Benighted Religious Views
Trapped in the creationist briar patch
A response to the Bunting, Ruse, Dembski cabal by Daniel Dennett
I find it amusing that two Brits - Madeleine Bunting and Michael Ruse - have fallen for a version of one of the most famous scams in American folklore (Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins, March 27). When Brer Rabbit gets caught by the fox, he pleads with him: "Oh, please, please, Brer Fox, whatever you do, don't throw me in that awful briar patch!" - where he ends up safe and sound after the fox does just that. When the American propagandist William Dembski writes tauntingly to Richard Dawkins, telling him to keep up the good work on behalf of intelligent design, Bunting and Ruse fall for it! "Oh golly, Brer Fox, your forthright assertion - that evolutionary biology disproves the idea of a creator God - jeopardises the teaching of biology in science class, since teaching that would violate the separation of church and state!" Right.You also ought to soft-pedal physiology, since it declares virgin birth impossible, contrary to what many devout people believe. And you'd better start censoring the more inconvenient parts of geology, since they might be seen to disprove the widespread religious belief in the US that the world was created about 6,000 years ago. In America we have never banned teaching science that conflicts with benighted religious views and we never will, I solemnly hope. . .
Comments
Interesting connection giving the IntelligentDesign people a tool, by linking Darwinism to Atheisim.
The point is rather weak, about as weak as saying ID is different than Creationism. The true test is if School Boards are smart enough to tell them apart.
Darwinism is not a spiritual belief, its a scientific theory. Atheism is not necessarily based in science, its purely the belief that there is no unipolar almighty deity. It has nothing to do with evolution, its like comparing apples to oranges.
Well, Dennett certainly lost any credibility he had with me. The subheading on his column says it all: It is ludicrous to suggest that promoting Darwinism helps the intelligent design lobby, says Daniel Dennett
...except that nowhere in Bunting's article is that ever remotely suggested: The nub of Ruse's argument is that Darwinism does not lead ineluctably to atheism, and to claim that it does (as Dawkins does) provides the intelligent-design lobby with a legal loophole...
Bunting's point is clear: Promoting Darwinism is fine. It's Dawkins claiming that Darwinism disproves the existence of God that is a problem. Dawkins (& Dennett's) insistence that to believe in Darwinism is (or should be) to disbelieve in God just makes them easier to dismiss, and perpetuates the myth that religion and science must be mutually exclusive.
I also really liked part of Bunting's closing comment: All protagonists in a debate have a moral responsibility to ensure that the hot air they are expending generates light, not just heat. It's a point that escapes Dawkins.
It had to have been intelligent design, right? Man is much better than all of the other animals. We are so wonderful and our lives have so much meaning and we are so divine. Has to be, right? Thank goodness God is there looking after all of the starving children, the homeless, and war torn countries.
Kevin, "It's Dawkins claiming that Darwinism disproves the existence of God that is a problem."
I am no expert on Dawkins, but from reading various writings and listening to various interviews (many good examples can be found on this site), I believe that your assertion is wrong. Dawkins seems to make the argument that the rational quest for knowledge (i.e. science) and it's process inevitably leads to the conclusion that religous teachings, based solely on prophesy reinforced by heritage and never on objective empiricism, cannot be trusted. What then is god but an unproven hypothesis that cannot be believed? (This reminds me of an ironic statement by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger that limbo has always "only been a theological hypothesis." But everything else, pope? We shouldn't question all the other articles of faith?). It strikes me that what Dawkins disbelieves (distinct from non-belief in god) is that anyone else can believe in god. In his alarming and exasperated disbelief that people can fall for religion, he can often come off as smug and antagonistic towards the audience that matters. In regards to the post topic, these characteristics of his personality are what helps the very polished ID proponents, not the substance of his arguments.
“that evolutionary biology disproves the idea of a creator God - jeopardises the teaching of biology in science class, since teaching that would violate the separation of church and state!" “
Am I the only person that think this is the dumbest thing they have ever heard? (Well maybe not quiet as dumb as the people that say the earth only 6000 years old but close enough) It makes absolutely no sense on so many levels. First of all atheism is not a religion. No matter how many time the religious right try to say atheism takes just as much faith as religion it is simply not true. The only belief that all atheist must have in common is they don’t believe in god. I can’t remember the article name but I think it was posted here awhile back about true atheist don’t join organizations. The point is atheist is a definition for someone that doesn’t believe in a god it is not a religion. If atheism is a religion then not believing in goblins would also have to be a religion. Not believing in lockless monster would also have to be a religion.
Second oblivious flaw is the theory of evolution is a science theory not an atheist theory. Actually there not even a such thing as a atheist theory because of what I said above. It just happen that many scientist and great thinkers are very logically minded which naturally leads you to atheism.
Kevin
I join Doyle in challenging you to substantiate your accusation that "Dawkins claim[s] that Darwinism disproves the existence of God." Chapter and verse, please? I find it difficult to conceive that someone as smart as Dawkins would make such a patently foolish claim.
It isn't that Darwinism disproves God, but rather that Darwinism makes God redundant in explaining the vast diversity of life on the planet; and God's many apologists do not appreciate His being pink-slipped.
Ruse, as quoted by Bunting: "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."
Setting aside Ruse's apparent confusion between equivalence and implication, this argument of his is extremely weak. There are numerous other disciplines that are inherently atheistic, and there is no danger of any of these being thrown out of US schools on First Amendment grounds. For instance, Mathematics; it is entirely possible to contemplate infinity without having to invoke The Infinite. (Some mathematicians and physicists claim that the Devil, or some unspecified Nefarious Designer, invented tensors, but there is no evidence for this. Which is why it is not part of the syllabus.)
Atheism is not the problem in the whole (creationism)intelligent design/evolution debate; theism is the problem.
Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in any religion. Dawkins does not attack the notion of god existing or not, but rather any group of people that are deluded about god; that is, god exists, and further "we know what god is like, what he likes, and his personality."
Such claims are incredibely foolish.
Once again, if intelligent design takes over america it will be the fault of the theists, and their ignorance and their arrogance.
"Dawkins claim[s] that Darwinism disproves the existence of God."
I doubt Dawkins every said he completely disproved god. What he has said is that a god is extremely unlikely. The exact quote from Dawkins is
“Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that. We cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is very, very improbable indeed.”
I found the quote at
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawkins0.htm#LIKELIHOOD
Dawkins never goes so far as to actually state: "I can prove there is no god." My apologies for implying otherwise. That said, Dawkins' implication is always strongly in that direction, which I consider irresponsible and fodder for the whole 'religion & science are mutually exclusive' myth.
If you read both articles, my point should be obvious:
Bunting takes issue with Dawkins and his frequent tendency to push his notion that a belief in God, as well as anyone holding such a belief, is foolish instead of sticking to the science. Dennett turns around and applies that offense to Darwinism as a whole, when it was only targeted at Dawkins. Many of the comments at the bottom of the Dennett article comment on this as well.
As for the larger question: Atheism (the theory or belief that God does not exist) is as much (unprovable) faith as Theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods). Neither can be proved and neither is the problem. Agnosticism (neither faith nor disbelief in God) is scientifically neutral.
The problem is people on both sides trying to overstep their areas of expertise, be it in the classroom or the courtroom. Evolution is scientific fact, and belongs in science class. Religion is philosophic belief, and belongs in philosophy/region class.
It is religious people trying to make a claim regarding science (which is usually disprovable), or scientific people trying to make a claim regarding religion (which is usually unprovable) that is the problem.
“As for the larger question: Atheism (the theory or belief that God does not exist) is as much (unprovable) faith as Theism (belief in the existence of a god or gods). Neither can be proved and neither is the problem.”
Can you disprove the lockless monster? Can you disprove unicorns? Can you disprove tooth fairy? Atheism is not faith because it is the starting point. Any real scientist when tackling this subject must start at atheism then try to work there way to theism. Most people I know still stuck on searching stage.
If a scientist came in and said my families for generations have believed that goblins exist. Are all of the scientists expected to be neutral on the subject till they can disprove it?
Any theory must be proven before accepted. Atheism is not a theory it is no more then a word we use to say we don’t believe in Theism.
If you lived in a society that never heard of theism there would be no need for the word atheism. It is only in a world where Theism is believed that the word atheism can exist. Atheism is starting at nothing where you must start till you gain knowledge.
There are gods must be the theory because no gods is assumed in a society that doesn’t know what a god is. Therefore if you can’t prove there gods then you must assume the theory wrong till it can be proven.
To think about it correctly you must start with saying I know nothing and then look at the facts that been proven. How would god existing come from what we know?
If you lived in a society that never heard of theism there would be no need for the word atheism. It is only in a world where Theism is believed that the word atheism can exist. Atheism is starting at nothing where you must start till you gain knowledge.
Um, I think your own statement disproves itself. How can atheism be a starting point if it can only exist in response to theism?
Any real scientist when tackling this subject must start at atheism then try to work there way to theism.
This is completely incorrect, and exactly why it infuriates me when atheists try to suggest atheism is supported by science. Scientists (of all people) should be open-minded at all times and willing to challenge assumptions. You're suggesting a skeptical viewpoint which, though may be practical for a scientist to use as part of the scientific method, goes beyond science in terms of evidence for belief.
To suggest one withhold belief in something until it is proven is scientifically objective/neutral. Agnosticism meets this criteria, not atheism.
To suggest that one actively disbelieve everything until it is proven is scientifically skewed to the negative. Such a perspective deliberately errs on the side of avoiding false positives, while effectively guaranteeing you will have false negatives. Fine for a scientific testing methodology - lousy as a basis for establishing truth.
Scientists frequently hold beliefs that can not be proven, but they should be labeled as such. The presumption that there is no god, simply because we lack the ability to prove otherwise, is a belief - not a fact.
Since god (by most conventional definitions) is supernatural by nature, science is effectively guaranteed not to be able to prove or disprove his existence. Scientists who can't seem to grasp this irritate me almost as much as religious people who can't accept when science disproves a religious belief (like, the Earth is only 6000 years old).
Since god (by most conventional definitions) is supernatural by nature, science is effectively guaranteed not to be able to prove or disprove his existence. Scientists who can't seem to grasp this irritate me almost as much as religious people who can't accept when science disproves a religious belief (like, the Earth is only 6000 years old).
The main issue with this is that, does there exist anything known that is beyond the natural? If God is supernatural can it not still act upon the natural? Can miracles be a form of God backing criteria that science can ingest?
The thing I would agree with mgoldb is that we have no reason to postulate such a thing exist. No different than flying unicorns and such. It all digresses to the flying spaghetti monster argument. It exist outside of time and space in a supernatural realm. It cannot be disproven or proven by science. So can we say it does not exist?
The main issue with this is that, does there exist anything known that is beyond the natural?
Definitely a key point to the whole question, though the definition of 'natural' arguably changes as does the sum of human knowledge. Many things once believed to be supernatural are now known to be natural.
But I am frequently surprised how, despite the way we chuckle at the ignorance of scientists and great thinkers of the past, there are still areas where scientists and great thinkers of today seem unwilling to accept the notion that they might be equally ignorant.
With every advance in understanding, humans show their tendency to believe they're on the verge of total enlightenment. Given the large number of unknowns in this universe, I'm very wary of making solid assertions as to the nature of the universe without a lot of qualifiers.
That said, my beliefs & opinions are mine alone, and I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong on any number of them.
“Um, I think your own statement disproves itself. How can atheism be a starting point if it can only exist in response to theism?” Yeah my wording was bad. I know nothing is the starting point. If you know nothing a god can’t come out of thin air so proving there a god is needed but proving that there is no god is not needed.
You never answered why is there any reason at all to make the assumption there could be a god. Why does it need to be proven when all it says is another theory is false? It makes no claims of the existence of anything. It states no laws of nature. It states no theories of the universe. It says absolutely nothing except I thing there no evidence for gods at all.
You missed the point. Atheism is not truly a belief. It is a lack of belief. You have to choose the belief not the lack of belief. You can’t start at assuming something does exist. To be Anorthic in my eyes you should believe that you seen evidence that lead you to believe it possible for a god but it not enough evidence to prove it or even the evidence very very weak. If you like me and believe there is 0 evidence then you should be atheist.
This is why I don’t like religion. People who religion start with assuming certain beliefs true. I have questioned every thing I have ever believed in my life at least 100 times. It just happens that the last 10000000 times I question being atheist I have come up with the same answer.
You never answered why is there any reason at all to make the assumption there could be a god.
Because as with most issues of faith, there is no 'reason'. A reason would indicate evidence, which does not exist here (at least not direct evidence). Indirectly, you could say the question of how the universe began can as easily be answered by the existence of a God as any other theory (and it also creates as many new questions as any other theory).
But as for proof, you're continuing to apply a solely natural method to a solely supernatural question. That this process yields no results should not be a surprise.
You missed the point. Atheism is not truly a belief. It is a lack of belief. You have to choose the belief not the lack of belief.
No, I think you're missing the point. From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Atheism - the theory or belief that God does not exist. Agnostic - a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
As I stated earlier, the assumption that every unproven assertion is false is a valid one when conducting research, as the process is designed to ensure that there are no false positives. But that process is part of an experimental method. It is not meant to describe what is and isn't true about the universe, as it's also guaranteed to produce false negatives.
If you assume every unproven assertion to be false, you will be wrong some of the time. You may be in this case, regardless of whether a test can be performed to resolve the question. The lack of a test, or data to support a test, does not change whether or not something is true.
“But as for proof, you're continuing to apply a solely natural method to a solely supernatural question.”
Now I see exactly the problem and why us to continue to debate it is a waste of time. We are coming at it with a completely different view on how to go about what you can or not believe.
It seems that you believe there a difference between natural and supernatural while I don’t believe the supernatural exist. I believe everything can be explained by nature. That if I end up wrong and there is a god then there are laws that we have yet to discover that will explain how god can exist. If there ghost’s then we will also discover there natural laws that can allow ghost to exist.
For this reason when I say god don’t exist I come from the point of view that there is no observable/experimental/theoretical thing that shows it even possible for a god.
To make it clear what I mean I believe the existence of god is a scientific matter and you believe it a philosophy matter. As long as we come at the subject with such difference approaches any evidence we give each other going to be unacceptable to each other.
But I will say this philosophy is a personal matter that should always be open to debate. Being a scientist doesn’t take away your right to share your philosophy on things. Philosophy should always be open to heated debate no matter how offensive. This is the only way progress can be made.
Science on the other hand is not something you debate. It something you prove to other people. There a big difference there.
This is why even if a scientist believes in god in his personal life he should approach science as if a god don’t exist. Hopefully that helps you understand where many of the comments I made in this thread is coming from.
It seems that you believe there a difference between natural and supernatural while I don’t believe the supernatural exist. I believe everything can be explained by nature.
Well, to a certain degree you have to define 'nature'. If a parallel dimension exists, with physical laws different than our own, on a dimensional 'plane' that does not intersect with our own (string theory makes some untestable predictions regarding this), is that part of nature?
I generally agree with you, in that I believe the question of God is more a philosophic one. But as to whether the nature of God can be explained in nature, I think the real question is does the physical universe we live in (with the boundaries we currently observe it to have) comprise all that exists? I'm very comfortable with the notion that, as has been the case many times in scientific history, there may be much that exists beyond the natural boundaries we're aware of, despite the fact that we may not presently interact with it (or perceive that we do).
“But as to whether the nature of God can be explained in nature, I think the real question is does the physical universe we live in (with the boundaries we currently observe it to have) comprise all that exists? I'm very comfortable with the notion that, as has been the case many times in scientific history, there may be much that exists beyond the natural boundaries we're aware of, despite the fact that we may not presently interact with it (or perceive that we do).”
You make a Fair point. I don’t pretend to believe that we know all that there is too know. I agree there is properly much in the universe that we have yet to discover. I define something to be natural if there are laws to govern it. I the first to admit there might be many laws out there that we have not discovered yet.
Maybe for us to continue this we have to take a step back and find out if the word god means the same thing to both of us. Einstein used the word god often but the god he believed in is very different then what most religions consider god to be.
Let me tell you what I mean when I call my self atheist. It is that there is no god that interferes with humans. That no god ever gave us laws to follow. That there is not a god that even cares what we do on this planet of ours.
What I don’t mean is that there is no force in the universe that is beyond our current understanding.
If I tried to explain that to everyone there would be much miss-understanding. It is easier to just say your atheist if you believe what I believe.
If there was gods that concern themselves with us there would be evidence by now. There is none. We have come up with theory of evolution that much more logically predicts how we got here. Science has showed the error of many of the bible stories.
Atheism to me is more about the gods of the religions that I don’t believe exist.
I apologize I properly did not explain my self well in what am trying to say but in order to explain my philosophy it would take a longer post then I want to post in a comment section and on top of that I never been the best with words.
Let me tell you what I mean when I call my self atheist. It is that there is no god that interferes with humans. That no god ever gave us laws to follow. That there is not a god that even cares what we do on this planet of ours.
Though I'm not an atheist, I also don't believe that God 'interferes' with humans. A god who did (who could be proven to exist) would radically change the landscape of our lives. I believe that we are meant to try to find our own meaning & purpose in our lives, not have it handed to us by a god.
All that said, my point all along is that religious views and atheist views are fine and valid. But both are statements of faith about something that can not be proven.
"But both are statements of faith about something that can not be proven."
There a big difference between religion and atheist. For argument stake I let atheist be called a statement of faith even throe I don’t believe it has anything to do with faith. Religion is not just a statement it is a belief structure that tries to tell people how they should act. This alone makes atheism harmless but religion extremely dangerous.
Religion is not just a statement it is a belief structure that tries to tell people how they should act. This alone makes atheism harmless but religion extremely dangerous.
Well, that depends on which religion you're talking about. Would the term 'belief in god' be more palatable? And if all God tells people about how to act is 'try to be nice to each other', does that somehow make them into some kind of mindless automaton?
I really don't think you want to suggest that atheists are somehow intrinsically harmless, while religious people are 'dangerous'.
Personal beliefs about things which can not be proven nor disproven ("I believe there is a god", "I don't believe there is a god", "Chocolate is the best flavor ice cream ever!") are not intrinsically dangerous.
People are dangerous: Religious extremists, atheist extremists, Republicans...
Hi Kevin, atheist views are not statements of faith. Non-believers do not believe in god unless they see proof.
Believers believe in god because they have faith in him.
Atheists and Christians are like apples and oranges and both sides have a right to expressing their beliefs and non-beliefs but not at the expense of others or in public places where people of different religions mingle.
“I really don't think you want to suggest that atheists are somehow intrinsically harmless, while religious people are 'dangerous'.”
You are correct I don’t want to suggest that and I don’t. What I said is the belief of atheism is harmless. If an atheist is an evil person it is not because of the belief in atheism. While a religious person might do something evil because he believes that what his religion tells him to do.
You are right believing in god is also harmless by it self, it only become harmful when a religion forms around it that preachers what to believe because god says so.
atheist views are not statements of faith. Non-believers do not believe in god unless they see proof.
Actually, I hate to keep pointing this out, but atheism is faith, by definition (according to the OED):
Atheism - the theory or belief that God does not exist. Agnostic - a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Absent proof, the agnostic view is the one that does not encompass an element of faith. Atheism starts with the assumption that an unproven supposition is false, which is an unprovable (by definition) statement faith.
If an atheist is an evil person it is not because of the belief in atheism. While a religious person might do something evil because he believes that what his religion tells him to do.
That makes zero sense. If an atheist killed someone and claimed that (because of their atheism) they didn't believe in any moral code beyond 'survival of the fittest', you would not blame atheism, but if a religious person killed someone because of a religious belief, you would blame religion? Sounds more like you're just applying different standards to me.
You are right believing in god is also harmless by it self, it only become harmful when a religion forms around it that preachers what to believe because god says so.
So, your beef is with organized religion, as opposed to a just a belief in god? That makes more logical sense, at least.
I agree that organized religion certainly causes problems. But organized social and political movements also cause problems. Such problems are not unique to religion - they exist whenever you have a large enough group of people who believe (regardless of the reason) that their perspective is not only right, but worth imposing on others against their will.
From iol.co.za "Kabul - An Afghan expert on Islamic law on Wednesday defended the death penalty for Muslims who convert to other religions, as debate continued over the case of a Christian convert who fled to Italy.
Sher Ali Zarifi, head of religious jurisprudence in the country's Science Academy of leading intellectuals, did not refer to Abdul Rahman by name but told a meeting of scholars that punishment for apostasy under Islam was death unless the convert recanted."
So Kevin, would you say that Sher Ali Zarifi made his decision based upon his religion, or that he is just an evil person and his being religious had nothing to do with his decision?
would you say that Sher Ali Zarifi made his decision based upon his religion, or that he is just an evil person and his being religious had nothing to do with his decision?
I assume he made a decision based on his religion - the same religion that the majority of Muslims on the planet keep claiming doesn't support violence. So, should I judge all of Islam (or even better, all of religion) based on Sher Ali Zarifi?
There is an ethnic genocide currently happening in Darfur (by Muslims against Muslims), or we could look at Kosovo, or Rwanda. None of those are/were religious conflicts.
Evil people are just as capable of being evil without religion. Pointing to religion as the source of their evil is naive.
Personally, I don't run into a lot of people who say, "Well, personally I think live and let live is a great motto, but my religion says I must kill infidels so off I go." Evil, hate-filled people use religion, just as the nice people do. They also use economics, nationality, and philosophy just like other people.
Personally, I don't run into a lot of people who say, "Well, personally I think live and let live is a great motto, but my religion says I must kill infidels so off I go."
ha ha ha! Ok, so I get that point. However, do you think that Sher Ali Zarifi is influencing some Muslims to agree to having this man put to death? Do you think that there are some well intended Muslims out there who have a good heart and want to live life in the best way that they can, and they believe this only because this is what they have been taught by their religious leaders?
However, do you think that Sher Ali Zarifi is influencing some Muslims to agree to having this man put to death? Do you think that there are some well intended Muslims out there who have a good heart and want to live life in the best way that they can, and they believe this only because this is what they have been taught by their religious leaders?
Probably. As with any group that large, I'd assume you have a certain number of 'fence-sitters' or conflicted people. But again, I'm you'd have that in Darfur, Kosovo or Rwanda as well. A cult of personality or mob mentality doesn't have to be religiously justified, and while there have been a lot of evil things done in the name of religion (as well as a lot of good things), there's been a lot of evil done independent of religion (as well as a lot of good things).
If religion magically disappeared tomorrow, I doubt that we'd see a significant change in good vs. evil in the world.
Aye, but atheists don't have a Bible or a Qur'an or an atheist manifesto to tell them how to behave.
Aye, but atheists don't have a Bible or a Qur'an or an atheist manifesto to tell them how to behave.
Well, there are several atheist manifestos out there, and there's certainly no shortage of atheists trying to tell people how to behave, but let's assume for a moment that there weren't.
So what?
Does the lack of a manifesto somehow demonstrably change a person for the better? Are atheists naturally less 'evil' than non-atheists?
There's a thousand self-help books at your local Barnes & Noble that will tell you how to behave, not to mention psychologists, politicians, philosophers, & telephone psychics. And they all have different answers as to how you should live (just like religious people). Are they all problems as well?
I realize we live in an age where people like to avoid personal responsibility whenever possible, but every person on this planet is ultimately responsible for making their own decisions. We are not robots. If we were, then we could blame bad programming for all the people who do bad things. We're not, and so we should not.
To blame religion for the evil actions of flawed, imperfect people is almost to absolve the people of responsibility (their religion made them do it). The only thing all religions have in common is a belief in god. Most also provide guidelines on how to live (with such controversial tenants as 'turn the other cheek').
That we have no shortage of people who use religion as an excuse for horrible actions (typically in conflict with religious principles) does not make me doubt religion. It makes me doubt people.
Well, there are several atheist manifestos out there, And what are their principles, pray tell
Does the lack of a manifesto somehow demonstrably change a person for the better? Yes, it does. The person draws their own conclusions.
There's a thousand self-help books at your local Barnes & Noble that will tell you how to behave Yes, and these are manifestos too. Another Bible. Again, we should all draw our own conclusions. There are aspects of the Bible, the Qur'an and self-help books that are interesting, but to buy someone else's philosophy, hook, line, and sinker, means that you are not using your own mind.
We are not robots That's what I would like to think.
To blame religion for the evil actions of flawed, imperfect people is almost to absolve the people of responsibility So true. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
Most also provide guidelines on how to live (with such controversial tenants as 'turn the other cheek'). Ah, if only all of the "guidelines" were this benign.
That we have no shortage of people who use religion as an excuse for horrible actions The adherents of the Muslim intellectual/imam are not using this as an excuse. They truly believe that this man should be put to death because of what they were taught by this spiritual leader.
"Well, there are several atheist manifestos out there" And what are their principles, pray tell I haven't read them. But google "atheist manifesto" (phrase match) and you can scan through the more than 25,000 entries.
these are manifestos too. Another Bible. Again, we should all draw our own conclusions. There are aspects of the Bible, the Qur'an and self-help books that are interesting, but to buy someone else's philosophy, hook, line, and sinker, means that you are not using your own mind. Actually, someone has to make a choice to 'buy' someone else's philosophy, which does require them to use their own minds. Most religious people choose to believe certain aspects of their religion, and reject others. Your opinion that their choice to embrace any religious beliefs is incorrect is your opinion, nothing more.
The adherents of the Muslim intellectual/imam are not using this as an excuse. They truly believe that this man should be put to death because of what they were taught by this spiritual leader. And yet most religious people, as well as most Muslims elsewhere in the world don't agree with this spiritual leader. So is the problem here with religion as a whole, or a particular group of people in a particular place, of a particular culture? Just like in Darfur, Kosovo, or Rwanda?
as well as most Muslims elsewhere in the world don't agree with this spiritual leader.
Wrong.
Muslims follow Sharia law which states that conversion to any religion is apostasy and the majority of Muslim leaders/scholars/imams agree that the punishment for this is death."
And what are their principles, pray tell.. I haven't read them Well I Googled them and they don't amount to much. No guide on how to behave.
Actually, someone has to make a choice to 'buy' someone else's philosophy, which does require them to use their own minds. Oh, yeah, right. Now you're just being obtuse.
So is the problem here with religion as a whole
The problem is not with all religious people, but the problem with religion as a whole is that there are those who blindly follow whatever a religious leader tells them. Of course, not all religious people are a problem. But because of this higher authority from "God", a religion can influence someone to make a decision based on nothing more than this is what the good book told them to do. And even in the more moderate Muslim countries, where there is no death penalty for apostasy, there are other penalties.
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15246
Here's an interesting ask-an-imam site. The imam is telling people that they cannot use contraception. For many families, I would imagine that this could cause them problems. And it is their religion which is to blame for this.
You say that "Most religious people choose to believe certain aspects of their religion, and reject others." Well, how do they decide which aspects to believe and which aspects to discard? And the problem is with those who don't pick and choose, but follow all that's written, and they are the "true" believers. If someone just picks and chooses what they want, then why bother with the religion at all?
Well I Googled them and they don't amount to much. No guide on how to behave. Oh come on. The point of a manifesto is to set out goals in the hopes of recruiting people to work toward those goals. The bible doesn't explicitly tell the reader to live a certain way. It's a collection of writings to people 5000-2000 years old that people choose to use as examples of how to live today. Every 'atheist manifesto' is there as an example of how the author believes, and (by implication) believes other people should also.
We keep coming back to 'religion is bad because it tells people how to live'. My point is that a lot of people tell others how to live.
I believe in free speech. I have no problem with a guy, a book, or a religion extolling the virtues of a particular lifestyle or tenant of belief. I have a problem with what some people do based on that.
I have no problem with an atheist (you in this case) telling people that they should believe absolutely nothing that they have no empirically proven firsthand.
I would have a problem with a person who withheld medical treatment from someone else because he had not personally seen proof that a given medical treatment worked.
At the end of the day, you believe that a completely logical, empirical approach (with zero outside influence) is the best approach to coming up with a belief system.
That, in and of itself, is a belief. To ridicule religion or psychology or politics for endorsing a system of belief, demonstrates that your views are just as subjective as theirs.
"as well as most Muslims elsewhere in the world don't agree with this spiritual leader."
Wrong.
Muslims follow Sharia law which states that conversion to any religion is apostasy and the majority of Muslim leaders/scholars/imams agree that the punishment for this is death.
Wrong. Not even close. A majority of Fundamentalist Muslim Clerics/Imams in certain Middle-East countries believe that.
How many Muslims do you know? How many of them agree with this? I know about ten, and none of them subscribe to this philosophy.
So again, we have an example of a particular group of people, from a subset of a particular religion, which is only a subset of all religions, being used to judge religion as a whole?
If I make a list of every atheist wacko who did something evil or violent because his worldview was that it was OK (harder than with religious people, since only about 5% of the world actually self-identifies as atheist), have I somehow proven atheism to be bad? How about if I do the same for ethnic groups? Sports fanatics?
Sorry Kevin according to this article your view is in the minority. The majority of Muslim scholars come down on the other side. That's right a majority of those that practice Islam in the world would agree the Christian deserved death according to Islamic Law.
So again, we have an example of a particular group of people, from a subset of a particular religion, which is only a subset of all religions, being used to judge religion as a whole?
This subset of a subset ends up representing a lot of people, who stictly are adherents of the death penalty for apostasy. It is not a question of how many Muslims that I know. The fact is that the majority of Muslims believe that there should be a heavy penalty for apostasy. Add to this the number of Christian fundamentalists, and you have a whole hell of a lot of people who want to force their religion down your throat by punishing you with death or some other heavy penalty for not following their rules.
The little 5% of atheists aren't telling anyone what to do with their bodies, be it taking drugs or having an abortion. The "believers", on the other hand, are eager to force their "beliefs' on the minority. All atheists can do is express how they feel on forums like this. They are a very small minority and they don't force anyone to believe anything upon penalty of death or imprisonment. They just voice their opinions.
Alright I have fallen a bit behind in here. I have just read everything I missed. If I was smart I would wait for tomorrow to reply but nobody ever claimed alcohol makes you smart.
A) Atheism is by definition as you say the belief that there is no god. Any book that some atheist wrote to claim to be the atheist bible is not a bible at all. There is nothing more to atheism then not believing in god. Anyone that says they do it because they atheist is not understanding the definition of atheism. B) Religion claims the bible to be true. It is the basis of the religion. That why we can blame religion when someone follows the bible but we can’t blame atheism for something some random atheist made up claiming it is there bible. You really should go back and try to find an article that was posted here awhile back called real atheist don’t join organizations. It does the best job of explaining what atheism really is. There is no double standard. Atheism is not a religion, if want to call if a belief fine am tired of arguing that but it is definably not a religion.
Yes my beef is with organizing religion not god. I personally think the evidence show there no god but that not really important when coming to conclusions of right and wrong. From a moral standpoint god existing don’t matter. If he exists fine. If he does not fine. What I can say is this that believing what another man tells you god said have cause properly the most suffering over the history of mankind. That include any bible because all bibles was written by man.
Hi Kevin, thanks for the reply and the reminder.
And I do know the definitions for atheists and agnostics.
But it does not change that fact that athesits and agnostics can admit that God is real if we see real proof.
Unlike believers, we have the ability to see reason and acknowledge facts and research : >
Sorry Kevin according to this article your view is in the minority. The majority of Muslim scholars come down on the other side. That's right a majority of those that practice Islam in the world would agree the Christian deserved death according to Islamic Law.
Actually, neither of us has a study to prove this either way. But since you introduced this wonderful article, let's take a look at it:
Your assertion that the 'majority of Muslim scholars come down on the other side' is apparently based on the last line of the article, which offers no proof of how it was determined (and sounds like the opinion of the author). You seem to have no problem believing that your position is right, despite a lack of proof.
The author is the BBC Arab affairs analyst, and appears to be referring specifically to Arab scholars.
The majority of the Muslim world is (by far) not Arab. In fact, none of the 5 largest Muslim populations by country are Arab (Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Turkey).
So, based on that. Why did a bunch of people want to kill this man? Per your article, the religion and its central text does not say to do it. And the religious scholars have differing opinions.
So, is religion the problem? Or is the problem specific sets of people, in specific cultures, who feel overwhelmingly that their position is right?
Add to this the number of Christian fundamentalists, and you have a whole hell of a lot of people who want to force their religion down your throat by punishing you with death or some other heavy penalty for not following their rules. No doubt. But why?!? Because of the religion, or because of the people? Do you honestly believe that if religion disappeared tomorrow these people would all become incredibly easy to get along with? My point here is that religion doesn't create this problem. It's just one of many things in this world for people to get passionate about, and then argue about.
The little 5% of atheists aren't telling anyone what to do with their bodies, be it taking drugs or having an abortion. The "believers", on the other hand, are eager to force their "beliefs' on the minority. Um, some of the believers are, I think you meant to say. Again, you want to judge all religion based on the worst of it's followers.
But it does not change that fact that athesits and agnostics can admit that God is real if we see real proof.
Unlike believers, we have the ability to see reason and acknowledge facts and research
Another incredibly objective statement, squarely focused on a specific group of people.
So ALL believers have NO ability to see reason and can not acknowledge facts or research?
I believe in God. I also believe in Darwinism. As do a number of well-known scientists. Where do we fit in with your statement?
Personally, I don't judge all atheists by many of the postings I see here, or I might assume that they were all prone to frequent exaggeration, generalization, and misinterpretation.
Beliefs act as an obstruction to advance understanding. If someone builds up a faith in a point of view, then it becomes overwhelming to the point that nothing, even in the light of compelling evidence, will the faithful yield to superior information.
Well, beliefs CAN become an obstruction to advance understanding. But that's entirely dependent on how willing someone is to change their beliefs.
I believe it will rain (again) tomorrow. I can't prove it, but I'm not so tied to that belief that I can't change it if better information presents itself. The history of science (and religion) is littered with people who were unwilling to change a particular belief, even as contrary evidence became available. Some people (be they scientist or theologian, atheist or theist) just show amazing stubbornness when it comes to admitting they're wrong.
As I said before. I believe in God. I also believe in Darwinism. I'm also willing to toss out either as soon as someone shows me compelling contradictory proof.
"Dawkins claim[s] that Darwinism disproves the existence of God."
I think Dawkins leans towards this but Darwinism makes no mention that God does not exist.
That is Dawkin's view and he has found some research to back it up.
For me, Darwinism does not mean no God as it explains what changes are there in living things over the ages. It does not seek to explain "HOW" life came about.
However I do agree with his findings that human beings have innate tendencies towards religion.
In every culture, human beings have sought to rationalised away the unknown by making it known and even predictable i.e. by worshipping natural forces as gods and spirits.
However, I disagree with Dawkins that this immediatelty leads to the conclusion that there is no God as he is the figment of our imagination.
I do see this as a curse that all humans have to bear because of our intelligence which makes it impossible for us to avoid fears and unknown by instinctively shying away from it like animals.
Our ability to reason have forces us to disregard any spontaneous and irrational reactions in favour of arguments, mindsets and philosophies that can couch our fears of the unknown in comfortable and understandable terms.
For an animals, while it may be fearful for its life and its ever present dangers, it does not necessarily try to make its inevtiable death easier to bear by finding reasons for it i.e. a short stop on earth before eternal life on heaven.
Hi Kevin, I find Christian zealots more prone to frequent exaggeration, generalization, and misinterpretation. Unlike atheists, they can't handle reason or any facts that go contrarty to the Bible
Kindly clarify your statement bwlow:
"Well, beliefs CAN become an obstruction to advance understanding. But that's entirely dependent on how willing someone is to change their beliefs."
Are you referring to the Christian changing his beliefs and becoming more tolerant of other beliefs?
Or are you referring to the non-believer to changing his beliefs to accept Christian ones?
I was responding to the Erick's exaggerated generalized statement: Beliefs act as an obstruction to advance understanding.
I was referring to beliefs in general. Some religious people show a strong resistance to changing their beliefs, even when confronted with contradictory evidence. But I was also pointing out that that was a tendency among some humans, regardless of religious affiliation. And as someone who both believed in God and Darwinism, I was pointing out that I was perfectly willing to entertain the notion that either was incorrect, if someone provided me with evidence to back that claim up.
Hi Kevin, unfortunately you are in the minority here as many Christian simply listen and follow to what their Pastors say without questioning them, much like way Christianity operated before the Protestant movement.
...you are in the minority here as many Christian simply listen and follow to what their Pastors say without questioning them And many don't. And I'll bet you have absolutely no actual data to support what percentage do and don't. If I have a cause, it's against that type of generalization (all/most Christians do 'X').
I have no beef with atheists as a whole. I have a beef with people who declare war on me (as a theist), only to later tell me that their real complaint is with a particular type of theist.
I'll also be the first in line to fight for separation of church and state, and to keep intelligent design out of science classes.
"And many don't." Do you have proof for your own statement.
In my Asian country, I have been to all the fastest growing Churches and the flock there behave like unthinking sheeps based on the whims of their pastors.
And those churches I've been to include the Christian evangelist churches that form the majority of the rise of Christianity in Asia.
Here's proof. Where's yours?
I stand by what I say on the lack of reason and discerningness in terms of beliefs when it comes to most Christians in the region I'm in.
And unfortunately, the majority of these Christians are starting to debunk evolution because of their pastors' teachings within their Churches in favour of intelligent design.
However, I do my part after such pastors finished with their misleading sermons by pointing out the gapping holes in their facts, knowledge and research. Repeatedly.
Let a liar tell a lie too many times and it becomes truth. That's how most religions came about in the first place. You can even see some of them in action on TV today.
In my Asian country, I have been to all the fastest growing Churches and the flock there behave like unthinking sheeps based on the whims of their pastors. Really? You've been to 'all' the fastest growing churched, and everyone there behaves like unthinking sheep. You must have a lot of free time, both to visit every church and talk with every person. Of course, those are only the fastest growing churches in your country, so I suppose the people at all the other churches might be more reasonable.
My point is that what you said isn't proof, any more than if a Christian said people who don't go to church are all immoral. You've seen some evidence of closed-mindedness among some Christians at churches in your area.
Fine. If you have a individual pastor who is making statements which contradict provable, scientific fact, fine.
But to label a (very) large group of people, based on the actions of a few is wrong, and only helps to perpetuate stereotypes, not to improve anything.
Hi Kevin, I do have proof for my view that many Christians follow tghe instructions of their pastor unthinkingly in my region.
I have backed this up by informing you that I have been to all the fast growing churches in my regiion for the last years because I travel frequently and I am not as close-minded as most Christians.
That's my proof and you have yet to be able to refute it, especially when I have been to these churches and you have not.
Whether Christians want to improve the distinictly negative image of their religion in non-believers worldwide starts with a single step.
Simply admit that your religion has innate tendencies to religious intolerance and that its sins are not always the work of a few black sheep.
Because it's more than that and denial will never improve anything.
By condoing the actions of these Christians, be it as a minority or majority, without any concrete actions, the sins of Christianity can never be washed away by the inaction of its silent corwd, who can be considered accomplices by association.
I'm sorry if I have to cut to the point but the inability for people of the Christian faith to admit mistakes on behalf of their religion can well be seen that the Pope was only able to apologise for the devastation wrought by the Crusades 5 years back.
Of course, I will not hold my breath for other Christian churches to recant their roles in the witchhunts, Inquisitions and removal of children from non-Christian households to Christian ones in the colonies of Western Powers.
I find it odd for you to make a snide comment about me attending those churches. I was invited by my friends and I went there to hear what they have to say before having any opinion on the church.
I consider that better manners than evangelists who smear local traditions and religions in a superficial effort to preach Christianity.
I wasn't being snide about you attending the churches. I was being snide about you attending 'all the fastest growing Churches' in your Asian country. Either it's a small country, or you've been to a lot of churches.
Would you like to tell me exactly what percentage of churches you've visited, and how many Christians you've talked to, about which specific issues? Because what you offer as 'proof' sounds a lot like someone who's been to a few churches and talked to a few people and decided to pass judgement on a religion and the hundreds of millions of people around the world who follow it based on that. How's that for 'refuting' your claim?
Simply admit that your religion has innate tendencies to religious intolerance The religion does not have innate tendencies to intolerance. Some people have innate tendencies to intolerance (religious or otherwise) and many people are religious. But until you can grasp that, we will never be able to even start to agree.
Are there (and have there been throughout history) Christians who are bad people? Yes.
Are there (and have there been throughout history) Christians who are good people? Yes.
So what's different about those two sets of people? I'll tell you. The people are different.
It's not the religion, it's the people. Not only is it foolish to blame the religion, but it puts all the good religious people in the opposition (by your definition).
So, by all means, let's all fight the people who are performing the witchhunts, the inquisitions and removal of children from non-Christian households to Christian ones in the colonies of Western Powers. Just make sure you've got the right people first.
By the way, Singapore is a small country of just 4 million and it has many Churches, which have seeded churches in the region.
I backpack a lot and always make time to attend them and to let potential converts have the right to hear some real facts about Christianity before making their minds.
See it as a personal crusade against religious bigotry and misrepresentation by Christianity.
I also have equally strong convictions about other religions i.e. that women of other race and religion should not have to convert if they marry a Muslim. This is something that the more progressive Muslim culture in Indonesis possesses, but unfortunately the Muslims in its neighbouring countries see it differently.
Religion should not be mixed with politics, education and of all things marriage.
We should love each other for what we are, warts and all. Love for thy fellow man includes tolerance for what he is without imposing one's views on what he should be.
Hi Kevin, I have been to all the fastest growing Churches in Singapore as well as their subsidiaries in my region in the course of my travels for work and pleasure.
I have made my point that I'm speaking on behalf of what I see in my country and my region in Easy Asia that the majority of Christians do behave as I said they do i.e. religious blaspermy and misinformation.
And I see no proof from you in terms of hard data to prove that my views are wrong for my region?
Where's your data? Where's your proof for your views?
It is perfectly reasonble to hold a religious accountable for the deeds of its faithful who did what they did in the name of religion. You cannot always narrow them down to the actions of a few. What about the actions of those who are bystanders and chose to do nothing?
The best coach never blames just one member of a losing team. All are held uncomfortable because they are part of a team. Finger pointing does not address the problems created by each and every member.
Hi Kevin, I have been to all the fastest growing Churches in Singapore as well as their subsidiaries in my region in the course of my travels for work and pleasure.
I have made my point that I'm speaking on behalf of what I see in my country and my region in Easy Asia that the majority of Christians do behave as I said they do i.e. religious blaspermy and misinformation.
And I see no proof from you in terms of hard data to prove that my views are wrong for my region?
Where's your data? Where's your proof for your views?
It is perfectly reasonble to hold a religious accountable for the deeds of its faithful who did what they did in the name of religion. You cannot always narrow them down to the actions of a few. What about the actions of those who are bystanders and chose to do nothing?
The best coach never blames just one member of a losing team. All are held uncomfortable because they are part of a team. Finger pointing does not address the problems created by each and every member.
I have been to all the fastest growing Churches in Singapore as well as their subsidiaries in my region in the course of my travels for work and pleasure. Fine. I asked for the names of all those churches and regions. You're the one not offering proof, beyond sweeping statements.
...the majority of Christians do behave as I said they do i.e. religious blaspermy and misinformation. Again, a bold statement based on zero proof.
Where's your data? Where's your proof for your views? Well, as atheists like norm are so fond of pointing out, it is usually the responsibility of the person making the assertion in the first place to provide proof, at least in cases where they are putting that assertion out as fact.
"It is perfectly reasonble to hold a religious (religion?) accountable for the deeds of its faithful who did what they did in the name of religion." In that case, I hold you personally accountable for all the bad things your country has ever done, or citizens from your country have done. How much sense does that make?
A religion is set of beliefs. Explain to me how by choosing to hold a set of beliefs, I somehow take on responsibility for what someone halfway around the world does, just because they hold some of the same beliefs.
I don't view Christianity (or religion) as one big team. Jerry Fallwell is not on my team. Just because you want to judge all Christians together, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
I have no problem acknowledging the bad things done by people of faith around the world. I don't ignore them. I'll even fight them when I have the opportunity. But when someone starts claiming that I'm part of that problem, just by virtue of my beliefs (and not my actions), then I'll fight that too.
And regarding all your assertions without proof, let me be clear: I am not questioning whether the things you are claiming happen. I'm claiming whether you have any proof to show that they happen among the majority of Christians (as you keep starting).
Are there (and have there been throughout history) Christians who are bad people? Yes.
Are there (and have there been throughout history) Christians who are good people? Yes.
So what's different about those two sets of people? I'll tell you. The people are different.
It's not the religion, it's the people. Not only is it foolish to blame the religion, but it puts all the good religious people in the opposition (by your definition). So, by all means, let's all fight the people who are performing the witchhunts, the inquisitions and removal of children from non-Christian households to Christian ones in the colonies of Western Powers. Just make sure you've got the right people first.
Not only have you not said anything new but blaming the people (instead of beliefs) is precisely what human culture and courts of law have done throughout history. And it hasn't solved any moral problems has it?
Since religions rely on superstitions, they cannot possibly solve any of the worlds problems either, much less moral problems. Consider that religion has not produced a single fact about the workings of the universe or the understanding of human nature. Not one! How in the world do you expect religion to solve anything?
If you want to solve problems you have to get to the root and cause of the problem. Beliefs act similar to computer programs or viral agents. Beliefs can inhabit a brain the way a virus inhabits a biological host. A virus can make its host do things that are opposed to its very survival. The same with beliefs infecting people. Religious people will not only die for beliefs, but many of them will sacrifice others for their beliefs (Apocalyptic Christians, Islamic suicide bombers, for example). These viral memes are encoded right in the religious scriptures and passed on from brain to brain.
Sometimes a virus can lie dormant without doing damage, but in the next generation can cause havoc under the right conditions. The same can happen with religious, political or ideological beliefs. Yes many Christians act in good ways but they carry and spread the memes of religion to their children. It only takes a few Martin Luthers, or Hitlers to cause a lot of damage.
Blaming the people instead of their beliefs is like blaming the carriers of the Black Plague instead of the bacteria itself. Yes you can kill Hitler and every singe Nazi but that doesn't stop Nazi beliefs. We still have underground Christian neo-Nazis who spread Hitler's beliefs. Get rid of the plague bacteria, you solve a biological problem; get rid of beliefs, you solve a cultural problem.
Considering that we live in a nuclear age, it is imperative that we begin understanding the mechanism of belief so that we can learn how to control it. Science gives us the tool, education the method.
Since you seem bent on defending religion (and only Christianity, it seems), you might want to consider how your defense of religion might underlie a deep seated belief that causes you to behave this way. Consider thinking about it instead of believing about it.
Nor is it just religious beliefs, it's any belief system (although religion produces the most dangerous memes). I implore you to read through NoBeliefs.com to learn more. I also highly recommend Daniel C. Dennett's new book "Breaking the Spell" for further enlightenment on this subject.
Regards, Erick
Are there (and have there been throughout history) Christians who are bad people? Yes.
Are there (and have there been throughout history) Christians who are good people? Yes.
So what's different about those two sets of people? I'll tell you. The people are different.
It's not the religion, it's the people. Not only is it foolish to blame the religion, but it puts all the good religious people in the opposition (by your definition). So, by all means, let's all fight the people who are performing the witchhunts, the inquisitions and removal of children from non-Christian households to Christian ones in the colonies of Western Powers. Just make sure you've got the right people first.
Not only have you not said anything new but blaming the people (instead of beliefs) is precisely what human culture and courts of law have done throughout history. And it hasn't solved any moral problems has it?
Since religions rely on superstitions, they cannot possibly solve any of the worlds problems either, much less moral problems. Consider that religion has not produced a single fact about the workings of the universe or the understanding of human nature. Not one! How in the world do you expect religion to solve anything?
If you want to solve problems you have to get to the root and cause of the problem. Beliefs act similar to computer programs or viral agents. Beliefs can inhabit a brain the way a virus inhabits a biological host. A virus can make its host do things that are opposed to its very survival. The same with beliefs infecting people. Religious people will not only die for beliefs, but many of them will sacrifice others for their beliefs (Apocalyptic Christians, Islamic suicide bombers, for example). These viral memes are encoded right in the religious scriptures and passed on from brain to brain.
Sometimes a virus can lie dormant without doing damage, but in the next generation can cause havoc under the right conditions. The same can happen with religious, political or ideological beliefs. Yes many Christians act in good ways but they carry and spread the memes of religion to their children. It only takes a few Martin Luthers, or Hitlers to cause a lot of damage.
Blaming the people instead of their beliefs is like blaming the carriers of the Black Plague instead of the bacteria itself. Yes you can kill Hitler and every singe Nazi but that doesn't stop Nazi beliefs. We still have underground Christian neo-Nazis who spread Hitler's beliefs. Get rid of the plague bacteria, you solve a biological problem; get rid of beliefs, you solve a cultural problem.
Considering that we live in a nuclear age, it is imperative that we begin understanding the mechanism of belief so that we can learn how to control it. Science gives us the tool, education the method.
Since you seem bent on defending religion (and only Christianity, it seems), you might want to consider how your defense of religion might underlie a deep seated belief that causes you to behave this way. Consider thinking about it instead of believing about it.
Nor is it just religious beliefs, it's any belief system (although religion produces the most dangerous memes). I implore you to read through NoBeliefs.com to learn more. I also highly recommend Daniel C. Dennett's new book "Breaking the Spell" for further enlightenment on this subject.
Regards, Erick
blaming the people (instead of beliefs) is precisely what human culture and courts of law have done throughout history. And it hasn't solved any moral problems has it? I never claimed it did - is that some sort of religion test I'm unaware of?
Since religions rely on superstitions, they cannot possibly solve any of the worlds problems either, much less moral problems. Consider that religion has not produced a single fact about the workings of the universe or the understanding of human nature. Not one! How in the world do you expect religion to solve anything? Who said it had to? A belief is a belief. It is an opinion. I do not need to justify my beliefs or my opinions to you or anyone else. Why do you believe I should? I am responsible for my actions. Please get out of my head now.
If you want to solve problems you have to get to the root and cause of the problem. Beliefs act similar to computer programs or viral agents. Beliefs can inhabit a brain the way a virus inhabits a biological host.... These viral memes are encoded right in the religious scriptures and passed on from brain to brain. What a crock of shit. Sorry, but it truly is. If you're one of these people who thinks that if religion went away, all the bad fundamentalist people would immediately become nice, normal, productive people, then you are truly deluded. Beliefs are part of free will, and we choose our beliefs (and how to integrate those beliefs). The absence of belief as a whole would solve lots of problems. It would also turn humans into little more than robots.
Blaming the people instead of their beliefs is like blaming the carriers of the Black Plague instead of the bacteria itself...Get rid of the plague bacteria, you solve a biological problem; get rid of beliefs, you solve a cultural problem. Nice analogy, except you assume the belief to be the cause of the ultimate problem. It isn't, no matter how much you don't like the belief. The belief is the body, the culture that the bacteria grows in. Yes, eliminate belief and you remove certain types of human problems. Also, if you eliminate mammals, you can get rid of the plague (not the route I'd suggest, however).
Considering that we live in a nuclear age, it is imperative that we begin understanding the mechanism of belief so that we can learn how to control it. Science gives us the tool, education the method. Too bad you're not using either. You're using the standard FUD method to cloud the issue.
Since you seem bent on defending religion (and only Christianity, it seems) Then you haven't been reading what I'm writing, or you've been selectively ignoring sections. The only time I single out Christianity is when someone else does first, or when talking about problems primarily in the U.S. My views on religion extend to all faiths, and I'd defend a Muslim or a Jew as easily as a Christian, thank you.
you might want to consider how your defense of religion might underlie a deep seated belief that causes you to behave this way. I have. I have a deep seated belief that people are entitled to make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions. It's why I don't like fundamentalist evangelicals and why I don't like radical atheists. Because aside from what is effectively a single bit in their brain (God: On/Off) they behave in almost exactly the same way. They are both convinced they have all the answers, they only see the world in black & white, and they both have no hesitation in telling everyone around them exactly how to live their lives.
Kevin, I have been reading a few Muslim blogs and they are struggling with some of their beliefs, such as the notion that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be punished. It is crystal clear that their beliefs are tightly controlled by what the imams have to say. Do you really believe that a person's religion has nothing to do with what they do and believe?
Do you really believe that a person's religion has nothing to do with what they do and believe? Not at all. Obviously religion provides a set of ideas and values which people choose how to integrate into their beliefs.
But most religions don't promote many crystal-clear beliefs that are easy to take issue with on moral grounds, because most religions have multiple things to say on a given topic. Rarely does a religious book give a crystal-clear message, and the ones that are (nearly) indisputable tend to be the ones that are hardest to argue with (e.g. Thou shalt not commit murder).
Islam does not say: "Kill people who turn away from Islam." It has some writings which people have managed to interpret that way and others which would seem to indicate an opposite viewpoint.
Christianity is full of similar examples. The general message of the New Testament is generally one of humility and forgiveness. But there are certainly verses which can be taken in an opposite way, and many more in the Old Testament.
That you can have judgmental bible-thumping, eye-for-an-eye, vengeance & 'wrath of God' types on one hand, and turn the other cheek, let him without sin cast the first stone, meek will inherit the earth, feed the poor types on the other, with both calling themselves 'Christians' should give just about anyone pause when trying to criticize the religion as a whole (and Islam and Judaism have plenty of similar examples).
Jo, good point. We more or less share the same sentiments on this particular point.
As for the names you want, I have been to nearly all the Charismatic and Evangelical Churches in Singapore and in the region, as well as many of the Methodists, Anglican and Catholic churches. Give me your e-mail and I will give you the whole list.
Now I do expect you to support your claim that most Christians behave in the way you did in my region and for yours, since you did not make the distinction clear.
You have been avoiding my request to provide proof for your own statements. Very Intelligent Design i.e. raising problems with other people view points to avoid providing proof for one's own view points. Kindly note that you are also raising your assertion that most Christians behave differently as a fact. Where's your proof then?
And yes, you can hold me personally accountable for all the bad things your country has ever done, or citizens from your country have done.
It makes perfect sense as I voted for my ruling party and its policies. And I share the same shame if my countrymen did sin against anyone else. In fact, in Singapore, Singaporeans have been had aware of their ugly Singaporean image when they are tourists in other countries. The amount of embarrassment that we all feel has been published in papers, shown on TV and radio.
Unlike many Christians, we have no qualms about acknowledging our sins as well as our brethren because we are one family, one nation and one people. No family just abandon a member because of what he did. I know, it's very unchristian behaviour based on the points you raised : >
Do you know that public shaming is the trend in Singapore? For example, you wear a sign saying Corrective Work Order when you litter and have to pick up litter in probation service.
Kevin, you don't seem to know a lot about my country and my region, although you reject what I said about the majority of Christians in my country.
The issue here is conscience and a sense of responsibility that all great faiths share and embrace.
Until Christians acknowledge this point, I will have to leave Christianity out of the category of great faiths, like Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism that saw Golden ages or periods in History while Christianity has only the Dark Ages, Crusades and Inquisitions to name as monolithic religious achievements and landmarks.
Perhaps things may be different if Christians were able to acknowledge the sins of their brethren and learn from it. After all, if you don't know your history, you may be condemned to repeat it.
Kevin, please bear in mind that you will continue to lose credibility if you cannot support your claims on the Christians in my region.
All you need to do is to prove that most Christians in my region do not consider offering joss sticks to one’s ancestors or “ancestor worship” as mere superstitions, which was a lie preached by Christian preachers. Do that and you win.
And it is pure nonsense when you claimed that Christianity should not bear responsibility for the sins of its believers. You will need to prove that your religion did not drive its believers to do what they did. Where's your proof then if you still claim they do?
As Erik pointed out, if you want to solve problems you have to get to the root and cause of the problem.
If Christians blaspheme against local beliefs on false, you do not have to look far for the reason of their bigotry and religious tolerance to the Gospel of John that Jesus alone offers access to salvation and that believing in him is the only way to truth, and that not believing is a sure path to damnation.
In the light of this assertion by John, any other faiths can be viewed as superstition, lies and falsehoods and should be presented as such.
You and your Christian friends may choose not to act as this way. Good for you.
But the fact remains that your religion does have avenues and opinions that allow people to act as an intolerant bigot.
"It is crystal clear that their beliefs are tightly controlled by what the imams have to say." Karen Armstrong apparently has some interesting things to say about this in her latest book, The Great Transformation (I bought it, but haven't read it yet).
She claimed (in an NPR interview) that the current religious tendency towards beliefs being held without being questioned & tested is a fairly new trend (within the last two hundred years). Her claim is that the eastern viewpoint that the major theist religions all sprang from generally assumed that any set of religious or philosophical teachings were only supposed to be embraced so long as the individual questioned and tested them first.
She commented that she felt most of the major religious leaders of the past would be shocked at the current trend of 'you should believe this just because I tell you to' which seems to be more and more common nowadays.
Erik, I agree with your point with regards to your point on Nazi Germany.
do you know that some Christians on this blog and www.crooksandliars.com actually names Hitler as an example of an atheist went wrong?
Hitler was a Christian who wore his faith proudly and who was never excommunictaed by the Pope in Europe. His hatred for jews ironically reflects the anti-semitism prevalent in Christian culture as the killers of Jesus.
Before the Holocaust, this anti-semtism hate was brought forth by the early Crusaders who commited genocide against Jewish towns and cities in Central Europe on their way to the Middle East.
I have been to nearly all the Charismatic and Evangelical Churches in Singapore and in the region, as well as many of the Methodists, Anglican and Catholic churches. Nearly all the Charismatic and Evangelical ones, and many of the Methodists, Anglican and Catholic churches? You seem to have backed down from your previous statement: "I have been to all the fastest growing Churches in Singapore as well as their subsidiaries in my region in the course of my travels for work and pleasure".
The only things I claimed were: "I'll bet you have absolutely no actual data to support what percentage do and don't" (and you don't) and I doubted you'd been to 'all' the fastest growing churches (which you still haven't proved you have - in fact you've backed away from the 'all' statement to 'nearly all' and 'many'. And I'm not sure how you were ever going to prove that at 'all' those churches, the 'flock there behave like unthinking sheeps based on the whims of their pastors'.
That is what I claimed, and you've done nothing to make your point any stronger (repeating the same thing over and over is not 'proof'). I never made any claims about how the people in churches in your country behaved, because I don't know (I haven't met them). What I said was that I doubted your initial claim, as it was so absolute as to strain your credibility. How many Christian churches are there in Singapore? How many free Sundays do you have for you to have visited 'all' of them?
You have been avoiding my request to provide proof for your own statements. Because most of my 'statements' have actually been calling you on your overreaching claims. So (per the atheist mantra), I have nothing to prove. I am refusing to believe what you're claiming until you provide proof (something I doubt you can do).
And yes, you can hold me personally accountable for all the bad things my country has ever done, or citizens from my country have done. It makes perfect sense as I voted for my ruling party and its policies. Then I'll hold you personally accountable for helping to put your ruling party in office. Blaming you for more than that would be totally without logic.
And I share the same shame if my countrymen did sin against anyone else...The amount of embarrassment that we all feel has been published in papers, shown on TV and radio. Ah, we've gotten to a key issue. Shame & embarrassment are not the same thing as responsibility! I feel embarrassed and ashamed when I see Americans acting like arrogant idiots around the world, and likewise for some people of faith. I do not accept responsibility for their actions, however. There is a huge difference. I feel shame & embarrassment because I don't like how what others do may impact how other people see me, my country, or my faith. But I feel no responsibility for a 'Christian' bombing an abortion clinic, or spewing hate on the radio.
Unlike many Christians, we have no qualms about acknowledging our sins as well as our brethren because we are one family, one nation and one people. Per my comment above, the sins of others are not mine. That mentality (prevalent in the Old Testament, by the way) is what leads to things like familial servitude and other really uncivilized concepts (the children paying for the sins of the father, etc.).
Kevin, you don't seem to know a lot about my country and my region, although you reject what I said about the majority of Christians in my country. Per above, I've made no claims about your country or region. I've been claiming that your statements reek of exaggeration, which you appear to be confirming.
The issue here is conscience and a sense of responsibility that all great faiths share and embrace. Until Christians acknowledge this point, I will have to leave Christianity out of the category of great faiths I'm sure all of Christendom will be very sad to know we didn't make your cut.
Kevin, please bear in mind that you will continue to lose credibility if you cannot support your claims on the Christians in my region. Well, you never had much credibility with me, since (as stated numerous time) I've not made any claims on the Christians in your region. My only claims were with regards to you.
All you need to do is to prove that most Christians in my region do not consider offering joss sticks to one’s ancestors or “ancestor worship” as mere superstitions, which was a lie preached by Christian preachers. Do that and you win. Wow. Joss sticks. That really came from left field. What claims did I make regarding those?
And it is pure nonsense when you claimed that Christianity should not bear responsibility for the sins of its believers. You will need to prove that your religion did not drive its believers to do what they did. Where's your proof then if you still claim they do? Show me a case where a belief ever made anyone do anything. Show me where a person said "Oh my gosh! I don't want to kill this unbeliever. But my hands appear to be moving of their own accord. My belief is making me do something I don't want to do!"
Sorry, but your rhetoric is really tiring. Beliefs don't 'make' people do anything. People choose to do what they choose to do. Their beliefs are some of the many things that help shape their choice. Your case is lost if you can't accept this, as you're trying to shift some of the responsibility away from people and to their beliefs. By that token, I guess Hitler wasn't really that bad a guy...it was those darn beliefs he had that sent him down the wrong path.
But the fact remains that your religion does have avenues and opinions that allow people to act as an intolerant bigot. Yes it does, as does virtually every other religion in the world. Hear this clearly now:
SO WHAT?!?
Is religion the only belief in the world that allows 'people to act as an intolerant bigot'? How about racism, sexism, nationalism, love of music, art, literature, devotion to a sports team, or anything else in the world that stirs people's hearts and passions? The ability of human beings to be intolerant is part of being human. It is not the fault of religion. That religion is good at stirring people's passions is part of what makes it attractive to people. What people do with that passion is up to them. You may not always like it, but trying to put the blame for those actions on anything other than the people doing them just creates more intolerance (wasn't that what you were complaining about?).
Desire comes to us as a natural feeling. As biological animals, we cannot avoid desires. We desire food, shelter, freedom of expression, etc. As exploratory animals, we humans use our minds as a tool to help satisfy the desires within us. With reflection and thought, we learn the limits to our desires. Eating too much, for example, can lead to limited heath and the prevention of satisfying other desires. By understanding the consequences of desire, we can avoid the excesses and blockages of desire. To express and satisfy our desires (sex, feelings, hunger, etc.) provides a human need. And if we do not satisfy our natural needs, then severe consequences can result.
Sadly, many of our belief-systems put a stranglehold on our natural instinctive desires. If a belief-system teaches that "sex is evil," "only godly belief will help you," or suppresses expression and communication, we may turn depraved, depressed, or violent.
Believers many times express desire indirectly in terms of hope, a form of wishful thinking. Indeed faith hinges on the requirement of hope and ignorance. Hope without an adequate method of achieving our desires can lead to debilitating disappointment and sorrow. I can only imagine the number of tragedies that have occurred from failures due to excessive wishful thinking (and I'm not just talking American Idot contestants). Instead of relying on faith and hope, we might analyze our desires and use our knowledge and creative minds to find a way of satisfying them.
One can most certainly make value judgements using logic.
I, for example, make value judgements based on what I desire, feel, etc. I place them in some sort of hierarchical framework (the logic). I value chocolate cookies more than coconut cookies, and love over hate, etc. Desires and feelings, of course, have to do with personal knowledge and logic has to do with structure of reasoning. None of this requires ownership of beliefs.
As long as religious beliefs don't affect me, my family, my friends, or my government, I could care less what people believe in. In general and historically, you will find that non-believers tend to have more tolerance toward others than any other group of people. The secular nature of the United States government, for example, allows the freedom for people to pursue happiness however they'd like, as long as they do not infringe on others from their pursuit of happiness.
Hi Kevin, I have not backed down from my position at all. There are still new Charismatic and evangelical Churches appearing in Singapore that I have not attended and my position was "most christians, not all christians".
Kindly do not misrepresent what I say or try to create issues to avoid providing proof for your own comments? Very Intelligent Design indeed.
Attendance and physical presence at these churches that see the majority of Christian conversions and represent the majority in the Christian populution. The names of the churches
I have offered to e-mail you a list of the churches I have been to, which will compose of over 70% of the population of the Christians in the said country.
Now is my turn to ask for numerical proof and quanitifiable experience from you to back up your claims that most Christians in my country.
Kindly prove them if you can.
And what rhethoric? For stating the most of the Christians in my country and my region are not tolerant of other beliefs and traditions and even blaspheme against them? When these are purely my observations at the churches that I attended?
You means Christians can't bear scrutiny on their actions and views, which they air in public?
And if you have not been to my country and my region, you have utterly no grounds to make any claims on behalf of Christians in my country and my region. As well as no proof
I don't see any proof from you so far. That's a fact.
People here have replied to your posts that you do not provide much substance to your statements. Here's an excellent chance to prove them wrong by actually backing what you say here.
But I have to say one thing about your claims that "Beliefs don't 'make' people do anything."
That is rhetoric.
Our beliefs gives us reasons to do certain things, even if it is religious bigotry or evangelists come to Asia to do missionary work to spread their beliefs.
Kevin, it is hard to persuade anyone here that Christianity should not be held accountable for the deeds and beliefs of Christians.
Using Islam as an example to prove your case was not a wise choice as you lack knowledge of Islam and of what is happening in Muslim affairs today.
First, Islam is being held accountable for the deeds of Arab terrorists who did their deeds in the blame of religion. You do not go further for proof that Muslims are being held to stricter supervision in their travels worldwide. That is a fact.
Second, moderate Muslims do feel responsible for the deeds of these fundamentalists or radicals. The easy way is to renounce or excommunicate these terrorists by simply reminding the world that that the Prophet Mohammad forbade suicide to all as it is a sure way to hell and that he condemned the killings of women and children. They can then make the claim that these radicals are not Muslims and Islam should not be condemned.
They didn't take the easy way out, unlike Christian apologists. Here is what is happening in Muslim-dominated Malaysia and Islamic Indonesia, the latter being the 4th most populated country in the world today. They are just next door to my country by the way.
The moderate Muslims have been developing a strong voice in politics and in society to moderate the views and actions of the radicals, which helps to quell much the irrationalism associated with Islamic fundamentalism.
This is what I see as typical of a great faith.
A great faith preaches that all of us are equal and that we are all kin or brothers and sisters on earth.
In any family, country and faith, no such community abandon those who sin. They feel responsibility in that they were not able to stop their members from making mistakes but they can be there to help them learn from such mistakes.
Kevin, it is your choice to paint that Christianity should not be held accountable for the sins of its followers, even though its faith provides reasons for such sad behaviour.
But kindly acknowledge that this is clearly a morally indefensible position as this is a clear issue whether Christianity feels any sense of empathy, responsibility and conscience to its followers and the well-being of non-believers as well, who suffer from the misdeeds of its followers.
If you still insist that Christianity should not be held accountable for the deeds and beliefs of Christians, I'll let you win this debate.
But know that your religion will keep losing the respect of any human being with an ounce of reason, compassion and conscience.
Congratulations kevin, you won the battle.
I have offered to e-mail you a list of the churches I have been to, which will compose of over 70% of the population of the Christians in the said country. Why email? Just post it here. Even better, just post the number of churches you've visited and in what time period. Assuming you only visit one church per Sunday, you can't have visited more than 52 in a year (I ask again, do you go to a Christian church every Sunday?).
There are approximately 4.4 million people living in Singapore, of which approximately 15% are Christian. So that makes for around 650,000 Christians. How many of them have you met? How many have you talked to? You keep talking about proof, so I'd like to hear some.
Now is my turn to ask for numerical proof and quanitifiable experience from you to back up your claims that most Christians in my country. Are you reading anything I'm writing? I just said four times in my previous post, I haven't made any claims regarding Christians in your country. Would you please tell me what you think I've claimed?
I've continually claimed that your repeated comments sound grossly exaggerated. You have yet to provide any explanation of why that isn't true.
And if you have not been to my country and my region, you have utterly no grounds to make any claims on behalf of Christians in my country and my region. As well as no proof Right. BECAUSE I HAVEN'T MADE ANY CLAIMS REGARDING CHRISTIANS IN YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR REGION.
But I have to say one thing about your claims that "Beliefs don't 'make' people do anything."...Our beliefs gives us reasons to do certain things, even if it is religious bigotry or evangelists come to Asia to do missionary work to spread their beliefs. Again, you demonstrate an inability to comprehend anything I write. I was very clear that beliefs are some of the many things that help people make choices, which is entirely different than a belief making someone doing something.
Using Islam as an example to prove your case was not a wise choice as you lack knowledge of Islam and of what is happening in Muslim affairs today. You have so little knowledge of what I do and don't know about Islam that it's pathetic. Every point you make seems to stem from a complete inability to read anything I write.
First, Islam is being held accountable for the deeds of Arab terrorists who did their deeds in the blame of religion. You do not go further for proof that Muslims are being held to stricter supervision in their travels worldwide. That is a fact. So, you believe it's right to hold Muslims to stricter supervision in their travels because of what some have done? Would you likewise suggest that African-Americans be treated differently than whites in America, because statistically they commit a greater number of crimes? That people in the world stereotype and profile individuals based on the actions of a minority is not a surprise. It's usually done out of fear, and it's almost always regretted later in a moral society.
Islam is being held accountable for the deeds of Arab terrorists who did their deeds in the blame of religion. But only by ignorant people like you. More rational people blame groups like Al Queda, and those people specifically responsible for terrorism.
Second, moderate Muslims do feel responsible for the deeds of these fundamentalists or radicals. No. Per my point, they feel embarrassed and/or ashamed. If they truly felt responsible, they'd turn themselves into the local law enforcement and explain that they deserved to be punished for the actions of those fundamentalists or radicals. Again, read what I wrote on the difference between responsibility and embarrassment or shame.
The moderate Muslims have been developing a strong voice in politics and in society to moderate the views and actions of the radicals, which helps to quell much the irrationalism associated with Islamic fundamentalism. That's wonderful and to be applauded. But that is something they choose to do. It is not their 'responsibility'. Someone who is an agnostic one day, and decides to become a Muslim the next, does not by virtue of that choice immediately become responsible for the actions of every other Muslim in the world.
But kindly acknowledge that this is clearly a morally indefensible position as this is a clear issue whether Christianity feels any sense of empathy, responsibility and conscience to its followers and the well-being of non-believers as well, who suffer from the misdeeds of its followers. 'Christianity' doesn't feel anything - it is an intangible belief. Do I as a Christian, feel in any way responsible for the actions of fundamentalist Christians who bomb abortion clinics? No. Not one iota. Their actions are totally inconsistent with my beliefs, and I speak out against such actions whenever the opportunity presents itself.
If you still insist that Christianity should not be held accountable for the deeds and beliefs of Christians, I'll let you win this debate...But know that your religion will keep losing the respect of any human being with an ounce of reason, compassion and conscience. Gee, thanks for 'letting' me 'win' this debate. Very generous of you. If my position causes someone to lose respect for me, I'm fine with that, because that demonstrates that they are anything but reasonable & compassionate.
Personally, I think that anyone who holds the innocent responsible for the deeds of the guilty is morally reprehensible. Your logic creates a lot more guilty people in the world, and does nothing to stop the problems you complain about, as it misdirects responsibility from the perpetrators of those problems, to a larger group of people.
Hey, Kes, my friend, give up. This conversation could could on forever and ever and ever. Believe me, I've been there. :)
Just to make it official, Kevin is hereby named troll of year. In addition he receives a citation of merit for the most words with the least content, and the coveted "I believe my own bullshit" medallion. In addition he'll be receiving a new set of earplugs to replace his well used pair, and last but not least a hammer to break all the mirrors in his home along with a guarantee that the seven years of bad luck will be less painful than than gazing upon what he's become. To those who choose to continue conversing with him, I request a voluntary donation to the website of twenty-five cents for each comment you post.
Just to make it official, Kevin is hereby named troll of year. If I'm a troll, it's only because I shouldn't expect any kind of rational response from you and some of your comrades here. I honesty approached the comments here hoping for rational debate, but there's been precious little of it.
You and others here have managed to clearly demonstrate that you can be just as blinded by your cause as the religious right. I've been astounded that regardless of how obvious a problem I point out in some of the comments here (not atheist philosophy mind you, just some of the random comments people have made), you can completely ignore it.
Kes has accused me about 8 or 9 times of making some claims regarding Christians in his country. I've stated as many times that I haven't made any such claims. He hasn't quoted my claims, because there are none (I re-read every single post I made because I wanted to be sure). He's also apparently personally spoken with most of the Christians (or been to their churches) in Singapore. But rather than acknowledge that some of his points sucked, it's easier to label me a troll.
I'm the first to acknowledge when a theist makes a poor argument for a given point. You apparently feel that acknowledging anyone on your side ever makes a mistake is somehow giving up moral ground.
Jo Ann appeared at times to at least be interested in actual dialogue, whereas you and kes appear to just not see any comment that you can't spin in your favor.
I understand and sympathize with the atheist perspective. While it's not the one I currently follow, I see how it makes sense. I can likewise understand the perspectives of most religions & related philosophies (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism). The only thing I don't understand is people who are unable to understand and sympathize with any perspective but their own. Intolerance bothers me more than anything else in this world, and there's plenty of it here.
Since I'm not a troll (as I have no desire to post things solely to rile people up) I'll stop posting. Apparently whatever I say falls on deaf ears, in which case it's been a waste of my time from the start. Sorry to have bothered you all. Go back to your lives.
Kevin, you can't plead innocence on behalf of Christianity when your faith says that mankind are sinners.
And there is nothing morally reprehensible about acknowledging one’s failure to stop a brother or a loved one from committing evil and the need to help them learn from their mistakes. After all, families, countries and trule faiths don't abandon members when they are in trouble or go astray.
It is only morally reprehensible to let them continue committing evil based on the dictates of their faith without stopping them, correcting and helping them.
Therefore, I find your personal beliefs morally indefensible and morally reprehensible in this regard.
The issue here is not my logic as you claim.
It is simply your lack of morals and your disregard regard for universal moral values like compassion, empathy and moral responsibility.
I’ll stop here as my previous posts have clearly stated just how morally indefensible his position is which was that Christianity should not be held accountable for the beliefs and actions of his people.
I’ll let my previous posts speak for themselves that this is a clear social and moral responsibility that only cowards and heartless souls will avoid.
Norm, I owe you 50 cents for my 2 posts to Kevin here. E-mail me your paypal e-mail address : > It’s hard to plead innocence on behalf of Christianity when your faith says that mankind are sinners and especially when Christians are the one sinning here.
And there is nothing morally reprehensible about acknowledging one’s failure to stop a brother or a loved one from committing evil and the need to help them learn from their mistakes. After all, families, countries and true faiths don't abandon members when they are in trouble or go astray.
But it is indeed morally reprehensible to let them continue committing evil based on the dictates of their faith without stopping them, correcting and helping them.
Therefore, I find your personal beliefs morally indefensible and morally reprehensible in this regard.
The issue here is not my logic as you claim.
It is simply your lack of morals and your disregard for universal moral values like compassion, empathy and moral responsibility.
My previous posts have clearly stated just how morally indefensible his position is which was that Christianity should not be held accountable for the beliefs and actions of his people. I’ll let them speak for themselves that this is a clear social and moral responsibility that only cowards and heartless souls will avoid.
Norm, sorry for the doubloe post. It should be 75 cents then : >
Hi Jo, thanks for the advice. I don’t think I will post anymore after making my point that Kevin is the one misleading people here. Judge for yourself.
By the way, you are not an atheist and I am not an atheist. So I see no reason why you can’t produce any information to support your views. Btw, I have posted here that I lean towards Buddhism and Taoism and I believe in reincarnation and I practise conservative/traditional values all my life.
MY CLAIMS: “In my Asian country, I have been to all the fastest growing Churches and the flocks there behave like unthinking sheeps based on the whims of their pastors… many Christians follow the instructions of their pastor unthinkingly in my region.”
“I have made my point that I'm speaking on behalf of what I see in my country and my region in Easy Asia that the majority of Christians do behave as I said they do i.e. religious blasphemy and misinformation.”
Some of KEVIN’S CLAIMS, despite his denial that he did not make any:
“And many don't. And I'll bet you have absolutely no actual data to support what percentage do and don't. If I have a cause, it's against that type of generalization (all/most Christians do 'X').”
“My point is that what you said isn't proof, any more than if a Christian said people who don't go to church are all immoral. You've seen some evidence of closed-mindedness among some Christians at churches in your area.”
“Because what you offer as 'proof' sounds a lot like someone who's been to a few churches and talked to a few people and decided to pass judgement on a religion and the hundreds of millions of people around the world who follow it based on that. How's that for 'refuting' your claim?” “The only things I claimed were: "I'll bet you have absolutely no actual data to support what percentage do and don't" (and you don't) and I doubted you'd been to 'all' the fastest growing churches (which you still haven't proved you have - in fact you've backed away from the 'all' statement to 'nearly all' and 'many'. And I'm not sure how you were ever going to prove that at 'all' those churches, the 'flock there behave like unthinking sheeps based on the whims of their pastors'.” I have seen you produced no proof of your assertions here at all. Here’s mine. 1] First person-eyewitness account from myself who have been to most of the churches in my country and this region, which consists 70% of the Christians in that area. Kindly note that for legal proceedings, witness testimony is counted as proof. You have no grounds to discredit my account to defend your religion, especially when you don’t live in my country or my region. 2] Drop me an e-mail at: tshtsh@hotmail.com I have repeatedly offered to send you the list which is a long one to your e-mail address but you did not take up my offer. It is better this way as you will the choice to post it here as proof that you got my proof. After that, I expect you to post proof to back up your claims. Trying to find fault with my proof does not excuse you from the responsibility of proving your own claims. No one here is going to fall for that. I think your critics here are on the money when they say that you don’t back up any of your points. Here is your chance to prove them and me wrong. I suggest you don’t waste it.
Kes,
I'm all done. Sorry. I have no desire to participate if I'm only perceived as a troll.
As to your post, I'd suggest you go back and look at what you quoted from me. And then read it again. And then try to identify what 'claims' I made beyond questioning your own.
Kevin the opinion that you are a troll is mine alone. I don't speak for the others here. Your response however is a perfect example of the way you participate in a discussion. You treat my opinion as if it's everyone's opinion and then whine about it. You've done that same thing in almost every argument I've seen you participate in including with me. You miss a critical element and then spend dozens of posts arguing about it. I don't recall you ever backing up an argument with something other than your opinion. A discussion is a two way affair, a give and take. You don't seem to understand that. The test of whether others agree with my assessment that you're a troll is if they continue to talk to you.
I think we should all shake hands and make up. (yeah, I know, that sounds kinda goofy). I think that Kevin and Kes have a lot in common, but they just need to stop discussing this particular topic. :)
No, I really am done.
I've made what I honestly believe to be solid points in my conversations with you and Kes, and basically when it appears you can't back up a case, it drops off your radar. I'm also tired of having words put in my mouth.
Yes, you're the only one who called me a troll. But you put out your little 25¢ call for donations to everyone. No one disagreed with your assessment. My impression (as I stated) is that the people I'm talking to can't concede any point (even when that point isn't one central to the philosophy being discussed). Interesting that you mention give and take, because I know I've made a few apologies (starting with the first line in my second post in this whole thread) for overstating something, or not being clear. I don't recall seeing anything similar from you or Kes.
I have no desire to continue with a discussion under those circumstances.
Hi Jo, thanks for the kind thought.
Kevin, I am kind of astonished at your response at my request to substantiate his claims when I have substantiated my comments at his request.
I think if you want to discuss futher on this, you can drop me an e-mail at my general e-mail address:
tshtsh@hotmail.com
I'm still waiting for your e-mail, so I can reply back and send you the list of the churches you wanted.
If there are no objections from anyone here, let's close this thread.
typo:
"kevin, I am kind of astonished at your response at my request to substantiate your claims when I have substantiated my comments at your request."
I've looked at my posts and I am sorry if my observations on Christians in my country and my region, which may be alien to your experience, and on Christian history offended you. I am just a plain speaker who calls it the way I see it.
I hope you understand my concern, for example, when I raised the example of the tend of anti-semitism in Christian history, which stretches all the way from the slaughter of Jewish settlemes in West Germany by the early Christian Crusaders enroute to the Middle East and the Jeiwsh Holocaust brought forth by the Christian nation of Nazi Germany. These are things that happened and denial of responsibility won't stop them from happening again.
By the way, here's a little on my background. I studied history for 10 years since junior high and my focus areas are on East Asia, religion and war history. I have been in Mission Schools since the age of 8 and I have been asked to go to churches by my relatives and my friends for the last 20 years.