Respect and Religion

[atiguhya padma]

I wanted to post this on the 10 commandments thread but notice that it has been closed. So I've decided to create a new thread

On the 10 commandments thread amuse said:

<let atheists be atheist and christians be christians, hindus be hindus, and the undecided be undecided. freedom of expression is so important.>

I think that is an admirable statement, provided it means that these groups should be free to criticise each other, free to express themselves in an open and transparent way.

In the UK, there is a big debate going on at the moment regarding incitement to religious hatred. The Govt, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, are trying to placate many of the religious groups in the UK, especially, it is believed, the Muslims. Many people have written letters of complaint against this bill, including the comedian Rowan Atkinson, the author Salman Rushdie and many others.

When the BBC aired Jerry Springer the Musical, a concerted protest was orchestrated by a Christian group, who circulated BBC employees addresses and other personal details among activists, because of the irreverent nature of the piece. Salman Rushdie himself has had his life threatened over writing a novel, and had that novel burned publicly in the streets of Britain. In Birmingham, there was a public disturbance by Sikhs a little while ago, protesting against a play being staged there, which showed scenes relating to bride burnings in India. These are just three incidents off the top of my head, where religious people have caused public disturbance, offence and even violence because someone somewhere has dared to criticise their belief. Can anyone give me an example where atheists or agnostics have done the same when a religious person or group has staged a nativity play or presented biblical mystery plays or dramas?

The fact is, religious groups are getting support from political parties which is itself threatening freedom of expression. It may soon be an offence in the UK, for someone like me to make a statement against a religion that a follower finds offensive.

It is despicable that religions should be granted such protection. Does anyone protect us atheists? No. And I'm sure we wouldn't want it either. If your belief stands up to scrutiny, then that is the best protection you can have. As I have said before, and as Salman Rushdie recently wrote in this article http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-57-2331.jsp , it is important to be able to criticise, probe, even ridicule a belief, whether religious or secular, if the content of that belief is flawed, invalid, improbable etc. There should always be a distinction made between a person and a person's belief. I recently wrote this to a friend:

<I would not condone an individual being persecuted for his personal, spiritual or religious beliefs. I would condone the ridicule of, or argument against, religious doctrines which are either illogical, inconsistent or degrading to other people, sexes, etc. I think there is plenty of reason to be vigorously against much in the OT, the Koran, some of the NT and even Buddhist scriptures (don’t know anything about Hindu scriptures unfortunately). If you can argue vigorously against a religious doctrine, can that be interpreted as prejudice? Can it be seen as incitement of hatred? And even if it can, should it really be wrong to hate such religious doctrines as the stoning of adulterers? Or the stoning of rebellious offspring? Surely there is a difference between hating religious doctrines and hating people. As long as the proposed bill can establish that distinction, then it might well be a piece of positive legislation. I am not at all convinced that it can.>

[Logos]

atiguhya padma, you have linked to opendemocracy.net which is a site that has religious and political etc. forums to discuss such on.

There are many other religious websites that _do_ allow discussion of the very content you have addressed here, a lot of which are of political nature. It is very difficult to not avoid politics if you're discussing religious freedom.

I'm not sure how this topic of yours can be discussed whilst avoiding the polarisation of political/democratic ideology, but I'll leave it open for now.

Much like discussions that have come up in the George Orwell forums, this website is not a free-for-all, Admin is our benevolent dictator, who has rules set-forth as to how he expects us to use it. ;)

[amuse]

i very much agree with your distinction, AP, between a person and their belief. (it's something i often had to keep in mind last semester.) your last paragraph is rather humane, i think.

[byquist]

One might read Erasmus' "In Praise of Folly" and thereby approach religion (or the absense of religion) with a little more humor and a lot more forebearance towards others, and with constant courtesy. If we all had the mind-set of Ghandi or Martin Luther King towards others, we could one-by-one put these types of disagreements, which you mentioned as transpiring in England, to rest. Comraderie, and no anger, must be repeatedly contemplated, hour by hour and minute by minute.

[subterranean]

Understand that there may be a "clash" between the need to let people be free with their beliefs (and respect them as well) and the need to protect freedom of expression, including to say "negative" opinions about other people's beliefs. I think these two interests can only be achieve, when we are able to throw good arguments and be open enough as well. Regarding, the 10th commandments thread, I can't see any constructive arguments which can be taken as inputs to enrich faith/religious discourse. 'Tis merely a bad joke.

[amuse]

yes, byquist, but by the same token, i state again that it would be courteous if forum members weren't to proselytize.
after which statement the earlier thread was closed...i'm not sure what i said to get it closed...

[Logos]

It wasn't what you posted amuse that I decided to close it.

[baddad]

****my two cents****

Protection from ridicule of one's beliefs? I vote an absolute NO/nyet/non!

I also vote NO to critisizing anothers beliefs solely on the basis that they may not be 'rational/strictly-logical.

To me, it would seem only good manners, etiquite enough, to allow alternative thought. On so many levels, perspective/belief is a personal and singular affair.

But condoning acts of violence for any reason, under any dogma, must never stand.

Violence comes in many forms, sometimes disguised, sometimes in indistinct versions and shapes, and sometimes words manifest themselves as acts of violence...... Also, violence can stem from any dogma, including the secular versions.

***** I enjoy A.P's comments for many reasons, not the least of which is my faith in finding that his etiquite is usually never lacking. I may have missed something here, but I detected nothing truly objectionable in these posts......

Logos: thanks for keeping an eye on us.........."Ya do good work"


Words can be violent. The secular community too must heed this truth.

[Sitaram]

You must be careful, when you leave your tent-door open at night. All sorts of things may creep in while you are not looking; a camel who feels cold, for example, or Sitaram with his bizarre ideas.

I spent several years debating and arguing and studying religions full time on the Internet. I remember one of my early encounters with a Muslim whose screen name was "Titanium," a very strong metal immune to rust and tarnish. Titanium attempted to assert that Hindus condone poor treatment of women, and therefore Hinduism is bad because such perpetrators are a product of that belief/ideology. I raised the subject of Sarah giving her handmaiden Hagar to Abram. I pointed out that nowhere is it said whether Hagar had any say or consent in all this. Various onlookers cheered at the brilliance of my rhetorical fencing parry.

One day, a Christian was trying to criticize Hinduism on various criteria. I pointed out the great irony, which one rarely sees mentioned, that in the Old Testament, one of the most heinous crimes was to join in the worship of Moloch and pass one's own child through the fire as a sacrifice. Yet what do we see in the New Testament but a monotheistic God who is a Trinity of a Father offering His only begotten to the sacrifice of a crucifixion.

I suppose my point in all this, aside from amazing and entertaining all of you, is that there are always ways to get inside of any religion or philosophy or ideology, and find that it contains within its very fabric the contradictory seeds of its own destruction.

Mathematician Kurt Gödel did this with the axiomatic systems of mathematics, in his dispute with (oh who was that? Ah yes, Hilbert) another mathematician who asserted that any proposition which is TRUE must certainly be PROVEABLE. For millennia, mathematics was considered to be the one hope of humanity to access absolute truth. Socrates and Plato and the Pythagoreans looked to number and geometry as the haven and refuge of eternally infallible assertions. There seemed to be only one little flaw in Euclid's geometry, namely, the Fifth Postulate, that, given a plane, with a line in it, and a point in the plane not on the line, there can pass through that point one and only one line which is parallel to the first line, never intersecting with it in either direction, though we extend it as far as we please. The word postulate comes from the Latin "postulo" meaning, "I demand or require." In monasteries, the POSTULANTS are those of whom demands are made as the are tested for suitability to make life-long vows. Hence, in geometry, a POSTULATE is something which we demand that you accept without any sort of proof in a theorem, but simply on the strength that it is intuitively obvious. And, may I add, it is intuitively obvious that were we to attempt to prove EVERY assertion in some axiomatic system by means of a theorem, why then the number of theorems would be INFINITE, and we abhor an infinite regress on the grounds that we haven't the time for such nonsense. By the way, this little tale which I am narrating, of the incompleteness theorem and the failure of mathematics (failure to live up to our expectations) is far more important a tale to be included in every young person's curriculum vitae than any tale of angels, or apples, or gardens, or flying mounts, or nights of power or third heavens. Yes, those were the "good ole' days" when we were certain that the earth was the absolute center of the universe, about which all else revolved, and mankind was the special concern of the Almighty, and mathematics was the pristine reservoir of absolute truth unsullied and untainted by the corruption of the material world below the lunar sphere.

For centuries, generation after generation of mathematicians tried their darnedest to PROVE the fifth postulate of Euclid. They thought, "If only we could PROVE it, then geometry will be perfect, without that little blotch of doubt on it's otherwise irreproachable escutcheon of convincing accuracy." One day, a Russian chap by the name of Lobachevsky said, "I know! I will ASSUME that there is MORE than one line passing through the point which never meets the first line, and I shall reason on and on from that premise, until I arrive at some obvious contradiction, and then I shall have PROVED the Fifth Postulate by REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM." But Lobachevsky's clever tactic never yielded the much desired fruit of contradiction. Instead, Pandora's box opened again, and a swarm of different geometries flew out like a swarm of Harpies to defile our mystical last supper feast of communion with the Logos. How disillusioning. Geometry was no longer the unassailable bastion of certainty. The earth was no longer the center of the universe. Soon, humankind itself would be dethroned from the seat of honor by notions of Evolution.


http://www.math.yorku.ca/Who/Faculty/Steprans/Courses/3500/GodelsTheorem/lecture.shtml

When does questioning and doubt become disrespectful? My suspicion is that it becomes disrepectful the moment it becomes too successful and persuasive. Was Copernicus disrepectful to Ptolemy? Was Darwin disrepectful to Moses and Aristotle?

I should have entitled this post "Respect and Science" but I find cold desert nights and nomadic tents far more romantic, don't you?

Santayana once said, I think, something about how one of human-kind's greatest abilities is the ability to feel self-contempt, self-loathing. He may have also been the one to say that our skepticism is like our virginity, and we must not too easily surrender it to the first idea which comes along.

Our writings, ideas, theories, heritage and culture are very much like children to us. We are very proud of them and very attached to them. We are very protective. It is often difficult for a mother to see her child as really quite naughty and culpable.

An idea or theory must earn our respect. Even a God must earn our respect and become worthy of worship in our eyes. Ever since Eve took her famous bite from that apple of knowledge we have been saying that a tree is known by its fruits.

Of all the Deities who have ever claimed omnipotence, none has ever claimed the power to force or enforce belief. Belief is a banquet table which is "invitation-only" and no invitation is effective unless we exercise our freewill, accept and R.S.V.P. It took the genius of a Kierkegaard, the father of Existentialism, to point out, in "Fear and Trembling," that it is Abraham's free will choice, and THAT FREEWILL CHOICE ALONE, which ultimately empowers the voice from heaven commanding sacrifice.

Now, you may well ask, "What sort of tapestry is this Sitaram weaving for us with his work-in-progress allegory of his about a cold desert night and a tent with the entrance left open?"

Well, a desert is barren. Cold is lifeless and enervating. The darkness and gloom of night obscures all details. A tent is a shelter which harbors warmth and light. Now a cold camel, as we know, is a crafty beast who at first begs that only one hoof gain entrance to warm for a moment. But the end of all rhetoric is that the camel winds up filling the tent, and we are pushed out into the night cold.

A lobbyist for the interest of the Boxing League once spoke out against those who would ban the sport by demonstrating how boxing is really of universal interest. He explained, "Suppose you are walking along a street, and you notice that, on the other side of the street, a husband and wife are having an argument which suddenly breaks out into a knock-down-drag-out fight, with kicking, biting, scratching.... no holds barred. Well, do you look straight ahead and keep on walking? No, of course not. Your eyes are glued to the spectacle, along with all the other passers-by, until a huge crowd gathers."


We like fights. We enjoy seeing something or someone get the daylights beat out of it. This is way all those Survival shows and Trump shows are now so popular.

People enjoy a good fight, a good argument. Hmmm.... well, let us be somewhat discriminating. Fighting is not good, because violence is a poor way to settle differences (unless we annihilate all opposition to the status of extinct, at which point all disputation ceases.) But reasoned argument is interesting and educational and is sometimes actually instructive, whenever we can learn something new, or see things in a different light, from a different perspective.

One thimbleful of Truth is always seasoned with bushels of falsehood. Wheat is always rubbing shoulders with Tares (weeds). The famous Homilist, John Chrysostome (the golden mouthed), of the 4th century, once stated that the Tares are left side-by-side in the Wheat until the final day of harvest precisely because until that final judgment day, mystically, tares may be transformed into wheat and, conversely, wheat may be transformed into tares.

The "proof of the pudding" is knowing a tree by its ultimate fruits of a lifetime.
Maximus, in the Philokalia, wrote "Do not say that you are the temple of the Lord, writes Jeremiah; nor should you say that faith alone in God can save you, for this is impossible unless you also acquire love for God through your works. As for faith by itself, 'the devils also believe, and tremble' (Epistle of James, 2:19)"

[Sitaram]

We should note with some interest the word "persuaded" in Paul's statement: "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38-39

Who was it that persuaded Paul? What was it that persuaded Paul? What does the word "persuasion" mean to you?

Paul lists many and mighty things in his verse above, angels, principalities, powers, the whole of heaven and earth, BUT Paul does NOT mention PERSUASION, since the key which opened the door to let us enter is also the same key which can lock the door and keep us out.

Kierkegaard once observed that a suicide does not end their life with deliberation, but rather, they die from an EXCESS of deliberation (they think too much.)


Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation (as well as father of a number of children with a former nun) said that we must "pluck out the eyes of reason" lest we become, no longer PERSUADED but disuaded, and made appeal to the words of Jesus who said, "better to pluck out one's eye and enter into paradise maimed then for the entire body to enter into hell."

Here is an elaboration on Martin Luther's teaching:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm




Luther openly advocated the abandonment of using natural reason (Luther considered his use of theological reasoning different from natural reason, i.e., scientific reasoning) . His theological message to live by faith and to abstain from listening to reason has mentally enslaved the lives of millions of Christians to this day. Throughout his literary life he wrote statements such as, "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason," "We must give reason a vacation and enter a different school. We must refrain from consulting reason. We must bid reason hold its peace; we must order it to be dead. We must gouge out its eyes and pluck its feathers...," "You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them."


I am about to say something in regard to the Mutakallimum Islamic school, and as I searched in google.com, I came across this url which may be of some interest, though it represents something of a digression:

http://www.emery.archive.mcmail.com/public_html/occas2/occas16.html

What follows is a quote from "Islamic Theology: Traditionalilsm and Rationalism" by Binyamin Abrahamov, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-1102-9, Chapter 3, page 19:


We must bear in mind that some Muslim scholars have criticised the use of rational arguments in the interpretation of the Qur'an. They have prohibited the use of independent rational interpretation of the Qur'an (al-tafsir bi'l-ra 'y). A criticism of rational methods in the sphere of Islamic law is illustrated in the teachings of the Zahirite school of law which rebuked the use of analogical reasoning (qiyas) in deriving law from the Qur'an or the Sunna. In both cases, the criticism was directed against the VERY USE of rational arguments, not against their place in argumentation or interpretation.

The traditionalists' attitude towards rational arguments in theology is two-sided. On the one hand, rational proofs of the principles of religion, such as God's existence, His unity and attributes, are rejected by extreme traditionalists, but on the other, the traditionalists use rational arguments to prove principles derived from the Qur'an and the Sunna and to refute their adversaries. They oppose the tenets of the rationalists derived from Qur'an and the Sunna and to refut their adversaries. They oppose the tenets of the rationalists derived from speculative considerations, and also the inevitable consequence of using reason, namely, the diversity of the rationalists' theological solutions, as against the uniformity of the traditionalists' teachings.

The foremost target of the traditionalists was the Mutakallimun, the main body of Muslim scholars who used speculative ways of reasoning to formulate their theological tenets and also to attack the traditionalists' approaches.


We see how the traditionalists resemble Martin Luther with regard to "plucking out the eye of reason."

We must sometimes fight fire with fire. We fight Reason with reasoned arguments. A five volume study of "Fundamentalisms" from the University of Chicago observes on its very first page that, though Fundamentalists of every religion dislike science and technology, they all avail themselves of Internet and word processing to propagate their message.

Socrates was accused of making the weaker argument defeat the stronger argument as well as corrupting the youth.

An infant is such a blank slate. Place that infant in a Catholic home and in a few years it is saying the Rosary. Place the same infant in a Muslim home, and in a few years they are bowing towards Mecca and fasting the Ramamdan. Place them in an Hasidic household and they are studying the Torah and Talmud and facing Jerusalem in prayer.

If infants are such convenient, willing, cooperative blank slates, then why is it that culture and language and tradition are not inviolable and fixed but are ever changing and evolving and mutating?

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand inspired words are, for me at least, worth more than all the pictures in the world. Such inspired words are a dialectic process, which Socrates describes it as a weaver's loom, with warp and woof, and a shuttle with passes back and forth, creating a tapestry.

One of the greatests wonders is that, even though reality is build upon the random, bizarre twilight zone of Quantum, yet it remains intelligible and recognizable as a cohesive whole. Even if our perception of reality should ultimately prove to be illusion and error, yet it is miraculous if even illusion and mirage so orderly on a macroscopic level should arise from such frenetic discontinuity at a subatomic level.

"All things are possible, not all is profitable." Actually, that is not quite what Paul said. Paul actually said: 1 Corinthians 10:23 "All things are lawful for me,but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify."

Now, an EDIFICE is something we construct, similar to a tent, but more substantial. Sometimes, an edifice is a fort and other times it is an ivory tower. Sometimes ivory towers become Towers of Babel.

[Sitaram]

Well, back to allegory of our well-lit warm inviting tent in the cold, dark, barren desert night. Existential absurdity is the bleak cold barren darkness which is torment to light-loving, warm-seeking, purposeful, rational creatures such as we.

[crisaor]

In the UK, there is a big debate going on at the moment regarding incitement to religious hatred. The Govt, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, are trying to placate many of the religious groups in the UK, especially, it is believed, the Muslims. Many people have written letters of complaint against this bill, including the comedian Rowan Atkinson, the author Salman Rushdie and many others.
I read that article by Rushdie, and I agree with it. Not because I do not feel that there should be some sort of laws that prevented religious hatred, because I do. I agree because it sets a precedent and opens a door to easy manipulation of the law and potencially gives a lot of power to organizations (it doesn't really matter what religion they represent, or if they actually represent it) who don't deserve it and certainly don't know how to use it appropiately.
Anyway, funny you should speak about tolerance, when you normally preach the exact opposite thing in these forums.

[papayahed]

Can anyone give me an example where atheists or agnostics have done the same when a religious person or group has staged a nativity play or presented biblical mystery plays or dramas? .....

Yep, every year nativity scenes are challenged under the seperation of church and state concept here in the US. Also, every once in a while there is an uproar over our money having the phrase "In God we Trust".




The fact is, religious groups are getting support from political parties which is itself threatening freedom of expression. It may soon be an offence in the UK, for someone like me to make a statement against a religion that a follower finds offensive....

....It is despicable that religions should be granted such protection. Does anyone protect us atheists? No. And I'm sure we wouldn't want it either....

The only reason Athiests don't have such protection or wield such power is because your not a group. Nobody knows how many Atheists there are, but religions affiliations knows exactly how many members they have which can have a great influence on government officials (just check out our last election). I'm sure if the Atheists formed a group it would turn into the same type of force that the religious groups currently enjoy, it would be inevitable.

[atiguhya padma]

Scheherazade said:

<I am not sure why you feel the need to criticise others for their beliefs...>

It is for the same reason that I would criticise a racist for his beliefs or a Nazi for theirs. Just because a belief is a religious belief, does not igve it any special meaning for me. A false belief is a false belief whether it is religious, political or whatever. When a false belief has the strength of political or religious ideology, and can lead to unhealthy ways of thought and behaviour, then I think it is important to criticise that belief. Yesterday, I saw a woman standing out in the snow, in my local High St, staring into nowhere, shouting out how we are all sinners and that we all need to repent. She was not even looking at anyone. She had no audience other than myself. In my book, her behaviour is bordering on the psychotic. A little while ago, somebody with a megaphone was shouting out at people who were entering the London Underground at Oxford St. His message was that we are all going to hell, that the world is a mess because we haven't accepted Jesus, and other nonsensical rantings. Again, I think this behaviour is mentally unhealthy. Religious ideology has this kind of power. Religion promotes this kind of behaviour.

Crisaor said:

<Anyway, funny you should speak about tolerance, when you normally preach the exact opposite thing in these forums.>

This all depends on what you mean by tolerance. I do not preach persecution. I am intolerant of religious belief, just as I would be intolerant of any ideology that I consider harmful to the world in general. I cannot stand by, just being a spectator and watch people degenerate into delusional states. This is essentially what I feel happens when people become religious.

In the road where I live, a church declares that its mission is to bring the fear of God into people's hearts. As I walk past, I hear people screaming, wailing, in various stages of trance-like behaviour. For all I know, the woman acting psychotically in the High St yesterday came from this very church. Like the man shouting through the megaphones, she would certainly feel at home there, I'm sure. I would not feel comfortable with an adult who believed in unicorns or fairies, Santa Claus etc. Why should I be expected to feel comfortable with people believing in God?

[amuse]

well, AP, i love God dearly, as i stated before, but i respect your right to dislike that love. and i agree with you on many counts...when i first moved to Philly i was surprised to see people with bullhorns in center city giving shout-outs to God, much like this woman you've mentioned. is it anyone's business if i'm going to hell for not believing in their God? :D i think not!
but :) neither am i put off by you being uncomfortable with people such as me who believe in God. we are all here on this little planet together. i have no interest in imposing my beliefs or being imposed on, and therefore find things remain fairly stable for me in this department. it seems only when people start lobbying/getting emotional that there's dissension.
why should you feel comfortable with people believing in God, you ask? isn't that for you to answer? but do you need to defend it? i think not. :) it is your belief, after all.

[atiguhya padma]

Amuse,

I sympathise with your position. It seems that you maybe sympathise with mine. I often wonder why I feel driven to criticise religion. And when I reflect upon this, I find that my thoughts take me into further criticism. Only recently, for instance, I was thinking about how people can still have faith despite the world's great atrocities like the gulag and the holocaust, and how people can feel that it was OK for God to abstain from action in these events. I mean for me, the gulag and the holocaust are examples of man's inhumanity to man. But if you believe in God, you have to somehow justify his inactivity, don't you? On Jan 20th 1942, a meeting of around 16 or so Nazis determined the fate of around 6 million Jews. Now imagine, in a war situation like WWII, how easy it would be to eradicate 16 people and make it look like it was either accidental, natural or a result of the conflict. So it would seem that God did not want these 16 people to die. Without them, it is probable that the Final Solution would not have occurred. It takes a great deal of planning and organisation to kill 6 million people. Now, 6 million divided by 16 = 375,000. That, it would appear, is the value God has placed on the lives of these 16 Nazis. They are equivalent to the lives of 375,000 Jews. Is this not an intolerable position that God is in? He allows 6 million Jews to die, and yet doesn't orchestrate the death of 16 Nazis? And, let us suppose that God sent a messenger to assess the state of affairs at the Nuremberg trials. Would he have said, well done guys, these Nazis deserve this, it is only justice? or would he have said, did I not give a commandment unto you Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Of course, the argument I am familiar with from Christians, is that God does not wish to tamper with reality, to interfere with freewill. Yet those same Christians would have me believe that when Julie, or John got that job they were going for last week, it was thanks to prayer, and the interference of God in the world. God is supposed to do all kinds of works that would appear to interfere with freewill and reality. Yet, despite the great amount of prayer that must have occurred during World War II, his love seems pretty much absent. Am I really to believe that God protected 16 Nazis that devised the deaths of 6 million Jews, because he did not wish to interfere with freewill? Or am I to believe there is no God, just a propensity within mankind to perpetrate atrocities and unimaginably cruel acts?

You see what happens when I take the idea of God seriously?

[atiguhya padma]

Papayahed said:

<The only reason Athiests don't have such protection or wield such power is because your not a group.>

Well atheists certainly are a group. There is even a world atheists convention held annually: last year in Vijayawada, India. In the UK, there is the National Secular Society and also the British Humanist Association, both of which have a membership that actively professes atheism. In the US there is the American Atheists.

I take your point about the nativity play in the US, but I doubt whether this is of the same degree of animosity as occurs in the UK with religious lobby groups. In fact, in the UK, humanists and atheists tend to demonstrate about loss of rights and the psychological effects of religion upon the populace, more than anything else. And those kinds of demonstrations tend to be very low-key, unlike the rabid rantings of people like Stephen Green and the Christian Voice organisation.

[amuse]

well, AP. the position i take is that although bodies die, we do not. and god has allowed us to commit atrocities on each other until one day, one lifetime we finally wake up and face ourselves and begin to learn to love. of course, for some of us this has taken and will take aeons. i know - please excuse this :) - that sounds simplistic. as well, i imagine, heretic - ah well.

[crisaor]

This all depends on what you mean by tolerance. I do not preach persecution. I am intolerant of religious belief, just as I would be intolerant of any ideology that I consider harmful to the world in general. I cannot stand by, just being a spectator and watch people degenerate into delusional states. This is essentially what I feel happens when people become religious.
For starters, it's pretty obvious that I disagree with all this, specially the last statement. You provide no justification for this, you simply state your opinion, which brings me to my point. What's the difference between you, a person who can't (or won't) tell the difference (and that division always exists) between two religious people, no matter if their zeal is different, if they belong to different religions, if they practice what they preach/believe, etc.; and a zealot preacher, as corrupt, unbalanced, and as delusional as you perceive all of us who believe in God in some way are?
You claim that religion is bad for humanity. The preacher on TV says atheists are bad for humanity. I fail to see where does your position constitute a positive/constructive attitude.

[papayahed]

I think your wanting somebody to say "Your right AP, atheists are way better then Christians, they behave better and they're way more mentally stable"

In some cases you may be right, but I think your comparing apples to oranges. Your comparing moderate athiests to right wing religiousos. Is there a right wing athiest? I don't think there can be a belief in something is greater than a belief against something.

[amuse]

i think everyone just likes to exercise their mental muscles! - yes that was rather unsolicited...

[subterranean]

I don't know, AP mentioned about the "damages" religious followers caused to this world. I agree with that, but we also need to look the positive benefits which were done by religious practitioner to this world as well. That way we can have a merely fair judgements. For example, in my country, specifically in the island of Sumatra (North Sumatra), Christianism ended the practice of burning people as sacrifice to gods, which was done as main traditional practice by the people for hundreds (or even thousands) of years. You may say, eventually this practice would end, with or without missionary practice. True, but we have to admit that the teaching accelerated the ending of that barbaric act.

[amuse]

nice :thumbs_up

[Scheherazade]

How would that compare to the 'damage' done in the name of religion?
Crusades, holy wars, jihads, oppression, female circumcision, Church's refusal to sanction protection against AIDS, forced celibacy which leads to unacceptable acts... don't want to carry on...


Christianism ended the practice of burning people as sacrifice to gods
And Sub... Your post in itself is contradicting... You say those sacrifices were made for Gods... which means they were still done in the name of religion. Not one of the institutionalised monotheistic religions of today maybe but still a religion

[Sitaram]

A good point Scherazade makes. And Christianity itself centers around the notion that a Divine Father offers his onlybegotten Divine Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. There is a human sacrifice and torture involved. And the communion or Eucharist is the symbolic eating of flesh and drinking of blood. The theology of forgiveness and salvation which flows from all of this is very attractive and comforting. But still, when you think about how these things are just accepted as normal. You know some Christians were laughing at Hindus for worshiping the elephant form Ganesh. So I said to them, well, you worship a Lamb. They said, "What do you mean." I said "Well, you call Jesus the Lamb of God" They said, "Oh, well, thats DIFFERENT! That is only poetic license and symbolism"... And yet... the original name of Ganesh is "Ganapati" which may be translated as "Lord of Hosts" and it is Hannah in Samuel who first calls God "Lord of Hosts."

[subterranean]

Encarta gives 4 definitions of religion:

1. religion beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2. religion particular system: a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion.

Perhaps there are other definitions available. I got your point Scher, wasn't that barbaric people act that way based on a certain belief that human sacrifice is neccesary? Maybe. But it needs further study whether what the ancient people from North Sumatra truly based their act on certain belief/religion. But personally, when someone mention the word "religion", what comes to my mind is a set of established spiritual system. Since the point of discussion in this thread is very much related with big modren religions of the world, thus I used that example.
When I was in college, I remember these terms "big religions" and "small religions".
Big religions: established religions, acknowledged pollitically and socially and protected by law (well somekind of like that, I kinda forgot). For example Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.
Small religions: grassroots belief with small number of local followers, mostly mixed with cultural values and myths.

A more appropriate example perhaps the fact that in my country, the fundament of modern education (read/write, research and more) was established by Christians/Catholics missionaries acts as well as Muslims'. Modern schools firstly built by their contributions. Some of the greatest schools in my country which are still exist till now, was the silent proof of those contributions. Same thing with sanitation/healt system. More, until today there are many religious leaders involved in the improvement of local society economic development by teaching them farming, sewing, making home products to sell, etc. They don't take benefit in any form, they just help.
In a way perhaps those contributions were also means to attract people to convert, but that is another issue.

I am aware of the global "damages" issues you stated which were caused by religions Scher, but I'm just stating what I see in my everyday life. The small improvement made by religious people. I don't belong to particular religion, but when I see/hear stories about those people, I feel glad and thank nature for them. I'm not defending anyone here, but I can't ignore those facts and I have to see from both sides.




How would that compare to the 'damage' done in the name of religion?
Crusades, holy wars, jihads, oppression, female circumcision, Church's refusal to sanction protection against AIDS, forced celibacy which leads to unacceptable acts... don't want to carry on...


And Sub... Your post in itself is contradicting... You say those sacrifices were made for Gods... which means they were still done in the name of religion. Not one of the institutionalised monotheistic religions of today maybe but still a religion

[crisaor]

How would that compare to the 'damage' done in the name of religion? Crusades, holy wars, jihads, oppression, female circumcision, Church's refusal to sanction protection against AIDS, forced celibacy which leads to unacceptable acts... don't want to carry on...
You need not stick to religion to find this stuff. Robespierre, for instance, a proud atheist, took pride in burning down churches and decapitating people. And that's just the tip of the other iceberg. Your quarrel is with the institutions, with the powers, but instead, you take it down on the believers, in which case, the ones I know in this forum, are very tolerable and open minded. I find it funny you keep mixing the religious hierarchies and their decisions/point of views and the different religious messages, which some of us follow to some extent. For example, I consider myself a christian, but I don't go to church, I don't follow the pope's advise (nor my local Church), and I disagree with 90% of what they say, but that doesn't stop me from trying to do the good stuff that you might find in the Bible, or in the Tora, or in the Quran, or in Buddha's teachings, and so on.

[Scheherazade]

Crisaor,

You have a point that one does need to look at religions to find evil in this world. I am not saying that religious people do not do any good. We all are capable of good and bad. As humanbeings we will all err. What worries me is the fact that when acts are hidden under the blanket of religion, they become acceptable no matter how intolerable they are. People will follow almost anything and everything when it is done in the name of religion. And unfortunately, there is so much erring in the name of religion when people take religion in their own hands and claim to know the word of God better than God himself.

[subterranean]

Most of my friends are Muslims and none of them approve what the fundamentalist Muslims did, with their act of terrors, bombing, etc., eventhough those people claim their act as the act as Jihad and to defend Allah and Islam. My friends think that those acts are ridiculous and must be stop.

Some years ago there were Church bombings on Christmas eve in my country. More than a hundred churches bombed at almost exactly the same time. The actors (which are Muslims) claimed to do that as an act of defending their beliefs towards the Christians. But their act was condenmed, specialy by other Muslims believers. And no..It was not an unacceptable act .




What worries me is the fact that when acts are hidden under the blanket of religion, they become acceptable no matter how intolerable they are. People will follow almost anything and everything when it is done in the name of religion. And unfortunately, there is so much erring in the name of religion when people take religion in their own hands and claim to know the word of God better than God himself.

[crisaor]

What worries me is the fact that when acts are hidden under the blanket of religion, they become acceptable no matter how intolerable they are. People will follow almost anything and everything when it is done in the name of religion. And unfortunately, there is so much erring in the name of religion when people take religion in their own hands and claim to know the word of God better than God himself.
We agree on this, Scher. But the solution to this is to educate those who are in this situation, not to eliminate religion, because that won't stop the problem. Aside from losing its benefits, people will shift to other matters to follow blindly ("leadership", patriotism, etc.). The problem is not religion, but the people itself, and the order of things in which they live in.

[atiguhya padma]

If Satanism is a religion (and I don't see why it shouldn't fall into that category), then I wonder how many Christians on this forum are going to respect Satanism?

[Sitaram]

How is one to define the term "repect"? There are Protestant Christian groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists who sincerely see the Pope of Rome as the anti-Christ predicted in the Book of Revelation. Hence, they see Catholicism as a form of Satanism.

One possible definition of "respect" is to "live and let live." Not persecuting a group, not hunting them down, is a form of respect. The word "respect" in certain contexts simply denotes tolerance. We tolerate the fact that there are others whom we see as unacceptible in some way.

[Scheherazade]

In my opinion, when you brand someone or their way of life as 'unacceptable', you stop respecting them. There are so many people who advocate a so-called-policy of 'tolerance' yet fail to do so themselves. They bitterly attack other religions or target people who follow those. I am more wary of those than of fanatics.

[Sitaram]

The TRULY tolerant would be tolerant even of intolerance, I suppose.

[Jay]

Sounds more like 'saint' than tolerant to me.

[atiguhya padma]

Maybe the truly tolerant would have very little to say.

[Scheherazade]

True.

.....

[atiguhya padma]

Ha ha, Scheh you are too modest (or maybe immodest!)

[IWilKikU]

There are Protestant Christian groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists who sincerely see the Pope of Rome as the anti-Christ predicted in the Book of Revelation. Hence, they see Catholicism as a form of Satanism.

I think we are confused about the term satanism. There is a Church of Satan founded by Anton Levey, but they arn't actually a Satan-worshiping organized religion. Levey's Satanism as is outlined in his Satanic Bible is all about the opposite of Biblical and Christian teaching. Members of the Church of Satan don't believe in a God OR a Devil. People who do believe in a Devil and actually worship him... Well I've only heard of people doing that for shock value, or because they really want to be "evil".

As far as Adventists, I used to be one! ...So I know a bit about what they think ;), and they don't believe that Catholisism = Satanism. What they believe is that the Catholic Church is corrupted, in both theology and ecclesiology (doctrine & hierarchy), and that this corruption is the "abomination of desacration" of Revalation. "A of D"=Antichrist, in otherwords, they believe that the Devil is controling the Pope and that the Catholic church is not the church that Christ came to create. However, most adventists even though they believe that the Catholic Church is the antichrist respect Catholics on a personal level. In my lil' white-bread, redneck town the Adventist, Methodist, Baptist, and Catholic ministers/priests are friends and frequently have bible-studies together and respectfully and tolerantly discuss and share their views and opinions. Unfortunately not all the members of the various churches in sleepy ol' New Market are as tolerant or respectful as their ministers are. But no Adventist (who arn't completely retarded) actually accuse Catholics of knowlegable worshiping the Devil.

[Sitaram]

The thrust of my post was not with regard to R.C. Church = Satanic worship, but with regard to tolerance. Seventh Day Adventists see the Pope as some form of Anti-Christ, you may split all the hairs you like about what that boils down to, bottom line, but my point is that, on some level S.D.A. are "intolerant" of R.C. in the sense that they describe them as deceived by Satan, but, in a different sense, they are tolerant of R.C., in the sense that they do not shoot them on sight, or burn down their churches.

I was trying to get down to an exploration of the real meaning of tolerance, I suppose. But I must post and read all of this in haste, as I steal moments during the day away from my scheduled activities.

And yet, somehow, true tolerance would tolerate even intolerance. I am also trying to explore the implications of such a tolerance (if such a tolerance can meaningfully be said to exist). Various Baptist groups take a dim view of dancing or musical instruments in the Church building.

In the town of Rockford Illinois, I am told, there is, on the one side of town "The Church of Christ WITH MUSIC" (they allow a piano/organ) and on the other side of town there is a "Church of Christ WITHOUT music (instruments are forbidden and all singing is a capella, unaccompanied)

I was debating some issue or other with a very wise person, (I forget which group it was now), but that person remarked to me that if I TRULY understood the position of that group, then I would be PART of that group, and one of its enthusiastic supporters. There is a certain validity to such an observation, that those who embrace and accept have an understanding quite different from those who accepted but later apostasized, or those who studied by never embraced a doctrine or theory or practice or value.

Well, in retrospect, as I look back, I did conclude by saying that "they see R.C. as a form of Satanism." I suppose what I was really trying to get at is that few groups would be tolerant of unabashed Satan worship, since they are scarcely tolerant of groups which differ from themselves by something rather minor. A Baptist minister once told me that he sneaked down to a Congregational church and peeked in to see for himselves that they were dancing in the very church itself (they were holding some kind of social function and had only the church building itself.)

Since this IS a forum for the discussion of various religious texts (scriptures), I will take the liberty to mention certain issues in various scriptures, with regard to the notion of "tolerance".

Huston Smith, world famous scholar/writer on comparitive religions, cites the 48th verse of the 5th Surah (I am working from memory now, so forgive any errors) as THE MOST ecumenical, interfaith, tolerant verse which anyone could possibly imagine, namely, Allah is saying (to paraphrase from my memory): "FOR MY own reasons, I have created you all as different religions. Had I wanted to, I could have created you all as ONE RELIGION. Therefore, If you must contend and vie and contest and compete with one another, then COMPETE IN DOING GOOD WORKS. And when you all return to ME, THEN I shall explain to you the reasons for the various differences between religions."

BUT, in the very next breath, if my memory serves me correctly, the 5th Surah goes on to say, "Do not be friends with Christians and Jews, they have each other to be friends with. He who is friends with them is one of them, and Allah does not help wrong-doers."

My next example, on the issue of tolerance, is also drawn from Islam; not from the Qur'an, but rather from what has been preserved as the oral tradition conserning the "sayings of Prophet Muhammed." In the sayings of that oral tradition, Muhammed gives counsel that, should non Muslims approach and say, "Salaam alehoum" (peace unto you), you SHOULD NOT reply as to other believes, "Oualehoume Salaam", but rather simply say "THE SAME TO YOU". The reason for this advice is the notion, also expressed by various Christian groups, is that the blessings of non believers are really curses. Hence, by responding, "THE SAME to you" you are reflecting back upon them the curse which their blessing carries. This very same sentiment is reflected by strict old calender eastern orthodox Christians, who will not even say grace with a Christian of a different denomination, since the notion is that they unwittingly worship a demon which is disguised as Christ.

We read in the Old Testament of the Bible that King Solomon took to himself something on the order of 800 wives, many of them from the pagan nations. Solomon was tolerant in allowing those foreign wives to build alters on high places and worship in their religions. The God of the Jews was not as tolerant as King Solomon, and caused the nation of Israel to be divided as a punishment.

[Basil]

In the town of Rockford Illinois, I am told, there is, on the one side of town "The Church of Christ WITH MUSIC" (they allow a piano/organ) and on the other side of town there is a "Church of Christ WITHOUT music (instruments are forbidden and all singing is a capella, unaccompanied)


"Church of Christ!" Haze repeated. "Well, I preach the Church of Christ Without Christ. I'm a member and preacher to that church where the blind don't see and the lame don't walk and what's dead stays that way. Ask me about that church and I'll tell you it's the church that the blood of Jesus don't foul with redemption."


(Wise Blood, Flannery O'Connor)

[Jay]

Interesting one, Basil.

[Sitaram]

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/wiseblood.html

In Wise Blood, Hazel Motes seems trapped by his destiny to become a preacher. Though he denies that Jesus exists, Hazel is driven to seek some form of redemption. O'Connor describes the necessity of faith, as revealed the individual’s inability to deny that God exists. Even when an individual attempts to deny the existence of God, the individual is confronted by the presence of God. Hazel’s attempt to run away from God transforms the novel from bizarre comedy to an intense and searching study of the problem of redemption in the modern world.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0215-21.htm

http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=8824

The first chapter of Wise Blood was originally a story in O'Connor's master's thesis for the University of Iowa's writer's workshop, and the novel's episodic, almost picaresque structure suggests the way in which she composed the novel, writing numerous stories and vignettes and then editing them into a linear form. The novel begins with Motes travelling across Tennessee from his home in Eastrod to preach in the city of Taulkinham after he is galvanized into a ferocious anti-Christian stance in the course of military service. But Motes's grandfather had been a preacher, and he himself had displayed a tendency towards religious asceticism in his youth, punishing himself for the sight of a naked woman by walking with stones in his shoes. As he enters the city, Jesus is “a wild ragged figure motioning him to turn around and come off into the dark where he was not sure of his footing, where he might be walking on the water and not know it and drown.”

[crisaor]

If Satanism is a religion (and I don't see why it shouldn't fall into that category), then I wonder how many Christians on this forum are going to respect Satanism?
That's a lame argument. For starters, I don't think it qualifies. And second, would you respect a nazi? I didn't think so...

[subterranean]

Does the term "tolerant" apply in Atheism?



Posted by AP: Maybe the truly tolerant would have very little to say.

What's with this Christian versus Satanism??
Just wondering whether there's also Judaism versus Satanism or Islam versus Satanism???
..


If Satanism is a religion (and I don't see why it shouldn't fall into that category), then I wonder how many Christians on this forum are going to respect Satanism?

[IWilKikU]

As I was saying before, its because Satanism, in the Leveyian sense, is not a religion at all, but the opposition of everything biblical and Christian. They don't believe in a Satan or a God, but choose the title "Satanism" because of its polar opposition to Christianity.


originally posted by IWilKikU... thats me :D
I think we are confused about the term satanism. There is a Church of Satan founded by Anton Levey, but they arn't actually a Satan-worshiping organized religion. Levey's Satanism as is outlined in his Satanic Bible is all about the opposite of Biblical and Christian teaching. Members of the Church of Satan don't believe in a God OR a Devil. People who do believe in a Devil and actually worship him... Well I've only heard of people doing that for shock value, or because they really want to be "evil".

[atiguhya padma]

<Does the term "tolerant" apply in Atheism?>

Tolerance shouldn't be a value-free attitude. There are things I'm sure most of us would, and should choose not to tolerate, such as racism or sexism. In fact, I would suggest any form of elitism should be discouraged. Most religions fall into the latter category.

[atiguhya padma]

I am not sure that Satanism is just local to the US. Aleister Crowley was a satanist, (maybe the most famous of satanists), as were many others in the UK and in Europe. Crowley believed in demons and in the devil. Should a Christian respect someone like Aleister Crowley? Or Dion Fortune?

[atiguhya padma]

The Cambridge Online English Dictionary has this for respect:
respect (ADMIRATION)

admiration felt or shown for someone or something that you believe has good ideas or qualities:

respect (HONOUR)
noun [U]
1 politeness, honour and care shown towards someone or something that is considered important:
You really should treat your parents with more respect.
She has no respect for other people's property (= She does not treat it carefully).

2 when you accept that something which is established or formally agreed is right or important and do not attempt to change it or harm it:
In their senseless killing of innocent people, the terrorists have shown their lack of respect for human life.
She grumbled that young people today have/show no respect for the law.

3 when you accept that different customs or cultures are different from your own and behave towards them in a way which would not cause offence:
She teaches the students to have respect for different races and appreciate the diversity of other cultures.

I wonder how many religions allow this kind of behaviour towards its competitors?

[subterranean]

Elitism should apply to religious authorities not to the whole religious followers. Sorry, but I think you're poiting your "dislike" to the whole religious communities, when actually it's mostly the attitudes of the authorities that you have problems with. I think you don't want to or fail to acknowledge the many religious believers who show their respects towards others, who also contribute for the good of society as a whole, humble and moderate, and of course are worthy to get our respect, instead of just negative views and opinions that they or their beliefs and acts of religious practices should be discourage.



It's like trying to burn the whole barn , just to catch the few mice.



<Does the term "tolerant" apply in Atheism?>

Tolerance shouldn't be a value-free attitude. There are things I'm sure most of us would, and should choose not to tolerate, such as racism or sexism. In fact, I would suggest any form of elitism should be discouraged. Most religions fall into the latter category.

[subterranean]

And my question about whether the term tolerant apply in Atheism is much related to your comment that "Maybe the truly tolerant would have very little to say." I mean personally I don't see you being tolerant to religious followers. Like I posted before, you seem to put the same "negative" judgement towards all religious believers.

That's why I wonder whether all Atheists are like that??? Or whether all atheist have that kind of view towards people who choose to believe in a supreme being??

[Molko]

Hmm, yes I have come across a few atheists that have been rather condescending towards people who believe in God or follow a particular relgion. Im not generalising that all atheists are like that, but I find that the ones that I have met have basically said that people who believe in God are stupid. Its okay to believe whatever you think, as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but I believe that you should respect other people and their beliefs and not be condescending in speech when exchanging views and opinions :)

[papayahed]

I am not sure that Satanism is just local to the US. Aleister Crowley was a satanist, (maybe the most famous of satanists), as were many others in the UK and in Europe. Crowley believed in demons and in the devil. Should a Christian respect someone like Aleister Crowley? Or Dion Fortune?


Does an athiest respect someone like Aleister Crowley? Or Dion Fortune?

[Sitaram]

I always thought that Satan was the most famous of all satanists, and the famous drama was the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. Satan asks Christ to bow down and worship him. Perhaps human kind asks God to bow down and worship humanity. For millennia, we speak and act and write as though the human race is at the very center of God's attention.

[IWilKikU]

Originally posted by Atiguhya PadmaI am not sure that Satanism is just local to the US. Aleister Crowley was a satanist, (maybe the most famous of satanists), as were many others in the UK and in Europe. Crowley believed in demons and in the devil. Should a Christian respect someone like Aleister Crowley? Or Dion Fortune?

I'm not sure, but I think that Crowley predates Levey, and I don't think that Satanism was an organized religion at the time he was around. I may be wrong, so if you know more about Crowly and Satanism(which I'm sure you do, cause you know freakin' everything :rage: ), please enlighten us a bit. As for the question, When I was a Christian I respected Levey and Crowly in your third sense of the word:

when you accept that different customs or cultures are different from your own and behave towards them in a way which would not cause offence:
She teaches the students to have respect for different races and appreciate the diversity of other cultures.

The other 2 deffinitions include the words 'right' or 'important'. I'm sure a Christian wouldn't allow Satanism those types of respect, but wouldn't expect it return either. Similarly you don't show Christianity those types of respect do you? But you usually claim to debate religion respectfully. I can only asume that your allowing it respect numero tres, since you don't seem to find Christianity 'right' or 'important'.

[Jay]

A site on Crowley that looks ok (http://www.cix.co.uk/~mandrake/crowley.htm)

Just something with links :blush: too lazy to check them properly (http://skepdic.com/crowley.html)

Kik, not too sure if you meant the same Lévi they're talking about or I'm just assuming it's a spelling thing... (http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/aleister_crowley.html)
from that site: It might be interesting to note at this point that Crowley believed himself to be the reincarnation of the occultist Eliphas Levi who died the same year that Crowley was born.

Another good looking site (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/crowley.htm)

Some works writtern by Crowley (http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Ludlow/People/crowley.html)

Alternative religion site (http://altreligion.about.com/library/bl_crowley.htm)

Still want more? ;)

[atiguhya padma]

I find it extremely difficult to respect religious doctrine that seems to me pretty ludicrous. Unless I am willing to pay lip service (which I'm not), I cannot find it in me to publicly respect religious doctrine of any kind.

SubT complains that I disrespect or accuse communities rather than doctrines. This simply isn't true, or if it is in any way, it is merely unintentional. However, religious people who positively help society do not somehow earn protection for their beliefs. Their beliefs are just as open to criticism as the most corrupt preacher on TV.

SubT again:

<"Maybe the truly tolerant would have very little to say." I mean personally I don't see you being tolerant to religious followers.>

I think there is a world of difference between religious followers and religious doctrines. Unfortunately, some religious followers and others don't see that distinction very clearly. When a Christian feels that an attack on their faith is an attack on them, then, in their eyes, I am disrespectful of them, rather than their belief or doctrine.

Molko: I think one should always respect other people. To respect their beliefs is far more difficult. Again, I would not encourage the respect of fascist or racist beliefs. Some beliefs should not be respected. Many religious beliefs fall into this category.

Papayahed: I can't speak for all atheists, but I certainly don't respect the views of Dion Fortune or Alesiter Crowley. They seem to me to be as crazy as most other religious views.

IWilKiku said:

<Similarly you don't show Christianity those types of respect do you? But you usually claim to debate religion respectfully. I can only asume that your allowing it respect numero tres, since you don't seem to find Christianity 'right' or 'important'.>

I find it hard to respect Christianity in any of the ways defined. I think debate should always be conducted in a manner respectful of participants, that's if you prefer dialogue to monologue. But like I say, some views should not be respected. It should always be made clear that a viewpoint, a belief or a statement is being criticised, not the person. Maybe there is a difference between knowledge and belief when it comes to personal involvement. Knowledge should never be limited to first-person experience or subjectivity, but should be seen as something put on the table to discuss and dissect and criticise. Belief on the other hand hardly ever seems to escape from the first-person perspective. I believe we can distance ourselves and observe knowledge-claims from the third-person perspective, but can we do this for belief? I have met some extraordinary people who can, but they are few and far between. Knowledge thrives on editing, updating, revision. Belief on the other hand tends to become entrenched and conservative.

[Molko]

I agree with you AP, people should always respect other people and to respect other peoples beliefs are very difficult. I can see where you are coming from :) I guess it is always going to be hard to express or share your opinions with other people or have a debate with someone about their faith because no matter how diplomatic your reasoning and argument may be, people will always see it as an attack on them. I tend to stay clear from religious debates because I tend to get very passionate with my views and consequently angry towards the person I'm talking to (I know, its not very courteous), because no matter how hard I try to make my argument lucid and reasonable, the other person will never see eye to eye with me.

By the way, you said that "Some beliefs should not be respected", Im just wondering, how would you feel if a religous person said the same about atheism. Would you feel upset, or accept and tolerate their opinion? This is only out of curiosity :)

[atiguhya padma]

That's an interesting point Molko. I certainly would not be upset if someone I was debating with expressed the idea that atheism should not be respected. I would obviously disagree though, and therefore would not accept their opinion. I would tolerate it, provided it had a valid argument to back it up (if it didn't, I would probably just consider it too opinionated to deserve dialogue). I guess in a discussion where a believer claimed that atheism should not be respected, I would welcome a debate over these claims and see where that debate would lead.

AP

[IWilKikU]

I think debate should always be conducted in a manner respectful of participants, that's if you prefer dialogue to monologue. But like I say, some views should not be respected. It should always be made clear that a viewpoint, a belief or a statement is being criticised, not the person. Maybe there is a difference between knowledge and belief when it comes to personal involvement. Knowledge should never be limited to first-person experience or subjectivity, but should be seen as something put on the table to discuss and dissect and criticise. Belief on the other hand hardly ever seems to escape from the first-person perspective. I believe we can distance ourselves and observe knowledge-claims from the third-person perspective, but can we do this for belief? I have met some extraordinary people who can, but they are few and far between. Knowledge thrives on editing, updating, revision. Belief on the other hand tends to become entrenched and conservative.

When I disappeared last year this was the EXACT same thing that was going on in the great debates, and I guess the bottom line is some people are going to be able to disassociate themselves from thier beliefs, others are not. Consequently you are going to offend some people and make them feel under attack if you attack Christianity. If you want to respect these people, you've got to stear clear of knocking their religion. When it has come down to this in the past you've given the response that if they can't separate themselves from their beliefs for the sake of debate then that's thier problem, not yours. What about respecting someone inspite of this weakness? Or does not being able to separate yourself from your beliefs forfiet AP's respect?

Also, from days of yor, I seem to remember you getting very defensive and asking why the Christians who took offense to your posts resorted to personal attacks in response. Are you able to differentiate attacks on your person from attacks on your refusal to respect Christians?

Just as a PS, I've kind of switched sides since my departure. I'm not a Christian, but my family and lots of people that I admire and respect are.

[subterranean]

After all what you said about other people's beliefs...


But I can't deny my self. Thus, I still respect you..



That's an interesting point Molko. I certainly would not be upset if someone I was debating with expressed the idea that atheism should not be respected. I would obviously disagree though, and therefore would not accept their opinion. I would tolerate it, provided it had a valid argument to back it up (if it didn't, I would probably just consider it too opinionated to deserve dialogue). I guess in a discussion where a believer claimed that atheism should not be respected, I would welcome a debate over these claims and see where that debate would lead.

AP

[atiguhya padma]

<What about respecting someone inspite of this weakness? Or does not being able to separate yourself from your beliefs forfiet AP's respect?>

Of course I always try to respect people. But how am I to behave, if somebody believes that my inability to respect their belief is synonymous with an inability to respect them? I cannot respect a person's belief JUST BECAUSE they would otherwise believe that I disrespect them. What is the point of giving such respect? Am I to falsify respect towards a belief (when I obviously don't respect it) in order to satisfy someone's inability to realise that beliefs and people are separate things? Again, if respect for belief should be universal, then I don't know how we are to respond to racists and sexists etc. If it is claimed that only respect for religious belief should be universal, then I would like to know why? What separates religious belief from any other belief, in such a way that we should see it as something special? Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of forms of racism and sexism in religious doctrines. Are we to respect these racist and sexist beliefs just because they are entwined with religious beliefs?

[IWilKikU]

In many ways it is admirable and courageous to stand up and disrespect publicly somthing that is accepted by the masses but not yourself. I applaud you for speaking your controvercial mind, but my point is that inevitably people are going to feel offended and disrespected by you. Your insistance that you are attacking their beliefs and not them themselves isn't going to fly. Being able to step back from Christianity and disassociate yourself from it when you are a devout Christian is for some people impossible. It's very open-minded of you to suggest, but in practice it doesn't work. Christianity is based completely and 100% on Faith. Not reason. Not logic. Faith. As you've pointed out, faith is different from knowledge, but you can't ignore something that you strongly believe for the sake of arguement anymore than you can forget something you know and have learned and know is factual. Belief is entrenched in people, and you are fortunate enough to not have, or have broken yourself of, these entrenchments, but others are not.

[atiguhya padma]

IWilKiku,

Thank you for your applause. And I fully agree with your comments. It is, of course, not an argument for silence though. Atheists, humanists and other secularists, cannot afford to stifle their opinions just because committed Christians apparently have an inability to discuss their beliefs in a reasonable manner.

[subterranean]

When speaking w/ to people about their belief, I'd expect that they'd throw irrational things, because the essence of religions is afterall illogical. Same if I talk to people about their political stands, I'd not expect people to be ridiculuos and said things like "I support Tony Blair because he looks like Kevin Costner"
I don't blame AP with his stands, and I totally respect him. But personally, when it comes to religions and beliefs seems that I have to extend the definition of "respect" to accomodate religious acts or opinions. I can laugh at loud when I try to apply the religious values to my self, but I can't do (try not to) that when people want to apply those values to themselves.

And I don't know, I have friends who are open enough to discuss about their religions and to answer questions and give arguments as well WITHOUT denyin their own beliefs. So...



Christianity is based completely and 100% on Faith. Not reason. Not logic. Faith. As you've pointed out, faith is different from knowledge, but you can't ignore something that you strongly believe for the sake of arguement anymore than you can forget something you know and have learned and know is factual. Belief is entrenched in people, and you are fortunate enough to not have, or have broken yourself of, these entrenchments, but others are not.

[IWilKikU]

And I don't know, I have friends who are open enough to discuss about their religions and to answer questions and give arguments as well WITHOUT denyin their own beliefs. So...

Your friends are fortunate. I attend a fairly conservative Christian University where questioning your faith or church or religion is synonomous with heresy. People here get very VERY defensive (more so than members of this forum) when you try and probe into spirituality or point out double-standards or self-contradictions inhearent in thier practice.

[subterranean]

Yes Kik, we are fortunate enough..but the kind of people you mentioned are the majority in our comunity...which is a shame thing...

[sunglider]

Hi, I'm new here. I just chanced upon this thread. I was doing a research on cults. I'v not gone through all the topics, but on the theological arguments going on here, I noticed is centered mainly on the Judea-Christian concept of what God is. There is another concept of God that is not anthropomorphic, more cosmological like that of The Force in Star Wars. In the ancient Hindu tradition in particular all deities are mere representationals of the divine that is beyond understanding (transcendental). That's why it's not uncommon for some hindus to worship objects, people or animals they deem are worthy representations of the divine. When they bow to a guest in the house or pay respect to a stone or give reverrence to a cow, a westerner will find it buffling or backward. God as an emanation of the life force that is all within us and in all matters in that respect, that I may not have a problem believing, or even illogical. But for a person who governs the whole universe and at the same time will seek us among these billions and billions of galaxies to interfere in our human affairs, that maybe too far-fetched. I cannot be that too arrogant to believe in it.

[Pendragon]

Not to rock the boat, but AP is correct in stating that many of the things we Christians hold dear sound foolish to others. If you read the Bible, Paul in the New Testament states, "God chose the foolishness of preaching to confound the wise." A direct quote. Instead of Christians turtle shelling up when a skeptic says something you dislike, or becoming enraged with so-called “righteous anger”, why not just accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you? They called Jesus a devil when He was here, and crucified Him. Do you think you are any better? I guess what I’m really trying to say is, “People are going to find something faulty with whatever you believe. Either deal with it, or maybe your convictions are not as strong as you thought they were.” And AP, you have a wonderful day!

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/Grin.gif

[weepingforloman]

I wanted to post this on the 10 commandments thread but notice that it has been closed. So I've decided to create a new thread

On the 10 commandments thread amuse said:

<let atheists be atheist and christians be christians, hindus be hindus, and the undecided be undecided. freedom of expression is so important.>

I think that is an admirable statement, provided it means that these groups should be free to criticise each other, free to express themselves in an open and transparent way.

In the UK, there is a big debate going on at the moment regarding incitement to religious hatred. The Govt, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, are trying to placate many of the religious groups in the UK, especially, it is believed, the Muslims. Many people have written letters of complaint against this bill, including the comedian Rowan Atkinson, the author Salman Rushdie and many others.

When the BBC aired Jerry Springer the Musical, a concerted protest was orchestrated by a Christian group, who circulated BBC employees addresses and other personal details among activists, because of the irreverent nature of the piece. Salman Rushdie himself has had his life threatened over writing a novel, and had that novel burned publicly in the streets of Britain. In Birmingham, there was a public disturbance by Sikhs a little while ago, protesting against a play being staged there, which showed scenes relating to bride burnings in India. These are just three incidents off the top of my head, where religious people have caused public disturbance, offence and even violence because someone somewhere has dared to criticise their belief. Can anyone give me an example where atheists or agnostics have done the same when a religious person or group has staged a nativity play or presented biblical mystery plays or dramas?

The fact is, religious groups are getting support from political parties which is itself threatening freedom of expression. It may soon be an offence in the UK, for someone like me to make a statement against a religion that a follower finds offensive.

It is despicable that religions should be granted such protection. Does anyone protect us atheists? No. And I'm sure we wouldn't want it either. If your belief stands up to scrutiny, then that is the best protection you can have. As I have said before, and as Salman Rushdie recently wrote in this article http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-57-2331.jsp , it is important to be able to criticise, probe, even ridicule a belief, whether religious or secular, if the content of that belief is flawed, invalid, improbable etc. There should always be a distinction made between a person and a person's belief. I recently wrote this to a friend:

<I would not condone an individual being persecuted for his personal, spiritual or religious beliefs. I would condone the ridicule of, or argument against, religious doctrines which are either illogical, inconsistent or degrading to other people, sexes, etc. I think there is plenty of reason to be vigorously against much in the OT, the Koran, some of the NT and even Buddhist scriptures (don’t know anything about Hindu scriptures unfortunately). If you can argue vigorously against a religious doctrine, can that be interpreted as prejudice? Can it be seen as incitement of hatred? And even if it can, should it really be wrong to hate such religious doctrines as the stoning of adulterers? Or the stoning of rebellious offspring? Surely there is a difference between hating religious doctrines and hating people. As long as the proposed bill can establish that distinction, then it might well be a piece of positive legislation. I am not at all convinced that it can.>

Didn't you hear about the guy who wanted to remove "under God" from the US pledge of alleigance? Did you hear that the giant Christmas tree they put up annually in Boston was briefly renamed "The Holiday Tree?" Haven't you noticed how all of pop culture consistently depicts any religious devotion as fanatacism and hypocrisy? Look around-- religious people aren't getting any favors done for them (except in campaign season :D ).

[Redzeppelin]

Hi, I'm new here. I just chanced upon this thread. I was doing a research on cults. I'v not gone through all the topics, but on the theological arguments going on here, I noticed is centered mainly on the Judea-Christian concept of what God is. There is another concept of God that is not anthropomorphic, more cosmological like that of The Force in Star Wars. In the ancient Hindu tradition in particular all deities are mere representationals of the divine that is beyond understanding (transcendental). That's why it's not uncommon for some hindus to worship objects, people or animals they deem are worthy representations of the divine. When they bow to a guest in the house or pay respect to a stone or give reverrence to a cow, a westerner will find it buffling or backward. God as an emanation of the life force that is all within us and in all matters in that respect, that I may not have a problem believing, or even illogical. But for a person who governs the whole universe and at the same time will seek us among these billions and billions of galaxies to interfere in our human affairs, that maybe too far-fetched. I cannot be that too arrogant to believe in it.

1) The problem with the "life force" idea is that it cannot account for morality in human beings because morality involves the idea of ought, which involves rational discrimination amongst moral choices; a force can do no such thing.

2) It is not arrogant to believe in a God whose love is so boundless that the "one lost sheep that strayed" (us) is worth the effort God has had to put forth to ennact a "rescue." We're important to Him because He created us and He loves us - just as any parent would go through Hell and back for his/her child.

[weepingforloman]

When speaking w/ to people about their belief, I'd expect that they'd throw irrational things, because the essence of religions is afterall illogical. Same if I talk to people about their political stands, I'd not expect people to be ridiculuos and said things like "I support Tony Blair because he looks like Kevin Costner"
I don't blame AP with his stands, and I totally respect him. But personally, when it comes to religions and beliefs seems that I have to extend the definition of "respect" to accomodate religious acts or opinions. I can laugh at loud when I try to apply the religious values to my self, but I can't do (try not to) that when people want to apply those values to themselves.

And I don't know, I have friends who are open enough to discuss about their religions and to answer questions and give arguments as well WITHOUT denyin their own beliefs. So...


True: God cannot be proved
True: Religions are based on faith.
False: Religions are illogical.

In fact, Christian apologetics has been among the most excellent of logical arguments. Theological thought has been among the most excellent of logical arguments. Some of the most brilliant thinkers in history have been extremely devout people (I refer you to Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, C.S. Lewis, John Tolkien, Mel Gibson [joking]).

[Turk]

How would that compare to the 'damage' done in the name of religion?
Crusades, holy wars, jihads, oppression, female circumcision, Church's refusal to sanction protection against AIDS, forced celibacy which leads to unacceptable acts... don't want to carry on...

There's a lot of arguable/wrong informations under this thread. But i choosed this Şehrazad, don't take it personally.

Jihad is completely different than crusade or holy war. Also Jihad is not equal to war too. Plus the biggest Jihad is the Jihad that you do against yourself. Suicide bombings and terrorism are definetely out of İslam. Also İslam is peaceful, because if anyone wants to live in peace with Muslims; Muslims are not allowed to attack them. Though crusades or holy wars were organized by Roman Church, official representator of Christianity.

Also female circumsion is not something related to İslam too. It's a tradition in Sudan and partly Egypt. In fact it's only in these lands and has no relation with İslam.

[weepingforloman]

The Catholic Church is NOT the official representation of Christianity-- that would be Christ. Even at the time of the Crusades there were other major churches-- the Ethiopian Orthodox/Coptic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[kiobe]

In my opinion, when you brand someone or their way of life as 'unacceptable', you stop respecting them. There are so many people who advocate a so-called-policy of 'tolerance' yet fail to do so themselves. They bitterly attack other religions or target people who follow those. I am more wary of those than of fanatics.

Yea, the problem with tolerance is that often times it is only temporary. Tolerance is not a subsitution for acceptance.

[kiobe]

There's a lot of arguable/wrong informations under this thread. But i choosed this Şehrazad, don't take it personally.

Jihad is completely different than crusade or holy war. Also Jihad is not equal to war too. Plus the biggest Jihad is the Jihad that you do against yourself. Suicide bombings and terrorism are definetely out of İslam. Also İslam is peaceful, because if anyone wants to live in peace with Muslims; Muslims are not allowed to attack them. Though crusades or holy wars were organized by Roman Church, official representator of Christianity.

Also female circumsion is not something related to İslam too. It's a tradition in Sudan and partly Egypt. In fact it's only in these lands and has no relation with İslam.

Jihad literally means to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society". It is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such. Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants.
A holy war is a war justified by religious differences.

[Turk]

The Catholic Church is NOT the official representation of Christianity-- that would be Christ. Even at the time of the Crusades there were other major churches-- the Ethiopian Orthodox/Coptic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Most of Europe, including England, France, Germany, Hungary, İtaly, Austria etc. were Catholic back then. Only little East European (even not all of them) were Orthodox, and compared to Catholic church those churches weren't major churches back then. Also i pointed it as the official to point crusades and other church organizations were allowed and accepted by Christians, theologically you may not accept but most of Christians back then were believeing it's official representation of Christianity and Popes are still considered as successors of Jesus and it's believed Pope never make mistake. There's certain difference with this, and Jihads most of western people knows (i even won't call them Jihad) aren't Jihad, first of almost all of Muslims doesn't accepts terror organizations represents İslam.

[weepingforloman]

I know a little about the concept of jihad, and I think it's become far too much of a dirty word. All of Russia and the remains of the Byzantine Empire were orthodox... The doctrine of papal infallibility (which I think is totally stupid) was not even defined then, and is much more limited in scope than people think (most things a pope says are considered fallible). The popes should never have been considered the succesors of Christ (and, actually, they were considered the successors of Peter, who was believed to be Jesus's representation on Earth).

[atiguhya padma]

Didn't you hear about the guy who wanted to remove "under God" from the US pledge of alleigance? Did you hear that the giant Christmas tree they put up annually in Boston was briefly renamed "The Holiday Tree?" Haven't you noticed how all of pop culture consistently depicts any religious devotion as fanatacism and hypocrisy? Look around-- religious people aren't getting any favors done for them (except in campaign season :D ).

All of pop culture, are you sure? Any religious devotion? I think not. Many of the celebrities of pop culture are themselves into some form of religion.

Me look around? I suggest you look around. And look in the right places. For starters, try the National Secular Society's website, or the New Humanist magazine, they'll show you how religions do get big favours done for them in the UK. From faith schools that are largely funded by the govt in the UK, to tax exemptions for the clergy, to legislation preventing freethinkers from criticising religious thinkers: people who choose to accept the most outrageous notions in the name of personal faith, seem to have the whole apparatus of government and legislation protecting them.

Its about time we stopped force-feeding children nonsense about fear of hell, protection from some fairy-godfather in the sky, the sexist attitudes towards women that religions consistently promote, the homophobia of monotheism etc etc is tantamount to child abuse. Freethinkers, secularists, humanists are already pressurising the church to clean up its act in regards to child abuse, but with constant political protection, its a struggle to free children from the evils of religion.

[weepingforloman]

DO NOT, DO NOT, presume to KNOW whether God is real or not. YOU CAN'T. Yes, people with faith are "protected" to the extent that they are granted the freedom to practice their religion-- if they weren't, atheists would have been killed in previous centuries (and they WERE there-- back to the beginning... In ancient Israel they had a word "apikorsim," which usually referred to a Jew who denied the existence of God).

The apostle Paul says, "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (Col. 3:11). All distinctions are to be erased in Christianity... Sexism has no place in it. Any sexism attached to Christianity is the result of social convention or misinterpretation of scripture.

As to "homophobia," I will not deny that I (and virtually all Christians right of the Catholic Church) consider homosexual behavior a sin (not homosexuality itself-- the act, not the tendency). However, as Christians WE ARE CALLED TO LOVE EVEN OUR ENEMIES. And homosexual people are not our enemies. We may tell them we think what they do is wrong. We may ask them to try to change before they join a church (it has been proven that therapy is at least 50&#37; effective at switching a person's sexual orientation, if they actually want to change), but WE DO NOT HATE THEM.

If you don't think pop culture aligns itself against Christianity specifically, but all of religion generally, I suggest that you listen to the music of people like Pearl Jam and Rage Against the Machine (both popular bands here in the US, don't know about the UK), watch a few episodes of "The Simpsons" or "Family Guy," and read a few ordinary novels, especially if they include a "religious authority" (they generally have the minister/priest/bishop be a con man).

Peace and Grace.

[Turk]

If you don't think pop culture aligns itself against Christianity specifically, but all of religion generally, I suggest that you listen to the music of people like Pearl Jam and Rage Against the Machine (both popular bands here in the US, don't know about the UK), watch a few episodes of "The Simpsons" or "Family Guy," and read a few ordinary novels, especially if they include a "religious authority" (they generally have the minister/priest/bishop be a con man).

Yes, if someone would try to make fun of Hz.Jesus or Hz.Muhammed here he would certainly get a reaction, a harsh reaction. But in USA they are making fun of Jesus continously. If people of USA aren't showing a reaction against it i would doubt their faith.

Also i would like to point one little detail, did you ever realize they never make fun of Moses in those TV shows or movies, books etc.? Could anyone explain me, why?

[weepingforloman]

I have seen jokes ABOUT Moses, but never jokes AT Moses's expense. I think it might be because Jewish people don't actually worship Moses, or maybe just for no reason at all...

As an American, I'd say there is a general lack of faith in this country.

[atiguhya padma]

So are you an agnostic then, if you do not presume to know whether God is real or not? Personally, I find agnostics even worse than believers and that's saying something.

You seem to assume that atheism is a belief. Its not. Its an absence of belief in a god. If atheism was a belief, then, just as other beliefs have fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist believers, so would atheism. But tell me, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist believe that would separate him or her from other atheists?

You know, I can really see what you mean, about you poor christians. After all, you've only had 1600 odd years to screw up the minds of the western world; to pedal your superstitious primitivism around the globe (did you hear the one about the missionary who explains to the tribal leader that he's come to tell him about the gospel, and that those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven and those that don't will go to hell? The tribal leader asks what happens to those people in far-flung corners of the globe, who are not told this, to which the missionary says that they will be saved by grace. So why did you not leave us alone then? asks the tribal leader); to infect states, institutions, and other religions with your prejudices. Yes its a hard life. But maybe you should complain to your presumed/unpresumed real/unreal god not me. By the way, what can it mean for you to not presume that god is real? I would say that a persons actions reveal their presumptions wouldn't you?

[-Valkyrie-]

So are you an agnostic then, if you do not presume to know whether God is real or not? Personally, I find agnostics even worse than believers and that's saying something.

It means he's not so arrogant to assume that he's absolutely correct, especially in a situation like this where there is no proof either way.

[Tuesday]

You seem to assume that atheism is a belief. Its not. Its an absence of belief in a god. If atheism was a belief, then, just as other beliefs have fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist believers, so would atheism. But tell me, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist believe that would separate him or her from other atheists?


I have to kindly disagree. Belief by nature is not restricted to the realms of superhuman deities. You can believe in anything you want, be it God or astrology or homoeopathy. But maybe is 'believing' the wrong word here anyway. I think 'trust' might be better since it doesn't carry as many religious associations as 'believe' does.

Regarding your theory about fundamentalist atheists: I don't think this term is applicable at all here, at least not in a realistic way. I have no statistical evidence to prove this, but I think that atheists normally do have a belief - they believe in science. Unlike religion based on scripture, science actually evolves and changes over time. If some theory is found not to be plausible, it is put into the trash can and replaced by a theory that explains the observed occurences better. Scripture on the other hand doesn't evolve, it's statical. It doesn't even have to be plausible. It's holy and that's that.

So in my opinion, there is no such thing as a 'fundamental atheist'.

[weepingforloman]

So are you an agnostic then, if you do not presume to know whether God is real or not? Personally, I find agnostics even worse than believers and that's saying something.

You seem to assume that atheism is a belief. Its not. Its an absence of belief in a god. If atheism was a belief, then, just as other beliefs have fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist believers, so would atheism. But tell me, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist believe that would separate him or her from other atheists?

You know, I can really see what you mean, about you poor christians. After all, you've only had 1600 odd years to screw up the minds of the western world; to pedal your superstitious primitivism around the globe (did you hear the one about the missionary who explains to the tribal leader that he's come to tell him about the gospel, and that those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven and those that don't will go to hell? The tribal leader asks what happens to those people in far-flung corners of the globe, who are not told this, to which the missionary says that they will be saved by grace. So why did you not leave us alone then? asks the tribal leader); to infect states, institutions, and other religions with your prejudices. Yes its a hard life. But maybe you should complain to your presumed/unpresumed real/unreal god not me. By the way, what can it mean for you to not presume that god is real? I would say that a persons actions reveal their presumptions wouldn't you?

I'm afraid your missionary is wrong-- only faith can save, and those who are not judged by their denial of the Gospel are judged by their failure to do what they no is right in every situation. The world is hard... things that are true are hard.

Oh, and Christianity screwed up mankind? How about the "Communist" (and atheist) revolutions of Russia and China? That's not screwed up?

How about Hitler-- he essentially forced loyalty to the Nazis to take precedence over all else... so he often "punished" faithful Christians.

How about Mother Theresa? How about Dorothy Day? How about John-Paul II (I'm not Catholic, but he was a good man)? How about William Wilberforce? How about the American Abolitionists?

I'll not deny that great atrocities have been done by those who claim divine support-- but I would argue that one who truly believes in and loves Christ could not, and would not, do the kinds of things you refer to.

Grace and Peace.

[Tuesday]

How about Hitler-- he essentially forced loyalty to the Nazis to take precedence over all else... so he often "punished" faithful Christians.

How about Mother Theresa? How about Dorothy Day? How about John-Paul II (I'm not Catholic, but he was a good man)? How about William Wilberforce? How about the American Abolitionists?


I wouldn't mention Hitler at all if I was in your place. The argument is not only very weak because it's all but clear that he actually was an atheist, it also damages your own cause due to the involvment of the church in the consolidation of possible political influences (not to talk about the lack of involvment on the side of the vatican).

[Redzeppelin]

You seem to assume that atheism is a belief. Its not. Its an absence of belief in a god. If atheism was a belief, then, just as other beliefs have fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist believers, so would atheism. But tell me, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist believe that would separate him or her from other atheists?

This is the same clever word-play that many atheists like to engage in - but it's incorrect and misleading. Certainly you disbelieve in God - but to do so is simply the obverse of the coin that says "I believe that those who believe in God are wrong; and, since I disbelieve in God, then I choose to believe that the answers of existence are to be found in nature, because that is the only thing that exists." All perspectives require a belief of some sort - no perspective can be defined by a lack of belief. Sorry.


You know, I can really see what you mean, about you poor christians. After all, you've only had 1600 odd years to screw up the minds of the western world; to pedal your superstitious primitivism around the globe (did you hear the one about the missionary who explains to the tribal leader that he's come to tell him about the gospel, and that those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven and those that don't will go to hell? The tribal leader asks what happens to those people in far-flung corners of the globe, who are not told this, to which the missionary says that they will be saved by grace. So why did you not leave us alone then? asks the tribal leader); to infect states, institutions, and other religions with your prejudices. Yes its a hard life. But maybe you should complain to your presumed/unpresumed real/unreal god not me. By the way, what can it mean for you to not presume that god is real? I would say that a persons actions reveal their presumptions wouldn't you?

"Screw up the minds of the Western world?" Right. You got anything more substantial than a joke to corroborate that claim?

[Tuesday]

"Screw up the minds of the Western world?" Right. You got anything more substantial than a joke to corroborate that claim?

You cannot possible deny the enormous influence that Christianity had on the occident - on the way that people behaved, lived and, above all, thought. If that influence was for better or worse is a matter of opinion. I'm inclined to agree with the statement, although I would have certainly put it in different words.

On the other hand, it's impossible to say how history might have evolved without the rise of Christianity. Maybe it was the lesser evil indeed.

[Redzeppelin]

You cannot possible deny the enormous influence that Christianity had on the occident - on the way that people behaved, lived and, above all, thought. If that influence was for better or worse is a matter of opinion. I'm inclined to agree with the statement, although I would have certainly put it in different words.

On the other hand, it's impossible to say how history might have evolved without the rise of Christianity. Maybe it was the lesser evil indeed.

I denied nothing. I take issue with the relentless focus of non-believers on the mistakes in Christianity w/o even bothering to look at the other side of the scales in terms of what Christianity gives that is good and positive. To deny this is to show a seriously skewed perspective which clearly does not wish to engage in real discussion but merely to bash instead.

[Tuesday]

I denied nothing. I take issue with the relentless focus of non-believers on the mistakes in Christianity w/o even bothering to look at the other side of the scales in terms of what Christianity gives that is good and positive. To deny this is to show a seriously skewed perspective which clearly does not wish to engage in real discussion but merely to bash instead.

Although I certainly agree with you here, it's very hard for a non-believer to really find things that are genuinely good and positive. All he can do is imagine what things might be positive about being a Christian. Let's take prayer, for example. He might understand that people find comfort and solace in prayer. On the other hand, he will feel it's a terrible waste of time, because they will avail nothing.

But as you mentioned, bashing is something entirely different, and I agree.

[Redzeppelin]

Although I certainly agree with you here, it's very hard for a non-believer to really find things that are genuinely good and positive. All he can do is imagine what things might be positive about being a Christian. Let's take prayer, for example. He might understand that people find comfort and solace in prayer. On the other hand, he will feel it's a terrible waste of time, because they will avail nothing.

But as you mentioned, bashing is something entirely different, and I agree.

Some good things Christianity has given the world:

1) Numerous charitable organizations
2) A viable option for many people struggling with various addictions
3) A moral philosophy that stresses serving the community over one's own desires
4) Examples of forgiveness and service (Mother Teresa, Corrie Ten Boom)
5) A viable explanation as to the meaning of life, the existence of suffering and the remedy for human sin.

[Logos]

I'm not seeing much respect here anymore: the updated (as of today at 10:15AM-4GMT) Religious Texts forum rules:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410