During the last season of “West Wing,” reporters tried to pin down candidate Arnie Vinnick (Alan Alda) on the subject of his religious beliefs. Vinnick–who wanted to keep the fact that he’d lost faith in God under wraps–stated that his personal views on God were off limits, he’d never discuss them, that they weren’t relevant to the job he was to do as president, and that as far as he was concerned that was the end of it. To all intents and purposes it was. It never came up again in the series.
I commented at the time that in the real world, that would never happen. That such an assertion would only be the beginning of the story, not the end of it.
Now it seems that we’re seeing the scenario played out in real life as Rudy Giuliani asserts that his personal religious beliefs are just that–personal–and should have no bearing on his campaign.
This promptly became front page news on “Newsday” and now we’ll see just how fast the question goes away. I suspect it won’t anytime soon.
The ironic thing is that Giuliani is both right and wrong. The fact is that his personal beliefs *shouldn’t* be a factor. If he doesn’t want to discuss them, he should be entitled to that. The problem becomes that the automatic assumption is that he is either agnostic or atheist, and in a society where the vast majority of people assert a belief in SOME sort of divine spirit, that’s not going to go over very well.
On the other hand it really IS a relevant question because look who we’ve got running the country now: A man who believes that he’s operating at the personal behest of God. Bush doesn’t simply believe in God; he KNOWS there’s a God and that he and God are tight. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, too much “knowledge” can be a lethal thing.
If Giuliani is an atheist and doesn’t want to discuss that beause he figures it’s nobody’s business and that it might cost him votes, I can understand both viewpoints. Still, knowing that a candidate will not run this country and world affairs under the belief that he’s taking his marching orders from God might not be such a bad thing.
PAD
• 
Nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. Genocide is a logical working of nihilism. There is a connection, albeit indirect, between atheism and genocide.
I disagree with that. While most nihilists may be atheists it odes not follow that most atheists are nihilists. Even if one rejects all religion one can accept concepts of morality and thus not be a believer in nihilism.
One could just as well argue that fanaticism is a logical outworking of religious belief and that genocide is a logical working of fanaticism.
the problem with both arguments, I think, is a misuse of the word “logical”.
Micha: Because religion’s are belief systems they are subject to different interpretations and different opinions, which sometimes result in a schism inside the religion, and sometimes not.
Luigi Novi: Micha, I think maybe I ended up splitting a hair on this point, so I apologize. I think what I meant to express was that the texts that form the bases of those belief systems are subject to interpretation, rather than the religion, but I think this was a trivial point. Sorry about that. 🙂
Micha: It is also a change in interpretation that had made it possible for different Christians to support and oppose racism, slavery, antisemitism, communism, science, modernism, and humanism. It is a fact that he same Christianity that has promoted antisemitism for years seems to have changed its mind at modern times.
Luigi Novi: Ironically, these changes were brought about via secularism.
Micha: But that’s the point. while certain interpreters read in the texts a call for violence, others find there a call for peace; where some find a support for capitalism others find communist ideals. It is not the holy texts that promote violence as much as their contemporary interpreters.
Luigi Novi: In some cases. In others, the texts are explicit in their instructions. And in the cases where it’s the authority (priest, rabbi, imam, whatever) interpreting it, my point is the same: Atheism doesn’t have the same phenomenon.
Micha: It seems to me that to treat genocidal violence as an inherent aspect of religion is similar to attributing it inherently to atheism.
Luigi Novi: I don’t treat it as inherent. Most of my friends and family members are theists. They’re not inherently genocidal, I can assure you. 🙂
And since I have not stated nor implied this, I think I can safely assert that I haven’t been condescending towards theists. I respect people’s right to believe what they want.
Micha: It was not my intention to contradict you on this point as much as to add to what you said a point I felt is important.
Luigi Novi: Gotcha. 🙂
Sean Scullion: Luigi, hope you don’t mind me horning in on the discussion, but this question of yours ia something that I’ve said for a long time. Religion is nothing BUT interpretation.
Luigi Novi: Sean, thank you for your thoughts. No, I do not mind your participating, for I welcome it, nor do I think it’s my place to “let” you or “not let” you butt in. A couple of years ago, Nitcentral experienced a troll who, when I jumped in to defend one of his targets, indicated that he didn’t think it my place to do so. Allow me to make clear that I’m not of this persuasion, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me during the discussion. This is Peter’s blog, and if a site owner makes such a site public, as Peter has, then it’s fair game for everyone, unless he notes otherwise. 🙂
Yes, religion is subject to interpretations (to one degree or another, depending on the religion, the text, the interpreter, etc.) My point was only the one I made in the third quote-and-response exchange with Micha above.
Ben Lesar: Because you quoted it without giving the context that was obviously needed.
Luigi Novi: Which does not require deception. Genuine error or a good faith belief that it was not necessary are also explanations that can also account for this decision (in my case, it was the latter), and you did not eliminate those as possibilities.
Ben Lesar: Anyone who knows what a parable is understands that it is not to be taken literally.
Luigi Novi: No.
Some people might. Some might not. Not everyone is going to subscribe to your interpretation.
And you did not refute the reasoning I offered about Jesus’ position on the character in question, and how his presentation of that character’s actions as positive informed Jesus’ own moral center.
Ben Lesar: Speaking of taking things out of context; I did not do so. I made no claim that you were singling out Christianity, my quoting you was in response to your claiming that you did not specify holy texts as the source of those instructions to go on crusades, jihads, and such.
Luigi Novi: And yet, you asked me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades, and then left out the word “jihads” in the statement of mine that you quoted, and even put parenthesis around the word “Crusades”, when they did not appear in the original post as written.
Ben Lesar: Christianity was never the source of anti-Semitism. Almost every nation which has had a significant Jewish population has suffered from it. (Anti-Semitism, not having the significant Jewish population.) Gandhi was an anti-Semitist. Post-Christian Europe is still a hotbed of anti-Semitism. The fact is that may people all over the world don’t like Jews. One possible reason is that races and cultures of one kind don’t tolerate those of others coming to their nation and not assimilating.
Luigi Novi: But the derivation of anti-Semitism is clearly Christianity. History shows this. It’s not about assimilation, because Jews assimilate wherever they go, and still encounter anti-Semitism.
Ben Lesar: Speaking of which, Luigi, the numbers do matter.
Luigi Novi: So first you adamantly denied appealing to numerical considerations, and now you’ve decided that you are? Ooooookay.
Ben Lesar: Why? Because in the case of the Christian governments most of the deaths were isolated incidents. The huge figures in atheist genocides indicate that they were, in fact, genocides.
Luigi Novi: Which is irrelevant to the point I made—repeatedly—about the distinction between crimes committed in the name of religion, and the complete lack of any crimes that were committed in the name of atheism. Rather than refute this point, or even respond to it, you continue to promote this same child’s argument over and over (“He killed more!” “No, HE killed more!”), perhaps under the impression that no one will notice that you’re deliberately evading the point I made about its flaws.
Guess what?
I’ve noticed.
And my response is the same: Crimes committed by atheists were not committed in the name of atheism, on the instruction of atheist authorities, or from atheist holy texts or dogmas. The same does not hold true for theism, which is why comparing the crimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to the crimes of the Crusades, Inquisitions, religious genocides, fatwas, jihads, infant circumcisions, terrorist plots and bombings, etc. fails as an analogy. If you can refute this distinction, then do so. But merely repeating a flawed argument or fallacy over and over and over does not lend it more credence.
Ben Lesar: Nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism.
Luigi Novi: No it is not. Nihilism is the belief that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Atheism is just the lack of a belief in being whose existence is unsupported by empirical, scientific evidence. The two have nothing to do with one another, nor is nihilism an logical outworking of atheism. I’ve been an agnostic atheist for about three years or so, and I do not believe, nor will I ever, that there is no value, knowledge, or worth in anything.
But thank you for revealing yourself to be a religious bigot who spreads stereotypical lies about entire swaths of people.
It makes it easier to keep track of you people when we know where you are.
Ðámņ, I think I’ll just stick to body function jokes from now on… 😛
-Rex Hondo-
“And yet, you asked me where in the Bible where Christians are told to go on crusades, and then left out the word “jihads” in the statement of mine that you quoted, and even put parenthesis around the word “Crusades”, when they did not appear in the original post as written.”
The word “jihads” was not necessary as you were talking about both of them. I chose only to focus on crusades in regards to your claim that you had not specified the Bible as the source of instructions to do so when you had. I should have used square brackets though.
“But the derivation of anti-Semitism is clearly Christianity. History shows this. It’s not about assimilation, because Jews assimilate wherever they go, and still encounter anti-Semitism.”
Jews, assimilate? They would cease to be Jews if they did so. Unless one is speaking from a merely ethnic standpoint. Besides, you yourself have just admitted that they encounter anti-Semitism wherever they go. Unless you think the entire world is Christian I would take that to mean either that you don’t actually think Christianity is responsible, or you were being loose with the English language. The latter being something unwise to do in something you yourself have referred to as a “debate.”
“So first you adamantly denied appealing to numerical considerations, and now you’ve decided that you are? Ooooookay.”
One can use more than one argument.
“Which is irrelevant to the point I made—repeatedly—about the distinction between crimes committed in the name of religion, and the complete lack of any crimes that were committed in the name of atheism. Rather than refute this point, or even respond to it, you continue to promote this same child’s argument over and over (“He killed more!” “No, HE killed more!”), perhaps under the impression that no one will notice that you’re deliberately evading the point I made about its flaws.”
I don’t care if it is irrelevant to the point you made. That point is irrelevant to the discussion. Don’t you remember why the discussion started? I’ll refresh your memory. It started when you made an erroneous claim that the Religious were responsible for more deaths than any one else, by far. This is when I joined the discussion. I pointed out that you were wrong despite the fact that atheists have not been in power nearly as long. Not to mention that Bill Myers already refuted it.
“I’ve been an agnostic atheist for about three years or so, and I do not believe, nor will I ever, that there is no value, knowledge, or worth in anything.”
You and Bill Mulligan seem to commit the same mistake in thinking that when I say that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism that I am saying that all atheists are nihilists. This would require that all atheists be logical. If the universe came into being by chance and for no purpose –because purpose requires a will, an intent—then there is no reason to believe there is meaning to life. Similarly, without a God there is no reason to believe in objective moral values. We become merely chemicals wrapped in fleshy bags. Why would a universe created by chance have somehow been prepared with a set of moral laws for a species that didn’t even exist yet? Please go ahead and prove me wrong on either morals or purpose. Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either. They generally end up saying morals are a matter of personal opinion, which means what Stalin did was OK for him. “I disapprove” is a much weaker stance than “that’s evil.”
“But thank you for revealing yourself to be a religious bigot who spreads stereotypical lies about entire swaths of people.”
Thank you for being a foaming at the mouth loony who spreads death and chaos with a magic glow wand he found in a Cheerios box. Oh, you mean we weren’t thanking people for things they didn’t actually do? Oops. My bad.
“It makes it easier to keep track of you people when we know where you are.”
You know, when you don’t want people to think all atheists are genocidal maniacs (something I never claimed, BTW) you probably shouldn’t talk about your desire to monitor people you don’t like as good ol’ Uncle Joe and friends did. Just saying.
Ben Lesar: Jews, assimilate? They would cease to be Jews if they did so.
Luigi Novi: Oh really? So which would you say about the owner of this site? That he isn’t a Jew? Or that he hasn’t assimilated? Or perhaps that his grandparents didn’t when they came to this country?
I’m guessing here that you’re applying yet another selectively and arbitrarily narrow definition, in this case, assimilation. If a person immigrates to another country, learns to the speak the language, follows the laws, and becomes a part of that community, then they’re assimilated. Why you think this is mutually exclusive from maintaining your religion, I don’t know, but it remains that anti-Semitism is indeed derived from religion. Your statement that it is not flies in the face of the historical evidence that shows that it does.
Ben Lesar: Unless one is speaking from a merely ethnic standpoint. Besides, you yourself have just admitted that they encounter anti-Semitism wherever they go. Unless you think the entire world is Christian I would take that to mean either that you don’t actually think Christianity is responsible, or you were being loose with the English language.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see how encountering anti-Semitism wherever they go means that it isn’t religiously derived. This is just another non-sequitur.
Ben Lesar: One can use more than one argument.
Luigi Novi: You just love trying to sidestep the point, don’t you? The point was not how many arguments you used, and indeed, scrolling through my posts will show that I often use multiple lines of reasoning myself. The point was that you insisted that you were not appealing to numerical or quantitative considerations on the issue comparing crimes committed by atheist leaders and crimes committed by theist leaders, and then suddenly, you admitted you were. The problem, therefore, is not how many arguments you use. It’s that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Ben Lesar: I don’t care if it is irrelevant to the point you made. That point is irrelevant to the discussion. Don’t you remember why the discussion started? I’ll refresh your memory. It started when you made an erroneous claim that the Religious were responsible for more deaths than any one else, by far.
Luigi Novi: Nope. I never said that. Go ahead and scroll up.
Do I remember how the discussion started? Yeah. And I can go further than that. I can click on that little thing on the right side of my browser, scroll up, and do a bit of research (you know, that thing that paralogists, trolls, and bigots like you hate to do), and show you how it started. If you go to my June 6, 2:10pm and 7:51pm posts, you’ll see that my point, in particular in the latter of the two, in which I first responded to you, was that comparing the two was false, for the reasons I explained (and in greater detail and elaboration in subsequent posts). And you kept offering this anemic and thoughtless numbers argument, not merely to those here who did emphasize that notion, but to me, when I never did so.
But hey, if you can point out where I ever said that religion was responsible for more deaths, feel free to point it out to me.
I’ll be waiting here listening to the crickets.
Ben Lesar: You and Bill Mulligan seem to commit the same mistake in thinking that when I say that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism that I am saying that all atheists are nihilists.
Luigi Novi: No. I did no such thing.
You said that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism. That’s false. And I said it was false.
While I did not accuse you of saying all atheists are nihilists, it is reasonable to infer from your statement, at least as an implication, and to respond to that by asserting that I have no proclivities toward nihilism. I wonder if anyone does. But whether you said that or not, what you said in itself is false, merely by virtue of the definitions of those two words.
Ben Lesar: This would require that all atheists be logical. If the universe came into being by chance and for no purpose –because purpose requires a will, an intent—then there is no reason to believe there is meaning to life.
Luigi Novi: In your opinion. Meaning in life is subjective, and those who believe that there is no God or intelligent design to the universe most certainly see meaning in it, as I certainly do.
Ben Lesar: Similarly, without a God there is no reason to believe in objective moral values.
Luigi Novi: In your opinion. In the opinion of atheists, there’s plenty of reason to do so. The fact that your limited imagination prevents you from conceiving of this does not mean that such reasons do not exist. Morality, like all other behaviors, was not “prepared”, but evolved naturally in our species, and indeed, pre-moral behavior can be observed in non-human animals to this day. Morality prolongs not only individual organisms, but also the species. That’s why we have it. If you want a good book on this subject, read The Science of Good & Evil by Michael Shermer.
Ben Lesar: Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either.
Luigi Novi: Bigots generally don’t encounter people who would break the mold of their provincial imaginations and perceptions precisely because they don’t want to. That’s why they’re bigots. Like the bigot who says he never encountered a smart black man or a smart Jew because he likely never sat down and had a conversation with such people of any meaningful length or depth, and without having decided at the outset that he was going to continue hating these people no matter what, so too can you not conceive of an atheist explaining to you how morality can exist in a world without God, because you don’t want one to. Since, however, I just explained to you above how morality exists in a Godless universe (which it does), it would be interesting to see what your response to that will be. If you respond positively, then you might show that you are not that typical bigot, in which case, I will offer an apology and my hand in friendship to you. If you dismiss it without investigating it, or ignore it completely as you’ve done so much of what I’ve said, then perhaps you’ll show that my initial impression formed upon your statement about nihilism was right after all.
Ball’s in your court, Ben.
Ben Lesar: They generally end up saying morals are a matter of personal opinion, which means what Stalin did was OK for him. “I disapprove” is a much weaker stance than “that’s evil.”
Luigi Novi: Strictly speaking, without qualification, morals are subjective, and not objective. They can only be objective if you first establish fundamental criteria as a reference point. Those of us in Western society, for example, mostly believe in freedom, equality, self-determination, individuality, self-government, individual rights, and that one should maximize one’s happiness while causing the least amount of unhappiness to others. Thus, the morality of an idea can be assessed with some degree of objectivity in reference to those criteria. But someone living in an indigenous tribe in the Amazon, Africa, or in a fundamentalist Islamic nation might not have those criteria. In that way, the differing moralities are subjective, because each morality is a result of the experience and biases accumulated in the culture in which one grew up. Objectivity refers to the ability to look at things without being affected by one’s biases or preconceptions. But the Western Christian and the Eastern fundamentalist Muslim will always form and express their conclusions through the prism of those biases, and thus, they will be subjective. Such things can only be objective when they are in reference to a set of criteria to which they can be fitted.
Ben Lesar: Thank you for being a foaming at the mouth loony who spreads death and chaos with a magic glow wand he found in a Cheerios box. Oh, you mean we weren’t thanking people for things they didn’t actually do? Oops. My bad.
Luigi Novi: You claim that a logical extension of lacking a belief in gods is believing that all morals, truths and values don’t exist, but I’m the foaming-at-the-mouth loony, even though for my part, I’ve never judged entire swaths of people merely for their religious persuasion or lack thereof, or any other superficial aspect of their personhood. Sure. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.
Ben Lesar: You know, when you don’t want people to think all atheists are genocidal maniacs (something I never claimed, BTW) you probably shouldn’t talk about your desire to monitor people you don’t like as good ol’ Uncle Joe and friends did. Just saying.
Luigi Novi: So believing that bigotry is best combated when you can expose it out in the open (“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, as Louis Brandeis said) is akin to police state monitoring and genocide?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I’ll spread that nugget of wisdom over to the ADL and Klanwatch, since they pretty much do exactly this. I’m sure that it’ll amuse them to hear that monitoring bigots in a manner within the law is akin to a police state.
You and Bill Mulligan seem to commit the same mistake in thinking that when I say that nihilism is a logical outworking of atheism that I am saying that all atheists are nihilists.This would require that all atheists be logical.
No, I object to calling nihilism a logical outgrowth of atheism. Nihilism is destructive and pointless; not believing in God would not make that any more appealing.
Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either. They generally end up saying morals are a matter of personal opinion, which means what Stalin did was OK for him. “I disapprove” is a much weaker stance than “that’s evil.”
For starters, and I know this will sound bad to you, it is true that morals are a matter of opinion and of their times. What is evil now–slavery, for example–was considered perfectly normal in earlier times. Hëll, one might argue that slavery, of the type used by the Romans in Christ’s time, was a more humane solution to the problem of conquered people than later solutions proved to be. Many great men and women of history were products of their time and tolerated and considered moral things that we would find evil today.
Morality has evolved. Even in the Bible, which is why we aren’t forced to live by some of the Old Testament codes.
I’m not an atheist. But could you tell me which of our moral rules is so illogical, so counter-intuitive that it could only have been forced on us by God? What is the moral rule that you must fight against breaking every day, stopped only by the thought that God would be displeased?
Also, if atheists have no reason to be moral and no basis on which to even know what morality is, why are there so many moral atheists?
If I’m running for president, it’s no one’s business what religious beliefs (if any) I subscribe to. You should be more concerned with whether I’d preserve, protect and defend the Constitution than whether I worship a god or goddess that requires virgins be sacrificed to cannibals; or cannibals sacrificed to virgins; or cannibal virgins sacrificed to zombies.
O.K., maybe under those circumstances, I might need to explain my belief systems, but anyone who subscribes to a religion that doesn’t require human sacrifice (which is pretty much all of them) doesn’t need to go into a detailed explanation of his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof.
But what about PAD’s contention that it is a relevant question because our current president, “believes that he’s operating at the personal behest of God.”? Isn’t it a fair question to ask whether a candidate believes he or she has a close working relationship with God?
Yes, it is. But there’s a subtle difference between asking that question and demanding detailed information about one’s religious beliefs. That second question should only come up if the answer to the first is “yes.” After all, if a candidate does not have a personal working relationship with God, it doesn’t matter whether he or she believes in God or not.
Could a candidate lie about his or her answer? Yes, but he or she could lie about anything. Jason M. Bryant calls Bush “an egotist who uses God as a justification.” If that’s true, then Bush simply said what he knew a key segment of his political base wanted to hear about his religious beliefs.
The way a candidate will say what he or she thinks people want to hear about the war, taxes, gas prices, NAFTA, the environment, poverty, and numerous other subjects.
If I say I’ve been a practicing Catholic since birth; that I attend mass every Sunday (and on every Catholic holy day as well); that I was an altar boy as a child and am a lay minister as an adult; does that tell you what sort of president I’ll be?
What if I say I was raised Catholic, but have since left the church? That I don’t believe Jesus was divine, but that he did have important things to say about how we should live our lives and relate to other people- a viewpoint echoed by both Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? What if I say I try to live my life according to such principles, to the best of my ability; but that I don’t believe membership in an organized religion is required to do so? Does that tell you what sort of president I’d be?
And in the former example, how much would my showing up for mass every Sunday show and tell you what I believe? I could just be going through the motions.
On the other hand, if I claim to have lived a life that has put the needs of others before my own, then presumably my actions would either verify or refute my words.
On another note, Hitman said, “The average person most of the times abdicates their right to think for themselves and follows a herd mentality.”
Sad to say, that’s very true. The Detroit Free Press used to have a feature called “sound off”, in which people would call in and leave their comments regarding whether they agree or disagree with a specific issue. Hitman’s statement reminds me of a “sound off” answer from the early to mid 1980s (I forget the actual topic): “I let Reagan do my thinking for me.”
Let’s hope that person was making a sarcastic comment. You should never let anyone do your thinking for you. But most people do it; probably because it requires less effort.
Back to religion, Bill Myers said, “I haven’t yet met a Christian who doesn’t feel as though their values are “under attack” — in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!”
Crap! I must be doing something wrong. I’ve never felt that way. Granted I’m no longer a practicing Catholic, but I was raised in a Christian belief system, and haven’t since converted to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism or any other ism.
Actually, Bill, I can’t consider people like that to be true Christians. If Jesus were alive today, I’m guessing he wouldn’t, either.
Rick
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 05:37 PM
The point is, you have offered a criticism, and I think I have the right to ask you to back it up, just I think that you have the right to offer it.
Luigi, rather than offering a justification of my criticisms, instead I’m going to offer you some insight into why I’m choosing to walk away from this conversation…
Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 8, 2007 03:26 PM
I also used the non-hypothetical example of natural selection above, and you didn’t respond to that. Why is this?
Because there are only so many hours in a day, and only so many days in a lifetime. Because this isn’t a court of law or a doctoral dissertation. Because I’m not as concerned with arriving at definitive answers to certain questions as I once was.
By the way, I cracked open my big-ášš Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, and one of the definitions it offers for atheism is, “The doctrine or belief that there is no God.” Apparently, someone besides myself believes that atheism can indeed be a doctrine. Whoo-hoo! I win!
Just kidding. 😛
Some online research reveals that some dictionaries include the word “doctrine” in the definition of “atheism” and some don’t. I’ve decided that the issue is worth exploring — at my own pace, in my own way, without worrying about refuting this or that or determining who is right and who is wrong or arriving at a definitive answer.
That is why I’m walking away from this particular conversation, Luigi. If this leads you to conclude that my “criticisms” of you amount to so much “verbal flatulence,” so be it. I’ve got bigger fish to fry and I’m certain you do as well. So let’s mix our metaphors and call this water under the bridge. 🙂
Posted by: Rick Keating at June 9, 2007 01:45 PM
Back to religion, Bill Myers said, “I haven’t yet met a Christian who doesn’t feel as though their values are “under attack” — in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!”
Crap! I must be doing something wrong. I’ve never felt that way. Granted I’m no longer a practicing Catholic, but I was raised in a Christian belief system, and haven’t since converted to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism or any other ism.
Rick, apparently I did a poor job of making myself clear and I’m sorry about that. The passage you quoted was part of my response to Bill Mulligan’s post about how decent Christians often feel pìššëd øff when lumped in with the less decent ones. I was simply trying to illustrate the other side of that coin by sharing some of the thoughts and feelings I have in reaction to having my own spiritual views belittled and willfully misconstrued by some of the very mainstream Christians that I know.
My point (which I apparently did a poor job of making) was to demonstrate the futility of playing “dueling stereotypes.” Because just as you can always find an example of someone on “the other side” who acts like an áššhølë, “the other side” can always find someone on “your side” who does the same.
And as I said, in my more rational moments I’ve come to recognize that I possess some of the same flaws I see in many of the Christians that I know. I’m not quite as different from them as I’d like to believe.
Mr. Lesar has done some convenient rewriting of history so it would fit his thesis. I am hesitant to continue this discussion, since I’m not sure we share the same plane of reality. Still, some issues do need addressing:
1) Re: antisemitism.
According to Mr. Lesar, antisemitism just happens everywhere there are Jews, and there’s no connection to Christianity whatsoever.
Conveniently for him, there is some evidence of antisemitism prior to Christianity among Greek and Romans (and one biblical story in Persia). Of course these too were religion related. The Jews were certainly odd with their monotheistic religion in the polytheistic sincratic greco-roman world. I don’t know of any signs of antisemitism among germanic or celtic barbarians. You also have to remember that some of the friction between Jews and Romans was political, since the Jews rebeled. And also that the greeks and the Romans assumed that everybody but themselves, including the Jews, were barbarians.
However all this does not change the fact that the situation of the Jews took a turn to the worst with Christianity and Islam. There were Jews who lived in parts of the world that were neither Christian nor Muslim, and I don’t know if any of them suffered anti-semitism, but the vast majority of the Jews have lived in a world dominated by two religions that emerged from and sought to replace Judaism. And in both cases this resulted in centuries of theologically justified antisemitism that only came to an end with the emergence of secularism in the modern era (when it gained new secular layers of antisemitism). No historical rewriting by Mr. Lesar can change the fact that it was Christian theology, Christian beliefs and Christian governments that were the source of antisemitism in Europe and the New World for hundreds of years.
Mr. Lesar talks about antisemitism in post-Christian Europe. It should be noted that Europe is not as non-Christian nor as antisemitic as he thinks. Hundreds of years of christian history are not erased in one generation. In any case, the sources for European antisemitism today are (a) the continuation of the old antisemitism that has most of its roots in Christianity;
(b) antisemitism by Muslim immigrants, the sources of which are a religion Islam, and antisemitic ideas imported from Europe, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by the very Christian government of Czarist Russia. (c) antisemitic Soviet attitudes which are also decendants of the Christian ideas.
Even in parts of the world that are mostly not Christian, like Japan, antisemitic or philosemitic attitudes seem to have been imported from Europe. A quick research on Gahndi suggests that he was not antisemitic but antizionist, and very naive or unweilding in his pacificism. I dislike these attitudes too, but they are not antisemitism. And even if Gahndi may have harbored deep down some prejudices toward Jews, it is wrong to mention him in the same scale as Hitler, and it is most likely that he got these notions from the western Christian world (if they existed), they did not emerge on their own.
2) Re: Jewish assimilation.
as long as Jews existed they had, and they stil have to find a way to keep their unique identity while interacting with the non-Jewish world, and assimilation has always been an issue. In a sense, the rules of Orthodox Judaism are designed to help isolate the Jews. However, their is a large specturm of ways in which Jews try to balance between complete assimilation and complete isolation, starting from those who live in isolated communities dressed in their unique clothing with their unique laws, to those who converted completely to Christianity or Islam, with a lot of different ways in between picked by the majority of Jews. All of these ways have their problems.
In any case, jews suffered antisemitism both for isolating themselves too much and for assimilating too much. In the pre-modern Christian and Muslim world they did not have an option but to either assimilate completely by conversion or to be legally segregated. In the modern secularized world Jews had the option, in principle, to pick their own balance between assimilation and keeping their identity. although, as you know, this principle did not always work in practice, and it did not solve the problem of antisemitism, although it seems to have lessened it.
3) Re: kiling by christian governments throughout history.
In Mr. Lesar’s adapted version of history there is no connection between the deaths of indians and Christian government. it was an accident. Accidents happen. I doubt anybody with even basic knowledge of history wil buy that. The peoples of America (and Ausrralia) were the victims of more than an unfortunate accident. Mr. Lesar chooses to ignore the link and quote I provided: “But while introduced disease devastated native populations, colonial brutality and economic dislocation also played significant roles. Rummel, for example, estimates a total of approximately 13.7 million democides (deliberate killings) of native Americans in the colonial and post-colonial eras.[5] The population reduction, sometimes by government policy and sometimes not, of the Natives of South and North America by Europeans is estimated to be one of the largest and longest in history.[6] (See also cultural genocide).”
Mr. Lesar also says avoids the unpleasantness of slavery by saying that Christian countries were the first to abolish it. But to abolish it they needed to have practiced it, which they certainly had, for centuries.
And he completely ignores all the wars, religious wars and crusades (not only against Muslims) that are part and parcel of the history of the Christian world.
4) Re: Atheism, nihilism, and genocide
Luigi and Bill Mulligan already answered it very well. It is only in the mind of a fanatically religious person that the removal of belief in god must result in nihilism and genocide, because for such a person, without this external source of morality all you have is nothing. aside from my personal disllike to the idea that you need the fear of an external force to behave moraly, this assumption ignores two important facts:
(a) That the morality of the religious world is just as dependant of subjectivity and shifting human attitudes as that of atheists.
(b) That atheists were and are capable of forming moral systems without god. These systems are based on moral principles that are connected to human life rather than falling down on us from the sky, but they are as real as Christian morality. Communism, ironically, is such a system, and just like Christian morality, it could result in some ugly consequences.
“So which would you say about the owner of this site? That he isn’t a Jew?”
My understanding has always been that PAD is not a religious Jew. He practices Hanukah to be sure, but I believe he has said before that he holds an agnostic position regarding the existence of God. Until the last one hundred years or so most Jews did not do so. We were speaking of historical anti-Semitism so I was referring to what the majority of Jews historically were (religious) that led them not to assimilate. That I was speaking in the present tense does not matter because I was using a historical definition. I specified that I was not refering merely to ethnicity earlier, so don’t claim I am making this up after the fact.
“I don’t see how encountering anti-Semitism wherever they go means that it isn’t religiously derived. This is just another non-sequitur.”
You said it was derived from Christianity specifically, not just religion. Christianity is not responsible for Gandhi’s anti-Semitism; ergo Christianity cannot be the cause of anti-Semitism.
“The point was that you insisted that you were not appealing to numerical or quantitative considerations on the issue comparing crimes committed by atheist leaders and crimes committed by theist leaders, and then suddenly, you admitted you were. The problem, therefore, is not how many arguments you use. It’s that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.”
I never admitted to doing such a thing. I raised a new argument. I never said, “This is what I have been saying all along.” I said, “Speaking of which, Luigi, numbers do matter.”
“Posted by: Luigi Novi at June 6, 2007 02:10 PM
Jason M. Bryant: Bush believes that he’s right and God is simply his justification for it. Atheists are just as capable of feeling a moral imperative; they’ll just use different buzzwords to justify it.
Luigi Novi: In a general sense that may be true, but in terms of the degree to which theists will rationalize the irrational when it’s derived from their religious beliefs, and the way society gives them a free pass when that’s the derivation of one’s actions, atheists can’t compare. Not by far.”
Ok, my memory is faulty. This was the post I was thinking of. Although my response was proper in proving the claim wrong it is true that the claim was not specifically related to genocide… even if all evils are implicit in your claim. Mea culpa. All the same, I was right that the discussion was never about whether the respective philosophies (atheism and Christianity) justified the actions, but that it seemed to have started on the basis of “who does more evil.”
“Meaning in life is subjective, and those who believe that there is no God or intelligent design to the universe most certainly see meaning in it, as I certainly do.”
By definition being subjective renders meaning a matter of opinion… and not a fact. That means you don’t believe meaning is something that exists, but something that you make up. That is no meaning at all.
“Since, however, I just explained to you above how morality exists in a Godless universe (which it does), it would be interesting to see what your response to that will be. If you respond positively, then you might show that you are not that typical bigot, in which case, I will offer an apology and my hand in friendship to you. If you dismiss it without investigating it, or ignore it completely as you’ve done so much of what I’ve said, then perhaps you’ll show that my initial impression formed upon your statement about nihilism was right after all.”
You ignored my use of the world “objective.” This means that something is right or wrong regardless of what people approve or disapprove of. To say that what is best for the species is a universal law is completely unfounded. I might also point out that using what is best for the species as a guide it is a moral imperative to kill “undesirables” who are a waste of resources and pollute the gene pool. They must be eliminated for the betterment of mankind! Sound familiar?
“I’ve never judged entire swaths of people merely for their religious persuasion or lack thereof, or any other superficial aspect of their personhood.”
I would like to know when I have done so.
“I’m not an atheist. But could you tell me which of our moral rules is so illogical, so counter-intuitive that it could only have been forced on us by God? What is the moral rule that you must fight against breaking every day, stopped only by the thought that God would be displeased?”
You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.
“Also, if atheists have no reason to be moral and no basis on which to even know what morality is, why are there so many moral atheists?”
To the first part, most atheists don’t realize what their philosophy logically entails. To the second, they have a Christian cultural tradition to emulate. They are moral parasites, leeching off morals that suit them and discarding just a few that don’t.
“That atheists were and are capable of forming moral systems without god. These systems are based on moral principles that are connected to human life rather than falling down on us from the sky, but they are as real as Christian morality. Communism, ironically, is such a system, and just like Christian morality, it could result in some ugly consequences.“
This is another thing I have never seen atheists actually formulate. An original moral system. Communism is not a moral system, but rather a philosophy of government that always has led to ugly consequences.
“By definition being subjective renders meaning a matter of opinion… and not a fact. That means you don’t believe meaning is something that exists, but something that you make up. That is no meaning at all.”
No. When person X loves person y, that love is subjective, but it is also an undeiable fact.
The meaning of the word ‘love’ is subjective. Their is nothing objective about this combination of symbols that makes their meaning love. It is just a social norm accepted by english speakers. Yet it is an undeniable fact that the word ‘love’ means love, and all the meanings associated with this word. Although love is a psychological, sociological, biological, linguistic, literary entity, without any ‘objective’ existence, nevertheless it exists, and is very real and very meaningful. So it is with morality.
Communism is a system of ethics, politics, history, and economy. It is completely meaningless without its moral component.
“they have a Christian cultural tradition to emulate. They are moral parasites, leeching off morals that suit them and discarding just a few that don’t.”
Maybe Christianity is the parasite leeching on Judaism and/or the Greco-Roman traditions and/or the germanic traditions? and what about Mao. China has little Christian tradition, who are they leeching on, Confucius, Budha, the Tao? Or maybe everybody is leeching on everybody else and it all goes down to moral principles that are deeply embedded in humanity as a whole?
“Christianity is not responsible for Gandhi’s anti-Semitism; ergo Christianity cannot be the cause of anti-Semitism.”
1) Gahndi was not anti-semite.
2) even if he were, he could have aquired his anti-semitism from his contact with western Christian culture.
3) Christianity is not the cause of anti-semitism. Antisemitism has many causes and has been growing and developing over time. But neither is Christianity completely innocent of antisemitism. It did its share to promote it for its own reasons.
4) You were not only talking about Christianity in the abstract, but Christian governments. And Christian governments did promote antisemitism. And they did so much more than Indian or Chinese governments.
“You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.”
The world we live in is a world in which humans create morality. This is true even if the promoters of the morality slap on it the label of god sanctioned morality. Yet I think it is in humans to know that it is immoral to kill children even without that label, based solely on their humanity.
You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.
Whereas if morality is objective, then even if everyone thinks it’s not okay to kill children of another culture by dashing them against stones, it has to be morally right as long as the text that’s the basis of that objective morality says it is. (Not a hypothetical example, BTW.) That’s the logical consequence of your position, no matter how much you try to deny the connection.
Also, if there is one objectively correct moral system, how is someone supposed to know which one it is? There are a lot of moral systems out there, many of them claiming to be the only true one. How do people generally choose? A combination of a) happenstance (either the prevailing system of the culture they’re born into or of their family), b) which one they like best, and/or c) faith. None of these are inherently objective methods. Viewed objectively, any moral system could be the correct one; maybe the ancient Aztecs were right all along, and we’ve been getting it wrong every since. To make the jump from “one [theistic] system must be objectively correct” to add “and I think it’s this one” has no objective component.
You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.
I don’t know what depresses me more. The atheist’s view of a world lacking any extrinsic meaning or you Christian guys believing we humans are so deeply flawed and fallen that the only thing stopping us all from killing babies is a stern God threatening us with eternal burning.
I think I might become a Wiccan. Or something.
Other then my one brief post above that was written before my morning coffee, I’ve stayed away from this thread. I figured it would take no time at all for some corners to devolve the discussion into “my religion is good and those that don’t subscribe to it are bad” in some way, shape or form.
And on the other side of the spectrum are the guys that seem just as ready to bash the concept of religion at a moments notice. Someone will eventually be throwing the rhetorical feces of the “without religion, we wouldn’t have these problems” argument into the mix to counter the other extreme.
Religious debates of that nature just get so old so fast. Mostly because idiots on all sides want to wave their huge belief system around at others as bigger and better in order to compensate for other deficiencies.
Here’s the deal in two parts.
Part 1: Religion doesn’t matter one dámņ bit in the grand scheme of things. Not at all. Not one stinking little bit.
You think Bush is a nutter who does dámņëd foolish things because he believes that he and God are on buddy-buddy terms and that god wants him doing these things? Fine. Do you really believe that Bush would act the least bit different today if he weren’t using religion as his personal crutch? No, he wouldn’t. He’d do exactly what he’s doing now, but the stated rational would be different. His excuse for why he’s right would be different, but he would be the same.
Would Stalin have been all peace and good will to his people had he been sitting in the pews every Sunday with a Bible in his hand? No, he wouldn’t have been. If anything had changed at all, he would likely have just been a religious fanatic who used faith to kill, murder and oppress.
Would Mother Teresa or any of the various affectionately revered figures in religious history acted differently if they were removed from the Church? Likely not. They may not have started their journeys in the same way or as early, but they would have likely ended up doing with their lives just what they did before.
Religion means exactly jack-all. The person and who and what they are at their core is what matters.
Part 2: Religion means absolutely everything to a human being. Religion is what allows people to make sense of their lives and the world around them.
I know people who have hit frightening lows in their lives and the only thing that kept them going was their faith. My mother talked to me a few times about what she went through when my father was in Korea and Vietnam and what went in to her being able to deal with that. It was pure faith. I’ve met people on the street who have absolutely nothing but the cloths on their backs and their faith and they refuse to give in to despair or turn to crime. Why? They believe that this time in their lives is just a trial to get through and that things will get better down the road. All they heave is their faith and they won’t give it up or betray it.
But, going back to Part 1, I know several atheists who have been through just as much and came out just as well in the end.
It aint the belief that matters as much as it is the person who holds it.
Yeah, you can keep screaming “STALIN” and “EVIL ATHEIST GOVERNMENTS IN HISTORY all thread long, but I can do the reverse. I can point out The Inquisitions (note the plural as there were quite a few of them under the banner of God’s name), The Crusades, The many cases of the Church spreading its reach in medieval times by joining with the crown and outlawing by pain of death the practice of any but the approved religion, the many historical cases of expansion that involved “converting” the locals at sword point and killing some of those that refused to convert or even those case too stupid to believe at first glance.
The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany — the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months
Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, “God made them as stubble to our swords.” He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it “a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches.”
When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: “Kill them all. God will know his own.” This was a misunderstood reference to 2 Tim. 2:19 which in part reads, “The Lord knoweth them that are his” Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered. Many were first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: “The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified.”
Pope Pius II wrote Historia de duobus amantibus, a hugely popular and largely pornographic novel just before becoming Pope.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 9, 2007 03:34 AM
If the universe came into being by chance and for no purpose –because purpose requires a will, an intent—then there is no reason to believe there is meaning to life.
Really? How about just life itself. I don”t know about you, but I enjoy learning new things, experiencing new things, being with friends, testing the limits of what I can do physically and mentally, being creative, spending time with my wife, thinking about my soon to be born poop generator, watching schlock horror, etc. It never crosses my mind whether or not anything I’m doing at any time that I’m doing it is the God chosen purpose of my life so that I can feel as though it has meaning. Just because you cannot in any way fathom that someone can enjoy life just for what it is and not have to believe that their life is being guided by a divine hand or rulebook doesn’t mean that others cannot do it. I simply enjoy life for what it is 90% of the time . Atheists do the same thing, they just do it 100% of the time.
Similarly, without a God there is no reason to believe in objective moral values. We become merely chemicals wrapped in fleshy bags. Why would a universe created by chance have somehow been prepared with a set of moral laws for a species that didn’t even exist yet? Please go ahead and prove me wrong on either morals or purpose. Show me how in a world without a God we would have purpose or objective morals. I have never encountered an atheist capable of doing either.
Easy. In the words of an atheist friend of mine, it’s just simple human kindness.
He was an atheist raised by a set of atheist parents. He was also one of the most honest and decent people I’ve ever known. He would explain his foundation for his core moral beliefs like this:
Do you feel bed when someone steals something from you?
Do you like the feeling you get when you learn that someone has lied to you and damaged the trust you had in them?
Do you like the feeling that rips at your gut when someone you love cheats on you or betrays you in some manner along those lines?
If someone you know dies from natural causes, an accident or by the hand of another, does it hurt and do you miss them.
Then why on earth would you believe that any sane, healthy, normal person would feel the opposite of you? Why would it be right to try and hurt someone else if you yourself don’t like to be hurt. If you don’t like people doing that stuff to you then you dámņ sure know that others don’t like it being done to them either.
A good person, even one without religion, knows that treating others in a manner that you yourself want to be treated is a pretty good thing while doing to other the exact opposite of what you feel good about having done to you makes you, at best, a world class jerk.
He even had one point that I was always hard pressed to come up with a good argument for. His contention was that moral atheists were actually more moral then their religious counterparts. Why? Well, an atheist believes that he’s going to die in the end and that it is the end. They don’t believe that they’re going anywhere else after death other then maybe haunting the Playboy Mansion. They don’t believe that their is a reward given for living a good life once you die.
In other words, they’re not being bribed into being a good person. They’re not being a good person or trying to live a good life because they believe that they’ll get something for it in the end.
They’re also not working from a perspective of fear. They don’t believe that they have to be good or else they face eternal dámņáŧìøņ and punishment. If they’re a good person and living a good life, then it’s because they believe in being a good person and nothing else. No bribes and no intimidation needed in order to be a “good” person.
They generally end up saying morals are a matter of personal opinion, which means what Stalin did was OK for him. “I disapprove” is a much weaker stance than “that’s evil.”
No, sorry, but that’s mostly crap.
For one thing, saying that atheism=moral relativism is only as true as the person you’re with. I can point out entire loads of bloviating and hypocritical religious people who engage in moral relativism all the time. Some of them even do it from a pulpit. I can also point out a whole lot of atheists who will tell you point blank that murder is wrong no matter where it’s done or by who.
And guess what? You believe that morals are a matter of personal opinion. You believe that your morals are right for you. I’m sure you wish some others in the world believes as you do. Some people do things that you just flat know is wrong and you say as much. Murder seems to be your favorite example. But what about other things that are less extreme then murder?
Do you condemn those who hold the religious belief that their life should be devoid of modern sciences and technology? What about people who refuse to partake of certain foods during certain times of the year or on certain days? What about people who just plain refuse to shave their beards off? Are they evil for believing as you do not? Would you like it if they pointed out your “moral relativism” as a sign of being soft on evil?
How about redemption by faith? Not even all of the various forms of the Christian faith hold to that one in the exact same manner. How about Catholics and the crucifix? The worship of idols or graven images is idolatry. Isn’t there a thing about that kind of sinning in one of those commandment thingees? Something about not doing it if I recall correctly.
Do you commit idolatry, Ben? does your personal moral relativism excuse you from not committing idolatry? And if you don’t worship in such a manner, do you frequently condemn the Catholics and others you know who do with the equal vigor that you condemn atheist for non-belief or Stalin for murder? Hey, God’s rules are God’s rules.
There isn’t one person on the face of this earth, atheist or devoutly religious, who isn’t guilty of moral relativism. Some are just worse about it then others. But, again, it’s got nothing to do with the faith and everything to do with the person.
Both sides are wrong here. The one is not inherently better or worse then the other. Both have been used by bad people to do bad things throughout history. Both have members of their respective belief systems that are truly extraordinarily good people.
To be massively redundant here: (Sing it with me one more time!) It’s not the belief that makes a person good or bad, it’s the person.
You are not getting the point. If morality is subjective that means taking little children up on to a stage and cutting them up with chainsaws for sport is not evil, but merely something many people happen to disapprove of. That means that if enough people happened to think it was ok –or in Luigi’s case, if it was best for the species—than it would be. If you can believe in such a world that is your choice.
Wow, I spent all that time typing and this is what you come up with in the meantime? I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the majority of humans out there as that flawed. If you do, and it’s what makes you happy about your faith and able to feel smugly superior to others, then fine. But it’s not really worth attempting debate with you and your rather silly extremes anymore then it would be if an idiot came here and went on about how all of life’s evils and woes were the fault of religion and if only we could get rid of that hateful, evil thing…
Yeah, you’re not too far off of being the other side of the same coin. Anything fun going on at the zombie thread? Ðámņ. Back to the real world for a while then.
Ben Lesar, I had begun to formulate a response to you, but realized that doing so would be like talking to the north end of a southbound donkey. You’re not making any sense and you’re not smart enough to realize it.
If you really care about Christianity, you’ll stop making the religion look bad by trying to be one of its standard-bearers and let more intelligent Christians do the representing.
If you really care about Christianity, you’ll stop making the religion look bad by trying to be one of its standard-bearers and let more intelligent Christians do the representing.
Hey, I got a better idea. How about not representing at all? And I don’t just mean Ben here or just those of a religious bent.
Seriously, who the hëll really gives a dámņ, outside of the massively annoying and anal, what the hëll somebody else believes. If the person next door isn’t sacrificing babies under the moonlight, killing virgins and drinking their blood or some other crazy extreme that some here could throw out and they’re actually a pretty good, honest and decent person… THEN WHO THE F**K CARES IF THEY BELIEVE IN GOD, VISHNU, OBATALA, NOTHING AT ALL OR LITTLE GREEN MEN FROM MARS?
Then again, Tars Tarkas was from Mars and he wasn’t so little. But I digress…
Religion ain’t the problem. It never really has been. The problem has almost always been with people having to prove just how great their religion is and just how false/poor/crappy/wrong/evil/etc. somebody else’s is just because they can’t fathom that somewhere along the line someone made a personal choice about their most sacred belief that that they won’t approve of and just can’t abide.
Get over it. I have a huge group of friends that covers just about every group but Satanists, Caininites and Scientologists. You know why we’re all friends and we can get along? Because we’re fine and dandy with not trying to convert each other to “the one true” way to live and believe. We can respect each others views without being insulting towards each others beliefs and still somehow manage to live with ourselves.
I know it’s harder for some out there and maybe even impossible for a few, but in the end it’s likely what whatever creator that may or may not have created us will likely look upon with greater pleasure then the pinheads who have to shovel their crap onto others while invoking his/her/its will as the excuse for ill manners and bad company.
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at June 9, 2007 08:49 PM
Hey, I got a better idea. How about not representing at all? And I don’t just mean Ben here or just those of a religious bent.
Jerry, please understand, I too have friends of different faiths and friends who have no spiritual faiths. I was trying — and apparently failing — to make it clear that my problem is not with Christians in general but with Ben in particular, and that my problem with him is not his Christianity but his stupidity.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Cult of the Fifth-Dimensional Cyborg Monkey Space Aliens… in my eyes it’s all good as long as you don’t murder people or take a whiz on my garage door or anything like that.
Bill, I understood. That wasn’t pointed in your direction. It was more a generalized expression of fed-uppyness that was just playing off of your statement. My fault for not being a wee bit more clear.
I have no problem with theological discussions. I love ’em. I love getting into the thick of it and discussing the differences and similarities that all religions have. I love looking at the, sometimes comical, ways that modern texts went a little astray from what was originally written or meant. Hëll, there are old copies of Christian scripture where the first writers or the later monks who worked on them have written side notes that threaten others over taking creative license to “fix” a passage here or there. Great stuff.
What I go off on is the stupidity of Bible thumpers and trumpet blasters. I take issue with anyone taking something as profoundly beautiful as faith and turning it into a bludgeoning tool. And it’s not only here that I’m a little short about it. I’ve got family that are on my “block sender” list on my email because of it. I’ll only request that you don’t send me a cut-and-paste of the weekly AFA, Robertson, Fallwel or whatever crap to save my soul or to get me to Take action against Mighty Mouse, Ozzy or that “Stealth Muslim” Obama.
I’ve got a few holy rollers in my family that are in about the same doghouse with me that I keep for my drug ridden, con-artist uncle. I think that religion is a great and wonderful thing. I like faith a lot better, but you get take what you can get out of life. I just can’t stand the pinheads who, rather then simply discuss why they’re faith is good, have to attack others’ faith or lack of same.
You, Micha, His High Lordship of the Zombie Kingdom and several others here were in no way, shape or form that target of that remark. You guys have been defending the one positions without attacking or slandering the other position. I tend to think from you alls’ remarks that you can in some way be said to be in agreement with my boiled down point of it being waaaaaayyyy more about the person or people then about the faith (or lack thereof) that they claim to represent.
There should be..
“..so many times before I get fed up with asking you.”
up there after “Obama.”
Sorry ’bout that.
Geez, I’m just fill of mustakes and tipos tonyght.
Time to cut back the overtime this month and work on getting more sleep. My mild dyslexia is kicking back in.
Posted by: Bill Myers at June 9, 2007 09:39 PM
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Cult of the Fifth-Dimensional Cyborg Monkey Space Aliens… in my eyes it’s all good as long as you don’t murder people or take a whiz on my garage door or anything like that.
But, I… Well… You know…
-Rex Hondo-
His High Lordship of the Zombie Kingdom
I hope that was directed at me. I’m getting a t-shirt made.
Rex, just be glad that he hasn’t yet worked out what really killed his rose bushes…
But, I… Well… You know…
Told ya to stop doing that to people’s doors, Hondo, but does anyone around here listen to me? MY, those crickets are loud.
And now Mulligan’s got a title. I’ll use it, BUT I WON’T BOW DOWN!
If Mulligan actually managed to get those necromancers from Micha’s living room motivatedenough to command a zombie army for him, perhaps he would make a sufficient ruler, after all.
-Rex Hondo-
I said, “Back to religion, Bill Myers said, “I haven’t yet met a Christian who doesn’t feel as though their values are “under attack” — in a nation that is predominantly Christian!!!”
“Crap! I must be doing something wrong. I’ve never felt that way. Granted I’m no longer a practicing Catholic, but I was raised in a Christian belief system, and haven’t since converted to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism or any other ism.”
Bill Myers replied: “Rick, apparently I did a poor job of making myself clear and I’m sorry about that.”
Bill, maybe you didn’t make yourself clear; but then again, maybe you did and I didn’t make myself clear. In quoting me, you overlooked that last- and I think key- paragraph on the subject: “Actually, Bill, I can’t consider people like that to be true Christians. If Jesus were alive today, I’m guessing he wouldn’t, either.”
I know you were illustrating a point to Bill Mulligan with your “diatribe”, but some of your comments- such as the point that “people who would raise a stink if I dare to question their beliefs have no problem ostentatiously saying Christian grace before meals IN MY HOUSE…”- gave me the impression that you don’t consider such hypocrites to be true Christians. And that was one reason you were calling them on their hypocrisy (even as you illustrated a point to Bill Mulligan). My last paragraph was meant as agreement with that assessment.
In short: I get the impression that you’re saying certain people who call themselves Christian but don’t act in a very Christian manner aren’t Christian. They’re hypocrites.
I’m saying that viewpoint is correct.
Granted, we’re all hypocrites at one time or another, but some of these so-called Christians seem to embrace their hypocrisy. Though, to be fair, some of them may not even be aware that they’re being hypocritical.
You mentioned your parents. I’m going to assume that like the majority of the country, they’re decent, law-abiding citizens who try to live their lives as best they can, and don’t set out to cause deliberate harm to anyone. They just disagree with a certain aspect of your personal life. The thing is, I can’t imagine Jesus would be bothered by the fact that you live “in sin” with your girlfriend. At least not to the point where he’d refuse to come to your house.
He hung out with “sinners” all the time, even (horrors!) tax collectors. If Jesus wouldn’t be bothered by your “sinning”, why should your parents be? Perhaps they’ve lost sight of what Christianity is really about. If that’s the case, then their level of hypocrisy isn’t, um… as hypocritical as certain members of the televangelist community. Like I said, they might not even be aware of their hypocrisy.
If so, they deserve your sympathy and/or pity. Perhaps you can get through to them one day.
On the other hand, those who knowingly and willingly embrace their hypocrisy- and go so far as to attack and belittle people of other faiths (or no faith, as the case may be)- deserve little more than disdain.
Again, if I read you right, I think we’re in general agreement about the difference between Christians and those who call themselves that.
If I read you wrong (and/or I did a poor job of expressing myself in this message), then the lack of clarity continues, and we’ll probably end up wandering (metaphorically) through a thick fog, bumping into things.
Rick
How is any attempt to employ language (which we depend on to form rationalizations) to represent experience (our observations are not rational — they simply are) not rationalizing the irrational?
That doesn’t automatically mean the resolve to kill is tied to the disbelief in god. Darwin misapplied the phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, “survival of the fittest,” as a chapter title in Origin of Species. Because natural selection has been used to portray dominance as a virtue, examples of the kind of ideological purges you are refering to can be made regardless of a belief in a creator.
Not that I believe that a man who famously said “Yes I am [Hindu], I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew” was incapable of an inconsistency, but is there a quote you can refer to to back this up?
Where god leaves no evidence of Himself, how does religion make available an objective morality?
As for purpose, do you not devote time to listening to music, or have you removed that purposeless activity from your lifestyle? What great art isn’t justified primarily as something that hogs as much of your time as it can get away with?
…and your genetic line would die out, with the genetic line of people who instinctively protect their children or — even better — families who socialize together to do so would fill in to consume the resources that sustain us all. Morality is not needed to justify something that can be justified by a little reproductive self-interest.
“Maybe Christianity is the parasite leeching on Judaism and/or the Greco-Roman traditions and/or the germanic traditions? and what about Mao. China has little Christian tradition, who are they leeching on, Confucius, Budha, the Tao? Or maybe everybody is leeching on everybody else and it all goes down to moral principles that are deeply embedded in humanity as a whole?”
If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture? I don’t see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don’t suit them.
“Christianity is not the cause of anti-semitism. Antisemitism has many causes and has been growing and developing over time. But neither is Christianity completely innocent of antisemitism. It did its share to promote it for its own reasons.”
You can say that people claiming to be Christians (whether they were or weren’t isn’t mine to judge) shared in promoting it, but not that Christianity is responsible. How could it be when the Bible says that Jews are God’s chosen people. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is not in any way responsible.
“The world we live in is a world in which humans create morality. This is true even if the promoters of the morality slap on it the label of god sanctioned morality. Yet I think it is in humans to know that it is immoral to kill children even without that label, based solely on their humanity.”
That is contradictory. If humans know it is immoral to kill children then it has nothing to do with what they create.
“I don’t know what depresses me more. The atheist’s view of a world lacking any extrinsic meaning or you Christian guys believing we humans are so deeply flawed and fallen that the only thing stopping us all from killing babies is a stern God threatening us with eternal burning.”
I’m glad you agree that under the atheist worldview there is no intrinsic meaning, but I never said that the only things stopping us from killing babies is fear of God.
“Really? How about just life itself. I don”t know about you, but I enjoy learning new things, experiencing new things, being with friends, testing the limits of what I can do physically and mentally, being creative, spending time with my wife, thinking about my soon to be born poop generator, watching schlock horror, etc. It never crosses my mind whether or not anything I’m doing at any time that I’m doing it is the God chosen purpose of my life so that I can feel as though it has meaning. Just because you cannot in any way fathom that someone can enjoy life just for what it is and not have to believe that their life is being guided by a divine hand or rulebook doesn’t mean that others cannot do it. I simply enjoy life for what it is 90% of the time. Atheists do the same thing, they just do it 100% of the time.”
I never said atheists couldn’t enjoy life. I did say, however, that under an atheist worldview there is no purpose to life.
“Wow, I spent all that time typing and this is what you come up with in the meantime? I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the majority of humans out there as that flawed. If you do, and it’s what makes you happy about your faith and able to feel smugly superior to others, then fine. But it’s not really worth attempting debate with you and your rather silly extremes anymore then it would be if an idiot came here and went on about how all of life’s evils and woes were the fault of religion and if only we could get rid of that hateful, evil thing…”
WHY… does everyone assume I am talking about people? I am talking about philosophy. That you cannot separate the two is not my problem.
“Ben Lesar, I had begun to formulate a response to you, but realized that doing so would be like talking to the north end of a southbound donkey. You’re not making any sense and you’re not smart enough to realize it.
If you really care about Christianity, you’ll stop making the religion look bad by trying to be one of its standard-bearers and let more intelligent Christians do the representing.”
Responding by saying “you’re not worth giving an argument to” is a classic way of avoiding giving an argument. For your own sake I would advise you don’t do so in formal settings.
“Jerry, please understand, I too have friends of different faiths and friends who have no spiritual faiths. I was trying — and apparently failing — to make it clear that my problem is not with Christians in general but with Ben in particular, and that my problem with him is not his Christianity but his stupidity.”
Claiming someone is stupid on the basis that they disagree with you or that they have a strong belief of some sort in an area where you evidently do not is pretty pathetic. If you actually have some evidence that I am stupid I would love to hear it.
“…and your genetic line would die out, with the genetic line of people who instinctively protect their children or — even better — families who socialize together to do so would fill in to consume the resources that sustain us all. Morality is not needed to justify something that can be justified by a little reproductive self-interest.”
That is a non sequitur. The point is that there is nothing in the moral code of survival that prevents evil. The specific example was given in regards to majority opinion, that the Darwinist morality doesn’t apply is irrelevant. Although I could point out that the Romans and Spartans as well as many other cultures left feeble babies to die. The morality of survival at its finest…
“If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture? I don’t see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don’t suit them.”
Why should they rejects aspects of traditional morality that they do not find offensive? The whole point of atheism is examining and choosing your morality according to your own judgement rather than the authority of scripture or priests. That’s how atheists can agree with Christians that killing children is wrong but disagree that homosexuality is evil. Atheism is not about throwing away every traditional thing, it is about not recognizing the absolute authority or religious tradition. That’s the difference between it and nihilism, which about erasing completely everything.
“You can say that people claiming to be Christians (whether they were or weren’t isn’t mine to judge) shared in promoting it, but not that Christianity is responsible. How could it be when the Bible says that Jews are God’s chosen people. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is not in any way responsible.”
We can start talking about whether the essence of Chrstianity in essence is antisemitic, or whether antisemitism was introduced into Christian society and writing later. We could go over passages in the new testament that are considered to indicate animosity toward Judaism and Jews. But remember, in the beginning of this conversation you talked about Christian governments in past history, not the pure essence of Christianity. And the fact is that past Christian governments and societies and organized reigion and theologians, until recently, believed in and promoted antisemitism. Now happily, they do not. As a Jew I’m just happy over this positive shift in the attitude of Christians. I don’t really care which attitude was more faithful to the true core of Christianity. However, I do object to you trying to rewrite Christian history about this issue. I don’t blame Christianity itself for antisemitism anymore than I blame Islam itself for terrorism. I blame the Christians or Muslims involved. And the fact is that for centuries the majority of Christians believed in antisemitism.
“That is contradictory. If humans know it is immoral to kill children then it has nothing to do with what they create.”
Not really. A stop sign is human made symbol deriving all its meaning from human society, yet peope know to stop. Or ratther, they have the capacity to understand both on therational and the emotional level why stoping is the right thing to do. They make a moral choice to stop independant of god, based on their own mind and their own society. It is not necessary to add a ‘thou shall not kill’ passage to the sign. Although, even if you do, that would just be another human made sign — the actual moral decision will still be a completely human one.
(I made a similar argument to two Muslims that tried to convert me in San Francisco. I of course didn’t tell them where I’m from).
“I never said atheists couldn’t enjoy life. I did say, however, that under an atheist worldview there is no purpose to life.”
That’s not true. In atheism life is not given purpose by an external diety (or rather the internal belief in such a diety). Atheist have to find purpose in terms of this world alone, which is tough, but in no way impossible.
“WHY… does everyone assume I am talking about people? I am talking about philosophy. That you cannot separate the two is not my problem.”
You did not talk about philosophy in the anstract. You said that atheist governments, by virtue of being atheist, necessarily become genocidal, while Christian governments, by virtue of being Christian, do not. Governments and states are made of people who hold philosophical and ideological views. In your view a government formed by atheists will necessarily be genocidal. That’s people, not philosophy. If that was not what you meant, I suggest softening and clarifying your words.
“that the Darwinist morality doesn’t apply is irrelevant.”
There is no such thing as Darwinist morality in the sense of morality in Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory is a technical description of the process by which diverse biological life develops, it has nothing to do with morality. There are humans who tried to create moral systems based on the application, or rather the misapllication, of Darwin’s theory in the realm of human morality. But this is a misuse of science. It is also possible, since humans are biological entities, that Darwin’s theory can offer a scientific explanation of why morality developed in the human species. But that’s not Darwinian morality, but a Darwinian explanation of morality in human societies, such as a Christian society. It is naive to think that morality exists in humans just because a guy named Jesus or Muhammad spoke some charismatic words.
“Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Cult of the Fifth-Dimensional Cyborg Monkey Space Aliens… in my eyes it’s all good as long as you don’t murder people or take a whiz on my garage door or anything like that.”
When I was in SF I took a tour of the murals there. Apparently the doorway of one of the houses in an alley suffered from people using it as a bathroom. So a muralist drew a picture of a stern looking Virgin Mary, and the problem was solved.
WHY… does everyone assume I am talking about people? I am talking about philosophy. That you cannot separate the two is not my problem.
I dunno, maybe it’s statements like this:
To the first part, most atheists don’t realize what their philosophy logically entails. To the second, they have a Christian cultural tradition to emulate. They are moral parasites, leeching off morals that suit them and discarding just a few that don’t.
Would you care to explain how this statement is about philosophy, not people?
I never said atheists couldn’t enjoy life. I did say, however, that under an atheist worldview there is no purpose to life.
You miss the point, Ben. Enjoying life and living life to the fullest is the meaning of life. Take all of what I mentioned away from a population and most of the people would be miserable. Take religion away from that population and only a handful would be miserable. If you can find meaning and joy in life itself, then life has meaning.
WHY… does everyone assume I am talking about people? I am talking about philosophy. That you cannot separate the two is not my problem.
Because you keep shifting your stance from moment to moment. You sight very specific examples of people and what they did and then you want it to be about the philosophy and not the people. Well, news flash, you can’t really separate the two here. Your argument has been about how the philosophy, or lack thereof, causes the people to act. I believe your point to be mistaken. If the best you can do is wrongly sight historical facts, attribute things to one philosophy that weren’t part of that philosophy, dodge parts of posts that you find inconvenient to deal with and throw out extreme examples of fictitious atheist actions… Well, I and others will continue to view your point as mistaken.
If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture? I don’t see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don’t suit them.
First, you’re wrongly putting forward the idea that the morals being adopted are in some way exclusively Christian. A number of cultures and faiths all around the world developed with a number of moral codes that mirror some of those in Christianity. The simple fact that some many have developed prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. should go toward showing that man does have an innate set of moral values that he will develop even if he has to ascribe some sort of mystic meaning to them.
Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based on Christianity. It’s not.
Third, have you ever heard of this fun little thing called “the law” before? Even atheists, although this may be a huge surprise to you, don’t enjoy the idea of spending time in the stocks or locked up behind bars.
Forth, I point out again the ideas that my friend grew up with about how to act in a moral nature that were taught to him by his parents. And his parents learned them from others.
Good people will act as good people and there are far more good people out there then bad people.
Christianity is not in any way responsible.
Christianity, particularly once it went through the filter of Rome, sought to replace Judaism. Part of how some groups did this was to demonize the Jews and promote the idea of the Jews being the killers of Christ. There are countless examples in Church history of Christianity using just that justification to murder Jews.
To deny this or to deny its part in the perpetration of anti-Semitism is both historically inaccurate and foolish.
That is contradictory. If humans know it is immoral to kill children then it has nothing to do with what they create.
That’s not the least bit contradictory. Humans know that some things are wrong and create laws saying so all the time. It’s called covering your bases so that the slow, stupid or just uncaring don’t come along and get away with murder (literally or figuratively) in your society. It’s not just with things tied to religion either. Ever heard of laws covering driving, flying, boating or hunting? Take driving laws as an example. Most sensible people know that driving through a crowded neighborhood area at 125 mph isn’t really a good thing to do. For the less sensible among us, we have speed limit laws and tag your butt if you do more the 25 or 35 mph.
Not contradictory at all.
That one line should be…
“Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based just on Christianity. It’s not.”
Saying atheism adopts the morality of their host culture in no proof atheism is intolerant of morality.
Just as no one is in the business of doing good, instead the good we do coming out of the way we do business, the resolve of any religion is not to do good — it is merely a model for the universe — and the good we do comes from the roles we adopt according to our worldview.
Well, then, what’s your problem with atheism?
As opposed to strawmen about kinder morder?
Speaking of non-sequiturs, what is the relevance of good and evil in the administration of government?
Are you living the Lifestyle of Doing Good?™
As Micha, said Darwin did not present evolution as a morality, but since what you wrote is in reply to my post, I’m presuming you are refering to any morality inherent only in natural selection.
Did your strawman establish the killing children as fulfilling any particular agenda? As far as the portrayal of dominance-as-a-virtue has justified the murders and child-killings you cite, as well as genocides by theistic governments, your denial this portrayal of dominance-as-a-virtue is relevant seems nurtured by self-service on your part rather than an integrity that can nurture a morality of any substance.
And now Mulligan’s got a title. I’ll use it, BUT I WON’T BOW DOWN!
Oh, you will bow down before me, Scullion! Both you and one day…your heir!
Darwin misapplied the phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, “survival of the fittest,” as a chapter title in Origin of Species. Because natural selection has been used to portray dominance as a virtue, examples of the kind of ideological purges you are refering to can be made regardless of a belief in a creator.
How is “survival of the fittest” not a fairly accurate (if simple) description of natural selection? It’s true that the term has been misused to describe things that have nothing to do with evolution but that isn’t Darwin’s fault. (Using survival of the fittest to justify genocide isn’t even logical–the Nazi’s killed millions of Jews but their regime only lasted a few years and Jews now have an army that is one of the most powerful on Earth…so it would seem that the Nazis were not the most fit.)
But it’s actually a bit pointless to apply much of Darwinian theory to humanity–we have largely taken ourselves out of the natural selection loop. With our technology and, soon, ability to speed up and choose genetic changes, we are operating under an entirely different set of rules.
Gandhi was an anti-Semitist
I’m not sure that is accurate. Gandhi was, as Micha said, very anti-zionist. He was anti-partition in general (although he had, in the end, to accept the creation of Pakistan). His belief that the Jews in Germany should have stayed in Germany even if it meant extermination seems insane to most of us. I guess it is a logical extension of his belief in non-violence but in this case I think Gandhi was wrong. It’s hard to imagine nonviolence achieving anything in Nazi Germany other than a good hearty laugh.
If atheists are not moral parasites, then why do they adopt the morality of their host culture? I don’t see atheists in the West denying most of Christian morality, only a very few things that don’t suit them.
Most of Christian morality would be considered decent behavior even in countries that are not Christian. Concepts of kindness, love, etc existed even before the New Testament.
The point is that there is nothing in the moral code of survival that prevents evil.
I don’t see anything in ANY moral code that “prevents” evil. Free will and all that.
Micah took care of the “Darwinian morality” bit better than I could. You could just as rationally argue about the morality of Boyle’s Gas Law.
Gould summarized natural selection as Darwin presented it as “nature intends diversity.” An intent of conformity in nature can be reasonably inferred from the use of the word “fittest” in “survival of the fittest” Darwin did not intend to imply and, as you say, has nothing to do with evolution.
I need to rephrase my response:
Gould summarized the intent of nature as Darwin presented natural selection as “nature intends diversity.” An intent of conformity in nature can be reasonably inferred from the use of the word “fittest” in “survival of the fittest” Darwin did not intend to imply and, as you say, has nothing to do with evolution.
Are you kidding?
As far as manipulating our own genes go, if people choose to conform to what we consider an ideal type, civilization as we know it could be wiped out by a single vunerability, just as 95% of Indians in the Amercas were wiped out by diseases nurtured by agricultural practices. As far as the Indians practiced hunting and gathering almost exclusively, they were not diverse enough to withstand the contagions the colonists brought with them.
As far as manipulating our own genes go, if people choose to conform to what we consider an ideal type, civilization as we know it could be wiped out by a single vunerability, just as 95% of Indians in the Amercas were wiped out by diseases nurtured by agricultural practices.
There is that possibility, yes. But I think it unlikely. We are talking about selecting for a very limited set of traits and this would still allow for considerable variability. It isn’t cloning.
The situation would be similar to that of the movie GATTACA (quite underrated, IMO). They take out the woman’s eggs, fertilize them with the husband’s sperm and then screen the resulting embryos. Then they eliminate any with “defects” and choose the one with the best traits.
Sounds bad but really, who would not take, say, a pill that would reduce the chances of having a child with a birth defect? (We call them prenatal vitamins). The problem a lot of us would have is that what would become a “defect” would include some pretty common things–poor eyesight, short stature, male pattern baldness, insignificant things like that. But I don’t know that losing these traits would really make the population vulnerable to any new diseases that nature would throw at us.
Now widespread cloning, THAT could be disastrous.
But even that would have a limited effect in the long run–these high tech procedures would be available only to a chosen few, hardly a blip on the overall human gene pool.
“We can start talking about whether the essence of Chrstianity in essence is antisemitic, or whether antisemitism was introduced into Christian society and writing later. We could go over passages in the new testament that are considered to indicate animosity toward Judaism and Jews. But remember, in the beginning of this conversation you talked about Christian governments in past history, not the pure essence of Christianity. And the fact is that past Christian governments and societies and organized reigion and theologians, until recently, believed in and promoted antisemitism. Now happily, they do not. As a Jew I’m just happy over this positive shift in the attitude of Christians. I don’t really care which attitude was more faithful to the true core of Christianity. However, I do object to you trying to rewrite Christian history about this issue.”
I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible.
“Not really. A stop sign is human made symbol deriving all its meaning from human society, yet peope know to stop. Or ratther, they have the capacity to understand both on therational and the emotional level why stoping is the right thing to do. They make a moral choice to stop independant of god, based on their own mind and their own society. It is not necessary to add a ‘thou shall not kill’ passage to the sign. Although, even if you do, that would just be another human made sign — the actual moral decision will still be a completely human one.”
The claim was that humans inherently know not to kill based solely on their humanity. And yet; that humans create morality. This is saying that morality is objective, “but only so far as it suits my argument.”
“That’s not true. In atheism life is not given purpose by an external diety (or rather the internal belief in such a diety). Atheist have to find purpose in terms of this world alone, which is tough, but in no way impossible.”
Yes, it is. Does a computer program have a purpose other than that it was created for? Perhaps a person can find a use for it other than that, but that is not purpose; meaning. Purpose requires intent. The universe can have no purpose if it was an accident. If there is no purpose to the universe as a whole, any “purpose” we create upon earth is meaningless. It is just bags of chemicals– robots if you will– going through the motions. Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument.
“You said that atheist governments, by virtue of being atheist, necessarily become genocidal, while Christian governments, by virtue of being Christian, do not. Governments and states are made of people who hold philosophical and ideological views. In your view a government formed by atheists will necessarily be genocidal. That’s people, not philosophy. If that was not what you meant, I suggest softening and clarifying your words.”
Jerry Chandler was quoting my philosophical argument regarding the consequences of a subjective view of morality. I was responding to that. You are referring to unrelated statements I made and inferring something that was not explicit in the text. I only pointed out statistical facts; I did not give reasons why atheist governments are almost always genocidal.
“There is no such thing as Darwinist morality in the sense of morality in Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory is a technical description of the process by which diverse biological life develops, it has nothing to do with morality. There are humans who tried to create moral systems based on the application, or rather the misapllication, of Darwin’s theory in the realm of human morality. But this is a misuse of science.”
Tell that to Luigi Novi and Mike, to whom I was responding. Natural selection does lead many to moral conclusions though.
“Would you care to explain how this statement is about philosophy, not people?”
Would you care to think before you post? As I explained to Micha I was referring to a comment made by Jerry Chandler when I asked why people thought I was referring to people. In the quote from me you give, however, I was responding to a direct question about atheist behavior. Maybe you think I shouldn’t have to answer other people’s queries?
“You miss the point, Ben. Enjoying life and living life to the fullest is the meaning of life. Take all of what I mentioned away from a population and most of the people would be miserable. Take religion away from that population and only a handful would be miserable. If you can find meaning and joy in life itself, then life has meaning.”
I could point out that studies show that religious people are, on average, much happier than their non-religious counterparts. But it makes more sense to point out that “creating your own meaning” is emotional garbage. It is not a sufficient reply to a philosophical argument. What you are really doing is redefining the term “meaning” to suit your needs.
“Because you keep shifting your stance from moment to moment. You sight very specific examples of people and what they did and then you want it to be about the philosophy and not the people. Well, news flash, you can’t really separate the two here. Your argument has been about how the philosophy, or lack thereof, causes the people to act. I believe your point to be mistaken. If the best you can do is wrongly sight historical facts, attribute things to one philosophy that weren’t part of that philosophy, dodge parts of posts that you find inconvenient to deal with and throw out extreme examples of fictitious atheist actions… Well, I and others will continue to view your point as mistaken.”
I am talking to about ten people at once. That naturally leads to me speaking about several things at once. Of course one of my arguments is that atheism is a dangerous philosophy and leads a portion of atheists to do horrible things. I never said that all atheists are moral reprobates though. Where have I wrongly cited historical facts or attributed things to a philosophy that aren’t part of it? As far as dodging posts that are inconvenient to deal with. First, not every point is worth responding to (most are repeats of what someone else has said) and if I responded to everything my posts would be very long. When there is one of me and ten of you it is unfair to accuse me of not responding to everything when many of you have not done so. Finally, it is not an extreme example. It would be if it were something I said atheists were secretly and nefariously wishing to do. But all I said is that atheism (as a philosophy) logically leads to nihilism, which cannot condemn such evil actions.
“First, you’re wrongly putting forward the idea that the morals being adopted are in some way exclusively Christian. A number of cultures and faiths all around the world developed with a number of moral codes that mirror some of those in Christianity. The simple fact that some many have developed prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. should go toward showing that man does have an innate set of moral values that he will develop even if he has to ascribe some sort of mystic meaning to them.”
There are cannibalistic tribes in different places in this world. There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here. But is had been shown that converts to Christianity in such places have rejected much of their upbringing. Oh, and here I *am* talking about people. This is because it was as I said before originally brought up to me as a question about atheists as individuals.
“Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based on Christianity. It’s not.”
Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it. Calling something widely debunked does not make it so.
“Third, have you ever heard of this fun little thing called “the law” before? Even atheists, although this may be a huge surprise to you, don’t enjoy the idea of spending time in the stocks or locked up behind bars.”
I never thought of it this way before, but now I finally realize… you have no idea what you’re talking about. When have I said anything about crime and atheists? How does this prove anything? It does suggest that atheists only refrain from criminal activity because they are afraid of punishment, however. Your assertion, not mine.
“Christianity, particularly once it went through the filter of Rome, sought to replace Judaism. Part of how some groups did this was to demonize the Jews and promote the idea of the Jews being the killers of Christ. There are countless examples in Church history of Christianity using just that justification to murder Jews.”
Did you even read the whole last post of mine, or did you just pick one line and decide to respond? I clearly pointed out that Christians are not Christianity, but instead you ignored this and went forward with your post, oblivious.
“Speaking of non-sequiturs, what is the relevance of good and evil in the administration of government?”
Did you miss the discussion on Stalin? Never heard of Mao or Pol Pot? I could go on…
“As opposed to strawmen about kinder morder?”
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? It is misrepresenting someone else’s argument and then attacking that. All I did was to give an example showing the logical consequences of nihilism. No misrepresentation.
“(Using survival of the fittest to justify genocide isn’t even logical–the Nazi’s killed millions of Jews but their regime only lasted a few years and Jews now have an army that is one of the most powerful on Earth…so it would seem that the Nazis were not the most fit.)”
Richard Dawkins, atheist and renowned evolutionary biologist, seems to favor some sort of eugenics program. Although he is mysteriously silent on the specifics. Now I know that no one, no matter how prominent in their field, necessarily speaks for it. But even the full title of Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” seems to indicate that he is not that far off.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 02:31 AM
Responding by saying “you’re not worth giving an argument to” is a classic way of avoiding giving an argument.
No, I’m perfectly happy to engage in debates — just not with you.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 02:31 AM
Claiming someone is stupid on the basis that they disagree with you or that they have a strong belief of some sort in an area where you evidently do not is pretty pathetic.
I’m not claiming you’re stupid just because I disagree with you. I’m calling you stupid because, well… you are.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 02:31 AM
If you actually have some evidence that I am stupid I would love to hear it.
It’s all over this thread. People have refuted your arguments up one side and down the other and you respond by pretending that’s not the case.
My final words on this subject:
1. If you believe strongly that something is true then by extension you are sure those who disagree are wrong. If you have strong character, however, you can disagree without vilifying your “opponent.”
2. If your belief system is so dámņëd great, you shouldn’t need to unfairly demonize your opponents. The best way to evangelize is to exemplify your beliefs through your actions, not your words.
3. I’ve noted that the people who are surest of themselves and their beliefs are also the ones least interested in forcing them on everyone else. Something to think about.
Have you seen a year of playboy playmates in the last few years? They are for the most part 12 months of sisters adopting the same poses.
Where people are free to choose, they typically choose to do what other people choose. What we need to do, which is preserve as much genetic diversity as possible, probably won’t be done. Once we’ve mastered cloning, the disadvantages will probably be too abstract for people to abide by. They’ll leave it to other people to worry about, and the issue will be neglected.
College used to be available only to a privileged class. People mortgage their homes to put their kids through college, but it still gets done.
There were a number of references to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and you haven’t cited any of them to establish a counterpoint of any kind. How can you go on when you haven’t even started?
Your “logical consequence” has no real-world example, and no real-world advocate.
Your denying your Fiction™ is not a Misrepresentation™ demonstrates it is not I who has a problem understanding the qualifications for a strawman argument.
Thank you for agreeing and accepting that it’s the abuse of the principle of “survival of the fittest” on which the governmental resolve for genocide seems to depend. No need to blame atheism for a belief that depends on no particular religious doctrine — even the doctrine there is no god.
Posted by: Ben Lesar at June 10, 2007 04:17 PM
“Yes, it is. Does a computer program have a purpose other than that it was created for?”
That’s an extremely faulty analogy. A computer program is not self aware, it has only one function and it is unable to make true choices. A human being is self aware and can be just about anything he or she wants to be and can make an unlimited amount of choices and changes over a lifetime. Humans can also reason and learn. For some, that action leads to faith. For others, that action leads to the rejection of faith. Neither is greater or less then the other if, in the end, both people act as good people or bad.
“Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument.”
That’s not emotional rhetoric, it’s just life. Life is in and of itself a philosophy. It’s also in and of itself a source of meaning. Just because someone can find meaning in life itself without being told that some grandfatherly figure with a big grey beard has your life’s plan and meaning mapped out from points A to B does not make them wrong, misguided or somehow on the path to being a bad person.
“Would you care to think before you post? As I explained to Micha I was referring to a comment made by Jerry Chandler when I asked why people thought I was referring to people. In the quote from me you give, however, I was responding to a direct question about atheist behavior. Maybe you think I shouldn’t have to answer other people’s queries?”
Absolutely you should respond to others. Thing is, when your responses don’t back the other arguments that your making to other posters, it weakens your overall argument. See, we argue with multiple posters all of the time around here, but our points are usually the same no matter who we are debating with. We don’t claim that it’s A that matters and not B with one poster, turn around and tell another poster that it’s actually B and not A that’s the nut of the matter and then tell yet another poster that it’s more about C then those unimportant things like A or B. My point is that it is not the philosophy or the faith that’s as important as the person. I could be debating ten different posters here and I would be consistent in saying that it’s A and not B with every single person here every single time.
“But it makes more sense to point out that “creating your own meaning” is emotional garbage. It is not a sufficient reply to a philosophical argument.”
Really now? There are entire movements and philosophies out there that focus on life being its own meaning. What you’re actually saying here is that you personally don’t like or agree with thousands of years worth of others’ belief systems so they just don’t count. Doesn’t work that way. They exist and people are just fine with them. Any good teacher of philosophy, outside of Sunday School, would tell you the same.
“Of course one of my arguments is that atheism is a dangerous philosophy and leads a portion of atheists to do horrible things. I never said that all atheists are moral reprobates though.
And the fact that a portion of Christians do horrible things to this very day in the name of Christianity does or doesn’t make Christianity a dangerous philosophy? I say no, but, if applied fairly and equally, your argument would say yes. As a matter of fact, Christians and Christianity come out the worse of the two under your argument. As has been pointed out by others, many crimes in history committed by Christians have been done so directly explicitly in the name of Christianity. You would be hard pressed to find tyrants and dictators in history that declared their actions were in the name of atheism. The best you can do is point to dictators that used atheism as but one of many tools for conquest, power or control of their people.
“Where have I wrongly cited historical facts or attributed things to a philosophy that aren’t part of it?”
Well, you claim a tyranny or a dictatorship as an atheist government when the reality of it is far more complex then that. I would suggest you actually read about the life of Stalin (Did you know that he was educated at the Seminary of Tiflis and that his mother’s goal for him was to become a priest?) and his rather complex relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church. Stalin was a bit of a bášŧárd and his rule did involve religious, political and ideological purges at points, (while letting the church partially rebuild at one point as well) but they were just a few tools of many in his box. His philosophy was not in and of itself atheistic any more then King Henry VIII’s (or any of history’s more deranged monarchs) philosophy was truly Christian.
And it’s only fair, by your POV and argument, that you recognize that his government wasn’t really atheist. After all, you keep discounting examples of Christian governments activities in history because you “clearly pointed out that Christians are not Christianity” and such. Well, atheists are not atheism. Please find me the tenant of atheism that instructs one kill, oppress and purge and I will then gladly admit that you aren’t talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to have it both ways here.
“There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here. But is had been shown that converts to Christianity in such places have rejected much of their upbringing.”
There’s no reason to automatically assume that they would either. If they did not share the natives religious beliefs, they would then not share the spiritual beliefs that some have of eating their enemies souls, gaining their strength, etc.
“Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it. Calling something widely debunked does not make it so.”
That could take more writing then this thread already has…
The very short version.
Again, you really need to read more. First, many American traditions, cultural ticks and beliefs come from pre-Christian Europe. We still even engage in “Christian” ceremonies and observations of holidays that predate Christianity. Once we got here, some things even made their way into our culture from the natives.
Even our government system was set up to not be religious in nature. Read the things that were written by the Founding Fathers. Don’t read books about them written by someone with a bias and an agenda. Go read their correspondences and their notes from the time that they created our government.
They knew the inherent dangers in a theocracy, even a Christian one. They were barely removed from one themselves. Some were stupid enough to want to make one here, but the wiser heads prevailed. That’s why our federal laws are predominantly those that are more or less universal (murder, theft, etc.) rather then religious (outlawing other religions, forcing worship, obedience to the church, etc.).
The Founding Fathers weren’t even Christian. Most were Deists. Some of them viewed Christian belief as pure superstition and flat out claimed that the divinity of Christ and his resurrection was nothing more then mumbo-jumbo. They weren’t about to turn around and lay the foundation for a Christian Theocracy. Hëll, they even swiped ideas from The Tribe of Nations and the Indian’s law to build our government. No, Christianity was recognized as having a place in peoples lives by some and seen as a necessity for the people by others, but it was not the foundation for our country.
“I never thought of it this way before, but now I finally realize… you have no idea what you’re talking about. When have I said anything about crime and atheists? How does this prove anything? It does suggest that atheists only refrain from criminal activity because they are afraid of punishment, however. Your assertion, not mine.”
Gee… Killing babies maybe? That’s murder. If you’re not talking about people doing evil things like murder, theft, rape, etc. that are all covered by laws and deemed crimes, then what the hëll are you talking about. What, you’re only talking about acts of evil that aren’t crimes in most societies? You’re maybe talking about some evil person sending really snotty letters to the local paper? You’re talking about acts of evil. Most acts of evil are covered by laws that make them a crime.
And, why yes, it does suggest that some atheist respect the law. I sighted my friend and his family for their beliefs and not as a blanket statement to cover every single atheist out there. Your the pro and blanket statements about others’ who hold religious beliefs you disapprove of, not me.
“I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible.”
“Did you miss the discussion on Stalin? Never heard of Mao or Pol Pot? I could go on…”
“Did you even read the whole last post of mine, or did you just pick one line and decide to respond? I clearly pointed out that Christians are not Christianity, but instead you ignored this and went forward with your post, oblivious.”
So, basically, your defense of the many crimes of Christians and Christian governments throughout history is to point out that they don’t really matter because the people are not the philosophy. I can accept that as a defense. It’s a perfectly valid one.
Likewise, the crimes committed by atheists and “atheist” governments don’t count because the people are not the philosophy. As I said in my above posts, it’s the person that matters and not the faith. Thank you for pointing out that perfectly valid defense of atheism for all to see and finally showing some level of common sense.
1) “I never said Christian governments did not promote anti-Semitism. I was merely responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible.”
Nor did I claim that Christianity was responsible. I don’t know who did. Let’s repeat again, for he sake of clarity: for most of its history, Christian society, influenced by religious considerations as viewed by that society and outlined by its Christian religious establishment, believed in antisemitism and acted accordingly. There is a direct connection between this antisemitism, developed in Christian culture by Christians and accepted by Christians, and the antisemitism that motivated Nazism, although Nazi antisemitism was also shaped by other modern forces as well. If you have no argument with this statement, I can move on, since I never claimed that Christianity is inherently or solely responsible for antisemitism. Antisemitism is a complex phenomena, as is human morality by the way, and should be treated accordingly.
2) “The claim was that humans inherently know not to kill based solely on their humanity. And yet; that humans create morality. This is saying that morality is objective, “but only so far as it suits my argument.””
No. This shows that you did not understand the point of my argument at all. I’ll try to explain it to you in clearer language so you can understand the subtlty involved, which you seem to be missing, and which I may have not made clear enough for you.
There are two ways to explain this to you.
a. The scientific explanation. Objective scientific observation seems to suggest that humans, Christian or not, develop moral systems usually along comparable outlines. Biology shows that certain aspect of human morality are the result of the biological structure of the brain (and are affected by alterations to the brain by drugs or injury). Anthropolgy, sociology, psychology and history show that moral systems develop among humans as a result of a collective process of social interaction. Darwinian biology suggests that the ability of the human species to develop moral systems may have played a role in its ability to survive natural selection (just as living in herds or packs benefit other animals). All this boils down to this: morality is inherant in human societies — when a human is born and raised he develops morality, i.e. knows moral behavior, in the same mixure of biology and sociology that make it possible for him to know to be attracted to members of the opposite sex (most of the time), seek to procreate, eat, learn how to speak, develop a sense of humor, and so forth. And systems of morality are an objective biological, sociological, psychiological, anthroplogical, historical phenomenon that exists in societies of the human species, and which can be explained without recourse to god (unless you want to). Humans ‘know’ moral behavior because they belong to the human species, not from outside of it.
(this is a good explanation, but I’m not sure it is clear enough for Ben. It is hard to write ideas like that in simplistic terms).
b.the philosophical explanation again. You assume that for something to be objective it has to be external to humans, preferably described in physical-chemical terms, or even better, attributed to god. This is a false dichotomy. As I tried to explain to you, the emotion of love, the word ‘love,’ the stop sign, are all objective things — they are facts of human life, which humans know — despite not being reduceable to physical-chemical terms, and not requiring god to have meaning or possesing an inherent meaning. They gain their meaning from humanity, not natural sciences or god.
3) “Does a computer program have a purpose other than that it was created for?”
Good example. What gives purpose to computer programs? humans. Humans have the capacity to give purpose to things like computer programs, and they do. If the computer program is a game, than the purpose is to win by following a certain scheme. Yet, while you accept thst computer programs get their purpose from humans, you feel the need for someone else to give a purpose to human life. Why wouldn’t the same humans who have the capacity to give purpose to computer games and many other things give purpose to their own life as well?
“Purpose requires intent.”
The philosophical term is intentionality, look it up. Humans have intent. intent is a quality of humans, but not of inanimate objects.
“The universe can have no purpose if it was an accident.”
You are applying human terms to a very vast natural universe that does not necessariily conform to human metaphors of craftsmanship. But look at it this way: when Michaelangelo looked at a slab of rock, the slab of rock was accidental, but for Michaelangelo it had a purpose, to be a stature of David. Now you assume that for Michaelangelo to have a purpose, some other divine artist had to look at him and give it a purpose. but Michaelangelo was not a slab of rock, but a human being, and he was capable of looking at himself and giving himself purpose — to be a sculptor.
“If there is no purpose to the universe as a whole, any “purpose” we create upon earth is meaningless.”
Why?
“It is just bags of chemicals– robots if you will– going through the motions.”
Again, a false dichotomy. You claim erroniously that atheism reduces humans to bags of chemicals, and then blaim it for doing so, and suggest that it’s either that or accepting god, and not only any god, but your christian god. To a biochemist, humans are a bag of chemicals. But humans are also emotional beings, rational beings, social beings, psychological beings, artistic beings, historical beings, and so forth. The human experience is not reduced to chemistry and theology. There are other disciplines and dimensions to the human experience.
“Emotional rhetoric regarding the simple enjoyment of eating grilled burgers or the like is not an answer to a philosophical argument.”
I do not consider you qualified, based on past experience, to decide what constitutes a philosophical argument. It also seems to me that the emotional rhetoric is yours. You feel the need for an external force to give meaning to your life, and will not be satisfied with anything less than that. And for some reason you feel this entity must correspond to a diety described in some greek and hebrew texts, of all things. Why? I do not know. I see no rational reason.
4) “Jerry Chandler was quoting my philosophical argument regarding the consequences of a subjective view of morality. I was responding to that. You are referring to unrelated statements I made and inferring something that was not explicit in the text. I only pointed out statistical facts; I did not give reasons why atheist governments are almost always genocidal.”
It would be nice if your arguments were internally consistent. It’s easier to follow. You did not really state statistical facts as much as make an unsubstantiated statistical claim. however this claim was not ‘meaningless’, I think. It had a purpose. I assume the purpose was to point a connection between their atheism and their genocidal tendancies, or else what was the point. I think your interpretation of your ‘facts’ is incorrect (it was already explained why), and I do not trust your facts either.
5) “Tell that to Luigi Novi and Mike, to whom I was responding.”
I take no responsibility to Mike, but I doubt Luigi Novi claimed that there is such a thing as Darwinian morality. He’s too smart. Maybe you didn’t understand him correctly? Hopefully, he will address this himself. In any case, the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as Darwinian morality. If we do not disagree on this point lets move on.
“Natural selection does lead many to moral conclusions though.”
In a similar sense to that Christianity leads many to antisemitism, but more so. The results of the Superbowl might lead people to moral conclusions (my team lost, god hates me), but this would be incorrect.
5) “What you are really doing is redefining the term “meaning” to suit your needs.”
Hardly. In everyday usage the term ‘meaning’ refers to something done by humans. Humans confer meaning on things, and they understand that meaning. “What do you mean? Is this what he meant? That’s not what I mean. The meaning of this edifice is to symbolize the soldiers killed in Vietnam, the real meaning of this story is satirical, the meaning of the hebrew word ‘Elohim’ is god in English, but not exactly,” and so forth. Yet when it comes to the meaning of life, suddenly ‘meaning’ has to have a different meaning, it must refer to the will of an external entity, a Judeo-Christian diety, or else it’s not really ‘meaning.’ Why is that?
6) “Of course one of my arguments is that atheism is a dangerous philosophy and leads a portion of atheists to do horrible things.”
And I could claim that Christianity is a dangerous philosophy thst leads a portion of Christians to do horrible things. However, I have not argued that. It does not follow from the fact that Christians have done horrible things that Christianity is dangerous, and the same is true of atheism.
“Where have I wrongly cited historical facts or attributed things to a philosophy that aren’t part of it?””
When you equated atheism in nihilism, and where you tried to create the impression that Christian, unlike atheists, have not done horrible things.
7) “There are cannibalistic tribes in different places in this world. There is no reason to believe atheists wouldn’t adopt the morality of those tribes if they were born there, just as they have adopted Western morality being born here. But is had been shown that converts to Christianity in such places have rejected much of their upbringing.”
People who become atheists often reject some aspects of their upbringing while keeping others, and so do Christian converts, and Muslim. It is also necessary to distinguish between converts and people who were brought up on and hold a philosophy that is different than the one of the society they live in, or is different than the one once held by that society. The act of conversion to any religion or out of religion is a great psychological event which often involves dramatic acts of rejection of the old beliefs. Yet we often see societies that changed their religion retain many aspects of their old culture for centuries.
8) “Second, you wrongly put forward the popular but widely debunked idea that western culture and law is based on Christianity. It’s not.”
“Seeing as how you’re the one making the ad hoc claim it is on you to support it. Calling something widely debunked does not make it so.”
It doesn’t require much knowledge in history to know that Western culture was greatly shaped and influenced by Greco-Roman culture, and by pre-Christian Germanic culture and Celtic culture. It should also be pointed out that Christianity itself was influenced by other cultures, and so has Judaism.
9) “Richard Dawkins, atheist and renowned evolutionary biologist, seems to favor some sort of eugenics program.”
Since I haven’t read this book, and I don’t trust your judgement on this, it is impossible for me to address this specific accusation leveled on Dawkins. since you haven’t read the book past he title, and provided no proof other than that, I don’t know if you should address it either.
There was a case I heard of in which Oliver Wendel holmes upheld in court a eugenics program practiced somewhere in the US.
When you say it is impossible for something whose presence is arbitrary to be employed for any purpose, it sounds nonsensical — especially when you admit it can be employed practically, perhaps like the coke bottle that drops into the village in “The Gods Must Be Crazy.”
The steam-engine was invented to pump water out of mines. Air conditionaing was invented as a failed cure for malaria, and synthetic dyes were invented in failed research to synthesize quinine. Celluloid was synthesized in a failed attempt to invent a replacement for ivory in cue balls.
According to you, it was impossible for society to adopt these inventions because their existence was arbitrary in relation to which we now use them. Your almost absolute top-down thinking — and your complete ignorance of the principle of reinvention in the diffusion of innovation — seems to suggest you’ve never had a job where you’ve had to take money from people, much less a sales job. You’ve never worked in the private sector, have you?
“I could point out that studies show that religious people are, on average, much happier than their non-religious counterparts.”
I’ve heard that, and I find it very ironic. Religious people are living the ideals of atheism (or rather one of the ideals held by some atheistic people. since atheism is not a moral philosophy). They create their own meaning and purpose in life, by choosing to believe in a diety, and find happiness this way.
You know what? I just read Micha’s response to Ben Lesar and something hit me. See, I found myself thinking that Micha was making sense, had good points and that Ben would brush off, ignore or just not get any of them. That being the case and Micha being a better blogger then I, what good is it to waste anymore time with this.
Ben isn’t about to change his stance in the least. It would do just as much good talking to him as it would be talking to a member of the KKK about blacks. Ben is a religious bigot. Even his rhetoric plays the same way as other bigots. You can replace “atheists” with “blacks” or “Jews” in a good half of his remarks and it would sound as though it was straight out of the Klan’s talking points book.
That, or Ben is either just dense or working to get Troll-of-the-Month for June. Not that it matters at this point. No matter the answer to what Ben is, it’s pointless to go any further with Ben in this discussion.
Besides, when the discussion/debate has drifted towards what I said well above I despise most about public discussions about religion… It’s time to go. If the debate drifts towards ideas of, behind or about faith and religion rather then attacks on peoples’ beliefs by the narrow minded and time has to be wasted to defend something that doesn’t really need defending…
Yeah, time to call it quits for a bit. The stakes here, and Ben, aren’t worth the time and effort.
Would you care to think before you post? As I explained to Micha I was referring to a comment made by Jerry Chandler when I asked why people thought I was referring to people. In the quote from me you give, however, I was responding to a direct question about atheist behavior. Maybe you think I shouldn’t have to answer other people’s queries?
Dude, if being called on it when your general statements conflict with other things you say bothers you that much, don’t make over-generalized statements without context.
Bill, let me try to explain my view on this point. When you offer an idea, particularly a bold claim or an accusation in a discussion, and someone offers a response that, by virtue of its evidence or reason, would appear to refute it, and you intend to continue in the conversation, then the intellectually honest and decent thing is to respond to it, particularly in the latter case when it’s some type of accusation or criticism. If you’ve tired of the thread, and choose to no longer participate, and you don’t make a habit of that sort of thing, then that’s understandable. But if you continue to post in that thread, without addressing that disproved accusation, then it strikes me as not in keeping with the best spirit of civility.
Reason-based or fact-based conclusions are not formed in a vacuum. If I’ve been “unfair to religionists”, or “condescending”, then the decent thing to do is to illustrate that accusation when I ask you to. The alternative is to act as if making an unfounded accusation, and then evading the point when you’re called on it is morally acceptable. I’m sorry, but it’s not morally acceptable.
While this is speculation on my part, I seriously suspect that this accusation of yours was borne more out of an impression or perception of what you thought I was saying, rather than what I actually did say, and perhaps resentment that I was treating you and your assertion in the same way I would treat it if it came from anyone else. If this were not true, then why not simply point to the passage where you felt I was unfair or condescending to all theists? If it was not resentment at my not playing favorites because you felt you were exempt because we’re friends, then why is it that rather than “walking away” from the conversation when it was between me and someone else, you instead stood there and backed me up, cheered me on, or offered me compliments via email? Just because you’re not a troll, paralogist or bigot like those have occasionally pollute boards like this doesn’t mean that you’re exempt from putting up or shutting up when you make an accusation. When I put my big fat foot in my mouth when Steve Irwin died, I didn’t act indignant that others criticized me for the inappropriate remark I made. They were right. I was wrong, and that was that.
……………………………
As far as the less serious matter of the “doctrine” issue, again, you could’ve responded to my pointing out to you that there is a distinction between a doctrine, and an idea that is co-opted into being part of one, and said something about how natural selection provided an example of this. But instead, you imply doing so takes “hours” or “days”, that it requires that this be a “doctoral dissertation”, and that the only reason for doing so is to arrive at a “definitive answer”. Why is this? It didn’t take you hours or days to write your 2:23pm post yesterday did it? Nor did it require the implication that it was part of a dissertation or “definitive answers”, did it? If I may suggest, what you could’ve done was something like this:
Okay, that’s a good point, Luigi. I can sorta see where you’re going with doctrine vs. part of a doctrine, and natural selection provides a good example of how people exploit neutral ideas as part of non-neutral doctrines, but the reason I still think you’re wrong is because when I looked in this dictionary, and some definitions in it indicate atheism to be a type of doctrine.”
See? No dissertation. No “definitive” answer, since it acknowledges my point while still maintaining your own position. No “hours” or “days” to write it. And now that you’ve offered a substantial reference for this point, I can respond to it:
I concede your point about the dictionary. Then again, the American Heritage Dictionary, in addition to merely defining atheism as “disbelief” in God and secondarily as a “doctrine” that there isn’t a God, the last definition it gives is “Godlessness; immorality.” I’m sorry, but while I don’t normally disagree with the Bible, this time I’m going to have to. And it doesn’t even give that definition as an archaic one, as Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary does. So if I disagree with that definition, can I disagree with the “doctrine” one? Well, my Microsoft Word dictionary defines “doctrine” as “a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy.” Since atheism is not this in and of itself, but can indeed by used by someone as the basis for one, as you yourself stated, I must concede that your application of that word was correct. Granted, the AHD calls a doctrine a body of “principles”, which atheism is not, but I think you’ve made your point.