Christopher Hitchens accuses Rick Warren of bigotry for believing that Jews will not go to heaven (thanks to Wally for the link). Hitchens’ condemnation strikes me as unduly harsh. I don’t think it’s fair to label a theological position as bigotry simply because it does not conform to secular principles.
But here’s another possibility: Do modern Christians still believe with the same fervor as in the past all those unyielding doctrines of eternal damnation for the unbaptised and unconverted? They sure don’t act as if they do. If they really were convinced that their friends, co-workers, neighbors, and in-laws were going to hell because they possessed the wrong or no religious belief, I would think that the knowledge would be unbearable. Christians surely see that most of their wrong-believing personal acquaintances are just as moral and deserving as themselves. How, then, do they live with the knowledge that their friends and loved ones face an eternity of torment? I would expect a frenzy of proselytizing, by word or by sword.
In previous centuries, when religion had the upper hand, religious differences meant more. But ours is a world dominated by the secular values of tolerance and equality. Either believers live with an extraordinary degree of cognitive dissonance between the inclusive values of their society and the dictates of their religion, or they unconsciously mitigate those bloody-minded dictates as atavistic vestiges from a more primitive time.
I wonder which it is.
Dal,
For the generalized case, this has some merit. You can’t force everyone to do the right thing. However, there are specific cases where being “sad but not responsible” just doesn’t hold up. You definetly have friends who are going to hell by the standard in the OP. If you had friends who were seriously into drugs or some other life threatening activity, I can’t conceive you saying “well, I can’t force them to stop” and just leaving it at that. You most definetly would be haunted by it, and compelled to act on it. If you don’t get the same feeling about close friends who are headed for hell, then there is some sort of disconnect beyond your pastor’s philosophy.
Dan –
That would depend upon how much experience I had with trying to get people to stop doing drugs. After I spent a certain amount of time and money on such “projects” – including a few of my early girlfriends – eventually I learned how little effect such interventions really have. At the moment, I’m two-for-thirtyish on helping people to change.
For the most part, if a person willfully chooses to participate in self-destructive activity, the best that another can do is stay out of the way and keep the towels ready for cleaning up the vomit. I speak with experience, with caring and reason, but I confine my efforts to people who are willing to honestly examine the actual effects of their choices. That’s one firm precondition for change.
(Listing the rest would take up pages.)
So, just like it would be faulty to say “environmentalists don’t really care about the world unless they cry for every dying whale and salamander”, the argument that Christians don’t believe in salvation unless they continually cry over every sinner is flawed. Christians have their own daily struggles to put energy to.
NOTE – I haven’t discussed my actual theology here, I’ve just pointed out one flaw in Hitchens’ and MacDonald’s false dichotomies. There are LOTS of other sincere ways that Christians believe, and the true flaw in both writers is the attempt to create a straw man called “a Christian” as a stereotyped homogenous synthetic entity in the first place.
For the actual theological debate, as a Christian, when I meet a Christian who claims that only Christians go to heaven, I point to the example of Anne Frank. There is a girl who having committed no crime suffered for years and finally was murdered. But even with all of that, among her last words on earth was to say that she still believed that people were basically good. Now, of course, Frank was not morally spotless anymore than I am, but I cannot believe that God would condemn her to hell.
So having seen the good in this one non-Christian (and i pick her as an example because she is famous and her basic goodness is self-evident–there are of course many other non-christians i can point to, both in my personal life and in the world at large), I have an unshakable faith that Christians are getting something deeply wrong when they say that all non-Christians are going to hell. First, the words Jesus spoke, more or less that people can only come to heaven through Jesus, is ambiguous at best. There are lots of ways you can come to heaven “through Christ” without literally believing in him. One very obvious theory is to say that Jesus opened a door that previously was closed and thus through him we are able to enter heaven (speaking in highly metaphorical language, of course). Or even if we are getting the meaning correct, and yes, you have to be a christian, then who is to say that the chance to convert has passed when your body dies? Obviously there can be deathbed conversions, but why not post-death conversion? Would it be outside our imagination to picture that when Anne Frank came up to the Pearly Gates (again, being metaphorical), Jesus met her and said, “my child, you have lived a good life, but you were wrong about one thing. The son of God had come and I am him.” Would it be hard to imagine that Jesus then proved his divinity in some way. (I do not accept the silly claim that religious belief *requires* a lack of proof). Jesus didn’t get mad at “doubting Thomas” for a failure to believe without evidence, but because he doubted even after all he had seen. So maybe Jesus said to her “here’s your chance to believe in me, now, after death” and I have to think the girl was not so hard hearted to reject christianity in the face of proof. And then being a Christian after dying, she entered heaven. Why not?
I’m not saying that it works one way or the other. But given that I simply cannot believe that God would allow that little girl to burn in hell, I have an unshakable faith that God has worked something out to let her live in eternity in His pure love. And the same goes for all good non-believers.
So in some deep way i do think that Rick Warren is being unimaginative when he says that all jews, which would include Anne Frank, would go to hell. But it is not bigotry. It is nothing more than the belief that God likes one faith better than another, and at worst “discriminates” in heaven. but the convept that a deity is practicing invidious discrimination against non-believers in the afterlife is just too silly to be entertained. It is not a belief that jews are bad people per say, for those same people will always emphatically deny that being a good person has anything to do with it. It is merely that they have the wrong belief.
As indeed Hitchens says about everyone else. As indeed most people do when it comes to their beliefs or lack thereof: that what i believe is the utter truth, and everyone who believes differently is wrong. And by Hitchen’s concept of faith, i guess he is as bigoted as he thinks Rick Warren is.
The silly notion that has siezed many modern americans is that since we have equality of religious rights, that all religions are created equal. they are not any more than all political philosophies are created equal (and indeed, some religions double as political philosophies). What a devotion to religious rights is, really, is a decision to agree to disagree. So we sit back and watch you be an unimaginitive atheist, or a kooky mormon or scientologist and we shake our heads that you could be so wrong, just as we do the young devotee of Karl Marx. that doesn’t mean any of us are going to take away your right to be wrong, in politics or faith. We are just going to think you are wrong.
I will also add that I have my doubts about the existance of hell anyway. the passages of the new testament talking on the subject suggests as much that a person who doesn’t get into heaven simple ceases to exist. I don’t pretend to know everything in God’s plan, but I will add that as a real possibility and it makes some logical sense to me, too. After all, eternal punishment is infinite punishment. But short of Hitler is anyone deserving of infinite punishment? It makes more sense to me to imagine God saying to Hitler, “you are such an evil man, that i will undo your very existance.” i don’t know what the truth is, but that makes alot of sense to me.
@OGWiseman
OGWiseman–Somehow you seem to have taken my meaning to be the exact opposite of what I wrote. I said that the capacity to stir one to action should not be the sine qua non of an important, closely-held belief. My belief that a club sandwich will satisfy my present hunger, for instance, is not necessarily on par with my belief that Wodehouse was a delightful author, although the former has a far greater likelihood of inciting me to present action–in particular, to find a good club sandwich.
“…but the convept that a deity is practicing invidious discrimination against non-believers in the afterlife is just too silly to be entertained. ”
Yeah, generating a wish-fulfillment fantasyland after death is utterly and wholly reasonable, but a discriminating deity (especially that great ecumenicalist, Yahweh), is indeed quite silly.
Grant
So, if the God you claim doesn’t exist doesn’t allow you into heaven, you are going to get mad and claim he is invidiously discriminating against atheists?
Yes, that would be silly. Not because it is silly to think that he is “discriminating” in some sense of the word, but silly to think there is anything at all invidious about it.
That is, assuming by your derisive comments that you are an athiest, of course. If i am wrong in that assumption, sorry.
And, btw, I understand where that snotty sense of supriority comes from. It has to do with your own fantasy life where your myopism is dressed up as wisdom. But being an almost stereotypical “atheist jerk” does nothing to help your cause. You would be much better off following James Taranto’s example, where he respects faith, but doesn’t share it.
@A.W.
On the first part, I withdraw my comment, as I now realize that I misread your statement.
—–
“And, btw, I understand where that snotty sense of supriority comes from. It has to do with your own fantasy life where your myopism is dressed up as wisdom.”
Interesting. You don’t know me, but you think you have me all figured out, huh?? Wow, are you a mind reader?? Talk about fantasy life…
“But being an almost stereotypical ‘atheist jerk’ does nothing to help your cause. You would be much better off following James Taranto’s example, where he respects faith, but doesn’t share it.”
Thanks for the concern trolling, but no thanks. Why, exactly, should one a “respect” faith? I can see how one would feel pity for the faithful, as one feels pity for the fool whose faith in the goodness of mankind made him a sucker for con-men. But, really, it’s nothing more than a nice synonym for “self-delusion”, used by those who don’t want to admit they’re fooling themselves.
Further, when the “faithful” respect my beliefs, I’ll consider returning the favor. I won’t be holding my breath in the meantime. If the faithful have shown anything historically, it’s an inability to respect those who don’t share their affliction.
Grant
> but you think you have me all figured out
And your response proved I did. Believe you me, you are downright tedious in your predictability.
> Why, exactly, should one a “respect” faith? I can see how one would feel pity for the faithful
So Martin Luther King says that his faith helped him stand up for justice, and you pity him for that? And if you don’t think his faith was vital to finding his strength, you have not really studies the man.
> Further, when the “faithful” respect my beliefs, I’ll consider returning the favor. I won’t be holding my breath in the meantime.
Right. So I presume you are writing this from the cell where we locked you up for being an atheist? Given that we Christians are so intolerant and all.
“So Martin Luther King says that his faith helped him stand up for justice, and you pity him for that?”
I pity the fact that he could not see that all he needed to do the things that he did were internal to him and that he had the character and strength to do it all independent of the shackles of faith.
But what about the faith of those who oppressed King? Or of Mohammad Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers. Now THERE were faithful men. Do you respect those exercises of faith, or is it just the good ones that you pick and choose.
“Right. So I presume you are writing this from the cell where we locked you up for being an atheist?”
So, let me get this straight: You say I need to be more like Taranto and “respect” faith, so as not to be a jerk and all. When I point out that I will be respectful of faith when the faithful are respectful of me, you reply by noting that I’m not in prison, implying that this “mercy” is all that is due me by the faithful. Wow, what a stunningly incoherent response. I don’t advocate putting people afflicted with faith in prison, so by your measure, then, what more need I do???
Oh, wait, let me guess (since I can’t read minds like you can), for you, the “respect” due to atheists is merely not locking us up and “permitting” us to believe what we want (so long as we don’t talk about it in a disrespectful way.). The “respect” due from atheists, on the other hand, is not only fawning deference and a moratorium of criticism of faith and the faithful but, what, outright obsequiousness for the faithful’s gift of letting us have our own thoughts and beliefs. Is that about right???
“Given that we Christians are so intolerant and all.”
LOL. Yeah, ’cause the history of Christendom is nothing but a 2000-year unbroken string of pure, sweet tolerance.
Grant
> independent of the shackles of faith.
Faith didn’t shackle him. It helped set him and his people free. Indeed, if he limited himself to earthly concerns he would have gone along to get along, instead of taking a course in life that he knew would very likely lead to his death. It is easier to risk your life if you think your soul will live forever.
Your failure to understand that basic reality is a perfect example of your myopism. Its silly to say that no faith has any value. Non-jerk atheists usually recognize that.
> But what about the faith of those who oppressed King?
They might have called themselves Christians, but I have little doubt that Christ has a different opinion on the matter.
> Or of Mohammad Atta
As I said before, not all faith is created equal. Although I lay out my big picture view of what I think is really wrong with Islam right now toward the end of my response right now. let’s just say that the faith that allowed Martin Luther King to meet his maker, and the faith that allowed Atta to do the same, are not considered equally valuable in my mind. And the fact you cannot distinguish between the two, well, that is another example of your narrow mindedness.
> that this “mercy” is all that is due me by the faithful.
You know you were talking about actual persecution as you indeed fall back on later in your own response. Let’s not kid ourselves.
I always get annoyed when free people complain that they are being persecuted when they clearly are not.
> The “respect” due from atheists, on the other hand, is not only fawning deference and a moratorium of criticism of faith and the faithful
You can criticize and disagree without being a jerk. There is a middle ground.
> Yeah, ’cause the history of Christendom is nothing but a 2000-year unbroken string of pure, sweet tolerance.
Um, and atheists have been tolerant in the past? Well, let’s see here, there is Mao, Stalin, Khmer Rouge… yep, it seems whenever atheists have been in charge tolerance has ruled the day.
Of course, the truth is that intolerance has much more to do with political circumstances than the faith of the individual. That is, when the people are in charge, they tend to be tolerant; but when a dictator is in charge, they tend not to be. Its not merely that the people in power tend to be intolerant, but non-democracies tend to warp faith into something evil to serve their own purposes.
By the way, who created the political circumstances that allow you to even be a jerk atheist and walk free, and sue to take the dominant faith out of all public utterances? Oh right, Christians. Can you name any other faith tradition that has been so enlightened when it had such overwhelming power. No? Then you’re welcome.
And, by the way, that is why the majority of the world’s Muslims believe in downright evil things, but the majority of American Muslims (based on my anecdotal experience) do not. It’s the warping influence of dictatorships on their faith. I mean, my God, when they aired that video of that fox news reporter converting to Islam at gunpoint, they actually quoted from a passage in the Koran saying there should be no coercion in faith. Clearly those terrorists were ignoring the fairly explicit teachings of Mohammed himself.
And for that matter, that was why Southerners came to believe that God wanted them to keep black people down. It started in the days of slavery, where faith was distorted to maintain the miniature dictatorships of the plantation. Exodus and the Golden Rule were forgotten and this silliness about Hamm was invented. The subtext was used to overwhelm the text.
But take the person out of the dictatorship, and all of the faiths become more tolerant, even atheists.
let’s just say that the faith that allowed Martin Luther King to meet his maker, and the faith that allowed Atta to do the same, are not considered equally valuable in my mind
LOL!
The “net personal outcome” is pretty much the same, isn’t it?
Also, what does this “not equally valuable in my mind” thing is supposed to mean?
You have a “special authority” about values?
I suppose Mohammad Atta was just as cocksure as you that he held the right faith and he did saintly deeds.
Kevem
Yeah, well, I am MLK don’t believe in subjective morality, so… yeah, Atta thought he was a good guy and so did Hitler and Stalin, I am sure. And it doesn’t matter.
And you don’t need a “special authority” to say Dr. King was a basically good man, and Atta was a bad one. Whenever someone says they have trouble differentiating between those two, they only discredit themselves.
Sorry, typo fairy struck again. i mean to write “I AND MLK don’t believe in subjective morality.” my bad.
Faith didn’t shackle him. It helped set him and his people free. Indeed, if he limited himself to earthly concerns he would have gone along to get along…
What a load of hogwash. He was fighting for earthly concerns. He wasn’t fighting so that his people could experience freedom and justice is some fantastical afterlife, he was fighting for those things here, now, in the real world. Indeed, how many potential M.L.K.’s have there been throughout the world’s history who failed to rise up, failed to fight their oppressors, because they contented themselves with the “knowledge” that they’d be rewarded when they die.
…instead of taking a course in life that he knew would very likely lead to his death. It is easier to risk your life if you think your soul will live forever.
And if you believe that only non-theists will put their lives on the line for freedom and justice, you owe the memory of Pat Tillman, and many other men and women like him, a great apology.
They might have called themselves Christians, but I have little doubt that Christ has a different opinion on the matter.
LOL. And Angus McTavish doesn’t like haggis.
> “Or of Mohammad Atta”
As I said before, not all faith is created equal.
So, you ARE going with the pick-and-choose method.
let’s just say that the faith that allowed Martin Luther King to meet his maker, and the faith that allowed Atta to do the same, are not considered equally valuable in my mind.
They both exercised “faith.” They both believed, without reason or evidence, in ancient texts which they believed contained the word of a mythical creator. What differed, beside the specifics of their preferred mythology, was the actions which the faith motivated. On the one hand, good, on the other, evil. But, see, I have no need to respect “faith”, as I can simply respect the good acts and deplore the other without jumping through the rhetorical hoops you are faced with, in an attempt to excuse the very thing that created the evil act.
You know you were talking about actual persecution as you indeed fall back on later in your own response. Let’s not kid ourselves.
I always get annoyed when free people complain that they are being persecuted when they clearly are not.
Well, you may read minds, but you sure can’t read English. (But, to be fair, I’ll just assume you misread my writing, as I initially misread yours.) I did not say I was persecuted; I said I was disrespected. And if I were to use “persecuted”, it was be metaphor, like the “War” on Christmas.
Um, and atheists have been tolerant in the past? Well, let’s see here, there is Mao, Stalin, Khmer Rouge… yep, it seems whenever atheists have been in charge tolerance has ruled the day.
We weren’t discussing atheists, we were discussing your statement implying that Christians are tolerant. They are not. Whether atheists are or are not is wholly irrelevant. (And, in my opinion, atheism is not a necessary condition for good government, rationalism and reason are. Religion is only one form of irrationality; others exist, such as communism. The communists, though atheist, were still irrational, thus, they did not produce good government.)
By the way, who created the political circumstances that allow you to even be a jerk atheist and walk free, and sue to take the dominant faith out of all public utterances?
Enlightenment thinkers.
Oh right, Christians.
Not in any more than a trivial, nominal sense. It was their enlightenment thinking, not their Christianity, which has resulted in our society. Christendom hummed along quite capably for 1500 years in a state where one could catch a fairly painful death if one were, say, a pagan, or a Protestant or a Roman Catholic or a Jew or held one of many other ideas.
And for that matter, that was why Southerners came to believe that God wanted them to keep black people down. It started in the days of slavery, where faith was distorted to maintain the miniature dictatorships of the plantation. Exodus and the Golden Rule were forgotten and this silliness about Hamm was invented. The subtext was used to overwhelm the text.
Wow. I know that there has to be a certain amount of revisionist history that you religious folks need to go through in order to stomach looking at the affect faith has on human beings in history, but this is nonsense. Slavery is condoned in the Bible. If one of the commandments was “Thou shalt not keep slaves”, then perhaps you could say that “faith was distorted.” But slavery was not only condoned, it was accepted and managed, and there are specific passages that fault the slave for disrespecting his owner.
And, indeed, why wasn’t such a commandment included in the decalogue?? I mean, Yahooo-weh had time to lay down all that stuff about being a “jealous god” and the sabbath rule and the whole coveting the neighbor’s ass thing, but, what, he ran out of room to just, maybe, note that owning people like furniture was monstrously evil?? I guess he was too concerned with graven images. ‘Cause, you know, statues are much more evil than chattel slavery.
(Odd that the breaks were missing… Here’s a more legible version…)
Faith didn’t shackle him. It helped set him and his people free. Indeed, if he limited himself to earthly concerns he would have gone along to get along…
What a load of hogwash. He was fighting for earthly concerns. He wasn’t fighting so that his people could experience freedom and justice is some fantastical afterlife, he was fighting for those things here, now, in the real world. Indeed, how many potential M.L.K.’s have there been throughout the world’s history who failed to rise up, failed to fight their oppressors, because they contented themselves with the “knowledge” that they’d be rewarded when they die.
…instead of taking a course in life that he knew would very likely lead to his death. It is easier to risk your life if you think your soul will live forever.
And if you believe that only non-theists will put their lives on the line for freedom and justice, you owe the memory of Pat Tillman, and many other men and women like him, a great apology.
They might have called themselves Christians, but I have little doubt that Christ has a different opinion on the matter.
LOL. And Angus McTavish doesn’t like haggis.
> “Or of Mohammad Atta”
As I said before, not all faith is created equal.
So, you ARE going with the pick-and-choose method.
let’s just say that the faith that allowed Martin Luther King to meet his maker, and the faith that allowed Atta to do the same, are not considered equally valuable in my mind.
They both exercised “faith.” They both believed, without reason or evidence, in ancient texts which they believed contained the word of a mythical creator. What differed, beside the specifics of their preferred mythology, was the actions which the faith motivated. On the one hand, good, on the other, evil. But, see, I have no need to respect “faith”, as I can simply respect the good acts and deplore the other without jumping through the rhetorical hoops you are faced with, in an attempt to excuse the very thing that created the evil act.
You know you were talking about actual persecution as you indeed fall back on later in your own response. Let’s not kid ourselves.
I always get annoyed when free people complain that they are being persecuted when they clearly are not.
Well, you may read minds, but you sure can’t read English. (But, to be fair, I’ll just assume you misread my writing, as I initially misread yours.) I did not say I was persecuted; I said I was disrespected. And if I were to use “persecuted”, it was be metaphor, like the “War” on Christmas.
Um, and atheists have been tolerant in the past? Well, let’s see here, there is Mao, Stalin, Khmer Rouge… yep, it seems whenever atheists have been in charge tolerance has ruled the day.
We weren’t discussing atheists, we were discussing your statement implying that Christians are tolerant. They are not. Whether atheists are or are not is wholly irrelevant. (And, in my opinion, atheism is not a necessary condition for good government, rationalism and reason are. Religion is only one form of irrationality; others exist, such as communism. The communists, though atheist, were still irrational, thus, they did not produce good government.)
By the way, who created the political circumstances that allow you to even be a jerk atheist and walk free, and sue to take the dominant faith out of all public utterances?
Enlightenment thinkers.
Oh right, Christians.
Not in any more than a trivial, nominal sense. It was their enlightenment thinking, not their Christianity, which has resulted in our society. Christendom hummed along quite capably for 1500 years in a state where one could catch a fairly painful death if one were, say, a pagan, or a Protestant or a Roman Catholic or a Jew or held one of many other ideas.
And for that matter, that was why Southerners came to believe that God wanted them to keep black people down. It started in the days of slavery, where faith was distorted to maintain the miniature dictatorships of the plantation. Exodus and the Golden Rule were forgotten and this silliness about Hamm was invented. The subtext was used to overwhelm the text.
Wow. I know that there has to be a certain amount of revisionist history that you religious folks need to go through in order to stomach looking at the affect faith has on human beings in history, but this is nonsense. Slavery is condoned in the Bible. If one of the commandments was “Thou shalt not keep slaves”, then perhaps you could say that “faith was distorted.” But slavery was not only condoned, it was accepted and managed, and there are specific passages that fault the slave for disrespecting his owner.
And, indeed, why wasn’t such a commandment included in the decalogue?? I mean, Yahooo-weh had time to lay down all that stuff about being a “jealous god” and the sabbath rule and the whole coveting the neighbor’s ass thing, but, what, he ran out of room to just, maybe, note that owning people like furniture was monstrously evil?? I guess he was too concerned with graven images. ‘Cause, you know, statues are much more evil than chattel slavery.
Grant
> He was fighting for earthly concerns.
First, Martin Luther King saw it as a charge from God. You know, the golden rule and all that. If that is earthly, then nothing a Christian does in the name of justice is for divine reasons however much they say they are motivated by faith.
And you cannot deny that the incentives, if you are an atheist, don’t favor that kind of self-sacrifice. Martin Luther King didn’t personally benefit from much of his work. The rest of America did. But on that micro level, if you forget the divine, this seems like a pretty lousy deal for him.
> Indeed, how many potential M.L.K.’s have there been throughout the world’s history who failed to rise up, failed to fight their oppressors, because they contented themselves with the “knowledge” that they’d be rewarded when they die.
And how many atheists concerned themselves only with their own personal benefit because they believed there was no life after death. Sorry, you cannot deny that a belief in an afterlife facilitates altruism.
> And if you believe that… non-theists will [not?] put their lives on the line for freedom and justice
I didn’t say anything of the sort, but then in that case, that is a very serious departure from the rationality that atheists cling to. Take Pat Tillman. Presuming that being “not religious” means he was an atheist, from the atheist’s point of view, how did the balance sheet work out? Not very good.
> And Angus McTavish doesn’t like haggis.
Ah, so if you say you are a Christian but thoroughly ignore the dictates of Christ, you can still be a Christian. Gotcha.
> So, you ARE going with the pick-and-choose method.
Yes. Sorry life can’t be broken down into simplifications like “atheism good, religion bad” or the inverse.
> They both exercised “faith.” They both believed, without reason or evidence,
Are you sure that Martin Luther King had no evidence. Because he said otherwise.
> What differed, beside the specifics of their preferred mythology, was the actions which the faith motivated.
I am flashing back to the Life of Brian when the Israelis are arguing about Roman rule and saying something like, “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” Yeah, besides the fact that Atta murdered about 3,000 innocent people and Martin Luther King helped liberate millions of people, what is the difference between them?
> in an attempt to excuse the very thing that created the evil act.
Are you under the impression that they are motivated by anything but jew hate? And by jew hate, I mean the nazi variety that claims that Jews are a race and not merely a religion.
> but you sure can’t read English
Really, then why did you drag in that word “historically” pray tell?
> We weren’t discussing atheists
Well, if faith is the source of all evil, etc., etc. then it should be sweetness and light when no one has any, right?
> your statement implying that Christians are tolerant. They are not.
Really? So what exact persecution have you faced, personally?
> Enlightenment thinkers.
They were not atheists. Indeed, even the term “enlightenment” has religious origins. And don’t forget that the American people, in 1776, 1789 and indeed at all times throughout our history has been above 80% Christian. If Christians were not tolerant, it would have been 200 unbroken years of religious persecution, and I am not talking about flyspecks like statements of faith on currency.
> It was their enlightenment thinking, not their Christianity, which has resulted in our society.
Ah, so our society is tolerant, and filled with Christians, but Christians are not tolerant. Gotcha.
> If one of the commandments was “Thou shalt not keep slaves”, then perhaps you could say that “faith was distorted.”
But the bible does say that. Remember that part about doing onto others as you would have done to you? Would any rational person say they want to be enslaved?
And there is that whole book of exodus thing.
I am neither the first nor the last to say that the Bible is opposed to slavery. Dr. Martin Luther King would be one such person, were he alive today.
Slavery is and was always about profit and not morality; placing your own material benefit in this life above the concerns of others, or even above compassion and a sense of right and wrong. Atheism doesn’t lead inevitably to that kind of behavior, but it sure doesn’t put up a lot of barriers to that. By contrast slavery had existed literally for thousands upon thousands of years in human history, and indeed exists to this day (go to hot air to read a heartbreaking story of a Saudi-owned slave girl), and in every faith tradition, including atheism. But every country in recorded history that banned it, did so under the control of Christians. To pretend that Christianity is cool with slavery is to confess a complete ignorance of how it came to be ended (to the extent it has been ended).
Pingback: The Zone Gathering » Blog Archive » Cognitive dissonance? Or just plain old disobedience?
First, Martin Luther King saw it as a charge from God. You know, the golden rule and all that. If that is earthly, then nothing a Christian does in the name of justice is for divine reasons however much they say they are motivated by faith.
I didn’t say that he wasn’t motivated by faith, I said that he was effecting earthly concerns. That would be true regardless of whether he believed he was on a mission from God or not. He was improving their condition in the here and now.
And you cannot deny that the incentives, if you are an atheist, don’t favor that kind of self-sacrifice.
And yet you persist in insulting the memory of people like Pat Tillman. Shameful.
And how many atheists concerned themselves only with their own personal benefit because they believed there was no life after death.
Again, you may proceed under the bigoted notion that atheists are incapable of altruism or self-sacrifice, but that’s just ignorance on your part.
Sorry, you cannot deny that a belief in an afterlife facilitates altruism.
Nor does disbelief in such a fantasy prevent altruism. (And, in fact, sacrificing yourself because believe you will live in paradise forever isn’t exactly altruistic.)
…that is a very serious departure from the rationality that atheists cling to.
Wow, you really do have no clue what you’re talking about, do you? It will probably come as a shock, but atheists do believe that there are things in this life worth sacrificing your life over. Not stupid nonsense like whether someone else believes that transfiguration is real, but actual, real important stuff.
Take Pat Tillman. Presuming that being “not religious” means he was an atheist, from the atheist’s point of view, how did the balance sheet work out? Not very good.
From the atheist’s point of view, he fought and died so that others might be free. I’d say that’s pretty good.
Ah, so if you say you are a Christian but thoroughly ignore the dictates of Christ, you can still be a Christian.
You are saying that they are not really Christians because of their acts. They, however, would have had chapter and verse to point to, to justify all of their acts as Christians. Just because you (in your post-Enlightenment mindset) find those acts reprehensible is no reason to say that they weren’t Christian, when, at the time, virtually the entire Christian world would have been in agreement with them, or at least found their arguments within the limits of Christianity.
Sorry life can’t be broken down into simplifications like “atheism good, religion bad” or the inverse.
Nor can it be broken down into “good faith” and “bad faith”, but you’re attempting to do so.
Are you sure that Martin Luther King had no evidence. Because he said otherwise.
So? I am certain that he believed he had evidence. He was wrong, however.
I am flashing back to the Life of Brian…
…Yeah, besides the fact that Atta murdered about 3,000 innocent people and Martin Luther King helped liberate millions of people, what is the difference between them?
Again, you are confusing acts and faith. Their acts were different, as I said. The content of their faith differed, as I said, but the fact of their faith – the evidence-less belief in supernatural creators giving instruction manuals to illiterate desert-dwelling ancients – is the same. Why should I respect “faith” (and make excuses when the faith leads to the death of thousands through holy terror, crusades and jihads) when I can examine acts?
Are you under the impression that they are motivated by anything but jew hate? And by jew hate, I mean the nazi variety that claims that Jews are a race and not merely a religion.
Based on the fact that this description you’ve given in ahistoric nonsense, yes. Fashionable nonsense these days, from some quarters, but nonsense none the less.
Really, then why did you drag in that word “historically” pray tell?
To indicate that in the past, the faithful have not respected atheists. Nothing to do with persecution.
Well, if faith is the source of all evil, etc., etc. then it should be sweetness and light when no one has any, right?
I never said that faith is the source of all evil, and I clearly stated that reason and rationality are keys to good government. You do know what the “straw man fallacy” is, don’t you??
“your statement implying that Christians are tolerant. They are not.”
Really? So what exact persecution have you faced, personally?
The opposite of tolerance is intolerance, not persecution. And I’ve faced intolerance many times.
“Enlightenment thinkers.”
They were not atheists.
Some were.
Indeed, even the term “enlightenment” has religious origins.
So do the terms “atheism,” “cathedral ceilings” and “after-Christmas sale.”
And don’t forget that the American people, in 1776, 1789 and indeed at all times throughout our history has been above 80% Christian. If Christians were not tolerant, it would have been 200 unbroken years of religious persecution, and I am not talking about flyspecks like statements of faith on currency.
Again, I did not state otherwise. But their tolerance was borne of the gradual dominance of Enlightenment and post-enlightenment thinking.
Ah, so our society is tolerant, and filled with Christians, but Christians are not tolerant. Gotcha.
Historically, Christianity is not a tolerant religion. Not too much of a “live and let live” attitude during the Crusades or the Thirty-Years War. Yes, our society is filled with Christians; Christians with a decidedly Enlightenment and post-enlightenment mindset. That is the difference.
And even then, old-style Christian intolerance is still rampant in this country. Don’t believe it? Just ask Liddy Dole’s opponent, or anyone trying to keep creationists from teaching mythology in science classes, or pretty much any gay person in America.
“If one of the commandments was ‘Thou shalt not keep slaves’, then perhaps you could say that ‘faith was distorted.'”
But the bible does say that. Remember that part about doing onto others as you would have done to you? Would any rational person say they want to be enslaved?
If reading general principles as a way of glossing over the specific portions of the book which condone slavery make sense to you, knock yourself out. But you have to ignore a whole lot of the “inspired word of God” to do it.
And there is that whole book of exodus thing.
And then there are those portions of Exodus (21) and Leviticus (among others) which set out the precepts regulating – but not outlawing – slavery.
I am neither the first nor the last to say that the Bible is opposed to slavery. Dr. Martin Luther King would be one such person, were he alive today.
And there are many, many people, historic and modern alike, who would point to all of the passages condoning slavery and disagree. Of course, an omniscient God, if one existed, would probably have foreseen this issue and included a bit more clarity in his rulebook. Strange that no such statement exists in the “good” book.
Slavery is and was always about profit and not morality; placing your own material benefit in this life above the concerns of others, or even above compassion and a sense of right and wrong.
So one should expect to find, in the book that is supposed to be the inspired word of the ultimate moral being – the spring from whom morality, itself, flows — a clear, irrefutable, and declarative statement that slavery is impermissible. Not a Clintonesque parsing of the phrase “do unto others,” but a unmistakable rule. A Commandment, if you will.
Isn’t it a bit perverse that the Decalogue states that you can’t have sex with a married woman, but it doesn’t say you can’t own her?? Or that God apparently found it more important to prevent people from chopping wood on Saturday than to prevent them from owning other people like cattle?? It is really more important to prevent people from saying “God damn it!!” than to trade other humans??
As moral principles go, “do not own people” is up there with “do not murder” and “do not steal” and is way, way more important than “keep holy the sabbath,” “don’t use the lord’s name in vain” and “honor your father and mother,” yet they made the cut in the 10 Commandments, but “thou shall not own slaves” did not??? I wonder why…
But every country in recorded history that banned it, did so under the control of Christians. To pretend that Christianity is cool with slavery is to confess a complete ignorance of how it came to be ended (to the extent it has been ended).
Yet, with limited exceptions in Scandinavia, slavery existed comfortably within European Christianity for 1700 years. Then, after the advent of Enlightenment, abolition becomes the norm, almost every in just over a century, and virtually everywhere in about two. Suggests to me that perhaps Christianity wasn’t exactly the cause of the abolition of slavery.
A.W. Dr. King was a basically good man, and Atta was a bad one. Whenever someone says they have trouble differentiating between those two, they only discredit themselves.
I am not saying that King was bad nor Atta was good, neither do I have trouble differentiating between the two.
I am saying that you CANNOT KNOW whether your own beliefs and “ethics” (mine too, agreed) aren’t ultimately making things worse, no matter your best intentions.
A.W. Sorry, you cannot deny that a belief in an afterlife facilitates altruism.
Just like Atta’s deeds…
A.W. Are you sure that Martin Luther King had no evidence. Because he said otherwise.
LOL!
If any religionist ever had anything like evidence would not it make all the arguments going on here moot?
A.W. By the way, who created the political circumstances that allow you to even be a jerk atheist and walk free, and sue to take the dominant faith out of all public utterances? Oh right, Christians. Can you name any other faith tradition that has been so enlightened when it had such overwhelming power. No? Then you’re welcome.
Totally agree! 🙂
Except…
The real mechanism for this isn’t likely to please you.
You probably didn’t notice (or bother to read) a link I previously mentionned in this thread:
The main argument of Gauchet is that secularisation of society (the word “désenchantement” directly refers to Max Weber’s Entzauberaung) is both rooted in christianity and a process against christianity.
And it is secularisation which brought up the “good things”!
Grant
> It would be true regardless of whether he believed he was on a mission from God or not. He was improving their condition in the here and now.
Then I don’t understand why you even bring that up. Yes, religion helps in this world, too. And that helps your argument, how exactly?
> And yet you persist in insulting the memory of people like Pat Tillman.
Not at all. Saying the incentives don’t favor an outcome doesn’t degrade an outcome. If anything, acting against interest is generally seen as more moral than not.
> Again, you may proceed under the bigoted notion that atheists are incapable of altruism or self-sacrifice
Again, you read into my words what I didn’t say, and in fact this time I specifically denied saying. And a minute from now you have the chutzpah to lecture me about straw men!
> Nor does disbelief in such a fantasy prevent altruism.
So you are saying that the incentives aren’t lined up against altruism if you are an atheist? Or are you saying that humans are wholly irrational actors who don’t pay any attention to incentives, ever? Because otherwise that statement is simply illogical.
> (And, in fact, sacrificing yourself because believe you will live in paradise forever isn’t exactly altruistic.)
And finally a little light shines in! yes, if you are a very selfish believer, you still might do the right thing out of “enlightened self-interest.” But if you are a selfish atheist, you definitely won’t.
> Wow, you really do have no clue what you’re talking about, do you? It will probably come as a shock, but atheists do believe that there are things in this life worth sacrificing your life over.
I am sure you do. But it is not a wholly rational belief. After all, if you have sacrificed your life, then you are beyond caring about anything, according to your beliefs.
> From the atheist’s point of view, he fought and died so that others might be free.
But according to you, he is dead and no more. so for him the balance sheet worked out terribly.
> You are saying that they are not really Christians because of their acts.
I am saying that even if they read the bible they clearly didn’t believe in what they read.
> Nor can it be broken down into “good faith” and “bad faith”, but you’re attempting to do so.
So the belief that murdering thousands of innocent civilians will get you 72 virgins is not, you know, bad?
Perfect example of the moral idiocy that atheism leads to.
> I am certain that he believed he had evidence. He was wrong, however.
Ah, so your belief in God’s lack of existence is an article of faith, eh? So much for atheist rationality.
> Again, you are confusing acts and faith.
Atta’s acts, and Martin Luther King’s acts, were a direct result of their particular brand of faith. Which is not to say that Atta believed in the same Islam as “true Islam” (I don’t know enough about Islam to say whether it was consistent or not), but Atta’s behavior was the logical end result of his particular brand of Islam; and Martin Luther King’s behavior was the logical end result of his brand of Christianity.
> To indicate that in the past, the faithful have not respected atheists.
Yeah, yeah. Translation, I caught you in a fib. You were trying to drag in the inquisition, etc.
> I never said that faith is the source of all evil
Fair enough, I did misstate your position. The source of a lot of evil. And in your eyes faith is never a good thing. not even in Martin Luther King. Not even in the millions of Americans who you admit are tolerant. In your mind, they are good despite their faith, and not because of it.
Which still begs the question I originally asked and you dodged, which is that wouldn’t it be fair to say that if faith is so bad, that without it, it should all be “then it should be sweetness and light when no one has any, right?” Which makes it no more off topic to bring up Stalin, Khmer Rouge, etc. as it was for you to bring up the Crusades. Now I don’t think Stalin reflects on atheists, nor does the crusades reflect on all Christians (and I might add, that happened under the Catholic church which has warped Christianity in more ways than I can count in ways that specifically led to the crusades), but if we are going to go down this road, is there a single country run by atheists where tolerance and decency has ruled the day? Let’s see here, we have the soviet union… no freedom of religion, speech, and so on. China? Facial freedom of religion but not really, forced abortions, the Great Leap Forward… yeah, not so good.
> And I’ve faced intolerance many times.
Like what?
> Some were.
Most weren’t.
> So do the terms “atheism,” “cathedral ceilings” and “after-Christmas sale.”
Point is, you can’t secularize the enlightenment. They called it that for its religious overtones.
> But their tolerance was borne of the gradual dominance of Enlightenment and post-enlightenment thinking.
Ah, so in a country full of unrelentingly intolerant Christians, when they are tolerant, it is because, according to you, of something non-Christian. Gotchya. Is this belief in the inherent intolerance of Christians like your faith in the non-existence of God? You know, an article of faith impervious to evidence?
> Not too much of a “live and let live” attitude during the Crusades or the Thirty-Years War.
And I provided a framework to explain why that is the case. Citing the crusades against Christians is like citing Joseph Stalin against atheists. It is ultimately not proof of anything. But we can keep discussing all the enlightened behavior of atheists in charge, if you would like.
> or pretty much any gay person in America.
Ah, let me guess. This is what really bothers you about believers, isn’t it?
> If reading general principles as a way of
Yes, when God says do this in general, you should do it. if you are a believer.
> And there are many, many people, historic and modern alike, who would point to all of the passages condoning slavery and disagree.
All points of view are not created equal.
> Of course, an omniscient God, if one existed, would probably have foreseen this issue and included a bit more clarity in his rulebook.
Ah, so we will add arrogance to your many shortcomings here. you know what God would do better than He would. Mmm-hmm.
And in your arrogance, you miss an obvious explanation as to why it wasn’t clearer. As I said before human slavery had existed for thousands of years before even the old testament was written. Just how well would Judaism have survived if it also threatened that entrenched economic interest. God was playing a longer game than that. So he neither clearly condones slavery nor does he clearly condemn it, for a long time. indeed, if you read the old testament in general it is not a very clear break from other religions. The God of the old testament sounds very much like the Gods you read of in Greek and Egyptian mythology. Why? Because this was the introduction to the concepts that he would fully develop when his son came along. Duh.
> As moral principles go, “do not own people” is up there with “do not murder” and “do not steal”
Based on what, though? Since you are not Christian, but claim to be utterly rational, I am sure you can explain in a completely rational manner why slavery is bad, right?
(Here’s a hint: you can’t. without faith, all so-called moral principles are like dust in the wind. And before you say it, that doesn’t mean atheists are immoral, just that they are irrationally so.)
> Suggests to me that perhaps Christianity wasn’t exactly the cause of the abolition of slavery.
You don’t deny my statement that slavery was only abolished in Christian countries. But that is right, Christians and only Christians abolishing slavery has nothing to do with Christianity because you are convinced it and all faith are utterly evil and never good.
Kevem
> I am saying that you CANNOT KNOW whether your own beliefs and “ethics” (mine too, agreed) aren’t ultimately making things worse, no matter your best intentions.
You’re right. We should never do anything at all. Imagine how much better our history would have turned out if everyone took that attitude!
What? Jews are being sent to death camps in Poland? Ah, I won’t do anything to stop it, because who knows? I might be making it worse.
What? Black people are in chains in America? Well, if I free them I might make things worse, so…
Geez, how terrible it is that we are not all as enlightened as you. Who said evil can only succeed if good men do nothing? Clearly some evil fundie!
> Just like Atta’s deeds…
Perfect example of your inability to differentiate.
> If any religionist ever had anything like evidence would not it make all the arguments going on here moot?
For him, it did. Do you have no idea what I am talking about?
Then I don’t understand why you even bring that up.
Because the fact that he acted with religious motivations is simply irrelevant to the fact that what he did, in effectuating concrete, was create real-world change.
So you are saying that the incentives aren’t lined up against altruism if you are an atheist.
Of course they’re not “lined up against altruism” for an atheist any more than it’s not lined up against altruism if you’re a theist. Some people are altruistic, others are not. But asserting, as you appear to do, that atheists are incapable of altruism because they are atheists is false.
And finally a little light shines in! yes, if you are a very selfish believer, you still might do the right thing out of “enlightened self-interest.” But if you are a selfish atheist, you definitely won’t.
What does that have to do with altruism??? Nothing. Perhaps you could say that theists are more willing to throw their lives away, but we already know that from all the religious suicide bombers. So what?
I am sure you do. But it is not a wholly rational belief. After all, if you have sacrificed your life, then you are beyond caring about anything, according to your beliefs.
You’re mad. It can be a wholly rational belief, if that which you accomplish by sacrificing your life is greater than that which is lost in dying. The fact that the person sacrificing his life is no longer in existence does not make his acts before death automatically and necessarily “irrational.”
You appear to be working under a bizarre assumption that atheists must believe that their continued existence is the only thing of value, that it must trump everything else, or that they must act with utmost selfishness for a decision to be “rational.” That is nonsense.
From the atheist’s point of view, he fought and died so that others might be free.
But according to you, he is dead and no more. so for him the balance sheet worked out terribly.
What part of “so others might be free” can’t you understand.
I am saying that even if they read the bible they clearly didn’t believe in what they read.
Baloney. They read it, they interpreted it differently than you do (perhaps it is you who doesn’t believe in what you read), but then again, you have the full benefit of Enlightenment thinking.
So the belief that murdering thousands of innocent civilians will get you 72 virgins is not, you know, bad?
No more so than the belief that one shouldn’t suffer a witch to live (i.e., unless the beliefs are acted upon, they’re just beliefs.) But, again, why should I “respect faith” as you said I should, if “faith” directly leads to these bad beliefs and acts???
Ah, so your belief in God’s lack of existence is an article of faith, eh? So much for atheist rationality.
I said that there is no evidence of his existence, not that I believe that he does not exist. Some people go that far, I don’t. I am content to say that there is no evidence of his existence, so I have no reason to believe that he exists. I would not make a positive statement, like “I believe that goes does not exist” even though I suspect that is the actual fact.
Atta’s acts, and Martin Luther King’s acts, were a direct result of their particular brand of faith.
As I’ve already noted. But their acts of faith, that is — their belief without evidence — that is identical.
Yeah, yeah. Translation, I caught you in a fib. You were trying to drag in the inquisition, etc.
Wow. You have a rich fantasy life. Seriously, I was talking about disrespect, nothing more. I wasn’t talking about the inquisition, and if I were, I’d have no problem simply saying so.
And in your eyes faith is never a good thing.
I would not go this far. I think it is unnecessary, often evil, foolish, shortsighted, irrational and dumb, but every once in a while it can have good effects. But it’s a ends-not-justifying-the-means type issue.
, but if we are going to go down this road, is there a single country run by atheists where tolerance and decency has ruled the day?
You repeatedly and continuously refuse to hear me when I say that I do not believe that atheism is a necessary component of good government, but reason and rationality are. They are not co-terminus with atheism and, as in the case of the communists, can be absent even in the presence of atheism.
> And I’ve faced intolerance many times.
Like what?
Ostracism from friends and family; being damned by preachers and Christians; I’ve witnessed the prop. 8 nonsense (although as I’m neither Californian nor a homosexual, it didn’t affect me personally, except for the outrage that it was permitted in my country); I’ve had an ex-president say I can’t be a patriot and shouldn’t be a citizen, etc., etc.
Point is, you can’t secularize the enlightenment. They called it that for its religious overtones.
The point is, that the Enlightenment was not a religious revival, it was a secularizing movement.
Ah, so in a country full of unrelentingly intolerant Christians, when they are tolerant, it is because, according to you, of something non-Christian.
Check your premise. I did not say that this is a country full of unrelentingly intolerant Christians. (although unrelentingly intolerant Christians like Fred Phelps and Jack Chick and Pat Robertson certainly exist here.) In fact, the opposite: the Christianity practiced by most Americans is somewhat tolerant, stemming in large part from extra-Christian thinking. That doesn’t not make them unrelentingly tolerant, either.
Is this belief in the inherent intolerance of Christians like your faith in the non-existence of God? You know, an article of faith impervious to evidence?
I don’t believe in the non-existence of God. I believe that there is no evidence of his existence.
And I provided a framework to explain why that is the case. Citing the crusades against Christians is like citing Joseph Stalin against atheists.
Nonsense, you provided an ad-hoc rationalization. The crimes committed by Stalin were done in order to advance communism, not atheism. The crimes committed by the crusaders and both sides of the European religious wars, however, were committed in order to advance Christianity.
“> or pretty much any gay person in America.”
Ah, let me guess. This is what really bothers you about believers, isn’t it?
Nope, not really. Although I recognize that the way Christians think about and treat people who are homosexuals is barbaric and medieval, like the way the Wahabbis treat women, it is not an issue I have any personal involvement in. I do find the liberty issues interesting, though.
Ah, so we will add arrogance to your many shortcomings here. you know what God would do better than He would. Mmm-hmm.
You are the one who posits an all-knowing, all-good, all-moral, rational god. Certain logical conclusion can be drawn from that, without arrogance coming into play. The fact that the god you’ve created doesn’t logically live up to his billing isn’t my fault.
And in your arrogance, you miss an obvious explanation as to why it wasn’t clearer. As I said before human slavery had existed for thousands of years before even the old testament was written. Just how well would Judaism have survived if it also threatened that entrenched economic interest.
Oh, that is such a stupid bit of apologetics. God can create the world, is all powerful, has no problem with defeating the Pharaoh, parting the Red Sea, raining manna from heaven, but he was stymied by bronze age economics??? This is God you’re talking about, right?? He can change the languages of all the humans at Babel, but can’t figure out how to run a free-labor society?
Makes for an interesting philosophical question: Can god create an entrenched economic interest too powerful to be defeated by god??? LOL!
…indeed, if you read the old testament in general it is not a very clear break from other religions. The God of the old testament sounds very much like the Gods you read of in Greek and Egyptian mythology. Why? Because this was the introduction to the concepts that he would fully develop when his son came along. Duh.
LOL… Uh, he sounds like the Gods you read in Greek and Egypt mythology because he was made up in Hebrew mythology at about the same time, in about the same manner, and for about the same reasons as the gods in Greek and Egyptian mythology were made up.
Based on what, though? Since you are not Christian, but claim to be utterly rational, I am sure you can explain in a completely rational manner why slavery is bad, right?
Sure, enlightened self-interest, respect for my fellow humans, and the golden rule (which predates Christianity and is probably part of the evolved mental/psychological tools which make civilization possible.)
(Here’s a hint: you can’t. without faith, all so-called moral principles are like dust in the wind. And before you say it, that doesn’t mean atheists are immoral, just that they are irrationally so.)
Don’t tell me you’re one of the “without a god to tell us what to think, you can’t have morality” people. Quite lame. Just because you are too lazy to look up the myriad places where atheist have discussed and explained the rational basis of morality from the atheist perspective does not mean they don’t exist.
You don’t deny my statement that slavery was only abolished in Christian countries.
I do deny that statement, because it is factually untrue. For example, Japan is not a Christian country. It abolished slavery before almost every Christian country.
But that is right, Christians and only Christians abolishing slavery has nothing to do with Christianity because you are convinced it and all faith are utterly evil and never good.
LOL. No, I’m merely saying that Christianity existed comfortably with slavery for 17 centuries before the Enlightenment. Then, the Enlightenment happened and in 1 to 2 centuries, it was basically gone. Tells me that Christianity wasn’t the impetus for Abolition, but the Enlightenment was.
A.W.
You’re right. We should never do anything at all.
…/…
> Just like Atta’s deeds…
Perfect example of your inability to differentiate.
> If any religionist ever had anything like evidence would not it make all the arguments going on here moot?
For him, it did. Do you have no idea what I am talking about?
Mmmmmm…
Are you THAT dumb or are these just poor rhetorical tricks?
a) I am not saying that no one should do anything about what you call “evil”, I am saying that ANYONE can mistook the “right” for the “wrong” and therefore must acknowledge his responsibility in the ensuing disasters.
Like, say, the Pope against condoms in Africa, eh?
b) “inability to differentiate”
I DID answer that:
The fact that King’s deeds appear “good” to you and me does NOT vindicates the legitimacy of using delirious fantasies as a basis for morality, because THESE SAME KIND of delirious fantasies have been used by Atta with wholly different effects, notwithstanding your willingness to distinguish between “good” and “bad” faiths.
c) Evidence is something that must be sharable!
Any wacko, fanatic or schizophreniac can claim evidence about anything.
How do YOU recognize evidence presented by other people?
I also notice that you have a remarkable “selective blindness” when it comes to arguments that might be difficult to answer, so I will repeat for the third time:
“The Disenchantment of the World” by Marcel Gauchet explains the christian origins of secularism:
The main argument of Gauchet is that secularisation of society (the word “désenchantement” directly refers to Max Weber’s Entzauberaung) is both rooted in christianity and a process against christianity.
Grant
> Because the fact that he acted with religious motivations is simply irrelevant to the fact that what he did, in effectuating concrete, was create real-world change.
You have been trying to tell me that Christianity is just no good at all, and you don’t find it a teensy-weensy bit relevant that Martin Luther King was motivated by faith, as in, but for his faith, he might not have done what he did?
> Of course they’re not “lined up against altruism” for an atheist any more than it’s not lined up against altruism if you’re a theist.
Wow, you ARE prejudiced and irrational.
> What does that have to do with altruism???
What does a willingness to risk your life have to do with altruism. Mmmm…
> It can be a wholly rational belief, if that which you accomplish by sacrificing your life is greater than that which is lost in dying.
What will you care, then? You’ll be dead and, according to your faith, disappeared.
> What part of “so others might be free” can’t you understand.
What part of “not existing” do you not understand?
> They read it, they interpreted it differently than you do
By differently you mean completely the opposite of the golden rule, the central rule of Christianity. Mmm-hmm.
> No more so than
Why don’t you just answer the question?
> I said that there is no evidence of his existence, not that I believe that he does not exist.
How do you know there is no evidence? Are you all seeing and all knowing? Its common to point out that faith is unfalsifiable. And indeed it is. But you claim to have done the impossible: to disprove the existence of an all knowing and all powerful God.
So if Martin Luther King says he heard Jesus’ voice, how do you know he didn’t?
And, by the way, as an empirical fact, there is evidence of God’s existence. Its called the Bible. Now you clearly don’t consider it to be very good evidence. You are not persuaded by it. But it is SOME evidence of his existence. (prediction: it will take about 3 rounds of back and forth before you realize that I am right on this point; I know. I have had this discussion with atheists before, and you are nothing if not tediously predictable.)
You don’t think very deeply or very exactly, do you?
> But their acts of faith, that is — their belief without evidence — that is identical.
Their acts are identical?
> Seriously, I was
You are fooling no one but yourself on this point.
> I would not go this far.
But you already have. In the case of the Reverend Martin Luther King or Christian America, you have denied any good role of faith whatsoever. If you can’t admit that either of those are examples of faith being a positive force, you are pretty much saying it is never any good.
> You repeatedly and continuously refuse to hear me when I say that I do not believe that atheism is a necessary component of good government
Nah, just that Christianity is always bad.
> Ostracism from friends and family
For being gay or an atheist? And ostracism in what sense? And was it merely because you don’t believe, or because you were a jerk about it? I mean, I would be glad to have a beer with James Taranto, but not you.
> being damned by preachers and Christians
In other words, for being told that you must believe in God to get into heaven. Oooookay. And again, judging by your behavior in this thread, do you think it might have more to do with you being a jerk about your beliefs?
I mean, I for instance am a Presbyterian and my wife is a Catholic. I don’t go to her church and tell them what to think. I do go, alternating with my church, and I quietly worship according to my conscience and respecting of their belief. For instance, they say communion is only for those who believe in transubstantiation; so I don’t take communion. And I don’t kneel, because I don’t believe in that, either. I believe differently about Christ than they do, but I am respectful of their belief. I, unlike you, believe I am on a better path, but I am never a jerk about it.
> I’ve witnessed the prop. 8 nonsense
Mmm, yes, overturning a ridiculous and unconstitutional California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is clearly evidence of hostility toward… atheists. Ooookay.
Or are you one of those silly people who claim there can be no laws motivated even a little by faith. Of course if we repealed every law based on faith, then we would have to repeal the voting rights act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution and the Declaration of Independence, not to mention the many state constitutions that mimic the Declaration of Independence. Basing laws on faith is as American as apple pie.
> I’ve had an ex-president say I can’t be a patriot and shouldn’t be a citizen, etc., etc.
Which one?
> The point is, that the Enlightenment was not a religious revival, it was a secularizing movement.
That’s a flat out lie.
> I did not say that this is a country full of unrelentingly intolerant Christians.
No, you said that Christians are unrelentingly intolerant, and I supplied the fact that America is full of Christians.
> The crimes committed by Stalin were done in order to advance communism, not atheism.
Ah, so I see how it works. Everything bad done by Christians is the result of Christianity. Everything good done by Christians is done because of something else, even if it is solely Christians doing it. everything good done by atheists is the result of their atheism. But everything bad done by them is the result of something else, but certainly not atheism. Never mind that every atheist leader has done, gosh, awfully oppressive things.
> The fact that the god you’ve created doesn’t logically live up to his billing isn’t my fault.
Except God can, and I showed you one way to show he did. Your arrogance is assuming you have thought of every possible explanation while missing an easy one.
> but he was stymied by bronze age economics???
He was stymied by his desire to provide for free will.
> too powerful to be defeated by god?
I think those victorious abolitionists circa 1865 would say “no.” Ditto for the Jews leaving Egypt. In fact, I have long suspected that God did his little bit of performance art in Egypt in order to topple slavery in 1865.
> enlightened self-interest
That only works if you are a weakling. Suppose you are the President of China. What is your argument, then?
Or suppose you are in a situation where you know you can get away with it? then you do it?
> respect for my fellow humans
Which is a good moral to have, but an irrational one not shared by everyone on this planet, including both atheists and theists.
> the golden rule
Which is where your morality REALLY comes from: Christianity. Yeah, I know you try to deny it, but the truth is you do retain mostly Christian morality be default, without as much logic and questioning as you pretend to have.
Which is good. It keeps you from murdering people, etc. But doesn’t do a good job affirming how much better off we would be if there was no religion. You end up like the tapeworm on the digestive tract of Christianity, getting your morality, ahem, recycled and thinking you found it on your own.
> Just because you are too lazy to look up the myriad places where atheist have discussed and explained the rational basis of morality from the atheist perspective does not mean they don’t exist.
I have and it doesn’t work. There is always something taken as a matter of faith. There is always an irrational surmise underlying this. Believe you me, this discussion on this point is entirely predictable, and after a few rounds you will be forced to admit I am right.
> It abolished slavery before almost every Christian country.
Really, now? so when was this supposed end of slavery in Japan that you are referring to? I ask because there are several incidents people point to falsely.
Kevem
> I am not saying that no one should do anything about what you call “evil”,
Gosh what more to say? You can’t even call slavery and Nazism evil.
Grant,
Btw, a less blind and biased James Taranto says this today in his best of the web column. Mmmm…
> Certainly atheists frequently try to argue against faith on utilitarian grounds, pointing to all manner of misdeeds or atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion. But the record here is, obviously, mixed, and in the case of Christianity, one has to go back centuries to make a convincing indictment. As regards contemporary Christianity, it is hard to deny that the good vastly outweighs the bad.
Apparently he didn’t get the memo that everything christians do well is in spite of their christianity, and evertything an atheist does right is because they are atheists, and vice-versa.
@A.W.
You have been trying to tell me that Christianity is just no good at all, and you don’t find it a teensy-weensy bit relevant that Martin Luther King was motivated by faith, as in, but for his faith, he might not have done what he did?
The point is that he did not need his faith to do what he did. That, as we go back around to the initial point, is what I pity: I pity that he did not recognize that.
Wow, you ARE prejudiced and irrational.
Baloney. Please, I’d love to hear your reasoning on my supposed prejudice and irrationality…
What does a willingness to risk your life have to do with altruism. Mmmm…
What does “selfishness” have to do with altruism. That is the point I’m making. A selfish believer might throw away his life so he can have his 72 virgins. So what? That isn’t altruism.
What will you care, then? You’ll be dead and, according to your faith, disappeared.
You won’t care after death, but you do care before death. That is, when you take the act, you care.
What part of “not existing” do you not understand?
Again, so what if you do not exist? You’re going to die someday, every one will. Some people (apparently not you) feel that it can be valuable to sacrifice your life if, by doing so, you improve the lot for those who outlive you.
By differently you mean completely the opposite of the golden rule, the central rule of Christianity. Mmm-hmm.
They read about the Curse of Ham and understood that your god intended these people to be fit for nothing but slavery (under their beneficent Christian whip, of course) and that to go against that command of god was sinful. (And if you think Yahweh/Jehovah is not above condemning an entire group of people to slavery (or worse), then you’ve not been reading your Old Testament.) Again, you may disagree with this reasoning, but you can’t say it isn’t in accord with the bible.
Why don’t you just answer the question?
I did. If you didn’t like the way I answered, that’s too damned bad.
How do you know there is no evidence? Are you all seeing and all knowing?
No, but I don’t have to be all-seeing and all-knowing to point out that there is no evidence, just
“regular” seeing and “regular” knowing.. Because “evidence” would be “see-able” and “know-able” by regular people. That’s kinda like the definition of the word “evidence.”
Its common to point out that faith is unfalsifiable. And indeed it is.
Which is another way of saying that it is not based on any evidence. Which I think it a ridiculous way to reach a conclusion. You’d be better off flipping a coin or pulling a number out of a hat.
But you claim to have done the impossible: to disprove the existence of an all knowing and all powerful God.
LOL. No, I didn’t. The opposite, in fact. I don’t believe god doesn’t exist, I believe there is no evidence for the existence of a god.
So if Martin Luther King says he heard Jesus’ voice, how do you know he didn’t?
I don’t. But that doesn’t make it evidence, merely anecdote. And, given the neurological, psychological, pharmaceutical, biochemical and personality effects, defects, diseases and damages which science has shown can produce auditory hallucinations, I can, in theory, test to determine which one of these alternate explanations prove to be the real source of the voices. Yeah, science!
And, by the way, as an empirical fact, there is evidence of God’s existence. Its called the Bible.
I think you need another book, called a dictionary. You can look up the word “empirical.”
You are not persuaded by it. But it is SOME evidence of his existence. (prediction: it will take about 3 rounds of back and forth before you realize that I am right on this point; I know. I have had this discussion with atheists before, and you are nothing if not tediously predictable.)
I forgot you are a swami who can read the future. Please, cut to the chase, then. Tell me how these stories are evidence of a living deity. I’m all ears.
“> But their acts of faith, that is — their belief without evidence — that is identical.”
Their acts are identical?
Their acts of faith are identical. Their act of believing without evidence are identical. They both believed things without any evidence to support that belief. (You do read English, right?? I mean, you actually copied the words, but then immediately misquoted it.)
You are fooling no one but yourself on this point.
LOL… Believe whatever you want.
But you already have. In the case of the Reverend Martin Luther King or Christian America, you have denied any good role of faith whatsoever. If you can’t admit that either of those are examples of faith being a positive force, you are pretty much saying it is never any good.
Again, you are completely mixing the faith, and the acts that can arise from that faith. The acts are good or bad, depending on if they’re good or bad. The faith – the act of believing something without any evidence or reason to believe – that’s just stupid. But it doesn’t mean it’s always bad or is never good. It can have a good effect from time to time, as I’ve said multiple times already.
Nah, just that Christianity is always bad.
Again, you have an interesting habit of just making shit up out of whole cloth. I never said that Christianity is always bad. I’ve said many thing about it, but not this, and especially not about governance. I, any day, would take a nominally Christian government which adheres to minimums of rationality and reason (such as in the UK) over an atheist government that doesn’t adhere to minimums of rationality and reason (such as the USSR.)
“> Ostracism from friends and family”
For being gay or an atheist?
Well, since I’m not gay (as I noted in my previous post), for being an atheist.
And ostracism in what sense?
Like, “I won’t talk to you because you are an atheist” sense.
And was it merely because you don’t believe, or because you were a jerk about it? I mean, I would be glad to have a beer with James Taranto, but not you.
Aww, and here I though we were BFF’s.
In other words, for being told that you must believe in God to get into heaven.
No, I’m talking about having religious folk take an almost sexual pleasure in explaining how the sinful and atheists will be tortured forever.
I, unlike you, believe I am on a better path, but I am never a jerk about it.
Umm, I hate to break the news to you, but you can kind of be a jerk sometimes.
Mmm, yes, overturning a ridiculous and unconstitutional California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is clearly evidence of hostility toward… atheists.
You asked about “intolerance” by Christians. I supplied an example of intolerance. It wasn’t an example of intolerance against atheists, but against homosexual people. I figured you could keep up, but I guess not… (Oh, and the Court ruling was about the demands of the Constitution of California’s equal protection clause, so you shouldn’t say it was “unconstitutional.” That just makes you sound ignorant.)
Or are you one of those silly people who claim there can be no laws motivated even a little by faith.
No. Law can by motivated by a lot of things. I’m sure there have been many legislators who have legislated by “faith.” Whether that is legitimate or not is another question.
“> I’ve had an ex-president say I can’t be a patriot and shouldn’t be a citizen,”
Which one?
George H.W. Bush.
That’s a flat out lie.
No, it isn’t.
No, you said that Christians are unrelentingly intolerant, and I supplied the fact that America is full of Christians.
No, I didn’t. You can search the thread. You first used the word “unrelentingly.” Indeed, I mentioned 3 people as being unrelentingly intolerant: Jack Chick, Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson. That’s it.
Ah, so I see how it works…
So, what, you deny that the Crusades and Thirty Years War were fought specifically to advance Christianity??
Except God can, and I showed you one way to show he did.
Nonsense. You’ve provided a post-hoc rationalization that doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
He was stymied by his desire to provide for free will.
LOL. But tossed the whole “free will” gig out the window when it came to graven images and saying “Christ in a sidecar” and pressing the buttons on an elevator on the Sabbath. Gotcha!
I think those victorious abolitionists circa 1865 would say “no.”
The abolitionists weren’t victorious in 1865; the United States Army was.
Ditto for the Jews leaving Egypt. In fact, I have long suspected that God did his little bit of performance art in Egypt in order to topple slavery in 1865.
Too bad about all the innocent babies killed for this “art.” Doesn’t it bother you to worship such a monstrous blood sucker? Seriously, how many people did Yahweh had to have killed in cold blood for you to say, “Hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t worship this sick fucker…”??
That only works if you are a weakling.
Interesting glimpse into your psyche.
Which is a good moral to have, but an irrational one not shared by everyone on this planet, including both atheists and theists.
But thankfully it is shared by most people on the planet. (Wonderful thing, that evolution…)
Which is where your morality REALLY comes from: Christianity.
LOL… The degree to which you Christians glom onto a basic and universal maxim like “treat other people like you want to be treated” and pretend that it was some exclusively Christian thing is both amusing, pathetic and bewildering all at once.
Which is good. It keeps you from murdering people, etc.
Well, if Christianity is all that is keeping YOU from murdering people, then, by all means, keep it. But since I’m not a sociopath, using religion as a crutch to get through my life, I will simply put it aside.
You end up like the tapeworm on the digestive tract of Christianity, getting your morality, ahem, recycled and thinking you found it on your own.
That’s creative, I’ll give you that. Bullshit, but creative. However, the conscience preceded the Christianity. I know you want to take credit for it, but if Christianity disappeared from the earth tomorrow, and people had no memory of it existing, people would still have their consciences.
I have and it doesn’t work. There is always something taken as a matter of faith. There is always an irrational surmise underlying this.
Oh, and what would that be?
Believe you me, this discussion on this point is entirely predictable, and after a few rounds you will be forced to admit I am right.
Go ahead, give it your best shot.
Really, now? so when was this supposed end of slavery in Japan that you are referring to?
In 1588.
Btw, a less blind and biased James Taranto says this today in his best of the web column…
He’s talking about the utilitarian argument. (And, thanks to the effect of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinking over the past few centuries, he might be right.) But I’m not making a utilitarian argument.
Please, try to keep up.
>Go ahead, give it your best shot.
No, actually, don’t. If both of you would like, I can cross-furnish addresses and the two of you can continue by private email.
No, actually, don’t.
Agreed!
Still, I am deeply appreciate of the “selective blindness”of both.
How convenient it is to ignore difficult points and rehash the same junk over and over 🙂
appreciative…
Pingback: OD Today: 4 January 2009 (late edition) « Online Discernment Today
Grant
> The point is that he did not need his faith to do what he did.
On the contrary, without his faith, he clearly wouldn’t have done it. It is obvious if you only read “The Autobiography of Martin Luther King.”
> What does “selfishness” have to do with altruism.
Well, you can look at whether an act is altruistic objectively or subjectively. Perhaps the belief in the hereafter, the “divine incentive” does harm subjective altruism. But if it encourages objective altruism, who cares? We are talking benefit to society, after all.
> You won’t care after death, but you do care before death. That is, when you take the act, you care.
And a rational person would remember how they would feel after death, too, which according to your lights is… nothing.
> They read about
They ignored the clear command of Jesus.
> I did.
No you didn’t.
> No, but I don’t have to be all-seeing and all-knowing to point out that there is no evidence
Mmm, except that is empirically not true. There is some evidence.
> Which is another way of saying that it is not based on any evidence.
No, it is not. If an angel of the lord came and visited you tomorrow, you would have evidence of the divine. But its non-falsifibility would continue unabated.
> I don’t. But that doesn’t make it evidence, merely anecdote.
An eyewitness account is not evidence? It sure as hell is in a court of law.
> And, given the neurological, psychological, pharmaceutical, biochemical and personality effects, defects, diseases and damages which science has shown can produce auditory hallucinations
So you are saying Martin Luther King was deluded now?
> Please, cut to the chase, then.
I wish I could, but the problem is your lack of imagination or precision in thinking.
> Their acts of faith are identical. Their act of believing
Belief is not an act, duh.
An act is, you know, an action, as in doing something.
> you are completely mixing the faith, and the acts that can arise from that faith.
Yeah, because you continually deny the positive role of faith in those good acts.
> I never said that Christianity is always bad.
Yeah, you just coincidentally never find any good in it.
> Aww, and here I though we were BFF’s.
Yeah, translation, it has more to do with personality than beliefs. Good to know.
> No, I’m talking about having religious folk take an almost sexual pleasure in explaining how the sinful and atheists will be tortured forever.
And you of course get no pleasure from telling Christians how deluded they are, right? Do onto others as they have done to you, eh?
> You asked about “intolerance” by Christians.
I asked about intolerance you have experienced.
> Oh, and the Court ruling was about the demands of the Constitution of California’s equal protection clause, so you shouldn’t say it was “unconstitutional.” That just makes you sound ignorant.
Yeah, because no one ever heard of a Supreme Court overstepping its constitutional bounds. “Freedom of Contract” anyone? Or for that matter, look at Plessy and Brown v. Board of Education. Most of us tend to think Brown is the constitutional decision, but as a matter of logic, one of the two have to be wrong. Its that simple. So one of those rulings was itself unconstitutional.
> Whether that is legitimate or not is another question.
Which you spend a whole paragraph not discussing.
> George H.W. Bush.
When? And in what words/acts?
> No, it isn’t.
Again, you are fooling no one.
> No, I didn’t.
Not fooling me.
> So, what, you deny that the Crusades and Thirty Years War were fought specifically to advance Christianity??
Were bad things done in the name of Christ? Undeniably. So they have been done to break “incorrect” clinging to faith by atheists. The problem is that you will claim that the first is the result of Christianity, but the second has nothing at all to do with atheism. Further when a Christian does a good thing, it is the not the result of their faith, however clearly they say it is; and vice-versa. It is your biased standards of judging one faith versus another that I am getting at.
> You’ve provided a post-hoc rationalization
That you are arrogant enough to assume is wrong. Or that there is no other possible explanation.
> But tossed the whole “free will” gig out the window
So setting up rules eliminates free will? Um, no. by the same argument, thou shalt not murder ended free will, too.
> The abolitionists weren’t victorious in 1865; the United States Army was.
Um, crack open a history book. Thirteenth Amendment. Abolitionists were victorious, too. Indeed they convinced a supermajority of the American people to see it exactly their way.
> Too bad about all the innocent babies killed for this “art.”
Now you are weeping for the captor’s babies in a book you don’t believe in. gotcha.
> Interesting glimpse into your psyche.
Its reality. Without a sense of morality, might makes right.
> But thankfully it is shared by most people on the planet.
I think if you saw humanity with clear eyes, you wouldn’t be so sure of that I mean right now have war raging between one side that puts rockets among civilians and launches it at other civilians, versus another side that actually warns their opponent’s civilians by cell phone that they are about to strike those same rockets. Clearly there is a great gulf between the morality of those two societies.
but we are talking rationality, and no, saying “everyone else does it” doesn’t bolster your case.
> (Wonderful thing, that evolution…)
My God, you are not one of those idiots who thinks that humans are programmed by evolution, do you? Here’s a hint. Our advantage over most animals is that we are NOT programmed. It allows us to be very flexible in our responses.
> The degree to which you Christians
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry, you are a parasite on Christianity’s morality. Thank God you are, mind you. I don’t want you to turn into a criminal or something, but for all your rage against it, you have adopted its morality. Which is the really, really funny part of all of this.
> Well, if Christianity is all that is keeping YOU from murdering people,
Now you are just being obtuse. I am saying that morality does. Duh.
> However, the conscience preceded the Christianity.
Really? Prove that.
> Oh, and what would that be?
It depends on the person. In your case, it is the inherited morality from Christianity, apparently.
> In 1588.
That’s when slave trading was abolished, not slavery itself. Slavery was not abolished in Japan in 1588 anymore than slavery was abolished in America in 1808.
> He’s talking about the utilitarian argument
Yes, which is what we have been arguing about for some time.
Since this conversation is going nowhere and has been quite tedious for some time, this is my last post on this thread, but I wanted to make some final points. You can respond if it suits you, but I will not reply to your response.
Whether MLK would have or not is irrelevant. He could have.
“Altruism” has a meaning, and if something looks altruistic, but isn’t, then it isn’t.
Please detail your empirical evidence of your god, or please shut up about it.
Seeing “an angel of the lord” would not be “evidence.” At most you would have testimony. And while that may be admissible in a court of law, in the real world (where the goal is not to reach a conclusion, but to assess the truth) it is merely an anecdote.
If Martin Luther King said that he heard actual supernatural voices, then, yes, I’m saying he was deluded.
Belief in as much an act as any other mental act.
I get no pleasure from telling Christians how deluded they are. I keep it to myself if they don’t ask or unless they enter a forum where challenging them is appropriate, such as this one. Constantly having to hear the same tired apologetics over and over again isn’t pleasurable, it’s tedious.
Opinions of the Supreme Court cannot be “unconstitutional.” It can change its mind as to what the constitution requires, but, as Marbury established, it defines what the law says.
Google “Bush atheist patriot”
The purpose of the Crusades and Thirty Years War was to advance Christianity; it was more than “bad things being done in the name of Christ.”
So how would making a commandment “thou shalt not own slaves” be any more of an elimination of free will than “thou shalt not kill”?
I understood you to be referencing the War, itself, not the 13th Amendment. Fair enough.
Actually, whether I weep over the slaughtered Egyptian innocents is irrelevant. What is relevant is why YOU don’t weep for them. You actually believe the deaths occurred, and yet you make a joke about it. Why don’t you weep for them or the people of Canaan, where innocents were murdered on a genocidal scale?
To suggest that atheists do not have a sense of morality is ignorance and idiocy.
And I said that respect for fellow humans is shared by most, not that it is shared by all.
If you don’t believe that evolution had a role in shaping our thinking, and the way that we are able to live in social groups, then you are mistaken.
Further, you can believe that my morality is residual Christianity, but you are mistaken. You’ve never struck me as particularly moral people, on the whole and on balance (that is, no more moral than non-Christians.)
That conscience preceded Christianity is easily established by examining the records and history of areas and people before Christianity existed or before their exposure to Christianity.
A.W. No, it is not. If an angel of the lord came and visited you tomorrow, you would have evidence of the divine. But its non-falsifibility would continue unabated.
It is not at all a matter of falsifiability, it is a matter of avoiding self-delusion: A spontaneous experience of a sensed presence caught on EEG.
“Sensed presence” doesn’t mean actual presence, don’t forget to take your meds…
You’ve still not “seen” the link about Gauchet (the christian origins of secularism), did you?
Also, BTW, rejecting the Nazis isn’t a matter of ethics, it’s a matter of sanity, they were obviously under the spell of some group psychosis.
The Nazis weren’t bad because they killed people, they were bad because they pretended to have a right to kill people based on their own whimsical fantasies.
Much like all religions pretend that their followers people are some sort of “choosen people”, the “enlightened ones” which thus have special rights, this is NOT ACCEPTABLE, this is the core of secularism.
Remind me, no christian ever killed another human being, right?
Grant
> Since this conversation is going nowhere
Translation: since you are losing the argument.
> Whether MLK would have or not is irrelevant.
Whether Martin Luther King would have continued his fight if he didn’t have faith couldn’t be more relevant to your claim that his faith “shackled” him. He had a moment of crisis, during the bus boycott. He seriously considered dropping out, afraid he and his family might be killed. and he believed Jesus spoke to him, telling him to go on. And that gave him the strength to go on. Rather than shackling him, then, it set him free. and it is a perfect example of how faith can be a good thing.
> “Altruism” has a meaning
Yes, but I claim not to be able to peer into the souls of people such as pat tillman. Did Tillman have a foxhole conversion? Did he understand the danger? Was he hoping to return to the NFL as a hero and earn tons of money and adoring fans? I can’t pretend to know. So I judge objectively. Objectively he looks like an altruistic hero.
> Please detail your empirical evidence of your god
Who says the evidence has to be empirical? If I asked you to prove that Aristotle existed, you wouldn’t be able to produce empirical evidence. Yet we can both be pretty sure he did exist.
There is quite a bit of evidence of God’s existence. Indeed, for every saint, the catholic church claims to have evidence of miracles. Now I am not catholic myself, and so I don’t consider most of that evidence to be very strong, but there is some evidence. Thus it is simply wrong to say that there is no evidence.
> Seeing “an angel of the lord” would not be “evidence.”
Seeing is not believing! Like I said, you have faith in atheism, rather than it being a rational surmise. If you were purely logical about it all, you would be an agnostic, maybe leaning toward the notion that God doesn’t exist. But you see, you are emotionally invested in your disbelief, so you cannot even admit that there is or even could be evidence on the other side!
> And while that may be admissible in a court of law, in the real world (where the goal is not to reach a conclusion, but to assess the truth) it is merely an anecdote.
Lol, ah, so the rules of admissibility on a blog is harsher than the courts! My oh my.
> Belief in as much an act as any other mental act.
Right. as much as an eagle is a fish. /sarcasm
> I get no pleasure from telling Christians how deluded they are. I keep it to myself
Right. Which is why you were a jerk in the first place. Uh-huh. I saw no pleasure there, no arrogance, no sense of self-righteous pride. Naaaaaah.
> Opinions of the Supreme Court cannot be “unconstitutional.” It can change its mind as to what the constitution requires, but, as Marbury established, it defines what the law says.
Marbury said no such thing. it merely said that the constitution limits what the legislature can do. but by the same token, it limits what the Supreme Court can do. Really are you going to pretend that for decades racial segregation was constitutional, and then suddenly and without amendment, it became unconstitutional? This isn’t a case, like Heller, where the Supreme Court never fully addressed the issue, but instead left tea leaves. Brown, and more exactly the cases that followed it, overturned it. by logic one of those decisions were wrong, most sane people would say Plessy was wrong, and thus unconstitional.
Seriously, if the Supreme Court said tomorrow that as of this day one virgin shall be brought to the Supreme Court each month to be sacrificed to the god Arkvoodle, wouldn’t you admit that they aren’t a tad outside of their constitutional bounds? Everyone recognized that Nixon was a bad man when he said “if the president does it, it’s not illegal.” Apparently you believe “if the Supreme Court says it, it can’t be unconstitutional.”
Really, if the constitution only meant what the Supreme Court said, then why didn’t the constitution just read: “We the People declare that… the Supreme Court is in charge. Let’s hope they don’t blow it.”
> Google “Bush atheist patriot”
I looked in google news. No reliable sources. And given the hatchet job they did on the “scanner” issue, or willie Horton, I will need a reliable source.
> So how would making a commandment “thou shalt not own slaves” be any more of an elimination of free will than “thou shalt not kill”?
I didn’t say it would be. You simply fail to follow my argument. If Judaism came out against slavery, it would be been more like Shakerism rather than the robust religion that tilled the soil for Christ. Slavery was so ingrained in the worldwide economy that it would have crushed this nascent faith if it was too clearly a threat.
In this sense I am repeating myself. Try to follow along this time. And don’t repeat the part where you mock the concept that God couldn’t beat their economic system. that is where God’s self-imposed limitation for free will comes in.
> What is relevant is why YOU don’t weep for them. You actually believe the deaths occurred, and yet you make a joke about it. Why don’t you weep for them or the people of Canaan, where innocents were murdered on a genocidal scale?
The Canaan story is actually more ambiguous than you realize. One part claims they were going to kill them all. Then later, they are still there. So what really happened? Who knows. But really given an omniscient and omnipotent God, it isn’t hard to imagine a loophole here or there. It isn’t hard for a person who doesn’t just want to attack, but to understand.
I am thousands of years removed from those acts and am limited to my human understanding. I wouldn’t deign to judge based on that perspective.
> To suggest that atheists do not have a sense of morality is ignorance and idiocy.
I didn’t say you guys didn’t, just that it is ultimately irrational, which puts it on dubious footing.
> If you don’t believe that evolution had a role in shaping our thinking, and the way that we are able to live in social groups, then you are mistaken.
Yeah, you are one of those guys who attributes every cultural thing to evolution. My favorite was the guy who claimed that men liked women with short skirts, because evolution favored such women because they were less likely to trip and drop the man’s babies. Humans can count their actual instincts on one hand, and “respect others” isn’t one of them. Indeed, I seem to remember my nephew using my brother’s testicles as a punching bag when he was little. According to you his instinct should have prevented that. But instead, it was not until he was spanked several times that he LEARNED not to do it anymore.
I mean seriously, have you ever watched how a baby behaves? If they were 6 foot tall, etc. they would be jerks. But because they are small and cute and helpless, its funny. Ha-ha, the little girl is stomping on Daddy’s nuts! Daddy’s face is turning red! So, um, where is this instinct you speak of?
I mean one time when my niece was very little she picked up my sister’s curling iron when it was still hot. And despite the fact it was burning her, she held it in her hand, and stood their crying. My sister had to run over and take it from her hand (and did an admirable job of not freaking out about the whole thing). And this is typical. You learn to throw the thing down.
So according to you we all have an instinctual “respect for all humans.” (Oh, well, except many of us don’t.) But we obviously don’t have a “throw down the hot thing you just picked up” instinct. We know that from empirical evidence.
Um, on sheer survivability, wouldn’t it be more likely that we would have an instinct to throw down the hot thing than the “respect for all humans” gene? Indeed, respect for all humans actually can harm your survivability. In other words, it is the right thing to do, but its not always clear that it is the most beneficial course of action.
> You’ve never struck me as particularly moral people
You live in an island of enlightenment in a world of darkness, honor killings, terrorism, dictatorships, burqas, genocide, and so on; and this island was created by a people overwhelmingly Christian. And yet we are immoral bastards.
Oooookaaay.
> That conscience preceded Christianity is easily established
Then do it, though please keep it to the golden rule.
Kevem
> Also, BTW, rejecting the Nazis isn’t a matter of ethics, it’s a matter of sanity
And yet you couldn’t.
> The Nazis weren’t bad because they killed people, they were bad because they pretended to have a right to kill people based on their own whimsical fantasies.
Right. it wasn’t the fact they murdered millions of innocent people. It’s the “why” behind it all.
Stares at you, wondering if you are really a million monkeys with a million typewriters.
Grant
Indeed the claim Bush Sr. said that is more and more dubious. Robert Sherman’s account is allegedly here:
http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm
in it, he claims that he was there with other reporters there, and yet he was the only one who apparently heard him say that.
This is the same media that perpetuated the myth that Bush was surprised by standard supermarket scanners and that he was behind the willie Horton ad. You know in the good ole days before blogs like LGF and powerline could tear apart a bald-faced lie like that.
Then he quotes another atheist asking for a response. The response is:
> As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees.
And what is their assessment of this response?
> This letter was a clear admission
Um, no, it was not. It ducked the question as indeed his own PDF made it clear he was doing. And indeed, his assurance that the President will obey the constitution means this whole “no allowed to be citizens” thing was not how he actually felt.
Sorry, it seems you are taking this thing about Bush as a matter of faith, rather than reason.
A.W. > Also, BTW, rejecting the Nazis isn’t a matter of ethics, it’s a matter of sanity
And yet you couldn’t.
I did, it seems that this is the only argument you have against me, yet your Godwin score is way higher than mine, not to speak of your “blindness/deafness” score which is stellar.
Kevem
What said was this example of mealy-mouthism:
> I am not saying that no one should do anything about what you call “evil”,
And so on.
A.W.
Given the difficulties you have sorting out evidence from delusion I understand that you are a bit “comprehension impaired” and I forgive you.
I will try to explain it slower and louder in the (likely vain) hope that this will help you.
My point is that you cannot reject the Nazis nor Atta’deeds “just because my delusion is better than theirs”, there is no way that this can be taken as a valid “argument”.
If you want to reject the Nazis and Atta (whichI do) you have to resort to an argument which does NOT depend on controversial “beliefs”, namely that no one private fantasies gives them a “right” to anything, most especially not
Oops!
Spurious “Submit”, continued…
most especially not a right to kill, this is called secularism…
It has the benefit to also deny ANY OTHER PRETENSE to a “right to kill” by whomever nutcases, like:
Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His
As the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury said at the
Siege of Béziers
… Arnaud’s love of terror and killing was perhaps above average, even for a senior churchman. It was he who was responsible for the mass burning alive of “many heretics and many fair women” at Casseneuil”, for the massacre at Béziers, where some 20,000 men, women and children were killed in an “exercise of Christian charity”, and for the immortal words “Kill them all. God will know his own”. He was also responsible for the siege of Carcassonne, and for the seizure of Raymond-Roger Trencavel, Viscount of Carcassonne, Béziers, Albi and the Razès during a truce – leading to the fall of Carcassonne. He arrived at Minerve just in time to engineer the deaths of 140 people whose lives would otherwise have been spared.
Kevembuangga:
I have been following a little bit of your discourse. You seem quite sure of your thinking processes. Just how do you prove that your thoughts are real, since they are non-falsifiable?
how do you prove that your thoughts are real
🙂
The same way you prove that careful thinker is real.
Just kidding.
Actually no one thoughts are “real”, a thought is just someone’s bet on the shape of reality which gets confirmed or infirmed to a certain degree by evidence met in the course of events met afterward.
The very wording you use casts you as a Platonist, which I am not, I am somewhat close to linguistic pragmatism.
In light of the nature of things in this world, i should say.. makes that verse eerily understandable
“Christians surely see that most of their wrong-believing personal acquaintances are just as moral and deserving as themselves. How, then, do they live with the knowledge that their friends and loved ones face an eternity of torment?”
An inch short and a mile wide my friend. Christians see that most of their wrong-believing personal acquaintances are just as guilty and undeserving as themselves. How, then will they stand before a perfect God except through Jesus Christ.
You are quite right to question the beliefs of those Christians who do not fervently evangelize.