Christian Versus Christian

[Roadtoad]

I hate to do this, but after over twenty years of being a Christian, I simply have to say this.

I'm embarrassed by the behavior of my fellow Christians.

Please, do not misunderstand what I'm saying. I am in no way shape or form ashamed of Christ, and I'm not in the least ashamed of the sacrifice He made on the Cross. But I am, and will always be, ashamed of the way my fellow believers are behaving of late.

I'll be honest here, (not that I haven't been before): I, too, acted the same way earlier in my life. But at some point, actually GREW UP. I realized that someone who disagreed with me did not hate me, nor did they hate The Lord, but rather, they simply had a different opinion, even if their view of the Gospel was that Jesus didn't exist, and there was no God. I had greater things to deal with, and it wasn't my job to play Holy Spirit Light, and try to change people to what I thought they ought to be. Being "Born Again" did not suddenly imbue me with the authority to jam my finger in the faces of the "faithless," and try to turn them into Divine Debutantes. (How's that for alliteration?)

So, having realized this, I reread through my Bible, and came to realize that it DID NOT SAY WHAT I WANTED IT TO SAY. Big shock, to say the least.

This led to a revelation: if it didn't say what I wanted it to say, did it say what Pat Robertson wanted it to say? Or Jerry Falwell? Or Jimmy Swaggart? Or Ernest Ainsley? Or any other number of preachers and ministers and the like, all of whom had some agenda or another which they used Scripture to justify?

Or for that matter, my fellow Christians, who were jamming fingers in the faces of their families and friends? (Sorry, Bruce.)

So, having said this, I would like to ask a favor of my fellow Christians.

Shut up.

Seriously, just SHUT UP.

Is it truly "loving" in the manner that Jesus described to be constantly be yammering on about the End Times? I don't think so.

Is it truly "loving" to declare loudly for all to hear that once you get to Heaven, (and this assumes that you, with your crappy attitude, will even be accepted), that you'll forget all about those you loved here on Earth, even as they're cast into the Lake of Fire?

Is it truly "loving" to pray loudly in a public place, embarassing your family with your vocal declaration of your gratitude for God's blessing on your life? (Sounds a bit pharisaical to me.)

Is it truly "loving" to condescendingly declare to an avowed Atheist "I'll pray for you"? Even when it's been made known to you that such a declaration is an insult?

In other words, is it truly "loving" to ignore all standards of decorum and decency, just because you feel like looking like a Super Saint? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

And that, folks, is impressing no one. Not atheists, not agnostics, not deists, not theists, not fallen Christians, not devout Christians, not me, and certainly, not God. Instead, you look like a loudmouthed fool. :eek:

And I'm a little tired of it.

And yes, there's a certain individual to whom this is directed, but I'm including many others.

If you want to offer Truth to others, you damn well ought to act as though you've received it with some degree of gratitude. And frankly, what I'm seeing here shows me you haven't.

And I've had enough of it.

[kerfer]

clap.

clap.

clap, clap.

clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap, clap clap, clap, clap, clap.

Wow.

Bravo. :cool:

[Skeptical Greg]

Well said...

I have always felt there would be a lot more Christians if the ones who make a big show of it, behaved a little better..

[Aquila_ka_Hecate]

RoadToad,

It's been a long time since I've read something so well expressed by a christian- or any theist, come to that.

Very good mate.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Shut up.

Seriously, just SHUT UP.

Is it truly "loving" to condescendingly declare to an avowed Atheist "I'll pray for you"? Even when it's been made known to you that such a declaration is an insult?

Its about time someone has taken the time to take another look at faith, thank you.

[arcticpenguin]

Thanks, RoadToad.

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

[Thanz]

Roadtoad -

Great post. I have nominated it for Mercutio's June language prize.

As a fellow Christian, I have to agree with the sentiments expressed in your post. My personal belief is that faith is something that must be personally received. You can take someone to church, but you cannot make them believe.

I think that we would agree that Pascal's wager does not work. If one believes only because of fear of hell, then one does not truly believe. Those who preach hellfire and brimstone in an attempt to covert non believers are simply asking them to commit to Pascal's wager.

However, I find the behaviour of various Christian denominations towards each other even more embarrassing than their behaviour to non-believers. One of my best friends (raised in a very Catholic family) married the daughter of a Baptist minister. The father of the bride refused to walk her down the aisle solely because she was marrying (GASP!) a Catholic. They liked their future son-in-law as a person, but had severe problems with Catholicism.

Likewise, the groom had some problems. They decided to get married outside by (I think) a United Church minister. The priest at the church where the groom went to growing up informed him that he would be ex-communicated from the Church if he did not get married within the Church.

I am still appalled by this behaviour. They are all supposed to be praying to the same God. Same Jesus Christ. Same sacrifice for our sins. But each feels that they alone know the "Truth" and that the others are wrong (or worse).

Thankfully, not all denominations exhibit this behaviour. I have not seen it exhibited in the Church that I go to. But enough of the various churches squabble amongst each other to turn my stomach.

[no one in particular]

My mum is a big Christian. She has attended the southern style Church of God (no, there is no snake handling, but lots of “speakin’ in tongues”) for nearly 30 years. Part of their mythology is that if she has the opportunity to witness to someone in an attempt to lead them to Christianity and she fails to do so, then she must take part in physically throwing them into hell! I cannon even imagine the logistics of such a thing. Anyway, since she truly believes this, it leads her into all kinds of nonsense. It has more of an effect on her job than anything. Once she gets a customer in her seat for a good hair cutting, they are at her mercy. She knows I am an atheist, since we have had non-religion tensions in the past she is apprehensive about confronting me about it. Maybe she is trying to bide her time for the big confrontation. I can’t wait.

My question for any Christian that believes that folks that do not “accept Christ as their savior” is going to hell would be: How can you give up? How can you NOT proselytize? I do not presume to know what our fellow board member Christians believe or do not believe about their brand of religion. However, if you do believe as I have stated (the going to hell part, not the throwing into hell part), do you not care about my (no, not me specifically) eternal soul? Or the souls of those you meet daily?

[Ruby]

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s16/smilies-15348.pnghttp://www.smiliegenerator.de/s16/smilies-15354.pnghttp://www.smiliegenerator.de/s16/smilies-15375.pnghttp://www.smiliegenerator.de/s16/smilies-15376.pnghttp://www.smiliegenerator.de/s16/smilies-15381.png

[Beleth]

Add me to the list of applauders.

If you want to convince people of your faith, show them how well it works, don't tell them. Show them how satisfied you are, don't tell them how satisfied they'd be.

I look at people like Pat Robertson and think "he's well off and happy because he's a good talker, not because he's a good Christian." Whereas I look at my grandfather-in-law and think "he's well off and happy because he's a good Christian, not because he's a good engineer."

[Peach Jr.]

Roadtoad, that was a lovely post. Thanks.

No, I'm not a xian, but I wish there were more Xians like you.

[Yahweh]

Why cant more people "worship silently"?

Never again do I want to be told "I'll pray for you!"... that tactic never works. It sounds like the same logic as giving someone one of your sick days at work.

Never again do I want to hear "Just accept him as your lord and savior"... no, I dont want to. Plenty of people died for my country fighting wars, why should the death of Jesus be any more than the 1000s of soldiers who died defending their country.

Never again do I want to hear "People without religion have no morals"... yes I have actually been told to my face that I am immoral for being an athiest... what thoughts in the head could have possibly lead up that kind of logic.

Never again do I want to hear people whine and moan and bicker and fight because of they found some negligible difference between catholicism and baptist... the best advice I've ever been given came from my wife when she told me to "Quit your bitchin'." I'm sure that advice certainly applies here.

Never again do I want people to recite Bible quotes... they mean nothing to me. I've read the bible, I know what it has to say. Its a very long winded form of announcing "Love everyone, be good, dont hurt no one."

Never again do I want to hear athletes thank god for winning a game... Dont let god take credit for your natural talent... and really, do you think he play favorites when he watches basketball and American Football games... NO!!... if your going to thank anyone, hey thank me. I enjoy good praise and I always buy a large foam finger to support my team... without my foam finger you would never win the game.

Never again do I want Jehovahs Witnesses come to my door and try to change my religion. Sure, they have good intentions but I think thats taking it a little too far. They annoy me when I clearly have better things to do such as sleeping... or making a sandwich.

Never again do I want people to become so diluted in their beliefs that go and try to become martyrs for their religion. I dont know what the problem is between Israel (spelling) and Pakistan... but just stop it you guys, your pissing me off. I think Al-Queda has tarnished the Muslim faith for a long long time because Muslims are very nice people, they wont attack others if they dont worship Allah or pray 5 times a day.

People tend to have a hard time leaving others alone when they dont worship the same god they do... and I dont understand that. When did humans lose the ability to just "tolerate" other peoples beliefs. And it applies for more than religious beliefs. No matter what your spirituality, race, gender, sexual orientation, background, political beliefs, etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on... no matter what kind of person you are there will always be too many more people to criticize you and tell you that are wrong for being who you are. When did that happen?

People might be a little better off if they just stopped attacking what people believe or say and just tolerated it. Ignore if you want to go that far. People should tolerate others and quit their bitchin'.

[Monketey Ghost]

I'm a philosophical atheist, a Christian in outlook. (Meaning that I don't believe, but that I think Christ's example was fantastic)

Nicely done! World needs more such Christians.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Beleth
Add me to the list of applauders.

If you want to convince people of your faith, show them how well it works, don't tell them. Show them how satisfied you are, don't tell them how satisfied they'd be.

I look at people like Pat Robertson and think "he's well off and happy because he's a good talker, not because he's a good Christian." Whereas I look at my grandfather-in-law and think "he's well off and happy because he's a good Christian, not because he's a good engineer."

I went to my sister-in-law's church at Easter. This is a pretty slick operation, with power-point presentations for sermons and kareoke for the hymns. The preacher is a pretty slick guy, too. Probably explains why they have so much money pouring in.

But here's the part that bothered me: The whole jist of his approach was basically that Jesus is the answer to get your life back in order. If your life stinks and nothing seems to be right, turn to Jesus. Jesus will help you out of your despair.

OK, that sounds well and good, but jeez, does everyone feel so hopeless? I look around me and think, you know, I have things pretty good. I have a great job, spectacular wife, fine family, good friends, and a cool dog. I really can't complain about my life at all. So according to this guy, I guess I don't need Jesus in my life.

Listening to him go on and on about how Jesus is the answer to all your despair and problems almost got me depressed. Is everyone really that bad off in life? I mean, we all have problems now and then but is everything so bad for that many people? In the end, what he was saying about why we need Jesus just didn't seem to be relevent to me. It was like going to an AA meeting when you aren't an alcoholic; they tell you how to solve problems that you don't have (my brother went to AA thinking it might be his problem. He realized very quickly that he did not relate at all to what they were talking about. Found out recently that it is depression (_severe_ depression); the medication seems to be helping)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

....... snip


OK, that sounds well and good, but jeez, does everyone feel so hopeless? I look around me and think, you know, I have things pretty good. I have a great job, spectacular wife, fine family, good friends, and a cool dog. I really can't complain about my life at all. So according to this guy, I guess I don't need Jesus in my life. .............

.....snip



Interesting spin.... I don't believe I have thought about this angle before..

I had given a lot of thought about the frequent message about all the temptations we have, and struggling with the devil.. I find it odd that choosing good over evil is such a struggle for followers of Christ..

At the risk of sounding self righteous, I must say, I don't feel any particular struggle when it comes to doing what is right..

Of course when I do choose to behave badly, I take the responsibility, and don't say ' the devil made me do it '...

[Ossai]

Yahweh
When did humans lose the ability to just "tolerate" other peoples beliefs. And it applies for more than religious beliefs. When have people ever tolerated other people's beliefs?

People might be a little better off if they just stopped attacking what people believe or say and just tolerated it. Ignore if you want to go that far. People should tolerate others and quit their bitchin'. As long as what is tolerated isn't a threat to others.

Ossai

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Interesting spin.... I don't believe I have thought about this angle before..

I had given a lot of thought about the frequent message about all the temptations we have, and struggling with the devil.. I find it odd that choosing good over evil is such a struggle for followers of Christ..

At the risk of sounding self righteous, I must say, I don't feel any particular struggle when it comes to doing what is right..


It's a circular trap. Think about the things that you do that xtians would consider sinful. Swearing? Sex? "Impure thoughts"? Things that you don't consider to be bad, and most are either mundane or part of a normal, healthy person's life.

Now, suppose you all of sudden had it determined that you shouldn't do these things? It might be hard to not do them.

I don't think most people have much trouble not doing the blatent things. Stealing, killing. Some people tend to lie more than others, so that might be one issue. But for the most part, people really aren't tempted to do things that you or I might consider to be bad. The struggle comes on those things that are perfectly natural to most people but that religions try to control. This is the circularity of it all. You need Jesus's help to keep you from doing those things that you wouldn't have any reason to not do them if not for Jesus telling you not to.

You and I think about sex and see nothing wrong with it. Thus, we do not struggle with the temptation to do it. A xtian is told that thinking about sex is a sin and they shouldn't do that. They struggle with it, trying not to sin, but it is hard. Rather than saying "Jesus, give me strength to think about fornicating with the hot wife next door" wouldn't it be easier to say "Jesus, get over yourself. It's just fantasy"?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Of course when I do choose to behave badly, I take the responsibility, and don't say ' the devil made me do it '...
I just want to point out that taking responsibility for bad behaviour is central to many Christian denominations' doctrine of forgiveness for sin. Repentance is not saying "the devil made me do it" and moving on. Repentance is about acknowledging that what you did was wrong, and truly trying to not repeat it.

I don't know what you meant to imply with your "devil made me do it" comment, but I don't think that it is a common excuse for most Christians.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Thanz

I just want to point out that taking responsibility for bad behaviour is central to many Christian denominations' doctrine of forgiveness for sin. Repentance is not saying "the devil made me do it" and moving on. Repentance is about acknowledging that what you did was wrong, and truly trying to not repeat it.

I don't know what you meant to imply with your "devil made me do it" comment, but I don't think that it is a common excuse for most Christians.

In fact, it is the underlying tenant of all christianity, although not necessarily admitted as such. The whole concept that the "devel tempts us" is shifting the blame away from the individual. Recall that the Eve herself blamed the devil for the original sin in the GoE.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


In fact, it is the underlying tenant of all christianity, although not necessarily admitted as such. The whole concept that the "devel tempts us" is shifting the blame away from the individual. Recall that the Eve herself blamed the devil for the original sin in the GoE.
I disagree. The concept of "the devil tempts us" does not in any way shift blame away from the individual. The individual is to blame for giving into the temptation. The confession/absolution rites of the two denominations I am familiar with contain language like "I confess, to Almighty God, that I have sinned through my own fault"

As for Eve, I don't think that the Church teaches that because "the devil made her do it" then she was blameless.....

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Thanz

I disagree. The concept of "the devil tempts us" does not in any way shift blame away from the individual. The individual is to blame for giving into the temptation. The confession/absolution rites of the two denominations I am familiar with contain language like "I confess, to Almighty God, that I have sinned through my own fault"

As for Eve, I don't think that the Church teaches that because "the devil made her do it" then she was blameless.....

Without blame completely? No, she gave in to it. BUT it was the devil who convinced her to do it. And he certainly got blamed (and punished, according to the story).

Saying the devil provided the temptation in the first place is where the shifting of the blame occurs. It is attributing at least some of the blame on this other being, as if the person would not have thought about doing the bad thing in the first place if not for the devil tempting them. Thus, satan is the origin of the bad behavior. That is the lesson of the Garden of Eden story (and is consistent with the mythological attempt to describe the world)

[thaiboxerken]

What's stange is that, according to Genesis, the devil didn't do anything more than tell Eve the truth about the fruit. The serpent (devil), merely informed them that they would not die the day they ate from that tree. It seems like 'god' punished the serpent for exposiging 'god's' lie. If Adam or Eve did die the day that they ate from the tree of knowledge, I'd say the serpent would deserve punishment.

Good thing this god hid the tree of life, otherwise we'd all be like gods.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont know what the problem is between Israel (spelling) and Pakistan... but just stop it you guys, your pissing me off.
It's not your spelling that needs help, it's your geography. You meant "Palestine." ;)


One common thread here: religion as a personal philosophy vs. religion as a cultural phenomona. Those of you who are philosophically religious are always going to be embarrassed by those who view religion as a cultural affinity. If it is any consolation, they are equally embarrassed by you.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Without blame completely? No, she gave in to it. BUT it was the devil who convinced her to do it. And he certainly got blamed (and punished, according to the story).

Saying the devil provided the temptation in the first place is where the shifting of the blame occurs. It is attributing at least some of the blame on this other being, as if the person would not have thought about doing the bad thing in the first place if not for the devil tempting them. Thus, satan is the origin of the bad behavior. That is the lesson of the Garden of Eden story (and is consistent with the mythological attempt to describe the world)
I don't think that whether or not the Devil is the origin of evil in the world is germane to the point I was making.

I took Diogenes post to mean that believers say "the devil made me do it" as a way of abdicating personal responsibility for what ever it is that they did. I pointed out that the faith I am knowlegable of does the opposite - you are required to accept responsibility for what you do. I don't think that people actually think that people are less to blame for their actions because of "the devil", outside of mentally ill people who hear voices.

Also, while this is drifting a bit, I think that people point at other factors much more often in order to try and abdicate responsibiity. You need only look at the constant whining that goes on during any daytime talk show to realize that people will find anything to blame but themselves for their own mistakes and bad behaviour. It is usually something much more mundane than the devil, however.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Thanz

I disagree. The concept of "the devil tempts us" does not in any way shift blame away from the individual. The individual is to blame for giving into the temptation. The confession/absolution rites of the two denominations I am familiar with contain language like "I confess, to Almighty God, that I have sinned through my own fault"

The problem here is that, according to these doctrines, man cannot be saved by his own hand. But this inflexibly and inexorably means that man cannot be damned by his own hand.

If man cannot forgive himself, then he cannot convict himself. You cannot have responsiblity unless you also have power.

Thus, given that man must look to god for salvation and moral perfection, it is logically impossible for man to look anywhere besides god for damnation and moral failure.

This makes god responsible for all moral failures. This is not a new idea to Christianity; Calvin and the pre-destinationists understood it. The fact that their doctrines are unpopular does not refute their logical necessity.

In a universe created by an all-powerful, all-knowing god, no other being can possibly be held morally responsible. The creator necessarily foresaw all actions, and by creating the world in such a way as to allow those actions, must accept responsiblity for them, just as you must accept responsiblity for where the hammer lands when you swing it.

This goes against our common, everyday understanding of how things work: but then, all-powerful and all-knowing are not part of our common, everyday understanding.

[Dancing David]

Wow such bravery and sincerity, you are cool RT.

Not that being a pagan is a cakewalk, what a bunch of loons and social malcontents. At least we don't have TV shows for me to be embarrassed about.

I do think Yeshuah was coll.


Thanks RT!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Thanz

I took Diogenes post to mean that believers say "the devil made me do it" as a way of abdicating personal responsibility for what ever it is that they did. I pointed out that the faith I am knowlegable of does the opposite - you are required to accept responsibility for what you do.




And I did intend to mean that a lot of Christian believers, say this in one form or another, as others have elaborated on..


I take your word for it, that this is not part of your belief system..

[Thanz]

Yahzi -

I really don't want to derail this thread any more than I already have. I really didn't mean for this to descend into the debate of why there is evil in the world, but I see that that is where this is heading.

I think that the ideas expressed in Roadtoad's post are important enough to not clutter the thread on a tangent. I apologize for taking it off course.

[LCBOY]

Roadtoad,

Wow! You stated things that have been on my mind for a long time! Good job. There are Christians that act like "clowns". The crap that passes off as "Christian TV" is simply apalling. What happens is that when one christian does something stupid, all other Christians get blamed for the same thing. In college (I was still an agnostic/atheist then) I had people from time to time passing me track and inviting me to Bible studies. I would politely decline, I just wasn't interested. The were cool about and they didn't bother me about it. I even lived with christians for two years. They were devout church going, Bible believing Christians and they NEVER once told me I was going to hell and that I needed to "be saved". Not once. But every year this fundamentalist preacher would come around our campus and preach his "fire and brimstone we are going to burn in hell" sermons. He had all these signs and he would scream and yell. He was just a clown! Things like that kept me from even considering what Christianity had to say. I really believe that he had psyvhological problems that were had nothing to do with his faith.

Most athiests do not "evangelize" there beliefs and they are a pretty mellow group of people (even you triadboy! :D ). But I have met one athiest who was the equvalent to that crazy preacher in college. I worked with him in my prior job. When he found out I was a christian he just had to prove to me that my beliefs were false and that he was going to show me "evidence". I told him I wasn't interested but he was very adament about it. He'd go off on these long tirades. I told him I was too busy doing my work to listen to him He didn't like that. Other poeple have told they've had run ins with him, too. One of my friends was talking to a coworker about a Bible study during a work break. This man came up to them and started yelling at them, screaming that Jesus never existed, blah, blah... This guy seemed so stange to me. He just couldn't accept that I saw the world differently than him. But I don't think his athiesm was the cause of his behavior. I believe his issues run much deeper than that...

[thaiboxerken]

I'd like to point out that RoadToad's plea is one that stems from secular reasoning, not biblical or christian theology. Those christians you complain about simply believe in the myths more than you.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'd like to point out that RoadToad's plea is one that stems from secular reasoning, not biblical or christian theology. Those christians you complain about simply believe in the myths more than you.

I don't know about that. What I do know is that I'm responsible for my behavior. Not the Devil. Not God. Me. If I screw up, it's on this beat up trucker, not anyone else.

I don't know that this comes from necessarily secular reasoning. I'd just call it common sense.

[Roadtoad]

Have just seen Billiefan's latest offering.

Idiot.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY
Most athiests do not "evangelize" there beliefs and they are a pretty mellow group of people (even you triadboy! :D ).

LCBOY,

I'm actually VERY mellow. I studied this stuff in college and kept studying it when I got out! It fascinates me. (All religions and myths) This is one place I can keep my head into it (besides reading). It's like if I learned French - I would want to speak it regularly. Since I have all this knowledge flipping around in my head I want to exercise it occasionally.

Reading emails suck. But it's funny how you can put a personality to words and an avatar. A lot of what Diogenes says cracks me up. Thaiboxer says pretty much exactly what I'm thinking. Everybody has their own flavor.

I'd just love to help someone lose the yolk of religion and feel what I felt when it fell away from me - what an eye-opener. However, I would hate to think someone mis-read one of my writings and thought I was offensive. If I ever came off other than enthusiastic - I'm sorry.

TB

[Fun2BFree]

I am confused.:confused: This post is just a mishmash of confusion and blind to the fundamental problems inherent in all believers--and to be silent about it is to allow this tyranny over the mind of men to continue unchallenged---

Roadtoad says that:

"... I reread through my Bible, and came to realize that it DID NOT SAY WHAT I WANTED IT TO SAY. Big shock, to say the least. "

So you, Roadtoad, are picking a choosing which parts are the good parts and which are the not so good parts as YOU SEE IT. That is pretty much what all those "bad" christians are doing...you all just have different personal standards for what is good and what is bad...

How do you all choose? What REASONS do you use in interpreting that collection of misogynist, violent, narrow-minded, contradictory nonsense mixed in with the sound, sensible stuff? It can't be faith...faith would be accepting the truth of all of it...but you aren't doing that...you are selecting which rules make "common sense." Sounds like you are trying to actually apply REASON! But that has nothing to do with faith. Faith is believing without reason. When you apply reason you are saying this is a better way as shown by evidence...

sooo....you are arguing that people live a life based on what works in this world or is likely to work based on evidence...while the others can claim that they are doing it based on the Bible (their faith in their interpretation of the Bible)...usually with all the afterlife consequences that cannot be tested nor confirmed by any evidence in the real world....so if you are upset with people who live their lives basing it on things unsupportable by any real world evidence how can you go on believing in Jesus and all that other nonsense about faith? You are arguing for an existence that requires no faith, no gods, no Jesus and his "sacrifice." There is little fundamental difference between your pride in Jesus and his sacrifice (a belief confirmed only by your own "decision" to believe it) and their certainty that their unsubstantiated and unproveable beliefs are true.

So I say to all believers- do not shut up--open up! Open up your eyes and your brains to your own hypocrisy in favoring any faith over any other--open your mind to the real world of evidence and reality and proof and the very human desire to create order whether it exists or not and the human tendency to use myth to create order...and how such attempts are a failure to interpret reality accurately or helpfully. That we are here for each other and any thought system that creates something MORE important than your fellow man is bound to lead to you abusing your fellow man when he fails to serve that made up higher power. You want to love your fellow man start by assessing your fellow man in this real world and putting man's real world needs as the highest goal ----not serving some made up Supreme Being and trying to get it all right for the next world according to His rules...in this world--Atheism is the path to the most good for mankind.

[jj]

Originally posted by No Answers
I'm a philosophical atheist, a Christian in outlook. (Meaning that I don't believe, but that I think Christ's example was fantastic)

Nicely done! World needs more such Christians.

Sometimes you say the most sensible things, dude.

Having abandoned Christianity after examining it, I can sympathize with RoadToad's frustration. For something that is supposed to be about tolerance and love, we see a lot of people professing Christianity screaming hate.

And the thing that bothers me is that the "judge ye not" line always comes out when somebody says something sensible. None the less, the whole point is that you WILL be judged sooner or later anyhow.

[thaiboxerken]

It's interesting how someone asserts that there is no such thing as "secular reasoning".

Freedom of religion is primarily a secular philosophy, something that was reasoned on and agreed upon by people of differing religions. The christian bible does not condone freedom of religion, as shown by the 1st commandment. How does one come up with such a secular belief in freedom of religion if one cannot reason secularly?

:rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

A slightly altered version:

I like to do this. After years of hanging out with Skeptics, I simply have to say this.

I'm embarrassed by the behavior of my fellow Skeptics.

You are not a skeptic, you are a believer. Why would you be embarrassed by the behavior of people you have no connection with? Be honest, just state that you're angry at the skeptics for challenging your beliefs.

[Dancing David]

Great post Who but humans are humans... you can put a man in a prom dress but he is still an ape.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Whodini
I realized that someone who is a 'believer', are not 'unsane', 'insane', 'woo-woo', 'deluded', or 'stupid', but rather, they simply had a different way of looking at things

Yes a different way that has no record of being accurate, reproducible or correct in any sense of that word. In other words a WRONG way of looking at things. A FAILED way of looking at things. A demonstrably unfounded on anything real way of looking at things...

given that the rest of your post makes no sense-

SKeptical literature? Skepticism has nothing to do with appealing to any literature or literary authority...it is a method of reasoning based on evidence and logic- and testing and independently verifying things...

Were you trying to show how skepticism can NOT be substituted into the Roadtoad diatribe??? IF so, mission accomplished...If you were sincere, you missed the mark by a longshot...dude.

Skeptics, don't say shut up...we say put up...Put up the evidence....you have not made the case for shutting up about the present superiority of skepticism as the most accurate way of interrpreting our world.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY
Most athiests do not "evangelize" there beliefs and they are a pretty mellow group of people (even you triadboy! :D ).

LCBOY,

I'm actually VERY mellow. I studied this stuff in college and kept studying it when I got out! It fascinates me. (All religions and myths) This is one place I can keep my head into it (besides reading). It's like if I learned French - I would want to speak it regularly. Since I have all this knowledge flipping around in my head I want to exercise it occasionally.

Reading emails suck. But it's funny how you can put a personality to words and an avatar. A lot of what Diogenes says cracks me up. Thaiboxer says pretty much exactly what I'm thinking. Everybody has their own flavor.

I'd just love to help someone lose the yolk of religion and feel what I felt when it fell away from me - what an eye-opener. However, I would hate to think someone mis-read one of my writings and thought I was offensive. If I ever came off other than enthusiastic - I'm sorry.

TB

triaboy,

I guess it was just a misunderstanding. No problem. Your posts usually show a well researched, conherent approach, even though I may disagree with your premises or assumptions. Since we do not know each other personally it's difficult to determine when one is just being funny, sarcastic, etc. I didn't really understand your posts accusing me of "hating nature".

What you say above sounds a lot like evangelizing. Do you consider what you do evangelizing since you say you want "...to help someone lose the yolk of religion and feel what I felt when it feel away from me..."?

I guess I come from a different experience. I was never was raised with religion at home. It was never forced upon me as a child or a young adult. I was an agnostic/atheist all through college. I came to "religion" on my own through a lot of reading, studying, research, and soul searching. I felt a yolk lifted from me when I did "find religion".

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I don't know about that. What I do know is that I'm responsible for my behavior. Not the Devil. Not God. Me. If I screw up, it's on this beat up trucker, not anyone else.

As much as I admire and sympathize with your position, I can't help but point out that Christian theology necessarily removes moral responsiblity from mankind, and transfers it to God (who then generally hands it back to a priest for the day-to-day management).

Christianity originally got a reputation for being about personal responsiblity, because it used a personal view of man's relationship to god, as opposed to a family or tribal view. That Old Testament stuff, where God punishes whole nations, really conflicts with the New Testament message that each individual will be saved or damned, unrelated to how their families or nations act. In a society where tribalism and family ties were everything, this was a liberating idea.

But this was the extent of the personalism in Christianity. God still had all the power: God still had all the responsibility. God chose the damned and the elect by his own critera. And since God made man, with complete foreknowledge of his future actions, then God and God alone can be held responsible for the choices his creations make. If God were not omniscient or omnipotent, then he could not be held accountable for everything: but he is, so he must be. (Calvinism, anyone?) The idea that God wanted to punish some people, and thus made them evil, was really uncomfortable, so the Devil was given the responsiblity for having tempted them to evil. But since God made the Devil, and can unmake or control him any time he wants, this really doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it back a step.

The idea that a man is responsible for his own morality really is a secular idea.

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Great post Who but humans are humans... you can put a man in a prom dress but he is still an ape.

Unfortunately Roadtoad I'd say that the different flavors of Christianity are at their height of tolerance for each other at this moment in time. If the religious infighting of today bothers you, just be thankful that the different sects of Christianity no longer have much secular or political power anymore.

It has been a long time since any Christian sect has tried to burn a different sect at the stake, or one "Christian" country has invaded another on the grounds of religion.

Religeous difference has always been explointed to rally the apes err I mean troops. "We're all still monkeys down deep inside"

[Roadtoad]

I'm going to try and answer a lot in one post...

(Why do I get the feeling I'm on a fool's errand on this one...?:D )

When I read through the Bible, one thing comes to mind: When Moses called Israel together, he told them, "God is going to dwell in our midst. We will live by the Spirit, and in doing so, gain God's favor."

Unfortunately, (from what I read in Scripture), God is a noisy neighbor. (You know, what with Angels coming and going, and that one jerk who got his ass tossed out, Lucifer...) The people told Moses they wanted to live by THE LAW.

So, what has living by the LAW gotten us?

How often have I had many of you reminding me of the phenomenal loss of life brought about in the Name of God, and correctly so? How often have I listened to friends who chose to NOT follow religion turn away from me because I chose to believe, and became something of a pariah because they were hit, time and again, by some jackass who jammed a finger in their face? How often have I watched people suffer because people who claimed to believe turned their backs?

THIS IS FAITH?!?!

Look, I am not the guy in the end who will be responsible for the Judgement of the Living and the Dead. Ain't my gig. And trying to claim ANY part of it is an affront.

Further, it seems to me (here I go again) that if you choose to not believe, that is YOUR choice, and I have no say one way or another about it. If, after meeting me, you choose to not believe, maybe I need to examine what it is I believe, and try and figure out what it was I said or did that turned you away, rather than following this timeworn path of moral smugness which seems to permeate the Church as it stands today.

I'm trying for rational faith, rather than rationalized faith. Forgive me if I stumble. I will. Considering the mistakes I've made in the past, I'd say nothing much has changed. But that's life.

And, by the way, I still like girls. I still enjoy having a beer now and again. And right about now, I'd really enjoy a Macanudo, (or even a Montecruz). Just because I became a Christian doesn't mean I became a eunuch. Somehow, I don't think any of that is going to keep me out of Heaven.

Hating you, or expressing hatred for or towards you, damn sure will.

[Yahzi]

The way I see it, God loves atheists best. After all, atheists live a good and happy life all on their own. But some people just can't do that. We're all different, we all have our weaknessess and strengths, we all have different situations. So maybe God reaches out to those people who need it, and gives them a hand. Maybe he sends them a message, a little pep talk: maybe he even throws in a little miracle here and there. Just enough to help those that want help to get through.

But of course you can't prove those miracles to atheists: they don't need them, and it would be wrong to crush their independance. Every parent knows that some kids need to be bailed out, and some kids need to be able to bail themselves out. Why would God step on somebody who was doing ok by themselves? And why would you want to take your special miracle, that God gave to help you, and beat somebody else over the head with it?

If you got a miracle or a message from God, it's because you needed it. If I didn't get one, it's because I don't need one. If you see me sitting on the edge of a bridge with a gun to my head, ok, maybe I need some help, and maybe God sent you to tell me about Him and his promise of hope. But unless you see me begging for help, don't be offering what God doesn't see fit to offer. Don't be beating me down to your level, so I'll have to get the help you got. What is the point in that, except to address some percieved inferiority? God doesn't think less of you for needing help, and neither do I: so why do you?

If I were a Christian, I can't imagine having any other view. I can't imagine not understanding that the goal is to produce complete and autonomous human beings, and that those who are moral simply because it is the right thing to do, and those that are happy with this life, are the most complete human beings. They are the goal. And God's love is so infinite he loves those that can't quite get there on their own just as much; just like a parent loves his child the doctor as much as he loves his child the short order cook. God provides just enough that we can all get to that goal. In fact, proof of when you have made it is when you no longer need God. He won't be upset that you don't pray to him every day anymore: he'll be glad you're out there living your own life.

If I were a Christian, I could even solve the problem of evil. But I couldn't do it in a way that would allow me to tell other people what to do, so I've discovered that Christians aren't generally interested in my solution. If I were a Christian, I could explain why Jesus did not condem slavery: but again, not without giving up the right to modify society according to religious doctrine. If I were a Christian, I could reconcile God and humanism.

But I'm not a Christian, because it's all a crock of bull.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Yahzi
But I'm not a Christian, because it's all a crock of bull.

And our actions have shown you that, Yahzi.

Funny. If Bill Clinton lies, the man is DAMNED. If Oral Roberts lies, he's simply gotten a clarification of revelation.

Two words for this sort of behavior, and the first word is "Cluster..."

[Yahzi]

Well, not your actions.

Maybe you should consider becoming a Quaker...

:)

[BobM]

and certainly, not GodSpeaking for God, are we? I thought we were'nt going to do that. (disclamer: this is friendly ribbing)

My question for any Christian that believes that folks that do not “accept Christ as their savior” is going to hell would be: How can you give up? How can you NOT proselytize? I do not presume to know what our fellow board member Christians believe or do not believe about their brand of religion. However, if you do believe as I have stated (the going to hell part, not the throwing into hell part), do you not care about my (no, not me specifically) eternal soul? Or the souls of those you meet daily?Lazy?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by BobM
Lazy?

Or perhaps, respectful.

There's an old quote: "Evangelism is one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread."

If you ain't looking for bread, I can't help you. (Though, I CAN tell you that you can get a killer steak at Cattlemen's in Rocklin, CA.)

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Or perhaps, respectful.

There's an old quote: "Evangelism is one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread."



Everyone needs bread (so to speak), especially beggars-- so this analogy is poor. Evangelism is more accurately a beggar who has found a stash of phony money that he insists is not only real for his purposes but that everyone else must accept and use it as legal tender, also.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree


Everyone needs bread (so to speak), especially beggars-- so this analogy is poor. Evangelism is more accurately a beggar who has found a stash of phony money that he insists is not only real for his purposes but that everyone else must accept and use it as legal tender, also.

No, not everyone needs bread. Many societies have done without it.

No, not everyone seems to need God. Many societies have done without Him.

Your analogy is worse than mine. What's worse, is the seeming contempt you have for people who disagree with you. Are you sure you aren't an Evangelical?

[the_ignored]

Originally posted by Peach Jr.
Roadtoad, that was a lovely post. Thanks.

No, I'm not a xian, but I wish there were more Xians like you.
Yes, amen! :ahem: anyway, yeah. If they were, their history would be far more clean, and maybe people would be more willing to actually listen to them.

Ruby may know what I mean...;) from the other board we sometimes frequent...

Then there's those characters at Theology Web. It's amazing, to hear them justify the belligerent way some of them act, by calling it "Agape Love"! (it's in a thread title there).

"agape love" is supposed to be "tough love" or something.


On that topic, there is this website: Fundies say the darndest things (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/fstdt.htm), although the host is rather down on religion in general, you still do get plenty of examples of the kind of "christian" that RoadToad was complaining about...

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by the_ignored

Yes, amen! :ahem: anyway, yeah. If they were, their history would be far more clean, and maybe people would be more willing to actually listen to them.

Ruby may know what I mean...;) from the other board we sometimes frequent...

Then there's those characters at Theology Web. It's amazing, to hear them justify the belligerent way some of them act, by calling it "Agape Love"! (it's in a thread title there).

"agape love" is supposed to be "tough love" or something.

No, if I recall correctly, it's supposed to be "brotherly" love. Love that is given out of concern for another, and without any concern save for what is best for the other person. (A real rough translation... Sorry...)

If that's Agape Love, then they know nothing of it. Belligerence is prohibited in the New Testament. (One of the few prohibitions listed.)

[the_ignored]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


No, if I recall correctly, it's supposed to be "brotherly" love. Love that is given out of concern for another, and without any concern save for what is best for the other person. (A real rough translation... Sorry...)

If that's Agape Love, then they know nothing of it. Belligerence is prohibited in the New Testament. (One of the few prohibitions listed.)
Heh. Tell that to them....I like your definition better. Tthat, and I think it's more accurate. (ie. "brotherly" love) The rest of your definition sounds like theirs. The application though, is quite different from yours, I suspect. They use a LOT of name-calling and insults in there. I don't think that would count as "love", but I'm not going to argue with them, I don't want to be the focus of that kind of love...

The guy they use as an example (the one who defended it in an article), was Glenn Miller (http://www.christian-thinktank.com) or something like that. HE was actually WAY more polite in his articles than their own people (ex. a poster named "Socrates") whose attitude they defend, saying that Socrates practices that "agape love" stuff!

You should go to their site sometime and go the the "agape love" thread. (It's in the "janitor's closet" I believe) Or just look at the posts each side (believer and non-believer) make to each other.

Not a hell of a lot of love in either side, it seems. Heh. Nobody said athiests were perfect!

Only, who's acting, and who's "reacting"?


OY! As I said, if more christians were more polite like you and Glenn Miller, who are able to get your points across without needlessly ticking people off, then we'd have less problems with the christian faith. At least I would.

I think the reason they're like that, is NOT to "bring other people to truth" but rather to just demonize non-believers in the eyes of fellow believers.

[Roadtoad]

But why demonize atheists? I don't get that. It's strange, but I've found atheists (man, am I going to catch hell for this!) to be more Christian in their attitudes than most Christians!

I swear, I think most Christians have become headhunters. Someone has missed the point, that Christianity is about changing lives for the better, not about picking up tally marks.

I forget who mentioned it, though I ought to look it up out of fairness, but someone mentioned a paraphrase of a Woody Allen quote: "If Jesus saw what was happening today in his name, he'd puke."

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
It's strange, but I've found atheists (man, am I going to catch hell for this!) to be more Christian in their attitudes than most Christians!
This is proof of how much we have won the battle. What you consider "Christian" behaviour (honesty, compassion, integrity, tolerance, etc.) are in fact secular ideals. Christian behaviour is best exemplified by, well, Christ: who demonstrated a remarkable disinterest in the physical world. The behaviours that stem from behaving like Christ, from actually believing what he said, are not particularly nice: even Paul admitted that lying was ok as long as you were saving souls. Heck, if I thought Jesus was telling the truth, I would agree with Paul.

The problem is, of course, that reality doesn't work that way. And that makes all the difference.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
But why demonize atheists? I don't get that. It's strange, but I've found atheists (man, am I going to catch hell for this!) to be more Christian in their attitudes than most Christians!

I swear, I think most Christians have become headhunters. Someone has missed the point, that Christianity is about changing lives for the better, not about picking up tally marks.

I forget who mentioned it, though I ought to look it up out of fairness, but someone mentioned a paraphrase of a Woody Allen quote: "If Jesus saw what was happening today in his name, he'd puke."

roadtoad,

I'm just curious, do you attend a church? Sounds like you've been around wacky Christians. I've been around many many christians and I can tell you that the vast majority of them (at least 95%) are kind, loving, humble, and have a servant's heart. I've met Christians from around the world and this is a common trait in almost all of them. Last year I went to Japan on a missions trip. The Japanese Christians I met were so amazing. They had such a love for Christ and for people. THey sacraficed many things becasue of their faith. Japan has almost no Christians, about 0.3%-0.5% of the population are Christians. Many of them have been disowned by their families or spouses. But they push on.

Our group met a nice lady, named Mayumi, who was fascinated by Christianity. She has a younger sister who became a Christian at age 12. That is extremely unusual for Japan. Her sister is 34 years old now and not married which is also unusual for Japanse culture. She had told her family she will NOT marry a non- christian man. So when we arrived Mayumi had many many questions for us. We spent a week with her teaching her English. She had many questions about Christianity, Jesus Christ, the Bible, ect. We answered her questions the best we could. She asked tough honest questions. She was just the sweetest person. She made lunch for us one day, all authentic Japanese food! They day we left she came by to say goodbye and she broke down crying. She told us that we had really made a difference in her life. We were so touched by her emotion...

We also befriended a Christian missionary from Seirra Leon, named Samuel. He came to Japan the year before. He wanted to share the Gospel with the Japanese people. He has just a wonderful and humble faith. He just goes out and meets people and be their friend. I learned a lot about patience, humility, and grace from him by just watching him. He shared some incredible stories about his missionary work in Africa.

So roadtoad, you are correct that some Christians out there seem to have lost their way. But I would just ask you to look at the other Christians who sacrafice and share the Gospel in a humble and loving way...

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I've been around many many christians and I can tell you that the vast majority of them (at least 95%) are kind, loving, humble, and have a servant's heart.
...
Many of them have been disowned by their families or spouses. But they push on.
....
She had told her family she will NOT marry a non- christian man.
...
We also befriended a Christian missionary from Seirra Leon, named Samuel. He came to Japan the year before
....
But I would just ask you to look at the other Christians who sacrafice and share the Gospel in a humble and loving way...
Your perceptions are so biased I wonder how you can drive without hitting stationary objects.

FYI, the traits you described above - rejecting your family, categorizing people as worthy of love and marriage based on their religious faith, going to foreign countries to evangilize when your own country isn't exactly 100% Christian and the people you are evangilizing to will suffer terrible social rejection for agreeing with you - these traits are not what most of us would call "humble" or even "loving."

If Jesus is about love, why does he demand so much suffering? If Roadtoad's proof that Christianity is real is that it when he follows it his life is better, then does the Japanese person who is rejected by family and society have a "better" life? Does rendering them so lonely that the crumbs of your social life are significant to them equate to "it works?"

LCBOY, your peculiar denseness - your utter indifference to other people's suffering as long as they are toeing the party line - is pretty much what Roadtoad was complaining about. All those Japanese people suffering, and all you see is the greater glory of God... because, of course, you don't have to make such sacrifices for your faith.

You see what you want to see, regardless of any facts (even when you report the facts yourself!). That's pretty much the exact opposite of what Roadtoad is trying to do.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


No, not everyone needs bread. Many societies have done without it.

No, not everyone seems to need God. Many societies have done without Him.

Your analogy is worse than mine. What's worse, is the seeming contempt you have for people who disagree with you. Are you sure you aren't an Evangelical?

I said, everyone needs bread (so to speak)-- I guess that it was not clear that what that means is that bread is being used in the sense of nourishment which is something everyone needs and what a beggar would be looking for. My analogy is better than yours and quite apt and appropriate...evangelicals not only have found something that they insist works for them but they want everyone else to accept as true...

...As for seeming to have contempt...again I guess i did not make myself clear if it only seems contemptuous....Comtempt??? Guilty as charged... Religion belongs on the same historical dungheap as many failed ideas....What attitude should I have for an ideology that has so insidiously enslaved men and men's reason and freedom? That separates and holds back our moral progress while pretending to be furthering it???that has caused more pain and suffering and torture than any other idea in the history of mankind??? Contempt is a mild description of how I feel towards religious beliefs.

BTW--the quote about Jesus puking is from a Woody Allen movie--Hannah and her Sisters, I believe.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Your perceptions are so biased I wonder how you can drive without hitting stationary objects.

FYI, the traits you described above - rejecting your family, categorizing people as worthy of love and marriage based on their religious faith, going to foreign countries to evangilize when your own country isn't exactly 100% Christian and the people you are evangilizing to will suffer terrible social rejection for agreeing with you - these traits are not what most of us would call "humble" or even "loving."

If Jesus is about love, why does he demand so much suffering? If Roadtoad's proof that Christianity is real is that it when he follows it his life is better, then does the Japanese person who is rejected by family and society have a "better" life? Does rendering them so lonely that the crumbs of your social life are significant to them equate to "it works?"

LCBOY, your peculiar denseness - your utter indifference to other people's suffering as long as they are toeing the party line - is pretty much what Roadtoad was complaining about. All those Japanese people suffering, and all you see is the greater glory of God... because, of course, you don't have to make such sacrifices for your faith.

You see what you want to see, regardless of any facts (even when you report the facts yourself!). That's pretty much the exact opposite of what Roadtoad is trying to do.

Yahzi,

Easy there, dude. Your blantant hatred of Christianity is amazing. Usually, I do not usually respond to such personal attacks but, Yahzi, you have "major issues". You don't know anything about me. you don't know what experiences I've had in life. You have no clue at all. I don't know you personally but I do not see the need for your hostile comments. Am I biased? Of course. EVERYONE is biased. If you claim to be unbiased you are being intellectually dishonest.

Is the point of being a Christian about having a BETTER LIFE? No, it is not. You have no idea, Yahzi, about the Christians that go through many trials and tribulations around the world. The Japanese people that we met became Christians not because they wanted a better life but because they found truth in Christianity. You may disagree with that. So be it. But to imply that these people were dupes for becaming Christians insults them as people and exposes your own ignorance of what they've gone through.

I just reported on my trip to Japan. I just wanted to share with roadtoad that like all people christians are a diverse people. The Japanese people who are Christians have my respect and admiration. They don't see it that they gave up the "good life" for their faith. They have the good life because of their faith. They didn't reject their famlies. The lady doesn't want to marry a chrisitan not because christians are "better people" but because she wants to marry someone that understands what her faith means to her and would share their common faith and spiritual life.

Yahzi, I have no qualms that this post will enlighten you. I know it will not. But if you don't like what I have to say that is your right. But by just calling me names you cheapen the purpose of this forum, which is the free exchange of ideas, even ideas that we disagree with. However, I have no ill will or anger toward you, Yahzi. I have respect for everyone rights to have their own views on this forum. I would just ask for the same...:)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by LCBOY

Usually, I do not usually respond to such personal attacks but
My intent was not to personally attack you. I am sorry that was not clear. My intent was to demonstrate that the personal attack Roadtoad began this thread with was directed towards you.

Is the point of being a Christian about having a BETTER LIFE? No, it is not.
It is to Roadtoad, insomuch as it is his proof that Christianity is objectively correct. Since I am not personally attacking you, but merely illustrating that Roadtoad's post applied to you, I will refrain from asking the rather obvious question of what exactly is the point of being a Christian if it isn't about a better life...

The essential point is that the experiences you chose to relate as postive virtues of the faith were precisely the experiences that Roadtoad was holding forth against. You still don't understand this. What you chose to post as positive is what makes us (Roadtoad and myself, amongst others) retch in disgust. I wasn't so much attempting to change your opinion as get you to recognize (and perhaps question) this vast disparity in viewpoints.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahzi
My intent was not to personally attack you. I am sorry that was not clear. My intent was to demonstrate that the personal attack Roadtoad began this thread with was directed towards you.

It is to Roadtoad, insomuch as it is his proof that Christianity is objectively correct. Since I am not personally attacking you, but merely illustrating that Roadtoad's post applied to you, I will refrain from asking the rather obvious question of what exactly is the point of being a Christian if it isn't about a better life...

The essential point is that the experiences you chose to relate as postive virtues of the faith were precisely the experiences that Roadtoad was holding forth against. You still don't understand this. What you chose to post as positive is what makes us (Roadtoad and myself, amongst others) retch in disgust. I wasn't so much attempting to change your opinion as get you to recognize (and perhaps question) this vast disparity in viewpoints.
I don't see any of the behaviours that Roadtaod complained about exhibited in LCBOY's post. The japanese people he talked about made their own choices. It sounds as if the woman's family turned their back on her, not hte other way around (I could be wrong on this). Anyway, it sounds like the missionary style of LCBOY's Sierra Leone friend was to make friends with people, not to preach fire brimstone and act holier than thou, which is what I see Roadtoad complaining about.

As for whether Roadtoad thinks the things in that post make him retch in disgust, forgive me if I do not take your word for it.

[thaiboxerken]

The Japanese people who are Christians have my respect and admiration.

I respect and admire the ones that don't believe in mythology myself. Japan is a nice place with no need for christianity.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm just curious, do you attend a church? Sounds like you've been around wacky Christians. I've been around many many christians and I can tell you that the vast majority of them (at least 95%) are kind, loving, humble, and have a servant's heart.

If you didn't percieve the majority of your cult with positive traits, would you still be in the cult? I find the most secular christians the ones that are good to be around, the more religious a christian, the more intolerant of others they are.

I've met Christians from around the world and this is a common trait in almost all of them. Last year I went to Japan on a missions trip. The Japanese Christians I met were so amazing. They had such a love for Christ and for people. THey sacraficed many things becasue of their faith. Japan has almost no Christians, about 0.3%-0.5% of the population are Christians. Many of them have been disowned by their families or spouses. But they push on.

More like 4% of the population in japan is christian. No, they japanese people do not discriminate based on this. You portray these christians in japan as being persecuted, when they are not. Your claim might work on people that haven't been to japan, but several of us have. My mom is Okinawan and Christian, I've never felt any of this supposed persecution by the japanese people for this. It seems to me that your case of christian persecution in Japan is isolated.

The Japanese people, in general, are polite and humble people. They really need no jesus to be this way. If I could convince my wife, and I got a great job offer, I'd move to Japan and live there right away because the culture is so nice.

I learned a lot about patience, humility, and grace from him by just watching him.

Most Japanese I've met have these same traits. This is not a trait of christianity, but a trait of nice people.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The Japanese people, in general, are polite and humble people. They really need no jesus to be this way.

There is a wonderful difference between the Eastern and Western mythologies. The western mythology, typically is at odds with nature. People are basically evil and wrought with sin.

However in the eastern mythologies - God is within you. Your 'soul' and the universal soul are one - now - on this beautiful earth.

In the west, we must trudge through this wicked life to finally obtain 'heaven'.

In the east, when you meet someone you clasp your hand together with a bow from the waist - praying greetings to the god within us all!

What a difference, eh?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
More like 4% of the population in japan is christian. No, they japanese people do not discriminate based on this. You portray these christians in japan as being persecuted, when they are not. Your claim might work on people that haven't been to japan, but several of us have. My mom is Okinawan and Christian, I've never felt any of this supposed persecution by the japanese people for this. It seems to me that your case of christian persecution in Japan is isolated.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. All the polls I've seen and speaking with many Japanese Christians who conduct polls and speaking with Japanese pastors all place the japanese christian population at around 0.3-1.0% not 4%. I did not portray the japanese people as being presecuted. I simply gave examples of what can happen to some japanese Christians. Different people react differently. Since you are not a Christian yourself why would you feel the presecution of the Japanese people? Since you probably do not know every single Japanese Christian (which is about 300,000 in Japan) how can you assert that the cases that I've seen are isolated. You just don't know. The Japanese Christians do not feel persecuted in that most part their families do not understand but they accept it. However, problems arise when family tradition is at stake. Worship of ancesters is common in Japan and Japanese Christians feel uncomforatable participating in these rituals. Their family do not always understand why they do not want to participate and this a source of conflict.

[Yahzi]

Thanz
I don't see any of the behaviours that Roadtaod complained about exhibited in LCBOY's post.
He pratically bragged about how much his Japanese Christians suffered for their faith. I realize this is a subjective style judgement, but it's what I got from his post. I don't think it was an unreasonable reading. I pointed out the instances; I don't know whether you are saying they weren't in his post, or that those instances don't bother you.

It sounds as if the woman's family turned their back on her, not hte other way around (I could be wrong on this).
So what? The point is that Roadtoad defends Christianity because it makes his social relationships better, and LCBOY extols Christianity despite the fact he acknowledges that it destroys people's social relationships.

Anyway, it sounds like the missionary style of LCBOY's Sierra Leone friend was to make friends with people, not to preach fire brimstone and act holier than thou, which is what I see Roadtoad complaining about.
I think missionary styles are perhaps necessarily "holier than thou." What is the entire concept of mission work, except that I know something about God you don't, I have a relationship with God that is better than yours? Isn't that the meaning of holier than thou? If God wanted me to know this stuff, why doesn't he tell me? Are you so special that God sent you to tell me what God wants?

I mean, if you are my neighbor, I can maybe see that God told you to pass it on to the block. Or if you're a family member, or in some other way a reasonable source of important information for me. But to travel from some little country on the other side of the world?

As for whether Roadtoad thinks the things in that post make him retch in disgust, forgive me if I do not take your word for it.
Of course I can't speak for Roadtoad. I would say we ask him directly, but since he's already made his position crystal clear, I don't see the point. Maybe you are unsure, but I am quite confident that my assertions are not beyond the scope of a reasonable reading of his original stated position.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[What you chose to post as positive is what makes us (Roadtoad and myself, amongst others) retch in disgust. I wasn't so much attempting to change your opinion as get you to recognize (and perhaps question) this vast disparity in viewpoints.

I already recognize that I hold a distinct minority view on this forum. I know that you and I have a vast disparity in viewpoints. That is good, though. We all have different viewpoints because every single person has unique human experiences, unique, precepts, unique biases. We all see the world in unique ways. What I don't understand is that why you "wretch in disgust" as you put it. I disagree with the atheist viewpoint but I am not digusted by it. I can understand how one can come to atheism...

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
My mom is Okinawan and Christian, I've never felt any of this supposed persecution by the japanese people for this.
Honestly, I find this claim shocking. I can't believe your mom isn't discriminated against for being Okinawan. ;)

I agree the Japanese are polite, but I'm not so sure about the humble part. They have been described as one of the most racist societies in the world. I imagine Koreans have a very different take on interacting with Japanese.

Of course they are racist in the most polite way possible: it's not that they hate you for being a talking monkey, it's just that they pity you for not being human. It's not your fault, and they don't blame you for it.

One of my friends studied in Japan for a year or so. He said that the French get annoyed if you can't speak French perfectly, but the Japanese get unnerved if you can speak Japanese perfectly. Kind of like you think a parrot is cute when it talks, but if it started conversing like a real person, it would be kind of shocking.

Just in case anybody gets the wrong idea: I love Japanese culture (I have studied Okinawan martial arts for 20 years now). But it's got its flaws just like all the rest.

Anyway this is completely off the point: I agree with Thai that the Japanese are extremly unlikely to discriminate against someone because of their religion.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi
He pratically bragged about how much his Japanese Christians suffered for their faith. I realize this is a subjective style judgement, but it's what I got from his post. I don't think it was an unreasonable reading. I pointed out the instances; I don't know whether you are saying they weren't in his post, or that those instances don't bother you.

I was bragging now? Yahzi, I think you saw what you wanted to see. You obviously hold a very low view of Christianity and it's my impression that you want to see any post about Christianity in the most negative light possible. Why would I want to brag about other's people's suffering? Are you accusing me of enjoying another person's suffering? If you are..well...you obviously read the post the wrong way.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by LCBOY
We all see the world in unique ways.
I don't subscribe to cultural relativism. I think the Nazis were wrong: not because that is what I was taught to think, or because I don't like them, but because their actions and philosophy were wrong. In exactly the same way we think bleeding people as a cure for the flu is wrong, or slavery is wrong.

Consequently, when I see people trading a healthy social life for a fairy tale that causes them to suffer, I get disgusted. It's not like they are going to earn something for their suffering: they are just suffering when they didn't have too, because they fell for some slick huckster's story.

I can understand how one can come to atheism
This is most interesting thing I have ever heard you say. Of course, I can understand how people can come to religion, but I cannot respect it. I think it is necessarily an erroneous conclusion that must stem from some mistake or error in logic or method.

So the first question I want to ask is: can you respect the path that leads people to atheism? Do you think it is a potentially valid decision?

My second question is more to the topic at hand: why do you see the suffering these people have gone through, and conclude that it is good? What justifies it? If a person has a choice between being happy or being religiously correct, which do you think they should choose?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B]ust in case anybody gets the wrong idea: I love Japanese culture (I have studied Okinawan martial arts for 20 years now). But it's got its flaws just like all the rest.


Japan is an amazing place. I would like to live there one day. They do have their social ills just like every other nation. The only difference is that as a culture they hide their problems. Most Japanese people do not talk about their problems. They see it as a sign of weakness. One of the things I learned about was their extremely high rate of suicide. In the past three years they have averaged over 30,000 suicides per year. That is about twice the rate in the US and Japan has half the population as the US! Many of the Japanese I spoke with (Christian and non-Christian) have concerns about their country, the economy, etc. So, again, Japan is an amazing place with an interesting history and culture. I learned a lot when I was t here. I didn't want to leave. I could have stayed another six months but unfortunately my job was waiting for me...:(

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by LCBOY

I was bragging now? Yahzi, I think you saw what you wanted to see. You obviously hold a very low view of Christianity and it's my impression that you want to see any post about Christianity in the most negative light possible. Why would I want to brag about other's people's suffering? Are you accusing me of enjoying another person's suffering? If you are..well...you obviously read the post the wrong way.

The Japanese Christians I met were so amazing. They had such a love for Christ and for people. THey sacraficed many things becasue of their faith. Japan has almost no Christians, about 0.3%-0.5% of the population are Christians. Many of them have been disowned by their families or spouses. But they push on.
I'm sorry, but can anyone read this and not detect pride in the author's tone?

See, a person who was dismayed by the suffering would started with a different adjective, like perhaps "tragic" or "pathetic." When you start a conversation about how much people are suffering by identifying them as "amazing," I think it is clear that you embrace and extol their suffering.

Also, you didn't say, "they were forced to sacrifice." You said, "they sacrificed." In other words, they chose to give up things, and you approve. You think they are noble and exemplarly for giving up those things.

Must I go on, or can I rely on native language skills to make my case for me?

Why would I want to brag about other's people's suffering?
I dunno. But I do know that Christians brag about Jesus' suffering all the time. And the saints and the martyers. None of it makes sense to me, so don't ask me to explain it.

You obviously hold a very low view of Christianity
Well now, that part you got spot on. :) But it's not just Christianity I hold a low view of: it is any belief system that teachs that human beings are worthless, helpless, and morally insignificant.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Japan is an amazing place.
Sadly, I will never see it, as I can't stand seafood, and I can't afford Kobe beef. I would simply starve to death. Plus, all the Japanese martial artists would beat me up for being a poseur, since I claim to have studied martial arts for 20 years and yet still retain enough finger flexibility to type. Oh, and I still have feeling in my shins.

:D

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Consequently, when I see people trading a healthy social life for a fairy tale that causes them to suffer, I get disgusted. It's not like they are going to earn something for their suffering: they are just suffering when they didn't have too, because they fell for some slick huckster's story.
So we are back to calling the Japanese Christians dupes again? If you would ask the Japanese Christians why they became Christians you would gain some insight. I gained insight from them. I have learned that Christians from other cultures have different Christian perspectives. Many of the the Japanese I spoke with told me they had a loving family, career success, money but that it had no meaning to them. Most of them didn't know anything about Christianity. So when they started to read the Bible and learn about Jesus Christ they had no preconceived ideas. They arrived at their own conclusions.
This is most interesting thing I have ever heard you say. Of course, I can understand how people can come to religion, but I cannot respect it. I think it is necessarily an erroneous conclusion that must stem from some mistake or error in logic or method.
You are entitled to your viewpoints...
You don't have to respect the content of one's religious beliefs. If you believe their faith is false then why would you repsect it? But do respect that people the choice to have their beliefs?

So the first question I want to ask is: can you respect the path that leads people to atheism? Do you think it is a potentially valid decision?
I respect the rights of people to follow their own path. I may disagree with the content of their path or belief.
My second question is more to the topic at hand: why do you see the suffering these people have gone through, and conclude that it is good? What justifies it? If a person has a choice between being happy or being religiously correct, which do you think they should choose? [/B]
I cannot choose for another person. The Japanese Christians I met were a happy and an active bunch. They know that they have eternal life with God. You may ridicule this belief if you wish but that is what THEY believe. What you see as suffering they don't see it as suffering. They don't view the purpose of life as trying to be happy. They see happiness as an outcome of their faith not the main point or purpose of life.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Sadly, I will never see it, as I can't stand seafood, and I can't afford Kobe beef. I would simply starve to death. Plus, all the Japanese martial artists would beat me up for being a poseur, since I claim to have studied martial arts for 20 years and yet still retain enough finger flexibility to type. Oh, and I still have feeling in my shins.

:D

They do have other food besides seafood. You don't like ANY seafood? I think you would like it there. The prices there were comparable to the U.S. Japanese people love to meet Americans in a huge way! :)

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by LCBOY
We all have different viewpoints because every single person has unique human experiences, unique, precepts, unique biases. We all see the world in unique ways. What I don't understand is that why you "wretch in disgust" as you put it. I disagree with the atheist viewpoint but I am not digusted by it. I can understand how one can come to atheism...

Herein we find the major difference between believers and non-believers. We absolutely all agree that "every single person has unique human experiences, unique, precepts, unique biases. We all see the world in unique ways." This is the fundamental basis for all believers-that your unique view has validity--that it holds some inherent truth--that this truth does not require any proof beyond you believing it...proof and evidence are things that nonbelievers demand of any and everything for us to give it much value...also when things are shown to be not true we are prone to "wretch in disgust" when people try to pass falsehoods off as true. Unique individual beliefs are the basis of unique interpretations for what is true (i.e for everyone), which forms the basis of unique interpretations of what is right (i.e for everyone) which leads to unique actions like extermination of inferior races (because your unique view supports it) or flying planes into buildings (because your unique view suggests eternal rewards for doing so)--the problem with religious views is not their uniquity...it is not what you believe that is the problem--it is not what you think --it is HOW you think--or how you do NOT think--you do not think it is necessary to support your beliefs with solid, independent, verifiable evidence because believing is enough for you....Nonbelievers have seen the evidence of where such thinking leads and it makes us fearful, and disgusted.

[thaiboxerken]

I did not portray the japanese people as being presecuted.

You sure did.

I simply gave examples of what can happen to some japanese Christians.

And thus portraying christians in japan as being persecuted.

Different people react differently. Since you are not a Christian yourself why would you feel the presecution of the Japanese people?

I was a christian in japan at one point in my life. My mother is still japanese and she's still christian.

Since you probably do not know every single Japanese Christian (which is about 300,000 in Japan) how can you assert that the cases that I've seen are isolated.

Because I have lived there. So, are you saying christians are or are not persecuted?

You just don't know.

So you believe. We could ask those living in Japan now how they feel. Several JREF members do live in Japan now.

The Japanese Christians do not feel persecuted in that most part their families do not understand but they accept it. However, problems arise when family tradition is at stake. Worship of ancesters is common in Japan and Japanese Christians feel uncomforatable participating in these rituals. Their family do not always understand why they do not want to participate and this a source of conflict.

Yes, I imagine tensions might rise if a family member joins a cult.

[Yahzi]

LCBOY

So we are back to calling the Japanese Christians dupes again?
To be fair, I call all Christians dupes, not just the Japanese ones.


Many of the the Japanese I spoke with told me they had a loving family, career success, money but that it had no meaning to them.

There is a tragedy here, I agree. But replacing it with a fantasy that has no logical or rational possiblity of being true isn't an improvement.

There is this idea that Christianity provides meaning to life. This is wrong. It provides the illusion of meaning, in much the same way that doughnuts provide the illusion of nutrition. Ultimately the Christian ideal destroys meaning, by reducing mankind to dependant children, and life on earth to a trivial prelude to real life. The reason people turn to Christianity is not because philosophically it allows for a richer life, but because personally it feels better. The implicit assumption of every Christian is that God Likes Him, on a personal basis. It is the feeling that you are best buddies with the Boss. And of course, He knows you are right about almost everything, and eventually He will show all those other chumps that you were right and they were wrong. Believing in the personal Christian God is driven by the need to validate your own self to unhealthy degree: it is the elevation of personal whim to divine commandment. This is not meaning: it is the illusion of meaning.

Try preaching an impersonal God, who does not break the rules for his friends, and watch your congregation slowly evaporate.



So when they started to read the Bible and learn about Jesus Christ they had no preconceived ideas.
I find this extremely unlikely. I don't there is any Christian sect that gets its ideas about Christianity from the Bible (as opposed to getting them from sectarian doctrine). Except maybe Rev. Phelps.

For more on this, check out Landover Baptist. As Roadtoad said, the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say, so most Christian sects just make up stuff and ignore stuff they don't like.

In any case, people are not free from preconcieved ideas about what aliens look like, so I find it doubtful that anyone in a technological society is totally uninformed about what Christianity is supposed to be like.

But do respect that people the choice to have their beliefs?
I respect people because they are people. However, I do lose respect for people that make bad choices. I respect them even less when they make other people pay for their choices. Imagine the families of those dispossed Japanese: don't they wonder what they did wrong to cause their family member to rock the boat so hard they fell out? Don't you think they miss them? Don't you think they suffer from the disharmony? And they aren't getting any Christian satisfaction out of it: all they have is a long-haired devil worshipping teenager and nothing to show for it. (Note: that was a metaphorical comparison).

I may disagree with the content of their path or belief.
It's not so much the content I disagree with as it is the methodology. How you arrived at your knowledge matters more to me than what your knowledge is. This is because knowledge that is arrived at improperly isn't really knowledge. And I don't object to real knowledge; I incorporate it. So if your math is correct, I don't object to the content because I agree with the content a priori; and if your math is wrong, then I disagree with the content no matter what it is.

You may ridicule this belief if you wish but that is what THEY believe.
No, I may ridicule their belief if their belief is ridiculous. My "wish" has nothing to do with it. There is a reason why we expect people to not believe in ridiculous things. "As long as man believes in absurdities he will commit atrocities." This is not just a famous quote, it is a historically proven truth.

What you see as suffering they don't see it as suffering.
This is simply false. They do view it as suffering, and they relate to you as suffering, and you originally described it as suffering. They may accept this suffering as the price of a greater good, but there is no question that it is suffering. The ostracism of their families is not a pleasant thing: it is not something they enjoy: therefore, it is suffering.

They don't view the purpose of life as trying to be happy.
Then what is the purpose of life? To please God, and go to Heaven? But what is the difference between Heaven and Hell? In one place you are happy, and in another you aren't. Doesn't preferring Heaven over Hell mean that you do care about being happy?

What you are saying here is that their own happiness is not enough for them. They need to please some external source, some external infinite source. The smile on their children's faces isn't enough for them: they need the entire cosmos to smile on them. Their self-esteem is so broken that they do not feel entitled to be alive and happy merely because they are alive. Instead, they need to please someone else. Their goal is to make God happy, regardless of how it makes them feel. This is called co-dependance or something: whatever it's name, it ought to be clear that it is an unhealthy self-view. You see this in children of alcoholics and abusive parents. It is a child's only defense against overwhelming power: appeasement.

They see happiness as an outcome of their faith not the main point or purpose of life.
Exactly as I said above: the only way they can be happy is by permission of some external authority. To the extent that God is pleased by their suffering, they will seek out and accept suffering. Because they are unable to define happiness for themselves: they can only get it from someone else.

Watching adults succumb to their childhood tortures does not strike me as a positive experience.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Yahzi
LCBOY

To be fair, I call all Christians dupes, not just the Japanese ones.


There is a tragedy here, I agree. But replacing it with a fantasy that has no logical or rational possiblity of being true isn't an improvement.

There is this idea that Christianity provides meaning to life. This is wrong. It provides the illusion of meaning, in much the same way that doughnuts provide the illusion of nutrition. Ultimately the Christian ideal destroys meaning, by reducing mankind to dependant children, and life on earth to a trivial prelude to real life. The reason people turn to Christianity is not because philosophically it allows for a richer life, but because personally it feels better. The implicit assumption of every Christian is that God Likes Him, on a personal basis. It is the feeling that you are best buddies with the Boss. And of course, He knows you are right about almost everything, and eventually He will show all those other chumps that you were right and they were wrong. Believing in the personal Christian God is driven by the need to validate your own self to unhealthy degree: it is the elevation of personal whim to divine commandment. This is not meaning: it is the illusion of meaning.

Try preaching an impersonal God, who does not break the rules for his friends, and watch your congregation slowly evaporate.



I find this extremely unlikely. I don't there is any Christian sect that gets its ideas about Christianity from the Bible (as opposed to getting them from sectarian doctrine). Except maybe Rev. Phelps.

For more on this, check out Landover Baptist. As Roadtoad said, the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say, so most Christian sects just make up stuff and ignore stuff they don't like.

In any case, people are not free from preconcieved ideas about what aliens look like, so I find it doubtful that anyone in a technological society is totally uninformed about what Christianity is supposed to be like.


I respect people because they are people. However, I do lose respect for people that make bad choices. I respect them even less when they make other people pay for their choices. Imagine the families of those dispossed Japanese: don't they wonder what they did wrong to cause their family member to rock the boat so hard they fell out? Don't you think they miss them? Don't you think they suffer from the disharmony? And they aren't getting any Christian satisfaction out of it: all they have is a long-haired devil worshipping teenager and nothing to show for it. (Note: that was a metaphorical comparison).


It's not so much the content I disagree with as it is the methodology. How you arrived at your knowledge matters more to me than what your knowledge is. This is because knowledge that is arrived at improperly isn't really knowledge. And I don't object to real knowledge; I incorporate it. So if your math is correct, I don't object to the content because I agree with the content a priori; and if your math is wrong, then I disagree with the content no matter what it is.


No, I may ridicule their belief if their belief is ridiculous. My "wish" has nothing to do with it. There is a reason why we expect people to not believe in ridiculous things. "As long as man believes in absurdities he will commit atrocities." This is not just a famous quote, it is a historically proven truth.


This is simply false. They do view it as suffering, and they relate to you as suffering, and you originally described it as suffering. They may accept this suffering as the price of a greater good, but there is no question that it is suffering. The ostracism of their families is not a pleasant thing: it is not something they enjoy: therefore, it is suffering.


Then what is the purpose of life? To please God, and go to Heaven? But what is the difference between Heaven and Hell? In one place you are happy, and in another you aren't. Doesn't preferring Heaven over Hell mean that you do care about being happy?

What you are saying here is that their own happiness is not enough for them. They need to please some external source, some external infinite source. The smile on their children's faces isn't enough for them: they need the entire cosmos to smile on them. Their self-esteem is so broken that they do not feel entitled to be alive and happy merely because they are alive. Instead, they need to please someone else. Their goal is to make God happy, regardless of how it makes them feel. This is called co-dependance or something: whatever it's name, it ought to be clear that it is an unhealthy self-view. You see this in children of alcoholics and abusive parents. It is a child's only defense against overwhelming power: appeasement.


Exactly as I said above: the only way they can be happy is by permission of some external authority. To the extent that God is pleased by their suffering, they will seek out and accept suffering. Because they are unable to define happiness for themselves: they can only get it from someone else.

Watching adults succumb to their childhood tortures does not strike me as a positive experience.

AMEN:cool: ;) :p

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I was a christian in japan at one point in my life. My mother is still japanese and she's still christian.

Yes, I imagine tensions might rise if a family member joins a cult.
So do you believe your mother belongs to a cult? :confused:

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi
LCBOY

To be fair, I call all Christians dupes, not just the Japanese ones.


There is a tragedy here, I agree. But replacing it with a fantasy that has no logical or rational possiblity of being true isn't an improvement.

There is this idea that Christianity provides meaning to life. This is wrong. It provides the illusion of meaning, in much the same way that doughnuts provide the illusion of nutrition. Ultimately the Christian ideal destroys meaning, by reducing mankind to dependant children, and life on earth to a trivial prelude to real life. The reason people turn to Christianity is not because philosophically it allows for a richer life, but because personally it feels better. The implicit assumption of every Christian is that God Likes Him, on a personal basis. It is the feeling that you are best buddies with the Boss. And of course, He knows you are right about almost everything, and eventually He will show all those other chumps that you were right and they were wrong. Believing in the personal Christian God is driven by the need to validate your own self to unhealthy degree: it is the elevation of personal whim to divine commandment. This is not meaning: it is the illusion of meaning.

Try preaching an impersonal God, who does not break the rules for his friends, and watch your congregation slowly evaporate.



I find this extremely unlikely. I don't there is any Christian sect that gets its ideas about Christianity from the Bible (as opposed to getting them from sectarian doctrine). Except maybe Rev. Phelps.

For more on this, check out Landover Baptist. As Roadtoad said, the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say, so most Christian sects just make up stuff and ignore stuff they don't like.

In any case, people are not free from preconcieved ideas about what aliens look like, so I find it doubtful that anyone in a technological society is totally uninformed about what Christianity is supposed to be like.


I respect people because they are people. However, I do lose respect for people that make bad choices. I respect them even less when they make other people pay for their choices. Imagine the families of those dispossed Japanese: don't they wonder what they did wrong to cause their family member to rock the boat so hard they fell out? Don't you think they miss them? Don't you think they suffer from the disharmony? And they aren't getting any Christian satisfaction out of it: all they have is a long-haired devil worshipping teenager and nothing to show for it. (Note: that was a metaphorical comparison).


It's not so much the content I disagree with as it is the methodology. How you arrived at your knowledge matters more to me than what your knowledge is. This is because knowledge that is arrived at improperly isn't really knowledge. And I don't object to real knowledge; I incorporate it. So if your math is correct, I don't object to the content because I agree with the content a priori; and if your math is wrong, then I disagree with the content no matter what it is.


No, I may ridicule their belief if their belief is ridiculous. My "wish" has nothing to do with it. There is a reason why we expect people to not believe in ridiculous things. "As long as man believes in absurdities he will commit atrocities." This is not just a famous quote, it is a historically proven truth.


This is simply false. They do view it as suffering, and they relate to you as suffering, and you originally described it as suffering. They may accept this suffering as the price of a greater good, but there is no question that it is suffering. The ostracism of their families is not a pleasant thing: it is not something they enjoy: therefore, it is suffering.


Then what is the purpose of life? To please God, and go to Heaven? But what is the difference between Heaven and Hell? In one place you are happy, and in another you aren't. Doesn't preferring Heaven over Hell mean that you do care about being happy?

What you are saying here is that their own happiness is not enough for them. They need to please some external source, some external infinite source. The smile on their children's faces isn't enough for them: they need the entire cosmos to smile on them. Their self-esteem is so broken that they do not feel entitled to be alive and happy merely because they are alive. Instead, they need to please someone else. Their goal is to make God happy, regardless of how it makes them feel. This is called co-dependance or something: whatever it's name, it ought to be clear that it is an unhealthy self-view. You see this in children of alcoholics and abusive parents. It is a child's only defense against overwhelming power: appeasement.


Exactly as I said above: the only way they can be happy is by permission of some external authority. To the extent that God is pleased by their suffering, they will seek out and accept suffering. Because they are unable to define happiness for themselves: they can only get it from someone else.

Watching adults succumb to their childhood tortures does not strike me as a positive experience.

Nice soliloquy, Yahzi. You seem to a have deep-rooted hatred of Christianity (God). I am sure there a some reason for that...But I digress. At this point I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by LCBOY

So do you believe your mother belongs to a cult? :confused:

No, I know she belongs to a cult. Christianity IS a cult. Religion is just the name given to bigger cults.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Nice soliloquy, Yahzi. You seem to a have deep-rooted hatred of Christianity (God). I am sure there a some reason for that...But I digress. At this point I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

First of all, you don't need to quote a long post like Yahzi's to respond to it. You waste much board space doing that. Second of all, Yahzi's dislike of christianity is not what the discussion is about. Also, Yahzi doesn't hate "God", he simply doesn't believe in one.

Yahzi brings up many intelligent and reasonable points. It seems that the atheists are being mean again simply by showing the fallacy of christian "logic".


That's ok, us I'm used to be called "mean" and "hateful" for pointing out the silliness of cult-belief.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
That's ok, us I'm used to be called "mean" and "hateful" for pointing out the silliness of cult-belief.

Ken, I would not call you hateful or mean for being an atheist or for pointing out the fallacies you both see and perceive. I would, however, call you harsh for how you do this. It's unnecessary.

You're capable of making serious points with both humor and intelligence, and with compassion. Why you don't only you can answer, but frankly, when I read things from you on other boards, I can't understand how you can be one way there, and another here. Maybe it's me, (and yes, it very well might be), but I'm not the one who can answer. It's a thought.

LCBOY, Ken does have a point. You could have picked out a salient point, or even his conclusion, and left it at that.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY

So do you believe your mother belongs to a cult? :confused:

LCBOY,

A few of our founding fathers thought Xianity was a dangerous cult. To them - belief in a god was one thing. Deism allows you to see 'god' as the initiator of everything and then he stood back and watched.

But when you throw in God's 'son' - born of a virgin - raising the dead - turning water into wine - resurrecting, blah, blah, blah. These are the exact same things other 'sons' did before Jesus.

Now you ask yourself the question: Why should I believe this story as opposed to all the other ones? Our founding fathers knew this - and they reacted accordingly. They saw it for the rubbish it was.

And so it makes me laugh to hear TV evangelists talking about our country being founded on Xian principles!! Our founding fathers MADE SURE OUR COUNTRY WAS NOT FOUNDED ON XIAN PRINCIPLES! But you have to remember the TV evangelist's audience are 60- 80 year old widows...and me, of course :-)

Side Question: Why do xians say Christianity is not a religion?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by triadboy
Side Question: Why do xians say Christianity is not a religion?

If you run across any who say that, send them my way. They're wrong.

[BobM]

Side Question: Why do xians say Christianity is not a religion?

I've never heard anyone say that. I've heard them(us) say it's not a cult. But really, whether or not a group is a cult depends on your point of view.

Christians say a cult must be harmful to it's members. Non-christians might say "bingo!"

Playing devil's advocate on the "not a religion" thing, I'd guess someone who said that thought along these lines. Christianity isn't a cult or a religion, it's the Truth.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


No, I know she belongs to a cult. Christianity IS a cult. Religion is just the name given to bigger cults.

You are right....looking at it from the secular viewpoint.

Dictionary defines a cults as; (klt)
A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

The followers of such a religion or sect.

A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

The object of such devotion.

An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------

So, the secular definition holds merit.

The Christian definition of a cult says that "any group which deviates from Biblical, orthodox, historical Christianity. e.i. They deny the Deity of Christ; His physical resurrection; His personal and physical return to earth and salvation by FAITH alone."

Also, this type of cult usually has a very superior view of itself in relation to other Christians. They believe they are the ones with the real truth.

They are led by a very charismatic person/people who dominate them very easily.

Just my two cents!!!

:D

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by LCBOY
You seem to a have deep-rooted hatred of Christianity (God). I am sure there a some reason for that...
Um. If you'd like to know the reason for that, you might try reading the post.

How could anyone read that post and then wonder what my reason for being so anti-religious is?

The only possible inference from your comment is that you think I have some other, hidden reason for being mad at God, like he didn't get me a bicycle for my birthday or he let my football team lose or maybe I'm just afraid to be a good person. This is insulting in the extreme.

I posted two rather powerful reasons why an ordinary person with ordinary moral sensiblities would find most religions (and Christianity in particular) reprehensible. To question what my objections to religion are after I have spelled them out indicates either a) blatant insult, b) immense stupidty, or c) simple illiteracy.

Which is it?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Yahzi

The implicit assumption of every Christian is that God Likes Him, on a personal basis. It is the feeling that you are best buddies with the Boss. And of course, He knows you are right about almost everything, and eventually He will show all those other chumps that you were right and they were wrong. Believing in the personal Christian God is driven by the need to validate your own self to unhealthy degree: it is the elevation of personal whim to divine commandment. This is not meaning: it is the illusion of meaning.

You have some mistaken assumptions and illusions of your own Yahzi.

Christianity does not teach that Christians "are right about almost everything." Quite the opposite. It teaches they are imperfect sinners. It is all about humility. The kind of humility that Roadtoad talked about in his opening post.

It isn't about validating your own self. It is about gratitude.




I respect people because they are people. However, I do lose respect for people that make bad choices.

Now if that isn't self-righteous smugness, I don't know what is.

[Luke T.]

Yahzi, I signed on as a member of this forum pretty close to two years ago. And I came here with a certain kind of smugness myself.

But as I have travelled around the internet and debated people who believe in magic crystals and AfterDeath Communication, and psychokinesis and what have you, feeling all superior-like, it slowly began to dawn on me that I was talking to real people. People just like me. People I actually began to like and make friends with.

And in my real life, I have friends who believe in some of this stuff. Some I have been able to show the errors of their ways, some not. And some I just don't have the heart to disillusion. Yes, that's right. I don't believe it is my mission to shatter people's lives. I don't think I am always doing someone a "favor" by showing them how "stupid" they are.

How can you look at the people around you who you think have made "bad choices" and therefore have no respect for and consider yourself a friend to them? You are no different than the self-righteous Christians who think you are going to hell when you look at people that way.

I no longer look at the fans of John Edward as a bunch of stupid people for whom I have no respect. I have found them to be just as smart a bunch as we have here. Don't be too quick to snort at that comment, either.

They could teach us a thing or two about how to manage trolls and a forum.

I just have no respect for John Edward himself. A man who takes advantage of people. That is where our scorn should be directed, if we so believe him to be a charlatan.

Disrespecting and making blanket statements about all religious people is to try to define a pretty big chunk of humanity. And that puts you dangerously close to being a certain kind of supremacist and quite a ways from being a skeptic.

[Yahzi]

Luke T.
Christianity does not teach that Christians "are right about almost everything." Quite the opposite. It teaches they are imperfect sinners. It is all about humility. The kind of humility that Roadtoad talked about in his opening post.
At the risk of sinking to deconstructionism: while that's what the text says, it's not what the text means. Teaching that people are inherently sinners due to acts beyond their control does not in fact impart humility: it only imparts neurosis.

It isn't about validating your own self. It is about gratitude.
When God saves his creations from his own imposed punishment, no gratitude is required or even appropriate. The Bible pretends to teach humility, but what it really teaches is subservience. It pretends to teach gratitude, but what it really teaches is irrational superiority for being one of the lucky ones.

I realize you disagree with me on the content of the Bible. However, I submit that the fact that so many more Christians seem to take my interpretation as evidence that perhaps my interpretation is closer to the truth than yours. If the Bible says what you say it does, then why do so many Christians seem to act like it says what I say it does?


Now if that isn't self-righteous smugness, I don't know what is.
Commiting murder for money is a bad choice. Commiting it because you are bored is a worse choice. Do you honestly expect me to not lose respect for people who make those kinds of choices?

If you willfully and consistently make bad choices, it's because you are a bad person. No self-righteous smugness here: simple fact.

But as I have travelled around the internet and debated people who believe in magic crystals and AfterDeath Communication, and psychokinesis and what have you, feeling all superior-like, it slowly began to dawn on me that I was talking to real people. People just like me. People I actually began to like and make friends with.
But they aren't people just like me. I cannot, however hard I try, ignore reality or moral justice just because it makes me feel better.

I don't believe it is my mission to shatter people's lives. I don't think I am always doing someone a "favor" by showing them how "stupid" they are.
It's not my mission to shatter innocent people's lives either. I'm only trying to shatter the ones who are hurting me.

If your beliefs don't cost me anything, then I don't care. If you ask me to explain how these people's idiotic believes cause me harm, I will put you on ignore.

How can you look at the people around you who you think have made "bad choices" and therefore have no respect for and consider yourself a friend to them?
I don't consider myself a friend to them.

You are no different than the self-righteous Christians who think you are going to hell when you look at people that way.
No, there is a difference. My complaint and subsequent dismissal of them is based on objective factors. Christian's judgements are based on imaginary sky fairy stories.

I no longer look at the fans of John Edward as a bunch of stupid people for whom I have no respect. I have found them to be just as smart a bunch as we have here.
Intelligence is not the issue. Rationality is. Joe Firmage is an extremly intelligent guy. He's also a delusional idiot. I respect him for his intelligence and basic humanity: I would be happy to have him arrange my network or share my dinner. However, I would not trust him with sharp objects or decisions more important than how many Teddy Grahams he wants to eat today.

They could teach us a thing or two about how to manage trolls and a forum.
Um. No. This is factually incorrect.

I just have no respect for John Edward himself. A man who takes advantage of people.
After listening to your stupid lecture, suddenly you bust out and do the very same thing? I'm sorry, but do you know what the word "hypocrite" means? Apparently you missed the fact that Steve Grenard and the various other rabid lunies are also taking advantage of people.

Disrespecting and making blanket statements about all religious people is to try to define a pretty big chunk of humanity. And that puts you dangerously close to being a certain kind of supremacist and quite a ways from being a skeptic.
1. Since when is disrespecting people who act in unrespectable ways a problem? Or is it only ok to disrespect people you think are disrespectable?
2. Since when is defining a pretty big chunk of humanity a problem? Are you saying that I shouldn't use words like "Catholic" and "Buddhist" because, you know, that would be defining a pretty big chunk of humanity?
3. How the hell did allegations of white supremacy get into this conversation? Dude, what the f*** are you smoking?

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Christianity does not teach that Christians "are right about almost everything." Quite the opposite. It teaches they are imperfect sinners. It is all about humility. The kind of humility that Roadtoad talked about in his opening post.

It isn't about validating your own self. It is about gratitude.



Saying it is about humility and gratitude does not make it so-the EVIDENCE and any RATIONAL approach to the subject will clearly show it is the OPPOSITE of humility. The naturalistic worldview is the humble worldview, not about validating the self but reality.

Christian worldview-I know there is a God, because I have faith. The proof required is in personal belief---the truth exists because the believer says so--That's HUMBLE???!!! My beliefs are correct independent of any evidence because I believe??!!! The whole thing is self-created, subjective, allb built on a self-centered foundation of truth--that YOU know the truth. The world was created by God for man. The whole huge universe was made with us as the pinnacle of God's creation...Very humble. As Mark Twain noted, that is like thinking that the Eiffel tower was created to hold up the fraction of a fraction of a fraction of an inch of paint on the very top. Sorry but Christianity and religious views in general cannot be honestly described as humble except in word only. The very act of assuming an unproven and unproveable worldview is the TRUTH is an act of self-righteousness, and the very opposite of humility.

Naturalist worldview-People and our brains are unreliable interpreters of the truth, of reality. One needs to get evidence from independent sources to confirm or deny our perceptions...We are so easily fooled, especially by ourselves. The very core of being humble is the foundation.

Finally-to tolerate or look away when people think irrationally (as Luke T suggests) is to tacitly endorse this very dangerous way of not thinking...A rascist may not be stupid but acting out of his own ignorance and insecurity but I will not look the other way out of some misguided notion of compassion because his rascism makes him feel better about himself or his life. If someone's life is "shattered" because you take away a flawed and dangerous worldview that accepts that the truth is derived from within their own brain then that life based on that worldview needs to be "shattered" before such danagerous thinking leads to that person visiting their self-created version of truth on everyone else--which they too often do...Stupidity and ignorance breed more of the same and need to be exposed and opposed wherever they occur- ...the consequences of not doing so have already been suffered on too many millions of people throughout history.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Luke T.
At the risk of sinking to deconstructionism: while that's what the text says, it's not what the text means. Teaching that people are inherently sinners due to acts beyond their control does not in fact impart humility: it only imparts neurosis.

I haven't thought that I was a "sinner" due to factors beyond my control. One of the first things I kept encountering as I read scripture, and, (dare I admit I read something so "heretical?") Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is that I am the only one responsible for what I think, and what I do. It trivializes the whole notion of Holiness if I simply say, "Well, it wasn't REALLY my fault..."

One of the toughest lessons I had to unlearn from years of my parents surrounding me with shrinks is that when I make a mistake, IT IS MY FAULT, and not the fault of others. YOU must accept responsibility for YOUR evil/stupid/foolish/silly acts. You either do that and learn from your mistakes, or you make the same ones over again.

I have a friend who's a great truck driver. He can take a 58 footer through SF, and not even break a sweat. (Trust me, that is one hell of a skill.) There's probably not a trailer in anyone's inventory that he can't pull. But, he likes his reds. Grooves on 'em. Likes how they make him feel. And every time he takes a piss test, he gets canned. (I'm still not sure how he keeps his CDL.)

It's not his fault, he whines. It's his friends' fault, or it's his old lady's fault, or it's his mother's fault...

I suppose at some point, he's blamed God, but the reality is that he's the one who keeps hitting up the dealers, and dropping that crap into his bloodstream. And at some point, it's either going to kill him, or someone else.

And ultimately, it's going to be HIS fault, whether he wants to admit it or not. And that applies to Courts of Law, and God as well.

When God saves his creations from his own imposed punishment, no gratitude is required or even appropriate. The Bible pretends to teach humility, but what it really teaches is subservience. It pretends to teach gratitude, but what it really teaches is irrational superiority for being one of the lucky ones.

Man, I hope not. I got slammed on that one time and again. I hate morally smug people, regardless of what they believe.

Had a co-worker, (no, he wasn't by any stretch of the imagination a "friend"), who got into that trip that Yahzi describes. Dave was going for his Master's in Communications, and he was a muckety muck in his church, and he was headed off to the mission field, and he was...

I finally had enough of it and told him that I was sick of his attitude. So you're a big shot in the church? Too bad he was so damn smug and holier than thou that I'd never break the threshold of it. Why would I? What in his actions was there to recommend such a place to my family?

And, yes, (yeah, I know I'm backing into this one), what other role was there for the "serpent" except to bring about our fall? And if that is the case, how can you be grateful for being placed in such a loop? And wouldn't you EXPECT that an avenue of escape would be placed, if for no other reason, simply out of common decency?

I realize you disagree with me on the content of the Bible. However, I submit that the fact that so many more Christians seem to take my interpretation as evidence that perhaps my interpretation is closer to the truth than yours. If the Bible says what you say it does, then why do so many Christians seem to act like it says what I say it does?

Touche. Unfortunately, we (and I mean the Church when I say this) are very good at our hypocrisy. We've had plenty of practice.

Commiting murder for money is a bad choice. Commiting it because you are bored is a worse choice. Do you honestly expect me to not lose respect for people who make those kinds of choices?

I would lose respect for you if you didn't lose respect for such people. (Just don't become like Jedi Jackass about it... :D )

If you willfully and consistently make bad choices, it's because you are a bad person. No self-righteous smugness here: simple fact.

Truth.

But they aren't people just like me. I cannot, however hard I try, ignore reality or moral justice just because it makes me feel better.

John Edward is not just like me. Oral Roberts is not just like me. Both are stealing. And they are doing it in the most cynical, hateful, and painful manner possible. They deserve to be punished. Not that they ever will.

It's not my mission to shatter innocent people's lives either. I'm only trying to shatter the ones who are hurting me.

Whether we admit to it or not, people who deceive themselves as well as others are hurting us. Pat Robertson, with his smear of gays and lesbians, has hurt us. He has continued to foster intolerance, when it is the opposite that we need. In doing so, he smears the Christian faith EVERY BIT AS MUCH as he smears gays and lesbians. (Man, where is Girl6 when you need her?)

If your beliefs don't cost me anything, then I don't care. If you ask me to explain how these people's idiotic believes cause me harm, I will put you on ignore.

Please, don't do that. This is the sort of debate we need to hear.

I don't consider myself a friend to them.

Define "friend." You can take actions of mercy to assist others, and that would be considered an act of friendship. I don't think you'd be asked to share your home with such people.

No, there is a difference. My complaint and subsequent dismissal of them is based on objective factors. Christian's judgements are based on imaginary sky fairy stories.

Unfortunately, when you consider the actions of the Church, that's a tragically accurate statement.

Intelligence is not the issue. Rationality is. Joe Firmage is an extremly intelligent guy. He's also a delusional idiot. I respect him for his intelligence and basic humanity: I would be happy to have him arrange my network or share my dinner. However, I would not trust him with sharp objects or decisions more important than how many Teddy Grahams he wants to eat today.

I don't know who Joe Firmage is, but he just might be easy to spot. Does he sign his name in Crayola?

[Yahzi]

Roadtoad
I haven't thought that I was a "sinner" due to factors beyond my control.
I was referring to the concept of Original Sin.

One of the toughest lessons I had to unlearn from years of my parents surrounding me with shrinks is that when I make a mistake, IT IS MY FAULT, and not the fault of others.
We all agree you can't have responsbility without power, right? Even though Christianity is obstensibly about personal responsiblity, it cannot really be. "Let go and let God" is a true expression of the faith. If you submit to God, then you must surrender your power, which necessarily means surrendering your responsiblity.

You either do that and learn from your mistakes, or you make the same ones over again.
This idea of moral progress is humanistic. The religious moral position is that you cannot learn enough on your own: you simply need to do what God says is right.

And that applies to Courts of Law, and God as well.
Only if God (like the Law) is limited. If God is unlimited, then limitations don't apply, including limitations on moral culpability. If God is unlimited, then everything really is God's fault.

And, yes, (yeah, I know I'm backing into this one), what other role was there for the "serpent" except to bring about our fall? And if that is the case, how can you be grateful for being placed in such a loop? And wouldn't you EXPECT that an avenue of escape would be placed, if for no other reason, simply out of common decency?
My Heresy monitor is blinking furiously. It appears that Freethinking is going here! ;)


Touche. Unfortunately, we (and I mean the Church when I say this) are very good at our hypocrisy. We've had plenty of practice.

Except I don't think it's hypocrisy, I think it's a faithful rendition. The Old Testament god is about one thing: power. The New Testament painted a face of Love on the god of power, but it doesn't stick too well.


Please, don't do that. This is the sort of debate we need to hear.

Luke T. has been on this board long enough that I don't need to answer that particular question for him.

I don't know who Joe Firmage is, but he just might be easy to spot. Does he sign his name in Crayola?
He was that computer network guy that wrote a book on the coming of the aliens. A complete genius, made a fortune out of nothing, did for computer networks what Gates did for computers, and then out of the blue angels start telling him that the Aliens are coming to save us. He is the perfect example of a really, really intelligent delusional idiot.

As Shermer said, lots of people are smart and very good at defending ideas that they came to believe for non-smart reasons.

[Baker]

Roadtoad I’m praying for you to come back to the true path that god has set for.

Ok I’m just kidding but I don’t have time to read every post here so can some one give me an example of what Roadtoad is referring to I didn’t even realize there where any Christians on the forum.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Yahzi
At the risk of sinking to deconstructionism: while that's what the text says, it's not what the text means. Teaching that people are inherently sinners due to acts beyond their control does not in fact impart humility: it only imparts neurosis.

It is neurotic to realize you are not perfect? It is neurotic to teach forgiveness of others for not being perfect? If that is neuroisis, I'll take it. Better than the judgmental, speaking down from the mount, self-righteous stance you are taking.

Commiting murder for money is a bad choice. Commiting it because you are bored is a worse choice. Do you honestly expect me to not lose respect for people who make those kinds of choices?

And who are you talking about that is committing murder? Your next door neighbor Christian? I don't think so.

If you willfully and consistently make bad choices, it's because you are a bad person. No self-righteous smugness here: simple fact.

It is a bad choice in YOUR world. And Yahzi never makes bad choices. No sir! He is a font of wisdom and discretion at all times.


But they aren't people just like me. I cannot, however hard I try, ignore reality or moral justice just because it makes me feel better.

And you wonder later where I got the idea that you had a supremacist attitude?


It's not my mission to shatter innocent people's lives either. I'm only trying to shatter the ones who are hurting me.

Who is hurting you, Yahzi? Honestly.


If your beliefs don't cost me anything, then I don't care. If you ask me to explain how these people's idiotic believes cause me harm, I will put you on ignore.

I guess you better put me on ignore then.




After listening to your stupid lecture, suddenly you bust out and do the very same thing? I'm sorry, but do you know what the word "hypocrite" means? Apparently you missed the fact that Steve Grenard and the various other rabid lunies are also taking advantage of people.

How is it hypocritical to say that John Edward is taking advantage of people and yet still like those very people? Where are you coming from?


2. Since when is defining a pretty big chunk of humanity a problem? Are you saying that I shouldn't use words like "Catholic" and "Buddhist" because, you know, that would be defining a pretty big chunk of humanity?

Defining your idea of what religious people are and what religious people believe is where you are going wrong.

[Luke T.]

By the way, Yahzi. Before you go an make further assumptions, you should know I am not a Christian.

edited to add: If you haven't put me on ignore yet, I just wanted to say that it was not my intent to make you as angry as you seem to be right now.

I just think that you have been using some pretty big blanket statements to describe what billions of people think and believe, and I think that is very dangerous thinking. Just as dangerous as the kind of thinking on some religious people's part that all atheists are evil or whathaveyou.

I am also curious as to why the subject of religion makes you so angry.

It is one thing to point at the Crusades or the Inquisition or whatever, but it usually comes down to something personal. So that is why I asked how religion has hurt you. How am I supposed to know?

[Fun2BFree]

Luke T.-

That you are so shocked that anyone could have a rationally based strong opposition to religion is proof of your narrowmindedness. You only know what you have been surrounded by, apparently, in your reaction to what Yahzi has said...he has given ample rational explanation of the problems that religion has and continues to visit on mankind-it is a tyrrany on the mind of man, an impediment to true moral progress and that you cannot see that is not a reflection of his intolerance but your blindness. neither yahzi nor any other anti-religious person I have ever known or seen on these boards has ever said that relgious freedom should be encroached by the way...that was actually tried and failed in France over a century ago---the modern anti-religious movement is founded on freedom and reason -following the path of liberty and rationality can only lead one to feel that relgious freedom is essential--but it also inevitably concludes that religion is wrong, as well. just as one cannot force democracy on the unwilling, one cannot hope to "force" reason---just standing up to irrationality...that is all we are doing.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Luke T.-

That you are so shocked that anyone could have a rationally based strong opposition to religion is proof of your narrowmindedness. You only know what you have been surrounded by, apparently, in your reaction to what Yahzi has said...he has given ample rational explanation of the problems that religion has and continues to visit on mankind-it is a tyrrany on the mind of man, an impediment to true moral progress and that you cannot see that is not a reflection of his intolerance but your blindness. neither yahzi nor any other anti-religious person I have ever known or seen on these boards has ever said that relgious freedom should be encroached by the way...that was actually tried and failed in France over a century ago---the modern anti-religious movement is founded on freedom and reason -following the path of liberty and rationality can only lead one to feel that relgious freedom is essential--but it also inevitably concludes that religion is wrong, as well. just as one cannot force democracy on the unwilling, one cannot hope to "force" reason---just standing up to irrationality...that is all we are doing.

I seem to be seriously misunderstood here. Not the first time on matters religious.

Fun2BFree, I have yet to meet the person here or in real life who is or was ever as hostile toward religion as I used to be. When the starry-eyed born-again evangelics used to approach me in the shopping mall, it took every bit of self-restraint to not knock them on the head.

When my IV drug abusing brother died, I deliberately sought out a Christian on my ship and cornered him in a berthing compartment and screamed at him. I dared him to tell me my brother had gone to hell. I don't even remember what his response was, but it didn't matter. In my mindset at the time, there was no right answer.

I think the only narrowmindesness being expressed in this topic is the idea by some that religion has done nothing but harm. Or more harm than good.

I also think that for an atheist to speak authoritatively on what all religious people think and believe is not one whit different from what some religious people preach.

It is nothing more than prejudice speaking, and it is plain to see. And it ignores the billions of good people who do more good than bad based on their belief systems. If things were as bad as some seem to think, humanity would have become extinct long ago.

To actually say that one does not have any respect for religious people is to stand on the same high moral ground as a Jerry Falwell.

If you were homeless and on the street, would you refuse a meal from a man because he believes in God and that it is his duty to help you? Would you have no respect for him? Would you curse him for the Inquisition?

There was a time I would have refused such a man. I would rather have died. No kidding. I would have died figuring I sure showed him!

[Fun2BFree]

Luke T-

You not only appear to be misunderstood but misunderstand--no one is saying that religion has nothing good...hitler did some good things too...that is not the point...the point is not that one can assume religious people think a certain thing...the whole worldview is by its nature very understandable and can be described as Yahzi (and I) have labeled it..that you don't like the description does not change its truth. That religious people do good some of the time is the reason it has not eradicated mankind...but if reason and rational thought were the majority approach the world would be better off. this cannot be denied. That religious people are sometimes motivated to do good is not enough reason to embrace it when it is also so easy to take the same worldview and twist it into something so evil...because the whole method is flawed....Analogy-If you have a method of picking stocks that sometimes works and sometimes fails is that a good method? If it is based on the nature of the market and the companies we can discuss it but What if the method is based on the position of the stars? Or the color of the carpet of the reception room at the company's headquaters?? Not a very logical approach to picking stocks. And picking your worldview of what is just and true based on the supernatural mythical conglomeration that your parents handed down to you from their parents is also not logical. So when I criticize religion as a negative force in the world it is to point out to you that the religious attitude is characterized by fundamental belief that each person is entitled to their own reality---and that is very dangerous and untrue....a 9/11 attack can only occur in the mind of a religious person...a person convinced of the rightness of their mind over any outside reason. It is not that religious people anger me by their talk of people in hell whom I may have loved..it is there complete ignorance of the totally subjective view of the world that they have be it heaven, hell, right or wrong....they are clueless and prove it all the time when they say things like without belief in God there can be no morality...That sort of ignorance is so common and widespread that it should sicken any thinking person.

[Yahzi]

Luke T.
It is neurotic to realize you are not perfect?
Realizing you are not perfect is considerably different than realizing that you are a horrid monster who deserves eternal torment merely for being born - a priori of any action whatsoever.

You do understand the concept of Original Sin, yes? And that it is a standard Christian doctrine (although some sects repudiate it). There is absolutely nothing healthy or moral in the concept of Original Sin.

And who are you talking about that is committing murder? Your next door neighbor Christian? I don't think so.
I was making the general point that we are allowed to disrespect other people for the choices they make.

And Yahzi never makes bad choices. No sir! He is a font of wisdom and discretion at all times.
:confused:
While I concede that humility is not one of my principal virtues, I can't imagine what prompted you to write this. At what point did I ever (in this thread or any other) imply this?

And you wonder later where I got the idea that you had a supremacist attitude?
I still do. Perhaps you mean "elitist." I would still argue the charge does not apply, but at least I would be able to understand the charge.

How is it hypocritical to say that John Edward is taking advantage of people and yet still like those very people? Where are you coming from?
Where I am coming from is that the people you say you like - the ones JE is taking advantage - are themselves taking advantage of others, in exactly the same manner that JE does.

Defining your idea of what religious people are and what religious people believe is where you are going wrong... I just think that you have been using some pretty big blanket statements to describe what billions of people think and believe, and I think that is very dangerous thinking.
Um. I offered my interpretation. I don't think that's quite so world-shaking as you seem to think it is. I'm not sure whats wrong with me having ideas of what religious people are or what they believe is. Perhaps you are trying to say that I should accept their interpretations of their beliefs. While this seems reasonable at first pass, a brief perusal of history will show that it isn't actually helpful. People who believe irrational things are rarely correct on why they believe them or what their beliefs mean. That's part of the problem of being irrational...

If you haven't put me on ignore yet,
Just to point out: at the time of my post, you hadn't actually asked that question. My comment wasn't really directed at you (since I didn't expect you to ask such a stupid question), but rather was a rhetorical device intended to alert the audience that the conversation would not be going in that direction. It also served as a intimacy-building comment to the other atheists in the audience, since so many of them have suffered through that particular annoying argument. It's called a "literary style." You might find mine annoying or even mendacious, but it's mine.

I am also curious as to why the subject of religion makes you so angry.
Ok, now you are asking stupid questions. Remember Foodbunny's post? Here, I'll refresh your memory:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7822&post=173142#post173142

Now that didn't happen to me: but does it matter? Even if Foodbunny were the only person in the universe that it happened too, wouldn't that be enough reason to be angry at religion? But of course, Foodbunny's story is hardly exceptional. It's not even rare.

Now take a good look at the rest of the planet - Hindus killing Muslims, Muslims killing Jews, Jews killing Muslims, Christians killing Christians...

Read Ruby's post about her church. Read all the other stories everyone else contributed in the same vein.

Just my comments on Original Sin alone ought to justify a fiery hatred of religion. As Adams said, "Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

Now if you were a newbie, or an innocent 15 year old, or mentally retarded, you might be entitled to ask a question so utterly naive as "How has religion harmed you?" But given that you are a veteran of this board, I cannot concieve how you can in good conscience pretend that such a comment deserves a response other than - "read the REST OF THE DAMN BOARD."

Perhaps you are inquring on a more personal level: perhaps you are asking if there is some incident where religion harmed me immediately, as in priestly molestation or ethnic cleansing or so on. The answer is a) no, and b) is that a lead-in to ad hominen or what? My charges against religion do not depend upon my personal, subjective expierence, and it is insulting and dismissive that you should imply that they do.

I think the only narrowmindesness being expressed in this topic is the idea by some that religion has done nothing but harm. Or more harm than good.
It is not an act of narrowmindedness to assert that religion has done more harm than good. What is an act of narrowmindedness, or more appropriatly, political correctness, is to asser that the very idea that religion is on balance undesirable is itself a unacceptable subject of discussion.

Viva la censorship. Not only must we suffer through the torments of relgion, but we must not even complain, lest religion become offended.

And you accuse me of high-handedness?

I also think that for an atheist to speak authoritatively on what all religious people think and believe is not one whit different from what some religious people preach
Except that I offered reasons for my assertions, and freely offer to change my assertions if you succeed in demonstrating my reasons are inadequate. This is quite different that what most religious people preach, don't you think?

If you disagree with my theory, show me where it is wrong. Instead, you chose to accuse me of meaness and prejudice simply because I asserted something you found offensive.

I could swear you were on my list of reasonable posters on this forum. This kind of illogical, emotional reaction does not seem characteristic of you.

It is nothing more than prejudice speaking, and it is plain to see. And it ignores the billions of good people who do more good than bad based on their belief systems. If things were as bad as some seem to think, humanity would have become extinct long ago.
You've stacked up quite a few logical fallacies here. Is it necessary or profitable for me to illuminate them?

To actually say that one does not have any respect for religious people is to stand on the same high moral ground as a Jerry Falwell.
I do believe I prefaced this entire episode by saying "I respect people because they are people." And while I did point out that one loses respect for people that make bad choices, I did not assign a binary operator. Nothing in my statements is incompatible with the rather ordinary notion of losing a little bit of respect for people who make less than the best choice. The idea that I cannot distinguish between a murderer and a priest is not contained in anything I posted. Where did you get such an idea?

There was a time I would have refused such a man.
Hmm. Perhaps now we know where you got such an idea. Perhaps it came not from what I wrote, but from what you read. Perhaps it came from you.

News flash, Luke: I AM NOT YOU. I don't believe as you did. I don't feel as you did. I am not the person you were. While it is true I am angry at religion, I am not angry for the reasons you were, or in the way that you were. My anger is not the product of emotional experience, but rather the product of careful and sober investigation.

[Yahzi]

Roadtoad

Here's a similar opinion from a distinguished person:

"It it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian" - Mahatma Ghandi

You're in good company, it seems. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I seem to be seriously misunderstood here. Not the first time on matters religious.

Fun2BFree, I have yet to meet the person here or in real life who is or was ever as hostile toward religion as I used to be. When the starry-eyed born-again evangelics used to approach me in the shopping mall, it took every bit of self-restraint to not knock them on the head.

When my IV drug abusing brother died, I deliberately sought out a Christian on my ship and cornered him in a berthing compartment and screamed at him. I dared him to tell me my brother had gone to hell. I don't even remember what his response was, but it didn't matter. In my mindset at the time, there was no right answer.

I think the only narrowmindesness being expressed in this topic is the idea by some that religion has done nothing but harm. Or more harm than good.

I also think that for an atheist to speak authoritatively on what all religious people think and believe is not one whit different from what some religious people preach.

It is nothing more than prejudice speaking, and it is plain to see. And it ignores the billions of good people who do more good than bad based on their belief systems. If things were as bad as some seem to think, humanity would have become extinct long ago.

To actually say that one does not have any respect for religious people is to stand on the same high moral ground as a Jerry Falwell.

If you were homeless and on the street, would you refuse a meal from a man because he believes in God and that it is his duty to help you? Would you have no respect for him? Would you curse him for the Inquisition?

There was a time I would have refused such a man. I would rather have died. No kidding. I would have died figuring I sure showed him!

Great post Luke and very close to my feelings about religion. You just earned a Language award nomination. :)

The anger of the God-Haters grows so tiresome, and IMO denigrates the atheist position as bad as those of the theocrats, creationists and forceful moralists do the Christers.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


The anger of the God-Haters grows so tiresome, and IMO denigrates the atheist position as bad as those of the theocrats, creationists and forceful moralists do the Christers.

Then you allow irrationality to denigrate things which is itself proof of your own irrationality...The atheist position is founded on reason and rationality..it cannot be denigrated by anger or anything other than better reasoning, evidence, rationality.

Your irrationality has been exposed.

[Luke T.]

Yahzi, it seems no one likes to be labelled a supremacist. Even some of the White Nationalists get mad when I call them that. :D

But to be fair, perhaps "elitist" is closer to the truth of what I meant.

As for your and Fun2BFree's position on religion, your arguments can easily be turned around with regard to atheism. We can spend all day matching horror for horror perpetrated by religious and atheist peoples. I think if we were to look at the last century, atheists lose hands down. Christians barely register a blip on that screen.

It is precisely the same kind of argument which religious people use to condemn any and all atheists. They associate you with Stalin and Mao. Is that fair? Is it accurate? Is it logical?

I am sure there are religious people on the Left who resent being lumped in with the likes of Pat Robertson.

As for the fans of John Edward, the vast majority are taking advantage of no one.

I think fear is the cause of the world's problems. Not religion, not atheism. Fear. Fear is what I talk about more than anything else with the White Nationalists.

White Nationalists will tell you the world's problems are caused by non-whites. Atheists say religion. Religion says atheism/evil.

I say they are all wrong. I say it is fear.

Giving Foodbunny's victim speech and others on here as examples of why you hate religion appears exactly the same to me as a WN linking news articles about the riots outside Detroit, or any other story they can find where a non-white did something wrong. You can't possibly tell me that this is justification for your beliefs. Surely you know better than that.

The WNs at Stormfront tell me the same thing over there that you guys do. Read the rest of the site! That is supposed to show me the light.

Yahzi, I know you are not me. But I certainly am familiar with every argument you make. I made them all, and more, in my time. I reinforced that belief as much as a John Edward fan reinforces theirs. I am hoping you are not falling prey to the same fears and the same anger I was.

[Fun2BFree]

Luke T-

Your ignorance has shown itself again...Mao and Stalin were not atheists by any reasonable definition of the term...they believed in the sanctity of the state..the holy state over the individual...a religion of the state....they believed in arbitrary absolutes of power--they did not hold a naturalistic worldview based on evidence...they are cut from the exact same cloth as all the other religions --so sorry....you lose--there is not a whiff of evidence that atheistic belief has led to any atrociites-Period...if you have som beetter evidence bring it on...but don't waste too much time looking for it...it is not there....Religion (worshiping your idea of the God, the state, whatever) sucks and your examples are just more evidence of this.

[Fun2BFree]

Religious as defined by the dictionary-- "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity"

this would have to include faithful devotion to a leader or a state government and as such cannot exclude Mao, Stalin, Hitler, or any other supposedly godless dictator who has demanded faithful devotion to their system/person. etc.

Atheists have no faithful devotion to anything because they are by definition without FAITH..What they have is an unwillingness to accept anything on faith...they demand evidence. The idea that atheism or atheists have committed atrocities is another of the lies put out by the religious minded to confuse the issue and maintain their stranglehold of power over the minds of millions....it ranks up there with the old wheeze about how atheists have no morality.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Luke T.
But to be fair, perhaps "elitist" is closer to the truth of what I meant.

It is at least a comprehensible charge. However, I reject it.

They associate you with Stalin and Mao. Is that fair? Is it accurate? Is it logical?

No, it is not. Stalin did not commit his crimes because of his atheism. Even if I concede that he was able to commit his crimes because he was atheist (which I do not), you would still have to admit that his atheism was not the root cause of his actions. It at most enabled them, but it did not cause them. Stalin did not murder 20 million people to advance the cause of unbelief. He did it for power.

In the same way, Hitler cannot be regarded as a killer for Christ, because even though he was religious, and even though his religion enabled his crimes, he did not do it for the sake Christianity.

The Crusades, on the other hand, were done for causes that only existed because of Christianity. Without religion or atheism, Stalin would have still sought power, Hitler would have still committed genocide, but the Crusaders would not have liberated Jeruslam without Jesus.

Even if you could show where an atheist murdered believers because they were believers, that would still not be enough. You would have to show that atheism endorsed and supported such actions. This cannot be done, because atheism has virtually no positive tenets. It cannot endorse any particular action. Religion, on the other hand, is often prescriptive: many religions assert positive tenets, and many of those tenets lead directly and rationally to violence and murder.

I think fear is the cause of the world's problems. Not religion, not atheism. Fear. Fear is what I talk about more than anything else with the White Nationalists.

Does atheism promote fear? No. Does the Christian religion promote fear? Hmm... does the idea that there is an invisible being watching you, judging you on arbitrary criteria written in a language you don't speak, and prepared to torture you beyond all imagination beyond all time, cause you any anxiety? Can we say that when the preacher preaches "fear of hell," he is preaching fear? Can we describe "Hell House" and Chick tracts as promoting fear? Can we assert that when preachers say that God will allow our buildings to be blown up if we don't do what he wants, they are spreading fear?

Yes, I agree. Fear is one of the chief causes of the world's problems. And religion - specifically the Christian religion - is one of the chief causes of fear.

I say they are all wrong. I say it is fear.

Didn't you just give me a lecture on how it is wrong to define other people's beliefs? Isn't that exactly what you are doing here? I at least limited my definition to some subset of humanity - here you are defining all of them.

You really should look up the definition of "hypocrisy."

Giving Foodbunny's victim speech and others on here as examples of why you hate religion appears exactly the same to me as a WN linking news articles about the riots outside Detroit, or any other story they can find where a non-white did something wrong.

Again you seem to fail to grasp the issue of causality. Foodbunny's torments were because of religion. They were motivated and perpetuated by religious thought and word. If Foodbunny's classmates had been atheists, or even merely Buddhists, she would not have been treated like that. Christianity can justify tormenting a child in this life to save its soul in the next. That is the crime - that Christianity can justify such a thing. I would hate religion even if Foodbunny never happened, just because it could.

Now, if the rioters in Detroit were rioting because they were black, then the arguments would be analogous. Perhaps the racists are asserting that, but they are factually wrong. Being black does not make you more riotous. There is nothing in blackness that makes people more likely to riot. But there is something in religion that makes people more likely to be murderous. If nothing else, the simple assertion that there is an afterlife renders the current life less unique, and therefore less valuable.

The WNs at Stormfront tell me the same thing over there that you guys do.

You hang out with racists, and yet dare to question my outrage at religion. Perhaps you should check your outrage meter. Or your irony meter. Perhaps you should realize that just because you climbed up on a faulty moral high-horse does not mean that there are is such thing as a moral high ground. You seem to have gone from moral arrogance to moral ambivalence. I reject both positions as unworthy of a rational being.

If you can't tell the difference in quality between our arguments and their arguments, then the problem is you.

But I certainly am familiar with every argument you make. I made them all, and more, in my time.

This is obviously not true, as demonstrated above.

I am hoping you are not falling prey to the same fears and the same anger I was.

At the risk of being "elitist," I assert that I have a rational basis for my views. If you disagree with my views, you need merely demonstrate why they are wrong in a rational way, and I will change them. Do you understand why the preceeding statement makes all the difference in the world? To put it another way: would any religious or racist person ever make that statement?

Would you make that statement?

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Yahzi

[B]. But there is something in religion that makes people more likely to be murderous. If nothing else, the simple assertion that there is an afterlife renders the current life less unique, and therefore less valuable.

It is more than the afterlife that makes religious people more likely to be murderous or evil or bad...Religion is by its very nature the subjugation of reason. Believe! Religion is not, cannot be, rational. It is faith based not reason based. When the foundation upon which you build your moral compass is not based on evidence but your own personal faith that what you believe is correct and true because you believe it---anything is possible and correct if you believe it to be--and of course this makes abuse and murder more likely than an evidence and reason based morality.

[Luke T.]

edited: Yahzi, I have just deleted a couple of posts in which I responded to your last post. I did so for a couple of reasons. First, I have no desire to continue the apparent escalation of ill will we seem to be experiencing, and I found myself giving in to temptation to continue in that vein. I really don't want to do that.

Second, I think we both need to back up. At least, I do. I must be honest and say that I am not entirely clear where you are coming from, and I feel like we are sparring in the dark. And since my primary aim on the internet is to learn, I need to back up and ask you a question or two for clarification, and to let you know where I am coming from.

Yahzi, let me put it to you this way. This is how you appear, or sound, to me:

There is no God, but some religious people perpetrated, and are currently perpetrating, horrific crimes against humanity in the name of God. Therefore, anyone who belongs to any religion is an idiot and is guilty by association and not worthy of respect.

How am I doing? Because that is what I am hearing.

And, please feel free to ask me questions for clarification.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree


It is more than the afterlife that makes religious people more likely to be murderous or evil or bad...Religion is by its very nature the subjugation of reason. Believe! Religion is not, cannot be, rational. It is faith based not reason based. When the foundation upon which you build your moral compass is not based on evidence but your own personal faith that what you believe is correct and true because you believe it---anything is possible and correct if you believe it to be--and of course this makes abuse and murder more likely than an evidence and reason based morality.

I can't help but wonder how many religious people didn't commit murder because of the ten commandments.

An atheistic ruler has no belief in a power greater than himself to prevent him from committing atrocities.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I can't help but wonder how many religious people didn't commit murder because of the ten commandments.
If the 10 commandments is the only reason a person doesn't commit murder then that person is in need of a lot of help to begin with.


An atheistic ruler has no belief in a power greater than himself to prevent him from committing atrocities.
being religious hasn't stopped that many from commiting atrocities either. Of course an athiest would only do it for their own reasons. A religious leader could do it for their own reasons or because 'god' told them to.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Marc

If the 10 commandments is the only reason a person doesn't commit murder then that person is in need of a lot of help to begin with.

Many people consider murder. If you had been married to my second wife, you might have found your own self considering it. :D

Some don't do it because of fear of God, some don't do it because of fear of the Law. But you can't deny that some people consider it, along with theft, adultery, lying, and so on. Do all of these people need help? Or are they just being human?

There is a reason the books of the old testament were often referred to as The Law. And why Moses is considered the earliest Lawgiver. The U.S. Supreme Court honors him in bas relief on their building.

Some of these laws are held up for ridicule today, but we must judge them by the times. The people had to be tamed. Even today, we find some pretty silly laws on the books of our own country. But there had to have been some kind of rationalization for them at the time they were written.


being religious hasn't stopped that many from commiting atrocities either. Of course an athiest would only do it for their own reasons. A religious leader could do it for their own reasons or because 'god' told them to.

But did "god" really tell them to? Or are they just rationalizing the same base desires and acting on them? God is a convenient excuse, not necessarily a motive.

I am simply refuting Fun2BFree's assertion that being religious makes one more prone to committing atrocities. Here, the history of the 20th century squarely lies in my favor. Perhaps the entire history of mankind.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Luke T.
But you can't deny that some people consider it, along with theft, adultery, lying, and so on. Do all of these people need help? Or are they just being human?
If the 10C are the only thing keeping them from murder then hell yea they need help!



There is a reason the books of the old testament were often referred to as The Law. And why Moses is considered the earliest Lawgiver. The U.S. Supreme Court honors him in bas relief on their building.
yea, mythic tradition. In reality there were lawgivers before Moses, assuming he even existed and did in fact give any laws attributed to him.



But did "god" really tell them to?
Nope, but that isn't the issue is it? The issue is religion, it only matters if they believed they were following god's commands in commiting atrocities, weather by delusion, rationalization, or indoctrination into someone else's claims.



I am simply refuting Fun2BFree's assertion that being religious makes one more prone to committing atrocities. Here, the history of the 20th century squarely lies in my favor. Perhaps the entire history of mankind.
Kinda trying to limit the data set in your favor? I would agree that in modern times most religions are a bit more tolerant and less destructive than in the past... Then again seeing the religious inspired violence in Africa and India, North Ireland, Islamic terrorists, Christian terrorists... sorry, but would agree that religion makes one more prone to committing atrocities.

[Roadtoad]

Well, based on my own experience, I found that religion did indeed provide some grounding which changed a lot in my life. I did manage a turnaround because of my choice to follow Christ. There was a great deal I should have learned while growing up, but didn't. (I'd go into that in more detail, but I don't see the point.) Further, there were, as I've already stated, other influences in my life, influences which I'd rather not have to think about ever again. (Unfortunately, I have to.)

But here's the rub on this one: It is still possible to live a moral, ethical, and lawful life without devotion to God. People do it all the time. (We've seen many people here on this board who do it daily.) Critical to this is what takes place, I believe, during childhood. If your parents teach you right from wrong, and why something is right or wrong, then you stand a good chance of living a good life. If not, you're going to have problems.

By the same token -- and I know this as well from painful personal experience -- religious training and education DO NOT guarantee even LAWFUL behavior. In many cases, with the distortion of what has been taught in or about many religions, we have seen phenomenally immoral acts, and they have been committed in the name of God. And it doesn't take much to find anyone who has been burnt by this barbarity.

Opinions, please?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Marc

If the 10C are the only thing keeping them from murder then hell yea they need help!

For some people, the only thing keeping them from murder is the law.

yea, mythic tradition. In reality there were lawgivers before Moses, assuming he even existed and did in fact give any laws attributed to him.

Whoever wrote the Law, there is no denying there is and was a Law in the Bible for people to live by. And law is necessary for the formation and success of a society.

Nope, but that isn't the issue is it? The issue is religion, it only matters if they believed they were following god's commands in commiting atrocities, weather by delusion, rationalization, or indoctrination into someone else's claims.

If there were no religion, do you think there would be less atrocity? I don't.

Kinda trying to limit the data set in your favor? I would agree that in modern times most religions are a bit more tolerant and less destructive than in the past... Then again seeing the religious inspired violence in Africa and India, North Ireland, Islamic terrorists, Christian terrorists... sorry, but would agree that religion makes one more prone to committing atrocities.

I'll see your religious terrorists and raise you a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao and a Pol Pot. Not even a contest.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Luke T.
First, I have no desire to continue the apparent escalation of ill will we seem to be experiencing

You have been on these boards for quite a while, and have earned my respect from the reasonableness shown in your posts. Because of that, I have not felt any ill will in this discussion, only considerable confusion.

There is no God, but some religious people perpetrated, and are currently perpetrating, horrific crimes against humanity in the name of God. Therefore, anyone who belongs to any religion is an idiot and is guilty by association and not worthy of respect.

That's not quite what I said in either this thread or any other.

In this thread, I asserted that many people are religious for invalid and even unhealthy psychological reasons. Some of those reflect poorly on the individual (such as a juvenile egomania), and some of them reflect more of a victim status (such as the lack of self-esteem and self-worth). These extremes often work in tandem: first you destroy a person's actual self-worth, and then you replace it with a cheap substitute. Much like people have been become addicted to soda pop instead of water: and now, of course, the bottlers just put water in the bottle and sell it to you for the price of soda pop. I was simply pointing out how the sickness is perpetuated.

I don't hate religious people merely for being religious. Look at my interactions with Ruby and Roadtoad. But I do hate people who use religion as a cover for their wickedness. I think that anger is perfectly valid. I hate Nazis, too, and I feel not the slightest compunction about it. I recognize that what Christians are doing is significantly different than what Nazis did, and moderate my actions accordingly: I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger on Hitler, but I haven't even considered assassinating Pat Robertson. My anger is bounded by rationality.

Your response to my speculations about religious psychology are waaaaaaaaaay off the scale.

But did "god" really tell them to? Or are they just rationalizing the same base desires and acting on them? God is a convenient excuse, not necessarily a motive.

You can't have it both ways. If God can be cited as reason not to commit murder, then he must be liable to be cited as reason to. If the Ten Commandents really have an effect, then "kill everything that breathes" and "suffer ye not a witch to live" must be allowed to have had an effect.

If there were no religion, do you think there would be less atrocity? I don't.

Considerably intelligent minds across the ages have disagreed with you, based on the personal expierences of their times. Given what we now know about the nature of social groups on personal behaviour, we can safely conclude that you are in fact wrong.

It is a simple fact that people obey authority figures. The Army knows this and uses it to teach people how to kill. People don't normally kill other people on their own: in WWII, %50 of soldiers alone in a foxhole would not fire on the enemy even when under fire themselves. But if you put two soldiers in the foxhole, then the rate of return fire rose to %100. Peer pressure, you know? By dint of hard work and careful research, the army got the single-soldier fire rate up to %75 by Vietnam. What does this tell us? That social conditioning can increase violence.

Now replace the army with a preacher exhorting Crusade/Jihad/Inquisition, and what do you get? History.

And law is necessary for the formation and success of a society.

But religious law is not. Hammaburi wrote the first laws: they were concerned solely with secular order. Athens had an empire for several hundred years without recourse to religious authority. There is considerable evidence that Ur was a peaceful democracy until the pressures of war lead them to tyranny: and Ur certainly had no concept of monotheism.

Peace is best established by democracies, and democracies are best established by people with equal moral authority. Raising one person above all the others because he speaks for an invisible and inarguable super-power does not help democracy flourish. Quite the opposite.

I'll see your religious terrorists and raise you a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao and a Pol Pot

I already refuted this claim. Did you not read it? Are you so blinded by offense at the assertion that believing in imaginary things is more likely to cause harm than not that you can no longer hold to rational discourse?

An atheistic ruler has no belief in a power greater than himself to prevent him from committing atrocities.

Where are you getting this stuff? Where is the real Luke T. and what have you done with him?

I cannot imagine a veteran of this board making such a clueless statement.

1. One does not have to believe in a "power greater than oneself" to refrain from doing something. There are other reasons to act or not act than mere fear of another's power.

2. Atheistic rulers have no excuse to commit atrocities. They cannot write off their actions to the "mysterious" ways of the Lord. They cannot, like Calvin, claim to love their enemies but hate God's. They cannot shrug the responsiblity for their acts higher up the chain. Do you recognize this comment: "Kill them all; God will know his own." It was issued by a Catholic cardinal. No atheist could justify murder on the grounds that someone else would clean up the mess.

3. The verdict of history, and one's own personal conscience, are more than adequate to prevent ordinary people from commiting atrocities.

You complain about my painting relgious people as wicked: and yet you have just defined all human beings as slavering monsters who refrain from rapine and murder only out of fear of some larger, more powerful slavering monster. And you have the nerve to complain about my generalizations!

[evildave]

I'll see your religious terrorists and raise you a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao and a Pol Pot. Not even a contest.

I see, so all non-religious people can be painted with the broad brush of Communists and Nazis?


Fine, then all religious people must be Branch Davidians at heart? Maybe you're all one comet away from sticking bags over your heads, like the Heaven's Gate loonies?

Nah, I think I'll stick with Jehova's Witlesses. All religion is simply being a watchtower door-knocker fruit.

[Ossai]

Luke T.
We can spend all day matching horror for horror perpetrated by religious and atheist peoples. I think if we were to look at the last century, atheists lose hands down. Christians barely register a blip on that screen. How did you come to that conclusion?

I'll see your religious terrorists and raise you a Hitler Hitler was religious and believed he was doing god's work.
Stalin, a Mao Were both communists and believed in the state and personal power - the only two I could actually think of.
Pol Pot Spent time as a Buddhist monk so he definitely had religious experience of some kind.

Ossai

[Ruby]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Japan is an amazing place. I would like to live there one day. They do have their social ills just like every other nation. The only difference is that as a culture they hide their problems. Most Japanese people do not talk about their problems. They see it as a sign of weakness. One of the things I learned about was their extremely high rate of suicide. In the past three years they have averaged over 30,000 suicides per year. That is about twice the rate in the US and Japan has half the population as the US! Many of the Japanese I spoke with (Christian and non-Christian) have concerns about their country, the economy, etc. So, again, Japan is an amazing place with an interesting history and culture. I learned a lot when I was t here. I didn't want to leave. I could have stayed another six months but unfortunately my job was waiting for me...:(

My hubby lived in Japan for four years (before we met) when he was in the Air Force. He loved Japan too. He worked with a couple of American missionaries on his free time. They told him many stories of Japanese getting persecuted when they converted to Christianity. Most of the persecution came in the form of their families totally disowning them.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by triadboy
Side Question: Why do xians say Christianity is not a religion? Originally posted by Roadtoad


If you run across any who say that, send them my way. They're wrong.

Yep, I agree!!:rolleyes:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I haven't thought that I was a "sinner" due to factors beyond my control. One of the first things I kept encountering as I read scripture, and, (dare I admit I read something so "heretical?") Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is that I am the only one responsible for what I think, and what I do. It trivializes the whole notion of Holiness if I simply say, "Well, it wasn't REALLY my fault..."

One of the toughest lessons I had to unlearn from years of my parents surrounding me with shrinks is that when I make a mistake, IT IS MY FAULT, and not the fault of others. YOU must accept responsibility for YOUR evil/stupid/foolish/silly acts. You either do that and learn from your mistakes, or you make the same ones over again.

Exactly! A lot of Christians blame the *devil* for their failings or character flaws. They even blame the *devil* when their children misbehave!!!

:mad:

[Fun2BFree]

Luke T-

Read the posts between this one and your last post and the posts between your last post and the post before---you are surely proving my point about those who think that the truth comes out of their own experience rather than any proof or evidence...twice you have made this ridiculous assertion about atheist rulers and multiple times you have been given evidence that your assertion is ungrounded, unfounded, ridiculous and counter to the facts...and yet because YOU believe otherwise you persist in stating these mistakes/lies, etc...
Atheists do not kill and persecute others for not accepting their viewpoint...that is the purvey of the religious...you have a monopoly on that behavior...demand for obedience is not in an atheist's playbook...it is not part of what defines a true atheist. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were not atheists--they demanded faithful devotion to the state--that is by definition a state religion-

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
demand for obedience is not in an atheist's playbook...it is not part of what defines a true atheist. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were not atheists--they demanded faithful devotion to the state--that is by definition a state religion-
If you replace the word "atheist" with the word "Freethinker," then your argument stands. Otherwise it is false. Mao and Stalin were certainly atheists.

The point is that their atheism was not the cause of their murdering. They did not kill people for reasons justified or inspired by atheism. Even Luke understands that: he points out that their atheism enabled their killing, but he does not claim it caused it. This argument fails, however, because a) religion never stopped any leader from killing, and b) it presupposes that humans are by nature murderous unless controlled by an external force. The record of history shows that having religious leaders does not reduce the amount of killing.

Finally, for all those people that keep saying more people were killed in the 20th century than in all of history: yes, because more people were born in the 20th century. If you want to measure killings by leaders throughout history, you must do it per capita. The fact that every single time this argument is brought up, it is never adjusted for percentage of world population, shows that no-one intends this argument to be logical or rational.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were not atheists--they demanded faithful devotion to the state--that is by definition a state religion-

Actually I don't think it matters if they were atheists or not. If they were their actions were not carying out the 'teachings' of atheism. There are no atheist commandments or laws calling for the destruction of all who do not convert, or burning of witches.

Whatever these people did they did it for thier own reasons, for their own grabs for power.

[Fun2BFree]

Yahzi and Marc--thanks for the clarifications and corrections...
the point is that nothing about being atheist in the sense that Stalin and Mao did not believe in God enabled encouraged or permitted the atrocities in question...that they did not believe in God was not ever offered as justification for their atrocities..on the contrary they invoked a new god the god of the state as justification--which is why they cannot be said to be true atheists.
Their theism was a theism of the state.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Yahzi


In this thread, I asserted that many people are religious for invalid and even unhealthy psychological reasons. Some of those reflect poorly on the individual (such as a juvenile egomania), and some of them reflect more of a victim status (such as the lack of self-esteem and self-worth). These extremes often work in tandem: first you destroy a person's actual self-worth, and then you replace it with a cheap substitute. Much like people have been become addicted to soda pop instead of water: and now, of course, the bottlers just put water in the bottle and sell it to you for the price of soda pop. I was simply pointing out how the sickness is perpetuated.

These are subjective viewpoints. You make an assertion, then use it as a fact to back up yet another assertion. Your assertion that Christianity is a life of suffering, for example. The assertion that a person's self-worth is destroyed. You have a very skewed perspective, Yahzi. The sheer multitude of these assertions is one big bag of wishful thinking on your part, and have no base in reality.

A lot of claims with no substantiation behind them.

I don't hate religious people merely for being religious. Look at my interactions with Ruby and Roadtoad. But I do hate people who use religion as a cover for their wickedness. I think that anger is perfectly valid. I hate Nazis, too, and I feel not the slightest compunction about it. I recognize that what Christians are doing is significantly different than what Nazis did, and moderate my actions accordingly: I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger on Hitler, but I haven't even considered assassinating Pat Robertson. My anger is bounded by rationality.

You have made painted Christians with broad strokes. But you like Ruby and Roadtoad. "I'm not prejudiced, some of my best friends are Christians!" So Christians must meet your personal attention and approval before you remove the stain you painted them with.

Your response to my speculations about religious psychology are waaaaaaaaaay off the scale.

Are they? Can you hear yourself, Yahzi? Speculations such as yours that are laced with hatred are the most dangerous kind. Why have you refrained from attacking Jews? They are religious people, too. They are the source from which Christianity sprang. Afraid that you will sound too much like an anti-Semite? Its safer to attack Christians, I guess. Calling Christians wicked is socially acceptable, but God forbid you say "Wicked Jews," and discuss all the evil plots they have hatched.

Listen to yourself.

You can't have it both ways. If God can be cited as reason not to commit murder, then he must be liable to be cited as reason to. If the Ten Commandents really have an effect, then "kill everything that breathes" and "suffer ye not a witch to live" must be allowed to have had an effect.

I'll get to this in the next part of this post.

If there were no religion, do you think there would be less atrocity? I don't.

Considerably intelligent minds across the ages have disagreed with you, based on the personal expierences of their times. Given what we now know about the nature of social groups on personal behaviour, we can safely conclude that you are in fact wrong.

It is a simple fact that people obey authority figures. The Army knows this and uses it to teach people how to kill. People don't normally kill other people on their own: in WWII, %50 of soldiers alone in a foxhole would not fire on the enemy even when under fire themselves. But if you put two soldiers in the foxhole, then the rate of return fire rose to %100. Peer pressure, you know? By dint of hard work and careful research, the army got the single-soldier fire rate up to %75 by Vietnam. What does this tell us? That social conditioning can increase violence.

Now replace the army with a preacher exhorting Crusade/Jihad/Inquisition, and what do you get? History.

You answered the question yourself. "Replace the army with a preacher." If there were no religion, the preacher would be replaced by someone else. I sure would like to know what scholars have said there would have been less atrocities without religion.


But religious law is not. Hammaburi wrote the first laws: they were concerned solely with secular order. Athens had an empire for several hundred years without recourse to religious authority. There is considerable evidence that Ur was a peaceful democracy until the pressures of war lead them to tyranny: and Ur certainly had no concept of monotheism.

Peace is best established by democracies, and democracies are best established by people with equal moral authority. Raising one person above all the others because he speaks for an invisible and inarguable super-power does not help democracy flourish. Quite the opposite.

You are judging the past by today's moral code. Democracy is a new kid on the block.


I'll see your religious terrorists and raise you a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao and a Pol Pot

I already refuted this claim. Did you not read it? Are you so blinded by offense at the assertion that believing in imaginary things is more likely to cause harm than not that you can no longer hold to rational discourse?

Those wonderful assertions again. It is strange that you are now acknowledging them as just that. Assertions. Your posts up to now had the air of factualness about them.

You refuted this? Where? You have a tally of religious terrorists victims that exceeds these fellows' handiwork? Don't forget that the terrorists in question were in response to a post by someone else who mentioned twentieth century religious terrorists as some kind of bizarre evidence that religious belief is more likely to cause someone to do harm. I didn't even mention Idi Amin or Ethiopia and many other people and places.

I have yet to see evidence that belief in a God is MORE likely to cause harm. That is wishful thinking.

Name any period in history. For every holy crusade, there were plenty of other monsters running around doing the same or worse for their own secular reasons.

An atheistic ruler has no belief in a power greater than himself to prevent him from committing atrocities.

Where are you getting this stuff? Where is the real Luke T. and what have you done with him?

I cannot imagine a veteran of this board making such a clueless statement.

1. One does not have to believe in a "power greater than oneself" to refrain from doing something. There are other reasons to act or not act than mere fear of another's power.

Exactly!

2. Atheistic rulers have no excuse to commit atrocities. They cannot write off their actions to the "mysterious" ways of the Lord. They cannot, like Calvin, claim to love their enemies but hate God's. They cannot shrug the responsiblity for their acts higher up the chain. Do you recognize this comment: "Kill them all; God will know his own." It was issued by a Catholic cardinal. No atheist could justify murder on the grounds that someone else would clean up the mess.

I am beginning to think you have missed the context of my statement. Perhaps you didn't follow the thread all the way back when answering something I was saying to someone else.



3. The verdict of history, and one's own personal conscience, are more than adequate to prevent ordinary people from commiting atrocities.

You complain about my painting relgious people as wicked: and yet you have just defined all human beings as slavering monsters who refrain from rapine and murder only out of fear of some larger, more powerful slavering monster. And you have the nerve to complain about my generalizations!

Show me where I said "all" please. Anywhere.

And neither the verdict of history nor personal conscience prevented the aforementioned monsters of history.

You seem to wish to have only the bad deeds committed by religious people counted, and not the good. You seem to question the motives of good deeds as being irrationally chosen and therefore invalid. But the irrational choices which lead to wickedness are to be numbered in your book.

You have your thumb on the scale, Yahzi.

The simple fact is that most of the rampaging and killing in the world was not done in the name of God. I defy you to prove they were. To do so, you must list every conflict and which ones were religiously motivated and the sweep and effect of every conflict. I wish you would.

You are making the assertions, and asking me to prove you wrong without any evidence for your assertions.

Show me that religious beliefs are more likely to cause a person to do harm.

Show me that the local Baptists in your communicty are suffering and have no self-worth.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Yahzi

religion never stopped any leader from killing,

How do you know this?

[Fun2BFree]

Luke T-

Are you out of your mind? Reason- not faith is what has tamed man... The law which controls the wicked beast that is man has nothing to do with God or fear of God...if it did then we could not have a secular society. WE would have to have a state church. The law is based on reason and rationality -not faith...it is a social not a holy covenant....The 10 Commandmants have some overlap with reason but they also have some ridiculous nonsense---(I am the Lord thy GOd -have no other God's before me...) So if people violate that Commandmant, you think society would fall apart???? Your arguments have no basis in fact they are just nonsense that you state like it is true just because you say it is true...(just like the Bible, actually)...In faith matters, if it sounds good inside your head it must be okay--unfortunately intelligent discourse requires some rational thinking and evidence...none of which have been offered by anything you have said. The power preventing atrocities against man has to be reason--if it is the Bible or faith as you claim then why aren't you wiping out the non-believers as commanded to in the Bible..that would be the position of a faithful person- afraid to not carry out God's will as it is clearly written in the Bible--..they do not follow all the commands of the Bible, because many of them make NO SENSE to a rational thinking person....the basis of law is reason-not faith...all the atrocities that have been committed in this or any century can be laid at the feet of FAITH--that you must believe in whatever (God, Allah, dictator) Every one of them committed these horrors based on a demand for FAITHFUL DEVOTION--which is by definition--RELIGION.

Every single thing that you say is an atrocity by atheists is in fact the acting out of a religious approach to reality. Look up the meaning of religion-don't take my word for it...All those atrocities are based on the demand for faithful devotion--name a slaughter or atrocity that was NOT committed by such an approach...Name one.

[thaiboxerken]

These are subjective viewpoints. You make an assertion, then use it as a fact to back up yet another assertion. Your assertion that Christianity is a life of suffering, for example. The assertion that a person's self-worth is destroyed. You have a very skewed perspective, Yahzi. The sheer multitude of these assertions is one big bag of wishful thinking on your part, and have no base in reality.

The christian scriptures tell the story. Christianity teaches that all people are sinners from birth and should beg forgiveness for the mere "sin" of existing. What is the "self-worth" of someone that needs to be forgiven for simply being born?


You have made painted Christians with broad strokes. But you like Ruby and Roadtoad. "I'm not prejudiced, some of my best friends are Christians!" So Christians must meet your personal attention and approval before you remove the stain you painted them with.

Like most christians, you'll cry "discrimination" if you aren't allowed to discriminate. Yahzi's talking about the general christian attitude, not all christians. He's talking about the real christians, not the pseudo-christians that are mainstream today. Most christians are more secular today, that's why they don't kill homosexuals as often.


Are they? Can you hear yourself, Yahzi? Speculations such as yours that are laced with hatred are the most dangerous kind. Why have you refrained from attacking Jews? They are religious people, too.

And they are just as superstitious. The jewish people aren't innocent from killing people based on religion, or because "god" told them to.

They are the source from which Christianity sprang. Afraid that you will sound too much like an anti-Semite? Its safer to attack Christians, I guess. Calling Christians wicked is socially acceptable, but God forbid you say "Wicked Jews," and discuss all the evil plots they have hatched.

Jews, christians.. muslims and hindus are all silly people.



You answered the question yourself. "Replace the army with a preacher." If there were no religion, the preacher would be replaced by someone else. I sure would like to know what scholars have said there would have been less atrocities without religion.

You don't know this, you are appealing to ignorance. Yes, people would have reasons to fight and kill but without religion, there would be one less reason.


You are judging the past by today's moral code. Democracy is a new kid on the block.

That does not make what happened in the past any more "moral" or correct. Isn't it a christian teaching that "god's word" is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?

Don't forget that the terrorists in question were in response to a post by someone else who mentioned twentieth century religious terrorists as some kind of bizarre evidence that religious belief is more likely to cause someone to do harm. I didn't even mention Idi Amin or Ethiopia and many other people and places.

Religious beliefs are irrational and without good logic, they are more likely to cause harm by their very nature. If someone is going to accept that there is a "god" based on faith alone, that some someone could easily accept that this god tells them to kill based on faith alone.


I have yet to see evidence that belief in a God is MORE likely to cause harm. That is wishful thinking.

History shows that this is very much the case.


Name any period in history. For every holy crusade, there were plenty of other monsters running around doing the same or worse for their own secular reasons.

The Dark Ages. But, feel free to prove your assertion that just as many secular killings have occured. Keep in mind that most of the world believes in a god, even those that you claim to be "secular" killings were probably performed by a theist who thought god wouldn't mind.


You seem to wish to have only the bad deeds committed by religious people counted, and not the good. You seem to question the motives of good deeds as being irrationally chosen and therefore invalid. But the irrational choices which lead to wickedness are to be numbered in your book.

People do good in the name of religion, this is true. However, the bad deeds just seem to outweigh good deeds. Irrational choices that lead to bad deeds are more significant than those that lead to good deeds.

The simple fact is that most of the rampaging and killing in the world was not done in the name of God. I defy you to prove they were.

Shifting burden of evidence? It is safe to assume that most of the rampaging and killing in the world was done by a believer in a god.

To do so, you must list every conflict and which ones were religiously motivated and the sweep and effect of every conflict. I wish you would.

Not really, we only need to observe that most people believe in a god. Despite the belief that god punished those that do "bad", they still kill. This must mean that they believe what they do must not be really "bad" in their god's eyes.


You are making the assertions, and asking me to prove you wrong without any evidence for your assertions.

Discussions in philosophy really don't require evidence, do they?

Show me that religious beliefs are more likely to cause a person to do harm.

Prove to me that green isn't my favorite color.

Show me that the local Baptists in your communicty are suffering and have no self-worth.

They worship a god. What do you think the self-worth of a person that grovels forgiveness for living is?

[Fun2BFree]

Luke T: Wrote I sure would like to know what scholars have said there would have been less atrocities without religion.


“Man is a Religious Animal. Man is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight.” - Mark Twain, 'Letters from the Earth'

Einstein:“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

Bertrand Russell:“Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing - fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand.”

Robert Ingersoll:“If Christ, in fact, said, 'I came not to bring peace but a sword', it is the only prophecy in the New Testament that has been literally fulfilled.”

“It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and despise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination, or the Trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other, seems beyond the comprehension of man, and yet in all countries where Christians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact extent of their powers.”

“The sciences are not sectarian. People do not persecute each other on account of disagreements in mathematics. Families are not divided about botany, and astronomy does not even tend to make a man hate his father and mother. It is what people do not know that they persecute each other about.”

“The Bible is not inspired in its morality, for the reason that slavery is not moral, that polygamy is not good, that wars of extermination are not merciful, and that nothing can be more immoral than to punish the innocent on account of the sins of the guilty.”

Richard Dawkins: “It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.” - Richard Dawkins 'The Humanist'

Arthur C Clarke: “The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

The christian scriptures tell the story. Christianity teaches that all people are sinners from birth and should beg forgiveness for the mere "sin" of existing. What is the "self-worth" of someone that needs to be forgiven for simply being born?

Where is your self-worth after discovering you aren't perfect? Are you without any?


Like most christians, you'll cry "discrimination" if you aren't allowed to discriminate. Yahzi's talking about the general christian attitude, not all christians. He's talking about the real christians, not the pseudo-christians that are mainstream today. Most christians are more secular today, that's why they don't kill homosexuals as often.

Oh. The real christians. The ones who satisfy your world view.

The jewish people aren't innocent from killing people based on religion, or because "god" told them to.

My whole point is that no group is innocent.


Jews, christians.. muslims and hindus are all silly people.

I agree. So are atheists, ufologists, bankers, shoe salesmen, grocery clerks and pet owners. All silly.


You don't know this, you are appealing to ignorance. Yes, people would have reasons to fight and kill but without religion, there would be one less reason.

Yes. Appeal to ignorance. I suppose that doesn't apply to the original statement "replace the army with a preacher," though, in your world, eh?



That does not make what happened in the past any more "moral" or correct. Isn't it a christian teaching that "god's word" is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow?

You are out of context.



Religious beliefs are irrational and without good logic, they are more likely to cause harm by their very nature. If someone is going to accept that there is a "god" based on faith alone, that some someone could easily accept that this god tells them to kill based on faith alone.

And this ridiculous argument completely ignores the equal possiblity that a religious person will be more likely to do good works.


I have yet to see evidence that belief in a God is MORE likely to cause harm. That is wishful thinking.

History shows that this is very much the case.

Show me.



Name any period in history. For every holy crusade, there were plenty of other monsters running around doing the same or worse for their own secular reasons.

The Dark Ages. But, feel free to prove your assertion that just as many secular killings have occured. Keep in mind that most of the world believes in a god, even those that you claim to be "secular" killings were probably performed by a theist who thought god wouldn't mind.

The dark ages? That is your evidence? Just the phrase, "The Dark Ages." Wow. I am bowled over by the weight of your proof!

You mean during the time of the Tsars? Or the Tartars? Or the Barbarians? What?


People do good in the name of religion, this is true. However, the bad deeds just seem to outweigh good deeds. Irrational choices that lead to bad deeds are more significant than those that lead to good deeds.

Claims. No evidence.

The simple fact is that most of the rampaging and killing in the world was not done in the name of God. I defy you to prove they were.

Shifting burden of evidence? It is safe to assume that most of the rampaging and killing in the world was done by a believer in a god.

Whoa! ASSUME? Holy smokes! And here we have the wishful thinking I referred to earlier.

The burden of evidence is on those who keep claiming religion is more likely to cause a person to do harm and that more harm has been done in the name of God than not.

To do so, you must list every conflict and which ones were religiously motivated and the sweep and effect of every conflict. I wish you would.

Not really, we only need to observe that most people believe in a god. Despite the belief that god punished those that do "bad", they still kill. This must mean that they believe what they do must not be really "bad" in their god's eyes.

Really? It must?

That's some wild logic.

So let me see if I have this straight. You can't prove that most of the killing was done for religious motives. But you still hang onto this assertion and then compound it by saying that since there has been a lot of killing in the world, and most people believe in God, then God must have been their motivation, because we must assume that those doing the killing must be in the majority group of God believers.

Wooooooooooo!


Discussions in philosophy really don't require evidence, do they?

Oh. This is philosophy now. Not a rant against religion any more. We don't NEED evidence that Christians are a bunch of rampaging, bloodthirsty murderous nutjobs.


Show me that religious beliefs are more likely to cause a person to do harm.

Prove to me that green isn't my favorite color.

Exactly. Can't prove a negative now can I? But someone made that claim. And you yourself have said it above.


They worship a god. What do you think the self-worth of a person that grovels forgiveness for living is?

Have is ever occurred to you to ask them?

You think that is their one and only thought? Constantly seeking forgiveness for being born? What a strange concept.

It sounds to me like you have no idea what their religion is about. No idea.

One is baptized to wash away the "original sin," or the fact that we aren't perfect. That means that it is accepted that you are not perfect and will make errors, or commit sins, your entire life. This sounds like a pretty good acceptance of what we are and a good grounding in humility. Can't go around thinking we are perfect.

So no matter how hard you try, it is accepted you will make mistakes. Just like you accept your kids are going to make mistakes. But it won't change your love for them one bit. Imagine what a comfort it is to your kids to know you still love them even though they have lied and done other wrongs. The idea that that somehow demeans them or destroys their self-worth is ludicrous. It is a huge comfort to them.

[Luke T.]

Fellas, I have a confession to make. No pun intended.

I am feeling seriously depressed lately, and my heart just hasn't been in this topic. I regret even getting involved.

My depression seems to keep creeping into my posts. As I re-read them, I can see it. I thought I had myself back under control, but I can see I don't. I am operating at less than half capacity and I honestly have not been able to think straight or to understand what people are saying on this forum.

I know this is a total cop-out, but I was about to freaking crack. I am sorry if I offended anyone. From the bottom of my heart, I did not mean to.

I am not on a Hellcat kind of depression bender, just a teed off over losing my job and how the heck am I gonna feed my babies kind of depression. I'll get over it.

I don't know why this particular topic touched a nerve with me. I got here by following the language award link, and the next thing you know, I'm spouting off.

I guess it could have been any topic. This just happened to be the one I was reading when all my downer neurons lined up all at once, or something.

Time for me to take a break from here.

[thaiboxerken]

Where is your self-worth after discovering you aren't perfect? Are you without any?

I am perfect.


Oh. The real christians. The ones who satisfy your world view.

No, the ones that aren't secular.


My whole point is that no group is innocent.

But some groups are prone to being guilty more than others.


I agree. So are atheists, ufologists, bankers, shoe salesmen, grocery clerks and pet owners. All silly.

No, just theists.


Yes. Appeal to ignorance. I suppose that doesn't apply to the original statement "replace the army with a preacher," though, in your world, eh?

Nope.


You are out of context.

Apology noted, wrong, but noted.

And this ridiculous argument completely ignores the equal possiblity that a religious person will be more likely to do good works.

It's possible, but not observed.


Show me.

The dark ages? That is your evidence? Just the phrase, "The Dark Ages." Wow. I am bowled over by the weight of your proof!

You should study history. The Dark Ages was a time when the churches ruled most of Europe. It was when many died for purely religious reasons. People were told how to worship, when to worship and punished if not done correctly. The Churches taxed the people harshly.


You mean during the time of the Tsars? Or the Tartars? Or the Barbarians? What?

Yes.


Claims. No evidence.

You just refuse to accept the historical proof.


Whoa! ASSUME? Holy smokes! And here we have the wishful thinking I referred to earlier.

No, most people are god-believers, therefore most killers are god-believers. Of course, most "good" people are also god-believers, but the "good" religious people keep claiming that morality cannot be without a god. I find it strange that there are those that kill or create in the name of a god.


The burden of evidence is on those who keep claiming religion is more likely to cause a person to do harm and that more harm has been done in the name of God than not.

Hardly, it's established by history. Because it is established that the religious are more likely to kill in the name of god, you must prove otherwise. No atheist killed in the name of god.



Really? It must?

That's some wild logic.

Yea, it's probably over your head.


So let me see if I have this straight. You can't prove that most of the killing was done for religious motives. But you still hang onto this assertion and then compound it by saying that since there has been a lot of killing in the world, and most people believe in God, then God must have been their motivation, because we must assume that those doing the killing must be in the majority group of God believers.

Nice try at a strawman, but I'll stop it there. Most people that kill believe in a god. Because they believe in a god, they must think that what they are doing is godly (at least at the time they do it). Only a truly insane person would try to piss their god off.


Oh. This is philosophy now. Not a rant against religion any more. We don't NEED evidence that Christians are a bunch of rampaging, bloodthirsty murderous nutjobs.

It's self-evident. They believe in nonsense without evidence.


Exactly. Can't prove a negative now can I? But someone made that claim. And you yourself have said it above.

Did someone make a claim, or express a philosophical opinion?


Have is ever occurred to you to ask them?

No need to, I was once one of them.


You think that is their one and only thought? Constantly seeking forgiveness for being born? What a strange concept.

It's the main theme of christianity, to ask forgiveness through jesus for sinning. To grovel mercy for being born.


It sounds to me like you have no idea what their religion is about. No idea.

Sounds like you are in denial. Tell me, are you a christian that doesn't ask Jesus for forgiveness and salvation?


One is baptized to wash away the "original sin," or the fact that we aren't perfect.

Yes, asking to wash away the filthy sin of being born.

That means that it is accepted that you are not perfect and will make errors, or commit sins, your entire life. This sounds like a pretty good acceptance of what we are and a good grounding in humility. Can't go around thinking we are perfect.

You can keep kissing deity butt for being born, but I'm perfectly human. I need to worship no man or deity simply because I was born human.

So no matter how hard you try, it is accepted you will make mistakes. Just like you accept your kids are going to make mistakes. But it won't change your love for them one bit. Imagine what a comfort it is to your kids to know you still love them even though they have lied and done other wrongs. The idea that that somehow demeans them or destroys their self-worth is ludicrous. It is a huge comfort to them.

I would never ask my children to worship me and grovel forgiveness for being born.










I am feeling seriously depressed lately, and my heart just hasn't been in this topic.

Find a job, feed your kids and get moving. Praying won't help you, action will. You won't need luck, there are jobs out there, you only need to forage for one.

[Fun2BFree]

Luke-
If you are still around...you still just don't seem to undertand the fundamental issue with faith and reason and good and evil....


How do we know if something is good or evil? Not becuase some authority tells us....We know because it creates or leads to something that is either desirable or undesirable (good or bad)....how do we know what is good or bad? Because we can measure the effect and judge it based on the outcome compared to what we seek...Is something good because God says so? Apparently not as few believers follow every tenet of any religion..they pick and choose for their own reasons...even if they do follow every tenet, the claim that it does achieve some desired after death reward is completely unsubstantiated and can never be proven in this world--so the notion of Good vs Bad must be entirely based on RATIONAL thought.

Any morality must be rationally based to be measured and judged in this world. Anyone who defines what is moral based on religion is IRRATIONAL. PERIOD...Either reason and rationality are the final arbiter of what is good or bad or their faith is...cannot be both..one has to be the final determinant. If it is faith-it is not rational.

People who base their life on an irrational basis are more likely to do irrational (EVIL) things- because they do not have the rational basis necessary. They have based their lives on an irrational premise. They have been taught that belief in something in their head, independent of the evidence,....that is, to have faith -is good and correct and of value. Such a foundation is the perfect place to start to justify any action no matter how illogical or rationally wrong it is...People who have rationally based their lives are less likely to do evil because they value rationality in a way a religious person has been conditioned not to.


There is no coincidence that many child molesters are fairly religious. That many killers and terrorists are religious people...that the overwhelming majority of criminals are religious...the number of atheists in jail is well below what would be expected by the percentage of atheists in the population in general...So atheists are LESS likely to be criminals than religious people....

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Fellas, I have a confession to make. No pun intended.

I am feeling seriously depressed lately, and my heart just hasn't been in this topic. I regret even getting involved.

My depression seems to keep creeping into my posts. As I re-read them, I can see it. I thought I had myself back under control, but I can see I don't. I am operating at less than half capacity and I honestly have not been able to think straight or to understand what people are saying on this forum.

I know this is a total cop-out, but I was about to freaking crack. I am sorry if I offended anyone. From the bottom of my heart, I did not mean to.

I am not on a Hellcat kind of depression bender, just a teed off over losing my job and how the heck am I gonna feed my babies kind of depression. I'll get over it.

I don't know why this particular topic touched a nerve with me. I got here by following the language award link, and the next thing you know, I'm spouting off.

I guess it could have been any topic. This just happened to be the one I was reading when all my downer neurons lined up all at once, or something.

Time for me to take a break from here.

Oh, bless your heart!:( You definitely do need a break!!

I hope you are able to find relief from the stress and worry of losing your job.

Here's a hug :rub:

See you when you return!!:)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Luke T.
my heart just hasn't been in this topic
My confusion is dispelled.

To be honest, I've always felt like you had some internal conflicts about religion. But of course boiling them over a thorough depression isn't the best way of resolving them.

It's like a blister: your depression has to fester until it's big enough to get a hold of and throttle. When you lost your job, you were relentlessly upbeat, and so all that fear and negativity had to find another outlet. I know this from expierence. And let's face it: this board was the best possible place for it to manifest, because this board is arguably the least important part of your life.

Now that you've got ahold of it, kill it, and get back out there on the job hunt! I know you are going to do fine. Losing a job is always good for people of integrity, because it means they can move on and up. Otherwise they would stay in the same dead-end job forever, trapped by their own need to do right by the company.

And don't spare even a second worrying about this contremps. I was never angry at you, just confused. The reputation you have built on this board is not so easily destroyed.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Fellas, I have a confession to make. No pun intended.

I am feeling seriously depressed lately, and my heart just hasn't been in this topic. I regret even getting involved.

My depression seems to keep creeping into my posts. As I re-read them, I can see it. I thought I had myself back under control, but I can see I don't. I am operating at less than half capacity and I honestly have not been able to think straight or to understand what people are saying on this forum.

I know this is a total cop-out, but I was about to freaking crack. I am sorry if I offended anyone. From the bottom of my heart, I did not mean to.

I am not on a Hellcat kind of depression bender, just a teed off over losing my job and how the heck am I gonna feed my babies kind of depression. I'll get over it.

I don't know why this particular topic touched a nerve with me. I got here by following the language award link, and the next thing you know, I'm spouting off.

I guess it could have been any topic. This just happened to be the one I was reading when all my downer neurons lined up all at once, or something.

Time for me to take a break from here.

Having just been there myself, you have my deepest sympathies, Bro. Believe me, this is not going to be easy, but we're there for you.

I'll PM you my e-mail. Don't know where you are, but if you need a resume mailed, I think I can help. Let us know what we can do.

No matter what, we're with you.