tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post2598803916077923506..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Religion is abuse, pure and simple. Just check Twitter.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10036161605908279702010-04-12T14:59:48.027-05:002010-04-12T14:59:48.027-05:00Ali wrote:
In fact, the second largest denominati...Ali wrote:<br /><br /><i>In fact, the second largest denomination of Christianity in the world (the Orthodox Church) does not believe in original sin, but "original forgetfulness", much like Islam. Human beings are not born with sin, but with the ability to sin.</i><br /><br />And later, admonished Geoff:<br /><br /><i>The fact that you were completely unaware of the Orthodox Churchs views on the matter shows just how ignorant you are of the things you object to. </i><br /><br />I refer you to the website of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto, which helpfully contains the Orthodox catechism:<br /><br />http://www.gocanada.org/catechism/catorsin.htm<br /><br />Right there, in the fourth paragraph, we find:<br /><br /><b>Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam.</b><br /><br />Ali chided Geoff:<br /><br /><i>You should learn before you try to teach.</i><br /><br />Good advice, Ali. Why don't you try it?George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-84547985675220983172010-04-12T12:27:13.124-05:002010-04-12T12:27:13.124-05:00@ Ali
"Really? Murder, adultery, uncontrolle...@ Ali<br /><br />"Really? Murder, adultery, uncontrolled sexual desires, theft, gluttony, slander, etc. don't hurt people or the people themselves? I beg to differ."<br /><br />Oh come on. Do you <i>really</i> think those are the particulars that were being discussed? When you say things like that, you are either being purposefully deceitful, or miss the entire gist of the discussion. Give people some credit and they may actually listen to what you are saying in return. But such an insulting non-answer only filibusters the message board.<br /><br />Are we to believe that you take literally all of the bible's teachings? If so, do you honestly believe the above mentioned teachings are the parts that people will find offensive? I give you moire credit than that.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28387826669820832642010-04-11T10:42:14.946-05:002010-04-11T10:42:14.946-05:00You might also read the part that precedes it:
&...You might also read the part that precedes it: <br /><br /><i>"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which <b>the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them</b>, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."</i><br /><br />"Nature's God" sure sounds an awful lot like something a deist would say, not someone who's basing their opinions on any theistic belief. But we could go on past the part you quoted as well:<br /><br /><i>"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, <b>deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed</b>, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, <b>it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government</b>, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."</i><br /><br />Not that any of this matters. The Declaration of Independence is an important document to be sure, and one which demonstrates that the Founding Fathers were following social contract principles specifically set down by John Locke in the Second Treatise on Government (which talks of natural rights and is the basis for the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). But it is not the foundation for US government, nor has it ever been, nor is it even the foundation of American morality. <br /><br /><b>And while people may argue about what the objective standard is or what it actually says, they still think there is one to begin with.</b><br /><br />People also think that any light in the sky they can't immediately identify is an alien spacecraft. Are you really suggesting that because people <i>think</i> something is true, therefore it <i>must</i> be true? <br /><br /><b>Your version of ethics that stems from this utopian idea of self preservation and meditations from hippy bong sessions isn't an accurate description of reality.</b><br /><br />If that were my idea, it sure would sound absurd, but it isn't. Ethics stem from a natural drive for survival, from natural social instincts (and from the fact that social animals <i>need each other to survive</i>), and from the needs of society at a given point in time. This isn't entirely a conscious process. Most people aren't walking around talking about which actions best walk the line between their individual survival, the survival of their offspring, and the cohesiveness of the group (and the ones who do are called moral philosophers). But morals <i>do</i> change, and even people's (unfounded) ideas of what the "objective moral standard" is and says and has always said changes. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Christian who thinks that the Bible has always advocated equality between the sexes and races, that capitalism is a Biblical value, and that the Ten Commandments say basically the same thing as the Bill of Rights. <br /><br />You accuse me of hippy bong sessions, Ali, and yet your position appears to be "because people think that their morals come from a magic man in the sky, it <i>must be true</i>" is the stuff of patchouli-tinged newage ramblings.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66597735765965620562010-04-11T10:42:14.947-05:002010-04-11T10:42:14.947-05:00@Ali,
The foundational document of the United Sta...@Ali,<br /><br />The foundational document of the United States is the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, as I think you know. And the government established by the Constitution is one of limited powers. Who grants those powers? Is it the Creator? Is it Almighty God? Is it God's prophet Mohammed, may blessings be upon him? No! It's We the People. Sounds like a secular social contract to me.<br /><br />You claim that social reform is impossible without a transcendent source of morality. This is, frankly, asinine. In any meaningful social reform movement in US history, for example, it's true that those desirous of reform often appealed to God and the Bible, and <i>so did their opponents.</i> The transcendent source turned out to be no help at all. The reforms we've achieved happened because groups of people decided that the proposition that "all men are created equal" ought to apply to them too. Whether or not they were in fact created has no bearing, because that Creator certainly never stepped in to make sure that those unalienable rights were enforced. <br /><br />If morality stemmed from a transcendent source, then that source must either be remarkably inconsistent or nearly unintelligible, because concepts of morality differ widely through time and space. It's far more parsimonious to propose that our concepts of morality shift along with changes in our values, and that the moral precepts that have survived to this day are those that made possible our survival and success.soul_biscuithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10017109360122087908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10030367270046767122010-04-11T10:42:14.948-05:002010-04-11T10:42:14.948-05:00I don't think so. I don't even think this ...<b>I don't think so. I don't even think this is something natural of human beings to think.</b><br /><br />And I think you're an idiot. I'm not saying that this is something that people <i>believe</i> happens. Yes, people believe that their morals come from some outside source, but the evidence suggests otherwise. The fact is that all human civilizations--and <i>all social animals</i>--have and enforce systems of ethics. Even water buffalo engage in self-sacrifice and a "no man left behind" philosophy. Even chimpanzees remember which individuals have wronged them and which have helped. Such systems are all over, unspoken, and strikingly similar to the very few rules that most human cultures have in common.<br /><br /><b>If they didn't think this, such thing as "social reform", would not be possible.</b><br /><br />Perhaps I miss your meaning, but how is "social reform" possible if you think your morals come from an unchanging outside source? <br /><br /><b>And no, I'm not talking about the U.S. Constitution, but the very precursor and foundation to that document found in an idea manifested in only a few words in a previous declaration: </b><br /><br />Oh, you're going to make the "the US is based on Christian values" argument? And you're going to use a document by Thomas Jefferson--Thomas "I cut all the supernatural stuff out of the Bible" Jefferson--Thomas "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." Jefferson--to make your point? <br /><br />Okay, we can play that: I recommend you actually read the passage you've quoted, because I don't think it says what you think it does. I've added emphasis to make it clearer:<br /><br />"<b>We</b> hold these truths to be <b>self-evident</b>, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."<br /><br />Not "God holds these truths to be self-evident." Not "we hold these truths that come from a deity or a religious source." But <i>we</i> hold these truths to be <i>self-evident</i>.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87527714797690056892010-04-11T08:06:29.328-05:002010-04-11T08:06:29.328-05:00@ Ali
"Really? Murder, adultery, uncontrolle...@ Ali<br /><br />"Really? Murder, adultery, uncontrolled sexual desires, theft, gluttony, slander, etc. don't hurt people or the people themselves? I beg to differ."<br /><br />Of course you do. And of course you've chosen the worst examples of human behavior, when what I meant was:<br /><br />Homosexuality. Eating pork. Working on the Sabbath. Eating shellfish.<br /><br />Or THINKING about adultery, and not actually doing it. A sin. THINKING about stealing and not doing it. A sin. DOUBTING the existence of God. Big sin.<br /><br />Here's one; Being born. Original sin. Die in the cradle, go to hell forever.<br /><br />And as far as the "Liberation" of women, it wasn't so they could wear "next to nothing", it was to give them equal rights as men. Do you think that's a sin? Or even a bad idea? And if a woman chooses to wear "next to nothing" I am capable of restraining myself from physically assaulting her.Mark Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082856602483276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45324705423793635212010-04-11T05:18:39.365-05:002010-04-11T05:18:39.365-05:00@Asadullah Ali
Really? Aren't you the one wh...@Asadullah Ali<br /><br /><i> Really? Aren't you the one who stated earlier that religion and their denominations were not monolithic?</i><br /><br />Monolithic? Well that’s certainly one way of putting it. And i don’t see how in any way that is changing my tune. Some things are built on other things. I don’t see how this is twisting or misusing anything. I personally don’t know a single Christian (orthodox or otherwise) that wouldn’t tell you that salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus is the most important aspect of Christianity. And i ask, what was the reason for the salvation at all. Orthodox have chosen for whatever reason to drop Original sin and just focus on the sin you apparently accumulate in life, fine. Call my position monolithic if you wish. I don’t see how its a misuse. And I don’t see how it really changes the argument that Christianity promotes self worthlessness one iota, so what’s your point?<br /><br /><i>The fact that you were completely unaware of the Orthodox Churchs views on the matter shows just how ignorant you are of the things you object to. You should learn before you try to teach.</i><br /><br />Thats right. I’m not the knower of all knowledge, and i might not be as clever as you, but just because i didn’t know the specific stance of one out of the thousands of Christian denominations doesn’t in my opinion render me unqualified to give my two cents on a weblog’s comment thread. I know that the Christian denominations are different, and i can’t be expected to know everything about ever one of the thousands of them. <br /><br />And I confess. It is just my interpretation. And that interpretations is that the Christians appear to be making a cacophony of contradictory noise on all sides, and i can’t tell where the party line of what TrueChristianity is actually lies. I fail to see how the orthodox church presenting yet another dissension and contradiction on what Christianity is negates my points though.<br /><br /><i>Uh huh. Because obviously you know how Christians should interpret their own scriptures and their own theology, right?</i><br />And this is largely been my point. I don’t know how the Christians should interpret their own scriptures, because i’m a fucking atheist..... The problem here, is that it appears the Christians don’t know and can’t agree on how they should interpret their own scriptures and their own theology.<br /><br /><i>Spare us the pseudo skepticism, please.</i><br /><br />Stick it you tool...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55494301531045132562010-04-11T05:18:39.366-05:002010-04-11T05:18:39.366-05:00@Asadullah Ali
I agree with your assessment, but...@Asadullah Ali<br /><br /><i> I agree with your assessment, but I don't agree with your interpretation of that assessment. You seem to believe that your definition of Christianity includes all persons that call themselves Christians, which is odd seeing as part of your criteria was that these people had to follow the teachings of Jesus.</i><br /><br />I actually recognised this as soon as i reread that paragraph after posting it, but thought i’d wait to see if anyone would bring it up. And you have brought up the very point I want to correct. Does anyone really follow the word of jesus? Completely? As i’ve already pointed out, i don’t know any Christians that support slavery. And I don’t know a single Christian that stones their children to death when they’re disobedient, or thinks that they can just sit around doing nothing because “god will provide”. Everyone picks and chooses which parts they want to follow, and reinterprets or ignores the parts they don’t like. In much the same way that i think TrueChristianity is whatever the Christian chooses to make up, so are Jesus teachings whatever they choose to hear.<br /><br />So who gets to say what the teachings of jesus actually are? Hence, I’d hereby like to change d) with your permission of course to; Follows what they think are the biblical teachings of Jesus however minimalist or reinterpreted that may be.<br /><br />That should fix up that little loophole right? Would you say its accurate now? Based on this; yes, basically almost everyone that calls themselves a Christian is a Christian in my opinion. As i keep asking, and everyone keeps avoiding giving me a clear answer, do you have a better method of discerning the TrueChristians from the Fake ones? If not, can i have my cookie now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52390830686147682862010-04-11T05:18:39.367-05:002010-04-11T05:18:39.367-05:00@Asadullah Ali
Secondly, it's pointless to a...@Asadullah Ali<br /><br /><i> Secondly, it's pointless to argue against Christianity if you don't have a belief about what Christianity is.</i><br /><br />Here’s were i think we have the disconnect. Its not about generalization. Its not about strange contradictions you’ve concocted about the truth of truth. What i believe about Christianity is that its whatever the Christians choose to make up and call Christianity. And when i see one Christian saying “god says the gays are evil.” And another Christian saying “god says the gays are ok.” And both of them are saying to each other “that other guy isn’t a true Christian” while pointing to deferent parts of the same bible... As an atheist and outside observer, i don’t think i’m unjustified in asking, “well what is a true Christian or Christianity then?”<br /><br />You see this true Christian dilemma isn’t on the atheist side of the divide, we just highlight it. The atheists think its all make-believe. Generalised, specific, or otherwise, the fact that Christianity can’t get its story strait, and that Fred Phelps and Barry Linn both claim to be Christians and acting in a Christian manner isn’t my fucking problem. As i said to Kevin, unless i’m given a better method than my a, b, c, d to differentiate the TrueChristians from the FakeChristians, the best we atheists can do with Christianity, is to read the holy book and observe the behaviour (particularly those behaviours influenced by religious tenants and doctrine) of people that claim to be Christian, and then make our assessments based on that. I don’t think that’s really an unreasonable position.<br /><br />I’m not the fundamentalist fascist you imply either. I’m not angry at everyone. I recognise that the number of good Christians far out way the number of bad Christians. Some of them close family members. And i don’t mean to generalise and apply the criminal acts of a few bad people, to the majority of good people because they have the same name. However, I’m not talking about the individuals here, but the ideology itself. Its hard to separate i’m know, but the Christians themselves do it all the time. The reason these Christians are good people is because they blatantly ignore the large portion of their own holy book that disagrees with their own personal sensibilities. Fact, the bible supports slavery. Fact, most Christians i know don’t support slavery. If you have a more efficient theory to reconcile these two facts than Christians simply ignoring the portions they don’t like, please tell me. I’m not saying all Christians are bad. Or that most Christians aren’t good. But i am saying Christianity itself is a terrible ideology that can and does have observable negative effects on many of its followers as individuals and as whole groups.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64829870512047317252010-04-11T05:18:17.547-05:002010-04-11T05:18:17.547-05:00@Asadullah Ali
Besides the fact that conspiracy t...@Asadullah Ali<br /><br /><i>Besides the fact that conspiracy theories are not evidence,</i><br /><br />You think these tweets are part of a conspiracy? What about the catholic church’s documented paedophile atrocities and their subsequent attempts at cover-ups for the sake of the church that are coming out of Ireland and Germany at the moment? Get out your tinfoil. I’ll admit, there has been conspiring going on, but not on the part of some evil atheist conspiracy.<br /><br /><i> But this isn't even the crux of it all. What you really need to prove is whether the specific teachings of these religions actually sanction this sort of behaviour.</i><br /><br />In the case of these tweets, the concept of people being unworthy in gods eye’s and needing salvation through blood sacrifice. In the case of the catholic paedophilia, how about the pope’s recent pastoral letter.<br /><br /><i> Further, just because you are an atheist does not mean that you are immune to having to give reasons for your own positive claims.</i><br /><br />On one hand i disagree, on the other i agree. As far as atheism is concerned we are the defendant position. The theist presents their arguments and evidence as the prosecution. Atheists have the job of refuting the God claims and arguing that they don’t meet the requirement of “beyond reasonable doubt”. We don’t have to prove that god doesn’t exist, just refute the theistic assertions put to us.<br /><br />I do however agree that when we make positive assertions like that Christianity is an ideology that promotes self hate, we DO HAVE to produce evidence to support that argument. And we have. These tweets are empirical evidence which support this argument. The fact that you want to put on a tinfoil hat and write them off as part of some grandiose atheist conspiracy theory is unfortunate, but regretfully i guess that’s your prerogative.<br /><br /><i> The fact of the matter is, you have no grounds to assume that this is how they are actually reacting or what they believe. I at least argued from the doctrine itself and how language is typically used by people who say this</i><br /><br />Well based on that statement, you have no grounds to make these assumptions about their statements or beliefs either. And biased as i may be, I don’t think i was any less objective about it that you were. With doctrine like original sin and statements that use clear English words like “@iLoveMJ147 Without God I am nothing.”, “@BellaKerber Without God, life has no meaning.”, and “@Periyon Without God I have nothing else to live for...” do you really expect me to take these statements differently than i did? Excluding all biases or back and forth arguments on the finer details for a second, could you honestly say that my interpretation of the statement is explicitly unjustified just reading them as is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57133650651682395072010-04-11T03:20:35.535-05:002010-04-11T03:20:35.535-05:00Tom Foss
I just wanted to comment on one thing yo...<b>Tom Foss</b><br /><br />I just wanted to comment on one thing you said:<br /><br /><i>"Someone here said that the humanist position is "because I said so," but that's not the case. As Matt D. explained in his "Superiority of Secular Morality" speech, it's "because we said so." Secular morals come from society, based on and derived from the values we share (which, in part, come from the values necessary for society to exist) and are developed through a continuing process of conversation, debate, enactment, and revision. It's ultimately a democratic system, where authority comes from within, rather than from outside."</i><br /><br />I always find the conception of equal opportunity ethical subjectivism to be rather funny. So morals are based on what <i>we</i> as a collective decide from within for the sake of our own survival? <br /><br />I don't think so. I don't even think this is something natural of human beings to think.<br /><br />What I do happen to think is that human beings decide on what is <i>objectively</i> moral, meaning that human beings for the most part believe that morality transcends their personal or collective preferences. If they didn't think this, such thing as "social reform", would not be possible. <br /><br />A worthy example (though failing miserably in our times) is the United States. It was not founded on a social contract theory of <i>we</i> who happen to decide collectively just for the sake of utility, but that utility is grounded in an objective standard of morality predicated on the idea of a transcendent source, which no majority can overturn. And no, I'm not talking about the U.S. Constitution, but the very precursor and foundation to that document found in an idea manifested in only a few words in a previous declaration: <br /><br /><i>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."</i><br /><br />As much as that may bother you, it's an undeniable fact. And while people may argue about what the objective standard is or what it actually says, they still think there is one to begin with.<br /><br />Your version of ethics that stems from this utopian idea of self preservation and meditations from hippy bong sessions isn't an accurate description of reality.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4297472951918414902010-04-11T01:54:09.807-05:002010-04-11T01:54:09.807-05:00Geoff (P3),
You then say:
"
Yes, and once a...<b>Geoff (P3)</b>,<br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>"<br />Yes, and once again its very nice for you to make this assertion time after time, but if you’re not actually going to correct us and tell us what true Christianity is, then SHUT THE FUCK UP. Just out of curiosity what exactly was your problem with my a, b, c, and d definition of Christians and how would you change it?</i><br /><br />I agree with your assessment, but I don't agree with your interpretation of that assessment. You seem to believe that your definition of Christianity includes <i>all</i> persons that call themselves Christians, which is odd seeing as part of your criteria was that these people had to follow the teachings of Jesus. Last time I checked, the teachings of Jesus did not include many things that Christians do (such as many hate-filled things, child molestation, etc.).<br /><br />So, by <i>your own</i> definition, you've even failed to interpret what Christianity is. Bravo. Give yourself a cookie. <br /><br /><i>"I’m also getting thoroughly pissed with theist carrying on about people misusing and twisting the ideology of religion. Particularly with Christianity. This isn’t a misuse."</i><br /><br />Really? Aren't you the one who stated earlier that religion and their denominations were <i>not</i> monolithic? See how you change your tune so quickly when it suits your "argument"?<br /><br /> <i>"Even if you cite the Orthodox Church, that doesn’t change the fact that ‘original sin’ is still a rampantly common concept among most other Christian groups."</i><br /><br />The fact that you were completely unaware of the Orthodox Churchs views on the matter shows just how ignorant you are of the things you object to. You should learn before you try to teach.<br /><br />Further, your conception of original sin as some sort of abusive ideology universally is completely contradictory to how many Christians <i>actually</i> view the concept, which just leads more credence to my claim that you <i>do</i> in fact view certain doctrines and Christianity in general as this monolithic thing.<br /><br />You just need to confess to the fact that it's actually your interpretation against others, not that you recognize everything for what it is.<br /><br />Finally, you say:<br /><br /><i>" And regardless of which parts of extra biblical dogmatic concepts like original sin the, orthodox church chooses to adopt or not, its still based on and uses the same Christian bible. A Christina bible that i can open up and start reading to you, passages about how slavery is AOK or that disobedient children should be stoned to death. This is twisting or misuse. This is just a horrible ideology."</i><br /><br />Uh huh. Because obviously <i>you</i> know how Christians should interpret their own scriptures and their own theology, right?<br /><br />Spare us the pseudo skepticism, please.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-300873183899567072010-04-11T01:54:09.808-05:002010-04-11T01:54:09.808-05:00Geoff (P2),
"I don’t know how many times thi...Geoff (P2),<br /><br /><i>"I don’t know how many times this has been pointed out on this comment thread already. “Without god i am nothing” and “Without god I’d have more trouble overcoming my imperfections and flaws” are two completely different statements. Please stop trying to spin this. You don’t have a leg to stand on, and 100 comments into a thread that has already more than covered this point, you’re just making yourself look like a fool."</i><br /><br />And you're just as bad as the fundamentalists you chastise when you pick on words like this. The fact of the matter is, you have no grounds to assume that this is how they are actually reacting or what they believe. I <i>at least</i> argued from the doctrine itself and how language is typically used by people who say this. You, on the other hand, interpreted the statements from your negative bias of religion and religious persons to begin with.<br /><br /><br /><i>"We aren’t chastising these individuals. I think martin at one point has already covered this. We pity these individuals. We chastise the institution of Christianity."</i><br /><br />And let me just say, that while I disagree with the institution of Christianity, I certainly agree with all the Christians here that you're doing a <i>very poor</i> job at representing what they actually believe.<br /><br />Calling them "dishonest" about their own beliefs doesn't help your case either.<br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>"George and everyone else (me included) doesn’t have to believe in true Christianity for his point to be valid. We just have to assume Kevin and yourself believe in true Christianity, And i for one am personally sick to fucking death of theists trying to pull their “you doth protest too much me thinks” bullshit. I’m sorry but “Oh you look angry at god, and you can’t be angry at someone without believing they exist” is not an argument. As is stated before, god is irrelevant, what is relevant is the institution of Christianity."</i><br /><br />Well, for one, I never argued that you're angry at God. What I actually think is that while your anger is justified in <i>some cases</i>, it is not justified for <i>all</i>. What you're angry at are a few things, which, out of emotional ease and intellectual laziness, you apply to the majority.<br /><br />Secondly, it's pointless to argue against Christianity if you don't have a belief about what Christianity <i>is</i>. If there is no such thing as a <i>true</i> Christianity or some solid teachings that you can grasp, then there's really no point from which to argue. It's like saying that there is no true such thing as truth, but then trying to argue your point as though it's true. <br /><br />Now, you <i>could</i> argue that somehow there was, at one point, a true Christianity, which has somehow been corrupted over the ages into different sects, which I would grant, but even then you can't argue that all Christianities somehow have the same influence. In that sense, your argument would crumble.<br /><br />What it just looks like to me is that you want any excuse to be pissed at something, so at one point you'll switch from making generalizations when it suits you and then switch to particulars when that becomes more suitable.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44169435333139369702010-04-11T01:30:55.539-05:002010-04-11T01:30:55.539-05:00Geoff,
You say:
"I think you’ll have troubl...Geoff,<br /><br />You say:<br /><br /><i>"I think you’ll have trouble logically proving that negative assertion."</i><br /><br />To be to the point, I really don't have to prove it. The fact is that the author of this article including anyone who agrees with it needs to prove it. Why? Because they were the ones making the claims first. But for the sake of argument, I can very well verify what I've just say by simply looking in the DSM with a fine tooth comb and also going through a psychology data base of peer reviewed studies. <br /><br />Yes, it's that simple. <br /><br />You then say:<br /><br /><i>"But regardless of whether that statement you’ve made was actually true or not, do you think DSM or anyone else would ever actually list theism as a cause or form of abuse even if it was? Just look at what the pope and the catholic church is getting away with at the moment. Beyond simply being a form of psychological abuse, religion appears to go a full step further and actually to act as a ‘get out of jail free card’ for tangible abuses that are committed. Obviously you can’t prove your negative assertion, but between everything from these tweets, to gay rights, to church celibacy and attitudes towards sex, to original sin, to protecting paedophile priests from the law, to the avocation of guilt for thought crimes, the avocation of eternal torture and punishment for finite crimes, the circumstantial evidence is stacking up in our favour on this one at an exponential rate."</i><br /><br />Besides the fact that conspiracy theories are not <i>evidence</i>, particular incidents do not prove your point that circumstantial evidence is being "stacked in your favor at an exponential rate". You need to show that to be the case. I can likewise point to counter examples where religion helps people <i>get out</i> of self abuse and abusive relationships. Your arguing for probabilities here, so let's see the statistics and compare.<br /><br />Oh wait...you don't have anything on that scale? Who would have thought...<br /><br />But this isn't even the crux of it all. What you really need to prove is whether the specific teachings of these religions actually sanction this sort of behavior. Only <i>then</i> will you actually have a point against religion itself. Further, you need to show that <i>your interpretations</i> are true of that religion. Until that time, all you can say is that certain person's interpretation of religion or their ignoring of particular principles is what is driving them to these immoral acts, or, as I would advocate, you are merely ignorant of what these religions really teach.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Not even going to dignify this beyond saying bourdon of proof!"</i><br /><br />Correction and not an insult, but the word is spelled <i>burden</i>. Further, just because you are an atheist does not mean that you are immune to having to give reasons for your own positive claims. So please, spare me the intellectually lazy response of:<br /><br /> "The burden is on you, just because I lack a belief in a particular proposition that you aren't even advocating at this time and I can't seem to understand that I make positive claims myself!"Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71321066912957890942010-04-11T01:25:49.767-05:002010-04-11T01:25:49.767-05:00A quaint little video kurt. Here are my problems w...A quaint little video kurt. Here are my problems with it.<br /><br />1) This whole outlook is based on an obscure passage in an obscure book, in an obscure corner of the bible, that Keller Himself freely admits at the start of the video, that most of the Christian filled hall probably didn’t even know existed. This one passage isn’t exactly the party line for Christianity, and i bet my bottom dollar that there are probably a handful of other old and new testament passages that could be used to directly contradict this one vague statement. A good example just of the top of my head is Mark 16:15-20 (something from the ACTUAL gospels) and would be a perfect justification for these “soap box Christians” that keller is chastising (and perhaps MattD or George could help out with some more. I’m not a bible scholar myself). If that is the case, what justification do you have for accepting this one passage over the others that contradict it and saying this is what makes a true christian? Is it just that this passage rather than the other suits your version of Christianity? Or can you give us something more objective?<br /><br />2) Keller freely admits in this video that this is a vindication that your actions aren’t as important as beliefs. Taken to the logical extreme you can commit mass murder and fiddle kiddies, and still be a considered a good Christian as long as you accept jesus as your lord and saviour. Which brings me to point 3.<br /><br />3) Its seems for all his magnanimity about being humble and not acting superior to other people because of your Christianity (claiming this is soap box Christianity and not true Christianity at all), evidently, he still thinks that despite the fact that i may be a good person, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2qeJMUnkik" rel="nofollow">i rightly and justifiably deserve eternal torture and punishment for not being a member of his little club</a> ...Fuck him. And fuck his hypocritical intellectual wankery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82183057332075642912010-04-11T01:14:11.515-05:002010-04-11T01:14:11.515-05:00Mark B.,
Thank you for your response. You say the...<b>Mark B.</b>,<br /><br />Thank you for your response. You say the following:<br /><br /><i>But the thing is, much of what is considered "sin" by the religious are often perfectly natural human desires that harm no one.</i><br /><br />Really? Murder, adultery, uncontrolled sexual desires, theft, gluttony, slander, etc. don't hurt people or the people themselves? I beg to differ.<br /><br />I mean, let's take adultery and other sexual sins, for instance (ones often picked on by atheists). Are you trying to say that adultery does <i>not</i> ruin families and hurt children? Are you saying that uncontrollable sexual desires where people go from partner to partner does <i>not</i> help with the spread of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, emotional distress, and emotional feelings of less worth? Are you trying to tell me that the "liberation" of women to wear near to nothing does <i>not</i> lead to the objectification of women as mere sex objects, and the continuing disrespect and victimization of women? <br /><br />I mean, it's certainly a fact that an unbalanced view of sin can also lead to problems and oppression as well (that I wouldn't deny), but I hardly see how the view of sin in general is somehow harmless.<br /><br /><i>"It'd be interesting to hear what "original forgetfulness" is. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that regardless of what you call it, the Orthodox (I'm assuming Eastern)church believes that if you don't get salvation, you are damned. No?"</i><br /><br />"Original forgetfulness" basically just means that human beings are born innocent, but commit errors against themselves, humanity, and God on the basis that they forget what their purpose and duties are in life. <br /><br />The Eastern Church and just about every other religion in the world that teaches damnation and salvation believe that one who does not obtain salvation is condemned, but not in such a general sense. There are many people who are excluded from this scheme, such as those who are ignorant of the truth or unable to grasp it. <br /><br />Thanks for your question.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-472582974822041572010-04-11T00:26:56.884-05:002010-04-11T00:26:56.884-05:00The running theme behind your comments is that unl...The running theme behind your comments is that unless value and meaning and moral rules come from some outside source and last forever, they are somehow not real or not meaningful or not worthwhile. I have a hard time understanding this viewpoint. The things which matter to me are the things that matter to <i>me</i>, not the things that matter to some external entity. I care more about what's going to happen tonight or tomorrow or next week than what's going to happen in ten years or a million years or at the end of time. Even if there were a god who spent his time granting meaning to things and planning for eternity, it would have <i>no effect whatsoever</i> on what matters to me here and now. <br /><br />It sure seems like you're so concerned about the next life and eternity and external authorities that you almost completely devalue anything in this life. You've apparently denied yourself a say in what's important and what the rules are, looking instead for the impositions of an unseen dictator to tell you what to do and who to be and what your life means. I suppose if you're going to live for eighty-odd years here, and infinity-odd years in some other place, then this insignificant speck of a life really is rather meaningless. But the atheist position--and realizing this is part of what led me toward atheism--flips that around. Whether or not there's an afterlife, whether or not there's a heaven or a hell, nobody who leaves this world for that one ever does anything else here. The people and things you care about, your family and friends, are not affected in the slightest by which afterlife you actually end up in (which is part of why you never hear "Uncle Bob is in a much worse place now" at funerals). What matters, what endures, is what you do <i>here</i>, in this life, before you die. This is the only life that you <i>know</i> you get. So the best course of action, for atheists or theists, is to live it well and live it as if it's the only one you'll have. Because nothing you do or fail to do afterward will have any effect on anyone else.<br /><br />@Kevin: <b>And that what you view as Christianity is, in fact, a set of beliefs that masquerades as Christianity only because some of the belief holders call themselves Christians.</b><br /><br />You can play the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" rel="nofollow">No True Scotsman</a> game all you want--go ahead, they will too. We atheists tend to stay out of it. You can bicker about who's the <i>real</i> Christians all you want, but as long as you're all using the same label, you forfeit the right to be upset when people assume you have things in common. The Fred Phelpses of the world can quote just as much scripture to support their position as the Pat Robertsons as the Fred Clarks as the Barry Lynns. It's not up to the atheists to sort out which of you is right--as far as we're concerned, you're all wrong. But that doesn't mean that we wouldn't rather hang out with some of you more than others. <br /><br /><b>The problem with basing your understanding of Christianity on what you observe from Christians is that by and large we often misrepresent Jesus in one way or another, because we aren't Him.</b><br /><br />That's okay, I'd prefer most people weren't him. I don't know if you've read the book about the guy, but he was kind of a dick. Cursing fig trees for no good reason, telling people to leave their families behind to follow him, refusing to use his miraculous abilities in any but the most ephemeral and impractical ways, endorsing Old Testament laws, belittling the plight of the poor while being treated with opulence, generally giving either bad or obvious advice, and inventing a doctrine of eternal torture--not the best of role models. You'd be better off emulating Superman.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4899778252580917442010-04-11T00:26:56.885-05:002010-04-11T00:26:56.885-05:00Timothy: we're not getting very far, partly be...Timothy: <b>we're not getting very far, partly because you guys are attacking a caricature of Christianity.</b><br /><br />No more than you're attacking a caricature of atheism, with your "these are the necessary assumptions/conclusions of your worldview" drivel. The difference is that I've talked to and read from Christians who actually <i>do</i> espouse all the (few) doctrinal points I brought up. You can debate who's the true Christian all you want, but I have no desire nor method of <br />distinguishing between the two. <br /><br /><b>Does that have any bearing on how they should or should not treat other people?</b><br /><br />Empathy is a part of morals, but not the entirety. A part of it is also self-interest: if I harm someone, they may in turn harm me; if I steal from someone, they may steal from me, and so forth. It's in my best interest to follow the rules, because the rules protect me from other people like me. <br /><br />And if I don't follow the rules, then I may be penalized for it. I don't have to fear end-of-life judgment, and it's not the fear of end-of-life judgment that keeps people from going 95 mph on the highway. It's a combination of "the rules are there for a reason" (i.e., if I drive too fast, I might get hurt) and "the rules are enforced" (i.e., if I drive too fast, I may get in trouble). When people decide to break the rules, society punishes them for it, whether through something like the justice system or through something less rigid and concrete, like ostracization and stigmatization. <br /><br /><b>This is where Tom is missing the point too. Yes, we GIVE meaning to the things around us. But is that the ONLY meaning that a person or thing has?</b><br /><br />Until you demonstrate that there is some other meaning-granting entity, which is the unfounded assumption of <i>your</i> position.<br /><br /><b>If no one ascribes any meaning to a particular person or thing, does that person or thing actually have no meaning?</b><br /><br />I don't think a person has "no meaning," because I'd think personhood requires sentience, and a person would mean <i>something</i> to herself.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-54677253243723234682010-04-11T00:26:47.692-05:002010-04-11T00:26:47.692-05:00@Headshaker:
It's about in essence determini...@Headshaker: <br /><br /><b>It's about in essence determining the morally correct (to the best of our abilities) course of action.</b><br /><br />Not only is God unnecessary to that, but we <i>all recognize this</i>. The whole point of moral philosophy is to propose situations that may or may not be realistic, but which have morally ambiguous solutions. The Bible's rigid, outdated rules offer no guidance in these situations. The Bible gives general rules that do not help in specific situations. Okay, "thou shalt not murder," but what counts as "murder"? Is it morally equivalent to murder someone and to let someone die when it's in your power to stop it? Is it murder to kill an unborn child? Is it murder to force a woman to carry a child to term if you know she's going to die in childbirth? <br /><br />The best the Bible can muster on these is that if you cause a woman to miscarry, you have to pay a fine. Revelation isn't any help; if pro-life and pro-choice Christians both think they have the right answer, and even if only one of those groups is actually receiving input from God, no one has any way of distinguishing which group that is. <br /><br />Even if we got our basic values from the Bible, we'd <i>still</i> have to hammer out the difficult details as a society, through reason and debate. There are moral issues that never occurred to the shepherds and fishermen in the Bible--is cloning morally permissible? What's the morally correct option with regard to Net Neutrality? Organ transplants? Genetic modification? Life support? Stem cell research? <br /><br />If we have to (and can) figure out our morals in these novel situations, and if we have to (and can) figure out our morals when the details make general rules useless, then we <i>can</i> figure out the general rules too. <br /><br />Someone here said that the humanist position is "because I said so," but that's not the case. As Matt D. explained in his "Superiority of Secular Morality" speech, it's "because <i>we</i> said so." Secular morals come from society, based on and derived from the values we share (which, in part, come from the values necessary for society to exist) and are developed through a continuing process of conversation, debate, enactment, and revision. It's ultimately a democratic system, where authority comes from within, rather than from outside. <br /><br />So, yes, some people decide to act on feelings that go contrary to what we, as a society, have deemed to be appropriate. In some cases, these people cause us to reevaluate our decisions--maybe we <i>shouldn't</i> deny some people the right to marry, maybe we <i>shouldn't</i> outlaw marijuana, maybe we <i>shouldn't</i> have separate schools for people of different races--and in other cases, we just remove those people from the society (in these days, generally through imprisonment, though exile was once a valid option). The rights and benefits you receive from membership in a society are predicated on your ability to follow the rules of that society, and carry the understanding that if you break the rules, you may forfeit those benefits. Again, this is a value which is necessary for society to function. <br /><br />There are also cases where people do things that are <i>perfectly in line</i> with the agreed-upon values of a society, but seem abhorrent to the current members of that society, and again cause us to reevaluate our moral thought. The idea that a husband could rape his wife, for instance, is a relatively recent innovation, brought about by changing attitudes about sex and women's rights. It was perfectly legal (and in some places, still is) for a husband to force his wife to have sex with him, and at one time it would have been thought perfectly moral as well, but the people who make up a society changes, and so the rules of the society must change as well.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24128897086741239442010-04-11T00:17:40.300-05:002010-04-11T00:17:40.300-05:00What is the Gospel?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...What is the Gospel? <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0g-s4Qhtyk&feature=youtu.bekurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06539514114835193744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24444983424273560962010-04-10T21:08:07.097-05:002010-04-10T21:08:07.097-05:00@Asadullah Ali continued
These two comments are i...@Asadullah Ali continued<br /><br /><i>These two comments are indication enough that you believe that there is such a thing as a true Christianity/Islam/Judaism, much like the rest of us.</i><br /><br />George and everyone else (me included) doesn’t have to believe in true Christianity for his point to be valid. We just have to assume Kevin and yourself believe in true Christianity, And i for one am personally sick to fucking death of theists trying to pull their “you doth protest too much me thinks” bullshit. I’m sorry but “Oh you look angry at god, and you can’t be angry at someone without believing they exist” is not an argument. As is stated before, god is irrelevant, what is relevant is the institution of Christianity.<br /><br /><i>And interestingly enough, it's the version that best fits your thesis about how religion is bad for the world.</i><br /><br />Yes, and once again its very nice for you to make this assertion time after time, but if you’re not actually going to correct us and tell us what true Christianity is, then SHUT THE FUCK UP. Just out of curiosity what exactly was your problem with my a, b, c, and d definition of Christians and how would you change it?<br /><br /><i>In either case, its obvious that any ideology and its intentions can be misused and can abuse individuals, but to make the sweeping generalization that this is what religion does is simply a display of ignorance and there is no good reason or evidence to support this.</i><br /><br />I’m also getting thoroughly pissed with theist carrying on about people misusing and twisting the ideology of religion. Particularly with Christianity. This isn’t a misuse. Even if you cite the Orthodox Church, that doesn’t change the fact that ‘original sin’ is still a rampantly common concept among most other Christian groups. And regardless of which parts of extra biblical dogmatic concepts like original sin the, orthodox church chooses to adopt or not, its still based on and uses the same Christian bible. A Christina bible that i can open up and start reading to you, passages about how slavery is AOK or that disobedient children should be stoned to death. This is twisting or misuse. This is just a horrible ideology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77562665987491025032010-04-10T21:08:07.098-05:002010-04-10T21:08:07.098-05:00@Asadullah Ali
Well, seeing as the majority of th...@Asadullah Ali<br /><br /><i>Well, seeing as the majority of the world do not exhibit abuse like symptoms due to their god belief, or that the DSM does not list "theism" as a cause of abuse, I really see your accusation as mere pissing in the wind.</i><br /><br />I think you’ll have trouble logically proving that negative assertion. But regardless of whether that statement you’ve made was actually true or not, do you think DSM or anyone else would ever actually list theism as a cause or form of abuse even if it was? Just look at what the pope and the catholic church is getting away with at the moment. Beyond simply being a form of psychological abuse, religion appears to go a full step further and actually to act as a ‘get out of jail free card’ for tangible abuses that are committed. Obviously you can’t prove your negative assertion, but between everything from these tweets, to gay rights, to church celibacy and attitudes towards sex, to original sin, to protecting paedophile priests from the law, to the avocation of guilt for thought crimes, the avocation of eternal torture and punishment for finite crimes, the circumstantial evidence is stacking up in our favour on this one at an exponential rate.<br /><br /><i>The irony is that you constantly asked for peer reviewed sources (aka, evidence) for claims relating to god, but fail to provide any of your own for your blatant beliefs of anti-theism.</i><br /><br />Not even going to dignify this beyond saying <b>bourdon of proof!</b><br /><br /><i>The reason these people say they are "nothing" without God, is because they realize their own imperfections and through Gods Mercy and Love they are able to become better people each day and overcome their flaws.</i><br /><br />I don’t know how many times this has been pointed out on this comment thread already. “Without god i am nothing” and “Without god I’d have more trouble overcoming my imperfections and flaws” are two completely different statements. Please stop trying to spin this. You don’t have a leg to stand on, and 100 comments into a thread that has already more than covered this point, you’re just making yourself look like a fool.<br /><br /><i>In other words, I find it rather inhumane to chastise these individuals for being human.</i><br /><br />We aren’t chastising these individuals. I think martin at one point has already covered this. We pity these individuals. We chastise the institution of Christianity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62494473413855172792010-04-10T19:56:05.244-05:002010-04-10T19:56:05.244-05:00@ Ali
"Human beings are not born with sin, b...@ Ali<br /><br />"Human beings are not born with sin, but with the ability to sin."<br /><br />But the thing is, much of what is considered "sin" by the religious are often perfectly natural human desires that harm no one.<br /><br />It'd be interesting to hear what "original forgetfulness" is. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that regardless of what you call it, the Orthodox (I'm assuming Eastern)church believes that if you don't get salvation, you are damned. No?Mark Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082856602483276803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32198437171207263782010-04-10T16:35:14.047-05:002010-04-10T16:35:14.047-05:00Mark B.,
Well, first, it should be noted that I&#...<b>Mark B.</b>,<br /><br />Well, first, it should be noted that I'm no longer a Christian, but I'll give you my two cents on it. While I am not theologically inclined to it, I can understand the perspective in the general sense that it is simply an admittance of humanities flaws and for the most part this is simply how people view it on the level of the pew.<br /><br />Further, just for the sake of clarification, not all Christians subscribe to this notion. In fact, the second largest denomination of Christianity in the world (the Orthodox Church) does not believe in original sin, but "original forgetfulness", much like Islam. Human beings are not born with sin, but with the ability to sin. <br /><br />In either case, its obvious that any ideology and its intentions can be misused and <i>can</i> abuse individuals, but to make the sweeping generalization that this is what <i>religion</i> does is simply a display of ignorance and there is no good reason or evidence to support this.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-15846135530405339412010-04-10T13:51:21.947-05:002010-04-10T13:51:21.947-05:00George & Others,
You say:
"No True Chri...<b>George & Others</b>,<br /><br />You say:<br /><br /><i>"No True Christian dodges are annoying and dishonest enough, but become unbearably galling when deployed to deflect criticism of such core doctrinal elements as Original Sin and the Fallen Nature.<br /><br />On the other hand, it gives one cause for optimism. When believers themselves increasingly resort to this kind of obscurantism and denial, it's a sign that even they don't buy what they're selling."</i><br /><br />Let's be honest for once here. Yes, I am calling you intellectually dishonest and I think rightly so. You chastise people for saying things like, "This is not true Christianity/Islam/Judaism etc." and then you go on to say that the reason for this is that these individuals do not "buy what they're selling". <br /><br />These two comments are indication enough that you believe that there is such a thing as a <i>true</i> Christianity/Islam/Judaism, much like the rest of us.<br /><br />In fact, all of you here who complain about this sort of "defense" as being a fallacy are two faced. You like to comment about how certain theistic beliefs are "confusing" and that there is no definite version of either of them, but then boldly go on to give your own interpretation of what a real Christian/Muslim/Jew really is.<br /><br />And interestingly enough, it's the version that best fits your thesis about how religion is bad for the world. <br /><br />The irony is that in your attempts to support the fundamentalists/extremists versions of these religions as authentic, you are actually providing more <i>cover</i> (as Sam Harris likes to say) for those extremists than the moderates are.Asadullah Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09478843123488919019noreply@blogger.com