals when they say it. 'You guys do such and such' means absolutely nothing. Some Christians (and some non-Christians of other religions) do positively define 'atheism' as a religion. Some don't. If any person wishes to self-identify as an atheist, and doesn't like the way that they are 'attacked' in response to said self-identification then that is their issue and, I suppose, they should simply go about refuting it.
All I've done in this thread is give dictionary definitions of 'atheism' and 'atheist' (both of the former stating that atheism is a 'doctrine). They aren't Christian definitions.
As for myself - I consider myself to be an atheist. I have no dogma. I do not think about God, or about the lack of him in my life. I just don't think about gods at all. It's not part of my life. I attend no religious ceremonies and don't have holy books that I read religiously. I don't think I could be accused of belonging to a religion. Could I?
There are negative and positive forms of atheism, which I've referenced. It's not uncommon to find atheists attempting to bring non-atheists to their way of thinking, and a number of atheist societies exist throughout the world. Such activities (proselytism, the formation of societies etc.) could probably be called aspects of a religion.
But I'm not here to provide definitions of atheism or religion myself, I merely demonstrated that by definition - dictionary definition that is, I didn't share my own position - Emil Episkov was wrong in his claims.
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 03:53 PM
Perhaps by our theistic cousins? Hence we come back to the point that I raised earlier - that of religionists not allowing atheists any self-identification. I do not know of any atheists who call themselves religionists. This idea comes exclusively from religionists.
It's just that you're proposing a taxonomic division that isn't widely accepted by philosophers. The doxological division into two oppositional camps of religionist and atheist is not one that was made by the pre-Socratic atheists 2,500 years ago. It's not to say that the distinction between a theist and an atheist is trivial, or that they are the same thing. But rather, it's silly to propose this one issue as some kind of fundamental divide that makes atheism qualitatively different from theistic thought. It would be just as silly to start railing against empiricists is you were a rationalist, or against deontologists if you're a consequentialist, or against realists if you're a nominalist. Yes, the positions are different. But no, the holding of one does not place the holder in some special category that enables him to be completely bereft of doxa and dogma. The belief in X is arrived at by a particular train of thought. Whatever X is, be a belief that Cthulhu will buttfuck the world or that Jesus is your savior, it is still a position. Just because the atheist position is that there is no God, this does not somehow make it a fundamentally distinct position from all others. It is still the holding of a belief that was arrived at by a method similar to those who hold the contrary position.
Both of these definitions include one that makes an assertion:
The above definitions agree that the term 'atheism' can refer to either the assertion that a god/gods does not/do not exist, or to disbelief in said god/gods.
This situation is one readily accepted in atheist circles, members of which regularly make the distinction between negative and positive forms of atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism).
You were not ineloquent at all, you were simply wrong. Your blanket statement that 'atheism does not ... ' is wrong according to dictionary definition and self-described atheist usage.
According to the definitions I've referenced, they could/do overlap, in that one can be simultaneously non-religious and an atheist. Given the two different meanings that 'atheism' can have though, it's best to maintain a distinction in general usage - I've encountered people that strongly stress that they are not atheists but are non-religious/irreligious/have no religion.
you are correct, there are different types of atheists. I apologize for not memtioning it myself. Some atheists do dogmatically believe that they know for a fact that there is no god. You and and I coukd both agree that they are wrong. I don't claim to speak for all atheists.
Rather, the position that I and perhaps some others hold is that so far, no good reasons for belief have been presented. This is the position that I hold as an atheist, and for me, thats all that atheism is.
You'll have to take up what other individuals say with those individuals when they say it. 'You guys do such and such' means absolutely nothing. Some Christians (and some non-Christians of other religions) do positively define 'atheism' as a religion. Some don't. If any person wishes to self-identify as an atheist, and doesn't like the way that they are 'attacked' in response to said self-identification then that is their issue and, I suppose, they should simply go about refuting it.
The problem is that religionists are often incapable of rational debate. They work from a position of certainty, whereas atheists are always open to new ideas - if they can be proven. Atheists maintain that there is no proof of any supernatural deity or afterlife.
All I've done in this thread is give dictionary definitions of atheism, two of which state that atheism is a 'doctrine.' They aren't Christian definitions.
Doctrine is not necessarily the same as religion. If it had said religious doctrine, then you'd have been on to something. But as it stands you haven't proven anything with those dictionary definitions.
Aside from the you-are-a-religion slur, do you have any other arguments against rational thinking?
Jägerstaffel
03-13-2011, 03:58 PM
There are negative and positive forms of atheism, as I've shown (or rather as atheists themselves have shown, but that I have referenced). It's not uncommon to find atheists attempting to bring non-atheists to their way of thinking, and a number of atheist societies exist throughout the world. Such activities (proselytism, the formation of societies etc.) could probably be called aspects of a religion.
If you are referring to communism, it's a leap of logic. Communism promotes atheism and represses religion because religion can be used as a source of power and control.
Some atheists do attempt to sway theists to their viewpoint, but those that do - do it on their own. There is no credo of evangelism that they must adhere to.
To define atheism as weak or strong/negative or positive misses the point. Atheism is just that. Lack of theism. It doesn't necessitate anything else. Those that try to force it into a religion (even the atheists that try) are forcing a round peg into a square hole.
It's just that you're proposing a taxonomic division that isn't widely accepted by philosophers. The doxological division into two oppositional camps of religionist and atheist is not one that was made by the pre-Socratic atheists 2,500 years ago. It's not to say that the distinction between a theist and an atheist is trivial, or that they are the same thing.
We can play around with the definitions of words, but it is telling that religionists seem to have only this one trick going when debating with non-religionists. It's like a silver bullet that they assume will demolish all credibility of non-religionists. It doesn't. :)
Loki atheism is a religion. This is common knowledge.
Atheism promotes nothingness not nothing.
Order of Preachers, meet Emil. Emil, meet the Order of Preachers.
This is why you shouldn't listen to Protestants. They give you funny ideas. Christ died for our salvation this is true but we are not automatically "saved". Salvation is a work in progress. I was saved, I am being saved and I will be saved in the future.
And philosophy, history and psychology can all play crucial parts in that process though I for one believe the best answer is simplicity. I can read Aquinas on the Trinity (and enjoy it at that! I do like understanding things deeper) but for me it's enough that the Church says so.
Well, I went to Presbyterian high school where the basic idea is that salvation happens in an instant, and once it does, you are saved for certain. They would claim that someone who has not had this experience isn't truly saved at all and will go to hell. And I confess i am not familiar with this order of preachers. It sounds rather unpleasant, however.
All I know is that influencing children to think a certain way before they have the ability to think for themselves is cheap at best and intellectually dishonest
The problem is that religionists are often incapable of rational debate. They work from a position of certainty, whereas atheists are always open to new ideas - if they can be proven. Atheists maintain that there is no proof of any supernatural deity or afterlife.
Whatever you believe about religionists and their debating capabilities, that's none of my concern. I'm not here to defend religionists.
Doctrine is not necessarily the same as religion. If it had said religious doctrine, then you'd have been on to something.
I was making an observation, I didn't here positively assert that atheism is a religion (I'll get back to this later in the post).
But as it stands you haven't proven anything with those dictionary definitions.
I have shown that this claim:
Atheism makes no assertions. Atheism doesn't say "there is no god".
Is false.
Aside from the you-are-a-religion slur
I did not say this and you are fully aware that I did not say this.
In case someone should stumble upon this thread and read your false claim, I'll quote myself:
There are negative and positive forms of atheism, which I've referenced. It's not uncommon to find atheists attempting to bring non-atheists to their way of thinking, and a number of atheist societies exist throughout the world. Such activities (proselytism, the formation of societies etc.) could probably be called aspects of a religion.
I do not believe that atheism is a religion. I used to, once upon a time, but I have recanted this position and have not maintained it in this thread, as is clear for all to see.
Now, as I said, I don't believe that atheism is a religion on the basis of its definition including the word 'doctrine.' But this itself isn't actually of any importance whatsoever - I wished to (and did) point out Emil's error. That's all. As I've already said, I didn't come here to give my own definition of atheism (or any other word).
do you have any other arguments against rational thinking?
I haven't made any arguments against rational thinking.
If you are referring to communism, it's a leap of logic. Communism promotes atheism and represses religion because religion can be used as a source of power and control.
I was not referring to Communism.
Some atheists do attempt to sway theists to their viewpoint, but those that do - do it on their own. There is no credo of evangelism that they must adhere to.
To define atheism as weak or strong/negative or positive misses the point. Atheism is just that. Lack of theism. It doesn't necessitate anything else. Those that try to force it into a religion (even the atheists that try) are forcing a round peg into a square hole.
According to definition, atheism has two distinct meanings. If you claim that 'atheism' doesn't necessitate anything other than a 'lack of theism' and that the positive/negative atheist distinction misses the point then you are disagreeing with those definitions and that distinction - which is fine.
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 04:18 PM
We can play around with the definitions of words, but it is telling that religionists seem to have only this one trick going when debating with non-religionists. It's like a silver bullet that they assume will demolish all credibility of non-religionists. It doesn't. :)
I think you misunderstand me. :)
I don't seek to demolish the credibility of atheism. Indeed, some of the most interesting modern thinkers (Bert Russell, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, etc.) were explicitly atheistic. The attack upon the epistemological high horse that the New Atheists put themselves up on is no silver bullet. It's just the necessary first step needed for real discourse to begin—otherwise, the NA just sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "la la la you're irrational." :D
To pretend that rationalism, for instance, is the exclusive property of the atheistic conclusion makes debate impossible. This is not something that even most contemporary atheistic philosophers do (not since the death of logical positivism), yet it is something that pop atheists seem to be fond of.
I think you misunderstand me. :)
I don't seek to demolish the credibility of atheism. Indeed, some of the most interesting modern thinkers (Bert Russell, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, etc.) were explicitly atheistic. The attack upon the epistemological high horse that the New Atheists put themselves up on is no silver bullet. It's just the necessary first step needed for real discourse to begin—otherwise, the NA just sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "la la la you're irrational." :D
To pretend that rationalism, for instance, is the exclusive property of the atheistic conclusion makes debate impossible. This is not something that even most contemporary atheistic philosophers do (not since the death of logical positivism), yet it is something that pop atheists seem to be fond of.
Out of curiosity, would you consider Christopher hitchens as part of the TA movement?
To pretend that rationalism, for instance, is the exclusive property of the atheistic conclusion makes debate impossible. This is not something that even most contemporary atheistic philosophers do (not since the death of logical positivism), yet it is something that pop atheists seem to be fond of.
There is method in the madness. Surely one cannot consider a position rational that maintains a holy book-based tenet, regardless of evidence to the contrary (or lack of proof)? Religionists - especially Christians and Muslims - do not allow critical scrutiny of their most holy beliefs.
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 04:23 PM
Out of curiosity, would you consider Christopher hitchens as part of the TA NA movement?
Of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism) course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_hitchens):
Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens describes himself as an antitheist...
Jägerstaffel
03-13-2011, 04:23 PM
According to definition, atheism has two distinct meanings. If you claim that 'atheism' doesn't necessitate anything other than a 'lack of theism' and that the positive/negative atheist distinction misses the point then you are disagreeing with those definitions and that distinction - which is fine.
I am only disagreeing with the connotations of one of those definitions, actually. No worries, though.
I do not believe that atheism is a religion. I used to, once upon a time, but I have recanted this position and have not maintained it in this thread, as is clear for all to see.
I misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing up the confusion. :)
Murphy
03-13-2011, 04:27 PM
Well, I went to Presbyterian high school where the basic idea is that salvation happens in an instant, and once it does, you are saved for certain. They would claim that someone who has not had this experience isn't truly saved at all and will go to hell.
Keep in mind when criticising Christianity that if you want genuine Christian teaching you must look to the Catholic and "Orthodox" Churches.
And I confess i am not familiar with this order of preachers. It sounds rather unpleasant, however.
You may know them as the Dominicans. They have the honour to boast of Saint Thomas Aquinas as being a part of their great heritage. I am sure you are familiar with Aquinas.
All I know is that influencing children to think a certain way before they have the ability to think for themselves is cheap at best and intellectually dishonest
Right so the next time I see a toddler sticking a fork in the electrical socket I'll just let him learn the truth of the matter on his own?
Jägerstaffel
03-13-2011, 04:28 PM
Right so the next time I see a toddler sticking a fork in the electrical socket I'll just let him learn the truth of the matter on his own?
The difference is that you can prove that you will experience a shock by doing that. Come on now Murphy, don't start that argument.
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 04:29 PM
There is method in the madness. Surely one cannot consider a position rational that maintains a holy book-based tenet, regardless of evidence to the contrary (or lack of proof)? Religionists - especially Christians and Muslims - do not allow critical scrutiny of their most holy beliefs.
*sigh*
You're falling into Dawkins' favorite tactic. Religious retards that consider their holy texts to be literally true are not even worth arguing with. And, to demolish their obviously wrong ideas is not to make an argument against religion; it is to make an argument against religious fundamentalism, which is something entirely different than religiosity in general. The great majority of religious thinkers for the last two millennia have not, recognizing it as an argumentum ad baculum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum), rooted their arguments in textual authority. Funnily enough, most theistic philosohpers were rationalists, and based their arguments on the rationalist thesis that reality is better understood through pure cogitation than through empirical observation. There are plenty of empirically based theologies as well, but rationalism wins out by a good bit.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 04:30 PM
The difference is that you can prove that you will experience a shock by doing that. Come on now Murphy, don't start that argument.
And the existence of God can be rationally realised. You can prove His existence as well.
Jägerstaffel
03-13-2011, 04:32 PM
Do tell.
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 04:35 PM
Do tell.
Here's one of the most popular families of arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument).
Keep in mind when criticising Christianity that if you want genuine Christian teaching you must look to the Catholic and "Orthodox" Churches.
I'm sure the Protestants dont feel that way
You may know them as the Dominicans. They have the honour to boast of Saint Thomas Aquinas as being a part of their great heritage. I am sure you are familiar with Aquinas.
I am. I read his works and I am unimpressed
Right so the next time I see a toddler sticking a fork in the electrical socket I'll just let him learn the truth of the matter on his own?
you are correlating freedom of thought with sticking a fork in the electrical socket? Freedom of thought lets you make mature, responsible choices for yourself. Sticking a fork in the socket gets you killed. Going back to my original point, if you are so confident that your god is real then why do you insist on shoving down him childrens throats? If he he as real as you claim he is, surely people are more than capable of finding that out for themselves
Jägerstaffel
03-13-2011, 04:38 PM
That to prove the single most important element of the universe requires that we engage in mental gymnastics is telling enough.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 04:38 PM
Here's one of the most popular families of arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument).
Heresy! Cosmological argument FTW!
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/2327/burningheretics12328284.jpg
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 04:40 PM
That to prove the single most important element of the universe requires that we engage in mental gymnastics is telling enough.
The same "mental gymnastics" are required to prove just about any position. Philosophical proof is a rigorous process regardless of the object of analysis.
Murphy
03-13-2011, 04:40 PM
you are correlating freedom of thought with sticking a fork in the electrical socket? Freedom of thought lets you make mature, responsible choices for yourself. Sticking a fork in the socket gets you killed. Going back to my original point, if you are so confident that your god is real then why do you insist on shoving down him childrens throats? If he he as real as you claim he is, surely people are more than capable of finding that out for themselves
Because men have immortal souls and caring for those souls is important. Parents have a duty to cater to the needs of their children both body and soul and instruction on the Truth Faith is vital to the health of the soul.
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 04:44 PM
Heresy! Cosmological argument FTW!
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/2327/burningheretics12328284.jpg
Pfft! Just what I would expect from Thomistic trash like you... :rolleyes2:
;)
Here's one of the most popular families of arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument).
Can't one use the ontological argument to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot?
Loddfafner
03-13-2011, 07:28 PM
I think it is cruel and unnecessary to argue against religious faith. To show someone who depends on the illusions of faith that Jesus and God are imaginary is like telling someone else's child that Santa Claus isn't real.
Joe McCarthy
03-13-2011, 09:30 PM
I think it is cruel and unnecessary to argue against religious faith. To show someone who depends on the illusions of faith that Jesus and God are imaginary is like telling someone else's child that Santa Claus isn't real.
Maistre made basically the same argument. Essentially the evangelists of the Encyclopédie were attempting to deprive people of the only thing that could possibly provide comfort in a cruel world. But the death of God has had other, negative effects that amount to a much more wide ranging social cataclysm.
CelticTemplar
03-13-2011, 11:00 PM
Worried about being "infected" with Christian values? Infected? How about you go infect youself with AIDS and shut the hell up.
How about not having our children infected with perverted liberal-marxist homosexuality.
If they had said this to a muzzie, the imams would be up in arms, marching up and down London, bawling at the evil wicked British "racists".
Joe McCarthy
03-13-2011, 11:08 PM
Worried about being "infected" with Christian values? Infected? How about you go infect youself with AIDS and shut the hell up.
How about not having our children infected with perverted liberal-marxist homosexuality.
If they had said this to a muzzie they would be up in arms, marching up and down London, bawling at the evil wicked British "racists".
Yeah, well, that's how this stuff ALWAYS works. First the secularists badger the Christians for being intolerant, and once they succeed in marginalizing the Christians, they immediately start repressing them, thus proving to be intolerant themselves. Much the same is occurring with feminism. Now that women outnumber men in universities, feminists have nothing to say about the lack of 'equality' of the matter.
Reading Pareto provides much illumination here in looking at society as a matter of elites battling insurgent forces. Essentially those who decry the injustice of any order are merely using a mask to supplant the present elite. This can be applied to everything from race, to religious, to gender relations. No surprise that Muslims are big on the discrimination card now. ;)
Psychonaut
03-13-2011, 11:11 PM
Can't one use the ontological argument to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot?
You can do that with Anselm's original formulation. The so-called overload objection was, in fact, the first methodical objection to the OA. It doesn't work with later variants, which are far more subtle, but, for fun, here's an ontological argument for the existence of bigfoot (following Plantinga's formalization of the OA):
1. Bigfoot exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
3. A being having all of Bigfoot's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
4. A being having all of Bigfoot's properties plus existence in reality is of greater hariness than Bigfoot. (From (1) and (2).)
5. A being of greater hariness than Bigfoot can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
6. It is false that a being of greater hariness than Bigfoot can be conceived. (From definition of “Bigfoot”.)
7. Hence, it is false that Bigfoot exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)
8. Bigfoot exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)
9. Hence Bigfoot exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)
Debaser11
03-14-2011, 02:44 AM
Putting 4 people in the same hospital bed and using unsterilized needles was also "tried" for a thousand years. In hindsight, Not the best idea, now was it? I can't speak for all atheists, but I for one celebrate Christmas not because of jesus but because it has always been an expression of Europeanism and should be preserved as such.
Your analogy is pretty loaded and unsubstantiated, in fairness. For one thing, you're not showing how religion is like an unsterilized needle at all. There's just this implied assumption that religion is bad for some reason.
A gun in the right hands can be used as a force for good. But in the wrong hands it can become a force for evil. In much the same way,
religion, depending on the religious doctrine, how it's interpreted, and the nature of a person in question who is religious can all determine the difference between whether something translates to good or evil. It's not a simple matter between religious people= bad and non-religious people= good that you're making it out to be.
And I'm not telling you how to celebrate Christmas. I'm not a Christian myself. But you're not going to get the same thing out of such a holiday if you have no reverence for the Christian traditions.
Religion is akin to a tatoo In the sense that once It is ingrained onto someone, it cannot be easily taken off.
You misunderstood my previous analogy. Religion is not an accessory like some of the people on this forum treat it. It's a holistic system. A tattoo is much easier to remove than religion. Why is religion being hard to "take off" a bad thing? Would you rather all people be fickle like secular types?
Children's brains are very impressionable, very easy to influence. The consequences, on the other hand, are sometimes almost impossible to undo.
Again, there is a loaded and unsubstantiated implication in your reasoning. You assume that someone raised on Christian values is being damaged while at the same time also assuming that a person raised in a relatively valueless secular household is not being damaged.
teach the children basic math, history, grammar, and when they grow old enough to decide, they will do so without anyones help.
I don't need your advice concerning how to raise my future children.
And if your religion is truly the correct one and if your god is as real as you claim he is,
Where did I claim God was real?
All I did was defend Christianity and Christian values. You're the one who thinks literal "realness" is so important. Religious beliefs by defintion are beliefs in the unknowable and the unprovable. They require faith.
surely you wouldn't need to indoctrinate children. Let them come to the supposed truth of Christianity themselves.
Not teaching them any religion and just going with the current values promulgated into today's society is indoctrinating them with secular values by default. There's no way to avoid any sort of indoctrination. Either way, you're instilling a belief system into them. I'd rather them have a moral compass that's based on something instead of human whim like secular dingbats seem to base their morality on.
These types of conservations are usually way over an atheist's head. When a culture thinks they can know truth (or even the nature of truth) so easily that faith and belief in something greater become irrelevant or passe, you get the problems that the modern West faces.
Your analogy is pretty loaded and unsubstantiated, in fairness. For one thing, you're not showing how religion is like an unsterilized needle at all. There's just this implied assumption that religion is bad for some reason.
A gun in the right hands can be used as a force for good. But in the wrong hands it can become a force for evil. In much the same way,
religion, depending on the religious doctrine, how it's interpreted, and the nature of a person in question who is religious can all determine the difference between whether something translates to good or evil. It's not a simple matter between religious people= bad and non-religious people= good that you're making it out to be.
And I'm not telling you how to celebrate Christmas. I'm not a Christian myself. But you're not going to get the same thing out of such a holiday if you have no reverence for the Christian traditions.
You misunderstood my previous analogy. Religion is not an accessory like some of the people on this forum treat it. It's a holistic system. A tattoo is much easier to remove than religion. Why is religion being hard to "take off" a bad thing? Would you rather all people be fickle like secular types?
Again, there is a loaded and unsubstantiated implication in your reasoning. You assume that someone raised on Christian values is being damaged while at the same time also assuming that a person raised in a relatively valueless secular household is not being damaged.
I don't need your advice concerning how to raise my future children.
Where did I claim God was real?
All I did was defend Christianity and Christian values. You're the one who thinks literal "realness" is so important. Religious beliefs by defintion are beliefs in the unknowable and the unprovable. They require faith.
Not teaching them any religion and just going with the current values promulgated into today's society is indoctrinating them with secular values by default. There's no way to avoid any sort of indoctrination. Either way, you're instilling a belief system into them. I'd rather them have a moral compass that's based on something instead of human whim like secular dingbats seem to base their morality on.
These types of conservations are usually way over an atheist's head. When a culture thinks they can know truth (or even the nature of truth) so easily that faith and belief in something greater become irrelevant or passe, you get the problems that the modern West faces.
First of all, this isn't a matter of Christianity being good or bad. I simply believe that religion should not be taught to children at all. If there is an atheist who who shoves secularism ( especially the american liberal kind) down his childrens throats, I'm just as much against that. I believe that any responsible parent needs to sit his children down at when they are mentally matured and say something along the lines "this is what the christians believe, this is what the atheists believe, this is what the Muslims believe, etc, but you are free to believe as you like.
You see, children are extremely impressionable. They will believe anything they are told. This is why I believe that it is the job of any parent not to instill them with opinions, but rather teach them the critical reasoning tools required so they can formulate them opinions of their.
You are correct, there will always be a level of indoctrination involved when raising children. However, we ought to make it as minimal as possible, rather than embrace and make worse than it has to be.
It breaks my heart every tine I hear a Christian say something like, "if it wasn't for god, I'd be killing and stealing right this second."
Knowing that killing is wrong is not enough, it is just as important to be able to give a logical justification of why killing is wrong. I believe that raising someone with judeo christian morals means that that person will have trouble doing that because he never asks himself why, he just does it like a drone.
And I am sorry, I had no grounds to assume that you were a Christian.
Debaser11
03-14-2011, 11:12 PM
First of all, this isn't a matter of Christianity being good or bad. I simply believe that religion should not be taught to children at all.
That's a bit of a contradictory statement.
If there is an atheist who who shoves secularism ( especially the american liberal kind) down his childrens throats, I'm just as much against that.
Oh, so you're against public schools of the American variety as well? The morality and beliefs people carry around with them are direct result of schooling and mass culture.
I believe that any responsible parent needs to sit his children down at when they are mentally matured and say something along the lines "this is what the christians believe, this is what the atheists believe, this is what the Muslims believe, etc, but you are free to believe as you like.
Expecting a Christian parent to be as impartial about their child's faith as they would be about what ice cream flavor their child likes is pretty ridiculous. If a parent is that dispassionate about faith in the home, then they are adapting the atheist position almost by default.
You see, children are extremely impressionable. They will believe anything they are told. This is why I believe that it is the job of any parent not to instill them with opinions,
A parent should not instill a child with opinions? That's practically what constitutes the majority of parenting. All those lessons that we associate with parenting aren't full of subjectivity and "parental discretion"? You just seem to have a problem if those points of view have a religious character for some inexplicable reason.
but rather teach them the critical reasoning tools required so they can formulate them opinions of their.
You speak as though critical reasoning and religious belief are mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact, deep religious belief of the highest level requires that a person understand critical reasoning. You think the old monks in the brotherhood or priests, cardinals, and bishops were/are all a bunch of idiots whose faith equates to a child believing in the Tooth Fairy?
I went to a private Catholic school though the age of twelve. When I swtiched to public schooling, I was doing laps around those kids. Many Jesuit schools require the sharpest minds. Religion has a long tradition of supporting educational endeavors. People just all of sudden in today's world lump all religious types as being someone like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.
You are correct, there will always be a level of indoctrination involved when raising children. However, we ought to make it as minimal as possible, rather than embrace and make worse than it has to be.
So we should teach our children as little as possible? No thanks. Indoctrination is not necessarily a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing absent the child being taught how to critically think. I see no reason for why religious teachings and critical thinking cannot go together. Everyone picks on the dumb Christians who cannot think and it is true that they exist, but no one takes issue with the dumb non-religious people who are just as equally incapable of thinking.
It breaks my heart every tine I hear a Christian say something like, "if it wasn't for god, I'd be killing and stealing right this second."
Why? First of all, maybe that's true. There's no way to know (even if we can hazard a guess). Secondly, Chrisitianity comes in many shades. It seems like you take issue with the dimmest types of Christians and then just blame such poor reasoning on the part of these dumbos on Christianity itself rather than the person. I mean, there are dumb secular types. Yet, no secular humanist ever blames the dim natures of secular people on their secular upbringing the way they blame a dim Christian's lack of reasoning on Christianity. A stupid is a stupid does. No need to drag Christianity through the mud because some retard named "Bubba" in the sticks uses it as a crutch and was born stupid irrespective of his faith.
There are smart people and there are dumb people. Religion doesn't make someone dumb.
Knowing that killing is wrong is not enough, it is just as important to be able to give a logical justification of why killing is wrong.
The argument against killing goes beyond logic. It's a question of morality which religion more often than not helps promote. I also believe that most of our morality is inborn. We don't need to be told why it's wrong so much as we need that morality within us (our conscience) to be reinforced. Someone saying that "killing is logically wrong" is not going to have the same effect as someone saying that "killing goes against God's law."
I believe that raising someone with judeo christian morals means that that person will have trouble doing that because he never asks himself why, he just does it like a drone.
Again, you're picking on the dumbest of the Christians in order to slander religious beliefs. No one picks on the dumbest secular humanists or atheists in order to try to discredit atheism. Why don't you read someone like Thomas Aquinas or N.T. Wright or G.K. Chesterton and then come back and tell me how Christianity makes people into "drones"?
And I am sorry, I had no grounds to assume that you were a Christian.
No problem. People are just not used to seeing someone defend a faith that is not their own. Especially into today's world. We live in a very destructive society. Most art is hyper-critical, snarky/sarcastic, and aims to tear down important traditions and faiths that have served us quite well. It's all one big proverbial middle finger to tradition. I can't watch tv without seeing Christianity or traditional values being mocked and ridiculed as "silly" or "stupid" or just passe. So when someone comes around and impartially says, "this is wrong," people are likely to assume that it's because they are a Christian whose feelings have been hurt or something. This is not the case, though. My defense of Christianity (and religion) is as reasoned as any type of reasoning an atheist claims to be deploying for their arguments.
If I may, the atheist is often not as objective or impartial as they think they are because they almost always stick to arguing for their "side." Yet, again, I am not a Christian.
That's a bit of a contradictory statement.
Oh, so you're against public schools of the American variety as well? The morality and beliefs people carry around with them are direct result of schooling and mass culture.
Expecting a Christian parent to be as impartial about their child's faith as they would be about what ice cream flavor their child likes is pretty ridiculous. If a parent is that dispassionate about faith in the home, then they are adapting the atheist position almost by default.
A parent should not instill a child with opinions? That's practically what constitutes the majority of parenting. All those lessons that we associate with parenting aren't full of subjectivity and "parental discretion"? You just seem to have a problem if those points of view have a religious character for some inexplicable reason.
You speak as though critical reasoning and religious belief are mutually exclusive. They are not. In fact, deep religious belief of the highest level requires that a person understand critical reasoning. You think the old monks in the brotherhood or priests, cardinals, and bishops were/are all a bunch of idiots whose faith equates to a child believing in the Tooth Fairy?
I went to a private Catholic school though the age of twelve. When I swtiched to public schooling, I was doing laps around those kids. Many Jesuit schools require the sharpest minds. Religion has a long tradition of supporting educational endeavors. People just all of sudden in today's world lump all religious types as being someone like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.
So we should teach our children as little as possible? No thanks. Indoctrination is not necessarily a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing absent the child being taught how to critically think. I see no reason for why religious teachings and critical thinking cannot go together. Everyone picks on the dumb Christians who cannot think and it is true that they exist, but no one takes issue with the dumb non-religious people who are just as equally incapable of thinking.
Why? First of all, maybe that's true. There's no way to know (even if we can hazard a guess). Secondly, Chrisitianity comes in many shades. It seems like you take issue with the dimmest types of Christians and then just blame such poor reasoning on the part of these dumbos on Christianity itself rather than the person. I mean, there are dumb secular types. Yet, no secular humanist ever blames the dim natures of secular people on their secular upbringing the way they blame a dim Christian's lack of reasoning on Christianity. A stupid is a stupid does. No need to drag Christianity through the mud because some retard named "Bubba" in the sticks uses it as a crutch and was born stupid irrespective of his faith.
There are smart people and there are dumb people. Religion doesn't make someone dumb.
The argument against killing goes beyond logic. It's a question of morality which religion more often than not helps promote. I also believe that most of our morality is inborn. We don't need to be told why it's wrong so much as we need that morality within us (our conscience) to be reinforced. Someone saying that "killing is logically wrong" is not going to have the same effect as someone saying that "killing goes against God's law."
Again, you're picking on the dumbest of the Christians in order to slander religious beliefs. No one picks on the dumbest secular humanists or atheists in order to try to discredit atheism. Why don't you read someone like Thomas Aquinas or N.T. Wright or G.K. Chesterton and then come back and tell me how Christianity makes people into "drones"?
No problem. People are just not used to seeing someone defend a faith that is not their own. Especially into today's world. We live in a very destructive society. Most art is hyper-critical, snarky/sarcastic, and aims to tear down important traditions and faiths that have served us quite well. It's all one big proverbial middle finger to tradition. I can't watch tv without seeing Christianity or traditional values being mocked and ridiculed as "silly" or "stupid" or just passe. So when someone comes around and impartially says, "this is wrong," people are likely to assume that it's because they are a Christian whose feelings have been hurt or something. This is not the case, though. My defense of Christianity (and religion) is as reasoned as any type of reasoning an atheist claims to be deploying for their arguments.
If I may, the atheist is often not as objective or impartial as they think they are because they almost always stick to arguing for their "side." Yet, again, I am not a Christian.
First of all, I must say that even though you claim not to be a Christian, you do a better job of defending it than 99% of the Christians that I talked to, and I talked to quite a lot.
Now, I think our main miscommunication lies in our different experiences with Christianity.
Are there Jesuit priests who sit every night by their fireplace place and write ontological treatises while listening to Beethoven? Yes. Are they an extreme minority? Yes.
It's interesting that you said that when you switched from a catholic school to a private school, you were "doing miles" around them, because the presbyteryan school that I went actually performed worse in academics than both local public schools and other private schools. I remember my teachers telling me not to read Socrates and Kant because they are "dark sided" and will get me sent to hell.
Speaking of socrates, I am sure that you recall that in Plato's Republic he gave a step by step justification of why it is wrong to kill, without once invoking the spiritual. What is more respectable, not killing because some book says that if you kill you'll burn I'm hell, or not killing because, after thinking out every logical step, you come to the conclusion that it is wrong by yourself?
I am sorry, but the vast majority of the Christians you so adamantly defend don't even have 1\20 of your brainpower. If Christians were like you, I would have no problem. Maybe in Texas all Christians are pipe smoking philosophers with Nietzsche style moustaches, but in Florida I can definitely say that the atheists are I know are well smarter than the Christians I know.
A Christian parent must be impartial about his childrens faith if he wants them to make an educated choice.
You seem to be defending the indefensible: systematic ideological indoctrination of those who can't intellectually fend for themselves. I don't care who is doing the indoctrinating: atheists, Muslims, Jews, Voodoists, whatever. Metaphysical concepts best left for a later age.There is a huge difference between teaching your child that if if they put their hand on the stove they will burn their hand, and teaching your child that if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their living lord and savior they will burn forever in the
Lake of fire. Children are simply too young for this.
And I would like to say it again so we are clear. I am just as much against secular indoctrination. A parent who tells his child that there is no god is just as much a fool as a parent who tells his child that there is one.
I think you have good intentions, and I think your proposition would work if all christians were thoughtful people. In practice, however, it reverts to propaganda and brainwashing of the lowest kind. If you have Netflix, I highly recommend that you watch the documentary Jesus camp to see what happens when children are indoctrinated with metaphysical concepts.
Lastly, if having the common decency not to shove your religion down your Child's throat makes you a bad Christian, perhaps it's time to rethink your choice of religion.
Debaser11
03-15-2011, 02:49 AM
First of all, I must say that even though you claim not to be a Christian, you do a better job of defending it than 99% of the Christians that I talked to, and I talked to quite a lot.
Thanks. But most people are idiots. Saying I am better at defending something I spend more time thinking about than the average moron is something I expect to hear, if I may suspend modesty for just second.
Now, I think our main miscommunication lies in our different experiences with Christianity.
Are there Jesuit priests who sit every night by their fireplace place and write ontological treatises while listening to Beethoven? Yes. Are they an extreme minority? Yes.
Well, that in and of itself tells me that you are failing to properly identify the source of what truly upsets you. It seems like it's actually unthoughtful people that get your goat. Some of these unthoughtful people are drawn to religion. But religion itself can hardly be blamed for that.
It's interesting that you said that when you switched from a catholic school to a private school, you were "doing miles" around them, because the presbyteryan school that I went actually performed worse in academics than both local public schools and other private schools. I remember my teachers telling me not to read Socrates and Kant because they are "dark sided" and will get me sent to hell.
It is my understanding that private schools in America and public schools in the U.K. (which are like our private schools here, they just reverse the terms) routinely outperform public schools. Many of those schools are religious. In fact, I have heard that it is a common trend in the U.K. (which is a vastly more secular country than my own) for parents to rediscover some semblance of faith when it comes time to deciding on where to enroll their children.
Perhaps someone like Osweo or Wyn can confirm this for me?
I don't think my school was any sort of aberration from the general trend.
Speaking of socrates, I am sure that you recall that in Plato's Republic he gave a step by step justification of why it is wrong to kill, without once invoking the spiritual. What is more respectable, not killing because some book says that if you kill you'll burn I'm hell,
You misunderstand what I meant, I think. The Christian tradition did not start becoming so tautological (much like Islam comes across as being today in some respects) with its justifications until after The Protestant Reformation. (The "because it says so" reasoning became accute in branches such as Calvanism, but is generally more present in the thinking of any Baptist or Methodist or other Protestant type than it is among the traditional line of Christian thought. That people of almost any faith or creed are largely uncritical does not speak to the core of the religious traditions themselves that are in question.) The traditional Catholic Church roots its justifications for the faith by borrowing very heavily from Aristotilean thought. Try reading some of those names I dropped.
You seem to be implying like many secular types often do that Christians think that it is wrong to kill because of a book (absent any reason). With all due respect, such a critique of Christianity (and I used to be guilty of it myself) doesn't flatter you. It is fundamentally anti-intellectual.
or not killing because, after thinking out every logical step, you come to the conclusion that it is wrong by yourself?
Christianity at its core does not teach one that it is wrong to kill because you will go to Hell.
I am sorry, but the vast majority of the Christians you so adamantly defend don't even have 1\20 of your brainpower. If Christians were like you, I would have no problem.
Thank you. That is very kind. Again, I think you're speaking to something else. You're pointing toward intellectual anemia as the source of your frustration, not Christianity.
I think a lot of people become atheists over intellectual anemia being conflated with Christianity. They see how Christianity only accents certain people's stupidity. However, without their Christian beliefs, they'd likely still be idiotic.
I'll put it to you another way. Say a bunch of idiots all decided that Nietzschean ideas appealed to them. They all started walking around calling themselves "Nietzscheans." Eventually, people would start saying "stupid Nietzscheans" and the like. Then further down the line the whole philosophy of Nietzsche itself would be viewed as "stupid" or "childish" simply because of the representatives of his philosophy when the actual meat and potatoes of the teachings may be very valid or at the least respectful.
Maybe in Texas all Christians are pipe smoking philosophers with Nietzsche style moustaches, but in Florida I can definitely say that the atheists are I know are well smarter than the Christians I know.
I think you give atheists too much credit. And no, I don't think Texas is all that different.
A Christian parent must be impartial about his childrens faith if he wants them to make an educated choice.
How can they make an educated choice when the parent neglected to impart all the knowledge they could into their child? Your proposition here is nonsensical.
You seem to be defending the indefensible: systematic ideological indoctrination of those who can't intellectually fend for themselves.
That is an inevitability. Your argument just assumes that some of it is okay while the Christian version of it is unpalatable.
I don't care who is doing the indoctrinating: atheists, Muslims, Jews, Voodoists, whatever. Metaphysical concepts best left for a later age.
Again, the metaphysical is a little bit more nebulous than you are giving it credit for. By avoiding this whole line of thought, a parent is raising their kid to have a materialist worldview.
There is no not indoctinating. That's not how it works. Human experience writes something into our being. The nature of what that is cannot just be delayed.
There is a huge difference between teaching your child that if if they put their hand on the stove they will burn their hand, and teaching your child that if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their living lord and savior they will burn forever in the
Lake of fire. Children are simply too young for this.
I quite agree. Again, I think you are confusing my defense of religious teachings to children with something else. I never defended teaching the above to children.
And I would like to say it again so we are clear. I am just as much against secular indoctrination. A parent who tells his child that there is no god is just as much a fool as a parent who tells his choked that there is.
Well, when I was child, I asked about these things all the time. I was naturally drawn the concept of the divine. And I think many children are in ways we don't always appreciate.
If, as a parent, I am agnostic on the question, I am still indoctrinating my children to have an agnostic approach toward ontological considerations. There is no default position like you keep implying that there is.
I think you have good intentions, and I think your proposition would work if all christians were thoughtful people.
Why single out Christians? Children in general would be better off if people from all backgrounds were more thoughtful as a whole.
In practice, however, it reverts to propaganda and brainwashing of the lowest kind. If you have Netflix, I highly recommend that you watch the documentary Jesus camp to see what happens when children are indoctrinated with metaphysical concepts.
I'm not defending those people. I'm defending the good name of Chrisitianity from being synonymous with the Jesus Camp crowd which is very much what atheists get off to trying to do. I'm defending just as one would defend Nietzsche or Schopenhauer from some idiots who stole their namesake and claimed to live according the principles of their teachings when in reality, they were not.
Lastly, if having the common decency not to shove your religion down your Child's throat makes you a bad Christian, perhaps it's time to rethink your choice of religion.
This line again assumes that religion is something abominable. It's hard to have an objective conversation about faith when so much of your wording has this loaded pretense about its nature.
If it has to be "shoved," then it is probably something not so desirable. But this ignores that there are many who not only love their religion with all their heart, but that there are often people who seek it out when they were raised in a totally godless environment.
I mean, I want to "shove" positive influence down my child's throat in terms of what television they watch, who their friends are, how their time is spent. I'm sure we agree that that "shoving" is okay, but when that influence extends to religion, you again, inexplicably seem to take issue.
When I said impartial, I didn't mean dont talk about religion all. I mean just don't take sides. Teach your child as much as you can about religions without actively endorsing any single religion.
You are saying that even if you don't take a side, you are still taking the side of not taking a side. I don't agree. I believe there is a neutral position. Atheism isn't a position. Rather, it is the lack of a position. All religions make certain positive claims. These positive claims then translate into beliefs. For example, "there is a god" is a positive claim. This is not a claim that we are born with, but something that we choose to believe or not to believe later in life.
Atheism is the negation of that claim. However, atheism makes no counter claims. To doubt a claim is not the same as making a counter claim. Therefore, it it is wrong to equate atheism with theism in the manner that you do.
I know that we are bound to fiercely disagree on this, but I think that we are all born atheists. That is, without belief in God. I believe atheism is The default of any human being. And no, I don't believe that children are born with a moral compass. That moral compass is given to them later in life just like religion is.
Remember, atheism is not synonymous with Marxism, liberalism, or secularism. Atheism is a belief the same way that not riding your bike is a hobby or not smoking is a habit. Since atheism makes no positive claims it would clumsy to equate it with a philosophy like Christianity that makes many positive claims.
The default position is not riding your bike, not smoking, and following that line of logic, not believing in god.
Therefore, The best thing for a parent to do is to maintain this natural neutrality until his child inevitably accepts or reject certain positive claims by itself. This is a natural process that is best not forced. The only time a parent should interfere is when a child is about to harm itself in a physical way. Of course, teaching is not the same as indoctrinating. Teach about all religions you want, just don't take sides.
By the way, if children are born with a moral compass like you said, what is that moral compass like? Is it a Christian moral compass, a Jewish moral compass, or is it an Islamic moral compass? Does a newly born child automatically know that being gay is wrong, for example?
I do apologize for my ineloquence; I am sort of translating from Russian in my head, which causes some phrases to come out awkwardly.
Debaser11
03-15-2011, 04:27 AM
When I said impartial, I didn't mean dont talk about religion all. I mean just don't take sides.
I understood what you meant. I think my point still applies.
Teach your child as much as you can about religions without actively endorsing any single religion.
Imagine we're not talking about Christians here but Hindus in India. What do you think would happen to that religion and consequently, Indian culture over time? You don't think one of the oldest religious flames would begin to flicker out and die just as Christianity has from "modern" parenting taking similiar stances about "not teaching religion."
You seem to think we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can "not brainwash" and still preserve our traditions which give our culture its historical and (and to some extent) present identity.
You are saying that even if you don't take a side, you are still taking the side of not taking a side. I don't agree. I believe there is a neutral position. Atheism isn't a position. Rather, it is the lack of a position.
No, it very much is a position (if an implied one). How a person behaves and the values they derive are very much intertwined with their atheism. I don't know how you can ignore this under the guise of neutrality.
All religions make certain positive claims. These positive claims then translate into beliefs. For example, "there is a god" is a positive claim.
To say that atheism doesn't make any "positive claims" would simply be word play which is something modern liberal secular types delight in doing to distract themselves from reality.
Atheists don't use language to communicate a positive belief but they believe at the very least that there is no God in the sense that any of the religions claim there to be. That in and of itself is an assertion which has a sorts of philosophical implications for how an individual should conceptualize themselves and behave. Playing with language won't change that.
This is not a claim that we are born with, but something that we choose to believe or not to believe later in life.
Well, once we are aware of such a proposition, what we chose to believe, whether it's limited to material evidence or extends into a greater form of reasoning, becomes "positive."
Atheism is the negation of that claim. However, atheism makes no counter claims.
Well, it depends on the atheist. But yes, atheism in and of itself has no systemized doctrines of belief other than the claim it makes about God(s). However, it does by its nature reject certain doctines of thought (religious ones) while at least tacitly supporting others based on its "negation." That in and of itself is something that cannot be passed off as "neutral." Neutrality is indeed an illusion.
To doubt a claim is not the same as making a counter claim. Therefore, it it is wrong to equate atheism with theism in the manner that you do.
I didn't equate atheism with Chrisitianity. But we are not blank slates nor do we stay that way after the "negation" of the proposition that religious ideas/spiritual questions communicate to us. If I am an atheist, I will still formulate a belief system that starts at the high religious level. Depending on how I answer the question ("yay" or "nay"), it affects the belief system I sort out for myself. If I say that God doesn't exist, I still have beliefs, attitudes, and worldviews and intuitions that are shaped by how I answered that question.
You're trying to put this question and all of its implications that follow into this nice neat ziplock bag to rid yourself of the complexity of faith and the consequences of rejecting faith. You can't do it.
I know that we are bound to fiercely disagree on this, but I think that we are all born atheists. That is, without belief in God. I believe atheism is The default of any human being.
Well, do you think we are born as blank slates? Do you think a human needs to be told that killing is wrong to react negatively from witnessing a killing?
There are certain beliefs we have that are inborn. Sorting out whether or not we are born atheists is, frankly, a pretty tough question to answer and one that is largely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. I did not decide where to live, what school I went to, who my brothers and sisters were, who my family would be, what race I'd be, how tall I'd be, how handsome I'd be, what food I'd find tasty and what food I'd find repugnant, what gender I'd be, what intelligence I'd be, and on and on and on...Yet, whether I'm born an atheist and had this changed due to my parents or whether my religiousity was inborn is somehow more relevant than all those other things I listed in terms of justifying something about our identity?
And no, I don't believe that children are born with a moral compass. That moral compass is given to them later in life just like religion is.
No, that moral compass is reinforced throughout life. If our inborn morality is not reinforced, our conscience can become diminished.
Even atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Pinker reject the whole "blank slate" idea of morality.
Remember, atheism is not synonymous with Marxism, liberalism, or secularism.
Certainly not. But secularism and atheism tend to go together like milk and cookies.
Atheism is a belief the same way that not riding your bike is a hobby or not smoking is a habit.
But you're ignoring that by *not riding a bike* or by *not smoking* I am likely choosing other activities as my designated hobbies. The fact that so many atheists are secular is not some random coincidence.
Since atheism makes no positive claims it would clumsy to equate it with a philosophy like Christianity that makes many positive claims.
Except I never equated the two.
The default position is not riding your bike, not smoking, and following that line of logic, not believing in god.
It's not as though atheists don't have belief systems that are not a result of their own atheism so this point is really quite not seeing the forest for the trees.
Therefore, The best thing for a parent to do is to maintain this natural neutrality until his child inevitably accepts or reject certain positive claims by itself. This is a natural process that is best not forced. The only time a parent should interfere is when a child is about to harm itself in a physical way. Of course, teaching is not the same as indoctrinating. Teach about all religions you want, just don't take sides.
This is not nearly as unbiased of a prescription as you try to pass it off as being.
By the way, if children are born with a moral compass like you said, what is that moral compass like? Is it a Christian moral compass, a Jewish moral compass, or is it an Islamic moral compass? Does a newly born child automatically know that being gay is wrong, for example?
I do apologize for my ineloquence; I am sort of translating from Russian in my head, which causes some phrases to come out awkwardly.
No need to apologize. You're not a bad writer. In regards to your last question, the answer is one all the world's religions themselves along with philosophers of all varieties try to formulate. There is no way I could begin to answer that question in a satisfactory manner (especially given the scope of this discussion) next to the other thinkers that are out there.
But I think that you're tap dancing around my main point. Going by my previous analogy, Yes, atheism can lead someone to adopting a position the same way that not smoking could lead someone to avoid places where people smoke. However, that doesn't make not smoking any more of a habit and it doesn't make atheism any more of a position.
If you want a more detailed explanation, I recommend Bertrand Russell's work. However, I implore you to not simply brush it off as "wordplay". The concept of positive claims versus negative claims is extremely important in philosophical discussions. Atheists do have belief systems that are due in part to their atheism, but that does not make the concept of atheism itself a position. Christianity, however, is inherently a position.
When I said that atheism is neutral, I was not talking about its implications. I was talking about the actual concept of Atheism, before any implications are made. It's implications, however, are extremely broad to say the least. Penn Jillette is an atheist and Stalin is an atheist. Could you think of two people further apart? They both don't ride bicycles, they both aren't women, they both aren't born in the 16 century. So what? Do any of these things make them truly similar?
Is it not silly to characterize people by things they don't do? When filling out a resume, would you say "hello, my name is so and so and I don't have a harvard diploma"?
And about your first point, I seek to preserve christianty as a symbol of the European spirit. I believe that the European spirit is first and foremost about freedom, something that indoctrinating children is not a part of.
Debaser11
03-15-2011, 06:22 AM
But I think that you're tap dancing around my main point. Going by my previous analogy, Yes, atheism can lead someone to adopting a position the same way that not smoking could lead someone to avoid places where people smoke. However, that doesn't make not smoking any more of a habit and it doesn't make atheism any more of a position.
I'm saying that there is no way someone's atheism will not affect his views in the same manner that there is no way someone's religiousity will not affect their views. There's no "neutral" position. That's the simplest way I can express the matter.
If you want a more detailed explanation, I recommend Bertrand Russell's work.
I'm fairly familiar with Russell's work and once thought him to be a great authority on the subject. However, you don't get too far on these questions reading Russell because he won't even allow such questions to be asked. Even talking about whether God exists or not is not valid from his myopic, mathy, materially-rooted, analytic perspective.
However, I implore you to not simply brush it off as "wordplay".
Now, I don't think that's a fair characterization of my argument at all. Had I wrote "now that's just word play" and left the matter at that, you may have a point. But I went through great effort to actually explain why claiming that atheism has no positive claims embedded within it is indeed word play.
The concept of positive claims versus negative claims is extremely important in philosophical discussions.
Certainly. But this statement is a strawman if you're implying that it's at odds with my position.
Atheists do have belief systems that are due in part to their atheism, but that does not make the concept of atheism itself a position.
In addition to deriving certain ideas as a result of one's atheism, I explained in my previous post why atheism in fact is an assertion or positive claim (in at least an implied sense). I did this while also taking care to not equate atheism with a religious system of belief.
Christianity, however, is inherently a position.
When I said that atheism is neutral, I was not talking about its implications. I was talking about the actual concept of Atheism, before any implications are made.
Again, atheism does not have any set doctrines. But the idea present within atheism is not in and of itself a neutral one. I think I made this pretty clear even if I later went on to speak about how one later is likely to come to certain conclusions based on their atheism.
There were two separate ideas going on there. With all due respect, you seem to be ignoring one in favor of arguing against the one that is easier for someone with your position to argue.
It's implications, however, are extremely broad to say the least. Penn Jillette is an atheist and Stalin is an atheist. Could you think of two people further apart? They both don't ride bicycles, they both aren't women, they both aren't born in the 16 century. So what? Do any of these things make them truly similar?
I really don't want to reduce our conversation to this mode of communication. I never once went down such a route for a reason. (The Stalin thing is always brought up by people on my side of the debate and I think it's not very constructive.) I could likewise say that a boob like Jerry Falwell and a saint like St. Francis of Assisi each claimed a Christian identity. These specific, singular illustrations really go no where. Such outliers ignore how different individuals interpret different belief systems.
And trying to draw a parallel by comparing two people not doing an activity like riding a bike with two people sharing many components regarding a complicated ontological question, indeed the question of all questions, the supreme fuel through which all philosophical motivation is derived, is definitely apples and oranges.
Is it not silly to characterize people by things they don't do?
In terms of not riding a bike, then yes. In terms of being an atheist, then no. Not playing basketball is relatively insignificant and not a character definer while one's view on the big question is undoubtedly character-shaping and plays a huge role in identity, regardless. In fact, it's very telling that atheists often times have this yearning to go out and tell the world about their atheism (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Douglas Adams among many others) while the person who chooses not to ride a bike or not to eat ice cream feels no such compulsion.
When filling out a resume, would you say "hello, my name is so and so and I don't have a harvard diploma"?
No. And the reasons for not doing so would extend beyond the parameters of this conversation.:):D
And about your first point, I seek to preserve christianty as a symbol of the European spirit.
Well, that's a little hollow, I must say. I hear atheists like Hitchens talk about how they love European cathedrals despite them hating everything that they stand for. They may not be cultural vandals in any physical sense, but spiritually, I'm not so sure that's not the case.
But saying that you wish to "preserve Christianity as a symbol" is rather like saying, "I don't really agree with the transcendent points present within Melville's writing, but I much like that cute prose of his and the nice decorative sleeve that the fifth edition publication of Moby Dick comes wrapped in and would like to preserve his work for those reasons."
I believe that the European spirit is first and foremost about freedom, something that indoctrinating children is not a part of.
I agree to an extent with your point about freedom but disagree with your point about religion being the antithesis to it.
In fact, you were the one laying out guidelines and making the prescriptions of a social engineer such as "parents shouldn't do this until..."
How is that in the spirit of freedom in comparison to my position on the matter?
I was more than a bit tired when writing my last post. looking back at my post, there were a few things that I could have worded better.
Although not playing basketball is definitely less important than not believing in God, I would still posit that the principle behind both statements is the same.
It can only affect someones views when applied, or modified in some way (which ot always is, but thats not my point). Would being born male or female influence someones choices and views in life? From the perspective of the male, is being male a default position?
With atheism it it is simpler. There is no variable, it is the default position for every person from birth. Religion, by it's nature and implications, is not a default position but one that has to be adopted (or not).
Would you consider a newly born child to be automatically biased because of it's atheism, or rather just neutral?
I think that we can agree that every atheist who is not a newly born has had his atheism influenced by a myriad of other social factors. Atheism holds different implications for different people depending on their psychological Tendencies. they go on to call themselves different things. marxists, secularists, libertarians, republicans, fascists, monarchists, etc.
What I am trying to convey, perhaps ineloquently, is that atheism at it's core is nothing more than a disbelief in all gods, without assumptions, without doctrines, and without tenets. If you want to see pure atheists, go to a birthing ward in a hospital. Also peope who lost their all their memory. There are African villagers right now that have never heard of Christianity. They are atheists to the Christian god. Because they never heard of the Christian god, I would say that they neutral on the idea of the Christian god. Would you agree?
Also, those atheists you mentioned above proclaim their atheism to the whole world because they are part of the new atheism movement, which holds as one of its tenets aggressive evangelization of atheism. Most of the European atheists I've encountered do no such thing.
I define freedom as the right to do your will as long your will does not directly intrude on the will of someone else. I would say that indoctrinating children is definitely intruding on their will. Some intrusions are necessary, such as stopping a child when it tries to kill itself. But I would not place religion In the necessary category.
Debaser11
03-16-2011, 03:52 AM
I was more than a bit tired when writing my last post. looking back at my post, there were a few things that I could have worded better.
Although not playing basketball is definitely less important than not believing in God, I would still posit that the principle behind both statements is the same.
One affects a person's worldview and indeed is the antecedent behind all motivation in a philosophical sense and the other is an activity one either decides to engage in or not enage in. I still think it's apples and oranges; I think you're getting hung up on how such (faulty) analogies allow you to use parallel language (such as how you can use "negative" and "not" in each case) which creates the illusion of comparing like with like.
You do also realize that the atheism exists in the mind and the activities are actions, right? That alone should tell you the comparison is probably lacking.
It can only affect someones views when applied, or modified in some way (which ot always is, but thats not my point). Would being born male or female influence someones choices and views in life? From the perspective of the male, is being male a default position?
I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. But yes, being born male would influence someone's choices in life and their worldview. Absolutely. And it's not something *I* got to decide, either, incidentally.
With atheism it it is simpler. There is no variable, it is the default position for every person from birth. Religion, by it's nature and implications, is not a default position but one that has to be adopted (or not).
Well, why not just use this same argument to condemn any type of culture and every aspect of it? For religion is merely one aspect of one's culture that is "forced" upon people. So why stop at religion? Because you find it unpalatable?
I think you're trying to create some standard where people are "default" that doesn't exist to justify not teaching religion to young people.
Would you consider a newly born child to be automatically biased because of it's atheism, or rather just neutral?
I don't know what a new born child is spritually, and honestly, it's impossible to know. I don't know why you take such an issue with "biasing" a child. That's sort of something that's entailed in parenting.
I think that we can agree that every atheist who is not a newly born has had his atheism influenced by a myriad of other social factors. Atheism holds different implications for different people depending on their psychological Tendencies. they go on to call themselves different things. marxists, secularists, libertarians, republicans, fascists, monarchists, etc.
What I am trying to convey, perhaps ineloquently, is that atheism at it's core is nothing more than a disbelief in all gods, without assumptions, without doctrines, and without tenets.
I understand where you're coming from quite well, I think. And I agree with this exposition for the most part. I just disagree with the conclusion you take from this information.
I think you're contradicting yourself a bit in the areas I highlighted above.
If you want to see pure atheists, go to a birthing ward in a hospital. Also peope who lost their all their memory.
I'm not so sure about that. Again, I don't think we can know what these people's faiths and convictions are so easily just because they are young or don't remember who their family is and the like.
There are African villagers right now that have never heard of Christianity. They are atheists to the Christian god. Because they never heard of the Christian god, I would say that they neutral on the idea of the Christian god. Would you agree?
I'm not arguing that atheism doesn't exist. But those villagers' belief systems are still based on their knowledge and experiences in other areas (outside of Christianity) which are certainly *not* neutral. Human perception is never neutral. Thus, belief is never neutral.
Also, those atheists you mentioned above proclaim their atheism to the whole world because they are part of the new atheism movement, which holds as one of its tenets aggressive evangelization of atheism. Most of the European atheists I've encountered do no such thing.
The list can go on from those names I mentioned. One member posted an atheist radio show that was broadcast locally in Austin, Texas. And it's not some anomoly, either. There is even an atheism thread right here at TA. There is no "I don't bicycle" or "I don't eat pizza" sub-forum.
I define freedom as the right to do your will as long your will does not directly intrude on the will of someone else. I would say that indoctrinating children is definitely intruding on their will.
Intruding on a child's will is now wrong (by default)? Surely, you can't be serious! So are all those other activities (monitoring what your child watches, who they play with, where they go to school, what they eat, how they talk, etc., etc. ETC.) I listed which intrude on a child's will should be abolished as well by this logic.
They are children! They can't think for themselves by definition. Responsible parents helping them with that (even if that extends to religion) is no crime. In fact, the ones who don't intrude on their children's wills are absentee parents.
Some intrusions are necessary, such as stopping a child when it tries to kill itself. But I would not place religion In the necessary category.
Let's just say we have very different ideas about what makes a good parent. I think being a good parent is being pro-active in a variety ways which doesn't have to arbitrarily stop at the gates of religion. You seem to think being a good parent means taking a cue from the libertarian's handbook.
Jägerstaffel
03-16-2011, 03:57 AM
http://worldoflongmire.com/features/romance_novels/get-a-room.jpg
Debaser11
03-16-2011, 04:01 AM
How about you fuck off?
That show that you mentioned that broadcasts from Austin is called The Atheist Experience. It's funny you mentioned it, because that's actually where I got the whole not riding a bike/ not believing in God analogy from.
I'm not trying to condemn religion as much as to point out that when it is taught to children, it eliminates their right to choose a belief system for themselves. When an asserted fact is repeated to a child over and over again, it will start believing said fact. which isn't bad when the assertion is "if you put your hand on a stove, you will burn yourself", because that would be true.
I think i delved deeper into this than was necessary. At the end of the day, Christianity is not true. As simple as that. The Christian God has to this day not been proven, the Christian theology has to this day not been justified. There are other ways to teach your child not to kill or steal that are based on reality. Just read Aristotle's ethics. The merits of Christianity can be argued, and i will certainly not dispute it being helpful in a few ways. However, at the end of the day it is not based on reality. I take a stand against teaching children things not based on reality.
However distasteful it may be to argue from personal experience, I must say that I was raised quite secularly. However, I behave more Ethically than most of the Christians I know, especially the American born again protestant types. My parents did not read me the bible, but instead the works of Voltaire, Socrates, Kant, Montesquieu, among many others. I was even read the works of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza.
I am not sure if that is what you are advocating, but i must say that raising a child on only Christianity related ideas is a recipe for a brick headed drone, because however nicely you dress it up, at the end of the day you are advocating teaching a child things that are not merely debatable or controversial, but ultimately flat out untrue. Until the bible can be verified, until Empirical evidence for Jesus's ressurection has been presented, Until the wild tales of Moses parting the water and many others can be proven, children cannot be taught Christianity in good conscience because it isn't true.
If you are advocating teaching children the Thomas Jefferson style Christianity, where the sound morals and ethics are separated from the insane drivel and self righteous psycho babble (to put it mildly), I am completely fine with that. http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
However, the main point of Christianity, which is that there is someone named Jesus who died for our sins, is invalid because it has to this day not been proven factually true, which in the end is whats most important to me.
I care about what's true, not what's practical. Of course it's easier to each Children one easy to read book (the Bible) instead of all the authors i listed above, whose works are very complicated and require a sharp mind and a lot of time to master.
In the long run, however, I think it is worth it. We owe it to our children and to ourselves
we don't have to take the easy way out, which is what the I believe Christianity is through and through. A Crutch, a refugee for the ignorant, a safe haven for the Degenerate, the perfect excuse not learn.
For every one Jesuit you show me, i will show you one thousand Falwells. And if you blame this on the general ignorance of man, you will be wrong. Christianity has had thousands of years to enlighten people, to progress global consciousness in the right direction. It has failed.
And sorry for taking so long to reply. I wish that we were in ancient Greece, where one could make a living by sitting under a tree and philosophizing all day long.
Debaser11
03-18-2011, 03:34 AM
That show that you mentioned that broadcasts from Austin is called The Atheist Experience. It's funny you mentioned it, because that's actually where I got the whole not riding a bike/ not believing in God analogy from.
I see...If I may be so blunt, I think you're too smart for those guys. Their thoughts on this whole issue are very canned.
I'm not trying to condemn religion as much as to point out that when it is taught to children, it eliminates their right to choose a belief system for themselves.
First of all, I was not aware that any such "right" existed.
Secondly, no it doesn't.
When an asserted fact is repeated to a child over and over again, it will start believing said fact.
So? Religion is understood to be faith-based. This was never lost on me.
which isn't bad when the assertion is "if you put your hand on a stove, you will burn yourself", because that would be true.
So could religion from the eyes of the believer. With all due respect, you're really not trying to see through any other eyes than through the eyes of a secular atheist. You just assume that religion is wrong. You can't speak as if religion has been proven to be wrong or something when religion by its nature cannot be proven one way or the other.
I think i delved deeper into this than was necessary. At the end of the day, Christianity is not true. As simple as that.
You do not understand religion, then, with all due respect. I say this as a former atheist myself. Religion doesn't even have to be true from a metaphysically objective point of view to be true. There is much more to truth than what can be observed through the senses. Religion is transcendent by nature. Logic and science (which I still respect even if I don't think they have all the answers) are not.
Again, try reading some of those names I listed instead of just looking at "enlightment" philosophy or through the Bertrand Russell lense. You dismiss something so readily that great minds have debated about for millenia.
The Christian God has to this day not been proven,
Right. Because religion is an article of faith. It cannot be empirically proven almost by definition. If it was "proven" in the sense you're using it, it wouldn't be a religion. Science makes sense of the observable. Religion is faith in the unprovable. Don't conflate ontological considerations with scientific observation like so many other posters around here do. Such "points" are fallacious.
the Christian theology has to this day not been justified.
In what sense? It's served a great many people well as far as I can tell. I know people who have personally benefitted from Christianity's teachings. Why is their faith not justified?
There are other ways to teach your child not to kill or steal that are based on reality.
Again, you confuse matters of ontology with your understanding of science. You seem to think that science or the observable constitutes all of reality. The fact of the matter is we don't know ultimate truth or ultimate reality. Yet people crave answers to these questions because the certain answers serve as a guide that often brings out the best in people which in and of itself seems transcendental.
I see no more reason to believe that what you think constitutes all of reality is any more true than someone else who has a more spiritual perspective.
Just read Aristotle's ethics.
You do realize that the Roman Catholic Church relied heavily on Aristotlean ideals in order to justify faith, don't you? There is a continuity existing between traditional Christianity (Catholicism) and classic Western philosophy.
The merits of Christianity can be argued, and i will certainly not dispute it being helpful in a few ways. However, at the end of the day it is not based on reality.
I don't know how you can know this. Again, your conception of truth seems limited to the senses. Very myopic.
I take a stand against teaching children things not based on reality.
I think many religious parents who wish to pass their faith onto their children feel exactly the same way.
However distasteful it may be to argue from personal experience, I must say that I was raised quite secularly. However, I behave more Ethically than most of the Christians I know,
1) You probably behave better than most atheists as well.
2) See my earlier point about "Nietzscheans." It's completely applicable to what you're saying here. You can't use a portion (even if it's large) of a certain faith's followers to discredit the faith's teachings themselves.
lly the American born again protestant types. My parents did not read me the bible, but instead the works of Voltaire, Socrates, Kant, Montesquieu, among many others. I was even read the works of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza.
I am not sure if that is what you are advocating, but i must say that raising a child on only Christianity related ideas is a recipe for a brick headed drone, because however nicely you dress it up, at the end of the day you are advocating teaching a child things that are not merely debatable or controversial, but ultimately flat out untrue.
I'd be more convinced if you actually responded directly to some of the points I have made. Each time I respond, you sort of avoid responding to my points directly. This leads me to believe you have no actual arguments to counter my point by point responses to what you say. So sit back and say that I'm "dressing it up" but that charge rings hollow if you can't argue my points but merely resort to shifting the focus in each of your replies.
I don't say any of the above to you in any nasty spirit but it's something that needs to be said.
the bible can be verified, until Empirical evidence for Jesus's ressurection has been presented,
Faith is a little more complicated than that. Again, it's belief in the unknowable.
Until the wild tales of Moses parting the water and many others can be proven, children cannot be taught Christianity in good conscience because it isn't true.
Metaphysical objectivism is not the only way to interpret religion.
If you are advocating teaching children the Thomas Jefferson style Christianity, where the sound morals and ethics are separated from the insane drivel and self righteous psycho babble (to put it mildly), I am completely fine with that. http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
I'm familiar with the Jefferson Bible. Most of the "insane" "psycho babble" you refer to I'm gathering comes from the Old Testament; something modern man largely lacks the proper context to properly understand. The New Testament is largely the guide for modern Christians. What do you find so objectionable about the New Testament?
However, the main point of Christianity, which is that there is someone named Jesus who died for our sins, is invalid because it has to this day not been proven factually true, which in the end is whats most important to me.
You do realize that many Greek scholars understood that there were no gods actually on Mt. Olympus who nonetheless still had a very real faith in the religious system of their day, don't you?
I care about what's true, not what's practical.
Then why are you trying to make pragmatic appeals?
Of course it's easier to each Children one easy to read book (the Bible) instead of all the authors i listed above,
This is a complete strawman. I'm not advocating teaching children one book. Again, you ignore the strong tradition Christianity has in the West for proliferating text and knowledge even outside of the followers' immediate faith.
whose works are very complicated and require a sharp mind and a lot of time to master.
Go read Martin Heidegger (who I believe was schooled in the Jesuit tradition of thought) and tell me you don't need a sharp mind to have any vague understanding of his deep philosophical justifications for God. I've read Russell and Spinoza and a little Voltaire. In terms of complexity, none of them have ANYTHING on Heidegger. He wrote one book just discussing the legitimacy of epistomology. It's hard to get deeper than that.
In the long run, however, I think it is worth it. We owe it to our children and to ourselves
You really cheat yourself when you a priori conflate atheists as being the smart, rational crowd and Christians as being the dumb, illiterate crowd.
we don't have to take the easy way out, which is what the I believe Christianity is through and through.
The easy way out is the way of the secular humanist which advocates no real moral standard outside of some hazy utilitarian calculi based on physical pleasures and materialism. Believing in something is much harder than believing in nothing.
For every one Jesuit you show me, i will show you one thousand Falwells.
So? This has little to do with the ideas we're discussing. If I said, "for every Russell you show me, I can show you one thousand unscupulous, godless hedonists," that wouldn't necessarily discredit Russell's philosophy. Argue the ideas embedded in the philosophy not about the mistakes or even the unscupulous nature of people who want to adopt a certain philosophy.
And if you blame this on the general ignorance of man, you will be wrong. Christianity has had thousands of years to enlighten people, to progress global consciousness in the right direction. It has failed.
That's a pretty myopic view. The West reached new heights under Christianity. Even the humanist morality we have today comes from a continuous Western moral strand that Christianity in part helped preserve. No other society is as generous or as prosperous as that of the West. I'd argue that overall, in the past two millenia, Christianity has served us quite well. Certainly it's produced a more dynamic society than Chinese Confucianism or Islam or any beliefs held by the various savages of the world.
And sorry for taking so long to reply. I wish that we were in ancient Greece, where one could make a living by sitting under a tree philosophizing all day long.
Heh. I disagree with you strongly. But everything I say to you is in "good faith." ;) I don't mean to come off as hostile, just emphatic.
I see...If I may be so blunt, I think you're too smart for those guys. Their thoughts on this whole issue are very canned.
[QUOTE]First of all, I was not aware that any such "right" existed.
Secondly, no it doesn't.
It's not really a right, just something I think any civilized society should have the decency to do. Children will readily believe anything you tell them. That's a fact.
So? Religion is understood to be faith-based. This was never lost on me.
I see "faith" in something that's not true as a weakness, not a virtue.
Again, try reading some of those names I listed instead of just looking at "enlightment" philosophy or through the Bertrand Russell lense. You dismiss something so readily that great minds have debated about for millenia.
I didn't dismiss it readily. there was a time in my life when i actually believed it. I've read a few of those names you dropped. I've also read the works of numerous Christian apologists- Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Mcdowell, William lane Craig, and a number of others.
Right. Because religion is an article of faith. It cannot be empirically proven almost by definition. If it was "proven" in the sense you're using it, it wouldn't be a religion. Science makes sense of the observable. Religion is faith in the unprovable. Don't conflate ontological considerations with scientific observation like so many other posters around here do. Such "points" are fallacious.
So essentially your'e saying that Religion is unprovable, untestable, and unobservable, and at the same time still very much worth believing. How reasonable.
once again, if one wants to use religion to convey concept and abstract philosophical concepts, that's fine with me. That's why I enjoy the Jefferson Bible so much. However, there are certain parts of the Bible that are held as literally true even though they are not, and this is my main problem.
In what sense? It's served a great many people well as far as I can tell. I know people who have personally benefitted from Christianity's teachings. Why is their faith not justified?
Because it is based on a doctrine that holds as it's main tenet the alleged reality of an event that never happened- Jesus's ressurection.
I see no more reason to believe that what you think constitutes all of reality is any more true than someone else who has a more spiritual perspective.
My beliefs are quantifiable, measurable, provable through and through, based on nothing more than things that exist in this world. A "spiritual" person's beliefs are based on alleged metaphysical truths of gods, angels, and demons, all concepts that have yet to be proven.
I don't know how you can know this. Again, your conception of truth seems limited to the senses. Very myopic.
I know this, for one, because the events that the bible asserts as real are indeed anything but real. The bible, the foundation of Christianity, contains historical untruths.
I think many religious parents who wish to pass their faith onto their children feel exactly the same way.
But their beliefs are based on demonstrable untruths, so in all honesty, their beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of the Muslims, the Hindu's, the Rastafarians, and the cult of Elvis Presley. That is, not very valid at all.
1) You probably behave better than most atheists as well.
2) See my earlier point about "Nietzscheans." It's completely applicable to what you're saying here. You can't use a portion (even if it's large) of a certain faith's followers to discredit the faith's teachings themselves.
1. You flatter me
2. My point is that it's possible to be an ethical and respectable person without a religious upbringing.
I'd be more convinced if you actually responded directly to some of the points I have made. Each time I respond, you sort of avoid responding to my points directly. This leads me to believe you have no actual arguments to counter my point by point responses to what you say. So sit back and say that I'm "dressing it up" but that charge rings hollow if you can't argue my points but merely resort to shifting the focus in each of your replies.
My apologies. Ive been responding on my Ipad, which prevented me from using the quote system. i hope you will find my current reply more satisfactory.
I don't say any of the above to you in any nasty spirit but it's something that needs to be said.
And i appreciate you saying it.
Faith is a little more complicated than that. Again, it's belief in the unknowable.
That sounds to me like nothing. It sounds to me like a belief in something you would like to believe but lack the evidence to. Therefore, you construct this "faith" thesis, which is essentially a way to not only get away with believing things unprovable, but to turn this habit of believing in unprovable things into some kind of virtuous, noble enterprise.
Metaphysical objectivism is not the only way to interpret religion.
But Christianity clearly states that certain events happened when they never happened. How can you condone this?
I'm familiar with the Jefferson Bible. Most of the "insane" "psycho babble" you refer to I'm gathering comes from the Old Testament; something modern man largely lacks the proper context to properly understand. The New Testament is largely the guide for modern Christians. What do you find so objectionable about the New Testament?
The miracles of St. Paul and friends, the miracles of Jesus (or even his existence), the whole point of why Jesus died, His supposed ressurection, the Blinding of St. Paul. Just the ones that jump to the top of my head.
You do realize that many Greek scholars understood that there were no gods actually on Mt. Olympus who nonetheless still had a very real faith in the religious system of their day, don't you?
Some did. Socrates was actually tried and killed for his disbelief in the gods. Other scholars like the sophists certainly did believe in the Greek Gods.
Then why are you trying to make pragmatic appeals?
This is a complete strawman. I'm not advocating teaching children one book. Again, you ignore the strong tradition Christianity has in the West for proliferating text and knowledge even outside of the followers' immediate faith.
Perhaps, but the modern Christianity is not like this at at all. When was the last time that Christianity proliferated texts? Again, my point is that there are other, more effective ways of teaching children ethics, among other things.
Go read Martin Heidegger (who I believe was schooled in the Jesuit tradition of thought) and tell me you don't need a sharp mind to have any vague understanding of his deep philosophical justifications for God. I've read Russell and Spinoza and a little Voltaire. In terms of complexity, none of them have ANYTHING on Heidegger. He wrote one book just discussing the legitimacy of epistomology. It's hard to get deeper than that.
Sure, I completely agree. there are quite a few brilliant Christian scholars.
You really cheat yourself when you a priori conflate atheists as being the smart, rational crowd and Christians as being the dumb, illiterate crowd.
The easy way out is the way of the secular humanist which advocates no real moral standard outside of some hazy utilitarian calculi based on physical pleasures and materialism. Believing in something is much harder than believing in nothing.
I believe in some things, all of which happen to be things that exist in this world, and not in my mind.
So? This has little to do with the ideas we're discussing. If I said, "for every Russell you show me, I can show you one thousand unscupulous, godless hedonists," that wouldn't necessarily discredit Russell's philosophy. Argue the ideas embedded in the philosophy not about the mistakes or even the unscupulous nature of people who want to adopt a certain philosophy.
I understand that atheists can be bad too. My point is that your Jesuit Philosopher version of Christianity (which is interesting because you aren't even a Christian) is almost nonexistent in today's world. You seem to be defending a demographic that doesn't exist.
That's a pretty myopic view. The West reached new heights under Christianity. Even the humanist morality we have today comes from a continuous Western moral strand that Christianity in part helped preserve. No other society is as generous or as prosperous as that of the West. I'd argue that overall, in the past two millenia, Christianity has served us quite well. Certainly it's produced a more dynamic society than Chinese Confucianism or Islam or any beliefs held by the various savages of the world.
We can spend a whole other discussion talking about this, however it is not worth getting into now.
I think we have different ideas of what religion is. The way i see it (and the way it was taught to me) is that Christianity is based on a very specific claim, one that is not symbolic, philosophical, or metaphorical but very real. While i see how it could be taken allegorically, according to Christians all the events in the bible are literally true. Christians believe every story in the bible word for word. They see Jesus as a real person who really performed miracles and really died on the cross for our sins. This is what i have a problem with, because it isn't true.
Maybe there are a minority of Jesuit Philosophers who believe otherwise, but The Nicene creed is proof that your precious Roman Catholic Church believes In Jesus's divinity quite literally, not metaphorically. They are simply wrong.
Debaser11
03-19-2011, 05:42 AM
It's not really a right, just something I think any civilized society should have the decency to do. Children will readily believe anything you tell them. That's a fact.
Well, I feel like we're making progress if you're backing away from "rights" talk. That's something, I suppose.
You still haven't explained why religion is absolutely metaphysically false (because you can't) nor have you explained why it is antithetical to the notion of being "civilized" to have a religion. You also don't justify what's decent. You're just asserting that it's decent to not teach relgion because it's the decent thing to do or something. It's a tautological argument.
I see "faith" in something that's not true as a weakness, not a virtue.
You don't know truth any more than some fundamentalist does. Truth is a profound matter. We just try to grasp for the straws the best way we can. Religion and indeed all philosophy is an effort to do that.
I didn't dismiss it readily. there was a time in my life when i actually believed it. I've read a few of those names you dropped. I've also read the works of numerous Christian apologists- Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Mcdowell, William lane Craig, and a number of others.
Well, your arguments match the ones commonly found among the contemporary "Four Horsemen."
So essentially your'e saying that Religion is unprovable, untestable, and unobservable, and at the same time still very much worth believing. How reasonable.
It is reasonable. Why is it not reasonable? As I've said, many people justify their faith because they know it makes them better. It's not like you know what ultimate truth is so why am I to take it that your perspective is any more valid by default? Because it only takes scientific observation into account?
once again, if one wants to use religion to convey concept and abstract philosophical concepts, that's fine with me. That's why I enjoy the Jefferson Bible so much.
Religion itself is more abstract than you seem to give it credit for. You give secular abstraction a license but then flag religious abstractions. Yet you don't explain why other than implying that religion can't be true just because it can't. I'm sorry this argument doesn't sway me.
However, there are certain parts of the Bible that are held as literally true even though they are not, and this is my main problem.
That depends on who you talk to. There is no consensus among ALL Christians that Noah's Arc has to be metaphysically objectively true for Christianity to be valid.
Are you familiar with hermeneutics? Because your critique of religion (Christianity) leads me to believe that you are not.
Because it is based on a doctrine that holds as it's main tenet the alleged reality of an event that never happened- Jesus's ressurection.
First of all, how do you know Jesus didn't ascend into Heaven?
Secondly, do follow up on that hermeneutics. You almost seem to be implying that religion is wrong because it's not upheld by the scientific method or something.
Third, when is a belief in the unprovable not justified? I know many Christians who are better people because of their faith. Why is their faith not justified? You can't prove their faith to be wrong anymore than they can prove it to be right. Yet whether or not it leads individuals down a path of transcendence (as religion arguably does) seems absolutely irrelevant to you. Why?
I mean, not that I'm a fan of Buddhism, but during the Vietnam War, Buddhist monks used to set themselves on fire to make a statement about the war. Such acts had a huge effect on the American population. There are similiar stories of Christian saints being martyred in the name of a cause. Such sacrifices for an ideal are merely one example of how faith allows people to transcend; of how faith in higher ideals structured around a religious dogma can give them strength and courage when they otherwise wouldn't have it. Yet you find this source of courage and strength unjustified because it can't be seen under a microscope or can't be examined with the five senses? Why?
Of course, sometimes this strength is manipulated and directed in immoral ways such as the case with the suicide bombers during 9/11. But had those men not believed in their faith and had their conviction, I don't think they would have been as willing to fight and die for their beliefs. Now you may think that that shows how religion is bad. But I don't think it's fair to think of it that way because there is that example. Much like a gun or a sword or even a strong body, religion is a source of strength. The gun or the sword or the strong body are not by default bad just because they can, in the wrong hands, be used for evil purposes. We also recognize that they can each be used for very noble purposes. The same goes for religion. It can be used in a virtuous manner or in a despicable manner.
My beliefs are quantifiable, measurable, provable through and through, based on nothing more than things that exist in this world.
Right. So you concede that your beliefs are based on the way molecules interact with each other rather than on high ideals.
I'm of a spiritual nature. But it's not like I reject science. I just think there is more to truth outside of what science can tell us. I don't know exactly what that truth may be so I choose to direct my faith into the highest ideals. Organized religion attempts to do the same. That's why I have some humility and respect for it even if I'm not necessarily a metaphysical objectivist.
A "spiritual" person's beliefs are based on alleged metaphysical truths of gods, angels, and demons, all concepts that have yet to be proven.
You keep missing the boat about faith. If those things were "proven" in the sense you persist on using that word, then believing in them would not be faith-based and believing in them would not be considered a religion. Having them "proven" would be the same a person believing in dogs or cats or dragonflies. Which defeats the purpose of faith in higher ideals altogether.
I know this, for one, because the events that the bible asserts as real are indeed anything but real. The bible, the foundation of Christianity, contains historical untruths.
You keep using the word "truth" (or in this case "untruths") the way a scientist would use the word "fact." If there's one thing you gather from this conversation, I would like it to be this: truth and empirical facts are not necessarily one in the same.
But their beliefs are based on demonstrable untruths, so in all honesty, their beliefs are as valid as the beliefs of the Muslims, the Hindu's, the Rastafarians, and the cult of Elvis Presley. That is, not very valid at all.
But the cult of Elvis Presley didn't inspire a plethora of scientists, inventors, renowned writers, and explorers. It hasn't ordered Western civilization for two millenia the way Christianity has. Nor does the rastafarian cult seem to inspire much outside of wearing your hair nasty, hating gays, and smoking pot. Just because one belief may be as valid as the next one doesn't mean that all faiths are the same nor does that make each faith equally justifiable.
1. You flatter me
2. My point is that it's possible to be an ethical and respectable person without a religious upbringing.
1. I hope not. The bell curve in terms of contemporary morality is pretty low.
2. Of course a person can be an ethical and respectable person without a religious upbringing or without even being faithful. But that's not what this argument is about. Acknowledging that there are ethical atheists doesn't discredit religion's powerful potential to create goodness in this world.
That sounds to me like nothing. It sounds to me like a belief in something you would like to believe but lack the evidence to.
This again comes from a misunderstanding of religious ideals. I could in some ways could be considered religious. I don't necessarily think I'm going to get anything out of it other than what those ideals aspire me to think and accomplish. Intelligent people don't believe in religion because they want to go to Heaven. This is something that secular atheists think about ALL religious people because a great many of them fixate on that.
Atheists don't like it when religious people focus on the lowest common denominator within their group; yet atheists seem to have no problem fixating on the lowest common denominator among religious people.
Therefore, you construct this "faith" thesis, which is essentially a way to not only get away with believing things unprovable, but to turn this habit of believing in unprovable things into some kind of virtuous, noble enterprise.
What? How so? I didn't say that being faithful in and of itself makes a person virtuous. My argument is that faith in the unknowable often helps people act in a virtuous manner when they otherwise would not.
But Christianity clearly states that certain events happened when they never happened. How can you condone this?
I don't know how know whether something absolutely happened or not. It's even harder to address this when you're completely specific. And it's tiresome when you keep insisting that faith in Christianity must necessitate a metaphysically objectivist perspective. I suspect you keep making this claim because you think it will make your argument easier.
The miracles of St. Paul and friends, the miracles of Jesus (or even his existence), the whole point of why Jesus died, His supposed ressurection, the Blinding of St. Paul. Just the ones that jump to the top of my head.
Why do beliefs in such events offend you? It's also telling that atheists focus all their vitriol on Chrisitianity but seem to have more "tolerance" for Hinduism and Buddism and other more "exotic" faiths. It's just a trend I've noticed.
Some did. Socrates was actually tried and killed for his disbelief in the gods. Other scholars like the sophists certainly did believe in the Greek Gods.
Well, that's how the modern day atheists phrase it. Another way to phrase it was that he was put to death for corrupting Greek youth and his because his teachings were subversive to the society he lived under. He was undermining the system. I suggest you read Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy for a more complete perspective on why the Greeks had Socrates killed.
Perhaps, but the modern Christianity is not like this at at all. When was the last time that Christianity proliferated texts?
Just google "modern Christian scholars." My friend has a Masters degree in theology and has read everything from Beyond Good and Evil to Das Capital to the religious texts you find so objectionable. There's even a religious channel that comes on in my area where a Catholic priest discusses philosophy of all types with viewers and relates it to the Catholic faith similar to how Archbishop Sheen did in the U.S. during the 1950s. But some of my friend's classmates were among the smartest people I have ever met. Furthermore, not every Christian university amounts to Liberty University. Many Mormons I have met (who went to school at BYU) have been among some of the kindest, most modest, and most versed people I have ever met.
Again, my point is that there are other, more effective ways of teaching children ethics, among other things.
Again, I think this is a wholly unsubstantiated opinion.
I understand that atheists can be bad too. My point is that your Jesuit Philosopher version of Christianity (which is interesting because you aren't even a Christian) is almost nonexistent in today's world. You seem to be defending a demographic that doesn't exist.
What does it matter if I'm a Christian or not? I'm not a follower of Confucius but I can still admire his teachings and what they did for Chinese society in the same way I can admire Buddha without being a Buddhist or admire Christ without being a Christian or even admire The Torah without being Jewish.
Why does a demographic have to exist for me to be able to defend certain ideas found within a faith? I can still defend the ideas within Christianity if not a single Christian on this Earth followed the ideas within the texts.
We can spend a whole other discussion talking about this, however it is not worth getting into now.
I think we have different ideas of what religion is. The way i see it (and the way it was taught to me) is that Christianity is based on a very specific claim, one that is not symbolic, philosophical, or metaphorical but very real.
You're kind of strawmaning the whole lot of believers right there.
While i see how it could be taken allegorically, according to Christians all the events in the bible are literally true.
More strawmaning.
Christians believe every story in the bible word for word. They see Jesus as a real person who really performed miracles and really died on the cross for our sins. This is what i have a problem with, because it isn't true.
How do you know? Furthermore, how do you even know that you are really you or that the Earth is really round or that the Milky Way is really in the outer rim of the known universe? We assume this stuff to all be true because of the faith we put into ourselves and our five senses (which is valid). However, I don't know why the line HAS to stop there. I don't know why it's any more valid or noble to have faith in yourself or faith in one's bodily senses over faith in other systems that have proven to be very useful for some people throughout the course of history just as a faith in our senses has been.
Maybe there are a minority of Jesuit Philosophers who believe otherwise, but The Nicene creed is proof that your precious Roman Catholic Church believes In Jesus's divinity quite literally, not metaphorically. They are simply wrong.
Of course people who believe in the divine believe in the divine "literally." I don't think there is hardly a major faith out there that doesn't have some appreciation for the nature of the divine as something that actually manifests itself. They just don't all agree on what exactly it is that is divine though there is often noticable overlap among the prominent religions in expressing the divine.
Well, I feel like we're making progress if you're backing away from "rights" talk. That's something, I suppose.
[QUOTE]You still haven't explained why religion is absolutely metaphysically false (because you can't) nor have you explained why it is antithetical to the notion of being "civilized" to have a religion. You also don't justify what's decent. You're just asserting that it's decent to not teach relgion because it's the decent thing to do or something. It's a tautological argument.
I don't think religion is metaphysically false because I don't acknowledge the word "metaphysical". It means nothing to me. Christianity is false because the bible is a false book ridden with historical innacuracies.
You don't know truth any more than some fundamentalist does. Truth is a profound matter. We just try to grasp for the straws the best way we can. Religion and indeed all philosophy is an effort to do that.
If a fundamentalist says that Jesus is a real person who was raised from the dead, he is wrong. As simple as that.
I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I have to stress this. The veracity of Christianity lies in it's ability to prove the historical events that it CLEARLY asserts are true
It is reasonable. Why is it not reasonable? As I've said, many people justify their faith because they know it makes them better. It's not like you know what ultimate truth is so why am I to take it that your perspective is any more valid by default? Because it only takes scientific observation into account?
Scientific observation is the only thing that should be taken into account, in my opinion. Sure, religion makes people "better". Does that make the things that Christianity asserts true? no.
Religion itself is more abstract than you seem to give it credit for. You give secular abstraction a license but then flag religious abstractions. Yet you don't explain why other than implying that religion can't be true just because it can't. I'm sorry this argument doesn't sway me.
Religion makes more historical claims then you give it credit for. St. Paul clearly said that the ressurection happened and that 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected. This not not a "metaphysical", symbolic, or metaphorical claim. This is a historical claim and ought to be treated as such.
That depends on who you talk to. There is no consensus among ALL Christians that Noah's Arc has to be metaphysically objectively true for Christianity to be valid.
There are a few liberal Christians who believe that some of the things in the bible are allegorical, yes. And Noah's Ark is not a matter of metaphysical truth. It is a matter of historic truth. However, the existence of Noah's Ark has not been proven to this day.
Are you familiar with hermeneutics? Because your critique of religion (Christianity) leads me to believe that you are not.
I am, I studied hermeneutics for a year in my Presbyterian school. We also studied the Westminster confession of faith, where it was decided that every protestant MUST accept every word of the bible as literally true. (the catholic church did the same with the council of Nicea).
First of all, how do you know Jesus didn't ascend into Heaven?
I don't. The burden of proof is on the christians to show that he ressurected or that he even existed as a real person, or, if they can't, to retreat to the position that he is just an allegory.
Secondly, do follow up on that hermeneutics. You almost seem to be implying that religion is wrong because it's not upheld by the scientific method or something.
Christianity makes plenty of historical and scientific claims. No mainstream Christian apologist that iv'e read denies that. And before you say it, yes, I agree that there are a handful of Jesuit philosophers who share your opinions. They, however, don't speak for mainstream catholics and certainly not for any protestants.
Third, when is a belief in the unprovable not justified? I know many Christians who are better people because of their faith. Why is their faith not justified? You can't prove their faith to be wrong anymore than they can prove it to be right. Yet whether or not it leads individuals down a path of transcendence (as religion arguably does) seems absolutely irrelevant to you. Why?
I don't have to prove anything right. I am not the one making the claim, they are. All I am saying is that Christianity is ultimately false, even though a number of good things can be taken from it. However, good things can be taken from every fairy tale.
I mean, not that I'm a fan of Buddhism, but during the Vietnam War, Buddhist monks used to set themselves on fire to make a statement about the war. Such acts had a huge effect on the American population. There are similiar stories of Christian saints being martyred in the name of a cause. Such sacrifices for an ideal are merely one example of how faith allows people to transcend; of how faith in higher ideals structured around a religious dogma can give them strength and courage when they otherwise wouldn't have it. Yet you find this source of courage and strength unjustified because it can't be seen under a microscope or can't be examined with the five senses? Why?
All i want them to do is to admit that their beliefs are not grounded in scientific reality and that parts of their holy texts are plain wrong, such as part where everyone who doesn't accept Jesus is going to burn in hell. That part is not only wrong but cruel and vile.
Right. So you concede that your beliefs are based on the way molecules interact with each other rather than on high ideals.
Not necessarily. I mentioned in an other post that there are a lot things I believe for different Ideas. The belief in a God is not one of them, however.
You keep missing the boat about faith. If those things were "proven" in the sense you persist on using that word, then believing in them would not be faith-based and believing in them would not be considered a religion. Having them "proven" would be the same a person believing in dogs or cats or dragonflies. Which defeats the purpose of faith in higher ideals altogether.
This is exactly why I consider the concept of Religion unreasonable. it expects you to overlook it's fallacies and innacuracies all to support the concept of believing in things that can't be proven, as if that's a good thing.
But the cult of Elvis Presley didn't inspire a plethora of scientists, inventors, renowned writers, and explorers. It hasn't ordered Western civilization for two millenia the way Christianity has. Nor does the rastafarian cult seem to inspire much outside of wearing your hair nasty, hating gays, and smoking pot. Just because one belief may be as valid as the next one doesn't mean that all faiths are the same nor does that make each faith equally justifiable.
My point is not in the pragmatic anmount of good they do (which is debatable), but the overall veracity of Christianity's scientific and historical claims.
1. I hope not. The bell curve in terms of contemporary morality is pretty low.
1. Way to take a jest :coffee:
This again comes from a misunderstanding of religious ideals. I could in some ways could be considered religious. I don't necessarily think I'm going to get anything out of it other than what those ideals aspire me to think and accomplish. Intelligent people don't believe in religion because they want to go to Heaven. This is something that secular atheists think about ALL religious people because a great many of them fixate on that.
I am sorry for taking the Pope and almost every other Christian leader at their word. Anglican, Protestant, whatever. It is quite unanimous. St. Paul, the hero and symbol of Christendom, clearly states that Jesus died for everyone to go to heaven, and whoever does not accept him will burn in hell. Both, according to St. Paul, are literal places that exist in real life.
Atheists don't like it when religious people focus on the lowest common denominator within their group; yet atheists seem to have no problem fixating on the lowest common denominator among religious people.
I am talking about the common, official, accepted, doctrines of modern Christianity. You seem to be the one focusing on Elite Jesuit Scholars who share your opinions that make up less than one percent of all christians.
What? How so? I didn't say that being faithful in and of itself makes a person virtuous. My argument is that faith in the unknowable often helps people act in a virtuous manner when they otherwise would not.
It is not "unknowable". It is simply believing something without the proper evidence. There is no mysticism about it. It's quite simple actually.
I don't know how know whether something absolutely happened or not. It's even harder to address this when you're completely specific. And it's tiresome when you keep insisting that faith in Christianity must necessitate a metaphysically objectivist perspective. I suspect you keep making this claim because you think it will make your argument easier.
This isn't according to me. This is according to everyone from the council of nicea to St. Paul to the every protestant.
Why do beliefs in such events offend you? It's also telling that atheists focus all their vitriol on Chrisitianity but seem to have more "tolerance" for Hinduism and Buddism and other more "exotic" faiths. It's just a trend I've noticed.
It's not matter of vitriol. And no, I treat christianity the same way that I would treat any other religion
Just google "modern Christian scholars." My friend has a Masters degree in theology and has read everything from Beyond Good and Evil to Das Capital to the religious texts you find so objectionable. There's even a religious channel that comes on in my area where a Catholic priest discusses philosophy of all types with viewers and relates it to the Catholic faith similar to how Archbishop Sheen did in the U.S. during the 1950s. But some of my friend's classmates were among the smartest people I have ever met. Furthermore, not every Christian university amounts to Liberty University. Many Mormons I have met (who went to school at BYU) have been among some of the kindest, most modest, and most versed people I have ever met.
Good points, nothing to dispute here
Again, I think this is a wholly unsubstantiated opinion.
What does it matter if I'm a Christian or not? I'm not a follower of Confucius but I can still admire his teachings and what they did for Chinese society in the same way I can admire Buddha without being a Buddhist or admire Christ without being a Christian or even admire The Torah without being Jewish.
Why does a demographic have to exist for me to be able to defend certain ideas found within a faith? I can still defend the ideas within Christianity if not a single Christian on this Earth followed the ideas within the texts.
I was just pointing out that the way you perceive Christianity is extremely unpopular among people who actually and that almost no Christian would agree with your views on the bible.
How do you know? Furthermore, how do you even know that you are really you or that the Earth is really round or that the Milky Way is really in the outer rim of the known universe? We assume this stuff to all be true because of the faith we put into ourselves and our five senses (which is valid). However, I don't know why the line HAS to stop there. I don't know why it's any more valid or noble to have faith in yourself or faith in one's bodily senses over faith in other systems that have proven to be very useful for some people throughout the course of history just as a faith in our senses has been.
That's an elementary argument. I can't prove that I am really I; nor am I required to because there is no good reason to assert that in the first place. That's called begging the question.
Of course people who believe in the divine believe in the divine "literally." I don't think there is hardly a major faith out there that doesn't have some appreciation for the nature of the divine as something that actually manifests itself. They just don't all agree on what exactly it is that is divine though there is often noticable overlap among the prominent religions in expressing the divine.
Well they are all wrong until they can prove that they are right using observable reality. I am not buying this whole "faith" argument. There are a lot of things I would like to believe as well. However, I have the mental discipline to only believe things that are backed by evidence.
I am sorry if i missed something. I tried to touch on the most important points because I was kind of in a hurry.
Debaser11
03-21-2011, 04:25 AM
I don't think religion is metaphysically false because I don't acknowledge the word "metaphysical". It means nothing to me. Christianity is false because the bible is a false book ridden with historical innacuracies.
On what grounds can you wholly reject metaphysics in regards to ontology?
I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I have to stress this. The veracity of Christianity lies in it's ability to prove the historical events that it CLEARLY asserts are true
How do you know the events it asserts as true, are not? The parts that are essential are Christ's divinity and subsequent ressurrection. Has someone all of a sudden broken the rules of logic and proved a negative (as in proved that these events were not the case and didn't happen)? The Old Testament and parables found in Christian texts have all sorts of leeways for interpretation (which even then is hard to do because modern man so severly lacks any context).
And again, I feel as though the only reason you keep trying to argue as though I were a metaphysical objectivist is because you seem to not be able to argue in any other fashion. Furthermore, your argument is against all religion, essentially. So it's rather disingenuous and pretend your beef is only with metaphysical objectivists. Don't pretend you've never heard that religion is based on a certain amount of interpretation.
Scientific observation is the only thing that should be taken into account, in my opinion.
Why? You haven't EVEN BEGUN to substantiate this claim.
Sure, religion makes people "better". Does that make the things that Christianity asserts true? no.
I never said that people shouldn't believe what isn't true because it makes them better. You have yet to show that religion is any less valid than your own beliefs.
Religion makes more historical claims then you give it credit for. St. Paul clearly said that the ressurection happened and that 500 people saw Jesus after he resurrected. This not not a "metaphysical", symbolic, or metaphorical claim. This is a historical claim and ought to be treated as such.
So you somehow know this didn't happen? Do tell how you are so enlightened on this matter.
There are a few liberal Christians who believe that some of the things in the bible are allegorical, yes. And Noah's Ark is not a matter of metaphysical truth. It is a matter of historic truth. However, the existence of Noah's Ark has not been proven to this day.
It hasn't been disproven either. You really don't understand religion. None of the religions have been "proven" in the sense you're using the word. I wonder why. Do you still not understand what I mean about religion being based on believing in the unprovable?
I am, I studied hermeneutics for a year in my Presbyterian school. We also studied the Westminster confession of faith, where it was decided that every protestant MUST accept every word of the bible as literally true. (the catholic church did the same with the council of Nicea).
You keep trying to define what religion has to be to someone. How about you show me you actually understand hermeneutics instead of again trying to do this slight of hand with the metaphysical objectivist position? Your beef is with religion, not FUNDAMENTALIST religion only. So stop arguing as though that were the case.
I don't. The burden of proof is on the christians to show that he ressurected or that he even existed as a real person, or, if they can't, to retreat to the position that he is just an allegory.
And what you are saying is nonsensical. One does not have to prove an article of faith. One cannot prove an article of faith by definition. One proves facts. Since you're trying to use a facts paradigm to disprove an article of faith, I implore you once again to defy the laws of logic and prove a negative. Prove to me that he wasn't real and didn't ressurrect himself. The religious person doesn't have to prove anything by definition because his belief is religious (based on an article of faith). You really seem to not grasp religion's nature. Hence my own redundancy.
Were the religions to trying pass religion off as science, I would agree with you. But most Christians I know value science despite their faith and understand that science=/=religion. You, on the other hand, keep trying to squeeze them together as being one in the same to discredit religion. To paraphrase Stephen J. Gould, science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria.
This isn't science. Again. Why do you pick on Christianity only? Why not pick on a Buddhist. I haven't been shown karma.
Christianity makes plenty of historical and scientific claims.
The fact that scientific claims are made by scientists and historical claims are made by historians and theological claims are made by religions (and studied by theologians) seems to have escaped you here.
No mainstream Christian apologist that iv'e read denies that.
Again, you'd rather argue about what some "mainstream" retard on the street says. Guess what? This discussion is not about how dumb or how silly Christians or even Christian apologists are who've you've met. If it were, I'm sure I could contribute plenty as I have met some dumb ones myself. In fact, all those guys who debate Hitchens and Dawkins strike me as very dim and they are some of the most prominent apologists around.
Our exchange is based on ideas, yet you keep trying to bring other people's ideas into it or other people's take into it even though I've taken time to actually explain MY views. Counter what I write regarding the ideas themselves (if you can); don't set me up in some underhanded way to imply that my view is the same as some dumbass Christian's view or that I must go along with what other "apologists" say (as if these so-called apologists are any more of a monolith than atheists are) simply because I am defending Christianity and religion.
Notice how I don't keep bringing up what atheists do to try to discredit your position except in so much as to counter a prior generalization you've made about all Christians.
And before you say it, yes, I agree that there are a handful of Jesuit philosophers who share your opinions. They, however, don't speak for mainstream catholics and certainly not for any protestants.
Again, I'm defending a faith, not people. Just like someone can defend the idea of communism and not be defending Stalin necessarily or defend national socialism not be defending Nazi atrocities.
I don't have to prove anything right. I am not the one making the claim, they are. All I am saying is that Christianity is ultimately false,
lol That's a claim right there.
even though a number of good things can be taken from it. However, good things can be taken from every fairy tale.
But that's just it, to the believers of a religion, it is not a fairytale. It's what they believe to be true. You seem to think your five senses have some definitive version of the truth.
All i want them to do is to admit that their beliefs are not grounded in scientific reality
I don't know what you mean by "scientific reality." They are not scientifically provable (which we both agree on) nor are they scientifically unprovable (which seems to be a point of contention between us). But when you can "scientifically" disprove faith, let me know. You'll be the first person to prove a negative claim.
and that parts of their holy texts are plain wrong, such as part where everyone who doesn't accept Jesus is going to burn in hell. That part is not only wrong but cruel and vile.
It's these types of sentences that cause me to question your familiarity with hermeneutics. The fact that far from every Christian believes this (I was raised Catholic and we never were taught to believe this) seems completely incidental to you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.