If you drown you were innocent. If you float they kill you in another way.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Printable View
If you drown you were innocent. If you float they kill you in another way.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, huh?
But what about when it is the mainstream that is the problem? I can't give you an example, because that would be politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
This is a myth. The supernatural recorder is your conscience.Quote:
Horrific behavior - but not unique to religious people; Christians are human beings - nothing about adhering to a religion implies perfect, sinless behavior; the same God that these men have sinned against holds them VERY responsible for their behavior. They too shall be judged.
And what we are saying is that God is a [somewhat] backwards belief.Quote:
There were a lot of backwards attitudes back then - from all walks of society, not just religion.
Are we really arguing this? I want to get to where you say atheists can't be objective.Quote:
Ditto. That religious people are guilty of the same atrocious behavior doesn't negate the value of religion per se - it means that people who claim religious affiliation may not necessarily be adhering to it properly, or they have allowed their beliefs to be manipulated.
THaaaank you for not leaving anything out.Quote:
Can't comment on this one - don't know enough about it.
Eh? I thought it was right because [insert: I grew up inside an Muslim home and was raised it]. Having a mother, father, brothers and sisters who believe something and want you to believe it to can be very compelling.Quote:
The inquisition was an ugly error of the first order; Islam is WRONG.
So we are defending religion here, this is ridiculous. You discount all the atrocities done in the name of religion because the people weren't adhering properly? In their minds they were.Quote:
An impressive list - but banish religion and guess what? None of these behaviors would disappear. As such, while it is a terrible stain on religion to have these truths said about it, they are not unique to it, and as such, cannot be blamed for their existence. People commit sin and evil in the name of religion - but people can do so in the name of government, of philosophy, of "love."
You love to say how subjective we are, do you understand this? Let's do a Pascal-like wager here. Either religion did cause these or not, what should we bet on? Logically we would bet on no religion, because safer. But wait!- without a knowledge of God, there can be no goodness. Without Christianity, there is no love. Because those things aren't innate or anything. Do you remember how I gave an example of a community, almost a utopia, a possibility, that had no religion, and yet there was still goodness in all those people, and the people raised there were blissfully happy, and Gorilla King said, there was no objective truth. So then the reason for religion is to save our eternal souls. Yet everything we observe tells us we are impermanent.
What?! You mean I can't write an objective paper, put together an objective paragraph, or create one single sentence that is objective? You mean I can't put words together in a way that makes sense? Nor do a logic or math problem?Quote:
All reasoning is ultimately circular in nature because human beings cannot approach any issue totally unbiased or objective; we are subjective beings - I know I won't get anywhere with this line of arguing, but go look up "presuppositionalism" and it will explain my position much better than I can.
Let's say humans cannot think perfectly (for the sake of argument) that should mean we can't see a problem perfectly. I don't see why that means we see things perfectly wrong.
You say all reasoning is circular, but we have axioms in math and mathematical proofs that are not circular. There are even philisophical proofs. Okay, like in math an axiom would be addition and multiplication, and from those we can prove algebra problems.
Ah, this is the meat of it. What is most wrong with this paragraph is probably the last sentence. It might be true for some, but I'd say it's not true for anyone I've seen on lit-net. Did you stop listening already? Will you tell me that with some random connections no one could have thought you'd draw? If you're still here, let me tell you that I acknowledge the tendency of humans to be subjective in their reasoning. I think our minds are made up of a mix between subjective and objective understanding. But it's like Zarathustra said, don't ask my why I have my opinions- I can barely remember all my opinions, and I cannot remember the reasons I came to these opinions years ago. We are subjective, but we question our beliefs. And this is how we learn, grow, expand, discover, all of that. Expand the microcasm to fit the macrocasm. Isn't science supposed to be about discovery? No one ever called you sexist, a bad character, close-minded or anything. You frequently seem to almost randomly take offence when none is meant, especially not subtely, and entirely miss the point.Quote:
You have not responded accurately to my post - your evidence up above is sufficient; I was referring to the idea that atheists like to flatter themselves with the idea that they are clear-minded, objective thinkers while we believers are "brain-washed," unable to "think for ourselves." I'm challenging that ridiculous idea by contending that atheists have settled into their own limited world view and that they chose that world view because of a conclusion they'd already come to even before they started "investigating" God.
Anyway, what is your point, you say that the atheists here have "settled into their limited world view". You know, some people you believe to be atheists could really be Christians. You could have it so wrong. And if someone you think is an atheist is actually a Christian, don't you think it's possible then that there might be an ex-Christian among the atheists? I daren't think what you think of pantheists. Don't worry, I understand how you feel.
The Christian God is not the only idea of God, and I am sure there are pantheistic naturalists. Let's say God is a natural force. Or let's not, since it's blasphemy.Quote:
"Naturalism" is the dominant philosophy in the modern world - it basically stipulates that only what is material and observable/measurable is real; that there is no such thing as a spiritual world, no such thing as God.
It's good to be aware. But then, you probably shut off a long time ago.Quote:
We can look at the natural world, but the scriptures make it clear in many instances that the world offers illusions - that sight is one of the easiest of the 5 senses to be tricked, manipulated.
The evolution of science and the resulting information harvested from the labor of some of the greatest minds the planet has known to date is a separate issue to spiritualism. Einstein said "God does not play dice". Does this mean that he believes in God? Well the first question is, which God? A God that man has created, or one of 3 Gods accepted by the 3 major monothiestic religions, a personal God, or a general feeling that 'some' force gave a beginning to everything we know and everything we haven't learned about yet? Pluralism is the key to the survival of our species.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Sight is tricked by?....manipulated by?
The July edition of SciAm contains some great articles on the subject of Science & Religion, including a discussion between Lawrence Krauss & Dawkins. The discussion can be found on SciAm's website at www.SciAm.com/ontheweb
Thanks ML. Nice to meet someone who appreciates these things too. No, haven't read Dawkins, due to the half-baked prejudice I outlined at the start of this thread. I've seen him on TV a few times and always felt a little concerned that there was a grain of fantaticism on his side too, but I think I'll probably give him a go now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryLupin
Thanks, but I can't really take credit for it. It's pretty much all in Hitchens' book, except maybe the Jim and Tammy Bakker example. Would make a rather nice t-shirt, I agree, though as Nikolai rightly points out, the list could be longer...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiobe
Yes, of course, no doubt based on the primitive biblical injunction, 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' If you float you're a witch, that's the real kick in the teeth. You lose either way – except that, according to the Christians, it's OK because if you drown and you're not a witch, you go to heaven. That's one of the big problems as I see it with religion – in its attempt to mitigate the seriousness of death, it causes people to treat death without anything like the seriousness it requires.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Yea, I think we're gonna need a bigger shirt. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
The basic structure of the argument put forward by your really hard-wired believer is:
1) Everything that fits my concept of God is true.
2) Anything that does not fit my concept of God is
a) unfamiliar to me (and I have no intention of looking into it);
b) untrue;
c) an example from some other religion, not my own true one;
d) the result of sin, which entered into a hitherto perfect world via the agency of a talking serpent;
e) imperfectly put forward. I require more statistics or other evidence.
3) I have available to me an extensive library of Christian (or whichever) apologists and theologians, and for every argument you put forward I can provide a response from X or Y or Z, and I am prepared to outlast you.
Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I don't know, but is that relevant? Young or old people who pierce their tongues choose to do so. Also, the tongue is possibly the most resilient organ in the human body, capable of completely healing itself even when its tip has been cut off (note: nevertheless, don't try this one at home, kids). The ceremony in question, by contrast, is performed on babies without, naturally, their consent having been obtained. It removes sensitive and protective parts of the penis that can never be adequately replaced and, in the orthodox Jewish ceremonies Hitchens describes, involves the mohel sucking the foreskin off with his mouth. He cites several instances of this going wrong in a single year in New York alone, resulting in a number of the infants contracting genital herpes and at least two deaths. Mayor Bloomberg, however, declined the opportunity to make the practice illegal. So much for the separation of church and state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Buddhism according to Hitchens' book. Something for my friends down the health food shop to chew over. I was in Japan a few years ago and was much taken with the atmosphere at both Buddhist and Shinto temples. Later I found out that the Shinto temple at Harajuku is a site of controversy due to the burial there of a number of fascist war criminals. Hitchens is at pains to point out that woolly liberal dreams of finding more humane religious practice in the fabled 'East' are chimeras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Kind of depends what you mean by mainstream. Emperor worship was mainstream in Japan during WWII. Mormonism is mainstream in parts of America, despite the fact that it seems to be little more than a giant piece of hucksterism. Jim and Tammy Bakker were pretty much mainstream evangelicals weren't they? Catholicism is dominant in numerous European countries and it is in these countries that the sexual abuse cases took place. I was at a Christian missionary school in Kenya when I was 12 where we were taught that merely thinking about sin was a sin. Presumably this kind of abusive, mind warping nonsense was the good word that was being brought to Kenya's benighted heathens and thereby becoming 'mainstream'. And presumably some of those missionaries are the same people proselytising against condom use in Africa today, doing the lord's work of spreading HIV and AIDS infection – while eagerly hoping for the end days scenarios to play themselves out in Palestine so that Jesus can hurry up and come back. Charming stuff. I was actually told to expect these events sometime during the eighties back then by these same missionaries. I wonder how they explain that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Can I just get this absolutely clear: You do not think that religion instills morality? You're sure about that one? Because I'm very glad if you are. I heartily agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
That's my first question on this bit of your post. My second is, does this mean you reject the notion that merely accepting Christ's sacrifice absolves us of sin? Because that seems to be the implication in saying that even religious people who commit sins 'shall be judged'.
Yes. I second Nikolai's response to this. Hitchens says further that most religion (except for the new stuff that's widely recognised to be lunatic fringe – Scientology, the Moonies) came into existence when humanity knew virtually nothing at all about the natural world or the cosmos. Understandable then that they would have resorted to supernatural explanations in the absence of anything else. Unsurprising also that the primitively inhumane practices are not just born of later interpretations, but are actually there in the old and new testament themselves. The 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' example is a very minor one. Do you condone that (as you appear to acts of bigamy and genocide)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Give Israel back to the Canaanites! Er...and the Hittites. Sorry, couldn't resist an aside. Or two.
Well, there seems to be a humongous margin for error. So...what do you see as the 'value per se'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I have to admit to ignorance here too, but the way Hitchens has it, as I understand it, European monks didn't come around to this stuff until a lot later – at which point there was a desperate collective squirming to somehow prove that Socrates, Aristotle et al. were somehow Christian even though they lived before the time of Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Oops and oops again. And again and again and again. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
The bald statement that none of these behaviours would disappear is not an argument you appear to predicate on any evidence, but then, we've already heard your views on evidence. Still, I think it would be stupid to claim that there's no wrongdoing without religion – and I'll admit that, if Hitchens' book has a failing, it's in edging a little too close to this argument. However, he also shows, repeatedly, that religion has a strange tendency not only to perpetrate great wrong itself, but to collude with wrongdoers, especially when they are the ones in power. One reason for this seems to be its overweaning need to spread itself as far and wide as possible. Another is its peculiar inability to engage with reality. A recent example, not from Hitchens: a documentarist making a film on global warming, approached Hinu priestess expecting support for environmental measures. Instead, she gave him some standard mystical mumbo jumbo along the lines that even great destruction was merely part of the cycle of existence and of no significance to the godhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
All reasoning is ultimately circular? What are you still doing here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I jest. ;)
Sorry, but I just think you're projecting or grasping at straws. I gave the example of Darwin earlier because he was a religious man for most of his life. He gave up his beliefs because his observations did not support them, but he did so with great disappointment.
Well, sorry, but I actually think you've misread me. I didn't say anything about you being brainwashed and I didn't set out to flatter myself. You seemed to say that looking at evidence and using reason were mistakes because they were tools of the devil to divert us from the truth of religion. I understand that you meant this only in the context of arguments about god, but I don't see how you can keep the boundaries there. Darwin's observations of the real world led him away from belief. Many other thinkers can say the same. Were they tricked by the devil too? Should they have avoided making their observations? That was my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
To expand on that, your suggestion that all atheists start from the position of atheism and look for proofs is, I'm sorry to say, simply risible. The origin of atheism is in scientific and philosophic inquiry and atheism was arrived at very gradually and with considerable difficulty in overwhelmingly religious societies in which the price of an honest profession of atheistic belief would often result in death. The pressure was all towards belief and virtually everyone was inculcated with belief from birth.
Well, it's a blindingly obvious point, but lots of Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and Jews and Zoroastrians and on and on believe they have 'experience' that backs up their belief systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yeah, you really have contradiction on your hands claiming you see the value of evidence, but also fear it as a tool of the devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
No offense, but since you've basically made it clear you're impervious to logic, I think this is all I have to say to you. Feel free to carry on with your logic/evidence/gut instinct combo. All the best and all that.
Philosophy, intuition, "gut instincts." They're available to all.[/QUOTE]
The foregoing (message #24) is a fierce, fierce piece of work! I hope that others will help me to keep it in a prominent position for the possible benefit of any one or two who are perfectly open-minded re the case that can be made for and against Christianity or any other religion.
Insofar as my objective perception is worth (given that I am, like Albert Einstein: "a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion."), this is a brilliantly lucid, fair-minded, animus-free refutation of everything in the post it addresses.
No doubt in my mind that he has more than a "grain." He has a forum as well. There are a number of interesting battles within its threads but just suggest that Dawkins might have a few flaws in his argument (whether in Selfish Gene or his more recent The God Delusion and watch the accusations of blasphemy fly like spittle from a laughing drunk. People (not just religious ones) are prone to this need to have a big dog to adore.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
The credit is due not to the list itself, at least not in my mind. The credit is due to the recognition of evidence and the capacity to refute a case based on the way the argument was constructed. My pleasure comes from knowing that when you read you see the pattern made by the underlying bones of what was said and not just the glitter of what was intended to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
My personal favorite on this theme of the disrespect of life that shows through a cavalier treatment of death: "Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius," used (supposedly) by one group of Christians when slaughtering another (Albigensian Crusade).Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
What I want to know: how is "properly" defined (what is its content) and, more important, who is going to judge it?" And lastly, how is it going to be enforced or is it just a statement of "ought" without any practical utility in human lives (i.e. is its value ephemeral or practical?)Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Well, there seems to be a humongous margin for error. So...what do you see as the 'value per se'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
What do you think blp, are my questions associated with the content of "value" in this context?
I believe that this exchange between Redzepperlin & blp deserves the widest possible audience:
Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Unacceptable behavior (and I'd need you to verify which religion condones this behavior.)
I don't know, but is that relevant? Young or old people who pierce their tongues choose to do so. Also, the tongue is possibly the most resilient organ in the human body, capable of completely healing itself even when its tip has been cut off (note: nevertheless, don't try this one at home, kids). The ceremony in question, by contrast, is performed on babies without, naturally, their consent having been obtained. It removes sensitive and protective parts of the penis that can never be adequately replaced and, in the orthodox Jewish ceremonies Hitchens describes, involves the mohel sucking the foreskin off with his mouth. He cites several instances of this going wrong in a single year in New York alone, resulting in a number of the infants contracting genital herpes and at least two deaths. Mayor Bloomberg, however, declined the opportunity to make the practice illegal. So much for the separation of church and state.Quote:
Statistics please: how many are "going wrong" these days? As many as young people with serious complications from having their tongue pierced?
Buddhism according to Hitchens' book. Something for my friends down the health food shop to chew over. I was in Japan a few years ago and was much taken with the atmosphere at both Buddhist and Shinto temples. Later I found out that the Shinto temple at Harajuku is a site of controversy due to the burial there of a number of fascist war criminals. Hitchens is at pains to point out that woolly liberal dreams of finding more humane religious practice in the fabled 'East' are chimeras.Quote:
What religion would that be?
Kind of depends what you mean by mainstream. Emperor worship was mainstream in Japan during WWII. Mormonism is mainstream in parts of America, despite the fact that it seems to be little more than a giant piece of hucksterism. Jim and Tammy Bakker were pretty much mainstream evangelicals weren't they? Catholicism is dominant in numerous European countries and it is in these countries that the sexual abuse cases took place. I was at a Christian missionary school in Kenya when I was 12 where we were taught that merely thinking about sin was a sin. Presumably this kind of abusive, mind warping nonsense was the good word that was being brought to Kenya's benighted heathens and thereby becoming 'mainstream'. And presumably some of those missionaries are the same people proselytising against condom use in Africa today, doing the lord's work of spreading HIV and AIDS infection û while eagerly hoping for the end days scenarios to play themselves out in Palestine so that Jesus can hurry up and come back. Charming stuff. I was actually told to expect these events sometime during the eighties back then by these same missionaries. I wonder how they explain that one.Quote:
You conveniently pick the radicals and ignore the mainstream.
Can I just get this absolutely clear: You do not think that religion instills morality? You're sure about that one? Because I'm very glad if you are. I heartily agree.Quote:
Horrific behavior - but not unique to religious people; Christians are human beings - nothing about adhering to a religion implies perfect, sinless behavior; the same God that these men have sinned against holds them VERY responsible for their behavior. They too shall be judged.
That's my first question on this bit of your post. My second is, does this mean you reject the notion that merely accepting Christ's sacrifice absolves us of sin? Because that seems to be the implication in saying that even religious people who commit sins 'shall be judged'.
Yes. I second Nikolai's response to this. Hitchens says further that most religion (except for the new stuff that's widely recognised to be lunatic fringe û Scientology, the Moonies) came into existence when humanity knew virtually nothing at all about the natural world or the cosmos. Understandable then that they would have resorted to supernatural explanations in the absence of anything else. Unsurprising also that the primitively inhumane practices are not just born of later interpretations, but are actually there in the old and new testament themselves. The 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' example is a very minor one. Do you condone that (as you appear to acts of bigamy and genocide)?Quote:
There were a lot of backwards attitudes back then - from all walks of society, not just religion.
Give Israel back to the Canaanites! Er...and the Hittites. Sorry, couldn't resist an aside. Or two.
Well, there seems to be a humongous margin for error. So...what do you see as the 'value per se'?Quote:
Ditto. That religious people are guilty of the same atrocious behavior doesn't negate the value of religion per se - it means that people who claim religious affiliation may not necessarily be adhering to it properly, or they have allowed their beliefs to be manipulated.
I have to admit to ignorance here too, but the way Hitchens has it, as I understand it, European monks didn't come around to this stuff until a lot later û at which point there was a desperate collective squirming to somehow prove that Socrates, Aristotle et al. were somehow Christian even though they lived before the time of Christ.Quote:
Hardly even in the same class as the other things you've listed; Irish monks also preserved classic Greek manuscripts - if it weren't for the European monks, much of antiquity's greatest writings would have been lost.
Oops and oops again. And again and again and again.Quote:
The inquisition was an ugly error of the first order; Islam is WRONG.
The bald statement that none of these behaviours would disappear is not an argument you appear to predicate on any evidence, but then, we've already heard your views on evidence. Still, I think it would be stupid to claim that there's no wrongdoing without religion û and I'll admit that, if Hitchens' book has a failing, it's in edging a little too close to this argument. However, he also shows, repeatedly, that religion has a strange tendency not only to perpetrate great wrong itself, but to collude with wrongdoers, especially when they are the ones in power. One reason for this seems to be its overweaning need to spread itself as far and wide as possible. Another is its peculiar inability to engage with reality. A recent example, not from Hitchens: a documentarist making a film on global warming, approached Hinu priestess expecting support for environmental measures. Instead, she gave him some standard mystical mumbo jumbo along the lines that even great destruction was merely part of the cycle of existence and of no significance to the godhead.Quote:
An impressive list - but banish religion and guess what? None of these behaviors would disappear. As such, while it is a terrible stain on religion to have these truths said about it, they are not unique to it, and as such, cannot be blamed for their existence. People commit sin and evil in the name of religion - but people can do so in the name of government, of philosophy, of "love."
All reasoning is ultimately circular? What are you still doing here?Quote:
All reasoning is ultimately circular in nature because human beings cannot approach any issue totally unbiased or objective; we are subjective beings - I know I won't get anywhere with this line of arguing, but go look up "presuppositionalism" and it will explain my position much better than I can.
I jest.
Sorry, but I just think you're projecting or grasping at straws. I gave the example of Darwin earlier because he was a religious man for most of his life. He gave up his beliefs because his observations did not support them, but he did so with great disappointment.
Well, sorry, but I actually think you've misread me. I didn't say anythingQuote:
You have not responded accurately to my post - your evidence up above is sufficient; I was referring to the idea that atheists like to flatter themselves with the idea that they are clear-minded, objective thinkers while we believers are "brain-washed," unable to "think for ourselves." I'm challenging that ridiculous idea by contending that atheists have settled into their own limited world view and that they chose that world view because of a conclusion they'd already come to even before they started "investigating" God.
about you being brainwashed and I didn't set out to flatter myself. You seemed to say that looking at evidence and using reason were mistakes because they were tools of the devil to divert us from the truth of religion. I understand that you meant this only in the context of arguments about god, but I don't see how you can keep the boundaries there. Darwin's observations of the real world led him away from belief. Many other thinkers can say the same. Were they tricked by the devil too? Should they have avoided making their observations? That was my question.
To expand on that, your suggestion that all atheists start from the position of atheism and look for proofs is, I'm sorry to say, simply risible. The origin of atheism is in scientific and philosophic inquiry and atheism was arrived at very gradually and with considerable difficulty in overwhelmingly religious societies in which the price of an honest profession of atheistic belief would often result in death. The pressure was all towards belief and virtually everyone was inculcated with belief from birth.
Well, it's a blindingly obvious point, but lots of Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and Jews and Zoroastrians and on and on believe they have 'experience' that backs up their belief systems.Quote:
I've spent many years reading the Bible and other Christian thinkers. I have experienced this reality.
Yeah, you really have contradiction on your hands claiming you see the value of evidence, but also fear it as a tool of the devil.Quote:
Easy does it there - I don't "despise" evidence and I'd prefer you don't misrepresent me as you attempted to do; empirical observation and the scientific method are very valuable - but I'm not ready to simply brush off what God said simply because science appears to have contradicted what I believe. When one acknowledges the existence of a spiritual world, then many things become possible.
No offense, but since you've basically made it clear you're impervious to logic, I think this is all I have to say to you. Feel free to carry on with your logic/evidence/gut instinct combo. All the best and all that.
Well, that's the fun of it. I'm blushing a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryLupin
Pretty much. Or the virtual impossibility of establishing value according to the criteria laid down. Unless of course you use your 'gut'. (now why didn't we think of that?)Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryLupin
And I blush again. Though partly because I didn't have a chance to correct my numerous typos before I rushed off for dinner, but never mind. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
Oh yeah, meant to ask – what did that mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryLupin