Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

[ceo_esq]

It is claimed that the Christian god grants whatever you ask for in prayer, yet this has been conclusively shown to be false. Ergo, the Christian god does not exist. A different, ignorant, uncaring or incoptent god might, but not the god which is described in the Bible.

I don't know many denominations that claim that "God grants whatever you ask for in prayer" - whatever that claim actually means - so I think we may safely consider that a strawman. Certainly the fact that there are several obvious senses in which it is not, and probably cannot logically be, true has nothing to do with whether the Christian God exists. Nor would it necessarily indicate that such a God was ignorant, uncaring or incompetent. I'm as much of a nonbeliever as the next fellow here, but displays of reasoning like the posts quoted above invite ridicule upon atheism, which is the sort of thing I hope we all wish to avoid.

[andyandy]

Andy, this is all stuff which is all over this board. I repeat, have you been living under a rock? I know you've participated in some of thethreads I've refered to. Here's one, which you did not participate in, for example.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54165&highlight=Most+mistrusted+minority

that was from before i joined - i'm a relative newbie you know :D

From the link http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

I'm not sure i'd equate those findings with "hatred" to be honest, but the summary is a little vague really to do justice to the actual data. What were the breakdowns? Even if we accept a general atmosphere of hatred in America (which i'm not sure i do) does that mean we can remove that consideration from looking at studies of depression and religion that were carried out outside the US - say in the UK (or Europe) where such animosity/mistrust towards atheists is not present?

[Freethinker]

I don't know many denominations that claim that "God grants whatever you ask for in prayer" - whatever that claim actually means - so I think we may safely consider that a strawman. Certainly the fact that there are several obvious senses in which it is not, and probably cannot logically be, true has nothing to do with whether the Christian God exists. Nor would it necessarily indicate that such a God was ignorant, uncaring or incompetent. I'm as much of a nonbeliever as the next fellow here, but displays of reasoning like the posts quoted above invite ridicule upon atheism, which is the sort of thing I hope we all wish to avoid.

Look at it this way: I postulate a particular god exists who answers all prayers. Let's call him Joe. Thousands of devout believers in Joe pray for a wide variety of things. After collecting the results, the data shows that nothing happened outside the range of chance. We therefore conclude that our postulated god does not exist as described.

The Christian god's description has changed radically over time, and continues to change. This is because as our level of knowledge provides clear explanations for actions previously attributed to god, there exist only two options: Acknowledge god doesn't exist as described and change the description or acknowledge he doesn't exist. (I guess there's a third; Ignore the obvious. :rolleyes: )

There are so many contorted interpretations of John 14:13-14, and so many translations that it is hard to say how many Christians interpret it as written, but there are many who believe it. I don't believe it can be dismissed as a strawman. The Church of Christ translates it as follows:

John 14:13-14

I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.

That's pretty well saying "Anything you want"

A great many people I know seem to operate on the concept that if enough people pray hard enough, it will happen. We have local prayer chains where you start calling a list and they call a list, etc., etc. and you have hundreds praying that somebody's aunt's neighbor's cousin's friend from school gets home safely from Bugwhackistan, where they've been trying to teach the heathens the error of their ways. How can 1000 people praying be different to an omniscient god than one sincere person praying? This is like saying "God doesn't want to do it, but if we gang up on him he'll change his mind.". This, IMO, largely conflicts with the argument that John 14:13-14 means "Whatever you want, as long as god wants it anyway".

[elliotfc]

It is claimed that the Christian god grants whatever you ask for in prayer, yet this has been conclusively shown to be false. Ergo, the Christian god does not exist.

Not this again.

A different, ignorant, uncaring or incoptent god might, but not the god which is described in the Bible.

OK, name the Bible verses, I can put up with another iteration I guess. Go.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Look at it this way: I postulate a particular god exists who answers all prayers. Let's call him Joe. Thousands of devout believers in Joe pray for a wide variety of things. After collecting the results, the data shows that nothing happened outside the range of chance. We therefore conclude that our postulated god does not exist as described.

Agreed.

Or...
1)God answers prayers in ways that we may not consider to be acceptable...or commensurate to answers.
2)God answered *every* prayer in the best way possible in Jesus.
3)God will directly answer prayers when he chooses to, and not when we would have him answer them.

The Christian god's description has changed radically over time, and continues to change.

Agreed. Theology is an ongoing approach to alignment with the objective truth of God, whatever that may be.

This is because as our level of knowledge provides clear explanations for actions previously attributed to god, there exist only two options: Acknowledge god doesn't exist as described and change the description or acknowledge he doesn't exist. (I guess there's a third; Ignore the obvious. :rolleyes: )

If it really was obvious, there wouldn't be so many people who believe in God.

That's pretty well saying "Anything you want"

The "in my name" phrase being...let's just call it a loophole. Or, you can think that you're asking for something in God's name, but you really aren't. If you accept that the Our Father is the template, prayers that go against the spirit of the Our Father...or those prayers in God's name?

A great many people I know seem to operate on the concept that if enough people pray hard enough, it will happen. We have local prayer chains where you start calling a list and they call a list, etc., etc. and you have hundreds praying that somebody's aunt's neighbor's cousin's friend from school gets home safely from Bugwhackistan, where they've been trying to teach the heathens the error of their ways. How can 1000 people praying be different to an omniscient god than one sincere person praying?

It *is* different, isn't it? 1000 people praying is 999 more than 1 person praying.

This is like saying "God doesn't want to do it, but if we gang up on him he'll change his mind.". This, IMO, largely conflicts with the argument that John 14:13-14 means "Whatever you want, as long as god wants it anyway".

I get your point.

God wants all sorts of things, but everything that God wants does not necessarily happen.

I don't think the number of people who pray to God will change God's mind...in the sense that there exists an objective threshhold where God will necessarily do something, if the number of persons is reached.

I probably shouldn't speak for those who create prayer chains, maybe you can pin one of them down. And if not, maybe you can will us in on how they would respond.

-Elliot

[Freethinker]

Agreed.

Or...
1)God answers prayers in ways that we may not consider to be acceptable...or commensurate to answers.
2)God answered *every* prayer in the best way possible in Jesus.
3)God will directly answer prayers when he chooses to, and not when we would have him answer them.




You are correct, but all of the options conflict with the originally postulated god. Scientifically, we could postulate a new god who complies with one of your options (or the numerous other ones), but they are considerably more difficult to prove or disprove.

In essence, this has happened over the ages. A new god wasn't postulated, but Christans' belief in what he would do changed to accomodate new understanding of the universe and deeper reading of the bible. As the gaps in our understanding grew smaller, Christians' "postulated" god shrank to fit those gaps, and has become confined to possessing qualities and powers that can't be observed or refuted. To me, this has a logical conclusion that the Christian god does not exist. Others may reach a different conclusion with the same data. :D

[Freethinker]

Sorry to split this into two posts. I forgot to finish.:o


The "in my name" phrase being...let's just call it a loophole. Or, you can think that you're asking for something in God's name, but you really aren't. If you accept that the Our Father is the template, prayers that go against the spirit of the Our Father...or those prayers in God's name?


I won't quibble about the interpretation of the bible, but what I think is important is the common believer's understanding of it. I don't think most Christians share that interpretation.


It *is* different, isn't it? 1000 people praying is 999 more than 1 person praying.


But if god only grants prayers that are already his will, it shouldn't matter what the number is. If nobody prays that chickens gain the ability to fly, but god wants it to happen, it's going to happen. If all of humanity prays for or against chicken flight, it won't affect god's will, so it won't affect the chickens. If it doesn't matter what the number is, it doesn't matter whether you pray or not.

As to the prayer chains, I cite them only as an example that the average Christian that I encounter apparently believes that it is possible to change god's will through prayer, and the more people praying, the better.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't know many denominations that claim that "God grants whatever you ask for in prayer" - whatever that claim actually means - so I think we may safely consider that a strawman.

Wrong. Try reading the Bible now and then.

1) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)



2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)



3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)



4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)



5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)



6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)



7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)



8) It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)



9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm

[elliotfc]

You are correct, but all of the options conflict with the originally postulated god.

Originally by who exactly?

Let's take the Twelve, and let's assume they heard the exact words as related in the bible regarding prayer. How did they react? Did they start praying for anything and everything with the expectation that it would happen? Did Simon or Judas or James start praying that Jesus would be accepted by everybody and that all wars would stop and anything else?

I suggest that the *original* acceptance of the words of Christ were "nuanced" approaches kept within the totality of Christ's message.

That's where I'd place an original postulate. Where do you place it?

Scientifically, we could postulate a new god who complies with one of your options (or the numerous other ones), but they are considerably more difficult to prove or disprove.

I think difficult to prove is an understatement. :)

I'm trying to get across that the *PROBLEM* many atheists/agnostics declare when it comes to "ask and you shall receive" is, apparently, *not* an insurmountable problem to believers.

In essence, this has happened over the ages. A new god wasn't postulated, but Christans' belief in what he would do changed to accomodate new understanding of the universe and deeper reading of the bible. As the gaps in our understanding grew smaller, Christians' "postulated" god shrank to fit those gaps, and has become confined to possessing qualities and powers that can't be observed or refuted.

That all sounds fine I guess. Christians believe that Jesus, as a person, possessed qualities and powers of God, and we also believe that Jesus was observed so I dunno.

I'm thinking that you're thinking that Christianity has evolved survival or defense mechanisms to remain viable ("observed or refuted"), and as a Christian I think there's something to that.

To me, this has a logical conclusion that the Christian god does not exist. Others may reach a different conclusion with the same data. :D

There's definitely "logic" in conclusions which conclude that the Christian God doesn't exist. And if the Christian God *does* exist, that would not determine that the conclusion that the Christian God did not exist was illogical. We do the best we can.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

There's definitely "logic" in conclusions which conclude that the Christian God doesn't exist. And if the Christian God *does* exist, that would not determine that the conclusion that the Christian God did not exist was illogical. We do the best we can.

-Elliot

You still don't understand.

Firstly, an omnipotent and morally good is impossible, for reasons that have been repeated incessantly on this forum.

Secondly, the Christian god allegedly grants all prayers made in Jesus's name. That's an easily testable claim. In Jesus's name I pray for my hair to turn into vipers, and for the snakes to bite my nose.

Vipers?

Hello, vipers?

No vipers.

Claim = false.

The Christian god also allegedly appears as a burning bush, turn women into salt, and floods the planet, none of which has ever happend. All claims made about the Christian god in the Bible are either untestable, or false.

Ergo, the Christian god is a complete fiction.

A different, uncaring, cruel, or incompetent god may exist, but such a god does not conform to the claims made about the Christian god.

[elliotfc]

I won't quibble about the interpretation of the bible, but what I think is important is the common believer's understanding of it. I don't think most Christians share that interpretation.

Sooooooo............you believe that most Christians think that *anything* they ask of God, God will do, no caveats or loopholes or exceptions?

But if god only grants prayers that are already his will, it shouldn't matter what the number is.

I'm talking about *faithfulness* and not results. It is better for 1000 people to be faithful (to pray) than for 1 person to pray.

If nobody prays that chickens gain the ability to fly, but god wants it to happen, it's going to happen.

I guess so, the exceptions would be free will related. I think God wants us all to accept him, but that doesn't mean all of us will accept him.

Also, the reason that chickens can't fly is because people eat too many chicken wings.

If all of humanity prays for or against chicken flight, it won't affect god's will, so it won't affect the chickens. If it doesn't matter what the number is, it doesn't matter whether you pray or not.

Agreed.

As to the prayer chains, I cite them only as an example that the average Christian that I encounter apparently believes that it is possible to change god's will through prayer, and the more people praying, the better.

We believe that we are *free* to pray. We also believe that God is *free* to respond to our prayers or deal with prayers anyway he wants to.

Is it possible that God would not...for example...cure a brain cancer unless someone prayed for it? Sure. Why not? If God could *not* be influenced by our prayers or requests, that would be an exceptionally non-personal relationship, don't you think?

We know that people asked Jesus to do things (give them sight, etc.), and being asked, he did it. There you go. We believe that by knowing Jesus we can also know the nature of God.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

ceo said "demoninations claim" and you provide bible verse in response.

An honest response would have been to provide actual, official, claims of denominations.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

You still don't understand.

Firstly, an omnipotent and morally good is impossible, for reasons that have been repeated incessantly on this forum.

So the equation is...

omnipotent and morally good god is impossible...because of reasons that have been repeated incessantly on this forum.

That reasons are repeated incessantly on this forum is a fact, I'll give you that. That said, that fact doesn't prove anything you'd like, just because of incessant repeating.

Secondly, the Christian god allegedly grants all prayers made in Jesus's name. That's an easily testable claim. In Jesus's name I pray for my hair to turn into vipers, and for the snakes to bite my nose.

Vipers?

I think most Christians would agree that someone who rejects Christ couldn't really pray in Christ's name.

Also, Jesus commands us to not put him to the test.

The Christian god also allegedly appears as a burning bush, turn women into salt, and floods the planet, none of which has ever happend. All claims made about the Christian god in the Bible are either untestable, or false.

I agree that they aren't testable. You're contradicting yourself also...you say "none of which has ever happened"...and in the next sentence you decide to allow for an either/or.

A different, uncaring, cruel, or incompetent god may exist, but such a god does not conform to the claims made about the Christian god.

Or, the Christian god does exist but you decide that it is uncaring/cruel/incompetent while others disagree.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

ceo said "demoninations claim" and you provide bible verse in response.


I am the one who intially claimed that the Bible says all prayers will be granted. Ceo moved the goal posts.

If Christians choose to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe in, because the vast majority of it is clearly nonsense, then they are one step closer to rejecting that fiction entirely.

[ImaginalDisc]

So the equation is...

omnipotent and morally good god is impossible...because of reasons that have been repeated incessantly on this forum.

Fine, I'll sum up.

Evil Exists. God is good. God is omnipotent.

One of the above must be false.


I think most Christians would agree that someone who rejects Christ couldn't really pray in Christ's name.

Fine, YOU pray that my hair turn into snakes.

Also, Jesus commands us to not put him to the test.

Ok, pray for my dog's cancer to be cured. She's a helpless, sick and very old animal. It would be a good and noble thing to cure her. Pray for it.


I agree that they aren't testable. You're contradicting yourself also...you say "none of which has ever happened"...and in the next sentence you decide to allow for an either/or.

Reading. Try it.

The Christian god does not exist. A DIFFERENT god might.

[Freethinker]

Originally by who exactly?



I was referring to my original post's postulated god only. Indirectly to Christians' postulated "god who gives us anything we pray for" and the fact that he doesn't exist as postulated because we are pretty sure he doesn't do that. Existence of another god (or our understanding of god), with a different prayer answering policy is neither proven nor disproven by this.

[ImaginalDisc]

I was referring only to my original post's postulated god only. Indirectly to Christians' postulated "god who gives us anything we pray for" and the fact that he doesn't exist as postulated because we are pretty sure he doesn't do that. Existence of another god (or our understanding of god), with a different prayer answering policy is neither proven nor disproven by this.

Wow, Freethinker. Will you be my ghostwriter? The pay's not so good, but the hours are flexible.

[Freethinker]

Sooooooo............you believe that most Christians think that *anything* they ask of God, God will do, no caveats or loopholes or exceptions?


Not most, many. When prayer fails it is either because they aren't faithful enough, or "The Lord works in mysterious ways".


I'm talking about *faithfulness* and not results. It is better for 1000 people to be faithful (to pray) than for 1 person to pray.


But the original post was talking about prayers being granted, so results are the issue here.



Also, the reason that chickens can't fly is because people eat too many chicken wings.

But think how much bigger their wings would be if they could fly!



We know that people asked Jesus to do things (give them sight, etc.), and being asked, he did it. There you go. We believe that by knowing Jesus we can also know the nature of God.
-Elliot

We don't know that. We have unsubstantiated texts which say he did, but those same texts are also said to be sometimes literal and sometimes figurative or metaphorical.

[elliotfc]

I am the one who intially claimed that the Bible says all prayers will be granted. Ceo moved the goal posts.

If Christians choose to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe in, because the vast majority of it is clearly nonsense, then they are one step closer to rejecting that fiction entirely.

You sound annoyed.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Fine, I'll sum up.

Evil Exists. God is good. God is omnipotent.

One of the above must be false.

If you assume that, in order to be good, and omnipotent God must not allow evil to exist, I agree that one of the above must be false.

Fine, YOU pray that my hair turn into snakes.

Why, so you could turn people who look at you into stone? I don't care to indulge your desire to be Medusa, pass.

Ok, pray for my dog's cancer to be cured. She's a helpless, sick and very old animal. It would be a good and noble thing to cure her. Pray for it.

OK. What's yer dog's name?

The Christian god does not exist. A DIFFERENT god might.

I don't consider your dogmatic assertions on the nature of the Christian god to be correct.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I was referring to my original post's postulated god only. Indirectly to Christians' postulated "god who gives us anything we pray for" and the fact that he doesn't exist as postulated because we are pretty sure he doesn't do that. Existence of another god (or our understanding of god), with a different prayer answering policy is neither proven nor disproven by this.

I don't think that very many Christians actually do postulate that god gives us anything we pray for. I'm sure there are some who do, and they probably have websites even.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

If you assume that, in order to be good, and omnipotent God must not allow evil to exist, I agree that one of the above must be false.

Thank you. God is false.







OK. What's yer dog's name?

According to the Bible, this information is not required.



I don't consider your dogmatic assertions on the nature of the Christian god to be correct.

-Elliot

It's not dogmatic, it's a logical deduction. If the claims made about X are all false or untestable, X cannot be said to exist.

[elliotfc]

Not most, many. When prayer fails it is either because they aren't faithful enough, or "The Lord works in mysterious ways".

Meaning, then, that God will not do anything that is asked for.

I've heard other responses like, "well, God wills that we will all die eventually", things like that.

-Elliot

[Wheezebucket]

Once, as a child, God told me I couldn't have a Crash Test Dummy action figure because they weren't cool enough, and instead directed me to the Ghostbusters toys. My life was forever changed. Thank you, oh wise and mighty lord.

When I got home, all my GI Joes were laying out in the yard, covered in sores.

I think this proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that God hates certain action figures more than others. So sayeth Slimer, so sayeth the Lord!

[ceo_esq]

I am the one who intially claimed that the Bible says all prayers will be granted. Ceo moved the goal posts.

Whoa. Don't blame shortcomings in your argumentation on me. In the post to which I was responding, you said simply (and with somewhat weasely phrasing) that "It is claimed" that the Christian God fulfills all prayers. Now quite naturally by "Christian God" I took you to mean God as proposed in accordance with the understanding of all or perhaps most or many Christian denominations. It turns out you meant God in accordance with your personal interpretation of those Bible texts. Now, Christianity as we know it is obviously not the only, nor even the most logical, religion that the Bible could have spawned. Other ways of reading the same Bible could might conceivably have given rise to radically different religions. Yet if we're going to talk about the God of Christianity I think we must take him as we find him in the beliefs of actual Christians according to their interpretation. No one's going to find it particularly significant that we can disprove a so-called "Christian God" with properties hypothesized by you but by hardly any actual Christians.

Anyway, your interpretation here is suspect. One of the canons of textual construction states that interpretations tending to yield an evident absurdity should generally be avoided where possible. The notion of a God who quite literally grants every petitionary prayer of every person is so obviously problematic (what if two mutually contradictory states of affairs are prayed for?) that it's sensible to presume that a more nuanced interpretation of those texts most closely reflects their intent. Even if that weren't the case, however, it wouldn't matter to my point above.

[elliotfc]

Anyway, your interpretation here is suspect. One of the canons of textual construction states that interpretations tending to yield an evident absurdity should generally be avoided where possible. The notion of a God who quite literally grants every petitionary prayer of every person is so obviously problematic (what if two mutually contradictory states of affairs are prayed for?) that it's sensible to presume that a more nuanced interpretation of those texts most closely reflects their intent. Even if that weren't the case, however, it wouldn't matter to my point above.

Also, it leaves open the possibility of absolutely *obliterating* all existing dogmas.

What if someone prays that Jesus become Satan?

What if we pray that we never die or experience suffering?

What if we pray that free will be eliminated?

Christians are accused of being unreasonable. Quite often. So, here it *can be understood* that "ask in my name and you shall receive" is accepted, by Christians, in a reasonable way, in spite of the insistence that Christians understand the formula in the way you think ought.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

Anyway, your interpretation here is suspect. One of the canons of textual construction states that interpretations tending to yield an evident absurdity should generally be avoided where possible.

How very convient for you to just ignore all the silliest parts of the Bible whenever it suits you, yet still claim that it's a Holy Book we should buid our lives around. If we are supposed to use our judgement anyway to disregard the stupid parts, why bother with the Bible at all? What do Christians base their beleifs in, their own interpretations of a relentlessly self contradictory and meaningless book?

[ceo_esq]

How very convient for you to just ignore all the silliest parts of the Bible whenever it suits you, yet still claim that it's a Holy Book we should buid our lives around. If we are supposed to use our judgement anyway to disregard the stupid parts, why bother with the Bible at all?

First of all - and I would appreciate a reply here - when have I ever claimed that the Bible is a Holy Book around which anyone should build his life? I would no sooner say such a thing than you would.

Second, no one's talking about disregarding the text. When faced with a text that could be interpreted in more than one way, there's a difference between (1) disfavoring the interpretation that leads to a result that's so absurd it's unlikely to have been the intended meaning and (2) ignoring the text completely. I suspect one of the reasons you find the Bible so meaningless is that you insist on choosing interpretations of it that give it the most ridiculous and improbable meaning. Unfortunately, this means that your views about the Bible are not very useful in the context of discussions about Christianity because (Fundamentalists aside, perhaps) Christians tend to opt for more reasonable interpretations of specific texts, frankly, and the petitionary prayer question is a good example of this.

[Meadmaker]

What do Christians base their beleifs in, their own interpretations of a relentlessly self contradictory and meaningless book?

No, silly. That's what Jews do.:)



(While my comment is tongue in cheek, there's a fair amount of truth to it. Ever since I started participating in their religious activities, I've figured out more about their approach to Biblical interpretation, and it doesn't bear much resemblance to the way anti-religious people think they ought to be doing it. Also, FWIW, I still don't know whether I ought to call myself Jewish, or to convert. I think the reform movement accepts agnostics, but it's something I have to ask the rabbi about.)

[ImaginalDisc]

No, silly. That's what Jews do.:)



(While my comment is tongue in cheek, there's a fair amount of truth to it. Ever since I started participating in their religious activities, I've figured out more about their approach to Biblical interpretation, and it doesn't bear much resemblance to the way anti-religious people think they ought to be doing it. Also, FWIW, I still don't know whether I ought to call myself Jewish, or to convert. I think the reform movement accepts agnostics, but it's something I have to ask the rabbi about.)

Christians are, though it may surprise you to hear it, even more guilty of this, as the New Testament contains commandments and prohibitions that few Christians, if any, follow.

[ImaginalDisc]

First of all - and I would appreciate a reply here - when have I ever claimed that the Bible is a Holy Book around which anyone should build his life? I would no sooner say such a thing than you would.

Then why are you always an apologist for Christianity?

Second, no one's talking about disregarding the text. When faced with a text that could be interpreted in more than one way

Full stop. We're not talking about passages which are open to interpretation.

Edit: Here's an example of a perfectly clear and unambiguous passage which you have falsely accused me of interpreting in the most ridiculous way possible.

On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

Pray for anything in Jesus's name, and you will get it.

In Jesus's name, I pray for flying pickles with wings to conquer the moon.

See? No flying pickles with wings on the moon.

[Jorghnassen]

Full stop. We're not talking about passages which are open to interpretation.

Suzy hit the dancer with the flower in her teeth.

/obscure?

[ImaginalDisc]

Suzy hit the dancer with the flower in her teeth.

/obscure?

I suppose so. Neither I nor Google know what you're talking about. :confused:

[Jorghnassen]

I suppose so. Neither I nor Google know what you're talking about. :confused:

A friend of mine taking a linguistics class (I believe), had to find as many interpretations of that sentence as possible (I think the bare minimum to pass that assignment was 6 or 8, can't remember). My point is there's always a lot more room for interpretation than there might appear to be (without having to twist definitions).

[ImaginalDisc]

A friend of mine taking a linguistics class (I believe), had to find as many interpretations of that sentence as possible (I think the bare minimum to pass that assignment was 6 or 8, can't remember). My point is there's always a lot more room for interpretation than there might appear to be (without having to twist definitions).

Well, this is pretty clear.

On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

And so are the other eight instances of the same sort of promise in the Bible I quoted earlier.

[CapelDodger]

On that day ...
Which day is that?

[ImaginalDisc]

Which day is that?

The day of the ressurection. Here Jesus was addressing his disciples just before being arrested.

[CapelDodger]

A friend of mine taking a linguistics class (I believe), had to find as many interpretations of that sentence as possible (I think the bare minimum to pass that assignment was 6 or 8, can't remember). My point is there's always a lot more room for interpretation than there might appear to be (without having to twist definitions).
Another such word sequence is "What is this thing called love", if you play around with punctuation and intonation. ("What!? Is this thing called love?!" and so on.)

[Meadmaker]

Christians are, though it may surprise you to hear it, even more guilty of this, as the New Testament contains commandments and prohibitions that few Christians, if any, follow.

Guilty? Guilty? That seems a bit presumptuous for you to be imposing guilt on them.

I say unto you that the Jews are doing it perfectly well, thank you. The fact that you don't understand what they are doing or why they are doing it says a great deal more about you than it does about them. And I believe that is a point closely related to what ceo and others are saying.

[CapelDodger]

The day of the ressurection. Here Jesus was addressing his disciples just before being arrested.
Ah. So we can buy a promise. Nothing to do with today's affairs - sick folk, harvests, barrenness, lost rings and such. Pay now, choose your prize in the afterlife. Nobody's lost that gamble yet and regretted it. Survivors have - "He left what to the Abbey!? Call my lawyer! Senile old ..." - but there comes a time when you have to think about your own future. Death-beds and foxholes often feature at these times apparently, but you find a lot more priests (and lawyers) hovering around the one than the other.

[ImaginalDisc]

Guilty? Guilty? That seems a bit presumptuous for you to be imposing guilt on them.

I say unto you that the Jews are doing it perfectly well, thank you. The fact that you don't understand what they are doing or why they are doing it says a great deal more about you than it does about them. And I believe that is a point closely related to what ceo and others are saying.

I understand that they worship something which does not exist. And yes, Christians are guilty of hypocracy.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ah. So we can buy a promise. Nothing to do with today's affairs - sick folk, harvests, barrenness, lost rings and such. Pay now, choose your prize in the afterlife. Nobody's lost that gamble yet and regretted it. Survivors have - "He left what to the Abbey!? Call my lawyer! Senile old ..." - but there comes a time when you have to think about your own future. Death-beds and foxholes often feature at these times apparently, but you find a lot more priests (and lawyers) hovering around the one than the other.

Hmmm, let's look at the sorrounding passages.

21
When a woman is in labor, she is in anguish because her hour has arrived; but when she has given birth to a child, she no longer remembers the pain because of her joy that a child has been born into the world.
22
So you also are now in anguish. But I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you.
23
On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.
24
Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete.
25
6 "I have told you this in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures but I will tell you clearly about the Father.
26
On that day you will ask in my name, and I do not tell you that I will ask the Father for you.
27
For the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have come to believe that I came from God.
28
I came from the Father and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

I suppose you could say it applies only, and explcitely, to that specific day, and not that day and henceforth.

[CapelDodger]

Guilty? Guilty? That seems a bit presumptuous for you to be imposing guilt on them.
You seem to have a hair-trigger response to the word "guilt". Anything Catholic in your background?

[CapelDodger]

I suppose you could say it applies only, and explcitely, to that specific day, and not that day and henceforth.
Suspiciously so. You finally get to the counter, the angel asks "What you here for?", you blurt out "72 virgins" (being a bit fazed by the whole situation) and that's it. The rest of eternity to fill out by your own efforts, entertain yourselves, guys. What women might ask for, I dunno, but I doubt it'll often be 72 virgins. Anyhoo, given that eternity is involved, choose no finite prize. "Anything I want any time I think I want it", that's cool. Eternity becomes a challenge, not a sentence.

[Meadmaker]

You seem to have a hair-trigger response to the word "guilt". Anything Catholic in your background?

As it turns out, yes. I was raised Catholic.

But actually, the point I was trying to make to ImaginalDisc is that he had, once again, missed the point. I was making a comment about the Jewish approach to scriptural interpretation. I was saying that Jews could, indeed, be said to ".... base their beleifs in, their own interpretations of a relentlessly self contradictory and meaningless book? "

And he said that Christians are even more "guilty" of this.

Many Jews, including some of the most devout and observant of the lot, are fully aware that they are basing their beliefs in their own interpretations of a relentlessy self contradictory and meaningless book. They might quibble with the word "meaningless", but not all that much. If you asked five Jews about it, you would get no more than 10 words that would be a better description.

However, they aren't "guilty" of anything, not even of illogical thought. ImaginalDisc thinks they are "guilty" of something because he thinks he knows the way they ought to be approaching the Bible, or possibly he thinks he knows the way they actually approach the Bible. In reality, he doesn't understand what they are doing, and his lack of comprehension leads him to believe that what they are doing is illogical.

[ImaginalDisc]

As it turns out, yes. I was raised Catholic.

But actually, the point I was trying to make to ImaginalDisc is that he had, once again, missed the point. I was making a comment about the Jewish approach to scriptural interpretation. I was saying that Jews could, indeed, be said to ".... base their beleifs in, their own interpretations of a relentlessly self contradictory and meaningless book? "

And he said that Christians are even more "guilty" of this.

Many Jews, including some of the most devout and observant of the lot, are fully aware that they are basing their beliefs in their own interpretations of a relentlessy self contradictory and meaningless book. They might quibble with the word "meaningless", but not all that much. If you asked five Jews about it, you would get no more than 10 words that would be a better description.

However, they aren't "guilty" of anything, not even of illogical thought. ImaginalDisc thinks they are "guilty" of something because he thinks he knows the way they ought to be approaching the Bible, or possibly he thinks he knows the way they actually approach the Bible. In reality, he doesn't understand what they are doing, and his lack of comprehension leads him to believe that what they are doing is illogical.

It's blatantly obvious what Christians are guilty of; hypocracy. Christians claim to believe in an all powerful and good god, yet they pray. Somehow, an all knowing and good god needs to be begged and cajoled into doing things for his followers, despite being allegedly good.

[Meadmaker]

It's blatantly obvious what Christians are guilty of; hypocracy. Christians claim to believe in an all powerful and good god, yet they pray. Somehow, an all knowing and good god needs to be begged and cajoled into doing things for his followers, despite being allegedly good.

It's an interesting interpretation of Christian practice. Nevertheless, you might profit from greater understanding of theistic perspectives.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's an interesting interpretation of Christian practice. Nevertheless, you might profit from greater understanding of theistic perspectives.

The world could greatly benefit from less theism, not more.

[Meadmaker]

The world could greatly benefit from less theism, not more.


That's a matter of opinion, however, it isn't what I suggested.

I suggested that you, ImaginalDisc, could benefit from a greater understanding of theistic perspectives, even if it is a "Know your enemy" exercise. You have some terribly inaccurate ideas about what religious people believe.

Whether or not religious tolerance is a good or bad idea, as the thread title asked, I think we could all agree that whether you choose tolerance or intolerance, you should do so based on an accurate understanding.

You have some work in this area.

[ImaginalDisc]

You have some work in this area.

While more knowledge is certainly valauble, are you suggesting that I'm ignorant about the twaddle and filth of Christianity?

[ImaginalDisc]

Meadmaker, religious tolerence is a very bad idea. A religion, like any other idea, should be criticised and examined based on its merits, and religions have no merit.

[Meadmaker]

While more knowledge is certainly valauble, are you suggesting that I'm ignorant about the twaddle and filth of Christianity?


Not just the twaddle and filth, but the rest of the stuff, too.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not just the twaddle and filth, but the rest of the stuff, too.

And what would that be? The Golden Rule? That predates Christianity.

[elliotfc]

While more knowledge is certainly valauble, are you suggesting that I'm ignorant about the twaddle and filth of Christianity?

I think you're an expert about it the twaddle and filth of Christianity. The good stuff about Christianity, that's what you're ignorant about.

Prove my last statement by asking/stating...well...just ask/state it.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

And what would that be? The Golden Rule? That predates Christianity.

In the negative, yes.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

I think you're an expert about it the twaddle and filth of Christianity. The good stuff about Christianity, that's what you're ignorant about.


Christanity has no good part.

[elliotfc]

Christanity has no good part.

:)

On this note...over the past two years I've taken hiatuses, this one will be lengthy, oh frabjous day eh ID? See y'alls next year, the album is going to be brilliant.

[ceo_esq]

Then why are you always an apologist for Christianity?

I'm not. I've never promoted, or defended the truth of, any Christian doctrine. I simply end up challenging what I perceive to be the often unfair, unexamined and/or inaccurate statements made here about Christianity (most often when they occur in the context of history, law, evidentiary argument, logic, or another area in which I have some formal background). If that didn't happen so often here, I'd probably hardly ever speak of Christianity.


Full stop. We're not talking about passages which are open to interpretation.

Edit: Here's an example of a perfectly clear and unambiguous passage which you have falsely accused me of interpreting in the most ridiculous way possible.

On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

Pray for anything in Jesus's name, and you will get it.

In Jesus's name, I pray for flying pickles with wings to conquer the moon.

See? No flying pickles with wings on the moon.

This shows that you have already asked and answered for yourself, perhaps without realizing it, several key interpretive questions, such as:

1. To whom was the statement in question intended to be addressed? You obviously have interpreted it as being addressed to yourself, presumably among others. You might be justified. You might not. Either way, you made an interpretive choice.

2. What did the speaker mean by asking the Father for something in his (the speaker's) name? You have interpreted this as simply consisting in formulating a request purportedly addressed to a Father in whom you do not believe (much less regard as a father) and tacking on the phrase "in Jesus' name". That's one possible interpretation, but not the only possible one. Again, you made an interpretive decision.

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not. I've never promoted, or defended the truth of, any Christian doctrine. I simply end up challenging what I perceive to be the often unfair, unexamined and/or inaccurate statements made here about Christianity (most often when they occur in the context of history, law, evidentiary argument, logic, or another area in which I have some formal background). If that didn't happen so often here, I'd probably hardly ever speak of Christianity.

Fair enough. We clearly have a difference of opinion, but I rectract the statement regarding you being an apologist.




This shows that you have already asked and answered for yourself, perhaps without realizing it, several key interpretive questions, such as:

1. To whom was the statement in question intended to be addressed? You obviously have interpreted it as being addressed to yourself, presumably among others. You might be justified. You might not. Either way, you made an interpretive choice.

Let's assume that Jesus was speaking to the disciples alone. What about the eight other instances of reptitions of the same promise I cited above?

2. What did the speaker mean by asking the Father for something in his (the speaker's) name? You have interpreted this as simply consisting in formulating a request purportedly addressed to a Father in whom you do not believe (much less regard as a father) and tacking on the phrase "in Jesus' name". That's one possible interpretation, but not the only possible one. Again, you made an interpretive decision.


Here I think the text give far less lattitude than you percieve. It clearly says that whatever [you] ask for in Jesus's name, [you] will get.

[Meadmaker]

Christanity has no good part.

Surely the Golden Rule is a good part, isn't it?

Perhaps you meant that whatever is good about Christianity came from outside of Christianity, that it invented no good parts, and the good parts could survive without it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Surely the Golden Rule is a good part, isn't it?

Perhaps you meant that whatever is good about Christianity came from outside of Christianity, that it invented no good parts, and the good parts could survive without it.

And what would that be? The Golden Rule? That predates Christianity.


Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. No, Christianity has no good parts, because the commraderie, off key singing, weekly gatherings, and moral lessons are all things you can get from other sources without the gnashing teeth, brimstone, and smug self-satisfaction that comes from thinking you'll be spending eternity in a magical happy land while everyone else is kept out.

[ceo_esq]

No, Christianity has no good parts, because the commraderie, off key singing, weekly gatherings, and moral lessons are all things you can get from other sources without the gnashing teeth, brimstone, and smug self-satisfaction that comes from thinking you'll be spending eternity in a magical happy land while everyone else is kept out.

But how does that mean that Christianity has no good parts? You might as well argue that Christianity has no bad parts because you could get teeth-gnashing and smugness from other sources.

What if I asserted that eggs had zero nutritional value because you can get the protein and vitamin B from other sources without all the cholesterol? You'd probably think I was making an unfair misstatement about eggs, and perhaps even that I had some bias against eggs that kept me from speaking or thinking objectively about them.

[ImaginalDisc]

What if I asserted that eggs had zero nutritional value because you can get the protein and vitamin B from other sources without all the cholesterol? You'd probably think I was making an unfair misstatement about eggs, and perhaps even that I had some bias against eggs that kept me from speaking or thinking objectively about them.

There is nutirion in eggs. There is no good in Christianity. It's a false analogy.

[CapelDodger]

And he said that Christians are even more "guilty" of this.In a commonly used manner without, I think, the pejorative intent you ascribe to it. Thus my little bit of profiling back there. :)

Many Jews, including some of the most devout and observant of the lot, are fully aware that they are basing their beliefs in their own interpretations of a relentlessy self contradictory and meaningless book. They might quibble with the word "meaningless", but not all that much. If you asked five Jews about it, you would get no more than 10 words that would be a better description.
One room, two Jews, three opinions. :)

Judaism has always been a broad church (so to speak), plastic, shifting, adjusting, re-appraising, accomodating. That's just towards the centre ground, on the periphery are flakes of fanaticism and sheer weirdness. It's the archetypal Abrahamic religion, carrying lots of baggage.

There are atheists who don't regard The Book as meaningless. Behind the spin and self-justification lies a very strong thread, the quest for a just ("righteous") society. In there we have the observations of some remarkable minds applying themselves to the question : what is a just society? And in practical terms, what moral code would create such a society? That's the conundrum their god has set them. By definition it wants a just society, and by the evidence that doesn't come naturally to humanity.

[CapelDodger]

There is nutirion in eggs.
And it comes from the mother. I believe in chickens, and the chicken-egg link. I have collected chickens' eggs from under their mothers morning after morning, so absent an Egg Fairy that puts them there overnight, I'm convinced. From the chicken comes the egg. In broader terms, from the mother.

From the god? No material investment - unlike the egg-producer, that's males for you :rolleyes: - but lots of demands.

I particularly like duck-eggs. Seasonal, but sensational, and packed with nutrients.

[ImaginalDisc]

And it comes from the mother. I believe in chickens, and the chicken-egg link. I have collected chickens' eggs from under their mothers morning after morning, so absent an Egg Fairy that puts them there overnight, I'm convinced. From the chicken comes the egg. In broader terms, from the mother.

From the god? No material investment - unlike the egg-producer, that's males for you :rolleyes: - but lots of demands.

I particularly like duck-eggs. Seasonal, but sensational, and packed with nutrients.

I meant to say "Nutrition," of course. My ecology professor used to call eggs, "Mommy's bagged lunch." "Hi, glad you were born. Here's a yolk. Good luck!"

[ceo_esq]

There is nutirion in eggs. There is no good in Christianity. It's a false analogy.

Please explain, because this seems to be at odds with what you said before. Camaraderie, moral lessons, etc. - these are arguably good things, but you seemed to be saying simply that they were good things that could be obtained elsewhere without bad things accompanying them. I understand that point, but it is a point that is distinct from (and which technically contradicts) the assertion that there are simply no good things at all about Christianity. Let's call camaraderie protein and moral lessons vitamin B, and the egg analogy seems apropos (at least it parallels the point as you expressed it).

[ImaginalDisc]

Please explain, because this seems to be at odds with what you said before. Camaraderie, moral lessons, etc. - these are arguably good things, but you seemed to be saying simply that they were good things that could be obtained elsewhere without bad things accompanying them. I understand that point, but it is a point that is distinct from (and which technically contradicts) the assertion that there are simply no good things at all about Christianity. Let's call camaraderie protein and moral lessons vitamin B, and the egg analogy seems apropos (at least it parallels the point as you expressed it).

No, commraderie is not good, especially not when it comes from a feeling of exclusivity that comes from thinking that everyone else is going to hell. Every army, secret society and fraternal order has a sense of commraderie, it's nothing special. Commeraderie based on an expectation of an afterlife that'll never happen isn't good.

Moral lessons? Well, the moral lessons of Christianity are neither good, nor even comprehensible. The Bible's relentlessly contradictory about moral values, and the various Chrisitan denominations have a plethora of different answers for each question you might pose. Chrisitanity's morality is based on empty faith, rather than reason.

Christanity, being a religion, requires that its followers reject reason and rational thought in their worship, and replace it with obedience and faith. Little if any good has ever come from blind obedience and a lack of reason.

[Meadmaker]

No, commraderie is not good, especially not when it comes from a feeling of exclusivity that comes from thinking that everyone else is going to hell. Every army, secret society and fraternal order has a sense of commraderie, it's nothing special. Commeraderie based on an expectation of an afterlife that'll never happen isn't good.

Moral lessons? Well, the moral lessons of Christianity are neither good, nor even comprehensible. The Bible's relentlessly contradictory about moral values, and the various Chrisitan denominations have a plethora of different answers for each question you might pose. Chrisitanity's morality is based on empty faith, rather than reason.

Christanity, being a religion, requires that its followers reject reason and rational thought in their worship, and replace it with obedience and faith. Little if any good has ever come from blind obedience and a lack of reason.

How ironic, that this latest installment ended by complaining that other people reject rational thought.

[Meadmaker]

In a commonly used manner without, I think, the pejorative intent you ascribe to it. Thus my little bit of profiling back there. :)


One room, two Jews, three opinions. :)

Judaism has always been a broad church (so to speak), plastic, shifting, adjusting, re-appraising, accomodating. That's just towards the centre ground, on the periphery are flakes of fanaticism and sheer weirdness. It's the archetypal Abrahamic religion, carrying lots of baggage.

There are atheists who don't regard The Book as meaningless. Behind the spin and self-justification lies a very strong thread, the quest for a just ("righteous") society. In there we have the observations of some remarkable minds applying themselves to the question : what is a just society? And in practical terms, what moral code would create such a society? That's the conundrum their god has set them. By definition it wants a just society, and by the evidence that doesn't come naturally to humanity.

Well put.


On the first note, it wasn't the pejorative intent I was attempting to address, but the apparent lack of comprehension about the "meaningless" nature of the text. Among many Bible believers, especially among Jews, you would find a subset who feel that the text, by itself, is indeed meaningless. It develops meaning through the study of the text and the attempt to apply its lessons in daily life. In Jewish writings, I have seen quite a few acknowledgements of the self-contradictory nature of the Tanach texts. Among literalists, they might search for a reconciliation of the apparent contradictions to find some interpretation that resolves those contradications.

Among Jews, there are very few literalists, and they would generally, even the devout ones who believe that God himself wrote the Torah, agree that the apparent contradictions are contradictory because they shouldn't be read as specific instructions that are true at all times. God tells people to do one thing, and then he changes his mind and tells them to do something else. The righteous men and women of the Bible weren't perfect, so there's no need for their actions to be absolutely consistent.

As I've become more involved in the Jewish religion, I've realized that it is a very introspective religion. Seen in that light, the meaning of a text is based largely on the mind of the reader, and so they would indeed be studying a meaningless and self contradictory text, and they would be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, they aren't "guilty" of anything. It is their specific intent to study a meaningless and self contradictory text, and use it as a tool to develop meaning in their own lives.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well put.


On the first note, it wasn't the pejorative intent I was attempting to address, but the apparent lack of comprehension about the "meaningless" nature of the text. Among many Bible believers, especially among Jews, you would find a subset who feel that the text, by itself, is indeed meaningless. It develops meaning through the study of the text and the attempt to apply its lessons in daily life. In Jewish writings, I have seen quite a few acknowledgements of the self-contradictory nature of the Tanach texts. Among literalists, they might search for a reconciliation of the apparent contradictions to find some interpretation that resolves those contradications.

Among Jews, there are very few literalists, and they would generally, even the devout ones who believe that God himself wrote the Torah, agree that the apparent contradictions are contradictory because they shouldn't be read as specific instructions that are true at all times. God tells people to do one thing, and then he changes his mind and tells them to do something else. The righteous men and women of the Bible weren't perfect, so there's no need for their actions to be absolutely consistent.

As I've become more involved in the Jewish religion, I've realized that it is a very introspective religion. Seen in that light, the meaning of a text is based largely on the mind of the reader, and so they would indeed be studying a meaningless and self contradictory text, and they would be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, they aren't "guilty" of anything. It is their specific intent to study a meaningless and self contradictory text, and use it as a tool to develop meaning in their own lives.

Here's a better idea. Toss the book out and do what they're doing anyway, using their ownr easoning powers and judgement to make choices for themselves.

[Meadmaker]

Here's a better idea. Toss the book out and do what they're doing anyway, using their ownr easoning powers and judgement to make choices for themselves.


It's not bad advice, but there are a couple of problems. First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it.

Second, they are already using their reasoning powers and judgement to make choices for themselves, so why throw out the book? I suppose for some, the book is an impediment to using reason, but in my experience, that number is fairly small, and frankly, throwing out the book has not, in my experience, increased the ability of the average person to reason.

ETA: It goes back to a previous point, and one repeated ad nauseum. Religion doesn't make you a good person, and lack of religion also doesn't make you a good person.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not bad advice, but there are a couple of problems. First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it. .
Say what? Are you saying non-thesits don't contemplate morality?

[CapelDodger]

Moral lessons? Well, the moral lessons of Christianity are neither good, nor even comprehensible.
I've had Christians try to sell me (an atheist) their religion as the source of an admirable moral code. What they don't twig (until pointed out to them) is that, if Christianity is the source, an atheist would not necessarily find it admirable. In truth, religions take inherent human concepts of decency, fairness, justice, and feed them back as their own creation. With added caveats and complexities, of course. Thou shalt not kill ... well, thou shalt only kill heretics, witches, pagans, homosexuals, enemies of your god-given ruling dynasty, or in a "just war". And so on.

[CapelDodger]

Among Jews, there are very few literalists, and they would generally, even the devout ones who believe that God himself wrote the Torah, agree that the apparent contradictions are contradictory because they shouldn't be read as specific instructions that are true at all times. God tells people to do one thing, and then he changes his mind and tells them to do something else. The righteous men and women of the Bible weren't perfect, so there's no need for their actions to be absolutely consistent.
Judaism is a thousand years ahead of Christianity along this road, which perhaps explains the greater (and increasing, I fear) prevalence of Biblical literalists in Christianity. Jews can appreciate the contexts in which it was thought up, and that contexts change. (We can all appreciate how much of the Old Testament is PR for particular regimes or factions, mostly in the "histories".)

As I've become more involved in the Jewish religion, I've realized that it is a very introspective religion.
:eek:
You think? :)

Jewish scholasticism (at least in the Western experience) is generally introspective. A scholar can make an entire career from picking over the works of another scholar dead for centuries. On the other hand it produces great and revolutionary scientists (and revolutionaries). Go figure.

Seen in that light, the meaning of a text is based largely on the mind of the reader, and so they would indeed be studying a meaningless and self contradictory text, and they would be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, they aren't "guilty" of anything. It is their specific intent to study a meaningless and self contradictory text, and use it as a tool to develop meaning in their own lives.
Personally, I think everything useful has been wrung out of the old texts. We know enough now to understand why a just society is not natural to humans, unlike, say, the urban and industrial societies which we just grew into. 9Hint : it's because we're monkeys at heart.)

[CapelDodger]

It's not bad advice, but there are a couple of problems. First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it.
I think the great majority do. People who think enough, and care enough, about their religion to actually abandon it are likely to have a high moral sense. That's what prompts them to take the positive step of jettisoning it.

(I've never believed, so I'm just reporting on my experience of other atheists. Converts are another breed.)

[CapelDodger]

Addressing the thread title :eek: , in my opinion religious tolerance is a bad idea. Religion should not be tolerated.

[Meadmaker]

Say what? Are you saying non-thesits don't contemplate morality?

I said they rarely do that, although my wording was not so good, because that isn't what I actually meant. Here's what I said.

First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it.

The "that" in the first sentence referred to your "do what they're doing anyway". And the final "it" referred to off key singing and spending time thinking about leading moral lives. In other words, the off key singing is an important part of "what they're doing anyway", and once they abandon religion, they tend to stop doing that.

I'm not sure off key singing is absolutely essential to human happiness, although I think it helps a great deal. I do, however, think that participation in group activities that are related to the thinking about moral lives is very important, and while atheists may do such things individually, they rarely participate in group activities with that aim.

I'm sure that many people think that they are perfectly capable of leading moral lives and preparing themselves to make moral choices without community support or involvement. I, however, think that few people are actually capable of doing so. I think that reinforcement of shared values is essential for most of us, and atheists who are not involved in religion tend not to get much positive reinforcement for morality in their lives.

[Meadmaker]

:eek:
You think? :)


It's fairly obvious once you look, but it was still a surprise to me.

Personally, I think everything useful has been wrung out of the old texts. We know enough now to understand why a just society is not natural to humans, unlike, say, the urban and industrial societies which we just grew into. 9Hint : it's because we're monkeys at heart.)

But every generation is born just as ignorant at the previous one. I agree with your assessment of why just societies aren't natural, but then what do we do about it? I don't think we throw in the towel and say that it's natural for us to live like monkeys. We still ought to try and rise above monkeydom in our level of justice. So how do we do that? The old texts might help. If they do, then the next generation will have to learn them just like the last one.

Of course, there might be some brand new texts that work even better. One way or another, there has to be some texts, and the people have to read them, study them, and relate them to their lives in such a way that it guides them in moral judgements. I say that to the extent religion helps people do that, we ought to tolerate it. To the extent that religion contributes to human misery, we ought not to tolerate it. Finally, we ought to have the wisdom to know the difference. In my opinion, the OP picked a lousy example of what we ought not to tolerate.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not bad advice, but there are a couple of problems. First, the people who abandon religion rarely actually do that. Sure, people could sing off key and they could spend time thinking about leading moral lives whether or not they had religion. However, most of them don't do it.

Facts disagree with you. Despite non-theists being somewhere between 16 and 20 percent of the U.S. population, only a very tiny proportion of prison inmates are non-theists. Theist criminals abound. It would seem theism is an impediment to morality, rather than a guiding force.

Second, they are already using their reasoning powers and judgement to make choices for themselves, so why throw out the book? I suppose for some, the book is an impediment to using reason, but in my experience, that number is fairly small, and frankly, throwing out the book has not, in my experience, increased the ability of the average person to reason.

Theists everywhere believe in all sorts of absurdities, including angels, demons, possession, faries, leprachauns, astrology, and all other sorts of nonsense. Throwing out the Bible is a good step towards becoming a reasoning person.

ETA: It goes back to a previous point, and one repeated ad nauseum. Religion doesn't make you a good person, and lack of religion also doesn't make you a good person.

Theism does not make people good, but atheism allows you to good for goodness' sake, rather than for the approval of a fictional sky god. Ask a theist if they would still chose to do good deeds if they believed their God would punish them for it, rather than reward them. See how many theists put rewards before virtue for its own sake.

[Meadmaker]

Facts disagree with you. Despite non-theists being somewhere between 16 and 20 percent of the U.S. population, only a very tiny proportion of prison inmates are non-theists. Theist criminals abound. It would seem theism is an impediment to morality, rather than a guiding force.

My original post on the subject was sufficiently vague and easily misinterpreted that I would fault no one for interpreting it as you did. However, the clarification made it clear that I was referring to the quest for morality by means of public ritual, with the specific instance cited being off key singing.

I'm willing to bet that a small percentage of prison inmates were regular church-goers prior to incarceration. I would welcome data on the subject, if any are available.




Throwing out the Bible is a good step towards becoming a reasoning person. Apparently, though, not a sufficient step.

[ImaginalDisc]

My original post on the subject was sufficiently vague and easily misinterpreted that I would fault no one for interpreting it as you did. However, the clarification made it clear that I was referring to the quest for morality by means of public ritual, with the specific instance cited being off key singing.

I'm willing to bet that a small percentage of prison inmates were regular church-goers prior to incarceration. I would welcome data on the subject, if any are available.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Data are not available on how frequently these criminal theists attended church, but it's obvious that atheists and agnostics are less frequently criminals than theists.




Apparently, though, not a sufficient step.


Thinking for yourself is one heck of a good start.

[Meadmaker]

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Data are not available on how frequently these criminal theists attended church, but it's obvious that atheists and agnostics are less frequently criminals than theists.



Well, if you find some, let me know, because those would be the data relevant to this discussion.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, if you find some, let me know, because those would be the data relevant to this discussion.

No one's sat down and asked every single inmate in U.S. prisons how frequently they attended chruch, for two reasons. A) It's expensive, B) it's meaningless.

Don't commit a "no true scottsman" fallacy. If they identify as christians, hindus, or whatnot , then that is what they are. They're in prison. It's obvious they're not law abiding in the first place.

Note that the non-theists, who most likely never attended church are the least common prison popluation. Any theory you might be entertaining that the most devout theists are the most law abiding is clearly false.

[Meadmaker]

No one's sat down and asked every single inmate in U.S. prisons how frequently they attended chruch, for two reasons. A) It's expensive, B) it's meaningless.


The subject under discussion was whether off key singing was one of the "good parts" of Christianity. I noted that atheists hardly ever get together to sing off key, while Christians frequently do that. It is my contention that group off key singing in the context of morality searching would indeed make people more likely to lead moral lives. Therefore, it isn't meaningless.

[ImaginalDisc]

The subject under discussion was whether off key singing was one of the "good parts" of Christianity. I noted that atheists hardly ever get together to sing off key, while Christians frequently do that. It is my contention that group off key singing in the context of morality searching would indeed make people more likely to lead moral lives. Therefore, it isn't meaningless.

Are you joking? I sing off key three and four times a day. There's plenty of atheists who sing, dance, impersonate Elvis and do whatever they like.

[Meadmaker]

Are you joking? I sing off key three and four times a day. There's plenty of atheists who sing, dance, impersonate Elvis and do whatever they like.

Do you do this on purpose?

It isn't hard to figure out. Here's what I said: "It is my contention that group off key singing in the context of morality searching would indeed make people more likely to lead moral lives"

If a group of atheist Elvis impersonators got together to sing "Return to Sender" and discuss the moral implications of the great Elvis, and how we can be inspired by him to lead a moral life, I would think that would make the world a better place. Sadly, that hardly ever happens.

[ImaginalDisc]

It isn't hard to figure out. Here's what I said: "It is my contention that group off key singing in the context of morality searching would indeed make people more likely to lead moral lives"



No, no, I understood what you wrote, but I thought you were trying to be funny.

You honestly believe that amatuer choral singing is the key to morality?

[I less than three logic]

Oh-Em-Gee, it all makes so much sense now. Lets fund a study, I’m absolutely positive that we’ll find a direct correlation between choir attendance and crime rates. :eek:

[Meadmaker]

No, no, I understood what you wrote, but I thought you were trying to be funny.

You honestly believe that amatuer chroal singing is the key to morality?

I was trying to be funny in the sense that, obviously, the key to morality isn't the quality, or lack thereof, of the singing. You had brought up off key singing as one of the things you could get without Christianity. I thought it was kind of funny to defend off key singing.

Seriously, no jokes in the rest of this post.

I think community reinforcement of morality, and rituals geared toward that end do indeed play a significant role in enhancing people's moral lives. The public affirmation that there is a proper way to live helps people choose that proper way when confronted with an opportunity for immoral behavior.

Please don't misunderstand or misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not saying it's impossible to lead a moral life without some sort of religion or religious-like public ritual. However, look around you, and look at your own life, or anyone else's life. Is anyone perfectly moral? No way. I'm saying that leading a moral life is a struggle. The temptation to do something which is easier than doing the right thing confronts us every day. Community reinforcement of the moral message helps the average human being to choose the moral life, more often than he otherwise would have..

When Christians get together for church, they are helping each other lead that moral life. Atheists could do that as well, but they don't. Outside of the Unitarian church, you don't find many gatherings of atheists who are getting together for their own affirmation that there is a right way to live.

Of course, some exceptions apply. Sometimes, churchgoers cross over from "We should lead moral lives." to "We should kill those people who aren't leading (our version of) moral lives." Oh, well. No one is perfect. There is good and bad that comes with Christianity, or any other religion.

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
I think community reinforcement of morality, and rituals geared toward that end do indeed play a significant role in enhancing people's moral lives. The public affirmation that there is a proper way to live helps people choose that proper way when confronted with an opportunity for immoral behavior. By specifying ‘community’ you’ve already removed religion since religion is not necessary for community. What you are actually arguing is social teachings and social pressure may prevent some people from doing ‘bad things’. On that basis I agree, just reference peer pressure and remember being a teenager. However, brining religion into the mix is not needed and ImaginalDisc has provided some very compelling data that basing groupings only on religion indicated that organized religion is actually detrimental to actually following ethics.

Ossai

[Meadmaker]

Who said anything about necessity?

[Ossai]

Meadmaker
Who said anything about necessity?
You are the one equating social groups and pressure with religion and then declaring positive social pressure religion and negative social pressure not religion.

Ossai

[Meadmaker]

And eggs can be a part of a balanced diet, but they aren't a necessary part of a balanced diet.

[I less than three logic]

And eggs can be a part of a balanced diet, but they aren't a necessary part of a balanced diet.
You are quite wrong here. Eggs are absolutely necessary for a balanced diet. Ever had someone forget the eggs when making cookies or a cake? :D

[ceo_esq]

No, commraderie is not good, especially not when it comes from a feeling of exclusivity that comes from thinking that everyone else is going to hell. Every army, secret society and fraternal order has a sense of commraderie, it's nothing special. Commeraderie based on an expectation of an afterlife that'll never happen isn't good.

Well, it did seem that you were grouping this among things that were arguably good but not unique to Christianity. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

At any rate, I see no reason to believe that Christian camaraderie generally comes from a sense of exclusivity, or even that it is necessarily based on an expectation of an afterlife. I'm not even sure why that's relevant.


Moral lessons? Well, the moral lessons of Christianity are neither good, nor even comprehensible. The Bible's relentlessly contradictory about moral values, and the various Chrisitan denominations have a plethora of different answers for each question you might pose. Chrisitanity's morality is based on empty faith, rather than reason.

Nevertheless, Christian moral philosophy/theology has doubtless been the single biggest influence on the development of the Western moral tradition. Whole areas of contemporary moral and ethical inquiry grew out of it.

It is also a mistake to think that the Christian moral tradition is one based on faith rather than reason, but more on that later.


Christanity, being a religion, requires that its followers reject reason and rational thought in their worship, and replace it with obedience and faith. Little if any good has ever come from blind obedience and a lack of reason.

But that just isn't true. Christianity, unlike many of its early rivals, embraced logic and reason, which turned out to have a decisive effect on the course of human progress in a number of intellectual and practical domains. (There is a large body of academic literature on this basic theme, some of which is covered in the infamous "Is religion slowing us down?" thread. I can provide some bibliographical suggestions if you like.)

Rejecting reason and rational thought in favor of blind faith is not, historically speaking, a Christian characteristic. Indeed, this is an old form of heresy called "fideism". The old Catholic Encyclopedia describes fideism in these terms:

A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.

...

For some fideists, human reason cannot of itself reach certitude in regard to any truth whatever; for others, it cannot reach certitude in regard to the fundamental truths of metaphysics, morality, and religion, while some maintain that we can give a firm supernatural assent to revelation on motives of credibility that are merely probable. Authority, which according to fideism is the rule of certitude, has its ultimate foundation in divine revelation, reserved and transmitted in all ages through society and manifested by tradition, common sense or some other agent of a social character. ...

In addition to these systematic formulae of fideism, we find throughout the history of philosophy from the time of the sophists to the present day a fideistic attitude of mind, which became more or less conspicuous at different periods. Fideism owes its origin to distrust in human reason, and the logical sequence of such an attitude is scepticism. It is to escape from this conclusion that some philosophers, accepting as a principle the impotency of reason, have emphasized the need of belief on the part of human nature, either asserting the primacy of belief over reason or else affirming a radical separation between reason and belief, that is, between science and philosophy on the one hand and religion on the other. ...

As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of human knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines.


Regardless of the truth or falsity of its teachings, does this really sound like an outfit that "requires that its followers reject reason and rational thought in their worship, and replace it with obedience and faith"?

[Meadmaker]

You are quite wrong here. Eggs are absolutely necessary for a balanced diet. Ever had someone forget the eggs when making cookies or a cake? :D

However, if I have a beer in each hand, why do I need eggs?

[ceo_esq]

However, brining religion into the mix is not needed and ImaginalDisc has provided some very compelling data that basing groupings only on religion indicated that organized religion is actually detrimental to actually following ethics.

Yet this doesn't really appear to be the case. From the abstract (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0731-1214(198510)28%3A4%3C501%3ARACEAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A) of one major sociological metastudy (Lee Ellis, "Religiosity and Criminality: Evidence and Explanations of Complex Relationships", Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct. 1985)):

Assertions about the relationship (or, sometimes, the lack of a relationship) between religiosity and criminality are examined in light of over 50 research studies, paying special attention to how criminality and particularly religiosity were operationalized in each study. These studies reveal that three religiosity-criminality relationships have been established. The best documented relationship is between church attendance and crime rates. At least among church members, the evidence consistently indicates that frequent church attenders have lower crime rates than infrequent attenders, especially regarding victimless offenses. Second, among the main Western religions, membership in the Jewish religion is associated with lower crime rates, compared to Christian religious membership as a whole; and, among Christians, Protestants as a whole have lower crime rates than Catholics. Third, belief in an afterlife with divine punishment possible, at least among persons who consider themselves members of an organized religion, is associated with lower crime rates.


From T. David Evans et al., "Religion and Crime Reexamined: The Impact of Religion, Secular Controls, and Social Ecology on Adult Criminality", Criminology, Vol. 33, Issue 2 (May 1995) (abstract (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01176.x)):

Our research ... [tests] the religion-crime relationship in models with a comprehensive crime measure and three separate dimensions of religiosity. We also control for secular constraints, religious networks, and social ecology. We found that, among our religiosity measures, participation in religious activities was a persistent and noncontingent inhibiter of adult crime.


From Ellis & Peters, "Crime and Religion: An International Comparison Among Thirteen Industrial Nations", Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 20, Issue 6 (June 1996) (abstract (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-3VVVNWV-F&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F1996&_alid=460418387&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5897&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=855cfc10959b2570fc7430669a003009)):

At the individual level of analysis, evidence has accumulated in support of the hypothesis that persons who are most religious commit crimes at lower rates than those who are least religious. This study examined the relationship at a societal level, based on 1990–1991 data from 13 industrial nations. Overall, the findings revealed that more religious countries have lower crime rates than less religious countries, at least regarding property crimes (as opposed to either aggressive or victimless offenses). As has been reported when comparing individuals, this relationship was more pronounced in the case of "overt" aspects of religiosity (especially church attendance and church membership) than in the case of any specific religious beliefs.

[Meadmaker]

Regardless of the truth or falsity of its teachings, does this really sound like an outfit that "requires that its followers reject reason and rational thought in their worship, and replace it with obedience and faith"?


I think the real answer is that there are certain aspects of belief that many believers simply choose not to examine. A Christian rarely questions whether or not God exists, or, if the do so, they do so at only a superficial level. They ask whether the world as they know it is consistent with the existence of God, and they don't spend a lot of time worrying about that question, either. They just take a quick glance, and go on their merry way.

This lack of skepticism is often taken for lack of rationality or lack of critical thinking ability.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yet this doesn't really appear to be the case. From the abstract (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0731-1214(198510)28%3A4%3C501%3ARACEAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A) of one major sociological metastudy (Lee Ellis, "Religiosity and Criminality: Evidence and Explanations of Complex Relationships", Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct. 1985)):




From T. David Evans et al., "Religion and Crime Reexamined: The Impact of Religion, Secular Controls, and Social Ecology on Adult Criminality", Criminology, Vol. 33, Issue 2 (May 1995) (abstract (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01176.x)):




From Ellis & Peters, "Crime and Religion: An International Comparison Among Thirteen Industrial Nations", Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 20, Issue 6 (June 1996) (abstract (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-3VVVNWV-F&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F1996&_alid=460418387&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5897&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=855cfc10959b2570fc7430669a003009)):

What fascinatingly vaccuous claims you've discovered!

However, the fact remains that atheists and agnostics are far less likely to be criminals than theists.

Let;s just address this bizzare notion that Christianity has been a postitive influence on the moral development of Western civilization. The early Roman church was pro-slavery.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Jesus seems to agree.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Murder? I'm sure I don't need to proove to you that the Bible cheerfully approves of, and even deamnds murder and the vilest of retributions for all manner of crimes. The Bible even commands people to commit genocide.

The Holocaust? The Chruch approoved of that. Wars of Imperialism? Cheerful approval from the Chruch of england and Catholic Chruch alike. The Inquisition? Ditto. The Crusades? Wild applause from the chruch. Even int the 1800's, Christian chruches preached that black skin was the mark of Cain, and that slavery was the god appointed lot in life for black people.

Christanity has opposed every progressive and moral step forward humanity has taken in the last 2000 years.

[Meadmaker]

Wow.

[ceo_esq]

What fascinatingly vaccuous claims you've discovered!

However, the fact remains that atheists and agnostics are far less likely to be criminals than theists.


The weight of the research (see the cited metastudies in particular) indicates that persons who are less religious commit crimes at higher rates than persons who are more religious. You don't seem to be dealing well with the fact that religious behavior is negatively linked to criminal behavior.

The fact (if fact it is) that a disproportionately large number of U.S. prison inmates list a theistic religious preference doesn't change this. Indeed it is hard to see what relevant or reliable conclusions could be drawn from that fact alone, and very easy to see why both religious identification and religious behavior are probably incentivized once people are already incarcerated, including among people who previously did not exhibit any religious behaviors.


Let;s just address this bizzare notion that Christianity has been a postitive influence on the moral development of Western civilization. The early Roman church was pro-slavery.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Jesus seems to agree.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Well, I don't know what you're specifically referring to when you suggest that the early Roman church was pro-slavery. I also think you're adding a pro-slavery spin to 1 Timothy, which is far better explained and understood as an obvious corollary of the Christian teaching that people ought to have respect for others and love those who persecute them.

I can tell you that Christianity played a significant role in the disappearance of chattel slavery and the slave trade from the West. You should already have known this from this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=8304&page=2) thread, or this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80) one, or this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53493) one, wherein I and others have previously discussed the topic.


Murder? I'm sure I don't need to proove to you that the Bible cheerfully approves of, and even deamnds murder and the vilest of retributions for all manner of crimes. The Bible even commands people to commit genocide.

I will suppose for the sake of argument that parts of it, particularly in isolation, could be read that way, but thankfully the Bible generally hasn't been read that way by Christians. Are we more interested in assessing Christian doctrine as it has actually, historically developed, or in (for example) carrying out exegesis on Old Testament texts?


The Holocaust? The Chruch approoved of that.

I'm afraid you've been badly misinformed. The truth is pretty much the opposite. Rabbi David Dalin's book The Myth of Hitler's Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Hitler's_Pope) would be a good starting point to get you back on the right track (and here's a related article (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html) by Prof. Dalin to whet your appetite).


Wars of Imperialism? Cheerful approval from the Chruch of england and Catholic Chruch alike. The Inquisition? Ditto. The Crusades? Wild applause from the chruch. Even int the 1800's, Christian chruches preached that black skin was the mark of Cain, and that slavery was the god appointed lot in life for black people.

Absent specific allegations and sources, it's hard to refute this. I suspect that, as with most topics touching on religion, you harbor manifold misconceptions as to the factual histories of such things as the Inquisition (or inquisitions, since there was no real monolithic Inquisition). I'm just a little hesitant to find out how bad, and how many.


Christanity has opposed every progressive and moral step forward humanity has taken in the last 2000 years.

This is where you truly embarrass yourself, ID, even in front of a fairly sympathetic audience of nonbelievers. It's the fact that you think that Christianity - one of the most important cultural influences (if not the most important) on the past 2,000 years of Western civilization, history, philosophy, literature, art, law, invention and many other areas - could have failed to contribute entirely to any of the astounding accomplishments in human endeavors which history has witnessed in that time. This is unbelievably extreme and inherently implausible, and its untruth is obvious to anyone who does not have some vested subjective interest in denying it.

I could refer you back again to the voluminous research presented in the "Is religion slowing us down?" thread establishing the falsity of your statement above as it applies to history of science and technology (which presumably you would consider to be a "step forward" for humanity). I could also tell you, within my own legitimate field of expertise, that Christianity contributed much to the development of modern judicial systems and procedures.

But why bother? It's clear to everyone that, whatever the origins of your biases in the matter, you simply cannot be persuaded to soften your extreme, irrational, and frankly bigoted stance toward religion in general and Christianity in particular. It's almost as if you fear it's a zero-sum game of some sort: if you don't take every single opportunity to defame Christianity, you will somehow be the less for it, or Christianity might become ever-so-slightly truer.

Yet look around you. Does it not give you even the slightest pause, for example, that hardly any historians or other scholars appear to agree with your extreme assessment of history?

I apologize to all for losing my patience with this stuff.

[ImaginalDisc]

The weight of the research (see the cited metastudies in particular) indicates that persons who are less religious commit crimes at higher rates than persons who are more religious. You don't seem to be dealing well with the fact that religious behavior is negatively linked to criminal behavior.

And just where IS this evidence? I see statements, not evidence.

The fact (if fact it is) that a disproportionately large number of U.S. prison inmates list a theistic religious preference doesn't change this. Indeed it is hard to see what relevant or reliable conclusions could be drawn from that fact alone, and very easy to see why both religious identification and religious behavior are probably incentivized once people are already incarcerated, including among people who previously did not exhibit any religious behaviors.

It's obvious what conclusion can eb drawn: Religion is irrelevant to moral behavior.




Well, I don't know what you're specifically referring to when you suggest that the early Roman church was pro-slavery. I also think you're adding a pro-slavery spin to 1 Timothy, which is far better explained and understood as an obvious corollary of the Christian teaching that people ought to have respect for others and love those who persecute them.

Try reading the Bible sometime.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/topics/slavery.html


I can tell you that Christianity played a significant role in the disappearance of chattel slavery and the slave trade from the West. You should already have known this from this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=8304&page=2) thread, or this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80) one, or this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53493) one, wherein I and others have previously discussed the topic.


I'm not going to sit here and be lied to. While some Christians in the 1800's condemmed slavery, just as many cheerfully supported it.



I will suppose for the sake of argument that parts of it, particularly in isolation, could be read that way, but thankfully the Bible generally hasn't been read that way by Christians. Are we more interested in assessing Christian doctrine as it has actually, historically developed, or in (for example) carrying out exegesis on Old Testament texts?


There's such a ridiculously wide plurality of Christian churches and doctrines, we could spend years cataloging what each specific church has to say.




I'm afraid you've been badly misinformed. The truth is pretty much the opposite. Rabbi David Dalin's book The Myth of Hitler's Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Hitler's_Pope) would be a good starting point to get you back on the right track (and here's a related article (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html) by Prof. Dalin to whet your appetite).

I've read it, and quite frankly, it's hogwash. Read "Hitler's Pope." Hitler himself was an altar boy, and sprinkled Mien Kampf and his priviate writings with a great deal of pious christian thoughts.




Absent specific allegations and sources, it's hard to refute this. I suspect that, as with most topics touching on religion, you harbor manifold misconceptions as to the factual histories of such things as the Inquisition (or inquisitions, since there was no real monolithic Inquisition). I'm just a little hesitant to find out how bad, and how many.

How remarkable, I was about to say exactly the same about you.




This is where you truly embarass yourself, ID - the fact that you think that Christianity - one of the most important cultural influences (if not the most important) on the past 2,000 years of Western civilization, history, philosophy, literature, art, law, invention and many other areas - could have failed to contribute entirely to any of the astounding accomplishments in human endeavors which history has witnessed in that time. This is unbelievably extreme and inherently implausible, and its untruth is obvious to anyone who does not have some vested subjective interest in denying it.

Oh, I don't deny that Christianity has had an influence on western civizilation, the stink of it is everywhere. Christanity has been resistent to the progress of civilization since its inception.

I could refer you back again to the voluminous research presented in the "Is religion slowing us down?" thread establishing the falsity of your statement above as it applies to history of science and technology (which presumably you would consider to be a "step forward" for humanity). I could also tell you, within my own legitimate field of expertise, that Christianity contributed much to the development of modern judicial systems and procedures.

Ceo, Please stop being so absurd. English common law predates contact with Christianity. The Bible proscribes punishments of death for any neighboring village that worships a different god. The Bible recomends depending on circumstances, mairrage to the victim as a punishment for rape. The Bible's system of law is bloody, brutal, and without any degrees of proportionality. It's fines or death for anyone who transgresses.

You can link to the incorrect and misleading statements you've previously made, but it won't do you any good.

But why bother? It's clear to everyone that, whatever the origins of your biases in the matter, you simply cannot be persuaded to soften your extreme, irrational and frankly bigoted stance toward religion in general and Christianity in particular. It's almost as if you fear it's a zero-sum game of some sort: if you don't take every single opportunity to defame Christianity, you will somehow be the less for it.

Yet look around you. Does it not give you even the slightest pause, for example, that hardly any historians or other scholars appear to agree with your extreme assessment of history?

I apologize to all for losing my patience with this stuff.

If everyone around me beleived the moon to be made of cheese, that would not make the moon a tasty snack. Religion, Christianity included, is a harmful delusion. Christanity's history is full of blood, hate, conquest, and destruction.

[Meadmaker]

And just where IS this evidence? I see statements, not evidence.


Peer reviewed scientific journals usually receive better reception on JREF than you want to give those cited by ceo_esquire.


I'm not going to sit here and be lied to.


Indeed, you are not.

[CapelDodger]

I was trying to be funny in the sense that, obviously, the key to morality isn't the quality, or lack thereof, of the singing. You had brought up off key singing as one of the things you could get without Christianity. I thought it was kind of funny to defend off key singing.
Communal singing is powerfully binding, be it a congregation's hymn or the Horst Wessel song.

Seriously, no jokes in the rest of this post.
Best not, eh? :)

[Meadmaker]

(here's a related article by Prof. Dalin to whet your appetite).

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dalin.html


That's a powerful article. I just wanted to repost a link to it as a recommendation to any lurkers to read it.

[ceo_esq]

Where to start, ID ... I'm going to have to take this piecemeal, due to time constraints, and to the extent there is material worth addressing in your last post.


Ceo, Please stop being so absurd. English common law predates contact with Christianity.

English common law has some origins that predate contact with Christianity, but the vast majority of its development came much later. Recall that among the most important figures of the formative centuries of early common law were Alfred the Great and later Anglo-Norman kings such as Henry II (each of whom is sometimes referred to in my field as a "father of the common law"). Pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon law, such as it was, had very little that any knowledgeable legal scholar would describe as modern or progressive, particularly in areas such as judicial process, to which I referred. Many modern legal traditions and concepts do not predate the revolutionary reforms of 12th- and 13th-century Europe, and a great number of these and subsequent reforms are linked to institutional Christianity.

As someone who has substantial professional and academic expertise in the history of Western legal institutions, permit me to suggest to you that you simply don't know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I lack the time and incentive to make up for what would, if you were a jurist, constitute serious lacunae in your education. I can, if you so desire, recommend qualified sources for self-study, however.


If everyone around me beleived the moon to be made of cheese, that would not make the moon a tasty snack.

Obviously not, but no one's talking about an argument from simple popularity here. If you believed lunar geology to be a certain way, knowing that you were not personally a legitimate expert on the moon, and yet you noticed that virtually no astronomers or astronauts were in close agreement with you, you might reexamine your opinions. If you cared about the basis of those opinions and about reason generally, that is.

[CapelDodger]

But every generation is born just as ignorant at the previous one. I agree with your assessment of why just societies aren't natural ...
I haven't actually got onto the why, just the evidence that they aren't. 21stCE and nobody can point to a surviving example.

... but then what do we do about it? I don't think we throw in the towel and say that it's natural for us to live like monkeys. We still ought to try and rise above monkeydom in our level of justice. So how do we do that?
Firstly and principally we have to recognise our monkeyness. Religions and ideologies are dreamt up in opposition to our monkeyness. They imagine a rational utopia and try to make people fit it. That's just the idealists, the scam-artists (and magicians :)) understand our monkeyness all too well.

Efforts and progress have been made towards more just societies all over the world at various times. In many ways world society is a better place than it was a century ago. But what's biggest in the news? Guns and God. And a chimp in the White House. Who apparently thinks he's a god's summoned agent.

How do I rise above monkeydom? I can't, I'm a monkey. I can try to recognise my inner monkey and compensate but I doubt I'll ever rid myself of its influence.

[Meadmaker]

Firstly and principally we have to recognise our monkeyness. Religions and ideologies are dreamt up in opposition to our monkeyness. They imagine a rational utopia and try to make people fit it.

There's a certain truth to that, although one could argue that what they try to do is demand people attempt to achieve non-monkeydom in their actions.

You could even look at original sin in this light. The Catholics, who are most into the idea, preach that we all have a sinful nature, and it is our job to overcome it. Of course they wrap that whole idea around God and relate the sin to some story in the Garden of Eden, but perhaps there is a different story here.

To digress for a moment, I have this idea that the religions that last for thousands of years do so because they address some sort of human need, and speak some sort of human truth, even if it often gets shrouded in myth and the point gets lost. So, perhaps, people in ancient times recognized that we were all monkeys at heart, i.e. that left to our own devices we were selfish, ignorant, dung flingers, who would probably drop really big rocks on kids who wear glasses. Not wanting to live like monkeys, these ancient wise men recognized that in order to not get hit by dung so often, we must overcome our monkey-nature, and start acting like human beings. They said we must give up our monkey nature, and follow our God nature, or Buddha nature, or some other non dung flinging nature.

The really smart ones tried to explain this to their fellow human beings, but a big one didn't get it, and threw some dung at the smart one. So, the smart ones tried again. This time, they made up a story about two naked people living in a nice place, but were just kind of bored sitting around, not really knowing anything. (Not even noticing that they were naked) Along came a wise animal who told them that if they wanted to really figure out how things worked, they had to become more like gods, and the key to that was to figure out that some things are good, and some things are bad. Seeing a big one looking bored and eyeing a pile of dung, the smart one said, "What I mean was, they had to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." So, they did that, and it turned out that being a bit more godlike was overrated, and that ignorance had been bliss, but as long as they had eaten the fruit, they might as well get round to planting farms and making babies, even if they knew it was going to hurt in the long run.

The dumb ones still weren't getting it, and they had progressed from dung to rocks, so the smart ones said, "You're right. They never should have listened to the snake in the first place. In fact, I have a big, big, friend who told me that, and he kicked them out and put me in charge, so give me 10% of your stuff and I'll keep him happy for you so he doesn't kill your cattle unless he makes a bet. And, while you're at it, stop throwing things at me, or you'll get yours from the big guy."

So, people got the basic message, which was good, that we ought to be moral, but they didn't really get what it meant. It sort of devolved into a bunch of rules. Meanwhile, they also forgot that we were basically monkeys, and that it was ok to act like monkeys once in a while, like when making baby monkeys, just as long as no one got hurt. They took the rule to be "don't act like monkeys" instead of "don't act like monkeys all the time".

I think that religions can do a great service by encouraging non-monkeyness, but they have to be careful that they don't turn that into a bunch of rules that take us totally away from our true natures.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what that meant, but it was fun typing it, so I'm going to leave it for you to read.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ceo, this is clearly a fruitless conversation. You and I obviously reside on different planets. If you honestly believe that Christianity played no role in the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Slavery in the U.S. we have nothing to discuss on the matter. We've both read all the pertinent material the other believes relevant, and neither of us has become convinced that the other's position has merit. If you're going to simply restate positions and assertions you've previously made in other threads while I do the same, we're not going to get anywhere.

Let's assume we've both covered that old ground again.

That said, is religious tolerence a good idea? I say no. All religious should be treated as diseases, infectious plagues that have hounded humanity for thousands of years, causing more death, misery and suffering than any virus or bacterium, and which every day are inflicted on helpless children too weak to defend themselves.

You answer would be?

[CapelDodger]

There's a certain truth to that, although one could argue that what they try to do is demand people attempt to achieve non-monkeydom in their actions.
There are, in away, two flavours. One - Ideology - is generally the product of people way up the blue end of the Asperger's spectrum, a rationally perfect (!) society if the human element is ignored. The result always tends towards the hive-society - which is thoroughly inappropriate. Humans are a group-species, not a hive-species.

The other - Religion - recognises some human element after "wouldn't it be nice if we were all good?" fails to persuade. (Not that a few blissed-out missionaries haven't been sent out to the stew-pot long after that fact was establisihed.) Thus the carrot and stick approach allied to a Big Boss and his program. I don't doubt a very common religious intention to actually create a perfect, or at least better, society by these methods. It has a lot in common with punishing a loved child for their own good.

Religion is more successful (or less damaging) than ideology, but it's obviously not good enough. Just consider what's happened in the world since the end of the Cold War. Ideology had its century in the Sun, and we're back to religious conflict with ideology riding the tail. Meanwhile what's really going on is about economics - human interactions - and technology.

A satisfying society has to accomodate our real human nature, which is basically monkey but with some add-ons.