I agree that uninvited door-to-door anything is tacky and an invasion of privacy. However, I have always taken a different approach to Mormon missionaries. I am an American living in the Dominican Repubolic. The missionaries are young Americans of college age. When they knock on my door (2 or 3 times) per year I always invite them in for a cold drink and small talk. However, I make it painfully clear from the beginning that I won't get into religion with them. So far, 100% have been cool about it. Mormons may be delusional but they are polite and grateful.
I know exactly what you mean.
I live in Kansas and we've gotten a few door-to-door evangelists. Mostly, though, I've managed to miss or sleep through their visits. I only realize they were there later when I retrieve their pamphlet that was stuck in my door. Most of them were harmless -- invitations to their church services, or a nice instructional pamphlet on "How to Get to Heaven from Kansas" (shockingly, it does not begin with "take I-70 to Topeka").
The only one that I found offensive was from a local baptist church. It was a pamphlet entitled "Atheists and Humanists believe in Miracles!" It spouted a whole lot of really really stupid arguments that abiogenesis, evolution, and a couple of other things were actually not possible naturally, and therefore must be miracles that we believed in. Then, in an astounding leap of logic that I don't think I could duplicate, it somehow equated atheism with Satanism... something about how if we don't worship god, we worship secular things, which are false gods, which we know are actually the devil.
I wasn't sure whether to be offended or to laugh uproariously. I managed both.
My wife used to love getting a knock from a door-to-door religious salesman. She would always think "I've caught one, heh heh." More than once she has sent them scurrying off in fear and terror. And she never yelled or got angry, she would just assault them with clear logic and, man, does that scare them. One was a Mormon with a young black kid in tow and she ignored the guy and started talking to the kid about how Mormons used to feel about black people. His eyes kept getting bigger and bigger and he kept asking the guy over and over "Is that true?" the guy couldn't answer. Finally the guy just grabbed the kid by the arm and ran off, kid dangling.
I can't talk to them, I fly into a rage too quickly. These days I won't even say anything, I just slam the door on them.
My view is that these people show zero respect for my beliefs when they trespass on my property, so guess what? I respond in, shall we say, vivid language and it ain't pretty. But boy do I feel good about it. They scuttle off and don't reappear.
I usually don't get in shouting matches, but I try to be as unpleasant as possible. One time a Mormon guy came to my door with an about 12 kid with him. I told him he could screw up his life as much as he wanted but that he didn't have the right to screw up the life of that kid. I was indirectly talking to the kid, and the guy left with him quickly.
Another tactic I used once while I was waiting in my car for a friend in a supermarket and was approached by 3 early twenties, two guys and a girl. I asked them about their sex lives. If any of them had screwed one of the others or just wanted to. One of the guys lost his cool and wanted to hit me, but the girl held him back.
I think irritation, if not outright anger, *is* an appropriate response. By knocking on your door, the evangelist has assumed some, if not all, of the following:
1. My time is worthless.
2. Whatever they're interrupting is far less important than their message.
3. If I did have a religious belief (not), I could be swayed from it by a 5 minute visit from a stranger.
4. I must not have heard what they have to say before. Or, if I did, I didn't understand it. Or the other person didn't say it right, because otherwise I'd already be a convert.
You've got to admit, those are some pretty unpleasant assumptions to make about a stranger. It also raises my ire when I realize that they didn't actually make any of those assumptions because they don't think. They're just programmed to go around "spreading the good word" or drumming up tithes for the Mormons. What a waste of a brain, a life and my time.
I must be all big and scary, because the last time I had to answer the door for missionaries was on December 31, 1999. Of course, I do live in a more rural area, so going door-to-door requires some effort.
A few weeks ago, I was eating lunch in an Indian restaurant that had just come under new management. The owner got into a conversation with us (two atheists and a pretty secular Christian) about his Sikh religion. The funny thing was that we atheists were bringing up points of history and dogma about his religion that he didn't expect. I'm not sure what he thought, but we finally had to beg off with the excuse that we all had meetings to attend.
In his book "The Four Agreements", Ruiz states that one of the agreements is "not to take anything personally" so when the door bell is rung by a door-to-door "religion" saleman, just say "no thank you" and the problem, if any, should be over. I can't understand why people get so upset. If you are the type who gets "steamed", then take the time to use the "no prostelizers welcome" sign. The final question is "is the objection to religious door-to-door types" or EVERYONE who goes door-to-door. If you would open your door to the kid selling chocolate bars for their "club" then you should have the ability to treat all "visitors" equally, or "disconnect your doorbell" and hang up a sign that says "If I don't know you, don't knock!"
I think one of the agreements is that you don't invade another person's life without good reason. When kids come to the door selling something I don't slam the door on them because they have been duped by evil adults. I say no and close the door, even if they are still talking.
The religious salesmen all know each other so if you get a bad reputation they will stop showing up.
Answering the door naked works every time.
Ok, Bob. That was funny. I just hope to "God" you're joking. If it turns out to be Girl Scouts selling cookies...you're in big trouble. 
Perhaps one of the solutions I used in my business life, and sometimes used at home, would provide some satisfaction to those who don't like the invasions. I would welcome the invasion (especially in my business for the "I was just in your neighbourhood" saleman with my "message" which would be a book of tickets for one of my son's sports activities and would only give the salesman the time of day if he first purchased at least one book of tickets. Salesmen learned they had to make appointments.
Hi
Your entry statment says 'breaking free from irrational belief'. With respect, what do you mean by this?
What, exactly, do you mean by rationalism? Plato would have argued that rationalism is about perceiving reality through the mind - that reality can only be really known through the mind - not through experience or the senses. Berkeley argued that we don't even know for sure that what we perceive with our senses actually exists at all - putting into the doubt the whole material world including science. And even if you accept that the senses can be trusted - what about the 'irrational' nature of science - take, for example, string theory that modern scientists are taking very seriously: that there are more than 3 dimensions! If rationalism is about perceiving things in time and space in a logical, coherent way - well, then, modern science is suggesting that we may have to think again.
Therefore what do you mean 'irrational [belief]'.
And what do you mean by 'belief'. You believe there is no God (I presume). Just as others (I, for example) believe there is a God. Neither of us can prove or disprove God's existence.
Lastly, what do you mean by 'breaking free?' Believing in God and accepting the Christian message has brought me joy about 10,000 times (no, more) more so than before I took Christianity seriously. It has, also, brought me about 10,000 times more peace. And I get on with people (believers and non-believers) about 10,000 times more than before. Why should I want to 'break free' from Christianity.
Kevin
You use the word 'religious salesman' but I think the word 'salesman' is an incorrect analogy.
At the end of the day a 'salesperson' - and most of us are sales people in one shape or another in our everyday lives - sells things, primarily, to make money and survive (there is soft sell and hard sell - but at the end of the day it is about money).
But a religious person is not trying to sell you something so that he / she gets money or something else in return. These people come to your doors in order to bring you the happiness that they have experienced through religion. Wouldn't it be selfish of people if they held onto something good for themselves and didn't share that with others.
If I find lots of bottles of fine vintage wine in the cellar, I want to share that with friends - not just drink it all on my own.
Christians spread the word because they want others to experience the happiness they have experienced. Being human and imperfect, Christians, like everyone else are good at botching things up. When they pass on the 'Good News' they do it in a shrill / uninspiring way. That is because they (including me) are imperfect. That is why I say, people should just give Christians more of a chance. Try and think of where they are coming from. Christians, like everyone else are self-righteous at times, impatient, and so on. But have some patience, tolerance and understanding.
At the end of the day they come to bring you 3 things - the 3 three things that Christianity is all about (and what all human beings want, no matter whether they believe in God or not): Joy, Peace and Love. I just wish people would think about what Christianity is really about and why people really knock on your door, instead of getting all embarassed by the sudden and personal nature of their encounter with you (I mean people, in general, not 'you' personall ..).
'When they pass on the 'Good News' they do it in a shrill / uninspiring way' - sorry, I meant to say 'when they pass on the 'Good News' they - sometimes - do it in a shrill / uninspiring way.
Joshua: I wish people would think about what Christianity really is all about too - hatred and ignorance.
How would you feel if Atheists were stopping at your door every other week? I doubt your feeling toward door to door salesmen (and trying to sell something is not always about money) would be the same.
Kevin
'I wish people would think about what Christianity really is all about too - hatred and ignorance' this is a big statement.
With respect, you offer no explanation or evidence of this.
Christianity says - very cleary - that it is all about love.
Jesus says very clearly that the greatest commandment is to love God and neighbour.
And St Paul says that you can have faith to move mountains but if you have no love then faith is useless.
This is evidence that diametrically opposes your statement.
Christianity isn't about perfection in human beings (except, Christ, of course). Christians do bad things. I do bad things. But that doesn't take away from what Christ and St Paul say very clearly in the Bible.
And just as Christians do bad things, so do non-believers. We do bad things because we are humans. Christ says that it is a sin to do bad things. That we must love others. That we must show compassion to people such as the Good Samaratin did. That we must forgive others as in the Prodigal Son. Christianity is about Love. What is love? Have already given a couple of examples. Corinthians 13 is another good example. But, above all, the various sacrifices of Christ, and the biggest of all, on the cross.
But it takes a life-time of prayer and living out the Christian life for the Christian to really understand what love is (not that non-believers are not capable of love - but the point I am trying to make is that Love is something far greater than feelings or affection - things like that).
Anyway to come back to the original point (apologies for straying) Christianity is about Love. I have tried to present some evidence for this.
'Ignorance' is another big statement. Please provide us with evidence / with an argument why you believe this.
Joshua: I couldn't care less what what you think the bible says, it also says genocide is OK and so is slavery.
What I care about is what Christians DO. They hate gays, and even liberals, and prefer to be ignorant about science, especially evolution.
The hatred and ignorance is incredibly obvious. If you can't see it then it shows how you participate in it then lie and say you believe in love.
I see evangelism as simply arguing for a point of view. If arguing for a point of view is so bad, why do you blog?
JK
Joshua, "Christians spread the word because they want others to experience the happiness they have experienced."
Xians aren't sharing happiness, they are sharing their fear and paranoia. I have met happy people who are xian, but I have never met a person who was happy because they were xian.
Most people say they are xian because of community pressure. They are afraid they will be excluded from the community if they don't say and do the "right" things.
Kevin
'I couldn't care less what what you think the bible says'
- but that is an irrational thing to say. The Bible (whether you believe in it or not - whether you are a believer or not) is evidence of what Christians believe in - what it is that inspires them.
'it also says genocide is OK and so is slavery' - if you don't care about the evidence I produce, then why do you attempt to produce evidence of your own? Regarding 'genocide' I don't know what passage you refer to. Regarding 'slavery' - there were very distinct forms of slavery. An historian (a non believing historian could point this out to you). Christianity has never been about bringing perfection to this world in one big swoop. It can't. There will always be injustice. The Bible says that masters must treat their slaves with dignity. But that doesn't mean the Bible endoreses slavery. It would take centuries before Christianity became strong enough to oppose slavery. And who were the first great opponents of slavery? They were quaker Christians. They were christians such as Wilberforce, and so on.
'What I care about is what Christians DO. They hate gays, and even liberals' - but this is such as black and white thing to say. I am a Christian. I don't hate gays. I don't hate liberals. There are lots of none-believers who hate gays and liberals. To hate anyone in Christianity is the ultimate sin. It goes against completely against the main commandment of the Bible which is:
LOVE God and neighbour (FACT not my personal opinion).
Any 'Christian' who hates another person whether they be gay or not, liberal or not, cannot be Christian in that instant of hating.
'and prefer to be ignorant about science, especially evolution' - What? Some of the greatest scientists of the past were Christians. In the last 100 years or so, two great scientists were Christians.
Mendel - the father of modern genetics - was a Catholic priest!
Planck - one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century - widely considered to be the founder of quantum theory was a Christian who openly criticized atheists as being too caught up in symbols.
'The hatred and ignorance is incredibly obvious' - of human beings in general, yes. Let's not forget the hatred and ignorance of atheists such as those that existed in Communist Russia Marx: 'Religion is the opium of the masses' - and boy were religious people persecuted in Communist Russia.
Bernarda
With respect, I don't know who / what Xian is so I cannot comment.
Joshua, you say you became happier after embracing Christianity. I became happier after abandoning it. So, when a Christian wants to share the "good news" with me, I really have no use for it.
However, if it makes you happy to believe it, then bully for you. Don't worry about trying to "save" the rest of us though.
Joshua said:
"What, exactly, do you mean by rationalism? Plato would have argued that rationalism is about perceiving reality through the mind - that reality can only be really known through the mind - not through experience or the senses. Berkeley argued that we don't even know for sure that what we perceive with our senses actually exists at all -"
This is a brain-muddling argument, made to create self-doubt. It applies equally to the religious bullcrap that you have been spoon fed, and will be spoon fed from cradle to grave. Here is the key to unlock this box: it makes no difference. If you think it does, light a match and hold it to your hand and try not to be burned. Do it often enough, and your friends will have you commited. Reality has a way of imposing itself, no matter if it's as it seems, or we all live in a bowl of shaving cream.
" - putting into the doubt the whole material world including science. And even if you accept that the senses can be trusted - what about the 'irrational' nature of science - take, for example, string theory that modern scientists are taking very seriously: that there are more than 3 dimensions!"
There are. There are at least four. Time is the fourth, and Einstein and others have the math to prove it. Nothing can exist for no time at all.
YOU FAIL.
If that's not enough, thinking of solid objects in three dimensions (length, width, height) is a very linear (two-dimensional) way of looking at things. Moreover, all dimensions below "#4" are imaginary, not being able to exist on their own.
"If rationalism is about perceiving things in time and space in a logical, coherent way - well, then, modern science is suggesting that we may have to think again."
We always have to think again, when new information is uncovered. Unless, that is, some clowns steeped in dogma make us drink Hemlock.
"Therefore what do you mean 'irrational [belief]'."
Death is life, down (burial) is up ("Heaven") "First causes" had to come "ex machina" from a Deus whose very complexity defies the "first cause" and complexity arguments. How's that just for starters?
"And what do you mean by 'belief'. You believe there is no God (I presume). Just as others (I, for example) believe there is a God. Neither of us can prove or disprove God's existence."
Statistics are on my side. I just believe in one less mythological deity than you do. Have you ever noticed how hard all the entertainment media sell the idea of superstition, afterlife, and demons? Or, do you just take it for granted, like electricity? (ever flip a light switch in a blackout?)
"Lastly, what do you mean by 'breaking free?' ....why would I want to 'break free' from Christianity."
Joshua
When you realize that the pinnacle of the hierarcical pyramid is a sham, then you see the scam. The scam artists are the clerics that have been pulling this gag since before recorded time began. Of course you have
Tommy
I said I became 10,000 times happier. Not just happier (and I believe there is nothing special about me - I believe everyone is equal in the eyes of God).
Do you think people have a duty to pass on a good thing to others if they think it is good? Or should they just keep it for themselves?
Christianity is first and foremost about loving God. Love involves 'knowing' and being 'happy' and being at 'peace.' This is what a personal relationship with God brings in this life. It brings fulfillment. And ultimate fulfillment in the next life. That is what salvation is.
Yes, Christians fear God. But God isn't some Roman pagan, tyricanal god playing tricks on us. God is what is what is normal and right. We trust in Him. We pray to Him. But our first response to Him is to love Him and to be happy and at peace in His presence (as it says in the Bible).
At the end of the day no human being unless they are mad can escape fear. Every human has fear. Even hardened atheists fear things in life (Philip Larkin - well-known English atheist - was meant to be a gibbering wreck just before he died - and Somerset Maugham, another English aetheist cr**ped his pants just before he died, through fear). Lots of atheists say there is nothing to fear. But this is bravado. Every human being has fear whether they are believers or not. It is just that Christianity says that no man should fear another. Only God. And we only fear God so that we don't stop being in His wonderful presence.
Again, from my personal experience of being a Christian is that it is 10,000 times better than being a non-believer (from my personal experience of not taking God very seriously).
Actually, no. I change that. Being a Christian is a million times better than being a non-believer. A million times more joyful. A million times more peaceful. A million times more exciting. A million times more interesting. And a million times more fulfilling. And I am not exaggerating. I am being perfectly serious.
So, yes, Christians fear God. But we pray to God, and he tempers that fear. He, also, showers people who fear Him with blessings, joys and peace, and much more. We feel fulfilled. Not full fulfillment. This world is not paradise. But He shows us glimpses of what it is like - a million times more than what I experienced when I wasn't a proper believer.
And, lastly, Christians live in the great hope that true fulfillment will come in the next life.
Atheism offers no kind of hope. Limited happiness in this life. And after life: nothing. Nada.
The last part of my comment got cut off somehow.
Of course you have a fine religion. The clerics have had millenia to perfect the speil, absorb the competition, and hand it down to their successors. They have been plying this trade since before the beginning of recorded history. You have been lied to. You have been hypnotized. Your very happiness now depends in part to believing this lie. Odds are, you will never be free of it.
"And, lastly, Christians live in the great hope that true fulfillment will come in the next life."
"Someday, all this will be yours!"
"What? The curtains?"
Biggest empty promise ever sold, at no cost to the manufacturer.
Breakersline
'This is a brain-muddling argument, made to create self-doubt' - what do you mean? With respect, Plato wasn't the only great rationalist philosopher. Western philosophy breaks down roughly into two important groups: the rationalists and the empiricists. Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza were all rationalists.
Are you suggesting that rationalism - that Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza and others were guilty of something negative in some important way?
At the end of the day all philosophy, whether it is rationalism or empiricism is open to doubt. Are you suggesting that all western philosophy is negative in some important way?
'that you have been spoon fed' - with respect how do you know anything about me? I was educated by monks. And monks are famous for questioning everything. We were encouraged to question our faith. Not in a negative way. But in a way that brings truer understanding.
'If you think it does, light a match and hold it to your hand and try not to be burned. Do it often enough, and your friends will have you commited' -I really don't think the great philosopher Berkeley (Berkely university was named after him) was suggesting we should burn our hands ....The real point he was making is that we shouldn't take materialism at face value. Since the time of Berkeley the universe appears to be less - not more - rational than we thought. String theory is a good example of this.
'We always have to think again, when new information is uncovered. Unless, that is, some clowns steeped in dogma make us drink Hemlock' - the point is that atheists say 'with time science will answer everything' but time and knowledge is proving that we understand less and less, and that the universe appears just more mysterious than we could ever have imagined. When it comes to the big questions, science takes us to the top of a big mountain, to where we come across another mountain 10 times taller than the last, and so on.
'Have you ever noticed how hard all the entertainment media sell the idea of superstition, afterlife, and demons?' - have you ever noticed the way atheistic Communistic Russia tried to crush religion ('Religion is the opium of the masses') with force and more. At the end of the day, there is no debate over here in Europe, that the media is broadly non-religious.
'When you realize that the pinnacle of the hierarcical pyramid is a sham, then you see the scam' - I have already provided you with evidence from my own life - that my own life is 10,000 better than before I took God seriously.
'The scam artists are the clerics that have been pulling this gag since before recorded time began' - are you suggesting that St Peter, St Paul and others (who lived in apostolic poverty and were executed) were rich and powerful in some way? Are you suggesting that people such as Francis of Assisi lived in great opulence. It was people such as Peter, Paul and Francis who were the important leaders an
This is a strategy I have tried...Peep Show Witnessing:
The door-to-door religious wackos knock. I open and am dressed in nothing but a bra and panties. They stare while pretending to simultaneously look away from the cleavage AND deliver their bewildering godspeak. I keep a straight face for about 10 seconds. I crack up. They manage to come back to the friendly nudist atheist. Biblical modesty??? Bullsh*t!!! ROFLMAO!!!!
Breakersline
'The clerics have had millenia to perfect the speil' - and what's in it for them? Why would the first mortal Christian leaders (i.e St Peter and St Paul) spend their time spell-binding people when they lived in aposotlic poverty and ended up escaping various dangers to end up being executed - the first of many Christians who lived in aposotlic poverty and who ended up dying for the faith.
- your claim just doesn't make sense.
'absorb the competition, and hand it down to their successors'
'You have been hypnotized' - that's a big accusation to make! How do you know you haven't been hypnotized into non-belief or anything else for that matter.
'Your very happiness now depends in part to believing this lie' - with respect, I have already said I am about a million times more happy. You can say what you like but you can't take that away from me! And it is an on-going spiritual experience I am talking about. Not just knowledge about the Bible.
"What? The curtains?" - well, of course, you believe that - you are an atheist. But as I said, already, it is not just about complete fulfillment in the next life. It, also, involves happiness in this life (happiness on a scale of about 1,000,000 to one).
'Biggest empty promise ever sold' - well, I have never paid anyone for it. And the most famous evanegelists in history lived in apostolic poverty. They never got paid in money for their work. And not only did they not get paid in money for it, but they, also, received abuse and persecution as well. So, with respect, what you say just doesn't make sense - just seems very subjective, and that you are creating analogies that are not just off the mark, but completely misleading.
Come on Joshua, don't hold back, just come out and say your life is a quadrillion times better!
But just because it makes you feel better does not make it true. And I am too busy living my own life to worry about what will happen to me after I die. I am more concerned about how my loved ones will carry on without me in the event I should die prematurely.
And as an aside, if you recall from the Book of Matthew, the three Magi follow a star and then appear at the court of Herod inquiring about the newborn king. After leaving Herod and finding Jesus, the Magi are told in a dream to not go back to Herod and Joseph is told to leave as well. Consequently, Herod supposedly massacres all of the children under the age of 2 in Bethlehem.
Now, if the lives of children were really precious to god, he could have warned the Magi about Herod before they went to see him. If Herod never encounters the Magi inquiring about the newborn king, then no massacre in Bethlehem. In other words, god allowed innocent children to be murdered on purpose! Some god you worship.
Barbie, where do you live? I want to knock on your door and pretend to be a proselytizer! 
BarbieBrains
Christians can have sex too you know. Who knows ... maybe the coy Christian is having the best sex in town with his wife.
Joshua - when you mention Karl Marx you are most likely thinking of "Lenin's interpretation of Marx". It was the "religious opiate" that made the people maleable by the "Lenins" . . . they had been taught not to "think" by a zealous Christian church. How many realize that the Communist Manifesto (now more than 170 years old) spent more time on the "emancipation of women" and "discontinuing the practice of using child labour" than any concern over "religion"? His manifesto really upset the "western world capitalists" who were profiting quite handsomely by "enslaving women" and "using child labour" (and with the church's blessings and complicity). Have you at least read the Communist Manifesto? It was a far more "loving" document than the bible! But, then again, I have asked the same question about the CM of more than 50 "Christian" objectors to the CM, to find out they only knew about it by reputation . . . a reputation that was "formulated" by corporate-backed religious "authorities". If anyone wants to read the CM, its available on the web.
Nothing quite like a post on evangelism to bring the evangelical Christians out of the woodwork. Enjoy your visit, Joshua. Perhaps you'll learn something while you're here.
Tommy
'just come out and say your life is a quadrillion times better' - I can do better than that. But I am going to borrow from the great bard himself to suggest something of what it is like (if you don't like these lines, then blame Shakespeare):
- the clouds methought did open up and show riches ready to drop upon me that when I wak'd I cried to dream gain (The Tempest).
'But just because it makes you feel better does not make it true' - I never suggested I could prove God's existence. Just as an atheist cannot disprove the existence of God.
'And I am too busy living my own life' - you mean, you are too busy for the peace, joy, feeling of fulfillment that the Christian God brings? That doesn't make sense to me.
'I am more concerned about how my loved ones will carry on without me in the event I should die prematurely' - and Christians are no different, here, to you. Christians are human beings, you know, not robots!
'Now, if the lives of children were really precious to god, he could have warned the Magi about Herod before they went to see him' - I don't understand why we have to suffer. I suffer too, you know. All I can say, in some sort of response, is don't forget the spiritual side of people. We might suffer physically in this life. As well as emotionally. But at the end of the day it is our spiritual welfare and happiness that God is ultimately concerned about.
- but can you not think of anything positive about the Bible? Can you not think about anything positive that Christians do for others? Can you not think of any occassions where people's lives have been transformed in amazing ways? Can you not think of anything in life that suggests that there could be a benevolent being at the source of it all?
Vjack
'Enjoy your visit, Joshua. Perhaps you'll learn something while you're here' - thanks. I hope I do learn something. And I hope you learn something new too!
"At the end of the day all philosophy, whether it is rationalism or empiricism is open to doubt. Are you suggesting that all western philosophy is negative in some important way?"
Yes, and that's called agnosticism. My argument goes to motive. What part of what I said did you not understand? What you are doing now is tangental argumentation. You are either unable to, or incapable of, addressing that which directly challenges the rationalizations of your comfortable delusion.
"I was educated by monks. And monks are famous for questioning everything. We were encouraged to question our faith. Not in a negative way. But in a way that brings truer understanding."
Of course not in a negative way. The purpose here is to find satisfactory answers that satisfy the closed-loop delusion. "Answers" indeed!
"the point is that atheists say 'with time science will answer everything' but time and knowledge is proving that we understand less and less, and that the universe appears just more mysterious than we could ever have imagined."
This is an untruth. This is a religious prevarication. It is also beside the point. The point is that religion will murder to protect dogmatic ignorance and its position of authority.
"'When you realize that the pinnacle of the hierarcical pyramid is a sham, then you see the scam' - I have already provided you with evidence from my own life - that my own life is 10,000 better than before I took God seriously."
You have proved that your delusion is a very happy one indeed, and you are happy within it. Beyond that, you have proved nothing. I too take god seriously. God the mind-virus, that is. I am not denying the reality of faith-based belief. The edifice upon which it is built is, in my considered opinion, imaginary, and the product of a lucrative hoax.
" - are you suggesting that St Peter, St Paul and others (who lived in apostolic poverty and were executed) were rich and powerful in some way?"
No, they are the "Dexter and Birdies" of the scam. Why do you think they were sainted? They are the perfect examplse of suffering and persecution for the more masochistic of the believers. All part of the sales pitch, Bub.
Joshua,
Christianity is a coping mechanism. A drug-induced happiness is still drug-induced. I am parenting a ten-year-old daughter BEYOND belief. I would not LIE to her to keep her happy. She will face the same doubts, anguish, fear, anxiety and mortal dread that is part of the human condition. Escaping your condition is only met by crawling back into the womb...a desire for the womb. I choose dread, anxiety, fear, and doubt ANY day over delusion. This is not bravado. It just IS. As a female raised in the Third World, I found Christianity to be ABHORRENT and grotesque and enslaving. I refused to listen to the mad rants of genital-free males. There is no dignity in a religion that reduces the female to a reproductive function. This is the true meaning of bestiality.
anton kozlik
With respect. I have no idea where you are going with your post. All I was doing was quoting from the CM as an example of Marx's anti-religious views. You don't doubt the quote or that Marx was anti-religious. And as we know from history Communist Russia suppressed religion and religious people in a brutal way (just as Communists did during the Spanish Civil War and elsehwere).
And religious people, also, do brutal things. The point I am making is that both religious and atheists do terrible, brutal things. Christianity says it is wrong to be brutal. It is wrong to do violence. It is wrong to hate. But Christians and atheists do these things because of human nature. That is the point I was making.
but can you not think of anything positive about the Bible? Can you not think about anything positive that Christians do for others? Can you not think of any occassions where people's lives have been transformed in amazing ways?
Yeah, the Bible does have a handful of worthwhile things in it, but nothing that can't be found in any other religious text.
I don't deny that Christians do positive things for other people. And so do non-Christians, so what's your point?
People's lives are transformed by all kinds of experiences. My life was transformed for the better when I realized that the god of the Bible did not exist.
Can you not think of anything in life that suggests that there could be a benevolent being at the source of it all?
No, I can't. The universe behaves exactly as we should expect if there was no benevolent god intervening in our affairs. Diseases, war, and natural disasters kill good people and bad people.
I don't rule out the possibility that there might be some higher intelligence in the universe, but I find it hard to believe that any entity powerful and intelligent enough to create this vast universe in which our planet is such a small speck is overly concerned with the mundane affairs of human beings. It does not seem very likely to me that our lives here on this Earth are just a testing ground so that some supreme being can decide whether or not we will spend an afterlife in either perpetual happiness or eternal suffering, and that his primary criteria for making that decision is whether or not we believe that he impregnated a virgin Jewish teenage girl in the Galilee some 2,000 years ago and that the superboy who resulted from the union performed miracles, died for my "sins" and rose from the dead.
Tommy: For you, I'd be dressed as a nun. LOL!!!!
Joshua: Coy Christian??? You are sooo naive!!!! Dude, what planet do you live on?? B.S. They are even more lascivious than the regulars at the honky-tonk raunch houses I used to frequent before I became a committed nudist atheist. Christian sex?? Now that made me LAUGH!!!! Not much fun when Gawd is watching. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Barbiebrains
'Christianity is a coping mechanism'- you mean to say you don't have a coping mechamism? Everyone has a coping mechanism. Alcoholics for drink. Vain people for vanity.Overweight people for food. For others it is sex, their career, that they are the centre of attention, and so on and so forth. Part of the human condition is that we all try and fill that desperate void with something. But we Christians believe that only God can fill the void in any fulfilling way.
'A drug-induced happiness is still drug-induced' - I took dope a few times during university. And all I can say is that being a Christian is still a million times better in feeling than taking any drugs .. Try it.
'I would not LIE to her to keep her happy' - nor would I (I hope not, at least). What are you suggesting?
'Escaping your condition is only met by crawling back into the womb' - you really think that St Peter and St Paul (some of the first Christians) were 'crawling back into the womb' when they trooped across Palestine and Europe preaching the Good News in apostolic poverty, and being abused and persecuted - and finally, ending up, being executed? You think they were 'crawling back into the womb?'
'and doubt ANY day over delusion' - with respect: it is a big claim to suggest that you are not deluded and that others like me are! Shakepeare wrote two plays about delusion / madness. Was Hamlet so mad? Was Kind Lear so mad? What is madness?
'There is no dignity in a religion that reduces the female to a reproductive function' - I don't know exactly what incident / incidents you refer to. I agree with you. But please, don't generalize! Don't paint everyone with the same brush just because some people in a community act in a certain way.
'This is the true meaning of bestiality' - and, don't forget, there are lots of non-believers who act in beastly ways too. Please don't confuse human nature with religion.
Tommy: For you, I'd be dressed as a nun. LOL!!!!
Ooooh! Kinky! I like that!
Joshua - I believe the only point I am trying to make is that a "religious population" is less able to deal with the corruption they find in their midst. They have been softened up or "seduced". In fact, some of my "religious associates" do not think they need to do anything about the despots in their midst because those despots will have to "answer to God". How about thinking of what "history" will have to say about the last 8 years in American politics where the "religious right" has propped up perhaps the worst "presidency" in US history . . . and they are proud of it! Usually, stupid people keep quite else they get discovered. What has happened in our "free speach" world is that the "ignorant" want equal time on our world stage so the extremists, both Religious and Atheist are shouting at the top of their opposing mountains. The point is, few of them are making any sense.
And all I can say is that being a Christian is still a million times better in feeling than taking any drugs .. Try it.
And I can say that scuba diving or kayaking is a million times better in feeling than taking drugs.
'You are sooo naive!!!! Dude, what planet do you live on?? B.S. They are even more lascivious than the regulars at the honky-tonk raunch houses I used to frequent before I became a committed nudist atheist. Christian sex?? Now that made me LAUGH!!!! Not much fun when Gawd is watching. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!'
- what are you saying that Christians do have good sex or not?! I don't follow at all ..
anton
'How about thinking of what "history" will have to say about the last 8 years in American politics where the "religious right" has propped up perhaps the worst "presidency" in US history'
Ah at least, I can agree with someone on this board.
Anton.
There are loads of Christian fundamenalists who scare the living daylights out of me. I have spent far more time debating with the likes of them than with atheists such as yourself. I have lots of non-believing friends who I really like / love. I don't know why I do, I just do (just as there are lots of believers I like being with - not necessarily because they are believers but because they are just good company to be with).
Don't know where I am going with this post ... Just glad I agree with an atheist over something!
'Yeah, the Bible does have a handful of worthwhile things in it, but nothing that can't be found in any other religious text' - Christianity's two main laws are Love God and neighbour. Let's be clear about that.
'I don't deny that Christians do positive things for other people. And so do non-Christians, so what's your point?' - that atheists shouldn't just focus on the negatives regarding Christians.
'Can you not think of anything in life that suggests that there could be a benevolent being at the source of it all? No, I can't'
- why is there beauty in the universe (obvious and cliched, I know, but: the moon, the stars, the sun, The Grand Canyon).
- why do people do benevolent acts for each other to the point that they will risk their lives for each other (for example soldiers who risj their lives in extraordinary ways to keep others alive).
- what is love?
'small speck is overly concerned with the mundane affairs of human beings' - but our lives are not mundane. And if we think that they are, then we must look for the extraordinary in the ordinary - just as the great painters do/did in the paintings, writers with their writing, composers with their music (remember the beginning of Figaro), poets with their poetry and so on. You don't have to be religious to see that ordinary lives to not have to be mundane.
'It does not seem very likely to me that our lives here on this Earth are just a testing ground so that some supreme being can decide whether or not we will spend an afterlife in either perpetual happiness or eternal suffering' - with respect, this sounds like a crude version of things - the god you portray is like some pagan, classical god playing tricks on us. With respect, I think we have to be more subtle in our thinking about who God is.
Joshua:
Stop by my blog for a different perspective on your saintly-saint Paul. I threw in a bonus reel too.
Paul was a "rich head of church" wanna-be. That he didn't make it was testimony to the fact that lots of other well-off Temple Franchisees didn't like him cutting in on their territory. The Emperor Constantine and his vapid wife had more to do with cranking up this steam caliope. Paul gave them the means with his writings, but the move was politically motivated. Bet the monks didn't tell you that.
Christianity's two main laws are Love God and neighbour. Let's be clear about that.
Can't love what doesn't exist. As for love your neighbor, the Chinese philospher Mo Tzi spoke about universal love centuries before Jesus.
that atheists shouldn't just focus on the negatives regarding Christians.
I don't.
but our lives are not mundane.
To us they are not, but to a being capable of creating the universe, we probably are rather mundane.
with respect, this sounds like a crude version of things - the god you portray is like some pagan, classical god playing tricks on us. With respect, I think we have to be more subtle in our thinking about who God is.
But when you boil Christianity down to its essence, that about sums it up. Regardless of whatever good works I may have done, a Christian thinks that not only will I suffer for an eternity in the after life for not believing the Jesus story, but that I also deserve it.
Joshua (and any others who are intereseted) . . . Those who would promote the benefits of Atheism or Christianity miss the point because they know what they are against and feel they need a "book" to justify what their stance . . . or their lack of a need for a "book". In my last 60 years I have had both sides wonder "how I could possibly fraternize with the other side". My answer is that in my life, I sort out and discard shitheads, the people without a "morality" crafted as a justification for their way of life. My religious experiences sermized that most of the piety existed on "this side of the altar" and that the so-called "religious leaders" were the "bad guys". I have had the opportunity of meeting with dozens of "ex-clergy" who couldn't stand that their concern for the "people" had to take a back seat to the agendas of the "powerful". Of course, these ex-clergy were not of the type that aspired to "promotions", and I believe that is why we "connected". Like I have said before, The Milesians have had more open acceptance by the "clerical world" than the "atheist world". Visit my site. I look forward to your comments.l
Breakersline
'Paul was a "rich head of church" wanna-be. That he didn't make it was testimony to the fact that lots of other well-off Temple Franchisees didn't like him cutting in on their territory' - we know that St Paul was a very unsaintly person before he was converted. We know that because it it says it in the Bible: he persecuted Christians!
But once he converted (famous road to Damascus) he, along with all the early Christians, lived in apostolic poverty. And took his faith so seriously that he died for it!
'The Emperor Constantine and his vapid wife had more to do with cranking up this steam caliope. Paul gave them the means with his writings, but the move was politically motivated. Bet the monks didn't tell you that' - I studied Constantine as part of my History degree at university (non religious university - non-religious course). So I know quite a lot about Constantine. As I have said / suggested before I never said Christians are perfect! One of the reasons they turn to God is because they are imperfect. Yes, Christianity was compromised during the reign of Constantine. I have no argument with that.
I mentioned Francis of Assisi before. Francis is one of the best-known Christians in the history of Christianity. He well-known precisely because of his uncompromising stance on worldly power and wealth. He rejected it all, and took to the road in aposotolic poverty. And there are ample historical sources to provide evidence of this and his massive influence on Christians at the time and on Christians since then. And there have been many more Francis-of-Assisi-like personalities: from the female point of view, for example: Teresa of Avila.
Tommy
'As for love your neighbor, the Chinese philospher Mo Tzi spoke about universal love centuries before Jesus' - hold on. The argument wasn't that Christianity is more about love than other religions or ways of thinking. The point of this quote was to provide you with evidence about what Christianity is all about. It is all about love because it says so in the Bible: 'love God and neighbour.' So when atheists say Christianity is wicked and so on, they are in effect saying that love is wicked - which is of course absurd and wrong. They fail to make the difference between what Christianity teaches (Love) and the way Christians fall short (just as atheists fall short) owing to human nature.
anton kozlik
All I can say is that there are lots of non-believers who I naturally prefer and enjoy being in the company with than with believers (and vice-versa!).
However, I don't think we should split people into groups: shitheads and non shitheads. People can be transformed from shit to gold! (I don't just believe this because Christianity teaches us to look for the good in people - I know this from my own human experiece!).
The Bible is very clearl about self-righteousness (my own self-righteousness is something that haunts me). Let's not forget the self-righteous religious people who persecuted Christ. And let's not forget the 'Christian' witch-burners, ghastly puritanism, The Spanish Inquisition, the corruption of the Church, and so on. But by the same token, we shouldn't forget the many decent, generous-spirited, humorous Christians too: Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila (who said that Christians without a sense of humour and who took themselves very seriously, terrified her). And let's not forget the millions of Christians over the centuries: peasants, ordinary people - ordinary Christians living ordinary lives. Let's not forget that Christians are not mean to flaunt their good works / love etc .. They are not meant to show off. Just think of all the millions of Christians who have led quiet lives, doing little acts of good here and there (through love / compassion - not through wanting to be saintly). Evil is often senstational in nature and, too much, it is the sensational, wicked historical acts of 'Christians' that get remembered, not the millions and millions of everyday little acts of love / compassion etc ..
I know lots of people who I think don't have any religion (I might be wrong ..) who have shown me love / compassion / humour. For that reason I refuse to put them into the same boat as atheistic, for example, dictators who have murdered lots of people (plus Christianity says I shouldn't put them in the same boat: Christianity seeming to back up what I experience in real life).
anton kozlik
The point I was leading up to ..
Christians MUST think about why they believe. It is not enough to believe because your Mum and Dad believe. Or because a preacher is charasmatic.
Christ said to be 'as wise as snakes.' We Christians must think about our religion so that we believe because we really believe. And that involves rational thinking. And it invovles prayer to God. Prayer to come to a pesonal, spiritual knowledge of God (which is what I have experienced, and where my real faith lies).
And as I said it involves rationalism too. But rationalism can only get us so far in life. Einstein was only able to come to his great theories through creative-thinking / imagination not just knowledge or maths. Einstein said very clearly 'imagination is more important than knowledge'. At a certain point in his work, Einstein had to make leaps of imagination / creative thinking to arrive at his conclusion. But it wasn't a blind leap into the unknown. The same as Christianity. Christianity isn't a blind leap into the unknown. We have to think about and rationalize our faith. But at a certain point reason will only get us so far. At a certain point we do have to make that leap of faith. The same can be said for inventors, business entrepreneurs and so on. No-one does thing blindly. They do their thinking first. But at some point, leap of faith is requied, yes.
Joshua - "But at some point, a leap of faith is required" The many "achievers" in our world history made that "leap", but the leap in faith was their "faith" in themselves, or their ideas. Edison, Gates, Einstein, Galileo, etc. were atheists who accomplished great things because they managed to rid themselves of the "belief" that everything comes from some "gods". It is unfortunate that the "religious" are attempting to rewrite the "history" of these great men and women, and countries as well. Christians would have us believe that the US was created as a Christian country. Sr. Bush would deny citizenship to Atheists . . . and he got away with saying it because the Christians failed to rebuke his careless statement. The religious right acted like an ugly old whore that was told "she is beautiful" so she was not about to "disagree". If both sides, Atheist and Christian could police their ranks, we wouldn't have some of these outrageous rantings . . . and we wouldn't have claims that "Darwin" and "Constantine" converted or confessed on their death beds. My Christian associates are always asking to "prove" these facts, yet provide no "Prove" themselves. They use the "bible" to prove the validity of the "bible". As Hitchens said, "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof!"
Joshua and others - please forgive some of my "typos". I am a stroke survivor and partially blind. Most often I get my "comments" checked by someone less "afflicted". Unfortunately, I sometimes want to get my comment posted and can't wait.
anton kozlik
'Einstein, Galileo, etc. were atheists' - you are quite wrong about Galileo. Galileo was a Christian. A firm believer. Prominent atheists would have no argument with this. Galileo wrote: 'God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word.' Unless you can provide some firm evidence that he was a Christian then I assume you think he was an atheistic because he fell foul with the Church over science.
And it is not crystal clear that Einstien was an atheistic either. Although Einstein doesn't appear to have believed in a personal god (what went through his mind on his death bed, we don't know) there is evidence to suggest that he did believe in some form of intelligent design:
'I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.'
And here are his views regarding himself and atheistm:
'In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.'
and
'I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
'It is unfortunate that the "religious" are attempting to rewrite the "history" of these great men and women, and countries as well' - with respect you are the one re-writing the history books. Just given you a very clear example regarding Einstein and Galileo (you don't even offer up any evidence - you just provide us with a statment / opinion).
Lastly, you miss the point about the analogy I was making with great thinkers. I don't deny they had belief in themselves. The point in the analogy I was making is that they use reason and judgement (not just a subjective belief in themselves as you talk) in arriving at their great discoveries - but at some point they have to make a leap of faith (just as Christians have to use reason, too, but that at some point they too have to make a leap of faith). That was the point I was making.
Anton
'Unless you can provide some firm evidence that he was a Christian then I assume you think he was an atheistic because he fell foul with the Church over science' - typo mistake on my part, I meant: unless you can provide some firm evidence that he WASN'T a Christian'
Joshua - point taken. Galileo may have been a devout Christian. I ask you to consider this, "What stand can Americans take in the face of what America is doing. Do they "reject" their citizenship? Do they proclaim to the world that they are American, even if that means "endorsing what America has done" or do they openly "renounce" their citizenship and incur the wrath of their "fellow citizens"? If you can't do this today, imagine what it was like in the time of Galileo, or Plato, or at "The Milesian School of Thought" in ancient Greece. To claim that Galileo's "inspiration" came from a God would bring into question which "god channels" were being listened to by the "church" and the "scientists". It would appear that they were on different "wave lengths". Lets agree then that I won't claim they were Atheists and ask that you don't claim they were Christians. Neither can be proven. But lets remember, the church maintained a form of control over what was done in the arts and sciences for several centuries by "threatening" dire consequences to "non-believers" whose work did not "glorify" god, directly, or by those others who "needed" the church's control over the masses. With regard to "you are rewriting the history books" - don't you think that they could use some "editing"? How many people know what was meant when it was said "We The People"? How many people care?
Anton
'I ask you to consider this, "What stand can Americans take in the face of what America is doing. Do they "reject" their citizenship? Do they proclaim to the world that they are American, even if that means "endorsing what America has done" or do they openly "renounce" their citizenship and incur the wrath of their "fellow citizens"?'
- with respect, I don't follow you. Are you making a point about religion or politics? Or both? If it is about religion-atheism, please clarify so I have something more specific to reply to.
'Lets agree then that I won't claim they were Atheists and ask that you don't claim they were Christians' - I am not sure how you arrived at this point. I think the important point about Galileo and Mendel and Plank (mentioned in earlier post) is that science and religion are certainly not opposed (even though some Christian fundamentalists and some atheistic fundamentalists kind of think that they are).
Rather science is part of Christianity. God is the master scientist. The master engineer. The universe is far more sophisticated than the Christian fundamentalists would have us believe. And it is far more beautiful in its make-up than the often very matter-of-fact way in which is is portrayed by some atheists.
Just as science is part of Christianity, so is everything that is good in life: the arts, humour, love, joy, peace, philosophy, and so on. They are part of religion (not opposed to religion). They only become bad when they are perverted in some way (arts that seeks to shock just for shock-sake and publicity to make money), humour (mocking humour as opposed to good-natured humour), love (love of self, instead of love of others), joy (self-indulgent pleasure instead of true joy), peace (hiding in comfort zone instead of true peace that often comes, for example, fighting the bad within ourselves), philosophy (spending all our times just thinking, instead of - when the opportunity arises - having to acutally do something) and so on.
'Neither can be proven. But lets remember, the church maintained a form of control over what was done in the arts and sciences' - as a Catholic, I quite agree with you. I have studied this. I know of the sins of the Church. But, Anton, you are very one-sided in your argument. What about the many Christians who have supported the arts? Don't forget, for example, the support that people such as Fra Angelico received (he was a devout friar who painted like a genius, of course), Bach and others. And don't forget how atheistic Soviet Russia clamped down heavily on the arts too. They only wanted arts that reflected what the Soviet Union was all about.
Joshua - I liked your interchange but it has drawn me off of my focus, which is to create an Atheist community based on some moral principles. Not every Atheist is a nice guy. Not every Christian is a nice guy. The fact that religious zealots "attack" the "non-religious" means their energies are not directed at their own "community". If Christians judged their own and came up with a "judgement" they could set an example for the other guys. For example, every Milesian is an Atheist but not every Atheist is a Milesian. Christians represent more than 30 "clans" or "tribes" who are too busy attacking us "Atheists" to deal with their "collective clans". Oh, yes, I forgot. "God can be the only judge". How about the "Christians" being more "godlike" then, and quit judging others until they learn to judge themselves. After all, they should start out with what they are familiar . . . other Christians. I am certain that should keep Christians busy for the next two or three centuries.
Joshua - "Soviet Russia clamped down heavily on the arts too. They only wanted arts that reflected what the Soviet Union was all about."
Could it be that Soviet Russia "learned" how to control the masses from the church? Remember the statement, "If they don't believe your lie, just tell a bigger lie!" which has been variously attributed to many people in history. Or could it be a formula for success practiced by various leaders?" Your interest in history is to be commended, but I would suggest that you take off your tinted glasses and revisit the history that most actually "existed" rather than the one "created" and "written" by men with similar tinted glasses. For example, some of the biggest attrocities in history, the largest "genocides" perpetrated on the human race, were done by a Christian nation. I guess they are just continuing in the tradition of the Old Testament . . .
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
"He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
[Thomas Jefferson]
Most atheists do not believe there is no god but lack belief in a god. If god cannot be proven or disproven then lack of belief is the only honest position.
There have been thousands of religions created by humanity,how do you know you have the right one? And have you studied the others?
I've Converted To EVERY Religion (Just In Case) by Edward Current
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P...G8&
feature=user
Anton
'How about the "Christians" being more "godlike" then, and quit judging others until they learn to judge themselves. After all, they should start out with what they are familiar . . . other Christians. I am certain that should keep Christians busy for the next two or three centuries'
- As I have said / suggested many times before Christians do / say bad things. Very bad things. And so do atheists. But why do you focus on Christians? When it comes to bad things you seem to focus on Christians. I think you should focus on human nature. It is human nature that makes things bad.
Otherwise you have to ask yourself: what, fundamentally, is Christianity. I have already answered that. Christianity is fundamentally about Loving God and neighbour - the two most important Christian laws - the fundamentals of Christianity. You cannot attack 'love' - the source of Christianity, what Christianity is all about. But still you focus on Christians being the bad people. Who, really, are the Christians? I ask you, what do you mean by Christianity? What do you understand by 'religion'. And what is the true source for religion in your view?
Anton
'Could it be that Soviet Russia "learned" how to control the masses from the church?'
- the Pagan Romans were, perhaps, the greatest rulers to rule over this planet. They didn't need anyone to learn how to rule. They ruled thanks to the personal ambition and ruthlessness of its leaders (consuls, generals and Emperors) - some more ambitious and ruthless than others.
What do you mean by Church? By Church do you mean abberation of nature (that religion is the result of some faulty gene?). If so it is a pretty clever, faulty gene.
And do you believe that there are more faulty genes (that have nothing to do with religion) than just the religious gene. If so what are they?
If you are going to blame the sins of atheistic Soviet Union on the Church and religion then you really need to offer - with respect - an argument of some sort (scientific, philisophical - something).
Joshua - Christianity is an "identifiable" tribe. In fact, it is many tribes, or clans. When "bad acts" by any group are condoned and endorsed by their "clan" then the "clan" has to take responsibility and not blame "human nature". For example, I can point to many "religious" clans who have honourable rules and their followers generally follow them. Our world's problem is that some of the "followers" don't follow the rules and other memebers of their "clan" do little, if anything about it. While I find the practice horrifying, I like the old world practice of cutting the finger off each time a thief was "found out". I think that a "fingerless" person created a message for all the kids that they better not do the same thing or they would lose a finger. From what I hear, the punishment for telling a "falsehood" was even worse.
Today, the ultimate perversity occurs when "clergy" of various "faiths" bless and pray for success by their clans "combatants". If the clan, in this case Christianity, were true to its beliefs, it would be Christianlike and "withhold" its blessings and endorsements for "unholy" activities. I realize that I use "Christianity" when I should say "faith based" or "god worshipping". Use any moniker you wish . . . it is still a belief in the supernatural, and as practiced today, condones and endorses ongoing attrocities. "Let's bless the troops!" "Let's sprinkle holy water on the bombs!"
How willing are members of "clans" to accept that some of their actions are not morally acceptable? They are just like the professions who "rally around" their "clan" when one of their "members" is accused of a bad act. Invariably it is no longer a question of the morality of the action, but rather "an attack on our clan". Yes, that may be "human nature" and it takes a strong clan morality to deal with "human nature".
Anton
'Christianity is an "identifiable" tribe. In fact, it is many tribes, or clans' - what do you mean by 'tribe' / 'clan'? I have never heard of Christians before being described as this. You are just asserting your own values on what Christianity should be .....
Christianity cannot be a clan in the traditional sense, because clans are associated with a place / race in some way. Christians believe that all human beings are connected to each other in that they are all children of God. It is the duty of Christians to treat all people, equally, whether they are believers or not. Just as Christians believe that they should bring the faits to others so that they realize that they, too, are children of God, and connected to everyone else in this sense.
So it is just completely wrong to describe Christians as a clan or tribe.
'Our world's problem is that some of the "followers" don't follow the rules and other memebers of their "clan" do little.' - the greastest sins are often committed in private. Do you suggest that we should go around like thought police finding out who is doing or thinking bad things. Come on Anton.
At the end of the day it is the duty of Christians to protect the innocent (as it is of all people). If someone does something bad to another person, breaking the law, then we go to the police and we say this person has done that (just as you would or anyone else).
If you mean a Christian does something wrong in the name of a Church (as opposed to Christianity) i.e a bishop says that it is alright for Catholics to break into people's home for money to buy heroin (or whatever) then that would be wrong (he shouldn't use his position as a bishop to teach Catholics to do that). But if the Bishop was a heroin addict, himself, and broke into someone elses house for money to buy heroin, that would be wroing too. But in a different way. Just as the Bishop might say something really nasty to someone else he didn't like that had nothing to do with religion (he might not be breaking the law, but it was terrible all the same).
Can't you see that your statement is very black and white. And if we were really to get under the skin of what people really did and what they really thought, then we would have to become like thought police. At the end of the day we can't be thought police. And we don't have the right to be either - because we are all sinners.
Just amazes me the way you focus your attention down onto Christians. That everyone else seems to be allowed to fall victim to human nature - but not Christians (in your view or so it appears).
, if anything about it. While I find the practice horrifying, I like the old world practice of cutting the finger off each time a thief was "found out". I think that a "fingerless" person created a message for all the kids that they better not do the same thing or they would lose a finger. From what I hear, the punishment for telling a "falsehood
Anton
'I like the old world practice of cutting the finger off each time a thief was "found out" - what, are you serious?
Joshua ". . . are you serious?"
Yes!
It is human nature that makes things bad.
I completely agree with you on this Joshua. We are all flawed human beings. Unfortunately, not all of us possess a sense of introspection about how we can improve ourselves and by extension the world in which we live in.
Maybe it makes me a moderate atheism, but I do not have a problem with Christians or religions per se. As I wrote above, if your belief in Christianity makes you a happier person, then far be it from me to try to change that. As for myself, I've been there and done that. You need to understand that many atheists were at one time very religious, so whatever you are experiencing now, we've been there already.
The problem from an atheist perspective is that Christians who take the Bible too literally act as if it contains truth claims about the Earth and the cosmos. It is one thing to believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he wants us to love one another. It is another thing to demand that science and history be taught from a biblical perspective. Or for prominent televangelists to tell millions of people on their television programs that 9/11, earthquakes or Hurricane Katrina were manifestations of god's wrath against atheists, gays and women who have had abortions.
I have to cut this short because my lunch break is coming to an end, but I wanted to get an idea where I am coming from.
Tommy
'You need to understand that many atheists were at one time very religious, so whatever you are experiencing now, we've been there already' - I don't want to question your past faith. But if you have had a personal experience of God (I don't mean seeing Him, visually, but spiritually), then your faith is more than just something intellectual. It is something very spiritual. I have been a Christian now for over 18 years. And my faith has been growing (with lots of huge dips). And my happiness growing (with lots of huge dips).
'The problem from an atheist perspective is that Christians who take the Bible too literally act as if it contains truth claims about the Earth and the cosmos. It is one thing to believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he wants us to love one another. It is another thing to demand that science and history be taught from a biblical perspective'
- I quite agree with this. History should be taught as history. Religion as religion (that is not to say that the believer cannot or shouldn't see religion in history, and history in religion, but, it is the overall approach I mean, at say, school or university).
'Or for prominent televangelists to tell millions of people on their television programs that 9/11, earthquakes or Hurricane Katrina were manifestations of god's wrath against atheists, gays and women who have had abortions' - We know that Job in the old testament suffered all sorts of physical ailments etc .. but we know quite cleary that God wasn't angry with him. I think fundamentalists are just too black and white (but we are all fundamenatlist in some shape or form, I guess, about something).
I am opposed to homosexuality but ranting and raving against gays isn't going to achieve anything. I agree. And fundamentalists need to be reminded that they must first love gays (not homosexuality). At the end of the day sex outside marriage is a sin for the Christian. Since I have had sex outside marriage (not proud of), I certainly can't judge gays. However, saying that, it doesn't mean I stop believing that sex outside marriage is a sin. It is. But I have been weak in the past (when my faith has been really low). And I regret that a lot, and ask for forgiveness (and, sex, like drugs and lots of other things, is really, really over-rated - the joy of God is a billion times greater). Remember, I am a Christian, not because I am perfect, but because I am (very) imperfect, and need God all the time.
I, also, think that abortion is wrong - but that we Christians need to do more to support those who need moral and finacial support to avoid going down the route of abortion - and not just give our moral opinions on the matter.
But that doesn't mean Christians shouldn't speak out against what they believe is wrong. But there is a way of doing it. And, always, remembering to love the sinner (not the sin). And remembering that we Christians are, also, sinful, and need God as much as an
Joshua - Just carrying forth ancient references like "the twelve tribes". Don't you think you are really splitting hairs when you won't condone use of "tribe" or "clan" yet endorse a doctrine that claims "we are all childen of god"!
"Tommykey" - I agree. Your statement that the change of a collection of myths, analogies and fairy tales into literal history has been a deterent for "free thinkers" for centuries. And, before "Christ", their were the Greek Gods. We don't take them as literal fact. Long after I am dead I trut that "Christ, Allah, et al" will be relegated to the same chapter in history that describes "Thor", "Mount Olyumpus", the "voodoo" beliefs in Haiti et al.
Anton
'Don't you think you are really splitting hairs when you won't condone use of "tribe" or "clan" yet endorse a doctrine that claims "we are all childen of god"!'
- No. Because the idea of tribe is that you are either inside or outside the tribe. Tribe suggests the idea of division. Christianity is the opposite of division. Christianity is all-inclusive (in the sense that everyone is invited to Christianity).
So not only is it not splitting hairs but 'everyone being children of God' ,as I said before, is the opposite to 'tribe'/'clan'.
Anton
'Just carrying forth ancient references like "the twelve tribes'
- but Christ transformed the nature of Judaism when He expanded fellowship with God to all human beings, Jew and gentile, alike. This isn't a matter of doubt or debate but, with respect, basic Christian theology.
Anton
But remember the difference between Christianity and the Haiti gods or the pagan gods.
- Christianity is a world religion that has grown and flourished to billions over the centuries.
- It is a religion in which God took the shape of man and lived amongst men on this earth. A personal God like no other.
- Christianity is fundamentally about one thing: Love. Jesus gave us the main commandments of loving God and neighbour. And He gave examples of what this love is.
- No other religion comes close to the humanity of Christianity. It is a religion that many ordinary people follow. That many great scientists, and writers, and philosophers, and so on follow. Different races. Different parts of the world.
Christianity has a univerasality of appeal that no other religion has. It is not suprising why it has grown and flourished. And why people take it so seriously.
And there you get to the evil and hatred of Christianity. You disapprove of gays and even get down on yourself for having sex out of marriage. And why? Because your religion has taken things that are good, or none of your business, and made them bad and hurt a lot of people in the process.
If you were gay you hate yourself even more than you do now.
And you billions times happier seems to be showing some flaws.
Joshua - "Christianity is the opposite of division" . . . a perverse delusion and there sure as heck are plenty of historical references to Christian division. I agree that "no other religion comes close" but it isn't a matter of which religion is best. You may have a supreme vintage of wine. I don't drink alcohol. Religions are like beverages. We all need liquid to stay alive. Christianity is not my "beverage of choice" and its claims of being the superior beverage, the only "real" beverage, the beverage of choice for "billions", etc. is nothing more than the same type of "hucksterism" that is used to sell snake oil, swamp land in Florida, mutual funds, "time shares", etc. I choose NO religions, NO gods. I resent those who believe in Gods constantly using bibical history to prove they are right. The staying power of Christianity of 2,000 years is not a testimony of its greatness but rather a sign of how much control the "devious" can exert on fellow mankind. And, if we are talking about proof, where is the substantiated proof that Christ even lived. We know he got his name long after his death. We know that the "bible" was written by "greeks" who did not know the hebrew word for "young girl", "garbage heap", or the geography. So, if we are going to get right down to it, how about telling us which "version" of the bible you use. It would certainly help clarify some matters.
Joshua - Aw Heck, lets finish with the beverage analogy. Coffee isn't good for your system yet billions of people drink it. The fact that billions of people enjoy it doesn't make it any better for you.
To those who enjoy there cup of coffee, I say I enjoy it. I enjoy life without coffee.
To those who enjoy religion, I say enjoy it. I enjoy life without gods.
Anton: The viability of Christianity I think proves Dawkins concept of memes. It isn't an accident that of all the religions that existed in the Middle East 2,000 years ago it is the only one to emerge victorious and continue on for so long. It has every concept that pushes humanity's buttons, life after death, fear of eternal damnation, the idea that your enemies will suffer for eternity while you have complete happiness. A very strong "Us vs Them" attitude. All the things people love and fear along with an organized priest class with a vested interesting in keeping the religion going with all of it's worst attributes.
It's a viral idea that replicates by inserting itself into people's minds and makes them feel scared and superior. And, of course, with the inherent concept of spreading the word.
And coffee isn't bad for you. Numerous tests have failed to find any harm, even at high levels of intake. And have found benefits, like that it lowers the risks of colon cancer and Alzheimer's.
Kevin
'And there you get to the evil and hatred of Christianity. You disapprove of gays' - you saying I am evil and full of hatred? Thanks a lot.
Just to be clear, I said Love the sinner, hate the sin. I think homosexuality is wrong. So what? You might think something else is wrong. That doesn't make you evil and full of hatred.
Anton
'I resent those who believe in Gods constantly using bibical history to prove they are right' - there is nothing wrong in having a point of view. Boy does Richard Dawkins and others have a point of view. Why aren't Christians allowed a point of view.
The difference between what is good behaviour and bad behaviour, whether you are Christian or atheist, is shoving your views down people's throats. I have had Christians try and do that to me. And I challenge them in debate. That is the best way of responding to them. Just as I challenge atheists to debate too.
At the end of the day we are all seeking enlightenment - truth / happiness. Debate is the best way forwards - keeping cool, listening and then judging with reason, being open-minded, keeping a sense of balance and common sense, as well as being tolerant and respectful of others - even if we strongly oppose what they say. I think .. That is the only way forwards. The only way of finding enlightenment. I think ..
Kevin
'the idea that your enemies will suffer for eternity while you have complete happiness. A very strong "Us vs Them" attitude' - this is your idea of Christianity. This isn't Christianity. Just turn to the Bible. The Bible says:
- don't judge others
- forgive
- love your enemy
Turn to the evidence: what Christianity actually teaches in the The Bible, in the New Testament. Otherwise your views are just based on ignorace / prejudice, and so worthless - harmful not helpful to enlightenment.
It isn't surprising that jesus freaks like joshua cherry pick their bible.
"- It is a religion in which God took the shape of man and lived amongst men on this earth. A personal God like no other.
- Christianity is fundamentally about one thing: Love. Jesus gave us the main commandments of loving God and neighbour. And He gave examples of what this love is."
Uh? What evidence is there that god took the shape of man. Even Zeus could do that, but who believes in him now?
Jesus the lover said he would torture Jezebel and her lovers, and kill her children, in Revelation 2 because he didn't like her life-style.
In Matthew, Jesus said: I don't bring peace, but the sword. Luke didn't quite agree. In Luke, Jesus said: I don't bring peace but fire.
Mythical Jesus was a psychopath.
Joshua - There is nothing wrong with having a point of view. The only problem is that Christians "perform" with an air of "superiority" because they have god and the bible on their side of any discussion. Consequently it is NOT a point of view but just the endless repitition of the litany of crap perfected by the religious over the last 2,000 years. And if "Christianity" is the only "survivor", what happened to the religions that are practiced by the "non white" peoples of this world? There are 2.1 billion Christians in the world, or at least 2.1 billion claimed. I have no issue with the statistics. Now, that figure is made up of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Pentacostal, Mormons, Evangelicals, Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, etc. If we take their joint "dislike" of atheists out of the picture, we end up with a bunch of people arguing that their "classification" is "gods true church", or somehing like that. How big would the numbers be if any one religion was required to provide statistics of "how many are truly Christians". If history is any indication, the number would be a heck of a lot less than 2.1 billion! My neighbour provides me with numerous "tracts" that say you have to be "born again" to be a Christian and that all other Christians are not Christians. Is she counted in the 2.1 billion? Remember, Joshua, you are speaking for ALL Christians. Getting Christians to OWN up is like tring to take a doctor to court. Even if other doctors disagree with his practices, they rally around their "profession" first. The same goes for teachers, lawyers, police men (ever been run into by an off-duty policeman making an illegal turn? It was not an enjoyable experience as the police force gathered ranks and spent a lot of energy "protecting" their comrade.) And, the same goes for Christians. They defend "Christianity" from attacks by the non-Christian and put their "unhealthy" attitude toward the "other" Christians on hold while they clear the "battle field".
Bernarda
'It isn't surprising that jesus freaks like Joshua' - thanks a bunch! Kevin says I am full of evil and hatred, and you call me a 'freak'.
'cherry pick their bible' - do you believe that everything in the New Testament is evil. Really? If not then why do you just focus on below?
'What evidence is there that god took the shape of man' - there is no evidence that God exists. That is an act of faith. And most Christians wouldn't claim that it is possible to prove, just as atheist cannot prove that God doesn't exist. But the point about evidence is that atheists should refer to what the Bible actually says in regards to what Christians actually believe or should believe. The Bible is evidence of what Christians believe. That is the point. And it is quite clear that in the Bible Jesus was both God and man. Obviously you don't believe he was God (otherwise you wouldn't opposed to Christianity).
'Jesus the lover said he would torture Jezebel and her lovers, and kill her children, in Revelation 2 because he didn't like her life-style' - I don't know this passage. And I don't deny there aren't some tough passages in the Bible. But what about the passages where Jesus says that Christianity brings peace, joy and love?
'In Matthew, Jesus said: I don't bring peace, but the sword' - not a metal sword. But the spirtual sword that fights for truth. Let me give you an example. If you lived in say, Nazi Germany, and you were a Christian, then it would be your duty to try and to take out the spiritual sword against the Nazis. At the beginning many Christians did. But as the Nazis became more powerful it became more difficult to the point that the slightest abberation from Nazi rule could lead to imprisonment and death. Many Christians were imprisoned during the Nazi era. And many were executed. This is what 'the sword' means. Not violence.
Jesus said:
- forgive others (The Prodigal Son)
- show compassion (The Good Samaratin)
- love your neighbour
- be joyful
- be at peace
Love, peace, joy and fulfillment. That is what Christianity is ultimately about. Just read the Bible. And, more importantly, experience it for yourself. Then you will know what I mean.
"The Bible says:
- don't judge others"
Then why are you judging these guys? And don't you dare say you aren't judging. To judge means to make an assessment of a situation, and you've assessed this situation which is why you're even attempting to change these guy's minds in the first place. So obviously, you don't even follow the book you're pushing on these people.
Second, explain to me why, in the Bible, it says that enslaving your daughters is okay. Explain to me why it says killing in the name of your deity is okay. And don't even think about saying 'oh, that's not in there' because it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y...h?
v=Y_sb2fSRByI
Watch it, please, and then explain to me why these are in your book and you STILL follow it.
Anton
'The only problem is that Christians "perform" with an air of "superiority"' - I am a Christian. Are you suggesting that I perform with an air of superiority? Thanks. Bernarda suggests I am a 'freak'. Kevin that I am evil and full of hatred.
The Bible says very clearly that Christians must act with humility. Pride is a sin. It is the ulimate sin. The Bible also warns against showing off and self-righteousness and so on.
As I have said many times before, Christians are imperfect like everyone else. I am imperfect. I can act like a shit. But that doesn't stop me in believing in the ultimate joy, peace and love of Christianity. It has brought me great happiness and blessings. And I am sorry but I think it would be selfish of me if I just kept if for my own and not try and share it with others. I say 'try' because I don't believe I have any more rigt than to 'try'. I can't force people to believe what I believe. I don't want to force people.
I have an opinion. You have an opinion. Professor Dawkins has an opinion. And he is pretty forceful / provocative in his opinions, calling people 'delusional' for believing in God. And I have come across many atheists who share that approach. So why do you just pick on Christians. Why do you cast all Christians with the same dye. With respect, that is prejudice.
'And if "Christianity" is the only "survivor", what happened to the religions that are practiced by the "non white" peoples of this world?' - Come on. Christianity isn't a white or at least European religion. It is a semitic religion in origin. And more serious practising Christians are now to be found in places such as South America, Africa and Asia (and yes, America). Sadly, Europe has turned its back in religion in a significant way.
'you are speaking for ALL Christians' - I don't follow your point. When you make your criticism of Christians are you talking about all Christians or not?
'Getting Christians to OWN up is like tring to take a doctor to court' - well, I think you have answered my questin. You are bunching all Christians together. You are painting them with the same brush. Pigeon-holing them so that you can nicely disregard everything about them in one fell swoop.
Harbinger
You are incredibly aggressive:
'Then why are you judging these guys? And don't you dare say you aren't judging'
'Dare' - I haven't even met you before, and that is the language you use with me from the off.
NO I AM NOT JUDGING. I am defending Christianity. I am the one who has been called, personally, 'evil' and a 'freak'. But, no, I am the one who is doing all the judging, according to you.
'explain to me why' - change your tone, please - be niceer - and I would be delighted to engage with you. Otherwise just leave me alone, please.
Joshua - You can't have it both ways. You claim to be a member of a 2.1 billion group, but retreat from being lumped with them when there is a criticism of that "group". I believe you have taken enough of our time. Read more Chomsky. He makes sense. He is attempting to be America's conscience and that, Joshua, is a big, big job. You see, there are many who would get in his way . . . and they all go to church. He doesn't. Oh, and Chomsky doesn't even get involved in the religiouis debate . . . he is trying to raise our awareness of the "evil" we do in the rest of the world. If the US calls itself a Christian nation then it must accept the rest of the world's general view that it practices "terrorism", physical and financial "terrorism" and it does it in the name of a Christian God. Clean up your act, Christians, we are watching! And so is your "god". If there is a "god" what do you think he would conclude about your actions? Oh, I forgot, Christians speak as a group with large numbers (2.1 billion) but if we observe that something is "wrong" with a supposed "Christian institution", every "Christian" scurries for the hills as he proclaims his own innocence. Frankly, your hypocrism on this front is sickening!
P.S. to Joshua -- Remember the "slogons" -- "One nation under God", "In god we trust", "We are a Christian nation", "Deny atheists citizenship" . . . but when we look for a Christian to take some responsibilty . . . there are none to be found. I coined a phrase many years ago. It goes like this. "Responsibility without Accountability is Virtue Denied!" Other people have levelled some bad words at you. I add one . . . you lack "virtue". Oh Yes, when there is talk about "judgment", remember it is one of your Christian rules, not ours.
Urm....I tried to read all through this, and tried to catch the gist. I hope this is somewhat relevant... I do think there has been some unnecessarily harsh attacks against our Evangelist friend. They're just misguided, guys.
It seems to me that there has been kind of attempt to separate beliefs from morality. One can have different beliefs, and be a moral, good person.
But beliefs are what we act upon, whether we like it or not. One can't say "Christianity is just about love" and then say that it also means you can't physically express that love with someone of the same sex, 'cause cause the Bible said so. Then Christianity isn't just about love then, is it? It's those kinds of things the atheists have a problem with, not the love part.
But beliefs can be harmful, even if you still love your neighbor. You can love black people all you want, but if you still believe that they're all lazy, immoral creatures who should be spending their time serving the white race, there is definitely a problem. Loving gay people but hating the homosexuality is just like saying love the murderer but hate their murder. You may love that murderer, but you still want them in jail, punished. You may love that homosexual, but maybe you want them in jail, punished for their sin. Or maybe you want to keep your kids away from homosexuals because you don't want them exposed to that kind of immorality. Or maybe you break off a friendship because you just don't feel comfortable being with someone morally corrupt, that you can't respect them anymore.
Things can get more extreme, too, when it comes to belief. If you believe that it is morally right to kill your daughter for sleeping around, then you're just doing what you think is proper behavior when you perform the deed.
So it's dangerous beliefs based in religions like Christianity that are the problem. And no, not the love part. The OTHER stuff. If someone came up to me and said that drawing was morally wrong, but they loved me anyway, despite my artistic attempts, I still have a right to be angry.
I hope I didn't make an idiot of myself here, cause I'm not sure where I was going with that... O_o;
Alexander: That was brilliant especially:
________________________
One can't say "Christianity is just about love" and then say that it also means you can't physically express that love with someone of the same sex, 'cause cause the Bible said so. Then Christianity isn't just about love then, is it? It's those kinds of things the atheists have a problem with, not the love part.
______________________
It points out that the claims of love by most Christians are delusional, but they still use it as an excuse for all the bad things they do.
Excuse me for intruding,
But I'd like to bring up a few issues that were being discussed higher up in the comment thread, which I think were let drop without a proper amount of discussion.
Joshua: When it is pointed out to you that Christians do evil, you say that it cannot be blamed on Christianity, but must be blamed on human nature - that non-Christians do evil too. Given this point of view, that there is a human nature which can overcome the teachings of religion and cause bad behaviors - do you believe that Christianity decreases the amount of evil a person does? Would it be accurate to say that non-Christians (or non-"true Christians" by whatever definition you choose) do more evil than Christians do? Are they more evil?
If not, what then is the moral incentive for being Christian over being non-Christian? Or is the incentive entirely hedonistic in nature, increasing your happiness a millionfold?
If so, how do you reconcile this belief with the Christian imperatives of non-judging and loving all - do you do the reasonable thing under this assumption and cross the street when you see an atheist walking towards you? (Say, a big man with the tacky Dawkins A splashed across his chest.)
You have also posed the question - if you have found something good, is it more moral to hide it under a rock, or to introduce as many people as you can to it? I don't believe anyone addressed this question, though there are so many comments on here that I easily could have missed it. If others have brought up this point, I apologize. What if you found a really, really good flavor of ice cream and just HAD to share it with everyone you knew? Over their objections? Without knowing if, perhaps, they were lactose intolerant; or vegan; or in a better parallel to religion had been given ice cream by an abuser during childhood, to stop them crying after taking advantage of them? When you evangelize to people you don't know, you are potentially exposing them to mental, emotional, and, since you believe in it, spiritual harm; and more often than not you are doing more to drive them away from your religion than get them to seek it out.
On a new note, you've noted that you were raised a Catholic. Are you still one? If so (or even if not, if your current branch of Christianity is such that the question is still applicable), would you please explain to me how a religion that is supposedly about love, togetherness, equality, and brotherhood in Christ refuses to allow women into positions of authority in the church? (My fellow atheists, please refrain from brotherhood puns; it'll only serve to cheapen the point.)
Or are men and women separate-but-equal in Christ, with the men receiving: the ability to set and change church policies, the potential to serve as intermediaries between God and man, and even modify the very afterlife (the recent abolition of limbo); and the women receiving the separate, equal blessing of: reduced reproductive choices, be
...and the women receiving the separate, equal blessing of: reduced reproductive choices, being forced to choose between the satisfaction of a married relationship and following any vocation besides motherhood (while men may pursue satisfaction as husbands and fathers and yet still follow any of God's supposed calls to purpose except to the clergy), enduring slander milennia later because their genitals take the same form as those of the person you believe is responsible for the "fall of man," and being powerless to ever access God directly, as priests supposedly do during confession?
Hi Alexander
Can I just start off by saying that everyone and no-one really is a Christian. That might sound crazy. But bear with me.
A 'Christian' is someone who acts according to the will of God (the Christian God). Yesterday I did lots of bad things. I ate too much. I could have been nicer to someone. And so on. During those precise moments I wasn't being Christian-like. Yesterday some atheist behaved in a Christian-like way, somewhere in the world. He / she might have felt compassion for someone and offered them money, some friendly advice or whatever.
At the end of the day, it is not enough just to say, intellectually, I am a Christian, and there. Christianity is something spiritual. And at the end of the day it is only God who can say whether someone is really Christian or not.
OK to your points.
You are giving me your definition of love. That is fair enough. You will find that 'Christians' too have very different ideas / understandings of what love is. Just as atheists do. Christianity is NOT about understanding everything (St Paul suggests that quite clearly in Corinthians 13). But it is about learning more and discovering what love is. The Bible gives us some good ideas:
- The Good Samaratin (compassion)
- The Prodigal Son (forgiveness)
- Turn the Other Cheek (non-violence / humility)
- 'Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you'
Love is long suffering,
love is kind,
it is not jealous,
love does not boast,
it is not inflated.
It is not discourteous,
it is not selfish,
it is not irritable,
it does not enumerate the evil.
It does not rejoice over the wrong, but rejoices in the truth' - Corinthians 13
'But beliefs can be harmful' - the same can be said of non-religious manifestos, i.e The Communist Manifesto which led to the deaths of millions of people under the hands of atheistic, Communist leaders.
- that argument can work both ways (and as I have been arguing all along, it is human nature that is at fault).
'even if you still love your neighbor. You can love black people all you want, but if you still believe that they're all lazy, immoral creatures who should be spending their time serving the white race, there is definitely a problem'
- there are lots of non-believing racists too. That works both ways. Let's not forget that the majority of practising Christians are now in places such as South America, Africa and Asia (yes, America, too - but religion in Europe has sadly greatly dwindled). Christianity is made up of more than just one race. And Martin Luther King - one of America's most famous citizens was, very much a practising Christian. So I really reject your notion that Christians are somehow more inherently racist than atheists (since there are so many people of different races within Christianity, then, I find it hard to believe that racism could be as prominent in it as you seem to suggest). At the end of the day Christians believe that they are
Joshua:
Is English your first language? If not, then it's an honest mistake: Alexander was not accusing Christians of being racist, he was drawing parallels between racism and the Christian "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to gays.
Interlopress
'Excuse me for intruding' - No. You are not.
'Given this point of view, that there is a human nature which can overcome the teachings of religion and cause bad behaviors - do you believe that Christianity decreases the amount of evil a person does' - what do you mean by Christianity? If you mean God (The Christian God: The Trinity). Then, yes, absolultely. 100%.
And when people do good (even if they are a none-believers) - they do that good because they respond to some feeling of compassion or conscience from within. The Christian Bible helps to focus people on God. But, above all, it is prayer to God - both formal and informal - that increases their connection to God - and the more they respond to God's will, the more good they do / the more love they perform.
'Would it be accurate to say that non-Christians (or non-"true Christians" by whatever definition you choose) do more evil than Christians do? Are they more evil?' - following on from my last point: the more you open up to God and the more you respond to and accept His will, then the more good you will do / the more love you will perform.
'If not, what then is the moral incentive for being Christian over being non-Christian?' - the reason for being a Christian is to live in the prescence of God (as much as we can in this life) and carry out His will. Living in His prescence now - which is a wonderful thing - and that we carry on living in His prescence after death.
'Or is the incentive entirely hedonistic in nature, increasing your happiness a millionfold?' - there is nothing wrong with being happy! Christianity is about love and love is about being in the presence of others - living jointly with others. True love is about putting others before self. Self-love is about putting oneself before others. I think it boils down to that. But there is nothing wrong about being happy.
'do you do the reasonable thing under this assumption and cross the street when you see an atheist walking towards you?' - I have lots of friends who are none-believers. With respect how do you jump to this conclusion?
'What if you found a really, really good flavor of ice cream and just HAD to share it with everyone you knew? Over their objections?' - As I said / suggested before - and let me make this very clear - no Christian and no person has the right to impose their will on others. With respect, either you get that or you don't.
'and more often than not you are doing more to drive them away from your religion than get them to seek it out' - I agree. And if, in anyway I have imposed my will on others in some shape or form on this blog, then I apologize. But, still, I feel it is the right thing for me to put forward the case for Christiantiy (or at least to explain what it is where I believe people have misconceptions about it). And, again, I think it would be pretty selfish of me to hold onto something good for myself.
'would you please explain
Joshua:
Regarding the crossing the street when you see a nonbeliever: If you believe that a nonbeliever has a poor connection to god, and that only through a connection to god can man engage in loving/good acts, it would be rational for you to avoid nonbelievers at all cost. Sticking to the company of believers would better preserve your physical, emotional, mental, or 'spiritual' well-being, because you would be subjected to less evil in the company of believers. I'm not suggesting that you do this or should do this - to the contrary, you seem like a friendly enough guy. I just don't think you've thought through the implications of your beliefs on which people are more or less good or evil.
According to your professed beliefs, nonbelievers are more likely to do evil things to you; but you say you don't avoid them, which would be the logical action to take if you genuinely believed they were more likely to hurt you. That indicates either that you are acting contrary to your beliefs, that you are mistaken about your beliefs, or that you are mistaken about your behavior. I can't say which is the case, of course, but this might merit some self-reflection on your part.
Also, I find your objection that you have non-believer friends a little disturbing in light of what you said earlier. It adds up to "Non-believers are more evil than believers, but I have non-believer friends anyway" - which is understandably offensive, and if said non-believer friends heard you say that, I doubt they would be your friends any more. I'm reminded of the people who, when accused of racism, say, "I can't be racist, a lot of my friends are black!"
Joshua - Like most "promoters" of Christianity, you consistently avoid answering those questions which "detract" or may "detract" from your message. You have been accused of being a "cherry picker" and your comments seem to reinforce the observation. I use the word "skimmer" to describe your approach. You "skim" off the good you can find in the bible and "avoid" the rest, just like the "cherry picker" that only notices the red ripe cherries on the tree. Sometimes, though, the red ones contain worms. You won't admit it here but we notice that several of your "red cherries" are full of worms . . . just like you will be when you die. You see, when you die, you won't know if there is a heaven or not. You won't know anything! You will be dead . . . a corpse . . . and the worms will have their way with you! They will also have their way with me. My reward is here on earth because I know that whenever my end comes, my "works" will have left the world a better place. I can only hope that I have as much affect as a Chomsky, Dawkins, Marcuse, et al and hope, as Karl Marx might have, that some monsters like Lenin don't come along and exploit what I have earnestly written to serve his personal agenda. How many monsters have missused your bible . . . your religion . . . your piety. Perhaps you are a minor monster, or one in training.
Interlopress
'Regarding the crossing the street when you see a nonbeliever: If you believe that a nonbeliever has a poor connection to god, and that only through a connection to god can man engage in loving/good acts, it would be rational for you to avoid nonbelievers at all cost' - with the greatest respect in the world, you are talking in the black and white language of the Fundamentalist (attributing black and white attitudes that I don't hold). I don't go around judging for example '.. mmmm I wonder whether that person is evil or not mmmm with my little note book of mmm: he is 80% evil mmm I must avoid him.' - something like that. You were the one who was trying to pin me down. Trying to get a black and white answer out of me about other people and whether I think they are evil or not. I am sorry but, firstly, it is against Christianity to go around judging people in the first place. And I hope I don't judge people. But there is a difference between that and sharing one's faith with others (hoping that it may bring them the happiness that it has brought one - maybe they are more happy - who knows - but at the end of the day it is better to try and share it than to keep it all for oneself).
'Sticking to the company of believers would better preserve your physical, emotional, mental, or 'spiritual' well-being' - the important thing is to stick to the company of God! God says 'trust me' in the Bible. So stick to and trust in God. That is the important thing (and not to go around judging people).
'because you would be subjected to less evil in the company of believers' - just to be clear, in case anyone else is reading, this is not my view!
'I'm not suggesting that you do this or should do this - to the contrary, you seem like a friendly enough guy' - with respect, Interlopress, then why do you suggest it?
'I just don't think you've thought through the implications of your beliefs on which people are more or less good or evil' - you pressed me for an answer. I answered you as best as I could (again, I don't want to be black and white in my answer on this. I don't want to be prescriptive. Being black and white / prescriptive on things like this is beging Fundamentlist, and I am opposed to fundamentalism whether it be Christian fundamentalism or any other kind of fundamentalism).
'According to your professed beliefs, nonbelievers are more likely to do evil things to you' - again, you are being very black and white / prescriptive in your understanding of what I said. Seems to me you want me to believe this so that you can denounce me in some way. That you have already decided that this is what I should think. Almost. Again, I am not a fundamentalist!
'That indicates either that you are acting contrary to your beliefs, that you are mistaken about your beliefs, or that you are mistaken about your behavior' - this is all very black and white / prescriptive reasoning.
'I can't say which is the c
INTERLOPRESS - What Joshua practices is "tokenism"! You know, the one that says "We are good people because we have a (token goes here) in our group, neighborhood, etc." At various times in my life I have been a "token". I think it is hilarious. I have been a token gentile in an "exclusive Jewish apartment building (I got the apartment above the noisy entrance to the underground garage . . . no self-respecting Jewish person would live there), I have been a token "Ukrainian" at a Golf Club, I have been the token Atheist at numerous gatherings, etc.) To say "we have one in our neighborhood" doesn't mean you treat him as "one of your community". Slave owners used to show off their "tokenism" by applauding the slave who could "tap dance" a tune, or father more slaves, etc. but, by no means were the slaves "accepted" as anything more than slaves. And, if you really want to have fun, try having some "Christian" groups accept your name. They knew the meaning of "Kozlik" which is a young, male goat . . . the sign of the devil to many. Some of them even suggested that I would be more "acceptable" if I changed my name. So, Joshua, your suspicions are confirmed. You have been communicating with the "Devil". Its really not that bad, is it?
These questions are for Interlopress and others.
- What exactly do you mean by evil?
- What is evil?
- What is free will? If human beings are merely material beings then how can they choose to act any differently to the rational laws of nature (I take it that you believe that the rational world is rational?)
- Clearly there are Christians and non-believers who do evil things. Why is your focus on the evil that Christians do, and not on the evil that non-believers do? And why do you not admit to the good that Christians do, just as you admit to the good that atheists do. This is something that I really don't get.
- So is evil just an abberation from the material laws of nature - a faulty gene, or something else? What? And, if you think that Christians are just 'delusional' in some way, then why do you, subjectively, mix the what is clearly good in Christianity (love your neighbour, forgive others, give to the poor, and so on) with what you believe to be delusional. It just doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't add up, make any logical / rational sense.
'I take it that you believe that the rational world is rational?)' meant to say: 'I take it that you believe that the manterial world is rational?'
Joshua - No more questions until you honestly answer some of ours. I believe that honesty is one of the "Christian" virtues, but then again, I said you were without virtue . . . it shows! How about "evasive" . . . before you come into our "house" how about removing your "muddy shoes"! Or is that "brown stuff" on your shoes something else?
Interlopress
And some other questions.
The opposite of evil - good. Why do people do good? Why did some soldiers during world war ii risk their lives for others.
- Why do people love? What is love?
- what is joy?
- what is beauty. The natural world is beautiful when it doesn't have to be (cliched, I know, but moon, the stars, and so on are beautiful).
- what is humour?
- what is friendship?
- what is art? What is it about a great painting by, for example, Picasso or Carravagio or Monet or whoever, THAT really gets to us. Or a poem by Yeats. Or a play by Shakespeare. Or a novel by someone such as Dostoevsky. Or a piece of muisc by Mozart, Simon and Garfunkel, Bob Marley - whoever?
- what is philosophy? Is there any value in philosophy.
- what is the metaphysical? Is there any value in exploring the metaphysical?
Clearly there are things about our ordinary lives that go beyond the rational / what is logical. And take even the material world. Scientists are discovering, more and more, that the material world is, perhaps, more mysterious or less rational that we thought: take for example, string theory, black holes, the way some things in the universe have no mass, the fact that it is theoretically possible to go back in time and all the other theories put forward by quantum theory.
Einstein said that 'imagination is more important than knowledge' - knowledge can only get us so far in trying to understand the great questions of the universe - but at some point we need have imagination too (Einstein didn't arrive at his great theories throught just pure maths or through pure observation).
And at the end of the day, we can't be sure that science is 100% accurate about any of its findings. Science is about arriving at knowledge based on experiments (and rational thinking, as well as through creative thinking). But no scienctific theory can be said to be 100% true or accurate. And at the end of the day how can we even trust our senses. As the great philosopher Berkeley said, we cannot even be sure that what is out there is really out there. Rationalists in philosophy (i.e Plato, Spinoza, Descartes and so on) argue, broadly, that truth / reality exists within us - that we have to find truth / reality within us (I agree, with them, but, I also, agree the empiricists the truth / reality can be discovered in the world around us too, through experience).
Anyway, the point I am making is that things in life, in nature, in science and so on, are not black and white. That is why we mustn't come to 100% conclusions such as: there can be no god. That we leave our options open, and explore everything.
Joshua - More questions, eh? Where are your answers? Your arguments appear to be of the same school as the "tent evangelist" who has no hearing! But, boy, can he ever mouth questions! YUK!!!
Are we finished with this one?
What is the weight of an unladen swallow?
Where can you find the "which-ness" of "what"?
How much does Ernest Hemming-Weigh, and who gives Edith Head?
I agree with Anton. You have *not* answered our questions with evasions and tangental arguments. I will be hanged if I give you an opening gambit to claim that we are endowed with human emotions and conscience and empathy through the waving of god's magic penis or something.
Volly for serve:
Why is your god male?
How is your god male?
If your god is male, where is his female counterpart? Is it Ann Coulter?
If humans are lesser than gods, then is what your god allegedly did to the Alleged Virgin Mary akin to beastiality?
If your god doesn't live by his own rules, why should we?
If the Catholic Church can get in bed with Hitler, justify the genocide of the Heugonauts, and rationalize other murders and monsterous acts, what is morality according to the Church? (Negative points for the "It was just a few misguided/disgruntled individuals acting alone" excuse.)
Discuss: How does extolling subservience to an imaginary uber-alpha male tribal architype stunt human maturity, create human tools to be manipulated and exploited, and prevent the achievement of self-actualization, as described by Dr. Abraham Maslow?
Breakerslion - Yeh!!!! The "individuals acting alone" sort of sounds the same as "we were only following orders" voiced by the Nazis when confronted about their "actions". Unfortunately, we have "Christian" forces waging war who are "following orders" from our "supreme commander". Could the current escalation in the price of gas be one of the strategies to justify the war and get people backing the war?
Joshua:
“Can I just start off by saying that everyone and no-one really is a Christian. That might sound crazy. But bear with me….etc.”
This may just be a matter of semantics, but just because Christianity supports certain acts doesn’t make everyone who engages in those acts part Christian, per say. By that logic, everyone and no-one is really a secular humanist, too, because every time someone engages in a moral act to support a fellow human being, they’re acting on secular humanist principles. Ideas from different beliefs systems overlap. So it’s kinda irrelevant, no offense meant.
“ the same can be said of non-religious manifestos, i.e The Communist Manifesto which led to the deaths of millions of people under the hands of atheistic, Communist leaders. “
Weall, yeah, that’s pretty clear. The problem isn’t just religious beliefs, but any kinds of belief not based on evidence or common sense. Religion is almost always based on following a set of laws that are considered a divine truth, not open to argument, and therefore religions fall into this category a majority of the time.
“that argument can work both ways (and as I have been arguing all along, it is human nature that is at fault).”
You can say that, but it won’t be true. Think about it: what if you honestly, honestly believed, that your god….I dunno…let’s call him Godly Bob, wants you to decapitate children and stick their heads on pikes to show your loyalty. Wouldn’t you do it? Even if it hurt you to have to watch the children suffer, even if you loved them dearly, wouldn’t you try to overcome that to do what you are sure is the right thing? After all, if you don’t, then you’re being disloyal to the greatest being in the universe, who always knows what’s right. And no, I’m not saying your Christian god asks you to stick the heads of children on pikes, it was a hypothetical situation with a hypothetical Godly Bob. But it would be ridiculous to say that people never commit atrocities because they were misguided. Parents let their kids die from lack of medical attention, because they truly believe that prayer is the proper course of action. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that all of these parents hate their children and want them to die? What parent doesn’t want what is best for their children? Did every father and mother who taught his daughter to submit to men and aspire only to be a proper housewife back in the day do it because of their cruel human nature? Or did they never consider the possibility that that was not the proper course of action?
“there are lots of non-believing racists too….etc.”
Um…I didn’t even suggest that racism was based in Christianity. It was an example of how a stupid belief is still harmful, no matter how much love and good intentions the one who possesses the belief has. I chose racism because we all believe it’s wrong. So I’m saying that the comment made about how it’s okay to hate homosexuality or pre-marital sex
Continued from last comment, which looks like it was cut off:
“there are lots of non-believing racists too….etc.”
Um…I didn’t even suggest that racism was based in Christianity. It was an example of how a stupid belief is still harmful, no matter how much love and good intentions the one who possesses the belief has. I chose racism because we all believe it’s wrong. So I’m saying that the comment made about how it’s okay to hate homosexuality or pre-marital sex as long as you love the sinner is misguided. If homosexuality and pre-marital sex are fine, just like a black person not submitting to whites is fine (and, I think most of us would agree, a GOOD thing), then holding onto the belief that it is wrong is STILL harmful.
There has been lots of talk about "love" and "love thy neighbour". The Old Testament said "love your neighbour" because a neighbour was also Hebrew. And we know what they said their god would have them do with everyone else . . . kill them . . . kill their children . . . kill them all . . . unless you wanted "slaves" (I believe somewhere along the line it was changed to "servants") or concubines which were also renamed "servants". But then, we know the bible was not written by any god, just a bunch of guys who, at various times, needed to justify what they did and how they did it. "God told me to kill them!" That's why we don't trust you, Joshua. Who knows what you and your hechmen will justify next? And we know the Christian record for righting its wrongs is dismal indeed. So, I have a question for you, Joshua since you won't answer which "bible" you use. Which version of the bible did Wiliam Shakespear prefer, and why? Oh, that's right, Joshua doesn't answer questions.
Alexander
'Weall, yeah, that’s pretty clear. The problem isn’t just religious beliefs, but any kinds of belief not based on evidence or common sense'
- 'evidence' or 'common sense' - there is a world of difference between the two. 'Evidence' is something empirical - that comes from outside - an experience that can be tested by others / shared with others. But 'Common sense' is something intuitive / rationalist. It is something unique to the individual. Yes, we can agree or disagree on whether something is 'common sense' of not, but they are subjective opinions not 'evidence' that can be tested.
'Religion is almost always based on following a set of laws that are considered a divine truth'
- if you look at Christianity - if you pick, and look closely at its moral laws, the fundamental ones (of the New Testament) are about things rooted in 'common sense' / laws that even non-believers would share.
For example
Jesus says that the most important commandment is to Love [God and) neighbour.
Since you don't believe in God, I have left God out of it. So that leaves (as THE MOST IMPORTANT CHRISTIAN LAW):
:Love your neighbour.
Well I can't think of a better - more human - law to follow. And I expect that most atheists would agree with me on this (but, sadly, aetheists are so busy caught up with other aspects of Christianity that they forget this).
Christianity, also, says:
- show compassion towards others forgive others
- don't judge others
- don't steal
- don't be gluttonous
- be patient
- turn the other cheek
- be meek (as opposed to arrogant)
- do not kill
- do not covet
- be kind
- do not boast
- be cheerful
- do not be proud
- do not keep record of wrongs
- be hopeful
I am sure you get my point. All laws that are not just benign (in a really important way) for the individual but, also, for society. And to me they are fairly 'common sense' too.
'Common sense' is a great virtue in Christianity. Jesus tells us to be wise.
'not open to argument' - This is not true. God wants us to question our faith in so far that we really believe, and don't just believe because another mortal says so.
Thessalonians says 'Let all things be tested; keep to what is good'
'I dunno…let’s call him Godly Bob, wants you to decapitate children and stick their heads on pikes to show your loyalty. Wouldn’t you do it?'
- Christianity is very much about 'common sense'. The point you make would only exist in the realm of madness. As someone who believes in 'common sense' you either get that or you don't!
'Even if it hurt you to have to watch the children suffer, even if you loved them dearly, wouldn’t you try to overcome that to do what you are sure is the right thing? After all, if you don’t, then you’re being disloyal to the greatest being in the universe, who always knows what’s right' - with the greatest respect, Alexander, life is too short for this kind of mad spec
Alexander
My last points weren't publised for some reason. I will try and get back to you on these (if you are interested ...)
Alexander
'wants you to decapitate children and stick their heads on pikes to show your loyalty'
- As I said life is too short for this mad kind of speculation. As I have already said, Christianity is very much about 'common sense.' Since the Christian God is about Love, His concern is that we are followers of Love / carry out His will of Love - which is the opposite of destroy. This is just basic theology / common sense.
'And no, I’m not saying your Christian god asks you to stick the heads of children on pikes' - no He certainly doesn't. The complete opposite. This is justn't wild hypothesis - but, also, goes against the fundamentals of Christian theology / common sense.
'But it would be ridiculous to say that people never commit atrocities because they were misguided' - wouldn't in a million years disagree with you on this. But why on earth do you raise this point as if I might ... With respect, your speculation to me seems more applicable to the subject of 'what is madness?' - Well, madness affects atheists as much as it affects Christians. Madness is such a mystery and so important to human life that Shakespeare devoted two of his most important plays to the question (Hamlet and King Lear).
'so important to human life' - (obviously) I meant an important part of human life.
I step out for three months and this is what I return to...yeesh...
"Common sense" is often one or the other, but not both. In the dark Ages, "everyone" in Europe knew that cats were evil. Old women who kept cats were accused of being witches. Then along came the Bubonic Plague....
AIDS was Gawd's retribution on homos and heroin addicts. - then people from all walks of life started getting it, including children getting it from blood transfusions. Very selective indeed!
As for the 10 Commandments, Moses went up the mountain, and God told him to plagiarize the Egyptian Book of The Dead. "Everyone knows" Moses couldn't have thought up that plan himself.
Hi folks. I "signed off" last night with the request that Joshua at least answer some questions. I see this morning that he is stil spouting off without answering any questions . . . just reacting to what we say. Might I suggest that the best way to deal with Joshua, and other types like him, is to IGNORE them. This thread started off with a concern about "evangelism" . . . and an "evangelist" has got us "wound up". I, for one, am signing off of this thread. My apologies to fellow freethinkers if I have contributed to the turmoil. See you later!
P.S. to Joshua and others . . . Einstein's "non-belief" may be proven by the following story from todays New York Times. "Einstein letter on God sells for $404,000". Like I have maintained all along, he did not believe in a god!!!
Readers
The reason why I didn't reply to Anton is simple. This is what he said in his post to me immediately after my last post to him:
'I believe you have taken enough of our time'
He, also, went onto to say in the same post / later posts:
'Frankly, your hypocrisy on this front is sickening'
'Perhaps you are a minor monster'
and finally ..
'I said you were without virtue'
If anyone wants to engage with me in rational debate (as far as reason can take one), in a manner which is respectful to others, then I am more than happy to oblige.
Last week, I was assailed by 2 muggers after a baseball game (whom I foolishly beat up - they could have had a gun). I have a very good Christian friend who went into tears when I told her what happened. She pleaded with me, asking me when will I ever believe that God has a "special plan" for me and protects me from getting hurt for a reason. This is the same thing she told me each time I came home from another deployment to Iraq.
Well, I had invited her to come to the game with me because I had box seats, but she said no because she had a baby shower to go to. So when I asked her when she got home from the baby shower, it turned out to be 2 hours before the game started and she regretted that she didn't take me up on my offer. So I told her... you know, if she had been my date, I would have driven to the stadium instead of walking, and I wouldn't have gotten mugged. To this she reacted in a stern, shocked voice, "DON'T YOU PIN THIS ON ME!!!!"
She deserved it :P
Joshua
-“'evidence' or 'common sense' - there is a world of difference between the two…”
I revise my statement. Evidence and logic is necessary for all kinds of belief. What was common sense hundreds of years ago is way different than common sense now. Common sense should always be questioned.
"if you look at Christianity - if you pick, and look closely at its moral laws, the fundamental ones (of the New Testament) are about things rooted in 'common sense' / laws that even non-believers would share."
…and therefore every part other part of the Christian doctrine should be treated as common sense because some fundamental parts are good…? If that’s not what you meant, then this whole thing about how awesome the basic moral code of Christianity is really wasn’t necessary. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that Christianity doesn’t have some good stuff in its fundamental moral code. I’m not, at least, and it doesn’t change the fact that there are laws in Christianity that not many people can agree on so easily.
"Well I can't think of a better - more human - law to follow. And I expect that most atheists would agree with me on this (but, sadly, aetheists are so busy caught up with other aspects of Christianity that they forget this).”
I dunno, maybe it’s because the only times atheists care about other people’s religion is when is comes to those ‘other aspects’ which they DON’T agree with? >_>; Secular humanism takes all of the good with none of the bad, so Christianity isn't really that impressive to us in comparison.
” ‘not open to argument' - This is not true. God wants us to question our faith in so far that we really believe, and don't just believe because another mortal says so.”
I’m guessing that when a Christian starts testing their faith, they start out from the assumption that they will find out that God exists, and try to reason there way backward to why this is true. It is called 'testing your faith', after all, not 'figuring out if God actually exists'. But…if we decide to say that you’re correct, and that Christianity encourages questioning of the doctrine, it doesn’t change the fact that the reasoning leading to the belief that Christianity is true may be faulty.
“Christianity is very much about 'common sense'. The point you make would only exist in the realm of madness. As someone who believes in 'common sense' you either get that or you don't!”
See, you’re not even considering the POSSIBILTY of someone believing in this doctrine and being sane, or that you could ever believe in it. I’m NOT talking about Christianity here, obviously enough. I don’t care what Christianity has to say about decapitating kids, or what you think about decapitating kids with your current belief system. I think it’s a safe bet that no one here wants to be warding off Godly Bob with a head on a stick. That’s not the point at all.
Are you suggesting the entire Aztec civilization wa
Continued from previous....
...Are you suggesting the entire Aztec civilization was full of schizophrenics, and if they’d just had the proper medication, all those funky human sacrifices to the sun god would never have occurred? Human sacrifice EXISTED. In TONS of civilizations. Hell, I just looked at the Wiki article on it. Way more human sacrifice than I expected. The Pawnee engaged in a ceremony that included the sacrifice of a young girl. The Inca sacrificed children. Lot’s of human sacrifice in West Africa. I’m asking you to put yourself in the position of growing up in a society where it was ‘common sense’ that in order to please the river deity, you had to drown a young man or woman in it. I should not have used the term ‘common sense’ before, because what most consider ‘common sense’ may not stand up to logical reasoning.
Why doesn’t human sacrifice make sense? Because there is no evidence that a deity exists, and no evidence that if a deity did exist it wants you to sacrifice people. Therefore, human sacrifice is wrong. Not because ‘it’s just common sense that it’s wrong’. We need to question our most deeply held assumptions, after all.
What is the point of all this? You said that ‘people do bad things because of bad beliefs’ can be countered with ‘but people do bad things because of evil in human nature’. I was trying to show that stupid beliefs can lead otherwise normal people into doing horrible things because what they believe is the right thing to do is totally wrong. Things like human sacrifice can’t JUST be explained by saying that human nature is evil, and that people enjoy killing. In your response to me you said that you agree that atrocities can be committed because people are misguided, so I’m guessing you basically agree with what I’m saying here? People who want to do the right thing can commit horrible acts because they’re wrong about what the right thing is, correct?
Joshua:
By the way, you never addressed my point about how loving everyone doesn't make having incorrect beliefs about what is right and what is wrong okay. Could you, please? It was the main issue I was trying to address in my first comment, and I don't want to stray too far away from it.
I don't think human nature explains all bad things. Take Joshua being against homosexuality. This is hateful judgement based on nothing more than an old book written by a bunch of ignorant sheep herders. Remove the meme from the book and there is no reason for this hateful judgement. I've never encountered an atheist who felt this way.
Direct proof that Christianity causes harm that would not exist without it.
Kevin, I think what many of us struggle with is how to figure out what part of bad behavior is due to human nature and would happen regardless of religion vs. how much is driven primarily by religion. I've certainly known atheists who had very negative attitudes toward homosexuality. The problem is that they were raised in the same thoroughly Christian culture in which we live, making it impossible to know which was the main influence.
What strikes me as relevant here is that homosexuality appears to have been much more accepted in the West prior to Christianity. While some Christians would argue that this is because there was no morality prior to Christianity, I don't buy this claim.
One thing of which I am quite sure is that religion interacts with human nature to produce some true nastiness that we do not tend to see without its influence.
vjack - "Raised in a Christian Culture" is simply stated yet says so much. I have yet to hear a concern among our Atheist associates any "real" concern for the world in which our children will be raised . . . or in the case of this old codger, in which my grandchildren and great grandchildren will be raised. My point is that "Christianity is a recognizable culture" while literally all of the atheists I have talked to would "leave" the creation and maintenance of a "culture" to the "Christians" while Atheists reserve the right to be its critics. I maintain that until Atheists get together and start to do something more than "reacting to what the other guys are doing", we will be forever regarded as a "dangerous fringe element". What the heck do we have to offer "Christians" as an alternative? All the Christian can perceive is that we are a bunch of "grumblers".
anton, actually I think you're over reacting. Cheer up. Atheism, more precisely the broader "non religious" column is growing explosively all on its own. Why The Gods Are Not Winning paints a very hopeful picture for the future of atheism.
Just saying... chances are your grandkids are going to be raising their kids and learning about religion as part of their history lessons.
vjack: While I agree that religion interacts with human nature to bring out real nastiness, that religion does not create the negative aspects of human nature but just enhances them at times. But I think ideas have power and religious ideas are often narrow and self-righteous.
As far as homophobic atheists I have never encountered any and I've meet quite a few online over the past 15 years. I'm sure some must exist but it seems counter to the rationality that usually brings out atheism in our society.
One email friend of mine is a man in his mid 60's raised in Mississippi at a time when racism was the norm. I'm sure you can imagine some of the things he was taught as a child. He has described his struggle to come out of that prejudice, his ability to see through the tale in young adulthood and shift his views quite dramatically to become more enlightened, even if it was a chosk to his system.
This is how I usually view atheists, rationalists who perceive the lie in such prejudice and overcome it by their own effort and through logic.
While I see Joshua as someone who has embraced prejudice because his religion has told him to. This is the opposite of rational.
That makes sense, Kevin. I'm certainly not defending religion here. For some, it can be a cause of bad behavior. For others, it is more like a tool that makes bad behavior worse.
bbk - I would imagine that my "over reaction" is that I have watched "atheists" doing little in the last 60 years. My grandfather was an activist atheist going back to about 1900. It was my grandfather who disappointedly shrugged his shoulders and said, "If you want to be Boy Scout, you'll just have to pretend you're a Christian" On that score, I see that nothing has changed. A part of my "view" is influenced by the number of Atheist voices who do not appear to be parents, who do anything more than proclaim their Atheism and criticize the "faith based" people. When viewed optimisticaly, the fact that "good things" have occurred in the last 100 years is great. The question is "what did it take?" to make these things happen. Atheists were conspicious by their absence. Why is the influence of the religious right getting stronger? I believe one of the reasons is that there is no "alternative", no identifiable "atheist culture". And until there is one, all the "common sense" arguments, all the "logic", all the people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris', et al, will amount to little more than a "wind" because our "wind" is like the "wind" to the "willow" which gets stronger as the wind blows.
Anton: I think little happens because atheists have such bad rap among the religious. I think there are a lot of people who would be atheists if they didn't think is was a terrible thing and others who would be if they thought about it and still others who would be if they knew another atheist. What Dawkins and the rest, and all the blogs, are doing is showing people that it's OK to be an atheist and even provide logical and sound reasons for being one. This is vitally important because it's changing the zeitgeist.
KevinBBG- I certainly have no disagreement with you. Essential things are being done by this "educational effort". I believe, though, that we seriously underestimate the value of setting examples that the "religious" we take seriously because they can identify if with a "competing society" rather than just an attack on theirs. When I was a teenager, I was told to "cool it" because we are making headway. Fifty years have passed. People are still telling me to "cool it". My "analogy" of the "willow" still stands out an important consideration for our community. If we "strengthen" the willow while doing nothing to "strenghen" our own status, we accomplish little, if anything. We will be successful when kids tell their parents that they want to be an atheist, not because their parents told them to, but because they, with their youthful perceptions of our world, see atheists as being "neat people", who do "neat things" and give me something good to do with other kids. If we don't win the kids, we lose the "war". No five-year-old understands the arguments. They want to feel good, needed and loved. Where will that happen? It appears to me that Atheists resist accepting this fact of life. In my professional life I found that "winning the kids over" came first, and that doesn't happen with intellectual debates about the bible, morality, secularism, etc. etc. Its belonging to an identifiable tribe, clan, group . . . you pick the name, but it better be understood by the kids. Peace!
BBK-Sorry for the typo, small correction. "we take seriously" should be "WILL take seriously".
Anton - why would anyone want to join the boy scouts? You wanted some pedophile teaching you how to "survive" in the woods? Why not go to NASA Space Camp or join an environmental studies program or take part in competitive sports like me and my friends did growing up? I've never felt pressured to take part in Christian culture. If you want Christian culture, you might as well pretend that you're Christian. Your grandfather was dead on. If you don't want it Christian culture, then what's the problem?
I detect an air of "smuggness" when you recount your "anecdotal" experiences. Just because you escaped the pedophiles who were rampant in amateur sports doesn't mean they weren't there. My first exposure to the threat of "pedophiles" took place when I was a 12-year-old hockey player (back in the 1940s)and my coach was one. He didn't "diddle" me, but you could tell who he did by the fact that they played with the "expensive" hockey sticks which none of could afford. Times change.
I ask you to consider this assessment of what has taken place in the field fo computing.
"When us old codgers recount how great we felt when we overcame some of the limitations of the computers we used in the 60s, 70s and even the 80s, we are invariably halted in mid sentence as we are reminded by the "young 'uns" who boast that they don't have any of those problems as if they had something to do with solving the problems. All they did was buy the computer, or have someone buy it for them. We helped the "computer age" mature so you can now enjoy many of the features with which we struggled to create. And now we are dealing with the evolution of Atheismm, and the same "young 'uns" who fail to respect what us old codgers did, would tell us how we should go about evolving "atheism'. If we had used your approach, we would talk well, and still write on typewriters.
I used to give the door-to-door evangelists a hard time, or I'd play with them. But that took too much time and effort. Now, I open the door, size them up, say "Not interested" before they can say anything, and shut the door. I find that they're less annoying to me this way. I get some small measure of having been about equally as rude to them as they were to interrupt me from minding my own damned business, and I get rid of them quickly. Never had one knock on the door again after I shut it in their faces.
I consider this a vast improvement over my dad's method of dealing with the same situation: a Smith and Wesson pointed at the fundies' faces, plus a reminder that they were trespassing on his property--which gave him the legal right to use deadly force if they didn't get off his land, with all due haste. Funny, sometimes, they ran outta there, not even a "God bless you" or "Jesus loves you in parting."
Of course... Getting away with that particular tactic was probably easier in Texas than it would be in some other places...
I'm kinda curious for Joshua to reconcile how he thinks homosexuality is bad because it's sex outside of marriage, yet how his church (and most other Christian denominations) refuse to allow homosexuals to participate in the marriage rite.
Commenting by HaloScan
